Thursday, April 16, 2009
Testing the Evolutionary Theory
On page 247, Carroll asks the all important question, "Why does evolution matter?" This entire novel focused on providing scientific, molecular, and genetic evidence not only proving the importance of evolution but refuting creationism and all those that oppose it. So, in order to give creationists (or any others who refute evolutionary theory) a chance, is there any evidence out there that states that the genetic evolutionary theory is wrong? What evidence out there keeps certain individuals from believing in Carroll, Darwin, and all of the evolutionary scientists?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
According to BestBibleScience.org, there are 13 top pieces of evidence against Evolution.
ReplyDeleteOne argument claims that "Information is a mental, non-material concept. It can never arise from a natural process and is always the result of an intelligence." It poses that genetic mutations cannot produce new genetic information.
Another argument comes from the refutation of the theory that life came from RNA. While it has been posed that energy provided by lightning possessed enough energy to being a chemical reaction to from DNA, this second piece of evidence uses Pasteur's experiments that disproves spontaneous generation to assert that non-living materials cannot become a living organism.
Another argument states that the human soul and consciousness makes a human unique. The capability of the human to feel and express emotions, to be self-aware, creative etc., cannot be explained by initial reaction of nucleic acids that supposedly led to the creation of life.
Yet another argument uses human language as its key piece of evidence. Mankind's ability to communicate and create a complex set of rules for writing and speaking that give words one to several different meanings. Human language has been proven unique by the means of Herbert S. Terrace with his experiment to teach a chimp, named Nim Chimpsky, language. Nim Chimpsky was able to grasp certain phrases and words (using sign language) but otherwise did not acquire the language capabilities of an average human. With this experiment and Evolutionists failure to have "an explanation for the origin of human language", the argument states that evolution could not have created mankind.
Another argument made claims that "...something must be eternal (as we have “something” today and something cannot come from 'nothing', so there was never a time when there was 'nothing')". In addition, the fact that the Bible is a piece of history, it must mean that it's true because "The words of the Bible concerning our origins were given to men to write down, by God, who was the only living being present."
While the evidence used to support the arguments in a round-about fashion, there are some good points made by creationists such as the existence of the Bible as a record of history and an absence of explanation to human consciousness and thought. But looking over these arguments against evolution, there is an overwhelming belief that dominates the purpose of these arguments: humans are unwilling to think that they are not as unique as previously thought and that humans are refuse to accept that there is no greater force governing their lives and that everyone is an individual that has responsibility for their actions.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm
Perhaps the most common argument against evolution will come from a religious person. Evolution is a very secular idea, and the majority of reasons against it will come from the Bible. Because it is a question of faith, something that is always extremely hard to sway, there are people out there who do not need further evidence than the records of their religious figures. It is a logical but flawed argument. The most common is that if something is created there MUST have been a creator. This can be argued against with simple phenomena such as snowflakes, which are created, yet there is nothing that just creates them. The argument would put one into an infinite loop of thought as the creator must have been created by something and so on. In addition to the arguments of faith, there are also ones based on what we know already.
ReplyDeleteA very common argument is that evolution has never been observed. As Carroll discusses, evolution takes an extreme amount of time, amounts which the mind cannot really comprehend. We HAVE witnessed evolution in progress; as an example, in the form of pesticide-resistant insects emerging.
Another argument is that evolution would defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law, which states entropy constantly increases seems to disagree with evolution's way of making things more complex and intricate. Though somewhat a sensible argument, it still fails as life is not thermodynamics, and the origins of life require other concepts to understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/82896/the_theory_of_evolution_and_whats_wrong_pg3.html?cat=58
Creationists’ disbelief in evolution is similar to many chiropractors’ disbelief in the role that vaccines play in controlling and eradicating certain diseases and viruses; “[it] is not about the science” (Carroll 234). Evolution has been denied by religious fundamentalists for years. For example, on May 5, 1925, John Scopes was charged with the crime of teaching evolution in school; this was considered against the Tennessee law that stated that “to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals” (Tindall); the schools of Tennessee believed that the teaching of evolution was against their personal freedom of believing in the religion, Christianity, that they desired to. Carroll states that most creationists do not believe in the “theory” of evolution not because they do not believe in science; it is rather because of their religious ideology. To accept evolution, they believe in to deny their own belief system. And like chiropractors, they use similar points to prove the theory of creationism: “doubt the science, question the motives and integrity of scientists, magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies as authorities, exaggerate potential harm, appeal to personal freedom, [and] acceptance repudiates key philosophy (234 – 241).
ReplyDeleteCarroll implies that many creationists continually deny the existence of evolution despite the proof that exists. In essence, by repeating the statement, they hope to make it true. The majority claim that there is no scientific proof that evolution exists; they say that “[there is an] absence of “transitional forms” in the fossil record and the role of random mutation” (Carroll 234). However, Carroll quickly refutes this by stating that Paleontology identified fossils with characteristics “that are intermediate between those of different groups” (Carroll 235), such as Archeoptheryx, a fossil record of horse evolution.
Bacteria, with their short life spans, can be seen by a human to adapt and evolve in a very short amount of time. In order to adapt, they must change to protect themselves from certain environmental conditions. For example, bacteria can die as a result of exposure to antibacterial hand soap, but due to mutations in their DNA, a few will inevitably survive. Bacteria possess one double-stranded, circular DNA molecule. E. coli’s chromosomal DNA has about 4.6 million nucleotide pairs, which represents about 4,300 genes. Although this may seem like a huge number, it is only one-thousandth as much DNA as in an average eukaryotic cell. Bacteria are thus able to proliferate by binary fission in certain environments and then, changes in their genetic structure can be observed. It is natural occurrences like the bacteria’s constant changes in its DNA that supports the theory of evolution and mutation clearly does have a hand in evolution. Creationists believe that mutations “mutations fail to explain evolution . . . [and] there is no mechanism that spontaneously produces new genetic information only be accepted by “blind faith”. Additionally, Carroll notes that many creationists receive their knowledge of genetics from insufficient sources, such as “Science and the Bible” by Henry Morris. And due to science’s constantly changing nature, science adapts itself by updating information about new research and so on. Twenty year old science books will probably provide at least some inaccurate information, such as all mutations are harmful. Mutations, in fact, help organisms survive and adapt to environmental conditions, such as in the case of the bacteria.
Like chiropractors, creationists also accuse scientists of having an ulterior motive: “atheistic philosophy”. Some creationists are willing to see conspiracy in every nook and cranny. Carroll quoted Creationists Dr. Ken Cumming, who believed that “a seven-part eight hour special entitled “Evolution” . . . televised on of the boldest assaults . . . [and] . . . the public was unaware of the deliberate preparation that was schemed over the past few years” (237). Cumming may not necessarily be anti-science but like many “anti-Darwinians[,] [is] willing to go so far is that they see themselves in a life-and-death struggle to keep society from being secularized and traditional values from being undermined”; this is probably due to the fact that “evolutionary theory contains no moral component” (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/education/edlife/books-t.html?pagewanted=2). Like Monica said above,inaccurate information can also lead creationists to believe that "the capability of the human to feel and express emotions, to be self-aware, creative etc., cannot be explained by initial reaction of nucleic acids that supposedly led to the creation of life"; however, one cannot prove that the soul exists. The human brain controls feelings and conciousness in a person.
Creationists also exploit disagreements amongst scientists. Again, science is always changing because of the principle of “science as a process”; science from twenty years ago may be vastly different from what it is now. For example, many scientists used to believe that glia, a type of cell, in the nervous system, only played a supportive role in the nervous system; however, due to new research and information, scientists have found out that synaptic interactions do occur between glia and neurons, and glia do participate in nerve signaling. Therefore, as a process, science will change even though creationists point out differences in how scientists perceive mechanisms in evolution as well as relationships amongst species.
Darwinism has also been supposedly linked to societal problems by supposed experts; students believe that “life is only about death, violence, and bloodshed” (Carroll 238). Additionally, the Holocaust has been linked to Darwinism because it was a result of the belief of the “survival of the fittest” (Carroll 239). This, in turn, has been called by Jones as “vulgar Darwinism”. In truth, this is probably due to mis-information of evolution and Darwinism and thus, “social Darwinism” arose: the theory that says Darwinism also applies to society and its morals (referenced: Tindall), leading to competition in society and even death. This is not true; Darwinism is based up mutations, changes to the nucleotide sequence of the gene of an organism, and random selection. In contrast, humans rely more on morals and their belief system; they pick out the “weakest” based solely on their own views.
As a practicing Christian, there are tons of reasons that I can see the theory of creationism holding up even with Darwin’s theory out there. I personally believe that God created the universe and the initial forms of life in a slightly impersonal way, and guided evolution as it came up- isn’t one of the most important theories around the theory of relativity, and thus time itself is relative? The Bible is a book which can be twisted a thousand ways to get to a consensus; it is quite flexible in that manner. Never mind that you may not believe it, it is still a fascinating book of philosophy, filled with stories and teachings, much like that of Lao Tzu.
ReplyDeleteFirst, let’s address an issue that I see in all of the posts, and that’s the theory that Christians are the only faith out there that believes in creationism- and, to be quite honest, that’s really, really wrong. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all share the same book, simply think of the latter two adding on sequels in a line, by different authors- as if Dumas’s The Count of Monte Cristo had a sequel that had been penned by another author extremely well- you would have those who disapproved of the sequel, and those who accepted it fully. Islam would be the third sequel if they had simply changed some of the plot of the previous book- nevertheless, they all have the same base, and that is that God created man and woman in a paradise, as well as the rest of life out there.
Secondly, when I talk to people in my church, religion gives them comfort- the comfort of knowing that this isn’t all pointless, that there is some meaning behind it all, it gives them what peace they need to get through the day. And I think that could explain the ideal of creationism to a lot of people- that people find warmth in the thought that God, an omnipotent being, created them, a single person out of billions, with the same care as he did the others, and in the same image- and while we might not all look the same, that’s the brilliance of the idea of an omnipresent God- he takes the form of all of us, that we are his children. It’s an idea, a thought, that while highly illogical, is maybe not meant to be logical at all- instead, it is closer to a thought that makes someone feel better in times of turmoil, that when all is at its worst, God created them in a mold resembling himself, out of love, something that gives them hope, and I personally believe that is the main reason creation has stuck around.
Well, disregarding a religious standpoint, I think that sometimes the vast mechanisms and the great mysteries about the evolutionary process are hard to imagine. While there are many discoveries and many new emerging discoveries about evolution, there is still SO much unknown about it. There are gynecological trees that hypothesize the divergence of a single common, universal ancestor, but even then the accuracy of these lineages are questionable. As well, millions and billions of years are skipped through the relationships established between bacteria and archea, with eukaryotes dividing from archea. So little is known about the actual happening and so much is theorized and hypothesized, how can there ever be anyway to determine the accuracy of evolution. I’m not refuting the fact that there are many supporting details to the process of natural selection and evolution. In addition the relationships established with existing species are also most likely accurate. But the past years have shown how new discoveries and information can lead to massive revision in hypotheses. Not only that, the infinite diversity of existing organisms and species today are not all discovered or fully know. When including the intermediate species and the uncountable number of extinct species unknown, the infinite diversity of existing species is only a fraction of the overall. It’s just hard to imagine the extensive changes that have happened from that one common universal ancestor into the great variety of species seen today. Then to place all these magnificent, seemingly impossible, and unimaginable changes into one theory, the theory of evolution and natural selection, it just feels overwhelming.
ReplyDeleteThe idea has been supported through smaller models such as the melanic moths and so forth with immortal genes, but the process of evolution takes place over billions of years. To try and take that within the insignificant length of 100 years (the estimated lifespan of a human) is very hard. A human compared to the long stretches of time is so insignificant, how can one mind understand the everything that led to the world present today? A fraction of the evolutionary process has been minimalized by culturing fruit flies that have short generation times, or bacteria such as E. coli to see more into the process of evolution, but the actual process is hard to comprehend. Even if evolution has been supported by many different discoveries, just chose not to believe it.
Personally I do believe that there is a significant amount of information supporting the onset of evolution, its just that sometimes its hard to comprehend the implications of it. I can see why some people choose to disregard the undeniable facts of evolution, accepting their limitations and finding comfort that such an impossible phenomenon was designed by a creator. As well I feel like Intelligent design can go hand in hand with evolution, as a Creator could have created this process as a means to diversify and lead to the species today. When Carroll finds Michael Behe’s idea about intelligent design ridiculous, he does not consider some of the Christian beliefs that Behe might have and is not more sensitive to his position. (But I don’t think that Intelligent design should be taught as an alternative to the origin of species. It still should be held as a religious belief.) Carroll states that natural selection does not look ahead, only selecting for the best possible conditions of survival at that present moment; therefore, how could there be well placed specific genes and mechanisms that led to the development of structures with irreducible complexity? But under the Christian belief of a omniscient and omnipotent God, couldn’t he have designed it so that there could have been a selection of these parts to constitute the creation of for example the flagellum? Natural selection may not be able to plan, but couldn’t an omniscient God do all that? (Just an idea.) There is comfort in choosing the idea of intelligent design over bluntly, just Darwinian evolution.
Even if evolution has been supported by many different discoveries, (some)* just chose not to believe it.
ReplyDelete