This link has been bookmarked by 77 people . It was first bookmarked on 02 Mar 2006, by Kaala souza.
-
13 Mar 16
-
he natural world contains abundant evidence of a supernatural creator
-
evolution by natural selection better explained life’s complexity and diversity
-
roponents of intelligent design display either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of evolutionary science.
-
Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory.
-
ittle information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection
-
erhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed
-
ossibility of intelligent design,
-
bits and pieces of supposedly irreducibly complex machines may have different — but still useful — functions.
-
volution produces complex biochemical machines by copying, modifying, and combining proteins previously used for other functions.
-
contradicted by the scientific evidence.
-
esign,
-
blind natural causes, characterized by chance and necessity and ruled by unbroken laws, are thought sufficient to do all nature
-
s not a fundamental creative force in nature
-
creating.
-
specified complexity reliably detects design
-
Darwinian mechanism are incapable of generating the specified complexity that exists in biological organisms.
-
chance and necessity are insufficient for the natural sciences and that the natural sciences need to leave room for design.
-
random genetic variation is subjected to natural selection by the environment
-
natural selection can modify existing features
-
where is the evidence that selection produces new features in new species?
-
New features require new variations.
-
ever has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion and philosophy
-
-
03 Jan 16
-
01 Apr 14
jamesumberWritten debate on intelligent design and evolution.
-
15 Oct 12
-
Richard Milner and Vittorio Maestro, ed
-
Kenneth R. Miller, Ph.D.
-
Michael J. Behe, Ph.D.
-
Robert T. Pennock, Ph.D.
-
William A. Dembski, Ph.D.
-
Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D.
-
Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
-
Barbara Forrest, Ph.D.
-
-
18 Jun 12
-
14 Feb 12
-
08 Jan 12
-
02 Oct 11
-
The Nature of Change: Evolutionary mechanisms give rise to basic structural differences.
Evolution response to Jonathan Wells
By Eugenie C. Scott -
Without defining “design,” Wells asserts that “many features of living things appear to be designed.” Then he contrasts natural selection (undirected) with design (directed), apparently attempting to return to the pre-Darwinian notion that a Designer is directly responsible for the fit of organisms to their environments. Darwin proposed a scientific rather than a religious explanation: the fit between organisms and environments is the result of natural selection. Like all scientific explanations, his relies on natural causation.
-
Today scientists explain features of living things by invoking not only natural selection but also additional biological processes that Darwin didn’t know about, including gene transfer, symbiosis, chromosomal rearrangement, and the action of regulator genes. Contrary to what Wells maintains, evolutionary theory is not inadequate. It fits the evidence just fine.
-
Reading Wells, one might not realize the importance of the Grants’ careful studies, which demonstrated natural selection in real time. That the drought conditions abated before biologists witnessed the emergence of new species is hardly relevant; beak size does oscillate in the short term, but given a long-term trend in climate change, a major change in average size can be expected. Wells also overstates the importance of finch hybridization: it is extremely rare, and it might even be contributing to new speciation. The Galápagos finches remain a marvelous example of the principle of adaptive radiation. The various species, which differ morphologically, occupy different adaptive niches. Darwin’s explanation was that they all evolved from a common ancestral species, and modern genetic analysis provides confirming evidence.
-
Wells admits that natural selection can operate on a population and correctly looks to genetics to account for the kind of variation that can lead to “new features in new species.” But he contends that mutations such as those that yield four-winged fruit flies do not produce the sorts of anatomical changes needed for major evolutionary change. Can’t he see past the example to the principle? That the first demonstration of a powerful genetic mechanism happened to be a nonflying fly is irrelevant. Edward Lewis shared a Nobel Prize for the discovery of the role of these genes, known as the Ubx complex. They are of extraordinary importance because genes of this type help explain body plans — the basic structural differences between a mollusk and a mosquito, a sponge and a spider.
-
Ubx genes are among the HOX genes, found in animals as different as sponges, fruit flies, and mammals. They turn on or off the genes involved in — among other things — body segmentation and the production of appendages such as antennae, legs, and wings. What specifically gets built depends on other, downstream genes. The diverse body plans of arthropods (insects, crustaceans, arachnids) are variations on segmentation and appendage themes, variations that appear to be the result of changes in HOX genes. Recent research shows that fly Ubx genes suppress leg formation in abdominal segments but that crustacean Ubx genes don’t; a very small Ubx change results in a big difference in body plan.
-
Mutations in these primary on/off switches are involved in such phenomena as the loss of legs in snakes, the change from lobe fins to hands, and the origin of jaws in vertebrates.HOX-initiated segment duplication allows for anatomical experimentation, and natural selection winnows the result. “Evo-Devo” — the study of evolution and development — is a hot new biological research area, but Wells implies that all it has produced is crippled fruit flies.
-
Wells argues that natural explanations are inadequate and, thus, that “students should also be taught that design remains a possibility.” Because in his logic, design implies a Designer, he is in effect recommending that science allow for nonnatural causation. We actually do have solid natural explanations to work with, but even if we didn’t, science only has tools for explaining things in terms of natural causation. That’s what Darwin did, and that’s what we’re trying to do today.
-
-
01 Aug 11
-
Some systems seem very difficult to form by such successive modifications—I call them irreducibly complex. An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can’t catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.
-
Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory
-
Evolution produces complex biochemical machines by copying, modifying, and combining proteins previously used for other functions.
-
But how do we know that nature requires no help from a designing intelligence? Certainly, in special sciences ranging from forensics to archaeology to SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal to a designing intelligence is indispensable. What’s more, within these sciences there are well-developed techniques for identifying intelligence. Essential to all these techniques is the ability to eliminate chance and necessity.
-
Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic trademark or signature — what I call “specified complexity.” An event exhibits specified complexity if it is contingent and therefore not necessary; if it is complex and therefore not easily repeatable by chance; and if it is specified in the sense of exhibiting an independently given pattern. Note that complexity in the sense of improbability is not sufficient to eliminate chance: flip a coin long enough, and you’ll witness a highly complex or improbable event. Even so, you’ll have no reason not to attribute it to chance.
-
In the evolutionary process, an increase in biological complexity does not represent a “free lunch” — it is bought and paid for, because random genetic variation is subjected to natural selection by the environment, which itself is already structured. In fact, researchers are beginning to use Darwinian processes, implemented in computers or in vitro, to evolve complex systems and to provide solutions to design problems in ways that are beyond the power of mere intelligent agents.
-
Darwin’s finches and many other organisms provide evidence that natural selection can modify existing features — but only within established species. Breeders of domestic plants and animals have been doing the same thing with artificial selection for centuries. But where is the evidence that selection produces new features in new species?
-
In the absence of evidence that natural selection and random variations can account for the apparently designed features of living things, the entire question of design must be reopened. Alongside Darwin’s argument against design, students should also be taught that design remains a possibility.
-
Today scientists explain features of living things by invoking not only natural selection but also additional biological processes that Darwin didn’t know about, including gene transfer, symbiosis, chromosomal rearrangement, and the action of regulator genes. Contrary to what Wells maintains, evolutionary theory is not inadequate. It fits the evidence just fine.
-
So the movement is advancing, but its tactics are no substitute for real science.
-
-
09 Apr 11
-
16 Mar 11
-
08 Jul 10
-
14 May 10
-
07 Feb 10
-
30 Oct 09
-
20 Oct 09
-
07 Sep 09
-
18 Apr 09
-
23 Mar 09
-
12 Feb 09
-
11 Nov 08
-
11 Apr 08
-
06 Feb 08
-
31 Dec 07
-
-
Three proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) present their views of design in the natural world. Each view is immediately followed by a response from a proponent of evolution (EVO).
-
-
30 Dec 07
-
25 Nov 07
-
28 Aug 07
-
04 Jul 07
-
08 May 07
-
Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function.
-
We frequently observe such systems in cell organelles, in which the removal of one element would cause the whole system to cease functioning.
-
Biochemistry textbooks and journal articles describe the workings of some of the many living molecular machines within our cells, but they offer very little information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection. Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how they may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed.
-
He argues that complex biochemical systems could not possibly have been produced by evolution because they possess a quality he calls irreducible complexity.
-
-
29 Apr 07
-
24 Nov 06
-
25 Oct 06
-
21 May 06
-
19 May 06
-
18 Mar 06
-
16 Feb 06
ken .Reprinted from 2002 edition - Behe at al present their argument from complexity, followed by those who see other ways - nice summary at the side of each paragraph for easy skimming
6 * complexity intelligentdesign dialogue education reference religion science
-
04 Feb 06
Sky LightsThree proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) present their views of design in the natural world. Each view is immediately followed by a response from a proponent of evolution (EVO). The report, printed in its entirety, opens with an introduction by Natural
science evolution IntelligentDesign Creationism Biology religion reference
-
01 Dec 05
-
26 Oct 05
-
24 Aug 05
-
06 Aug 05
-
04 Aug 05
-
03 Mar 05
Page Comments
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.