Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

[benjamin1973]

Chapters and pages.

I’m not interested in your quote mining.

I propose using the Project Gutenberg so we have the same page numbers. We can read say one chapter each few days, and discuss or debate it in-depth. We can see if he’s actually making unfounded assumption, or if he holds an anti-Christian viewpoint.

 

[benjamin1973]

haha I think you got that backward!

 

[Aloysium]

I guess what is left is to discuss the theory blind to what is important to you.

First of all, let us be clear that I do not object to the actual science, the raw data, the genetics, the molecular biology, all that we are learning about the material workings of living forms, nor about the fossil record in itself as a collection of remnants of what was. The problem lies in the interpretation. As we see from what people generally quote from The Origin of the Species, these are philosophical considerations, and that is what people are more interested in - the meaning of what science tells us. As to asking posters to read the book, I doubt that any serious science class leading to a BSc or especially a BASc, has asked students to do so in at least the last half century. The fact is that Darwinism is a story, shoving scientific discoveries into its mould and presenting what is an illusory picture of how all this has come to be.

I’m not sure there is any point making this post any longer because it seems that those who are looking to argue rather than learn will read only so far as to get themselves to that point. I will follow up in subsequent posts.

 

[Aloysium]

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

I can’t see how anybody could argue that this isn’t an important quote. It addresses the scientific method and pretty much describes evolution. It might take the reader a few minutes, if that, of searching, but if it matters, the page in the Project Gutenberg edition should be easy to find.

There is a hypothesis presented which could be refuted by the discovery of such specific organs. The problem is that what is required is that any organ system not be explainable in terms of “numerous, successive, slight modifications”. We are not being asked to witness these modifications but simply imagine how they might have changed over time. We are creating a senario of “numerous, successive, slight modifications” to explain what we see. The story or explanatory framework deals only with material structures and is not open to refutation, requiring that we only need to find it possible, to accept it as fact.

That life was created, whole with different kinds of creatures designed in similar ways would be similarly also a story that we can consider to be true, seeing that it is possible.

But, there is actually something that “could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications” and that is the human spirit with its capacity for love (free-will and knowledge), journeying through life, participating in the creation of our final form in eternity. And, that is what evo-Christians know, but simplistically just tag it on to the Darwinist story.

 

[rossum]

I can’t see how anybody could argue that this isn’t an important quote.

You are right, it is important. A scientific theory should be disprovable, and Darwin supplied two possible disproofs in chapter six of ‘Origin’. The other one is:

“If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”

There are two points here. First, in order to be a good scientific theory, ID needs a comparable possibility of disproof:

“If it could be demonstrated that any organ existed, which could not possibly have been designed, ID theory would absolutely break down."

The second point is Professor Behe’s idea of Irreducible Complexity, which was a valid attempt to show that a “complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications”. Darwin and Behe were cooperating to advance science. Behe was partly right, IC organs cannot form by serial direct evolution, but the research sparked by Behe’s idea, showed that IC organs can evolve by indirect routes.

Both Darwin and Behe were doing science correctly, and as a result science has slightly advanced. We now have a better idea of the possible routes for the evolution of complex systems.

It is worth noting that Behe’s IC hypothesis was good science, building on Darwin and sparking a lot of interesting and useful research. His hypothesis was partly right, which is better than many hypotheses.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

You are equivocating here, buffalo. Evolution is both micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

That is the claim. Extrapolate from micro-evolution to macro. No dice.

Species is our attempt to classify. It is not a valid argument anymore as we know more. A “new species” is the isolation or such that prevents reproduction. That is a loss of function they once had.

 

[buffalo]

So, your designer wants to kill off all humans by designing immunity to human antibiotics into bacteria. All Hail the great Yersinia Pestis, designer of all bacteria and enemy of all humans!

Your comments are regressing. Phages may be the key, but were abandoned when antibiotics seemed to be the answer. Researchers now understand the limits and limited uses of antibiotics. It was a short term fix.

To criticize design, one must know the mind and intent of the designer. It is useful to see the entire picture.

 

[benjamin1973]

I’m not sure there is any point making this post any longer because it seems that those who are looking to argue rather than learn will read only so far as to get themselves to that point. I will follow up in subsequent posts.

It’s pretty simple. The thread is about a specific subject, one which is outlined in a book by Darwin. Either we will take the time to know what the book actually says, or we will make up straw men.

Taking quotes out of context is of much less value than considering the work as a whole and developing an actual understanding (and perhaps criticism) of the work, and I’m not willing to engage in that kind of lazy process with you.

What I am willing to do is to go through the entire book, chapter by chapter, page by page, and put my proverbial money where my mouth is. That people in this thread have been willing to take the time to write 447 posts thus far, but not actually to read the thing we’re talking about, I think is actually quite a propos-- it pretty much proves my opinion about the anti-science crowd here.

 

[Aloysium]

“If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”

Natural selection initially had to do with the idea of the fittest and was therefore embraced in the form of social Darwinism by political and social entities, wanting to validate their entitlement to their entitlements. This replaced the waning ideas of Divine right of kings and nobles. Science, as with other forms of knowledge, does not stop at some neutral facts, but is used by us to understand our place in the universe and its meaning. Bad things eminate from an adherence to evolutionary theories.

For some time it has been thought of in terms of fittingest rather than fittest. An organism which fits into its environment, finds its niche and promotes the continued maintenance of the system of which it is a part. If we take the latter concept as valid, by observation if not by reason alone, we do see that the structure of one species in many cases does benefit another species. This is seen not only in the case of prey-predator and parasitic relationships, but also symbiotic mutualism and commensalism. All participants in any stable environment, while individual in their being, all come together forming the larger system that is the environment. When they are out of step with it and die, unable to reproduce, those genes, the physical form of the kind of creature it is, will not be passed on to offspring, and that kind will come to an end in that particular part of the world.

From a modern perspective, Darwin’s view seems rather simplistic in its understanding of what natural selection would be about. Nothing is actually produced by natural selection. It is seen as being conservationist by some in that what fits continues to fit. We can understand it however as not really being more than a label that does not describe anything that is, but rather is a way to frame events. There is no exclusive good involved but merely the carrying on of organisms in accordance with their nature and if it all comes together, it continues.

Again it is a dig at altruism and God as Love. If we look at the reality of human beings, what we are, we find central to our eternal happiness - love. The giving of oneself for the good of the other is what the spiritual structure of humanity is all about. To most, this would disprove Darwin’s theory at least.

 

[benjamin1973]

It feels like you are trying to see how many different meanings of “fit” you can . . . fit into this statement.

 

[benjamin1973]

Yeah. Like the giraffe’s loss of the ability to have a short neck, or the whale’s loss of the ability to swim awkwardly, or the cheetah’s loss of the ability to run slowly and not catch food upon which to survive.

Seems legit!

 

[buffalo]

Yeah. Like the giraffe’s loss of the ability to have a short neck, or the whale’s loss of the ability to swim awkwardly, or the cheetah’s loss of the ability to run slowly and not catch food upon which to survive.

Seems legit!

These are adaptations. Darwin’s finches beaks changed. Guess what? They went back after the pressure was relieved.

As I posted earlier, the shift over time is to less fitness.

 

[benjamin1973]

What does “fitness” mean to you?

 

[rossum]

That is the claim. Extrapolate from micro-evolution to macro. No dice.

Yes dice. We have macro-evolution examples with a single mutation and with three mutations. Are you saying that single mutations cannot happen because they are “macro-evolution”?

The evidence shows that you are wrong. In science the evidence wins.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Natural selection initially had to do with the idea of the fittest

In terms of evolution, fitness is essentially the number of grandchildren you have: it is a measure of the number of offspring who reach maturity and reproduce, thus passing copies of your genes into future generations.

It works like compound interest. As an example, take a population of 1000 organisms; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. For comparison I include ten other mutated organism, each with a 1% disadvantage. Start with a population of 10 deleterious, 989 neutral (or unmutated) and 1 beneficial mutations. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:

Generation  Deleterious   Neutral   Beneficial
----------  -----------   ------    ----------
     0         10.0       989.00          1.00
     1          9.9       989.00          1.01
    10          9.0       989.00          1.10
   100          3.7       989.00          2.70
   500          0.1       989.00        144.77
   700          0.0       989.00       1059.16
  1000          0.0       989.00      20959.16

That is why beneficial mutations are more common overall, they are initially rare, but they are amplified and spread by natural selection. You can also see that the deleterious mutation is eliminated and does not spread, despite it being more common initially.

rossum

 

[Metis1]

Evolution is not addressed in the Catechism.

I am 100% faithful RC.

Previous Pope’s? Which one’s gave their support to macro-evolution?

To the first item, read “Paragraph 4. The Creator”: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm

Note that the evolutionary process also refers to the creation of our universe, the creation of life, and the evolution of life forms. Science can now tell us how in general it happened, but it took the Church to tell us who started that process.

To your second response, good.

To your last item, I gave you a site where you can read it for yourself, including quotes, and yet you refuse to do it. One can also google “Catholic Church + Evolution” and find some other sites. If you’re not willing to do any of the looking, don’t expect me to do what you should have been doing all along.

Also, to repeat, the basic ToE is just plain old common sense as well, namely that all material things tend to change over time and genes are material things.

As far as “macro-evolution” is concerned, we only use that terminology in science to indicate a major change, and there is not one shred of scientific evidence that indicates that “micro-evolution” miraculously comes to and end before reaching “macro-evolution”. If you think it does, please produce a scientific source for such a claim. Also, let me suggest using common sense and realizing that if there was such a magical wall that could be verified, geneticists the world over would overwhelmingly take your position-- but they don’t.

So, I’ve produced sources, now it’s your turn.

 

[Metis1]

That is not what “speciation” means, so again you didn’t do the homework that I told you was available by googling “speciation”. It means that there’s an evolution that forms new species that cannot reproduce with the original or with another batch of fruit flies [in this example], but they can reproduce within their own batch. It has nothing to do with “loss of function”.

The university I mentioned is where I got my graduate degree from, but the fruit fly experiment I was not involved with. One of my professors there explained how this particular experiment was done, and it’s been an ongoing one.

 

[Aloysium]

In terms of evolution, fitness is essentially the number of grandchildren you have

There are better definitions. The problem with this one is that it’s not precise enough. While a tuna may produce 10,000,000 eggs in one year, many surviving, its population is decreasing by virtue of mankind’s influence, when there’s not even an average of three offspring born to a couple. It does have some merit in a relative sense; we would have to point out that we are speaking of members of the same species. Even at that, the numbers cannot over-run the capacities of their environment. The other issue that comes to mind is the passing on of defective genes. That’s what the eugenics movement was all about, as one of the horrors that eminated from belief that evolutionary processes underlie creation.

In terms of fitness, we are speaking about the survival of a specific form of a kind of animal that results from an organism’s capacity to produce copies of itself in successive generations - the more fit, the more offspring.

From what I understand Darwin adopted the phrase “survival of the fittest” from philosopher and political scientist, Herbert Spencer, as being synonymous with “natural selection”. According to Stephen Jay Gould, in Ever since Darwin; Reflections on Natural History, Darwin saw the fitter animal as being better “designed”, but in the sense that it was “better designed for an immediate, local environment”.

Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History

More than any other modern scientists, Stephen Jay Gould has opened up to millions the wonders of evolutionary biology. His genius as an essayist lies in his unmatched ability to use his knowledge of the world, including popular culture, to illuminate the realm of science. Ever Since Darwin...

books.google.ca

 

[buffalo]

The evidence shows that you are wrong. In science the evidence wins.

Like the ecoli experiment?

 

[buffalo]

That is not what “speciation” means, so again you didn’t do the homework that I told you was available by googling “speciation”. It means that there’s an evolution that forms new species that cannot reproduce with the original or with another batch of fruit flies [in this example], but they can reproduce within their own batch. It has nothing to do with “loss of function”.

Uh - that is what I posted, and yes that is a loss of a function once had, like it or not. essentially, the “new species” is a less functional form of its parent.