Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[itinerant1]

But of course, mainstream science is very far from accepting that there is - or ever will be – any biological organisms or structures that cannot fully be explained by evolution. As long as that idea persists, Michael Behe will be marginalized – as ID research itself has been.

There are obvious prejudices at work in the scientific world, but then again there are also reasonable objections to ID theory as well.

Evolution is not well understood, despite what some scientists assert. However, evolution has explained much. As scientific evidence mounts in favor of evolution, ID theorists will be marginalized unless they can provide something more than a negative theory about IC systems and specified complexity. It just seems like a negative theory that says such and such systems and organism cannot have evolved for the reasons stated by ID theorists.

That cannot be very intellectually satisfying to a scientist who wants answers. I look at ID theory and I can agree with some things it says, but then I think of the Wendy’s commercial: “Where’s the beef”?

I want something more substantial.

 

[reggieM]

I am familiar with Dubay. In fact, I recently finished his book, The Evidential Power of Beauty: Science and Theology Meet Dubay uses the metaphysical intuition of beauty to challenge neo-Darwinians who deny the existence of design in our fine-tuned universe. You should buy the book. It’s a fascinating read. Dubay also considers creation science as bunk.

I’m very glad to agree with you on this.
In my opinion, Fr. Dubay is one of the most profound and effective teachers in the Church today. He posseses a mastery of Catholic doctrine and spiritual theology – and the book you mention is a rare and brilliant analysis of the importance of beauty. Yes – I definitely agree with your assessment. Fr. Dubay points out that beauty is not merely “in the eye of the beholder” but that beauty reflects some universal and objective values.

If you’d like a nice summary of my views on this discussion – you can find them on pages 206-208, beginning here:

Gradualism by chance selection is ruled out also by the need for simultaneous and coordinated modifications in all the structures of the organism, not simply in one bone or muscle or tendon. Georges Cuvier, a nineteenth-century French naturalist, had already seen that animals could not gradually change one part (organ, muscle, or bone) independently of all the others. Speaking only of the limbs of meat-eating animals, Cuvier wrote: “[so] that the claws may seize the prey, they must have a certain mobility in the talons, a certain strength in the nails, whence will result determinate formations in all the claws, and the necessary distribution of muscles and tendons.” He goes on and shows how the turning of the forearm would require “special formations of the bones . . . thus affecting the shoulder-blade and its structure and the legs and other muscles.” The chances of all this happening at once are unimaginably impossible … [then keep reading to this] … Well, it has been so demonstrated clearly and convincingly./INDENT]

To see your positive response to Fr. Dubay’s book here tells me that we’re not as far apart in our views as it might seem. In any case, it tells me some good things about your committment to the Faith (which I have not doubted anyway).​

 

[itinerant1]

I’m very glad to agree with you on this.
In my opinion, Fr. Dubay is one of the most profound and effective teachers in the Church today. He posseses a mastery of Catholic doctrine and spiritual theology – and the book you mention is a rare and brilliant analysis of the importance of beauty. Yes – I definitely agree with your assessment. Fr. Dubay points out that beauty is not merely “in the eye of the beholder” but that beauty reflects some universal and objective values.

If you’d like a nice summary of my views on this discussion – you can find them on pages 206-208, beginning here:

Gradualism by chance selection is ruled out also by the need for simultaneous and coordinated modifications in all the structures of the organism, not simply in one bone or muscle or tendon. Georges Cuvier, a nineteenth-century French naturalist, had already seen that animals could not gradually change one part (organ, muscle, or bone) independently of all the others. Speaking only of the limbs of meat-eating animals, Cuvier wrote: “[so] that the claws may seize the prey, they must have a certain mobility in the talons, a certain strength in the nails, whence will result determinate formations in all the claws, and the necessary distribution of muscles and tendons.” He goes on and shows how the turning of the forearm would require “special formations of the bones . . . thus affecting the shoulder-blade and its structure and the legs and other muscles.” The chances of all this happening at once are unimaginably impossible … [then keep reading to this] … Well, it has been so demonstrated clearly and convincingly./INDENT]To see your positive response to Fr. Dubay’s book here tells me that we’re not as far apart in our views as it might seem. In any case, it tells me some good things about your committment to the Faith (which I have not doubted anyway).
​

I am familiar with this thoughtful critique of gradualism by chance selection. (Despite all of the scientific responses to Cuvier’s analysis, I think there is something more significantly involved in evolution than just natural selection, random mutations, etc. But that is entire story just by itself). Unfortunately, I cannot look up the rest of the text right now because I loaned out my Dubay book to a relative. Dubay has a real talent for describing things in nature, including events at the cosmic level, in such a way that it can hold the reader spell-bound. The description of Betelguese is mind boggling. So, we will have to proceed without extended references to Dubay. You can always provide more quotes, if needed, because I already understand Dubay’s views.

I was trying to find out more regarding your particular ID views since we seem to be arguing passed each other too often. So, this is a kind of starting over for the purposes of clarification.

I assume you think micro-evolution occurs. Furthermore, do you think macro-evolution, in the sense of speciation, ever occurs naturally? By naturally, I mean without any “special” divine interventions into the processes.

By way of a comparison of ID views, Michael Denton accepts speciation as an undeniable fact of science. If I remember correctly, Denton categorizes speciation as micro-evolution, reserving macro-evolution, which he casts his doubts on, for evolution at the higher taxonomic levels. Cardinal Schonborn, while clearly acknowledging design in nature, as I do also, does not agree with how ID explains design.

So then, what say you about speciation?​

 

[reggieM]

Unfortunately, I cannot look up the rest of the text right now because I loaned out my Dubay book to a relative. Dubay has a real talent for describing things in nature, including events at the cosmic level, in such a way that it can hold the reader spell-bound. The description of Betelguese is mind boggling. So, we will have to proceed without extended references to Dubay. You can always provide more quotes, if needed, because I already understand Dubay’s views.

I’m sorry to hear that because I think you’d find that additional text to be valuable in understanding my view – so please keep it in mind when you get the book back.

I assume you think micro-evolution occurs. Furthermore, do you think macro-evolution, in the sense of speciation, ever occurs naturally? By naturally, I mean without any “special” divine interventions into the processes.

I’ll just speak for ID here and not my own personal views. It’s a mischaracterization to say that ID claims that there are “special divine interventions”. Again, ID is looking for scientific evidence of design in nature. This is not design in sense as I explained in the one approach to teleology via purposes and attainments of ends – but rather structural design that can be observed empirically and measured – and design which does not occur as a result of a natural law or due to the properties of the objects. Fine-tuning arguments are built on that kind of teleology.

One could say that “everything is designed”, but then one could not make a distinction between my example of a pile of rocks and computer software. Obviously, we say that software shows evidence of being designed by an intelligent agent, while the rocks show the results of blind natural laws and a random result.

Just because some feature of nature does not give the direct, scientific appearance of having been designed by an intelligent agent (as the pile of rocks) doesn’t mean that it was not designed. ID does not claim that there are things which are designed and things which are not designed. It is just looking for scientific evidence of things that model intentional design characteristics. Those that do not clearly manifest those characteristics are not “non-designed things” – it’s only that their designed characteristics are not yet observable through a scientific analysis. As I posted before – molecular machines resemble human machines, except that they’re far more complex and functional than human machines. Can blind natural laws produce functional machinery? That’s the question that ID probes.

As for speciation – it’s not really related here directly, but there are other problems.
First, there is the species problem itself. This is widely acknowledged in science. There is no universal understanding and definition of what a species is. Can evolution cause an undefined end product? For myself, I don’t find that proofs of microevolution answer the massive difficulties with the changes that Georges Cuvier and many other Darwinian critics have pointed out over the years. Actually, it’s quite a weak defense of evolution to claim that some microevolutionary changes are sufficient evidence for the development of all the diversity in nature.
In the same way - artificial selection, with the breeding of dogs, for example, produces only different varieties of dogs. We do not find dogs growing wings or becoming whale-like creatures, but they remain dogs.
Finally, I find Michael Behe’s research on the Edge of Evolution to be compelling evidence to indicate that mutations and natural selections have very narrow limits in which they work. They do not produce the kind of novel information or structures needed to account for some of the incredible diversity and complexity in nature. We could look merely at human intelligence itself.

At the pinnacle of biological complexity is the human brain, the most complex structure known to exist in the universe. It contains about 100 billion neurons, each of which has connections to as many as a thousand other neurons. It dwarfs in sophistication any computer ever devised by man. And yet, this brain, with all its astonishing powers—the brain of Mozart, of Einstein, of Shakespeare—evolved from an ape brain in about 5 million years or less.
Stephen Barr - Modern Physics and Ancient Faith

Can this structure be adequately explained by beneficial mutions being preserved for a survival advantage? This does not even take us into the many problems regarding human consciousness itself.

Again, the claim is “bacteria to man” and the evidence needed to support that claim must go far beyond what has been shown thus far, in my opinion.

 

[itinerant1]

As for speciation – it’s not really related here directly, but there are other problems.

I see a direct relevance.

And good grief, what was all that typing about? It was a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. I believe your answer regarding speciation was a “no”. But to be sure, I will ask the question again.

1. Do you think speciation occurs? (The question assumes the common operative biological notion of species as a reproductively isolated organism.). Just indicate a ‘yes’ with a happy face, , or, indicate a ‘no’ with a mad face, .

Also,

2. In your view, are there any new species? (You can use or for this question, too.)

If your answer to Q. 2, was a , proceed to Q. 3:

3. How would you guess that new species originate? (Answer briefly as possible.)

4. If your answer to Q. 2 was , then provide a brief explanation for your answer.

If you don’t have answers to any of the questions above indicate so using a with the appropriate Q. #.

5. Am I funny, or what? Don’t answer that.

 

[itinerant1]

ReggieM,

Exclude Homo sapiens from any consideration in your answer, because evolution does not apply in the same way here.

 

[reggieM]

1. Do you think speciation occurs? (The question assumes the common operative biological notion of species as a reproductively isolated organism.).

Yes

2. In your view, are there any new species? (You can use or for this question, too.)

Yes

3. How would you guess that new species originate? (Answer briefly as possible.)

Microevolution causes minor changes in organisms and evolutionists call that “speciation”. Here’s a notable example:

Role of Gene Interactions in Hybrid Speciation: Evidence from Ancient and Experimental Hybrids

Through artificial selection, scientists created a new species – which proved to be a different version of the same sunflowers.

 

[reggieM]

Here’s another interesting passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The argument from design …
There is no option in such cases between the hypothesis of a directing intelligence and that of blind chance, and the absurdity of supposing that the eye originated suddenly by a single blind chance is augmented a thousand-fold by suggesting that it may be the product of a progressive series of such chances. “Natural selection”, “survival of the fittest”, and similar terms merely describe certain phases in the supposed process of evolution without helping the least to explain it; and as opposed to teleology they mean nothing more than blind chance.

Directing intelligence is posed versus blind chance. While it is absurd to suppose that the eye originated suddenly by a single blind-chance mutation, it is a thousand-times more absurd to think that the eye emerged from a “progressive series of such chances”. Claims regarding the power of natural selection or survival advantages describe some limited phases of a hypothetical process but do nothing to explain it. In opposition to the scientific-teleological argument of Intelligent Design, evolutionary theory proposes nothing more than blind chance (and is thus absurd and false).

 

[StAnastasia]

While it is absurd to suppose that the eye originated suddenly by a single blind-chance mutation, it is a thousand-times more absurd to think that the eye emerged from a “progressive series of such chances”.

Reggie, can you please explain why it is absurd?

 

[reggieM]

Reggie, can you please explain why it is absurd?

Can I explain why the Catholic Encyclopedia states that “the absurdity … is augmented a thousand-fold”?

 

[StAnastasia]

Can I explain why the Catholic Encyclopedia states that “the absurdity … is augmented a thousand-fold”?

Yes. Where does the thousand-fold augmentation come from, or is that merely hyperbole?

 

[rossum]

Yes. Where does the thousand-fold augmentation come from, or is that merely hyperbole?

My guess is hyperbole. The piece was originally written in 1909 so any science in it is unlikely to be up to date.

rossum

 

[StAnastasia]

My guess is hyperbole. The piece was originally written in 1909 so any science in it is unlikely to be up to date. rossum

rossum, you don’t regard that as cutting-edge biology and statistics?

 

[reggieM]

Yes. Where does the thousand-fold augmentation come from, or is that merely hyperbole?

Perhaps you could do some investigation on that question. First, start with identifying authors and editors who published the text and then trace the development of their thought.

I could give you more advice on how to conduct academic research if you’d like.

 

[reggieM]

rossum, you don’t regard that as cutting-edge biology and statistics?

The basic concept, however, is not antiquated or replaced by cutting-edge thought.

If one accidental positive mutation is absurdly improbable in a given organism, then the need for a thousand mutations is a thousand times more absurdly improbable.

One absurdity plus a thousand absurdities equals a thousand times more than one.

This is why it is so difficult for Darwinian theory to explain DNA repair mechanisms, for one example.

Basic logic and math have remained the same since 1909.

 

[rossum]

The basic concept, however, is not antiquated or replaced by cutting-edge thought.

If one accidental positive mutation is absurdly improbable in a given organism, then the need for a thousand mutations is a thousand times more absurdly improbable.

Evolution does not happen in a single organism, it happens in a population of organisms. With a population of six billion a one-in-a-thousand mutation will happen six million times. There will also be another six million with a different one-in-a-thousand mutation. When two people, one with each mutation, marry then there is a one in four chance that a child will have both mutations. A further six million will have a third mutation etc. The maths is not as simple as you seem to think it is.

One absurdity plus a thousand absurdities equals a thousand times more than one.

I suggest that you learn more about the mathematics of population genetics.

Basic logic and math have remained the same since 1909.

The maths is only as good as the model you are using. A model of evolution from 1909 will not represent current knowledge - it would not include DNA or neutral drift for example. Such a model no longer represents current knowledge of evolution so its results are not useful.

I suspect that in fact there is no mathematical model behind these numbers anyway - as St. Anastasia says, they are probably rhetoric.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

The basic concept, however, is not antiquated or replaced by cutting-edge thought.

If one accidental positive mutation is absurdly improbable in a given organism, then the need for a thousand mutations is a thousand times more absurdly improbable.

One absurdity plus a thousand absurdities equals a thousand times more than one.

This is why it is so difficult for Darwinian theory to explain DNA repair mechanisms, for one example.

Basic logic and math have remained the same since 1909.

Dare I added uniformatarianism? We should trash it because it is old.

 

[reggieM]

A model of evolution from 1909 will not represent current knowledge - it would not include DNA or neutral drift for example.

The problems that were recognized in a general form in 1909 remain problems today. In fact, increased knowledge of nature and biology has not confirmed Darwin’s theory, but rather has meant that entirely new explanations (neutral drift as one example) had to be created to attempt explanations. There some prominent scientists (of the non-creationist, non-ID variety) who now claim that natural selection plays only a minimal role in evolution.

 

[buffalo]

Evolution does not happen in a single organism, it happens in a population of organisms. With a population of six billion a one-in-a-thousand mutation will happen six million times. There will also be another six million with a different one-in-a-thousand mutation. When two people, one with each mutation, marry then there is a one in four chance that a child will have both mutations. A further six million will have a third mutation etc. The maths is not as simple as you seem to think it is.

I suggest that you learn more about the mathematics of population genetics.

The maths is only as good as the model you are using. A model of evolution from 1909 will not represent current knowledge - it would not include DNA or neutral drift for example. Such a model no longer represents current knowledge of evolution so its results are not useful.

I suspect that in fact there is no mathematical model behind these numbers anyway - as St. Anastasia says, they are probably rhetoric.

rossum

That is an awful lot of information loss. The future looks bleak for humans.

 

[StAnastasia]

This is why it is so difficult for Darwinian theory to explain DNA repair mechanisms, for one example. Basic logic and math have remained the same since 1909.

And yet, while “Creation science” can only whine and build fake “museums,” evolutionary biology is flourishing in 2009. Here’s a partial list of journals (sorry, I couldn’t find journals for “creationist biology” or “flood geology”):
google.com/Top/Science/Biology/Publications/Journals/

Nature Publishing Group - nature.com/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
National Library of Medicine’s search service that provides access to over 10 million citations in MEDLINE,

BioOne Journals - bioone.org/
Abstracts (free) and full-texts (subscription required) of more than 50 peer-reviewed bioscience research journals,

The Scientist - the-scientist.library.upenn.edu/
Weekly E-magazine for Life Scientists with original content pertaining to research and biotech products.

BioMed Central - biomedcentral.com/
An online journal that publishes peer-reviewed research across all areas of biology and medicine with free access,

nature.com/nature/ - nature.com/nature/
An international journal, published weekly, with original, groundbreaking research spanning all of the scientific disciplines.

Bioline International - bioline.org.br/
An electronic publishing service for bioscientists.

BioscienceHorizons - biohorizons.oxfordjournals.org/
Journal produced by a consortium of UK universities with support from Oxford University Press.

Issues in Science and Technology - issues.org/
An online journal for discussion of public policy related to the interactions of science, engineering, and medicine with society - from the National Academy of Sciences.

Journal of Experimental Biology - jeb.biologists.org/
A leading journal in comparative animal physiology. Published by The Company of Biologists Limited.

Philosophical Transactions B: Biological Sciences - rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/
International scientific journal from The Royal Society covering all topics across biology.

Biological Reviews - journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=BRE
Covers the entire range of the biological sciences, presenting several review articles per issue.

Biological Bulletin - biolbull.org/
Experimental research on the full range of biological topics and organisms, published since 1897 by the Marine Biological Laboratory.

Frontiers in Bioscience - bioscience.org
Internet forum for scientific communication. Peer-reviewed.

Journal of Visualized Experiments (JoVE) - jove.com/
Publishes videos of experimental procedures and protocols on in the biological and life sciences.

Nature.com - Molecular Cell Biology - nature.com/molcellbio/
Nature Publishing Group resources in the field of molecular cell biology.

Trends in Ecology and Evolution - trends.com/tree/
Peer-reviewed journal of ecology, evolutionary biology and systematics,

Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom - journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=MBI
An international journal publishing original research on all aspects of marine biology.

ekoloji.com.tr - ekoloji.com.tr
International journal published quarterly by the Foundation for Environmental Protection and Research.

Evolutionary Ecology Research - evolutionary-ecology.com/
Professional scientific journal focusing on the overlap between ecology and evolution.

BioScience - aibs.org/bioscience/
Monthly peer-reviewed journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences.

International Journal of Biological Sciences - biolsci.org/
Open access journal publishing articles in all aspects of biology with emphasis on molecular and cellular biology, genetics, and biochemistry.

Current Protocols - wiley.com/cp/
Online resource for respected publications on laboratory methods in human genetics, nucleic acid chemistry, immunology, toxicology, and molecular biology.