Religion and science

[Lyehopper]

Park, Do you think that life exists elsewhere in the universe? Or is this planet the only one within the infinity of all space that harbors life?

I'm just curious about your personal reasoning and thoughts on the subject.

Irreducible complexity - read Dawkins's "Climbing Mount Improbable"

Buy it at Amazon.com

http://tinyurl.com/ybbknz

Selective emphases on unresolved scientific explanations

First, using the fact that present-day science doesn't have a full explanation for "the beginning of life" as an excuse not to accept the basic factualness of the PROCESS of evolution is the height of disingenuousness. You basically have your head in the sand.

Second, the fact that there are disagreements among groups of scientists is nothing new and has been the case from the earliest days of organized scientific activity, even the 1500s and 1600s. In the 20th century, look at the story of the acceptance by the scientific community of the theory of plate tectonics. This was very controversial and required decades of debate in that community of scientists before it became accepted based on the preponderance of the evidence and its ability to predict new scientific discoveries. The basic historical reality is: the scientific method WORKS. Give it time.

Third, put in a different context, how OLD in historical terms is the science of biology? How old in historical terms is the SCIENTIFIC METHOD? Barely a few hundred years old.

To compare, how old is Judaism? How old is Christianity? How old is Buddhism? How old is Islam?

Now, compare the benefits to society of these two social movements. There is no comparison as to which movement has produced the greater good for the greater number of persons: science. My feeling is that the entire religionist establishment should be placed very much on the defensive to explain how its divisiveness, oppressiveness, and intolerance is at all helpful to the human race at this point in human history.

[Karel]

A reply to Rob's post on Irreducible Complexity

As you say, this is interesting, but also about ten year old news. The Internet abounds with replies. As it would be completely useless for me to try to approach the matter in all the biochemical detail it deserves, I will stay on a more general level (and even hope everyone listening in approves).

An irreducible complex system is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so that the system under consideration could not have evolved by the addition of its components. It would have no function until it was complete, and therefore have no selective advantage for the organism in its intermediate stages.

This concept however is flawed, for it it only allows the system to evolve by adding single parts, with no change in function. This ignores other known evolutionary mechanisms like:

• a part gets deleted;
• a part is copied, resulting in multiple parts;
• a part gets a different function;
• a part acquires an extra function;
• a parts gets modified.

Therefore, even if an irreducibly complex system were identified (we are still waiting for the first one), this would only invalidate evolution in the hobbled version stipulated by the definition.

Irreducible Complexity, or something very much like it, is rather a prediction of evolutionary theory, of course allowing all possible mechanisms by which evolution operates. The reasoning is as follows: a system may develop overlapping functionality, where parts serve more functions and a function is served by diverse parts. This is well-known in biochemistry. In the course of evolution some of these systems might become streamlined, when unnecessary parts, and functions better served by other parts, might get lost, and the result would be irreducibly complex for the system so streamlined.

M. Behe is aware of this criticism and has acknowledged it, but considers that the greatest problem is not how the systems get streamlined, but how they arise in the first place. Some years ago he announced that he would tackle this problem next, presumably he is still at it. In the meantime, he feels justified to have his book reprinted, despite all legitimate criticisms, or without addressing those criticisms.

Of course the problem how the flagellum could evolve is still relevant for Biology. That a flagellum absolutely needs all the protein parts Behe claims it needs is not true. Much simpler flagella are known to function well in other bacteria. Besides, a subset of the components of the flagellum can function as an excretion system, more concretely: as a kind of needle by which toxins are excreted in other cells. This means that simpler versions of the flagellum could have functioned as such a system, before the flagellum acquired its motor function. Since many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions (40 of the 42 flagellar proteins in the flagellum Behe considers can also serve in other functions), evolutionary pathways can be hypothesized which account for the evolution of the flagellum. If the flagellum were truly IR in the sense Behe uses the word, such hypotheses would not be possible.

I have a personal experience reading Darwin's Black Box, by Michael Behe. When I read it I was completely flummoxed by the complexity of the blood clotting system as Behe described it. When I read up on the subject however, it soon became clear that at least part of the complexity was due to Behe's presentation, because other writers were able to present the same material in a much more lucid way. Not that I now know all the ins and outs of the vertebrate blood clotting mechanism, far from it, but at least I get an idea what they are talking about. The other authors also mentioned things Behe apparently forgot to mention, like the great similarity between many of the factors cooperating in the blood clotting system, and the redundancy in this system, that Behe represented as irreducibly-complex-no-part-can-be-missed. By this time I felt so cheated by Behe that I returned the book posthaste to the library.

I really loved the comparison with nanotechnology though, although my conclusion is a bit different. Compared with the nanotechnology in nature, as in the flagellum, our attempts at nanotechnology are just pitiful. It just shows that evolution is much smarter than we are.

Regards,

Karel

[Websman]

Vulcans did not participate in evolution... We were genetically engineered

[Karel]

Rob, I want to propose a point of order. I really love to field the problems you pose me (especially as they are not really difficult to field), but in the interest of the rest of my life, I am considering one post a day on this topic.

Because the risk of entangling different arguments and replies is great, I want to reply to your "evolution of life post now", breaking my resolve right at the start.

The fact that biologists have no answer to the origin of life is not relevant to the theory of evolution. This may sound strange, as life is commonly said to have evolved from non-life. While this is true, the word "evolution" in that context does not refer to Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution takes the existence of life for granted, and only is interested in the evolution of living entities.

Take for instance the start of the Wikipedia article on evolution:

Evolution is the process in which inherited traits become more or less prevalent in a population over successive generations. Over time, this process can lead to speciation, the development of new species from existing ones. All extant organisms are related by common descent, having evolved over billions of years of cumulative genetic changes from a single ancestor.

That ancestor was alive already. Compare also the article on abiogenesis, where the word evolution is often mentioned, but a clear distinction is made concerning Darwinian evolution.

This is completely in accordance with the last sentence in "The Origin Of species":

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Of course the discussion of abiogenesis is important for biology, but only as a complement to the theory of evolution.

If you want to continue to discuss this point, please say so and I will await your reply. If not, I will answer your other post tomorrow.

Regards,

Karel

[Rob]

Interesting:

"Over the last 25 years, biologists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells – complex circuits, sliding clamps, energy-generating turbines and miniature machines. For example, bacterial cells are propelled by tiny rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm. These engines look as if they were designed by the Mazda corporation, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins) including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints and drive shafts.

"Biochemist Michael Behe points out that the flagellar motor depends on the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Remove one of these necessary proteins and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Dr. Behe's terminology, 'irreducibly complex.'

"This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or 'selects' functional advantages. If a random mutation helps an organism survive, it can be preserved and passed on to the next generation. Yet the flagellar motor does not function unless all of its 30 parts are present. Thus, natural selection can 'select' or preserve the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it can't produce the motor in a step-by-step Darwinian fashion.

"Natural selection purportedly builds complex systems from simpler structures by preserving a series of intermediate structures, each of which must perform some function. In the case of the flagellar motor, most of the critical intermediate stages – like the 29- or 28-part version of the flagellar motor – perform no function for natural selection to preserve."—Stephen C. Meyer, The Dallas Morning News, Jan. 29, 2006, excerpt

[Rob]

Claims of skepticism are worthless without reliable evidence as a basis for the skepticism.

Claims of evolution being a fact are worthless without reliable evidence as a basis for their alleged veracity. Re how life originiated: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened. [. . .] Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”—Dr. Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, 1981, p. 19

This statement is as true today as it was when it was written twenty-six years ago.

[Karel]

It is so widely verified that it is considered by biologists to be a fact, i.e. it has been shown to be true.

Not all scientists are in agreement on this. Here's a Web site with some material you might find interesting: A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

• Claims of skepticism are worthless without reliable evidence as a basis for the skepticism. Such evidence seems to be lacking. But if this list actually has meaning it should be easy to come up with convincing evidence supporting the claim. This would be far more convincing than the list itself could ever be.
• Compared with all the scientists who accept evolution, 600 scientists is a minuscule amount. The National Center for Science Education has compiled, as a parody of lists such as that from the Discovery Institute, a list of more than 700 scientists all named Steve, or with variants of that name, who support evolution. How many Steves are on the list of the Discovery Institute? (Steve's are estimated to form 1% of the population.)

There are also problems with the formulation of the dissent:

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

One of the problems is that no scientist whatsoever would ever discourage skepticism and careful examination. To call this dissent however, would surprise the large majority of those scientists. Another problem is that the theory of evolution is not confined to random mutation and natural selection as mechanisms. Sexual selection, genetic drift and symbiosis are also recognized mechanisms. Again, concrete evidence against the theory of evolution would be much preferable.

I am much obliged to Creationist Claim CA111.1: Over 300 scientists express skepticism of Darwinism (The list is apparently doing the rounds since 2001.)

Regards,

Karel

[Rob]

It is so widely verified that it is considered by biologists to be a fact, i.e. it has been shown to be true.

Not all scientists are in agreement on this. Here's a Web site with some material you might find interesting: A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.

[Karel]

I agree that the ability for a species to adapt to it's surroundings is fascinating! I love to hunt rabbits. The ones around here are pretty much brown in color with a white "cotton tail". Their color allows them to hide in the (brownish) underbrush undetected by predators.... In areas where snow abounds there are "snowshoe" rabbits. Their white color allows them to hide in the (whitish) snow undetected by predators. A God who is wise enough and intelligent enough to have created a rabbit and a cavefish certainly has the ability to program within these species the ability to adapt (over time) to their surroundings. When you find the fossil evidence of a cavefish evolving into a rabbit, please PM me....

Smart move, Lye! But I'll do the PR myself, in that case.

And I would not hesitate to publicize that fact, even when it would put much of the theory of evolution in jeopardy.

BTW, interesting to see you that one of your buddies is Elmer Fudd!

http://www.wiseacre-gardens.com/buttons/pics/sounds/elmer002.wav

[Lyehopper]

When I talk about the satisfaction reading up on science can give, I feel this answer to the question how the cavefish lost its eyes is just too beautiful not to share.

Regards,

Karel

I agree that the ability for a species to adapt to it's surroundings is fascinating! I love to hunt rabbits. The ones around here are pretty much brown in color with a white "cotton tail". Their color allows them to hide in the (brownish) underbrush undetected by predators.... In areas where snow abounds there are "snowshoe" rabbits. Their white color allows them to hide in the (whitish) snow undetected by predators. A God who is wise enough and intelligent enough to have created a rabbit and a cavefish certainly has the ability to program within these species the ability to adapt (over time) to their surroundings. When you find the fossil evidence of a cavefish evolving into a rabbit, please PM me....

[Karel]

When I talk about the satisfaction reading up on science can give, I feel this answer to the question how the cavefish lost its eyes is just too beautiful not to share.

Regards,

Karel

[Karel]

http://www.geocities.com/ginkgo100/faq.html

//
3. Isn't evolution just a theory, not a fact?

This isn't really a good question, because it assumes that a theory cannot be a fact. So to answer this question, a few definitions of terms used in science will be necessary first.

A law is a general statement about how nature behaves which has been shown to be valid over a wide variety of experimental conditions, while a theory is an explanation of why laws work (Giancoli 1995). Both can predict the results of future experiments; the difference is that theories explain laws.

The definition of a "fact" is fuzzier. The (Oxford Dictionary) lists five different definitions. For this argument I assume a definiton of "something known or shown to be true." It isn't a scientific term. Theories, laws, or single data could all be considered facts.

Evolution is a theory. It explains a wide range of observed phenomena in the fossil record, in the modern morphology of organisms, in the biochemical makeup of those organisms, etc. It is so widely verified that it is considered by biologists to be a fact, i.e. it has been shown to be true.
//

Thanks Park! This should make clear that the everyday use of the word theory ("I have this theory that ...") is really not the way the word is used in science. Evolution is also a fact because it has been observed. Creationists usually object to this by saying that what was observed is only microevolution, and that macroevolution has not been observed. But they cannot give a definition of macroevolution that would not put large parts of the theory of evolution into question. So science is really rather happy that what Creationists call "macroevolution" has not been observed.

What science calls macroevolution is a matter of scale: the accumulation of so many small changes by microevolution that a new species can be said to have come into existence. Speciation has been observed too, so macroevolution in the usual scientific meaning has been observed, too.

Regards,

Karel

[riverbabe]

Bravo!

Nice set of links, Sir Park. Very nice set of links! Thank you. River