Only if you are taken in by the assertion that ID has some kind of merit as science - widely, loudly and tenaciously claimed, but yet to be demonstrated.
The problem is that there are an infinite number of wrong alternatives, of which ID is but one. As usual, The Onion frames the matter perfectly.
I do agree that showing the holes in evolution does not prove ID to be true. Conversly, proving ID conclusively false does not mean that the theory of evolution is without faults either.
I just begin to worry when even a critical analysis of the evidence for evolution or any of the alternatives are refused by people. That is because the element of genuine questioning is taken out of the debate. Of course, as far as potential holes in evolution go that’s another topic in itself.
At any rate, this debate has always been either we must teach Evolution 100% and nothing else, or Biblical Creation 100% and nothing else. On both extremes, no matter where the debate is held, it always seems that questioning and especially internal critiquing of their own side doesn’t factor in anywhere.
Also, it’s been polarized into another us vs. them debate. Why is this a problem? Because it does not account for the vast spectrum of viewpoints on this matter to begin with. It creates the illusion of no gray area in order to try to present it as more black and white than it really is. It also makes the debate appear more like a political smear campaign rather than a mature and fruitful discussion on the actual topic itself.
Could you please suggest examples of the ‘faults’, ‘holes’ or ‘grey area’ in evolutionary biology, ThanatosSlayer? You might be surprised just how rigorously and comprehensively it explains all the facts, while the alternatives fail miserably almost from the outset.
ID cannot be proved conclusively false. It has no testable predictions.
Even for the standard we’re used to seeing in Onion, that article is particularly well done. 
And I have to say that I think it sums up the issue. Maybe God or Jesus or Buddha or The Great Cat Spirit really IS controlling gravity-- how on earth do WE know?? But that is intrinsically not an idea that falls under the realm of scientific inquiry. It is a philosophical and theological idea that should be debated, and does deserve more thought. But hooking it up to the scientific method is like trying to get a fish to run a marathon-- it just doesn’t work, and by the nature of the participant and the event, it can’t work.
>On both extremes, no matter where the debate is held, it always seems that questioning and especially internal critiquing of their own side doesn’t factor in anywhere.
>Also, it’s been polarized into another us vs. them debate. Why is this a problem? Because it does not account for the vast spectrum of viewpoints on this matter to begin with. It creates the illusion of no gray area in order to try to present it as more black and white than it really is. It also makes the debate appear more like a political smear campaign rather than a mature and fruitful discussion on the actual topic itself.
I understand you to suggest that there’s some merit in teaching some of each, at least exposing students to both “theories”. But this would still be a fraud, because the scientific community doesn’t have a grey area - practically all scientists see evolution versus ID in black and white, and think evolution is real science and essentially correct, while ID is not science and not correct. The fact that there are missing and grey and no doubt incorrect details within the field of evolution does not make scientists doubt it, not today - rather, it’s the reason it’s a field of science. Scientists don’t have anything to do when an area is completely understood.
Inserting any mention of ID as an alternative into science classes teaches students that there is some scientific merit or some scientific uncertainty about which is correct, and that’s just not true.
For a sense of what I mean by “practically all scientists”, Google “project steve”. Actually, for a good laugh, also Google “project steve”!
Look, no one is suggesting that alternative views should be ruled out of science classes. Interpretation of observations is what science is all about. But the interpretations need to be grounded in something. That’s what we teach children, that’s how we teach the processes of science, that’s the nature of science, itself. In a good science class, teachers provoke argument as to the interpretation and meaning of observations. But the next step is to generate ways of finding out, of supporting or rejecting alternative explanations, by designing ways of collecting more relevant data. As an example, we present a swinging pendulum and ask students what possible variables could account for the frequency. When kids propose length, weight, shape, etc., we attempt to create opportunities to find out which is the most significant variable. We look for testable hypotheses. We totally reject hypotheses that are not testable. If someone suggests that one variable that affects frequency is the number of aliens on Pluto, we have to leave that one out. If someone wants to believe that it has some effect, fine, but we have absolutely no reason to believe it is so, and no way to test it. Sometimes, we don’t have the opportunity to experiment, so we trust scientists of the past and present to examine and interpret the data for us. e.g. Some folks look at the sun and say it’s going around the earth. It’s a plausible interpretation of the evidence as collected by the average observer on earth. However, over the years, people have collected a lot more sophisticated data, and we are willing to accept the interpretation - the “theory”, if you will, that the earth spins on its axis. What we DON’T do is present students with the notion that this is merely an idea that we have accepted but that they are welcome to entertain any other views they wish, including the idea that a large, invisible turtle is carrying the sun across the heavens. We do this because we trust the interpretation of the data collected over the years. This is how knowledge is passed on from generation to generation.
So, we either provide opportunity to explore, or we decide to accept what science believes to be true - AS FAR AS WE KNOW. And this is good enough for most of us. If we’re worth our salt as teachers, we also give students to know that what we think and believe is always subject to modification in light of new evidence, should it become available, as that’s the way science works, and that’s the way that humanity’s knowlege base grows.
In the case of evolution, there IS no evidence that we can provide to students that contradicts or even calls into question what we believe to be true about the evolution of life on earth. This is what we believe to be true, and we have no data to interpret differently with any credibility. And, at the same time, we have tons and tons of evidence that reinforces what we know about the mechanisms of natural selection. “God’s will” is not a credible interpretation of observations in the realm of science. It works just fine in a religious context, but it is not the way science works, and it is the task of science teachers to teach how science works.
Debate is a cornerstone of science, but not just random debate for the sake of debate, but reasoned debate grounded in credible observations. It is not called for in this instance. As of yet - no one has provided one iota of data that supports ID. Not one. And until someone comes up with something that actually IS evidence of an intelligent designer, it does not belong in a science class as a valid alternative explanation of life on earth. It is no different from the Flying Spaghetti Monster explanation, which ALSO should not be included in science class as an alternative explanation.
Well, this is true that there is no official ID scientific model as of yet, but that doesn’t mean there may never be one of course. The article I posted earlier was showing a few scientists who were working at trying to develop one. That was all I was suggesting on that.
I do not think that ID itself should be taught at this moment in time until more research has been done. I think a more moderate approach as to teaching the evidence for evolution and the criticisms of it is fine for now. If another viable alternative does come up though, I would hope to see it taught.
Now then, since it was asked for an example of what could be possible holes, I guess I should give out a few and see what happens, even though this honestly would be meant for another thread…
- First off there’s still the issue of speciation. So that we are all clear on the definition, here’s a Wiki entry on it…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
Now then, my question is this. There have been observances of speciation in insects and plants. In each of these examples (which I will post the source shortly), there are observed instances of variant species of each of these plants appearing that cannot crossbred with one another.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5
Now I see how that can work, however, if anyone has any documented sources on speciations that have been observed on a much grander scale please let me know. Because I have not found anything that suggests that these species change into anything other than variant species of the original. Where does it say that a drosophila becomes a housefly, or can change into another creature entirely.
The thing is, it does seem like a possible next logical step, so through inductive reasoning it would work. Now then, this is fine if the base case and the inductive steps are both conclusive. We have a base case of minor speciation, but to make the jump to now say that species can change to the point where they are a different genus, order, class, etc. has not been conclusively proven. We could say that it just happened over millions of years, but again, are there any tests that have shown that.
- While on this subject, the discontinuous fossil record is another question. While it is true that sure we haven’t found many of those missing links, and I do acknowledge that it is still possible that they exist, isn’t it equally possible that they don’t (again, roaming into the idea of philosophy rather than science). Also, what of the many supposed finds of say human predecesors that turned out to be fakes?
Once again, if there are any documented sources on this matter for or against it then please feel free to post them cause I really don’t know.
-
Then there is the question of DNA and RNA. The process of transcription/translation via RNA is the first question. Given that the chances of DNA alterations in the first place are very very small, and that there appears to be no known documentation of errors in the RNA transcription/translation process (now I can be wrong about this and if I am let me know), we already have a very small chance of any lasting genetic change in the first place. While there are transposons found in some organisms that can change genes, first off where did they originate from? Second, what about the DNA error correcting proteins, and how the DNA synthase proteins that guide the process are first coded to begin with (thus creating a chicken and egg scenario)? Third, there is still the factor of the probabilities of a beneficial genetic change, or one that doesn’t completely ruin the organism containing the genetic change. So there is that big problem.
-
The workings of RNA and the robustness of it. Until there are any known documentations of RNA errors, and unless there is a strong chance of them happening if they do happen, for the most part the only errors you get are from DNA errors. So then, with a bit of basic Information Theory, supposing the DNA gene is the source and the various amino acids that make proteins are the end result, the mode of transmission is through the channel of RNA. Now then, the more robust a channel is, the more efficiently it can transmit the data it is given. First off, since it is quite a feat for humans to create any sort of noiseless transmission channel (say, over a computer network for example), how can you explain a development of such a robust biological transmission channel through genetic drift and natural selection? We all agree that this process is the same process used in every living organism, and it has remained relatively unaltered throughout most organisms.
Going further, what of the new research into the workings of RNA and its ability to turn off and on genes, and prevent other RNA chains from producing proteins. To get a better idea of what I am talking about go here…
http://mednews.stanford.edu/stanmed/2005winter/rna.html
Ok, so once more, this has been discovered in most living organisms and again, explain through random genetic mutations, genetic drift, and natural selection how such a process has remained unaltered through most organisms, or why no better system has arisen. Common ancestry? Common design? Either way it does seem to leave a lot of ambiguity. Again, if there any documented sources to the contrary then please let me know.
- Then there is the Miller Experiment, which has its own holes in it. It showed organic chemicals developing on their own, but that has been shown to yield such chemicals as formaldehyde and cyanide. Not to mention that a lot of these simulations, like the one creationist simulation in the previous article I posted, have a lot of idealized variables as well. Again, any documentation on this matter would be appreciated.
Ok, I am done putting my two cents in and now I will sit back and just watch what happens. I know i have said this 5 times already but I can’t stress enough the importance of having good, documented, reliable sources when it comes to talking about this. There needs to be as much reliable information as possible in this debate.
Yes! yes, there are such tests; the term you should research is Endogenous Retroviral Insertions - one of the most incredible and compelling evidences of common ancestry.
It’s worth mentioning here that speciation is all evolution requres in order to produce a branched, nested tree of common descent; the only difference between the groups that we call phyla and the groups that we call species is that the branching even that caused the former happened a lot longer ago than the latter; if we could jump into a time machine and witness the defining moment when the division we now call the phylum chordata first arose, it would look like very modest speciation; the same would be true of any other evolutionary watershed; it’s only that once separated, the groups no longer exchange genetic material and are no longer constrained to develop in similar ways with similar features etc.
True. I was outraged when everyone just laughed at my suggestion that astronomy classes should teach my theory that the stars are just holes eaten by space moths in the black cloth put over our cage by God at night. “Censorship!” I cried. “Pure narrowmindedness” I opined.
And then I proposed that geology classes should include the Australian Aboriginal theory of the Dreamtime which proposes that river beds were formed by the wriggling of giant snakes. The rate at which I was ejected from the syllabus committee was sadly indicative of the demise of free speech in this country, I tell you.
Scary indeed.
The more time which elapses, the ‘grander’ the speciation. Observed speciation is limited to instances in the last few centuries - too short a timescale to be so ‘grand’. As Mange says, the fossil record shows these ‘grander’ speciations over millions of years, and if we could live for millions of years, we’d see them too.
The fossil record is not some spotty pattern of data points which one must squint at to fit the Darwinan model. There are numerous fossils found at successively more recent layers showing, say, the evolution of horses. Sure, like Zeno’s paradox, we could between each two fossils demand the fossil in between, but we must surely ask ourselves whether, if we have observed that kind of level of speciation, we must have evidence of the same thing happening back then. After all, why would the speciation which happens now not happen back then?
“Don’t exist” in the sense that there are no fossils buried anywhere of those ever-tinier subdivisions you demand? Given the geological rarity of the conditions necessary for fossilisation, that is quite possible. But “don’t exist” in the sense of they never existed, ie. that one species died out and another appeared from nowhere, requiring God’s interference as a deus ex machina? No, that is not a reasonable possibility unless you are comfortable with God doing this continually throughout the last 5 billion years, and arguably does so even now in the cases of observed speciation.
You forgot sex. Your questions have some relevance to asexual (ie. identical) reproduction, but sex provides a great deal of natural variance for the environment to select for or against. In any case, cells and their DNA do undergo structural variations over time - even if the probability is tiny, there are so many of them over so much time that even highly improbable single events become probable eventually: see some of the scientific papers at the foot of this page, such as this one.
As for your point 4), I must admit that it is more technical than my understanding allows and so I must leave the floor to Darwin’s Finch, Blake, or another whose familiarity of chemical biology dwarfs my own. But I readily admit that we don’t yet understand everything in science - heck, if we did, we could close down university departments worldwide since there would be no science left to do! That still does not have us utterly discarding entire well-tested theories the moment we find something which needs more research. Evolution is the only working conclusion in town, and it is merely becoming more detailed rather than changing into something else.
And again, it is abiogenesis, NOT evolution, but see this page I’ve already mentioned.
Sorry, forgot this one:
There have been a handful of fakes and hoaxes, yes. What about them?
More importantly, what about the vast, overwhelming majority of the human predecessors which weren’t?
And don’t even get me started on the scanalous exclusion of Intelligent Falling from the teaching of physics at all levels.
Preach it brother!
Well, thank you for pointing out the Abiogenesis thing, and I do see that they are two seperate items. However, in some conversations I’ve had about this the two have been lumped together to suggest that both were a part of how life came about.
Anyway, it is interesting that you mentioned sexual repoduction as another means of genetic change. While this is true, this just leaves the big question of how on earth could a species go from being asexual to being a sexual being, with the proper development of gender traits in the first place. Here’s an article that asks the same question which in turn returns back to the speciation problem.
http://www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp
While on the subject of speciation issues, let’s return back to that point 4 dealing with Information Theory once again. I am asking the same question as before, and throwing a bit more into it as well.
I’ve read the two articles that you gave me on the development of DNA structures, which the TalkOrigins one interestingly enough also was showing the workings of abiogenesis and applying it to the said topic. Though it is good to know how the abiogenesis idea is actually supposed to be applied. Sadly the other article is only an abstract but that does provide an interesting proposition to look into later.
Getting back to the subject of Information Theory, I’ve also heard about computer simulations that supposedly also show this occurance. However, take a look at this article cause I think it shows some more on how some of these examples just may not apply to a real world scenario.
http://www.trueorigin.org/geneticalgorithms1.asp
There is also the problem of acquiring new genes in the genome (like say a 6 legged insect over time acquiring genes for the 2 additional legs it would need to be an arachnid for example). There have been attempts to answer this by the means of evolution by various scientists, but those answers have problems too as shown here
http://www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp
and here
http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp
This is where I was going when I mentioned earlier about the problems of larger scale speciations. If there are so many problems and complications arising in these areas, then the assertion that the speciation observed today can account for all different speciations is a lot harder to make.
As far as this concerns evolution, does it mean we just immediatly throw it out the door well no. But at the same time, why aren’t these kinds of questions and gaps not being gone over as well as the facts? That is all I am asking really. I am just wondering why I had to wait until college to learn more about these things? Why these sorts of discussions and challenges that we are both presenting each other were not present in my grade school science classes? THAT is what I think should be taught in public schools. It is this fact that these sorts of evidences and criticisms were not taught is what honestly may give the teaching of evolution more of an appearance of teaching dogma rather than science. If they would just change that I am sure some of the more moderate critics of evolution would calm down (I could be wrong about that though).
Both evidence and criticisms of it should be taught. If evolution is true, then eventually the evidence would show for itself, and then not only would people know that but then they would know WHY it would be true, rather than having to wait till after high school.
If evolution is false or has legitimate challenges, then wouldn’t this inspire a new generation of research in this area? It could then lead to people either finding out more facts to support it, or look to find facts that culminate to a scientifically viable alternative.
Also, I did read the Endogenous Retroviral Insertions stuff, and it is a rather fascinating hypothesis. I’ll get back to that though when I have more time to look it up more thoroughly. But thanks.
One answer to your question has to do with the relative sophistication of the unanswered questions about evolution compared to the developmental levels of children in school. In grade school, we teach the very basics of factual information, and we try to develop in youngsters the ability to question, healthy skepticism, and open minds. (Not easy, of course, and not successful, but one of our major goals). So, we teach, for example that the planets orbit the sun in great big circles. We don’t often get into the fact that at some point in time, Kepler measured the motions and discovered that they are actually eliptical. When they move along in the discipline of astronomy, or perhaps physics, such information will become relevant. And, at the same time, if a student asks, (and how some of us wish more kids would) “How do we know?,” we can tell them about the evidence that is present to support our beliefs. We can also at that time indicate that scientists don’t know everything about this, and there are still questions that have not been answered. However, as it stands, evolution is “true.” We would be doing them a disservice by suggesting that there is any question about that fact. Again, if we have reason to disbelieve that the planets go around the sun, we would tell them that. We don’t. So we simplify that major aspect - that the planets revolve around the sun. We don’t muddy the waters at age 8 or 12 with the finer points. And we don’t tell them that we aren’t sure if the planets go around the sun or not. That is not open to dispute, and for those of us in science education, neither is evolution, despite some questions that are still unanswered.
As CC suggests, it is because you need a college education to ask the question in the first place, just as lessons in Newtonian gravity does not have the schoolteacher exploring the difficulty in marrying General Relativity to Quantum Mechanics!
All sciences, not just chemical biology, have unanswered questions, and teachers might well briefly mention the gaps which researchers are currently engaged in investigating today: heck, that is what science is all about! But as I said before, those yawning chasms of past decades or centuries are now way to small to fit a God of the Gaps in, and are shrinking year on year. I hope someone more erudite than I can set your mind at rest on those specific technical matters.
>But at the same time, why aren’t these kinds of questions and gaps not being gone over as well as the facts? That is all I am asking really.
There are two reasons, at least.
One is that the mainstream understanding of a field of science is difficult enough, without introducing all the uncertainties (each of which seems like a sort of branching point for myriad versions of how things work). In astronomy lately we have quintessence and dark energy and dark matter and so forth; there is plenty of understanding to master before you get stuck on one of those. I think in every field of science a good teacher would happily discuss these with a student advanced enough to be able to absorb it - and to suggest books on the topic - just as every advanced student has the chance to go out and find books on their own. But I imagine a good teacher also wouldn’t hijack the entire lecture on a confusing tangent every time it comes up, as this would be more confusing than helpful. Some perspective is in order: all scientists spend their time working on the things that don’t make sense, don’t fit, and seem wrong. That’s the frontier. People learning to become scientists are being trained with what we’ve found and how we work. They spend their time in territory that’s already been settled, and then in territory that’s only been scouted, and work their way to the frontier. If you start them on the frontier, they have the same disadvantages that people had 1000 or 2000 years ago, relative to people that understand the progress we’ve made.
Another reason is that some of the flaws described by ID fans are exaggerated, and aren’t really worthy of introduction into any but a very detailed and advanced, maybe graduate level, course. Or perhaps aren’t really flaws at all, but are just misrepresented as such.
But that’s exactly the point we’ve been at for at least 50, or maybe 100, years. I can imagine someone saying this in 1880, but we’ve long since passed the point where the evidence has shown for itself that the Theory of Evolution, which describes mutations and selection pressures accounting for descent from a common ancestor, is indeed true. There is no doubt among people most familiar with it.