This post seems to have gotten a lot of attention so I thougt I'd go ahead and repost. Here it is again...this time with the comments made as well. Feel free to discuss. And for the record, nothing is ever "proven" in science. That is what makes it science.
The following came from one of the comments most recently posted so I thought I'd add it here
You must be joking
Ann Coulter on UK BBC Newsnight interview with Jeremy Paxman<
YouTube - Ann Coulter on UK BBC Newsnight interview with Jeremy Paxman
Blogged with Flock
The following came from one of the comments most recently posted so I thought I'd add it here
An open challenge to Coulter fans
Monday, 19. June 2006, 23:56:55
PZ Myers, the liberal atheist blogger and professor of genetics at UMM, posted an open challenge to Ann Coulter's legion of mindless nuthuggers, specifically those who are impressed with her anti-Darwinist rhetoric. Here's the mechanics:
*The me is, of course, PZ Myers.
- Read Coulter's book, Godless. (uh-oh, I may have just filtered out 90% of her fans with that first word.)
- Pick ONE paragraph from chapters 8-11 that you think is just wonderfully insightful, and that you agree with entirely.
- Open up your email software, and compose a message to me*. You can use a pseudonym, but please do use a valid email address. I won't publish your address, but I'm not going to reply to people I can't contact.
- Type in the paragraph that you think is solid and believable. Yeah, it's a tiny bit of work, but it'll save me* the trouble of typing it in myself. You're a believer, it's worth it, right?
- Explain briefly why you think this paragraph is good stuff. If you want to explain a little bit of the context in justification, that's good too.
- Send it to me*.
*The me is, of course, PZ Myers.
No. No joke. Paxman was a mess.
Eh, Jazza gave the subject more seriousness than it deserved. Now, Coulter was a mess. Illogical, arrogant, avoided answering the questions with more than sound bites. Honestly, if this is the level of political discourse over there, no wonder America's such a mess.
Now I know that we Americans are backward and we have our quaint old-fashioned beliefs. However, I do have questions about the undeniable, scientifically proven account of the origin of life that you Europeans have discovered and revealed to the world. There are a few things that I just can’t resolve in my unsophisticated, colonial mind about Darwinism. But, I know that you “sons of the Enlightenment” across the pond will be able to illuminate me on these matters. Let’s just start with what’s probably my most basic question. How does Darwinism explain the development of irreducibly complex organs such as the eye, or ear? That is, those organs that if reduced by any one of its components would cease to function as a whole. For instance, the eye. Which of its components evolved first? The retina, rods and cones, or the optic nerve? In the case of the ear, was it the tympanic membrane, cochlea, or the cochlear nerve? I have learned that the twin engines of Darwinism are random mutation and natural selection. That a beneficial mutation gives an organism survival benefits over those of its kind that it will replace through natural selection. Darwinism also tells us that genetic mutations happen on a very small scale and that many would be required over time to build complex evolutionary advances. It’s just the chronology that is puzzling to me. That is if, as regards the eye, one of our ancestors was born with a mutation of light sensitive cells somewhere on its body, how would that have given it survival advantages over those of its kind that didn’t have the mutation? You see, if there wasn’t an optic nerve to carry the sensor information to the brain from these light sensitive cells, what advantage exactly was it that this ancestor had over others in its family? What use could this ancestor have made of the light information being received if it never made it to its brain for processing? How would this mutation have benefited the propagation of this mutant’s offspring, while others of its kind without the mutation died off? This question could be asked of any macrosystem within an animal such as the immune, or blood clotting systems. Just as well, it could be asked at the cellular level. There are so many interdependent components of a cell, that it seems in order to form just a one-celled organism would be impossible. This is just one question I have regarding Darwinism. Since I know that this is science and not just based on mere conjecture, but hard fact; you’ll easily be able to help me put down the challenges of religious idiots like Ann Coulter. I also know that questioning authority is a guiding principle of enlightened people; I see the bumper sticker all the time. For some reason here in America, the obvious answers to the proven facts behind Darwinism are not being communicated to us. It’s probably George W. Bush and his ilk that are keeping the truth from us. To keep us ignorant and pliant so that he and his cronies can hoard the world supply of oil for themselves. Please help by arming us with the necessary ammunition to combat this hatred of science. Sophisticated people such as you Europeans love intellectual debate, so this should be fun. Especially since you have the facts of science on your side. Oh, and when you answer this question, I have many others to follow.
Thanks,
Your friend in the American Theocracy
krimp, if it makes no sense that a creature would have evolved an array of sensing cells without a system to transport information, then assume the system to transport came first. this is what science does. it asks a question, then looks at examples and uses logic to postulate an answer. i am no biologist, and i do not speak for all scientists, but i do have an understanding of what the scientific process is. the reason why science is better than religion is that science has a system which demands constant questioning and revision of held beliefs. you would say that people who hold a darwin-derived belief of the existance of complex life have stopped questioning its validity, and this is simply not true. but it is true that logically some version of evolution makes more sense than any intelligent design theory.
my question to you would be: if we were/are intelligently designed and mutation serves no good purpose, why does spontaneous mutation happen at all?
thanks,
your friend in science
agentzero, thank you for your very civil and thoughtful response.
First off, let me say that with the arguments you’ve listed, you would have made the very point that Ann Coulter has put forth. That is, that Darwinism is far from proven science, and is taken by its adherents on faith. This you did when you asked me to “assume”, for that “is what science does”. It is true that part of the scientific method involves assumption(formulating a hypothesis). But, that is only the first stage. It is followed by gathering observable, empirical, and measurable evidence, subject to the laws of reasoning. Unfortunately for Darwinism, there has been precious little empirical evidence gathered in the more than 150 years since it was popularized. What little evidence that has been gathered in the process can easily be used against it. A priori assumption without the facts is simply faith. Belief in something unproven.
Furthermore, when you requested I “assume” the transport system(optic nerve) came first in the development of the eye, you’re simply playing a shell game. Reversing their chronology does not make the problem for Darwinism go away. You see, what benefit would an optic nerve be to an organism without the useful sensor information of the photosensitive cells? It’s is like having a computer and Ethernet cable without the Internet connection. Useless for observing the outside world. Darwinism contends that random mutations are responsible for evolutionary progress only when they give an advantage to one species member over another. Natural selection will enable this mutant’s offspring to out-populate its non-mutated cousin. In addition, you’ve black-boxed the evolutionary development of the complex optic nerve and its interface to the brain. This is very common among Darwin’s adherents…details are not important.
You stated “science is better than religion”. I concur that “true” science is more trustworthy than religion. Unfortunately for Darwinism, it appears to be more of a religion than “true” science. All assumption(faith), and no empirical evidence. There are growing numbers of scientists who believe its going the way of its predecessor, Spontaneous Generation. Yet, pop culture and the education community are lagging behind. The free thinkers today with the best arguments are questioning the very foundations of Darwinism. Like Gallileo, it takes courage to confront the Church of Darwin. It is very powerful, with its ability to stifle dissent through the awarding of tenure and grants in the scientific community.
You postulated that “logically some version of evolution makes more sense than any intelligent design theory”. Really? Can you give me solid proof you have(empirical evidence) behind this statement? Just give me an example of a very simple system, machine, plant, or animal, that just came into being without the intervention of a designer with intelligence. All technology and inventions require a designer with intelligence to come up with the initial idea and then fabricate and implement that idea. The watch, airplane, automobile, computer…whatever. These are also, by the way, very crude and simple when compared to the human being. Yet, you ask me to believe that these things could be created out of randomly connected events without any guiding intelligence? Where is the logic in that? It has never been observed as far as I know.
Finally, as to your last question, “if we were/are intelligently designed and mutation serves no good purpose, why does spontaneous mutation happen at all?” This is a non sequitur. I’ve never said mutation cannot serve a “good”, or beneficial purpose. Clearly, there are some genetic mutations that are beneficial in the proper environment. For instance, the sickle cell trait helps those in malaria infested regions of the world propagate better than those without it. However, it is devastating to populations outside of malaria prone areas. Natural Selection does take place, no doubt. However, its only ever been observed within a species, never trans-species. Those with or without the sickle cell trait are still humans. Genetic manipulation has been practiced since the beginning of time to breed beneficial characteristics in organisms. Of course, it almost always takes intelligence to breed a beneficial gene pool. Random genetic mutations happen all of the time; most are detrimental. Transmission of genetic material is not perfect. But it’s a great “leap of faith” to think that genetic mutation has brought life to its ultimate form in human beings. My question to you would be…when have you observered a new species created through random mutation without intelligent intervention?
thanks,
your friend in determining the difference between science and faith
To Krimp,
There are valid scientific responses to the 'irreducable complexity' argument. You are unlikely to find them by posting on blogs, as most of us alas, have not spent years of our lives learning about biology. Luckily for us, some people have and as part of the scientific method they publish their results for peer review, and so we can find out about them.
If you genuinely want to know why 'irreducable complexity' is not regarded as a problem for evolution for Scientists then I suggest you do some reading. Here are a few websites to get you started in the right direction, but here has been alot of work on evolution so you could literally spend a lifetime reading all the all the evidence and studies that support it. If you seriously want to study this you would have to start looking at books and scientific journals, not just websites.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/evolution_of_ic_1.html
Rest assured, scientists have looked into these issues. I suggest rather than putting the rest of your questions here, you take the time to research them and discover the answers are already out there.