3 myths and a canard

| 11 Comments

Every so often I get these what you can only call snarky emails from people who think they can score a point - whether with me or God or whoever - by being sarcastic. I got one today, and surprise, surprise, it was inadvertently right in almost all its criticisms. Just not of actual biological theory...

For your amusement, read on.

Joyce wrote:

hi,I'm just wondering if you can tell me which is biology and which is mythology.once upon a time back in la la land a giraffe got his long neck stretching for leaves.then along came the ostrich and it played tug of war with the crocodiles and its neck got stretched.then finally jethro from the Beverly hillbillies got long legs from eating heaping bowls of corn flakes.please tell me which is biology and which is not.this inquiring mind would love to know....... 

Your first claim is a misreporting of the ideas of the early evolutionist Lamarck. Charles Lyell, the geologist, wrote in 1832 that Lamarck had said in 1809 that a giraffe got his long neck by stretching it and passing on a slightly longer neck to its progeny. He told this tale in order to discredit Lamarck and his theory of evolution.

Lamarck, however, did not say that giraffes got a long neck through effort. In fact, he never, so far as I know, mentions giraffes. What Lamarck said, and it is false as far as we know biology today, is that need? (or rather "want", besoin) generated the slight variations that got passed on to progeny. "Want" was translated as "will" or "desire" and so the myth got started. So you are correct in two ways - it is a myth that this is how evolution occurs, and it is a myth that Lamarck ever said it.

The second claim comes from the delightful children's stories by Rudyard Kipling - the Just So Stories. Kipling is partly parodying the folk etiologies or myths of "uneducated" people such as the tribal Indians he encountered in British-controlled India, and partly telling little morality tales for the edification of Good British Citizens. It's not quite myth, but used in a similar way. So you are correct in a third way.

As for Jethro Clampett - always one of my favourite characters from The Beverly Hillbillies (which we did get here in Australia too) - it is, in fact, quite true that someone who eats well and nutritiously will grow taller and stronger than someone with the same genes who does not. Genes do not determine the final size of state of the adult body alone - they have what biologists call a "norm of reaction". You can see this in plants - we planted a hedge along our fenceline, and some, where the earthmoving equipment that levelled our block during construction, grow tall, while others, where an old driveway of packed clay and gravel still exists, grow short and even die. Same genes, different outcomes. Whether or not cornflakes, whether [TM] or not, qualify as nutritious is a matter for debate, not advertising. So you are only partly right on that point.

3.5 out of 4 is not a bad result. Well done.

I know that you may think you were being ironic or sarcastic or worse about the theory of evolution. But what you are responding to bears little or no resemblance to the actual theory of evolution, as we now understand it and know from experience, experiment and other evidence how it works. You might, as I am, be amazed and fascinated by that actual theory, or you may shrug your shoulders and say that it doesn't matter. What you can't do honestly is say that you understand it and still think it is wrong. To understand the science is to know that it is, in fact, factually true. Strawmen ideas like the ones above are so obviously false, that it pays to ask yourself whether scientists, who are uniformly intelligent (if not always smart) people would be so stupid as to think any of those myths could be true. They don't.

Best wishes

John

11 Comments

There’s an HTML error (broken closing tag) just before ‘besoin’.

Thanks. I fixed it.

Not to be too nitpicky, but Jethro’s last name was Bodine, not Clampett.

You have to forgive John. He’s an Australian, so he’s going to lack comprehension of the finer nuances of American high culture.

Hey, I remembered Jed’s surname. What more do you want?

In a parallel universe that crosses The Beverly Hillbillies and Star Trek, Dr. “Bones” McCoy renders his report on Ensign Jethro Bodine to Captain Jed Clampett:

“He’s dim, Jed.”

Have have a serious question about evolution. I accept micro evolution, but I have a problem with macro evolution. I apoligize if I am incorrect ,but do evolutionists have any rational explanations for the origin of life? I believe if evolution from chemicals to single celled organisms given 1 billion years and the best situation, and had all the carbon in the universe it would be one chance in a 10 with 60 zeroes behind it. And that’s just for creating a fully funtional protein molecule. I’m using information from a book called “The Case For Faith” by Lee Strobel. If I may quote Walter L. Bradley “If ther is no natural explanation… then I believe it’s appropriate to look at a supernatural explanation.”

If I may refer you to a site that may interest you. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1163.asp Maybe you could refer me to a site that strongly supports evolution. I’ll read yours if you read my suggestion.

Brian,

People often misuse the terms “macroevoltuion” and “microevolution.” Creationists are famous for misrepresenting their actual scientific meaning.

In biology “microevolution” refers to evolution within a species and “macroevolution” refers to evolution between species. That is it. The distinction is an artifact of the ways biologists have historically studied evolution, by focusing on one or the other. There is no mechanistic differene between the two. The same type of genetic changes and forces that are responsible for microevolution are also responsible for macroevoltuion. The only thing that is different is the scale.

Evolution does not deal with the origin of life. That is another common misconception and distortion. Evolution only requires that life exists as we know it. It does not depend on how it got here.

Strobel is not a biologist, or even a scientist so I’m not sure why you want to use him as a source on this issue.

If you shuffled a deck of 52 cards, and handed me them in order, the probability that that specific order would occur is around 1 in 8x10^67, that is less likely than the number you cited for a protein, yet clearly that deck of cards was not specifically ordered was it?

“Evolution only requires that life exists as we know it.”

Slightly sloppy - natural selection requires that life, in some form that we would recognize, exists. Evolution, the concept of changes codified over time, applies to the question of how life arose.

One problem we have is that so many people who know better use junk science to sell particular viewpoints. For example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/w[…]HPpVriuz68Xw

“ major question concerns the real size of the Persian Gulf reserves. The world’s proven reserves, in total, currently stand at 1.2 trillion barrels (almost double the level of the early 1970’s).”

The article, which talks about the Hubert Peak, is engaging in Junk Science here. The Hubert Peak hypothesis is based on the “Estimate of Ultimately Recoverable” oil, not “proven reserves”.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by John S. Wilkins published on April 1, 2004 7:02 PM.

Is the NCSE Using Religion to Promote Evolution? was the previous entry in this blog.

Uh-oh. Evolutionists discover two new gaps in the fossil record! is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter