In the Light of Evolution I: Adaptation and Complex Design

| 38 Comments

In the Light of Evolution I: Adaptation and Complex Design PNAS May 15, 2007; 104 (Suppl. 1)

With many contributions about information, complexity and evolutionary theory from some of the world foremost experts.

Introduction John C. Avise and Francisco J. Ayala From the Academy: Colloquium Perspective: In the light of evolution I: Adaptation and complex design

Darwin’s elucidation of natural selection as a creative evolutionary force was one of the monumental intellectual achievements in the history of science, not only revolutionizing thought across the biological sciences but also fundamentally impacting much discourse in the social sciences, philosophy, and religion. No longer were explanations for the origin and marvelous adaptations of organisms necessarily to be sought solely in the context of supernatural causation. Instead, biological outcomes could now be interpreted within the critical scientific framework of natural processes governed by natural processes and laws.

and the concluding remarks

Overall, the collection of ideas and data in this Colloquium is highly eclectic but nonetheless broadly illustrative of modern scientific attempts to understand the evolution of complex adaptations. These scientific endeavors are coming at a time of resurgent societal interest in supernatural explanations for biological complexity. Especially in the United States, proponents of intelligent design (ID)—the latest reincarnation of religious creationism—argue that biotic complexity can only be the product of a supreme intelligence (i.e., God). In the closing article of this Colloquium, Eugenie Scott and Nicholas Matzke (23) examine the history of the ID movement, and they conclude that although without scientific merit, the crusade itself is of consequence to broader society because it represents a serious assault on the integrity of science education.

Perhaps there is a middle ground for scientific and theological interpretations of complex biological design. In his 1973 commentary titled “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” (24), Theodosius Dobzhansky famously proclaimed “I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s method of creation.” Regardless of what our personal philosophical persuasion may be, let us rejoice in biotic complexity and in the scientific efforts to understand its geneses.

  • Francisco J. Ayala Colloquium Papers: Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer
  • Robert M. Hazen, Patrick L. Griffin, James M. Carothers, and Jack W. Szostak Colloquium Papers: Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity
  • John Gerhart and Marc Kirschner Colloquium Papers: The theory of facilitated variation
  • Adam S. Wilkins Colloquium Papers: Between “design” and “bricolage”: Genetic networks, levels of selection, and adaptive evolution
  • Michael Lynch Colloquium Papers: The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
  • Benjamin Prud’homme, Nicolas Gompel, and Sean B. Carroll Colloquium Papers: Emerging principles of regulatory evolution
  • Richard E. Michod Colloquium Papers: Evolution of individuality during the transition from unicellular to multicellular life
  • Joan E. Strassmann and David C. Queller Colloquium Papers: Insect societies as divided organisms: The complexities of purpose and cross-purpose
  • Nancy A. Moran Colloquium Papers: Symbiosis as an adaptive process and source of phenotypic complexity
  • Francesca D. Frentiu, Gary D. Bernard, Cristina I. Cuevas, Marilou P. Sison-Mangus, Kathleen L. Prudic, and Adriana D. Briscoe Colloquium Papers: Adaptive evolution of color vision as seen through the eyes of butterflies
  • Jeffrey Ross-Ibarra, Peter L. Morrell, and Brandon S. Gaut Colloquium Papers: Plant domestication, a unique opportunity to identify the genetic basis of adaptation
  • Albert F. Bennett and Richard E. Lenski Colloquium Papers: An experimental test of evolutionary trade-offs during temperature adaptation
  • Cynthia M. Beall Colloquium Papers: Two routes to functional adaptation: Tibetan and Andean high-altitude natives
  • Douglas J. Emlen, Laura Corley Lavine, and Ben Ewen-Campen Colloquium Papers: On the origin and evolutionary diversification of beetle horns
  • Eugenie C. Scott and Nicholas J. Matzke Colloquium Papers: Biological design in science classrooms

38 Comments

Thanks for the link, The introduction to In the Light of Evolution I was a brilliant read, and I’m anticipating a few happy weeks ploughing my way through the rest of the papers.

But… (there always is one)

Gerhart and Kirschner need a slapping for The Theory of Facilitated Variation. Haven’t we suffered enough from creationist distortions of the terms ‘junk DNA’ (no, it doesn’t mean useless) and ‘big bang’ (no, it wasn’t an explosion)?

Though it is clear from the abstract that by ‘facilitated variation’ they mean a process whereby the path to phenotypic variation is simplified, I am already groaning at a thousand arguments that facilitation implies a facilitator, and that facilitator must be God!

Francisco J. Ayala Colloquium Papers: Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer

And Darwinists still wonder why many Darwin-skeptics see evolution as atheism posing as science.

Design without a Designer = “Science”

Design with a Designer = Religion

Darwin’s elucidation of natural selection as a creative evolutionary force was one of the monumental intellectual achievements in the history of science

Too bad it isn’t true. (Amazing how there are still Darwinists who ascribe creative powers to natural selection. Might as well ascribe creative powers to the wind, while you are at it)

Too bad it isn’t true

Too bad you never make an argument, but rather assert things as though you’ve already demonstrated them to be true.

Mats,

I agree that the terminology used can be a little misleading, especially considering the common usages of some of the terms. However, the concepts are still scientifically valid.

For instance, lack of a designer does not necessarily mean atheism. For example, if I say that I can make a tire without rubber, that does not imply that rubber does not exist, and only those with an economic interest in rubber would be likely to use that argument. A Dobzhansky pointed out, God could have used whatever means she wanted to create life, even “impersonal unguided” evolution. Also, a designer does not necessariily imply religion, since the designer could be an alien who no one would care to worship.

In much the same way, natural selection is not actually creative in the common sense. However, combined with random mutations, it is capable of producing some remarkably complex and even innovative solutions to the problems faced by life. And yes, in a sense wind can also be “creative”. Take a look at some of the features that wind and rain have produced in the American southwest some time. One would almost think that the wind created these features to awe and inspire humans. Of course, that is hardly the case, since the wind is also an “impersonal unguided” force.

If you want to discuss the scientific content of the papers I’m sure you will get an interesting discussion. However, if you simply insist on attacking what you perceive to be the underlying philosophical premise of the papers you will most likely get nowhere.

And Darwinists still wonder why many Darwin-skeptics see evolution as atheism posing as science.

Tell that to the MILLIONS of believers, Christian and otherwise, who accept evolution, reject creationism, and remain strong in their beliefs. At least they’re secure enough not to lie and ignore the obvious like you do. We’re big boys and girls – we can face reality.

Amazing how there are still Darwinists who ascribe creative powers to natural selection…

What’s really amazing, in a sad make-fun-of-homeless-drunks sort of way, is how many people claim to believe in a supreme “creative” being, and have absolutely no creativity themselves, and no ability to recognize it when it bites them in the ass.

…Might as well ascribe creative powers to the wind, while you are at it.

Ever notice the really interesting regular patterns that get created when the wind causes water to freeze? Or does your church not have windows?

I don’t think Mats really understands what he just admitted, that the wind, is an “impersonal” force. A river created the Grand Canyon, a flood created some of the features of the Montana Badlands. Is water more or less “impersonal” than the wind?

Hey Mats - do you really think that these “forces” have no creative power? If so - it’s the fist independent thought I’ve seen you express. As that opinion directly contradicts the YEC opinion that “THE Flood” created many geological features

Doesn’t the wind create sand dunes?

A display of kowtowing to current religious fantasies could perhaps be interesting for some. But IMO the general interest lies in the historical perspective Ayala brings:

Avise, Ayala Wrote:

Francisco Ayala develops the thesis that the Darwinian revolution in effect completed the Copernican revolution by extending from physics to biology a notion that the universe operates by natural laws that fall within the purview of rational scientific inquiry.

I look forward to sit down and read about “a wide variety of current scientific perspectives and methodological approaches directed toward understanding the origin and maintenance of complex biological adaptations”.

David Stanton Wrote:

natural selection is not actually creative in the common sense

Not exactly in the sense of “imaginative” but decidedly in the “productive” sense of dictionaries as you note.

But there are connected analogies of the genome as learning and forgetting by “trial and error” and of the evolutionary process making choices as an “intelligent system” must do. (With the same limited sense of intelligence that IDCers ideas actually describe. [And which they themselves never display. :-P])

We have had both these analogies, and how they reject the religious teleological paradigm, under discussion on The Panda’s Thumb.

Torbjorn– I’m sure David Stanton can speak for himself, but I think he’s getting at fact that natural selection works, not by adding anything, but by reducing or eliminating the reproduction of creatures which are less fit in a particular environment, much as the wind creates incredible rock formations by carving away parts of the rock. Of course, if you define creative only in terms of adding something, you would have to argue that Mickey Mouse is creative art, and Michelangelo’s David isn’t– because Mickey Mouse has to be drawn, but Michelangelo created his David just by removing some rock that was already there.

Torbjorn,

Agreed. Not in the sense of imaginaning something that you could create to express yourself or communicate to others your particular view of reality. Not is the sense f creating art. Not in th sense of planning a project with a desired goal and building something to achieve that goal specifically. Not in that sense “creative”. ONly in the sense of eventually producing something new that survievs.

Hoary,

Agreed. But, with your example, are you trying to say that my head is made of rock?

Too bad it isn’t true. (Amazing how there are still Darwinists who ascribe creative powers to natural selection. Might as well ascribe creative powers to the wind, while you are at it)

still ignoring the evidence I notice? Reading is one thing, comprehending is yet another. That you are easily confused by language is why ID may appeal to you since it relies on equivocation and conflation to make its arguments.

For example: a. What do you think is meant by “design” according to ID? b. What do you think is meant by “complexity” according to ID?

You will be surprised to find out the truth. You need not dig deep, and yet most ID proponents are not even familiar with these simple questions and their answers.

Darwinist Ben says:

Too bad it isn’t true

Too bad you never make an argument, but rather assert things as though you’ve already demonstrated them to be true.

I did make an argument. Since the beginning I have been saying the same thing. There is no testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence that impersonal (mindless), undirected, unguided forces of nature are able to generate the interdependent systems present in the biosphere. Yet, despite the total absence of evidence, this is the corner stone of evolutionary philosophy.

There is no testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence that impersonal (mindless), undirected, unguided forces of nature are able to generate the interdependent systems present in the biosphere.

Of course there is evidence. We have pointed out to talkorigins.org many times. Do you go? Did you read and understand anything? Probably not. We and the biosphere are here for one thing. The fossil record is extensive. Much of the earth is covered with fossil bearing rocks, in places miles deep.

We know the biosphere is 3.6 billion years old, single celled organisms only, existed for the first few billion years, and multicellular life evolved and changed drastically through time.

There is no evidence for your position whatsoever. None. And, BTW, your entire argument is an old logical fallacy. The Argument from Ignorance. “I can’t imagine how my foot evolved so god exists.” No, your knowledge of science and imagination are just virtually nonexistent.

You believe because you don’t know, can’t find out, and don’t care about the truth. It is a free country but that isn’t science. It is the opposite.

I do, of course, consider that Mats may be a deep troll. Regardless, he’s a steady conduit to bad “arguments” and ridiculous beliefs about science, and above all, the much-hated evolution about which he knows (or pretends to know) nothing. So okay, troll speaks, I reward with food (more in the hope of steering the onlookers right than to give troll-y here any credit).

I did make an argument. Since the beginning I have been saying the same thing.

Too true, you are incapable of learning.

There is no testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence that impersonal (mindless), undirected, unguided forces of nature are able to generate the interdependent systems present in the biosphere.

There’s actually some truth to that, considering that no highly complex “natural phenomenon” can really be verified to come from the known forces acting within it. Course, it’s the same to say that hurricanes have “no testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence that impersonal (mindless), undirected, unguided forces of nature are able to generate” them, because they’re too complex to follow all of the causal factors.

Big deal. We study what we can, idiot Mats, we don’t start studying Caribbean weather gods just because we can’t fully account for hurricanes using science. Likewise, it could always turn out that our evolutionary mechanisms, and any that we can discover in the next 1000 years, are inadequate to explain evolution. This would have no bearing on what we study, for we would continue to study causes and effects insofar as this is possible, while we’d continue to bright enough not pretend that unknowable Caribbean gods, Baal, or Yahweh were within our range of study.

Mats is profound, you know. He has discovered that science is not omniscient and that it studies what it knows only because that is what it knows. This doesn’t mean that evolution isn’t religion, of course, it just means that it isn’t an adequate religion, since ID manages to study what it cannot demonstrate or know adequately, just like a real religion (which is the same as science to Mats) does.

Much better to opt for unevidenced omniscience and omnipotence, for these can do anything, while science can only study what it can demonstrate.

Yet, despite the total absence of evidence,

Small retarded boy, science doesn’t claim to be studying something that makes absolute claims beyond all knowing. It claims to be studying what can be demonstrated to work, and searching (using the methods that work) for the answers to the rest. It doesn’t make the entirely stupid and unwarranted claims that a Mats does, for it is intelligent and conservative. What you want is unrestricted magic, and you hate science for not being that.

this is the corner stone of evolutionary philosophy.

There is not, of course, an “evolutionary philosophy,” though retards wouldn’t know that. There is, however, a philosophy of science that is used in evolutionary science, and it tells us that we should follow the evidence. The evidence (from genes, fossils, and morphology) is that non-teleological are responsible for the evolution of life, hence we have sought non-teleological causes for these. As it happens, the causes found in the laboratory have been found to have effects which not only explain the changes that we observe in the environment, but also appear to scale up to the larger sorts of changes. One reason that they appear to scale up is that there is no observable and verifiable break between macroevolution and microevolution, even though the liars of ID assert that there is one without paying any attention to the lack of evidence for it.

So yes, presumably it is true that all highly complex phenomena cannot be pinned down as having been produced without the aid and assistance of gods, aliens, or whatever flim-flam Mats and his fellow dolts prefer to believe in. Isn’t it odd how they opt for ideologies with absolutely no observed causal force in the matter of evolution, while being wretched materialist believers (& I do mean “believers”, since they only have faith in science, not knowledge and an adequate philosophy of science) when it comes to the weather?

The trouble with these trolls, though, is that they aren’t even smart enough to know what consistent thought is. For the fact is that they are the ones who must have faith in materialism in some areas while not in others, while we need no faith, since we simply utilize whatever methods work and apply them without prior bias. Surely it is in fact an extreme prejudice to assume as they do that science is adequate to deal with hurricanes, while they’re incapable of seeing that we don’t actually say for certain that science is fully adequate to deal with either hurricanes or with evolution (in truth, we have overall empirical reasons to suspect that it is, but that’s a far cry from the IDiots’ certainties both about science and the invisible “realm”). We just work with the evidence in the only sound manner possible, while they drivel and drool on and on about their own false faith in science and in nonsense.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

David Stanton– Lol. I was thinking of a different David. But a magnificent one, so it’s not too insulting a comparison.

If I claim I baked a cake without any intervention from God, I am not making an atheist claim. Similarly, if I claim that some creative processes can occur without intervention from God - design without a designer - I am still not making an atheist claim.

The real complaint seems to be “science keeps removing the stage props we use to force religion upon people, and that means they are interfering with our business”. The confusion for people like Mats is that interfering with the business of religion can occur with evil atheist intent, or as a side effect of a completely virtuous process, for example when a religion has the misfortune to insist on claims that conflict with scientific reality. Science doesn’t have an atheist agenda - it doesn’t care

Mats wrote:

“There is no testable, verifiable, falsifiable evidence that impersonal (mindless), undirected, unguided forces of nature are able to generate the interdependent systems present in the biosphere. Yet, despite the total absence of evidence, this is the corner stone of evolutionary philosophy.”

OK Mats, I have asked before, I’ll ask again. What verifiable evidence do you have for a personal, directed, guided force that is capable of generating the biosphere? In what sense is it personal? In what sense is it directed and to what goal? In what sense is it guided and to what end?

Put up or shut up. You keep repeating that people believe things without evidence. You keep claiming that there is no evidence for evolution. You keep ignoring all the scientific evidence and you never present any evidence for your claims. You are simply a hypocrite.

And once again, evidence is not testable or falsifiable. Either learn from the responses that are made to you or go away.

At the risk of being compared to Dr. Pepper (which shows how long I’ve been around):

Mats: Did God leave scientifically verifiable fingerprints on creation? If you answer “yes,” then we have evidence for God and faith has no role left to play. The history of religion and mankind’s relationship with the almighty can be divided into “before” and “after” revealed truth was verified and faith was made superfluous. If you answer, “no,” then you acknowledge that Creation Science and ID and so on are useless endeavors.

“Perhaps there is a middle ground for scientific and theological interpretations of complex biological design. … Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s method of creation.” Regardless of what our personal philosophical persuasion may be, let us rejoice in biotic complexity and in the scientific efforts to understand its geneses.”

Yes, that’s exactly what I have been trying to say.

“Perhaps there is a middle ground for scientific and theological interpretations of complex biological design. … Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s method of creation.” Regardless of what our personal philosophical persuasion may be, let us rejoice in biotic complexity and in the scientific efforts to understand its geneses.”

Yes, that’s exactly what I have been trying to say.

Oh there was a delay, so I submitted twice.

“a designer does not necessariily imply religion, since the designer could be an alien who no one would care to worship.”

I completely agree with you on that David Stanton. There is absolutely nothing in ID that supports Christianity, or any religion. And nothing in ID says there is a designer who is kindly or gives a hoot about us.

ID merely says that something that resembles what we usually call intelligence is driving this proliferation of complex machinery.

“the Darwinian revolution in effect completed the Copernican revolution by extending from physics to biology a notion that the universe operates by natural laws that fall within the purview of rational scientific inquiry. “

Have you noticed that physics never quite got it all figured out?

Realpc Wrote:

ID merely says that something that resembles what we usually call intelligence is driving this proliferation of complex machinery.

Only by defining intelligence to be something supernatural

“The fossil record is extensive. Much of the earth is covered with fossil bearing rocks, in places miles deep.

We know the biosphere is 3.6 billion years old, single celled organisms only, existed for the first few billion years, and multicellular life evolved and changed drastically through time.”

That is evidence for evolution, not for Darwinism or evolution by RM + NS. We have been over this dozens of times.

That is evidence for evolution, not for Darwinism or evolution by RM + NS. We have been over this dozens of times.

The evidence is found in commonality between genetic phylogenies and other phylogenies. Evidence for variation and selection are plentiful and if ID wants to argue its case it needs to reject evolution not merely darwinism.

Hope you understand.

The evidence for evolution via the mechanisms of RMNS has been well established. Somehow, some believe that a ‘designer’ was involved, of course there is no evidence for such a notion beyond a theological requirement.

“science is not omniscient”

That is so true. But “science promoters” like Dawkins are saying that science has it figured out. And he isn’t the only one. Science is not a religion and scientists are not gods. You all know that Darwin did not solve the mysteries of life, unless you believe Dawkins.

But “science promoters” like Dawkins are saying that science has it figured out.

Citation please! And what is ‘it’?

realpc,

You are correct. We have been over this dozens of times and it always ends the same way. You accuse people of believing something without evidence, when they present evidence you ignore it but you never present any evidence to support your own views, why is that? Why do we have to go through dozens of posts in every thread trying to find out exactly what you are claiming and trying to determine exactly what evidence you are ignoring?

One more time. What exactly is your hypothesis? How does it explain the observations of nature better than MET? What predictions does it make? How are these predictions different from those made by MET? How can you test your hypothesis? What evidence do you have? What expertiment can you perform? What results can you reveal? Until you answer these questions in detail, I see no point in yet another round of: “you are all committed to RM/NS and blinded to the truth” - “are not” - “are so” …

realpc:

“science is not omniscient”

That is so true. But “science promoters” like Dawkins are saying that science has it figured out. And he isn’t the only one. Science is not a religion and scientists are not gods. You all know that Darwin did not solve the mysteries of life, unless you believe Dawkins.

Are you sure you are not making things up here? I have found it fascinating how few people who claim to have read Dawkins can actually accurately portray his position, and yes that included me.

Science has not figured it all out, of course not. What we can be sure of is that ID will not contribute to any non trivial new knowledge relevant to the concept of ID.

I find it distressing to say the least how people can be so convinced of what Dawkins did or did not say when in fact, in most cases it merely reflects their own beliefs and fears of what they believe he did say.

Of course, even if Dawkins would have said something like this, you seem to be quite aware that this is not a scientific position to hold.

So what are you trying to ‘argue here’? That the statement that science is not omniscient is a valid statement? That of course may trouble some who are used to believe in ‘truths’ no matter the evidence, especially if these ‘truths’ are at clear odds with facts of science. Sure, science may not have all the answers but it can surely tell that the claims by creationists in many instances are flawed. A young earth? Bzzzt… IC systems could not possibly evolve… Bzzttt which is why the argument is now ‘science cannot show to sufficient level of detail how IC systems evolved thus they are designed’.

One can ask RealPC for details but how does one present an argument founded in our ignorance in any manner that can be interpreted as positive evidence?

Remember, design is just a placeholder for that which we do not understand. It may be designed, or it may be explainable by natural processes of regularity and chance, however ID will never provide science with any explanations, testable pathways etc. Why is that? Because they have chosen their explanation to have no explanatory power because the supernatural can explain anything and thus explains nothing. An unconstrained designer is no explanation, and is not better than ‘we don’t know’ which at least is honest in its position rather than forces one’s designer to hide in the dark areas of our ignorance. In the mean time, these Christians seem to be unable to see the design in the world around them and rather look for in dark places which are becoming ever smaller. What a place to put one’s God. I prefer to see mine in the smile of my child, the sunset from the deck, and the birth of a child and the death of an elder. I am not sure why some appear to be so blind that they insist on looking for God in the darkness where our minds can play tricks on us and where IDists can play tricks with words. I just do not get it

Many people, when they can’t provide evidence for their theory, adopt the strategy of falsehood. Such is the case with many of those who have fallen victim to the propaganda of renowned evolutionists. If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ‘simple’ living cell. ‘Surely they have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ‘simple’ cell. And after all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemical collisions, without an instruction manual, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists estimation. Without any intelligence at all available to help them these ‘simple ‘ cells miraculously created themselves into a living entity. Surely then today’s evolutionists scientists should be able to make us a ‘simple’ cell. If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology. Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of the flood of evidence CONTRARY to evolution which is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES. Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and EUREKA, LIFE! Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others! Please don’t swallow the lies they tell about the ‘first life’ problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And, is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can’t do it, how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????

And if those heathen astrophysicists want to prove their theories of stellar evolution, all they have to do is create a functioning sun in the laboratory, from scratch, and follow it though its billions-plus-years life cycle to see if their theories are correct.

James you are an idiot.

Now this thread is starting to heat up. Alright.

First of all, learn the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Second, an artificual cell will not end all arguments. It does not prove anything with regards to evolution OR abiogenesis; it says nothing about if a cell could arise naturally. At most, it proves that a supernatural agent is NOT nessessary, as humans can do it. (And ID proponets will no doubt say that it is proof that intellegence is required.) You are at least aware of scientists working on creating an artifial cell, and that it is an inheriantly difficult project. However, the scientists working on the problem are constantly overturning minor hurdles and many are confient that artifcial life is possible in decades. Third, while there have been many eperiments documenting amino acids forming from simpler molecules in hypothetical early earth situations, we do not know the “original Mother Earth” recipe. Also, keep in mind that it took Mother Earth approx. 1 billion years to come up with life while scientists have only been working on it for a few decades. Cut them some slack, will you?

Google ‘James Collins’ and a few words from his piece and you will discover that this bizarre notion that creating life will prove that life was not created has been posted in many places. However, I can’t recall ever having seen any evidence that JC has read any of the criticisms of his junk.

James Collins,

If humans cannot produce a tornado in the lab, how could it happen by accident? If humans cannot procuce a hurricane, how could it happen by accident? If humans cannot produce the Himilayas, how could it happen by accident? If humans caanot produce a black hole, how can it happen by accident? If you cannot prduce a convincing argument, how can it happen by accident?

If humans do indeed succeed in producing artificial life, will you be convinced? Will you admit that it could have happened by “accident”? Will anyone care if you are convinced or not? Quite frankly, if you are willing to ignore all of the available evidence for evolution, I seriously doubt that one more bit of evidence will convince you. Fortunately, I don’t care.

James Collins said:

If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is … [the usual ignorant nonsense]

Is it that time of the month already?

If James Collins won’t believe in evolution until scientists build a living cell from scratch in the lab, why should I believe in the literal truth of Genesis if the creationists can’t produce a talking snake?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on September 26, 2007 11:22 PM.

Francisco Jose Ayala: Darwin’s Gift: To Science and Religion was the previous entry in this blog.

Tangled Bank #89 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