Evolution questions from my creationist friend

[darren]

My creationist friend has been asking some questions about evolution, that I don't know the answer to. Can you please answer these questions:


1. Has there been a demonstration of random mutation and natural selection generating complex new biological systems?


2. Is Darwinian Evolution Falsifiable?



Context: http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2 ... lsifiable/


Thanks for your help!

[Azathoth]

1. Darwin's finches is the first thing that pops into my mind with this one
2. Easily, all it takes is a few serious anomalies in the fossil records. Birds in a cambrian stratum or suchlike and it is blown out of the water. Not going to happen though

[Tero]

Well, the person needs an entire lecture. If they are convinced evolution is not real, they fail to grasp basic principles.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Just pass them Dawkins' Greatest Show On Earth. However much of a dick the guy is in person, that is still a great documentation of the evidence for natural selection in layman's terms - NB: note I said "natural selection" and not "evolution". The first is the proposed mechanism, the latter the process. Most creationists have no idea that the two are not synonymous.

And, if your friend is up to a little more study, get them to read Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald R Prothero.

[Elegant Mule]

1. How complex is complex? Don't bother trying to answer that, there never will be a good enough answer. Anything you name will be classified as micro-evolution, or as an appeal to the fossil record, which won't count as a demonstration.

2. And so what if it isn't? Karl Popper is not the last word on philosophy of science. The pat answer is 'a rabbit in the Cambrian', but I'm not sure I buy that--I would write off the rabbit as a hoax, or a mistake, or some odd geological fluke, far sooner then I would rule out evolution. Thomas Kuhn rejected Popper's falsification principal and argued instead that science advances from one paradigm to the next, only rejecting old paradigms when new ones better solve existing problems. So, without anything to replace the theory of evolution it won't simply be falsified by one (or an few) conflicting data points. But this is far from a strike against evolution, it's actually more a credit to it; evolution does such a good job of explaining so many different facets of life on earth that the idea one flaw could significantly undo the system is absurd.

[Animavore]

Actually a better book than Dawkins' one for a beginner (I think Dawkins' one is unnecessarily confusing for a beginner, especially with Dawkins trying to coin a new phrase for theory or whatever it was) is Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne.

[Seth]

My creationist friend has been asking some questions about evolution, that I don't know the answer to. Can you please answer these questions:


1. Has there been a demonstration of random mutation and natural selection generating complex new biological systems?


2. Is Darwinian Evolution Falsifiable?

I've wondered about the central argument used by the Plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller decision. The "irreducible complexity" argument regarding the rotating bacterial flagellum was allegedly refuted by the "bacterial lancet" argument, which was held up as a more primitive, but nonetheless basically irrefutable proof that the flagellum evolved from the lancet. The reasoning, as the judge put it, is that because several common protein building blocks are found in both mechanisms, and therefore one must conclude that because one mechanism COULD evolve into another, that it MUST have done so, and that this refutes irreducible complexity.

But the analogy I use is that the engine of a 911 Porche uses many of the same common building blocks as a 1945 Allis Chalmers tractor. They both use bearings and bolts and nuts and suchlike structures, but they use them for entirely different purposes, and it cannot be said that the Porche is the evolutionary descendant of the Allis-Chalmers. Both, however, are intelligently designed mechanisms.

By the same token, a bacterial lancet, while it may use protein structures identical to those found in the flagellum, uses them in an entirely different manner for an entirely different purpose. And because we have never seen evolution turn a lancet into a flagellum, science cannot say that one became the other. It can only say that one is similar to the other, in the same way that the Porche has similarities to the Allis-Chalmers.

But let's assume for a moment that some scientist somewhere manages to take all of the proteins that are used in both the lancet and the flagellum, and can assemble them into either a lancet or a flagellum at will. What will this prove? It will prove only that both organic structures can be intelligently designed and constructed.

In order to demonstrate evolution as related to the bacterial lancet/flagellum you would first have to prove that the flagellum CAN evolve from the lancet through some process NOT related to intelligent design, which has not been shown. All that has been shown is that the two mechanisms use many of the same proteins.

Scientists will argue that it's a rational inference to say that one became the other, but that's hardly rigorous science. Nowhere, for example, do we see a transitional form between the lancet and the flagellum anywhere in nature (or DO we?), while at the same time we DO see both the lancet and the flagellum existing in nature at the same time.

The irreducible complexity argument does not fail because no one has yet demonstrated how a lancet becomes a flagellum through single, incremental changes in protein structures, EACH of which has to have a biological function that enhances the survival of the organism, and CANNOT be an evolutionarily-negative change that compromises the survival of the organism in which the mutation occurs. If you remove ONE protein from the flagellum, it ceases to function as a flagellum, but it does NOT simultaneously begin functioning as a lancet.

So, I ask what are the "natural" intermediate forms between the lancet and the flagellum, what is their purpose, and how did each intermediate form enhance the survival of the organism, causing it to survive better and propagate the change?

[Seth]

1. Darwin's finches is the first thing that pops into my mind with this one

Darwin's finches are not gross biological changes of a finch into an octopus. They are minor adaptational changes (microevolution) in the beak size and configuration of finches that remain finches notwithstanding specialized adaptations based on feeding habits and food.

]2. Easily, all it takes is a few serious anomalies in the fossil records. Birds in a cambrian stratum or suchlike and it is blown out of the water. Not going to happen though

Pretty certain, aren't you, based on a fossil record that is anything but complete?

But the thing is that the fact that no such anomalies have been found does NOT falsify the notion of intelligent design.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

1. Darwin's finches is the first thing that pops into my mind with this one

Darwin's finches are not gross biological changes of a finch into an octopus. They are minor adaptational changes (microevolution) in the beak size and configuration of finches that remain finches notwithstanding specialized adaptations based on feeding habits and food.

]2. Easily, all it takes is a few serious anomalies in the fossil records. Birds in a cambrian stratum or suchlike and it is blown out of the water. Not going to happen though

Pretty certain, aren't you, based on a fossil record that is anything but complete?

But the thing is that the fact that no such anomalies have been found does NOT falsify the notion of intelligent design.

Huge strawman there, Seth. Of course the lack of a counter-example to evolution by natural selection does not disprove a competing theory - why the fuck should it? Note that ID is also a theory of evolution - it is Natural Selection that the IDers dispute, not evolution per se. They merely insist that the great sky-wizard did all of the fiddly bits.

A rabbit in the pre-cambrian strata would disprove both theories!

And as for finches evolving into octopuses...

A fossil record would be incomplete even if all but one of the individual animals of every species that have ever lived on the Earth were preserved in it. Fact is, it's complete enough and, more to the point, consistent enough to agree with parallel theories of inheritance based upon DNA analysis. In short, every shred of evidence so far uncovered backs up the current scientific theories of evolution (NB. not the Darwinian thinking - we have had 150 years to refine his initial ideas.)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Send your friend an email asking if he would like to disprove Babbage's work?

[Seth]

1. Darwin's finches is the first thing that pops into my mind with this one

Darwin's finches are not gross biological changes of a finch into an octopus. They are minor adaptational changes (microevolution) in the beak size and configuration of finches that remain finches notwithstanding specialized adaptations based on feeding habits and food.

]2. Easily, all it takes is a few serious anomalies in the fossil records. Birds in a cambrian stratum or suchlike and it is blown out of the water. Not going to happen though

Pretty certain, aren't you, based on a fossil record that is anything but complete?

But the thing is that the fact that no such anomalies have been found does NOT falsify the notion of intelligent design.

Huge strawman there, Seth. Of course the lack of a counter-example to evolution by natural selection does not disprove a competing theory - why the fuck should it?

That's exactly what I said.

Note that ID is also a theory of evolution - it is Natural Selection that the IDers dispute, not evolution per se.

Somebody tell the federal courts this, please.

They merely insist that the great sky-wizard did all of the fiddly bits.

Didn't even have to do all, or even a great number of the fiddly bits. All He/She/It had to do was stop by on occasion and fiddle with SOME of the bits, and perhaps chuck an asteroid at the Yucatan if the experiment wasn't working out.

A rabbit in the pre-cambrian strata would disprove both theories!

Not really.

And as for finches evolving into octopuses...

A fossil record would be incomplete even if all but one of the individual animals of every species that have ever lived on the Earth were preserved in it. Fact is, it's complete enough and, more to the point, consistent enough to agree with parallel theories of inheritance based upon DNA analysis. In short, every shred of evidence so far uncovered backs up the current scientific theories of evolution (NB. not the Darwinian thinking - we have had 150 years to refine his initial ideas.)

None of which disproves the notion that some intelligence meddled in "natural" evolution from time to time.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

None of which disproves the notion that some intelligence meddled in "natural" evolution from time to time.

Nothing could disprove such a theory. Just like nothing could disprove the theory that we have only existed for 17 seconds and that all of our memories were planted fresh into our heads at that time. Just like nothing can disprove the theory that there is a planet in orbit about a distant star that is made entirely of cheese. Just like nothing can disprove the theory that you are simply a figment of my solipsist imagination.

Just because a theory is flawed beyond belief, doesn't mean it can be disproved! Not if ones suspension of disbelief is strong enough, that is.

[Seth]

None of which disproves the notion that some intelligence meddled in "natural" evolution from time to time.

Nothing could disprove such a theory. Just like nothing could disprove the theory that we have only existed for 17 seconds and that all of our memories were planted fresh into our heads at that time. Just like nothing can disprove the theory that there is a planet in orbit about a distant star that is made entirely of cheese. Just like nothing can disprove the theory that you are simply a figment of my solipsist imagination.

Just because a theory is flawed beyond belief, doesn't mean it can be disproved! Not if ones suspension of disbelief is strong enough, that is.

Seems to militate for an open mind, doesn't it?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

None of which disproves the notion that some intelligence meddled in "natural" evolution from time to time.

Nothing could disprove such a theory. Just like nothing could disprove the theory that we have only existed for 17 seconds and that all of our memories were planted fresh into our heads at that time. Just like nothing can disprove the theory that there is a planet in orbit about a distant star that is made entirely of cheese. Just like nothing can disprove the theory that you are simply a figment of my solipsist imagination.

Just because a theory is flawed beyond belief, doesn't mean it can be disproved! Not if ones suspension of disbelief is strong enough, that is.

Seems to militate for an open mind, doesn't it?

No. Not really. Not in the sense that your statement seemingly implies in any case. If one is to seek to understand the universe in any meaningful way, a selectively open mind is called for - one in which Occam's famous razor prunes the complete bollocks from ones consideration unless those extraordinary proposals happen to provide the extraordinary evidence which they require.

Crop circles could be made by extraterrestrials - and I still accept that as a remote possibility, despite my having met someone that makes them! But I am not going to waste my time considering that as a realistic theory without some serious corroboration - likewise with ID. Natural Selection describes, predicts and satisfies EVERY example in the fossil record - why go looking for help from some provincial, Hebrew deity?

[Elegant Mule]

Seems to militate for an open mind, doesn't it?

I believe the quote goes: "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out."