An excellent, extended Washington Post article by Rick Weiss and David Brown begins by providing a cogent yet concise description of the basic notions of evolution. The real kick of this article, however, is its description of two specific empirical experiments conducted recently that provide specific confirmation of evolutionary theory:
If Darwin was right, for example, then scientists should be able to perform a neat trick. Using a mathematical formula that emerges from evolutionary theory, they should be able to predict the number of harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species’ DNA and the two animals’ population sizes. “That’s a very specific prediction,” said Eric Lander, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and a leader in the chimp project.
Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range that evolutionary theory had predicted.
Richard E. Lenski, a biologist at Michigan State University, has been following 12 cultures of the bacterium Escherichia coli since 1988, comprising more than 25,000 generations. All 12 cultures were genetically identical at the start. For years he gave each the same daily stress: six hours of food (glucose) and 18 hours of starvation. All 12 strains adapted to this by becoming faster consumers of glucose and developing bigger cell size than their 1988 “parents.” When Lenski and his colleagues examined each strain’s genes, they found that the strains had not acquired the same mutations. Instead, there was some variety in the happy accidents that had allowed each culture to survive. And when the 12 strains were then subjected to a different stress — a new food source — they did not fare equally well. In some, the changes from the first round of adaptation stood in the way of adaptation to the new conditions. The 12 strains had started to diverge, taking the first evolutionary steps that might eventually make them different species — just as Darwin and Wallace predicted.
In contrast, the article quotes “Discovery Institute” associate director John West as asserting that it’s not up to creationist [pardon me, old word] “Intelligent Design” adherents to prove their theory right. Rather, it’s up to evolutionary scientists to prove that creationism [whoopsie, that old word again, pardon] “Intelligent Design” is wrong, because:
“Chance and necessity don’t seem to be good candidates for explaining the appearance of higher-order complexity, so the best explanation is an intelligent cause.” — John West
You know, I’ve often thought something similar. Those people inside my TV seem to be about the size of my finger most of the time, but sometimes they get bigger, sometimes approaching the size of a medium stick of pepperoni. Genetics doesn’t seem to be a good candidate for explaining the change in appearance in these TV people organism thingies, so the best explanation is the existence of an invisible Martian cloaked by a force field hiding behind the TV set, equipped with a bicycle pump to inflate and deflate the TV people organism thingies. Don’t buy it? Well hey, I don’t need to show any proof! It’s up to you to prove me wrong!
Bottom line: There is a real evolution/creationism [whoops again, old word, pardon] “intelligent design” debate in the political world and the religious world, but not in the scientific, empirical, reality-based world. Evolution works in measurable, confirmable ways. The conservative religious fundamentalists and politicians who for some reason have decided to fight evolution just can’t handle this reality.
What an idoit you are. Something similar? Not likely. More like a moronic attempt if you ask me. Genetics doesn’t seem… well no shit Sherlock it’s a TV. No real debate about evolution in the scientific world… where have you been. Scientists who understand genetics debate among themselves whether or not evolution could be reality. But you don’t want to hear about those who have a Doctorate in Biology arguing against evolution do you. Yet just about every college campus has at least one that says it’s a bunch of bunk. So much for science being in agreement.
Miller. Calling someone who has a different point of view an idiot, does not suggest or prove that you are smarter. It is quite evident that you are apparently one of those semi literate rightist christians who believe that the bible is absolute truth (and change or modify it to suit the current part line). Name one Professor and/or one recognized University, that supports with any recognizable acedemic research your, point of view.
Miller,
You don’t seem to understand the scientific debate over evolution. Within the scientific community the only debate is about the mechanisms and speicifics of how evolution occurs. There is no debate about whether evolution has occurred! I would challege you to name one PhD biologist who has published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and has stated that he/she believes that evolution is not a valid scientific theory. By the way, Creationist literature does not count as “peer-reviewed scientific literature”.
Clearly it’s in our interest to have Intelligent Design taught in the schools.
Of course, when I say “our,” I’m referring to us economic and political elites, the ones who count.
Now personally I can’t stand all the primitive superstitious mumbo-jumbo of fundamentalist Christianity. But I recognize its value as a social institution that turns out people with diminished reasoning skills who are ready to accept complete authority uncritically.
It’s people like that who will stand up for my tax cuts even against their own economic self interest. We need them.
Now, fundamentalist Christian churches do a great job creating people like this, so why limit them to one day a week? Wouldn’t it be better to force-feed junk science to public school children every day?
Shouldn’t we be teaching children the best science we possibly can? Honestly, that’s a naive view of the mission of the public schools. The function of the public schools is not to create knowledgeable, empowered citizens who would immediately come take away my tax cuts and corporate welfare. No, we’re after something a little more feeble-minded and docile.
We need a permanent underclass of simple-minded, subservient people in America. That is why we need fundamentalist Christianity, and Intelligent Design.