David Bradbury writes:
>As a frequent "lurker" I want to thank you ... and your many friends
>(Brassfield, Clark, Wein, Lundberg, MikeBGene, Jones, et al) for almost
>more intellectual stimulation than this old retired engineer can handle.
>
>Upon graduation from U.of Mich. in 1949 I was a convinced (and
>outspoken) "believer" that evolution was a proper and sufficient
>scientific explanation for the origin and diversity of life on planet
>earth.
>
>Some 20 years later I encountered a public challenge by Dr. John J.
>Grebe (then Dir. of Research, Dow Chem. Co.) to the evolutionary gurus
>of the day who were championing the elevation of evolution from
>hypothesis to theory in public school textbooks.
You sort of lose me right here. Surely you know that a scientific theory is
not a "wannabe" fact. There is a *Fact* of evolution--it's been observed to
occur--and there's the *theory* of evolution which seeks to explain the
fact of evolution.
>Namely, he offered
>$1,000 to "anyone" able to present any first example of scientific
>evidence, or mathematical model, of a quality sufficient to justify this
>upward reclassification. Finding this offer was still open, I set out
>to collect this "easy" money (worth upwards of $10,000 today). After
>only a few weeks of reference search, I began to sense that perhaps Dr.
>Grebe was perhaps not quite as reckless as I had initially presumed,
>but kept digging and corresponding. It was a number of years later
>that I finally had to reluctantly concede that all the "evidence"
>available consisted of unverifiable interpretations, extrapolations,
>extensions, assumptions, etc. I could find NO physical (or
>mathematical) evidence establishing that random mutations and natural
>selection could/would generate the appearance of new genetic
>information in a pre-existing gene pool as required to produce changes
>associated with macro-evolution.
Grebe is the founder of the Creation Research Society Those money
challenges are pretty safe bets on the part of those offering them because
usually either the definition of evolution is utterly wrong or the level of
proof required, if applied to the judicial system, would empty the prisons.
It would also collapse all of science if applied in other areas of science
than the one the religionists disapprove of. In other words those bets are
usually bogus.
This is from CRS website. It's an abstract of a paper he wrote for them in
1967:
-----
DNA Studies In Relation To Creation Concepts: The New
Biology, Based On Molecular Structure, Shows No Proof Of
Evolution
John J. Grebe, D.Sc.
Finding no evidence for evolution in the DNA code, a new search is on
for "the origin
and evolution of the genetic mechanism." DNA, after all, is basic to
all life. Evolutionists
had a rude awakening when the fundamental nature of the DNA code,
that defines
and directs the inheritance of each living organism, proved to be
equally large and
complex for all genetic kinds. Statistics now show that the
evolutionary theory has
been postulated against ridiculous odds. "God does not throw dice"
was the conclusion
of Einstein about all this, and now this is spelled out in detail.
Immutability of the
kinds of animals and plants is conceded by those specialists who
should know. Man's
hopes cannot refute God's word. Faith and revelation are also
required in the great
new discoveries of Nature's laws. The latest supposed "proof" of
evolution is
contradictory, internally.
-------
If the DNA code was such a huge "rude awakening" for evolutionists why was
it then and now so intensively studied? And since evolutionary theory
states clearly that everything living is related genetically to a common
ancestor, why would it matter that DNA would be "equally large and complex
for all "kinds"? Wouldn't we expect that?
>Worse yet, all the physical experiments (bell jars, etc.) and
>mathematical analysis (Wistar, etc.) appeared to confirm the loss of any
>new potentially beneficial DNA coding was so in excess of its chance
>formation, that its postulated accumulation was so unlikely as to be
>impossible. I still clung to the hope that given enough time, the
>necessary accumulation of useful code could/would somehow manifest
>itself.
This sounds like the "it's so improbable" arguments commonly used by
creationists. The much-maligned talk.origins has a FAQ about it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob.html
--------
Problems with the creationist "it's so
improbable" calculations
1) They calculate the probability of the formation
of a "modern" protein, or even a complete
bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random
events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
2) They assume that there is a fixed number of
proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein,
that are required for life.
3) They calculate the probability of sequential
trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
4) They misunderstand what is meant by a
probability calculation.
5) They seriously underestimate the number of
functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a
group of random sequences.
---------
Did you take any of the above into consideration when you made your
calculations?
>Even this straw had to be abandoned upon recognition that the
>longer the preponderance of 90+% decay of potentially useful DNA in a
>gene pool proceeded, the greater was the certainty it would overwhelm
>the less than 10% possibility of it accumulating as required. Time
>wasn't an answer. Indeed, it was in actuality a further serious hurdle.
It's been known for a while that evolution often takes place in a small
portion of a population that has become isolated for some reason. Gould
talks about that extensively. This keeps the beneficial mutation from being
swamped by the genes of the larger population.
>In all my lurking, I'm still looking for some (any) example of
>scientific evidence of sufficient merit to qualify biological evolution
>as a valid 'scientific' theory --- but to no avail. Perhaps having
>outlined my quandary as above, others in this Reflector might share
>whatever helpful wisdom they feel might help me clarify/solidify my
>thinking.
perhaps you can tell us what kind of evidence for evolution that you would
find compelling?
Susan
----------
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
this one.
--Albert Camus
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 12 2000 - 15:39:12 EDT