pruest@pop.dplanet.ch wrote:
> Jonathan Wells' "Icons of Evolution" has been criticized repeatedly and
> recommended a few times on this list. J.A. Coyne's rabid criticism,
> "Creationism by stealth", Nature 410 (12 April 2001), 745-746, has also
> been mentioned.
>
> In Reasons to Believe's Facts for Faith issue 5 (1/2001), pp. 60-61,
> Fazale R. Rana provides a very much more sympathetic discussion of
> "Icons".
There is no single set of observations &/or experiments which _prove_
biological evolution in general or a particular theory of biological
evolution. That's the case with any scientific theory & is especially so
with one like evolution in which a great deal of the relevant phenomena were
in the past. In addition, any number of theories can be developed to
explain a given observation. _Ceteris paribus_, the best theory is the one
which explains the widest range of observations with the fewest number of
_ad hoc_ &/or untestable hypotheses. A number of the following criticismss
are effective only to the extent that the experiments or observations are
supposed to be "proofs" of evolution rather than evidence which is
supportive of it. In particular ...
.....................................
> 1) The Miller-Urey experiment: those in origin-of-life research agree
> that Miller's reaction conditions were much too reducing to
> realistically simulate conditions on the primitive Earth, and the few
> resulting amino acids are a very far cry from what is needed for even
> the first steps of generating life.
Of course the results of the MU experiment are far from solving the
problem of chemical evolution. But the final clause is a considerable
overstatement. The experiment showed that, under what were then considered
to be plausible conditions, amino acids - which can certainly be called
"first steps" in chemical evolution - could be produced. & this inspired a
lot of other experiments which still haven't solved the problem but which
are not all subject to the same criticism as the original & relatively
primitive MU work.
> ..............................................
>
> 3) The homology of vertebrate limbs: the main problem with all
> similarities between functional features is that they may need to be
> similar in order to function: thus, they cannot be evidence for common
> descent. Genuine evidence for homology may require functionless features
> (cf. my "How has life and its diversity been produced", PSCF 44
> (2/1992), 80-94).
I.e., homology doesn't support evolution because limbs MAY (Sic!)
need to be similar in order to function? Unless it can be shown that the
limbs actually DO need to be similar to function, this argument is vacuous.
But even if that could be shown (which I think is unlikely), it doesn't
explain _how_ the limbs of diverse species came to be homologous. Waiting
to jump out here is perhaps the answer, "God made them that way." But while
I agree that "God made them", that isn't a scientific theory.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 29 2001 - 07:37:30 EDT