The Musings of an ID Supporter. What Do You Think?
Question by Yours fraternally: The musings of an ID supporter. What do you think?
Someone I know is continuing to argue to me that the theory of evolution is false. Worryingly, this guy may become a science teacher some day. These are some of his claims.
“Artificial selection is much more efficient than natural selection and that continues to demonstrate that there are natural barriers to genetic variation. We’ve bred faster racehorses but the improvements in speed are rapidly diminishing and their bones weakening (google search “Big Brown and Eight Bells”). There is a much more striking size variation between a Great Dane and a Chihuahua and both are very different to a Boxer. But if we try to push this sub-specific variation further, it results in sterile or unhealthy offspring. There is an abundance of experiments and observations – real science – that demonstrate this limit. They’ve even given it a name: Genetic Homeostasis. If there are limits to artificial selection, then there are even greater limits to natural selection”.
“Bacterial antibiotic resistance is conferred when normally functioning proteins are damaged. This results in less fit bacteria that might survive a specific antibiotic (because the antibiotic target is removed in the damaged bacteria) but will struggle to survive anywhere else. Remove the antibiotic and these handicapped bacteria die off while the original bacteria flourish again. Antibiotic resistance serves only as evidence against evolution, not for it”.
“Macroevolution has not been observed. It is sheer fantasy. No matter how striking variation within a pre-existing gene pool might appear (also known as “micro-evolution” which is a sensationalist term for sub-specific variation) it tells us nothing about how the Blue Whale evolved from a single-celled common ancestor, also known as “macro-evolution” (what Darwin meant by evolution). This has never been observed: in the lab, the field or the fossil record”.
I rather think that much of this language is nonsensical gibberish.
What do those more well versed than I in biology and evolution make of these contentions?
Best answer:
Answer by novangelis
The first is just the use of false analogies. Yes, you can get undesired traits when you push for a single trait, but that does not imply an absolute barrier A classic pattern in artificial selection is that a population is pushed to some limit, then an individual breaks through that limit because some novel trait (mutation) has appeared.
The second is patently false. The existence of proteins that degrade penicillin shoot it out of the water. The prevalence of community (as opposed to hospital–based) strains of MRSA shows that the resistant organisms can compete.
The Creationist definition of macroevolution is defined in vague terms (they won’t give a fixed definition because that could be disproved). Functionally, they use a definition of more than has been directly observed, so unseen is just a a circular argument — a tautology. Macroevolution, mutations resulting in the formation of clades, has been observed directly.
It is beyond nonsense. It is meticulously worded lies. Have no doubt: there was malice aforethought.
Give your answer to this question below!
P-SN SCENTSY HUGE Selection DISCONTINUED Large Tester Retired RARE HTF FREE SHIP
 | US $6.75 End Date: Saturday Jun-09-2012 22:12:04 PDT Buy It Now for only: US $6.75 Buy it now | Add to watch list |
The 5 Best Best Picture Oscar Line-Ups Of All Time
Filed under: Bells Selection
While other years in the seventies were tarnished with the selection of disaster movies like "Airport" and "The Towering Inferno," the Academy of the early 1970s went with Bob Fosse's impeccable musical about the rise of Nazism, John Boorman's gripping …
Read more on Indie Wire (blog)
FX Empire's Choice – Best Binary Options Brokers for Beginners
Filed under: Bells Selection
Many platforms continue to add bells and whistles, some that are duplicated from forex platforms that are not actually necessary when trading binary options, others that they have developed independently for professional traders that are too involved …
Read more on International Business Times
Daily Recap: Bell's Brewery ranked 9th best brewery in US; record sales at Perrigo
Filed under: Bells Selection
JURY SELECTION: More than 140 jurors are being questioned at the Kalamazoo County Circuit Court as the Besham Sugrim trial begins on Tuesday. HIGHER GAS PRICES: Gasbuddy analyst warns about gas prices increasing significantly at end of the month.
Read more on Kalamazoo Gazette – MLive.com
Tags: genetic variation, bells and whistles, no doubt, international business, artificial selection, business times
2 Responses to The Musings of an ID Supporter. What Do You Think?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Translator
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  | ||||||||||||
I suggest that you and he read the legal decision of the judge in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover (Pennsylvania) School Board. It concerns whether or not intelligent design is a scientific principle that can be part of a science class.
[1] one major limitation to the rate-of-evolution by artificial selection is the rate of background mutation. Without mutations introducing new traits, you are limited to the existing gene pool, and therfore artificial selection can only take you so far.
But natural selection is much slower than artificial selection, which allows the rate of mutation to “catch-up” with the rate of selection; this introduces enough new traits into a population that natural selection can continue to have things to select for (or against).
[2] I don’t understand his objection here.
He has basically said that evolution occurs – because the gene pool of the bacteria changes due to the selective pressure exerted by the antibiotic. And then evolution occurs again if the antibiotic is removed.
Also, while it is certainly true that *some*antibiotic-resistance traits are caused by a slightly defective protein (which might only be 80% as efficient as the original wild-type, but which is totally resistant to antibiotic inhibition), this is certainly not the case for all antibiotic-resistance traits: some bacteria have genes which express enzymes which degrade the antibiotics, for example.
[3] What mechanism does he propose to prevent many small-scale changes from eventually adding-up to large-scale ones (we’ve dealt with his “Genetic Homeostasis” claim already)?
Remember that *speciation* has been observed multiple times – both in the lab and in the field. And if two sub-populations become unable to interbreed, then they are naturally going to diverge evolutionarily (since they can no longer mix their gene pools): accumulated changes will then inevitably give-rise to two morphologically different species.
Finally, I have to say, none of this has anything to do with your acquaintance’s supposedly pro-ID stance.
Perhaps you should remind him that the ID community do not, in fact, deny that evolution (even macroevolution) occurs. They just deny that evolution can explain *all* traits which are present in living organisms (the bacterial flagellum, the bird wing, the immune system, the vertrbrate eye, etc.), and suggest that some external agency must have designed *those* traits.
He sounds just like your common-or-garden Creationist rather than ID.