Re: Is evolution really the central theory for all of biology?

From: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun Sep 18 2005 - 12:53:51 EDT

cornelius wrote: We're to believe that evolution (somehow) evolved the
Mendelian machine which, in turn, made evolution possible.

Are you familiar with with the work on the evolution of the genetic code
which outlines what forces may have shaped the genetic code?

You are confusing two concepts: ""DNA code itself which is hard to
evolve." and the genetic code could not have evolved. I hope that you
realize that the two are not really the same argument.

Cornelius wrote: That is, the mutations and mechanisms that drive
adaptation in a population are not mere blind, random events that just
happen to hit on the right improvement every once in awhile, but rather
adaptational pathways are actually preplanned. Again, hardly a
confirmation of evolution.

On the contrary, that evolution can select for variations to occur which
are more likely to be beneficial is a beautiful example of evolvability.
What is even more exciting in this area is how neutrality is an
essential requirement for evolvability and that neutrality is under
selection.

Evolution ties together in a coherent and beautiful and non adhoc manner
all these observations.

Now that the Cambrian is of less interest to IDers, it seems they have
converged on a new 'concept' convergence to argue against evolution. And
yet there are very good reasons why convergence can be explained through
evolutionary processes once one realizes that the process of
canalization under constraints of physics, chemistry, mechanics etc and
selection can help explain many of these observations.

As others have said, there are plausible explanations for these
'negative data' which is why the powerful paradigm of evolution remains
strong. Not to mention the lack much of any competing scientific
explanation.

Mutational hotspots may not need evolution but evolution explains them
quite nicely. Seems to me that many of these problems with evolution
seem to be either unresolved minor puzzles or unfamiliarity with the
underlying data and arguments.

Check out the work on evolvability and the evolution of the genetic code
to see how scientists are filling in more and more 'gaps'.

I do not see ID making any effort to explain how it happened in a
scientific manner. ID relies on 'negative evidence' which often creates
a temporary gap.
Received on Sun Sep 18 12:55:07 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Sep 18 2005 - 12:55:07 EDT