The Plausibiliy of Life, Resolving Darwin's Dilemma. (a rebut to ID)

[papau]

The Plausibility Life
mms://realserver.bu.edu:554/w/b/wbur/onpoint/2005/10/op_1018b.wma
http://realserver.bu.edu:8080/ramgen/w/b/wbur/onpoint/2005/10/op_1018b.rm

Resolving Darwin's Dilemma - an answer to the "Intelligent Design" debate.

As the debate over Intelligent Design has raged in America's schoolrooms and courthouses, one challenge to Darwin's Theory of Evolution has had tough staying power with non-scientists: how can a feature as delicately engineered as the human eye have arisen from a series of random mutations? That's the question Darwin couldn't answer, and the one that stumped Watson and Crick too.

But now, a bold and bright new theory, proposed by two Evolutionary Biologists, might have yanked the curtain off of biological complexity. This theory accounts for the appearance of the bat's wing, the human arm, and yes, the eye. And it reveals with elegant simplicity the core processes that have been at work for the last 3 billion years engineering the world as we know it.

Hear a conversation on a more complete Theory of Evolution and a rebuttal of Intelligent Design.



Marc Kirschner is professor and chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School and co-author of "The Plausibiliy of Life, Resolving Darwin's Dilemma."

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2005/10/20051018_b_main.asp

[jrw14125]

1. Got a transcript?...

[papau]

3. Nope - first broadcast was noon today - and WBUR charges for

transcripts! I know since I asked for a transcript of my own broadcast so I would know for certain what I said, and the best I could do was $15 for a CD of the program!

[Patiod]

2. The back, the knee and the uterus are good arguments, too

What sort of "intelligent" designer put together those disasters?

Uterine Fibroids - designed to specifically to torture women, or just a big damned mess?

[papau]

4. Welcome to my age group - although the wife had the Fibroids while

still young.

Also since the world wants and pays better the tall, thin, handsome/pretty, sysmetrical about the nose faced, folks, even when they are stupid, why did he feel a need for us short fat not handsome, etc. types?

[Johonny]

5. But

Darwin did answer that question.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Here's a blurb about his book (from Publisher's Weekly)

"We all know Darwin's theory of evolution—natural selection favors some adaptations over others. But where do new adaptations come from? This problem baffled Darwin and is the main point of attack for opponents of evolution. Kirschner and Gerhart, professor at Harvard and UC-Berkeley, respectively, present their solution to the problem and take a few timely shots at the advocates of intelligent design. The key to understanding the development of complex structures, they say, is seeing that body parts as seemingly different as eyes and elbows are formed from the same basic molecular mechanisms. Thus, the authors propose, the metabolic building blocks of life functions can be rearranged and linked in novel ways with less chance of fatal variations than random mutation of DNA would allow. One piece of evidence they offer is the frequency of periods of "deep conservation" following evolutionary anatomical changes, where conventional theory would argue for continuous mutation and change. Though this seems like an elegantly simple solution, the underlying molecular biology is quite complicated. As for proponents of intelligent design, the authors say their theory turns some of their arguments on their head, converting "some of their favorite claims"—such as "irreducible complexity"—into arguments for evolution."

[trotsky]

8. Interesting.

One piece of evidence they offer is the frequency of periods of "deep conservation" following evolutionary anatomical changes, where conventional theory would argue for continuous mutation and change.

Sounds like a restatement of punctuated equilibrium. Wonder if there are any differences?

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. It looks as though it argues from the molecular point of view

rather than the fossil evidence. I thought of PE when reading this, though there doesn't seem to be much connection between the 2 in web articles.

[WindRavenX]

7. ugh

the darwinian view of evolution isnt thru random mutations:banghead:

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. How would you express it?

The mutations aren't systematic, or guided. If not 'random', then what?

[WindRavenX]

15. mutations ARE random

I was saying that mutation itself is but a small part of evolution, which is something I think had to wait a century or so before molecular genetics came along :hi:

Darwinian evolution focuses on allele frequency in a popultion. How the allele frequence of a given trait is changed is thru natural selection- this can include mutations.

[bemildred]

9. There is no dilemma.

The notion that something that is easily observed (i.e. life)
is "implausible" requires a tortuous interpretation of the
meaning of the word. And if one wishes to use some sort
of "designer" to explain this "implausibility", then one
should also address the very real implausibility of said
"designer", which is never done, because in fact nothing is
known about said "designer" by observation.

[hunter]

12. "Intelligent Design" is an eccentricity and should be treated as such.

Sometimes it is as hard to reason with I.D. people as it is to reason with people who believe they've received anal probes from little green men in flying saucers.

The problem with intelligent design is that it doesn't answer any questions. At the very least when one discusses the origins of life with a straightforward "young earth" creationist they will acknowledge there are mysteries and unanswered questions about the universe, which puts them on some very small common ground with the scientist.

But the believer in I.D. simply wraps up all the loose ends in a tidy little bundle, and says "God did it," which is little different than the guy who blames any mysterious skin blemish or bad night's sleep on his alien abductors.

It bothers me how the fascist "Religious Right" callously abuses these people, many of whom do perfectly fine work within their own specialized fields of study. If, God Forbid, the fascists ever achieves their goal of political domination, then the Intelligent Design people will be among the very first allies they discard.

[frogmarch]

13. Here's a handy guide

to refer to in refuting creationism:

Defender's Guide to Science and Creationism:
Section IV: Evolutionary Biology

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/4.html

[hunter]

14. Great list.

But for me it's always as fun to smack them around on the fields of theology. I much enjoyed this, on the same pages:

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/6.html