Stumble it!piles
posted in Biblical by themaiden |I woke this morning to a very good laugh. The creationists at Dorland’s Medical Dictionary
In short, they’ve taken themselves seriously and apparently believe that 1) their self-righteous ranting isn’t shrill and ranting and 2) they’ve actually got some science on their side. Consequent to this mistaken belief, they print this gem.
As a result, some evolutionists have changed their tactics in order to sound less shrill and more reasonable while engaging in the origins debate. They are increasingly attempting to present pro-evolution scientific arguments in their writings.
That, my friends, is a riot. Evolutionists have changed their tactics? And are attempting to use scientific argument?
Sure, it is easy to become annoyed with the creationists, simply because every argument for creationism has been refuted time after time after time. The same bad arguments recur incessantly. I have pointed out some of them recently.
Collapsed Apostle tells a story… Are you kidding guys?
Logic, reason, and science have nothing to do with creationism, nor does creationism have anything to do with them, though the creationists pay lip service.
As an example, towards the end of this AiG article, the author presents an example pro-evolution letter to the editor and a creationists refutation. The refutation is a classic “new information” argument. It can be found on countless creationist pages and in countless books, speeches, and the like.
In response to this…
Penicillin has become almost obsolete. How could this happen? The simple answer is natural selection. Germs have evolved resistance. … The “best” germs survived. A perfect example of survival of the fittest.
… the creationists respond that:
For “fish to turn into philosophers” requires a mechanism for creating new and useful genetic information. That does not happen when some germs resist antibiotics. Either:
1. the drug-resistant germs were already in place before the antibiotic was used, or
2. the DNA information was already there in another bacterium and transferred (in the form of a plasmid via a tiny tube) or
3. where it has arisen from a genetic copying mistake (mutation), the information decreases.
Well, for fish to turn into philosophers, you just need to give them booze.
Secondly, this creationist rebuttal isn’t direct and head-on reply. At best it skips a step.
Notice that the issue raised in the first letter is that of natural selection. That is the very simple and very observable process by which the traits of a population change over time. Dogs are a great example of this. The various breeds have all been created via selection. In the case of dogs, humans have been the relevant factor, but it could just as well have been food supply. Creationists, I think, like to skip this part because denying that such things occur leads logically to absurd statements like ‘one cannot via selection breed a smaller dog than in the original population.’ Instead, creationists like to skip directly to genetics, where it is a bit easier to be confusing.
Objection #1, is no objection at all. It betrays an ignorance of the science of evolution. Of course, the drug resistant germs were already in place. Had there not been drug resistant germs, the penicillin in the example would have killed all of the bacteria. There is always variation in a population. Evolution depends upon it. It is an integral part of the theory. And this fact is observable. No two critters are the same. The real question concerns the source of this variation, but that is essentially objection #3.
Now, if this argument is taken, as may well be the case, to mean that bacteria-A, which is drug resistant, was already fully formed and present in the population mixed with bacteria-B prior to the introduction of penicillin and that it survived while bacteria-B did not, then there may be a point. It is quite easy to imagine just this sort of thing happening when one deals with microscopic organism, but the same logic would have to apply to larger animals as well, like dogs. It is difficult to argue that a chihuahua sized dog breed was hidden in a population of spaniels for numerous generations while a breeder selected for smaller size. A genetic argument could be made, but that is essentially objection #3, so I’ll leave it for latter.
Objection #2 is a possibility. Such things do occur among bacteria. However, such things do not occur in larger animals and this possibility can easily be eliminated in the lab.
Objections #1 and #2 can both be falsified experimentally as well. Take a single e-coli bacteria which is susceptible to a T4 Phage. Put this single creature into a dish and let it grow. Then introduce a T4 Phage. By all rights, the entire colony should die. It doesn’t. Some members survive. How is this possible, since all were descended from the same ancestor? The colony obviously has variation, or all members or no members would die, but not only some members. But the colony started out with effectively zero variation– one individual. The resistant bacteria could not have been hiding as a variant or as an overlooked contaminant. Nor could the resistant bacteria have borrowed a gene. There were no foreign bacteria from whom to borrow. But there is certainly variation and it most certainly came from somewhere. Objection #3 is essentially the claim that this is impossible.
Thanks go to a fellow calling himself RrHain and posting at EvCForum. It is from he I first encountered this experiment.
Objection #3 is the classic ‘no new information’ argument. The idea is that mutations occur, but because one always loses information the number of times an organism can mutate, and hence, the amount of change an organism can undergo, is limited. Eventually, enough information is subtracted that the organism cannot survive. The problem with this idea can be demonstrated with the word ‘dog.’ Imagine that the letters of DOG are altered randomly. Some possible results are AOG, DOK, and DLG. Essentially, some information is lost. However, some other possible results are BOG, LOG, and DIG, in which cases it cannot be argued that information has been lost. Surely, the word ‘bog’ carries as much information as the word ‘dog.’ Nor does it make much sense to claim that BOG was somehow hidden, or buried, inside DOG. The only conclusion is that random change can result in usable information– information that was not previously present. Even where information was lost, as for example in DOK, further random change can give DOT. It is possible to reduce the size of the word and still gain information. DOG can reduce to a word with an entirely different meaning, DO. Random change can add to a word– DOT to DOTE. Again, the words mean things completely different. Of course organisms use the language of DNA, not English, but it hardly matters. A DNA word produces a protean just as an English word carries a meaning.
Don%u2019t be %u201Cresistant%u201D (about writing your own letter to the editor)
Popularity: 1%
