Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism
BY ROBERT T. PENNOCK
MIT Press,

Cambridge, Mass., 1999 ($35)

Christian creationists have long opposed evolution, first attempting to ban it (as in the

8 Comments

1. 1. Fabrice LOTY 05:12 PM 7/10/08

   
   THE LAW OF ADAPTATION WITH SUBSEQUENT LOSS OF LIFE
   
   To read the entire article, go to: http://openwetware.org/wiki/User:LOTY_Pierre_Jean_Daniel
   
   This newly discovered law comes as a death stroke to evolution theory. We have the guarantee from the nature of the underlying philosophy (Intelligent Design) that the resulting application (programmable bacteria) is free of eugenics.
   
   
   First of all; let us recall the fundamental reasoning in evolutionism: natural selection coupled with mutations can transform a species S1 into a totally new species S2.
   
   Then, let us assume an individual S1 is under difficult conditions and undergoes modifications.
   
   What evolutionism did not consider is that at the same time, another process comes into play: difficult conditions cause S1 to enter into a resistant form, with a subsequent loss of life.
   
   What if conditions improve? As shown with the 1970’s research led by Peter and Rosemary Grant, “in the years following the drought, previous finches (with smaller beaks) again dominated the population.
   
   There was a reversal in the direction of the selection; the population subjected to selection oscillating back and forth each time the climate changed.”
   
   Thus, modifications tend to reduce if difficult conditions do not persist. However, there is absolute need of a directional, steady line of changes, should the species cross over to a new form of life.
   
   Now, in case difficult conditions do persist, two processes admittedly would run parallel. As modifications would increase, the “quantity of life” would decrease downward limits of tolerance. Modifications would at best help the species to cope, though with a subsequent loss of life.
   
   
   Surprisingly, the species S2 that admittedly evolved from S1 is found with high “quantity of life”. But S2, which is assumed to have undergone the full amount of modifications, should have undergone accordingly the full amount of adverse conditions.
   
   
   Thus, S2 would have been found with a lowest “quantity of life”. Indeed, natural selection, coupled with mutations leads necessarily toward the extinction of the species.
   
   
   As evidenced by the law of recurrent variation, the range of possible adaptations is preprogrammed in DNA, thus imposing inherent boundaries between kinds (groups of species defined only through lineage criteria).

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. BG1125 04:10 PM 10/20/08

   Do you or the apparent source of the article have NO IDEA of the scientific process
   No scientist EVER "discovered" a Law
   1) He first has a hypothesis as to a possible explanation of an observed phenomenon.
   2) He obtains evidence , performs experiments, uses logic to explain the phenomenon.
   3) Here's the important SCIENTIFIC bit. He puts forward all the evidence to other scientists who try to find fault, find flaws , try to disprove.
   4) If it passes 3) it becomes a theory
   5) Over time further evidence, experiments, logical deductions are carried out to try to improve OR find fault with the theory.
   6)After many, many years years check there are absolutely no inconsistencies.
   If so go back to 1)
   
   7) the theory MAY become accepted as LAW
   
   Typical creationist "science" start at step 1) , (maybe will give them some credit and start at step 2) )- go straight to step 7) and call it accepted “scientific law”
   
   For example in the article you quote
   1) Species S1 evolves into species S2
   So far so good
   
   2)Individual from species S1 has mutation
   Presumably you mean 1 individual from species 1 - OK so far
   
   3)Difficult conditions cause S1 to enter resistant form – Loss of life
   Presumably you mean resistant to the new environment
   There is loss of life in any species on a day to day basis.
   What proportion of S1 were lost. How many remained in relation to S2
   No evidence as to what happened to S2,.
   e.g. Was there loss of life in this species
   
   4)Conditions improve
   
   5)“research showed ..... previous species ...... dominated “
   No explanation of what they mean .
   Since conditions now same as at 1) we would expect species S2 to dominate
   What do you mean “dominate” do you mean they were physically or numerically dominant
   Possible explanations -
   1) Population S2 smaller than S1 at 3) . Even after loss of life of S1 they are still numerically superior to S2
   2) In competition for food weaker/less aggressive members of S1 weeded out . BY NATURAL SELECTION. Remaining population more aggressive and stronger
   
   6)“reversal of direction of selection . Population subjected to selection oscillating back and forward as climate changed”
   No evidence of reversal . No evidence of oscillation.
   
   7)“Thus modifications tend to reduce if difficult conditions persist. However there is an absolute need of a directional, steady line of change, should the species cross over to a new form of life”
   No evidence of reduction of modifications. No evidence there is a NEED, absolute or not, for a directional, or steady line of change. Irrelevant as a requirement for Natural selection
   
   8) “............, As modifications would increase, the “quantity of life” would decrease downwards limits of tolerance, Modifications would help species to cope, though with a loss of life.
   What is “quantity of life” - do you mean population”
   No evidence that an increase in modifications has any affect on population..
   
   9)“................... But S2 which is assumed to have undergone the full amount of modifications , should have undergone accordingly the full amount of adverse conditions”
   WHAT – Who said there is a limit on the number of modifications a species can undergo. What on earth says you can make this assumption
   
   10)“Thus S2 would have been found with the lowest “quantity of life”. Indeed, natural selection, coupled with mutations leads necessarily to ward the extinction of the species.”
   This is based on NO evidence (from 8) and completely unjustified assumption (from 9)

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. BG1125 04:36 PM 10/20/08

   If anyone reading this can find any reference anywhere (apart from Fabrice LOTY, who both the article and the web bage indicated by the article) could they please indicate the web page address.
   
   The article would appear to be another creationist scam but worse than usual
   
   Write an article - site your own web page. Then make reference to a none existent law.
   
   It beggers belief how STUPID some people can get.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. BG1125 05:13 PM 10/20/08

   Just a few further observations to show the stupidity of creationist "scientist's" thinking
   I am not sure what the originator means by "modifications" but lets assume he means a modification = new species, otherwise the whole article is meaningless.
   IF ,and I mean IF, species S2 were to change it is extremely (and I MEAN extremely) unlikely it WOULD evolve back to species S1 under any circumstance, but to all intents and purposes would CERTAINLY become species S3. If S3 were to evolve it would create species S4 NOT S2
   BUT according to the writer conditions go back to the original conditions. WHY on earth should it evolve at ALL, It evolved when these conditions prevaled, why on earth should it evolve when going back to them.
   Where on earth does the writer get this "reversal of direction of selection from". THERE IS NO "DIRECTION" TO EVOLUTION.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. smallgenius 09:33 PM 4/1/09

   You know, there are so many modifications one could make to a species to change, that the species that change would be more likely to change in a way that is not benificial. Eventually, the changing species would die out.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Faultline 11:27 PM 5/8/09

   smallgenius, your statement would be true if the species undergoing a change performed the change all at once. Then it would die out if it underwent a bad change. But that isn't what happens during Evolution.
   
   Individuals are born with a set of traits that it receives from its parent or parents. It also has a small chance of having a slight variation or mutation (or modification as you call it, although "to modify" lends itself to an act of will, which is incorrect here). If the variation is bad, it has a smaller chance of surviving, so it produces less offspring or none at all if it doesn't survive. If the variation is good, in the sense that it helps it survive in its environment, it will have a greater chance of long-term survival and will produce more offspring.
   
   So the good traits win over time, even though they are few of them. There are many more bad traits that could happen, but the whole of the species does not inherit the traits at once. It is a long process and good, favorable (to the current environment) traits will slowly strenghen over time and work their way into the gene pool.
   
   Faultline

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. Amandine in reply to Faultline 03:30 AM 6/12/09

   I think Fabrice LOTY was referring to the Galapagos finches and completely misunderstood the data. I saw a chart of rainfall compared to average beak sizes of one of the finch species in my biology text book. These finches are still the same species; they're just undergoing directional selection that seems to "oscillate" according to the amount of rain each year. His website reminds me of the computer science paper generator made by some MIT students that churns out papers that make no sense, yet it is structured in a way that makes the reader believe that does (complete with graphs and charts). It's hilarious: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. gnagy 04:34 PM 5/7/12

   Sorry to wake you up but consider this info below:
   
   Never underestimate the power of human imagination run wild. They can even make monkeys out of us.
   
   On December 9, 2010 in The New York Times science writer Nicolas Wade wrote: "Anthropologists have been thrown into turmoil about the nature and future of their profession after a decision by the American Anthropological Association at its recent annual meeting to strip the word “science” from a statement of its long-range plan.?
   
   A NY Times (March 12, 1961) article, “There Are Neanderthals Among Us” that discussed fossil skeletons found in La Chapelle in Europe that turned out to be those of contemporaries who were bent over from bone disease.
   
   In pro-evolutionist Bill Bryson’s best seller, “A Short History of Nearly Everything” he writes about “The American Museum of Natural History Hall of Human Biology and Evolution in New York that has an absorbing diorama that depicts life-sized creations of a male and female walking side by side across the ancient African plain. The tableau is presented with such conviction that it is easy to overlook the consideration that virtually everything above the footprints is imaginary.”
   
   He asked the curator of the museum and paleoanthropologist, Ian Tattersall, if “he was troubled about the amount of artistic license that was taken in reconstructing the figures,? Tattersall replied, “It’s always a problem in making recreations. You wouldn’t believe how much discussion can go into deciding details like whether Neanderthals had eyebrows or not…We simply can”t know the details of what they looked like… If I had to do it again, I think I might have made them slightly more apelike and less human.?
   
   In 2004 National Geographic tested four paleoartists by giving them the same fossil bones at different times without telling them other paleoartist would be creating drawings from the fossils. The results were that not one of the drawings looked like the others and none of them had any body hair on them!
   
   This whole field has proven again and again that many of these researchers have lied and continue to lie. The most brazen and unfounded theories are proclaimed only to find the research was faked or non-existent.
   
   This is chicanery not science.
   This is imagination run wild not science.
   This is absolute fraud.
   
   Talk about honesty in the "sciences."
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this