There is no more contentious subject in science today than evolution. This fact was brought to light for me in the overwhelming response to my February column on evolution and "intelligent design" creationism. I typically receive about a dozen letters a month, but for this one no less than 134 were submitted (117 men, four women and 13 whose identity was not revealed). I found reading the critical letters mildly disconcerting until I hit on the idea that these are a form of data to be mined for additional information on what people believe and why. Conducting a content analysis of all 134 letters, I discovered patterns within the cacophonous chaos. First I read them quickly and then separated them into about two dozen one-line categories that summed up the reader's main point. I next condensed these into six taxonomic classes and reread all the letters carefully, placing each into one or more of the six (for a total of 163).

Excerpts from the letters illustrate each taxon. Not surprisingly, only 7 percent agreed on the veracity of evolution (and the emptiness of creationism). Nearly double that number, 12 percent, argued that evolution is God's method of creating life. For instance, one correspondent concurred "that evolution is right--but still I see God in the will and cunning intention in the genetic system of all living organisms and in the system and order present in the laws of nature. Seeing all the diversity in the methods of camouflage in animals and plants for an example, I know that there is a will behind it."

This article was originally published with the title Vox Populi.

1 Comments

1. 1. Fabrice LOTY 05:14 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