Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 1982 300SD
Location: Bel AIr, MD
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Judge's order to remove evolution stickers from textbooks gets cheers from scientists
OK, while acknowledging that I am not a scientist; not even a botanist, nor have I played one on TV, here is one problem:
Darwin postulates that change takes place over time. This change produces benefits to the organism. We seem to see this on a historical basis. i.e. man, horse, etc.
However, the problem lies on the micro-molecular level. Cells are incredibly complex machines, yet in most cases, they are irreducibly complex. Meaning that no matter how complex they are, how specialized the function, they cannot be altered and still function. An example of this woule be a bicycle; it is somewhat complex; many parts. But all parts are required for it to function. Changing any individual part would make it a failure as a bicycle. For instance, 2 wheels, complete with rims, spokes, tube, tire, bearings and bearing races. Add to this the frame, seat, chain, sprockets, seat and brake. All these parts function as a machine to propel a person. Removing any one part makes for a defective bicycle.--An evolutionary deadend. One could also look at a motorcycle and postulate that the motorcycle "evolved" from the bicycle--similar appearance, and function. However, simply adding a motor to a functioning bicycle does not produce a motorcycle. There must be a mount for the motor, some sort of drive mechanism, speed control etc. Yet by the priniciples of gradual evolution there would have to be a bicycle with only a mount for the non-existant motor prior to the appearance of the motorcycle. Yet this extra appendage would not be of any benefit to the original bicycle.-- or a bicycle w/o the mount, but with the motor, or with a huge motor, too heavy for the wheels-- or a motor with the shaft facing the wrong way, or turning the wrong direction. Most of the changes would be detrimental to the bicycle, w/o producing anything close to, and useable as a motorcycle.
Thats a short illustration--I hope you at least understand the point. Evolution looks good in the big picture; its problems lie in the tiniest of details.
As for "time". I know the popular understanding is that adding sufficient time allows for many small changes. However, exactly how does time help? If the mathmatical odds for something happening are 1 in 10^50, ( to pick a number) that number does not change with the mere passage of time. We seem to believe that eons of time improve the odds; truth is, eons of time are simply eons of time.
If you would apply the same skepticism to evolution as you do toward ID, perhaps you'd see some of its problems.