Updated: 12/16/99Updated: 12/16/99
MICROBIOLOGY | GENETICS | MEDICAL
THE YEAR IN MICROBIOLOGY
I
drink for my genes
Love
in a bottle
http://iris.bioc.uvic.ca/AJC/Video/Video.html ; Microbial videos.
A FAQ by nonscientists is: How can one tell the differences between what is science and what isn't science, or what is bad science and what is good science? What exactly is "The Scientific Method"?
ANSWER: Only by hard work and an open mind. The average citizen is bombarded in the written press, on radio and TV with hundreds of claims per day that purport to be based on SCIENTIFIC FACTS or a SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY. We are asked to buy items that will help us live better & longer based on claims of SCIENTIFIC PROOF. We are required to choose our elected representatives based on their understandings of SCIENTIFIC DATA. One day we read that a scientific study has PROVEN that fat is a deadly poison and a week later we read where another scientific study has PROVEN that fat prevents cancer; what is a person to believe? All too many people simply throw up their hands and say "to H… with it, if the scientists can't agree how can I be expected to know what is right?"! As a result of this attitude many people fall back on myths, rumor and superstition, which can kill them.
As in the rest of life, there simply is no easy way, in many cases, to identify a SCIENTIFIC TRUTH, but below is some information that will make answering these questions a little easier for an educated, rational person who thinks critically. In short, science is a messy business, but the following will make it a bit less messy.
Click here and here for other excellent discussions of the scientific method.
THE SCIENTIFIC
PERSPECTIVE 
PROTEIN MOLECULE BINDING TO A SPECIFIC BASE SEQUENCE OF DNA
Science is: the organized, systematic enterprise that gathers knowledge about the world and condenses the knowledge into testable laws and principles. Science is: the accumulation of humanity's organized, objective knowledge, the first medium devised to unite people everywhere in common understanding. Science favors no tribe or religion. It is the base of a truly democratic & global culture. From "Consilience" by E.O. Wilson |
Science is the SEARCH FOR TRUTH, but only the truth of the PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. Religion is the search for SPIRITUAL TRUTH. Science is not concerned with morality, justice, or religion; however, scientists, as individuals, are very concerned with these matters. Science is nothing more than a PROCESS that scientists use in an attempt to understand how the PHYSICAL UNIVERSE WORKS. For example, gravity is a FACT OF NATURE; it is neither moral or immoral, right or wrong, evil or good, Moslem or Christian, rather it just IS! Similarly the diseases that plague us (e.g. cancer, AIDS, cholera etc.) are neither evil or good, they just ARE.
FAQ: Why are scientists so uncertain about so many things?
ANSWER: We're all seeking simple and clear explanations of how things are, but science, which claims to be on a quest for TRUTH, often seems to confuse issues more than clarifying them. The answer lies in the immense COMPLEXITY OF THE UNIVERSE. Scientists are like children, entranced by the colors, sounds and motions they see on the TV, but having little idea how a TV works. So it is with scientists and the universe. Scientists today are like a child who has learned to control the TV knobs/buttons and thus has gained a measure of control and understanding of its workings. A child will explain how a TV works if you ask, but their degree of knowledge is sorely limited and their explanation is greatly wanting and mightily confused. Despite all the science we currently know, we are barely past the stage of "operating the knobs on a TV or VCR" in our understanding the universe. So scientists get a lot of things less right before they get them "more right".
FAQ: Why do scientists speak such a funny language and use all those strange, hard-to-learn words, that confuse and frustrate the rest of us to the point where we turn off to science?
ANSWER: Scientific terminology is, like all language, a SHORTHAND for describing complex situations. For example, the word "STUDENT" is a shorthand term meaning "someone who studies and learns new knowledge and is usually found in an institution known as a school"; one word takes the place of 17 in this case. Thus when scientists use the term "pH", they are saying the "logarithm of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion concentration"; i.e., pH = 9 words. In short, science uses another language just like the Germans and French do. Scientists are no more intentionally obtuse than are the French or Germans when they speak their native tongues in your presence. However, the language of science is UNIVERSAL, as scientists the world over speak to each other in this common scientific language. During a sabbatical in Germany and I barely learned any German, because everyone in the lab spoke the current language of science, ENGLISH.
FAQ: Why do scientists hedge so much; i.e., you can't ever get a STRAIGHT ANSWER out of them?
ANSWER: Scientists know that their knowledge is woefully incomplete, so they are usually reluctant to speak in terms of absolutes. They know that it is entirely possible that tomorrow someone will present evidence indicating that what they state as the truth today is wrong to some degree. Thus they tend to use phases like: "it appears that a possible explanation for this is...." or "the present data certainly supports that explanation, however, there are valid alternative explanations." etc. Never-the-less, many scientists, being frail, egotistical humans, make dogmatic statements about subjects only to be proven entirely wrong later. Then they are made great sport of by their fellows, many of whom will eventually make the same trip down that rocky road.
FAQ: Why do scientists disagree so much and who can I believe?
ANSWER: They disagree because their information on most subjects is, as stated above, so limited. What usually occurs is that scientists obtain a bit of data and try to put it together so it makes sense. But it's like having a puzzle made of a zillion pieces and you work and work and manage to put a couple of thousand together and one person looks at it and says "that's the rear end of a cow", while a second person looks at the same information and concludes "it's the wing of an airplane". Eventually they go back to work and put a few more pieces together and try again to interpret the picture. Even when they finish a puzzle, it may look like a surrealistic painting that is difficult to interrupt because it is out of context; i.e. it is part of an even larger puzzle.
As far as who to believe, all one can do is try to figure out who has done the BEST SCIENCE and assume that one has a somewhat better chance of being correct.
Giraffes have long necks. The common explanation for how the giraffes evolved these long necks that we learned in grammar school was that a rare mutation in a giraffe's ancestor produced a slightly longer neck which allowed it to reach higher on trees to get a few more leaves (like a tall NBA player can make more baskets). Thus when times were tough, the long-necked giraffes could survive marginally better than ones with shorter necks because they could eat the leaves higher up in the trees. Over time more mutations leading to slightly longer necks occurred occasionally and each time these MUTANT giraffes survived better than ones with shorter necks because they could take advantage of the additional food supply available to them. Gradually, over millions of years the giraffe we see today developed through the accumulation of these many long-neck mutations. Good, common sense explanation, right? Well some evolutionists don't buy it. They suggest that there are alternative explanations that make just as much sense. For example, they note that male giraffes fight it out to see who gets to breed the females and in these fights they use their necks extensively; the one with the stronger neck usually winning; i.e., maybe the guys with the longer necks got the females (hey, it happens).
So here is a classical case of evolutionists disagreeing. Does this disagreement mean that the evolutionary theory is WRONG?
Not at all. The Darwinian principle of "survival of the fittest" (natural selection) is at work in BOTH scenarios, only the nature of the environmental selective factor is being discussed. In the former, an environment such as times of drought that produce food shortage leads to the selection of long necks, while in the latter, longer necked male giraffe tend to win the mating contests. In either case the "winner/survivor" is more likely to produce offspring, which inherit Dad's neck length.
Just as we will never know who the first person was that came up with the idea of a "wheel", we will probably never learn what the exact forces that shaped the evolution of many species were. However, the basic principle of the wheel is never in doubt any more than that of natural selection.
CRITICAL THINKING
QUESTION: Can you think of a recent case where religion or politics has
"influenced" a scientific view?
|
STEP 2: The hypothesis is TESTED by the gathering of additional "facts" through further observation and by experimentation. The observations & experimental results must be REPEATED with the proper over time and in different places and the results OBJECTIVELY and SKEPTICALLY assessed. If the repeated observations and experimental results support the hypothesis and they are said to be "REPRODUCIBLE", the hypothesis then becomes a THEORY.
Outside of the lab things are much harder to control. For example, one might investigate the effect of STUDY TIME ON STUDENT'S GRADES. Such an experiment might consist of following several 100 students over a period time, asking them to record the time spent studying and comparing this data with their ultimate grades. However, perhaps the study habits of the students varied widely from those that studied while watching TV, to those that studied in a quiet room or library. Perhaps the test group was not representative of the average student and was composed of students who were pre meds and pre vets. There is an obvious problem with such "open" situations in determining & running the proper controls. This explains why solid statistical explanations of many phenomena (e.g. the weather or human behavior) are so difficult to obtain and why so many people are appropriately skeptical about statistical evidence.
How would you set up a study designed to answer the above "STUDY-HABIT" question? |
never the other
way around. Finally when a given hypothesis survives a lot of testing it advances to the
stage of a THEORY.
Theories then undergo a long period of testing and examination, sometimes for hundreds of
years. New data often causes a theory to be "FINE
TUNED", but occasionally compelling new data will be
discovered that completely discredits an accepted theory and the whole process STARTS OVER
FROM THE BEGINNING. Scientists often have a lot of trouble giving up a "favorite
theory", even though we feel that this is part of being a scientist. Indeed, it is
the responsibility of scientists to be SKEPTICAL of everything (in science and in life). I would further suggest that it is the
responsibility of every citizen to be rationally skeptical about everything in life. GUESS HOW THE PERSON THAT DISCOVERED THIS PROVED IT?
In many ways the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is a metaphor for the search for a mate, in that it passes through stages, during any one of which the relationship could fail and you'd have to begin the process again. During any relationship circumstances change, new facts are discovered and the relationship has to be modified to adjust to the changed situation. If the situation changes too much even a long-standing relationship might have to be abandoned.
Figure 2. Graphic Presentation of the
Scientific Method.
"COMMON SENSE is Everything learned to the age of eighteen". A. Einstein |
A classical example of the operation of the "Scientific Method" is the "Shape of the Earth" THEORY. Throughout most of human history people looked out across the expanse of land or sea and assumed that the earth was FLAT. As men began to sail the oceans and seas occasional individuals observed that maybe the earth was round because they had noticed that as ships came into view one first saw the top of the sails and only gradually did the remainder of the ship appear as it drew closer; they suggested that this "observation" could only be explained if the earth was round. They were certainly made sport of since as any fool with eyes could see that "The bloody earth was FLAT, because GOD made it that way, so shut up". However, by the "Age of Greece", many of the Greek thinkers had begun to accept the "THEORY" that the earth was round and its diameter was even calculated. Yet the vast majority of people still accepted the "common sense" view of flatness. As additional observations and data about the earth, sun and the planets accumulated over time the idea of a "round earth" was slowly accepted by most. Yet, even into the 1960s there was a "Flat Earth Society" in England whose members insisted on clinging to the ancient view. Only when the first men went into space and brought back photos, did the Flat-Earthers disband.
The story of evolution is much the same. All ancient societies had their stories of the creation by one or more Gods and virtually all events that occurred on the earth, particularly those affecting humans, were assumed to be under the direct, and often capricious, control of the God(s). Gradually, as the scientific method developed and was applied increasingly to explain phenomena, it was found that events occurred as a consequence of universal and unchangeable natural laws. With time, many humans have come to accept that our universe operates on "Natural Laws". While the origin of these Natural Laws and the Universe they operate in are open to debate, their changeless and inviolate nature no longer is. Science operates on the principle that all the processes of the universe, including life, can be explained in terms of the operation of the various Natural Laws. Phenomena like earthquakes, floods, famines, plagues, eclipses etc., that previously were considered to be the direct action of a deity (who was often seen to be punishing man for some perceived infraction of the rules), have all been found to be the result of events that follow Natural Laws. Evolution is now one of the Natural Laws that is seen to explain the processes of life on this earth. One reason that evolution has received so much negative attention is that science has explained so much that once was the domain of the God(s) (e.g. earthquakes etc.), that humans seek for a sign of their God(s) "in action" and life and its processes provide a very attractive way to meet that need. Below I will present some of the reasons science has accepted evolution as a Natural Law.
Material from this site is likely to be on the next exam
including the figures: http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/publife.html
EXTRA CREDIT
COMMENTARY 6A: We may soon be able to induce or heighten the emotion we call LOVE by injecting a person with these natural "LOVE chemicals" (like replacing insulin for a diabetic). Assuming the above is correct, comment on the following three POSSIBLE SCENARIOS and explain your perspective (all 3 must be discussed to receive the points).
DLS: Scenario 6A1: Answer: yes, a big crime has been committed: it would not be the first time that at a party girls have been drugged and raped; the girl’s degree of awareness of what was going on is not an issue which would stand up in court. Scenario 6A2. First of all, the Child Protection Agency places the children in foster care first, which gives the parents a chance to go to parenting classes and reform, unless of course what they did to the children lands them in jail: adoption occurs much later. It is not lack of love that causes child abuse, but unmanaged anger or lack of parenting skills and lack of commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood, which (moral flaws) are not corrected with any love drug. Just for the sake of speculation, without moral commitment those extra-loving and oversexed parents might endanger the children even more (child rape). Scenario 6A3: My first thought was, I would not even let my daughter go out on a date with a guy who just took a love potion! The other questions (marriage) are not realistic because I cannot disregard the moral dimension of a relationship, moral qualities not being chemically affected (they are a choice of behavior), which is more important than a chemically-dependent sex drive; without moral guidelines, the love drug can only amount to something like Viagra.
INSTRUCTOR'S CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS ON 6A1, 2 & 3: If you're opposed to someone taking a natural "love chemical" to replace a chemical deficiency how about someone taking insulin or digestive enzymes, or growth hormone? |
Charles Darwin. He doesn't look frightening does he? Yet he has been at
the center of a bitter controversy for over 100 years.
Evolution is taught in this class for the following reasons: National Academy of Science view
INSTRUCTIONS: Go to this site; label the Chapter # and under it lay out the numbers of the questions in a vertical column in your word processing program. Place the answer beside the appropriate number. Copy/paste the answers to your e-mail along with your name and ID# and e-mail it to me before I begin to talk about this chapter. If you get ALL OF THEM CORRECT you will receive 2 extra points. Look for the answers by clicking here which will be posted once I begin the lecture on evolution.
DLS: Sorry, but this isn't available to you for obvious reasons.
The theory that groups of organisms, as species, may CHANGE WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME so that their descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors so that they can no longer interbreed and thus become NEW SPECIES.
There are likely to be many of you reading this who either have been TAUGHT that evolution is WRONG, or even that it is evil, and others may have come to one or both these conclusions on their own. The American Society for Microbiology officially states that "Darwinian principles of evolution can provide an overarching theme to (microbiology courses)". Since evolutionary principles are the foundation upon which all biology is built, it is my professional RESPONSIBILITY to inform you about this crucial principle. All of the microbiology in this course is presented from an evolutionary perspective, therefore to grasp the nature of microbiology, an understanding of evolutionary principles is paramount. However, it is NOT A REQUIREMENT of this course that anyone ACCEPT EVOLUTION as a scientific truth. It is only necessary to learn the "facts" about evolution presented herein in order to answer the exam questions on evolution. I only ask that you give evolution a fair hearing. Be skeptical, not only of what I tell you, but what EVERYONE tells you past and future (including me). I include references on evolution, including ones on the Internet, if you wish to explore this matter further or here.
Click here to see the
entire text of Darwin's Origin of Species. I may ask questions from the first chapter.
EXTRA
CREDIT COMMENTARY 6B: DLS: Comment: I think that high schools should have the same rights as the colleges in inviting controversial guests. The faculty know by now which seminars are worth attending, but it is good for the students to hear first hand what would be discussed later in class, and I would recommend that all students try to attend. |
EXTRA
CREDIT COMMENTARY 6C:
DLS:
INSTRUCTOR'S CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS ON 6C:
|
EVOLUTION
MEANS CHANGE. The science of evolution is the study of the PROCESSES of evolutionary changes.
Evolutionary scientists try to document the changes in species through time. Evolutionary
sciences, which include paleontology, (the study of the remains of fossils), genetics,
microbiology, ecology and biochemistry, attempt to relate changes in life-forms to the
development of new species over time. Other evolutionists investigate processes like #mutagenesis, gene shuffling, gene jumping, gene
duplication etc. so as to define the mechanisms and forces that bring about changes in
living forms. Still others investigate the environment, both past and present, to
determine how environmental conditions determined which mutations helped a life form
survive while other didn't. Evolutionary scientists ask questions like "why do tigers have stripes?"; "when did man's
ancestors first begin to walk upright?"; and "why did whales leave the land and
return to the sea?".
Recent References on evolution: SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN Sept. 1978; Feb. 1991; TIME Jan 15, 1990; Dec. 28 1992; Science 277:890(97).
Click here for a site that has a lot of information on evolution from several sides of the controversy.
CRITICAL THINKING
QUESTION: If you were given a 10 million dollar grant to do research on psychic phenomena,
how would you go about it? What would you accept as scientific proof for or against it?
Palmist studying customer's hand: "You are very gullible!""False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long: but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes delight in proving their falseness" CHARLES DARWIN |
The diagnostic features of science that distinguishes it from pseudoscience are: 1. Repeatability. |
Here are some simple tests one can apply to tell the difference between TRUE SCIENCE and PSEUDOSCIENCE
Pseudosciences are magical, they deal
with myth, emotion, rumor, folk tales, mixed with prejudice and the fear of the unknown.
They are emotional and based on ANECDOTAL
EVIDENCE "...my
grandmother could tell the future"; "my sister saw the ghost of our dead mother"; ".....a friend of my
uncle was abducted by aliens"; "...my friend's brother made millions on the stock market by following his astrologer's
advice". Such stories abound and they are fun to tell
and to hear, especially when we're at a party and have had too much ethanol. They appeal
to the child in us and send shivers of fear/fun up our spines don't they?
Science, however deals with COLD HARD FACTS. Science is
IMPLACABLE and requires lots of work to learn, to do and to understand. Science is only
familiar to scientists and they sometimes make the rest of us feel inferior. Sciences
talks about complex experiments and loads of really boring data. Science frankly tends to
be seen as boring, particularly when we don't understand it. Science appears to destroy
romance by turning such things as LOVE into dry chemical formula.
Pseudoscience is easy and just
plain fun & entertaining: count the number of TV
shows with Pseudoscience themes that are showing in any given week. One can talk about
ghosts, astrology or UFOs for hours and no one can prove you wrong. Pseudoscience lets you
MAKE UP THE RULES as
you go along. Pseudoscience relies on the imagination to bring it off. What you imagine
becomes the TRUTH just by saying it.
Science requires RIGOROUS testing and is held up to
intense scrutiny. Science is PREDICTIVE; if you do a certain thing exactly the same way in New York, Pullman, London or
Mars the results will always come out the SAME (borrrring). But
Pseudoscience always has the excitement of the unpredictable, the unexpected; the ghost
may or may not appear tonight; the spirit of a lost loved one may visit the medium this
time, or NOT; etc. Pseudoscience never runs and if you suggest any, the believers in pseudoscience get angry.
Anyone can take up Pseudoscience with
minimum effort. Just buy a book on astrology on Monday, read it overnight and on Tuesday
hang out your sign announcing that you are open for business. But science
requires that you go to school for years. Science requires self control, hard work,
skepticism and discipline; characteristics lacking in the Pseudosciences; a belief in
pseudoscience is usually the sign of a lazy and undisciplined mind.
The scientific method can't be applied to Pseudoscience; after all, no
self-respecting ghost is going to stay in a test tube long enough to be analyzed. Science
DESTROYS beautiful imaginative myths with brutal, unromantic, heartless facts. After all
which explanation of a rainbow is the more romantic and fun? One that says that fairies
make them or the scientific one of light refracting through rain drops and breaking up
into the composite colors?
Click here for another discussion on the nature of pseudoscience.
FAQ: "Why do I bother talking about pseudoscience in a microbiology course?"
The acceptance of pseudoscience requires the embracing of irrationality and the denigration of logic and reason and thus is the antithesis of the scientific method. The very existence of a society that clutters its social intellect with the detritus of pseudoscience is in danger of falling into chaos. Very few people would support the view that the middle ages, where superstition ruled, where thousands of people were burned alive as witches and sorcerers, where medicine was practiced by the ignorant with predictably gruesome and lethal results, where people cowered in fear of demons and devils every waking moment, was a cool time to live. Nor would most Americans wish to live today in a developing country that is ruled by similar superstitions, fears, tribal prejudices, etc. The embracing of pseudoscience as an answer to real, serious problems is an intellectually lazy way of avoiding the hard choices and the effort it takes to really learn about and solve real problems. Pseudoscience fragments societies because of its irrationality that does not allow any stable common consensus based on the rule of knowledge to form; when nothing is accepted as universal truth chaos results.
For example, a scientist who claims that his findings are correct because he used "white magic" to get the desired results may feel gratified and may even attract believers, but his "data" can't be considered to be a truth that society could build on since, by definition it could be changed by other forms of "magic". In the list below I challenge the reader to come up with a single case where a pseudoscience on the list has contributed directly to the betterment of mankind; e.g., was responsible for an effective new drug, a beneficial invention etc.
EXTRA
CREDIT COMMENTARY 6D: |
The following is a table of major pseudosciences for which there has never been presented any solid scientific evidence. Have I left out any important ones?
EXTRA CREDIT
COMMENTARY 6E: |
Nostradamus |
Palmistry |
Numerology |
Comets |
Remote Viewing |
Astrology |
Ghosts |
Evil Eye |
Telekinesis |
Pyramid Power |
Channeling |
ESP |
Atlantis |
Spiritualism |
Alien Abduction |
Big Foot |
Mystics |
Crystal Power |
Dowsing |
Crop Circles |
Tea Leaves |
Witches |
Loch Ness |
Ouije Board |
Bermuda Triangle |
Out-of-Body |
Seers |
Telepathy |
Sorcery |
Psychic Surgeons |
Horoscopes |
Tarot Cards |
Stereotyping |
Prejudice |
Spon. Burning |
Vampires |
UFOs |
Slavery |
Magic |
Rhino Horn |
Deer Antlers |
Bear Parts |
Creationism |
Demonology |
Phrenology |
| Fortune teller | Vitalism | Aura Therapy |
EVOLUTION
DOES NOT DEAL WITH |
WHERE did the universe come from? |
IS there a GOD? |
What is HE/SHE like? |
What is our PURPOSE here? |
Where is the universe GOING? |
INSTRUCTIONS: Go to this site; label the Chapter # and under it lay out the numbers of the questions in a vertical column in your word processing program. Place the answer beside the appropriate number. Copy/paste the answers to your e-mail along with your name and ID# and e-mail it to me before I begin to talk about this chapter. If you get ALL OF THEM CORRECT you will receive 2 extra points. Look for the answers by clicking here which will be posted once I begin the lecture on evolution. DLS: Sorry, but this isn't available to you for obvious reasons.
These scientific "discussions" between scientists may be likened to the controversies that occur between religious sects. The various religious sects don't argue over whether GOD EXISTS, but only how to interpret his/her existence and what their GOD requires of them; i.e., when the various leaders of religion argue over "RELIGION", they are not questioning the existence of GOD. |
Evolution is unable to "repeat" the CREATION OF LIFE and thus prove the entirety of evolution, but experiments based on the principles of the evolutionary process produce the results that the "evolutionary theory" predicts. We can't repeat the "FORMATION OF OUR UNIVERSE", but we accept the Natural Laws of chemistry and physics that describe the processes we see occurring within our universe.
IF YOU BELIEVE EVOLUTION TO BE WRONG CONSIDER THESE POINTS BEFORE GOING ON:
FAQ: "Well if so much is known about evolution, why is there so much controversy". The unspoken implications of this question usually is "where there's smoke, there's fire!" and "if there is so much controversy, even among the scientists themselves than the whole thing must be bogus!".
There are several reasons for this controversy:
TIME: Humans live short lives, yet evolution occurs over such vast spans of time that it is INCONCEIVABLE to
most people. The current scientific evidence indicates that the earth has been around for
~4.5 billion years. This is so long that very SMALL
AND SLOW changes can ACCUMULATE to produce great and complex alterations. Most people accept the idea that
mountains take millions of years to wear down through the combined forces of wind and
water, yet we rarely are able in our lifetime to see the change in the land around us. For
example, if you were allowed to move one rock/day from point A to point B, you could move
only 365 rocks/yr. Over a lifetime of 75 yr. that isn't going to make a very big pile, but
over a million years or a billion years the pile would become rather formidable. Click here for a
discussion of the age of the earth.
The COMMON SENSE perspective: People look at the way
living things are designed and consider how well they work (e.g. the human eye) and they
conclude that someone (GOD or the great WATCHMAKER) must have DESIGNED each of these structures with a plan
in mind. That is, their common sense tell them that there had to be
a GRAND PLAN and that only a GOD could manage such a complex plan. The idea that RANDOM CHANCE could have produced a
human eye, a baby or a butterfly seems ludicrous in the extreme from this perspective.
This is like looking at people wearing glasses and deciding that the nose and the ears
were put there to hold glasses. One problem with the "GRAND PLAN" theory is the
existence of diseases like cancer and genetic diseases; a PERFECT GOD would hardly be
capable of such oversights don't you think?
The "Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins discusses this perspective. Read it for Extra Credit |
The COMMUNICATION PROBLEM: The scientific community has FAILED TO COMMUNICATE its findings
in a way that people can easily understand. Further, some scientists make arrogant
statements using evolution to ridicule religion because of their own prejudices; just as
some non-scientists similarly denigrate science and scientists. Such arrogance fosters
fear and anxiety on both sides.
Evolution is a NEW IDEA: Many people are fearful of
new ideas and prefer to live with the comfortable myths they learned as children. They are
threatened by new knowledge and the change that it brings (e.g. the Internet). Evolution
is only ~150 yr. old. How many of you know people who HATE/FEAR computers, VCRs or even
TV?
The response of RELIGION: Many religions, either out
of ignorance or fear feel that the evolutionary concept somehow challenges the concept of
a CREATOR and hence threatens their religion. Some of this response is honest ignorance
and misguided fear, but in many cases it is promulgated by individuals who use people's
fear and ignorance to frighten and CONTROL THEM. For general discussion in this course, I
group the religious foes of evolution as CREATIONISTS. Generally Creationist insist that the bible story of Genesis is true as written
with regard to the 6 (24 hr) days of creation and that GOD created each animal life as we
see it today, whole and in its final form, to remain so forever.
Interestingly enough, many Creationists now accept the idea of MICROEVOLUTION
occurring within species as an explanation of variations, but they refuse to accept
that what they call MACROEVOLUTION (their made-up word) results in the
formation of new species, most particularly, HUMANS. For a discussion focused on human evolution click here.
EXTRA
CREDIT COMMENTARY 6F: |
The attack on evolution is likely a
"straw man" for what really angers and threatens many people. The real issue is
the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
After all the theory of evolution came out of the application of the scientific method to
questions about the nature of life, its variations and changing forms etc. It is the
application of the scientific method that challenges the myths, superstitions, prejudices
etc. of people and this is seen by many to undermine religion. Perhaps a good simile is
the tobacco industry. The thousands of people who earn their living from growing,
processing and selling tobacco products cling fiercely to the belief that tobacco products
are NOT HARMFUL TO HUMAN HEALTH. These people are clearly threatened by the scientific data, obtained by
applying the scientific method, that indicates that tobacco is a dangerous product that
costs society billions of dollars in additional health care as well as the early death of
those we love.
"Even in a field as controversial as evolutionary biology, the basic conceptual frame work established by Darwin in 1859 has turned out to be remarkably robust. All attempts in the last 150 years to invalidate Darwinism (and there have been hundreds) have been unsuccessful…" From: Ernst Mayr: This is biology: the science of the living world. Pg. 47. |
Click here for a detailed discussion of the attempt to remove evolution from American textbooks.
Click here to look at articles in the Skeptical Enquirer debunking common myths; try not to get too angry if they hit on one of your favor myths.
Click here to find more articles on evolution from a variety of perspectives.
Click here to find almost every article on evolution you would ever want.
STEPHEN HAWKING (NPW = Nobel Prize Winner): The big-bang may reveal "the mind of God"; "The space available for God appears to be shrinking [...as science explains more]."
GEORGE SMOOT (astrophysicist): The background radiation may represent "the handwriting of God".
FRANCIS COLLINS (geneticist): "When something new is revealed about the human genome, I experience a feeling of awe at the realization that humanity now knows something only God knew before." "I am unaware of any irreconcilable conflict between scientific knowledge about evolution and the idea of a creator God; why couldn't God have used the mechanism of evolution to create?"
RICHARD DAWKINS (geneticist): "Only the scientifically illiterate accept the 'why' question where living creatures are concerned."
JOSHUA LEDERBERG (geneticist, NPW): "Nothing so far disproves the divine. What is incontrovertible is that a religious impulse guides our motive in sustaining scientific inquiry. Beyond that it's all speculation."
A man said to the
Universe |
STEVEN WEINBERG (physicist, NPW): "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." "What we learn about physical law seems coldly impersonal and gives no hint of meaning or purpose."
ALAN DRESSLER (astronomer): "People have given up the old belief that humanity is at the physical center of the universe, but must come back to believing that we are at the center of meaning."
For more on this read Science 277:890('97).
FAQ: "If there are solid scientific facts that support the creationist proposal, why shouldn't they be given equal time in science classes with evolution?"
ANSWER: There are NO SUCH FACTS. If there were such "solid facts" obtained by valid scientific scientific methods and independently verified by other scientists using the scientific method, I would be the first to sponsor their publication in a top scientific journal.
The largest group of individuals that oppose evolution
call themselves CREATIONISTS. Generally they believe that the bible explains how all life on
the planet, particularly human life, was created and that no further explanation is
required. The extremist among them want to ban the teaching of evolution as an affront to GOD or, at least, to have "creation
science" given equal time in science classes. Less extreme creationists, who are not
concerned with banning evolutionary teaching, are not heard from much and thus are not
politically significant. Below are some of the arguments creationists put forth to
"prove" evolution wrong. The
National Academy of Science view of Creationism.
Creation
Science: Creationists claim that they have
"scientific" data to disprove evolution. However, their data has not been
obtained using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and there is no
valid support for ANY such data. The Creationists often pose the argument "It
COULD OF HAPPENED this way" meaning that if you can't absolutely prove
something didn't happen, it must have happened--end of argument. Does this make sense to
you? Any student that can present me with scientifically obtained and verified data that
proves the creationist's view will receive an A in the course.
Paucity
of data supporting evolution: This is a common theme of
Creationists. It is either made because of profound ignorance or it is a known boldface LIE.
There is overwhelming scientific data collected by thousands of scientists over 100s of yr. that support evolution.
While we can't create a new earth and follow the development of life over 4 billion yr.,
evolutionists can do copious experiments that support the basic tenets of evolutionary
theory. Farmers, as they select breeds of plants for improved yield are performing
evolutionary experiments; breeders of cats, dogs and other animals use sound
evolutionary principles in breeding new strains and varieties. The appearance of
bacteria and insects resistant to antibiotics and insecticides respectively, are examples
of evolution in action. Even humans demonstrate evolution. The various human skin colors
etc. fit the evolutionary theory. We know that the Europeans today are more resistance
to tuberculosis, leprosy and the bubonic plague than they appear to have been in the
middle ages when these disease decimated the human populations of Europe. This supports
the SURVIVAL of the FITTEST (Natural Selection).
The
lack of a MISSING LINK or TRANSITION
FORMS: Creationists point to the fact that the link between modern humans
and our ape-like ancestors has NOT BEEN FOUND. However we have found, and are continually
finding, remains of
humanoids 3 to 5 million yr. old. The bones of these humanoids have similarities that
support various degrees of relationship to modern man. For a detailed discussion of
Transition Forms visit this
site.
 |
The
massive disagreement between evolutionists: Evolutionists
disagree as to the of meaning of the fossil finds & experimental data. Creationists
frequently quote from the arguments between evolutionary scientists that disagree with the
INTERPRETATION of various findings and experimental data. They argue that if the "scientists themselves can't agree, then clearly evolution must
be wrong, as such a major NATURAL LAW should be easy to prove."
The fallacy here is that the evolutionary scientists are only arguing about DETAILS, much
like two people might argue over which make/model of car is best, or which is the best
route to take to a given destination, or which religion, Catholic or Protestant is best.
Another thought here is that given the history of religious disagreements over, not only
what is the ONE CORRECT RELIGION, but over the details of meanings in the BIBLE etc., one
could argue that perhaps religions are wrong because something a substantial as GOD should
be easy to prove! It is a dirty little secret that within the creationist's world there is
massive disagreement as to various sects views on creation; yet this is not seen as an
argument against creationism--curious don't you think?
|
Evolution
goes AGAINST the 2nd law of thermodynamics: Since the ENTROPY (DISORDER) of the universe increases and
since life is the most organized thing known, life could only have come about if the
CREATOR of the universe allowed it. The error in this argument lies in the true
meaning of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It actually states only "that the universe is GOING to become totally random at some
point in the future". But, as we know, it is possible to take
raw, disorganized materials in ore etc. and convert it into highly organized cars, TVs and
computers without breaking the 2nd law. The organization comes about at the expense of a
lot of ENERGY (from organized, energy-rich coal, oil etc.) in the form of heat, light,
etc. that is broken down (DISORDER) so that some order (e.g. cars) can TEMPORARILY exist.
Most of this energy originally came from the sun, which, as it is burning up and
contributing massively to entropy increase, provides most of the energy on earth in the
form of energy-rich organic matter (oil, methane, wood etc.). The process of building a TV
set or a baby ALWAYS RESULTS IN A NET INCREASE IN
ENTROPY at the end of the
universe-day.
FAQ:
If life doesn’t break the second law of thermodynamics then where does the energy for life come from?ANSWER: The earth is hit by
~4.5 pounds of light every second (3.9 x105 pounds per day or 1.42 x 108 pounds per year). This light (energy) is produced by the organized sun (low entropy) burning up and becoming more disorganized (high entropy). Living organisms (plants) absorb a tiny fraction of this sun-energy and convert it to chemical energy, (e.g. glucose = low entropy), and the rest is dispersed as waste heat (high entropy). As living organisms go about the business of life they use the trapped chemical sun-energy for various purposes. Eventually, when an organism dies much of its trapped sun-energy is lost as waste heat (high entropy). This heat eventually bleeds off into space—otherwise the earth would boil away—and so increases the entropy of the universe. The net result is that entropy increases, the universe becomes more disorganized, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics remains unbroken.FAQ: But it still seems to me that if life is so highly organized doesn’t the formation of life still "BREAK" the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
ANSWER: The 2nd LT only requires that the universe always moves in the direction of increased entropy or disorder; i.e., at the end of any cosmic instant the requirements of the 2nd LT must be met such that there is a net increase in entropy. It does not define, for any bit of order, either the time frame in which this must occur or the path a bit of order may take before becoming disorder. Even as life is forming and functioning most of the energy it uses is lost as "waste heat" which, as it disperses, contributes to entropy increase. For example, >90% of the energy you ate for lunch today will be lost as body heat simply to keep your temperature constant. No matter how one does the math if you subtract the amount of entropy decrease (by life forming) from the amount of entropy increase (sun burning up, heat loss to space from earth etc.), the final figure always is an INCREASE in ENTROPY.
FAQ: How does one distinguish between a Creationist and a Scientists?
ANSWER: A Creationist will accept no possibility (ZERO!! ZIP!! NADA!! NONE!!) that GOD doesn't exist and often will not even entertain any discussion of that nature. A scientist will always leave the door open to the possibility that evolution, or any other "natural law", is incorrect and will be willing to at least listen to a reasoned discourse on that suggestion. A Creationists has no doubt as to the correctness of his/her view, whereas a scientist remains forever skeptical about everything (including evolution of course).
Evolution works because of RANDOM MUTATIONS that change the physiology, and morphology of living organisms. These changes are subsequently TESTED BY THE ENVIRONMENT to determine which changes offers a better chance of survival. If a given mutation does improve an organism's chances for survival, that mutated gene tends to be passed on to the future generations because those with the mutation have MORE BABIES that themselves survive to become reproducing adults. The process is called NATURAL SELECTION (NS) or SURVIVAL of the FITTEST. NS works because the environment changes over time and selects for characteristics that improve an organism's chance for survival in the changed environment. The following are some examples to help you understand how NS works.
CAN CREATIONISTS EXPLAIN THIS?
There are numerous examples of "evolution in action" that apply to all life forms, including humans. For a more detailed discussion of evolution see the Net evolution page.
THOUGHT QUESTION: Is a
GOD that arranged a
universe such that the evolutionary PROCESS produced what we see around us today any less an ALL POWERFUL CREATOR than one that created
everything in six 24 hr days?
SUPPORT FOR EVOLUTION IN THE BIBLE?
|
The former GOD allows us to experience KENOSIS. The problem people have with this perspective is that it eliminates GOD from our everyday lives; as one view expressed it "GOD set it all running and then walked away". For example, this would apparently mean that "prayers would not be answered" if GOD does not muck in human life. However, since there seems to be no scientific way to PROVE OR DISPROVE that GOD exists, much less that HE/SHE answers prayers, then it is left up to a personal matter of faith of each individual.
Nobel laureate Richard Feynman expressed this quaint view on science vs. faith in his own inimitable style: ``I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist." Click here for more discussion on the same problem.
The fungus Pilobolus launches its own missiles. This fungus lives on the dung of cattle. To complete its life cycle it must pass through a herbivore's gut. To achieve this the fungus constructs a "launch tower". At the top of this tower it forms a reproductive spore capsule containing a 100,000 DNA ASTRONAUTS. Located under this "missile" is the "ROCKET FUEL" in the form of a special cell. The fungus also contains a "guidance system" in the form of a "LIGHT-SENSITIVE EYE". Using the information from its "eye" the fungus's computer points the capsule in the direction of the greatest light to avoid intervening obstacles. When the spore is ripe, the fuel cell builds up several atmospheres of pressure. Then in the morning, when the sun is at the best angle to provide the maximum flight distance, the fuel cell explodes and "lift off" is achieved. The explosion propels the capsule several feet away. The capsule even has a landing system in the form of a fast drying glue so that it can't be washed off by rain. Thus affixed to a grass blade it is in position to be eaten by the next hungry herbivore that comes along.
In Africa the Arcaca trees have evolved three inch sharp thorns to prevent animals from eating their leaves. However, the giraffes and antelope in turn evolved long tongues to defeat the thorns. So the Arcaca trees EVOLVED a cooperative chemical defense. They produce tannin (chemical warfare) in their leaves which is toxic to animals that eat them. Further, they have evolved a chemical warning system for nearby Arcaca trees. When a tree is being grazed on it releases ethylene, a gas, which stimulates the nearby trees to produce toxic tannin in a short time. Is this the end of the story? No way, as evolution always means change.
The antelopes learned to browse for only a short time; i.e. they quite before the tannin concentration builds up. The giraffe has now learned (evolved?) to only eat arcacia trees upwind and then it moves on to trees further away.
Can you imagine what the next evolutionary escalation might between the trees and the grazers?
Copyright © Dr. R. E. Hurlbert, 1999.
This material may be used for educational purposes only and may not be duplicated for
commercial purposes.
SCIENCE HALL, ROOM 440CA
PHONE: 509-335-5108
FAX: 509-335-1907
E-mail address: hurlbert@wsu.edu or hurlbert@pullman.com
