Definitions (Evolution)

by David Turell , Monday, April 07, 2008, 01:50 (5855 days ago) @ whitecraw

It appears that I have not been clear in my reasoning about science and the Darwin Theory. - whitecraw has stated, "It is a constitutive principle of modern science that nature is a closed system of cause and effect and that, for an explanation to be considered 'scientific', it must not invoke as a postulate any agency outside of that system; i.e. any supernatural agency. This is the principle of methodological naturalism." 
 I absolutely agree, but please remember, I have the right to read scientific studies and their findings, but reach my own conclusions, since very often there are several possible interpretations. I am not asking science to find God. I know quite well that the proof and dis-proof of God are both impossible. But if I reach a position 'beyond a reasonable doubt', I will take that position.
 whitecraw further observed: "For such reasons as these I'd still go with the theory of evolution by natural selection as a scientific explanation of how properties of populations of organisms change through time. However lousy it may turn out to be, it is still the best lousy theory we currently have. You maintain that the theory of evolution by natural selection has problems explaining the complexity of life. I don't agree for the reasons I've adumbrated several times now without reply. But even if it did have such problems, this provides us with no immediate reason to abandon the theory." - Here I must respectfully disagree. Thomas Kuhn has taught us that scientists follow each other like lemmings and the theory, favored for the moment, will be defended almost to the death. That is what is happening with Darwin. In this country grants for research are simply not available unless it is within the umbrella of Darwinism. So much for encouraging opposing research, and the theory that all theories should encourage research. - Now for complexity: Darwin favored a gradual step by step change in organisms, and eventually a new species would appear. The fossil record does not favor this supposition in any way, and may never. New complex organisms appear suddenly, explosively, with no 'somewhat less' complex precursors. (Saltation) Careful biochemical studies of living mechanisms demonstrate how very complex one living cell is, with many interlocking processes involving hundreds of different proteins.
 Human blood clotting, when I last checked 4 years ago, involved 17 factors, not including platelets and tissue factors that initiate the process. It must be exact: the last thing wanted is clotting the whole circulatory system, and there are disease processes that literally try that. Each of the 17 steps have feed-back mechanisms which involve other factors, to exactly control the process. (By the way in medical school we were taught there were 10 steps) My point is that as science adds to the complexity of life, and keeps adding complexity, Darwin's supposition appears less and less likely, that processes like clotting just fell together a little bit at a time.
 One other example of Darwin's problem: when hominids quit knuckle dragging and went upright in locomotion, the female (and also the male) pelvis changed dramatically in shape. At the same time the female outlet became more bowl-like and the opening for birth had to enlarge to accommodate the enlarging baby's head to allow for the growth of the brain size. How was this accomplished if the baby had half its DNA from Dad? One could presume that the female outlet enlarged and then the babies' brains grew bigger. There are many areas in evolution that look like purposeful activity is present. Exaptations are a major example: novel innovations which appear in a species long before there are needed or used. Perhaps human birth with the bigger brain depended on an exaptation. 
 There are thousands of examples like this, books written on the subject, so that I could go on typing for hours. All I can suggest is an open mind to alternatives. 
 Hopefully, that makes my postion clearer.