The "Scientific" Reliability of Natural Selection

Although Europe has taking the initiative of banning the teaching of Creationism, it is important to look at how the North American school system takes a similar approach. In science classes the theory of evolution is presented as the primary explanation for life on Earth without much emphasis on creationism of intelligent design. Interestingly, it appears that criticism for Darwin's theory is becoming a more popular topic in the psychological field. Several of these arguments I feel, should be made more apparent in the typical schooling environment.
During the development of Social Darwinism, several of Darwin's theories came under attack from psychologists around the world. According to Karl Popper, a science is only valid if it can be disproven. This principle of falsifiability provides the largest criticism of evolution; that the "fact" cannot be challenged. It is virtually impossible to refute Darwin's arguments, however this does not necessarily demonstrate scientific reliability. In addition, it has been implied that the reliability of many of the stories that founded Darwin's theory are questionable. The reliability of the peppered moth, Darwin's finches, fossil record and probiotic soup have all been attacked.
Clearly, Darwin's theory cannot be entirely proven as we would expect from a "scientific" theory that has entirely transformed our world view. It's validity does not meet the standards we would expect from other scientific hypotheses although there is substantial supporting evidence. It is possible to view Darwin's theory as a philosophical assumption rather than an actual science. In this case, how are we to say that it should take priority over the teaching of other philosophical theories such as creationism?

References:

Study of ID means fair debate in schools - December 30, 2003By Curtis L. Brickley J
http://www.ravallirepublic.com/articles/2004/01/02/opinion/viewpoint/zvalley.txt

class discussions, PSYC 210 UVIC

Bacterial Spores

When certain bacterium(Bacillus,Clostridium) are exposed to environmental changes, or a lack of food source,often times they will enter a state of change in order to protect themselves from damage. Once a cell notices these changes it begins to make a copy of its chromosome and replicate. In a sense the bacteria will "mummify" itself into what are called spores or endospores. These spores are incredibly difficult to destroy and are usually not affected by changes in heat, pressure, pH, lack of nutrient or even radiation! This has a lot to do with how the spore is formed, containing very hard multi layered coats for protection, thick layers of peptidoglycan and the ability to be dormant for long periods. It is possible that some bacteria could have even been revived after lying dormant for millions of years! This is truly an incredible survival technique, maybe researchers could use the same technologies to keep people with disease in a dormant state until a cure is found?
However, not all bacteria have the ability to spore but most that live in soil do and can be very harmful when contracted. These endospores can cause many serious diseases in humans. Anaerobic sporing bacteria can cause such diseases as botulism (Clostridium botulinum), gas gangrene (Clostridium perfringens), tetanus (Clostridium tetani), and acute food poisoning (Clostridium perfringens). Aerobic bacteria such as the well known anthrax (Bacillus anthracis) can also cause significant health issues.
One of widely unknown features of the spore is how it actually returns to a living bacterial state. So far researchers believe that the spore can only awaken from its dormancy once the conditions surrounding it are returned to the levels that were present when the bacterium was thriving. In the past it has been widely unknown how the spore actually breaks out of its dormant state but a new study by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists have proven many great insights. They have studied Bacillus atrophaeus spores and revealed that when the spore is awakening the spore coat will actually breakdown and a new bacterium will emerge!! Scary! almost a little too much like the Alien movies!
Although hard to fathom, hopefully these new studies will allow us to more clearly understand bacterial spores in order to better treat infections and to aide in protecting ourselves from future disease.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endospore
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/bacspores.html
http://www.llnl.gov/str/Sep07/NewsSep07.html

Creationism in Europe

For over 100 years now, there have been heated debates of Evolution vs. Creationism. A debate which has a way of seeping into our daily lives, and now, once again, into our school systems.On October 5Th, the Council of Europe, responsible for the European Convention on Human Rights, declared an end to the teaching of Creationism in schools, stating "if we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights." This, to me, seems a bit harsh.

The main argument presented, was that Creationism is a theory, not a science, and as such, should not be taught in classrooms. But then why do we refer to it as the "theory" of evolution...

Now, I'm not saying that I strongly believe one way or another, but I do believe it is irresponsible of the European government to ban the referencing to this proposed view. I think that we all have the right to be made aware of all the possibilities, however controversial they might be, so we can make our own, educated decision about the world we live in. There is amazing evidence of evolution. It is happening around us as we speak. But I think it is still important to provide ALL the facts, especially in a high school setting, where students are at a stage where they are in the process of deciding in what they do and do not agree with.

I also found it interesting how quickly our societies view on the matter has changed in such a short time span. For example, look back to the 1925 John Scopes "monkey" trial, when a Tennessee high school biology teacher was prosecuted for teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Now, we've made so many advances in the theory of evolution, with the help of the fossil record and molecular biology, that the opinions of most have changed tremendously.

I guess all I am saying is that, like anything else we are taught in school, we should be presented with all the arguments so that we can make an informed decision for ourselves.

Take a look:

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2007/10/europe_and_creationism.html

www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/04/america/schools.php

www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

They are talking about us!!!

The Bayblab dudes are a very nice bunch. Interesting guys and interested in science and everything in between....and they are talking about us!!! Visit them here: http://bayblab.blogspot.com/2007/10/teaching-science-with-web-20.

Irreducible Complexity

While looking through this blog, I stumbled upon a link to an Intelligent Design Discussion. Where I learned about an interesting idea, that raises some potential problems with traditional Darwinian evolution. The webpage has an essay written by Biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, who marvels at the complexity of human life and purposes the question, how can, “Darwinian natural selection account for the amazing complexity that exists at the molecular level.” He then says, “Darwin himself set the standard when he acknowledged, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." ” He then goes on to introduce the idea of “irreducible complexity,” which is a biological structure or system which would be a difficult to build with successive modifications, because if you take away one of the parts of the system, the structure ceases to function and is useless. It would then become a vestigial structure, and natural selection would slowly eliminate it. One of the structures which Behe mentions is the flagella of bacteria. The motor flagellum consists of about 40 different parts, but if you took away any one of those parts it wouldn’t function, and would actually become a disadvantage. This raises the question, how could the flagellum (or any other irreducibly complex structure) be formed by successive and slight modifications. I find the concept of irreducible complexity very interesting and wonder why I have never heard of it before.

On the website Behe presents his argument and then there is a response by Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, who presents some potential problems with Behe’s argument. Curiously enough there is no response given by Behe on the webpage, but I wondered how Behe might respond to Miller’s argument, or if he even had a response. I asked around and found a whole heap of websites surrounding the idea of “irreducible complexity”. Some supported the idea and some refuted it.

I found that one of the main arguments that people had against Behe’s idea was that he hadn’t published any papers in scientific journals regarding the subject, and hadn’t presented the idea for peer-review, which is a common method of testing and critiquing a scientific idea. The frustrating thing, is that he has submitted essays on this topic to science journals, and they will not publish them because of their “controversial nature,” and they admit that they are “aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific community.” Isn’t science about discovering what is true and being open to new ideas?!? Isn’t science supposed to be open to theories which may contradict the current scientific beliefs? Think about Galileo. Are we supposed to accept everything we learn about Darwinian evolution, without thinking critically and having an open-mind. I sympathize with Behe. I find it absurd that a scientific journal can admit to the close-mindedness of a science, when we learn that science is supposed to be about new discovery and finding the truth.

I find Behe’s theory about Irreducible Complex structures very interesting. He doesn’t mention God or religion, and he doesn’t appear to disagree that man is decendent from single-celled life, just that it couldn't have occured through "successive, slight modifications," as Darwin put it. I am very discouraged by the apparent intolerance of the scientific community towards any ideas which present arguments against traditional evolution. I encourage everyone to look into it, and post some discussion about his ideas.

References:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html#millerlinks

http://www.trueorigin.org/behe08.asp

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2083_the_elusive_scientific_basis_o_3_16_2001.asp

Evolution Cannot Prove Everything

The theory of evolution has been adapted a lot since Darwin wrote his "Orgin of Species". His theory was based on very careful observations of plants and animals and fossil records. It is hard to argue with many of his statements because we can see many examples of evolution happening within our own lifetime. These changes happen in things like viruses and bacteria a lot, as we know when they mutate to become drug resistant, etc. A lot of observations from nature imply that plants and animals adapt to the surroundings they are forced to live in.

For example, white polar bears are white to help them blend in to the snow and ice in their environment. African people have darker skin because over centuries it changed so they could live safely in more direct sunlight. North Europeans have blue eyes and light skin so they can absorb more sunlight and receive the Vitamin D they need to be healthy.

These adaptations also apply to the plant world. Plants can even be meat eating if they grow in places with little light and need to get their nutrients from other places than the sun.

No one argues with observed adaptations. No one argues with the evidence of "micro-evolution" that happens around us all the time.

However, I think that Darwin's theories and those of most secular evolutionists can only explain these observations from the context of their own belief systems. Darwin was a humanist. He thought a higher power, or God, had nothing to do with the changes in the physical world--that is, if there was a God at all.

I am not saying that I believe a traditional Christian view of God creating the earth in 6 days and all that kind of stuff, but that I see real gaps with some of the basic assumptions of Darwin's theories that have never been adequately proven.

For example, if you say that a human originally came from a single celled organism, whether plant or animal, where did that original organism come from? Also, if nature is totally set up as survival of the fittest, why are there still weaker species still on the earth with stronger ones?

Also, how can you adequately explain the level of biodiversity that exists in a single area? Natural selection would have eliminated most of it in favor of a few strong species.

Also, there has never been a real discovery of the "missing link" between animal (ape) and human discovered. There have been many reports, but nothing real.

I believe that your personal beliefs greatly influence how you interpret the data you see. Three people can see the same piece of news information and get three different interpretations of the same facts.

I see adaptations in everything, but significant evolutionary jumps, not.

I know these views are likely to spark some debate, but isn't that what this blog is about? If you want, check out the following sites to add some more fuel to the fire.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/creation-vs-evolution-n.htm

http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality/Science_and_Religion/Creation_vs__Evolution/

Biological Monuments

While cruising the World-Wide-Web for a blog worthy topic, I stumbled across an article from the Associated Press I found quite interesting. CBC reports National Garden Clubs, Inc., a nonprofit that promotes a love of gardening in the United States and overseas, will plant a tree cloned from President Teddy Roosevelt’s Sagamore Hill home on Long Island. It will join several other trees cloned from the estates of past American presidents, creating a tree tribute to dead American powerhouses.

Initially I rolled my eyes at the thought of science, yet again, breaking the bounds of Mother Nature. Who are we to clone the most majestic natural specimen for the pleasure of some American loyalists? I am a true traditionalist when it comes to the planet and at times I don’t think science should be budding its nose into something that has worked just fine for millennia. Keep the tree where the tree stands! What guarantee do they have that these cloned wanna-be trees won’t be susceptible to diseases? Or worse, introduce a disease that will devastate a garden, forest or entire ecosystem. Will these replicas be just as genetically sound as the originals? How will this intruder affect the environment its put in?

After considerable thought and internal debate however, I am of the opinion that this cloning thing - if done right - could be a huge advantage to ecosystems that have been, or are becoming debilitated by humans heavy hand. Will science evolve enough to save entire ecosystems? What about a rain forest? Or a boreal forest? Can this genetically manipulated flora be adapted to allow BC pine trees a resistance to the devastating effects of the Pine Beetle? Can such manipulation progress to a point where coral can be altered to survive in a warmer ocean? If so, this could signify monumental benefits to the planets ecosystems.

I still think science tends to cross ethical lines but I love my planet and I would like to see it continue to thrive for my nephew’s sake. I find it only fair that he gets to explore the diversity this planet has to offer, despite our abuses of the environment.

Reference :
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/science/070928/g092802A.html

Image Reference: http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/113647/2/istockphoto_113647_exotic_roots_of_a_bay_fig_tree.jpg