Quote of the Day: Either the Universe was designed specifically for us by a creator or ...

In this Quote of the Day, astrophysicist Marcus Chown wrote of the fine-tuning of the Universe, [Graphic: Triple alpha process - the nucleosynthesis of three helium nuclei into carbon, Wikipedia] "Only if the nuclei of beryllium-8, carbon-12 and oxygen-16 exist in particular energy states can hydrogen be built up into the elements of life such as calcium, magnesium and iron), that "This fine-tuning has two possible explanations. Either the Universe was designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude of universes--a `multiverse'." (my emphasis):

"But the main reason for believing in an ensemble of universes is that it could explain why the laws governing our Universe appear to be so finely tuned for our existence. In the 1950s, for instance, Fred Hoyle discovered that the step-by-step build-up of heavy elements inside stars depends on a series of spectacular coincidences. Only if the nuclei of beryllium-8, carbon-12 and oxygen-16 exist in particular energy states can hydrogen be built up into the elements of life such as calcium, magnesium and iron. This fine-tuning has two possible explanations. Either the Universe was designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude of universes--a `multiverse'. Only in those universes in which the properties of beryllium-8, carbon-12 and oxygen-16 are right for life would any life arise to notice any fine-tuning." (Chown, M., "Anything Goes," New Scientist, 6 June 1998, Vol. 158, pp.26-30, p.28)

Note that Chown says that "the main reason for believing in an ensemble of universes is that it could explain [naturalistically] why the laws governing our Universe appear to be so finely tuned for our existence" (my emphasis). That is, it is primarily religious (i.e. anti-God) not scientific!

The fallacy of special pleading (double standard) is implicit in the above, i.e. the "no" answer to the question, "is the Universe was designed specifically for us by a creator"? is "science" but the "yes" answer to the same question is "religion":"

PJ: Clearly if you have a question, the answer yes and the answer no to the question are still in the same subject area. So if the affirmation `Yes, natural selection can create as much as is needed,' is science, then the no answer -- `No, the evidence does not support that' -- is science, too. I vigorously assert that this is not two subjects but one subject: what does the evidence show and not show about natural processes? David Von Drehle: `I think there are two subjects. There is a scientific debate about what the evidence shows or doesn't show. And there is a religious debate, with two different religions making claims about a topic they can't fully understand.' PJ: `I wouldn't fight you if you wanted to say that there is only one subject on both sides, and it is religion. They should either teach evolution in religion class and not in science, or teach it in science and present both sides. It can't be that the yes answer is science and the no answer is religion.'" (Johnson, P.E., "Evolution and the Curriculum: A Conversation with Phillip Johnson and Gregg Easterbrook," Center Conversations No. 4, September 1999, Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington DC).

This fallacy is explicit in the following quote by Maynard Smith and Szathmáry, where they ruled that it was "outside science" to even consider "The simplest interpretation" (which according to Occam's razor or the Principle of Parsimony is what science normally accepts) for why "the physical constants have just the values required to ensure that the Universe contains stars with planets capable of supporting intelligent life," is "that the Universe was designed by a creator" (my emphasis):

"The idea that the world is peculiarly adapted to the appearance of life is not a new one. In 1913, the biochemist L.J. Henderson pointed out that many substances such as water have precisely those properties required if life is to exist. Most biologists rejected his views, arguing that organisms are adapted to their environments by natural selection, not the other way around. But the questions he raised have surfaced again recently in a new form. It turns out that the physical constants have just the values required to ensure that the Universe contains stars with planets capable of supporting intelligent life. The 'cosmological anthropic principle' has been suggested as an explanation for this puzzling fact. The principle takes several forms. The weak anthropic principle merely states that certain universes, with unfortunate lists of physical constants, would not be observable by us, simply because we would not be there. The weak principle is not a theory: it merely acknowledges a peculiar situation. The strong principle, proposed by Brandon Carter, is more radical. It states that the Universe must have those properties that allow life to develop in it at some stage of its life history. How can this curious claim be understood? The simplest interpretation is that the Universe was designed by a creator who intended that intelligent life should evolve. This interpretation lies outside science." (Maynard Smith, J. & Szathmáry, E., "On the likelihood of habitable worlds," Nature, Vol. 384, 14 November 1996, p.107).

Here are some other examples of fine-tuning from Chown's article:

"Many other examples of fine-tuning have been found. For instance, if the strong nuclear force, which glues nuclei together, were only about 1 per cent stronger, two protons would stick to make a `di-proton'. In our Universe, protons are welded in the Sun via the weak nuclear force, which first converts one of the protons to a neutron, and is extremely slow. It takes about 10 billion years for two protons to combine, ensuring that the Sun burns its fuel slowly over the billions of years needed for life to evolve. If the di-proton were stable, the strong force would snap protons together so fast that the Sun would burn its fuel in less than a second and explode. If the strong force had always been stronger, all hydrogen nuclei would have been processed into di-protons in the big bang and there would be no hydrogen for stars to burn. The weak nuclear force also appears to be finely balanced to permit our existence. During the catastrophic collapse of a star, the matter in its dense core is transformed into neutrons and a vast number of neutrinos. The neutrinos fly outwards and in the process blow away the star's `envelope', triggering a supernova. Yet neutrinos interact with matter in the envelope only via the weak force. If the weak interaction were slightly stronger, the neutrinos would be trapped in the heart of the star and the explosion would stall. If it were slightly weaker, they would escape from the star without interacting with matter. Either way, the heavy elements forged in massive stars which are essential for life would not be catapulted into space to be incorporated into new stars and planets. There are yet more examples. For instance, Tegmark and Martin Rees of the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge, have found that stars and galaxies could not have arisen if the initial clumpiness of the matter emerging from the big bang had been slightly different (This Week, 29 November 1997, p 11). And Tegmark has found that only with three dimensions of space and one of time is physics both predictable enough and complex enough for the evolution of life, while yielding stable structures such as atoms and planets (This Week, 13 September 1997, p 11). `Wherever physicists look, they see examples of fine-tuning,' says Rees." (Chown, M., "Anything Goes," New Scientist, 6 June 1998, Vol. 158, pp.26-30, pp.28-29. My emphasis)

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'

Quote of the Day: The ultimate quote?

This Quote of the Day by Darwin in his Descent of Man is arguably the ultimate quote!

[Graphic: The Darwin Project]

In it Darwin, referring to his Origin of Species: 1) admitted that his primary objective was not scientific but religious, i.e. anti-creation ("I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change" - my emphasis); 2) retreated from his theory of natural selection by supplementing it with Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics ("natural selection had been the chief agent of change, though largely aided by the inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct action of the surrounding conditions" - my emphasis); 3) effectively admitted that he had "extend[ed] too far the action of natural selection" and 4) had "exaggerated its power"; and 5) had given "to natural selection great power":

"I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change, though largely aided by the inherited effects of habit, and slightly by the direct action of the surrounding conditions. I was not, however, able to annul the influence of my former belief, then almost universal, that each species had been purposely created; and this led to my tacit assumption that every detail of structure, excepting rudiments, was of some special, though unrecognised, service. Any one with this assumption in his mind would naturally extend too far the action of natural selection, either during past or present times. Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticizing my book [The Origin of Species], that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." (Darwin, C.R., "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," [1871], John Murray: London, 1874, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, p.92).

Of these, the last admission is perhaps the most important, since it applies not just to Darwin, but to all Darwinists, namely, it is Darwinists who give to natural selection its power!

It reminds me of the prophet Isaiah's ridiculing of those who make an idol and then bow down to it, forgetting that it is they who gave to the idol any power it has over them:

Isaiah 44:15-17 "¹⁵ It is man's fuel for burning; some of it he takes and warms himself, he kindles a fire and bakes bread. But he also fashions a god and worships it; he makes an idol and bows down to it. ¹⁶Half of the wood he burns in the fire; over it he prepares his meal, he roasts his meat and eats his fill. He also warms himself and says, `Ah! I am warm; I see the fire.' <sup>17</sup>From the rest he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, `Save me; you are my god.'"

Indeed, Darwin actually called natural selection "my deity"!:

"MY DEAR GRAY ... I hope you have received long ago the third edition of the `Origin.' ... I have been led to think more on this subject of late, and grieve to say that I come to differ more from you. It is not that designed variation makes, as it seems to me, my deity `Natural Selection' superfluous, but rather from studying, lately, domestic variation, and seeing what an enormous field of undesigned variability there is ready for natural selection to appropriate for any purpose useful to each creature." (Darwin, C.R., Letter to Asa Gray, June 5, 1861, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.165-166. My emphasis).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'

Quote of the Day: Gene duplication does not increase information

Evolutionists sometimes claim, or imply, that gene duplication is the answer to how genetic information is created (e.g. Dawkins, R., "The Information Challenge," The Skeptic, Vol 18, No 4 Dec 1998).

[Graphic: "Gene Duplication," Wikipedia]

But as Maynard Smith and Szathmáry note in this Quote of the Day, "In itself, a duplication does not add to the total quantity of information present: two copies of a message are not more informative than one":

"How did genetic information increase? ... The simplest process is the duplication of a piece of DNA, which can vary in length from a single gene to a whole set of chromosomes. Such accidental events are not all that infrequent. In itself, a duplication does not add to the total quantity of information present: two copies of a message are not more informative than one. All it does is to produce additional DNA that can later be programmed by selection. It is worth noting, however, that the procedure is rather different from the way in which one might add memory to a computer. In the latter case, the additional memory would initially be blank (unless one added an already programmed chip). In evolution, the new DNA already carries a message, albeit a redundant one. New information requires that this message be altered step by step. We know that the duplication of genes has been important. A classic example concerns haemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood. It is a compound of four subunits, of two kinds, each kind programmed by a different gene. The two genes arose by duplication, followed by minor divergence. A further round of duplication and divergence produced the different haemoglobin in the fetus of mammals. Gene duplication is common, but does not always lead to an increase in information: more often, one of the two copies degenerates, because natural selection does not maintain two copies if one will do. Our chromosomes are full of such fossil genes, so-called pseudogenes. It is only occasionally that the duplicate copy acquires a new function. The important point is that duplication, whether of single genes or whole genomes, does not in itself produce significant novelty. It merely provides additional DNA that is not needed, and so can be programmed to perform new functions. It does not cause increased complexity, but it does provide the raw material for such an increase to occur later." (Maynard Smith, J. & Szathmáry, E., "The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1999, pp.26-27. Emphasis original)

As I pointed out in a debate in 2000, commenting on a quote by Richard Lewontin, that:

"New genes, in addition to the old ones ... occurs as a two-step process. First, a gene (or group of genes) is accidentally duplicated so that a chromosome now carries an extra copy of it. Because only one good copy is needed to produce the original protein, the extra copy is free to accumulate mutations without harming the organism. After a time, enough changes may have accumulated in the duplicate to give it a new function." (Lewontin, R.C., "Human Diversity," Scientific American Library: New York NY, 1995, p.151)

"To claim that genes can duplicate, go off-line where selection cannot `see' them, accumulate new design information by random mutation, then come back on-line with whole new design information ready to be slotted back seamlessly into the system, is the equivalent of believing in genetic miracles, yet this in fact what is now the orthodox Darwinian theory, even though it is radically non-Darwinian ... But this is just hand-waving. It is compatible with an Intelligent Designer modifying genes while they are off-line, and then bringing them back online, slotting them seamlessly back into the system (just as intelligently designed computer program upgrades do), but not with a `blind watchmaker'"!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'

"Instant" Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches, Study Says #5

"Instant" Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches, Study Says, National Geographic, Mason Inman, July 14, 2006 ... [Continued from part #4. Graphic: Woodcut of Galapagos finches included by Darwin in the 1845 Second Edition of his "Journal of Researches" (later "Voyage of the Beagle"). See below.]

.... Ironically, naturalist Charles Darwin missed signs of evolution among these finches during his 1831 visit to the Galápagos. Only later, with the help of other collectors and scientists, was he able to see how evolution was responsible for the variety of finches. [This is an important point. That it still has to be written ~ 175 years after the event, to correct the legend in the public mind that Darwin (in my opinion dishonestly and deliberately) created by rewriting history in his "Journal of Researches" (1839, 1845) (which after his death was abridged and republished in 1905 as "The Voyage of the Beagle"), to make it sound like it was while he was at the Galapagos Islands he saw the grades of beaks of its finches from different islands and that was what converted him from a Bible-believing creationist into an evolutionist.

But in fact, in Darwin's daily diary, he only mentioned the finches once and that very briefly, i.e. "It was however sufficient to draw together all the little birds in the country; Doves & Finches swarmed round its margin":

"(October 1st.) Albemarle Island is as it were the mainland of the Archipelago; it is about 75 miles long & several broad; is composed of 6 or 7 great Volcanic Mounds from 2 to 3000 ft. high, joined by low land formed of Lava & other Volcanic substances. Since leaving the last Island, owing to the small quantity of water on board, only half allowance of water has been served out (i.e. ½ a Gallon for cooking & all purposes). This under the line with a Vertical sun is a sad drawback to the few comforts which a Ship possesses. From different accounts, we had hoped to have found water here. To our disappointment the little pits in the Sandstone contained scarcely a Gallon & that not good. It was however sufficient to draw together all the little birds in the country; Doves & Finches swarmed round its margin. I was reminded of the manner in which I saw at Charles Isd a boy procuring dinner for his family. Sitting by the side of a Well, with a long stick in his hand, as the doves came to drink he killed as many as he wanted & in half an hour collected them together & carried them to the house. To the South of the Cove I found a most beautiful Crater, elliptic in form, less than a mile in its longer axis & about 500 feet deep. Its bottom was occupied by a lake, out of which a tiny Crater formed an Island. The day was overpoweringly hot; & the lake looked blue & clear. I hurried down the cindery side, choked with dust, to my disgust on tasting the water found it Salt as brine. This crater & some other neighbouring ones have only poured forth mud or Sandstone containing fragments of Volcanic rocks; but from the mountain behind, great bare streams have flowed, sometimes from the summit, or from small Craters on the side, expanding in their descent, have at the base formed plains of Lava. The little of the country I have yet seen in this vicinity is more arid & sterile than in the other Islands. We here have another large Reptile in great numbers; it is a great Lizard, from 10-15 lb. in weight & 2-4 feet in length; is in structure closely allied to those "imps of darkness" which frequent the sea-shore. This one inhabits burrows to which it hurries when frightened, with quick & clumsy gait. They have a ridge & spines along the back; are colored an orange yellow, with the hinder part of back brick red. They are hideous animals; but are considered good food: this day forty were collected." " (Darwin, C.R., "Charles Darwin's Diary of the Voyage of HMS Beagle," Barlow, N., ed., Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1933, p.338)

Darwin arrived back in England in 1836 and later found in 1837 (i.e. ~2 years after he was at the Galapagos) that the ornithologist John Gould had classified the finches as separate species.

Darwin's 1839 First Edition of his "Journal of Researches" (which the Penguin edition of "The Voyage of the Beagle" is), was a model of objectivity:

"In my collections from these islands, Mr Gould considers that there are twenty-six different species of land birds. ... A group of finches, of which Mr Gould considers there are thirteen species; and these he has distributed into four new sub-genera. These birds are the most singular of any in the archipelago. They all agree in many points; namely, in a peculiar structure of their bill, short tails, general form, and in their plumage. The females are gray or brown, but the old cocks jet-black. All the species, excepting two, feed in flocks on the ground, and have very similar habits. It is very remarkable that a nearly perfect gradation of structure in this one group can be traced in the form of the beak, from one exceeding in dimensions that of the largest gros-beak, to another differing but little from that of a warbler." (Darwin, C.R., "Voyage of the Beagle: Charles Darwin's Journal of Researches," [1839], Browne, J. & Neve, M., eds, Penguin: London, 1989, pp.275-276. Emphasis original)

But in his 1845 Second Edition (which is the one that was later popularised as "The Voyage of the Beagle") Darwin added, "Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends" (my emphasis):

"The remaining land-birds form a most singular group of finches, related to each other in the structure bf their beaks, short tails, form of body, and plumage: there are thirteen species, which Mr. Gould has divided into four sub-groups. All these species are peculiar to this archipelago; and so is the whole group, with the exception of one species of the sub-group Cactornis, lately brought from Bow island, in the Low Archipelago. Of Cactornis, the two species may be often seen climbing about the flowers of the great cactus-trees; but all the other species of this group of finches, mingled together in flocks, feed on the dry and sterile ground of the lower districts. The males of all, or certainly of the greater number, are jet black; and the females (with perhaps one or two exceptions) are brown. The most curious fact is the perfect gradation in the size of the beaks in the different species of Geospiza, from one as large as that of a hawfinch to that of a chaffinch, and (if Mr. Gould is right in including his sub-group, Certhidea, in the main group), even to that of a warbler. The largest beak in the genus Geospiza is shown in Fig. 1, and the smallest in Fig. 3; but instead of there being only one intermediate species, with a beak of the size shown in Fig. 2, there are no less than six species with insensibly graduated beaks. The beak of the sub-group Certhidea, is shown in Fig. 4. The beak of Cactornis is somewhat like that of a starling; and that of the fourth sub-group, Camarhynchus, is slightly parrot-shaped. Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends." (Darwin, C.R., "The Voyage of the 'Beagle'," [1845], Edito-Service: Geneva, n.d., reprint, pp.379-380)

which most people took as meaning that Darwin saw them at the Galapagos, and so "a considerable [false] legend in the history of science" was created, which was only was corrected in the 1980's by a science historian and later psychologist, Frank J. Sulloway:

"As Darwin remarked in the second edition of his Journal of Researches. `Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends' (1845:380). ... In fact, over the years Darwin's finches have become the focus for a considerable legend in the history of science, one that ranks alongside other famous stories that celebrate the great triumphs of modern science. . It has frequently been asserted that Darwin's finches, along with certain other organisms from the Galapagos Archipelago, were what first alerted Darwin to the possibility that species might he mutable. But as David Lack (1949:9) has pointed out, Darwin did not even discuss the finches in the diary of his voyage on the Beagle- except for a single reference in passing, and his treatment of them in the first edition of his Journal of Researches (1839:461-462) was brief and matter of fact compared with the famous statement about them that he added to the 1845 edition. Given these facts, Lack concluded that Darwin's evolutionary understanding of the finches was largely retrospective. This interpretation is essentially correct, although Lack, who did not examine Darwin's unpublished scientific notes from the Beagle voyage, failed to appreciate the reasons for Darwin's gradual insight." (Sulloway, F.J., "Darwin and His Finches: The Evolution of a Legend," Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1982, pp.1-53, pp.3,5)

As ecologist James G. Sanderson summarising Sulloway's findings pointed out: 1) "the familiar story of `Darwin's finches' that many people learned in school is mostly just that-a story"; 2) "Darwin gathered few examples of these supposedly crucial birds"; 3) "He failed to recognize the importance of the specimens that he did collect and neglected to so much as tag each one with the name of the island from which it came"; 4) "Darwin did not even realize that some of these birds were finches until six years later; 5) "His original account says very little about the finches, reflecting the minimal attention he paid to these birds when he first saw them"; 6) "One reads gushing descriptions in The Voyage of the Beagle only because Darwin revised the text of his journal in 1845 to reflect what he had pieced together in the intervening years":

"Tradition holds that Charles Darwin glimpsed the signature of natural selection quite early in his career, after observing the finches of the Galapagos Islands. He visited these teeming shores of the tropical East Pacific in 1835, during his famous circumnavigation of the globe. One passage in his Journal of Researches into the Geology and Natural History of the Various Countries Visited by H.M.S. Beagle (a work usually published under the more compact title The Voyage of the Beagle) describes his reaction to the markedly different beaks of the six species of Galapagos ground finches: `Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends.' A woodcut showing four finch heads in profile appears next to this statement, further suggesting that these birds were key to the development of Darwin's ideas about biological evolution. But as Frank Sulloway of Harvard University has shown, the familiar story of `Darwin's finches' that many people learned in school is mostly just that-a story. In actuality Darwin gathered few examples of these supposedly crucial birds. He failed to recognize the importance of the specimens that he did collect and neglected to so much as tag each one with the name of the island from which it came. Indeed, Darwin did not even realize that some of these birds were finches until six years later, when John Gould, an eminent British ornithologist, set him straight. One reads gushing descriptions in The Voyage of the Beagle only because Darwin revised the text of his journal in 1845 to reflect what he had pieced together in the intervening years. His original account says very little about the finches, reflecting the minimal attention he paid to these birds when he first saw them." (Sanderson, J.G., "Testing Ecological Patterns," American Scientist, Vol. 88, No. 4, pp.332-339, July-August 2000, p.332)

and 7) in addition to Darwin's "Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends"; 8) "A woodcut showing four finch heads in profile appears next to this statement, further suggesting that these birds were key to the development of Darwin's ideas about biological evolution" (see graphic above).

This will be included with a number of other examples in my `Evolution Quotes Book' and in my "Problems of Evolution" under "Darwin's Dishonesty'. As Darwinist pioneering geneticist C.D. Darlington noted, "Darwin was slippery" with "a flexible strategy which is not to be reconciled with even average intellectual integrity":

"These were virtues or accidents. But side by side with them were what I shall describe as vices. These, we now have to admit, were almost as great a help, almost as valuable a combination in achieving his success, as the virtues that accompanied them. By that I mean his public and political success in mass conversion. These vices were of three kinds: a conservative outlook in every respect except the evolutionary hypothesis; a failure to recognize or to relate his own ideas, his larger ideas, with those of others working in the same field; and a flexible strategy which is not to be reconciled with even average intellectual integrity: by contrast with Wallace, Lyell, Hooker, Chambers or even Spencer, Darwin was slippery." (Darlington, C.D., "Darwin's Place in History," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1959, p.60)]

Coontinued in part #6.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'

Quote of the Day: The origin of life genome size catch-22

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Denyse O'Leary won't mind me imitating her Thinkquote of the Day. In compiling my `Evolution Quotes Book' I am finding some great quotes (both old and new) that I would like to share. A Quote of the Day post would be a way for me to do that.

So here is the first one:

"Replication is not perfect. If it were, there would be no variation for selection to act on. But initially the problem would have been too much mutation, and not too little. Most mutations reduce fitness. Selection is therefore needed to maintain a meaningful message. The old game of Chinese whispers demonstrates that, without selection, the result is chaos. How accurate must replication be? Imagine a message-for example, a DNA molecule-that replicates to produce two copies of itself. The two copies replicate to produce four, and so on. During replication, miscopying occurs, and the erroneous copies that result are eliminated by selection. Only perfect copies survive. It is clear that, after each copying, at least one copy on average must be perfect. Otherwise selection cannot maintain the integrity of the message. This places an upper limit on the permissible mutation rate per base copied, or, equivalently, an upper limit on the length of the message, for a given mutation rate. If the genome size, or the mutation rate per symbol, rises above this critical upper limit, the result is an accumulation of mutated messages. This is what Manfred Eigen and Peter Schuster have called the `error threshold'. It is easy to see roughly where this upper limit lies. The requirement is that at least one perfect copy, on average, must be made at each replication. If there are n symbols, this means, approximately, that the probability of an error when replicating a symbol must be not greater than 1/n. In other words, if the genome contains 1000 bases, the mutation rate per base, per replication, must be not greater than 1/1000. The error rate in experiments ... is in the range 1/1000 to 1/10 000. This would permit a genome between 1000 and 10 000 bases. But this involves replication by an enzyme; if there is no enzyme, the error rate is much higher. ... The error rate depends on the medium, the temperature, and so on, but very roughly the wrong base pairs ... once in 20 times. This implies that, before there were specific enzymes, the maximum size of the genome was about 20 bases. At first sight, this is a serious difficulty, and so it was long regarded. It presented a kind of catch-22 of the origin of life. Without a specific enzyme, the genome size is limited to about 20 bases; but with a mere 20 bases one cannot code for an enzyme, let alone the translating machinery needed to convert the base sequence into a specific protein." (Maynard Smith, J. & Szathmáry, E., "The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language," Oxford University Press: New York NY, 1999, pp.34-36)

I don't intend to comment much on these quotes of the day, but to head off the evolutionist "out-of-context quote" brigade, I must mention that Maynard Smith and Szathmáry go on to claim that:

"An escape from this catch-22 of the origin of life came with the discovery that RNA molecules can act not only as templates for copying but also as enzymes" (p.37).

I have another quote by a leading evolutionist to rebut that, but I don't want to start posting multiple quotes in these quotes of the day.

In any case, accepting for the sake of argument Maynard Smith and Szathmáry's point, the significance of this quote is that either: 1) A RNA ribozyme must be able to spontaneously generate above the 20-base error threshold and then make at least one perfect copy of itself every replication (and there is no evidence that it could); or else 2) there is no escape from the naturalistic catch-22:

"Without a specific enzyme, the genome size is limited to about 20 bases; but with a mere 20 bases one cannot code for an enzyme"

and so design is the only remaining alternative!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'

The Reason Eyes are Transparent Finally Becomes Clear

The Reason Eyes are Transparent Finally Becomes Clear, Livescience, Abigail W. Leonard, 19 July 2006 ...

[Graphic: MSNBC. Also at CBC, EurekAlert!, Medical News Today, Science Daily and the original PNAS paper. Thanks to Tom Magnuson at ARN's ID in the News where I first saw this.]

It is the transparent part of the eye, but for scientists, its origin was anything but clear. Now researchers have pinpointed why the cornea, the thin covering that allows light into the eye, is completely see-through. The discovery could lead to potential cures for eye disease and possibly even cancer.

Unlike almost every other part of the body, the cornea has no blood vessels and therefore no color. While that much was known, scientists couldn't figure out how the body kept blood vessels from growing there. The new research shows the area harbors large stores of a protein that binds to growth factors, material the body produces to stimulate blood vessel formation. The protein forms a sort of lock on the growth factors, so no blood vessels are produced, leaving the area totally colorless.

"Drugs designed to manipulate the levels of this protein could heal corneas that have undergone severe trauma or help shrink tumors fed by rapidly growing abnormal blood vessels," said Reza Dana, head of the Cornea Service at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and an associate professor at Harvard Medical School. "In fact, the next step in our work is exactly this."

The new discovery, which Dana and colleagues called unexpected, will be published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ... [The PNAS paper says that "Transparency of the cornea, the window of the eye, is a prerequisite for vision" (my emphasis):

"Transparency of the cornea, the window of the eye, is a prerequisite for vision. Angiogenesis into the normally avascular cornea is incompatible with good vision and, therefore, the cornea is one of the few tissues in the human body where avascularity is actively maintained. Here, we provide evidence for a critical mechanism contributing to corneal avascularity. VEGF receptor, normally present on lymphatic and proliferating blood vascular endothelium, is strongly constitutively expressed by corneal epithelium and is mechanistically responsible for suppressing inflammatory corneal angiogenesis." (Cursiefen, C., et al., "Nonvascular VEGF receptor 3 expression by corneal epithelium maintains avascularity and vision," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, July 18, 2006)

If they mean that literally, and what we were told in my biology degree classes is that scientific journal papers these days go through extensive checking, editing and rewriting, which can take many months, so I assume that they do mean that literally. That is, the cornea would have to be free of blood vessels from the beginning, and so could not progress through a Darwinian "6 per cent is better than 5, 7 per cent better than 6, and so on up the gradual, continuous series":

"In a primitive world where some creatures had no eyes at all and others had lensless eyes, the ones with lensless eyes would have all sorts of advantages. And there is a continuous series of Xs, such that each tiny improvement in sharpness of image, from swimming blur to perfect human vision, plausibly increases the organism's chances of surviving. The book [Hitching F., "The Neck of the Giraffe," Pan: London, 1982, p.103)] goes on to quote Stephen Jay Gould, the noted Harvard palaeontologist, as saying: `We avoid the excellent question, What good is 5 percent of an eye? by arguing that the possessor of such an incipient structure did not use it for sight.' [Gould S.J., "Ever Since Darwin," Penguin: London, 1978, p.107) An ancient animal with 5 per cent of an eye might indeed have used it for something other than sight, but it seems to me at least as likely that it used it for 5 per cent vision. And actually I don't think it is an excellent question. Vision that is 5 per cent as good as yours or mine is very much worth having in comparison with no vision at all. So is 1 per cent vision better than total blindness. And 6 per cent is better than 5, 7 per cent better than 6, and so on up the gradual, continuous series." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," Norton: New York, 1986, p.81)

Here is a 1940s quote by the late Edwin G. Conklin, Professor of Biology at Princeton, and an evolutionist, who cites "the beautiful dioptric apparatus of transparent cornea" amongst all the other "multitudes of beautifully coordinated structures and functions leading to an apparently designed end. Consider, for example, the improbability of being able to explain by such means the origin of all the adaptations and coadaptations of the eye" as part of "the enormous difficulty, if not the impossibility, of accounting for" them and it "by the sole method of natural selection, that is, by random mutations followed by the elimination of those individuals that are not well adapted":

"Practically all students of biology recognize the enormous difficulty, if not the impossibility, of accounting for all the numerous adaptations of an organism to its environment and all the multitude of coadaptations of the parts of an organism which are necessary to bring about their harmonious cooperation to a specific end, by the sole method of natural selection, that is, by random mutations followed by the elimination of those individuals that are not well adapted. Even if innumerable mutations and eliminations occur this seems a wholly inadequate cause; almost as improbable as the production of the Tragedy of Hamlet by a series of explosions in a composing room. There must be some other directing principle than mere chance in the production of such multitudes of beautifully coordinated structures and functions leading to an apparently designed end. Consider, for example, the improbability of being able to explain by such means the origin of all the adaptations and coadaptations of the eye of man-the remarkable fitness of the retina with its rods and cones and other elements for receiving and transmitting the stimuli of light of varying intensities and wavelengths; the beautiful dioptric apparatus of transparent cornea, lens and humors, the elastic lens with the ciliary muscles for focusing the light coming from near or far objects, the iris with its intrinsic muscles for controlling the amount of light admitted; the intrinsic nerve supply and blood vessels; the accessory parts for the protection of this delicate apparatus, the eyeball with its tough outer coat, the eye socket and bony orbit, eyelids and eyelashes and eyebrows, lachrymal glands and ducts, etc. Is it possible that all these adaptations and coadaptations have been produced by purely fortuitous mutations followed by elimination of those individuals that were not well adapted? Do we not load upon chance mutations an impossible burden in requiring it to provide all the structures and functions for such remarkable fitness? It is no wonder that Darwin is reported to have said he never thought of attempting to explain the origin of the eye without a shudder. (Conklin, E.G., "Man Real and Ideal: Observations and Reflections on Man's Nature, Development, and Destiny," Charles Scribner's Sons: New York NY, 1943, pp.51-52)

In general, this is just another "example of elegant, complex molecular machinery or system that science" is discovering that poses a further problem for Darwinian, `blind watchmaker' evolution to explain and "The conclusion of intelligent design is strengthened by":

"The future prospects for design are excellent, because they rest not on any person's or group's preferences, but on the data. The rise of the intelligent design hypothesis is not due to anything I or any other individual has written or said, but to the great advance of science in understanding life. In Darwin's day, the cell was thought to be so simple that first-rate scientists such as Thomas Huxley and Ernst Haeckel could seriously think that it might arise spontaneously from sea mud, which would be quite congenial to Darwinism. Even just fifty years ago it was a lot easier to believe that Darwinian evolution might explain the foundation of life, because so much less was known. But as science quickly advanced and the astonishing complexity of the cell became clear, the idea of intelligent design has become more and more compelling. The conclusion of intelligent design is strengthened by each new example of elegant, complex molecular machinery or system that science discovers at the foundation of life. In 1996 that elegance already could be clearly seen, and in the past ten years it has greatly increased. There is no reason to expect it to level off any time soon." (Behe, M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," [1996], Free Press: New York NY, 10th Anniversary Edition, 2006, p.270)

Perhaps the best evidence of this is that it is not the Darwinists who are seizing on these examples as evidence of the power of `blind watchmaker' natural selection of random micromutations. No, they are sticking with the comparatively trivial examples like, "Finch Beaks Say Darwin Was Right" which wouldn't matter if he was (but they even have problems with that)!]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'

CED is one year old!

As of 15 July, CED was one year old!

I thought it was 22 July, but that was the day I closed down my Yahoo list (also called CED), but I had forgotten I had started this blog CED a week earlier.

CED's Site Meter report received today, shows: 1) a total of 21,244 visits for the year (although it is probably for ~11 months as I did not start Site Meter until August, from memory) at an average of 81 visits a day; and 2) 36,947 page views at an average of 133 per day:

---

CreationEvolutionDesign
(sm1CEDblog)

-- Site Summary ---
Visits

Total ....................... 21,244
Average per Day ................. 81
Average Visit Length .......... 1:57
This Week ...................... 568

Page Views

Total ....................... 36,947
Average per Day ................ 133
Average per Visit .............. 1.6
This Week ...................... 932

---

While presumably nowhere near the visits of the `big boys' this has far exceeded my expectations.

It will be interesting to see if these averages have increased or decreased in a year's time, on or about 15 July 2007.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'

Anti-evolution standards a key issue in Kansas school board races

Anti-evolution standards a key issue in Kansas school board races, The Kansas City Star, Jul. 21, 2006 ... JOHN HANNA BURDETT, Kan. - After a potluck lunch in one of many hamlets dotting the Great Plains, candidate Sally Cauble confronted a key issue in Kansas politics: whether schools should teach students to doubt evolution. Cauble wants to oust incumbent Connie Morris from the State Board of Education in the Aug. 1 Republican primary. Five races this year could remove half the board's members, undo its conservative majority and doom anti-evolution science standards that brought Kansas international criticism.

Cauble hoped to pick up a few votes in Burdett, a prairie town of 240 people, about 130 miles northwest of Wichita ... When asked by Cleo Gorman, a 68-year-old nurse, about "the science issue," Cauble said she would not have supported the anti-evolution standards. "To be a scientific theory, it has to be tested. It has to be measured, and then other scientific data is tested against that," Cauble said. "The science of evolution has gone through that, and it has been tested." But Gorman disagreed and is inclined to vote for Morris, who once wrote in a constituent newsletter that evolution is an "age-old fairy tale." "Evolution is not proven as much as they thought it was," Gorman told Cauble.

Later, Cauble said she wished evolution weren't an issue. Yet the former teacher and ex-school board member from Liberal contends the conservative-led state board has damaged Kansas' image. "I believe they've lost their effectiveness because they have lost respect," she said. Morris, an author and former teacher from St. Francis, sees criticism of the board generated by the media, not most Kansans. "I may not win the election, but at least I spoke for the people," Morris said recently before preparing a booth at the Ellis County Fair in Hays. Ryan Cole, a 26-year-old Smith County farmer and horse trainer, has no problem with teaching intelligent design. "I feel like if you give two sides of something, most people are intelligent enough to make up their own minds," he said.

The Discovery Institute is waging a Web campaign to build support for Kansas' science standards. "I think that people just agree that the theory of evolution needs to be challenged," she [Morris] said. "It makes sense. It's good science." When Cauble visited Burdett, she brought a copy of a Time magazine story headlined, "Reconciling God and Science." She told one audience member she's a committed Methodist. "There are many of us who believe that God created the heavens and the earth - and I believe that very strongly," she said. "But I believe that you can believe that, and you can still believe in evolution." [Either this Sally Cauble is being duplicitous (i.e. "marked by duplicity: contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action; especially : the belying of one's true intentions by deceptive words or action"), or she is being a "useful fool" (Lenin's contemptuous term for those idealistic liberals in democratic capitalist countries who unwittingly worked against their own interests by supporting Soviet communism because it seemed more liberal!) of the Darwinists (those who maintain that God did not use evolution).

Because if one really believed that God created through evolution, then why would one be opposed to: 1) science standards that question fully naturalistic "evolution," i.e. "the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process'" (my emphasis):

"Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer M.B., "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February 2002. My emphasis)

and 2) intelligent design, when one of the leaders of the ID movement, Mike Behe, actually maintains that God created through evolution, i.e. "evolution occurred, but was guided by God":

"[Eugenie] Scott refers to me as an intelligent design `creationist,' even though I clearly write in my book `Darwin's Black Box' (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think `evolution occurred, but was guided by God.' Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the journal `Cell': `More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human' [DeRosier D.J., Cell, Vol. 93, 1998, p.17]. Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct?" (Behe M.J., "Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism," Science, dEbate, 7 July 2000)

Darwinist historian William B. Provine once `spilled the beans' on what Darwinists really think of those who claim they "believe that God created the heavens and the earth - and ... believe in evolution" (i.e. fully naturalistic "evolution", "evolution" in which "God had no part in [the] process") which is what modern science means by "evolution."

Such a "God [who] started the whole universe or works through the laws of nature (or both) ... is worthless" and is "equivalent to atheism." "A God [who] merely starts the universe" and then "works through the laws of nature has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable" (my emphasis):

"Of course, it is still possible to believe in both modern evolutionary biology and a purposive force, even the Judeo-Christian God. One can suppose that God started the whole universe or works through the laws of nature (or both). There is no contradiction between this or similar views of God and natural selection. But this view of God is also worthless. Called Deism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and considered equivalent to atheism then, it is no different now. A God or purposive force that merely starts the universe or works through the laws of nature has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable. In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism." (Provine, W.B., "Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution." Review of "Trial and Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution," by Edward J. Larson, New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Academe, Vol. 73, January-February 1987, pp.50-52, pp.51-52)

Provine observed that "the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that" yet for "pragmatic" (not intellectually dishonest?) reasons they may "publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion" (my emphasis).

Provine continued, "Liberal religious leaders and theologians" and politicians too, "who also proclaim the compatibility of religion and evolution, achieve this unlikely position by retreat[ing] from traditional interpretations of God's presence in the world to the extent of becoming effective atheists" and "simply refus[ing] to understand modern evolutionary biology and continue to believe that evolution is a purposive process" (which the latter denies):

"My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious; many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood. Scientists also collaborate with prestigious religious leaders to work for nuclear disarmament and other worthwhile causes. The support of Pope John Paul II is not to be spurned lightly. And scientists work closely with religious leaders to fight against the introduction of creationism into the classrooms of public schools. Liberal religious leaders and theologians, who also proclaim the compatibility of religion and evolution, achieve this unlikely position by two routes. First, they retreat from traditional interpretations of God's presence in the world, some to the extent of becoming effective atheists. Second, they simply refuse to understand modern evolutionary biology and continue to believe that evolution is a purposive process." (Provine, 1987, p.52)

Provine pointed out that " Evolutionary biology, as taught in public schools, shows no evidence of a purposive force of any kind" and so we have "the specter ["spectacle"?] of atheistic evolutionists and liberal theologians" the latter's "understanding of the evolutionary process is demonstrable nonsense, joining together with the ACLU and the highest courts in the land to lambast creationists" (and by that Provine, like all Darwinists, would include anyone who denies fully naturalistic, unguided, "evolution" including ID):

"We are now presented with the specter of atheistic evolutionists and liberal theologians, whose understanding of the evolutionary process is demonstrable nonsense, joining together with the ACLU and the highest courts in the land to lambast creationists, who are caught in an increasing bind. Evolutionary biology, as taught in public schools, shows no evidence of a purposive force of any kind. This is deeply disturbing to creationists. Yet in court, scientists proclaim that nothing in evolutionary biology is incompatible with any reasonable religion, a view also supported by liberal theologians and religious leaders of many persuasions. Not only are creationists unable to have their `creation science' taught in the schools, they cannot even convince the court system that evolution is in any significant way antithetical to religion; thus the courts are effectively branding their religious views as terribly misguided. No wonder creationists (somewhere near half of the population!) are frustrated with the system and want equal time for their own views, or at least to be spared bludgeoning with evolution" (Provine, 1987, p.52).

Note by the way how Provine saw the compulsory teaching of "Evolutionary biology in public schools show[ing] no evidence of a purposive force of any kind" to "somewhere near half of the population" (actually more like 90% of the population) who reject that, as "bludgeoning with evolution" (my emphasis)!

But then that's why Jesus commanded His followers to pray, "your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matthew 6:10), because His will won't be perfectly done until His kingdom comes. So in the meantime, we will just have to `settle' for having read the end of the book (Rev 21:1-22:5), and we win!:

"When things get bad and you can't stand to look
It's time to read to the end of the book
Don't put it down 'til you get to the end
When Jesus come and His Kingdom begins
... we win ..." (Michael W. Smith,
"End of the Book." My emphasis)]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'

"Instant" Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches, Study Says #4

"Instant" Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches, Study Says, National Geographic, Mason Inman, July 14, 2006

[Graphic: The Galapagos finch family tree (click here to enlarge): Dr George Johnson. Continued from part #3.]

The Galápagos Islands' 14 species of finches [As previously quoted, Peter Grant himself acknowledged that there may be only six (or even less) species of finches on the Galapagos, because "if species were strictly defined by inability to interbreed" (which is the usual Biological Species Concept definition of species) "then ... At the extreme, six species would be recognized in place of the current 14, and additional study might necessitate yet further reduction":

"Writing in Science in 1992, the Grants noted that the superior fitness of hybrids among populations of Darwin's finches `calls into question their designation as species.' [Grant P.R. & Grant B.R, `Hybridization of Bird Species,' Science, Vol. 256, 1992, pp. 193-197] The following year, Peter Grant acknowledged that if species were strictly defined by inability to interbreed then `we would recognize only two species of Darwin's finch on Daphne,' instead of the usual four [Grant P.R., "Hybridization of Darwin's finches on Isla Daphne Major, Galapagos," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, Vol. 340, 1993, pp.127-139]. `The three populations of ground finches on Genovesa would similarly be reduced to one species,' Grant continued. `At the extreme, six species would be recognized in place of the current 14, and additional study might necessitate yet further reduction." (Wells, J., "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong," Regnery: Washington DC, 2000, pp.172, 312n) ]

all evolved from one ancestral species, which arrived from the South American mainland about two to three million years ago. [Note that these finches have had "two to three million years" for natural selection to do its stuff, yet these finches are still finches! Since the ancestor(s) of these finches "arrived from the South American mainland," which is an unbroken stretch of ocean ~570 miles (~900 kms) away, presumably these finches have no great difficulty flying between the islands, which Darwin noted in his Origin of Species were "situated within sight of each other."

So the scenario that the Grants are reporting of the large ground finch (Geospiza magnirostris) arriving on Daphne Major island and competing with the medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis) for the larger seeds, presumably must have happened many thousands of times in the past "two to three million years"!

Therefore, the most reasonable assumption is that these finches completed their adaptive radiation into the various ecological niches open to them comparatively soon after their ancestor(s) arrived "two to three million years ago" and thereafter they have been in stasis.

If so, then far from demonstrating the power of natural selection, they are in fact demonstrating its limitations, and far from Finch Beaks Say Darwin Was Right, they are in fact showing that Darwin was wrong in his assumption that there was "no limit to this power" of natural selection:

"... there seems at first sight no limit to the amount of profitable diversification of structure, and therefore no limit to the number of species which might be produced" by "the continued action of natural selection" (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species," Sixth Edition, 1872, Senate: London, 1994, reprint, p.101)

"If man can by patience select variations useful to him, why, under changing and complex conditions of life, should not variations useful to nature's living products often arise, and be preserved or selected? What limit can be put to this power, acting during long ages and rigidly scrutinising the whole constitution, structure, and habits of each creature,-favouring the good and rejecting the bad? I can see no limit to this power, in slowly and beautifully adapting each form to the most complex relations of life. The theory of natural selection, even if we look no farther than this, seems to be in the highest degree probable." (Darwin, 1872, p.412)]

That original species branched out into many others, with each one specialized for different roles. [That's right. And once the finches had "branched out" and had become "specialized for different roles," that was that!]

The woodpecker finch, for example, has evolved to the point where it can drill holes in trees, while the vampire finch drinks other birds' blood [There again is the Fallacy of Equivocation on the word "evolution" (i.e. its cognate "evolved"). All these finches have done is adapt their behaviour (not their bodies or their species) to various ecological niches open to them.

Of the "woodpecker finch," Wikipedia says that "Tool use, however, is not a common behavior; most prey items are extracted using the beak in the usual manner." And of the "vampire finch," Wikipedia says it "feeds primarily on the blood of the Nazca Booby and Blue-footed Booby, pecking at the boobies' skin with their sharp beaks until blood is drawn" and "It is theorized that this behavior evolved from the pecking behavior that the finch used to clean parasitesfrom the plumage of the booby."

Hardly "evolution" unless, as I pointed out in the previous post, one defines "evolution" so broadly that it cannot be false. But then it is not falsifiable, and hence not science.]

Continued in part #5.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'

"Instant" Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches, Study Says #3

"Instant" Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches, Study Says, National Geographic, Mason Inman, July 14, 2006 ...

[Graphic: Character Displacement - Darwin's finches, Dr. Robert Rothman, Rochester Institute of Technology.

Continued from part #2.]

Their [Peter and Rosemary Grant's] results appear in this week's issue of the journal Science. For both finch species, the researchers note, feeding is a trade-off between effort and payoff. [How profound! That is the same for every species. It is a basic (indeed commonsense) principle of ecology that if the "effort" (energy expended to obtain food, live and reproduce, etc) is greater than the "payoff" (energy obtained from the food), then if that continues, the organism will die. It is also a basic principle of ecology that if two species compete for the same limited resource in an ecosystem, then one or both species have to either "partition" that ecosystem by finding a different niche within it, or migrate to another ecosystem, or one goes extinct in that ecosystem.]

The birds generally prefer to eat larger seeds, which are harder for their nutcracker-like beaks to break open but hold a bigger reward inside. The bigger the bird's beak, the easier it is to crack open the seeds' coatings. The already smaller-beaked medium ground finch couldn't keep up with the newly arrived large ground finch, which is about twice as big and dominates feeding grounds. Apparently in response, the medium ground finch evolved to have an even smaller beak, making the species more adept at eating small seeds that didn't interest the larger finch. [Note again the Fallacy of Equivocation in the use of the word "evolved" for what is a minor adjustment of a population to its reduced available resources in a tiny (34 Ha = 84 acres) volcanic island ecosystem.]

"This is a phenomenon known as character displacement," Peter Grant said. "It is a very important one in studies of evolution, because it shows that species interact for food and undergo evolutionary change which minimizes further competition." [Grant makes it sound like a big deal, and maybe it is for a Darwinist who is hard up for evidence! But my biology and ecology textbooks cite as the "One of the best examples of character displacement" the beaks of these very finches on Daphne Major island, going back at least to the 1980s:

"Character Displacement When newly developed species come into contact again, competition can cause them to become more phenotypically different from one another. This process, called character displacement, is again exemplified by Darwin's finches. There are three species of ground finches, G. fuliginosa, G. fortis, and G. magnirostris, with bills adapted to feeding on small-, medium-, and large- sized seeds, respectively .... When all three species occur on the same island, they do not mate with each other and their bill sizes (beak depth) are quite distinctive. However, when G. fortis and G. fuliginosa are on separate islands, their bills tend to be the same intermediate size because there is no selection pressure to have larger or smaller beak size, perhaps because of lack of competition from other species." (Mader, S.S., "Biology," [1985], Wm. C. Brown Co: Dubuque IA, Third Edition, 1990, p.325)

"One of the best examples of character displacement involves the small and medium ground finches (Geospiza fuliginosa and Geospiza fortis) of the Galapagos studied by David Lack (1947). ... How many other clear-cut examples of morphological character displacement are known? Their answer is, surprisingly few." (Brewer, R., "The Science of Ecology," [1988], Saunders College Publishing: Ft. Worth TX, Second Edition, 1994, p.290).

The researchers say they have seen other types of evolution in action in Galápagos finches before. [There is no reason to deny that this is an example of "character displacement"in action, but that does not mean it is "evolution in action", unless one either: 1) defines "evolution" as any change in a population (in which case it is defining "evolution" so broadly that it cannot be false-and therefore is not science); 2) or makes the assumption that the process labelled "evolution" which varies the beaks of finches, is the same process labelled "evolution"that brought about finches, birds, and all of life in the first place (in which case it is just that: an assumption that has yet to be demonstrated-and therefore is not yet science)!]

But this was the strongest shift they've seen in their 33 years of study, the scientists say. [Which, quite frankly, is not much, however heroic their dedication to Darwin's cause-although a couple of professorships at Princeton University could be regarded as ample reward!

ID biologist Jonathan Wells notes that the Grants are prone to "exaggerating the evidence" in that "they have tried to make more of their work than the evidence warrants" and "this exaggeration [of the truth] seems to characterize many claims for Darwin's theory":

"As examples of the origin of species by natural selection, however, Darwin's finches leave a lot to be desired though this hasn't stopped some people from using them as examples anyway. But the only way they can do this is by exaggerating the evidence. ... Thanks to years of careful research by the Grants and their colleagues, we know quite a lot about natural selection and breeding patterns in Darwin's finches. And the available evidence is clear. First, selection oscillates with climatic fluctuations, and does not exhibit long-term evolutionary change. Second, the superior fitness of hybrids means that several species of Galapagos finches might be in the process of merging rather than diverging. The Grants' excellent field work provided us with a good demonstration of natural selection in the wild-far better than Kettlewell's peppered moths. If the Grants had stopped there, their work might stand as an example of science at its best. Yet they have tried to make more of their work than the evidence warrants. In articles published in 1996 and 1998, the Grants declared that the Darwinian theory of the origin of species `fits the facts of Darwin's Finch evolution on the Galapagos Islands,' and that `the driving force' is natural selection [Grant, P.R. & Grant, B.R., "Speciation and hybridization in island birds," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, Vol. 351, 1996, pp.765-772; Grant, P.R. & Grant, B.R., "Speciation and hybridization of birds on islands," pp. 142-162 in Grant, P.R., ed., "Evolution on Islands," Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1998, p. 155]. This claim was echoed by Mark Ridley in his 1996 college textbook, Evolution [Ridley, M., "Evolution," Blackwell Science: Cambridge MA, Second Edition, 1996, pp.570-571]. Like the Grants, Ridley extrapolated the increase in beak size after the 1977 drought to estimate the time it would take to produce a new species. This `illustrates how we can extrapolate from natural selection operating within a species to explain the diversification of the finches from a single common ancestor.' Ridley concluded: `Arguments of this kind are common in the theory of evolution.' Indeed. But arguments of this kind exaggerate the truth. And this exaggeration seems to characterize many claims for Darwin's theory. Evidence for change in peppered moths is claimed as evidence for natural selection even though the selective agent has not been demonstrated. And evidence for oscillating natural selection in finch beaks is claimed as evidence for the origin of finches in the first place. Apparently, some Darwinists are prone to make inflated claims for rather meager evidence." (Wells, J., "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong," Regnery: Washington DC, 2000, pp.173-174)

Indeed, as Wells points out, no less than the National Academy of Sciences itself "exaggerate[s] the evidence" of Darwin's finches, calling them "`a particularly compelling example' of the origin of species," despite the fact that the Grants themselves have admitted that some of the 14 species of finch can interbreed and may in fact be hybridising back into fewer species:

"Writing in Science in 1992, the Grants noted that the superior fitness of hybrids among populations of Darwin's finches `calls into question their designation as species.' [Grant P.R. & Grant B.R, `Hybridization of Bird Species,' Science, Vol. 256, 1992, pp. 193-197] The following year, Peter Grant acknowledged that if species were strictly defined by inability to interbreed then `we would recognize only two species of Darwin's finch on Daphne,' instead of the usual four [Grant P.R., "Hybridization of Darwin's finches on Isla Daphne Major, Galapagos," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, Vol. 340, 1993, pp.127-139]. `The three populations of ground finches on Genovesa would similarly be reduced to one species,' Grant continued. `At the extreme, six species would be recognized in place of the current 14, and additional study might necessitate yet further reduction." (Wells, 2000, pp.172, 312n)

But what is reprehensible dishonesty (unless it is collective self-deception), is the NAS's claiming that "a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches" such that "a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years" but omitting to mention that "selection was reversed after the drought, producing no long-term evolutionary change," which as Phillip E. Johnson noted in the Wall Street Journal, "When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble":

"Does the National Academy of Sciences endorse `arguments of this kind' that exaggerate the evidence? A 1999 booklet published by the National Academy describes Darwin's finches as `a particularly compelling example' of the origin of species. The booklet goes on to explain how the Grants and their colleagues showed `that a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches,' and that `if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.' [National Academy of Sciences, "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences," National Academy of Sciences Press:Washington, DC, Second Edition, 1999]. That's it. Rather than confuse the reader by mentioning that selection was reversed after the drought, producing no long- term evolutionary change, the booklet simply omits this awkward fact. Like a stock promoter who claims a stock might double in value in twenty years because it increased 5 percent in 1998, but doesn't mention that it decreased 5 percent in 1999, the booklet misleads the public by concealing a crucial part of the evidence. This is not truth-seeking. It makes one wonder how much evidence there really is for Darwin's theory. As Berkeley law professor and Darwin critic Phillip E. Johnson wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 1999: `When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble [Johnson, P.E., "The Church of Darwin," The Wall Street Journal, August 16, 1999, pp. A14]." (Wells, 2000, pp.174-175) ]

Continued in part #3.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'

"Instant" Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches, Study Says #2

"Instant" Evolution Seen in Darwin's Finches, Study Says, National Geographic, Mason Inman, July 14, 2006

[Graphic: Daphne is the tiny island nearest the "23" on this map of the Galapagos Islands (click to enlarge).

Continued from part #1.]

In 1982 the large ground finch [Geospiza magnirostris] arrived on the tiny Galápagos island of Daphne [As the article says further on, the ancestor of these finches arrives on the Galapagos Islands "about two to three million years ago," so clearly this is not the first time that the large ground finch has arrived on Daphne! Indeed, the same cycle of events has presumably re-occurred at least every ~100 years, in which case it has happened ~200-300 thousand times! In which case, this is not evidence of "evolution" but of stasis, the absence of evolution!], just east of the island of San Salvador (map of the Galápagos).

Since then the medium ground finch [Geospiza fortis], a long-time Daphne resident, has evolved to have a smaller beak - apparently as a result of direct competition with the larger bird for food. [Continuing with the routine Darwinists Fallacy of Equivocation on the word "evolution" (and its cognates). Here again "evolution" (i.e. "evolved") merely means: 2) a minor change in a single characteristic (i.e. beak size) in a species of finch. Note that "evolved" can be both a smaller and a larger average size beak in a particular population. When (not if) the average size of the beaks of the G. fortis population on Daphne island increases again, no doubt there will be triumphant articles announcing that "Finch Beaks Say Darwin Was Right"! Since "evolution" can go in any and all directions, and Darwinism `predicts' all of them, up, Darwin is always `right'!]

Evolutionary theory had previously suggested that competition between two similar species can drive the animals to evolve in different directions. [See previous. And if they did not "evolve in different directions," then no doubt "Evolutionary theory" would have suggested that too!]

But until now the effect had never been observed in action in the wild. [Presumably they mean only for Galapagos finches? But if they are saying that this "character displacement" had "never been observed in action in the wild" in any animal species, then it would show how little Darwinism is supported by empirical evidence.]

In the new study Princeton's Peter and Rosemary Grant closely tracked the two related species for decades. [This also shows how, if a scientific experiment is not supposed to be fully accepted until it has been independently duplicated by other researchers, who are trying to falsify the original experiment, Darwinism falls short. Who is going to track these "two related species for decades" on the Galapagos to see if the Grants were right? Who would even dare to try to falsify research that supported Darwinism? And even if there was someone who was willing to do it and they could obtain funding, if their results contradicted that of the Grants, then it would no doubt be dismissed as "different conditions," etc, etc. Note that this is not saying that the Grants are dishonest, but it is a fundamental principle of science that scientists who want something to be true, unconsciously will notice evidence for it and not notice evidence against it. That is precisely why randomised `blind' experiments that are repeated many times and able to be repeated by others has the highest credibility in science.

As it happens, this very month, Scientific American's resident `skeptic', avowed atheist Darwinist Michael Shermer, has pontificated on about "confirmation bias, whereby we seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence" and bragged about "In science we have built-in self-correcting machinery. Strict double-blind controls are required in experiments, in which neither the subjects nor the experimenters know the experimental conditions during the data-collection phase":

"This surety is called the confirmation bias, whereby we seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence. ... The implications of the findings reach far beyond politics. A jury assessing evidence against a defendant, a CEO evaluating information about a company or a scientist weighing data in favor of a theory will undergo the same cognitive process. What can we do about it? In science we have built-in self-correcting machinery. Strict double-blind controls are required in experiments, in which neither the subjects nor the experimenters know the experimental conditions during the data-collection phase. Results are vetted at professional conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. Research must be replicated in other laboratories unaffiliated with the original researcher. Disconfirmatory evidence, as well as contradictory interpretations of the data, must be included in the paper. Colleagues are rewarded for being skeptical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We need similar controls for the confirmation bias in the arenas of law, business and politics. Judges and lawyers should call one another on the practice of mining data selectively to bolster an argument and warn juries about the confirmation bias. CEOs should assess critically the enthusiastic recommendations of their VPs and demand to see contradictory evidence and alternative evaluations of the same plan. Politicians need a stronger peer-review system that goes beyond the churlish opprobrium of the campaign trail, and I would love to see a political debate in which the candidates were required to make the opposite case. Skepticism is the antidote for the confirmation bias." (Shermer, M., "The Political Brain," Scientific American, July 2006)

So presumably Shermer would agree that Darwinists like the Grants who are sufficiently motivated to spend decades living on and travelling to a tiny island in the middle of the Pacific to measure the beaks of finches, would qualify for a "confirmation bias, whereby" they "seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirmatory evidence"?

If so, then where are the "Strict double-blind controls are required in experiments, in which neither the subjects nor the experimenters know the experimental conditions during the data-collection phase"? Where is the "Research [that] must be replicated in other laboratories unaffiliated with the original researcher"? Where is the "Disconfirmatory evidence, as well as contradictory interpretations of the data, [that] must be included in the paper?

If they are not there, and their being there is a defining quality of "science", then presumably Shermer would agree (if he was consistent) that these experiments, and almost all experiments in evolutionary biology, where "unlike `harder' scientists" evolutionary biologists "usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture":

"In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike `harder' scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture." (Coyne, J.A., "The fairy tales of evolutionary psychology." Review of "A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion," by Randy Thornhill & Craig T. Palmer, MIT Press, 2000. The New Republic, March 4, 2000)

would not qualify as "science"?!

And also, if "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," then Shermer should agree (but his ultimate "confirmation bias"as an atheist would prevent him from doing so) that Darwinism, "the standard scientific theory" which makes the most "extraordinary claims," including that: 1) "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life," (which I accept); and 2) "but God had no part in this process" (my emphasis):

"In one of the most existentially penetrating statements ever made by a scientist, Richard Dawkins concluded that `the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.' Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer M.B., "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February 2002. My emphasis)

that we are going to need much better evidence than the cyclical variations in the size of finch beaks on the Galapagos, which have presumably been fluctuating back and forth for the last "two to three million years" and going nowhere!]

Continued in part #3.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book'