Jean Rostand on Evolution
| December 16, 2007 | Posted by Granville Sewell under Intelligent Design |
In his 1956 book, “A Biologist’s View”, French biologist Jean Rostand wrote:
“If it is true that neither Lamarckism nor mutationism [Darwinism] enable us to understand the mechanism of evolution, we must have the courage to recognise that we know nothing of this mechanism…Some people may perhaps feel that such a confession of ignorance plays into the hands of those who are still fighting the doctrine of evolution. But quite apart from the fact that the most elementary intellectual honesty demands that we should say ‘I do not know’ where we believe that this is so, I think that this doctrine is now so solidly grounded on its own merits that it needs no support from false advocacy. I must add that however obscure the causes of evolution appear to me to be, I do not doubt for a moment that they are entirely natural.”
It is becoming harder and harder to find Darwinists willing to make a serious attempt to defend their theory, and explain how it could account for the complexity of life, they are almost entirely in attack mode*. Their three main arguments are 1) ID is not science 2) ID is not science and 3) ID is not science. I believe ID is science, but I can understand the concern many have about it being taught in science classrooms, so I would like to propose a compromise. How about we simply “have the courage to recognise that we know nothing of the mechanism” of evolution, and leave it at that? Each student can decide for himself/herself what the most likely explanation might be.
*see my comment #30 for clarification of this claim
66 Responses to Jean Rostand on Evolution
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hmmm…do you think he means host as in the virus itself? (Host of the DNA?)
I don’t know, if he means what you think he means, then I’ll let him defend his logic, since I don’t agree.
Microevolution is accepted and beneficial mutations can exist; the questions are: how frequent, what type, and how complex? The examples drawn from anti-biotic resistance are not the right type, since they destroy (in the cases looked at) pre-existing function in the organism. This can be seen in the fact that when the anti-biotic is removed, the unmutated strain will again take over the population. They are also usually very simple. (See Behe’s EOE, and how only a few steps are too much of a hurdle for bacteria to bypass…)
I’ll let BA77 finish the discussion. I was just trying to maybe help you guys understand his points, but I’m sure he can speak for himself.
Larry Moran said:
I lecture in biochemistry. I give plenty of examples of probable evolutionary pathways to complex structures. For example, I explain how the photosynthesis complexes in chloroplasts arose from much simpler bacterial versions and I describe how the irreducibly complex citric acid cycle arose.
Good for you Larry. Now why not take on something more substantial. The changes you reference all presuppose the existence DNA. How about an explanation for the source of genetic material and the information stored in them. And remember- this is not about gaps. It’s about no intelligence allowed.
Hi VJT:
Re PNAs. Here is Wiki’s opening:
In short, all known occurrences of PNA are the products of highly intelligent agents, and are shaped and constrained by highly informational requirements. (Similarly, you may wish to see Shapiro’s recent Sci Am article on RNA world. I discuss this in my always linked.)
Next, the issue on effective information content is of course coding and functionality. PNAs function in that context and so if we are seeing yet another proposed OOL scenario, we need to ask where the underlying code and algorithms came from. That takes us rapidly beyond the 500 – 1,000 bit threshold at which chance + necessity lose power to credibly account for the origin of the observed phenomenon.
Now, you go on to inquire as to the concept information.
Two senses are here: information- carrying capacity which can easily enough be measured in bits [so-called Shannon information], and what we may describe as functionally specific information, i.e what fits in with codes, algorithms and makes a difference to the outcomes for a system in an environment. This, I discuss in Section A my always linked.
BTW, itr woulde be highly unliukely that there is little or no redundancy even in a 300 k minimal organism, as redundancy is the key defence against the inevitable noise. The very genetic code itself has in it significant redundancy, e.g. for certain codes, a change of one character in the codon will shift to a very similar amino acid; of course, this soon runs into limits, such that we see the fear of inducing mutations that is a haunting issue in a world of exposure to radioactivity.
On the PNA information issue, I make no claims to be a biochemist. But, if there is a definable code using PNA’s as characters [that can vary within the place freely across an alphabet] then the lengthening of a chain would allow for greater information-carrying capacity.
I observe again that we have a situation that if PNA was the first code-bearing system of life, why is it that there was a changeover inthe chemistry? Where is the empirical observation in the natural world to back up the proposed narrative on OOL?
And so on.
In short, is this the latest version of the Miller-Urey Expt style hyping of limited and ultimately irrelevant results again, through highly speculative just-so stories?
The hints and clues in even the Wiki article point that way . . .
GEM of TKI
WOW
A blog thread evolves quickly. There must be some intelligence in the system!
Very many thanks for the helpful advice from:
bornagain77
and
gpuccio
and
vjtorley
Cheers
Gavin
I’ve been busy this past week so if Moran had tried to comment again I was not around to let it through moderation. So he might have responded but they got zapped in the spam filter.
Anyway, BA77:
In general, there are definitely examples of “beneficial mutations in relation to fitness”, which is exactly Bob’s point. I see the precise distinction you are trying to make, but I think you are parsing things too far and making this conversation confusing. You are looking for examples of mutations that are not only beneficial in relation to fitness but also in relation to the progressive/positive creation/heavy modification of existing CSI. But that’s a different thing than the generally used “beneficial mutations”. If there is a generally-accepted term that encapsulates what you are looking for I’m not aware of it. It’s not CSI in general since that could be negative in relation to fitness. For example, if I were to tack a spoiler (like on a vehicle) and a retractable anchor onto a bird I think that would not be too beneficial…
right as I say “a rusted doorlock may make it resistant to a burglar with a skeleton key but it aint evolution”