The core is the definition of science itself
| November 30, 2007 | Posted by idnet.com.au under Intelligent Design |
Your responses to this condensed version of an editorial would be appreciated. (This item is available free as a special feature.)
“Anti-Darwin activism is alive and well. The most insidious movement promotes ‘intelligent design’ (ID) – the notion that some features in nature are best explained by an intelligent cause - as an alternative scientific theory to evolution by natural selection.
Pro-ID interest groups can be found throughout US and Europe. It becomes increasingly likely for a scientist to be confronted by a pro-ID campaigner or challenged by a student, friend or neighbor intrigued and seduced by the concept of a scientific theory of design.
How to respond is not a trivial matter.
One can choose to fully engage in debate and debunk ID claims one by one with scientific arguments. This, however, requires a good knowledge of the topic and the ability to present it effectively to a lay audience.
Squarely dismissing the ID proposal as nonsense is tempting, but reinforces images, which ID advocates relish, of arrogant scientists dodging critique or even of ‘Darwinian activism’.
It is wise not to make the discussion a religious issue to avoid an unproductive debate about personal beliefs.
The best approach will often be to accept discussing ID but to emphasize the fact that it is not a scientific discipline.
At the core of ID is the notion of ‘irreducible complexity’, which postulates that some features in nature are too complex to have evolved in a step-wise fashion by natural selection and ‘therefore’ must be the result of an intelligent cause.
Because it invokes a supernatural origin for something one cannot yet explain, and because it does not generate testable hypotheses and cannot be subjected to empirical inquiry, ID is not science.
ID proponents often present the theory of evolution as “a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned”, whereas in fact evolution is a scientific theory – one that has stood the test of time and of multiple lines of empirical investigation. Intelligent design is not. Remembering this contrast should inspire scientists to defend their turf.
At the core of the debate is the definition of science itself.”
Condensed from Editorial Nature Methods – (Nov 2007)
Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: NATURE METHODS Editorial, copyright Dec1 2007
51 Responses to The core is the definition of science itself
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Interesting, but begs the question, When did it pass the test of time? If it has already passed the test of time, then it isn’t actually a scientific theory any more, as the author points out. If it
then it
idnet.com.au, you pointed out that
OMG!! When Craig Venter produces a living organism, will this event trigger the infamous “infinite regress?” WHO DESIGNED CRAIG VENTER???
Speaking of the Labrador, my dog has instincts like retrieving, which would be consistent for front-loading paradigms. Wolves seem to have behaviors front-loaded which would benefit humans.
ellazimm wrote,
and then linked to that same old, same old, talkorigins list.
There is nothing new of any significance on that list. And “species”; what does that mean? People are still arguing about how to define the word in the same way that people are still arguing about how to define science.
The only reason “new species” got any traction for Darwin et al was that so many people in his day, following Linnaeus, believed that “species” were the original “kinds” and were therefore immutable.
If species are not immutable, then what again is your problem with the NDE? Some edge or something? I am missing the reason that new species are not of ‘any significance’. I smell rhetoric.
digdug24, “If species are not immutable, then what again is your problem with the NDE?”
I personally have been very puzzled that the line between macro and micro-evolution is frequently drawn at the species level. I think it should be drawn at the family level myself — all members of the cat family are the product of an original cat that have diverged via RM+NS. In any case, by far the bigger questions remain, that of new organs, new systems, new primary biological technology. Let’s say that a leopard can change his spots into stripes over a million or two years, can we then assuredly extrapolate that an eye can develop by the same mechanism?
Extreme extrapolation is a dangerous game, a game that the young earth community plays all of the time to prove that an old earth is impossible. Extreme extrapolation is not scientifically verified “fact”, it is conjecture.
Shane:
Did you guys all really convert to “Jedi-ism” down there?
In the recent census a significant minority wrote that they were Jedi on their forms under the ‘religion’ title. The census people did not, though, contend that they were really interested in following the spiritual path of the Jedi (!) and enjoyed the joke value instead.
But, there may be some value in linking Jedi thought to this thread … some.
Article notes: “This, however, requires a good knowledge of the topic and the ability to present it effectively to a lay audience.”
Jedi state: “Stopped they must be; on this all depends. Only a fully-trained Jedi Knight, with the Force as his ally, will conquer …”
Mmmmm? (Yoda inflection required)
There is nothing wrong with NDE except the variation side of it is limited. It explains trivial things in the evolution debate but for the really hard stuff, it has problems because of the limited ability of naturalistic means to create variation.
If naturalistic means were able to create significant novelty, then the genetic side would take over and spread the novelty if it affected reproduction of offspring. However, NDE comes up short on the creation of variation which is what the Edge of Evolution was all about.
All you people who are critical of ID should learn this. It is really quite simple to understand and is the essence of the debate. Read the Edge of Evolution and then falsify Behe’s conclusions that naturalistic means fail to produce meaningful variation. None of the heavy weights in evolutionary biology have done it yet.
digdug24 @ 35,
The Bible says that God created all the different sorts of creatures “after (or, according to) his/their kinds”. (kind = Hebrew, ‘min’; in the Latin Vulgate, ‘species’)
Genesis 1:25
“et fecit Deus bestias terrae iuxta species suas et iumenta et omne reptile terrae in genere suo et vidit Deus quod esset bonum” (Latin Vulgate)
“And God maketh the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good.” (Young’s Literal Translation)
Then Linnaeus set up his system of classification and called his finest division “species” because he believed they were the original created “kinds”. Thus belief in fixity of (Biblical) “kinds” came to be seen as equivalent to fixity of (Linnaean) “species”.
Thus what was seen as evidence for species change was seen as evidence in favour of Darwinism and, by corollary, as evidence against the truth claims of the Bible (not limited only to Genesis).
But so what if species change? The changes are insignificant because they are trivial compared to the changes required by NDE and, furthermore, they go in the wrong direction – towards the loss of information rather than towards its gain. Those who say that species change and therefore evolution is true are the ones who are indulging in rhetoric or, better, sophistry.
bFast @ 36,
I’m don’t know what you’re referring to in saying that extreme extrapolation is, “a game that the young earth community plays all of the time to prove that an old earth is impossible”.
But leaving that aside, I did an exercise a few years ago with the kids (14 – 16 year olds) in my Sunday School class in which I invited them to draw a line of best fit through a series of data points shown as determined over the space of 100 years. I then asked them to extend that line for a period of several thousand years. The aim was merely to illustrate that small differences in slope can cause major differences in end points with large extrapolations. One very bright girl (she’s now studying medicine) had done a unit of statistics and said, straight away, “You can’t do that!” Out of the mouths of (relative) babes! What a pity so many people far older and far better educated than she was then don’t appear to know what she learned in high school.
All:
Excellent discussion. A classic!
I especially liked Frost’s contribution, GP’s and Janice’s, with BA’s right up there with them too. There are a lot of others that are nice too.
I think it may be useful to take a bit of a look on the infinite regress/quasi-infinite universe issue.
1] Who designed the designer?
Apparently, Dawkins et al have been using this one for years to “stop” debate.
Frost — never mind his brush with mod policy — has a point, that in some cases observed embodied designers show specified complexity [as our bodies reveal], raising the issue of onward design. In short, we exhibit signs that we are creatures. [Lazarus, if you are watching, that points to the issue raised in Rom 1:18 - 20.]
However, that does not get at the essentially unitary nature of mind and self. That is, we are — per observation — complex unities. And the essence of the unity part is: simplicity, even in the midst of complexity. That is pointing somewhere significant, in itself.
However, the rhetorical issue is that we have an exploding chain of designers to deal with. (That is rather like what I asked my parents, then was referred to our pastor at age three: if man-made things are non-living, and living ones are made by God, then who made God? Then, we can extend: who made God no 1? God no 2 . . . ? Or, is there a real ultimate reality that we must start from?)
This brings up the underlying joint force of two arguments that point to the best explanation, on a comparative difficulties basis – notice, prof Sachs, I am NOT asserting demonstrative “proof” but inviting dialogue:
2] What do evidences of design and of cause-effect chains point to?
From lecture 3 intro to phil:
In short, design points to designer, and thus to cause-effect chains.
Such chains of contingent beings MUST be grounded in an underlying necessary reality [observe the postulated multiverse as a candidate necessary being!], which is not necessarily the same as the temporal succession of the chain. [This is not the Kalam cosmological argument, though I think WLC and others raising it have a point. Again, for a line of dominoes to topple in succession, the whole chain must be in a gravity field and rest on a surface that can support them.]
This is the “get your own dirt” issue — no “dirt” no material basis for the observed complexity of material bodies. So is the underlying reality a wider cosmos as a whole with a mechanism that throws up random variations in physical laws that in turn throws up sub-cosmi; at least one of which “just” happens to be life-friendly?
If so, whence the “machinery” for the supercosmic lottery — is that not an instance of extreme organised complexity, capable of extremely fine adjustment? [That is, the materialist "explanation" has NOT escaped the issue of organised complexity! It has just managed to rhetorically distract attention by pointing elsewhere, and ducking the duty of comparative difficulties across competing explanations.]
Or, do we have an intelligent ultimate being who created the cosmos in which we live [and if he wanted to he can use multiverses too . . .]?
3] The issue of explanation and power:
Both explanations are at the same ultimate level, of a necessary being. Both are philosophical in nature [i.e. worldview level], and both face difficulties [as does any worldview of consequence].
So, why is one self-congratulatingly labelled “scientific” and the other pejoratively tagged “religious” — other than exploiting the rhetorical power of secularism in the institutions of power and influence in our civilisation?
And, why — apart from power-backed question-begging — is it that such centres of power then turn back and impose the former alternative by ruling that empirical investigation of possible agent action is automatically “not science” if it may raise questions that support argument C?
Could that be in part because of the possible incremental impact of . . .
4] Argument A: Ontological
Now, of course, these arguments are hotly disputed, in all their forms.
But they are a part of the underlying context of the discussion, so we should be familiar with them. And, while I would not claim them as demonstrative proofs, I think we need to look at them in light of the issue of inference to best explanation across comparative difficulties.
Those alternatives and discussion of comparative difficulties must centre on the issues of contingency, cause and necessity.
I happen to think that God [who is here viewed as a being who manifests complex unity, i.e is both complex and ultimately simple -- a pattern we can OBSERVE starting with ourselves; i.e it is not a contradiction!] makes better sense as an explanation across comparative difficulties as the necessary being than a wider “material” universe with an unknown complex lottery-making mechanism.
So, now, what best makes coherent and elegantly simple sense of the facts? Why?
GEM of TKI
From the editorial:
“ID proponents often present the theory of evolution as “a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned”, whereas in fact evolution is a scientific theory – one that has stood the test of time and of multiple lines of empirical investigation.”
This aspect of “doing science” is widely misunderstood and misrepresented within the ID movement. When the author says that evolution as a theory has been tested, that is not a broad, vacuous claim: there is a massive scientific literature attesting to the vibrant and sometimes controversial experimental work that goes on all the time. There’s nothing standing in anyone’s way if they want to learn more about the science. (It appears to irritate some ID proponents that there is a payment wall for many journals, (see O’Leary’s whine about having to pay $30 for access on a parallel thread), but there’s no free lunch. Tip: Any university library will let you look at the journals yourself. Go see.)
bfast:
“If he went into the lab and made a minimal bacterial flagellum, then knocked out one gene — a gene that exists elsewhere in the organism only to get a useful pre-flagellum he would have falsified the IC claim of the bacterial flagellum
Bottom line — IC is falsifiable! IC is falsifiable! The “IC isn’t falsifiable” argument has been falsified!!”
It has? Fantastic. Can you post the reference to the article that presents the data?
Oh. Small problem. The experiment you mention hasn’t actually been . . . done.
I wonder if you’ve ever paused to consider why not. I mean, Behe proposed IC, right? He’s famous for that idea. And he’s a biochemist, with a lab and everything. If anyone has a strong reason to do that experiment, to publish those findings, to answer the doubters in the science community, it’s Behe. All it would take is one solid study to get the ball rolling. Of course, it would have to be replicated in a different lab to gain credibility, but that’s a scientific hurdle every scientist has to face.
The reason evolution is accepted in the scientific community is not because it is a handy scaffold for a materialistic worldview, and makes it possible to reject deism. It’s because there is that pesky massive body of evidence, based on actual experiments that produced actual data.
There are lots of interesting, compelling ideas within the ID movement about important features of the natural world. If those ideas can be tested, they should be. So: Where’s the ID data?
All
ontological proofs are mere affirming the consequent. you could have done that with like a million less words.
janice, if species are indeed natural kinds or even individuals, then your argument seems to fail. what, from first principles of your biblical argument, is the distinction? what is the baramin? is it different for different kinds of organisms? I have always been interested in this line of reasoning but I have never seen a coherent explanation.
digdug4 says:
“ontological proofs are mere affirming the consequent”
Or alternatively: Inference to the best explanation
ellazimm,
The nylon example has been discussed multiple times on UD. Use google.
MacT stated:
It’s because there is that pesky massive body of evidence, based on actual experiments that produced actual data.
And the drum roll please while MacT brings forward just ONE PROOF for evolution that can withstand scrutiny….
We will be waiting with eager anticipation MacT.
zzzzzzzzzzz
bornagain77:
“And the drum roll please while MacT brings forward just ONE PROOF for evolution that can withstand scrutiny….”
There’s that word again . . . proof. it doesn’t work that way, never did. Science 101: A scientific theory is accepted based on the preponderance of supporting evidence. In the case of evolution theory, acceptance is nearly universal because the evidence is strong. That does not constitute proof of evolution, merely current strength in competition with alternatives. If evidence that is contrary to evolution theory builds to the point that the theory is no longer useful or tenable, then it will be abandoned. That may even start with ideas born out of the ID community, but so far the credibility based on solid lab work is sorely lacking.
Don’t take my word for it. Do the hard work. Examine the evidence yourself. If you are trained in biology or a cognate discipline, design experiments and produce the data yourself. If not, get trained. Indulging in intellectual games is not research, and won’t cut it in science.
I’m waiting in eager anticipation.
shaner74 wrote: What observation would falsify NDE? Anyone?
To which Ellazimm responded, in part:
“I’m sure you’ve heard this before but a fossil “clearly out of place”. . . ”
I have no expertise in this area, Ellazimm, but don’t all of those fossils crammed all together in those Cambrian rocks seem clearly out of place to you?
Let’s put it this way, before ANYBODY dug up ANYTHING, wouldn’t Darwin’s theories of evolution have predicted that we should have found something else, something completely different? Yes or no!!
I just don’t get it. Ellazimm, how big an “explosion” will it take if the Cambrian explosion is not enough? How far “out of place” are those fossils, and by out of place, I mean too many and all in full phyla dress?
Because of examples as obvious, explanatory and PARSIMONIOUS as the Cambrian Explosion, Darwinism IMO is so plainly unfalsifiable in principle that I find it difficult to listen to its proponents and trust that they are making any scientific sense at all. They sound more and more like they are just speaking out of willfulness.
The elephant is still in the room and it just sat in the bean dip! Isn’t anybody from Darwin’s camp going to get a paper towel? No? Pass the chips? What???
—–digdug24 writes, “janice, if species are indeed natural kinds or even individuals, then your argument seems to fail. what, from first principles of your biblical argument, is the distinction? what is the baramin? is it different for different kinds of organisms? I have always been interested in this line of reasoning but I have never seen a coherent explanation.”
I will not presume to put words in the mouth of one (Janice) who writes so well, but, for my part, it is the alternative view that lacks coherency. Try this:
If species are mutable, then they resemble each other in ways that defy the very definitions being used. If there is no ontological barrier between, say, ape and man, then there is no ontological barrier between man and (superman). Put another way, if all species are constantly evolving into new forms, then, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a species.
If organisms are always in flux, that is, if they are always losing some traits and gaining others, then which traits do you choose to identify and define the species. Under the circumstances, there can be no “type,” so it makes no sense to speak of one type morphing into another. All you would have is a changing organism with a passing and arbitrary identity that could be given a temporary name even though that name could not possibly signify anytyhing. It means, further, that there can be no such thing as a “human being” or any such quality as “human nature”.
Therefore, any discussion about speciation seems irrational since there is no definitive species from which an organism can emerge or to which it can evolve. I don’t think Janice’s perspective is anywhere near that problematical.
H’mm:
Interesting. I observe on points:
1] DD, 47: ontological proofs are mere affirming the consequent vs Anton, 48: Or alternatively: Inference to the best explanation
Anton is right, and it should be observed that I EXPLICITLY spoke of IBE in my comment on the ontological issue at 45: “. . . we need to look at them in light of the issue of inference to best explanation across comparative difficulties.”
But it does not stop there. For, the basic scientific inductive inference is an IBE argument and is itself open to the affirming the consequent objection. For instance, consider a theory, T and its body of supportive observations, O:
–> We argue, in science, in effect: IF T Then O; O , so T is confirmed.
–> But substitute, T = “Tom is a pig.” And, O = “Tom is an animal.”
–> Immediately, we see: “If Tom is a pig, then Tom is an animal; Tom is an animal, so Tom is a pig. But what if Tom is in fact a cat? [This is the actual example I first used ~ 20 years ago in the training of student Christian leaders on handling issues connected to reasoning and believing at worldviews level.
--> Thus, we come to the point that scientific inferences are provisional and competitive, and subject to falsification and/or correction in light of further evidence. They ALSO work by inference to best explanation, in short.
--> Thus, to make the objection to the ontological issue raised in an explicit IBE context, that it "affirms the consequent," is to fall into selective hyper-skepticism, thence logical incoherence.
So, now, can we get back to addressing the real issue, as at the end of 45: "what best makes coherent and elegantly simple sense of the facts? Why?"
2] Tim in 51:
H’mm, and what happened when Stephen Meyer submitted an article on precisely this case that passed peer review by “renowned scientists,” and was published by a fair-minded Editor, a certain Rick Sternberg?
Why is there no Earth-shaking scandal over that, with serious consequences for the perpetrators?
What is that telling us about the state of science in leading, Taxpayer-funded Science institutions? [Much less, in the media and education systems?]
3] SteveB, 52: If there is no ontological barrier between, say, ape and man, then there is no ontological barrier between man and (superman). Put another way, if all species are constantly evolving into new forms, then, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a species.
Correct. And, the road to H^ell yawns open — a road all too frequently travelled over the past 100 years, as was predicted by a certain Mr Charles Darwin in this excerpt from a July 3, 1881 letter to a certain Mr William Graham:
But all of this, in a sense, is incidental.
4] Back on topic
As the OP puts it by citing the editorial, the central issue is the “proper” definition of science.
Namely, Nature Methods’ editors argue:
This is so distorting of easily accessible facts — and note the concession of prolonged explantatory failure by Evo mat! — as to be due to gross, culpapble negligence, or else to willful deception indented to eliminate the “weak” through predatory behaviour. Here, career busting being good enough in Science.
Sorry, if that sounds harsh, but that is what is plainly going on. And, it needs to stop. NOW.
Then, if we have acknowledged explanatory failure — after 150 years of trying — on one option, what should that tell us about its [want of] explanatory power?
Worse, we have in hand another alternative that shows us how empirical data (through an explanatory filter that does not beg the question by eliminating reasonable options) can account for the actual evidence we do observe on CSI, IC and OC.
This is an option that just happens to be well within the views and approach of most of the founders of modern science, and that of the founders of many of the key sub-disciplines. So if it is “unscientific” somebody has changed a definition without notifying us on its implications.
So, if that option is now ruled “unscientific” on a false claim that it is not falsifiable, and failing to explain within the evo mat circle of acceptable causes, does that not plainly reveal that the root problem is politically correct metaphysical imposition of a questionable redefinition, by the materialists who happen to hold power in key institutions; not the “correct” workings of real-world, empirically anchored science across time?
Finally, given the sort of moral consequences SteveB has brought out, shoud we not pause and think again, before it is — again! — too late?
GEM of TKI
digdug24 @ 47,
I don’t understand what you’re saying there.
What I’m saying is that:
a) there is no agreement as to what a “species” is, and
b) even if there were there is no reason to believe that (Linnaean) “species” correspond to created “kinds”.
Therefore the fact that a “species” (whatever that is) may produce offspring that will not interbreed with members of the parent population is interesting but proves only that some change is possible at the (Linnaean) “species” level. It does not prove that the new “species” is “fitter” than the parent “species”, nor does it prove that change is limitless (as NDE requires) or that one Biblical “kind” can change into another “kind”.
What I’m also saying is that:
a) there is no agreement as to what “science” is, and
b) even if there were there is no good reason to believe that philosophising about historical events (after all, nobody can do an experiment on a past event or events) must necessarily exclude consideration of non-material (i.e., intelligent) causes. There are plenty of sociological reasons why one group rather than another gets attributed with “cognitive authority” (see Kuhn, Feyerabend and Fuller) and receives the prizes that follow from that.
But what has that to do with the search for truth about what is most likely to have happened to cause the existence of us and everything else in the universe?
The simple fact is that no matter how much or how little any person knows about genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, or whatever, every person wants to know where they came from because the answer to that question provides answers to the other two major questions of life – why am I here, and where am I going? Those who use their currently accepted “cognitive authority” to impose a materialist answer to the first question on everyone who attends school are, as far as I’m concerned, a stain on the face of humanity, a disgrace. They want to be able to choose for themselves what they believe but have no compunction about using the “cognitive authority” they have to persuade even little children that they have no choice at all. That is nothing but a form of child abuse.
No one can prove, scientifically, that materialism is true. In calling materialism “science”, and insisting that the materialist version of origins can be the only one allowed in schools, what the materialists are actually doing is brainwashing children just as their parents, and maybe even their grandparents, were brainwashed with the same sort of materialist dogma. You can believe it if you want but you have no right, or good reason, to impose it on other people in the way that it is imposed today through compulsory “education”.
Then I suggest not only that you keep looking but that you try to keep looking with a mind that is open to being changed. That’s not easy when you’ve been brainwashed as a child, but it can be done if you value truth.
Ellazimm [54] writes, “Tim, the Cambrian explosion took 30 to 50 million years. Fossils being crammed together (if indeed they are) does not imply out of sequence or uninterpretable. Have you ever been on an paleontological exploration? It takes years to get good at it.”
Ellazimm, I find your response, er, nonresponsive.
I did not ask about the length of the Cambrian overall. I did not ask to be quizzed about my “stellar” paleontological cv. (I once dug up a bone in my garden, but I think it was just a stick. . . not really sure.) Nor, did I ask to have “crammed together” parsed. I will be the second to admit that “crammed together” is not the most scientific term. On the other hand, I thought that the idea of “crammed together” combined with, “How far “out of place” are those fossils, and by out of place, I mean too many and all in full phyla dress?” would have put enough meat on the bone for you to understand. In that context, then, crammed together actually does mean “out of sequence”.
They are out of sequence because they are side by side. This seems plainly obvious to me. I understand that being different phyla side by side does is not a sequence killer alone. But side by side with no transitional forms along for the ride casts Darwinism in doubt.
For every phyla located in those rocks out of the 40 or so we now delineate shouldn’t we expect to see numerous transitional forms? What is the number of transitional forms that come out of the “explosion”? I honestly don’t know. 0? 1? 10? My point is this: Darwinism would have predicted countless transitional forms. The transitional forms should have outnumbered the static forms by several factors, but the opposite is the case.
It is interesting to note that although I cannot tell the difference between a bone and a stick (it might have been a piece of rope), I actually can understand the nature of the evidence. I can also tell when my question was dodged, so here it is again:
Ellazimm,
“Don’t all of those fossils crammed all together in those Cambrian rocks seem clearly out of place to you?”
Clearly, you think that those fossils are “interpretable”. I say that a basic understanding of Darwin’s doctrine of “slow and incremental change” is disconfirmed by my interpretation of the rocks of Cambria. What do you say? Speaking of fun Cambrian questions, what about this one: When all of those little squishy things were lining up to get themselves a place in history, how did all the ones enjoying stasis know to hop into the press while all the transitional folks chose to rot?
Please spare me the “transitional forms are invisible (just too transient to get recorded)” argument. Although it is good for a laugh now and then, I’d really like a more direct answer.
MacT,
Geez MacT alluding to a perponderance of evidence that proves evolution true.
I call that dodging the issue.
I specifically asked for one solid proof. Since you did not provide one solid proof and Ellazimm wanted to know about the nylon bacteria adaptation which was touted as conclusive proof for evolution for a while, let’s look at that “proof”. (I love that word by the way MacT, as I demand solid “proof” for the science I follow!)
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....cteria.asp
P. aeruginosa is renowned for its ability to adapt to unusual food sources—such as toluene, naphthalene, camphor, salicylates and alkanes. These abilities reside on plasmids known as TOL, NAH, CAM, SAL and OCT respectively.2 Significantly, they do not reside on the chromosome (many examples of antibiotic resistance also reside on plasmids)
Well just how long have bacteria been detoxifying the earth of toxins MacT?
I believe the correct answer is billions of years MacT:
Sulfate-reducing bacteria helped prepare the earth for advanced life by “detoxifying” the primeval earth and oceans of “poisonous” levels of heavy metals while depositing them as relatively inert metal ore deposits (iron, zinc, magnesium, lead etc.. etc..). To this day, sulfate-reducing bacteria maintain an essential minimal level of these metals in the ecosystem that are high enough so as to be available to the biological systems of the higher life forms that need them, yet low enough so as not to be poisonous to those very same higher life forms. Needless to say, the metal ores deposited by these sulfate-reducing bacteria in the early history of the earth’s geologic record are indispensable to man’s rise above the stone age to modern civilization.
How about showing some significant change in the DNA of bacteria, over millions of years, to “prove” evolution true MacT?
there are many ancient bacterium fossils recovered from salt crystals and amber crystals that have been compared to their living descendants of today. Some bacterium fossils, in salt crystals, dating back as far as 250 million years have had their DNA recovered, sequenced and compared to their offspring of today (Vreeland RH, 2000 Nature). Scientists accomplished this using a technique called polymerase chain reaction (PCR). To the disbelieving shock of many scientists, both ancient and modern bacteria were found to have the almost exact DNA sequence.
“Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.” Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; (The Paradox of the “Ancient” Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes)
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../19/9/1637
You say the evidence is strong for evolution, I say you are severely deluding yourself if you think that is true.
Again I ask you MacT
drum roll please,,,
MacT will now bring forth one solid proof for evolution.
we will be waiting with eager anticipation.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz