Life In A Test Tube? Or Jumping To False Conclusions?A presupposition occurs when we make an exclusive statement that depends on a questionable assumption as opposed to a genuine fact. Ironically, one fond memory I have that involves a presupposition comes from my high school science class. I can still remember my sophomore biology teacher expounding with the utmost glee and detail on Stanley Miller’s famous spark-discharge experiments at the University of Chicago. Working under Nobel laureate Harold Urey, Miller recreated what was presupposed as Earth’s primitive gaseous environment, then passed electricity through the mixture to simulate lightning. In doing so, Miller found he had created amino acids, the basic building blocks of protein, and ultimately, life.
On The Evolution Of The African American DiasporaThe main and most obvious reason why the search for an identity and a homeland traditionally represented a vital aspect of African American vernacular and literary tradition was because African Americans were completely robbed of their indigenous vernacular and literary traditions. In such a vacuum, it is a natural human response to begin asking the vital human questions all over again: Who are we? Why are we here? How did we get here? Where are we going?
These are natural human questions, and a large part of human cultural evolution hinges around our search for satisfactory answers. To a great extent, cultures are their collective answers to these questions, whether those cultures exist in developing nations, isolated jungles or the most modern of cities. Despite superficial doctrinal differences, much in the same way that iwapẹlẹ, meditation, and sincere veneration sufficiently strengthened the Yoruba practitioner, Western religious rituals engage in essentially the same search for answers to these questions whether Catholic, Muslim, Protestant, atheist or anything else. To deny people their innate rights of self-discovery is perhaps the pinnacle of cruelty and inhumanity, enforced all the more stringently as black people were uprooted from their families and friends in their own lands, transported thousands of miles away only to be conscripted to nothing less than a living hell.
On HomologyThe phenomenon of homology refers to things that are corresponding or similar in position, value, structure and purpose. For example, many mammals share a common limb design that is versatile and lends well to a number of different functions. In Origin, Darwin notes in great detail the similar expressions of pentadactyl limb design as utilized by man for grasping, moles for digging, horses for movement and bats for flying. Further considering monkey and man, coyote and wolf, or fir and pine, the fact that different types and kinds of organisms share similarities in physical structure, biochemistry and embryonic patterns of development is argued as evidence that life must have descended from a common ancestor. Darwin cited the phenomenon of homology as the strongest evidence for his general theory of evolution. In the same vein, Miller and Levine also feel that homologous resemblance amongst organisms is compelling evidence: “The structural and biochemical similarities among living organisms are best explained by Darwin’s conclusion: living organisms evolved through gradual modification of earlier forms – descent from a common ancestor.”
False Argument #14: Microevolution And Macroevolution Are Creationist FabricationsI read a comment on a thread the other day that seemed to be making a modified version of a false argument I heard proposed about six months ago in the blogosphere. Unfortunately I couldn't track down the comment, but I do recall the first place I heard its premise:
"First, just so everyone's clear: 'Macro-evolution' and 'micro-evolution' are made-up words concocted by creationists to make themselves sound scientific. Biologists don't use them. They're scientifically meaningless. They're just different stages in the evolutionary process; 'macro' is just 'micro' over a longer period of time. Also, 'macro-evolution' (if people insist on calling it that) has been observed, both in the field and in the lab. Just so we're clear."
EvolutionLike God, the word evolution has unfortunately brought untold suffering and confusion to the human race, but it need not be this way.
At the most basic level the definition of the word evolution is change. The American Heritage Dictionary more specifically defines evolution as, “…a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.” That's pretty general, perhaps too general, so in scientific, religious or philosophical discussions like the ones we have here, I define evolution as the idea that all organisms on Earth derived sequentially from a LUCA (lowest universal common ancestor) in a process that produced descendants who differed morphologically or physiologically from their ancestors. Use of the word evolution can also refer to the historical development of a group of organisms such as the evolution of insects.
On November 24th, 1859 Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection made its debut. Thomas Malthus' Population, combined with observations made while sailing on the H.M.S. Beagle influenced Darwin's theory of evolution by descent with modification via natural selection. In Origin we find two related but quite distinct meanings of evolution: special and general theory. Loosely defined, Darwin’s special theory refers to the tendency of an organism or group of organisms to adapt in response to changes in their environments, and microevolution, variation, mutation, adaptation and natural selection are all related, and in some cases, synonymous terms. Using the classic example of the finches, geographical isolation of a species can prevent interbreeding with the parent population so that a series of minor variations may eventually result in an entirely new daughter population or subspecies. Biologists, writers and other scientists have referred to such changes as microevolution.
Darwin’s general theory is the extrapolation of microevolutionary principle to explain the full sum of living organisms and postulated that all life came from a lowest universal common ancestor, and is sometimes referred to as macroevolution, but don't let these seemingly innocent prefixes fool you, as they also afford plenty of misery to intelligent discussions about evolution (see the related posts at the bottom for examples).
The theory of evolution itself has also evolved, and continues to evolve as scientific knowledge continues to grow and self-correct. Darwin didn't have the knowledge of genetics he needed to really complete his puzzle, but his ideas of natural selection with genetic mutation as described by Gregor Mendel (geneticist) became known as the modern synthesis. Theodosius Dobzhansky (geneticist), Julian Huxley (zoologist), Ernst Mayr (ornithologist), Bernhard Rensch (zoologist), George Gaylord Simpson (vertebrate paleontologist) and George Ledyard Stebbins (botanist) were among those who called the ideas the Synthetic Theory of Evolution, which interpreted evolution as the results of gene flow, genetic drift, mutation and natural selection. By the early 1970's, Stephen Jay Gould (paleontologist / evolutionary biologist) and Niles Eldredge (paleontologist) focused on concepts of stasis and cladogenesis, and their ideas are sometimes referred to as punctuated equilibrium.
Steven M. Stanley (paleontologist / evolutionary biologist) has noted the introduction of entirely new species of Polynesian butterflies exclusive to Hawaiian banana trees. His documentation of the devil’s pupfish, found in the 92-degree springs of Death Valley exclusively, represents what appears to be an entirely new species that has appeared on the scene in the last 10-30,000 years. I'm no biologist, but I've read that under such harsh conditions, bacteria can create new proteins and metabolic pathways, which is something a punctuated evolutionary sequence would anticipate.
Related Posts:
False Arguments #23 & #24: The Sufficiency Of Microevolution Tropes
False Argument #14: Microevolution & Macroevolution Are Creationist Fabrications
False Argument #11: Darwinism, Atheism And Evolution Lead To Genocide, Fascism, HolocaustA common false argument based in misunderstanding and fear directly blames Darwinism, atheism and evolution for such atrocities as genocide, fascism, racism and the Holocaust. Like most false arguments, this one has some degree of basis in reality, but not of the degree that can support such illogical claims.
This false argument has its grain of truth in the history of eugenics. Defined neutrally, eugenics is the study of human betterment through means of gene manipulation and control. The movement itself is said to begin with Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. In his work Hereditary Genius, Galton states his opinion that humanity should be eugenically regimented. Charles’ son Leonard Darwin was Chairman of the British Eugenics Society between 1911-1928, and vice-President of the 1912 and 1921 International Eugenics Congresses, the first of which was an offshoot of an earlier meeting by the predominantly German-controlled International Society for Racial Hygiene.
False Argument #3: Appendix Doesn’t Seem To Serve A FunctionWhile reading a high school biology textbook written by two highly reputable science authors, I couldn’t help but feel resentment when I came across the following statement: “The appendix is a vestigial organ that does not seem to serve a function in digestion today.”
The statement is misleading. Now it’s not as much the first half of this statement I wish to contest as the last, although I have a few non-traditional opinions about the first half as well. The official position on vestigial organs here is that we don’t claim them any more favorable to the atheist, evolutionary worldview than the faith-based, creationist worldview, and that all participants in the debate need to understand clearly what constitutes a vestigial structure. The point of this post and why I think it belongs on the site is that even accomplished biology textbook writers holding Ph.D degrees and better occasionally succumb to confirmation bias and perpetuate errors and misconceptions concerning the human body. With the textbook editors I will be less forgiving, first for not catching the error in the editing process, and second for not explaining anything else about the matter of vestigial organs at all. For example, what concrete point of reference do we have upon which we might reason the current state of affairs in the appendix is reduced or in any way rudimentary? Can we say with surety that the appendix did more for Homo sapiens 50,000 years ago or at any other point in time? Or is our conclusion reached on account of more functioning appendices in other species?
The English vestigial derives from the Latin vestigium, meaning among other things an imprint or trace. Definitions of vestigial organs vary from source to source. My personal, off-the-cuff definition as I write this today is "the remnant of a superior, fully functional organ thought to have once existed in an ancient ancestor, based on the theory of linear descent from a LUCA. Generally characterized by reduced function, it is important to note that not all vestigial organs are claimed to be useless and there is nothing about the term that demands non-utility. German Anatomist R. Wiedersheim in 1893 included approximately 85 structures in his original list of vestiges, and it was later said that man possessed nearly 200 vestigial organs including the appendix, coccyx, pineal gland, the tonsils and the pituitary gland. Of course as science and understanding of human anatomy have progressed, the number of vestigial organs has dwindled, and there is of course ongoing debate about the subject. Medical professionals have demonstrated bona fide functions of many organs classified as vestigial, supported among other documented evidences by the observation of drastic changes in patient physiology noted upon removal of the organ in question. For example, the extensive work of the Calderoli brothers details this occurrence in tonsillectomy patients.
More accurately described as a gland than an organ, the modest vermiform appendix sits in a crucially important location, located just below the ileo-cecal valve at the beginning of the colon or large intestine. Other animals have larger appendices such as the Koala bear and we know rather specifically what some of the functions of the appendix are. Among other things it has an active relationship with the hypothalamus gland, and one function of the hypothalamus is to regulate body responses in a manner conducive to its protection. With an average length around three inches, this tube-like cluster of lymph and glands is responsible for secreting a germicidal fluid that is automatically injected into the colon in the event that waste matter coming from the small intestine is determined to be toxic for the individual.
Poor eating habits add to the burden of our faculties and when maintained over a significant duration of time, the appendix will eventually tire from overexertion. Appendicitis is a typical result descriptive of a worn and inflamed appendix. Too much toxic waste for too long causes the appendix to work overtime and once the limit of inflammation has been reached, the poor gut has no choice but to burst, causing considerable pain and privation to the sufferer. Among other things your appendix is a built-in detector and neutralizer of certain toxicities and poison, a seemingly fitting feature congruent with many other self-maintenance mechanisms our bodies possess.
Especially in the context of the argument, Miller and Levine’s statement that the appendix "does not seem to serve a function in digestion today" is an inaccurate and misleading claim, one that nutritionists and health experts have been known to take issue with. As stated the claim does not belong in a high-school textbook, especially in the absence of further information about the appendix or the phenomenon of vestigial organs in general, and the claim is of the caliber one might expect from an irresponsible tabloid newspaper, cheap YEC tract or the machinations of science-fiction. In fact, thinking back I do recall that Isaac Asimov makes this very same claim in his Words of Science: "The appendix is thus the useless remainder of a once useful organ…"
Now I normally don’t have too much of a problem with assumptions provided they are supported by sound logic, observation or scientific principle. However, when an assumption is not only unfounded and unscientific but also demonstrably wrong, I do have a problem, and when such assumptions are pawned off onto unsuspecting school kids in the name of science, whether in defense of creationism or evolution in my such tactics are certainly reprehensible. The error of calling the appendix an organ as opposed to a gland is really just a technicality and is, of course, both arguable and forgivable. However, the error of claiming the appendix "does not seem to serve a function in digestion today" reveals ignorance regarding nutrition and anatomy.
Another enigma is why those militant about the quality of science education in this country don’t seem to apply the same level of stringency when an error is unrelated to creationism. What’s further interesting is the special pleading of individuals who embrace vestigial organs as suggestive of Darwinism while harshly criticizing those who embrace life’s complexity as being suggestive of intelligent design, when both conclusions are in fact arrived at via identical means. Isn’t declaring an organ vestigial on account of the fact we haven’t identified its function yet the very same error ID gets charged with for declaring the universe a product of intelligent design because we haven’t discerned a natural cause for it yet?
However it arose, the appendix is a useful feature of human physiology.
Inherit The Wind: A Case Study In Intellectual PolarizationIt seems to me that America is becoming an increasingly divided country. Ostensibly the land of plenty, many struggle amidst deep socio-political and economic rifts. This division manifests through a series of false intellectual dichotomies: Republican vs. Democrat, scientist vs. religionist, pro-life vs. pro-choice, peace vs. war, activist vs. apathetic, traditional vs. progressive, etc. The situation has deteriorated such that one can’t even mention God in class or utter the name of Darwin in church without somebody getting all up in arms. What might have contributed to this odd social phenomenon?
The Fossil RecordThe fossil record is a term used to refer to the sum total of fossils discovered in the bowels of the Earth.
Earth is composed of rock layers called strata, and the science of studying these layers is called stratigraphy. Usually occurring in layers of sedimentary rock distributed around the world, a fossil is any geological imprint of a once-living life form and the study of fossils is known as paleontology.
Selman vs. Cobb CountyIn a controversial decision virtually guaranteed to increase resentment between scientists, educators, fundamentalists and constitutional rights buffs, United States District Court Judge Clarence Cooper ruled against the Cobb County School Board on January 13th that the inclusion of a religiously neutral disclaimer sticker in school science textbooks was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Prompted by the ACLU, Georgia Citizens for Integrity in Science Education (GCISE) and even former President Jimmy Carter, the lawsuit, filed by Jeffrey Selman and four other parents, is an ongoing expression of the religio-political battle raging in education, religion, science and civil liberties.