I've never wanted nor pretended to be a biologist. I prefer to blame this possible character flaw on the fact I never liked dissecting animals, or the smell of formaldehyde. My approach to science has always been "need to know" -- meaning if I decide that I need to know something, I'll put a little effort into figuring out how it works. In the years since graduating from college I have certainly learned how to make children and grandchildren. For the longest time, I felt like that was enough knowledge of biology to satisfy my curiosity; I knew how to do my part to perpetuate of the species, and that was all I thought I needed to know. When these evangelists for atheism like Richard Dawkins began using their belief in evolution as justification for attacking belief in the existence of a creator God, I decided it was probably time for me to learn a bit more about this theory used to justify their claims of having eliminated the possibility that a supernatural God could exist. The Business Dictionary provides an excellent definition that I like which describes information as "Data that is (1) accurate and timely, (2) specific and organized for a purpose, (3) presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and (4) can lead to an increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty." As a former professional software developer, that definition seems both useful and apropos. Computers accept raw data as input. Software applications inside the computer process that raw data to convert it into useful information. The key phrase in the definition … [Read more...]
Why evolution is probably false
The problem with speciation theory
Speciation is the scientific theory attempting to identify the biological mechanisms by which a single ancestral species of organism differentiates, or "evolves", into more than one descendant species. The term "macro evolution" is often substituted inappropriately for speciation theory, creating the false impression that speciation is nothing more than a logical extrapolation of Darwin's theory of natural selection. But it isn't. As I wrote in my book Counterargument for God, either two members of the same ancestor species eventually spawn offspring of a new species, or members of two different species produce a fertile hybrid species. There doesn't really seem to be a viable third alternative, at least not one that doesn't involve creation by some form of supernatural intelligence. In an effort to clarify my understanding of how speciation theory supposedly worked, I wrote an open letter to biologist Dr. Jerry Coyne, author of the book Why Evolution is True. Apparently, Dr. Coyne couldn't find time to respond. However, his fellow biologist, Dr. Benoit LeBlanc, was kind enough to answer my questions. Dr. LeBlanc confirmed that my "basic understanding of the [speciation] process was sound", but suggested the reason my conclusions were all wrong because I simply don't know enough about biology. No offense intended, he said. None taken, Dr. LeBlanc. But I am still confused. In my analysis of Dr. Coyne's work previously deemed sound, I noted he speculated that speciation only seemed possible when a small breeding population comprised of members of a … [Read more...]
A conversation about evolution with Dr. Benoit Leblanc
After I wrote an open letter to Dr. Jerry Coyne, Dr. Benoit Leblanc was kind enough to comment at length in response. He wrote, Dear Mr. Leonard, I hope you won’t take umbrage at my attempt to answer your questions, even though I am not in the same league as Dr. Coyne. I am however a biologist, and having taught for the past ten years the molecular mechanisms that make evolution possible, I may be able to shed some light on a few points. Let me start by saying that your curiosity does you credit, and even though I understand that you come at this with a creationist/IDer mindset, I laud you for at least askng questions. I also hope that I won’t come across as pedantic, but I must admit something: very often, people with limited training in biology will be puzzled by things that are so basic to those trained in the art that these may adopt a condescending tone when answering questions. I hope that won’t be the case here. There is an anecdote I’d like to tell: many years ago, my wife and I had dinner with our landlord, a kindly mathematician from Heidelberg university. Making conversation, I asked what he was working on I knew that it had to do with some kind of high-level arithmetics, but being a biologist and not a true math-head I was quite the novice in that field. He took a second to think about it, then smiled charitably and said, apologetically, almost, “… you would not understand”. Which, of course, was true. It’s not that, seeing me as untrained, he thought I was stupid or ignorant but knew that I lacked the information and the experience required to … [Read more...]
A brief glimpse of the Big Picture
Life cannot evolve until it exists. When I recently made that point during a series of questions I asked in another post, Dr. Benoit Leblanc responded by writing, Your fourth question is the least contentious one, because it deals with matters that lie outside of evolutionary biology. “Until life exists, how can it evolve?” The answer is, of course, “it can’t”. Evolutionary theory is not concerned with abiogenesis, although its principles do apply to the evolution of increasingly-efficient unliving replicators (such as self-replicating nucleic acids) that may, in time, acquire characteristics that we associate with living creatures. Such is the power of the natural selection concept: in a population of replicators that can accumulate mutations, the replicators that gain a replicative advantage will, by definition, replicate better. To his credit, Dr. Leblanc made the effort to respond, though he conceded my point while simultaneously suggesting he and his colleagues don't care that the spontaneous origin of life was a wildly improbable anomaly, at best With all due respect and while I’m sure Dr. Leblanc is considerably more knowledgeable about evolutionary biology than me, I cannot begin to fathom how he could possibly make the statement that evolution theorists could be completely unconcerned about the hypothesis called abiogenesis while simultaneously agreeing with Dr. Coyne's assertion that evolution theory is true, beyond any question or reproach. Quid est veritas? What is the purpose of studying science? Is it to cherry-pick from the evidence that … [Read more...]
