Jury still out on evolution

Professor Maddox made the statement in a recent letter that “Evolution is a fact.” While few scientists doubt that natural selection operates to bring about change within a population (which can easily be observed in organisms that reproduce quickly, e.g. bacteria), the origin of life remains an unsolved mystery. I challenge Professor Maddox to describe in more detail what this “fact” of evolution is. Describe for me if you can how we have arrived from inanimate molecules to man. Many scientists have studied this question and their efforts have revealed interesting insights and theories as to how the first biomolecules may have arisen, how the first cell may have been born and committed the first cell cycle, but we cannot establish that any one of these theories is a fact. None of them is even reproducible. None of us were there, and to be honest, we are very far from the day when we can say anything conclusive about the origin of life or the origin species. Rather, we can only form a belief and attempt to defend it with the available evidence.

As for the occurrence of evolution today, there are multiple contending theories. In the nineteen forties, Darwinian evolution was abandoned because it did not accurately describe how variations entered the genome. A collaborative group of scientists from many disciplines worked long and hard to develop neo-Darwinianism, which holds that random variations occur primarily from point mutations and can accumulate and multiply to ultimately bring about change in a population. This theory was replaced by punctuated equilibrium, which has more recently been espoused by Stephen Jay Gould and others. However, many of its original proponents are returning to neo-Darwinianism and abandoning punctuated equilibrium for a variety of reasons. Which of these theories, if any, does Dr. Maddox purport is a fact?

Joseph Bata stated in his recent letter, “I cannot see how that fossils do not support evolution, and not conclusively prove it to be true.” Allow me to suggest an answer. A fossil is the remains of a dead animal. When we confirm a fossil, we know that an animal died. A paleontologist may infer from the animals’ form that it looks kind of like this animal and kind of like that animal. If a scientist believes in evolution, and is looking for evidence of evolution, he may be able to hypothesize that this animal was a descendent of a previous form found in a supposedly older rock layer and an ancestor to another. With a vast collection of fossils, a broader theory of evolution can be outlined. New fossils can be added when they are found and the theory can be modified when necessary. Joseph is correct in saying that fossils can support evolution in this way. But, they can never “conclusively prove it to be true.” The fossil, (unless by some remarkable stroke of fortune is found to be in the uterus of another fossil) indicates nothing of its origin or its progeny. Oxford zoologist, Mark Ridley, put it this way, “In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.” (‘Who doubts evolution?’ New Scientist, vol.90, 25 1981.) Though geology and paleontology can fill many museums with specimens that fit or refute theories, it is generally accepted that we shall have to turn to other sciences to conclusively prove evolution.

I am not at all afraid of the concept of a Divine Creator. I hold the view that life was created and is sustained by God because I can look at all of the scientific evidence and see fewer contradictions with this position than with that of the several evolutionary theories. Many well-respected faculty members of leading research universities unashamedly share this view.

Cheers to my collegue, Yandi, who on October 17th called for an open mind when approaching this question. Too many have been too dogmatic for too long. Dogmatic statements about the truth of one theory or another do not foster creative thought and only numb the mind to valuable scientific inquiry. I think Yandi had a great insight when he identified fear as the dominant motivator on both sides of the creation/evolution debate. The often-quoted Richard Lewontin put it this way:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (“Billions and Billions of Demons” New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28).

My position is that until we discover how to travel back in time, questions of origins can never be conclusively settled. These events in our past cannot be observed today and occur by some Divine mechanism so foreign to our understanding of nature, (e.g. the Cell Doctrine, look it up in a good cell biology text) that scientific inquiry is far from recreating them. Rather, many of us have a belief that we adhere to. We have the tendency to conform any evidence we are confronted with to confirm that belief, whether creationist or evolutionist. But, ultimately, we are responsible for the consequences of our faith. How does it affect our lives and the lives of others? How are we representing it to a world that looks to the academic community for answers?

Matt Kipper

Graduate Student

Chemical Engineering

Libertarian candidate for House speaks on vision for Iowa

My name is Phillip Burgmeier. I am the Libertarian candidate for District 45 of the Iowa House. I was raised in Jefferson County in southeast Iowa, and am now a senior in Construction Engineering at Iowa State University.

I am running because Iowa is withering on the vine around me, and I want to do something about it. Iowa has the best education system in the country. We have safe streets and a clean environment as well. Morgan Quinto Press rates Iowa 2nd in its livability ranking, but this is obviously not enough.

The “brain drain” has been a problem for years. This is evident by the fact that the state of Iowa ranks 50th in the rate of business formation. Our state can not attract any venture capital either, ranking dead last in that category. Realistically though what successful business with high paying jobs would want to come to Iowa. We tax income more than any other state. These high taxes along with burdensome regulation were a large reason for Iowa’s latest distinction. Iowa is officially the worst state to run a small business in.

Given the facts we are left with a state would be a wonderful place to raise your kid, but is hell as far as employers are concerned. So if you don’t need a job and never intend to start a small business come on over and take advantage of Iowa’s wonderful education system!

Sarcasm aside, the question is how should we go about turning Iowa around? I think we need to set Iowa apart from every other state. We need make Iowa the freest and most tolerant state in the nation.

A cornerstone of making Iowa the freest state is to eliminate the income tax and burdensome regulations, which are huge obstacles to small business. Small businesses create 2/3 of all new jobs and all the Republicrats do is fight over what tax break would best attract big business.

Murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc. are always wrong because one person (the criminal) is taking away the rights of another person (the victim). Other acts should be tolerated because there is no victim who’s [sic] rights are being taken away.

When someone turns 18 they are supposedly an adult. I propose that Iowa makes gambling, drinking, prostitution, and marijuana legal for everyone over the age of 18. Iowa could save tens of millions of dollars by ending enforcement of these laws and freeing up jail space. Also, please realize legalization is not the same as condoning an activity.

We need to confine the state government to its legitimate duties of protecting our rights to life, liberty, and property. Our communities can more efficiently provide services. For example Iowa has no state “accountability test” and our per-pupil spending is well into the bottom half of states. On the other hand Iowa has more local control over schools than any other state, and this translates into the best-educated students in the country.

This is just an outline of my vision for the state of Iowa. If you are curious about what individual rights, freedom, and personal responsibility will do for Iowa I am available to interview or visit with you. E-mail works best for contacting me since I am at class most of the day.

Sincerely,

Phillip Burgmeier

[email protected]

Scientific evidence affirms evolution

After perusing Mr. Wagner’s Oct. 18 letter, “Scientific Evidence Debunks Evolution”, Iÿcouldÿonly comeÿto the conclusion that Mr. Wagner must have flunked his Thermodynamics for Business/Design Majors course. Mr. Wagner asserts that the First Law of Thermodynamics (energy can be neither created nor destroyed)ÿcreates a problem withÿthe Big Bang Theory. I just don’t seeÿhis logic here.ÿThe Big Bang Theory describes a cosmic explosion hurling matter in all directions.ÿThe Theory says nothingÿaboutÿmatter being createdÿor destroyed. Next, Mr. Wagner attempts to bamboozle his audience further by alleging thatÿthe Second Law of Thermodynamics debunks evolutionary theory.ÿHe posits that the Second Law “states that everything tends toward disorder…How is it possible that this simple basic law was flouted for millions of years while humans evolved from single-celled organisms?” Well, Mr. Wagner, if you’dÿread your Thermoÿbook more closely you’d have discoveredÿthat the Second Law actually states that the total entropy (loosely called disorder) of a closed system cannot decrease. The Second Law does permit the disorder of part of that closed system to increase while anotherÿoffsettingÿpart decreases in entropy. If such were not the case, snowflakes and mineral crystals could not form because they are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts. So in that regard, the Earth can grow more complex because the sun dumps heat and light into it, and the greater disorder of the suns’s nuclear fusion more than make up for that. Due to limited space and patience, I can’t expound on Mr. Wagner’s other points. However, I’d recommend that anyone interested in this topic visit the July 2002 issue of Scientific American (www.sciam.com) to find 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense.ÿMr. Wagner, you are definitely not stupid, but Iÿwill contend that like many creationists, you are ignorantÿor ill-informed when it comes to basic science.ÿDo your cause a favor: stop moonlighting as an engineer/scientistÿand stick to what you know, business and design.

Jake Auliff

Senior

Materials Engineering

Scientific misconceptions abound

Although I usually restrain myself from responding to the things I read in the Daily, I felt that Friday’s letter from Josh Wagner deserved a response. I apologize in advance for the length of this letter. This area of debate is much too important to abbreviate.

Mr. Wagner’s letter is replete with scientific misconceptions and ignorance. His interpretation of the Laws of Thermodynamics is overly simplistic, leading him to the wrong conclusions. Also, his examples supposedly debunking evolution merely show his ignorance of science.

First, Mr. Wagner’s definition of the first law of thermodynamics (energy can neither be created or destroyed) can also be stated as the quantity of energy in a closed system remains constant. This merely means that there was the same amount of energy in the universe before (if there was a before) the big bang as there was after it.

Second, Mr. Wagner’s definition of the second law of thermodynamics (everything tends towards disorder) is essentially accurate but he applies it wrongly. The disorder the law speaks of can only be applied to the organization of energy in a closed system, not to evolution.

Finally, Mr. Wagner’s paradox from the law of biogenesis (life cannot come from non-life) is a result of his own ignorance about what the law really means. A typical example of this law is the fact that rotten meat doesn’t produce maggots, flies that lay eggs in the rotten meat do. It is not a violation of biogenesis to say that carbon and hydrogen, along with the conditions of ancient Earth, produced the first amino acids over time. The fact that we don’t yet know how it was done doesn’t mean it wasn’t.

The fact of the matter is that evolution is accepted by nearly 100% of the scientific community. Hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world have confirmed Darwin’s basic theory many, many times. In fact, the whole “Creation vs. Evolution” debate has been flawed from the very start. What is creationism but the age old creation myth, present is every ancient culture, with a Christian spin? What makes the Christian version of creation any more legitimate than the aboriginal or native American ones?

Jon Shier

Sophomore

Aerospace Engineering

Scientific misconceptions abound II

I am writing in response to Mr. Wagner’s letter entitled “Scientific evidence debunks evolution.” I feel it is necessary to address what I believe are two misunderstandings of scientific principles. It so happens that in my classes we have recently discussed many of the concepts in Mr. Wagner’s letter.

Mr. Wagner states that the First Law of Thermodynamics creates a problem with the Big Bang theory. Presumably he is assuming it is impossible for the vast amounts of energy present in the big bang to come from nothing – and he is right. Strange as it may seem though, current theories about the big bang assume that no energy was created. Present theories about the big bang utilize quantum field theory at the very microscopic level and propose that our Universe’s net energy is actually zero because the energy of mass (E=MC2) is cancelled out by the gravity of mass (I realize this is a terribleexplanation, so talk to a physics professor for a better one).

Mr. Wagner also states that the second law of thermodynamics makes it impossible for complex life to evolve because “when given a chance, order becomes chaos.% This is partially true. Things can and do become more organized when energy is put into their organization (though this energy is greater than the amount required to disorganize the system). Presumably energy (from the sun) was put into the basic components of life to organize them into more and more complex life forms.

Mr. Wagner also claims that religion is defined as “a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.” It should be noted that there is no consensus on the definition of religion and many alternate definitions have been offered and accepted by different people. According to Mr. Wagner’s definition of religion dedicated Democrats, Republicans, and Communists are also following their religions.

Also mentioned is the law of biogenesis. I am not familiar with this law and do not feel confident in trying to address it. Perhaps this law does disprove evolution, but I can’t be sure till I hear more about it. Hopefully, someone in the field of biology will step forward able to offer us insight into this issue.

I think we all must realize that there is probably no bombshell piece of evidence that will change the minds of anyone committed to their opinion. However, if we are going to debate this issue let us remember that in the end both parties are ultimately searching for the truth. Consequently, we should exercise both patience and respect.

Matt Clancy

Freshmen

Physics

Religious Studies

Vote for peace

Dropping bombs will not solve our real problems. Voters who know this should drop candidates who don’t! PLEASE let your voice be heard, and let us, together, drain the madness that has saturated our government!

Jon Meier

Senior

Religious Studies