Banner
    Evolution As Fact, Theory, And Path
    By T. Ryan Gregory | January 12th 2008 10:35 AM | 3 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About T. Ryan

    I am an evolutionary biologist specializing in genome size evolution at the University of Guelph in Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Be sure to visit

    ...

    View T. Ryan's Profile
    The new journal Evolution: Education and Outreach is now available online and free to download. My contribution to the first issue is "Evolution as fact, theory, and path". Feel free to distribute this and any other papers from the journal as widely as you like, but please link to the journal website rather than re-posting papers.

    There are now several available articles that discuss this important subject:

    Comments

    Harry Dale Huffman

    Stephen Gould's article emphasizes that new evidence contrary to the theory of evolution should be welcomed by science.  It is not.  Even the well-known evidence of "co-evolution" and "convergent evolution," which characterize all the life on Earth and fly in the face of expectations of undirected evolution (and in many instances, fairly shout "design"), are today illogically considered part of the "overwhelming evidence for evolution".

    Here is new evidence, that demolishes the foundations of both plate tectonics and undirected evolution:  www.lulu.com/hdhsciences.  I am one of many scientists and other seekers of truth who have been and are suppressed; the authors of these articles have no idea of the abuses they defend in the name of their dogmatic, unimaginative worldview.  I will give a paid talk to any group that wants to hear and see new evidence.  Until evolutionists, and all of science, confront the new evidence, journals like the one advertised here are mere isolationist defenses of a failed hypothesis.

    Hank
    Harry, you wrote a whole book and it is available to the public (as your persistent linking to it shows) so how are you oppressed?

    Most scientists I know, biologists included, are wonderfully competitive and basically love making each other look stupid as needed so if you and the other suppressed seekers of truth can come up with science to overturn evolution, we'd all love to see it.

    There's no Big Evolution conglomerate that I know of but there is real money in religious arguments against it. Why aren't they funding research to come up with real science and an alternate explation for how humans today got this way?

    "Conversely, no reliable observation has ever been found to
    contradict the general notion of common descent."
    Ryan seems to be ignorant of some of the facts:
    "Genome analyses are delivering unprecedented amounts of data from an abundance of organisms, raising expectations that in the near future, resolving the tree of life (TOL) will simply be a matter of data collection. However, recent analyses of some key clades in life's history have produced bushes and not resolved trees. The patterns observed in these clades are both important signals of biological history and symptoms of fundamental challenges that must be confronted. Here we examine how the combination of the spacing of cladogenetic events and the high frequency of independently evolved characters (homoplasy) limit the resolution of ancient divergences. Because some histories may not be resolvable by even vast increases in amounts of conventional data, the identification of new molecular characters will be crucial to future progress."http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1637082
    While they are promising to resolve the contradictions of the genome evidence. It is never the less a reliable observation that contradicts a single TOL.

    “A prime example is provided by
    the chronically misunderstood Second Law of Thermodynamics,”
    Ryan shows his own misunderstanding of this Law.

    "if there is no
    external source of energy" (“a closed system”),
    The definition of a, ("closed system") is not "having no external source of energy" as he suggests. A closed system is a, "mechanism (system), that doesn't have any source of energy. I point this out,
    because he isn't always clear that a system (mechanism) is necessary to complete the needs to
    overcoming entropy. Energy alone increases entropy.

    "Local increases in order are not precluded
    (ornate snowflakes still form from water vapor),"
    This is another misunderstanding by Ryan.
    Water vapor freezing into snowflakes is NOT an increase in order.
    The order is already present in the physical order of water molecules and the physics surrounding freezing. . The freezing process just (reveals) that already established order! That is why it is predictable and consistent.

    "If the Second Law of
    Thermodynamics implied that all natural increases in order
    were impossible, then it would be incorrect. It does not and
    (so far as we know) is not. The broader point is that
    invoking the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an
    argument against evolution reveals a misunderstanding of
    both the scope of this particular law and of the meaning of
    “law” in science generally."
    Ryan misunderstands how this law is applied in an argument
    against evolution.
    Mechanisms (systems), fueled by energy. can over come entropy.
    However In biological Evolution, without a complex mechanism, which turns energy into
    useful work , work that makes self regeneration and more complex designs possible. Designs hat functions better in changing environments.
    Therefore Biological Evolution needs established (mechanisms or systems)
    before it can work it's magic. This (SLofT) also precludes (random mutation) from
    being the source of ( complex specific, design and order). Which then precludes a Universal Common ancestor. Howie Motz