If you are interested in listening to a terribly one-sided "debate" between an evolutionary biologist (PZ Meyers) and anti-evolutionary person (Simmons), listen to this debate. I'm surprised how poorly prepared Simmons seems to have been. If this wasn't hosted by a Christian radio station, I would have thought that Simmons was brought on to be a punching bag for Meyers' intellectual boxing pleasure.
The bit I like the most was PZ Meyer's statement: "Your ignorance about the state of the fossil record is not evidence there are holes in evolutionary theory."
Here's a bit of my transcription of the back-and-forth (starts roughly half way through the mp3) that was common throughout the discussion.
When asked why the debate of evolution isn't discussed, Meyers answered:
We do debate evolutionary theory all the time. Some of the debates get pretty fierce as well. ... There's a lot of argument about issues that matter. ... What's being brought up by the Intelligent Design group is an issue that don't matter, and they are often using falsified scraps of incorrect evidence, ah, a perfect example of what you did with whale fossils. You've written a book that says there're billions and billions of missing links, you've written a book that says, "here's what Darwin didn't know," and you you haven't even bothered to look at the current record for one of your examples: the evolution of whales? Don't you find that a little bit embarrassing?
Simmons: I don't think you answered my question for one, and for two, I don't think we're gonna get settled on this whale issue. The question is why can't [mp3 break] issues ... I'm not talking about scientists talking among themselves about their theory on water boiling or evo-devo is worthwhile or what's wrong with it. I'm talking about what's wrong with evolution, and what are the problems with it, and .. how can we address them. At least let the students hear where the flaws are. I mean it's like the door's absolutely closed to talking about - it's like reverse inquisition from 300 or how many years ago that was.
Meyers: This is absurd.
Simmons: No it isn't absurd.
Meyers: You know nothing about the field. Um. I'll recommend a book to you. Look up a book by Mary Jane West-Eberhard called Developmental Plasticity in Evolution, and this is a book by a credentialed academic, a very smart woman who's done a lot of really good work in evolutionary biology, and one of the first things she does in this book is she lists all the problems in modern theories of evolution. She documents them and says, "here's things we have to ... here's things we have to research further. ... [repeats the author's name for Simmons] The difference though is that she is also proposing other explanations. She is making a positive approach. She's saying, "here's a flaw in evolution." So for instance, she discusses the concept of adaptive landscapes - which is a term we use a lot in certain fields of evolutionary biology - she says, "there's a real problem with this metaphor of adaptive landscapes and heres a list of the problems and here are some solutions people have proposed to these problems. These are things we have to pursue." So it is seriously discussed. However, we don't sit there and say, "whales didn't evolve." Okay? uh ... That's just infantile and ludicrous. This is not the kind of thing that biologists discuss.
Simmons: Well I think the word "infantile" falls on the same level as as the previous word, and I really don't want to get into an insulting discussion. Let me give you an example of where I'm coming from, is take the human brain. Three ... thirty-five trillion cells. Many of which, if not all of which have as many as ten thousand connections. Most of which, if not all, have at least forty chemicals at each one of those chem... ah, connections. And they disclose those in different packets and different concentrations to send messages to each other. And they work in groups of millions and billions at a time. It's beyond my comprehension that this could have come about by trial-and-error. And this isn't discussed in books that discuss the Theory of Evolution.
Meyers: Yes it is.
[talking over each other]
Simmons: Explain that.
Meyers: I'm a developmental biologist. I'm afraid you're stepping right into my field here with that question. [Simmons tries to say something.] We do discuss this in great detail and actually know quite a bit about how the brain forms and how it works, and you may be surprised to hear this, but there is a lot of trial-and-error that goes on. ... Ah, when you study the development of the brain what you quickly learn is that neurons grow out at a frantic pace and tend to make ten times as many connections as are appropriate for the adult. And what happens then is progres- in development as it progresses, it is that inappropriate connections are pruned. By trial-and-error. Ones that make appropriate connections are retained. The ones that do not are lost. [Simmons tries to say something.] A perfect analogue to natural selection.
Simmons: Or perhaps they're pruned by design.
Meyers: I mean you don't know how they're pruned or why they're pruned. [Simmons laughs.] And there's no way you could know.
The discussion continues from here, mostly on Meyer's side. In my opinion, Meyers won this debate. What I find humorous is that during the breaks, the radio show was touting their upcoming trip to the Creation Museum. I wonder what Meyers thought about that, but I think Meyers already knows of the trip and has already stated some views of this wondrous place.
No comments:
Post a Comment