alt.education

Danwood wrote:
>>> I came across a book by Niles Eldridge in which he is complaining about
>>> assertions by "students of adaption" "that complex functionings of structures are carefully fashioned through natural selection. For
>>> instance, a woodpecker manages to blast into a tree with such rapidity and force without scrambling it's brain because the bones and muscles of a woodpecker head are built through (random mutation) and natural selection precisely to avoid brain scrambling."
>>>
>>> Eldredge, 1995. .
>>>
>>> It occurs to me that this is no better explanation than the design
>>> hypothesis.
>>
>>
>> That's because it is a damned poor explanation.
>>
>> First of all, forget the myth of "random mutation". Those two words
>> are a red flag for misunderstanding or oversimplification.
> >
>I gave a direct quote from Niles Eldredge, who happens to be a curator
>in the Museum of Natural History In Chicago. Since, I know nothing about
>you, in all due respect, my natural inclination is to give more weight
>to Eldredge's opinion than yours.

I'm not disagreeing with his opinion. I don't even know if he used
the words "random mutation" since you put them in parentheses in a
manner that suggests a paraphrase. If he did use the words, then he
is inviting people who don't understand what scientists mean by the
phrase to misunderstand.

>> On the other hand, we know that chromosomal DNA has built in
>> mechanisms for correcting many kinds of mutation "errors". We don't
>> fully understand those mechanisms, but only a small fraction of the
>> mutations that take place, actually replicate.
>>
>> Second of all, most mutations take place in non-coding areas, since
>> those non-coding areas are something like 98% of our genetic code.
>> They are passed along, but never do anything
> >
>I think this is changing, rather our understanding is changing regarding
>this "junk DNA". If it doesn specific protean then it is considered
>junk. But there are other needs besides specif icing protean. One theory
>I saw on discovery channel is that while in the womb the junk DNA
>specified certain orders in the developmental process, such as
>controlling homeohox genes and once completed it had no further use.

It also isn't clear how much minor mutations would affect them. Major
ones would presumably prevent the fetus from developing.

>Ok, good explanation. And I sincerely appreciate your time, thought and
>effort you put into this.

Your welcome. Now bear in mind that I did not provide "evidence" for
the scenario, but such a scenario (or whatever the scenario scientists
actually prefer) would lead a scientist who actually knows something
about woodpeckers to look for certain anatomical features, and
differences in anatomical features with fossil of presumed ancestors
of woodpeckers. If the specific predictions match what is seen in the
fossil record, then that is the evidence for the explanation.

But you have to understand the evolutionary explanation for any
particular trait in order to have the possibility of understanding how
the evidence applies. Creationists tend to ask for some sort of
blanket "evidence" that "proves evolution". But there is no such
thing. There is evidence that evolutionary forces can *predictively*
explain features in a wide variety of living things that no other
explanatory approach can match. ("Design" fails as an explanation
because it cannot make such predictions without knowledge of the
nature of the designer and how he/she/it implements the design).

lojbab