pangloss

FRound this at the Calvin archives.

Creationist pain-in-the-arse Stephen Jones gleefully reported the following in Aug.2000:

<a href="http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/200009/0577.html" target="_blank">http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/200009/0577.html</a>

********************************************
Here is an excerpt from a speech by a Dr. Roland Hirsch in accepting a
Distinguished Service Award from The American Chemical Society. In it
Dr Hirsch makes the *stunning* claims that:


1. based on molecular biological data "the Darwinian theory itself is
fundamentally, perhaps fatally flawed. "


2. "cellular processes are ... irreducibly complex" in that "gradual, step-by-
step evolution of the process would not work, for none of the intermediate
stages would be "selected" because none of the intermediate stages would
be functional."


3. "recent research in information theory...concludes that random mutations
cannot create complex, biologically-specified genetic information."


4. Natural selection has been considered by many to be the unifying
principle of biology. But these and other flaws seriously compromise the
theory" and it "has thus far in my opinion failed."


Note these claims are all based on the *data* that Hirsch knows in his
field.. Dr Hirsch is not associated with the ID movement, but hopefully he
soon will be!


I am becoming more confident that what we are starting to see is the
beginning of a trickle of scientists, which will gradually build up into a flood-tide
in repudiating the 19th century materialistic paradigm of Darwinism and
replace it with a new 21st paradigm of intelligent design! This is shaping up to
be a scientific revolution that will make the Copernican and Darwinian
revolutions look like a Sunday school picnic. What an exciting time to be alive!


I call on those evolutionists (particularly Christians) who have opposed the ID
movement to re-evaluate their position in the light of this emerging new
evidence and not go down with the sinking ship of scientific materialism
out of misguided loyalty to science (as it is currently conceived). Your
loyalty as scientists should be to the *data*, not to materialistic-naturalistic
philosophy.


Steve


=========================================
<a href="http://www.waters.com/waters_website/corporate/releases/2000releases/rls_ACS_DrHirsch.htm" target="_blank">http://www.waters.com/waters_website/corporate/releases/2000releases/rls_ACS_DrHirsch.htm</a>


2000 Releases


[...]


By Roland F. Hirsch
August 21, 2000, Washington, D.C.


[...]


There is no field, however, with a greater interest in cooperation with
analytical scientists than the life sciences. Tomorrow you will hear four
informed perspectives on this relationship, from Jim Cassatt of the
National Institutes of Health, Isiah Warner of Louisiana State University,
Michelle Buchanan, the new Director of the Chemical & Analytical
Sciences Division at Oak Ridge, and Lee Makowski, who just moved from
the National Science Foundation to the Argonne National Laboratory. I
would like to offer my own thoughts now, with apologies that lack of time
prevents me from discussing in depth the equally important impacts of
analytical chemistry in the other fields I have mentioned.


When I joined DOE in 1991 the basic concept was that gene sequence
determines protein structure determines biological function. Since then
sequencing of large segments of DNA has become routine, due in large
measure to advances in analytical chemistry.


Likewise, biophysical techniques have increased in power, making it
possible to determine the three-dimensional structures of large numbers of
proteins rapidly and reliably. However, the link between gene sequence or
protein structure and biological function is now perceived as much more
complicated than in the diagram. Regulation of the expression of proteins
is a critical and complex subject in itself, and expressed proteins often are
modified chemically to their actual, functional form. Further, proteins do
not usually act in isolation, but rather in membranes or as parts of
complexes or aggregates of small and large molecules.


The challenge for analytical chemistry is, I believe, to enable discovery of
the actual chemistry that underlies biological functions. The constituents
of these systems are numerous, most often at very low concentrations, and
must be measured on a wide range of time scales from the sub-nanosecond
to hours and longer. Clearly progress toward meeting this challenge will
require close collaboration between the members of our profession and life
scientists, and I am heartened by the genuine interest in such collaboration
on the part of many of the best in our field.


Application to the Concept of Natural Selection


I now wish to consider a specific intersection of analytical chemistry and
the life sciences. Darwin's idea of formation of species through evolution
was first published 140 years ago. There has of course been extensive
discussion of his ideas and considerable change in how the theory is
formulated has occurred. However, for some time the common, though not
universal, view within science has been that the contemporary, neo-
Darwinian version of the theory is well established.


This situation has changed in the last decade. Two challenges have been
enabled by advances in analytical chemistry joined with other disciplines.
The first concerns the concept of a 'tree of life': the sequential descent of
species from an ever-smaller number of ancestors until one goes back to
the first living cell. This is commonly pictured using a phylogenetic
diagram, divided into the three domains of life, bacteria, archaea, and
eucarya.


Rapid, accurate sequencing of DNA has been a great accomplishment, for
which analytical chemistry shares in the credit. While the human genome
has received more of the headlines, the sequencing of other complete
genomes, especially of microorganisms, is having a greater impact on
basic biological science. The two dozen microbial genomes completed to
date show that in each newly sequenced genome there are many potential
genes that have no counterpart in any other sequenced genome (often as
many as 30%). Yet there also are a significant number of genes that occur
in selected organisms from more than one domain. An organism may have
genes from several widely disparate sources, rather than having
accumulated them through sequential inheritance as in the tree structure.
One explanation is that this is due to lateral (or horizontal) gene transfers.


This means that how the 'tree of life' looks depends on which gene is used
to construct it. DNA sequences for a particular widely-observed gene
could be used to construct a diagram showing a relationship among
species, but the "tree" could look radically different if analytical data for a
different gene were used. The suggestion of Doolittle, Martin, and others
is that there is a "web" or "net" of life rather than a tree. Not only are there
many horizontal crossings between domains, but there also is no single
"common ancestor cell". As stated by Doolittle: "If, however, different
genes give different trees, and there is no fair way to suppress this
disagreement, then a species (or phylum) can 'belong' to many genera (or
kingdoms) at the same time: There really can be no universal phylogenetic
tree of organisms based on such a reduction to genes."


That this contradicts the current version of Darwin's theory can be
demonstrated by looking again at the diagram from Teaching about
evolution and the nature of science, published by the National Academy of
Sciences in 1998. The chart appears on page 38 with the caption: "The
ability to analyze individual biological molecules has added great detail to
biologists' understanding of the tree of life. For example, molecular
analyses indicate that all living things fall into three domains-the Bacteria,
Archaea, and Eucarya-related by descent from a common ancestor." This
has been a fundamental point of Darwin's theory-stated here by its
strongest adherents. Yet the microbial gene sequence information
indicates it clearly is wrong, which suggests to me that the Darwinian
theory itself is fundamentally, perhaps fatally flawed.


A second question about the mechanism of macroevolution by natural
selection concerns the complexity of biochemical processes that occur in
living cells. Analytical techniques are allowing study of more and more of
these processes in vivo, confirming that cells live through meshing of
complex processes, each requiring precise combinations of many
molecules. It is now understood that the many biochemical pathways in a
cell are highly interlocked. Further, molecules typically are complexed,
aggregated, bound to membranes and chaperoned as they move from one
part of the cell to another and undergo chemical changes.


Rather few cellular processes are enabled solely by the presence of a
single gene product. Indeed, in some cases several different proteins must
be present simultaneously, or the process does not take place at all. Such a
process is called irreducibly complex. It does not occur at all unless every
essential protein is present. So gradual, step-by-step evolution of the
process would not work, for none of the intermediate stages would be
"selected" because none of the intermediate stages would be functional. I
should add that this point is supported by recent research in information
theory, which concludes that random mutations cannot create complex,
biologically-specified genetic information.


Natural selection has been considered by many to be the unifying principle
of biology. But these and other flaws seriously compromise the theory.
Explaining biology by trying to identify origins using the potentially
hundreds of different trees of life or using the uncertain and unprovable
mechanisms of change in the distant past has thus far in my opinion failed.
No doubt some useful scientific information may result from such studies.
However, I think that understanding function and its chemical basis offers
a much more secure foundation for biology, and will be far more
productive than the backward-looking Darwinian approach.


After all, it is understanding of function-and of the sources of
malfunctions-that will lead to advances in medicine and the other fields
that are dependent on biology for progress. Knowledge of the range of
chemistry that enables a given function will be fundamental for this
purpose. Analytical techniques will provide much of the essential
information about the functional components and their dynamics in living
systems. As I pointed out earlier, the chemical complexity of biological
processes is great. It will require much innovation on the part of analytical
chemists to fully characterize these processes in vivo. Sensing and
imaging techniques combining far greater speed, selectivity, spatial
resolution and sensitivity than currently available ones will be needed. The
magnitude of this challenge makes me confident that the analytical
sciences will be at the very center of the biology of the future.
**********************************************


The responses to Jones are interesting....

Now, of course, Hirsh regularly makes an ass out of himself posting 'facts' about "Darwinism" at ARN.....based on his amazing knowledge of all things scientific...

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: pangloss ]</p>

theyeti

That thread was interesting -- thanks for the link. What no one seemed to notice on either side is that Hirsch is a died-in-the-wool IDist, and his words were specifically chosen for the IDeological appeal. Everyone seemed to have the impression that this was just some scientist making observations without any ulterior motives, which is just not true.

Judging from his posts at ARN, he is easily as dishonest as any YEC. He quotes out of context, equivocates, makes absurd claims that he doesn't back up, uses irrelevant arguments that are little more than innuendo, relies on highly questionable sources (e.g, the Washington Times), and of course, is just plain misleading. Take this example:

In Hirsch's world, eukaryotes don't matter. One whole domain, and they don't matter. If he can find fault with the "tree of life" concept at the very root, then he's satisfied that the whole thing should be tossed out. I don't know if all of his claims about prokaryotes are true (I doubt it), but the fact remains that consistent, compatible trees are produced for eukaryotic lineages all the time. Does Hirsch tell this to his audience? No, he only selects the data that can be used to sow doubt about evolution. Not that it actually does -- horizontal transfer is another mechanism for generating diversity; it enables evolution. But if biologists have to revise that straight, lineal descent tree for bacteria, then this means that the whole rotten structure must be comming down, and those creationists who've pitched a fit about humans being related to apes had it right all along.

theyeti

wade-w

"Tree of Life"... I took several courses in physical anthropology in college in the early 1990's. In the Human Evolution course, the professor pointed out that the oft referred to "family tree" for man was an over-simplification. "Family Hedge" was a better analogy. How much more complex must the relationships be for all life?

hyzer

"more on"

or

"moron"

nice pun in title

Albion

Just keep on like that, Steve. The more you go on about "particularly Christians" and "materialistic-naturalistic philosophy," you're showing where your agenda really is.

pangloss

I do what I can...