Predictions, schmedictions...

I've talked about this before:  the science of genetics, far more than paleontology ever could, has proven again and again--and continues to prove, to the extent that science can prove anything--that all creatures on earth are descended from a common ancestor.

Somewhere at this very moment a Young Earth Creationist's head just imploded like a swiftly punctured hot water bottle.

That's INDC Journal's response to a Washington Post story detailing the latest genetic findings regarding the theory of evolution.

Scientists said yesterday that they have determined the precise order of the 3 billion bits of genetic code that carry the instructions for making a chimpanzee, humankind's closest cousin.

The fresh unraveling of chimpanzee DNA allows an unprecedented gene-to-gene comparison with the human genome, mapped in 2001, and makes plain the evolutionary processes through which chimps and humans arose from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

By placing the two codes alongside each other, scientists identified all 40 million molecular changes that today separate the two species and pinpointed the mere 250,000 that seem most responsible for the difference between chimpness and humanness.

"Now we can peek into evolution's lab notebook to see what went on there," said Francis S. Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, which funded the $25 million effort at 18 institutions in five countries.

Now, what was that you said about the "theory of evolution makes no predictions," Mr. Harris?  Of course, this kind of thing was predicted way before genetics became a real science, over and over again, and these findings only serve to solidify what we've known for some time.

Acknowledging recent challenges by proponents of "intelligent design," a proposition that posits the need for an intelligent creator, several scientists said the genome study offered elegant confirmation of Darwin's vision of evolution.

One analysis, for example, showed that the accumulation of deleterious mutations in the human and chimp genomes is greater than in the mouse and rat genomes in just the proportion predicted by one of the mathematical corollaries of the theory of evolution.

"I can't imagine Darwin hoping for a stronger confirmation of his ideas," said Robert H. Waterston, who led the Washington University team.

Then I read about polls like this one and shake my head in dismay.  (Thanks to Bill Quick for pointing it out.)

The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was "guided by a supreme being," and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.

Americans don't seem particularly science-savvy, and I don't mean merely regarding biology and such.  To most people, technology is "magic," and science is incomprehensible.  The only explanation I can offer is that they simply don't care much about that sort of thing.  Give 'em a full credit card and a department store and that's enough technology for them; they're happy.  Not that that's really much of an explanation.

UPDATE:  Thanks to Bill at INDC Journal for the link!  And thanks to Outside the Beltway and Citizen Smash for the open posts.

Technorati tags: Creationism, Evolution

Comments

[Rob]

So, 26% of the people in this poll believe in the natural selection flavor of evolution, whereas all the rest believe God, one way or the other, did it. And your conclusion is "I guess Americans just don't get science"? Sweet. :-} You don't like the conclusion of the poll so you insult the participants? Didn't you just wail against something similar recently? The study where they found out that too many white people were being pulled over. :-}

Of course the Creationist or ED answer to the above study is that God used a limited number of building blocks when creating critters, hence the similarities in architecture. ie, all cells look alike with a nucleus and cytoplasm and midichlorians and such. Why reinvent the cell when you can use it across all your creation? It also underscores just how important the genome is. There might be only a few differences between us and chimps and yeast cells, but change just one or two of the handfull of differences and you end up with goo instead of a viable creation. Random genetic mutations won't get you from a chimp to a human. It will get you from a chimp to a chimp with wildly disgusting birth defects that most likely won't live past the first day.

[Rob]

yikes! Did I type ED instead of ID? You, of course knew what I ment... :-}

[Obi-Wan]

Of course I know what you meant, Rob. I'm just sorry you're having ED problems...have you seen your doctor? (Ok, ok, I'm just kidding... I'm always happy to see your comments.)

You don't like the conclusion of the poll so you insult the participants? Didn't you just wail against something similar recently? The study where they found out that too many white people were being pulled over. :-}

I honestly don't get what your point is, Rob. Whether or not I "like" the results of a poll, it is what it is. I'm not arguing against the poll, and I didn't "insult" the participants. If they believe what they said they believe, they don't understand science, ipso facto. I guess one could interpret that as an insult, but I only meant it as a statement of fact.

And what does this have to do with the drivers poll? Am I just being dense here?

The Creationist or ID answer to this that you referred to still ignores a very basic question: if God did what they say he did, why did he make everything look as if it evolved on its own? If the Earth truly is young (around 10,000 years or so), for example, why did God give the universe the unmistakeable appearance of old age (e.g. the light from stars billions of light-years from us has had time to reach us)? It's as if he wanted to deceive us or something, and I doubt that that's your point. You can posit many things that could have happened, but you have no evidence that they did happen that way--all you have is speculation, and anyone's speculation is as good as anyone else's. The god responsible for ID might as well be the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or anything else our imaginations can conjure up.

Science wants evidence. Both Creationism and ID begin with an assumed premise and then proceed to selectively gather evidence to support their idea, which is the exactly backwards approach that science takes: follow where the evidence leads--don't force the "evidence" to go where you want it to.

[Rob]

Ouch.. I knew you'd jump on the ED thing... I probably watch less TV than anyone here but I still see no less than 10 or 12 ED commercials a week, I'd guess. Which is 10 or 12 more than I'd like.. :-} At least all I need to do is scan my bulk mail folder for a cure..

OK, why did God make everything seem like it's billions of years old? Well, first of all, I don't have much of an opinion on the new earth, old earth thing. But, I'll say this.. What proof do we have that the universe is as big as we think it is? Since rangefinding using paralax is useless beyond the solar system we rely on spectral lines and red-shifting. What solid proof do we have that this is a valid method of determining distance? None. According to this method we find that everything is receeding from us. So, once again, science puts us at the center of the universe, huh? If the Big Bang occured then wouldn't all matter in the universe be in a spherical shell expanding outward like a balloon inflating? We should see some things actually closing on us in one direction but we don't. What proof do we have that red-shifting is a valid method? Hubble added his "Hubble Constant" (which is hardly constant, btw) as a correction for observed data not matching theorized prediction. (at least it wasn't a 4 order of magnitude correction :-} ) In alot of cases in science they start with a conclusion and work backwards. ID folks don't have a lock on that concept.

[Obi-Wan]

"This is Bob. Bob is doing well--very well indeed...!"

Heh. Ok, sorry about the ED thing. Couldn't resist. But tell me something: how in heck did the body-parts-enlargement industry make the leap from spam to network television? That astounds me. But that's another issue...sorry if I actually offended you with that--it just struck me as funny. Nothing personal, of course, as I don't really know you personally.

Well, I was writing a LONG reply to your comment, and the more I wrote the more I realized it needed to be on the main page rather than buried here. So that's what I'll do--look for it shortly.

And thanks for your contributions to the site, Rob.