Darwinism Hailed as Breakthrough of the Year [Archive]

Petyr Baelish

12-23-2005, 12:34 PM

Darwinism hailed as breakthrough of year in snub to creationists
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 23 December 2005

American scientists have cocked a snook at new-age creationists who peddle the idea of intelligent design by voting Darwinian evolution as breakthrough of the year.

The editors of the journal Science said several studies published in 2005 have shown beyond any doubt how evolution underpins all aspects of modern biology. "Painstaking field observations shed new light on how populations diverge to form new species - the mystery of mysteries that baffled Darwin himself," they wrote. "Ironically, also this year some segments of American society fought to dilute the teaching of even the basic facts of evolution. With all this in mind, Science has decided to put Darwin in the spotlight by saluting several dramatic discoveries, each of which reveals the laws of evolution in action."

In 2005, scientists decoded the genome of the chimpanzee to confirm that the chimp is our closest living relative, descended from a common ancestor.

Other researchers sequenced the genome of the 1918 flu virus retrieved from the frozen corpse of an Alaskan victim of the pandemic.

A second team of scientists used the sequence to rebuild the virus in the laboratory in order to analyse why it was so deadly. They also found that it had evolved directly from a bird flu virus. "Understanding the evolution of last century's deadly bird flu may help us to predict and cope with the current bird flu threat [so much for evolutionary theory being 'useless' as IDiotists oft allege]," said the Science editors.

Other studies showed how small changes or mutations in the DNA of a species can result in dramatic evolutionary transformations, such as the creation of two species from one. "Researchers found that a single genetic change can be all it takes to turn one species into many, as in the case of the Alaskan stickleback fish that lost its armour and evolved from an ocean-loving species to a variety of landlocked lake dwellers," the journal said.

David Kingsley, professor of developmental biology at Stanford University in California, said the stickleback research in 15 different species of fish showed for the first time that a single genetic mutation was responsible for evolutionary changes.

"People who believe in intelligent design argue that such major changes cannot come about through Darwinian evolution but this is obviously false, said Professor Kingsley. "Sticklebacks with major changes in skeletal armour and fin structures are thriving in natural environments. And the major differences between forms can now be traced to particular genes."

The editors of Science wrote: "Today, evolution is the foundation of all biology, so basic and all-pervasive that scientists sometimes take its importance for granted."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article334832.ece

Petr

12-23-2005, 03:36 PM

And here are comments from "Creation-Evolution Headlines":

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200512.htm#20051222b

Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week

12/22/2005

Two Elizabeths – Culotta and Pennisi – get the award for evolutionary bravado for their piece in Science.1 They were trumpeting the magazine’s award of Breakthrough of the Year to “Evolution in Action,” a series of findings that ostensibly help us understand how evolution works. Whether the particular breakthroughs (the chimp genome, a study on chickadees that seems to support sympatric speciation, and studies of microbial resistance to antibiotics) actually supported belief in the common ancestry of all organisms (macroevolution), it didn’t seem to quell their enthusiasm in the slightest:

The big breakthrough, of course, was the one Charles Darwin made a century and a half ago. By recognizing how natural selection shapes [sic] the diversity of life, he transformed how biologists view the world. But like all pivotal discoveries, Darwin’s was a beginning. In the years since the 1859 publication of The Origin of Species, thousands of researchers have sketched life’s transitions and explored aspects of evolution Darwin never knew.

Today evolution is the foundation of all biology, so basic and all-pervasive that scientists sometimes take its importance for granted. At some level every discovery in biology and medicine rests on it, in much the same way that all terrestrial vertebrates can trace their ancestry back to the first bold fishes to explore land. Each year, researchers worldwide discover enough extraordinary findings tied to evolutionary thinking to fill a book many times as thick as all of Darwin’s works put together.

(Emphasis added in all quotes.)

They didn’t seem to pay much attention to the fact that the geneticists and paleontologists were having a little difficulty in the same issue of the journal (see next entry). Nor did they pay any notice to the worldwide controversy over Charles Darwin and his theories. Editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy did notice, however, as he defended the award:2

Wait a minute, I hear you cry. Hasn’t it been a trying year for evolution, considering the debates about teaching evolutionary theory in science classes in the United States and the headlines about Intelligent Design? On the contrary; in the research community, it’s been a great year for understanding how evolution works, through both experiment and theory. No single discovery makes the case by itself; after all, the challenge of understanding evolution makes multiple demands: How can we integrate genetics with patterns of inherited change? How do new species arise in nature? What can the new science of comparative genomics tell us about change over time? We have to put the pieces together, and it could not be a more important challenge: As the evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky once said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

One might wonder, then, what scientists are seeing in the dark. Didn’t Darwin himself promise light was coming 146 years ago to shed on most of these same questions? Kennedy pointed to his favorite example of the new light: a case of microevolution in stickleback fish. The findings, however meager, are not as important as the process, Kennedy explained: “The exciting thing about evolution,” he said, “is not that our understanding is perfect or complete but that it is the foundation stone for the rest of biology.” Other foundation can no man lay than that which has been laid, apparently. Maybe, though, even intelligent design has a role to play – like the building inspector (see quote at top right of this page). Kennedy claimed, “Genes that are now known to exert complex effects on body form at the macro level answer the commonly stated objection that complex structures could not have evolved from simpler precursors. And so it goes: Scientific challenges are raised, inviting answers.” Hard to disagree with that, but who gets to judge the validity of the answers, if not the challengers?

Other news outlets were quick to pick up on the “Breakthrough of the Year” story: MSNBC, San Diego Union-Tribune, the Independent and the BBC News, for instance. Readers are free to comb these articles for contenders for the SEQOTW award.

----------------------------------------

1 Culotta and Pennisi, “Breakthrough of the Year: Evolution in Action,” Science, 23 December 2005: Vol. 310. no. 5756, pp. 1878 - 1879, DOI: 10.1126/science.310.5756.1878.

2 Donald Kennedy, “Editorial: Breakthrough of the Year,” Science, 23 December 2005: Vol. 310. no. 5756, p. 1869, DOI: 10.1126/science.1123757.

Pennisi ought to know better; she has reported on many an evolutionary crisis (e.g., 12/14/2004, 08/06/2004, 06/13/2003). To hear these two reporters cackling like spring chickens over a scrambled Darwin egg is pathetic. None of the “breakthroughs” listed bear any real support to the central claim of Darwin that all species descended from a single common ancestor in the dim, unrepeatable past. Kennedy acknowledged that scientific challenges have been raised by intelligent design proponents, and that they invite answers, but look who gets to judge the answers. It’s like the kid getting to grade his own paper, or the defendant getting to play judge and jury, or the corporate boss getting to set his own salary and benefits. It’s even worse than that. The Darwinists not only control the answers; they usually control the questions. They even control the language and the definitions of words. Small wonder that Charlie gets another medal.

Also pathetic was that evolution won “Breakthrough of the Year” over more worthy competitors. First runner-up was the “Planetary blitz” of dramatic space successes, including the Mars rovers and orbiters, Deep Impact, and the Cassini-Huygens achievements at Saturn. In this golden age of planetary reconnaissance, there has been drama, adventure, engineering prowess, and real observational science. Yet these were slighted by boisterous bluffing that a piece of data here, a controversial study there amount to vindication of Charlie as he lies a-moulderin' in Westminster Abbey. Are you stimulated by the possibility that slight changes in stickleback fish promise to finally show us how humans came from bacteria?

One can only guess that Donald Kennedy and the other Darwin Party hacks at the AAAS had to perk up the ears of their congregation in light of the uproar outside, and like the preacher’s sermon notes scribbled in the margin advised, “Point weak – pound pulpit harder here.” Sorry, all you scientists who did great work on other subjects. Priorities are priorities. Now is the time for all good Darwinists to come to the aid of their theory. That means strike up the band and roll it down the parade route, and conjure up the ghost of Emperor Charlie, so he can play his perennial role of Master of Ceremonies, wearing his customary robes.

Petr