Perry Marshall is ‘n ingenieur wat glo in ‘n deel van die evolusieteorie. En in ‘n ander deel nie. Die res, sê hy, is nie wetenskaplik waar nie.In “7 Biology Myths an Electrical Engineer Would Never Tolerate” lys hy ‘n paar mites oor die saak. Aan die uitgebreide kommentaar onderaan lyk dit of ingeligte lesers nie sterk met hom verskil nie.
Hier is ‘n uittreksel:
To the average biologist and to the average man on the street, it [Random mutations occasionally conferring a benefit to an organism; natural Selection filtering out the harmful mutations, causing species to evolve] sounds perfectly plausible. And I fully understand why people believe this.
But I’m an EE. I know that the information in DNA is a signal. By definition, random mutations are noise.
Telling a communications engineer that adding noise to a signal sometimes create new, useful data structures is… absurd! You’ll be hard pressed to find any communications engineer who, upon examining this claim, would agree with it. Have you ever had a data glitch on your computer that improved your files? Ever?
There is not a one single principle or practice in engineering that would ever suggest that this is actually true. All the Natural Selection in the world is powerless without a beneficial mutation. And you’ll never get a major benefit from accidental copying errors.
The mutations that drive evolution are systematic and directed, not accidental.
En hier is ‘n stukkie Perry Marshall- kommentaar, oor ‘n vraag of Intelligente ontwerp in ‘n wetenskap- klaskamer hoort.
Great question, should the origins debate be considered in science class, or in a history or philosophy class?
In the origins debate, if we carefully and strictly limit the discussion to that which can be scientifically, empirically proven – and not just anecdotal historical evidence – then both sides have astonishingly, precious little to present.
Seriously, whether you talk to a creationist or an evolutionist or anyone in between, 99% of their arguments are anecdotal, not genuinely empirical and scientific (though they still may be logical). And some of the best logical arguments available are inductive, not deductive. So maybe it belongs in a history or philosophy class.
What does belong in a science class is a careful analysis of what is empirical vs. what is anecdotal – a truly skeptical survey of all the evidence, showing that nearly all of it is anecdotal would be quite surprising for most students.
Skepticism cuts both ways, you know.
Ek gaan nie voorgee om naastenby soveel soos hy van die saak te weet nie, maar kom ons onderskei in wetenskap tussen wat bewys is – en wat nog nie bewys is nie.
Naskrif: Kritiek op Marshall se idees kan gerus op sy blad gegee word, in Engels.
Ander naskrif: Sien my blog-argiewe vir hoekom evolusie nie geloof verkeerd bewys, of Jesus onnodig maak nie.