Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig Falsifies Darwinism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig, who studied mutations for 25 years as a research scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Koln, Germany, is now retired but still writes often on the topic of Darwinism and Intelligent Design. He is one of those old-school scientists who believes evidence matters even when it comes to questions of biological origins.

Charles Darwin famously offered the following suggestion as to how his theory could be falsified:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Dr. Loennig has repeatedly offered examples which defy a gradualist explanation, for example, listen to this
interview where he discusses carnivorous plants, whose complicated traps were clearly useless until almost perfect. (I have written on this topic myself, here. )

But Darwin offered other suggestions as to how his theory could be falsified, one of which was as follows: “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Loennig has recently written an article which falsifies Darwinism on this criterion also, Plant Galls and Evolution.

The new paper is typical of Loennig’s writings, with abundance of details and references. As you listen to his Podcast on carnivorous plants, or read his new article on Plant Galls, I suggest the following exercise: try to imagine hypothetical species which would falsify Darwin, using his own criteria, in a more spectacular way.

If you want to see more of Loennig’s works, including his writings on the long-neck giraffe, go here .

Comments
BTW, Loennig's entire argument is based on the assertion that plants produce galls for the benefit of the insect. Is this true? Can anyone think of a way this might not be true?RodW
September 13, 2017
September
09
Sep
13
13
2017
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
RodW:
Evolution is supported if the mechanism for producing a gall is a modification of some already existing general mechanism which can have other functions.
What "evolution" are you talking about- blind watchmaker evolution or intelligent design evolution? How can we test the claim that blind watchmaker evolution can produce plants?ET
September 13, 2017
September
09
Sep
13
13
2017
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
I'll try my hand at an ID hypothesis. Something that many here seem to forget is that a hypothesis must be precise, testable and distinguish between alternate hypotheses. Hypothesis: Plants produce galls because the Intelligent Designer constructed them to produce galls. There are an endless number of ways insects can survive without producing galls. This implies that the IDer did this simply because they like variety. Mechanism: unknown and probably unknowable. Test/Observation: If the hypothesis is correct we could expect that the molecular mechanism the plant uses to produce the gall is an add-on module. Some tacked on set of instructions that can be activated by the insect that have no physiological role for the plant other than producing a gall. Evolution is supported if the mechanism for producing a gall is a modification of some already existing general mechanism which can have other functions.RodW
September 13, 2017
September
09
Sep
13
13
2017
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
I think would should stick with criticism of darwininian evolution even if it does hurt the feelings of rvb8. For if rvb8 cannot even understand these simple criticisms of darwinian theory how can he possibly hope to understand evidence for intelligent design?Mung
September 13, 2017
September
09
Sep
13
13
2017
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: Will you actually engage in earnest this time, or find a way not to? rvb8: sorry I don’t understand the question. Well, I guess we have our answer!Mung
September 13, 2017
September
09
Sep
13
13
2017
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
Charles Darwin famously offered the following suggestion as to how his theory could be falsified: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
The problem with that is no one knows how to test the claim that some complex organ that could arise via numerous, successive, slight modifications. And without that Darwin's ideas are not scientific. And that means there isn't anything to flasifyET
September 13, 2017
September
09
Sep
13
13
2017
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
rvb8:
I come here in the naieve hope that one day someone will stop asking how evolution can explain something, and will give positive experimental evidence in support of a deigner’s touch;
We have presented that. For one just look at all of the experiments dealing with ATP synthase and correlate that with the fact no one knows how to test the claim that blind, mindless processes can produce it.ET
September 13, 2017
September
09
Sep
13
13
2017
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
Well, Lönnig might have falsified Darwin’s statement, but he hasn’t shown that galls can’t have evolved by natural selection. I can think of a few possible evolutionary explanations:
No one knows how to test the claim that natural selection did it. So that would be a problem.ET
September 13, 2017
September
09
Sep
13
13
2017
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
Bob O'H And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt.DonJohnsonDD682
September 13, 2017
September
09
Sep
13
13
2017
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
Anyone endowed with a brilliant imagination can probably “think of a few possible evolutionary explanations” for practically everything.
Indeed. The next thing to do, then, is to test them. Lönnig doesn't appear to have done this for most of them. So perhaps you would like to direct your questions to him, and him why he hasn't tried to explore these other possibilities before declaring victory.Bob O'H
September 13, 2017
September
09
Sep
13
13
2017
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
Bob O'H: "I can think of a few possible evolutionary explanations:" Anyone endowed with a brilliant imagination can probably "think of a few possible evolutionary explanations" for practically everything. Is that your idea of scientific reasoning? Is that your respect for facts and evidence? Can you propose a real explanatory mechanism by which galls, especially the most functionally complex forms, could come into existence, by RV + NS?gpuccio
September 13, 2017
September
09
Sep
13
13
2017
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
Well, Lönnig might have falsified Darwin's statement, but he hasn't shown that galls can't have evolved by natural selection. I can think of a few possible evolutionary explanations: 1. there is no net cost of galling to the plant 2. the cost of galling (& resistance) is larger than the cost of not galling 3. the selection pressures against galling are not large enough for resistance to evolve 4. there is an arms race with the galler slightly ahead Some or all of these may be utterly wrong, of course. Lönnig sort-of deals with (1), but only by citing a paper from the 1980s, without giving the details (or indication of if there has been subsequent work).Bob O'H
September 13, 2017
September
09
Sep
13
13
2017
04:30 AM
4
04
30
AM
PDT
An interesting article over at ENV -- Excerpt: " ... Not to put too fine a point on it, but the existence of complex and specified systems is a hallmark of design. How do you build a system requiring multiple signals and receptors one step at a time when the system does not work until all are present? A receptor is no good without a signal to receive, and the signal will not be sent with a cue. ... " Read the article at: https://evolutionnews.org/2017/09/in-a-new-book-scott-turner-explores-biologys-second-law/ To emphasize, as we all know intuitively "the existence of complex and specified systems is a hallmark of design."DonJohnsonDD682
September 13, 2017
September
09
Sep
13
13
2017
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT
UB @15: "It’s almost like he’s a plant; sent here to make ID critics look as irrational as possible." Can't think of another explanation indeed. Except that it could be by own initiative, not sent by others. You clearly presented a very interesting problem that you have explained before in details in this UD and in your own website and got back in response an incoherent text. My 7-month grandson's "speeches" sound more seriously comprehensive than your politely dissenting interlocutor's nonsense. Really sad. I wouldn't waste time addressing such garbage. BTW, on a related subject, in the central dogma of biology, how did we get the first rna-polymerase for the transcription process?Dionisio
September 13, 2017
September
09
Sep
13
13
2017
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT
Polistra @8 Loennig:
What the plants are doing for their guests? … the plants are supplying everything for them: optimal nutrition, controlled microenvironments, and, … protection from natural enemies. … What are the animals doing for their hosts? In more than 99% of all galling species, the animals are not only doing absolutely nothing for their hosts, but – as we have seen above – rather damage, harm and hurt them – the animals and other guests are indubitably real, perfect and true parasites (ecto- and endoparasites). … The plants perform all of these services essentially at their own expenses. And the costs can be alarmingly high ... As for the enormous costs the plants sometimes have to pay, let’s have a look at the following examples: Pretorius et al. (2016, p. 1)22 sum up the damage inflicted by the gall aphid Pemphigus betae as follows: “Heavy infestations of this aphid can induce significant reductions in yield, sugar content, and recoverable sugar. Under conditions of extreme stress and heavy infestations, the alienicolae23 can induce stunting, chlorosis, wilting, and even death of sugar beet plants. Richardson et al. (2017, p. 205): “P. betae causes significant reductions in sugarbeet yield and reduces sucrose quality. For example, in 1989, a Pemphigus infestation reduced the sugar content and recoverable sugar by 64 and 73 %, respectively, resulting in a $3,000,000 loss or about $925 per infested hectare (Hutchinson and Campbell 1994). For the gall forming invasive wasp Leptocybe invasa Fisher & La Salle (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), which probably originated from Australia, the following effects on the commercial Eucalyptus species in Tanzania have been reported (Petro and Iddi (2017, p. 23): “Diameter at breast height (Dbh) and total height for each sampled tree were measured. Results showed that the mean Dbh of infested trees were reduced by 2.1%, 7.8% and 13.6% while heights were reduced by 9.5%, 6.6% and 3.8% compared to uninfested E. tereticornis, E. camaldulensis and E. saligna respectively. The mean basal area of infested trees was reduced by 17.1%, 16.4% and 24.5% and mean volume were reduced by 16.1%, 17.8% and 23.1% compared to uninfested E. tereticornis, E. camaldulensis and E. saligna respectively.
Origenes
September 13, 2017
September
09
Sep
13
13
2017
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT
Polistra: "‘Exclusive good’ is a little tricky. In the case of galls, the plant may be benefitting in ways that we don’t see yet." That is like saying: if the evidence is against our theory, we can always hope that maybe some different evidence will be found at some time". Very scientific indeed. And remember, the "benefit" must be a reproductive advantage, in the end. No other benefit is appropriate for the neo-darwinist explanation.gpuccio
September 13, 2017
September
09
Sep
13
13
2017
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT
It's almost like he's a plant; sent here to make ID critics look as irrational as possible.Upright BiPed
September 12, 2017
September
09
Sep
12
12
2017
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT
groovamos @12, why do you ask me? "OK please have at it rvb.." I don't have to for several reasons. I can't answer your questions as well as the 98% or so of evolutionary biologists who can; ask them, there answers will be full. Do you ask me because you can not find anywhere on the inter-net a satisfying answer to these questions, and in your desperation you choose that righteous defender of evolutionary biology, rvb8? Heh:) Why is ID so fearful of research, and a mouse click. talkorigins.org is a prodigeous resorce. I alo strongly recommend onezoom.org, uncluttered, easy to use, glorious graphics, and simple . That last is one reason evolutionary biology is so successful, even those who loathe it understand it well. Try to get these people to explane ID, IC, and CSI; fat chance! I come here in the naieve hope that one day someone will stop asking how evolution can explain something, and will give positive experimental evidence in support of a deigner's touch; Have at it!rvb8
September 12, 2017
September
09
Sep
12
12
2017
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
The evidence Behe gave at Dover (readily available at talkorigins.org), has been characterised as dense, obtuse, unnecessarily jargon laced, and just plain badly expressed. These exact same criticisms can be laid here, at the feet of UD posters. Why is it for instance that me, as a science ignoramous (I admit it, some others here should be as honest), can follow the discussions very easily at pandasthumb, whyevolutionistrue, and other science sites. When I come here I feel as though I need three degrees in biology, combined with a masters in theology. Until you can explain your 'theory' as clearly as evolution can explains its ideas and mechanisms, you will get nowhere; that is a simple fact. The glaring problem is of course this: Once you truly explain your ideas, ( "and at this irreducibly complex moment, the designer intervened" ), people become leary, and rightly equate the designer to God, and specifically Christ. The proverbial cat has then escaped its bag.rvb8
September 12, 2017
September
09
Sep
12
12
2017
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
rvb: He gives his detractors the best way to attack his theory; find ways that grdualism won’t work. Not only should it be easy to show gradualism can work, it would be great if you would prove some so-called random mutations as a series exist, as in random. In other words NON-INTERDEPENDENT in their probabilities of occurence. OK please have at it rvb, lets look at a huge organ with tens of billions of components, the vertebrate respiratory epithelium. Those tens of billions of cilia are wired together to move in wavelike fashion to expel mucus. Explain in retro evolutionary time, how those cilia came to be. Did they [a] just all pop into existence in one generation, with all the wiring in place? Or [b] did they appear a few at first and increase in numbers with each generation? Or can you come up with scenario [c]? You hopefully understand proposition [a] violates gradualism and [b] violates functionality and selective advantage early on. If you come up with [c] please prove its absolute certainty, since Darwinism is as certain as the law of "gravity". And if you can solve this puzzle, please indicate how biologists can always know a so-called random mutation is statistically uncorrelated with all other so-called random mutations, in the formation of the above or any system.groovamos
September 12, 2017
September
09
Sep
12
12
2017
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
It is fascinating to contemplate that somewhere, either in this universe or possibly outside of this universe, there does exist a mechanism (?) a process (?) a set of rules (?) for producing life and all the variety of life forms we’re observing here on Earth. And we humans, while counting 3000+ years of own history, still have not the slightest clue of what that process is…Eugene
September 12, 2017
September
09
Sep
12
12
2017
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
rvb8 everywhere: I hope IDers never stop attacking your beloved theory. It is a scientific fraud continually promoted by you and others as if it were supported by empirical evidence. As for presenting you with evidence for ID, that would be a monumental waste of valuable time. Not because there isn't any, but because you are an a/mat debunker undeserving of such an effort.Truth Will Set You Free
September 12, 2017
September
09
Sep
12
12
2017
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
rv, you must have known the only reason I would ask you that question is to demonstrate the intellectual dishonesty in you asking for scientific evidence. I told the reader upfront that you would a) avoid the question, and b) sling insult instead. And with what can only be seen as a pathological inability to show even a modicum of self-awareness, you came back to ignore the question and sling insults instead.Upright BiPed
September 12, 2017
September
09
Sep
12
12
2017
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
'Exclusive good' is a little tricky. In the case of galls, the plant may be benefitting in ways that we don't see yet. The interactions of flowers and bees are also ambiguous. The plant could probably get away with attracting by smell, but it goes an extra mile with colors and actively changing electrostatic fields. Are the extras simply designed to entertain the bee? Does the plant enjoy sensing the electrostatic answers from the bee?polistra
September 12, 2017
September
09
Sep
12
12
2017
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
'Plants Galls and Evolution' by Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig is a very interesting article.
The biological facts have proved that complex parts of the structure of thousands of plant species have been formed for the exclusive good of galling insects (i. e. other species), and this phenomenon has – in his own words – annihilated Darwin’s theory, as well as that of his modern followers, for “natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in a species exclusively for the good of another species”
Origenes
September 12, 2017
September
09
Sep
12
12
2017
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
Upright, sorry I don't understand the question. What does, 'finite set of complex proteins' mean. Does it mean they have discovered in the natural world all of these kinds of proteins, no more will be found? Could you explain the term, 'nucleic memory' for this part time science buff; it sounds ever so sciency. Your question; 'how many of the other aaRS had to be in place?' So if I understand this tedious effort of trying to sound as scientific as ID can appreciably sound, you are asking; 'This complex molecule exists, how can we get past its complexity to an earlier simpler molecule which predated it?' Sounds like a rewording of, 'Boy that's complex, no way can evolutionary processes explain it!' Or more clearly, a weak attempt at rewording once again, negative evidence. Try and take a note out of Shubin's, Coyne's, and Dawkin's books, and write in English, people might take your attempts more seriously, if you could actually explain them.rvb8
September 12, 2017
September
09
Sep
12
12
2017
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
rv,
Could someone in creation science, or the ID movement please, instead of trying to falsify Darwin, bring one, just one piece of positive experimental evidence supporting design.
Sure, I have nothing to do with "creation science", but I can give you several design related observations, each of them carefully documented by esteemed scientists in the mainstream scientific literature (and none of them are an attack on Darwinian evolution). However, your history here suggests very clearly that you prefer to sling insults when pressed on scientific issues. If you'd like to engage the science, perhaps you'd be willing to address a question I've been asking ID critics, yet none have bothered to answer:
We know that aminoacyl synthetases are the finite set of complex proteins that establish the genetic code. Their tasks in the cell is to perform a double-recognition and bind a particular amino acid to a particular tRNA adapter prior to the act of translation. We can all conceive of their significance to the system. They are synthesized from nucleic memory, and it stands to reason that there was once a time in earth’s history that none of the set of aaRS had ever been synthesized from that memory. Here is my question: Regardless of what anyone thinks preceded that time, at the point in earth’s history that the first ever aaRS was successfully synthesized from memory, how many of the other aaRS had to be in place?
What say you rv? Will you actually engage in earnest this time, or find a way not to?Upright BiPed
September 12, 2017
September
09
Sep
12
12
2017
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT
In reply to 'rvb8', it seems to me that science is about observation as well as, and perhaps even prior to, experiment. Also reason. So we can observe things, think about them, and draw conclusions. AndrewAndrew Chapman
September 12, 2017
September
09
Sep
12
12
2017
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
Yes, we're all well aware of Darwin's integrity and honesty as a scientist, it is legendary, he was also a true gentleman, and a loving husband and father; so what? He gives his detractors the best way to attack his theory; find ways that grdualism won't work. And lo, the multidudes arrive over the last 150 years desperately trying to falsify evolution, and pick the proverbial nits, good luck, have at it. Now to my question: Could someone in creation science, or the ID movement please, instead of trying to falsify Darwin, bring one, just one piece of positive experimental evidence supporting design. That is, stop attacking evolution, and start experimentally supporting ID or Creation. Don't be so aggressively negative toward Evolution, and try a little love for creation, and ID. Stand ready for the outpourings of Biologos's, and the Creation Research Society's, resarch into why Darwinism can't work. Or, as I like to say, 'God says no!'rvb8
September 12, 2017
September
09
Sep
12
12
2017
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Axel, In this paper, Loennig says (p10): "In contrast to most of his modern disciples, Charles Darwin formulated some clear and unmistakable falsification criteria for his theory of natural selection." In "The Evolution of the Long-Neck Giraffe" he calls today's evolutionary theory "essentially unfalsifiable." From the context it is clear though that he means only that, for most modern day evolutionists, there is no conceivable evidence that would cause them to doubt.Granville Sewell
September 12, 2017
September
09
Sep
12
12
2017
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
1 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply