On Fri, 13 Mar 1998 15:32:29 -0500, Brian D Harper wrote:
[...]
>>BH>...Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis led an expedition
>>>to Lapland to measure the length of a degree along the meridian.
>>>Comparing this to a similar measurement made at the equator
>>>settled the issue. My point here is that the actual process
>>>which generated the oblate spheroid shape was an historical
>>>process which could not be repeated.
>>SJ>It was also witnessed by human observers-which macroevolution has
>>not been, and according to Dobzhansky, cannot be.
BH>No one witnessed the (hypothetical) historical process during
>which gravity, acting according to the (hypothetical) inverse
>square law, produced the oblate shape of the earth.
Obviously, but my point "It was also witnessed by human observers-
which macroevolution has not been.." was related to your point that
"the actual process which generated the oblate spheroid shape was an
historical process which could not be repeated."
BH>I imagine that you might not have a problem with inferring
>a historical process from the current shape of the earth.
>I also imagine that some young earth creationists might have
>a big problem with it.
Of course I don't "have a problem with inferring a historical process
from the current shape of the earth". I don't even "have a problem
with inferring a historical process from the current" *living creatures*
on the "earth"! But the question is whether fully naturalistic `blind
watchmaker' mechanisms of random mutation plus natural selection
were adequate to do the job, or whether the guidance and/or
intervention of an Intelligent Designer were needed. No doubt there
are fully naturalistic historical processes that can plausibly explain
"the current shape of the earth". But I am not aware of any fully
naturalistic historical processes that can plausibly explain "the
current" *living creatures* on the "earth".
[...]
>>SJ>Indeed Maupertuis and his philosophical axiom "of least action" is
>>even mentioned by Darwin in the OoS:
>>
>>"It has been maintained by several authors that it is as easy to
>>believe in the creation of a million beings as of one; but
>>Maupertuis's philosophical axiom "of least action" leads the mind
>>more willingly to admit the smaller number..." (Darwin C., "The
Origin of Species", [1872], 6th edition, Everyman's Library, p457)
BH>Thanks for this. I had read that Maupertuis interpreted all
>of his scientific investigations in terms of his principle
>of least action, including his views on evolution. I was
>kind of puzzled at what his reasoning for this might be
>[unfortunately, none of Maupertuis's works have been translated
>into English (as far as I know), so I have to content myself
>with short quotations]. Evolution is commonly characterized
>as a wasteful process, yet least action is a principle of
>economy. I guess Darwin gives one way of reconciling this
>apparent contradiction with the idea that creating one or
>a few beings would be more economical than creating
>'innumerable beings'.
Thank you for this explanation of Maupertuis' principle
of "least action". I agree that an Intelligent Designer
should be expected to do His design work once for all. That is,
I would not expect God to create the eye 40 times, but I would
expect Him to create the eye *machinery* once that would allow
the eye to develop 40 times:
"I am in agreement with Mr. Gross when he refers to "new and
astonishing evidence" about the origin of the eye. Herewith the
facts. Halder, Callaerts, and Gehring's research group in
Switzerland discovered that the ey gene in Drosophila is virtually
identical to the genes controlling the development of the eye in mice
and men. The doctrine of convergent evolution, long a Darwinian
staple, may now be observed receding into the darkness. The same
group's more recent paper, "Induction of Ectopic Eyes by Targeted
Expression of the Eyeless Gene in Drosophila" (Science 267, 1988) is
among the most remarkable in the history of biology, demonstrating as
it does that the ey gene is related closely to the equivalent eye
gene in Sea squirts (Ascidians), Cephalopods, and Nemerteans. This
strongly suggests (the inference is almost irresistible) that ey
function is universal (universal!) among multicellular organisms,
the basic design of the eye having been their common property for
over a half-billion years. The ey gene clearly is a master control
mechanism, one capable of giving general instructions to very
different organisms. No one in possession of these facts can imagine
that they support the Darwinian theory. How could the mechanism of
random variation and natural selection have produced an instrument
capable of anticipating the course of morphological development and
controlling its expression in widely different organisms?"
(Berlinski D., "Denying Darwin: David Berlinski and Critics",
Commentary, September 1996, pp28,30)
Here are some quotes I found on Maupertuis:
"Studies of abnormal or monstrous births and the transmission of
striking hereditary traits (especially polydactyly, the possession of
extra digits) led a French mathematician, Pierre-Louis de Maupertuis,
in 1751 to envisage the multiplication of species as being due to
fortuitous recombinations of elementary particles of organisms that
lead to offspring deviating from their ancestral forms. This was not
only an acceptance of evolution but also a crude attempt to explain it."
(de Beer G., "Evolution", Encyclopaedia Britannica, Benton: Chicago,
15th edition, 1984, Vol. 7, p7)
"In modern times, Pierre de Maupertuis (1698-1759), a French
astronomer, exalted the law of parsimony to a lofty principle of nature, in
which action, defined by Jmv ds- i.e., the integral (J) of inertia (mv) over
the space-time (ds)-is minimized (principle of least action)."
("Ockham's Razor", Encyclopaedia Britannica, Benton: Chicago, 15th
edition, 1984, Vol. vii, pp475-476)
"Pierre Louis Moreau de MAUPERTUIS (1698-1759) was perhaps
the first to propose a general theory of evolution. He concluded that
hereditary material, consisting of particles, was transmitted from
parents to offspring. His appreciation of the part played by natural
selection had little influence on other naturalists, however."
(Volpe E.P., "Evolution", Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1995)
"Maupertuis (1698-1755) may have been the first to propose a
general theory of evolution (2) (Glass, "B. Maupertuis, pioneer of
genetics and evolution". Glass. B Temkin, O.; Strauss, Jr., W. L.
1745-1859 eds. "Forerunners of Darwin. Baltimore: John Hopkins;
1959: 51-83.). He based his theory on a study, of the history of four
generations of a human family in which polydactyly (a congenital
defect involving the appearance of a web of muscle and skin between
fingers and the production of additional fingers) was inherited. This
was later recognized as a dominant gene. He noted that this trait
could be transmitted by either parent who was affected and suggested
that certain particles from the parents, which might be changed by
climatic and nutritional influences or by irregularities of their
distribution, were responsible for the inherited change in the
offspring. Thus, he recognized the phenomenon of descent with
possible modification. However, Maupertuis made little impression
on the biologists of his time." (Pun P.P.T., "Evolution: Nature and
Scripture in Conflict?", Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1982, p28)
BH>To avoid possible confusion, I should point out that the
>application of least action in physics doesn't involve
>speculations such as those above ;-).
OK. I'll accept argument on your authority! ;-)
[...]
>>BH>...Would you extend your criticisms to
>>>other historical sciences such as cosmology, abandoning
>>>in the process the various arguments from design based
>>>on cosmology?
>>SJ>...You seem not to understand that "evolution" is not
>>simply just another historical science. It is also an alternative
>>creation story:
BH>I'm trying to understand your point of view on this. As far as
>I'm concerned, when we are discussing science, evolution is just
>another historical science. In fact, the word evolution is
>commonly used in cosmology. It seems that a lot of people
>would like to reserve the word evolution as applying only to
>biological evolution. It seems to be too late for that.
Agreed. "Evolution" originally meant "unrolling" but now its
acquired a meaning of its own:
"It often happens that when a Greek or Latin word is given a new
lease on life in one of the major modern languages, and especially in
English, the original meaning of the word may be replaced by a rather
different one. This is particularly the case when a word, which was
a strongly transitive verb in the classical context, is resuscitated
as a generic noun in the modern diction. The word evolution is a
case in point. The root of that all-important modern noun is the
Latin verb evolvere. Whether used by historians like Tacitus and
Livy or by poets like Ovid and Catullus or by philosophers like
Lucretius, Seneca, and Cicero, the verb evolvere either meant to
eject someTHING with a rolling or coiling motion, or to cause
someTHING to flow out or roll out from somewhere, or to unwind
someTHING, or to unwrap or uncover someTHING. In all these cases it
was clearly assumed that the thing or the object of the action had
already been there. Only one and uncertain case is found in
classical Latin literature for the noun form evolutio of the verb
evolvere, according to the testimony of the two-volume Oxford
Latin-English dictionary." (Jaki S.L., "Monkeys and Machine-Guns:
Evolution, Darwinism, and Christianity", in "The Absolute beneath the
Relative and Other Essays", University Press of America: Lanham MD,
1988, pp188-189)
Indeed it is too late. The word "evolution" has become a loaded word
that in today's parlance means a naturalistic, materialistic,
mechnanistic process, in which there is no room for the supernatural,
as Julian Huxley, co-founder of Neo-Darwinism declared:
"...all aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and stars
to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and
values- indeed, that all reality is a single process of evolution...In the
evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room
for the supernatural." (Huxley J., in Tax S. (ed.), "Evolution after
Darwin", Vol. 3, 1960) in Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993,
pp152-153)
[...]
[skipped a lot of plasticity stuff]
I thought you might! ;-)
>>SJ>>Interesting. But are there really "plasticians"?
BH>Yes.
In this case I am not prepared to accept your "authority". Please
post *evidence* that there are such persons called "plasticians".
>>BH>...You seem to be wanting to counter the statement that most
>>>scientists believe evolution is a fact...
>>SJ>No. I want to counter the implied argument that *Darwinian*
>>"evolution is a fact". I suggest the reason my argument seems
>>"incoherent" to you is that you have so internalised the
>>evolutionary paradigm (no offense intended), that you genuinely
>>cannot see the point of those who haven't.
BH>Where ever I have seen the "fact of evolution" discussed it is
>always contrasted with theories of evolution which are not
>facts. There are facts and there are theories that attempt
>to explain those facts. We find this distinction in all of
>science, not just evolution.
Darwinists claim that evolution is *both* a theory *and* "a fact":
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and
theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing
certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of
ideas that explain and interpret facts. Fact do not go away while
scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein's
theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend
themselves in mid-air pending the outcome. And human beings evolved
from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed
mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered." (Gould S.J.,
"Evolution as Fact and Theory", in "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes",
1983, p254)
The problem is that Gould is using the same word "evolution", in the
one sentence, to mean two entirely different things: 1) history and
2) mechanism. Gould is arguing that if "Darwin's proposed mechanism"
fails, the history is still a fact and that another "mechanism...yet
to be discovered", was responsible. But the point is that if the
"mechanism...yet to be discovered" was supernatural intervention by
God, then it wasn't "evolution" but *creation*!
>>SJ>The only way out is for you to start giving clear and consistent
>>definitions of words, particularly the word "evolution". It is such
>>an all-purpose word that it can mean just about anything, and hence
>>is an almost certain way of becoming verbally self-deceived (no
>>offense intended).
BH>It is true that evolution is used in many ways. One must always
>be careful to look at context to see what is meant by the
>word. The same is true for other oft used words like freedom,
>love etc.
But in *science* every effort is usually made to assign specific
meanings to words for utmost clarity. The fact that Darwinism
insists on using such an ambiguous word as "evolution" is a
sure sign that it is a pseudoscience.
[split here]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------