On Sun, 11 Jun 1995 22:01:19 -0500 you wrote:
>SC>Your point that parallel evolution
>explains my "unlikely" statement doesn't really alter the point.
>Here we seem to be talking at different levels since "parallel
>evolution" is a very broad concept in relation to molecular genetics.
>Parallel evolution could feasibly occur by affecting completely
>different genes or by affecting the same gene in different ways in
>distinct species which is what my question addresses.
>
SJ>My point was that do we know that with species with similar
>genotypes that the same degenerations could occur due to similar
conditions. This is the explanation given for parallel evolution by
>Darwinists. If it can work at the genotype level, why not at the
phenotype level?
>
SC>I don't think that this is accurate. First, "species with similar
>genotypes" is rather vague, so I am not sure what, if anything, this
>qualification means.
It means what it says. We are talling about primates and man.
SJ>Second, it is not necessarily true that the "same
>degenerations" (genetic changes perhaps?) occur due to similar conditions.
I didn't say it was "necessarily" true.
SJ>For example, evironmental mutagens can cause cancer by reproducibly
>mutating the same gene in humans, mice, rats etc. But the specific
>mutation is not always the same, even though the resulting change in
>the function of the gene product is similar.
Agreed. This is my point, ie. there may other reasons for the loss
of vitamin C deficiency in primates.
SC>Last, things decidedly work very differently at
>the genotypic and phenotypic levels. while I am not certain about what you
>wish to say, it sounds as if you may misunderstand that evolutionary changes
>(micro or macro) do not "work" at the phenotypic level--this is a Lamarkian
>concept.
I realise that. I was just trying to use concepts that you introduced
into the argument.
>SC>However, as I stated previously, it
>would be very unlikely that guinea pigs and primates have identical
>molecular defects in the gene. However, if the genetic
>defects were identical, one could conclude that this would indicate that
>there is something in common between guinea pigs and primates. Since common
>descent is not a likely explanation in this case (otherwise other species
>would likely have the same genetic defect--this could feasibly be tested),
>it would be reasonable to consider common evolutionary selection.
>Logically, it would also be very reasonable to consider common design.
>
>Agreed,
>
>SC>On the other hand, if identical 'defects' in the gene were shared
>by different primate species, here, I should have added, "and not
>shared by guinea pigs, it would almost certainly be due to common
>inheritance.
>
>SJ>I disagree with the "almost certainly" bit. It could equally be by
>common design. Even if it was by "common inheritance", this does not
>prove that Darwinist mechanisms were the cause. These need to be
>proved in their own right.
>
SC>Prove common inheritance "in its own right".
No. I said prove *Darwinian mechanisms* in their own right.
SC>This is in part, why logical
>positivism failed. They demanded direct sensory evidence as the only
>credible way to know something. Thus, they discarded the atomic model as
>false. No one can see atoms. Amazingly, science still proceeds onward.
I never said anything about "direct sensoty evidence". You try to put
a lot of words into my mouth, Steven.
SC>It's interesting that you seem to require the same level of "proof"
>as the positivists.
This is your own straw man, Steven. I suspect you are still working on
a YEC stereotype of me.
SC>Your rhetoric is also one sided in that you
>demand more proof than you are willing to offer yourself.
First it is not "rhetoric". Second, it is *you* that are trying to
propound a common ancestry theory. I don't need to provide
*prrof* that it isn't true.
SC>You can accept "truth" on the basis of a human understanding of the
>scriptures, but not of a human understanding of the creation. You
>demand visible proof for knowledge of the creation
>that comes from studying it directly, yet do not require such positivistic
>evidence for knowledge of the creation that may come from bibilical
>interpretation.
It is you who are building this "positivist" straw man, Steven. Have
fun knowcking it down! <g>
>SC>The genetic data I postulated above would be consistent with the
>proposed mechanism of evolution by common descent, and would provide
>no reason to discard the evolutionary hypothesis (which is the best
>claim that any experiment can legitimately make). You are correct
>that the data would also be compatible with common design, but also
>with martians molding us out of clay, firing us in ovens and
>sprinkling us with magic dust to become animate.... The problem with
>the last two explanations, is that they are only metaphysical and not
>mechanistic.
>
>Agreed. But then so is Darwinism "metaphysical", at least according
>to Popper.
>
SC>Darwinism, the interpretation, is metaphysical. Evolution is still
>a legitimate scientific concept. The two are not automatically
>inclusive.
I disagree. Fossils are facts. Evolution is a metaphysical theory to
account for the facts.
SJ>The bottom line is that all primates share a similar phenotypic and
>genetic makup. The first has been known since at least Linnaeus, and
>the second since the molecular biology revolution of the 1950's. Part
>of this similar phenotypic makeup is that all primates cannot
>manufacture vitamin C and the genotypic explanation is that the same
>genes do not code for it.
>
SC>The Darwinist assumption is that this is because all primates share
>a common ancestor which had this genetic inability to make vitamin
>C. But this is no different (or any more conclusive) than the
>original Linnaean argument that man is a primate.
Linnaeus did not automatically assume that similarities were due to
common ancestry. He thought they were due to common design.
SC>My point has been, without more information about the genetic
>defect in primates (if it is informative), it is difficult to
>conclude that by simply sharing a defective gene, common inheritance
>is the logical conclusion. A closer look at the genes of different
>primates could feasibly rule this out.
>
>SC>So why am I talking to you? From the exposure I did have to the
>debate, largely beginning with Phil Johnson's book, I became
>interested in the debate itself. In particular, I am interested in
>the different conceptions of science embraced by the different sides
>of the debate. While I firmly agree that Dawkins, Huxley, et al.,
>claim too much for science and mistake philosophy for fact,
>unfortunately I see the same mistake made by all sides of the
>creation arguement.
>
SJ>The difference is that the creation side admit that their view is
>"philosophy" (or rather theology), but the Darwinist camp believe that
>their view is "fact".
>
SJ>This is not my experience. Creationists have their own set of
>facts--such as flood geology, age of the earth, etc.
So you are still stereotyping me as a YEC? I do not hold "flood
geology" or a young "age of the earth".
SJ>Why not? If science can address "descent" (which is unobservable,
>unrepeatable and untestable), why can it not address "design" which
>has the same characteristics?
>
SJ>This is the positivistic argument again.
No its not. It is anti-positivist.
SC>I go back to the atomic theory model. Atoms and their components
>cannot be directly observed either, yet
>the model is widely accepted and useful because certain predictions can be
>made and tested. Since it would likely be difficult to observe a 15 million
>year evolution of whales or whatever, one relies on indirect investigation.
>It is legitimate science. Demand the same thing from design.
The same thing applies to design.
>SC>Like Dawkins, you focus on your interpretation as science and fact.
>However, the science is represented by the data collected and that
>alone is factual. The interpretation, regardless whether it is from
>Dawkins or yourself, is metaphysics.
>
SJ>Agreed.
>
>SC>The problem lies in the latter and not with the former. The
>debate would facilitated by recognizing this distinction and focusing
>discussion at the metaphysical level.
>
SJ>I do recognise this distinction. Whatever gave you the idea that I
>didn't?
>
SC>In disagreeing with the metaphysical interpretations of Darwinism,
>you often argue against the science of evolution.
I don't believe there is a "science of evolution". There is a science
of Biology. One cannot do a degree in Evolution. Biology can be
studied without evolution. If Darwinian evolution was disproved
Biology would continue.
SC>If you agree that data collection and interpretation are different,
>separate your rhetoric.
I am not using "rhetoric" Steven. I do not rule out common ancestry
in primates, since they could have been a "basic kind" under a
Progressive Creation model. However, I would like more convincing
evdidence that the common vitamin C deficiency was not due to a common
design or common degeneration from an existing design.
For example, I have read that not all primates have this vitamin C
deficiency and at least one non-primate has it. Is this true?
God bless.
Stephen