On Tue 11 Jul 1995 13:09 CT you wrote:
GM>Jim, I noticed that you totally failed to mention the little fact
>that a bird embryo can be induced to make a reptilian leg with only a
>small, change. There is no half reptilian/half chicken leg in that
>situation. Why are you ignoring this nasty little fact? Maybe the
>evolutionists have solved their "central, fatal conumdrum", yes?This
>is not Goldschmidtism that they are suggesting. Goldschmidt
>suggested that out of a reptile egg cam a fully formed bird. What is
>being discovered is that out of a reptile egg can come a reptile with
>bird legs? Later, other parts are altered.
This is good evidence for Progressive Creation. *Inducing* a small
change is an intelligent, creative act.
GM>"Why are there only similarities with the evolutionary
>ancestors?" If there are some such examples I have never seen them in the
>literature. Does anybody know of any? I would love to know of some.
As Johnson has pointed out, evolution didn't invent the "ancestors".
They follow the taxonomic groups developed by Linnaeus, a creationist.
Clearly phenotypic similarity is a reflection of genotypic similarity.
The same arguments support a PC model.
GM>Finally to repeat what I said last night, This type of mechanism
>will explain what we see in the fossil record. It is a viable
>mechanism for such an explanation of the chimaerical nature of the
>transitional forms. Thus we have biology supporting the
>paleontological record and the paleontological record supporting the
>latest biology.
You haven't said what the "mechanism" is as yet. Darwinists have been
aware of these experiments but they aren't rushing to use them in
their theory. For example, in *1980* Gould wrote of a *1959*
experiment:
"Moreover, although we cannot readily build "hopeful monsters," the
subject of major change through alteration of developmental rate can
be treated, perhaps more than analogically, both by experiment and
comparative biology. The study of spontaneous anomalies of
development (teratology) and experimental perturbations of embryogenic
rates explores the tendencies and boundaries of developmental systems
and allows us to specify potential pathways of macroevolutionary
change (see, for example, the stunning experiment of Hampe 1959, on
recreation of reptilian patterns in birds, after 200 million years of
their phenotypic absence, by experimental manipulations that amount to
alterations in rate of development for the fibula). At the very
least, these approaches work with real information and seem so much
more fruitful than the construction of adaptive stories or the
invention of hypothetical intermediates." (Gould S.J., "Is a new and
general theory of evolution emerging?", Paleobiology, vol. 6(1),
January 1980, p127).
The reason they are not followed through is that they are just not
explicable in either Neo-Darwinian or PC theory:
"So, macromutations do happen. But do they play a role in evolution?
People called saltationists believe that macromutations are a means by
which major jumps in evolution could take place in a single
gcncration...If saltationism were true, apparent 'gaps' in the fossil
record needn't be gaps at all..There are very good reasons for
rejecting all such saltationist theories of evolution. One rather
boring reason is that if a new species really did arise in a single
mutational step, members of the new species might have a hard time
finding mates..." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, Penguin,
p231)
"Homeotic mutants are gripping in their weirdness, but what do they
teach us about evolution? We must avoid, I believe, the tempting but
painfully naive idea that they represent the long-sought "hopeful
monsters" that might validate extreme saltationist views of major
evolutionary transitions in single steps (a notion that I, despite my
predilections for rapid change, regard as a fantasy born of
insufficient appreciation for organisms as complex and integrated
entities)." (Gould S.J., "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes", 1984,
Penguin, p194).
GM>But there is no support for statements like Gish writes "If
>evolution is true, then at least many tens of thousands of the
>quarter of a million fossil species in our museums should consist of
>unquestionable, transitional forms. This would be true even if one
>invokes the so-called ' puncuated equilibria' mode of
>evolution."Gish, Creationists answer their critics, (ICR, 1993), p.
>112.
Gish is right. He is using "evolution" in the sense that evolutionists
use it, not your saltationist conception of it. Gish means "evolution"
in the sense that Dawkins uses it:
"Cumulative selection, by slow and gradual degrees, is the
explanation, the only workable explanation that has ever been
proposed, for the existence of life's complex design. The whole book
has been dominated by the idea of chance, by the astronomically long
odds against the spontaneous arising of order, complexity and apparent
design. We have sought a way of taming chance, of drawing its fangs.
'Untamed chance', pure, naked chance, means ordered design springing
into existence from nothing, in a single leap...To 'tame' chance means
to break down the very improbable into less improbable small
components arranged in series. No matter how improbable it is that an
X could have arisen from a Y in a single step, it is always possible
to conceive of a series of infinitesimally graded intermediates
between them. However improbable a large-scale change may be, smaller
changes are less improbable. And provided we postulate a sufficiently
large series of sufficiently finely graded intermediates, we shall be
able to derive anything from anything else, without invoking
astronomical improbabilities...It is the contention of the Darwinian
world-view that both these provisos are met, and that slow, gradual,
cumulative natural selection is the ultimate explanation for our
existence. If there are versions of the evolution theory that deny
slow gradualism, and deny the central role of natural selection, they
may be true in particular cases. But they cannot be the whole truth,
for they deny the very heart of the evolution theory, which gives it
the power to dissolve astronomical improbabilities and explain
prodigies of apparent miracle." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker",
1991, Penguin, p317-318)
GM>Logically if Gish incorporates the latest knowedge of embryology
>and heredity, his arguments fall flat on their face because what he
>expects of Darwinism, is not what is predicted by the latest
>knowledge. If Gish want to attack evolution as it was taught in the
>late 19th century, that is fine, but isn't it about time that
>Christians deal with what is being found in laboratories today?"
Glenn, this is *not* the "latest knowledge". It was known in *1959*,
ie. nearly 40 years ago. It was suspected back in 1940, ie. nearly
60 years ago, when the great geneticist Goldschmidt published his
"Material Basis of Evolution" and his "hopeful monsters" theory. That
was rightly rejected by Darwinists and even Gould hasn't been silly
enough to advance it, at least not directly. It is just not possible
on Neo-Darwinist genetics theory for such a massive genetic change to
occur and survive naturalistically. Gould's PE does not propose it:
"Punctuated equilibrium is not a theory of macromutation; indeed, it
is not a theory of any genetic process." (Gould S.J., "Punctuated
equilibrium- a different way of seeing", New Scientist, 15 April 1982,
p138).
What you seem to be proposing is, in-effect, evolution by genetic
miracle. It is actually good evidence for progressive creation, since
such a process is quite feasible if planned and directed by an
Intelligent Designer as the Lab experiments you cited showed.
God bless.
Stephen