On Tue, 11 Jul 1995 22:38:24 -0400 you wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>I would argue that a Cambrian explosion that took only 5 million
>years (remember it could have been less) to produce all the living
>world's animal phylla (Gould S.J., "The Evolution of Life on the
>Earth", Scientific American, October 1994, p67), was a supernatural
>assisted proces, Glenn's computer models notwithstanding.
SJ>I would also argue that a process that produced a whale from a land
>mammal in only 10 million years, was also a supernatural-assisted
>process. That is, unless Glenn can show plausibly how it happened
>naturally.<<
GM>I showed you over the past few days what embryologists are learning
>about how to take a fly and turn him back into something that is very
>much like his evolutionary ancestor in a few weeks.
This proves nothing about *evolution* - it is at least equally an
argument for progressive creation. In *1959* Hampe showed that one
could induce a reptilian feature in a bird's leg. (Gould S.J., "Is a
new and general theory of evolution emerging?", Paleobiology, vol.
6(1), January 1980, p127 and Gould S.J., "Hen's Teeth and Horse's
Toes", 1984, Penguin, pp184-185).
Darwinists do not rush to use this as an example of evolution, for the
same reason they rejected Golschmidt's `hopeful monster' theory.
Johnson points out:
"Suppose that, following a massive research program, scientists
succeed in altering the genetic program of a fish embryo so that it
develops as an amphibian. Would this hypothetical triumph of genetic
engineering confirm that amphibians actually evolved, or at least
could have evolved, in similar fashion? No it wouldn't, because Gould
and the others who postulate developmental macromutations are talking
about random changes, not changes elaborately planned by human (or
divine) intelligence A random change in the program governing my word
processor Could easily transform this chapter into unintelligible
gibberish, but It would not translate the chapter into a foreign
language, or produce a coherent chapter about something else. What
the proponents of developmental macromutations need to establish is
not merely that there is an alterable genetic program governing
development, but that important evolutionary innovations can be
produced by random changes in the genetic instructions." (Johnson
P.E., "Darwin on Trial", Second Edition, 1993, InterVarsity Press,
Illinois, p42)
GM>I showed you what biologists are
>learning about how a reptile leg turned into a bird leg and this can be done
>in a few days. But you never respond to the data.
Are you addressing this to me, Glenn? If so, you are mistaken. I
address *every* bit of "data" you put up. You previously said I did
not address your amphibian fin-leg post. I pointed out I had, and sent
to another copy privately. If there is any bit of "data" you have
posted that you think I have not responded to, then please post what
it is and I will send you the post that I responded to it with. :-)
Indeed it is ironic that you mention this reptile leg-bird leg
example, because *I* posted it to *you*! :-)
GM>You keep saying you don't see how this works. What is wrong with
>the mechanism I showed you? They can be accomlished in a lab in a
>few weeks. That is much less than the 10 million years you desire.
Yes. It is a good model for Intelligent Design, e.g. Progressive
Creation. It is not a model for random mutation + cumulative
selection.
It actually proves more than you want it to. If it was so easy, then
why haven't such "evolutionary" transitions happened much more often?
GM>And I would like to clarify something. I am not the one showing
>the world how this works. I am merely watching what the biologists
>are doing and am standing in awe of what they are learning.
No. You are doing much more than that. You are extrapolating results
from a directed intelligent genetic engineering experiment into proof
for an undirected, random, "blind watchmaker" process. I have no
objection to the science (indeed it is good evidence for progressive
creation). My objection is the uncritical use of it by you to support
evolution. I would be interested to know if the majority of
evolutionary biologists would agree with you.
God bless.
Stephen