On Sun, 23 Jul 1995 23:24:15 -0400 you wrote:
>I wrote:
>GM>I wouldn't call what I advocate as Darwinism.
>
>Stephen Jones replied:
SJ>Then what is it?<
>
>and,
>
SJ>I use "Darwinism" in the broad sense as Phil Johnson:
>"By "Darwinism I mean fully naturalistic evolution, involving chance
>mechanisms guided by natural selection." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
>Trial", Second Edition, 1993, Inter Varsity Press, Illinois, p4)<<
>
>If that is your definition of Darwinism, then I certainly do not fit
>your definition of a Darwinist. I do not believe in a *fully
>naturalistic* evolution. I believe that God was involve, just not
>involved in the manner >you think he was.
I accept you are not a Darwinist in the same sense as, say Dawkins.
But in all your posts you seem to champion a "fully naturalistic
evolution, involving chance mechanisms guided by natural selection."
For example, I seem to remember you claiming that the analogy was a
wavemaking machine where the maker set up the machine and left it
running.
Your postings constantly champion natural processes as apparently
sufficient in themselves, without requiring God. If this is not so,
in what way is "God involved" in your theory that makes it not "fully
naturalistic"?
>Stephen wrote:
>GM>IMO (and the opinion of others to whom I am grateful for some of
>this) the next great school of thought in evolutionary theory will
>combine nonlinear dynamics with punc-eq. and developmental biology.
>Those three views are made for each other and can explain a whole lot
>of unexplained phenomena such as the Cambrian Explosion, transitions
>between taxa and the nature of the fossil record.
SJ>So you do acknowledge that current evolutionary theory is
>inadequate to explain the above?<<
GM>Yes, and no, depending upon what you define as "current
>evolutionary theory". If by that you mean everything must be
>gradually changed from one form into another, I would say that is
>inadequate.
Could you expand on that?
GM>If you mean what is being learned in the mechanisms of
>developmental biology, then it is adequate to handle those types of
>change.
What "types of change"?
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>What else was Darwin wrong on (apart
>from "use and disuse of parts" and "pangenes") that "Christians"
>should not continue attacking today? Was he wrong on his central
>tenet:<<
>
GM>I would define his central tenet as the concept that life has
>evolved from single cell animals. If that is what you accept as his
>central tenet, then I do not think Darwin was wrong. If you think
>his central tenet was that life arose without God, then I think
>Darwin is wrong.
OK. Thanks.
>Stephen wrote:
SJ>So you agree that current Darwinism (including Neo-Darwinism and
>Punctuated Equilibria) does not "explain the data"? It would be
>helpful then if you stated that unequivocally, and where particularly
>you think it is inadequate.<<
GM>No I don't think all that. As I mentioned in a previous post,
>there is gradual change observed today, How can I disagree with
>observational science? I think gradual change is incapable of
>explaining the major morphological transitions. (but a simple change
>in material flow in the leg of a chick embryo turns his legs into
>lizard legs)
This is perhaps an overstatement? The chicken's legs were still
chicken's legs. The bones just grew longer when normal constraints
were removed:
"In most modern birds, but not Archaeopteryx, the plan for the fibula
and tibia leg-bones is modified, developmentally, so that the fibula
is much reduced and the result is a single structure - the tibia with
ankle-bones fused to it and the 'vestigial' fibula alongside it -
which articulates with the foot-bones. Developmental manipulation of
chick embryos by Frenchman Armand Hampe 'allowed' the fibula to
attain the same length as the tibia - as it does normally in
vertebrates; articulation with the ankle-bone changed accordingly.
Where the evolutionist sees Hampe's results as an expression of
ancestral relationship in leg-bones, the creationist sees it as a
modification, suitable for most birds, in the vertebrate programme."
(Pitman M., "Adam and Evolution", 1984, Rider & Co., London, p224)
I see these saltational mechanisms as consistent with Progressive
Creationism. No one has shown how such macro-mutations can take place
in nature, but it is easy to see how a Intelligent Designer could use
them. Why do you reject that possibility out of hand?
Thus punc-eq + the recent discoveries in developmental
biology are required for those transitions.
As I have posted, PE's like Gould do not embrace these homeotic
mechanisms to the extent that you do. It only applies to segmented
forms. It does not explain how a Mesonychid became a whale, for
example.
God bless.
Stephen