Let's go over this from another angle. The DNA phase space which maps
functionality is like a cavern system for each function. One can move
up,down back and forth in the cavern but not through the walls. Various
"large rooms" are connected by smaller tunnels. A being needing a particular
function can travel along the small tunnels from cavern to cavern. That is
the nature of a phase space, especially a multidimensional phase space such
as is found with DNA.
Now. if God made a real cavern system, and placed you in it. He has
delimited where you can go. You can not go through the walls. Similarly, if
God created the "cavernous" phase space of DNA, He has delimited what
sequences of DNA are successful. This is not naturalistic. God set out the
pathways before the foundation of the universe. I wish you would quit saying
"fully naturalistic". That does NOT represent my position and I have told
you so on numerous occasions. Please listen to what I am saying. If God is
involved at all, it is not 'fully naturalistic".
I wrote:
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.
Stephen replied:
>>Could you expand on that?<<
Stephen, that seemed fairly clear what I am saying.
I wrote:
GM>If you mean what is being learned in the mechanisms of
>developmental biology, then it is adequate to handle those types of
>change.
Stephen replied:
>>What "types of change"?<<
Major morphological change.
Stephen wrote of the Lizard Leg example:
>
This is perhaps an overstatement? The chicken's legs were still
chicken's legs. The bones just grew longer when normal constraints
were removed:<<
They were the darned funniest looking chicken legs anyone has seen. The
point is that the only difference between chicken legs and "lizard legs" is
in the controls for how much each bone grows. That is not much of a
difference.
You quote Pitman:
>>""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)<<
So, what is the difference between the "modification in the vertebrate
programme" and evolution? The program IS the DNA. Mutation changes the
program! Due to the fact that the travel path of the DNA sequence through its
phase space can not go in certain directions, it seems that mutation should
be able to account for travel through the phase space.Thus it would seem to
me that Pitman's point actually supports evolution.
glenn
Stephen wrote:
>>
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.<<
You and I will have to agree to disagree on this.
glenn