On Tue, 25 Jul 1995 09:01:50 -0400 you wrote:
>Stephen Jones wrote (in response to my post):
>
>TG>I'm just finishing up Weiner's _The Beak of the Finch_ that
>describes...rapid evolution among the Galapagos finches...I'm quite
>intrigued by the conclusion that ordinary neo-Darwinian natural
>selection and divergence works on the itty-bitty variations that are
>present and that it works very rapidly (e.g. just a few generations
>under extremely stressful conditions).
>SJ>I don't think anyone disagrees with such micro-evolution, Terry.
>Even Creation-Science books that I have read believe that Darwin's
>finches came from a common ancestor. I certainly have no problem
>with it.
TC>..The main point seems to be that natural selection works, that it
>works quickly (a few generations) under particularly stressful times
>(much faster than Darwin imagined; no need for immeasurable lengths of
>time as far as the Grants are concerned), that it works to produce
>noticeable morphological changes, that it works to cause divergence
>and specialization even among a group of potentially interbreeding
>birds. Other interesting features include 1) the point Jim Hofmann
>made about the role of hybrids and extremely rapid evolution that
>occurs when hybrids are produced due to a reshuffling of gene pools
>that were once separated and 2) that sexual selection also works
>sometimes in the same direction as natural selection, sometimes
>against it.
No one denies that "natural selection works". Even Creation-Scientists
agree with you:
"Darwin's argument certainly seems logical. Is there any evidence
that Darwin was right? Can nature select as well as man? Answer:
There is considerable evidence that Darwin was indeed correct about
natural selection." (Morris H.M. & Parker G.E., "What is Creation
Science?", 1987, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, p78).
>TG>I think that the message of the book...is that evolution is not
>slow under certain conditions and that fairly traditional Darwinian
>principles do in fact work.
SJ>Is there any need to still prove it? :-) And indeed is this really
>"evolution"?
TG>Of course it is. There are other interesting questions that remain
>besides the ones addressed here, no doubt.
I'll rephrase my question. Is this really "evolution", ie.
macro-evolution?
SJ>The finches still stay finches.
TG>Has speciation occurred? Yes. The varieties become reproductively
>isolated and with distinct characters. At one point Weiner commented that
>the difference between the finches was as great as the differences between
>chimps, humans, apes, and orangutangs. (Morphologically, I think I agree.)
It may be that Darwin's finches appear more morphologically different
than humans are from apes. But the Galapagos finches are all the one
genera (even varieties of species?), while the apes and man are
different
orders. As I have stated, I can accept that physically man has come
from a common hominid ancestor. However, I have seen no evidence that
it was by the same natural micro-evolutionary process that produced
Darwin's finches. The evidence still seems to me to be consistent with
a Progressive Creation model.
>SJ>I find it interesting that you are still defending "fairly
>traditional Darwinian principles" when Glenn in a recent post has
>chided "Christians" for still attacking Darwin's views...perhaps you
>should take this up with Glenn...?
>TG>I'm reviewing a book. I'm not defending "fairly traditional
>Darwinian principles". I would suggest that you read some of my
>earlier posts, including my review of _Darwin on Trial_ a bit more
>careful.
I think that was before my time on the Reflector. Could you re-post it
for the benefit of us new chums? What I would really like is a
zip-file
with all of Phil Johnson's messages on it, that I could download.
TG>I still put myself in the punc eq camp and am very open to there
>being a significant role for developmental mutations and complexity
>theory as defended by Glenn. I agree with his comments about the new
>synthesis emerging.
I have no problem about "the new synthesis emerging". It simply
indicates the old one is inadequate, which is to be expected if PC is
true.
TG>But, having said that, I'm not at all unwilling to keep whatever
>parts of the old neo-Darwinian theory are true and useful. I still
>believe that natural selection works; it seems pretty self-evident to
>me giving antibiotic resistance and pesticide resistance and now a 20
>year documentation of evolution of finches (where by the way they
>banded every single bird that lived on the islands they were studying;
>remarkable!).
TG>(read the book on the Finches, this is another experimental
>confirmation of some of Darwin's ideas: *millimeter* differences in
>beak size make the difference between the kinds of seeds a given finch
>can crack open)
As I have said repeatedly, no one disagrees with this. Both Denton
("Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", p30) and Parker "What is Creation
Science?", p89), have sections on Darwin's finches agreeing with it.
TG>But mutation (and the re-shuffling of genetic variety) is, and
>always has been for that matter, the material source of change.
>Whether that mutation occurs via small changes with small effects that
>are pruned by an ever watchful natural selection as Darwined
>envisioned and as Dawkins still promotes...or whether a
>"macromutation" occurs has the result of a key developmental mutation
>or a new emergent structure that results from the fortuitous
>recombination of genes (perhaps by the rare inter-species breeding
>observed by the Grants), it is natural selection (and a bit of luck)
>that allows a given trait to be fixed into a population.
Why not "a little bit of Intelligent Design"? :-)
TG>(Don't forget, for those of you thinking about now that I have gone
>off the deep end into Darwinian atheism; all of this is within a
>theistic context where every mutation and every chance and contingent
>event is governed by God :-)
OK. Then why do you rule out God acting directly?
SJ>This ongoing fuzziness of debate seems to be a major feature of
>evolutionary argument.
TG>Fuzziness? This seems to be a common accusation when we get to
>this point in the discussion. It's not fuzzy to me at all. What's
>so fuzzy about it?
See Gould below.
SJ>I can empathise with Gould who wrote: "All these statements...are
>subject to recognized exceptions- and this imposes a great frustration
>upon anyone who would characterize the modern synthesis in order to
>criticize it." (Gould, 1980).
TG>I like Gould's stuff, but to be honest Stephen, I think Gould's on
>my side on this discussion. Gould has not thrown out Darwin or
>natural selection, but rather has refined the ideas with his insights
>wrt punctuated equilibrium and contingency.
Well, I doubt if Gould is on *my* side! :-) I await Phil's book on
which has a chapter on Dawkins vs Gould. Unfortunately I have been
told it won't be in the land of Oz for another 4 months! :-(
God bless.
Stephen