On Tue, 25 Jul 1995 13:40:30 -0400 you wrote:
>Jim Bell wrote:
JB>Terry, wouldn't it seem equally as plausible that a designer God
>would create beings with the genetic capability to adapt to what you
>call "stressful" circumstances, and rapidly at that? These rapid
>micro-mutations work beautifully. But the evidence doesn't suggest
>major change occurs this way.
>What about that scenario? Why must one take a leap to major change
>based upon beaks?
TG>Don't read too much into what I wrote. My chief reason for
>accepting macroevolution is NOT observed instances of natural
>selection in Galapagos finches or elsewhere. I don't take a leap to
>major change based upon beaks. (Although given the other evidence
>for macroevolution, I don't think it's much of a leap at all.)
Here we differ. To the non-evolutionist, the "leap" between
micro-evolution and macro-evolution is immense.
TG>One of these days I'll get this defense written in an essay form
>(although in my opinion it's not that different from standard
>treatments; I guess I have less reason to reject evolutionary
>thinking than some of you, so I'm more open-minded (or more easily
>duped :-) But here's the gist of it.
TG>1. The progression of the fossil record (without concern for
>transitional forms) supports common ancestry (macroevolution).
>
>2. Sequence comparisons (and known mechanisms of how sequences mutate)
>support common ancestry (macroevolution).
>
>3. Biogeography supports common ancestry (macroevolution).
>
>4. Systematics support common ancestry (macroevolution).
>
>On the word "support"... No doubt progressive creationism is supported
>just as well with the exception of the mechanisms mentioned in #2.
I disagree with the automatic equation of "common ancestry"
with "macroevolution". Common ancestry is a *relationship*, whereas
*macro-evolution* is a mechanism that purports to explain that
relationship. PC accounts for all the above, including #2. Indeed,
the molecular sequence comparisons did not support evolutionary
expectations:
"Armed with this new technique, biology at last possessed a strictly
quantitative means of measuring the distance between two species and
of determining the patterns of biological relationships. If it is
true, as typology implied, that all the members of one type, however
superficially divergent, always conform exactly to the basic eidos of
their type, all possessing equally and in full measure all the
defining character traits of their type and all standing therefore
equidistant in all important aspects of their biological design from
the members of other types, might this principle of equidistance be
revealed by these new molecular studies? If the divisions in the
nature were really as orderly as early nineteenth-century biologists
insisted, might this overall orderliness be confirmed by the new field
of comparative biochemistry?
On the other hand, the new molecular approach to biological
relationships could potentially have provided very strong, if not
irrefutable, evidence supporting evolutionary claims. Armed with this
new technique, all that was necessary to demonstrate an evolutionary
relationship was to examine the proteins in the species concerned and
show that the sequences could be arranged into an evolutionary
series...It is possible to arrange the letter strings in a series
where B is intermediate between A and C and to postulate either that A
evolved into B and B into C or that B evolved into A and C or C into B
into A...Whichever theory is correct, such sequential arrangements
suggest evolutionary relationships.
The prospect of finding sequences in nature by this technique was,
therefore, of great potential interest. Where the fossils had failed
and morphological considerations were at best only ambiguous, perhaps
this new field of comparative biochemistry might at last provide
objective evidence of sequence and of the connecting links which had
been so long sought by evolutionary biologists.
However, as more protein sequences began to accumulate during the
1960s, it became increasingly apparent that the molecules were not
going to provide any evidence of sequential arrangements in
nature, but were rather going to reaffirm the traditional view that
the system of nature conforms fundamentally to a highly ordered
hierarchic scheme from which all direct evidence for evolution is
emphatically absent. Moreover, the divisions turned out to be more
mathematically perfect than even most die-hard typologists would have
predicted."
(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis",1985, Burnett Books,
pp276-278)
TG>Depending on how far Stephen Jones (and Mike Behe for that matter)
>are willing to take it, I would say that their progressive creative
>acts look no different empirically than a punctuation and a
>macromutation and/or a emergent phenomena (a la complexity theory).
No doubt. If both models are trying to approximate reality, they
should look similar.
TG>There preference for the special creationist option over the
>evolutionary creationist option appears (to me) to be due to what
>they consider to be the impossibility of such a transition to occur
>"naturally". I am not prepared to say that such things are
>impossible, especially given developments in developmental biology
>and complexity theory. I judge that it is extremely premature wrt
>our understand of developmental mechanisms to say that certain things
>can't happen.
PC doesn't say transitions "can't happen" naturally. But to date
there is no evidence that major morphological transitions did happen
naturally. It is therefore open for those who do not rule out God
tacting directly in biological history, to hold to "the special
creationist option".
TG>I don't claim to have the explanation as to how they did happen,
>although I think that there are several hints that make it more than
>just wishful thinking or an uncritical optimism that they can and did
>happen. (I alluded to some of these in the paper I gave at the ASA
>meeting last summer).
Really Terry! :-) You are a Professor of Biology and all you can say
in defence of Darwin's theory of macro-evolution, 130 years after its
publication, that "I don't claim to have the explanation as to how
they did happen" and "I think that there are several hints that make
it more than just wishful thinking or an uncritical optimism that they
can and did happen." What sort of scientific theory is this? :-).
TG>In my opinion (I don't care what Darwin says so don't quote him to
>me), mechanism is not that important. It's nice and it would
>complete the explanation, but it's not essential to confirm the
>theory (empirical evolution, I guess in PEJ's terms) Mutation +
>natural selection provides some mechanism. Macromutation and
>complexity theory promise others.
Actually, mechanism is all-important:
"But consider Colin Patterson's point that a fact of evolution is
vacuous unless it comes with a supporting theory. Absent an
explanation of how fundamental transformations can occur, the bare
statement that "humans evolved from fish" is not impressive. What
makes the fish story impressive, and credible, is that scientists
think they know how a fish can be changed into a human without
miraculous intervention. Charles Darwin made evolution a scientific
concept by showing, or claiming to have shown, that major
transformations could occur in very small steps by purely natural
means, so that time, chance, and differential survival could take the
place of a miracle. If Darwin's scenario of gradual adaptive change
is wrong, then "evolution" may be no more than a label we attach to
the observation that men and fish have certain common features, such
as the vertebrate body plan." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
Second Edition, 1993, Inter Varsity Press, Illinois, p12).
TG>No doubt there's alot we don't
>know, but from my point of view, the ball is rolling in favor of
>establishing macroevolution rather than causing it to crumble.
They thought this in 1859, when Darwin published his Origin. Then
they thought it in the 1930's with the Modern Synthesis. And then
again in the 1970's with Punctuated Equilibria. Forgive us
non-evoloutionists if we are sceptical. :-)
God bless.
Stephen