On Mon, 02 Oct 1995 19:40:31 -0500 (EST) you wrote:
>ABSTRACT: Both PC and TE allow for God's guidance of evolution in ways
>which are subtle not "absolutely deterministic." I respond to Stephen's
>arguments that the probabilities and coincidences in biological history
>favor PC over TE. Brief return to "creation is completed" discussion.
[continued]
LH>When we discuss these "unlikely events" (such as asteroid
>collisions and seemingly nonadaptive biological features which later
>allowed species to invade new adaptive zones) we are in danger of
>muddling two concepts which we must distinguish. We should separate
>these two questions:
>(1) What is the likelihood that the natural mechanisms (mutations,
>natural events including natural disasters, and natural selection)
>could account for the general features of biological history:
>eventual appearance of first life, increasing complexity, appearance
>of new lifeforms and higher taxa in relatively short periods of time
>followed by long periods of stasis, etc?
>(2) What is the likelihood that unguided natural mechanisms would
>produce the PARTICULAR path of biological history on earth, including
>the appearance of mammals and humans?
LH>Arguments about dinosaur-killing asteroids address the second
>question, not the first. However, the difference between PC and TE
>is over the first question, not the second.
Agreed. IMHO the natural mechanisms that have been put forward (eg.
mutations, random events, cumulative natural selection, etc) are
inadequate on their own to explain the origin of life and higher taxa.
Only intelligent design and intervention can explain them, IMHO.
LH>The second question is scientifically addressable, but the answer
is not very _interesting_ scientifically except as a curiousity.
(The second question does, however, relate to important _theological_
issues about God's governance of creation.)
Agreed. But there is a "theology" of science (ie. scientism) to which
this question is all important, in order for modern science's
naturalistic
philosophical underpinning to prevail. That's why Gould writes often
about this topic, eg. the tape of life being replayed.
LH>The first question is scientifically addressable, and the answer is
>VERY interesting scientifically. Phillip Johnson, and you, and all the
>other PC authors I have read, argue that the answer to the first question
>is, "very unlikely." That seems to be the crux of the PC argument!
>THAT is where TE's disagree with PC.
Yes. If the origin of life and higher taxa became likely,
scientifically,
then it would falsify PC. OTOH if the reverse is true, then it would
tend to falsify TE.
>LH>If God proscriptively determines the outcome of "chance" events,
>then God could guide evolution along a specific pathway: for
>example, the appearance of a new species within an isolated
>subpopulation of an old species. No _single_ "chance event" (a
>mutation, or an environmental event, or whatever) would have been
>identifiable as a supernatural event.
SJ>I don't claim that man could ever identify God's interventions.
>They could be much more subtle than that.
LH>But unless I am mistaken, you _do_ argue that the _cumulative_effect_ of
>these interventions would be identifiable as supernatural / intelligently
>guided -- or at least, be so improbable as to defy credible explanation in
>terms of natural mechanisms.
The "cumulative effect" of these "interventions" might just become
noticeable. There might have been 1,000 precisely timed and executed
genetic events to get Acanthostega to grow a leg. But all that we see
in the fossil record is the leg. We never see the actual miracles. We
can only see their effect and infer that they happened.
>SJ>If we were watching Acanthostega we would not see the genetic
>engineering that would cause its offspring to produce a strange fin that
>would become over time (and subsequent generations), the first leg. God
>only needs to make the minimum change to achieve His end. He does not
>need to produce a hopeful monster such as Goldschmidt's naturalism
>needed.
LH>Agreed.
Then what is your conclusion? Why is divine intervention a la PC
rejected by TE?
>LH>If the _cumulative_ effect of these events demonstrate obvious
>"guidance" (e.g. in just a few generations a novel, complex
>morphological feature developed requiring many mutational steps but
>without any selective advantage for each step along the way), this
>would fit the "Progressive Creation" model.
>SJ> Agreed. Even some "selective advantage" would be OK. Natural causes
>are OK within PC, as long as the decisive factor (the vertical
>increment) was due to God's direct intervention.
>LH> On the other hand, if the cumulative effect of all of these
>"chance events" does NOT demonstrate obvious "guidance" (e.g. one
>mutation in a developmental program gene caused a significant (though
>not very deleterious) morphological change which was then acted upon
>by "ordinary" microevolutionary processes to stabilize a new and
>significantly altered form) -- even though God proscriptive
>determined each little event along the way -- this would fit the
>"Theistic Evolution" model.
This is what Walter ReMine calls "The Many Gene Problem". In fact
"morphological change" does not occur because of "ONE mutation in A
developmental program GENE..." (emphasis mine). This is a simplistic
argument used by Darwinists when it is convenient in debating with
creationism, but one which Gould had to reject when debating with
sociobiologists, as ReMine points out:
"Gould accepts the validity of these mechanisms, yet he holds a criticism
of gene selection.
`Selection simply cannot see genes and pick among them directly. It must
use bodies as an intermediary A gene is a bit of DNA hidden within a cell.
Selection views bodies. It favors some bodies because they are stronger,
better insulated, earlier in their sexual maturation, fiercer in combat, or
more beautiful to behold .... HUNDREDS OF GENES CONTRIBUTE TO THE BUILDING
OF MOST BODY PARTS and their action is channeled through a kaleidoscopic series
of environmental influences ... Parts are not translated genes, and selection
doesn't even work directly on parts. It accepts or rejects entire organisms
because suites of parts, interacting in complex ways, confer advantages.'
(Gould, The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p89-90 (emphasis mine)).
Gould objects to gene selection because observable traits are not due
to single genes acting alone, rather they result from hundreds of
genes acting together. True enough. Yet his objection applies
equally well to all evolutionary explanations. Gould put his finger
on a major difficulty of evolutionary genetics - the many-gene
problem. Most traits are determined by many genes. (This is called
polygeny ) The prevalence of this makes origins difficult to explain.
(ReMine W.J., "The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory",
St. Paul Science: Saint Paul, 1993, p193)
>SJ> But I understand that these "developmental program genes" are
>extremely complex, and the probability of an undirected random
>mutation causing any significant improvement is zero. And one would
>not be enough. You need a series of them, perhaps thousands, in
>precisely the right order. What would have been the good if
>Acanthostega got the first mutation and another species altogether got
>the second? Or if Acanthostega got the mutations in the wrong order?
LH>Ah, this is where our scientific understandings/intuitions differ. The
>best neo-Darwinian hypothesis, as I understand it, goes something like
>this: the mutation in the developmental gene (or alternatively, the new
>collection of pre-existing alleles) need not cause a "significant
>improvement," only a significantly altered morphology (that's not terribly
>uncommon) which opens up a heretofore unexploited adaptive zone (e.g. new
>food source, hiding place from predators, etc.). (It's the availability
>of unexploited adaptive zones which is presumably the rare occurrence.)
>(Micro)evolutionary processes can then work normally to increase fitness
>in the new zone. Perhaps this hypothesis still sounds far-fetched to you,
>but based on what I've learned so far, it seems a reasonable working
>hypoethesis to me.
It does sound "far-fetched" to me. According even to Gould, the high-priest
of "mutation in the developmental gene", do NOT cause "a significantly
altered morphology. See above. And also see below.
>SJ> " Further studies are needed to convince scientists that Duboule and
>his colleagues have correctly solved the fins to-feet riddle. Other
>factors could be involved as well, including homeobox genes that are
>not Hox genes (that is, they do not affect the overall structure of an
>animal)....The drawback for scientists is that nature's shrewd economy
>conceals enormous complexity. Researchers are finding evidence that
>the Hox genes and the non-Hox homeobox genes are not independent
>agents but members of vast genetic networks that connect hundreds,
>perhaps thousands, of other genes. Change one component, and myriad
>others will change as well-and not necessarily for the better. Thus
>dreams of tinkering with nature's toolbox to bring to life what
>scientists call a "hopeful monster"-such as a fish with feet-are
>likely to remain elusive. Scientists, as Duboule observes, are still
>far from reproducing in a laboratory the biochemical are that nature
>has taken millions of years to accomplish." (J. Madeleine Nash,
>Chicago, "Where Do Toes Come From?", TIME, August 7,1995, p69)
LH>The complexity argument cuts both ways, does it not? One gene can affect
>many features; also, most features are affected by many genes. (As I read
>biological literature, I'm surprised how often transgenic animals can
>function fairly well with a supposedly terribly important gene mutated or
>missing.) This complexity of function allows for the formation of many
>alleles within a species. The existence of many alleles, in turn,
>increases the possibility of "evolutionarily interesting" combinations.
No. Darwinists cannot have it both ways. The cannot argue that single
gene substitutions can cause evolutionary change by cumulative selection
and then turn around and say the exact opposite! The regulatory genes are
"not independent agents but members of vast genetic networks that connect
hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other genes. Change one component, and
myriad others will change as well-and not necessarily for the better." I
would suggest that the more complex and interdependent these genetic networks
are, the more it is highly improbable that random changes in them would ever
be for the better, which is what all laboratory studies in fact show.
IMHO this is more evidence for an Intelligent Designer. It is a biotic
message that only Intelligent Design could effect such complex changes.
LH>Again, have a difference of scientific intuition. You see the evidence
>pointing towards strong mechanisms for stabilizing species. I see the
>evidence pointing towards strong mechanisms for stabilizing species MOST
>of the time, but with the possibility on rare occasions for fairly rapid
>morphological changes in certain populations.
I wonder what "evidence" you would accept for direct Divine intervention,
Loren? :-)
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------