I have been having trouble with my Internet Service Provider. They
changed
their set-up, and I did not realise until a few days ago. If you have
had mail
to me bounced, please re-send it to me. Thanks.
On Sat, 7 Oct 1995 23:45:00 -0400 Glenn wrote:
GS>We in the reflector tend to think in terms of one acceptable
description of
>reality - and view ideas that sound different as fundamentally different. Is
>this really the case? For instance, when Glenn is insisting on a TE model and
>Stephen a PC model for describing and interpreting a piece of data, is it
>possible that both are correct - in that no amount of effort is going to
>demonstrate that one view is correct and the other is wrong? Sounds weird,
>doesn't it? But how weird is this? <<
This is possible, IMHO. The essential difference between TE and PC is
that vertical steps are only possible by God's direct intervention. It
is the
difference between stairs and a ramp. These vertical steps could be
exceedingly small, and reduce down to a series of precisely timed
and directed point mutations. It would have involved an original
ancestor's
soft biology, which is unique and unobservable.
GM>If there were no observational or theoretical expectation
differences between
>PC and TE I would agree with you, Gordie. But I think there is a different
>expectation. Under PC God is free to create whatever He wants Under TE there
>are limits. Thus in PC we would not expect constraints on the form of the
>new species in the same sense that constraints are expected under TE.
I disagree with Glenn's view of PC. PC would see that God is
"constrained"
by his choice of prior designs. A major constraint is the use of the
same
biochemical make up, in order that animals can eat plants and animals
other
animals.
GM>For example, phyla represent the basic body plans of various plants
and
>animals. In the Cambrian Explosion, all but one of the 20-30(depending on
>the taxonomist) modern phyla are represented. But there are also fifteen to
>20 other phyla represented in the Burgess shale. (See Stephen J. Gould,
>Wonderful Life, p. 100.) Thus the Cambrian had between 35 to 50 phyla.
> 15-20 of them went extinct in the Cambrian.
GM>After this period of time, only the Bryozoa first appear in the
Ordovician.
>Since that time absolutely no new phyla have been created on earth. Why?
>Certainly it can not be claimed that God is incapable of creating a new
>phylum but is it reasonable to assume that after an initial creative period,
>God got boring and stayed with the same limited repertoire?
In fact this is a better argument for PC than TE. Under PC one could
understand God deciding not to create any more phyla, but why would
a natural evolutionary process not continue to at least attempt to
evolve
new phyla?
GM>It would seem to me that the data here fits better with TE than
with PC
>because the subsequent forms were limited in organizational body plan which
>would be expected within modern views of evolution. (But not within the
>older views)
Why does this fit TE better than PC. God can limit what He creates.
Just
because He can create something does not mean He has to.
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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------