>For over two years I have discussed my book (_The Biotic Message_) with
>opponents on reflectors, talk.origins, and private e-mail. Almost all my
>free time has gone there. As much as I love that form of dialogue, it is
>ephemeral, fleetingly transitory, and limited in the number of people who
>will ever see it. I end up spoon feeding my book to the uninitiated (and
>oftentimes even to opponents who are arguing against my book without having
>seriously read it). What is more, I end up having to repeat it all over
>again for various people and forums. [...]
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. I realize that
time constraints are very significant. I appreciate the efforts taken.
I think some of the problems I had with the message theory was in
finding ways of challenge it except for either;
- Demonstrating evolution to be true beyond any doubt, or
- Finding extraterrestrials.
Excepting the possible discovery of extraterrestrial life, I found it
difficult to initially accept that message theory could not be falsified
by some other means besides proving evolution to be true(*). I thought
that perhaps, some means of uncoupling could be found. That is why I
proposed extinction patterns. Since neither message theory nor evolution
specifically predict extinction (although both are certainly compatible
with it) I wondered whether the theories could be distinguished on the
basis of extinction patterns. Basically, starting with extinction as
a _given_ and not as a prediction, I wondered whether a designer would
choose one pattern of extinction over another -- Possibly uncoupling
one theory from the other for testing. This is a fine distinction
that I'd hoped would generate feedback.
As one might expect, this uncoupling is difficult to accomplish as
long as one maintains that theories of natural causes are not
sufficiently developed to make predictions about patterns in life.
Thus, even if evolution is true, it is possible that it did not occur
in such a way (ie. punctuated equilibrium) as to meet the criteria
presented for falsification of message theory. While it might someday
be possible to experimentally demonstrate small-scale evolutionary steps
in the lab, I do not think that we will possess such technical abilities
to span large steps for quite some time (possibly a few centuries?).
This is not to detract from message theory, but to recognize the hurdles
remaining in evolutionary research.
Understanding the value of your time, Walter, I wonder if you could
possibly address one more question before you go. I know it might be
an imposition, but it's been on my mind for some time and I think it
could be answered relatively quickly -- I do not intend to drag out
a long, time-draining conversation on this question. At most I'd ask
for just one clarification afterwards and then I'd give you the last
word on the subject.
It's about mitochondria and chloroplasts. As you remember, you and I
have touched on this often in the past, if only fleetingly. You've
only commented on how "evolutionists" account for it -- which we all
understand well. Now that I have read your book, I have a question
about how message theory accommodates their apparent relationships
to bacteria. It is this question which I don't see addressed there.
In your book, _The Biotic Message_, you write that transposition has
not been a major mechanism in life and that it has not moved any
major features between different species. You wrote:
-[...] The molecular phenograms and cladograms convincingly show
that transposition is a negligible evolutionary mechanism at the
molecular level, particularly in multicellular organisms. [p 401]
-Evolutionists have fully demonstrated that they would endorse DNA
transposition,if only the data would support it. This shows, again,
that evolutionary theory never predicted a nested pattern. The
absence of transposition -- all the way down to molecular phenograms
and cladograms -- is potent evidence against evolution and for the
biotic message. [p 403]
[Context warning: The term "absence of transposition" in the above
paragraph refers to a general, large-scale pattern of transposition;
that organisms do not look like mixed assemblages made out of parts
from unrelated species -- eg. bats do not have feathered wings like
birds. It does not mean that "no transposition" is found; only that
it hasn't happened sufficiently to disrupt an overlaid hierarchy.]
I completely agree that it does not appear to happen very frequently,
and with a few exceptions, does not seem to have occurred enough to
disrupt the general pattern of the nested hierarchy of life. But I
wonder what is meant by "significant", particularly with respect to
the mitochondria and chloroplasts. I wondered if they could be
considered "significant" for the eukaryotes that possess them.
You wrote:
-Although DNA transposition is significant in bacteria, it is not all
powerful. It has not allowed bacteria to arbitrarily swap major
innovations such as the use of chlorophyll or flagella. The major
features of microorganisms fall into well-defined groups that seem
to have a nested pattern like the rest of life. [p 404]
It does appear that chlorophyll-based oxygenic photosynthesis has not been
swapped among the bacteria. It only seems to be found in a few, related
subgroups which include the cyanobacteria and prochlorons. It is certainly
a very complex system and I think that its transposition could be
considered a significant event. As it turns out, the only other place
this system is found is in the chloroplasts of plants (and algae). There
are two possible explanations for the similarities: Chloroplasts represent
either transpositional or convergent events (or designs). Actually,
there also appear to be eukaryote-eukaryote transpositions of chloroplasts
as well.
Transposition is strongly suggested in mitochondria and chloroplasts by
both genetic and biochemical means of comparison. And while cladograms
and phenograms of single traits can err, the consideration of multiple
traits produces relatively consistent results. Further, most cladograms/
phenograms are consistent with message theory. You wrote:
-The cladograms of life show that life has a strong nested pattern.
Subsets are nested within subsets, where each subset has biological
characters unique to itself.
The phenograms of life show that life forms are not arbitrarily
designed, but have a peculiar pattern known as theme and variation.
Moreover, the phenograms of different molecules tend to corroborate
each other.
The cladograms and phenograms of life tend to coincide. If organisms
are close together on cladograms, then they tend to be close together
on phenograms. [p 401]
So, considering that these organelles appear to nest within specific groups
of bacteria, based on numerous phenotypic and genotypic considerations,
how does one account for this with message theory (Basically, what is the
biotic message explanation)? Are these inferred similarities examples of
transpositions, convergences or is the positioning of all their traits a
fluke? What is your opinion?
Regards, Tim Ikeda (timi@mendel.berkeley.edu)
Footnote * - If there is an interest, I could post excerpts from Walter's
book about what evidence would falsify the Biotic Message.
PS - Here is a clarification of a section in my last post.
[...]
>Tim quotes a discussion that references my book and theory.
>Then he responds:
>
>>Interesting point. I suppose if we postulated that God intended his
>>works to be obvious then that might be a sound conclusion. I call
>>this the "Louisville Slugger" approach to faith (named after a brand
[...]
>In context, Tim appears to be referring to my theory, so I'll make some
>clarifications. My theory does not speak of "God", rather it uniformly
>speaks of a "designer".
And possibly, a supernatural designer.
You wrote:
-Extraterrestrial life would harm the biotic message and so would
not be created by a biotic message sender. [p 441]
-Message theory does not inherently assume the existence of the
supernatural. Nonetheless, evidence now suggests that the biotic
message sender is supernatural. [justifications omitted...]
If the data had failed in any number of ways it would have allowed
other interpretations. Yet the data is intricately constructed to
point consistently to one conclusion. The evidence suggests that
the biomessage sender is supernatural and has intentionally signaled
that. [p442]
If it wasn't extraterrestrial, where else would a designer come from?
>The biotic message is *only* a scientific theory, and it is fully a
>scientific theory. It does not save souls. It does not test God.
>It does not prove God. I understand that many (all?) scientific
>theories have theological implications -- Darwin's theory did, and
>so does mine.
FWIW - I agree with Walter here and have no problem with where a designer
might have originated or where it exists. I completely understand that a
supernatural designer need not be God and that the existence of a
supernatural designer does not necessarily inform us about God. I do not
feel that it detracts from the theory in any way.
>I am unashamed of that.
No reason to be.
>Why do I insist on the above seemingly minor clarification? Because
>evolutionists love to portray the origins debate as "Science versus
>Religion". They waste no opportunity on that. They frequently inject
>religion into the discussion. Recall last week where Tim introduced
>himself as an "agnostic" who "tend[s] not to get into discussions of
>purely theological (or Christian) issues." Yet sensing points to be
>scored, he now dives right in ...
That was absolutely not my intention. If you recall from the passage
just after my quoted comments and before the discussion of the biotic
message I wrote:
"On a _completely different tangent_ about whether God's works should
resist naturalistic interpretations, I feel that one should follow
the data where it goes."
The main point of that section you quoted was to comment on creation
theories and how different starting points can lead to different
conclusions -- and different expectations about how the world should
appear. I have _never_ suggested, nor would I, that this is wrong or
inappropriate, or that it generates untestable predictions. Anyone who
reads the second chapter of Elliott Sober's _The philosophy of biology_
might have a better idea about where I stand with respect to creation
theories. I do not think they are impossible to develop. It was not
about "points to be scored" by playing the "God card".
With respect to my not getting into discussions of theology, it's true.
Religion is personal and I really do not wish to get into discussions about
religion or revelations or the implications of origins on things such as
morality & etc. Second, I'm more interested in what we can understand
observationally, and how to integrate new data into models. And third,
it's an indirect way of asking not to be "witnessed" to :^) Whether God
or something else created the world does not _a priori_ determine how
one should live one's life -- and it is that type of detailed theological
discussion I tend to avoid. I can handle discussions about "Generic" and
"Hypothetical" gods (or designers - yes, I recognize they need not be the
same), at least with respect to biology.