This is the first part of a repost due to mail failure. Please note
my change of address from sjones@iinet.net.au to sejones@ibm.net.
Sorry if this was received already!
Steve
On Mon, 24 Jun 1996 22:01:29 -0700, Lynn J. Fancher wrote:
LF>I'm new to this group, and will not be staying long. In fact, I
>was going to quietly rescind my membership request as soon as I
>began to read the messages building up in my mailbox, since it was
>rapidly obvious that this group is of a very different nature from
>what was suggested by the description which attracted me.
The "description" of this group is accurate, as can be seen
by the following message that new subscribers get:
-----------------------------------------------------------
This list has its origins in an e-mail reflector begun by Berkeley
law professor, Phillip E. Johnson. Dr. Johnson is known for his
critique of evolutionary theory and naturalism in his book _Darwin on
Trial_, Second edition, (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,
1993). He began this group in 1993 as forum for the discussion of
the implications of theism for the evaluations of evolutionary
theory. A commitment to theism is shared by most participants in the
group, but there is a wide range of opinions under that rubric
including people who would call themselves young earth creationists,
intelligent design proponents, progressive creationists, and theistic
evolutionists (or evolutionary creationists). Some of the
participants prefer to remain unlabelled and maybe are agnostic with
respect to the latter categories. While the group is not off-limits
to critics of theism, we are not interested in the sort of
creationist-bashing that occurs in other contexts; however,
good-faith questions and relevant observations are welcome from those
critics. -----------------------------------------------------------
LF>However, I read one too many messages, and find that I can't
>leave without some comment. I know it is impolite to shoot and run,
>and I will try hard not to be too caustic, but if you are going to
>invoke the discipline of genetics in an attempt to support your
>case, you are going to have to acquire an understanding beyond the
>gradeschool level. Genetics is my specialty, and I hate to see it
>being turned into Hungarian Goulash.
[...]
>SC>I only recently heard the claim that humans and chimps share
>90-something% genomic identity. I heard this from Prof. R.J.
>(Sam) Berry, a Christian geneticist from the Univ. of London,
>during a talk he gave on this campus entitled, "Developing a
>Christian Mind". As I recall, the number comes from someone at UCLA
>who proposes that humans and chimps should be considered part of the
>same genus (Homo) but different species. Currently, chimps belong
>to a different genus (Pan).
LF>snip of Gould quote
SJ>That is, humans and chimps share more than 99% the same protein
>amino acid sequences:
>
>"Chimpanzees and we share more than 99 per cent of our genes."
>(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p263)
>SC>Unfortunately, I do not know how such an estimation of genetic
>relatedness was made. The same questions John raised above, I also
>have. The problem, I beleive, lies in what is meant by "identity".
LF>There are quite a number of different techniques which have been
>applied to an attempt to estimate the actual difference between chimp
>and human DNA. There have been amino-acid-by-amino-acid analyses of
>many proteins which have shown us that in many cases (eg, lysozyme and
>insulin) human and chimp proteins are precisely identical; in others
>they differ to a small degree, and usually in those parts of the
>protein which are less vital to the function of the protein.
I am interested that it is only "usually". How about telling us the
real problem cases where they differ in those parts of the
protein which are *more* vital to the function of the protein?
LF>There have also been DNA-DNA hybridization studies which can
>demonstrate the general match between the large scale sequences of
>human and chimp DNA. There have also been some studies of
>specifically sequenced DNA segments. The variety in technique is
>the source for the small variation in claims of identity--from 99.5%
>down to 98%. The upshot of all of these is that you are at least
>98% identical to a chimp.
Yes. In DNA sequences studied to date. But this is really the
reductiuon as absurdum of this materialist-naturalist view of
reality. The point is that we are *not* "98% identical to a chimp"
as any visit to the zoo will confirm.
LF>Possibly the most interesting insight to be gleaned from comparing
>these kinds of data is that the lowest degree of identity comes from
>the whole DNA hybridization studies; the highest from the amino acid
>sequencing. The reason this is interesting is that amino acid
>sequences of proteins are the real functional level of biochemical
>expression of genes; this is the level at which selection would be
>expected to act in a very conservative fashion, which would allow only
>functional alterations in genes to become fixed. Whole DNA includes
>the large percentage of our DNA which has no function, and thus can
>carry any sequence, as long as it doesn't randomly produce an active,
>harmful new gene. Thus we see direct evidence of the reality of
>natural selection.
No one denies "the reality of natural selection" in eliminating the
unfit. What is at question is its ability to create new designs,
specifically, to create a human out of a chimp common genetic
ancestor. Gould evidently does not think so.
SJ>Indeed, this closeness of man and chimp raised a problem for
>evolutionists:
LF>Now this is a really bizarre deformation of reasoning! Here's
>where the kindergarten genetics begins to show. See below.
>
>"DNA in chimpanzees differs from our own by less than one per cent.
>This worries geneticists,
LF>Nonsense!
It is *not* "nonsense". Gould refers to it as a "paradox" and says:
"...we are still very different animals. If the overall genetic
distance is so small, then what has caused such a divergence in form
and behavior?...King and Wilson therefore seek to resolve the paradox
by attributing our differences from chimps primarily to mutations of
the regulatory system." (Gould S.J., "Ever Since Darwin", Penguin:
London, 1977, p53)
SJ>who would have expected a far bigger difference to account for
>the enormous dissimilarity between the two species...
LF>I beg your pardon? The most egregious error here is the claim of
>"enormous dissimilarity" between humans and chimps! We are in almost
>every way extremely similar--and you don't need DNA studies to tell you
>this.
And here I say "nonsense"! :-) The similarity between chimps and
humans is only superficial. There are obvious enormous physical,
intellectual and spiritual differences between human beings and
chimps. Human beings have taken over the planet but the most
human-like chimp, the Bonobo (Pan paniscus) is on the verge of
extinction.
SJ>The genetic make-up of chimpanzees and humans is more
>than 99 per cent identical, according to molecular biologists. It
>seems to mean we had a common ancestor less than five or six million
>years ago (see chapter eight), and is a puzzle to geneticists who
>would have expected a bigger difference to account for the anatomical
>dissimilarity" (Hitching F., "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin
>Went Wrong", Ticknor & Fields: New York, 1982, p75,78)
LF>I had to leave this priceless piece of idiocy in. See below.
I am glad you did! Hitching says basically the same thing as
Gould. The difference is that Hitching, although not a creationist,
was not a throughgoing scientific materialist, and he could clearly
see the problem that committed scientific materialist cannot.
SJ>It means that on this molecular biological basis, man and chimp
>are one genus:
LF>quote snipped>
SJ>Indeed, they would be sibling species:
LF>Now this is pretty good reasoning.
LF>more quotes snipped>
LF>"If the overall genetic distance is so small, then what has
>caused such a divergence in form and behavior? Under the atomistic
>notion that each organic trait is controlled by a single gene, we
>cannot reconcile our anatomical dissimilarities with King and
>Wilson's findings, for many differences in form and function would
>have to reflect many differences in genes." (Gould S.J., "Ever
>Since Darwin", Penguin: London, 1977, p53)
LF>OK, here we get to the meat of the matter. Of course, Gould knows
>better than to espouse what he calls the "atomistic" concept of
>genetics (and he does no such thing in this article; his point is, in
>fact, precisely the opposite). The entire world of biology has known
>better for 50 years or more.
Lynn here attempts to brush aside the problem by historical
revisionism. If it hasn't been a problem "for 50 years or more", why
is Gould even dicussing it as a "paradox" in 1977?
LF>Not even bacteria truly display any version of an atomistic
>genetic system. What we do know is that many (most) traits are
>governed by batteries of genes, many (most) genes affect more than
>one trait, genes function in coadapted complexes whereby the end
>trait of every gene is affected by a change in any one of the genes,
>and of course even bacteria have relatively complex (at least in my
>students' views) gene control systems in which a single gene
>controls the functions of several others. In eukaryotic organisms
>(everything more complex than bacteria and blue greens, starting
>with things like amoebae), the interacting controlling mechanisms
>are bewilderingly complex. It is absolutely totally possible for a
>single genetic change to affect a whole battery of physical and
>biochemical characteristics. To support your position by a plea to
>this 1920's version of genetics is pretty lame.
I was quoting Gould. What you are really claiming that *he* was
"pretty lame" by supporting *his* position "by a plea to this 1920's
version of genetics". If it was a "1920's" problem why did King &
Wilson raise it as an issue in Science in 1975 and why was Gould
discussing it as "a fine paradox" in 1977?
SJ>Johnson points out that though chimps and humans chemical
>"letters" looks almost the same, the information content of the
>human genetic system is must be significantly different from that of
>apes:
>
>"Molecular studies have also produced claims having important
>philosophical implications, particularly on the sensitive topic of
>human evolution, because by some molecular measurements chimps are
>much more similar to humans than they are to other non-human
>primates. This degree of similarity may call the importance of
>molecular comparisons into question, because it does little to
>explain the profound dissimilarities between humans and animals of
any kind.
LF>Bullshit. See above. This is precisely what we would expect if,
>in fact, chimps are more closely related to humans than they are to
>any other primate, which in fact they almost certainly are. (I'd
>say certainly, but like all scientists, I know that there is no such
>thing as real certainly in any knowledge.)
Emotional outbursts noted! :-) But you don't even address Johnson's
substantive point, which is the "profound dissimilarities between
humans and animals".
SJ>Evidently the information content of the human genetic system is
>significantly different from that of apes, even though the
>arrangement of chemical "letters" looks almost the same. This
>point is lost on some Darwinists." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
>Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition,
>1993, p93)
LF>How stupid does this man imagine biologists are? Does he really
>think that he has discovered some deep truth that the real
>professionals have somehow overlooked?
Johnson does not think that "biologists" are stupid at all. In fact
he says he respects their intelligence and intellectual integrity:
"Why do other people, including experts whose intelligence and
intellectual integrity I respect, think that evidence of local
population fluctuations confirms the hypothesis that natural
selection has the capacity to work engineering marvels, to construct
wonders like the eye and the wing?" (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on
Trial", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition,
1993, p27)
Your post itself is evidence enough that Johnson is spot on! :-)
LF>Unfortunately, Johnson is pretty ignorant and lacks the education
>to set himself as any kind of an authority on this subject.
Johnson does not claim to be "an authority on this subject". His
specialty is "analyzing the logic of arguments":
"I am not a scientist but an academic lawyer by profession, with a
specialty in analyzing the logic of arguments and identifying the
assumptions that lie behind those arguments. This background is more
appropriate than one might think, because what people believe about
evolution and Darwinism depends very heavily on the kind of logic
they employ and the kind of assumptions they make. Being a scientist
is not necessarily an advantage when dealing with a very broad topic
like evolution, which cuts across many scientific disciplines and
also involves issues of philosophy. Practicing scientists are of
necessity highly specialized, and a scientist outside his field of
expertise is just another layman." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
InterVarsity Press: Illinois, Second Edition, 1993, p13)
LF>He is absolutely incorrect in his assertion that the "information
>content of the human genetic system is significantly different from
>that of apes, even though the arrangement of chemical 'letters'
>looks almost the same." Kindly evaluate his claim by comparing the
>sequence of letters inside the quotation marks in my paragraph to
>the appropriate sequence in the quote from Johnson above. I used
>the same letters in the same order. Does anyone imagine that the
>information content of my sentence is different from his? This is
>what he is claiming about the biochemistry of genes--that somehow
>there is some higher essence that makes the same "words" mean
>something different in a human than they do in a chimp. Pardon the
>use of an archaic expression, but "Balderdash" is the only
>appropriate term I can think of.
Johnson says nothing about a "higher essence" - he only mentions
"letters". But "letters" and "words", not to mention phrases,
clauses, sentences and paragraphs, and even whole books, are entirely
different hierarchies of "information content".
And while Johnson does not argue for a "higher essence", how do you
know there isn't one? Is this message coming from Lynn J. Fancher's
mind or his/her brain?
[continued]
Regards.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones |
| Perth, West Australia v (My opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------