On Mon, 29 Jul 1996 2:26:55 -0500 (CDT), NIIIIIIICHOLAS MATZKE wrote:
SJ>Actually, I cannot find this in Denton, ie that "He thinks
>monotremes should be intermediate between reptiles and placentals
>for the theory to be correct.". Can you please post a quote and
>page reference to that efffect?
NM>You're right, he doesn't, but Denton clearly implies just this in
>his chapter "A Biochemical Echo of Typology" (Denton, 1986, pp.
274-307).
If Denton doesn't actually say that "monotremes should be
intermediate between reptiles and placentals" then I don't think you
can claim with any certainty that he implies it. It would be better
to stick with what he does say.
NM>His argument goes like this:
>"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
>[sequencing proteins of various species and comparing the
>differences], 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" (277)
Agreed. And as it turned out, that the weren't! :-)
NM>He then provides examples of letter chains that are intermediate
>between other chains. An intermediate in the middle chain makes it
>transitional between the 1st and 3rd chains, and suggests evolution.
>His point is that traditional evolutionary sequences (from big:
>"cyclostome --> fish --> amphibian --> reptile --> mammal" (284) to
>"relatively trivial" (287) - eg, monkey --> apes --> man) SHOULD be
>deducible from protein sequences IF evolutionary theory is correct.
>Thus, amphibians would have a sequence intermediate between that of
>fish and reptile (or, monotremes should be intermediate between
>reptiles and placentals - my example, not Denton's, but it uses
>identical logic).
Yes. That would be strong confirmation of evolution and it was
originally expected that phenotype evolution would be reflected in
genotype evolution, as Pun points out:
"G. C. Simpson, a renowned taxonomist and paleontologist, predicted a
few decades ago the relationship between morphological changes and
genetic changes in evolution as follows:
`Morphological and taxonomic rates [of evolution] have a decided,
even though indirect, relationship to genetic rates. If this were
not so, their bearing on evolutionary theory would he quite
different. It has become commonplace that changes in morphology or
phenotype may he influenced by factors other than changes in genotype
and therefore may not reflect the latter accurately. More recently
it has been recognized that changes in genotype may not be
accompanied proportionately, or at all, by changes in phenotype.
Nevertheless, there can seldom be any doubt that well-defined
morphological changes in phenotypes of successive populations,
particularly as these occur over considerable periods of time in the
fossil record, run parallel to genetic changes in those populations.
It is therefore a proper assumption in such cases that morphological
rates do reflect genetic. rates, even though they are probably not
exactly proportioned to the latter. The assumption is even more
reliable for taxonomic rates because the concepts and usages of
modern taxonomy are in part genetical even when the observed data are
morphological.' (Simpson, G. G., "The Major Features of Evolution",
Columbia University Press: New York, 1953, p5).
As Simpson made clear, it has been held as the most reasonable
assumption by most evolutionists that the rate of morphological
evolution reflects the rate of genetic evolution. This was true until the
advent of molecular techniques and their use in the analysis of the
genetic differences of natural populations."
(Pun P.P.T., "Evolution: Nature and Scripture in Conflict?",
Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1982, pp205-206)
Indeed, Denton cites an example of this expectation:
"...writing in the Scientific American in 1963, Zuckerkandl
speculates:
`Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral
organisms probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that
resemble quite closely those of the ancient organisms. In other
words, certain animals said to be "living fossils", such as the
cockroach, the horseshoe crab, the shark and, among mammals, the
lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that
differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors
millions of years ago.' (Zuckerkandl E., "The Evolution of
Haemoglobin", Scientific American, Vol. 213, No. 5, 1965, p111).
(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books:
London, 1985, p291).
Denton concludes:
"The only way to save evolution in the face of these discoveries is
to make the ad hoc assumption that the degree of biochemical
isolation of the major groups was far less in the past, that ancient
lungfish, for example, were far closer biochemically to ancient
amphibia than their present day descendants. There is, however,
absolutely no objective evidence that this assumption is correct.
The only justification for such an assumption would be if evolution
is true, but this is precisely the question at issue!" (Denton M.,
"Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books: London, 1985, p291)
NM>This is the straw man that Denton sets up: the problem is that
>the proteins sequenced were all of living organisms NOT ancestral to
>each other, but descended from the SAME ANCESTORS. Thus frogs are
>not a rung on a ladder between fish and mammals; rather, fish,
>frogs, and mammals are all twigs on a tree, with frogs and mammals
>sharing a branch. Denton acts all surprised when he does not find
>sequence, but sequence (between present-day organisms) is not what
>evolution predicts. It predicts sequence between ancestors (which,
>unfortunately, cannot easily have their DNA sequenced).
There is no "straw man". Denton is well aware that "{living
organisms [are] not ancestral to each other, but descended from the
same ancestors". He makes just this point:
"For if the ANCIENT REPRESENTATIVES of groups such as amphibia,
lungfish, cyclostomes and reptiles manufactured proteins similar to
those manufactured by their LIVING RELATIVES TODAY, and if,
therefore, the isolation of the main divisions of nature was just the
same in the past as it is today, if for example ancient lungfish and
ancient amphibia were as separate from each other as their present
day descendants are, then the whole concept of evolution collapses."
(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", Burnett Books: London,
1985, p291. My emphasis)
This point is acknowledged by other non-Darwinists, e.g. Davis
& Kenyon:
"Now look at the entry for silkworm moth (No. 15 at the top of the
table) and this time go down the table from vertebrate class to
vertebrate class. Notice that the cytochrome c of this insect exhibits
the same degree of difference from organisms as diverse as human,
penguin, snapping turtle, tuna, and lamprey. Considering the
enormous variation represented by these organisms, it is astonishing
that they all differ from the silkworm moth by almost exactly the
same percent. The reason this finding is so surprising is that it
contradicts the Darwinian expectation. As we move up the scale of
evolution from the silkworm moth, that expectation (although it was
probably never stated as a prediction) was to find progressively more
divergence on the molecular level. This expectation holds true, EVEN
THOUGH WE ARE COMPARING WHAT MAY BE DESCRIBED AS
CONTEMPORARY REPRESENTATIVES OF PROGRESSIVELY APPEARING
CLASSES, rather than descendants and ancestors. For example,
Darwinists may consider the bullfrog, an amphibian, to be the product
of several branching events that occurred after the branching of the
amphibian lineage leading to reptiles. This would mean that the
bullfrog, although a member of a vertebrate order that is ancestral
to the reptiles, is not directly ancestral to them itself The
expectation is still that a "tree" pattern (albeit a general one)
would be seen when comparing ancestral orders via just such living,
non-ancestral representatives. Indeed, when comparing living
organisms, Darwinism would predict a greater molecular distance from
the insect to the amphibian than to the living fish, greater distance
still to the reptile, and greater than that to the mammal. Yet this
pattern is not found." (Davis P. & Kenyon D.H., "Of Pandas and
People: The Central Question of Biological Origins", Foundation for
Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, Second Edition, 1993, p37. My
emphasis).
NM>The same argument of direct evidence of intermediates (either with
>protein sequences, or fossils, or physical study of living
>organisms) being the ONLY valid evidence for evolution is the trap
>that Stephen falls into.
Now you are erecting your own "straw man"! :-) Where have I ever
said that "direct evidence of intermediates (either with protein
sequences, or fossils, or physical study of living organisms) being
the only valid evidence for evolution"? Indeed, I have said very
nearly the opposite. As a Progressive (ie. Mediate) Creationist, I
provisionally accept common ancestry and therefore "intermediates".
What I am skeptical about (because there ha been no adequate evidence
presented), is that Neo-Darwinism has discovered a fully naturalistic
"Blind Watchmaker" *mechanism* that plausibly explains the origin of
life and its development to the present:
"...Colin Patterson's point [was] 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",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993, p12).
NM>There are other forms of evidence. MY point is that if we can
>find either modern-day or fossil creatures that exhibit some
>characteristics of one lineage and some of another, the best
>explanation is that they are descendants (or offshoots close to the
>split) of that ancestor that is intermediate between the lineages.
See above. I am not necessarily denying this (although I would like
to see exactly what "fossil creatures" and what "characteristics" you
had in mind). My position is similar to that of Wilcox:
"Evidence for structural difference/descent does not constitute
evidence for the mechanism by which structural transformation took
place. Therefore, the sorts of evidence that simply indicate
relationship and/or descent from a common ancestor (e.g., molecular
clock data, fossil sequences, chromosomal banding, and other measures
of similarity) are not relevant to this question unless they indicate
the nature of the creative mechanism that produced novelty during
that descent. Evidence of ancestry does not imply knowledge of the
morphogenetic mechanisms that are able to produce novelty. This was
perhaps better understood in the nineteenth century than it is today
(Muller and Wagner, 1991). Indeed, by 1850, almost all researchers
accepted common descent (Gillespie, 1979; Desmond, 1989). The unique
implication of Darwin's theory was therefore not descent, but its
suggestion that the source of biotic order was to be found in the
natural (material) order." (Wilcox D.L. "A Blindfolded Watchmaker:
The Arrival of the Fittest", in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds.,
"Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", Foundation for Thought and
Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, p195)
Indeed, as Ratzsch points out, God could have intervened
supernaturally in life's history and there still could be common
genetic descent:
"Even were God to intervene directly to suspend natural law and
inject essential new genetic material at various points in order to
facilitate the emergence of new traits and, eventually, new species,
that miraculous and deliberate divine intervention would by itself
leave unchallenged such key theses of evolutionary theory as that all
species derive ultimately from some common ancestor Descent with
genetic intervention is still descent-it is just descent with
nonnatural elements in the process.... Deliberate intervention,
then, would have resulted in a discontinuity in the human line. But
it would obviously be the case that one's children, although members
of a different species as a result of deliberate intervention, were
still one's children. This means that intervention, discontinuity
and divergence of species simply do not settle the issue of common
ancestry. One apparently could believe, for suitable reasons, that
God intervened in the course of history to generate new traits, new
species and so forth, and that those traits and species could not
have emerged by purely natural means, yet still accept all the usual
evidences of relatedness, descent with modification and so forth, and
maintain that the basic evolutionary thesis of the common ancestry of
all species was perfectly true. Nothing whatever seems to be
inconsistent about that." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings:
Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Ill., 1996, pp187-188).
[continued]
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------