On Mon, 29 Jul 1996 2:26:55 -0500 (CDT), NIIIIIIICHOLAS MATZKE wrote:
[continued]
NM>If someone can propose a better theory for the evolution/creation
>of birds that better explains the evidence, I'm open to hear it.
>This tentative hypothesis seems to be the best we've got, though.
By "a better theory" you presumably mean "a better..." *purely
naturalistic* "...theory"?
NM>The overall key to resolving this seems to be resolving where
>Stephen draws the line at what he thinks is possible for natural
>evolution to accomplish, and what he thinks requires direct
>supernatural input.
I don't "draw the line" anywhere. I have already stated publicly that
I am open to the evidence and if you can show that "natural
evolution" really can "accomplish" what you claim for it I will
accept it.
NM>Certainly, some degrees of change are bigger than others, and some
>transitions have far better evidence than others. Reptile-->mammal
>and reptile-->bird seem roughly equivalent, although the evidence
>for mammal evolution is much more complete.
By "evidence" for "Reptile-->mammal and reptile-->bird" and "for
mammal evolution" linked with "transitions" you no doubt mean
"evidence" for common ancestry. I could accept this and still it
wouldn't prove that "natural evolution" accomplished it without
"supernatural input".
I repeat what I said earlier quoting 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." (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)
NM>If Stephen would allow (I don't know that he does) that mammal
>evolution can be fairly well explained by natural means, shouldn't
>he also admit that the evolution of birds is equally possible, even
>if the evidence is not yet in?
I would like you to "fairly well explain...mammal evolution...by
natural means". Here is the first problem - the fossil record is
against it:
"It isn't merely that grand-scale Darwinism can't be confirmed. The
evidence is positively against the theory. For example, if Darwinism
is true then the bat, monkey, pig, seal, and whale all evolved in
gradual adaptive stages from a primitive rodent-like predecessor.
This hypothetical common ancestor must have been connected to its
diverse descendants by long linking chains of transitional
intermediates* which in turn put out innumerable side branches. The
intermediate links would have to be adaptively superior to their
predecessors, and be in the process of developing the complex
integrated organs required for aquatic life, flight, and so on.
Fossil evidence that anything of the sort happened is thoroughly
missing and in addition it is extremely difficult to imagine how the
hypothetical intermediate steps could have been adaptive." (Johnson
P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism",
Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1990, p35)
Here is the second problem - there is not enough time for it:
"Let us suppose that we wish, hypothetically, to form a bat or a
whale...[by a] process of gradual transformation of established
species. If an average chronospecies lasts nearly a million years,
or even longer, and we have at our disposal only ten million years,
then we have only ten or fifteen chronospecies1 to align, end-to-end,
to form a continuous lineage connecting our primitive little mammal
with a bat or a whale. This is clearly preposterous. Chronospecies,
by definition, grade into each other, and each one encompasses very
little change. A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from
one small rodent like form to a slightly different one, perhaps
representing a new genus, but not to a bat or a whale!' " (Stanley
S.M, "The New Evolutionary Timetable". 1981, Basic Books, NY, p71,
in Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove
Ill., Second Edition, 1993, p51)
I await your explanation! :-)
NM>If he sets the level of supernatural intervention at that above
>the Biblical "kind", then we need to define what approximate
>taxanomic level "kind" is.
As I said, I don't claim that the Bible is a scientific textbook, so
I don't claim the "kinds" of Genesis 1 are any modern scientific
"taxonomic level".
NM>As my last post showed (I hope), if kind=order, then humans could
>have evolved naturally, and it would be up to him to show evidence
>that they did not that contradicts the evidence that they did.
Apart from the fact that I don't believe the "kinds" of Genesis 1 are
modern taxonomic categories, Genesis 1 does not even use the word
"kind" of man at all.
NM>(Actually, this gets worse if you consider that, using protein
>sequences, chimps appear to be more closely related to us than to
>gorillas and other apes. Thus, since chimps and gorillas are in the
>same family, we should logically either be in their family, or
>chimps should be in ours.)
Clearly *physically* "chimps...gorillas and other apes" are our
nearest neigbours in "taxonomic level". But *mentally* and
*spiritually* man is in a unique category:
"We are not surprised by the recent origin and rapid evolution of
modern humans. It does indeed seem a quantum leap from the animal
world to a creature with such great potentialities for creativity,
ethical reasoning, and altruism-a "kingdom-level speciation." It
might be argued that the other primates are not only anatomically and
genetically like us but that they too have characteristics that we
ordinarily associate with humanness. Certainly the chimpanzee is
capable of tool use, can perform sign language, show empathy and
build long-term relationships. However, there is no evidence that
they make their simple tools according to a pattern, as though they
had a conceptual image of what they were making, nor that their use
of sign language has any sense of grammatical arrangement-any
syntax-which is the essence of language. Behaviorally, chimps
show no ethical sense or any particular evidence for feelings of
guilt if, for example, they have killed a fellow chimp. World
authority Jane Goodall refers to them as the "innocent killers."
(Goodall J., "The Behavior of Free- Living Chimpanzees in the Gombe
Stream Reserve, "Animal Behavior Monographs 1, 1968, pp161-311). The
exclusively human characteristics that appear crucial are reason
language, and responsibility, and it seems highly unlikely that these
are the "elaborations or epiphenomena resulting from unguided
material events' as paleontologist Stephen Gould has suggested."
(Templeton J.M, ed., "Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the
Creator", Continuum: NY, 1994, p175)
NM>If kind=family (as I understand many creationists of all types
>accept)
I don't know of any "creationists" who "accept" that "kind=family".
Perhaps you could give examples? Gish, for example does not relate
"kind" to any particular modern taxonomic catagory:
"We must here attempt to define what we mean by a basic type. A
basic animal or plant type would include all animals or plants which
were truly derived from a single stock. In present-day terms, it
would be said that they have shared a common gene pool. All humans,
for example, are within a single basic type, Homo sapiens. In this
case, the basic type is a single species. In other cases, the basic
type may be at the genus level. It may be, for instance, that the
various species of the coyote, such as the Oklahoma Coyote (Canis
frustor), the Mountain Coyote (C. Iestes,) the Desert Coyote (C.
estor), and others, are of the same basic type. It is possible, even
likely, that this basic kind (which we may call the dog kind)
includes not only all coyote species, but also the wolf (Canis
lupus), the dog (Canis familiaris), and the jackals, also of the
genus Canis since they are all interfertile and produce fertile
offspring. The Galapagos Island finches provide another example of
species, and even genera, which are probably of one basic
type...Another example which may be cited, this one from the plant
kingdom, is that of the various varieties of corn. These include
sweet corn, popcorn, dent corn, starch corn, pod corn, and flint
corn, all of which are probably merely varieties of the corn kind."
(Gish D.T., "Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record", Master
Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, 1986 , pp30-31)
NM>then there is evidence of interbreeding (rarely, as reported on
>the server) between kinds without detectable supernatural
>intervention making it possible (maybe we should look harder;
>presumably, if God occaisionally intervenes to make new kinds, we
>should eventually be able to document a case).
I think it has already been "documented":
"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic
morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though
it remains the "official" position of most Western evolutionists.
Smooth intermediates between Bauplane are almost impossible to
construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence
for them in the fossil record...Even so convinced a gradualist as G. G.
Simpson (1944) invoked quantum evolution and inadaptive phases to
explain these transitions." (Gould S.J. & Eldredge N., "Punctuated
equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered",
Paleobiology, 1977, vol. 3, p147)
In the case of man, Darwinists have to resort to non-Darwinian
"quantum jumps" and "rapid branching" which is what I would expect
of a miracle:
"Yet man alone was created but a geological instant ago-a quantum
jump in the moral sphere imposed upon the constancy of mere
anatomical deign. And Alfred Russel Wallace, an ardent selectionist
who far out-Darwined Darwin in his rigid insistence on natural
selection as the sole directing force for evolutionary change made
his only exception for the human brain..." (Gould S.J., "Ever Since
Darwin", Penguin: London, 1977, p50)
"...I am happy to assume arguendo that small apes (the
Australopithecines once existed which walked upright, or more nearly
upright than apes of today, and that there may also have been an
intermediate species (Homo erectus that walked upright and had brain
size intermediate between that of modern men and apes. On that
assumption there are possible transitional steps between apes and
humans, but nothing like the smooth line of development that was
proclaimed by Dobzhansky and other neo-Darwinists. We have to
imagine what Steven Stanley calls "rapid branching," a euphemism for
mysterious leaps, which somehow produced the human mind and spirit
from animal materials." (Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., Second Edition, 1993,
pp85-86)
NM>Since I finally (and belatedly; sorry :-( ) replied to Stephen's
>post, perhaps he'd like to take a jab at my last one :-).
Consider yourself "jabbed"! :-)
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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------