On Fri, 30 Aug 1996 21:51:55, Glenn Morton wrote:
[...]
>GM>Sure it is an attempt to fit both pieces of data. That is
>what a good theory should do--fit data. A theory that does not fit
>the data, is called a bad theory or a false theory.
I agree with Glenn here. If Creationists are going to enter the
Creation vs Evolution debate they must try to fit the data. It is OK
if Christians stay out of the debate and take the position (as I did
for 20 years) that God may have used natural processes (even
"evolution") in making the Universe, Earth and man. There is AFAIK
no way to prove or disprove that position. It is a reasonable broad
metaphysical view and sufficient for millions of Christians to square
their Biblical faith with whatever science may come up with, and
tus achieve their number one goal - to make it through their lives
with their faith intact and thus meet the entry conditions for
Heaven.
But some Christians may think that this broad position may allow too
much lattitude to metaphysical naturalists to extend their influence
in the vacuum created by theists' absence from the field. Moreover,
those same Christians may believe that the theory of evolution (the
dominant version being Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution), has serious
problems and should be challenged. However, this latter step
necessarily requires a grappling with the scientific details.
PD>These are not data. They are theories. Your model starts with two
>theories and develops a third. Its your call as to whether the result is
>bad or false by your own definition.
GM>No, you misunderstand what actually happened in my case. The
>order of events was that I became convinced that the only way the
>biological data could be accounted for was via the theory of
>evolution. It was the pseudogenes that did it for me.
What Glenn really means is that his previous YEC view could not
account for the data, so he swiched over to "the theory of
evolution" which could account for it. To those of us who are not
YECs, there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but
simply adjust our creationist model to fit the new facts. A
Progressive Creation model fits the same facts, without having to
make unnecessary concessions to naturalism.
GM>The epsilong immunoglobulin pseudogene, which is a broken gene, it
>doesn't work, have been found at the same location in the genomes of
>chimps, gorilla, gibbons and man.
It is instructive here to examine how evolutionists in general and
Glenn in particular use emotionally laden language to carry their
argument. :-) First, a "pseudogene" is described as "a broken gene",
a "broken part", and likened to "ridiculous design". In reality, a
pseudogene is simply a non-functional gene:
"The human CH gene cluster also contains two nonfunctional
"genes," commonly called pseudogenes, with very similar structures.
Pseudogenes are partial duplicates of structural genes that have
incorporated sufficient changes that they are not biologically active
and usually are not transcribed. Pseudogenes are turning out to be
quite common in eukaryotes." (Gardner E.J, et al, "Principles of
Genetics", Wiley: New York, Eighth Edition, 1991, p452)
Such a non-functional gene is a consequence of neutral mutations (ie.
mutations which have no adverse or beneficial effect) on the
organism:
"Pseudogenes. certain kinds of mutations can extinguish the function
of a gene-for example, by preventing its eventual translation into
protein. These so-called pseudogenes begin with nearly the same
DNA sequence as the functional version of the gene in closely related
species." (Gould S.J., "Betting on Chance-And No Fair Peeking",
"Eight Little Piggies", Jonathan Cape: London, 1993, p403)
That a psuedogene has been "found at the same location in the genomes
of chimps, gorilla, gibbons and man" is, like other examples of
homology, good prima facie evidence for between apes and man.
However common ancestry, is not necessarily evidence for the "the
theory of evolution" (ie. Darwinist macroevolution) because common
ancestry was already widely held before Darwin proposed his Origin of
Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859. Darwin's theory was
(as the full title indicates) an attempt to provide a fully
naturalistic *mechanism* by which common ancestry could be explained:
"...I want to make my focus very clear. This paper concerns the
appearance of biological structure, not the tie of such appearance to
biotic descent. 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. For
the "Naturalist" (Materialist) of Huxley's Young Guard, natural
selection was not simply a theory of mechanism, but a replacement for
the Creator (Desmond, 1989; Moore, 982). It still is. From the time
Darwin proposed it, the central hope of neo- Darwinian theory has
been its supposed ability to remove the need for and to take the
place of an immaterial designer." (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)
While common ancestry would no doubt be fatal against Glenn's former
YEC views, it is not a problem to Progressive Creation. An
Intelligent Designer could progressively create by supernatural
intervention in the genetic code at strategic points. Ratzsch (a
Theistic Evolutionist) writes:
"Suppose contemporary evolutionary theory had blind chance built into
it so firmly that there was simply no way of reconciling it with any
sort of divine guidance. It would still be perfectly possible for
theists to reject that theory of evolution and accept instead a
theory according to which natural processes and laws drove most of
evolution, but God on occasion abridged those laws and inserted some
crucial mutation into the course of events. 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." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings:
Why Neither Side is Winning the Creation-Evolution Debate",
InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Ill., 1996, pp187-188)
GM>Part of the chimp pseudogene has been cut out so even if you
>claim that it performs a function in gorilla gibbon and man it can't
>perform even that function in chimps.
As I understand it, it is irrelevant whether a pseudogene is intact
but not-functioning (due to the wrong genetic code "letters" being in
a given loci), or if those "letters" are missing. Either way, the
result is the same - the required protein is not coded for.
GM>Since designers don't design broken parts onto their designs,
>this can not be considered part of God's perfect design.
This is an example of what Johnson calls a "God wouldn't have done it
that way" argument:
"An update of Gould's basic [Panda's Thumb] argument was published by
Kenneth R. Miller in Technology Review 97 (February 1994). Miller
cites the panda's thumb example, along with asserted deficiencies in
the construction of the eye, "pseudogenes" that do not perform
evident useful functions...the use of theological arguments-"God
wouldn't have done it this way"-is a very questionable way of proving
that Darwinian evolution was capable of creating complex biological
organs." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity Press:
Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p228)
Johnson points out that if evolutionists are going to use theological
arguments to settle scientific questions then they are going to have
to let theologians join them at the table:
"I am not going to address the philosophical arguments against theism
on this occasion, because my position is that speculation about what
God would or would not have done should play no part in scientific
discussion. If others want to bring theology into the picture, that
is fine with me, but I want them to recognize that the will of God is
not a subject over which biologists have professional jurisdiction.
If we are going to debate theology the theologians are going to have
a place at the table, and that includes creationist theologians. If
Darwinists want to avoid the situation predicted by Grasse, where
biology yields to metaphysics, I suggest that they agree to put
theological speculations aside." (Johnson P.E., "Darwinism's Rules
of Reasoning", in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or
Philosophy?", Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX,
1994, p18-19)
In any event, how does Glenn know that it was not part of "God's
perfect design" that a psuedogene be allowed to be fixed in an ape
genome and God used that genome (complete with pseudogene) and
modified it to make man? What standard of "God's perfect design" is
Glenn using and where does he get it from?
The Biblical picture is of God forming man "from the dust of the
ground" (Gn 2:7), not some idealized perfect substance, that is more
in accord with Greek Platonic philosophy than Hebrew theism. David
"praised the LORD because he was "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Ps
139:14), and this included his pseudogenes.
In any event, pseudogenes are regarded as *neutral* mutations, so
they have no advantageous of disadvantageous effect, otherwise
according to "the theory of evolution" they would have been
eliminated by natural selection. If Glenn thinks that even neutral
mutations "can not be considered part of God's perfect design" then
does he regard all mutations as deviations from "God's perfect
design"?
GM>Automotive engineers don't design a spare but broken transmission
>onto the your car, a spare but broken gas tank etc. That would be
>considered ridiculous design.
Of course a *human* "Automotive engineer" designing a "broken
transmission" or a "broken gas tank" on a "car" would rightly "be
considered ridiculous design", but it does not follow that allowing a
neutral mutation to become fixed in a biological population such that
a gene no longer coded for a protein, is "ridiculous design". An
Intelligent Designer might have a good reason to allow a harmless
non-functional gene to spread throughout a population. For example,
such a psudogene may help other animals or plants in an
ecosystem, as Wise points out in considering a possible
role for "suboptimal improvisations" in design theory:
"Suboptimal Improvisations. Near-optimum form is often thought to be
equally predictable from the always-perfecting process of natural
selection and the optimum design of an intelligent Creator. Stephen
Jay Gould, on the other hand, has suggested that the theories are
distinguishable by imperfections. As he reasons, the evolutionary
process, being blind to purpose, limited in resources and constrained
by history, might be expected to produce less-than-optimal designs.
These "suboptimal improvisations" of evolution would be expected in
an evolutionary process, but not in the design of an intelligent
Creator. Gould's showcase example is the panda, which, because of
the constraints of being descended from five-fingered bears, lacks an
opposable thumb. Yet the inefficient, blind process of evolution
provided the panda with a "second-best" solution: an extension of
the radial sesamoid bone in the wrist which can function as an
immovable "thumb." This thumb is used by the panda to strip leaves
off bamboo shoots for food. Such a less-than-optimal design is
evidence, Gould claims, for evolution and not intelligent design.
There are at least two reasons to doubt that suboptimal
improvisations are truly suboptimal. First of all, we are far from
understanding the complexity of individual organisms, let alone the
entire ecosystem in which that organism lives. What appears to be
less than optimal design to us with our limited knowledge may
actually be an optimal design when the entire system is considered.
Consider the thickness of armor plating on the side of a warship.
Since the purpose of such plating is to protect the ship from the
puncture of an incoming warhead, it is advantageous to make the
plating as thick as possible. Yet the plating on actual warships is
much thinner than it could be made. The reason is, of course, that
an increase in plating thickness makes the ship heavier, and thus
slower. A less mobile ship is more likely to get hit more often and
less likely to get to where it is needed when it is needed. The
actual thickness of the armor on a warship is a tradeoff-not so thin
as to make the ship too easily sinkable, and not so thick as to make
the ship too slow. We know too little about the complexity of
organisms and the environment in which they live to conclude that any
one particular feature is actually less than optimal." (Wise K.P.,
"The Origin of Life's Major Groups", in Moreland J.P. ed., "The
Creation Hypothesis", InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill, 1994,
pp221-222).
Even human "Automotive engineers" have deliberately designed minor
dysfunctional features in their "cars". For example, the designer of
the Volkswagen deliberately designed its engine to deliver less than
maximum power in order to achieve another goal, namely longer engine
life. And other "Automotive engineers" have allowed non-functional
features to continue in their designs because they did no harm and
there was no reason to remove them. For example some cars still had a
hole for a crank handle for many years even when there was no place
in the engine for a crank to be attached to.
The example that Glenn uses of the "epsilong immunoglobulin
pseudogene" which is "found at the same location in the genomes of
chimps, gorilla, gibbons and man" appears to have no ill-effects
(or at least Glenn does not mention them). It is of course possible
that the above psudogene even has a suble advantage that no one has
thought of. What Glenn appears to be demanding as a criterion of
"God's perfect design" is that: 1. God prevent all mutations except
beneficial ones being fixed in populations, and 2. if even neutral
mutations develop, God steps in and corrects them?
It is worth realising that even fundamentalists admit God has allowed
the literary analogy of "neutral mutations" to creep into Scripture
in the form of variant readings. Biblical scholarship has taken this
in its stride because the alternative would be for God to
supernaturally intervene to prevent minor copyist errors. God clearly
is not driven by human ideas of what "God's perfect design" would be
in the case of Scripture.
In any event, just accepting "evolution" does not solve the design
problem for Glenn. If he claims that God evolved "man" from a common
ancestor with "chimps, gorilla, gibbons" with a "broken gene" that is
analogous to an "Automotive engineer" designing "a spare but broken
transmission" or "a spare but broken gas tank" on a "car" and that
would be an example of "ridiculous design", how does God using an
evolutionary process to design man change that?
I presume that as a *Theistic* Evolutionist, Glenn is not denying
that man (psudogenes and all), if he was developed by God through an
evolutionary process, was designed by God as surely and completely
as if God created him instantaneously out of a dust?
GM>Automotive engineers don't design a spare but broken transmission
>onto the your car, a spare but broken gas tank etc. That would be
>considered ridiculous design.
GM>Now when you consider that the genome consists of about 3.5
>billion nucleotides the odds of 4 species having the same sequence
>inserted at the same location 4 different times is about one chance
>in 1.5 x 10^38
It's interesting to see Glenn using this argument, because Darwinists
often use the argument that not all mutations are random and some
mutations are more likely to re-occur than others. There are
"hot-spots" in genes and it is at least possible that the particular
gene may be more prone to mutation and the same non-functional
sequence has arisen independently in both ape and human genomes.
Indeed, it is not necessary that this mutation arose in "4 species",
but only twice, because even a YEC could concede that "chimps,
gorilla, gibbons" share a common ancestor, even if they deny it in
"man".
In any event, it is quite common for mutations to arise
independently several times. For example, the same feather colour
mutation has occurred several times in budgerigars (an Australian
parrot) in less than a hundred years:
"The budgerigar mutations listed above were spontaneous; they took
place quite naturally in captive populations. As the table
indicates, some mutations appeared more than once, independently, in
different aviaries. Greywing, for instance, appeared in 1875 in
Belgium and separately in England in 1919. The albino (white)
mutation was reported separately in 1880 and 1932; it has
occasionally been reported amongst wild budgerigar populations too.
Although mutations take place naturally and spontaneously, they are
fairly rare events. It has been calculated that any particular gene
occurs in a mutated form once in every 100,000 to 1,000,000 gametes.
This means of course that, virtually every time a chromosome is
duplicated before nuclear division, each gene is reproduced exactly,
without change. Of the millions of budgies bred throughout the
world, for instance, very few have shown a feather colour change.
Genes are very stable in inheritance; a mutation in an individual
gene is a rare occurrence; genes usually reproduce themselves exactly
whenever a nucleus divides. However, where there are many genes
present along the chromosomes, there is a much better chance of a
cell containing mutant alleles. A mutation rate of 1 in 100,000 to
1,000,000 means that there is a reasonable chance of at least one
gene mutating in every gamete, for a gamete contains many genes. If
a gamete carries 10000 different genes, and if individual genes
mutate at the rate just stated, the chance of a mutation being
present in a particular gamete is between I in 10 and I in 100
gametes. In a large population there will be many individuals
carrying new alleles." (Morgan D., ed., "Biological Science: The
Web of Life", Australian Academy of Science: Canberra, Third
Edition, 1981, p808).
I am not sure how Glenn arrived at his "one chance in 1.5 x 10^38",
since I would have thought that would have thought that if the chance
of one mutation arising in a genome of "3.5 billion nucleotides" is 1
chance in 3.5 billion (ie. 3.5 x 10^9) then the "odds of 4 species
having the same sequence" is 1 chance in 4 x 3.5 = 14 billion (ie.
14 x 10^9) or 1.4 x 10^10? But even if the chance of the same
mutation arising independently in "4 species" then I would have
thought that given enough time even "one chance in 1.5 x 10^38" is
not out of the question in the case of a neutral mutation that would
not be selected out.
Indeed, Gould points out that neutral mutations like pseudogenes
spread much more rapidly than mutations in functional genes that
are subject to selective pressures:
"Yet, being entirely free from function, these pseudogenes should
exert no resistance against the maximal accumulation of changes by
random drift. Pseudogenes become a kind of ultimate test for the
proposition that absence of selection promotes maximal change at
the neutral rate-and the test has, so far, been passed with distinction.
In pseudogenes, rates of change are equal, and maximal, at all three
positions of the triplet code, not only at the third site, as in functional
genes." (Gould S.J., "Betting on Chance-And No Fair Peeking",
"Eight Little Piggies", Jonathan Cape: London, 1993, p403)
>GR>Also, every view has presuppositions. Your view, my view, all views.
>But our task is to minimize these as much as possible when interpreting
>data. There is no excuse for not attempting it.
Agreed. In Glenn's case he has presupposed that it is either YEC or
"evolution"! :-) That God could have progressively created over long
periods of time, never seems to have been considered?
[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) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------