On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 22:56:20 -0500, Glenn Morton wrote:
SJ>I don't have a problem with this (God can create any way He
>likes), but what actual evidence is there that it actually happened
>this way? Do insects really notice slight changes in plant parts?
GM>they don't have to notice anything. Just if a smaller percentage
>of those with wrong mouth parts live than those with correct mouth
>parts, the population will change and the individual noticed
>nothing.
But *why* would "a smaller percentage of those with wrong mouth parts
live than those with correct mouth parts" if "the individual noticed
nothing"?
On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 21:06:05 -0400, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>SJ>How exactly? Why should flowers need to "match what was
>available at the time, namely, insect mouth parts".
>GM>Because flowers need to be pollinated. That is what the birds
>and the bees is all about.
>SJ>This is what Behe calls a "Calvin and Hobbes" argument: "It
>seems to be characteristic of the human mind that when it sees a
>black box in action, it imagines that the contents of the box are
>simple..." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box", 1996, p23)
PM>Meaningless assertions.
If they are "Meaningless" how come you understand them well enough to
answer them?
PM>One could easily and with far more relevance extend this to state
>that "it seems to be characteristic of the human mind that when it
>sees something that it does not understand, it presumes the need for
>an intelligent designer.
No. It's only when "the human mind" "sees" that the "something that
it does not understand" is vastly more complex than it first thought
that it then "presumes the need for an intelligent designer."
>SJ>What I want to see from evolutionists is well worked out a
>step-by-step `blind watchmaker' fully naturalistic Neo-Darwinian
>argument, something like:
>SJ>1. Flowers arose. 2. Insects tried to pollinate them. 3.
>Flower genes mutated randomly. 4. In small, isolated flower
>populations some mutations generated flower parts that slightly
>matched insect mouth parts. 5. Genetic drift fixed those mutations
>in that small, in-bred isolated population.
PM>Since those flowers were more likely to survive as species now
>that insects were helping them out.
Thanks. That was my point. The "insects were" pre-adapted 100
million years before there were "flowers" for "helping them" (the
flowers) "out".
>SJ>6. Insects favoured those flowers which more closely matched
>their mouth parts. 7. Those flowers which insects favoured gained a
>competitive advantage and increased in numbers. 8. These flowers
>later rejoined the main population and extinguished those flowers
>without the favourable mutations. 9. Repeat steps 2-8 until flower
>parts closely match insect mouth parts as today.
>SJ>I don't have a problem with this (God can create any way He
>likes), but what actual evidence is there that it actually happened
>this way?
PM>Perhaps it didn;t but it is hardly evidence that insect mouths
>were prepared for flowers.
What "evidence" would you accept then "that insect mouths were
prepared for flowers'?
>SJ>Do insects really notice slight changes in plant parts?
PM>It is the plant who should notice. If the plant is more succesful
>in being pollinated because the shape and form is more attractive or
>better matching then it does not matter what the insects notice.
How does "the plant...notice"? And "more attractive" to what, if "it
does not matter what the insects notice"?
>SJ>Is there any evidence in the fossil record of flower parts
>gradually adapting more and more to match insect mouth parts?
PM>Plants do tend to fossilize badly but the argument was that the
>insects' mouth was pre-designed.
Yes. That's what the "evidence" that we do have suggests. From your
own admission it appears there is no "evidence in the fossil record
of flower parts gradually adapting more and more to match insect
mouth parts"?
Your claim that "Plants do tend to fossilize badly" should not make
any difference, becuase those that do fossilize, should show it
happening. Your imperfection of the fossil record argument reminds
of an observation by Berlinski:
"This is the authentic voice of contemporary Darwinian theory. What
may be illustrated by the theory does not involve a Darwinian
mechanism; what involves a Darwinian mechanism cannot be illustrated
by the theory." (Berlinski D., "The Deniable Darwin", Commentary,
June 1996, p28)
>SJ:I doubt it.
PM>Is there any evidence that they didn't?
Your universal negative again Pim. How could there ever be "evidence
that they didn't"? One would have to have a perfect knowledge of
every flower and every insect on every square inch of the earth's
surface hundreds of millions of years ago to prove that "they
didn't"! All we know is that there is no evidence that they did!
>SJ>The actual fossil evidence for the origin of plants is, to the
>unprejudiced, in favour of special creation, as Cambridge University
>botanist E. Corner admitted:
PM>How arrogant to refer to those who disagree with you as
prejudiced,
How about reading a bit more carefully, Pim? I was introducing a
quote by "Cambridge University botanist E. Corner".
But now you have raised it on a personal level, do you consider
yourself "unprejudiced" in regard to "special creation"?
>SJ>"Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the theory of
>evolution-from biology, biogeography and paleontology, but I still
>think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in
>favor of special creation.
PM>A mere personal assertion. "I think that...." And that is your
'evidence'?
Yes, "A mere personal assertion" by a "Cambridge University botanist"
of what "the fossil record of plants" is "in favor of"!
What "evidence" would you accept "in favor of special creation"?
>SJ>If, however, another explanation could be found for this
>hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of
>evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm
>have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this
>assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I
>think that most would break down before an inquisition.' [Corner
>E., "Evolution," in McLeod A.M. & Cobley L.S., eds, "Contemporary
>Biological Thought", 1961, p97 in Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial",
>1993, pp196-197)
PM>Again, personal belief and not even evidence of another
>explanation for this hierarchy to form the knell of the theory of
>evolution.
No this was "the evidence" of "the fossil record of plants". It is
*your* "personal belief" that all the "evidence" for "the theory of
evolution" is in those "Plants" that "fossilized badly".
PM>That one cannot imagine how it could have happened (personal
>incredulity) is no argument in favor or against.
Pim, it is *you* who are exhibiting "personal incredulity".
Professor Corner was just stating what the evidence of "the fossil
record of plants" is "in favor of".
PM>I believe recently they finished the classification of the
>corn/rice to a common ancestor.
I have no problem with "corn/rice" sharing "a common ancestor" or
even with "an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm". What Corner's and my
point is "have we any evidence for this assumption"? And more
importantly that it happened by a Darwinian process of gradual
micromutational buildup?
>SJ>Note also that the the above depends crucially on adaptive
>mutations of the right sort, at the right time, in the right place,
>in the right species.
PM>This presumes 'a right sort', 'right time' and 'right place'.
Faulty logic.
No. It is "Faulty logic" that thinks that any mutation will do. If
the "right sort" of mutations do not arrive "a the right time, in the
right place, in the right species", then natural selection will
stall:
"...selective breeders experience difficulty after a number of
generations of successful selective breeding. This is because after
some generations of selective breeding the available genetic
variation runs out, and we have to wait for new mutations." (Dawkins
R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, p247).
Just think of the evolution of the bird from a dinosaur. According
to evolutionary theory a dinosaur lineage grew smaller, developed
hollow lightweight bones, a unique flow-through lung system, backward
jointed arms, and then, when all was ready, the only animal which
could benefit from feathers, grew them!
The thousands of gene micromutational changes which produced this
"avian package" had to be of "the right sort", in "the right order
and to "the right species", or the whole project would have failed.
It would have done no good for a Tyrannosaurus Rex to grow feathers!
What the evidence shows is *Intelligent Design*, superimposed over
what may losely be called an evolutionary process. There are other
examples of this, eg. the acquisition by reptiles of a mammalian ear
package, when their existing system was perfectly adequate for the
reptiles. Another is the acquistion of a land-dwelling package
(lungs, upward facing nostrils, legs) by tetrapod from a specialised
line of by fish.
The origin of feathers are themselves an enigma, since they are now
known to have no homolog in reptilian scales:
"A.H. Brush, "On the origin of feathers," Journal of Evolutionary
Biology 9 (1996): 13 1-142. "It has been a truism for most of this
century," A.H. Brush (Physiology and Neurobiology, University of
Connecticut) notes, "that feathers are related to reptilian scales."
Yet, he continues, "the molecular evidence questions the simple,
direct relation of the specialized structures of birds to reptile
scale. I will provide arguments to show that reptile scales and
feathers are related only by the fact that their origin is in
epidermal tissue. Every feature from gene structure and
organization, to development, morphogenesis and tissue organization
is different" (p.132). Feathers appear suddenly in the fossil
record, Brush observes, as an "undeniably unique" character
distinguishing birds (p. 133). Current approaches to the origin of
feathers, Brush worries, tend to focus "on why feathers evolved or
where feathers came from. At this juncture neither is as
illuminating as to ask how they arose" (p. 133). Brush examines the
protein structure of bird feathers and argues that it is "unique
among vertebrates," with the "ancestral reptilian epidermal
structure...still unidentified" (p. 131). He concludes: "At the
morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous
with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene
structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and
structure, feathers are different. Clearly, feathers provide a
unique and outstanding example of an evolutionary novelty" (p.
140)." ("The Enigmatic Origin of Feathers", Origins & Design, Vol.
17, No. 2, Spring 1996, p17)
>SJ>As zoologist Pierre-Paul Grasse, past President of the French
>Academy of science, editor of a 28-volume encylopaedia of zoology,
>and for thirty years chair of the Department of Evolution at the
>Sorbonne, Darwinism requires "miracles":
>SJ>"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and
>plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe.
PM>Personal incredulity
No. It is a clear and mature understanding by one of France's
greatest zoologist of what would be required for the Neo-Darwinist
mutation- selection theory to be true. Dobzhansky, one of the
co-founders of Neo-Darwinism, in a review of Grasse' book, said that
"one can disagree with Grasse but not ignore him" and that "his
"knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic":
"The book of Pierre P. Grasse is a frontal attack on all kinds of
"Darwinism." Its purpose is "to destroy the myth of evolution, as a
simple, understood, and explained phenomenon," and to show that
evolution is a mystery about which little is, and perhaps can be,
known. Now one can disagree with Grasse but not ignore him. He is
the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28
volumes of Traite de Zoologie, author of numerous original
investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His
knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic.' (Dobzhansky T., book
review of Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, in
Johnson P.E., "Darwin on Trial", 1993, p174)
But if you claim that "The opportune appearance of mutations
permitting animals and plants to meet their needs" is not "hard to
believe", to avoid the counter-charge of "personal *credulity*", you
should supply adequate reasons for your belief. In particular you
need to explain how does the genetic system of a dinosaur developing
into a future bird, `know' that it needs to acquire, step-by-step,
micromutation by micromutation all the elements of the avian package,
one after the other, in order to become a bird:
"The evolution of birds is far more complex than the above discussion
implies. In addition to the problem of the origin of the feather and
flight, birds possess other unique adaptations which also seem to
defy plausible evolutionary explanations. One such adaptation is the
avian lung and respiratory system. In all other vertebrates the air
is drawn into the lungs through a system of branching tubes which
finally terminate in tiny air sacs, or alveoli, so that during
respiration the air is moved in and out through the same passage. In
the case of birds, however, the major bronchi break down into tiny
tubes which permeate the lung tissue...These so- called parabronchi
eventually join up together again, forming a true circulatory system
so that air flows in one direction through the lungs. This
unidirectional flow of air is maintained during both inspiration and
expiration by a complex system of interconnected air sacs in the
birds body which expand and contract in such a way so as to ensure a
continuous delivery of air through the parabronchi....the structure
of the lung in birds and the overall functioning of the respiratory
system is quite unique. No lung in any other vertebrate species is
known which in any way approaches the avian system....Just how such
an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually
from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to
envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of
respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism
to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within
minutes. Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight
until the hooks and barbules are coadapted to fit together perfectly,
so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until
the Parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system
which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly
developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated
manner...In attempting to explain how such an intricate and highly
specialized system of correlated adaptations could have been achieved
gradually through perfectly functional intermediates, one is faced
with the problem of the feather magnified a thousand times. The
suspicion inevitably arises that perhaps no functional intermediate
exists between the dead-end and continuous through-put types of lung.
The fact that the design of the avian respiratory system is
essentially invariant in ALL birds merely increases one's suspicion
that no fundamental variation of the system is compatible with the
preservation of respiratory function....The avian lung and the
feather bring us very close to answering Darwin's challenge:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Darwin C.,
"The Origin of Species", 6th edition, 1872, 1962, p182)
(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985, pp210-213)
But wait, there's more, "unique features" of birds including their
"heart and cardiovascular system", "gastrointestinal system" and
"syrinx":
"In addition to the feather and the avian lung there are many other
unique features in the biology of the birds, in the design of the
heart and cardiovascular system, in the gastrointestinal system and
in the possession of a variety of other relatively minor adaptations
such as, for example, the unique sound producing organ, the syrinx,
which similarly defy plausible explanation in gradualistic terms.
Altogether it adds up to an enormous conceptual difficulty in
envisaging how a reptile could have been gradually converted into a
bird." (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985, p213)
>SJ>Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant,
a >single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky,
>appropriate events.
PM>No requirement. This presumes that there is a unique sequence of
>events pre-planned rather than one of many outcomes.
This sounds plausible at a superficial level, but remember what
Dawkins said about when "the available genetic variation runs
out...we have to wait for new mutations." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker", 1991, p247). If these "new mutations" don't arrive
don't arrive on cue, there can't be any further "outcome".
>SJ>This is just begging the question. You don't *know* that
"insects >evolved". Nor do you *know* that "Flowers evolved". As
Corner >pointed out the actual evidence for the origin of flowers "is
in >favor of special creation."
PM>No he asserts this not points out.
No. It is *you* who just "asserts". Corner was Professor of
Tropical Botany at Cambridge University, and was writing in a major
botannical collection called "Evolution in in Contemporary Botanical
Thought" for the "Botanical Society of Edinburgh". He stated what
the "evidence" of "the fossil record of plants is in favor of",
namely "special creation."
Darwin himself thought it "extraordinary...the apparently very sudden
or abrupt development of the higher plants":
"The story is the same for plants. Again, the first representatives
of each major group appear in the fossil record already highly
specialized and highly characteristic of the group to which they
belong. Perhaps one of the most abrupt arrivals of any plant group
in the fossil record is the appearance of the angiosperms in the era
known to geologists as the Cretaceous. Like the sudden appearance of
the first animal groups in the Cambrian rocks, the sudden appearance
of the angiosperms is a persistent anomaly which has resisted all
attempts at explanation since Darwin's time. The sudden origin of
the angiosperms puzzled him. In a letter to Hooker he wrote:
`Nothing is more extraordinary in the history of the Vegetable
Kingdom, as it seems to me, than the apparently very sudden or abrupt
development of the higher plants.' (Darwin F., ed, "The Life and
Letters of Charles Darwin", 1888, Vol. 3, p248) At their first
appearance the angiosperms were divided into different classes, many
of which have persisted with little change up to the present day.
Within a space of probably less than fifty million years from their
first appearance the angiosperms transformed the world's vegetation."
(Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985, p163)
>SJ>And the fossil record of insects conforms to the basic
`creationist' >pattern of sudden appearance:
PM>Ignoring all the other evidence against sudden appearance?
What "other evidence against sudden appearance" exactly do you mean,
Pim?
Olson says that fossil "record" of "plants" is the same as for
"animals", ie. "groups of plants and animals suddenly appear,
apparently without any close ancestors":
"A third fundamental aspect of the record is somewhat different.
Many new groups of plants and animals suddenly appear, apparently
without any close ancestors. Most major groups of organisms-phyla,
subphyla, and even classes-have appeared in this way...The fossil
record which has produced the problem, is not much help in its
solution....Most zoologists and the majority of paleontologists feel
that the breaks and the abrupt appearances of new groups can be
explained by the incompleteness of the record. Some paleontologists
disagree and believe that these events tell a story not in accord
with the theory and not seen among living organisms." (Olson E.C.,
"The Evolution of Life", 1965, p94, in Gish D., "Evolution: the
Challenge of the Fossil Record", 1986, p232)
>SJ>"There are no fossils known that show what the primitive
ancestral >insects looked like, but there is no doubt that they are
an >extremely ancient group of animals. For perhaps the past 250
>million years they have been at least as numerous on the planet as
>they are today." (Farb P., "The Insects", Time/Life Books:
>Netherlands, 1964, p14)
PM>No evidence of sudden appearance. Just ancient.
There is no "evidence" that "insects" are more "ancient" than their
fossil record. The actual fossil "evidence" is "of sudden
appearance", because the hard facts are that "There are no fossils
known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like".
It is only an *assumption* that there *were* "primitive ancestral
insects". That there were more "ancient" fossils than the fossil
record reveals is, as Gould admits, "inference" but "not the evidence
of fossils."
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record
persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees
that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of
their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the
evidence of fossils." (Gould S.J, "The Panda's Thumb", 1980,
pp150-151)
SJ>and stasis: "The most primitive insects known are found as
fossils in rocks of >the Middle Devonian Period and lived about
350,000,000 years ago.
PM>No evidence against evolution.
You still haven't said what *would* be "evidence against evolution",
apart from absolutely safe predictions that "human fossils...4
billion years of age" won't be found (which even creationists would
predict):
"Well, now, if you really understand an argument you will be able to
indicate to me not only the points in favour of the argument but also
the most telling points against it.' 'I suppose so, sir.' 'Good.
Please tell me, then, some of the evidence against the theory of
Evolution.' 'Against what, sir?' 'The theory of Evolution.' 'But
there isn't any sir.' - Master-pupil dialogue quoted by Professor G.
A. Kerkut, of the University of Southampton, in The Implications of
Evolution" (Hitching F., "The Neck of the Giraffe", 1982, p9)
PM>Stasis, gradualism and punctuated equilbrium appear happily next
to each other.
Gould, the architect of "punctuated equilbrium" points out that
"Stasis" is "inconsistent with gradualism":
"The history of most fossil species includes two features
particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species
exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They
appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they
disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise
gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears
all at once and "fully formed." (Gould S.J, "The Panda's Thumb",
1980, pp150-151).
Regards.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------