On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:28:12 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
[...]
GM>I find Behe's second argument unconvincing because it isn't true.
>He says, "the second reason why Miller's argument fails to persuade
>is that even if pseudogenes have no function, evolution has
>'explained' nothing about how pseudogenes arose. In order to make
>even a pseudocopy of a gene, a dozen sophisticated proteins are
>required:..." p. 226
More attacking of Christian apologists! What you have cut out is:
"...In his article Miller has not told us how any of these functions
might have arisen in a Darwinian step-by-step process, nor has he
pointed to articles in the scientific literature where we can find
the information. HE CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE THE INFORMATION IS
NOWHERE TO BE FOUND." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box", 1996,
p226. My emphasis)
GM>Now first, we do know how pseudogenes arise, because the
>processes of backward transcription of RNA to DNA as well as
>insertion of DNA into the genome at odd spots, have been observed
>in the lab.
Are you claiming that "pseudogenes...have been observed in the lab",
to occur naturally by a "Darwinian step-by-step process", or just
that they have been *induced* by a human intelligent designer in
"in the lab"?
GM>Behe's next sentence confuses the origin of the reproductive
>system with the evidence for evolution. Pseudogenes are evidence
>and I might add, strong evidence for common descent.
That "Pseudogenes are evidence...for common descent" does
not mean that they are evidence for "evolution". Even Darwin
pointed this out. What is needed is a fully naturalistic *mechanism*
of how this "common descent" came about:
"In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that
a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings,
on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution,
geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the
conclusion that species had not been independently created, but had
descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a
conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it
could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world
have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure
and coadaptation which justly excites our admiration." (Darwin C.,
"The Origin of Species", [1872], 6th edition, Everyman's Library,
1967 reprint, p18)
As Denton points out, common descent is "compatible with almost any
philosophy of nature", including some forms of creationism:
"It is true that both genuine homologous resemblance, that is, here
the phenomenon has a clear genetic and embryological basis (which as
we have seen above is far less common than is often presumed), and
the hierarchic patterns of class relationships are suggestive of
some kind of theory of descent. But neither tell us anything about
how the descent or evolution might have occurred, as to whether the
process was gradual or sudden, or as to whether the causal mechanism
was Darwinian, Lamarckian, vitalistic or even creationist. Such a
theory of descent is therefore devoid of any significant meaning and
equally compatible with almost any philosophy of nature." (Denton
M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985, pp154-155)
Indeed, Behe himself believes in common descent:
"For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the
billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find
the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common
ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt
it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the
development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary
framework. and I think that evolutionary biologists have
contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although
Darwin's mechanism-natural selection working on variation-might
explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular
life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the
very small might change the way we view the less small." (Behe
M.J., "Darwin's Black Box," 1996, pp5-6)
[...]
GM>...While Behe may very well be correct that the machinery to
>create pseudogenes must be created, the pseudogenes clearly show
>that some common ancestor of humans and the apes had a psuedogene
>for an immunoglobin gene manufactured and inserted at the same
>place in the DNA in 4 species. Later half of the chimp pseudogene
>was cut out, thus demonstrating that for the chimp it has no
>function....Edward E. Max, "Plagarized Errors and Molecular
>Genetics: Another Argument in the Creation-Evolution
>Controversy,"Creation/Evolution 6:3, Winter 1986-87, p. 41-42
>Edward E. Max, "Letters", Creation/Evolution, Summer 1990, 10:1, p.
>47.
The point is that if "the machinery to create pseudogenes" was
"created..." then *the whole process" becomes *creation* not
evolution! If there is an omniptent, omniscient Intelligent
Designber who can "create...the machinery to create pseudogenes..."
then *the basic premises of Darwinist evolution would have to be
reconsidered, because *the whole point* of Darwinist evolution
is to explain how nature's complex design could have been built
up *without there being a Designer*:
"The Duke of Argyll, for instance, accepted the evidence that
evolution had happened, but he wanted to smuggle divine creation in
by the back door. He wasn't alone. Instead of a single, once and for
all creation in the Garden of Eden, many Victorians thought that the
deity had intervened repeatedly, at crucial points in evolution.
Complex organs like eyes, instead of evolving from simpler ones by
slow degrees as Darwin had it, were thought to have sprung into
existence in a single instant. Such people rightly perceived that such
instant 'evolution', if it occurred, would imply supernatural
intervention: that is what they believed in. The reasons are the
statistical ones I have discussed in connection with hurricanes and
Boeing 747s. 747 saltationism is, indeed, just a watered-down form
of creationism. Putting it the other way around, divine creation is the
ultimate in saltation. It is the ultimate leap from inanimate clay to
fully formed man. Darwin perceived this too. He wrote in a letter to
Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were
convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural
selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing for the
theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any
one stage of descent.' (Darwin F., ed., "The Life and Letters of
Charles Darwin", John Murray: London, 1888, ii:210). This is no
petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of
evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous
account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth,
it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin, any evolution that
had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all."
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991 reprint, pp248-249)
Once Darwinist evolutionists concede even the *possibility* of
a real Intelligent Designer, then their theory loses its force. That
is why leading Darwinists like Lewontin, say that materialism (ie.
no Designer) must be assumed apriori:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of
some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of
its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the
tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so
stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to
materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science
somehow compel us to accept a material explanation for the
phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a
priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of
investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Lewontin
R., "Billions and Billions of Demons", review of "The Demon-Haunted
World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan, New York
Review, January 9, 1997, p31) Steve
[...]
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
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------