Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Friday, March 12 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1336
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 05:10:50 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: The young age of Earth
Dave wrote:
"Perhaps the primary reason for drawing attention to this is because of its
relevance to abiogenesis, the earth's early atmosphere and to the timescale
available. Zhang refers to 4.45 Ga as the probable time of 'the last
Martian-size giant impact that stripped Earth's protoatmosphere and
rehomogenised Earth.' Thereafter, in Zhang's view, the Earth can be treated
as a closed system - despite subsequent bolide impacts. Models of
abiogenesis need to start at this point (100 Ma - 150 Ma later than has been
widely thought). (Having drawn attention to reducing time availability in
the Archaean, I thought it relevant also to point out this reduction in time
availability)."
The time interval between 4.45 GYA and 3.80 GYA is still 650 MY, which is
the entire time since the hayday of the Ediacaran fauna. I have to say that
still seems like plenty of time to me.
I know you don't agree with this assessment, but so far your only reasons
have amounted to vague assertions about the difficulty of abiogenetic
processes and the violence of bolide impacts. What I would like to know is
if you have any specific, concrete reasons for questioning the adequacy of
this amount of time? I mean, let's take a page from Neal Roys posts: can
you propose any testable causal mechanisms that would demonstrate that even
this length of time is inadequate?
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 05:10:58 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Explanatory Power
Neal Roys wrote:
>
>So around 550 million years ago, Erwin and the others believe, some
>wormlike creature expanded its Hox cluster, bringing the number of genes up
>to six. Then, "Boom!" shouts Jablonski. "At that point, perhaps, life
>crossed some sort of critical threshold." Result: the Cambrian explosion.
>
>(OOOOOH! That explains it! Wait. Now how did the worm-like creature
>expand it's Hox cluster? Can I expand my Hox cluster? What's the first
>step in doing that? Is there really a mechanism here? Neal Roys)
>
You bet your boots there is, or rather are. The mechanisms by which the Hox
cluster could be expanded are well understood and have been thoroughly
tested; there is no doubt that the Hox cluster could have expanded by these
mechanisms. As a molecular biologist, Steve Clark should in fact be able to
describe how it could happen.
As for the rest of your comments, is sarcasm the most constructive response
you can make? Or is sarcasm the only response you can make to serious
scientific inquiry?
Perhaps you should apply your own advice to your own position. If you feel
that any naturalistic mechanism is inadequate, can you propose a testable
causal mechanism based on supernatural forces that caused the Cambrian
explosion?
Like you I'm looking for something that has a falsifiability scenario that
parallels the "no-red-shift-is-discovered" scenario that Einstein
described for falsifying general relativity.
I'm not looking for a Biblical narrative that merely corresponds with the
Cambrian explosion.
I'm looking for a testable causal supernatural mechanism that actually
causes the effects we see in the Cambrian explosion.
What do you say?
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 21:22:05 -0700
From: PostMaster <Mailer-Daemon@navyouth.org>
Subject: Message Not Delivered: evolution-digest V1 #1335
The message you sent could not be sent to the following recipient(s):
SMTP:bgmsm@navyouth.org
Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Thursday, March 11 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1335
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 23:44:53 -0500
From: "Bodester" <jbode77@calvin.edu>
Subject: Re: Just a funny thought
Thanks Bill, that's closer to what I'm looking for. I am still curious then
where, if it wasn't fish -> reptiles -> mammals -> etc.... what the proposed
idea is. Where did the first creatures on land come from then? or vice
versa. If it is a "popular misunderstanding", as Dawkins put it, what is the
actual proposal?
With regards to Tim's statement, I'm curious if there are any mutations that
result in an increase of genetic material and also are beneficial (so any
increases can survive the natural selection process). That's what I meant by
positive mutations. I've heard of beneficial mutations that are losses of
genetic information, but no increases. When Tim said "They're out there"
what I'd like is where exactly they are. I don't want to sound like a jerk,
but I really like having things backed up with examples. A theory can be
great, but w/o actual examples to support it, there is no logical support
for it, as has been discussed here earlier. Thanks,
Jason
- - ------------------------------------
>This question was discussed last year as copied below. (I'm still having
>Glenn Morton withdrawals. If we can't have Glenn here with us, maybe we
>can at least quote him occasionally.)
[...]
>
> "Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an
> evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in
the
> genome?"
>
> Dawkins is shown starring at the ceiling for 11 seconds which includes
a
> sharp in take of air. and then he resumes with the unresponsive :
>
> "There is a popular misunderstanding of evolution that says that fish
> turned into reptiles and reptiles turned into mammals and and so
somehow
we
> ought to be able to look around the world today and look at our
ancestors."
[...]
- ------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1335
********************************
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 06:12:22 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science)
Brian wrote:
>
>> Again, I invite you to re-read the quote from Popper. No where
>> does he suggest that evolution be accepted because of consensus.
>> He says instead that it is well tested. Thus he did not, as
>> matter of fact, seek an alternative criteria for evolution.
>
Vernon responded:
>
>I accept what you say, of course, but wouldn't you have supposed that
>peer pressure had a hand in it somewhere?
>
You've mentioned this twice now. In point of fact, you are "suggesting"
(implying really) that atheist evolutionists extorted Popper into altering
his views by threatening to harm or ruin his professional career. Such a
"suggestion" is ridiculous for a number of reasons.
1. Popper was a philosopher, not a scientist, so there would be very little
any group of scientists could do that would hurt his career, much less ruin
it.
2. Even if the threat was credible, my reading of Popper is that his
response would have been defiance, not capitulation.
3. In my experience, scientists as a group simply do not extort other
scholars. Individual scientists might try, but as a whole science works by
persuasion through evidence, not by intimidation through force. Popper
changed his views because he was persuaded by the evidence, not because he
was intimidated by force. If you have evidence that demonstrates otherwise
I for one would like to see it, but in the absence of such evidence any
"suggestion" of this type is simply indulging in paranoid conspiracy theory
speculation, a passtime that is unworthy of a Christian.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 06:27:36 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science)
I will respond to certain other points raised in this post privately when I
have more time. For now, however, I would like to make a brief comment on
the following:
Vernon wrote:
>
>(4) Among theories, it is unique in being the only one that cannot be
>allowed to fail! Kevin, you list several events which, were any to
>occur, should kill evolution stone dead. We could list a myriad more,
>but the practicalities are that these falsification scenarios - which in
>your view support the scientific legitimacy of the theory - are not
>worth the paper they are written on; here's why: included among your
>ranks are the likes of Dawkins and Crick for whom this doctrine is
>essential; is it likely that they would ever wave the white flag? If the
>offending data could not be suppressed then it would be explained away
>as a 'creationist plant'. And if these, and other, strategies were to
>fail, there - waiting in the wings - would be the ultimate,
>unanswerable, defence, viz that the offending manifestations are clearly
>attributable to the activities of some unknown exraterrestial beings who
>had visited this planet in times past! So, you see, the universal
>expectations of evolution (clearly unfalsifiable!) create a caudal
>safety-net. All very neat really, and rendering your suggested tests of
>falsifiability, illusory!.
>
Brian has already noted this, but it seems to me that you do in fact believe
that the **science** of evolution can be falsified; you simply believe that
atheists who have adopted the **philosophy** of evolutionism would simply
refuse to accept that falsification. The latter belief may or may not be
true, but it does not alter the fact that evolution **as a scientific
concept** can be falsified, as you seem to agree with in the above
paragraph. The rest of the paragraph sounds more like speculation involving
paranoid conspiracy theories, which are invariably based on fear, ignorance
and hate. Such is unworthy of a Christian.
By the way, since there is no evidence that either verifies or refutes the
existence of extraterrestrials, trying to explain away falsifying evidence
by invoking this possibility would be futile, since no non-atheist
researcher (who make up the majority of scientists, by the way) would accept
it. In science, data cannot be refuted by groundless speculation (though
creationists often try this tactic themselves).
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 15:29:45 GMT
From: "David J. Tyler" <D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: The young age of Earth
Kevin O'Brien wrote:
> The time interval between 4.45 GYA and 3.80 GYA is still 650 MY, which is
> the entire time since the hayday of the Ediacaran fauna. I have to say that
> still seems like plenty of time to me.
It is plenty of time - that's for sure. But is it plenty of time for
abiogenesis?
> I know you don't agree with this assessment, but so far your only reasons
> have amounted to vague assertions about the difficulty of abiogenetic
> processes and the violence of bolide impacts. What I would like to know is
> if you have any specific, concrete reasons for questioning the adequacy of
> this amount of time? I mean, let's take a page from Neal Roys posts: can
> you propose any testable causal mechanisms that would demonstrate that even
> this length of time is inadequate?
Aboigenesis advocates have two problems to address: the origin of a
chemical structure that appears irreducibly complex and the origin of
biological information. I think all are agreed that no one has yet
proposed a mechanism or mechanisms for solving these problems. In
the absence of a mechanism, time is of no value: chemicals settle
down to an equilibrium state the longer they are left to stew. This
is the basis that I question the adequacy of time.
However, knowing that many people are seeking mechanisms, I am
interested in clarifying the constraints that models have to satisfy.
Hence my posts on this subject. When viable mechanisms are proposed,
it will be possible to assess whether the time constraints are
satisfied.
Best regards,
David J. Tyler.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:26:45 -0600 (CST)
From: "Wesley R. Elsberry" <welsberr@inia.cls.org>
Subject: Funny thoughts on genetic information increase
Jason Bode wrote:
JB>With regards to Tim's statement, I'm curious if there are
JB>any mutations that result in an increase of genetic
JB>material and also are beneficial (so any increases can
JB>survive the natural selection process). That's what I meant
JB>by positive mutations. I've heard of beneficial mutations
JB>that are losses of genetic information, but no
JB>increases. When Tim said "They're out there" what I'd like
JB>is where exactly they are. I don't want to sound like a
JB>jerk, but I really like having things backed up with
JB>examples. A theory can be great, but w/o actual examples to
JB>support it, there is no logical support for it, as has been
JB>discussed here earlier. Thanks,
I can point out examples that get at least half-way. There
are observed cases of polyploidy, which increases genetic
information. Whether a polyploid descendent is considered to
benefit thereby may be arguable, but the information increase
is not. I have a post in DejaNews that you might want to look
at, <http://x6.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=424416762>. It
addresses the "nothing new" objection and shows that under
either Shannon-style definitions of information or a casual
definition of information the examples do show information
increase. That post was in a thread specifically to address
the question put to Richard Dawkins in the now-famous
interview. (See Dawkins' own extended answer to The Question
at <http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/dawkinschallenge.htm>.
Wesley
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 11:17:44 -0800
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science)
At 10:47 PM 3/9/99 +0000, Vernon wrote:
>Greetings Kevin:
>
>In response to your recent posting let me first address your closing
>question:
>> I have to admit that I'm not sure what your point is here. Could you
>> elaborate?
>
>I had written:
>
>> >We read in 1Kings 18, verse 21, "And Elijah came unto all the people,
>> >and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God,
>> >follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him
>> >not a word."
>
>What Richard Dawkins and I have in common is that, confronted with the
>Mt.Carmel challenge (though he might not put it that way!), we have each
>made a choice: Dawkins for 'Baal' and I, for the living God. Theistic
>evolutionists, on the other hand, are - in the words of the AV - 'halted
>between two opinions'. They stand guilty of attempting to 'have it both
>ways'; to serve two powerful masters whose agendas concerning themselves
>are poles apart! The Lord himself warned us about such a situation
>(Mt.6:24).
>
My first inclination was not to respond to this. Your response
brings me a great deal of anguish and sorrow and thus there is
a tendency on my part to just put it aside. Nevertheless, you've
shown a willingness of late to discuss some issues openly and so
I thought I would try to put together a reply. Well, not really
a reply but more like an appeal. An appeal to a brother in Christ
to take some consideration of the consequences of your actions.
Based on your comments it seems to me that the choice of which
you speak is really between God and a philosophy/theology/religion
of evolution that would more properly be called evolutionism.
I would dare to say that all TE's join me in rejecting evolutionism.
What I would like you to consider is the possibility that your
"Mt.Carmel challenge" either/or confrontation just plays into
the hands of someone like Richard Dawkins. With this either/or
established he no longer has to confront Christianity, he just
has to have some convincing arguments that evolution has occurred.
Let me give you a concrete example. I have been teaching a Bible
study for international students for many years. Almost all of
these students have a college education and most are working on
Masters or PhD degrees in Science or Engineering. There are also
a few postdocs and visiting scholars. Almost all the students are
asian and of these, almost all are from mainland China. As a
sidelight, I had one couple attend for several years who had been
present at Tianamen (sp?) Square. I also had three young men
who served in the Iraqi army during the Gulf War. Anyway, in view
of the above description, you will probably not be surprised to
learn that very few of the students in my class are Christians and,
in fact, the majority are atheists.
So, as I'm sure you can appreciate, teaching this Bible study is a
tremendous challenge. I decided a long time ago not to deliberately
get into the creation/evolution controversy in this class since I
didn't want to cause any confusion about extraneous matters. Instead,
I always teach Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Nevertheless, the subject does come up indirectly now and then and
I always spend some time on it whenever this happens. The last time
it came up went like this. I opened the class with the questions:
"How many of you believe in God?", "How many of you do not believe
in God?" and then asked for a show of hands. Most raised their hands
for the "do not" question. I then asked why and one young man (a PhD
student in Civil Engr. from Mainland China) answered immediately
"Evolution". I feined incredulity :) at his answer and asked in a
bewildered voice "You mean you cannot believe in both God and evolution?"
to which he replied "no". I then put this to the rest of the class
and was surprised that the answer was unanimous. Everyone in the class
thought that belief in God and in Evolution were mutually exclusive.
Next I asked where they got this idea and there were two answers:
(a) this is what they were taught in school (from mainland Chinese) and
(b) this is what they had been taught by other Christians.
I thought to myself: "How odd that Christian teaching and Communist
dogma should agree.
I then told them that Christians hold many positions on creation/evolution
and that such views were just sidelights, of no real importance to
the Christian message, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Salvation by grace
through faith plus nothing. Next I explained what some of the possible
positions were, spending most of the time on Theistic Evolution since
this position has the most bearing on the either/or question. BTW, I
also told them I would not reveal to them my own position. We spent quite
a bit of time on this, including a reading and discussion of Genesis 1.
When it was all over, the young man who originally responded so quickly
"evolution" now, with a huge smile and a great deal of excitement, said
"I believe, I believe in God now." And so it would seem that the only
barrier between this young man and belief in God was a false barrier,
your "Mt.Carmel challenge". This barrier was erected by (I'm sure)
well meaning Christians. And so, back to my appeal. My appeal to you
is that you not be one of these well meaning Christians.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 15:13:53 -0500
From: "Howard J. Van Till" <110661.1365@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science)
Thank you, Brian Harper, for your articulate response to Vernon's offensi=
ve
claim to the higher moral ground.
Time and time again we read that evolution discredits belief in God as ou=
r
Creator. The preachers of Naturalism (like those of Communism) would lov=
e
for this to be true, and the preachers of conservative evangelical
Chrstianity seem to be afraid that it is true, but I would argue that it =
is
nothing more than rhetorical bluster. Sheer balderdash!
In fact, contrary to the more common claim, I have concluded that belief =
in
a Creator provides a far more solid foundation for the possibility of
something as remarkable as biotic evolution than does Naturalism. =
I attempted to deal with this in my chapter, "The Fully Gifted Creation" =
in
the book, _Three Views on Creation and Evolution_, recently published by=
Zondervan. =
Howard Van Till
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1336
********************************