Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Monday, March 15 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1340
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 21:33:03 -0700
From: PostMaster <Mailer-Daemon@navyouth.org>
Subject: Message Not Delivered: evolution-digest V1 #1339
The message you sent could not be sent to the following recipient(s):
SMTP:bgmsm@navyouth.org
Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Sunday, March 14 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1339
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 20:05:31 -0800
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science)
At 10:34 PM 3/13/99 +0000, Vernon wrote:
>Dear Brian,
>
>Thank you for your gracious response to words that you clearly found
>offensive. However, as I'm sure you'll agree, how we come to be here,
>the purpose of our being here, and where we go from here, are matters of
>such fundamental importance to all that we cannot afford to equivocate
>and risk getting the answers wrong. Accordingly, I must immediately
>challenge a comment you made in your penultimate paragraph, for this
>expresses well what it is that divides us.
>
I agree that there are some things that are of fundamental importance
and that should not be compromised. We apparently disagree on exactly
what those things are. I greatly appreciate your open and frank comments.
I also will be frank, hopefully without giving offense.
BH:==
>> I then told them (a student Bible class) 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.
>
VJ:==
>In my view, the statement, '...sidelights...of no real importance...' is
>both tragically complacent and ill-founded. Let me show you why:
>
>In exchange for faith in Him, we receive salvation. That seems clear
>enough;
It is not clear at all, sorry. Your statement seems to me, according
to my understanding of scripture, to be heretical. Pardon me for
being frank but, as you say, there are some issues of such
fundamental importance that we cannot afford to equivocate. One of the
foundations of the Good News of Jesus is that we receive salvation
as a free gift, in exchange for nothing.
VJ:==
>but, on our side, what must such faith involve? Surely, at least
>the following:
>
> (a) believing all He said and did;
>
> (b) believing all that He believed (as revealed in the
> gospels and epistles;
>
> (c) heeding His, and His disciples, warnings.
>
Again I disagree. Saving faith is faith in a person, not ascribing
to a list of beliefs. This is not to say that your three items
above are not worthy goals towards which we should strive. But
they are not things that we exchange for salvation. Once again,
this seems to me to be heresy of the worst kind. Perhaps I
misunderstood you.
VJ:==
>Unless these elements are present when we offer our lives to Him, how
>can we begin to trust Him with the destiny of our immortal souls? Is our
>relationship with Him at the level of, "We agree with much of the Bible,
>and, particularly, with much of what you had to say, but, of course,
>you, our Creator, lived in a pre-scientific, pre-darwinian age. Clearly,
>when you informed Moses that you created birds on day 5, and land
>animals on day 6, you were mistaken - for that's not the way we see it!"
>
>Can anything be more preposterous! But that's just about the truth of
>the matter for you TEs, isn't it?
>
Absolutely not. Please do not confuse the word of God with the
interpretation of men. Galileo said it best:
"The holy scriptures cannot err and the decrees therein contained
are absolutely true and inviolable. But ... its expounders and
interpreters are liable to err in many ways."
-- Galileo
VJ:===
>Brian, the gospels record a number of instances where you, as an
>evolutionist, would have to disagree with Him in whom, through faith,
>you have salvation!
None that I'm aware of. I suspect, as above, I would be disagreeing
with your interpretation.
VJ:==
>Is this a healthy state of affairs? Why are you so
>convinced that evolution was God's method of creating? Do you possess
>concrete proof of this? If you do, I should be grateful to know what it
>is.
>
No, I have no proof, and I'm not 100% convinced. But when I look
at God's magnificent creation, that's the way it looks.
VJ:==
>Earlier, you suggested that my 'Mt.Carmel challenge' plays into the
>hands of the likes of Richard Dawkins. I disagree. Closer to the truth,
>and to the dismay of your fellow Christians, we find theistic
>evolutionists working with atheists to undermine confidence in the
>Bible, and in the gospel of Christ.
I have never seen a single example of this.
VJ:==
>
>You conclude with the words:
>
>> This barrier (the 'Mt.Carmel challenge') 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, is evolution really a cause worth defending to the detriment of
>your taking and accepting the whole of God's word at face value? For
>myself, I would never consider taking that risk: the stakes are far too
>high!
>
I'm not sure what you mean by "...at face value" but suspect that
it means accepting the whole of God's word as understood by Vernon
Jenkins. Nevertheless, let me assure that I do accept the
whole of God's word. You talk of risk. What about the risk that
someone fails to find Jesus on account of false barriers that
you have erected?
VJ;==
>However, thank you again for writing moderately, as befits a brother in
>Christ.
>
>Every blessing,
>
Yes, and thank you also. And if my writing was not moderate enough
this time, please accept my apologies. Obviously, these are
issues that I feel very strongly about as they go to the heart
of the Gospel message.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
- ------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 23:43:04 -0500
From: Tim Ikeda <tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com>
Subject: Re: Just a funny thought
>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.
I've heard that line of arguments too, mostly from those who've been
reading Lee Spetner's stuff. Is that your source?
>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.
Oh, no problem. Basically, I'd suggest that you first go through MEDLINE
(as I'll describe below) read some abstracts, and become familiar with
idea that there are actually a great abundance of related genes and gene
families in the genomes of organisms. When one sees the variety of possible
forms and the sheer amount of interrelatedness between many genes, one
may develop an better feel for the roles of duplication in evolution.
With regard to duplications, I previously wrote:
T: An increase in the number of copies of a gene can produce an increase
T: in the expression of a gene product (perhaps a useful antifreeze
T: protein?). There are any number of situations where a simple increase in
T: a gene's expression might be beneficial in a particular environment (eg.
T: Growth on a substrate for which some catabolic step is rate limiting, or
T: growth in the presence of a antibiotic which can be sequestered by binding
T: harmlessly to some other protein). Gene duplication is by any measure an
T: increase of genetic material and it can be beneficial...
For examples along these lines, I'd recommend doing some MEDLINE searches
on the subject. For example, I browsed MEDLINE for 15 minutes on the web
at:
http://www.infotrieve.com/freemedline/
...and entered a search for "gene duplication" in the abstract and
"resistance" in the titles of papers. I chose to key on "resistance"
because I thought it would be more likely to pull out papers along
these lines. That's because understanding mechanisms of drug resistance
is of pressing importance in biomedical research -- meaning it interests
more investigators -- and because many of the mechanisms that lead to
resistance involve events that are frequently associated with gene
duplication. There are other areas and search topics that would
also pull out examples of "important" gene duplications but they are
more "spread-out".
Limiting the query from 1990 onward produced several interesting papers
which described how duplications produced and/or increased resistance
to various drugs and antibiotics. Sometimes these were duplications of
a few base pairs ("Tandem duplication in ermC translational attenuator
of the macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin-B resistance plasmid pSES6
from Staphylococcus equorum." Lodder G; Schwarz S; Gregory P; Dyke K
(Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 40(1):215-7 1996 Jan)). Going back to
'90-'92, I found examples involving duplication of entire genes
("High-level resistance to ethidium bromide and antiseptics in
Staphylococcus aureus." Sasatsu M; Shibata Y; Noguchi N; Kono M, FEMS
Microbiol Lett, 72(2):109-13 1992 Jun 1). Other examples include even
larger duplications (partial chromosomes, extrachromosomal elements, etc).
Try other search combinations including "evolution", "expression", or
"mutation".
Interestingly, I found another article on an antarctic fish which
suggested it had seen expansion of a gene family (alpha-tubulins)
by duplication and divergence, which was possibly related to
cold adaptation.
If after this searching you truely cannot see any examples (including the
ones referenced above) of "positive mutations resulting from an increase
in genetic material", then perhaps we can pick a paper or two and go
over them.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)
PS - This topic has come up frequently here and elsewhere on the
net. I suppose it would be good to start collecting examples of
"beneficial gene duplications" for a talk.origins FAQ. If any other
biochemists out there have their "favorite" example, please feel free
to send me the journal, book or meeting reference.
- ------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 01:07:15 -0500
From: Tim Ikeda <tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science)
Previously Vernon wrote:
[... Much stuff cut -- discussed by others...]
>(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?
I'm sorry Vernon, but I don't follow your explanation when you say
"here's why". If "Mr. X" will believe "theory-Z" regardless of
anything one can say, I don't see how that affects whether "theory-Z"
is a legitimate scientific theory. Using an ad hominem argument against
a theory seems a rather peculiar strategy.
I'm not terribly interested in what wild-eyed fanatics think about
any particular theory (& I would hesitate to place Dawkins or
Crick in that extreme category); I'm interested in what "reasonable"
people think. The fact is that there are reasonable scientists (Christians
among them) who are not metaphysically wedded to scientism & who also
happen to think that evolution can be addressed within the realm of
science. One might be more effective worrying about what these people
think than fanatics.
>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!.
Odd! Vernon, I thought you were trying to support some of Popper's
ideas of science. Yet, if the description above is correct, then you've
managed to make a strong case *against* falsification as a criterion
for "legitimate scientific theories". That's because all scientific
theories can be similarly amended so as to make them unfalsifiable.
Note: Vernon, on one hand you seem to agree that evolution can be falsified.
You write: "Kevin, you list several events which, were any to occur, should
kill evolution stone dead." In fact I get the impression that you think
evolution is false or already falsified. Yet later you argue that it
cannot be falsified. I don't see how it can be both. Either it cannot
be falsified, in which case prudent dissenters should stop wasting their
time trying to disprove it, or it is falsifiable, in which case counter-
arguments are worth making.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)
Aside - In a later reply to Brian, Vernon suggests that birds
were created on the 5th day and land animals on the 6th day.
Let me comment that this hypothesis about the order of creation
can be examined as a scientific question. Yet whether the "days"
in question were 24-hours or longer periods of time, there is
little evidence to support this hypothesis and much more that
argues against it. If we are to use Popper's arguments, then
we should conclude that this creation-order hypothesis is
falsified. And if as Vernon claims, the existence of God is
truly co-dependent on the creation-order hypothesis, then
we should conclude that Vernon's God has likewise been falsified.
I think this illustrates Brian's and Howard's concerns about
rashly overconfident Biblical literalists driving people away from
Christianity.
- ------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 02:40:36 -0500
From: "Bodester" <jbode77@calvin.edu>
Subject: Re: Just a funny thought
>>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.
>I've heard that line of arguments too, mostly from those who've been
>reading Lee Spetner's stuff. Is that your source?
No actually, some of it is from my own observation and many articles I've
read. (sorry I don't remember any specific names)
>If after this searching you truely cannot see any examples (including the
>ones referenced above) of "positive mutations resulting from an increase
>in genetic material", then perhaps we can pick a paper or two and go
>over them.
Thanks, I'll look into Medline when I have time (could be a while, college
is keeping me very very busy right now!) and get back to you on that.
Jason
- ------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 05:14:08 -0500
From: Tim Ikeda <tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com>
Subject: Re: Just a funny thought
Hello again, Jason.
I wrote:
>> I've heard that line of arguments too, mostly from those who've been
>> reading Lee Spetner's stuff. Is that your source?
Jason:
>No actually, some of it is from my own observation and many articles
>I've read. (sorry I don't remember any specific names)
It's just that the discussion sounded very familiar...
[...about the Medline references...]
> Thanks, I'll look into Medline when I have time (could be a while,
> college is keeping me very very busy right now!) and get back to you
> on that.
Must be midterms...
I was going to suggest opening up the reading list a little, but then I
realized
that most biologists don't spend time writing rebuttals to anti-evolutionary
journals -- even if they read the original articles. So the specific points
raised by someone such as Spetner are unlikely to be addressed in publications
directed at the general public. That leaves technical publications and
information, which, unfortunately, require some level of technical
understanding
to decipher. Ernst Mayr's books are quite good but a bit "thick slogging"
at times.
However, since you are in college, you do have other options...
I've looked over the staff pages in your college's bio department. There are
several with backgrounds in genetics & mol-bio who could probably help out or
provide some info. Given that the deparment's mission statement describes
a commitment to handle theories and "controveries" in biology (read:
evolution)
with due caution & respect, (read: "we mostly favor evolution but we're
resigned
to the fact that this type of college draws many students who don't"), I'd bet
they've encountered similar questions before.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
(tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com) despam address before use
- ------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1339
********************************
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 08:28:25 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Just a funny thought
>
>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).
>
For my part at least, it would help if you could define what you mean by an
increase in genetic material.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 11:29:18 -0500
From: "Bodester" <jbode77@calvin.edu>
Subject: Re: Just a funny thought
>>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).
>For my part at least, it would help if you could define what you mean by
>an increase in genetic material.
By that I mean increases in genetic coding resulting in the emergence of
traits not previously in existence. Basically I'm looking for how,
genetically, the incredible variety we see now could come about from
whatever predecessors to humans are proposed, and predecessors to them,
........
It's hard to explain exactly what I'm getting at, but I think the defn above
gives the idea at least.
Thanks,
Jason
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 11:44:54 -0500
From: "Bodester" <jbode77@calvin.edu>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science)
>I'm not terribly interested in what wild-eyed fanatics think about
>any particular theory (& I would hesitate to place Dawkins or
>Crick in that extreme category); I'm interested in what "reasonable"
>people think. The fact is that there are reasonable scientists (Christians
>among them) who are not metaphysically wedded to scientism & who also
>happen to think that evolution can be addressed within the realm of
>science. One might be more effective worrying about what these people
>think than fanatics.
Most people aren't interested in that Tim, but I would say that who are
categorized as "wild-eyed fanatics" is a decision made by individuals. Some
people wouldn't hesitate to place either of your examples in extreme
categories, others who would place them on the border, and yet others who
would say they're right on to the truth. Extremism is entirely a matter of
opinion, sometimes shared by a number of people, but very relative (hmmm,
very postmodernistic for a Calvin student huh?) :)
I think all sides should be careful when addressing issues almost entirely
dependent on individual values.
Thanks,
Jason
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 10:55:39 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Just a funny thought
Would the switch from single to multicellular be such an example ?
- ----------
From: Bodester[SMTP:jbode77@calvin.edu]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 1999 8:29 AM
To: Kevin O'Brien
Cc: evolution@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Just a funny thought
>>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).
>For my part at least, it would help if you could define what you mean by
>an increase in genetic material.
By that I mean increases in genetic coding resulting in the emergence of
traits not previously in existence. Basically I'm looking for how,
genetically, the incredible variety we see now could come about from
whatever predecessors to humans are proposed, and predecessors to them,
........
It's hard to explain exactly what I'm getting at, but I think the defn above
gives the idea at least.
Thanks,
Jason
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 14:57:15 -0500
From: "Bodester" <jbode77@calvin.edu>
Subject: Re: Just a funny thought
Not exactly what I'm thinking. How do you get from a multicellular to a
multicellular with more character traits, thus it evolved?
>Would the switch from single to multicellular be such an example ?
>
>----------
>From: Bodester[SMTP:jbode77@calvin.edu]
>Sent: Sunday, March 14, 1999 8:29 AM
>To: Kevin O'Brien
>Cc: evolution@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Just a funny thought
>
>>>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).
>>For my part at least, it would help if you could define what you mean by
>>an increase in genetic material.
>
>
>By that I mean increases in genetic coding resulting in the emergence of
>traits not previously in existence. Basically I'm looking for how,
>genetically, the incredible variety we see now could come about from
>whatever predecessors to humans are proposed, and predecessors to them,
>........
>
>It's hard to explain exactly what I'm getting at, but I think the defn
above
>gives the idea at least.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jason
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 17:18:00 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Just a funny thought
Ok, so the single to multi cellular evolution is accepted?
- ----------
From: Bodester[SMTP:jbode77@calvin.edu]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 1999 11:57 AM
To: Pim van Meurs
Cc: evolution@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Just a funny thought
Not exactly what I'm thinking. How do you get from a multicellular to a
multicellular with more character traits, thus it evolved?
>Would the switch from single to multicellular be such an example ?
>
>----------
>From: Bodester[SMTP:jbode77@calvin.edu]
>Sent: Sunday, March 14, 1999 8:29 AM
>To: Kevin O'Brien
>Cc: evolution@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Just a funny thought
>
>>>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).
>>For my part at least, it would help if you could define what you mean by
>>an increase in genetic material.
>
>
>By that I mean increases in genetic coding resulting in the emergence of
>traits not previously in existence. Basically I'm looking for how,
>genetically, the incredible variety we see now could come about from
>whatever predecessors to humans are proposed, and predecessors to them,
>........
>
>It's hard to explain exactly what I'm getting at, but I think the defn
above
>gives the idea at least.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jason
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 10:13:46 GMT
From: "David J. Tyler" <D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Robert Matthews on the Peppered Moth
To the group:
Yesterday's "Sunday Telegraph" has a piece on the Peppered Moth story
which is likely to be of interest. The article appears to be inspired
by Michael Majerus' book, and Matthews has additional comments from
Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins. Coyne is particularly strong: the
Kettlewell experiments are essentially useless, and the papers
"wouldn't get published today". The Dawkins' comment is a massive
understatement - bearing in mind that Kettlewell made so much of
having obtained "Darwin's missing evidence".
The URL is below - but you may find it easier to search the archives
of 14 March 1999 using the word "Kettlewell".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=000298033209993&rtmo=
3unxA3uM&atmo=99999999&pg=/et/99/3/14/nmoth14.html
- ---------------------------
Electronic Telegraph
ISSUE 1388 Sunday 14 March 1999
Scientists pick holes in Darwin moth theory
By Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
EVOLUTION experts are quietly admitting that one of their most
cherished examples of Darwin's theory, the rise and fall of the
peppered moth, is based on a series of scientific blunders.
Experiments using the moth in the Fifties and long believed to prove
the truth of natural selection are now thought to be worthless, having
been designed to come up with the "right" answer. Scientists now admit
that they do not know the real explanation for the fate of Biston
betularia, whose story is recounted in almost every textbook on
evolution.
[snipped material]
Prof Coyne insisted, however, that the moths are almost certainly an
example of natural selection: "I'm certainly not saying Darwin is
wrong. The real cause is probably connected with pollution - but
beyond that I wouldn't want to go." He said, however, that Dr
Kettlewell's widely-quoted experiments are essentially useless. "There
is a lot of wishful thinking and design flaws in them, and they
wouldn't get published today."
Some fear that the new theories will be seized on by creationists to
fuel "sensationalist" claims questioning all evidence for Darwin.
Richard Dawkins, the professor of the public understanding of science
at Oxford University and author of The Selfish Gene, said: "The
details of any experiments done 40 years ago are bound to be
vulnerable to detailed criticism. But, in any case, nothing momentous
hangs on these experiments."
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1340
********************************