Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Thursday, April 8 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1396
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 16:47:31 -0500
From: "Cummins" <cummins@dialnet.net>
Subject: RE: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Moorad Alexanian
> Your beloved Kevin makes a ridiculous assertion that life was created in
> the lab. He gives no reference but still continues with that senseless
> claim. The ball is in his court buddy.
Kevin O'Brian's reliability when it comes to reason and fact isn't
significantly past what I would expect from a monkey at the keyboard. I
suggest you forward all his incoming to the bit bucket. Pim van Meurs too.
It seems that Susan Brassfield also is showing herself to be real twit
material. These are Evolutionist Crusaders who have no interest in honest
debate. Those crusaders are more than welcome to filter out my mail -- of
course, they're not going to do that, it wouldn't serve their purpose of
creating noise to interupt those of us who are interested in honest debate.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 16:59:42 -0500
From: Steve Clark <ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu>
Subject: RE: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
At 04:47 PM 4/7/99 -0500, Cummins wrote:
>
>> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Moorad Alexanian
>
>> Your beloved Kevin makes a ridiculous assertion that life was created in
>> the lab. He gives no reference but still continues with that senseless
>> claim. The ball is in his court buddy.
>
>Kevin O'Brian's reliability when it comes to reason and fact isn't
>significantly past what I would expect from a monkey at the keyboard. I
>suggest you forward all his incoming to the bit bucket. Pim van Meurs too.
>It seems that Susan Brassfield also is showing herself to be real twit
>material. These are Evolutionist Crusaders who have no interest in honest
>debate. Those crusaders are more than welcome to filter out my mail -- of
>course, they're not going to do that, it wouldn't serve their purpose of
>creating noise to interupt those of us who are interested in honest debate.
This message from Cummins has earned him a filter on my PC. George
Marsden, in his book, The Soul of the American University, wrote that
William F. Buckley was more fond of rhetoric than reasoned argument.
The rhetoric here get wearisome.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 19:07:16 -0700
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Life in the Lab? was [Re: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
At 08:43 AM 4/7/99 -0600, Kevin wrote:
[...]
>
>Since Brian is more open-minded (he at least accepts that abiogenesis is a
>reality) I have already contacted him privately and informed him that once
>my move is completed I will provide him with some references to help him
>start a search that should lead him to the same concensus that abiotic
>researchers have made. If he wishes he can share those references with you
>and others, but I would urge him not to waste his time.
>
>Immediately after this messge is posted I must cancel my service, so I will
>not know of nor be able to respond to any further posts. I shall announce
>when I am back on service again.
>
I welcome any references you might send my way, but
I must say that my own search into this matter began
quite a few years ago. While I'm certainly no expert
on the subject, I have read extensively from the
literature. As partial evidence of this, I'll provide
below what would arguably qualify for one of the
five examples I asked for. BTW, one reason I asked
for five and not just one is that I already had one :-).
The main reason though is that I ran across this
example several years ago and was very interested
in seeing if there was any consensus. So far, I
haven't found any, so I thought perhaps you had
some other examples. Another reason is that the
individual that I'll quote is Sydney Fox with the
candidate for lab-life being his proteinoid
microspheres. I know from my own reading that a
number of prominent scientists (Miller, Urey,
Bernal, Orgel, Jukes, Margulis) raise
serious doubts as to whether Fox's protocells
had anything to do with the origin of life.
Nevertheless, even if they were not involved
in the origin of life, this would not necessarily
invalidate Kevin's claim as the protocells might
still be alive. Unless, of course, the emergence
of life is a unique process.
Anyway, here is the proposed partial answer to
my own question:
=======begin======================================
A. Pappelis and S. W. Fox, "Questionnairing University
Students in Biology on Emergence and Evolution of Life,"
<Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere>
24(2-4):049, June 1994.
This is an abstracts issue for the 1993 ISSOL Meeting
in Barcelona, Spain. Thus, unfortunately, I have only
the following abstract.
abstract:
We have each taught courses in emergence (molecular origin)
and evolution of life stressing the "synthetic", forward
(determined) rather than the "analytical", backward
(random) direction. In recent classes at SIU-C (3 classes
of Cell Biology; 2 classes of History of Biology; 2
classes of Introductory Biology for non-science majors)
we questionnaired (26 questions) students (n=665) and
found that about 60% recognized that protolife
(protocells=microspheres of thermal proteins) has already
been created in the laboratory. About 75% believe protocells
are alive. About 70% believe that the University began
from a determined bias most people call God(s), that the
Universe is real (97%), everything in the Universe including
life obeys physical and chemical laws (60%), in the "fixity"
of species (15%), that it is sacrilegious to try to solve
the problems of emergence of life in the laboratory (23%),
that both science and creation versions of the origin and
evolution of life should be taught in public schools and
universities (74%), in the concept of the miraculous origin
of cellular life (60%), and that scientists who experiment
with the synthetic retracement of the emergence of life will
eventually contribute richly to identifying new biological
processes and a new philosophy (84%).
==========end=======================================
Wow, that's quite a discussion starter isn't it? :)
I managed to get a hold of Kevin before he signed off
to let him know that I would be providing an example.
Since "talking" to him I've started to have some doubts
about this example. Of course, I had already noted that
Fox doesn't quite say in the above that *he* thinks the
protocells alive, but it seems to me fairly well implied.
What raised some doubts is when I started looking
through one of Fox's books <The Emergence of Life>
and found the following:
#"Despite a fair amount of agreement on the definition
#of the unit of life as the cell, biologists, like other
#scientists, tend not to agree entirely on any issue.
#A few dissenters from the cellular definition seem to
#choose as their definition of life the gene or DNA.
#For all real purposes, and consistent with all kinds
#of biological data, the cell continues to be widely
#recognized as the unit of life. Correspondingly, the
#protocell is the unit of protolife."
#-- Sydney Fox <The Emergence of Life>, Basic Books,
1988.
This would seem to indicate that Fox does not consider
the protocell to be alive, only protoalive, whatever
that means ;-).
Looking further in his book I found another quote
which seems to re-inforce this conclusion:
#"In a broad sense, the first steps revealed by experiment
#describe how a really complex form of inanimate matter,
#proteinoid (thermal protein), arose quickly and simply
#from simple precursors, and how that matter was converted
#to organized microspheres." -- Fox, ibid
OK, so the proteinoids are inanimate. Immediately following
the above, Fox writes:
#"Proteinoid is a complex type of protein-like matter,
#and microspheres are the cell-like units that form when
#water comes into contact with proteinoid. They fill the
#role of the most primitive type of cell having properties
#of life. The unit of life is the cell; the unit of
#protolife (first life) is the protocell." --Fox ibid.
So now I'm back where I started :). Protolife means "first
life". So, apparently, proteinoids are not alive but
come to life when you pour water on them ;-).
OK, sorry for the jest. After all this I think we can
conclude that Sidney Fox and roughly 500 students
(or former students) at Southern Illinois University,
Carbondale believe that life has been created in the
lab.
Before I close, I should probably say something about
Kevin's claim about argument from authority. At present,
I am only interested in establishing whether there is
a consensus for this view and not whether the view is
correct. IOW, I do not intend to say something like:
"Professor Abe I. O'Genesis says it so it must be true."
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"All kinds of private metaphysics and theology have
grown like weeds in the garden of thermodynamics"
- -- E. H. Hiebert
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 22:35:37 -0500
From: "Cummins" <cummins@dialnet.net>
Subject: RE: Evolutionary computation (was: Where's the Evolution?)
> From: Brian D Harper [mailto:bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu]
> I'm glad to see that you accept results of computer simulations.
Of course. Without human input, a computer program is just a structure
where natural forces duke it out. Getting a computer to print "hello" is
just as natural as dropping a rock and watching it fall.
> Perhaps the best (or at least best known) simulation of Darwinian
> evolution is Tom Ray's Tierra World. For a summary I invite you
> to point your web browser at:
>
> http://www.hip.atr.co.jp/~ray/pubs/tierra/tierrahtml.html
Several years ago I downloaded and tried to compile the Tierra project, but
I didn't have much luck.
The quote you provided talks about a creature with a genome of size 36 from
a parent of genome size 80 (after millions/billions of generations). I
won't dispute that nature can optimize, simply, and destroy complexity (does
that small creature still have the creator-given ability to read from other
genomes?). And, I'll wager that's what you'd see if you could compare the
original parent with the size 36 creature. The last creature may have do
things a little differently because of changes to its code, but it certainly
doesn't do any new kinds of things.
Without regard to the prize creature of the size 36 genome, but about all
the creatures. There's no real competition between them, thus no way to
test fitness. Creatures die only by failing to copy legal code some
arbitrary number of times. Thus, the result is brute force with no concern
for non-viable (unfit) stages (e.g. if the creatures were furniture, there
would be no problem with a chair having only two legs on the path to
becoming a legless seat). The brute force technique also means that there's
no appreciation of whatever complexity that might appear by luck (brute
force, any combination of instructions will eventually be reached --
millions of mutations to a genome that started and ended in the double-digit
genome size is the example from what you quoted), so whatever comes along
can go just as easily (ie., put it in an environment where it will be tested
for fitness and see how fast it's destroyed, like a sandcastle on a beach).
Brute force doesn't demonstrate that nature has any creative ability.
>Not only does this show an example of increasing complexity
>arising from "random bit flips", the final result is also
>irreducible: "...as every component of the code must be in
>place in order for the algorithm to function."
Because this minimal size code "evolved" down, not up, being irreducible
isn't a problem (and neither is non-viable intermediate steps, see above).
The issue is how the creature's required functions formed in the first
place -- it was directly created by an intelligent programmer (the program
didn't create the individual functions). And, it again took an intelligent
programmer to appreciate the size 36 genome (i.e. this creature was no more
successful than any other).
Actually, there is a very crude fitness test provided by a program and I bet
dollars to donuts that the size 36 creature would be judged highly unfit.
Because it's irreducible, there's a high probability that "mutations" will
create illegal or non-reproducing code making it quickly win the race for
termination.
Any attempt to demonstrate evolution on a computer results in either garbage
or simplification. The Terria, underneath all the smoke and mirrors, is
just another demonstration that nature doesn't create complexity.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 20:55:10 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Dembski and Nelson at MIT and Tufts
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Moorad =
Alexanian
> Your beloved Kevin makes a ridiculous assertion that life was created =
in
> the lab. He gives no reference but still continues with that senseless
> claim. The ball is in his court buddy.
CumminsL Kevin O'Brian's reliability when it comes to reason and fact =
isn't
significantly past what I would expect from a monkey at the keyboard. =20
Notice once again the ad hominem attacks. Cummins. when faced with a =
scientific challenge, rather than making an effort to reply using =
scientific procedures, resorts to the most obvious logical fallacy, the =
personal insult.
Cummins: I suggest you forward all his incoming to the bit bucket. Pim =
van Meurs too.
I am glad that you are unable to confront the real science. I guess that =
it is too hard for you to address the comments made by Kevin or me.
CumminsL It seems that Susan Brassfield also is showing herself to be =
real twit
material. These are Evolutionist Crusaders who have no interest in =
honest
debate. Those crusaders are more than welcome to filter out my mail -- =
of
course, they're not going to do that, it wouldn't serve their purpose of
creating noise to interupt those of us who are interested in honest =
debate.
An honest debate in Cummins speak means: I get to say whatever I want =
and when people ask me to back up my assertions, I just insult them.
A truely remarkable attitude. And to imagine that he pretends to be a =
Christian.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 23:06:09 -0500
From: "Cummins" <cummins@dialnet.net>
Subject: RE: Where's the Evolution?
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Brian D Harper
> What you say is simply not true. One sees all the time and
> in many various fields that the same word is used to refer to
> both the facts associated with a phenomena as well as the
> theory that tries to explain those facts. I know it is
> probably surprising at first but it shouldn't cause too
> much confusion once you get the idea.
To speak of "the theory of gravity" is inaccurate and, at best, an
abbreviated version of the correct form. To be accurate, you would say "the
theory of what causes gravity," (you could name the theory itself, such as
"gravitational wave theory"), gravity itself is a fact, not a theory. Even
if we allow the use of "gravity is a fact and a theory," the evolutionists
are not simply overloading the subject, they're attempting to confuse things
(the shell game).
> Yes it is, and its called the theory of plasticity. OK, another reason
> for selecting this example is that I actually know something about it.:)
> Our department offers a course entitled "Theory of Plasticity."
How about if you run over to your English department and get an expert on
the language to answer if it's meaningful to say "Plasticity is both a fact
and a theory"? While you're at it, ask what the verb is in "Please give me
a glass of water". And, ask if "very unique" is meaningful. I'm serious.
> You know, it might actually be less confusing if I said "the facts
> about evolution" instead of "the fact of evolution".
Is "ameba to man" a fact or a theory?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 23:17:06 -0500
From: "Cummins" <cummins@dialnet.net>
Subject: RE: Where's the Evolution?
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Steven Schimmrich
> >Calling Evolution both a fact and a theory is solid evidence that
> >evolutionists are liars to the bone. It's a shell game, "theory" to look
> >scientific and "fact" to say no one is allowed to question it.
> It's designed to deceive and confuse.
>
> I truly doubt that there's anything that anyone could say which would
change
> your obvious hatred of evolution and of everyone not rejecting it as you
do for
> philosophical/religious reasons.
Why can't any evolutionist clearly and concisly state the generally accepted
fundamental aspects of Evolution that are facts and the fundamental aspect
of Evolution are theories? I know "the theory explains the fact" but
Evolutionists have the most difficult time knowing themselves what the facts
vs. the theories are.
Why did Carl Sagan say "Evolution is a fact, not a theory." Was he ignorant
of something so basic? A liar? Or, IMO, just being honest about his
(religous) beliefs?
Why does my biology book and my dictionary say say ameba-to-man is a theory
but the talk.origins archive article on evolution being both a fact and a
theory sayd ameba-to-man is a fact? Do facts=data?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 21:26:51 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Where's the Evolution?
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Brian D Harper
> What you say is simply not true. One sees all the time and
> in many various fields that the same word is used to refer to
> both the facts associated with a phenomena as well as the
> theory that tries to explain those facts. I know it is
> probably surprising at first but it shouldn't cause too
> much confusion once you get the idea.
Cummins: To speak of "the theory of gravity" is inaccurate and, at best, =
an
abbreviated version of the correct form. To be accurate, you would say =
"the
theory of what causes gravity," (you could name the theory itself, such =
as
"gravitational wave theory"), gravity itself is a fact, not a theory. =20
Relativity is a fact and also a theory. I guess that settles it. Gravity =
is a fact and a theory.
Cummins: Even if we allow the use of "gravity is a fact and a theory," =
the evolutionists
are not simply overloading the subject, they're attempting to confuse =
things
(the shell game).
It's only confusing to those who do not take the time to educate =
themselves about it.
> Yes it is, and its called the theory of plasticity. OK, another reason
> for selecting this example is that I actually know something about =
it.:)
> Our department offers a course entitled "Theory of Plasticity."
CumminsL How about if you run over to your English department and get an =
expert on
the language to answer if it's meaningful to say "Plasticity is both a =
fact
and a theory"? While you're at it, ask what the verb is in "Please give =
me
a glass of water". And, ask if "very unique" is meaningful. I'm =
serious.
It is indeed correct and used as such all the time. At least in the =
realm of science. Perhaps you are more familiar with english ?
> You know, it might actually be less confusing if I said "the facts
> about evolution" instead of "the fact of evolution".
Cummins: Is "ameba to man" a fact or a theory?
Well, it's incorrect as has been told to you before but ignoring that =
part, the evolution of man (and other animals) is a fact and a theory.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 22:07:12 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: MORE ON THE PEPPERED MOTH
I might have jumped too soon. I made my conclusions based upon an e-mail =
posted on www.carm.org which I understood to be from Jonathan Wells but =
since I do not know the author I should not have put his name to these =
claims.
Pim
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 01:27:21 -0500
From: "Cummins" <cummins@dialnet.net>
Subject: RE: Evolution: dead man walking
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Ami Chopine
> Now, in the early universe, until things cooled down to about 3000K, light
> (photons) was knocking electrons about, so that they could not stabilize
> into orbits around atomic nuclei. So, the electrons and the nuclei and
the
> photons were all mixed up. If we could view things as they were at that
> point, we would see nothing: a void. A very energetic void, but quite
> invisible because light would not be visible.
Okay, I'll give you this one. There was no visible light until energy
decoupled from matter, at which point, the energy expanded at the speed of
light and didn't hang around for us to detect as background radiation thus
the Big Bang model doesn't really predict background radiation so I don't
need to appeal to diffused energy from stars to explain it. You see why I'm
giving it to you, it hurts too much to think about it. <grin>
> Then, that critical threshold was reached and "God divided the light from
> the darkness"
So, "let there be light" is not a reference to the Big Bang itself, just the
point in time when matter and energy decoupled? Okay, one contradiction
resolved (except that God apparently created the Earth before energy and
matter decoupled, "In the beginning God created the... earth.")
> If you want to read an interesting book which postulates both a literal
> interpretation, and an old universe, read "Genesis and the Big Bang: The
> Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible." By Dr. Gerald
> Schroeder
What does Shroeder say caused the Big Bang? God? If the Big Bang is based
on assumptions of naturalism, why stop before you get to the cause? Because
you can't think of a natural cause? Can you say "God of the gaps."
> Actually, Dr. Schroeder uses commentary from Old Testament scholars from
> before Galileo to show that people with an intimate understanding of these
> passages in their native language described an early universe much like
> science is discovering today through high energy and particle physics.
I'll try to track down a copy of the book. Although, I'm aware that there
has always been people who believed the Bible but had different
interpretations of Genesis than is now popular among Creationists.
> > rather they take their non-Biblical beliefs and "make worthless" the
Bible
> > as much as necessary until their beliefs are no longer in conflict with
the
> > Bible. You're not finding meaning in the Bible, you're rejecting what
it
> > ostensibly says and imposing your non-Biblical beliefs on it.
>
> You do not know me. You do not know what the Bible means to me. You are
> ignoring the Bible yourself by making such assertions about my testimony
of
> the book. I see a way for the Bible to be historical, as well as wholly
> compatible with an old universe. The belief in an old universe does not
> equal a belief in naturalistic evolution.
I consider Evolution and the Big Bang to be non-Biblical. When you read the
Big Bang into the Bible, I see that as imposing a non-Biblical belief on the
Bible. BTW, non-biblical doesn't mean false, it just means you didn't get
it form the Bible. If I had meant to be even slightly derogatory, I would
have said "your anti-Biblical beliefs."
> The Big Bang is no mere explosion. That is just an analogy used
> to make it more comprehensible.
The Big Bang provides for the ultimate isolated system. In such a system,
complexity can only decrease with time. In what fashion has there been a
loss of complexity sense the Big Bang?
> Okay, gravity is actually a pretty weak force.
How about when it is backed up by all the mass in the universe in a
concentrated form? The fastest the universe could have expanded is at the
speed of light, gravity would have effortlessly put the breaks on before the
expansion got very far. If you propose that it isn't momentum causing the
universe to expand, then what is? Whatever it is must violate the First law
of Thermodynamics (expansion without momentum would require additional
energy input into the universe).
> We do look at diffused energy from stars all the time. That is how we see
> them, by visible spectrum or radio telescopes. Subtracting this radiation
> away, we get the background radiation of a steady 3.5 K above
> absolute zero.
Cosmic rays were once thought to be background energy, but we've learned
better now. I suspect that some guy will eventually demonstrate that a
source for the 3.5K, and that source won't be the Big Bang.
> I don't know as there is a lack of anti-matter. It wouldn't be floating
> around here, or we would be annihilated.
When energy is converted to matter, it creates an equal amount of
anti-matter as matter. But, we don't see any significant amount of
anti-matter in the universe.
> > God did not create the appearance of age, your false assumptions is the
> > source of what you would consider a false appearance of age.
>
> List the scientific evidence for a young earth.
There is no such thing as a non-radiometric process that indicates the Earth
is 4.5 billion years old. I could identify numerous processes than indicate
that the Earth is much younger than 4.5 billion years old and all you (or
any old-earther) could do is claim that they're not useful for dating the
Earth, for some reason such as pleading that the process is cyclic.
I use to consider the decay of Earth's magnetic fields as a good evidence of
a young Earth. There are no observed bands of magnetic reversals on the
ocean's floor (the alleged reversed bands are graphed with a meter that
measures magnetic field strength, a compass will always point north as it
traverses the bands). There is no *known* mechanism in the Earth to reverse
the field. Self-induction ideally describes the observed change in the
dipole (and implies there is nothing fueling the field). Appeals to
drifting poles does nothing to explain reversals (except to make me ask "if
the pole wonders so much, how come all the remnants on the ocean floor are
north-south, maybe the pole hasn't had much time to wonder?"). However, I
must be missing something because the Creationist community now seems to be
in agreement that the field has reversed a bunch of times, just in a real
short period, but that it otherwise is still decaying the same 1400 year
half-life as always. Until I find a good explanation for this new
Creationist view, I'm inclined to give the point to Evolutionists.
The moon's recession is good. At the rate it's recessing, it couldn't be
billions of years old. I've never seen an Evolutionist demonstrate that it
is recessing faster now than it once was.
Another good one is the rate at which the existence of large amounts of
sedimentary rock on the Earth's surface. Erosion would remove all the land
mass above sea-level in 14 million years. You can appeal to the land being
pushed up, but it's metamorphic rock that would be popping up.
I've got a lot more, but the more I give, the less attention each one will
get. I've already seen the responses to my previous arguments (e.g. the
lack of human history beyond 5000 years) and know that even with attention,
what I consider commonsense doesn't always prevail (I find it incredible
that no modern-human society invented writing for a 100,000 years -- not
everyone would have had anti-technology cultures such as what existed in
Africa until very recently).
> > If you assume
> > naturalistic precursors to what God did, then it's going to
> > look older to you than it really is.
>
> God created the universe, so how could there be naturalistic precursors to
> what God did?
Right, I said "If you assume..." If you assume that the universe started
with a Big Bang, it's going to have to be more than some thousands of years
old (it's going to have to be more than some trillions of years old to
account for the gravitational formation of some supergalatic structures).
If the universe is going to need to be billions or trillions of years old to
fit into your model, then it's going to look older than it is, if it isn't
that old. Got it? It's not that God lied, it's that your model is wrong.
> Am I describing naturalistic processes? Yes. Do I believe these
processes
> exist without God? No. God created the laws and constants by which the
> universe works.
The sun's hydrogen/helium ratio is essentially the same as that of a large
gas planet that has never fused a thing. Is that not a problem for your
natural scenario of heavy elements being produced before the Earth? You've
told a just-so story (not quoted), without regard for the problems you might
run into.
> The flood is real. I believe it happened. How would the age of the
> universe or the creation of life on earth conflict with this?
Was the Flood local? If so, why didn't Noah just migrate? When was the
Flood? It seems to be that because you've accepted the secular history of
the Earth, you're going to have a lot of trouble fitting stuff in without
creating more problems.
- --------
RE:PE
> At first, I was quite unimpressed myself. I was thinking...Okay, so how
in
> the world is there all of the sudden going to be enough mutations to have
> new species appear suddenly? There aren't. Do new species appear when
the
> present species is successful? Probably not. Is there a lack of
mutations
> during the static period? No. They simply do not manifest, but are
carrie
> down through the generations. Then, there is some enviromental stress...a
> new competitor, or a change in climate. Suddenly, these mutations which
may
> occur individually from time to time become advantageous for some reason.
> Several different unusual phenotypes, because of their advantage, become
> normal. A threshold is reached and a new species is born. It is so fast,
> that there is little in the geologic record. So, the change is gradual,
but
> in genotypes, not phenotypes.
I offered PE as an example of Evolutionists patching the Theory of Evolution
to save it from a failed test. Anyway, I haven't read the Talk.Origins PE
FAQ, but I believe I'm failure enough with the doctrine to strongly disagree
with it. Does the FAQ address this:
Unless the population is exponentially growing, there is stress and
competition for survival. PE advocates toss out of the window all the
commonsense which Darwin attempted to bring to the subject. Mutations are
constant (usually not affected by the environment). And, if the population
size is constant, then so is the selection/stress/pressure (this is
essentially Darwin's argument for gradualism). Something sure is killing
most of the offspring before they can reproduce -- and those dead offspring
would certainly have benefited from a good mutation.
Environment would really only affect the direction NOT THE RATE of
evolution. When the environment changes, the group of "good" mutations
would change, but the rate would stay the same. If you're suggesting that a
number of mutations are somehow suppressed, not eliminated, in a population
until the right environment comes along -- how long can a population
accumulate these mutations before it's forced to "evolve," assuming the
environment never changes? And, if Evolution is true, how can there ever be
periods of stability (remember, there's always pressure and there's always
mutations)?
Sharks have stayed the same for millions of years (right?), same with any of
the major groups of marine invertebrates. Of course, the ocean provides a
very stable long-term environment. So, how did the marine invertebrates
turn into fish, and the fish start walking onto the land, all the time the
sharks just keep swimming around (not to say that sharks go back as far as
marine invertebrates, they're fish). As far as I can tell, they evolve if
they do, the don't if they don't.
> We can test PE by knowing the gene map of a species and observing its
drift,
> and under either isolation or stress, its speciation. If we do not
observe
> the gradual genetic change (through mutations) which is subsequently
focused
> into physical change then PE will be invalidated.
What does PE look like on a gene map? Isolated kinds?
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1396
********************************