BV>Hi Wesley,
BV>All of what you say is reasonable.
Mainly I was aiming for things that would withstand even
unreasonable doubt.
BV>You say, for instance:
WRE>"- The canonical genetic code is consistent with the theory of
WRE>common descent."
BV>True, but that is different than an assertion that the
BV>existence of a line of common descent has been documented.
What would be required in order for Berthajane to accept such
a claim? Would it require every fossil species in the lineage
being catalogued with no exceptions or gaps? Would it also
require fine-grained fossil evidence for each transition
between species in the lineage as well?
BV>And
WRE>"- Patterns of differences in sequences of proteins and heritable
WRE>information support the idea that these differences have accrued
WRE>since the time of a last common ancestor."
BV>Again, true, but this is hardly the dogmatic assertion that
BV>"random mutation and natural selection" is responsible for
BV>macro evolution, and school children should be told that no
BV>other explanation is to be considered.
Art posed "The Patterson challenge". That challenge was to
give something true about "evolution". I did not feel the
need to resort to dogmatic assertions in giving examples of
"true things about evolution". While I don't expect anybody
to have a "conversion experience" over this, it would be nice
to get a straightforward acknowledgement that I did actually
address the original request.
BV>I gather you favor the idea of one common ancestor. Some
BV>people, even Darwinists, have suggested more than one common
BV>ancestor. 3? 10? 100? 1000? If the number gets too big it
BV>might resemble special creation.
Heh. "Special creation" started out as each species being a
special production of the creator. I think that there is
essentially no chance that we will settle upon a larger
number of original separate ancestors than 100. That number
is two orders of magnitude away from the hardline stance of
a single common ancestor, but seven orders of magnitude away
from the probable number of total species over time that
would characterize "special creation". Which of these concepts
is over time coming to "resemble" the other? I'd tend to say
that the one that has changed more would be the one to say
that about. The concept of "special creation" has definitely
altered more than concepts of common ancestry.
Personally, I find the existence of the canonical genetic code
a very large stumbling block for any number of original common
ancestors larger than about three, with a strong likelihood
that one will, after all, turn out to be the right number.
It turns out that I've discussed some of this here before.
[Quote]
I tend to think of SciCre argumentation, and even some of the
ID argumentation, as a search for a "magic bullet". By this, I
don't mean it in the sense that Ehrlich did when searching for
a cure for syphilis. I mean it in the sense of werewolf
movies. There, the magic bullet is simply a silver slug that
will destroy the lycanthrope on contact. Those wielding the
magic bullet need invest no other effort in dealing with the
lycanthrope, are not required to be pure in spirit, and
certainly have no need to *understand* lycanthropy in any deep
sense. Similarly, the SciCre "professionals" are engaged in
the peddling of "magic bullets", which retain their magic only
so long as they aren't used on real lycanthropes. The magic
bullet users, as Scott relates, remain secure in their faith
that the evil lycanthropes can be held at bay or vanquished,
right up until the time the magic bullet is fired -- and is
found to have lost its virtue.
Instead of magic bullets like "too little moon dust" or
"materialistic philosophy", more good would come of trying to
understand what exactly evolutionary biology is. As it is,
creationist belief has tended more and more to resemble
evolutionary biology. In little more than a century and a
half, we have seen a change from general adherence to the
doctrine of special creation to a range of beliefs, at the most
different from evolutionary biology, creation of each separate
"kind" (which when defined at all, tends to be defined such
that the evolutionist term "clade" comes close to fitting the
concept), and at the least different, a belief in physical
common descent but separate imbuement of spirit.
[End Quote - WR Elsberry, Calvin post, 19998/01/18]
BV>And
WRE>"- Evolutionary interrelationships have been used to advantage
WRE>in medical research."
BV>Are you saying medical breakthroughs have occurred which
BV>depended upon "natural selection" being responsible for macro
BV>evolution?-or depended upon the existence of one common
BV>ancestor?
Hmm. I thought I was reasonably clear in what I wrote. I
wonder if Berthajane could review what I wrote for the
keywords that she seems to have a problem with to see if
I included them.
BV>And
WRE>"- Species have been observed to form, both in the laboratory
WRE>and in the wild."
BV>Some people question that speciation was what critics mean
BV>by macro evolution.
I don't recall saying anything about "macroevolution" in what
I wrote. Nope... "grep" does not find any such use.
For those "critics" of the term, I'd point out the very nice
FAQ on the topic of "macroevolution" at www.talkorigins.org.
I think it devalues the term "critic" to apply it to any
opponent of a concept regardless of their knowledge or lack
of same concerning the concept in question.
BV>And
WRE>- A novel symbiotic association has been observed in the
WRE>laboratory.
BV>What has symbiotic association to do with "random mutation and
BV>natural selection"?
I know that it is something that happened (and is thus
true) and that bears upon evoluton.
BV>I have no objection to Darwinists listing evidence which
BV>"supports" common descent and "random mutation and natural
BV>selection". I acknowledge that evidence. As a non-scientist,
BV>I am put off by the way Darwinists claim the matter is closed,
BV>and attack anyone expressing skepticism.
Thanks for sharing, but I don't see what bearing that has upon Art's
invocation of "the Patterson challenge". Art asked for a response
concerning things that were true about evolution. I responded to
that.
Wesley