[continued from part 1/2]
[...]
On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 09:58:37 -0600 Susan Brassfield wrote:
>>CC>>How does complexity come about?
>> >>Complexity increases by variations, some of which themselves
>> >produce even more-complex variations.
>
>>SB>> what Chris talks about above has been observed to occur and isn't
>>>controversial.
>
>MG>What observations do you have in mind? (I hope you are not confusing
>>observation with inference).
SB>this is from the much-maligned talk.origins website:
Thanks to Susan for posting this quote.
SB>"[An] obvious increase in information
First, I do not agree with some creationists and IDers when they
claim that *no* information can be generated by natural processes.
While as a theist I accept that God is works through ordinary
natural processes, that does not mean that I accept that He
necessarily works *only* through natural processes.
I am not convinced that the relatively modest level of information
that natural processes are able to generate, is of sufficient
reliability, quantity or quality to account for the level of information
contained in the living world, even given 4 billion years of life. Even
a monkey at a typewriter might come up with a word, but that does
not mean it would come up with a sentence, paragraph, chapter, or
a book! I believe that the Designer has gifted his creation with a low
level of information generation to facilitate horizontal diversification,
to counterbalance decay, and to provide a code-base for His
supernatural input of new information at strategic points.
If the fossil record showed life steadily increasing in complexity over
4 billion years, I would accept that the Designer had worked
primarily through this fully naturalistic gene duplication -> mutation -
> selection mechanism. But the fossil record shows that new
designs arise suddenly, fully developed, and then persist
unchanged for millions, if not billions of years. The fossil evidence
is more consistent with a supernatural-natural pattern, as outlined
in Genesis 1 than in an evolutionary pattern of steadily increasing
complexity.
SB>can occur when a gene duplicates
>and the two copies undergo independent mutations leading to two genes with
>somewhat different functions. ).
The emphasis should be on the word "can", rather than "does".
Gene duplications and mutations can lead to: 1) an increase in net
information; 2) a decrease in net information; and 3) no increase or
decrease in net information.
And this increase or decrease in net information must be
considered in relation to its environmental and ecological context. A
monkey at a typewriter might produce a new word, which is,
according to information theory, an increase in information, but if it
is in a foreign language it would be useless or even harmful.
Also information gained can be lost again due to a number of factors
including pleiotropy, genetic drift, failure to become fixed in the
population, sexual recombination and plain bad luck,
SB>Gene duplication, mutation and selection
The problem here is that if there was "selection" the gene
duplication would have been eliminated while it is in its early,
useless stage. Evolutionary theories only seem to work by turning
on and off the power of natural selection.
SB>are all known to
>occur due to natural biochemical processes in a variety of
>organisms studied in the laboratory. .
What happens in a "laboratory" does not necessarily happen in the
wild. It is to easy for scientists whose careers and grants are
affected by documenting "evolution" in action to construe the data
in the most favourable light. They don't have to be dishonest to do
that. Eldredge admits how for years paleontology only produced
results which supported Darwinist expectations:
"...we [paleontologists] have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the
story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became
even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have
said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really
knowing that it does not. (Eldredge N., "Time Frames", 1985, p144)
SB>Many gene families are known with members that encode proteins having
>related structure and related but distinct function. Each family can
be explained by >multiple gene duplications followed by random
mutation and differentiation of the >functions of the individual gene
copies.
All that is known from genotypes is what is known from phenotypes.
They appear to have increased in complexity over time, and appear
to be related to earlier forms by possessing some features in
common.
*How* this pattern of increasing genotypic complexity over time was
generated is another matter. As geneticist David Wilcox points out,
such is the complexity of the problem that the pattern one sees
(and therefore the explanation one prefers) is largely determined by
one's philosophical outlook:
"If we knew the contours of GPS [Genetic Phase Space], we could state
which morphogenetic trajectories would be likely in fossil history, and thus
deduce the likelihood of intelligent guidance. But, we do not know if viable
locations in GPS are uniformly distributed, contiguous networks, or
clumped and isolated. In our ignorance, we assume a structure for GPS.
We project back onto the vast and misty canvas a map of the structure of
reality that will support our view of cosmic formal cause. If we reject
intelligent cause, we assume GPS is rich in linked viable probabilities. If we
hold to intelligent cause, we realize that the GPS might be much poorer.
The statement that GPS must have a structure that would allow gradual
and undirected emergence is based on worldview assumptions, not on
observations. The GPS becomes our "field of dreams," its contours a
projection of our metaphysics." (Wilcox D., in Templeton J.M, ed.,
"Evidence of Purpose: Scientists Discover the Creator," 1994, p175)
SB>Clearly the expansion from a single primordial gene
The latest scientific evidence is that there was no "single primordial
gene":
"THE trunk of the tree of life-the so-called "universal ancestor" from which
all later life forms branched-may be a tangled thicket instead of a single
stem, says an American evolutionary biologist. If true, this would
dramatically change the way biologists view the early history of life on
Earth. Biologists have assumed that if they learnt enough about
evolutionary history, they could trace the evolutionary tree from one
ancestor to another all the way back to the first living cells. Most believe
the earliest organisms were much like bacteria or archaeans-single-celled
organisms similar to bacteria-or had characteristics of both. But this
genealogy breaks down if you follow it back more than 3 billion years, says
Carl Woese of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. "The
phylogenetic tree does not have its root in anything we would call an
organism by today's standards," he says. The reason for this breakdown is a
process called lateral gene transfer, in which organisms acquire genes not
from their parents but by picking up stray fragments of DNA from
organisms in their environment." (Holmes B., "Free for-all," New Scientist,
27 June 1998, p17)
SB>to a large family of genes with distinct
>functions represents an increase in genetic information."
Clearly the fossil record documents a pattern of increasing
phenotypic complexity over time suggestive of some form of
common ancestral relationships, and it not unreasonable to assume
that a similar pattern occurred in the genotype. But as Denton
points out, such a pattern of common descent is consistent with
many general theories of origins, including creationism:
"It is true that both genuine homologous resemblance, that is, where 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.J., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985, pp154-155)
To say that an increase from a "single...gene" to "a large family of
genes" represents an increase in genetic information" goes without
saying. Even the strictest creationist would concede that a
bacteriologist has more genetic information than a bacterium!
The real question how did *all* that genetic information arise?
There are three main possibilities: 1) natural processes; 2)
supernatural ex nihilo creation; 3) supernatural ex materia creation
(ie. supernatural creation through existing natural materialism and
processes.
Scientific naturalists (including the theistic variety) can only
consider that it arose by 1) above. Theists who are open to the
possibility of supernatural intervention by an Intelligent Designer
are free to consider the full range of possibilities depending on the
evidence.
Personally I am open to 1) or 2) above but believe that 3) is the
model that best fits the Biblical and scientific evidence.
[...]
On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 12:08:03 EST Bertvan@aol.com
[...]
>SB>>. Lists of creationist out-of-context quotes are all over
>>the web. He has links to some of them from his own website. Do you really
>>think he's read all those books?
>
>BV>I believe Steven (or Darwinists, including you) read whatever they say
>they've read. I am delighted to see the Darwinist "arguments" sinking to
>such depths.
This is an important point. The Darwinists can get away with these
ad hominem tactics in relatively closed forums like these. But they
are increasingly being drawn into public debates where these sort of
tactics won't cut any ice with the general public.
As Johnson points out in his book, "Defeating Darwinism", the
Darwinists through masterful propaganda like "Inherit the Wind"
have managed to convey the impression that they are only
interested in letting the truth come out and the creationists are the
ideological oppressors.
Well these days the boot is on the other foot! It is the Darwinists
who are the ideological oppressors and who are trying every trick in
the book, including personal denigration, to avoid the truth coming
out.
It is good to see new members to the List like Berthajane, who by
not being committed to either the Creation or Evolution side
represent the general public, being disgusted, as I was, with the
depths to which Darwinists (including the Christian variety) will sink
to protect their sacred doctrine.
[...]
On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 09:59:15 -0800 Cliff Lundberg wrote:
>SB>That's Gould saying "unnecessary." He's saying that strict gradualism is
>>not necessary to evolutionary theory. What Stephen said was that increase
>>in variation was controversial and then posted a portion of a discussion of
>>the rate of evolution (an entirely different discussion) as support for his
>>assertion, and quote had been altered to make it seem to support his
>>argument better.
CL>'Increase in variation' is a discussion "entirely different' from 'rate
>of evolution'?
>SB>No magic involved. Lists of creationist out-of-context quotes are all over
>>the web. He has links to some of them from his own website. Do you really
>>think he's read all those books?
CL>SJ's quotes seem to me different (and longer!) than those I've run into
>on the web.
CL>But whatever the source, I find their substance interesting,
>you don't.
CL>One can read a lot of books, especially when they're all in
>a field one is familiar with and one knows how to scan for what is
>interesting.
Yes. I am a very fast reader and I retain a lot of what I read,
probably because I am very interested in the subject.
I know it might be hard for Susan to believe that I have
read at least part of all the books I quote from, but that is
just an argument from incredulity.
[...]
On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 12:26:30 -0600 Susan Brassfield
>SB>>That's Gould saying "unnecessary." He's saying that strict gradualism is
>>not necessary to evolutionary theory. What Stephen said was that increase
>>in variation was controversial and then posted a portion of a discussion of
>>the rate of evolution (an entirely different discussion) as support for his
>>assertion, and quote had been altered to make it seem to support his
>>argument better.
CL>'Increase in variation' is a discussion "entirely different' from 'rate
>of evolution'?
SB>yes. "Variations do not increase" as opposed to "evolution sometimes goes
>fast and sometimes slow." They do not sound like identical converstaions to
>me. Maybe I'm missing something.
See above. Susan completely misunderstood what I was saying
and has flown off at a tangent, accusing me of cutting out text from
a quote which was not important to what I was saying, but appears
to have been important to what Susan *thought* I was saying!
>CL>SJ's quotes seem to me different (and longer!) than those I've run into
>>on the web.
That's not surprising since they don't come from the web!
>CL>But whatever the source, I find their substance interesting,
>>you don't.
It is noteworthy that Cliff is an evolutionist yet he has no problem with
quotes of evolutionists questioning aspects of evolution. The emotional
reaction of evolutionists like Susan and Chris to such quotes is itself *very*
"interesting". If evolution is just another scientific theory, what are Susan
and Chris so obviously worried about?
SB>and if they are dishonestly edited in order to sound interesting to a
>creationist? What are you actually reading? You aren't reading anything
>about evolution!
Susan has produced no evidence that the handful of words I cut out for
clarity and brevity (and left ellipses to show that I had done it), made any
difference to the argument.
SB>I've often thought I should make a collection of out-of-context creationist
>quotes.
According to Susan that would be *all* "creationist quotes"!
SB>Something that proves conclusively that Behe and Johnson are
>atheists and rabid evolutionists. Now *there* would be some quotes that
>were interesting!!!
The problem with Susan is she is still focusing on the personal, ad hominem
level.
And she still has the wrong idea that creationist quotes of evolutionists
imply the evolutionists don't believe in evolution. If they no longer believed
in evolution they would not be evolutionist quotes and would no longer be
of any use.
[...]
On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 15:25:39 EST Huxter4441@aol.com
>SB> Lists of creationist out-of-context quotes are all over
>>the web. He has links to some of them from his own website. Do you really
>>think he's read all those books?
>BV>I believe Steven (or Darwinists, including you) read whatever they say
>they've read. I am delighted to see the Darwinist "arguments" sinking to
>such depths.
Hx>You mean, to the same depths that creationists of all stripes start out at?
>Going all the way back to 'The Genesis Flood' right on up to 'Darwin on
>Trial'?
Huxter's prejudice shows here. Not all creationists agree with the Young-
Earth/Flood Geology thesis of "The Genesis Flood". I certainly don't.
Indeed if he read "The Genesis Flood" he would realise that it contains an
attack on Old-Earth/Progressive creationists like the late Bernard Ramm.
Hx>Is that all you can do is try to storm the moral high ground? Why can you
>never actually address the issues brought up?
I had not noticed Huxter adressing "the issues brought up"!
[...]
On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 15:49:56 -0600 Susan Brassfield
>>SB>. Lists of creationist out-of-context quotes are all over
>>>the web. He has links to some of them from his own website. Do you really
>>>think he's read all those books?
>>BV>I believe Steven (or Darwinists, including you) read whatever they say
>>they've read. I am delighted to see the Darwinist "arguments" sinking to
>>such depths.
>SB>Stephen has never claimed to have read all those books. He would be quite a
>>bit better at this debate if he had. No, Stephen has trusted fellow
>>creationists to be truthful and they have betrayed his trust.
Susan again contradicts herself. What was all the "Do you really think he's
read all those books?" then?
And what was all that about me being a liar if now I am supposed to have
trusted some other creationist who gave me a dishonestly edited quote?
The fact is however that it was my quote which I scanned from Gould's
book and it was me who cut the extraneous words out for clarity and
brevity and inserted ellipses in their place.
>SB>I have been debating creationists and reading evolutionary material for
>>many years. I have yet to see a creationist quoted out of context in such a
>>way as to make them seem to support evolutionary theory. Why is that? If
>>you or any lurker reading this has come across such a thing, *please* post
>>it to this list.
Susan's argument here only works if the parallel was that by cutting out the
words I did made Gould seem to support creationist theory!
>SB>That brings me back to the subject of this thread: Why lie? why quote
>>evolutionists out of context
Susan has yet to produce any evidence that I have quoted any
"evolutionists out of context".
>SB>and give the false impression that there are
>>problems with evolutionary theory that don't actually exist?
Susan is in denial mode. There are *plenty* of "problems with evolutionary
theory" but because she denies that there are any, she must assume that the
critics who quote evolutionists airing those problems, "quote evolutionists
out of context"!
>SB>If "intelligent design" or "creation theory" have so much going for them, why
>>bother to *ever* quote an evolutionist?
Since evolution is a competing theory of origins to "intelligent design" or
"creation theory", it is part of their argument to show that evolution has
problems and internal inconsistencies.
>SB>If there are such glaring errors in
>>evolution why bother to edit the quotes so they change the original meaning?
In the case of the particular quote in question by Gould in "The Pandas
Thumb", no one was claiming it showed any "glaring errors in evolution".
And Susan has not shown that the words I left out *did* "change the
original meaning" as regards the point Chris was making.
>SB>If you have a million dollars in the bank, why bounce a check?
One could ask Susan the same question. If "problems with evolutionary
theory...don't actually exist" then why not have a calm, courteous, rational
debate about the claimed problems that creationists raise?
[...]
On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 15:51:37 -0600 Susan Brassfield wrote:
>>SB>. Lists of creationist out-of-context quotes are all over
>the web. He has links to some of them from his own website. Do you really
>think he's read all those books?
>>BV>I believe Steven (or Darwinists, including you) read whatever they say
>> they've read. I am delighted to see the Darwinist "arguments" sinking to
>> such depths.
[...]
>Hx>You mean, to the same depths that creationists of all stripes start out at?
>>Going all the way back to 'The Genesis Flood' right on up to 'Darwin on
>>Trial'?
>>
>>Is that all you can do is try to storm the moral high ground? Why can you
>>never actually address the issues brought up?
SB>:-) I wondered that too. So far she's said "how dare you point out that
>they are lying!" but she hasn't addressed the actual topic of the thread.
Nor has Susan! She has not shown that I have lied. She now seems to be
back-pedalling claiming that I got the edited quotes of the Web. I didn't-
they were my quotes from my book and the cutting out words not germane
to the specific point being addressed and marking the place with ellipses is
a perfectly normal and ethical action.
No one, not Susan, not Chris, not Glenn, not anyone has shown how me
removing the words shown in square brackets below made any difference
to the specific point that I was making in response to Chris's claim that
"Complexity increases by variations":
"Orthodox neo-Darwinians extrapolate these even and continuous changes
to the most profound structural transitions in the history of life: by a long
series of insensibly graded intermediate steps, birds are linked to reptiles,
fish with jaws to their jawless ancestors. Macroevolution (major structural
transition) is nothing more than microevolution (flies in bottles) extended.
If black moths can displace white moths in a century, then reptiles can
become birds in a few million years by the smooth and sequential
summation of countless changes. The shift of gene frequencies in local
populations is an adequate model for all evolutionary processes - or so the
current orthodoxy states....The fossil record with its abrupt transitions
offers no support for gradual change[, and the principle of natural selection
does not require it - selection can operate rapidly.] Yet the unnecessary link
that Darwin forged became a central tenet of the synthetic theory." (Gould
S.J., "The Return of the Hopeful Monster", in "The Panda's Thumb", 1990,
p156)
If Susan wants to address "the actual topic of the thread" she needs to
show how I "lied" by cutting out those words in square brackets.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"According to the modern theory (called neo-Darwinism), changes occur in
organisms by mutations of genes. This leads to the existence of variation
amongst individuals. Some of these individuals may survive more
successfully than others (called natural selection), thus producing more
offspring with their new features. Gradually these new features will extend
throughout the population. If, however, the population is isolated from
others differences cannot spread, and over a period of time two varieties
come to exist. Only small changes to organisms have been actually
observed to occur by this mechanism. e.g. Industrial melanism, resistance
to antibiotics and insecticides. Evidence for larger changes must be
deduced from the fossil record. ("evolution", in Heffernan D.A., "The
Australian Biology Dictionary", [1987], Addison Wesley Longman
Australia: Melbourne, Australia, 1996, reprint, p87)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------