Reflectorites
On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:14:54 -0800, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
[...]
>>CL>Is it no longer believed that Genesis 1 & 2 are a combination of Genesis
>>>in the scripture of the priests of Moses and in that of the priests of Aaron?
>>>I thought that was widely accepted.
>SJ>I have never heard of this. My Bibe search program reveals no "priests of
>>Moses"? Maybe Cliff can post some references to this theory?
CL>I should have said, "widely accepted among those who study the
>text scientifically". I find no references after a brief search. I suspect
>web pages about textual criticism of the bible are buried among the
>many non-skeptical, non-analytic pages relating to the bible.
Again, I am not aware of this "priests of Moses" theory and I own and
have read a number of Old Testament Introductions and Theologies.
CL>For a couple of centuries scholars have inferred that the Pentateuch
>was a combination of texts written by 4 different authors. This based on
>vocabulary and style. And that some unknown person did the combining.
>Redundancies resulted but these were left standing, presumably because
>the 'editor' did not want to alter scripture. The 4 authors somehow have
>been identified as being either in the priestly lineage of Moses or of
>Aaron. Anyway, I guess the answer to my question is that this is not
>a popular belief.
That the Old Testament is based on earlier sources, almost all scholars,
even conservative evangelical ones, would agree. That those sources can
be identified and unpacked into the work of "4 different authors" (called
usually JEDP) is definitely *not* agreed. For example, La Sor, et. al., a
modern, moderately conservative OT Introduction, says:
"Much of the old source criticism and of the hypotheses it produced remains
conjectural and problematic. That there are sources is hard to doubt; that
they can be extirpated so certainly from the closely-knit corpus that finally
emerged is another matter." (La Sor W.S., et al., "Old Testament Survey",
1987, p65)
The Graff-Welhausen Documentary Hypothesis (aka JEDP theory) was
originally based on evolutionary presuppositions and has been increasingly
discredited as more archaeological information has come to light. JEDP
theorists all disagreed among themselves as to where the respective sources
began and ended, which indicated that it was largely a subjective theory.
Moreover, in the case of Genesis, the text itself in the words "These are the
generations of...", which have the form of a clay tablet footer known as a
colophon, breaks the back of the JEDP theory, and strongly supports the
traditional view that Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch using, at least in
the case of Genesis, existing sources:
"Accordingly the present writer feels justified in following Wiseman in the
assertion that Genesis contains in the first thirty-six chapters a series of
tablets whose contents were linked together to form a roughly
chronological account of primeval and patriarchal life written from the
standpoint of a Mesopotamian cultural milieu. ... Such a view is based upon
the conviction that this approach alone does the fullest justice to the
literary phenomena of much of Genesis, particularly in the light of what is
now known regarding the antiquity of writing, the diverse nature of literary
communications in the Near East during the second millennium B.C., and
the special characteristics of contemporary scribal techniques. The tablets
that may be isolated will be seen to have a title, a residuum of textual
matter, and a colophon, along with certain additional features to be noted
subsequently. The sources can be described briefly as follows:
Tablet 1: Gen. 1:1-2:4. The origins of the cosmos
Tablet 2: Gen. 2 :5-5:2. The origins of mankind
Tablet 3: Gen. 5: 3-6:9a. The histories of Noah
Tablet 4: Gen. 6:9b-10:1. The histories of the sons of Noah
Tablet 5: Gen. 10:2-11:10a. The histories of Shem
Tablet 6: Gen. 11:10b-11:27a. The histories of Terah
Tablet 7: Gen. 11 :27b-25:12. The histories of Ishmael
Tablet 8: Gen. 25:13-25:19a. The histories of Isaac
Tablet 9: Gen. 25:19b-36:1. The histories of Esau
Tablet 10: Gen. 36:2-36:9. The histories of Esau
Tablet 11: Gen. 36:10-37:2. The histories of Jacob"
(Harrison R.K., "Introduction to the Old Testament", 1970, p548)
The two-`Adam' theory is supported by the fact that Genesis 1 and 2 are
separated by the footer "These are the generations of the heavens and of
the earth when they were created, " (Gn 2:4a AV), since that means that
the "man" of Genesis 1:26-27 and the "Adam" of Genesis 2:20ff were on
two separate source tablets.
>SJ>I am aware of Cliff's parabiosis theory (parabiosis...2: anatomical and
>>physiological union of two organisms. http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary),
>>The online Encyclopaedia Britannica does not even mention it. Is there any
>>fossil or genetic evidence for it? Has any biologist ever maintained it? Is
>>there any example of a Siamese twinning which is heritable in a sexually
>>reproducing species? If there was, would it have any long-term survival
>>value?
CL>Nope, not in our era, that is, since the Cambrian explosion. This was a
>mechanism that could only produce viable organisms in a strange benign
>ecosystem without well-formed segmented competitors.
Does Cliff mean "This was" the only "mechanism..."? If so, he would need
to substantiate that. What evidence is there that: 1) parabiosis can *even*
"produce viable organisms"; and 2) that it is the *only* mechanism that
could produce viable organisms before the Cambrian Explosion?
CL>A one-time event,
>a one-time mechanism. There is, however, no particular reason why
>a predisposition to Siamese-twinning should not be heritable, other than
>that it would be strongly selected against, it would not be well-adapted.
>Only a simple organism could benefit from being transformed into a
>chain of identical 'siblings'.
Sorry, but it is mere question-begging to say that there is "no particular
reason why a predisposition to Siamese-twinning should not be heritable".
Is there any *positive* evidence that it is heritable? And how would it
work in a sexual species? Somehow the two Siamese-twinned phenotypes
arising from one genotype has to be encoded in the genotype of one of the
twins.
In sexual reproducing species, the sex cells are just ordinary cells of one
phenotype, located within the gonads or ovaries, and in the case of the
female they divide early in the embryo's development while it is still in the
womb or egg. Cliff needs to explain detail how this could happen for his
parabiosis theory to be viable.
Cliff has in fact sent me details of his parabiosis theory some time ago and I
did read it. But it is many pages and I don't have the time any more to go
back and read it. So I would ask Cliff if he has already addressed this in his
theory, to post it again here.
>SJ>MMaybe parabiosis has limited applicability to some highly segmented forms
>>like arthropods and snakes? But I doubt that it is applicable to less highly
>>segmented forms like vertebrates.
CL>Right, it only plays a role in a brief formative period that kicks off the
>Cambrian.
There is as yet AFAIK no positive evidence for "a brief formative period
that kicks off the Cambrian". There are some trace fossils which are
disputed and of course there are fossils of prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
Some Precambrian fossils known as Ediacaran fauna have been found in
the immediately prior Vendian but AFAIK they are not regarded as
ancestral to the Cambrian phyla.
Also, now exceptionally well-preserved fossils of two different species of
fully developed non-segmented vertebrate fish have been found in the Early
just after the Cambrian Explosion:
"Most major animal groups appear suddenly in the fossil record 550 million
years ago, but vertebrates have been absent from this 'Big Bang' of life.
Two fish-like animals from Early Cambrian rocks now fill this gap." Janvier
P., "Catching the first fish", Nature, 4 November 1999, 402:21-22.
The main reference is to (Shu D-G., et. al., "Lower Cambrian vertebrates from
south China", Nature, 4 November 1999, 402:42-46:
"The first fossil chordates are found in deposits from the Cambrian period
(545-490 million years ago), but their earliest record is exceptionally
sporadic and is often controversial. Accordingly, it has been difficult to
construct a coherent phylogenetic synthesis for the basal chordates. Unto
now, the available soft-bodied remains have consisted almost entirely of
cephalochordate-like animals from Burgess Shale-type faunas. Definite
examples of agnathan fish do not occur unto the Lower Ordovician (~475
Myr BP), with a more questionable record extending into the Cambrian.
The discovery of two distinct types of agnathan from the Lower Cambrian
Chengjiang fossil-Lagerstatte is, therefore, a very significant extension of
their range. One form is lamprey-like, whereas the other is closer to the
more primitive hagfish. These finds imply that the first agnathans may have
evolved in the earnest Cambrian, with the chordates arising from more
primitive deuterostomes in Ediacaran times (latest Neoproterozoic, ~555
Myr BP), if not earlier."
BTW, one of these co-authors might be Susan's favourite paleontologist. His
name is Y. Li! :-)
>SJ>Indeed parabiosis sounds a bit like the phenotypic side of polyploidy which
>>only works consistently in asexual species and even then only causes
>>changes at lower taxonomic levels (e.g. species and genus).
CL>No, parabosis is analogous with the genotypic side of polyploidy; there
>is physical duplication or multiplication.
The problem is that polyploidy works (albeit only limited) because
genotypic changes produce phenotypic changes. There is AFAIK no
evidence that phenotypic changes produce permanent inheritable genotypic
changes. That is Lamarckism.
CL>The reason for positing a mechanism for generating trains of segments
>is that observation only reveals reduction in number of segments. In those
>few cases where the fossils show change among indisputably related
>animals over time, the pattern is one of loss of segments. There has to
>be a starting point, when multi-segmented animals were formed. The
>evidence suggests that this was a relatively sudden event.
That there are mechanisms for "generating...segments" is undisputed. That
parabiosis, ie. Siamese-twinning, is one of those mechanisms, may perhaps
be granted for segmented organisms like arthropods, subject to a
satisfactory explanation of how it would work at the genotypic level, That
parabiosis is *the* "mechanism for generating trains of segments" in all the
100 or so phyla which made up the Cambrian Explosion would require a
*lot* of evidence.
>SJ>But even if parabiosis were the cause of the Cambrian Explosion, it would,
>>like all naturalistic theories on the Cambrian Explosion, still have to
>>explain
>>why eukaryotes originated ~ 1.2 bya and then nothing much happened for
>>nearly 600 mya, and then in ~ 5 million years between ~ 575 and ~570
>>mya, *everything* happened!
CL>You criticize Darwinian gradualism, but when you get a theory
>involving unique pivotal events, you demand an explanation for this
>unacceptable irregularity in the flow of history! You're a hard one to
>please.
First, Cliff seems to be objecting to his parabiosis theory being criticised? I
would have thought that if it is intended as a scientific theory that Cliff
would *welcome* such criticism, in order to improve the theory.
Second, I "criticize Darwinian gradualism" for the same reason I criticise
Cliff's parabiosis theory-because I want to test it and see if it is *true*. I
would have no problem accepting either "Darwinian gradualism" or Cliff's
parabiosis theory, if it was tested against the evidence and found to be true.
Third, even if "Darwinian gradualism" or Cliff's parabiosis theory, was
found to be true, it still would not explain "why eukaryotes originated ~ 1.2
bya and then nothing much happened for nearly 600 mya, and then in ~ 5
million years between ~ 575 and ~570 mya, *everything* happened". IOW,
it would not explain what caused the cause, i.e. what was the *ultimate*
cause of these chain of events. IMHO no purely naturalistic theory can
explain why eukaryotes did nothing for ~ 600 myr and then to suddenly
explode in the event known as the Cambrian Explosion. This is Gould's
point against Darwinian gradualism, but which Gould himself has no
answer:
"Increasing diversity and multiple transitions seem to reflect a determined
and inexorable progression toward higher things. But the paleontological
record supports no such interpretation. There has been no steady progress
in the higher development of organic design. We have had, instead, vast
stretches of little or no change and one evolutionary burst that created the
entire system." (Gould S.J., "Ever Since Darwin", 1991, p118)
I will predict that there never will be a satisfactory fully naturalistic theory
which can explain life's episodically progressive pattern, of which the
Cambrian Explosion is the most spectacular example. At the deepest level,
only a *personal* explanation can do that. The pattern of the appearance of
new designs in the history of life is, as Walter ReMine pointed out, a
"biotic message" which is designed to defeat all purely naturalistic theories:
"Message theory says life was designed as a biotic message. Life was
designed to look like the product of a single designer (the unifying
message). Yet life was also designed to resist evolutionary interpretation
(the non-naturalistic message)." (ReMine W.J., "The Biotic Message, 1993,
p261)
As a proponent of Progressive Mediate Creation, I have my own
"explanation for this unacceptable irregularity in the flow of history" and
unlike naturalistic evolutionary theories, one which *does* explain it. That
is, I take the pattern of Genesis 1 seriously. It really does depict what
Daniel Dennett (of all people) correctly identified as "successive waves of
Creation:
"The first chapter of Genesis describes the successive waves of Creation
and ends each with the refrain "and God saw that it was good." (Dennett
D.C., "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", 1995, p67).
Evolutionists of all stripes (including Darwinian, non-Darwinian, theistic,
etc) all make IMHO one fundamental mistake. They assume that life's
systems were designed to evolve. When all the evidence is that they were
designed *not* to evolve!
In my Mediate Creation general theory, the ultimate cause of why new
designs appear episodically and progressively in throughout the history of
life is because the Creator said "Let there be... and there was..." Let there
be ... and there was..." (Gn 1:3ff).
>SJ>"Essentially, the same amino acid chain being found also in other animals
>>and even in plants, we have a case in histone-4 where more than 200 base
>>pairs are conserved across the whole of biology. The problem for the neo
>>Darwinian theory is to explain how the one particular arrangement of base
>>pairs came to be discovered in the first place. Evidently not by random
>>processes, for with a chance 1/4 of choosing each of the correct base pairs
>>at random, the probability of discovering a segment of 200 specific base
>>pairs is 4^200, which is equal to 10^-120. Even if one were given a random
>>choice for every atom in every galaxy in the whole visible universe the
>>probability of discovering histone-4 would still only be a minuscule
>>~10^40." (Hoyle F., "Mathematics of Evolution", [1987], Acorn
>>Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp102-103).
CL>While we're at it, what is Hoyle talking about? A chain of base pairs has
>to have some arrangement, if it is to exist at all. One might as well talk
>of the arrangement of rocks on the surface of the moon. The odds of
>the prevailing arrangement being the case are so, well, astronomical,
>in relation to the possibilities, that reasonable people must conclude
>that there are no rocks on the moon.
Unlike "the arrangement of rocks on the surface of the moon",
which are random and unstructured, a gene (like the 200 nucleotide
base-pair Hist4 gene which codes for Histone-4) has a precise
"rung" structure, held in place by hydrogen bond "fixings" within a
sugar-phosphate "ladder" backbone (correct me if I'm wrong Mike!).
Likening the precise, structured arrangement of a 200 base-pair
gene like Hist4 with "the arrangement of rocks on the surface of the
moon" is like comparing scattered aircraft parts in a junkyard with a
Boeing 747!
Also, unlike "rocks on the surface of the moon", a chain of 200
nucleotide base pairs if it ever came together in the first place (see
next point) would, according to a chemist on another List, only last
a microsecond or so. The only place in the universe that a chain of
200 nucleotide base pairs can even *exist* for any more that a few
microseconds is in a living cell.
Thus we are somehow to imagine all 200 of these nucleotide base
pairs coming together in the right order for a few microseconds and
just happening to find a pool of the right 20 L-amino acids nearby to
start constructing its unique protein (with all the other enzymatic
machinery that that requires). Leaving aside the chance of the right
sugar-phosphate backbone to slot into, and the chance of the right
pure amino acids being within reach, the chance of even *one* 200
base-pair gene appearing by chance that of the four base-pair
nucleic acids (AGCT) raised to the 200th power, ie. 4^-200 = 10^-120.
Since there are only about 10^80 elementary particles in the whole
universe, and there have only been about 10^18 seconds since the Big
Bang 15 bya, it is vastly improbable that even *one* string of 200
nucleotide base pairs came into existence to form a gene by chance.
But this vastly improbable event must also have happen about *400
times* in the same near proximity and within microseconds of each
other, for all the other genes needed to code for the minimum self-
replicating system to start working together. And even if the whole
400 did arise at the same time and place, why would they start
working together?
Theories involving an Intelligent Designer could explain this but not
naturalistic theories which depend on what Dawkins calls "luck":
But this vastly improbable event must also have happen about *400 times*
in the same near proximity and within microseconds of each other, for all
the other genes needed to code for the minimum self-replicating system to
start working together. And even if the whole 400 did arise at the same
time and place, why would they start working together?
Theories involving an Intelligent Designer could explain this but not
naturalistic theories which depend on what Dawkins calls "luck":
"It is as though, in our theory of how we came to exist, we are allowed to
postulate a certain ration of luck. This ration has, as its upper limit, the
number of eligible planets in the universe. ... This means that we can, if we
want to, spend virtually our entire ration of postulatable luck in one big
throw, in our theory of the origin of life on a planet. Therefore we have at
our disposal, if we want to use it, odds of 1 in 100 billion billion as an
upper limit (or 1 in however many available planets we think there are) to
spend in our theory of the origin of life. This is the maximum amount of
luck we are allowed to postulate in our theory. Suppose we want to
suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based
replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We
can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory provided that
the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100
billion billion to one." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, p146).
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Writing in the mid-1830s, Edward Blyth was well aware of the precision
of adaptation at the level of varieties of species, but not above the level of
species he maintained. The argument he gave was a powerful one, and in
the later enthusiasm for the Darwinian theory it was never answered
properly. Most species are limited to a geographical area, with good
adaptation to the conditions well inside the area but with less and less good
adaptation toward its boundaries. Why, Blyth asked, if species can evolve
to the great extent that would be needed to explain the differences between
genera, families, orders, and classes can they not evolve to the lesser extent
that would maintain adaptation to and beyond the boundaries of their
respective areas? Instead of doing so, however, species stay obstinately
fixed, disappearing as the limits of their habitats are reached. According to
Blyth, this fact, which was the rule not the exception, proved that the
capacity of species to adapt must be limited, making what today we call the
Darwinian theory (but which Blyth considered in 1837) untenable." (Hoyle
F., "Mathematics of Evolution", [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN,
1999, p105).
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 20 2000 - 16:31:34 EST