Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>>PS: I have been utterly blown away in my Biology classes over last two
>>weeks by the *fantastic* molecular machinery of the cell, e.g. ATP
>>synthesase's proton pump motor.
Cliff:
>The argument from personal incredulity will never mean anything
>in science.
Bertvan:
Perhaps this same statement can be applied to those say they don't believe
life consists of anything more than energy and matter. It can be said about
anyone who says, "I can't believe life is the result of anything except
random processes." It can be said about anyone who disagrees with anyone
else.
>>Darwin stated that "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ
>>existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous,
>>successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down".
>>(On the Origin Of Species (1859), Chapter VI: Difficulties of the
>>Theory.
>>http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/origin_of_species/
>>Chapter6.html).
>
>>If Darwinists cannot demonstrate how this absolutely *fundamental*
>>molecular machinery which *all* known life needs to have each and every
>>component working together as a total, integrated system, then their
>>theory *has* absolutely broken down. Darwinists can of course invent
>>imaginary `just-so' stories to explain just about anything (and its
opposite)
>>but I think even their imagination would fail here! Darwinism, as a general
>>theory, is therefore either falsified or unfalsifiable.
Cliff:
>Darwin's rigorous anti-saltationism is simply wrong, and has been protested
>by many, beginning with his friend T.H.Huxley. So pure gradualism is rather
>a straw man. If Stephen can convince people that evolution in general stands
>or falls with pure gradualism, and if he can convince himself that this is a
>valid argument, then I guess he's making progress.
>The symbiotic theory of the origin of cells has been around a while now.
>Cells are ecosystems that became genomically integrated (except for the
>complication of maternal mitochondrial DNA). If this basically simple
>mechanistic theory is rejected out of hand as objectionably imaginary,
>there must be prejudice involved.
Bertvan:
I believe it is Darwinism (random mutation and natural selection as an
explanation of macro evolution) of which Steve and Mike Gene are skeptical.
Both have repeatedly stated they accept the possibility of some form of
common ancestry. If gradualism (random mutation and natural selection as
the explanation of macro evolution) is dead, you need to convince those who
defend NEO DARWINISM. It is not saltationism but DARWINISM which is being
defended in these debates. Evolution was not Darwin's contribution,
gradualism was. Please, someone, tell the public, and those who defend
Darwinism, that gradualism is dead. Darwinism was an explanation of how
biological novelty could supposedly occur randomly (without plan, purpose or
design) and natural selection could "create" rational complexity. I haven't
yet heard an explanation of how saltationism might be the result of random
processes, without plan, purpose or design. It seems to me a saltation would
consist of biological novelty already assembled, and natural selection would
play no part in it's "creation".
You describe symbiosis a "basically simple mechanistic theory", but I doubt
Lynn Margulis would agree. In any case, are you suggesting some sort of
symbiosis as an explanation of macro evolution? That would be an interesting
thought. However, I can't believe we yet understand symbiosis well enough to
call it a simple mechanistic process? (An argument from incredulity.)
Bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 17 2000 - 10:08:27 EST