Reflectorites
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 14:28:27 -0000, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
>>RW>I've heard plenty of stories of evolutionists being booted off
>creationist mailing lists too.
>SJ would be surprised if there were "plenty of stories". Maybe Richard can
>>provide details of these "plenty of stories"?
RW>Like you, I only have a limited amount of time to devote to this debate.
>While I will occasionally make the time to do a search of the archives in
>order to substantiate a point, I prefer to reserve that for the important
>points. If you want to make an issue of this, then I'll do it. Otherwise, I
>invite you to just treat my claim as hearsay.
If Richard had indeed "heard plenty of stories of evolutionists being booted
off creationist mailing lists" then he would not have to do any "search of
the archives". He could just post what he had heard!
[...]
>SJ>Richard has *not* made his position clear. He first said that: "I wouldn't
>>dream of making an absolute claim that there *is* no God" but then in the
>>same post, (in what seems to be a `Freudian slip'), he said "I've made up my
>>mind that there is no God."...I will assume that he really is an
>>atheist in the strong sense of denying that there is a God, but for tactical
>>reasons he portrays himself as only an atheist in the weak sense of claiming
>>that he does not believe there is a God.
RW>The difference between making up one's mind and making an absolute
>claim seems reasonably clear to me. I suppose it could be made clearer, but
>this is not an issue of sufficient interest to me to justify the time.
Again, I cannot see that it would take much "time". All Richard had to do
is *state* unambiguously* what his atheist position is.
[...]
>>RW>First of all, the fundamentals of evolution are accepted by all these
>>>scientists. They all agree on the reality of common descent, random
>>>mutation, natural selection and genetic drift (thought they may differ
>>>about the relative importance of the last two). So I have no difficulty with
>>>those issues.
>SJ>The "relative importance" of these "fundamentals of evolution" is what
>>this dispute is *all* about. The strictest creationist could agree with all of
>>the above (this creationist does), but he would place a different weighting
>>on their relative importance.
RW>By "common descent", I of course meant "common ancestry". And I was
>referring to common ancestry of all extant organisms. Sorry for any
>confusion.
There was no "confusion". But even some evolutionists now (and probably
most, if not all, in the future) do not believe in the "common ancestry of all
extant organisms", because there was no universal common ancestor:
"The new wealth of microbial genome sequences is threatening to overturn
evolutionists' "tree of life." In the current tree, a universal common
ancestor gave rise to the two microbial branches, the archaea and bacteria
(which lack cell nuclei), and the archaea then gave rise to the eukarya (all
organisms that have cell nuclei). But the new sequences show that genes
don't evolve at the same rate or in the same way, so the evolutionary
history inferred from one gene may be different from what another gene
appears to show. Even more perplexing, some genomes have been found to
contain a mix of DNAs from both the archaea and the bacteria. Many
evolutionary biologists are coming to believe that these mosaics arose
because genes hopped from branch to branch as early organisms either
stole genes from their food or swapped DNA with their neighbors. If this
gene swapping was extensive enough, the tree's "base" may turn out to be
indecipherable: a network of branches that merge and split and merge again
before sprouting the modern kingdoms." (Pennisi E., "Genome Data Shake
Tree of Life," Science, Vol. 280, No. 5364, 1 May 1998, p.672.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/280/5364/672)
"About 10 years ego scientists finally worked out the basic outline of how
modern life-forms evolved. Now parts of their tidy scheme are unraveling
Charles Darwin contended more than a century ago that all modern species
diverged from a more limited set of ancestral groups, which themselves
evolved from still fewer progenitors and so on back to the beginning of life.
In principle, then, the relationships among all living and extinct organisms
could be represented as a single genealogical tree. Most contemporary
researchers agree. Many would even argue that the general features of this
tree are already known, all the way down to the root-a solitary cell, termed
life's last universal common ancestor, that lived roughly 3.5 to billion years
ago. The consensus view did not come easily but has been widely accepted
for more than a decade. Yet ill winds are blowing. To everyone's surprise,
discoveries made in the past few years have begun to cast serious doubt on
some aspects of the tree, especially on the depiction of the relationships
near the root ....there would never have been a single cell that could be
called the last universal common ancestor." (Doolittle W.F., "Uprooting
the Tree of Life," Scientific American, Vol. 282, No. 2, February 2000,
pp.72-77, pp.72, 77).
"The Universal Ancestor. ...The ancestor cannot have been a particular
organism, a single organismal lineage. It was communal (13, 22), a loosely
knit, diverse conglomeration of primitive cells that evolved as a unit, and it
eventually developed to a stage where it broke into several distinct
communities, which in their turn become the three primary lines of descent.
The primary lines, however, were not conventional lineages. Each
represented a progressive consolidation of the corresponding community
into a smaller number of more complex cell types, which ultimately
developed into the ancestor(s) of that organismal domain. The universal
ancestor is not an entity, not a thing. It is a process characteristic of a
particular evolutionary stage." (Woese C., "The universal ancestor,"
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 95, Issue 12,
pp.6854-6859, June 9, 1998, p.6858.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/12/6854)
RW>Creationists do not agree with common ancestry. (Perhaps a few
>evolutionists might not go so far as to assert a common ancestry for *all*
>organisms, but they would at least agree on the common ancestry, say, of all
>vertebrates.)
Richard is incorrect when he says that "Creationists do not agree with
common ancestry". I am an *Old-Earth* creationist and I *do* accept common
ancestry (but not necessarily that it was monophyletic-see below). And
leading IDer Mike Behe is regarded by evolutionists as a creationist yet he
accepts "that all organisms share a common ancestor":
"For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions
of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common
descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing,
and have no particular reason to doubt it. " (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black
Box," 1996, p.5)
RW>While Gould places more emphasis on genetic drift than do some others,
>he doesn't deny the importance of natural selection:
Who does "deny the importance of natural selection"? Not even young-
Earth creationists:
"Well, the peppered moths do seem to provide strong evidence of natural
selection. But is that evidence of evolution? Notice I've changed the
question. That's a key point. First I asked if there was any evidence that
Darwin was correct about natural selection. The answer quite simply, is,
"Yes, there is." But now I'm asking a radically different question, "Is there
any evidence for evolution?" Many people say, "Isn't that the same
question? Aren't natural selection and evolution the same thing?" Answer:
NO, absolutely not." (Parker G.E., "Creation: the Facts of Life", 1980,
p.48)
[...]
>SJ>And if the "experts" among evolutionists cannot agree after 140 years on
>>the "relative importance" of these "fundamentals of evolution," then what
>>"relative importance" does Richard place on them and why?
RW>I've already said that I'm more inclined to the views of Dawkins than of
>Gould, and I briefly explained why (see below).
But Richard has not answered my question. I asked him "what `relative
importance' does Richard place on them" (ie. "the fundamentals of
evolution ... common descent, random mutation, natural selection and
genetic drift") "and why?".
Just saying that he is "more inclined to the views of Dawkins than of
Gould" conveys nothing unless Richard states what "relative importance"
Dawkins and Gould place on these "fundamentals of evolution".
[...]
>SJ>The *real* question is why a biologist of Gould's immense learning and
>>experience has such a major problem with the particular "relative
>>importance" of the "fundamentals of evolution" believed in by the prevailing
>>Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy.
RW>I don't know. Maybe it's because he thinks his version fits the facts
>better. Or maybe not. But I'm pleased to see that, unlike Bertvan, you don't
>object to questioning people's motives.
I "don't object to questioning people's motives", and I have no problem
with people questioning mine. But I would object if it became a substitute
for debating the *issues*.
[...]
>SJ>Richard shoots himself in the foot here! The reason why "most people
>>accept the theory of relativity, despite its apparent absurdity," is indeed: 1)
>>"because we're assured by the scientific community" which is virtually
>>unanimous on the theory in detail; and 2) because "it's been confirmed by
>>repeated experiments". Neither of the above applies to the theory of
>>evolution: 1) the relevant "scientific community," namely evolutionary
>>biologists, are deeply divided on detail;
RW>So you agree now that these are details, not fundamentals?
See above. That all evolutionists "agree on the reality of common descent,
random mutation, natural selection and genetic drift" almost goes without
saying and is uninteresting. Indeed, some creationists would agree on the
"reality" of all these things.
What is interesting is the fact that *after 140 years* Darwinists are still
"deeply divided on detail"!
>SJ>and 2) it has not "been confirmed by repeated experiments"
>>except maybe at a relatively trivial level (and even there it has
>>problems).
RW>See below.
[...]
>> >>RW>There is almost total consensus *among scientists* on the
>>>fundamentals of the theory of evolution, and it's the fundamentals that I'm
>>>accepting.
>SJ>See above. This is virtually meaningless unless "the relative importance"
>>of those "fundamentals" can be agreed upon. If one biologist rates mutation
>>at 50%, genetic drift at 40% and natural selection at 10%; he is believing
>>something quite different from a biologist who rates mutation at 5%, genetic
>>drift at 10% and natural selection at 85%.
RW>You think it's "virtually meaningless" to say that mutation, genetic drift
>and natural selection all play a part in evolution (even if I don't specify
>their relative importance)? That's a strange usage of "virtually
>meaningless".
Richard doesn't explain *why* he thinks it is not "`virtually meaningless' to
say that mutation, genetic drift and natural selection all play a part in
evolution", "unless their "relative importance" "can be agreed upon".
RW>And I certainly don't think that any creationist would agree
>that common ancestry of all organisms is virtually meaningless.
Richard is twisting what I said. I did not say that "common ancestry of all
organisms is virtually meaningless". I said that claiming that "mutation,
genetic drift and natural selection all play a part in evolution", "is virtually
meaningless", "unless their "relative importance" "can be agreed upon".
RW>I doubt anyway if the differences are as great as your hypothetical figures
>imply. See the quote above from Gould about natural selection.
I made no claim that those "hypothetical figures" applied to Gould. My
point was that they could apply to any evolutionist, and still satisfy
Richard's vacuous criteria.
RW>By the way, it doesn't make much sense to talk about the relative
>importance of mutation, because all the evolutionists you mentioned would
>agree that mutation is essential to both the other mechanisms (natural
>selection and drift), and not an independent mechanism of evolution.
Not really. Some evolutionists, e.g. saltationists, have given such a high r
elative importance to mutation that natural selection has no creative
power:
"Darwinians cannot simply claim that natural selection operates since
everyone, including Paley and the natural theologians, advocated selection
as a device for removing unfit individuals at both extremes and preserving,
intact and forever, the created type. The essence of Darwinism lies in a
claim that natural selection is the primary directing force of evolution, in
that it creates fitter phenotypes by differentially preserving, generation by
generation, the best adapted organisms from a pool of random variants that
supply raw material only, not direction itself. Natural selection is a creator;
it builds adaptation step by step. Darwin's contemporaries understood that
natural selection hinged on the argument for creativity. Natural selection
can only eliminate the unfit, his opponents proclaimed; something else must
create the fit. ...If new species characteristically arise all at once, then the
fit are formed by the process of variation itself, and natural selection only
plays the negative role of executioner for the unfit. True saltationist
theories have always been considered anti-Darwinian on this basis." (Gould
S.J., "Darwinism and the Expansion of Evolutionary Theory," Science,
Vol. 216, 23 April 1982, pp.380-381)
>>RW>The fundamentals of evolution *have* been confirmed by repeatable
>>>experiments, such as the biomolecular experiments that show the common
>>>ancestry of present-day organisms.
>SJ>I provisionally accept common ancestry but I am not aware of any
>>"*repeatable* experiments" (my emphasis), including "biomolecular
>>experiments," that "show the common ancestry of present-day organisms"
>>Perhaps Richard can state what these "repeatable experiments" are and
>>how they "show the common ancestry of present-day organisms".
RW>I was referring to evidence from "junk DNA". But I was using the word
>"experiments" rather loosely. Strictly, you can't carry out experiments on
>past processes (unless you have a time travel machine!). So I concede I made
>an error here, and retract the point.
What then becomes of Richard's original comparison between the theory of
evolution and the theory of relativity?
RW>The theory of evolution concerns both past processes and current processes.
>Only the latter are amenable to experiment. In this respect, the theory
>differs from the theory of relativity, which is only concerned with current
>processes.
That is not strictly true. The theory of relativity has been used to
successfully predict "past processes". The expansion of the universe was a
prediction of the theory of relativity which lead to the discovery of the Big
Bang.
So maybe Richard will say what are the "current processes" of "the theory
of evolution" that "are amenable to experiment"? And then perhaps Richard
could give details of these experiments? And in particular show how they
have successfully predicted "past processes", comparable to those
predicted by "the theory of relativity"?
RW>I don't claim that my analogy with relativity is perfect -- there's no such
>thing as a perfect analogy. I have read claims that the theory of evolution
>has been verified to a greater level of confidence than the theory of
>relativity. I don't know if that claim is justified. I'm somewhat sceptical
>about it, and have never made it myself.
Ross says that parts of Einstein's theory of relativity have been verified "to
within one part in 10^21":
"Resistance to Einstein's theory broke when experiments and observations
repeatedly confirmed all of its dilation predictions. The success of Einstein's
equations in predicting all manner of observations and experiments was
overwhelming. In fact, a recent experiment proved the accuracy of the
relativistic dilation factor to within one part in 10^21." (Ross H.N.,
"Astronomical Evidences for a Personal, Transcendent God," in Moreland
J.P., ed., "The Creation Hypothesis," 1994, p.144).
So I would be interested in the *details* of the claim "that the theory of
evolution has been verified to a greater level of confidence than the theory
of relativity". Or was this just "hearsay" too?
RW>The point I was making was that we all accept theories for which we
>haven't personally checked all the evidence.
Of course no one has "personally checked *all* the evidence" (my
emphasis) for theories they accept. That is humanly impossible.
We can't expect a physicist to have personally checked the evidence for
the theory of evolution, and we can't expect a biologist to have personally
checked the evidence for the theory of relativity. But we would expect
that an advocate of the theory of evolution to have personally checked
*much* of the evidence for it.
RW>By the way, when you say that you provisionally accept common
>ancestry, do you mean common ancestry of all extant organisms, or
>something more limited?
See previously. I "provisionally accept common ancestry" in a stronger
sense than Richard. I don't just accept it of "all extant organisms" but of
*all* organisms that have ever lived on the Earth, *past* and present.
The provisional relates to whether there actually was a universal common
ancestor and whether the subsequent pattern was monophyletic. Personally
the evidence to me strong lming that it was polyphyletic, and that many (if
not most) of claimed homologous similarities are really convergent.
My Progressive Mediate Creationist (PCM) model that seems best to fit the
scientific and Biblical evidence is that God created new designs by at
strategic points modifying existing genetic code:
"Suppose contemporary evolutionary theory had blind chance built into it
so firmly that there was simply no way of reconciling it with any sort of
divine guidance. It would still be perfectly possible for theists to reject that
theory of evolution and accept instead a theory according to which natural
processes and laws drove most of evolution, but God on occasion abridged
those laws and inserted some crucial mutation into the course of events.
Even were God to intervene directly to suspend natural law and inject
essential new genetic material at various points in order to facilitate the
emergence of new traits and, eventually, new species, that miraculous and
deliberate divine intervention would by itself leave unchallenged such key
theses of evolutionary theory as that all species derive ultimately from some
common ancestor. Descent with genetic intervention is still descent-it is
just descent with nonnatural elements in the process." (Ratzsch D.L., "The
Battle of Beginnings," 1996, pp.187-188)
[...]
>>RW>and so we see the spectacle of YECs refusing to accept even the
>>>constancy of the speed of light.
>SJ>Well, it's not only YECs who don't accept that the speed of light has not
>>been constant over time. Some physicists don't accept it either:
>>
>>http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990724/isnothings.html New Scientist,
>>24 July 1999 ... ... Is nothing sacred? ...
>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005114024.htm
>>"10-6-1999 Author: Bruce Rolston Speed Of Light May Not Be Constant..."
>>
>>Are these scientists guilty of pseudoscience?
RW>Thank you for drawing my attention to these interesting articles, which I
>was previously unaware of.
It is normally OK to be unaware of evidence. But if Richard is going to go
around branding people as pseudo scientists, then there is responsibility on
him to be aware of the evidence on which he bases his accusations. The
above articles are not all that hard to find, and were only last year. Richard
needs to do a *lot* more reading of the scientific and creationist literature if
he wants to be a credible public critic of creationism.
BTW Richard did not answer my question: "Are these scientists" who don't
"accept even the constancy of the speed of light guilty of pseudoscience"?
RW>These scientists are proposing speculative theories which, if confirmed,
>would appear to solve some known problems with the existing paradigm.
>That's the way science works.
>
>The YECs, on the other hand, are making their claim on no basis other than
>that the existing paradigm conflicts with their religious dogma.
Now Richard is switching from "creationism" to "YECs". I am not a
YEC, although I will defend them if the criticism is ill-founded or when it also
applies to creationism in general.
RW>I don't claim that there's a precise line between pseudoscience and
>speculative science -- I think there's a gray area in between. But it's
>clear to me that the YECs are well to one side of that grey area, and the
>scientists you quote are probably on the other.
So "pseudoscience" is just what Richard says it is? If so, this makes his
original claim that "I consider creationism and ID to be pseudoscience, in a
similar league to astrology, dowsing and Atlantis" as meaningless, because
Richard can always keep moving his "line" to make sure that "creationism
and ID" are always "to one side of that grey area" separating
"pseudoscience and speculative science".
[...]
>>RW>"Respectable minority" is rather vague. I would be interested to know
>>>how many they are and what their views are.
>SJ>And how does Richard expect that I obtain the details on "how many they
>>are and what their views are"? Carry out a worldwide survey of every
>>biologist?...
RW>I was being somewhat rhetorical there. My point was that Jaki's claim is so
>vague as to amount to nothing more than another opinion.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! At least I post *some*
evidence, which is admittedly often, in the nature of the case, short of hard,
quantifiable data. But I try to present the *best* evidence that I can find to
support my arguments in the time constraints of this debate. But almost all that
we seem to get from Richard is "nothing more than another opinion"!
>SJ>But I don't need to in a debate. Here is another similar statement by then
>>leading paleontologist Everett C. Olson delivered in his address at the
>>Darwin Centennial of 1959. Then, even at the heyday of the
>>NeoDarwinian Synthesis, there were a "not inconsiderable" minority of
>>biologists who "tend to disagree with much of the current [ie.
>>NeoDarwinian] thought":. (Olson E.C., in Tax S., ed.,
>>"Evolution after Darwin," Vol. 1, 1960, p.523...).
RW>Should I be concerned about what a "group of students" thought in 1959, even
>if there number was "not inconsiderable"? Especially as only some undefined
>proportion of them were "strongly in disagreement", while the others were
>either "not particularly interested" or didn't consider the matter to be of
>"any particular importance"? And we're only told that they disagreed with
>"much of current thought". Does that mean they were anti-evolutionists?
Richard truncates what Olson said. He said a "silent group of students engaged
in biological pursuits". That means they included, but were not limited to,
professional biologists.
>>RW>"If there *has* been a greater reluctance to accept the theory of
>>>evolution than theories in chemistry and physics, there would seem to
>>>be an obvious reason -- those other theories are less threatening to
>>>people's religious or philosophical beliefs.
>SJ>There is no evidence that this "respectable minority" has any religious or
>>philosophical problem with Neo-Darwinism. Gould and Lewontin are
>>atheists yet they have major problems with Neo-Darwinism.
RW>Jaki makes it clear that the "respectable minority" he's referring to are
>those who are "against the majority position represented by Darwinists." But
>Gould and Lewontin *are* Darwinists, so he was not including them.
Richard is playing with words. I specifically used the term "Neo-
Darwinism" and "the majority position represented by Darwinists", who are in
fact *Neo*-Darwinists. Gould and Lewontin may be Darwinists in a broad
sense, but I would not call them Neo-Darwinists. Gould once declared
Neo-Darwinism as "effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook
orthodoxy" (Gould S.J., "Is a new and general theory of evolution
emerging?", Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p.120), and he has
never retracted that.
>SJ>One could with
>>equal or better justification argue that atheists like Richard accept
>>NeoDarwinism too readily *because* they fear that the alternatives are *more*
>>"threatening" to their anti-"religious or philosophical beliefs"!
RW>You seem to be assuming that atheists are more interested in remaining
>atheists than in knowing the truth. That may be true of some (but probably
>not many). It isn't true of me. If there is a God out there, I'd really like
>to know about it! My being an atheist is a result of failing to find
>evidence of God; it isn't my goal. Most atheists started off as theists (to
>a greater or lesser degree), so have already shown themselves prepared to
>change their minds.
I did not say that "atheists are more interested in remaining atheists than in
knowing the truth." But I would say that being an atheist decisively
determines what one wants to, and even can, accept as truth.
The atheist Aldous Huxley once candidly wrote of his reasons why he did
not want there to be a God (ie. he felt it would restrict his personal freedom):
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently
assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find
satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no
meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure
metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason
why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends
should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most
advantageous to themselves.... For myself, the philosophy of
meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and
political." (Huxley A., "Ends and Means," 1946, p.273, in McDowell J.,
"Evidence That Demands A Verdict," Vol. I, 1988, p.11)
>SJ>As I have pointed out before Richard's time, while a Christian can accept
>>evolution and remain a Christian, an atheist can't accept creation and
>>remain an atheist:
RW>True, although a biblical literalist can't accept evolution and remain a
>biblical literalist.
Even that is not true. "Biblical literalist", i.e. young-Earth creationists, can
accept some forms of "evolution":
"If evolution is defined simply as shifts in gene frequency within a population,
then most creationists accept evolution.... Creationists are, again, perfectly
happy to admit-even insist-on microevolutionary shifts. What they object to is
not such shifts (evolution on this definition) but only what seems to them to be
unwarranted extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution-of
extrapolation from changes within defined groups to changes across such
groups." (Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings," 1996, pp.88-89).
But atheists, cannot accept *any* form of creation!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you isolate a small number of individuals from the main population and
prevent them from interbreeding with the main population, then, after a
time, the distribution of genes in the gene pool of the new population will
differ somewhat from that of the original population. This will happen even
if selection pressures are completely absent. Moritz Wagner, a
contemporary of Darwin, and of course a pre-Mendelian, was aware of this
situation. He therefore introduced a theory of evolution by genetic drift,
made possible by reproductive isolation through geographical separation.
In order to understand the task of natural selection, it is good to remember
Darwin's reply to Moritz Wagner. Darwin's main reply to Wagner was: if
you have no natural selection, you cannot explain the evolution of the
apparently designed organs, like the eye. Or in other words, without
natural selection, you cannot solve Paley's problem." (Popper K., "Natural
Selection and the Emergence of Mind," Dialectica, Vol. 32, Nos. 3-4,
1978, pp.339-355, p.345)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 26 2000 - 07:51:34 EST