Reflectorites
Subject: Re: Various (evidence and logic, etc)
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 00:02:53 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
>SJ>According to the Webster's Dictionary I cited, "macroevolution" has been
>>in use since "1939". That's over 60 years. More than enough time to
>>develop a "standardized terminology". The problem is that evolutionary
>>theory so depends on shifting definitions to survive, that evolutionists
>>cannot resolve these definitions among themselves. The upshot is that
>>each evolutionist has his set of private definitions and they think they are
>>communicating, when really it is a `Tower of Babble'!
CL>When the Christian god is recognized as the designer, there will
>be plenty of standardization.
No doubt. But ID theory per se does not define "the designer" as "the
Christian god". The Designer *could be* "the Christian god", but He
is not necessarily "the Christian god", *within ID*.
[...]
>>>SJ>Maybe Susan realises that it is only "Darwinian gradualism"
>>>>which can (in theory at least) reliably craft complex designs?
>>CL>Even irreducibly complex ones?
>SJ>Darwinism simply denies there is such a thing as "irreducibly complex"
>>designs. They have to, because as Darwin said, Darwinian evolution
>>theory would then have "absolutely broken down"!
CL>Take your pick, either Darwinism or ID is wrong. If Darwinism is wrong,
>any argument based up it is flawed.
First, I don't necessarily claim that "Darwinism is wrong". My claim is that
what Darwinism (i.e. random mutation and natural selection) can be shown
to accomplish is limited and it has been extrapolated far beyond its
evidential warrant.
Second, I am not even making an argument based on Darwinism. My point
was that "Darwinian gradualism" *itself* claims to be the only naturalistic
mechanism "which can (in theory at least) reliably craft complex designs".
CL>Unless you allow that a designer may have set up a Darwinian world.
I don't rule that out. One of my own web pages makes the point that
Darwinism, by its own admission, requires that the laws of physics must be
" deployed in a very special way":
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darwinian evolution
Even if true, would not rule out design
Darwinian evolution requires the forces of physics to be "deployed in a
very special way"
"All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the
blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way." (Dawkins,
Richard [Zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science,
Oxford University], "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London,
1991, reprint, p.5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly an Intelligent Designer as far-sighted and powerful as the Christian
God *could* have set up the laws of physics so that life would inevitably
arise somewhere in the cosmos and develop as it has without any
subsequent special guidance or intervention.
The question for me is *did* He? I have to date seen no compelling
evidence that He did, and indeed, strong evidence that He *didn't*. But I
do not rule it out.
>>>SJ>It will be found that Cliff himself, despite all his symbiosis
>>>>`hand-waving', falls back on "Darwinian gradualism" when he
>>>>has to explain which symbiotic mergers, out of his imaginary
>>>>"astronomical" numbers of them, actually survived.
>>CL>No, that is due to natural selection; this is not a gradual mechanism
>>>of evolution, gradualism is not involved.
>SJ>As Gould says, "natural selection" does not have to be gradual in the "2 :
>>...changing...by fine or often imperceptible degrees" sense, but it does have
>>to be gradual in the "1 : proceeding by steps or degrees" sense Cliff's
>>"`astronomical' numbers of them" which actually survived" shows it is still
>>Darwinism at crucial points.
CL>Natural selection doesn't have to be anything. The mechanism providing
>the choices, and the nature of the choices, is completely irrelevant.
Cliff is just `wriggling' here. His symbionts which survived out of "an
astronomical number of unsuccessful macromutations is Darwinian".
*Anything* that survives because it is the fittest among a number of
competitors is Darwinian. Hamilton claimed the selection of *kin* is
Darwinian. Gould claimed the selection of *species* is Darwinian. The
Darwinist philosopher Daniel Dennett (and the Darwinist biologist John
Maynard Smith) have expressed support for Smolin's theory that there is
even natural selection at the level of whole *universes*!
CL>I don't see why my postulation of an astronomical number of unsuccessful
>macromutations is Darwinian. Macromutations are not Darwinian at all.
Cliff needs to make up his mind what exactly *is* his theory. Is it symbiosis
or "macromutations"? If it is "macromutations" it doesn't need symbiosis
and vice versa.
CL>And when I wave my hand, think about the segments in those digits.
>Separate bones are discontinuities. How do you gradually evolve a
>discontinuity? Soft tissues can merge or separate gradually; but
>hard parts are either fused or articulate; there is no middle ground.
I will try to avoid making a joke about Cliff's "when I wave my hand"! :-)
Development Biology would presumably claim that the Hox genes that
make digits started with one and duplicated them over time. I have not
necessarily have a problem with that.
But there is no symbiosis in digits. Digits are controlled by *genes*. It is
the *genes* which need to merge to produce *inheritable* symbiosis. Even
in eukaryotic mitochondria, the prime case for symbiosis, they have their
own specialised DNA but the mitochondria themselves are controlled by
genes in the nucleus. It is assumes that `somehow' most of the
mitochondrial DNA ended up in what is now the host cell's nuclear DNA.
So endosymbiotic theory still has to explain how the *genes* for the once
free-living mitochondria and chloroplast organelles merged with the host
organism.
I agree with Richard that Cliff has got hold of the problem from the wrong
end. He need to have a *genetic* theory to explain *inherited* parabiosis.
Twinning at the morphological level does not create one merged genome.
The genome is already fixed at conception.
>>>SJ>It is interesting to see how evolutionists use the fear of helping
>>>>creationists to try to keep each other in line.
>>CL>After all this time, anti-creationism still seems to be the major interest
>>>of some evolutionists.
>SJ>Seeing it was *Cliff* himself who warned Susan, it seems therefore that
>>"anti-creationism still seems to be the major interest of" *all*
>>"evolutionists"!
CL>Just trying to get her to take an interest in the 21st Century rather than
>the 19th. Trying to keep her from wasting her life helping creationists
>sharpen their arguments, when she could eliminate them by laughing
>at them or ignoring them.
Susan or Cliff will not succeed at eliminating creationists "by laughing at
them or ignoring them". The only way they will ever eliminate creationists
is by beating them fair and square by rational arguments.
But Cliff's proposed pan-symbiosis `final solution' is unconvincing even to
evolutionists, let alone creationists.
Cliff might ponder the implications of that. If Susan's more traditional
Darwinist arguments are not even convincing to Cliff, and Cliff's symbiosis
arguments are not convincing to other evolutionists, then that is just what
would be expected if naturalistic evolution is false!
CL>I was being anti-anti-creationistic (which
>does not reduce to being creationistic).
[...]
I am happy either with Susan's "anti-creationistic" or Cliff's "anti-anti-
creationistic" arguments. Neither of them is very convincing unless one
assumes apriori that some form of naturalistic evolution simply *must*
be true, regardless of the evidence, because there is no God.
So maybe some evolutionist could try an anti-"anti-anti-creationistic"
argument? :-)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to
meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even
more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require
thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles
would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not
fail to occur. Much as in The Swiss Family Robinson, which I used to
read in my childhood, rescue would always occur at the right moment,
and this would have had to have happened throughout the ages."
(Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New
Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977,
p.103)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 17:32:19 EDT