"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> Bob Dehaan wrote:
>
> > I would be happy to take
> > macroevolution seriously if there were empirical evidence that natural
> > selection played a significant *creative* role in it.
>
> Let me suggest some modification of vocabulary here. I would say that
> natural selection does nothing whatsoever that is authentically *creative.*
> Rather, it acts as a positive feedback mechanism in the context of a search
> program. Briefly here is why I say this:
******
Not so fast--Lets substitute for "creative" a different word. Yes, there is
undeniably a "potentiality space" of viable creatures. Not an arugement. The
issue is that of a mechanism to shuffle the genes of a given animal to move
towards the genes of another animal with the second animal having some
substantial new feature. Now what is "move towards" and how does this work.
Well, "natural selection" is posited as a selection mechanism and, while I do
not accept its efficacy in getting the animal through a long path, let me set
this aside. What I need is
1. A mechanism that can make substantial genetic changes in step wise fashion.
2. The existence of a gene trajectory path from animal A to animal B with each
change being large and benficial enough to modify reproduction rates for the
animal with the genetic benefits.
3. A quickly acting mechanism to make this happen which is triggered by
something to be identified because the fossil evidence is for stasis with
punctuated and rapid changes.
What I do not accept is the efficacy of small genetic changes which change the
general modifiers of a given body plan (a monkey with a longer tail) as implying
the exisitence of the above.
This is the issue.
Bert M.
**************
>
>
> The fundamental meaning of "to create" is "to give being to."
>
> I view the universe as a Creation that was given being by its Creator. One
> important aspect of that being is a vast "potentiality space" of viable
> organisms. In the course of time, mutations (usually characterized as
> random) function to search this potentiality space for organism suitable for
> some particular environment and ecosystem. What is commonly called "natural
> selection" is the positive feedback that amplifies the population of
> organism particularly suited to the context. It does not *create" anything.
> It only signals the *discovery* of a potentiality that has been there from
> the beginning as part of the being given to the Creation by its Creator.
>
> To call natural selection *creative* is, I would say, to misuse the term in
> the same way as do the proponents of naturalism.
>
> Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 22 2000 - 04:24:44 EDT