Bert,
>> 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.
OK, at least we are getting away from the loose and theologically
provocative use of the word "creative."
If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the formational
capabilities of the Creation are inadequate to accomplish what the
macro-evolutionary paradigm presently envisions. Or are you saying that if
the Creation was given a robust formational economy by its Creator, it must
have important contributions that we have not yet discovered?
My own expectation is that the Creation was gifted from the outset with a
robust formational economy (adequate to make the remarkable process of
macro-evolution possible), much of which remains to be discovered.
Howard Van Till
PS: Sorry I won't be able to answer for a couple of weeks.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 22 2000 - 08:37:58 EDT