On Fri, 2 Jun 1995 21:53:42 -0400 you wrote:
>Jim Bell wrote of the selection in a card game:
JB>"Am I missing something here, or is this scenario about a group of
>intelligent players with a specific teleology in mind, and a
>specific strategy to reach it?"
>
GM>The fact that the card players have a specific teleology in their
>minds has no bearing on the problem. Let us place this game in
>Stalin's Russia. The guard tells the players to save their clubs.
What "tells" evolution anything? This is intelligent design and
artificial selction.
GM>Their "teleology" is to have clubs.. But when the hand is dealt
and the players mix their cards to form a big hand
More intelligence and teleology.
GM>the guard takes out and shoots all players who have more than 6
>clubs in their hand.
Artificial selection again.
GM>Replacement players are brought in
What are these the analogy of? It should have been "the surviving
players who are left"?
GM>the surviving hands are split
How? More artificial selection.
GM>and reproduced for the replacement players and the process is
>repeated.
More ID.
>Before you know it, there isn't a club in the room, in spite of
>the intentions of the players.
Of course not. The guards have followed a process of artificial
selection!
>You wrote:
JB>"If the players are environmental factors, I still don't get it.
>How should the environment know that a few more clubs are
>"better"? Unless the player with the most clubs "survives" the
>present hand, how is his position on the next deal a "cumulation"?
>Isn't the LARGE assumption here that the player with a few more clubs
>will get to hold them deal after deal?"
GM>The next deal does not start with the same cards as the original
>deal. Notice that they said that the hand was "reproduced". The
>second round was not dealt to the players but consists of a
>reproduction of the cards you have + a shuffle. That makes the
>situation much different than what I think you are describing.
But does it really answer Jim's questions? 1. "How should the
environment know that a few more clubs are `better' "? and 2. "Unless
the player with the most clubs `survives' the present hand, how is
his position on the next deal a `cumulation'"?
>You wrote:
JB>"And THEN, where is the fossil evidence of all these "deals"? We
>should at least be able to find thousands of "hands" that have
>progressively more "clubs," shouldn't we?""
>
GM>How do you know that we don't find thousands of animals which
>progressively change? You have been told that by people for years
Yes. By the leading palaeontologists, no less:
"Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among
known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always
large." (G. G. Simpson, in Evolution of Life, Sol Tax, Ed.,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1960, p. 149).
"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic
morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though
it remains the `official' position of most Western evolutionists.
Smooth intermediates between Baupl„ne are almost impossible to
construct, even in thought experiments: there is certainly no
evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like
Archaeopteryx do not count)." (S. J. Gould and Niles Eldredge,
"Punctuated Equilibria", Paleobiology 3:147 (1977))
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt." (Gould S.J., "The Return of
the Hopeful Monster", "The Panda's Thumb", 1980, Penguin, London,
p157).
GM>but there are thousands of examples of gradual change in the fossil
>record. The problem is that most of the authors in the area of
>creationism are not very familiar with the literature.
Please substantiate this assertion, Glenn. Isn't Kurt Wise, for
example, a "creationist" who is also a palaeontologist? Read what he
says in "The Creation Hypothesis".
GM>I do not claim expertise here, but I ran across the following
>items. From Nature recently:
>
>"The i'iwi (Vestiaria coccinea) is a Hawaiian honeyeater which, as records
[..]
>that teh i'iwi's bill is evolving in response to the bird's
enforced change >in feeding habits.
Micro-evolution.
>"Lobelioids used to be a prominent component of Hawaiian forests. In
[..]
>upper mandible lenght by about 2-3 percent, whereas characters
[..]
More micro-evolution
> "The classic example of a microevolutionary change in bill
morphology is hat in one of Darwin's finches, Geospiza fortis, on
r mandible lenght by about 2-3 percent, whereas characters
[..]
More micro-evolution
>"~William J. Sutherland, I'iwis fit the Bill," Nature May 4, 1995,
375, p. 14.
>
>I know that the answer will be something to the effect "This is only small,
>micromutational change, big deal. This does not prove large change."
Yes. These birds are still birds. What are they evolving to? Where are
the "discarded hands", Glenn?
GM>Consider this: Does our galaxy orbit the local galactic group? The
>necessary changes in position on the sky of the other galaxies are
>far too small to even be measured. The only motion we can detect is
>line of sight motion. Extrapolation from the measured motion does
>not lead to an orbit, but to collisions with other galaxies.
>My point is this, if you believe that there is an orbit for our galaxy
>in the local cluster, then you believe in alteration of events which are too
>small to even measure. So why is there a sudden reluctance among many
>christians to disbelieve that small changes in the genetic composition
>eventually leads to major morphological change?
Because there is no evidence that it does:
"As a Darwinian, I wish to defend Goldschmidt's postulate that
macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated, and that
major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth series
of intermediate stages. I shall proceed by discussing three
questions: (I) can a reasonable story of continuous change be
constructed for all macroevolutionary events? (my answer shall be
no)..." (Gould S.J., "The Return of the Hopeful Monster", "The
Panda's Thumb", 1980, Penguin, London, p157).
GM>There is also the fact that
>digital systems which mutate and reproduce have very complex topological
>phase spaces, just like the system I based my selection program on. Random
>mutations, eventually lead to major, sudden morphological change. Like it or
>not, that is the nature of digital, iterative systems and DNA is a digital
>iterative system!
But again, where is the hard evidence that it did happen?
GM>Przewalski's Horse displays gradual change.This horse is the animal
>...One might be tempted to say big deal except that all horse-like
>animals appear to have arisen this way. The plains zebra has 44 chromosomes,
>...This seems to be an excellent example of gradual chromosomal and
>morphological change.
These are still "horse-like animals". This is within "kinds", ie.
basic types.
GM>Other documented changes are a gradual change are documented by
>Nehm and Geary, where they show a gradual transition of one fossil
>species of Prunam coniforme to Prunam christineladdae...
Same genera. "Kinds" again.
>T. Barnard, wrote of the Dentalina which evolved from the Nodosaria
>(these are microscopic forms of life.
>"...
Micro-evolution again?
>
GM>One of the most fascinating speciations (at least to me) is the
>speciation which is has been taking place among the Cichlid fish.Steven M.
[..]
>Of the Lake Victoria Flock Axel Meyer writes:
>""However, electophoretic data showed that the members of this
>cichlid flock are extremely closely related (the mean genetic
[..]
GM>Stanley tells of a small lake at the edge of Lake Victoria
[..]
>ago. Within Lake Nabugabo are, five species of cichlid fishes
>unknown from Lake Victoria or any other locality in the world."
>..~Steven M.Stanley, "Evolution of Life: Evidence for a New Pattern", Great
>Ideas Today, 1983, (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1983), p.
>22
Still fish.
>For the creationist who thinks that carbon 14 dating dates things
>too old, the problem is even greater. It means that the
>speciation has occurred in even a shorter time.
Carbon-14 dating is unrealiable, but that is not the issue. What does
this fish speciation do to the doctrine of allopatry?
GM>One final gradual change.
>Stanley writes:
>""Hawaii harbors several moths of the genus Hedylepta that
[...]
GM>interval."~Steven M. Stanley, "Evolution of Life: Evidence for a
>New Pattern", Great Ideas Today, 1983, (Chicago: Encyclopaedia
>Britannica, 1983), p. 21
Still moths.
>
GM>These insects are not far morphologically from their ancestor.
>Gradual change.
Still insects. Where are the "bears" turning into "whales"?
Glenn, your card players are artificial selction and your examples are
micro-evolution. The stars analogy seems irrelevant. I have no problem
with any of it, under a Progressive Creation model.
God bless.
Stephen