I don't think that this is accurate. First, "species with similar
genotypes" is rather vague, so I am not sure what, if anything, this
qualification means. Second, it is not necessarily true that the "same
degenerations" (genetic changes perhaps?) occur due to similar conditions.
For example, evironmental mutagens can cause cancer by reproducibly mutating
the same gene in humans, mice, rats etc. But the specific mutation is not
always the same, even though the resulting change in the function of the
gene product is similar. Last, things decidedly work very differently at
the genotypic and phenotypic levels. while I am not certain about what you
wish to say, it sounds as if you may misunderstand that evolutionary changes
(micro or macro) do not "work" at the phenotypic level--this is a Lamarkian
concept.
>SC>However, as I stated previously, it
>>would be very unlikely that guinea pigs and primates have identical
>>molecular defects in the gene. However, if the genetic
>>defects were identical, one could conclude that this would indicate that
>>there is something in common between guinea pigs and primates. Since common
>>descent is not a likely explanation in this case (otherwise other species
>>would likely have the same genetic defect--this could feasibly be tested),
>>it would be reasonable to consider common evolutionary selection.
>>Logically, it would also be very reasonable to consider common design.
>
>Agreed,
>
>>SC>On the other hand, if identical 'defects' in the gene were shared
>>by different primate species, here, I should have added, "and not
>shared by guinea pigs, it would almost certainly be due to common
>inheritance.
>
>SJ>I disagree with the "almost certainly" bit. It could equally be by
>>common design. Even if it was by "common inheritance", this does not
>>prove that Darwinist mechanisms were the cause. These need to be
>>proved in their own right.
Prove common inheritance "in its own right". This is in part, why logical
positivism failed. They demanded direct sensory evidence as the only
credible way to know something. Thus, they discarded the atomic model as
false. No one can see atoms. Amazingly, science still proceeds onward.
It's interesting that you seem to require the same level of "proof" as the
positivists. Your rhetoric is also one sided in that you demand more proof
than you are willing to offer yourself. You can accept "truth" on the basis
of a human understanding of the scriptures, but not of a human understanding
of the creation. You demand visible proof for knowledge of the creation
that comes from studying it directly, yet do not require such positivistic
evidence for knowledge of the creation that may come from bibilical
interpretation.
>SC>The genetic data I postulated above would be consistent with the
>>proposed mechanism of evolution by common descent, and would provide
>>no reason to discard the evolutionary hypothesis (which is the best
>>claim that any experiment can legitimately make). You are correct
>>that the data would also be compatible with common design, but also
>>with martians molding us out of clay, firing us in ovens and
>>sprinkling us with magic dust to become animate.... The problem with
>>the last two explanations, is that they are only metaphysical and not
>>mechanistic.
>
>Agreed. But then so is Darwinism "metaphysical", at least according
>to Popper.
Darwinism, the interpretation, is metaphysical. Evolution is still a
legitimate scientific concept. The two are not automatically inclusive.
>The bottom line is that all primates share a similar phenotypic and
>genetic makup. The first has been known since at least Linnaeus, and
>the second since the molecular biology revolution of the 1950's. Part
>of this similar phenotypic makeup is that all primates cannot
>manufacture vitamin C and the genotypic explanation is that the same
>genes do not code for it.
>
>The Darwinist assumption is that this is because all primates share a
>common ancestor which had this genetic inability to make vitamin C.
>But this is no different (or any more conclusive) than the original
>Linnaean argument that man is a primate.
My point has been, without more information about the genetic defect in
primates (if it is informative), it is difficult to conclude that by simply
sharing a defective gene, common inheritance is the logical conclusion. A
closer look at the genes of different primates could feasibly rule this out.
>SC>So why am I talking to you? From the exposure I did have to the
>>debate, largely beginning with Phil Johnson's book, I became
>>interested in the debate itself. In particular, I am interested in
>>the different conceptions of science embraced by the different sides
>>of the debate. While I firmly agree that Dawkins, Huxley, et al.,
>>claim too much for science and mistake philosophy for fact,
>>unfortunately I see the same mistake made by all sides of the
>>creation arguement.
>
>The difference is that the creation side admit that their view is
>"philosophy" (or rather theology), but the Darwinist camp believe that
>their view is "fact".
This is not my experience. Creationists have their own set of facts--such
as flood geology, age of the earth, etc.
>Why not? If science can address "descent" (which is unobservable,
>unrepeatable and untestable), why can it not address "design" which
>has the same characteristics?
This is the positivistic argument again. I go back to the atomic theory
model. Atoms and their components cannot be directly observed either, yet
the model is widely accepted and useful because certain predictions can be
made and tested. Since it would likely be difficult to observe a 15 million
year evolution of whales or whatever, one relies on indirect investigation.
It is legitimate science. Demand the same thing from design.
>
>SC>Like Dawkins, you focus on your interpretation as science and fact.
>>However, the science is represented by the data collected and that
>>alone is factual. The interpretation, regardless whether it is from
>>Dawkins or yourself, is metaphysics.
>
>Agreed.
>
>SC>The problem lies in the latter and not with the former. The
>>debate would facilitated by recognizing this distinction and focusing
>>discussion at the metaphysical level.
>
>I do recognise this distinction. Whatever gave you the idea that I
>didn't?
In disagreeing with the metaphysical interpretations of Darwinism, you often
argue against the science of evolution. If you agree that data collection
and interpretation are different, separate your rhetoric.
Steve
____________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin "It is the glory of God to conceal a
Madison, WI 53792 matter, but the glory of kings to
search out a matter."
____________________________________________________________________________