On Thu, 27 Jun 1996 20:03:38, Glenn Morton wrote:
GM>I read this through and could not find where "Christian
>apologists" claim that "millions" of "mutations" are needed "in
>order to change from one species to another"?
GM>This is a semantic game you are playing. Let us look back at what
>I said.
>On Wed. June 19, 1996 I wrote:
>
>The often cited view Christian apologists give of the effects of mutation
>is that there needs to be millions of them in order to change from one
>species to another. This is wrong. Mutations to particular places on the
>DNA alter the morphology drastically without killing the individual or
>harming him badly enough to cause him not to be able to compete.
GM>I did not say that Christian apologists SAID (or WROTE) "millions"
>of mutations are needed. I said that that their view NEEDS millions
>of mutations. I will stand on what I said. But I will not argue
>over your interpretation of what you want to think I said. Logic is
>sufficient Stephen and you should allow that views have logical
>conclusions. The anti-evolutionists say that [Thanks for correcting
>the quote of Gish I skipped a line of text]
Now Glenn is "playing" his own "semantic game". He clearly says
above that "Christian apologists give" a "view" that "there needs to
be millions of them (mutation ) in order to change from one species
to another". He attempted to support this with quotes from said
"Christian apologists" writings. Now he finds his quotes don't
really support his view, so he switches his claim to only that "their
view NEEDS millions of mutations".
Also, note how Glenn has quietly dropped the important qualifier "in
order to change from one species to another"? Indeed, with the
qualifier added back in, even this revised claim doesn't hold water.
*Why* would "their (Christian apologists) view NEEDS millions of
mutations", when even die-hard YECs make no major claims about change
between *species*.
SJ>And Gish wrote:
>"The number of transitional forms that would have lived and died
>during the vast time span required for the evolution of the complex
>invertebrates would have been many billions times
>billions. If evolution is true, museums should have an immense
>storehouse of the fossil transistional forms. Yet, not one has
>ever been found!"~Duane T. Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their
>Critics, (El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1993), p.
>126-127
GM>Now, these transitional forms can be lined up like:
>
>Original species->transitional form 1,2,3...1,000,000,000->final species
>
>Does each transitional form have one mutation different from the one
>previous?
As I said before, Gish is talking about "the evolution of the complex
invertebrates" and his "number of transitional forms" is a *total*
number, ie. each transitional form would have thousands, if not
millions of identical "siblings". He does not say that there needed
to be "billions times billions" of transitional forms in a straight
line, each with a different mutation from its predecessor.
GM>If you say no, then you are saying that a transitional form can be
>identical in genetic make up with the original form, which is ludicrous.
>How can a transitional form be identical genetically with the original? If
>it is identical then it is not a transitional form.
Agreed. Neither Gish nor I are saying that "a transitional form can
be identical in genetic make up with the original form". But there
can be millions of *each* "transitional form" that are "identical
genetically" with *each other*. The *total* "number of transitional
forms that would have lived and died during the vast time span
required for the evolution of the complex invertebrates would have
been many billions times billions."
Denton says something similar:
"While Eldredge and Gould's model is a perfectly reasonable
explanation of the gaps between species (and, in my view, correct) it
is doubtful if it can be extended to explain the larger systematic
gaps. The gaps which separate species: dog/fox, rat/mouse etc are
utterly trivial compared with, say, that between a primitive
terrestrial mammal and a whale or a primitive terrestrial reptile and
an Ichthyosaur; and even these relatively major discontinuities are
trivial alongside those which divide major phyla such as molluscs and
arthropods. Such major discontinuities simply could not, unless we
are to believe in miracles, have been crossed in geologically short
periods of time through one or two transitional species occupying
restricted geographical areas. Surely, such transitions must have
involved long lineages including many collateral lines of hundreds or
probably thousands of transitional species (see diagram on page 175).
To suggest that the hundreds, thousands or possibly even millions of
transitional species which must have existed in the interval between
vastly dissimilar types were all unsuccessful species occupying
isolated areas and having very small population numbers is verging on
the incredible!" (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis",
Burnett Books: London, 1985, p193-194)
GM>If you say yes, then there are millions of mutations required for
>a transition between the species.
No. See above.
GM>Stephen how can you possibly hold such a position?
I don't, and neither does Gish or any "Christian apologist". This is
a straw man Glenn has invented to divert attention away from his
earlier, rash claim that:
"The often cited view Christian apologists give of the effects of
mutation is that there needs to be millions of them in order to
change from one species to another."
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones |
| Perth, West Australia v (My opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------