On Thu, 14 May 1998 21:17:04 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
[...]
>JWB>3. The PC explanation is more satisfying (appears more likely to me) on
>>philosophical grounds, and is a philosophical explanation, not a
>>scientific one.
GM>I want to make one comment. I am a theistic evolutionist(TE) for one
>reason only, it fits the facts better. I do not see why, if God
>progressively created the animals and then mankind, why should He have done
>it and arranged it so that the nested hierarchies in biological
>similarities were maintained.
If God "progressively created the animals and then mankind" from existing
animals, then "the nested hierarchies in biological similarities" *would* be
"maintained":
"Suppose contemporary evolutionary theory had blind chance built
into it so firmly that there was simply no way of reconciling it with
any sort of divine guidance. It would still be perfectly possible
for theists to reject that theory of evolution and accept instead a
theory according to which natural processes and laws drove most of
evolution, but God on occasion abridged those laws and inserted some
crucial mutation into the course of events. Even were God to
intervene directly to suspend natural law and inject essential new
genetic material at various points in order to facilitate the
emergence of new traits and, eventually, new species, that miraculous
and deliberate divine intervention would by itself leave unchallenged
such key theses of evolutionary theory as that all species derive ultimately
from some common ancestor. Descent with genetic intervention is still
descent-it is just descent with nonnatural elements in the process."
(Ratzsch D.L., "The Battle of Beginnings," 1996, pp187-188)
In fact PC/MC fits the nested hierarchy pattern *better* than evolution.
PC/MC would expect only *one* tree of life. But evolution should not
expect only one tree of life. It should expect mutliple origins of life
and therefore multiple nested patterns:
"Evolution does not predict that life should be a single unified pattern.
If we found a living marine invertebrate, having no similarity
Whatsoever to any known life, then evolution would not be falsified.
Rather it would immediately accommodate this new situation. If life
comprised two or more separate patterns then evolutionary theory
would immediately adjust. Evolution does not predict a single unified
pattern Evolution can accommodate multiple, disunited patterns.
In addition, common descent does not predict a nested pattern.
Common descent has two components: anagenesis (transformation
within a lineage) and cladogenesis (evolutionary branching events).
Anagenesis is an essential component of evolution, yet it does not
predict a nested pattern. A long transforming lineage of descent does
not create a nested pattern.
Even cladogenesis does not ensure a nested pattern. The pattern of
descent depends on the extent that evolved characters are later lost.
Suppose losses are significant, and characters are replaced at a high
rate. Then there is no reason to expect a nested pattern. Descendants
could be totally different from their distant ancestors and sister
groups, with little or no semblance of nested similarities linking them.
Descent with modification does not predict a single pattern nor a
nested pattern. It can accommodate vastly different patterns,
depending on the blend of biogenesis, anagenesis, cladogenesis, loss,
and replacement that theorists choose to invoke. Descent with
modification does not predict nature: theorists adapt it to nature."
(ReMine W.J., "The Biotic Message," 1993, p343)
GM> God is God and could conceivably have made
>mankind as the only photosynthetic animals (us with green hair) if He had
>wanted to. But He didn't. God followed a rather predictable pattern for PC
>once the main groups were formed. To me, this is the big weakness in the PC
>position. Could God have progressively created the animals. Sure. Did
>He? The nested hierarchies of similarities argues against His action in
>that regard.
As I have pointed out many times (but you just ignore - as usual) this is
just your stereotype of PC. There is no reason why God could not have
progressively created by modifying existing designs.
The strange thing is that you yourself believe that God made Adam by
a chromosomal fusion:
"Assume that God was ready to create a being who was "made in His
image". During this time, there was among the physical ancestor of
man a very rare mutation -- a chromosomal fusion. But this error was
almost always fatal. God took one of these creatures, a still born,
fixed him, and blew his breath into him. Why do I have God make
Adam in this fashion? Because of what God said when Adam sinned.
If you remember the verse Genesis 3:19 God said, "for dust you are
and to dust you shall return." A dead body is "dust." Adam came
from dust and to dust he now will return."(Morton G.R., "A Theory
for Creationists," DMD Publishing Co., 1996.
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/synop.htm)
which makes you a trype of PC! If God could miraculously make man by
modifying an ape, yet man still remain within the "nested hierarchies
of similarities", then you have refuted your own argument.
And if God did this for ape-man, why not for monkey-ape, and all
the way down the line to the first self-replicating molecule?
>JWB>4. What scientific differences would I expect to see between the two? I
>>really don't know of any.
GM>Philosophically, I would not necessarily expect the nested hierarchies of
>similarities under PC. With evolution, they are a requirement. Without
>them, evolution is false. But note that the nested hierarchies of
>biological, biochemical etc similarities are observed.
You are,as usual, using the word "evolution" in a vague way, without
defining what exactly you mean by it. Really what you are saying that
with *common descent* "nested hierarchies of similarities...are a
requirement". But common descent is not confined only to "evolution".
As Denton points out, "descent is...equally compatible with almost any
philosophy of nature", including "creationist":
"It is true that...the hierarchic patterns of class relationships are
suggestive of some kind of theory of descent. But neither tell us
anything about how the descent or evolution might have occurred, as to
whether the process was gradual or sudden, or as to whether the
causal mechanism was Darwinian, Lamarckian, vitalistic or even
creationist. Such a theory of descent is therefore devoid of any
significant meaning and equally compatible with almost any philosophy
of nature." (Denton M., "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", 1985, pp154-155)
GM>And I do respect those who hold such a position; I just don't think it is
>the best one given the evidence.
That's because you ignore and/or erect a strawman of the PC/MC "position",
Moreover you define "evolution" so broadly that it would fit almost *any*
"evidence"!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------