Glenn
On Mon, 18 May 1998 20:52:46 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
[...]
>SJ>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>Walter is simply wrong in what he says that evolution should expect. I
>know of no evolutionist that says that the higher animals are due to
>polygenetic origin of life.
Walter says nothing about "higher animals". You are up to your usual tricks of
confusing things with red herrings.
The point is that evolution should expect multiple origins of life. If is a 100% natural
process, why should there be only one tree of life? Why should life have only arisen
once? Naturalistic evolutionists think that life should have arisen many times, eg. on
Mars, Europa and other planets. If that is the case, why did it only arise once on
Earth?
GM>Why do flies and humans have similar HOX
>genes, the genes responsible for the embryonic development of morphological
>form? This is due to common descent.
No doubt. But as I have pointed out many times (and which you just ignore),
"common descent" is not the exclusive property of evolution. Common descent
would equally be produced by a Creator supernaturally modifying existing
designs, ie. PC./MC.
GM>Multiple origins of life and multiple
>origins of the major groups by progressive creation would not necessarily
>expect that the insects should use the same HOX complex as man, yet they do
>use remarkably similar ones.
See above. If God progressively created by modifying existing designs, then
we would expect "insects should use the same HOX complex as man".
GM>Why would God necessarily use the same HOX
>complex? God could have ended the evolutionary argument simply by giving
>each major group, its own unique HOX complex. That situation would have
>clearly marked life as having separate origins. But God didn't do that.
There are at least two good reasons why God did not create de novo entirely
different living things, and strangely enough they are given by YECs:
1. Good design and engineering practice: variation on a theme:
"Notice, this is exactly what we would expect as evidence of good
creative design and engineering practice. Suppose you were in the
bridge-building business, and you were interviewing a couple of
engineers to determine whom you wanted to hire. One fellow says,
`Each bridge I build will be entirely different from all others.' Proudly
he tells you `Each bridge will be made using different materials and
different processes so that no one will ever be able to see any similarity
between the bridges I build.' How does that sound? Now the next
fellow comes in and says, "Well, out back in your yard I saw a supply
of I-beams and various sizes of heavy bolts and cables. We can use
those to span either a river or the San Francisco Bay. I can adapt the
same parts and processes to meet a wide variety of needs. You'll be able
to see a theme and a variation in my bridge building and others can see
the stamp of authorship in our work." Which fellow would you hire?
As A. E. Wilder-Smith points out (1980), we normally recognize in
human engineers the principles of creative economy and variations on a
theme." (Morris H.M. & Parker G.E., "What is Creation Science?",
1987, pp63-64).
2. Food
"Professor Burke cites the evidence for unity of cellular processes and
points out that this would be expected by both creationists and
evolutionists. In fact, this unity is demanded by creation. If God had
created plants with a particular type of amino acids, sugars and
nucleotides, animals with other types of these substances, and man with
yet other types, what could we eat? We couldn't eat plants. We couldn't
eat animals. The only thing humans could eat would be each other, and
that would not be an acceptable proposition. Thus, plants, animals and
man had to be created with the same type of amino acids, sugars and
nucleotides, and that would, of course, require similar metabolic
processes, including similar enzymes." (Gish D.T., in Burke D.C. Ed.,
"Creation and Evolution: When Christians Disagree", 1985, pp193-
194)
>>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.
>SJ>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.
GM>No, but then again, there is no reason God could not have been more
>creative than that and left an INDELIBLE mark upon living systems that
>clearly ruled out evolution! He didn't.
God could have arrange craters on the moon to spell out "Jesus saves" but
He didn't. I think it was Pascal who said something like, "God has given
enough evidence to support belief, but not enough evidence to *compel*
belief".
GM>By the way, Steven, I didn't ignore this, I responded. You fail to note
>my response to this every time.
If you can support your claim that you have responded to this previously
then I will apologise. But thank you for your response this time. Now maybe
you will stop ignoring my other points?
>SJ>The strange thing is that you yourself believe that God made Adam by
>>a chromosomal fusion:
>>
>>"...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..."(Morton G.R., "A Theory
>>for Creationists," DMD Publishing Co., 1996.
>>http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/synop.htm)
>>
>>which makes you a type 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.
GM>In the case of mankind, I am a PC because I beleive that this is required
>theologically.
OK. But then you really aren't a theistic evolutionist. And what is the
difference between you and Hugh Ross? You claim he is wrong anthropologically,
but what about you? No secular anthropologist teaches that the first man was
made by "God took one of these creatures, a still born, fixed him, and blew
his breath into him...".
GM>But the nested hierarchies also require explanation. Why
>are we so similar to apes? Why do we use the same HOX complex as insects.
>This seems to prove that there is a genetic connection between us and the
>animals while there is also a specialness about man. The only way I could
>honor both datapoints is by doing what I did.
The point is that "the nested hierarchies" are explained equally well by
God supernaturally intervening at strategic points and modifying existing
genetic code. The advantage of my PC/MC is that it is a more consistent
position. Your hybrid PC/TE is inconsistent.
>SJ>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?
You ignored this! I will assume it was just an oversight, and await
your response.
>>>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.
>SJ>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":
GM>What I mean is that the nested hierarchies even extend to the higher groups
>of animals that you and other antievolutionists would say were not from
>common descent. An example is the HOX genes.
This is your stereotype again! Where have *I* said that "the nested hierarchies"
that "extend to the higher groups of animals...were not from common descent"?
Steve
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
--- Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell University.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Glenn --_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_--
On Mon, 18 May 1998 20:52:46 -0500, Glenn R. Morton wrote:
[...]
>SJ>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>Walter is simply wrong in what he says that evolution should expect. I
>know of no evolutionist that says that the higher animals are due to
>polygenetic origin of life.
Walter says nothing about "higher animals". You are up to your usual tricks of
confusing things with red herrings.
The point is that evolution should expect multiple origins of life. If is a 100% natural
process, why should there be only one tree of life? Why should life have only arisen
once? Naturalistic evolutionists think that life should have arisen many times, eg. on
Mars, Europa and other planets. If that is the case, why did it only arise once on
Earth?
GM>Why do flies and humans have similar HOX
>genes, the genes responsible for the embryonic development of morphological
>form? This is due to common descent.
No doubt. But as I have pointed out many times (and which you just ignore),
"common descent" is not the exclusive property of evolution. Common descent
would equally be produced by a Creator supernaturally modifying existing
designs, ie. PC./MC.
GM>Multiple origins of life and multiple
>origins of the major groups by progressive creation would not necessarily
>expect that the insects should use the same HOX complex as man, yet they do
>use remarkably similar ones.
See above. If God progressively created by modifying existing designs, then
we would expect "insects should use the same HOX complex as man".
GM>Why would God necessarily use the same HOX
>complex? God could have ended the evolutionary argument simply by giving
>each major group, its own unique HOX complex. That situation would have
>clearly marked life as having separate origins. But God didn't do that.
There are at least two good reasons why God did not create de novo entirely
different living things, and strangely enough they are given by YECs:
1. Good design and engineering practice: variation on a theme:
"Notice, this is exactly what we would expect as evidence of good
creative design and engineering practice. Suppose you were in the
bridge-building business, and you were interviewing a couple of
engineers to determine whom you wanted to hire. One fellow says,
`Each bridge I build will be entirely different from all others.' Proudly
he tells you `Each bridge will be made using different materials and
different processes so that no one will ever be able to see any similarity
between the bridges I build.' How does that sound? Now the next
fellow comes in and says, "Well, out back in your yard I saw a supply
of I-beams and various sizes of heavy bolts and cables. We can use
those to span either a river or the San Francisco Bay. I can adapt the
same parts and processes to meet a wide variety of needs. You'll be able
to see a theme and a variation in my bridge building and others can see
the stamp of authorship in our work." Which fellow would you hire?
As A. E. Wilder-Smith points out (1980), we normally recognize in
human engineers the principles of creative economy and variations on a
theme." (Morris H.M. & Parker G.E., "What is Creation Science?",
1987, pp63-64).
2. Food
"Professor Burke cites the evidence for unity of cellular processes and
points out that this would be expected by both creationists and
evolutionists. In fact, this unity is demanded by creation. If God had
created plants with a particular type of amino acids, sugars and
nucleotides, animals with other types of these substances, and man with
yet other types, what could we eat? We couldn't eat plants. We couldn't
eat animals. The only thing humans could eat would be each other, and
that would not be an acceptable proposition. Thus, plants, animals and
man had to be created with the same type of amino acids, sugars and
nucleotides, and that would, of course, require similar metabolic
processes, including similar enzymes." (Gish D.T., in Burke D.C. Ed.,
"Creation and Evolution: When Christians Disagree", 1985, pp193-
194)
>>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.
>SJ>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.
GM>No, but then again, there is no reason God could not have been more
>creative than that and left an INDELIBLE mark upon living systems that
>clearly ruled out evolution! He didn't.
God could have arrange craters on the moon to spell out "Jesus saves" but
He didn't. I think it was Pascal who said something like, "God has given
enough evidence to support belief, but not enough evidence to *compel*
belief".
GM>By the way, Steven, I didn't ignore this, I responded. You fail to note
>my response to this every time.
If you can support your claim that you have responded to this previously
then I will apologise. But thank you for your response this time. Now maybe
you will stop ignoring my other points?
>SJ>The strange thing is that you yourself believe that God made Adam by
>>a chromosomal fusion:
>>
>>"...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..."(Morton G.R., "A Theory
>>for Creationists," DMD Publishing Co., 1996.
>>http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/synop.htm)
>>
>>which makes you a type 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.
GM>In the case of mankind, I am a PC because I beleive that this is required
>theologically.
OK. But then you really aren't a theistic evolutionist. And what is the
difference between you and Hugh Ross? You claim he is wrong anthropologically,
but what about you? No secular anthropologist teaches that the first man was
made by "God took one of these creatures, a still born, fixed him, and blew
his breath into him...".
GM>But the nested hierarchies also require explanation. Why
>are we so similar to apes? Why do we use the same HOX complex as insects.
>This seems to prove that there is a genetic connection between us and the
>animals while there is also a specialness about man. The only way I could
>honor both datapoints is by doing what I did.
The point is that "the nested hierarchies" are explained equally well by
God supernaturally intervening at strategic points and modifying existing
genetic code. The advantage of my PC/MC is that it is a more consistent
position. Your hybrid PC/TE is inconsistent.
>SJ>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?
You ignored this! I will assume it was just an oversight, and await
your response.
>>>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.
>SJ>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":
GM>What I mean is that the nested hierarchies even extend to the higher groups
>of animals that you and other antievolutionists would say were not from
>common descent. An example is the HOX genes.
This is your stereotype again! Where have *I* said that "the nested hierarchies"
that "extend to the higher groups of animals...were not from common descent"?
Steve
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented."
--- Dr. William Provine, Professor of History and Biology, Cornell University.
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/1998/slides_view/Slide_7.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------