On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 16:45:21 -0600, Susan Brassfield wrote:
>SJ>Some months ago, Dawkins asserted that it was *natural selection* which
>>is responsible for increasing the genetic information content of the genome:
[...]
SB>Steven, you should have read a little further. If you had you would have
>seen this:
>
>"If natural selection feeds information into gene pools, what is the
>information about?
The questions are: 1) *does* "natural selection" (ie. nonrandom death) "feed
information into gene pools"? 2) *how* exactly does nonrandom death do it;
and 3) what *evidence* is there that nonrandom death does it?
[...]
SB>And, if you had continued to read Dawkins' remarks, you would have come
>across this:
>
>"Supporters of "intelligent design" guiding evolution, by the way, should
>be deeply committed to the view that information content increases during
>evolution.
What's deep committment got to do with it? Obviously there has been an
information increase from bacteria to bacteriologists. The question is
what (or who) was responsible for this massive information build up?
SB>Even if the information comes from God, perhaps especially if it
>does, it should surely increase, and the increase should presumably show
>itself in the genome.
Why is Dawkins saying this? He doesn't even believe there *is* a God!
Given this his basic assumption, it is up to him to demonstrate a
natural cause that is adequate to produce the effect.
And of course the information increase is *stored* in "the genome". The
questions are: 1) what is its *source*? and 2) how did it get there?
SB>Unless, of course - for anything goes in such
>addle-brained theorising - God works his evolutionary miracles by
>nongenetic means. "
If God "worked miracles" such as supernaturally increasing the information
content of genomes, then it wouldn't be "evolutionary". It would be
*creationary*.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its unifying power
when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's. Since then I have been watching
it slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution. The molecular assault
came first, followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox theories of
speciation and by challenges at the level of macroevolution itself. I have been
reluctant to admit it-since beguiling is often forever-but if Mayr's characterization
of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition, is
effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy." (Gould S.J., "Is a
new and general theory of evolution emerging?", Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January
1980, p120)
--------------------------------------------------------------------