Reflectorites
Re: evidence and logic
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 21:16:41 -0700, Cliff Lundberg wrote:
[...]
>>>SB> 3.I...This is equivalent to
>>>> saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution.
>
>>please take note of the word in parentheses--"speciation is (usually) due
>>to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes." In other words,
>>sometimes evolution is not gradual at all, as you correctly point out.
Actually, according to my Biology lecturer, "speciation is" *hardly ever*
"due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes" (i.e.
anagenesis).
These days it is recognised that, contrary to Darwin's theory, almost all
speciation is due to branching (i.e. cladogenesis) due to isolation and
genetic drift.
I would provide a quote from my textbook but I am too busy to scan it!
Susan will just have to take my word until after next week!
BTW, if that is the case, then natural selection has little, if anything to do
with it. That's why the `parents' are still with us. In Darwin's theory, the
`children' were supposed to extinguish the `parents'. But if gradual
extinction is not happening, then natural selection (its flip side) is not
happening.
CL>Macroevolution that is "simply a lot of microevolution" is not macroevolution
>at all.
I disagree with Cliff. It *could* be, if a lot of minor changes did in fact
accumulate up into major changes. But the evidence is they don't.
CL>Gradual evolution can be rapid through a steady succession of
>mutations, but that is not macroevolution.
As usual, the problem is in words having multiple meanings. In this case
"gradual", which as a noun literally means "steps":
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=gradual
Main Entry: 1gradœuœal
Pronunciation: 'gra-j&-w&l, -j&l, 'graj-w&l
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin graduale, from Latin
gradus step, from its being sung on the steps of the altar
Date: 15th century
1 : a book containing the choral parts of the Mass
2 : a pair of verses (as from the Psalms) proper after the Epistle
in the Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------
but which also, as an adjective, means: "1 : proceeding by steps or
degrees"; and "2 : ...changing...by fine or often imperceptible degrees":
--------------------------------------------------------------
Main Entry: 2gradual
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin gradualis, from Latin gradus
Date: 1692
1 : proceeding by steps or degrees
2 : moving, changing, or developing by fine or often imperceptible
degrees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thus Dawkins' Neo-Darwinist idea of "gradual" is micromutations (i.e.
microevolution) accumulating by "fine ... imperceptible degrees" into major
changes (i.e. macroevolution); whereas Gould's punctuationist idea of
"gradual" is "proceeding by steps or degrees" some of which are *big*
steps (i.e. macromutations leading directly to macroevolution).
CL>Macroevolutionary events are saltations, real
>leaps in a single generation.
This is *one* definition of "macroevolution". But, since the Latin
macro="large" and micro= "small", they literally just mean large- and small-
scale evolution:
--------------------------------------------------------------
hhttp://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=macroevolution
Main Entry: mac ro evo lu tion
Pronunciation: 'ma-krO-"e-v&-'lª-sh&n also -"E-v&-
Function: noun
Date: 1939
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes
(as in species formation)
- mac ro evo lu tion ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=microevolution
Main Entry: mi cro evo lu tion
Pronunciation: -"e-v&-'lª-sh&n also -"E-v&-
Function: noun
Date: 1940
: comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation
of variations in populations usually below the species level
- mi cro evo lu tion ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective
--------------------------------------------------------------
The terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are useful to make the
distinction between minor (e.g. cyclical changes in the ratios of light and
dark moths in a population) and major changes (e.g. a small land mammal
becoming a whale in 5-10 million years).
But they are misleading if they give the idea that there are only two sorts of
change, as Brouwer points out, "there are as many levels of evolution as
there are taxonomic categories":
"The terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution have often been used to
express this difference. Simpson later added the term mega-evolution. The
use of these terms has its dangers. It suggests that evolution takes place at
only three different levels, whereas in fact there are as many levels of
evolution as there are taxonomic categories." (Brouwer A., "General
Palaeontology," 1967, p.160)
CL>Your loyalty to Darwinian gradualism ...
Maybe Susan realises that it is only "Darwinian gradualism"
which can (in theory at least) reliably craft complex designs?
It will be found that Cliff himself, despite all his symbiosis
`hand-waving', falls back on "Darwinian gradualism" when he
has to explain which symbiotic mergers, out of his imaginary
"astronomical" numbers of them, actually survived.
CL>... makes you a fine ally for Stephen!
It is interesting to see how evolutionists use the fear of helping creationists
to try to keep each other in line.
But I thought science was about pursuit of *the truth*, regardless of
whether it helps the creationists!
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:18:58 EDT, Bertvan@aol.com wrote:
Re: for Bertvan: evidence and logic
BV>...If I ever have anything original to say,
>I'll post it. When I get into a discussion, it is an attempt to fully
>understand someone else's point of view. Stephen patiently explains the
>arguments for ID much better than I could.
Berthajane is doing just fine! I for one appreciate her keen mind and enjoy
her agnostic ID perspective.
BV>My posts are merely meant as
>moral support for those people who find themselves attacked as
>anti-intellectual for questioning "random mutation and natural selection as
>an explanation of macro evolution", Darwinism or any other part of the
>theory. I also wish to add my moral support to those who argue that
>Darwinism has become a religion. I fully agree with Johnson when he says
>most of this debate is about philosophical naturalists trying to impose their
>religion upon everyone else as "science". I believe there could be room in
>science for ID.
I also appreciate Berthajane's support. I am encouraged that there are
a lot of people out there like her who may not be religious, but who
believe in design. Maybe that's why the scientific naturalist establishment
are so desperate to portray the ID movement as ID *Creationist*? To
scare such people off.
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:16:59 EDT, Bertvan@aol.com wrote:
[...]
BV>While Stephen is the only Christian presently arguing design on this board,
>there are surely others who would like to, but don't want to subject
>themselves to such abuse. There are obvioulsy unprovable points about which
>Stephen and I hold different beliefs, but he has reasons for his views and I
>respect them. I even respect Chris's reasons for his beliefs, and there are
>few people with whom I am in more disagreement. ...
Again, I appreciate Berthajane's fair-mindedness. There have been more
sensitive Christian souls on this Reflector, who probably found it hard
to cope the intimidatory tactics of the evolution side. But I have always
regarded as an indicator of *weakness* on their part. If they had good
arguments they would use them, is my assumption. And if they were
sure of the truth of their position, they would be serenely confident,
and patiently kind to those who disagree with them.
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have quoted some voices of dissent coming from biologists in eminent
academic positions. There have been many others, just as critical of the
orthodox doctrine, though not always as outspoken - and their number is
steadily growing. Although these criticisms have made numerous breaches
in the walls, the citadel still stands - mainly, as said before, because nobody
has a satisfactory alternative to offer. The history of science shows that a
well-established theory can take a lot of battering and get itself into a
tangle of contradictions - the fourth phase of 'Crisis and Doubt' in the
historic cycle and yet still be upheld by the establishment until a
breakthrough occurs, initiating a new departure, and the start of a new
cycle. But that event is not yet in sight. In the meantime, the educated
public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant
answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection -
quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant
and natural selection a tautology." (Koestler A., "Janus: A Summing Up",
Picador: London, 1983, pp.184-185)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 13 2000 - 17:35:49 EDT