Reflectorites
--Original Message Text---
From: Chris Cogan
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 16:50:17 -0600
[continued]
The prevailing pattern is not "general and gradual conversion of all the
parts at the same time":
Mosaic evolution. In the evolution of each of the five classes of
vertebrates, the fossil record has preserved forms that are roughly
intermediate between two successive grades. The most important of
these is Archaeopteryx, the remarkable feature of which is that
some of its structures are purely reptilian (small brain, long tail, free
fingers), others are purely avian (feathers, wing, furcula or
wishbone, reversed fourth toe). In the transition from reptile to bird
there was no general and gradual conversion of all the parts at the
same time, but some remained reptilian while others became
completely transformed to the bird type. This pattern is called
mosaic evolution It can be recognized in the other intermediate
forms, between fish and amphibia, amphibia and reptiles, reptiles
and mammals, and also in the evolution of man." (de Beer G.,
"Evolution," in "Encyclopaedia Britannica, Benton: Chicago IL,
15th Edition, 1984, Vol. 7, p.19)
Rather "frequently, a suite of characters undergoes a complete
transformation before other characters change at all":
"Frequently, a suite of characters undergoes a complete
transformation before other characters change at all.
Paleontologists refer to this potential independence of traits as
"mosaic evolution." (Gould S.J., "Bushes and Ladders in Human
Evolution," in "Ever Since Darwin," 1991, p.58).
But Chris' instinct is right that this was not a prediction of Neo-Darwinist
evolutionary theory, because if the environment is affecting the whole
organism, one would expect all the parts to be changing:
"But the fossil record shows an unevenness of rate ...and that
evidence throws doubt on the adequacy of neo- Darwinism as a
creative source of new morphology.... I note the following problem
areas. ... 5. Mosaic evolution at morphogenic transitions.
Intermediate evidence, when it does exist, usually is mosaic in
nature. Mosaic evolution (the movement of one character with
stasis in another) indicates the constraints of existing genomic
diversity. But, if the characteristic appearance of new suites of
characters is similar to that seen in Archaeopteryx, then an almost
completely established (individuated) character set can be obtained
for one organ/structure (flight feathers) with little movement in
others skeletal characteristics) ...This makes sense only if the
complexity to be realized was already available in the genome.
If large-scale morphological change depends on the appearance
of a series of new mutations to be selected by a new adaptive niche,
should not characters be mutated and move together at rates
that are at least comparable? (Wilcox D.L., in Buell J. & Hearn V.,
eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", 1994, pp.202-203.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter13.html)
CC>Indeed, NET would suggest that they each formed a little at a time, to
>whatever degree each was useful *at* the time,
Read literally this would be in accord with mosaic evolution, but then this
would contradicts what Chris had already said: "They would *only* have
been harmful if they had formed *completely* or at least *substantially*
without some development in the others".
CC>just as, apparently, the giraffe's long neck formed *partially* and then
>evolutionarily "drove" the development of a stronger heart and sturdier blood
>vessels, etc., thus allowing yet further development of the neck (which would
>then drive still more development of the heart and blood vessels).
I always regard the placing of "evolutionarily" before something (e.g.
"evolutionarily `drove'" as like a magician saying "abracadabra":
"Such accounts are really not much more helpful than a line of
plausible patter before a conjurer says abracadabra and produces a
rabbit (or in the above case, a fish) from his hat. ...The abracadabra
approach used to explain away the fossil gaps is equally in evidence
when it comes to evolutionary novelties. With a wave of the wand,
difficulties and complexities are minimized." (Hitching F., "The
Neck of the Giraffe," 1982, pp.24,97)
Evolution does not drive anything because it *isn't* anything. Evolution is
a *theory* purporting to describe real causal entities. Evolution is not a
causal entity in itself.
CC>The evolution of any major feature *never* needs to be all or nothing (or,
>rather, if it does, that feature simply
>does *not* occur at all).
It is begging the question to assume it *was* "evolution". If the reptilian
egg was part of an overall `construction project' by an Intelligent Designer,
then the correct word to use is *creation*!
>SJ>You cannot have an isolated
>>mutation A, preserve it over an incalculable number of generations
>>until mutation B occurs in the same lineage and so on to C and D.
>CC>Yes you can, if each mutation is small and either beneficial or harmless.
The problem here is that the smaller the mutation, the less the probability that it
would become fixed in a population (i.e. the greater the probability that it would
be weeded out):
"To Fisher, the lesson was simple: large mutations have a very small chance
of being favorable. Adaptation must therefore be based on many gene
substitutions of individually small effect. As Turner (1985) argues, Fisher
held an extreme few of micromutationism, believing that adaptations were
based on innumerable loci of very small effect. This led to Fisher's belief
that mutation plays little or no creative role in evolution but that natural
selection shapes adaptations out of an infinite supply of very small
mutations. There are, however, several problems with Fisher's argument.
First, as Kimura (1983) points out, Fisher shows only that small mutations
are more likely to be favorable, not that they are more likely to be
substituted. These two possibilities have often been confused, as in
Simpson's (1949, p. 234) assertion that the "chance that a mutation will be
favored by selection and the chance that it will or can be integrated into a
genetic system ... are inversely related to the effect of the mutation." But
these probabilities are not identical. The substitution rate of a class of
mutations depends not only on its chance of being advantageous but also
on its mutation rate and its probability of fixation once it has arisen. ... The
important point is that a mutation's probability of fixation is directly
proportional to its phenotypic effect." (Orr H.A., & Coyne J.A., "The
Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment," The American Naturalist, Vol.
140, No. 5, November 1992, pp.727-728).
This is because, as Ambrose has pointed out, the probability of each individual
small mutations in different animals combining together within one animal's
genome (which is necessary if any permanent phenotypic change is to occur) is so
small as to be virtually impossible:
"If this is the case, a single gene mutation cannot generate a structure of
new complexity. But according to neo-Darwinism, genes are distributed
within the population. To produce a significantly new structure 3 or 10, or
more generally 30-40 genes closely cooperating would have to be brought
together in the same individual. To design a new style of dress for women,
the designer would have to bring together the suppliers of fabrics with their
various colours, suppliers of lace, suppliers of ribbons, etc. Working as a
team, the final design would emerge. So it would be with the group of
newly modified genes, which together, working in harmony would generate
the new complexity. The rate of mutation is 1 in million, out of these non
harmful mutations are 1 in 1000. For 2 such to occur would be 1 in 10^3 x
10^3. For 5 to occur 1 in 1000 million million (1 in 10^15). " (Ambrose
E.J., "The Mirror of Creation," 1990, p.167)
CC>Koestler is obviously assuming that each
>of the features he lists must have occurred all at once in its "final" form, via
>a *single* mutation, if Darwinism view is to be true.
Not necessarily. His point was that: "each step, however small, required
simultaneous, interdependent changes affecting all the factors involved in
the story":
"...that each step, however small, required simultaneous,
interdependent changes affecting all the factors involved in the
story. Thus the liquid store in the albumen could not be kept in the
egg without the hard shell. But the shell would be useless, in fact
murderous, without the allantois and without the tin-opener. Each
of these changes, if they had occurred alone, would have been
harmful, and the organisms thus affected would have been weeded
out by natural selection (or rather, as suggested above, by 'natural
elimination'). .... Each single mutation would be wiped off the slate
before it could be combined with all the others. They are all
interdependent within the organism - which is a functional whole,
and not a mosaic." (Koestler A., "Janus: A Summing Up," 1983,
pp.176).
CC>But, this is not Darwinism. It is *Koestler's* ludicrous
>*assumption* about Darwinism and about the
>requirements of naturalistic evolution.
This is Chris' *opinion*. But Chris has not demonstrated that his is an
*informed* opinion.
Koestler spent much of his life personally interacting with Darwinists and
Darwinism. His criticisms were never satisfactory answered, but just
fobbed of by Darwinists as Chris is attempting to do here.
CC>Don't you *ever* check your facts?
See above. This is a *joke* coming from Chris!
>SJ>Each single mutation would be wiped off the slate before it could
>>be combined with all the others.
>CC>Again, *only* on the assumption that the final form of each trait had to
>occur all at once.
Not necessarily. See above.
>SJ>They are all interdependent within
>>the organist which is a functional whole, and not a mosaic.
>CC>This is only partly true. Genetically, the organism is not only a mosaic, but
>a mosaic of *much* smaller "pieces"
>than Koestler assumes above in building his straw man version of
>Darwinism.
See above on mosaic evolution. It is *Chris* who is working with a "straw
man version of Darwinism".
Moreover, Chris is working with a straw man version of Koestler's
argument. Koestler's point is not "that the final form of each trait had to
occur all at once" but that at each stage, however small they were, all the
parts were *interdependent*.
My argument, which is based on Koestler's, is that this has all the hallmarks
of a pre-planned construction project. This is borne out by the fact that
these changes served not just the immediate needs of the individual
amphibians they occurred in, but they were a *blueprint* for *all* future
land vertebrates:
"The reptilian egg is, in fact, a blueprint for the eggs of mammals
and for live birth. In the more complex mammalian egg, one of the
membranes inherited from the ancient reptilian egg, the chorion,
comes into close contact with the wall of the uterus to form the
placenta. Linked with the blood vessels of the allantois, the placenta
supplies oxygen and nutriment to the developing embryo and
carries away carbon dioxide and waste materials. (Stivens D., "The
Incredible Egg," 1974, p170)
>SJ>The
>>doctrine that the coming together of all requisite changes was due
>>to a series of coincidences is an affront not only to common sense
>>but to the basic principles of scientific explanation."
>CC>This is true, if he means it in the way that he seems to mean it. Fortunately
>for NET, it is also *irrelevant*, since
>NET does not make any claim of this sort.
See above on Chris' private version of evolution called "NET"! Since there
is AFAIK nowhere in the evolutionary literature that one can find "NET"
but Chris is the final arbiter of what it means, this gives Chris great tactical
versatility, since he can always say that "NET does not make any claim of
this sort"!
SJ>(Koestler A., "Janus: A Summing Up," [1978], Picador: London, 1983,
>>reprint, pp.175-176)
>>
>>SJ>It is my firm contention that these examples (and there are a number of
>>them) of what I call "construction projects," where a number of unrelated
>>components appear to be assembled well in advance towards a long-term
>>goal, cannot *even in principle* be explained by unintelligent natural
>>processes of *any* sort.
>>
>>Some (or even all?) individual components may be able to be explained by
>>unintelligent natural processes, but the *whole project*, I claim, cannot be
>>adequately explained without invoking a far-sighted Intelligent Designer.
>CC>This assumes that there *is* a project, thus begging the question.
No. I am proposing a scientific hypothesis, subject to falsification and
supporting it with evidence.
It is metaphysical naturalists like Chris who beg the question by denying in
advance that there *could* be such a project.
CC>If you
>*assume* that there is a project, you've
>already set up a circular argument, because "projects" are only carried out
>by *design*.
No. It is not a "circular argument". It is a hypothesis based on the
*evidence*. The amphibian-reptile transition (including its component the
amniotic egg), has all the hallmarks of a far-sighted construction project.
It is *Chris* who is using a "circular argument" that there *cannot* be a
designer to deny the evidence for such a far-sighted construction project.
CC>Did you think no one would notice this?
No. In fact I *predicted* it. See below where I said:
"I predict that all that can be done by anti-designists is to either deny that
these "construction projects" exist on materialistic/naturalistic philosophical
grounds and try to ignore them altogether ..."
Chris by his "circular argument" ploy is trying to do just this! Chris doesn't
even want the argument to be heard and so he tries (as usual) to deny that
there is even an argument.
SJ>I claim that these `construction projects' defeat *all* naturalistic (including
>>deistic and `front-loaded' theistic) evolutionary explanations.
>CC>Once you get past the *presumption* that they *are* projects, they
>generally become *trivial* to explain in naturalistic terms.
Which is my second prediction:
"... or else baptise them by force as `evolution' "
>SJ>They are therefore IMHO the *ultimate* design argument! I confidently
>>make a falsifiable scientific prediction that *no amount* of scientific
>>advance will *ever* be able to explain this class of phenomena by
>>unintelligent natural processes.
>CC>Too late. It's already been done. Why do you *insist* on making claims like
>this without checking your facts?
See above. I *have* checked my facts, which is more than I can say for
Chris!
>SJ>I predict that all that can be done by anti-designists is to either deny that
>>these "construction projects" exist on materialistic/naturalistic
>>philosophical grounds and try to ignore them altogether; or else baptise
>>them by force as `evolution' while using the language of design (see
>>tagline).
>CC>Nope, all we have to do is ask you to show that they *do* exist. It's
>*your* claim, and therefore your burden of
>proof (and you are not doing well so far, I might point out).
Thanks to Chris for at least (inadvertently) accepting that it is a scientific
hypothesis, subject to testing!
CC>We don't have to *deny* anything except that you have shown that such
>projects exist.
Which is denying it as far as Chris is concerned! But there is no requirement that
for something to be true, it must be accepted by metaphysical naturalists like Chris.
If design in true, then those who rule out design apriori like Chris, will never come
to know that truth.
CC>And, of course, we can always point out that the argument so far is
>perfectly circular.
No. See above. It is *Chris'* argument that is "perfectly circular" because it
does not depend on *evidence*, but the denial of evidence.
My `construction project' argument is based on *evidence*, and so is
subject to disproof (as Chris inadvertently admitted above).
CC>You want us to accept that these "projects" exist on pure
>faith, apparently.
No. It is *Chris* who wants to *not* "accept that these `projects' exist on
pure faith", i.e. the faith that materialism ("matter is all there is") and
naturalism ("nature is a permanently closed system of cause and effect") is
true.
So, for faithful materialist-naturalists like Chris, *no* amount of evidence
would suffice.
CC>Stephen, *PLEASE* go back to the drawing board and try again.
Well I will certainly go to the "drawing board" to improve my evidence and
argument for this construction project and advance new examples of
construction projects.
CC>What
>you have given us here not only does
>not even begin to reach the level that would be needed to justify your bold
>claims, but it is pathetic.
Chris seems to think that I require his approval? I certainly did not expect
Chris to agree with my hypothesis. Indeed, I predicted he wouldn't. So
Chris is actually inadvertently confirming my claims. That metaphysical
naturalists just deny that there *can be* such construction projects on
philosophical grounds.
CC>PLEASE
>examine the claims you make and the basis upon which you make them, at
>least *once* in a while.
Again, thanks to Chris for this encouragement to continue to examine the
claims I make and the basis upon which I make them! :-)
Maybe Chris should consider the basis on which he makes his claim that
such `construction projects' *cannot* exist, no matter what the evidence
points to?
CC>I say this
>because the errors in Koestler's claims are not exactly subtle; you *could*
>have seen them, had you bothered to
>critically examine Koestler's argument for yourself.
See above. There are no "errors in Koestler's claims". In fact, in the 20
years since he made them, with the rise of Developmental Biology, there
has been an increasing acceptance that his views were correct (even though
of course he would not get the credit). For example, developmental
biologists are calling for a "A new evolutionary synthesis", and even
invoking Goldschmidt::
"A new evolutionary synthesis One of the major events in
evolutionary theory has been the "modern synthesis" of
evolutionary biology and Mendelian genetics .... One outcome of
this hard-won merger is that evolution has been redefined to mean
changes in gene frequencies in a population over time.... This
definition became largely agreed upon in the United States,
England, and the Soviet Union, and thus morphology and
development were seen to play little role in modern evolutionary
theory .... The large morphological changes seen during
evolutionary history could be explained by the accumulation of
small genetic changes. In other words, macroevolution (the large
morphological changes seen between species, classes, and phyla)
could be explained by the mechanisms of microevolution, the
"differential adaptive values of genotypes or deviations from
random mating or both these factors acting together"... However,
this view has had its critics (its heretics, some would say). Perhaps
the foremost of these was Richard Goldschmidt. Goldschmidt
began his book The Material Basis of Evolution (1940), with a
challenge to the modern synthesis It may be able to explain the
*survival* of the fittest, but not the *arrival* of the fittest:...
Goldschmidt claimed that new species did not arise from the
mechanisms of microevolution, and that population genetics was
unable to explain new types of structures that involve several
components changing simultaneously. Such macroevolutionary
change "requires another evolutionary method than that of sheer
accumulation of micromutations." Goldschmidt saw homeotic
mutants as "macromutations" that could change one structure into
another and possibly create new structures or new combinations of
structures. These mutations would not be in the structural genes but
in the regulatory genes. A new species, he asserted, would start as a
"hopeful monster" ... " (Gilbert S.F., "Developmental Biology," 1994,
p.855)
Gilbert concludes by calling for "a developmental genetic theory capable of
explaining macroevolution" (which admits that the materialist-naturalists all
along have never have one!):
"A new developmental synthesis is emerging that retains the best of
the microevolution-yields-macroevolution model and the
macroevolution-as- separate-phenomenon model. From the latter it
derives the concept that mutations in regulatory genes can create
"jumps" from one phenotype to another without necessary
intermediate steps. From the former, it derives the notion that
genetic mutations can account for such variants and that selection
acts upon them to delete them or retain them in populations. It also
retains a multiplicity of paradigms. ... We are at a remarkable point
in our understanding of nature, for a synthesis of developmental
genetics with evolutionary biology may transform our appreciation
of the mechanisms underlying evolutionary change and animal
diversity. Such a synthesis is actually a return to a broader-based
evolutionary theory that fragmented at the turn of the past century..
In the late 1800s, evolutionary biology contained the sciences that
we now call evolutionary biology, systematics, ecology, genetics,
and development- By the beginning of the twentieth century, the
"question of heredity"-genetics and embryology-separated from the
rest of evolutionary biology. Genetics eventually split into (among
other rubrics) population genetics and molecular genetics, while
embryology became developmental biology .... During the mid-
twentieth century, population genetics merged with evolutionary
biology to produce the evolutionary genetics of the modern
synthesis, while molecular genetics merged with developmental
biology to produce developmental genetics. These two vast areas,
developmental genetics and evolutionary genetics, are on the verge
of a merger that may unite these long-separated strands of biology
and that may produce a developmental genetic theory capable of
explaining macroevolution." (Gilbert S.F., "Developmental
Biology," 1994, pp.856-857
CC>I would hazard a guess that *all* of the other examples that you had in
>mind in presenting this would fall from the same errors.
Which just further confirms my point. Chris rules out in advance
*whatever* evidence I will present, on materialistic-naturalistic
philosophical grounds!
CC>Before you give us the *next* one, take a look at the
>reasoning involved, and ask yourself these questions:
There won't be a "next one" since I am leaving the Reflector *today*! But I
will post my construction project arguments on eGroups.
CC>1. Of all of these features, *could* there be evolutionary value in
>developing it to a *slight* degree? (The answer is almost always "yes." by
>the way.)
See above on the Darwinist *system* of thought in which Dawkins says:
"No matter how improbable it is that an X could have arisen from a
Y in a single step, it is always possible to conceive of a series of
infinitesimally graded intermediates between them. However
improbable a large-scale change may be, smaller changes are less
improbable. And provided we postulate a sufficiently large series of
sufficiently finely graded intermediates, we shall be able to derive
anything from anything else, without invoking astronomical
improbabilities." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," 1991,
pp.317-318)
That is, Darwinist thinking can always invent hypothetical "infinitesimally
graded intermediates between" any two points *even if they were never
there*!
This is the core Darwinist delusion, because it confuses a hypothetical
possibility with the real thing!
CC>2. If one feature developed slightly, would it give benefit if some *other*
>of the related features developed slightly? (The answer is "yes" again.)
See above on the Darwinist delusion.
CC>3. Could any of these features have developed in such a way as to serve
>some *other* function initially (and
>possibly in a *different* form)? (The answer is often "yes.")
Note how Chris takes "could" to mean *did*!
CC>4. Could a different but related set of features have developed and then
>evolved *sideways* into the set we see
>today? ("Sometimes")
Ditto.
CC>5. Could a different set of features have evolved so as to serve some other
>function and then *lost* or
>*changed* a component to serve a different function?
Ditto.
CC>6. In general, what is there about this example that might be questionable,
>that should be examined more closely? (Answer: "Everything.")
I have no problem examining my `construction project' hypothesis more
closely. But what Chris *really* means is that I *keep* examining it, so
that I never actually make it!
>7. Has the claimed Darwinian alternative ever been seriously offered by a
>Darwinian? (In this case, the answer, at least for a few decades, is "No.")
More bluff. Chris has never given any indication on this List that he has
ever read *any* "Darwinian alternative ever been seriously offered by a
Darwinian"
CC>If you ask and seriously try to answer such questions with respect to every
>such thing you are tempted to quote,
See above on Chris wanting me to keep asking myself "such questions with
respect to every such thing" I am "tempted to quote" in order that I
*never* post them!
Well, too bad. I don't mind being proved wrong, and I made up my mind a
long time ago that I am not going to allow fear of being proved wrong
"Finlandise" me into excessive introspection.
CC>you will save yourself from making a lot of utterly unsupportable claims
Chris' problem is that my claims are *supportable*, and I *do* support
them with *evidence*. Chris OTOH just answers them with *theory*. And
his own, private, home-spun "NET" theory at that!
CC>(such as: "I claim that these `construction
>projects' defeat *all* naturalistic (including deistic and `front-loaded'
>theistic) evolutionary explanations").
Well, I *do* claim that! And what's more, AFAIK every evolutionary theorist
would agree with me, that *no* "naturalistic (including deistic and `front-loaded'
>theistic) evolutionary explanations" could *ever* explain a long-range
construction project. All they can do is *deny* that they exist.
CC>If you
>want to make such claims, at *least* put a little time up front examining
>the basis for them, to see if they will hold up to the above questions.
See my replies to Chris' "above questions"! Chris seems to imagine that all
he has to do is ask *questions* about what *could* have happened, and
that is that!
From my Christian theistic perspective, Chris, like other materialist-
naturalists, is trapped in a system of thinking that denies that there even
*could* be `construction projects' in nature.
But from my Christian theistic perspective it seems that many, if not most
of the major transitions, like the fish-amphibian, amphibian-reptile, reptile-
bird, primate-human, have all the hallmarks of far-sighted construction
projects.
Evolutionists have been protected from this type of argument, because
YECs deny them too. But some evolutionists have noticed them (see
tagline) but have been unable to explain them within their non-theistic
framework. I am trying to get the ID movement interested in this type of
argument, but without much success at the moment. This is only to be
expected at this stage because: 1) they are new (AFAIK myself and one
other ID philosopher is making them, and his is more theoretical than mine;
2) the ID movement has enough on its plate, without opening up another
front; 3) some IDers are YECs and some are non-theists. As regards the
latter, a designer who could plan and give effect to a construction project
of the magnitude of the amphibian-reptile transition, would be
uncomfortably like the Christian God!
As this is my last post on the Reflector to Chris, I thank him again for his
stimulating arguments and again wish him and everyone a Happy New
Century and Millennium!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradualists and saltationists alike are completely incapable of giving a
convincing explanation of the quasi-simultaneous emergence of a number
of biological systems that distinguish human beings from the higher
primates: bipedalism, with the concomitant modification of the pelvis, and,
without a doubt, the cerebellum, a much more dexterous hand, with
fingerprints conferring an especially fine tactile sense; the modifications of
the pharynx which permits phonation; the modification of the central
nervous system, notably at the level of the temporal lobes, permitting the
specific recognition of speech. From the point of view of embryogenesis,
these anatomical systems are completely different from one another. Each
modification constitutes a gift, a bequest from a primate family to its
descendants. It is astonishing that these gifts should have developed
simultaneously. Some biologists speak of a predisposition of the genome.
Can anyone actually recover the predisposition, supposing that it actually
existed? Was it present in the first of the fish? The reality is that we are
confronted with total conceptual bankruptcy." (Schutzenberger M-P., in "The
Miracles of Darwinism: Interview with Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger," Origins
& Design, Vol. 17, No. 2, Spring 1996, pp.10-15.
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 10:14:52 EST