At 05:24 PM 6/28/00 -0500, you wrote:
> Also, common ancestry is not logically connected to the distinction
> between
>micro and macroevolution, for one can accept common ancestry while
>accepting the
>micro/macro distinction, and one can reject common ancestory while
>accepting the
>micro/macro distinction. The micro/macro distinction hangs on one's
>evaluation of
>the intrinsic creative capacities and limitations of the duo of mutatation and
>natural selection. Therefore, were common ancestry to be established
>beyond doubt,
>this would pose no challenge to those maintaining the micro/macro distinction.
Hello Bryan:
May God's blessings and mercies be with you. (We've kept up a little bit
on your situation via Memorial).
Perhaps I should have avoided my tongue-in-cheek comment about
micro/macroevolution. Nevertheless, common ancestry of species and
macroevolution are thoroughly interconnected. By definition (at least in
terms of how evolutionary biologists have always used the term),
macroevolution refers to evolution as measured above the species level. If
one accepts common ancestry (looking backward), one automatically accepts
speciation (that a multiplication of species has occurred in forward time),
and one is automatically then talking about macroevolution (patterns of how
those species arise and sort to replace each other over time).
Common ancestry ties the macro and micro scales together as domains of
inquiry about the same underlying continuity and contingency of material
throughout history. By all forms of measurement (morphological, genetic,
biogeographical, etc) and all manner of empirical data, common ancestry is
substantiated as real. The complex pattern of biodiversity is so
compelling and complete on this point that any alternative explanation
(short of the cop-out notion that God just created the diversity de novo to
look that way) is precluded. Thus, since common ancestry is real, the
micro and macro scales of observation are related materially. Let me
illustrate this in this way: Jacob and Esau had a common ancestor in
Isaac, and Jacob had twelve sons who then became the "fathers" of the
twelve tribes of Israel. If we accept this family tree, then we must
accept that there was BOTH a generation-by-generation continuity of descent
(either biological or cultural in this case), which constitutes the micro
level, AND pattern of important cultural and spiritual diversity that arose
(identity of tribes and the nation Israel), which constitutes the macro
level. The point here is that although interesting cultural identity
patterns emerge at the macro level, they were played out through the micro
level of descent (again, both biological and cultural inheritance in this
case). As long as one accepts the evidence for a continuity of biological
descent and modification (speciation and common ancestry), macroevolution
must be viewed as having been played out at every stage on a
microevolutionary scale, just as microevolution must be viewed as
eventually feeding into macroevolutionary patterns. The terms micro and
macro are convenient for communicating what end of the spectrum one is
discussing, but they can not be isolated ontologically. Microevolutionary
theory and empirical evidence is robust and considerable in affirming that
speciation really occurs. Thus, evidence for microevolution and
macroevolution overlap across the species boundary.
Of course, many people (perhaps you too) will simply disagree on how
compelling and substantiated the case for common ancestry is. There's
nothing I can do about that. My point was that data (such as Glen has
posted examples of) strongly support the fact of common ancestry, in which
case it is utter nonsense for Phil Johnson and others to make statements
that microevolution is "acceptable" while macroevolution is not (he says
this flat-out all the time). This is why I coupled my statement about the
continuity of micro- and macroevolution to the statement "wedge of truth
meets dose of reality". It was my way of adding support to Glen's frequent
statements that these Christians need to face up to some hard cold
data. God's Creation is more complete, robust, formidable, and wonderful
than most people are willing to admit.
Sincerely, Doug
>Doug Hayworth wrote:
>
> > At 10:35 AM 6/23/00 -0400, you wrote:
> > >glenn morton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Many Christian apologists reject the notion that modern man has any
> genetic
> > > > connection with the ancient hominids, such as Homo erectus. This is
> > > > normally done based upon theological considerations in which they
> believe
> > > > that modern man was created within the past 60-200,000 years
> ago. If the
> > > > theological considerations are correct, then genetic data should show a
> > > > genetic bottleneck, it should show no human genes which require
> longer than
> > > > 60-200,000 years of coalescence time (the time for mutations to
> create the
> > > > present observed diversity in modern populations) and we should have no
> > > > non-functional retroviral insertions in common with the Old World
> Monkeys
> > > > and chimps. Modern observations falsify all these apologetical
> > > > expectations. Below are some quotes from two articles which examine the
> > > > genetics of primates. Each quote is relevant to the predictions made by
> > > > apologists noted above.
> >
> > I haven't looked at these specific data, but just technical caveat. It is
> > not necessarily the true that a bottleneck would eradicate non-functional
> > (i.e., neutral) retroviral insertions that originated in the common
> > ancestor of humans and old world monkeys. For example, if the mutation was
> > fixed in the ancestral species, then the sampling caused by a bottleneck in
> > either daughter lineage is of little consequence for any particular
> > mutation. Likewise, considerable polymorphism can make it through even a
> > severe bottleneck as long as it is brief in duration. There are many
> > considerations. Nevertheless, once horizontal transfer is ruled out as a
> > possibility (which it can in many cases), these and gobs of other genetic
> > data support the common ancestry of humans with other primates.
> >
> > Just another case where microevolution meets macroevolution and the wedge
> > of truth meets dose of reality.
> >
> > Doug
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 29 2000 - 14:17:57 EDT