From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Mon Nov 25 2002 - 13:54:32 EST
>"This is an important point. The threshold would generally be lower
>in such a setting, though how much lower is totally unknown. In
>experimental attempts to produce new enzymatic function, the
>opportunities for advantageous mutation are initially quite large,
>as even a little function is better than none. As the functionality
>of the novel enzyme increases, the magnitude of improvement
>diminishes, until a plateau is reached where several slight
>improvements and diminishings are possible. Most enzymes in modern
>organisms are at this level, where mutations may slightly improve or
>diminish their efficiency, but large improvement seems unlikely.
>Prebiotic to early biotic settings would have had a much wider field
>of opportunity for innovation." <
>To me this seems purely imagination fueled by a commitment a priori
>to evolution.<
A priori commitment to the assumption of evolution within the model
is necessary to develop a model of how evolution might have
proceeded. However, developing such a model does not require that
the modeler has committed himself a priori to evolution, merely that
he thinks it is sufficiently of interest to model.
>I place a much higher premium upon the facts of today, notably that
>the current sequence landscape occupied by living organisms occupy
>an infinitesimally small area of the total sequence space.<
However, there are factors that limit the modern sequence space
besides the limits on viable sequence space. Some of sequence space
may not be accessible from any starting point, for good or bad. For
example, a maximum feasible sequence length is imposed by the
feasibility of copying it. Unless enough copies can be made to
compensate for loss, the sequence will disappear. Secondly, the
historical contingencies of existing biochemistry also limit the
sequence space accessible to organisms. Given a complex system
(whether evolved or not), most substantial changes will be
detrimental. Perhaps an entirely different complex system would have
done the job just as well, but once an organism has committed to one
approach, its descendants are unlikely to be able to go back on it.
Furthermore, a very limited viable sequence space is not necessarily
a problem for evolutionary means. If the space is sufficiently
interconnected and accessible from simple beginnings, that is the q!
uestion. Perhaps we will have an idea of the answer someday.
I do not know whether anyone has solid ideas on the range of feasible
sequence space. Roger Thomas (at Franklin and Marshall) has done
some theoretical modeling of the range of morphological space
available to animals and found that almost all of it was occupied by
the end of the Cambrian.
>How exactly would you weight the "facts as they are," and what fuels
>your opinion to believe that the "inroads" (so to speak) through the
>sequence landscape to generate current enzymes are very wide making
>their probability small?<
My suspicion is that the inroads are sufficiently accessible (whether
narrow or not) to make them accessible through natural processes.
However, I consider the facts as they are currently known to be
inadequate to do much to rule in or out most positions. What we do
know reveals much flexibility in biochemical systems. Molecular
evolution is a relatively new field, yet already explanations for a
variety of phenomena exist, including some that have been identified
by ID advocates as inexplicable. In light of this trend, I do not
see claims of inexplicability as advisable. There is certainly room
for someone to doubt that uninterrupted action of natural laws would
be sufficient to get from abiotic conditions to modern organisms; I
object to claims that this is scientifically proven.
>Finally, please elaborate on the point: "and my theological sense of
>God's usual self-limitation, suggests that He made extensive use of
>natural means."
To me something like a resurrection is a huge announcement and taking
things into your own hands (not to be argumentative, but simply
thinking of how these two things might relate in my own estimation.)
Perhaps you can specify what ways God self-limits and how that
applies? <
The relative number of people who have died and not yet been
resurrected is much greater than the number resurrected. Similarly,
out of the total number of events in the universe, the number of
miracles is relatively small. While we should avoid Hume's fallacy
of claiming this means that we can automatically assume that a given
event is not miraculous, it does mean that God's use of miracles is
somewhat limited, and that methodological naturalism is a reasonable
first approach for trying to explain something. Even within the
Bible, miracles are not especially common. Almost all the Biblical
miracles occur either in the Exodus, the ministries of Elijah and
Elisha, or in the life of Jesus and the early church. Even these
often use natural elements (e.g., the wind parting the sea; the fish
carrying the coin). They achieve only the impossible, not the
inconvenient. The axehead floated, but still had to be retrieved
from the river. The water became wine but still had to b!
e served. Miracles are not used indiscriminately, contrary to the
demands of Satan (in the testing of Jesus immediately after baptism)
and of the unbelieving Jews ("show us a sign").
The proper purpose of miracles is as "signs", attesting to God's
authority. As neither ID nor creation science points specifically to
the God of the Bible, the merit of signs discovered in the physical
world is highly dubious. In addition, there were no relevant
witnesses to the purported miracles. As there is no need to
demonstrate His authority to primordial soup, why do miracles for it?
If the goal were to impress molecular biologists in the distant
future, why not work the miracle now instead? A flying car over
London, if specifically identified as the work of Jesus would be much
better as a sign to modern humans than reconstructed past events that
seem to suggest intelligent intervention by an unknown individual.
We also see the self-limitation of Jesus in His emptying Himself and
becoming human and in His sacrificial life and death. Try searching
the ASA list archives for kenotic and related terms.
Furthermore, Genesis 1 gives us the mandate to rule over creation.
In order to be good rulers, we must understand how creation works, so
that we can predict the effects of our actions. Thus, creation must
behave in a generally ordinary fashion so that we can understand it.
Coming from a Calvinistic viewpoint, I see natural and miraculous as
equally God's work. Thus, natural explanations in no way detract
from God's role.
None of this proves that the creation of life did not involve a
miracle. It does suggest to me that there is no theological
necessity for it to have involved a miracle.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Josh Bembenek" <jbembe@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 21:30:25 +0000
>Dr. Campbell-
>
>"However, it remains internally consistent, albeit highly implausible, for
>the atheist to claim that we just happen to be incredibly lucky."
>
>See also Dawkins' Chapter 6 "Origins and Miracles" in Blind Watchmaker...
>
>"Another problem is that some ID advocates (not you) jump to the conclusion
>that low probabilities would rule out the possibility that God used natural
>means to create these low-probability structures. Low probabilities are
>equally compatible with a miraculous creation of the structure and with a
>series of low-probability but fully natural reactions, mutations, etc.
>occurring under God's providence."
>
>I think my main hesitation to jump on board with this explanation is the
>lack of mechanism. Here is what I mean, evolution seems more like alchemy
>to me where the ingredients of random mutation, natural selection, spiced
>with loads of Time generate biological complexity. In this scenario, there
>is no driving force, why should anything have accumulated complexity?
>Christians can envision God as a motive force for evolution to proceed
>upwards towards his goals, but even then, how does this give us a mechanism?
> Nothing about an ecological niche DEMANDS for it to be harnessed, it is
>simply available. Nothing about chance or selection demands for these
>things to operate towards the harvest of ecological niches. And supplying
>God to drive the whole scenario forward leaves us with the open question
>that Peter Ruest points out in "Creative Providence in Biology" PSCF 53 #3
>2001 remains inaccessible to science. There may be a direct causal link
>between a gust of wind altering the course of a butterfly's flight and the
>deer that jumps out in front of your car, just as there is a causal link
>between the big bang and God's provident evolution of biological systems
>such as the flagellum, but can our limited methods and understanding ever
>figure it out? And is there something called a natural law which could
>describe such a causal link?! This is not of course to argue that indeed ID
>offers a much more satisfying effort to answer this question, but I think ID
>more directly applies the need for God's action in creation than the former
>explanation. I also think that the current state of our understanding
>allows plenty of room for the ID hypothesis to remain a viable course of
>inquiry.
>
>"However, the biological relevance is not the specification that has been
>the focus of popular ID. Rather, the focus has been on the degree of
>complexity, which is replicated by a long random string of characters."
>
>I think the ultimate goal of the ID movement will be to connect biological
>specification with the analysis of random strings of letters. Right now you
>have a specialized mathematician trying to apply his theory to a biological
>situation and you won't get perfect harmonization until someone with
>expertise can bridge the two (and incorporate the variables we are
>discussing here.)
>
>"Although there are plenty of proteins that do not perform useful functions
>(at least, not in light of the biochemistry of known organisms), insoluble
>proteins can be useful in association with lipid membranes, etc."
>
>Well we can articulate all day the extremely diverse variety of classes of
>soluble and insoluble proteins, but my point mainly clarifies the fact that
>within the entire sequence landscape, functional landscapes of a more
>limited number (how limited is the question) must be sorted out through - on
>the table currently - evolution or intelligent causation or intelligent
>causation through evolution, etc.
>
>"This is an important point. The threshold would generally be lower in such
>a setting, though how much lower is totally unknown. In experimental
>attempts to produce new enzymatic function, the opportunities for
>advantageous mutation are initially quite large, as even a little function
>is better than none. As the functionality of the novel enzyme increases,
>the magnitude of improvement diminishes, until a plateau is reached where
>several slight improvements and diminishings are possible. Most enzymes in
>modern organisms are at this level, where mutations may slightly improve or
>diminish their efficiency, but large improvement seems unlikely. Prebiotic
>to early biotic settings would have had a much wider field of opportunity
>for innovation."
>
>To me this seems purely imagination fueled by a committment a priori to
>evolution. To elaborate, the advances of creating novel enzymes (as far as
>I've investigated to date and have previously mentioned require further
>investigation on my part) are extremely modest in terms of their
>capabilities, leaving a wide gap between the capability of what has been
>made by the experimentalist and the final forms found in nature today (yes I
>realize that evolution would have had billions of years and investigators
>haven't had the same amount of time...) I place a much higher premium upon
>the facts of today, notably that the current sequence landscape occupied by
>living organisms occupy an infinitesimally small area of the total sequence
>space, rather than anticipating further advances with producing novel
>enzymatic activities to support my conclusion. How exactly would you weight
>the "facts as they are," and what fuels your opinion to believe that the
>"inroads" (so to speak) through the sequence landscape to generate current
>enzymes are very wide making their probability small? I am extremely
>skeptical of the hypothesis that inroads to modern proteins within the
>sequence landscape exist to any significant extent whatsoever.
>
>Finally, please elaborate on the point:
>
>"and my theological sense of God's usual self-limitation, suggests that He
>made extensive use of natural means."
>
>To me something like a resurrection is a huge announcement and taking things
>into your own hands (not to be argumentative, but simply thinking of how
>these two things might relate in my own estimation.) Perhaps you can
>specify what ways God self-limits and how that applies?
>
>Josh
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Nov 27 2002 - 20:45:46 EST