Re: Early humans swapped bite for brain

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:56:15 -0500, Howard J. Van Till wrote:

>Gary,
>
>Thanks for the tip. This strikes me as but one example of how the discovery
>of one new formational capability (a capability for a particular genetic
>mutation) in the formational economy of the universe opens up a whole
>roomful of ways for us to theorize about how the formational history of
>humans might have taken place. In this case, one genetic mutation (affecting
>the size of jaw muscles) experienced a tremendous positive feedback and led
>to a radically new type of (large brained) creature.
>
>When I propose, as I often do, that the universe does actually satisfy the
>"Robust Formational Economy Principle," some people disparage it as nothing
>more than "promissory-note naturalism" and others say that they "choke" on
>it. Well, some people choke on beef tenderloin. Is that the fault of the
>beef? Or, is the outcome of faulty chewing? Have some big-brained people
>lost the ability to "chew" on ideas that call some traditional concepts into
>question?
>
>Howard Van Till

Howard,
It certainly is amazing what can be achieved through a mutation.
I remember a few years back there was a post in which someone
stated that a frame-shift mutation in some-or-other bacterium
gave it the ability to produce an enzyme which could digest
polythene. One would think that the odds against that happening
would be enormous (and perhaps they are) but it happened, all the
same.
I'd say my views are broadly similar to yours. I view God as not only
the Creator but also as the Sustainer of all things, and the creation as having
such properties as RFEP because God continuously acts to sustain His
creation, and that He does so (most of the time) in such a way that enables
us to see predictability in the creation's behaviour.
Like yourself, I think it highly unlikely (though not impossible) that God
would act in an 'out-of-the-ordinary' way in order to actualize some
particular biological structure or feature such as the flagellum (as ID
would suggest).
But like some other people on the list, I don't think it nearly so unlikely
that God intervened in such a way in order to produce the first life from
non-life. My reasons for believing this are 1) the sheer improbability of
having the right things come together in the right way at the right time
(this may subsequently be shown to be an unreasonable objection, but
for now I think it is valid; and 2) in my interpretation of Genesis I
understand three 'fiats' from God, which (I believe) indicate the bringing
into existence of something fundamentally new, that wasn't in existence
before. Effectively, these are matter, life and man. If this interpretation
is reasonable (I'm no great theologian any more than I am a great scientist!)
this would give sufficient theological ground for God 'doing something
special' in the origin of life, consistent with the scientific/mathematical
ground).
(I must be careful, as if I'm not mistaken the 'bara' actually refers to
animal life rather than life in general; but as I'm not a strict concordist
maybe I can live with this, at least for the time being. Others, such as
perhaps yourself, might require something a bit stronger here :-))
Note: though I numbered my points I don't in any way wish to imply
that they are in order of priority!
/Gary
Received on Fri Mar 26 11:09:02 2004