Re: Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale

David Campbell wrote:

First statement:
"Evolution makes specific predictions about patterns to expect in organisms. We see those patterns."
Second statement:
"Why should hippos and whales be more similar in DNA than hippos and cows? Why don't whales have fish-like DNA, whereas sea cows are more similar to elephants and hyraxes?"

This sounds interesting. The second statement indicates degree of similarity in DNA is not always what we expect from morphology. Are such cases of unfulfilled expectations those where the "specific predictions" of the first statement fail, or are the predictions of the first statement of another sort? Would it be easy to make examples from the first statement available (understandable) to scientists who have weak backgrounds in biochemistry?

Don

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: bivalve<mailto:bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
  To: ASA<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
  Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 9:27 AM
  Subject: Re: Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale

> I agree that these evidences provide good corroboration for one who already believes evolution. But what are the alternatives if one doesn't? Special creation is certainly a leading alternative, and one who believes in special creation can easily dismiss several or all of these evidences: Genes and other molecules are similar in similar organisms because God happened to have closely similar thoughts as he made the closely related organisms. And, OK, the 13 species of Galapagos finches may have descended from a common ancestor, but they're all still finches; we can live with that. As for the rest, prove God didn't create it all the way it is.<

  It's impossible to prove that God did not create everything exactly as it appears last Tuesday. One argument against this and other special creation arguments of this sort is ironically akin to Dembski's specified complexity argument. Special creation can explain anything equally well. Evolution makes specific predictions about patterns to expect in organisms. We see those patterns. Another example of this is the comparison of relativity and Newtonian physics in explaining Mercury's orbit. If you invoke undiscovered extra mass lurking somewhere, you can explain any orbit using Newtonian physics, but relativity predicts the observed pattern without any hidden extra planet.

  The admission that Galapagos finches come from a common ancestor points to another flaw of this sort of argument. The better documented a given transition is, the smaller the individual steps will be. The reptile to mammal transition is a good example of one that many antievolutionists are unwilling to accept, yet the changes can be traced easily.

  The molecular patterns include many non-functional features, old virus sequences tht have been incorporated into the genome, etc. The fact that morphologically similar but unrelated forms also have dissimilar DNA seems a problem for the "similar thoughts" argument. Why should hippos and whales be more similar in DNA than hippos and cows? Why don't whales have fish-like DNA, whereas sea cows are more similar to elephants and hyraxes?

      Dr. David Campbell
      Old Seashells
      University of Alabama
      Biodiversity & Systematics
      Dept. Biological Sciences
      Box 870345
      Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
      bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com<mailto: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
Received on Wed Jan 5 05:18:59 2005