Re: [asa] moonie Christianity today

>Please elaborate re: Wells' "inaccurate
attacks on evolution."<

Here's some elaboration, not exhaustive of the problems in the review:

At least most of the things which Wells claims to be unexplained in fact
have evolutionary explanations, but not necessarily relating to evo-devo. For
example, evidence on the origins of protein synthesis includes the fact that
some tRNA genes, all of which are currently necessary for living organisms,
show similarities as if they originated by gene duplication. This implies
that a simpler cell had a system with fewer tRNAs. As an example of how an
"irreducibly complex" biochemical system can evolve, however, it's perhaps
not surprising that Wells fails to mention it. Many features of eukaryotes
can readily be explained if one or more episodes of fusion took place
between different eubacteria and archaebacteria. The origin of
multicellular organisms does not initially require very complex aggregation
and communication; consideration of simple multicellular organisms such as a
comparison of algae in the volvocine series or unicellular choanoflagellates
versus colonial choanoflagellates versus truly multicellular yet simple
sponges shows that multicellularity can evolve very simply and then develop
greater complexity. I'm surprised that the origin of animal body plans in
the Cambrian radiation (and in the late Precambrian) did not get some
explanation in the text, since some of the ideas invoke developmental
patterns; in particular, developmental core processes appear to have been
less strictly fixed then than they are now. The origin of limbs in the
first land vertebrates needs no explanation, because the aquatic fish and
amphibians that preceded them had limbs. The origins of these limbs in
fishes and the modifications of the limbs associated with the transition to
walking could use further investigation, but until someone does evo-devo
studies on coelacanths or lungfishes key data will be missing.

                Wells claims that variation and selection have never been
observed to produce a new species. The process of speciation is expected to
typically take many generations. Deciding where to draw the line and
declare that a new species has appeared is often very difficult. Also,
creating new species has rarely been a goal of research. Nevertheless, many
new species have been observed being produced in the wild or under human
manipulation. The most clear-cut examples are hybrids or autopolyploids
that are capable of reproducing themselves, but unable to breed with either
parent species. This is especially commonplace in plants; wheat and corn
being among the most important examples, but also including many more recent
events, often involving human transport of previously isolated species into
contact. One good example of a new species in a more gradual process of
formation is a North American fruit fly (not closely related to the lab
favorite) that courts, mates, and lays eggs on hawthorn fruit, which the
maggots then eat as they grow. Europeans brought apples to North America,
providing a new menu option if the fly could adjust. Apples smell a bit
different, ripen at different times, and take longer to rot. Now there are
flies that seek out apples rather than hawthorn and have changed times of
egg-laying and duration of larval development; at least one apparently
unrelated genetic difference has been found. Since a fly on an apple isn't
going to mate with a fly on a hawthorn, the two populations are now
reproductively isolated. Are they fully separate species yet? Hard to say,
but it's obvious where the process is going. True to the expectation of
long time intervals, the fossil record has plenty of transitions between
species, not to mention transitions between some phyla and many of the
taxonomic levels in between.

                The fact that exploratory behavior and weak linkage have not
been observed to change the species of an embryo might be impressive if
there had been serious effort at changing the species of an embryo using
these processes. As of yet, research has focused on understanding how they
work in a few select organisms. Creating new species doesn't help that
effort. However, different organisms do show varied linkages of
more-conserved developmental features, which is the pattern one would expect
if weak linkages had played an important role in past evolution. In
contrast, exploratory behavior and weak linkage have produced novel patterns
of limbs in experimental manipulations. It's possible to make a chick grow
legs in place of wings or a fly grow legs instead of antennae, for example.
Kirschner and Gerhart note that experiments of this sort are "just now
becoming feasible", which renders unimpressive Wells' revelation that few
experiments have been done. The newness of the ability to do such
experiments also explains in part why it's not possible to prove that the
protein change examined experimentally was in fact what happened in the wild
in the 1970's. Also, it's not very surprising that an experiment in 2004
would not yet have yielded a new race of chickens, even if the researchers
had been trying to do that.

>Also, the book authors apparently have
>limited knowledge of the varied definitions
>of "intelligent design", but Wells makes
>a different version of the same error by
>identifying his view as the definition of
>intelligent design.

>Whose view _is_ the definition of intelligent
design?

No one's view is _the_ definition of intelligent design. Several different
definitions are out there, but ID advocates often fail to make this clear
and sound as though everyone connected with the movement agrees fully with
their own viewpoint. I don't know why a self-identified big tent fails to
acknowledge the diversity of views within the tent or even the fact that
some outside the tent are using their name and need to be distinguished from
them.

The authors identified ID as a modification, mostly in name, of creation
science. Some creation scientists are doing just that. Within the ID
movement, Wells claims in the review that ID holds that design is a better
explanation for some natural things than unguided natural processes.
Dembski, Behe, and Nelson have all claimed that ID is merely the claim that
one can detect design empirically. Some definitions of ID from within the
movement include opposition to evolution as part of the definition; however,
Denton now fully accepts evolution as an example of design. Then there's
the possibility of rejecting the ID movement while still holding to the
existence of an intelligent designer who didn't do things the way the ID
movement wants the designer to act.

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.