Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action

But natural selection is not random. If the worldview issue with
evolution is its randomness then this illustrates the issue raised is
a phony one.

Rich Blinne (Member ASA)

On Feb 18, 2008, at 10:47 AM, <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:

> And one other thing. The analogy of the botanist/breeders is
> invalid because even though the mutations may be random, the
> selection is artificial not natural.
>
>
>
> On Mon Feb 18 11:50 , Rich Blinne sent:
>
> i
> On Feb 18, 2008, at 7:36 AM, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
>> You might also add: 3: is "neo-Darwinism" metaphysically random?
>> It depends on how one defines the term.
>>
>> On Feb 17, 2008 9:05 PM, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Thank you all for a lot of helpful comments.
>> Let me wrap up and summarize this thread.
>>
>> 1. Is the biological theory of evolution truly random? While there
>> are elements of randomness, boundary conditions and environmental
>> factors provide a great deal of direction. Simon Conway Morris has
>> shown a lot of evidence of convergence though the underlying
>> factors for it are not yet known.
>>
>> 2. Does the randomness of evolution mean that it is undirected?
>> Yes--from a natural viewpoint. This means we know of no physical
>> mechanisms that influence genetic variation on the basis of the
>> needs or characteristics of any subsequent organism. No--from a
>> divine viewpoint. This means that God's purposes in guiding
>> evolution need not involve a scientifically detectable influence on
>> genetic variation.
>>
>> Randy
>>
>
> If you want more precision and avoid Gregory's deliberate (and I
> would suggest slanderous) mis-definition of terms, I would let the
> proponents define the term neo-Darwinism. Such a definition could
> goes something like this:
>
> The synthesis of population genetics with evolution as originally
> proposed by Darwin of descent with modification. Population genetics
> study allele frequencies under the influence of the four
> evolutionary forces of natural selection, genetic drift, mutation
> and gene flow.
>
> Note there is no explicit reference anywhere to random. Random is
> implied by genetic drift and mutation both of which has been
> observed many, many times outside of an evolutionary context, e.g.
> in the current HapMap project (www.hapmap.org). The concept of
> allele frequencies is also random. In classical Mendelian genetics
> the allele frequencies distribute randomly allowing the binomial
> theorem to be applied.
>
> Note that randomness, however defined, only comes from the genetics
> portion of the neo-Darwinist synthesis. I don't hear any creationist
> or ID proponent berating the (shudder) materialist genetic
> worldview. It cannot properly be called Darwinist because modern
> genetics post-dates Darwin. Both YEC and ID have conceded genetics
> at which point they have conceded the whole randomness question. It
> is also interesting to see what else Michael Behe has conceded:
>
> 1. Common Descent
> 2. Natural Selection
> 3. Random Mutation
>
> What he hasn't conceded is that the random mutation has enough reach
> either on the basis of not being able to produce irreducibly complex
> "machines" or having an insufficient rate with so-called double
> mutations (e.g. drug resistance in the Plasmodium parasite). Behe's
> analysis is fraught with problems that has been raised here, in
> PSCF, and elsewhere I will leave it to the reader as a Googling
> exercise to explore this further.
>
> At this point the question might be raised give all this randomness
> is this somehow inconsistent with design and by implication
> Christianity since Christianity rests on a Creator God? Consider the
> example of Ruby Red Grapefruit. In 1927, Hermann J. Muller found
> that ionizing radiation causes (shudder) random mutations. Since
> then chemical mutagens have been found.
>
> Botanists have taken advantage of the randomness to produce better
> crops by increasing the mutation rate through radiation. See here:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28crop.html
>
>> Pierre Lagoda pulled a small container from his pocket and spilled
>> the contents onto his desk. Four tiny dice rolled to a stop.
>>
>> “That’s what nature does,” Dr. Lagoda said. The random results
>> of the dice, he explained, illustrate how spontaneous mutations cr
>> eate the genetic diversity that drives evolution and selective bre
>> eding.
>>
>> He rolled the dice again. This time, he was mimicking what he and
>> his colleagues have been doing quietly around the globe for more
>> than a half-century — using radiation to scramble the genetic mate
>> rial in crops, a process that has produced valuable mutants like r
>> ed grapefruit, disease-resistant cocoa and premium barley for Scot
>> ch whiskey.
>>
>> “I’m doing the same thing,” he said, still toying with the
>> dice. “I’m not doing anything different from what nature does.
>> I’m not using anything that was not in the genetic material itsel
>> f.”
>
> Thus, we have neo-Darwinist evolution in action controlled by an
> intelligent designer. This should not be surprising since Darwin
> used this exact same analogy in Origin when defining natural
> selection. If a human breeder is compatible with all this
> "randomness", then certainly the Lord of Heaven and Earth is.
>
> Rich Blinne (Member ASA)
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 18 13:34:46 2008