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

I think the use of "natural" selection terminology is sometimes a bit
misleading (misdirecting?). Any kind of selection will do, regardless of
the label. I'm not sure that the selection process is unnatural just
because it is a human process and/or the criterion for selection has
some component other than just survival (e.g., has some intellectual or
esthetic or economic component aside from ...uh.... natural economics).
JimA [Friend of ASA]

Rich Blinne wrote:

>
> 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
> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>> <http://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
>>> create the genetic diversity that drives evolution and selective
>>> breeding.
>>>
>>> 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 material in crops, a process that has produced valuable
>>> mutants like red grapefruit, disease-resistant cocoa and premium
>>> barley for Scotch 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 itself."
>>>
>> 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 14:07:46 2008