The real issue is if, whether by artificial or natural actions, one can create new species. That is the crux of the issue between micro- and macro-evolution.
Moorad
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of drsyme@cablespeed.com
Sent: Mon 2/18/2008 3:00 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu; 'Stephen Matheson'
Subject: Re: [asa] Neo-Darwinism and God's action
The distinction between artificial and natural is that on the one hand you have a direct action by an intelligent agent seeking a desired outcome, and on the other impersonal forces with no desired outcome, i.e., seemingly random.
I dont know what point of George's you are referring too, I am responding to Rich.
On Mon Feb 18 14:39 , "Stephen Matheson" sent:
You didn't explain why you think artificial selection is distinct from natural
selection. Hungry farmers apply selection. Hungry cheetahs apply selection.
Smart humans apply selection. Smart orcas apply selection. Where's the
difference?
I think you misunderstood the point that George was making, but in any case I
find the natural vs. artificial dichotomy to be utterly vacuous.
Steve Matheson
>>> <drsyme@cablespeed.com> 02/18/08 2:07 PM >>>
Because it is clear where an intelligent designer interacts with nature in
breeding, it is via artificial selection. It is not at all clear where an
intelligent designer interacts with nature in terms of biological evolution.
So the statement :"If a human breeder is compatible with all this "randomness",
then certainly the Lord of Heaven and Earth is," is misleading because the
situations are not analogous.
On Mon Feb 18 13:25 , "Stephen Matheson" sent:
What is the relevant distinction between artificial and natural selection,
and
how does it render the "analogy" of plant breeding invalid?
Steve Matheson
>>> <drsyme@cablespeed.com (
DEFANGED_javascript:top.opencompose('drsyme@cablespeed.com','','','') )>
02/18/08 12:47 PM >>>
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 (
DEFANGED_javascript:top.opencompose('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 ( parse.pl?redirect=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 (
parse.pl?redirect=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.
Ãf¢Ã'ÂEURÃ'ÂoeThatÃf¢Ã'ÂEURÃ'Â(tm)s what nature does,Ãf¢Ã'ÂEURÃ' 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 Ãf¢Ã'ÂEURÃ'Â" 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.
Ãf¢Ã'ÂEURÃ'ÂoeIÃf¢Ã'ÂEURÃ'Â(tm)m doing the same thing,Ãf¢Ã'ÂEURÃ' he said, still
toying with the dice.
Ãf¢Ã'ÂEURÃ'ÂoeIÃf¢Ã'ÂEURÃ'Â(tm)m not doing anything different from what nature does.
IÃf¢Ã'ÂEURÃ'Â(tm)m not
using anything that was not in the genetic material itself.Ãf¢Ã'ÂEURÃ'Â
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 (
DEFANGED_javascript:top.opencompose('majordomo@calvin.edu','','','') ) with
"unsubscribe asa"
(no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu (
DEFANGED_javascript:top.opencompose('majordomo@calvin.edu','','','') ) with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
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 15:51:18 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 18 2008 - 15:51:18 EST