RE: [asa] Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics Introduction now available

Donald asks, re selection (by some external mechanism): "exactly what does that look like?" And he claims not to have "seen a detailed natural selection mechanism proposed in anywhere the same detail."

Donald, I'm confused by this.

Perhaps you are simply advancing an argument from personal incredulity. If so, there's little that I or anyone else can do to change your mind, and scant reason to try.

Perhaps you merely mean to note the fact that evolutionary hypotheses regarding the past development of organisms (or their parts) are less detailed and less complete than are chemical hypotheses regarding reaction mechanisms. If so, you're stating the obvious and adding nothing of value to Jim's comments.

Or perhaps you agree with the subset of evolutionary biologists, such as Michael Lynch, who believe that natural selection is less of a factor in evolutionary change than is commonly postulated, such that genetic drift and other "random" mechanisms exert influence at levels well beyond the generation of genetic variation. If so, then I'm interested in more detailed and informed discussion of these issues. I think Lynch overstates the case, but I'm eager to here what others think.

I can't think of any other reason why a well-informed scientist would make statements like that, but I'm interested in your reply.

Steve Matheson
 
>>> Donald F Calbreath <dcalbreath@whitworth.edu> 05/21/08 8:22 PM >>>
I'm sorry, but this is a cop-out. "Selection (by some external mechanism)..." - exactly what does that look like? When I talk about an enzyme reaction mechanism or an organic chemistry reaction mechanism, I can state the steps in the process (a proton attaches to an oxygen, the -OH bond is broken and so forth). I have not seen a detailed natural selection mechanism proposed in anywhere the same detail. Until somebody does that, I have to be very skeptical about the reality of these supposed processes.

Your mousetrap argument basically supports the idea of intelligent design. Like it or not, there was an external agent (a human) tinkering with the device, adding a piece here and there and making a better mousetrap. The device did not just "occur" without an external human input. You are correct in that just looking at the changes alone does not necessarily allow us to identify the designer, but I think you are really trying to stretch the selection idea far beyond what can be explained. Show me a detailed mechanism and I may change my mind, but simply stating "natural selection" does not explain anything.

Donald F. Calbreath, Ph.D
Emeritus Associate Professor of Chemistry
Whitworth University
Spokane WA
________________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Armstrong [jarmstro@qwest.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:09 PM
To: asa
Subject: Re: [asa] Evangelicals, Evolution, and Academics Introduction now available

At the palpable risk of jumping in so late in this discussion, I hear what you are saying from your view, but your take on evolution (even biological evolution) seems to me to be a bit arbitrary and constrained. In the human domain, there are still selection effects at work, whether intentional or unconscious. We may think of them as something other than natural selection, but they don't seem to fit into categories like "unnatural" or "supernatural". All that is required for evolution are the essentials of change and selection (by some external mechanism). The fact that some sort of systematic selection might be imposed by "human making, agency, purpose, meaning, intentionality, goal-directness, etc.", would seem to be irrelevant, the essential transactions involved being indistinguishable from "natural selection" (selection and attrition of the unselected). This would not appeal to one who holds that human equates to unnatural, but I don't hold to that understanding, tak!
 ing humans to be part of the natural world, however sentient and intellectually or volitionally privileged we might be.

The basic design, the underlying plan of mousetraps have arguably evolved (to my way of thinking), though not biologically. Better mousetraps are propagated preferentially. The sprung traps are quite a bit better suited for households than deadfalls or poison. A second "branch" evolution of non-lethal traps is growing in popularity, based again on a selection process. It matters not who or what caused the technology to change incrementally. It only matters that the design (and resultant product) did change, and was subsequently selected preferentially on the basis of effectiveness, size, ease of use, purchase cost, etc., at the ultimate expense of less preferred prior designs.

Our tendency is to think that biological changes sort of ooze seamlessly from one configuration to another. But at their heart, those changes too are at some scale incremental - in "steps" if you will - e.g., an altered localized DNA spelling "error", an environmentally induced alteration of a particular chemical transition, an unlikely but still possible alternate fold of a protein to a second stable physical configuration, etc. In light of this incrementalness, and the fact that these essentials of incrementalness and the companion "selection" are not necessarily confined to biology, I'm not so sure that even the biological constraint is particularly germane either, though tantalizingly convenient for narrowing a particular argument.

Or so it seemeth to me.... JimA [Friend of ASA]

Gregory Arago wrote:
Trial and error is one thing. It need not be limited to 'evolutionary' thought, though it is obviously part of the cumulative knowledge perspective that evolutionary philosophy assumes. Let's put that aside for now.

You write: "later on a new technology emerges that provides a better method and developers incorporate it."

A simple question: Who (or what) 'makes' that 'technology' to 'emerge' (i.e. who 'emerges' it)? It doesn't happen on its own. Please don't dodge this!

In my view, as soon as you have human making, agency, purpose, meaning, intentionality, goal-directness, etc. you have NO evolution. End of story. If you want to exclude human beings from your answer to the above simple question, then we can move to another category (a non-human one, like your alien example). But for now, what you've said makes no sense if you accept that humans make technology.

Of course mouse traps don't 'evolve' - they are human-made things! Steps, yes, intentional, purposeful (even if sometimes unintelligent) ones...

Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com><mailto:williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gregory wrote

As a student of human-made things, including technology, my view is that technological evolution is nonsense! Humans (consciously) make technology, therefore technology doesn't 'evolve.'

Most technology is developed by trial and error. One method of accomplishing a function is devised, then later on a new technology emerges that provides a better method and developers incorporate it. And if a being who had no acquaintance with humans could look at the history of our technology over many years, it might get the impression that evolution had taken place. A couple examples might help.

First, what about Mike Behe's famous example of irreducible complexity: the mousetrap? Probably the idea of a trap came about when one of our ancestors found an animal crushed by a falling tree. He got the idea that he could suspend a tree branch above an animal trail and drop it on an animal passing under the branch. Then he or another inventive person realized that he could prop the branch up with a stick to which he attached some bait, so he wouldn't have to wait by the trap all day. Eventually someone realized a spring could be substituted for gravity -- initially springy wood, eventually steel.
Through many steps we get the mouse trap and the many other varieties of traps we have today.

Take another example: cars. The Ford Model T had a separate coil for each sspark plug. Probably because the separate set of points each coil had to have were unreliable someone got the idea of using a single set of points and a distributer. That arrangement was used until power electronics that could stand the environment of an engine compartment became available. If you look under the hood of one of today's cars -- GM anyway -- you'll see a separate coil for each spark plug. New technology from another field was adopted when it became available.

William E. (Bill) Hamilton, Ph.D.

________________________________
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/>
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 Wed May 21 21:07:27 2008