Re: [asa] Two questions...Ayala's article

Another good point. We don't let the Constitution constrain us in many other important matters anyway. Why here?

This is the equivalent of the atheists selectively using the Constitution to their advantage like the YECs do with science.

John

--- On Tue, 2/24/09, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [asa] Two questions...Ayala's article
> To: "David Clounch" <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> Cc: "James Patterson" <james000777@bellsouth.net>, asa@calvin.edu
> Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 4:13 PM
> David Clounch -- I think you hit on an important point here,
> which is that
> so much of the problem we have over creationism and ID
> stems from U.S.
> Constitutional law. But I don't believe that one
> historically contingent
> moment should drive what ultimately should be deep
> reflection on Truth. If
> we compromise a holistic notion of Truth in order to gain
> some perceived
> political advantage, I think we're giving away the game
> for the candle.
>
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:53 PM, David Clounch
> <david.clounch@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > I try to focus on scientific knowledge.
> >
> > And when it comes to what government does, and public
> policy, and
> > issues like the Dover trial, I think the scientific
> knowlege is what
> > counts. I think the ASA should focus on scientific
> knowledge.
> >
> > Its not that I am against the other areas of
> knowledge. But school
> > districts ban books like Behe's because they say
> it is a book about
> > the field of religious knowledge not scientific
> knowledge. I don't
> > think they are atheists when they do that. Actually, I
> think they are
> > operating as religious believers and making government
> policy to align
> > with their religion. Its not that their religion when
> held in private
> > offends me. Its that their religion as the only
> allowed government
> > endorsed knowledge offends the constitution. So if
> scientific
> > knowledge is the standard all our feet are held to by
> courts then so
> > be it.
> >
> > Now, if you really want to make an argument that other
> fields of
> > knowledge affect and must be integrated with
> scientific knowledge in
> > our society, I will join you in that. But you must be
> prepared to try
> > to defeat the materialists in court when they try to
> limit all fields
> > of knowledge to just scientific knowledge.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 7:33 AM, David Opderbeck
> <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Ok, I see. I think the problem is that
> you're somewhat buying into the
> > > postivist epistemology of PZ et al. Their view
> is that nothing counts as
> > > "knowledge" unless it's subject to
> a certain sort of empirical proof.
> > > Almost nobody, theist or not -- outside the New
> Atheist fundamentalists
> > and
> > > some other hard-core materialists-- believes this
> anymore. Lots of
> > things
> > > count as knowledge that can't be reduced to
> mathematical-like empirical
> > > proof.
> > >
> > > On the validity of theological knowledge, check
> out Alister McGrath's
> > > "Scientific Theology," particularly the
> volume on "Reality," or at a more
> > > popular level, his various books contra Dawkins
> (e.g., "Genes, Memes and
> > the
> > > Meaning of LIfe") and his book
> "Doubting." Deeper and richer than
> > McGrath
> > > -- and one of McGrath's inspirations -- see
> anything by Thomas Torrance,
> > > particularly "Reality and Evangelical
> Theology," and Michael Polanyi,
> > > "Personal Knowledge."
> > >
> > > The long and the short is that theological and
> philosophical knowledge
> > > claims are valid types of claims that are subject
> to their own
> > methodology.
> > > Scientific knowledge claims are also valid types
> of claims, subject to an
> > > empirical methodology, but even here empiricism
> only takes you so far
> > before
> > > you reach some un-verifiable foundational claims
> (including, for example,
> > > that empiricism is the proper way to construct
> scientific knowledge
> > claims).
> > > David W. Opderbeck
> > > Associate Professor of Law
> > > Seton Hall University Law School
> > > Gibbons Institute of Law, Science &
> Technology
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:13 AM, David Clounch
> <david.clounch@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 5:43 PM, David
> Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > Dave Clounch, I'm not sure about
> what your concern is. Personally, my
> > >> > view
> > >> > of human nature is one of "holistic
> dualism." I think human beings
> > have
> > >> > a
> > >> > "spiritual" nature -- the
> "soul" -- that is more than the aspects of
> > the
> > >> > "human" that are reducible to
> biology. At the same time, I think
> > human
> > >> > beings are a "whole," not
> merely "embodied souls." Given this, I
> > think
> > >> > it's
> > >> > likely that there are aspects of human
> nature that simply cannot be
> > >> > investigated by science. I would
> suggest that, at the very least, the
> > >> > first
> > >> > true humans -- Adam and Eve -- were
> imparted this spiritual nature and
> > >> > that
> > >> > it was subsequently propogated
> throughout the biological human
> > species.
> > >> > I
> > >> > don't think this has anything to do
> with genetics.
> > >>
> > >> Surely PZ Meyers and other materialists would
> beg to disagree? And
> > >> wouldnt they say they do this on scientific
> grounds? Why would they
> > >> be wrong merely because some theologians say
> they are wrong? What
> > >> sort of belief system is dualism? Is it a
> > >> secular idea? Or something reserved for
> church?
> > >>
> > >> Thinking just a bit out of the box for a
> moment,
> > >> let me ask this: Could this imparted
> spiritual nature have been given
> > >> to Chimpanzees or some other species rather
> than homo sapiens? Or did
> > >> homo sapiens have some supporting resources
> that other species didn't
> > >> possess?
> > >>
> > >> Think of it as software. One wouldnt be very
> successful trying to run
> > >> a higher level desktop operating system (such
> as Vista or RedHat
> > >> Enterprise Linux) on a linkysys wireless-G
> router because the 200
> > >> MHz ARM processor is too slow and there just
> are not enough resources
> > >> there in the box. So homo sapiens may
> possibly be the physical
> > >> prerequisite of the human mind or race.
> Doesn't genetics have a lot
> > >> to do with that? Genetics might not be the
> cause but it might be the
> > >> prerequisite to the "imparting" of
> special cognitive abilities.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > However, there is a robust debate even
> within evangelical circles at
> > the
> > >> > moment about monism-vs-dualism. In a
> recent and very engaging book,
> > >> > Joel
> > >> > Green of Fuller Seminary argues for an
> essentially monist position
> > based
> > >> > on
> > >> > both the Biblical and scientific
> evidence ("Body, Soul and Human
> > Life").
> > >> > John Cooper of Calivn College is a key
> proponent of holistic dualism
> > >> > ("Body,
> > >> > Soul & Life Everlasting"),
> while William Hasker argues for emergentism
> > >> > ("The
> > >> > Emergent Self"). It should be
> noted that even Christians who are
> > monist
> > >> > or
> > >> > emergentist with respect to the
> "soul" are not reductive materialists.
> > >> > In
> > >> > other words, all of the foregoing
> theologians agree that human beings
> > >> > are
> > >> > more than biology -- that we have some
> capacity to exercise agency and
> > >> > free
> > >> > will -- and that God is spiritual and
> yet ontologically personal and
> > >> > real
> > >> > apart from any biology.
> > >> >
> > >> That is interesting. But....
> > >> Doesn't that really only apply only in
> the field of theology? I mean,
> > >> it goes toward answering Christian
> theological questions. But does it
> > >> do anything from the viewpoint of science? I
> suspect it does nothing
> > >> from a scientific perspective. So I would
> expect Dawkins and Meyers to
> > >> reject it all as religion. And why
> shouldn't they?
> > >>
> > >> And this of course is what bothers me about
> the whole idea of saying
> > >> human psychology is a study of the
> supernatural. If one is going to
> > >> reject *anything* purely because it is
> religious then why would this
> > >> rejection not apply across the board to
> anything that stems from
> > >> religious thinking?
> > >>
> > >> To list some items commonly rejected by list
> members:
> > >>
> > >> A. Some people reject creationism merely
> because it is religious.
> > >> B. Others reject ID merely because (they
> claim) it is religious.
> > >> C. Others reject anything theistic (even TE)
> because it comes from
> > >> religious thinking.
> > >>
> > >> The invocation of the supernatural is widely
> claimed as being the kiss
> > >> of death to any idea that otherwise may
> possibly be addressed by
> > >> science. And many members here champion
> that it should be the kiss
> > >> of death. So I find it a bit shocking that
> anyone can claim human
> > >> minds are supernatural phenomena and go
> completely unchallenged.
> > >> Someone who does want to challenge this claim
> of the supernatural of
> > >> course will then say it does all come from
> genetics - it all comes
> > >> from nature and natural processes. But the
> onus is then upon that
> > >> person to explain how a design recognizer
> appears in the human brain
> > >> in the absence of the alleged supernatural
> influence.
> > >> At the very least it implies there ought to
> be a mathematics
> > >> undergirding the design detection. The fact
> we may not have
> > >> discovered the math is no proof the math
> doesn't exist. Wishing the
> > >> phenomena onto a supernatural basis seems to
> me to be more of a God of
> > >> the gaps type thing to do.
> > >>
> > >> And there we go. People reject ideas because
> they smell of being a God
> > >> of the gaps type of idea. And why is the
> human mind suddenly ok to
> > >> be delegated to the gap when it is not ok for
> other things to be in
> > >> the gap?
> > >>
> > >> I would be happier with someone trying to
> propose a "mathematical
> > >> proof" of the impossibility of a design
> detection algorithm. That at
> > >> least would be a rational approach!
> Instead, invoking the
> > >> supernatural to explain the human mind's
> abilities seems to me to be
> > >> sort of brushing it under the rug to get rid
> of it. Very easy for a
> > >> religionist to do. Its the last thing I
> would expect a scientist to
> > >> do. I've been waiting for members to
> reject the notion and they
> > >> haven't (AFAIK).
> > >>
> > >> But if one could show that a design
> recognition algorithm is
> > >> mathematically impossible, and if one also
> rejects supernatural
> > >> influence, then one has a _real_ _mystery_
> on one's hands. Horns of
> > >> a dilemma?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > David W. Opderbeck
> > >> > Associate Professor of Law
> > >> > Seton Hall University Law School
> > >> > Gibbons Institute of Law, Science &
> Technology
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:13 PM, David
> Clounch <
> > david.clounch@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Hi,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I don't know quite _where_ to
> ask my question. But I am bothered
> > >> >> by the notion that some on the list
> seem to have taken the position
> > >> >> that the human mind's ability
> to recognize design patterns does not
> > >> >> come from genetics or from nature.
> > >> >> Instead some seem to feel the
> ability comes from God and is thus
> > >> >> supernatural in origin. That seems
> to go along with the idea that the
> > >> >> human mind is supernatural in
> general.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> First, a disclaimer. I didnt
> originate the ideas I am referring to.
> > >> >> List members did that. Second,
> I'd prefer to focus on the biology,
> > not
> > >> >> on the human mind and other
> subjects. But, when talking about Adam
> > >> >> and Eve the very nature of what a
> human being is comes into play. Is
> > >> >> that beyond biology, or not?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'm not taking any position on
> this, but I find it interesting as an
> > >> >> idea. The idea that human psychology
> is a study of the supernatural?
> > >> >> (of a supernatural phenomena as
> opposed to a natural phenomena?) I
> > >> >> suspect most psychologists would
> reject that notion. Wouldn't they?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> But, if it *were* true, then is
> it worth asking what folks
> > believe
> > >> >> about the population from whence
> came the first true humans? Was
> > >> >> this "embellishment" with
> a supernatural mind (or whatever one
> > would
> > >> >> call it - and I am uncertain as to
> what the concept should be
> > >> >> labelled) was this embellishment
> applied to a group (a whole
> > >> >> population), or was it applied to a
> single pair as some theological
> > >> >> views would claim? If to a single
> pair, then did the rest of the
> > >> >> population not get it at all?
> (meaning, perhaps, that the non-humans
> > >> >> in the group did not have a soul?
> But Adam and Eve did have a soul?)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> And the big question is why is this
> cognitive ability not passed down
> > >> >> genetically? Are any reasons put
> forth?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> One also has to ask whether the
> ability to recognize design patterns
> > >> >> perhaps precedes the first humans
> and was in the general population,
> > >> >> or even in the population of
> non-human primates or even other
> > species.
> > >> >> Is it really associated only with
> soulful minds?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I suspect some may think this line
> of inquiry not worthy of
> > >> >> investigation. But it seems to me
> that for James's concern to be
> > >> >> addressed one must look at the
> issue of just what it really is, in
> > >> >> the minds of members, that made
> modern humans human. At what point
> > did
> > >> >> humans get truly human abilities and
> even souls? Are souls real? Do
> > >> >> they correlate with cognitive
> ability? In other words, what criteria
> > >> >> would one use to set aside notions
> of deism and move toward a
> > >> >> naturalistic theism? The answer to
> that is surely affected by
> > >> >> whether one believes what one is
> interacting with across the dinner
> > >> >> table is a supernatural phenomena or
> a purely natural phenomena.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> And again, if the essentials of the
> human mind don't spring forth
> > from
> > >> >> the genes, then how can science even
> investigate human origins
> > >> >> whatsoever? Can anyone see why I
> have difficulty with the list
> > >> >> discussion here at the beginning of
> 2009?
> > >> >> I am worried about the ASA because
> it seems the list has stumbled
> > into
> > >> >> territory, both theologically and
> scientifically, that I had never
> > >> >> even heard of previously.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> -Dave
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 7:46 AM,
> James Patterson
> > >> >> <james000777@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
> > >> >> > David wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > -- do you accept the evidence
> for an old universe and earth?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Yes, absolutely.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > If so, aren't you being
> inconsistent in rejecting the conclusions
> > >> >> > population
> > >> >> > geneticists draw from the MHC
> data based on the presumption you've
> > >> >> > drawn
> > >> >> > from the Bible that there must
> have been only one pair from whom
> > all
> > >> >> > present
> > >> >> > humans directly are genetically
> descended? The YEC's, after all,
> > make
> > >> >> > exactly the same argument about
> the "days" of creation, the age of
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > earth, and the nature of
> Noah's flood.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > No, I don't think so, not
> at all. First, and as I said, I don't
> > think
> > >> >> > MHC
> > >> >> > data should be used much, if at
> any, for this kind of thing. I am
> > >> >> > also
> > >> >> > not
> > >> >> > sure how that ties into the
> next part of your statement. But the
> > >> >> > evidence
> > >> >> > for the Big Bang, the age of
> the universe, the age of the earth,
> > >> >> > that's
> > >> >> > all
> > >> >> > "hard" science –
> physics and cosmology. It is much more defined and
> > >> >> > clear
> > >> >> > than the biological sciences.
> It's very hard to argue with
> > >> >> > mathematical
> > >> >> > equations like those that
> define our universe. However, the math
> > used
> > >> >> > in
> > >> >> > Ayala's paper is *much*
> less clear, and the math used in the entire
> > >> >> > field of
> > >> >> > population genetics isn't
> nailed down yet…just look at some of the
> > >> >> > references. We don't
> understand this field well enough in general,
> > >> >> > and I
> > >> >> > don't accept or understand
> the science well enough to take a
> > position
> > >> >> > that
> > >> >> > it is impossible to have an
> n=2. I think that some very good
> > evidence
> > >> >> > for
> > >> >> > their being an n=2 is that is
> what the Bible tells us, and it seems
> > >> >> > reasonably clear that an n of 2
> is what is indicated – I don't see
> > a
> > >> >> > way
> > >> >> > around that. The strongest
> argument I see for there being some
> > other
> > >> >> > answer
> > >> >> > to this is Dick Fischer's
> argument that it was an n=2, but they
> > were
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > first ancient Hebrews, not the
> first man. However, I have to state
> > >> >> > that
> > >> >> > I
> > >> >> > don't accept that position
> (although I haven't read his book yet,
> > >> >> > it's
> > >> >> > on
> > >> >> > order Dick). The Bible seems
> generally clear that it refers to the
> > >> >> > origins
> > >> >> > of mankind – all of mankind.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > The essential foundation of my
> argument is that in general, what
> > the
> > >> >> > Bible
> > >> >> > says and what science says
> agree. YOM doesn't mean a literal day.
> > The
> > >> >> > Hebrews didn't mean a
> global flood. How Genesis is interpreted is
> > >> >> > obviously
> > >> >> > not easy, and not clear, or we
> wouldn't be here talking about it.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > -- you say, ". . . we see
> the emergence of man in the correct
> > >> >> > *general*
> > >> >> > location, from (at least) a
> small population, sometime in the
> > past."
> > >> >> > I
> > >> >> > used
> > >> >> > to find this kind of argument
> from RTB et al. somewhat persuasive.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > However, let's be honest:
> central Africa is not the same "general
> > >> >> > location"
> > >> >> > as Mesopotamia,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Yes, it is. First off, I think
> it' East Africa. But I'm not going
> > to
> > >> >> > split
> > >> >> > hairs. And even if you draw
> that circle down to Tanzania and
> > >> >> > Ethiopia,
> > >> >> > it's
> > >> >> > still in the same general
> location. We do not understand mans
> > origins
> > >> >> > well
> > >> >> > enough to put him in anything
> other than Africa. That's fine. It's
> > >> >> > not
> > >> >> > Europe, it's not Australia,
> it's not America, it's not Russia, it's
> > >> >> > not
> > >> >> > China, or India. God said he
> created man west of Eden. Africa is
> > west
> > >> >> > of
> > >> >> > Eden. Sure, most of it is also
> south…but it's still west. I don't
> > >> >> > really
> > >> >> > think that's worth
> belaboring…it agrees well enough. Science puts
> > the
> > >> >> > origins of man in Africa, and
> the first civilizations in
> > Mesopotamia.
> > >> >> > The
> > >> >> > Bible put's the creation of
> man west of Eden, and Eden in
> > >> >> > Mesopotamia.
> > >> >> > That
> > >> >> > agrees well enough for me.
> Here's the map again, since it wasn't in
> > >> >> > this
> > >> >> > email.
> http://www.pattersonhistory.net/map01.jpg
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > and "sometime in the
> past" -- if that is 150 kya or so even for
> > >> >> > Mitochondrial Eve --
> doesn't fit with the Bible's description of
> > the
> > >> >> > culture
> > >> >> > into which Adam's immediate
> descendants were placed.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I am working on that
> presently…and answering this thread is
> > >> >> > detracting
> > >> >> > me
> > >> >> > from that work…
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Moreover, "(at least) a
> small population" isn't two individuals. I
> > >> >> > am
> > >> >> > no
> > >> >> > expert either, but my sense is
> that for the MHC data to be
> > accounted
> > >> >> > for
> > >> >> > by
> > >> >> > a single pair, you'd either
> have to have (a) diversification of the
> > >> >> > MHC
> > >> >> > at a
> > >> >> > truly astonishing (not just
> 'fast') rate; or (b) a whole set of
> > >> >> > miracles
> > >> >> > not
> > >> >> > mentioned in scripture.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Not mentioned???? God creates
> man and woman, breaths their
> > spiritual
> > >> >> > nature
> > >> >> > into them, and you tell me
> that's not mentioned? Come now. He
> > doesn't
> > >> >> > give
> > >> >> > out details on how He did
> it…or what He did. If so the world would
> > be
> > >> >> > a
> > >> >> > much
> > >> >> > simpler place. But I think
> it's clear – He did something.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Isn't it more parsimonious
> to suggest, as John Stott did in his
> > >> >> > Romans
> > >> >> > commentary, that the
> "image of God" and "original sin" are
> > >> >> > essentially
> > >> >> > spiritual qualities rather than
> genetic ones? It seems to me that
> > >> >> > this
> > >> >> > removes much of the burden of
> trying to tie Adam to the genetic
> > >> >> > record.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > That's not a bad point, but
> parsimony can be taken only so far.
> > >> >> > Occam's
> > >> >> > razor can slice down to the
> bone of metaphysical naturalism, if you
> > >> >> > let
> > >> >> > it.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Perhaps Adam lived in (or was
> removed from the "garden" into) a
> > >> >> > context
> > >> >> > where there were other
> "humans," but this says nothing of the
> > >> >> > spiritual
> > >> >> > aspects of those other homo
> sapiens who shared the physical world
> > >> >> > with
> > >> >> > Adam
> > >> >> > and his descendants for a time.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Well, I don't like that
> either, but I haven't been able to conceive
> > >> >> > of a
> > >> >> > way
> > >> >> > to pull these threads together
> more tightly without resorting to
> > >> >> > presuppositional logic that
> ultimately leads to YECism.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I don't deny that PC is a
> tough position. The one thing that
> > brought
> > >> >> > me
> > >> >> > here
> > >> >> > to this position is the strong
> Biblical foundation, and the thing
> > >> >> > that
> > >> >> > keeps
> > >> >> > me here is that there is a
> model. Models can be revised based on
> > new
> > >> >> > data,
> > >> >> > and other opinions and
> interpretations can be incorporated. This is
> > >> >> > not
> > >> >> > true
> > >> >> > of YEC – the entire
> foundation of their position is based on a
> > >> >> > unbalanced
> > >> >> > premise that only the Bible is
> true, and not science (at least not
> > >> >> > anyone's
> > >> >> > science but their own). The PC
> position is balanced: both Bible and
> > >> >> > science.
> > >> >> > The TE position is (in my
> opinion) a bit unbalanced the other way –
> > >> >> > too
> > >> >> > much
> > >> >> > reliance on only natural
> explanations. I know most of you don't
> > agree
> > >> >> > with
> > >> >> > that, but hey if I wasn't
> here testing your positions, you wouldn't
> > >> >> > be
> > >> >> > having so much fun. J
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > God bless, JP
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > ---
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > David W. Opderbeck
> > >> >> > Associate Professor of Law
> > >> >> > Seton Hall University Law
> School
> > >> >> > Gibbons Institute of Law,
> Science & Technology
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:47
> PM, James Patterson
> > >> >> >
> <james000777@bellsouth.net>
> > >> >> > wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > All,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I've finally been able to
> get back to this thread (and sub-threads)
> > >> >> > and
> > >> >> > read
> > >> >> > them. I wanted to go read the
> Ayala manuscript first. I have read
> > it
> > >> >> > as
> > >> >> > well
> > >> >> > as the comments on the article,
> and a few other related articles.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > I must also classify myself as
> "not an expert" in this field.
> > >> >> > However, I
> > >> >> > find it quite interesting to
> look at how often the words "presume"
> > >> >> > and
> > >> >> > "presumption" are
> used in the Ayala article. If you look at this
> > >> >> > article
> > >> >> > specifically and the field as a
> whole, there is significant
> > >> >> > controversy
> > >> >> > over
> > >> >> > the various models and how to
> interpret the results…more so than I
> > am
> > >> >> > comfortable with. This is
> reflected in the comment in reply to the
> > >> >> > Ayala
> > >> >> > article, as well as several
> other articles (see below).
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > All that as an aside. The main
> issue is the size of the "n"
> > required
> > >> >> > to
> > >> >> > pass
> > >> >> > thru a bottleneck. Ayala argues
> there wasn't even a bottleneck, but
> > I
> > >> >> > think
> > >> >> > most would agree there is
> plenty of evidence that there was at
> > least
> > >> >> > one
> > >> >> > if
> > >> >> > not more bottlenecks. So I am
> not going to belabor that issue.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Ayala's point is that, for
> a given chunk of DNA, including mtDNA
> > >> >> > chunks,
> > >> >> > you
> > >> >> > may be able to trace that chunk
> back to a common ancestor. However,
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > next
> > >> >> > chunk of DNA will be from a
> *different* ancestor, not the same one,
> > >> >> > implying
> > >> >> > not one, but a population of
> "Eves". I am NOT familiar enough to
> > >> >> > state
> > >> >> > for
> > >> >> > certainty, but I thought that
> the mtDNA was looked at more as a
> > whole
> > >> >> > than
> > >> >> > other DNA? It's size is
> about 15-17 kbp, and codes for 37 genes.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > When we get to the point of
> whether there was a n=2 vs an n=X,
> > Ayala
> > >> >> > puts X
> > >> >> > at ~100,000. He describes how
> it would be impossible for all the
> > >> >> > alleles
> > >> >> > of
> > >> >> > the MHC to survive a population
> smaller than (I think) about 10,000
> > >> >> > sexually
> > >> >> > active humans, which equates to
> a total population that is of
> > course
> > >> >> > larger.
> > >> >> > The issue here of course is the
> MHC region. If one is going to look
> > >> >> > at
> > >> >> > comparative regions and
> molecular clocks, it seems to me that the
> > MHC
> > >> >> > has
> > >> >> > got to be the *worst* possible
> choice to use. Within the field of
> > >> >> > immunology, this region of the
> genetic code is sometimes called the
> > >> >> > G.O.D.
> > >> >> > (interesting, yes?) region, for
> Generator (or Generation) Of
> > >> >> > Diversity.
> > >> >> > Mutation rates here can be
> quite rapid. See the Hogstrand or
> > >> >> > Carrington
> > >> >> > articles below.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Given that, Ayala's work
> does not seem to distinguish itself any
> > >> >> > greater
> > >> >> > than other studies on this
> topic. And that gets to the heart of the
> > >> >> > matter:
> > >> >> > From a strict, naturalistic,
> population genetics viewpoint, a
> > >> >> > bottleneck
> > >> >> > of
> > >> >> > an n=2 is unacceptable. The
> only way to have an n=2 bottleneck is
> > if
> > >> >> > this
> > >> >> > couple were quite special in
> some way or ways, and that isn't
> > >> >> > "natural".
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Thank God, I am not a strict
> naturalist. J
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > The integration of science and
> faith is why we are here. You may
> > want
> > >> >> > to
> > >> >> > find a strict natural
> explanation of everything, because you think
> > >> >> > that's
> > >> >> > the way God works at all times.
> If you extrapolate this to the
> > >> >> > extreme,
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > TE viewpoint becomes the DE
> viewpoint. I think I mentioned this in
> > >> >> > another
> > >> >> > thread recently. At the very
> least, I think you should at least
> > >> >> > consider
> > >> >> > this to be a prime example of
> Russell's OSP hard at work. You may
> > be
> > >> >> > able to
> > >> >> > track the lineage of the
> descent of man genetically, but tracking
> > the
> > >> >> > hand
> > >> >> > of God is another matter.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > It becomes very difficult, very
> quickly, to reconcile God's
> > creation
> > >> >> > of
> > >> >> > our
> > >> >> > spiritual selves (as well as
> original sin) with a (large)
> > population
> > >> >> > of
> > >> >> > humans that evolved slowly. No
> matter how you slice it, God's
> > >> >> > handiwork
> > >> >> > is
> > >> >> > present. And if we are going to
> presume the hand of God being
> > >> >> > involved,
> > >> >> > then
> > >> >> > strict naturalistic
> explanations will ultimately fail.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > However, if you *presume* that
> God was involved, and that God
> > created
> > >> >> > Adam
> > >> >> > and Eve (as the Bible tells
> us), and look at what the natural
> > >> >> > sciences
> > >> >> > show
> > >> >> > us, we see the emergence of man
> in the correct *general* location,
> > >> >> > from
> > >> >> > (at
> > >> >> > least) a small population,
> sometime in the past. How exactly, may
> > >> >> > remain
> > >> >> > unclear. We will have to save
> the time question for later, tho. J
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > If you choose not to believe
> that God was intimately involved with
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > creation of man through Adam
> and Eve, then that's your choice. As
> > for
> > >> >> > me
> > >> >> > and
> > >> >> > my family, we choose God.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > God bless,
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > James P
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > A few interesting references:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Gibbons A, (1993).
> Mitochondrial Eve refuses to die. Science,
> > >> >> > 259(5099):1249-1250.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Ayala F, (1995). The Myth of
> Eve: Molecular Biology and Human
> > >> >> > Origins.
> > >> >> > Science, 270(5244):1930-1936.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Erlich HA, Bergstrom TF,
> Stoneking M, and Gyllensten U (1996). HLA
> > >> >> > Sequence
> > >> >> > Polymorphism and the Origin of
> Humans (in reply to Ayala's
> > article).
> > >> >> > Science, 274(5292):1552-1554.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Watson E, Forster P, Richards
> M, Bandelt HJ, (1997). Mitochondrial
> > >> >> > footprints of human expansions
> in Africa. Am J Hum Genet,
> > >> >> > 61(3):691-704.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Carrington M, (1999).
> Recombination within the human MHC.
> > >> >> > Immunological
> > >> >> > Reviews, 167(1):245-256.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Gray M, Burger G, Lang BF,
> (1999). Mitochondrial Evolution.
> > Science,
> > >> >> > 283(5407):1476-1481.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Högstrand K, Böhme J, (1999).
> Gene conversion can create new MHC
> > >> >> > alleles.
> > >> >> > Immunological Reviews,
> 167(1):305-317.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Cann R, (2001). Genetic Clues
> to Dispersal in Human Populations:
> > >> >> > Retracing
> > >> >> > the Past from the Present.
> Science, 291(5509): 1742-1748.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Stumpf M and Goldstein D,
> (2001). Genealogical and Evolutionary
> > >> >> > Inference
> > >> >> > with the Human Y Chromosome.
> Science, 291(5509):1738-1742.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Zimmerman S, (2001). Population
> size at the time of mitochondrial
> > >> >> > eve.
> > >> >> > Human
> > >> >> > Evolution, 16(2):117-124.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Curnoe D, Thorne A, (2003)
> Number of ancestral human species: a
> > >> >> > molecular
> > >> >> > perspective. Homo,
> 53(3):201-224.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Hagelberg E, (2003).
> Recombination or mutation rate heterogeneity?
> > >> >> > Implications for Mitochondrial
> Eve. Trends Genet, 19(2):84-90.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_histocompatibility_complex#MHC_evolution_and_allelic_diversity
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 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 Tue Feb 24 19:40:51 2009