Re: [asa] (macroevolution) The term Darwinism

Bernie:

Of course it is often possible to know that something happened without
knowing how it happened. Every time someone does a card trick for me, I can
never guess how they did it, but I know they did it.

But do you understand the difference between an observed process and an
inferred one? If I observe a card trick, or a helicopter flying, or any
other process, then the question whether or not the process is occurring
does not arise. The only question that arises is how the trick was done,
how the helicopter flies, etc.

Macroevolution, however, is not an observed but an inferred process.
Therefore, not only "how it happened" but "that it happened" are debatable
questions. Further, even granting "that it happened", macroevolutionary
theory does not merely infer a process but offers a mechanism to explain the
inferred process, and the two things are intrinsically tied together.
Darwin did not merely infer that macroevolution had taken place. Further,
he explicitly disclaimed any originality in making that inference. He
acknowledged that others had made that suggestion before him. He believed
that his original contribution was the *explanation* of the evolutionary
process -- i.e., accumulated tiny variations, pruned by natural selection.
Later evolutionary biologists have accepted Darwin's basic mechanism,
tweaking it with other purported mechanisms. But at the heart and core of
modern evolutionary theory is the mechanism, not the mere fact of change.
It is upon evolutionary biology's claim to have isolated the mechanism of
evolution that its claim to be scientific rests. Neither Darwin nor any
evolutionary biologist since would have thought his work scientifically
respectable if it amounted to a mere inference of the fact of common
ancestry (based on homology in morphology or genetics or fossils). They
have all believed that they know *that it happened* and *how it happened* in
a tightly integrated way.

If I do not *know* that the alleged mechanisms -- Darwin's, or those of
later biologists -- can do what they are said to be able to do, then at most
I can know only that macroevolution has taken place by means unknown. But
to say that macroevolution took place by means unknown is not to offer a
scientific hypothesis. For all I know, God directed the transformations in
an entirely supernatural manner. Only if I provide a naturalistic mechanism
am I offering a scientific hypothesis. (To avoid unnecessary
side-controversy, I'm using the narrow definition of "scientific hypothesis"
generally accepted here.) But if I provide a naturalistic mechanism, then I
must provide evidence for the capability of the mechanism. I must show that
the suggested means can turn a Mesonyx into a whale, a fish into an
amphibian, a shrew into a primate, etc. I must have a detailed account of
the genetic mechanisms of normal inheritance, plus a detailed account of the
possibilities that arise in the case of mutation, and I must understand all
the phenotypical ramifications of possible genetic changes throughout the
length and breadth of the living world.

In short, in evolutionary theory, it is useless merely to know "that it
happened". An evolutionary theory that cannot explain "how it happened" is
close to scientifically worthless. You are putting the emphasis on what is
the least important part of evolutionary theory from a scientific point of
view.

So, now that I've answered your question, answer mine: how do you *know*
that the suggested mechanisms are capable of delivering the
macroevolutionary goods? How do you *know* that they can produce anything
beyond what field and laboratory science have observed, i.e., antibiotic
resistance in one-celled animals, and longer beaks or different coloration
in multi-celled animals?

Cameron.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 6:05 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] (macroevolution) The term Darwinism

> Cameron:
> " My last note was two short paragraphs comprising eight sentences. Was
> that not short and concise enough for you?"
>
> No- that was perfect- thanks. I just meant to please do more of the same.
>
> Please briefly answer the question I gave you- a simple question to see if
> we agree or not. Here it is again, quoting myself:
>
> "It seems your whole point is to argue that macroevolution doesn't happen
> because we can't describe how it happens. If so, that is false logic. We
> know it happened because of the DNA evidence. You don't have to know HOW
> something happens in order to know that it DID happen. Do you understand
> this point? Do we have agreement on this point?"
>
> Once we understand each other on this point, I can then address your "how"
> questions.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Cameron Wybrow
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 2:40 PM
> To: asa
> Subject: Re: [asa] (macroevolution) The term Darwinism
>
> Bernie:
>
> My last note was two short paragraphs comprising eight sentences. Was
> that
> not short and concise enough for you?
>
> I do not know that I can make myself clear to you, because you do not seem
> to have a natural bent toward fundamental philosophical questions, such as
> the question, "How do I know what I think I know?" But I will try, one
> last
> time.
>
> How do you *know* that Darwinian mechanisms -- or any set of naturalistic
> mechanisms (drift, or whatever else you want to throw in on top of
> Darwin's
> mechanisms) -- can take a bacterium without a flagellum and give it a
> flagellum? Or take a fish and turn it into an amphibian?
>
> How do you *know* that naturalistic mechanisms *alone* were responsible
> for
> the chromosome 2 "fusion event"? Can you give a complete mechanical
> account
> of the chromosome 2 "fusion event"? Can you explain how it happened in
> molecular terms? The electrostatic forces involved, etc.? Can you point
> me
> to an article written by anyone who has explained these things? If not,
> how
> do you *know* that such a fusion event is physically possible? If it is
> not
> physically possible, then your historical inference of its occurrence is
> invalid, and the similarity/difference between the genomes must have some
> other cause.
>
> In short, do you have any substantial conception in your mind regarding
> the
> "how" of macroevolutionary change, or do you have only a vague conception
> of
> sequential transformations, and just take it on faith that the
> evolutionary
> biologists have worked out the details somewhere, perhaps in some obscure
> technical journals in the back of the Stanford or M.I.T. library?
>
> And if you don't have any substantial conception in your mind of the "how"
> of macroevolutionary change, why do you believe that the mechanisms
> proposed
> are adequate? Because the consensus of biologists tells you so?
>
> Cameron.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 5:03 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] (macroevolution) The term Darwinism
>
>
>> Cameron- please be short and concise- why do you need to know the
>> mechanisms for macro-evolution?
>>
>> Is it to convince you that macroevolution occurs? If you are looking for
>> evidence that macroevolution actually happened- it is plain in the DNA
>> record.
>>
>> If you want to know exact ways macroevolution happened, one thing that
>> Dr.
>> Campbell mentioned is that it can take millions of years and so it is
>> hard
>> to piece together. There are some things we can't comprehend because of
>> vast scales of time and/or distance involved- however, we have the
>> evidence that it actually happened.
>>
>> It seems your whole point is to argue that macroevolution doesn't happen
>> because we can't describe how it happens. If so, that is false logic.
>> We
>> know it happened because of the DNA evidence. You don't have to know HOW
>> something happens in order to know that it DID happen. Do you understand
>> this point? Do we have agreement on this point?
>>
>> Cameron said:
>> "My question is: "Supposing that macroevolution occurred, can it
>> be explained *entirely* by chance and necessity, or does it *also*
>> require
>> the input of intelligence?" (which is the ID/Darwinist debate)"
>>
>> Don't you think that aspects of 'natural selection' also involve
>> intelligence, on the part of animals? For example, animals (and humans)
>> may select mates based on their thinking (which is intelligence). The
>> 'intelligence' component depends on the complexity of the organisms. The
>> component is extremely high with humans (including genetic engineering),
>> and low (non-existent) with plant life.
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> PS: thanks for the short reply.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Cameron Wybrow
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 1:30 PM
>> To: asa
>> Subject: Re: [asa] (macroevolution) The term Darwinism
>>
>> Bernie:
>>
>> I did not speak of "believing in macroevolution". I asked for a detailed
>> genetic pathway -- even a merely hypothetical pathway -- for any major
>> change in organs, systems, etc. I said that I have seen no such pathway
>> provided in the evolutionary literature.
>>
>> My question is not: "Did macroevolution occur?" (which is the YEC/TE
>> debate). My question is: "Supposing that macroevolution occurred, can
>> it
>> be explained *entirely* by chance and necessity, or does it *also*
>> require
>> the input of intelligence?" (which is the ID/Darwinist debate) The
>> genetic
>> evidence that you cite merely provides more evidence that macroevolution
>> has
>> occurred, or at best, that *some* of its causes are contingent
>> (accidental
>> fusing of chromosomes, etc.). It does not provide anywhere near a full
>> or
>> convincing account of the construction of major new organs or body plans
>> via
>> Darwinian means, or any other set of naturalistic means. When you find
>> an
>> evolutionary book that does this, let me know and I will read it.
>>
>> Cameron.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 12:20 PM
>> Subject: RE: [asa] (macroevolution) The term Darwinism
>>
>>
>>> Cameron said:
>>> "My point exactly. And the logical follow-up question is: if
>>> evolutionary biologists are lacking the above knowledge, how can they be
>>> so *certain* that microevolutionary processes can simply be extrapolated
>>> to generate macroevolution?"
>>>
>>> You don't need to extrapolate to believe in macroevolution. The
>>> evidence
>>> is in DNA (pseudogenes and fused chrpomosome #2) that humans evolved
>>> from
>>> apelike animals- that is macroevolution. Because of this DNA evidence,
>>> one can be certain.
>>>
>>> ...Bernie
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>>> Behalf Of Cameron Wybrow
>>> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9:40 PM
>>> To: asa
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] The term Darwinism
>>>
>>> David:
>>>
>>> Your eloquent answer below makes my point far better than I could have
>>> made
>>> it.
>>>
>>> You have in essence argued that we cannot give full evolutionary
>>> pathways --
>>> not even full hypothetical evolutionary pathways -- for major organs and
>>> systems, for several reasons, notably (1) we simply do not yet have the
>>> understanding of the genome necessary for the task, and (2) we cannot
>>> reconstruct the environments accurately enough to be sure how selection
>>> would have operated.
>>>
>>> My point exactly. And the logical follow-up question is: if
>>> evolutionary
>>> biologists are lacking the above knowledge, how can they be so *certain*
>>> that microevolutionary processes can simply be extrapolated to generate
>>> macroevolution? It is one thing to say that macroevolution *may* be
>>> explicable via roughly Darwinian processes; it is another thing entirely
>>> to
>>> say that "science" has proved this, or that the extrapolation is so
>>> unproblematic it does not even need to be critically analyzed.
>>>
>>> Yes, a rudimentary version of an eye which actually *works* (however
>>> poorly), might be useful (e.g., a crude, light-sensitive spot on a
>>> one-celled creature), but an eye which depends on an arrangement of
>>> complicated parts (iris, cornea, retina, various fluids, a whole bunch
>>> of
>>> co-ordinated muscles, etc.), but is missing some of those parts or has
>>> some
>>> of those parts broken (so that the whole system cannot work) would not
>>> be
>>> useful. A computer with a keyboard which could only type the letter "e"
>>> would be useless for word-processing, for example, even though all the
>>> other
>>> components of the computer worked just fine. So anyone who believes
>>> that
>>> macroevolution produced the human camera eye must propose intermediate
>>> stages, describing all the organ parts necessary to each of those
>>> intermediate stages, and must also propose mutations that would allow
>>> one
>>> stage to progress to the next one, retaining all or most of the old
>>> function
>>> while adding new elements that would eventually lead to the new and
>>> improved
>>> function. So if the stages of the eye went from, say, 3 interacting
>>> parts,
>>> to 7 interacting parts, to 13 interacting parts, to 22 interacting
>>> parts,
>>> etc., a macroevolutionary account would set forth each of these stages
>>> in
>>> a
>>> separate chapter of a book, describing them anatomically and
>>> functionally,
>>> explaining the genetic basis of each stage, and then proceeding to
>>> explain
>>> the transition to the next stage. There would need to be as many
>>> chapters
>>> in the book as there were hypothetical stages. But this is not the way
>>> evolutionary biology is ever written. Or if it is written in this way,
>>> I
>>> have yet to see any examples.
>>>
>>> Regarding your final analogy, note that the question, "When Sally threw
>>> the
>>> ball on this particular date, where did it go?", contains a built-in and
>>> unproved assumption, i.e., that Sally in fact threw a ball. If we take
>>> "Sally" to be an analogue of "macroevolutionary processes", then we see
>>> the
>>> unstated assumption of macroevolutionary theory, i.e., that there exist
>>> entirely natural processes of biological change capable of building
>>> radically new organs and body plans. Yet if all we know is that
>>> macroevolution *happened*, but cannot account for *why* it happened,
>>> then
>>> it
>>> is premature to assume that the causes of the process were entirely
>>> natural.
>>> It is the presumption (without proof) that the causes of the process
>>> were
>>> wholly natural that ID proponents greet with skepticism. How can we
>>> know
>>> this, given the huge gaps in our understanding -- gaps just conceded by
>>> you -- regarding what genes control the various structures and
>>> functions?
>>> Wouldn't it be a more accurate -- not to mention scientifically
>>> modest --
>>> statement of our current knowledge to say that there *may* be a wholly
>>> naturalistic explanation for the fossil record, but that we are nowhere
>>> near
>>> having such an explanation in hand?
>>>
>>> Cameron.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "David Campbell" <pleuronaia@gmail.com>
>>> To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
>>> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 2:56 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] The term Darwinism
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 2. The reason I suggested a 500-page book is that 500 pages is the
>>>>> minimum that would be needed to document the changes for any major
>>>>> organ
>>>>> or system. Every step of the way -- and there would be hundreds of
>>>>> steps -- would need diagrams of the genome with explanations of the
>>>>> substitutions or deletions, diagrams of the proposed physiological
>>>>> changes corresponding to the genomic changes, a discussion of the
>>>>> environmental aspects (selection pressures acting on each change,
>>>>> etc.),
>>>>> and so on. I do not find it surprising that such detailed works have
>>>>> not
>>>>> appeared, as I believe that Darwinian explanation is mostly
>>>>> speculation,
>>>>> ad hoc non-mathematical reasoning, and bluff.<
>>>>
>>>> A more important reason for the absence of such works is that it is
>>>> technologically impossible. Such a description would only be possible
>>>> if we had full knowledge of all the genes influencing whatever
>>>> feature/organism and their exact functions. Bacterial genome
>>>> sequences were big news less than two decades ago; sequences were big
>>>> news three decades ago; computer power is also dramatically
>>>> increasing. The general coverage of genomic sequencing across the
>>>> eukaryotes is still very poor, and even in well-studied model
>>>> organisms such as fruit flies, humans, mice, nematodes, or yeast we
>>>> don't know what every gene does (particularly given that "gene" must
>>>> include stuff like microRNA, not just enzymes). There is rapid
>>>> progress ongoing in the field, and these data may be possible to
>>>> obtain before long, but at present it's just not possible.
>>>>
>>>> Even with full details on the living things, this does not give us all
>>>> the information that we would want about what happened in the past.
>>>> Gene sequences for ancestors can be modeled by comparing the sequences
>>>> in descendents and reconstructing a plausible ancestral form. This is
>>>> especially promising in cases where we have a good idea of the
>>>> ancestral function of a gene, e.g. where a gene unique to a particular
>>>> group of organisms shows similarity to another gene from a more
>>>> inclusive group of organisms, it's likely that the unique gene arose
>>>> from an ancestral form of the other. Such studies have been done for
>>>> a few specific genes.
>>>>
>>>> There are also a few credible reports of fossils preserving evidence
>>>> of molecular sequences, as well as a lot of non-credible ones. (Amber
>>>> seals water in, which is bad for DNA.) However, these will very
>>>> probably be limited to fairly durable molecules, especially ones
>>>> closely associated with hard parts.
>>>>
>>>> Reconstruction of past conditions can be done with varying degrees of
>>>> precision, depending on the quality of the fossil record. However,
>>>> exaptation shows that it's hard to be absolutely certain what the
>>>> precise selective factors involved in a particular situation might be.
>>>> Also, some key elements of the environment do not preserve well
>>>> (e.g., soft-bodied organisms, exact weather, regional-scale
>>>> geography), just as some environments do not preserve well.
>>>>
>>>> Yet another factor is that the market for such research is generally
>>>> poor. There are some applications to medical and biotechnical fields,
>>>> but as a whole it's entirely up to academia. Even within academia,
>>>> there's not nearly as much support for "academic" research as there is
>>>> for research that can bring in lots of money from medical or biotech
>>>> or even agricultural grants. The number of job postings for
>>>> paleontology or evolutionary biology is quite low, especially if you
>>>> remove positions for students to work on evolution within a model
>>>> organism or pathogen from the tally. (I'm also not counting "we want
>>>> someone to teach premedical courses and maybe do the evolution course
>>>> on the side.")
>>>>
>>>> Of course, anyone is free to set a level of proof desired for
>>>> something, but it is unreasonable to expect such a book to already be
>>>> available.
>>>>
>>>> That's not to say that we can't trace the basic evolution of a
>>>> particular organism or feature with a fair amount of detail. Eyes,
>>>> for example, are rather easy to explain. Plenty of organic molecules
>>>> absorb certain types of electromagnetic radiation, so finding
>>>> light-sensitive pigments is not too hard. Being able to detect and
>>>> respond to light levels is generally useful (e.g., getting light for
>>>> photosynthesis or keeping in the shadow to hide from heat, UV,
>>>> predators, etc.). Even a rudimentary version is useful. Increasing
>>>> complexity of the visual system is generally advantageous, so a
>>>> gradual accumulation of improvments is quite unsurprising. Details of
>>>> the color vision system in humans and related primates has been
>>>> studied in detail, since we have relevant gene sequences and a model
>>>> system in the South American monkeys, which are generally red/green
>>>> colorblind. On the other hand, people with all sorts of vision
>>>> deficiencies can function reasonably well-any problems with the system
>>>> are not automatically fatal.
>>>>
>>>> Much of the evolution of the bivalve shell can be traced in detail.
>>>> Although genetic work is relatively limited, we do have good general
>>>> phylogenies of the group and some genetic data on some of the proteins
>>>> involved in early development of the shell. We can also trace the
>>>> origin of the bivalved shell from a single shell in the fossil record,
>>>> and we can trace changes in shell structure and form through the
>>>> fossil record.
>>>>
>>>>> even when 150 years later it still can't take us from point A to point
>>>>> B
>>>>> in detail, as virtually all other sciences can.<
>>>>
>>>> Actually, it's probably about on par with physics in this regard.
>>>> There are two major differences in the types of questions being asked
>>>> that make the comparison misleading.
>>>>
>>>> First, in evolution we are generally interested in a very complex
>>>> system. Even a very well characterized system like gravity can become
>>>> unsolvable in detail when you are dealing with three or more objects.
>>>> Many of the factors involved in evolution are well-characterized
>>>> mathematically, but many are either probabilistic or not readily
>>>> quantified. If you have a very simple system, then we can make rather
>>>> accurate and precise evolutionary predictions. Secondly, most
>>>> interest in evolution is in reconstructing the history of life-exactly
>>>> what happened in a specific example in the distant past-rather than a
>>>> general statement of average behavior of biological systems. Instead
>>>> of the intro physics question of "if you throw a ball with a certain
>>>> force and angle and ignore everything except earth's gravity, what
>>>> would hapen?", we are asking questions more like "When Sally threw the
>>>> ball on this particular date, where did it go?"
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dr. David Campbell
>>>> 425 Scientific Collections
>>>> University of Alabama
>>>> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> 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 Jul 7 20:05:09 2009