Re: [asa] TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

> Macroevolutionary processes are (a) never observed, but only inferred.  Nor
> are they (c) directly accessible to our observational and experimental
> apparatus.

Only if they are defined as applying only to events in the distant
past. For example, if macroevolutionary events are defined as process
that produce a change of the sort used to recognize distinct higher
taxa, then that has been done in fruit flies. Major groups of
arthropods (subphyla, classes, etc.) are defined by the number, type,
and position of appendages. Mutant fruit flies have combinations not
known in any wild arthropod and so could be regarded as a new class.
Obviously, they have not as yet had a chance to evolve into a new
major group, but they might if given the opportunity.

> Further, what we can safely infer takes us nowhere near the certain conclusion that (b) macroevolutionary processes are due entirely to natural causes.<

This cannot be safely inferred as 100.00000000000000000000% certain
about anything (not counting circular reasoning based on an assumption
that natural causes are sufficient for everything).

> Macroevolution, however, is by definition a unique set of particular historical events.  In order for us to be completely confident that the events of macroevolution indicate the sort of law-bound, entirely natural process that embryonic development is, we would have to have access to the macroevolutionary process on several worlds.<

No, there are also comparisons between different kinds of organisms on
earth. For example, we see scallops and oysters, under similar
selective pressures, independently following the same evolutionary
trajectory in shell structure. Convergent evolution is essentially an
example of this. It is, however, true that we don't have multiple
examples for the origin of life.

I would fully agree that we cannot rule out possible miraculous
intervention, etc. I do not see any reason to expect it, both
theologically and from the success of evolutionary models.

> or at least, we might be able to provide a set of hypothetical genetic
> changes which, based on our current knowledge of biology, would be
> sufficient to generate macroevolutionary results.  I grant this as a
> possibility.

It is done in general. We do not have the full gene A mutates here
story, but the basic fact that genetic information is transmitted
fairly well but not perfectly gives the mechanism of producing new
features; selection and drift give how these features can be favored.

-- 
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.