HELEN
Some responses:
John asked me to give “an example or two of an argument demonstrating scientific support for the common descent of all life that is ‘based on the supposition that evolution is true,’ i.e., that is circular.”
John, all cladistics is based on that. All interpretation of the fossil record on the part of evolutionists is based on that. This list is endless, or at least as long as the fields of science having to do with the subject.
So let me issue this question to you: can you point me to ONE area where,
today evolution is concluded without it being presumed first? Is there any area you are aware of in science (and I’m not worried about ‘reputable scientists’, OK? – you are free to go wherever you like with this) in which there is no presupposition of evolution at the beginning but the interpretation yielding evolution or common descent at the end?
In the meantime, the
E.coli example has been used over and over again here by “Galatian/Barbarian/Pat Parson”. First of all, it was artificial. Secondly, the type did not last. Thirdly, the ability to vary back and forth along hot spots of the genome is known to exist in prokaryotes. Now, if you can see anywhere where that change ended up yielding another change on top of it later that led to better fitness, you might have something. As it is, you have a forced variation which the bacteria was already capable of doing and which later switched back. If this is your best shot at evidence for evolution which we can see and work with aside from sexual variation, evolution is probably in sad shape.
And, again, no one is arguing speciation.
As far as the “standard definition of ‘macroevolution’”, that is NOTHING if not circular. You define a species as an isolated inbreeding population and then you can isolate any population you like and say “Wow! Look! Macroevolution!”
That doesn’t wash logically or realistically.
You might also be interested in the following:
Science, Vol.210, November 21, 1980, pp.883-887, in an article written by Roger Lewin. This was a report about a Chicago conference simply titled "Macroevolution."
Its importance was summarized by Maynard Smith: "I thought the meeting was very positive. This was the first time for more than 25 years that there has been serious discussion between paleontologists, geneticists, and the like. This can't be anything but good." Anthony Hallam said: "I know it sounds a little pompous, ... but I think this conference will eventually be acknowledged as an historic event." (pg.887)
"The changes within a population have been termed microevolution, and they can indeed be accepted as a consequence of shifting gene frequences. Changes above the species level -- involving the origin of new species and the establishment of higher taxonomic patterns -- are known as macroeveolution. The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.
What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution: the two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap." (from pg.883)
"... Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said: "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate." (pg.884)
So what happened?
Is Rennie unaware of this conference?
Have definitions been quietly changed to accommodate the lack of data for evolution and still indicate that evolution is ‘true’?
Is everyone ignoring these scientific opinions?
I wrote, “natural selection cannot select something that is not there in the first place. The question is not whether something is selected for, but how did it get there to BE selected for? That is what evolutionists must answer!”
To which you replied, “Genetic variation comes from mutation, recombination and gene flow.”
But I didn’t ask where ‘genetic variation’ comes from. Are you saying that genetic variation does what Ayala said it cannot do? Accumulate? Accumulate to build new forms and functions? And what happens when a genetic variation happens and natural selection is operating? It has to be IMMEDIATELY selected for, before that new form or function is operating. The fact is, John, and PLEASE read this carefully here – expressed physical traits are NOT the result of the old idea of one gene = one trait. Traits are expressed through complicated interactions among genes and timing mechanisms that we really don’t understand yet. So while knocking out a gene can certainly alter or destroy a trait (or several of them), the addition of a new gene does not mean a new trait will be added. That new gene must integrate with the rest of the genome and not interfere with the timing of expression for other traits. It must also cooperate with other genes in the expression of a new trait. And then, on top of that, the transcription devices must be properly in place for it, the timing codons correctly placed, and the cell must know how to follow the new directions it receives. It’s ever so much more than simple mutation, recombination and gene flow for a new trait to show up in an organism. Which is probably why we have never seen it happen and it is only presumption that it has.
And, in the meantime, natural selection continues to kill off segments of any given population with environmental changes. If there are new traits to select from, where on earth did the new traits come from? Genetically you just can go about switching around the genome and resulting proteins. The cells are much too fine-tuned to allow that to happen. Keep in mind also that most proteins are disassembled frequently and the amino acids used to build new and replacement proteins. So even if one were ‘abnormal’ it wouldn’t last long anyway – and would the cell produce that same abnormality again?
Natural selection can only select from what is there, not what someone imagines must have happened.
About the quote from Gee – I used it to show a good scientist’s (and evolutionists’) candid look at the fossil record and what it really means. However yes, Gee presumes evolution happened anyway. And that PRESUMPTION led to the cladogram you point to on page 211 as well as all the others in the book! He is trying to replace fossil record interpretation with cladistics. Cladistics is based firmly and completely on the presumption of common descent.
Your second email accused me of being uncharitable towards Rennie. That does not bother me at all. He is a senior science editor. If he doesn’t know better than what he has written, he should. I might mention that his attitude towards those he does not agree with is not only uncharitable, it's downright insulting.
What Wells did, by the way, in “Icons of Evolution” was document one after another, slowly and carefully, that every main evidence for evolution used in the current texts has been known to be false as published in peer reviewed mainstream literature for at least 20 years, and in some cases at least a hundred years. He showed that deception is the only possible reason for this. Michael Denton may or may not accept evolution in full, I don’t know. That is not the point either. The point is that there are a number of excellent scientists with degrees, papers, standing, etc., who have disagreed with evolution enough times and in enough ways that when Rennie says it is a fact and beyond doubt, he is either ignorant or lying. Your choice.
You, as do many, make the assertion that creation science is “poor”. But you might be interested to know that almost every major field of science was begun by a Bible-believing creationist! That’s not so poor, I don’t think. And creationists today are doing cutting edge science as well, as creationists, in a number of fields. In the past few days the press regarding the Davies article on the possibly decreasing speed of light through time has made big press. However my husband was publishing on that in 1981. The complexity of parasites has been a recent field of exploding knowledge as well. But Mark Armitage has been publishing on that for a number of years as well. A lot of these men are quiet people and not prone to hyping themselves, but their work is nevertheless top class and recognized that way by many in their field. We have, for instance, in the past three days, been getting phone calls and emails from physicists from around the world, literally. Several from China, which is interesting… they know about Barry’s work and appreciate it. That was a pleasant surprise for us.
There are, to put it very mildly, far more creation scientists out there than you think. And they are doing quite a bit of very respectable work. The canard about creation science being religion and poor science is simply a bit of propaganda. Granted that has been helped along for you by some of the popularizers, but nevertheless, the real science is there and moving along quite nicely.
Then you said something that really puzzled me: ‘One does not have to accept ID to believe that “there is an intelligence outside of the human race and far above it which is responsible for this world and life itself.”’
Okayyyyyy, are you trying to say that this intelligence that is responsible for this world and for life is NOT an intelligent designer? That the design is not intelligent? What is it you are trying to say here?
I think you mistake what ID is postulating, actually. It should not be confused with creationism, by the way. ID is simply saying that there are tests we can use to indicate whether any natural phenomena shows signs of being intelligently designed rather than the product of either natural law or probability. That’s it. It does not go further than that! You see, it fits your theistic evolution as well as my young creation point of view. Unless you are trying to say God did NOT design things intelligently and that, if He did, there is no trace of that intelligent design left. ID has NOTHING to do with creationism. That, also, is a bit of propaganda by those who are afraid of Darwinism being challenged.
A quick word about the Bible and current science. Current science is forever changing its mind about things. The Bible is not. And every time there has been a chance to confirm or falsify something the Bible has said in the way of science as we know it, the Bible has come out as telling the truth. With the comparative track records of the Bible and man’s science, I prefer Bible. The odds are far greater that it is telling the truth about what it speaks about than science is about what it speaks about. And I taught science for many years…
God’s standards, by the way, are much stricter than ours. We settle for reasonable evidence and an interpretation in line with current thinking. He demands truth.
You say you are happy in your beliefs. That says nothing about whether they are right or not, does it? Hindus and Muslims are quite happy in their beliefs, too. One’s satisfaction with what one believes is no indication of whether that belief is true or not. In a similar vein, what ‘makes sense’ to you about Genesis is also no indication as to whether it is true or not. It is presented as straight history and needs to be accepted or rejected on its own terms. There is increasing evidence, as well, that it is actually a series of eyewitness testimonies. You might be interested in this link where there is some explanation of that:
http://ldolphin.org/tablethy.html
Read it and see what you think. The evidence is not only strong, but getting stronger. I have a couple of essays by current scholars who are also starting to swing to that position. Seriously, let me know what you think.
You said, “I trust the Bible as a guide to “how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.” There are different ways in which one may trust a book or person.” That’s another one from “Galatian” -- you guys the same person??? Let me put it this way, if the Bible is not right about what we CAN verify, why on earth should we trust it regarding anything we CAN’T verify? If God can’t get simple science right when He speaks about it, why trust Him with anything else?
I asked you for some of the purported ‘overwhelming evidence’ for common descent and got only that it is ‘voluminous and easily accessible” and then a reference to the TO article which I have read before. Common descent is presumed by them. That is no way to start off a bit of evidence for it! And yes, I am aware of molecular, phyogenetic, etc. evidences for common descent. None of them hold up that I can see. So if you could show me what you do think holds up against a challenge involving a different presumption and a different possible interpretation which is completely in line with the data, I would really appreciate it. You see, I used to believe in evolution. I used to teach it. It was because of evidence that I ended up becoming a creationist. I really don’t see that overwhelming evidence at all in any field which supports common descent. I see a LOT of data with interpretations based on the presupposition of common descent, and I see a LOT of declarations of common descent, and I see a LOT of retreats into ‘convergent evolution’ when all else fails – but I don’t see the overwhelming evidence at all.
And, by the way, morphology (body design) and molecular genetics are frequently at odds. It is not quite the lovely pairing you are seeming to want to indicate. They are not ‘twins’ by any mean, in terms of ‘nested hierarchies’ or otherwise. Considering that ‘common descent’ has to resort to so many anomalies, it really is not the most parsimonious explanation. Creation works better there. Biblical creation. Creation of created kinds by population. That explains ever so much more without retreating into all sorts of shenanigans about convergent evolution, imagined transitionals, changing stories of evolutionary relationships and the like.
To Joe:
I’m not arguing about your experience with peer-reviewed journals, Joe. I am stating mine as someone who has worked with a number of authors and a number of submissions.
