Deja vu all over agai
Jani Patokallio
(Seanna Watson) writes:
-> In article <1992Sep9.202437.23671#linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
-> writes:
-> >Notice that "atheist" != "creationist". Ever think why?
-> It is trivially obvious that atheists are by definition not creationists
-> --you can't have creationism (or even creation) without a creator.
->
-> The point that is being argued (I think) is whether evolution proves
-> atheism. Most creationists (or as I prefer to call them Theistic
-> Anti-Evolutionists) agree with this; this is why they object to
-> evolution. I have myself argued with TAEs against evolution=atheism.
-> Every time a TAE comes on to t.o and says "evolution means atheism",
-> most of the t.o regulars jump on him/her and say, "no, evolution has
-> nothing to do with God". An atheist comes on t.o, and says "evolution
-> means atheism" and gets almost the same reception. I think this is
-> a good thing. So, what's the problem?
Evolution does not directly disprove God. The existence of God would not
disprove evolution either. However, the two theories are indirectly in
conflict. If the theory of evolution is correct, then a major portion of
Genesis gets wrecked. If God exists, the theory of evolution would need
major revisions. This is why evolutionists are rarely religious and
creationists are never atheist.
Hmm, just wondering. Is this a part of the t.o FAQ? If it isn't, it
should be.
--
Jani Patokallio | "God is dead and I want his job." -Anon.
acc1bbs!jani.pa...@ssr.com | "Jesus should've been aborted." -Anon.
---
. AME 1.07 .
Warren Vonroeschlaub
Patokallio) writes:
> Evolution does not directly disprove God. The existence of God would not
> disprove evolution either. However, the two theories are indirectly in
> conflict. If the theory of evolution is correct, then a major portion of
> Genesis gets wrecked.
How about "a rather speeculative and not wholly accpepted interpretation of
Genesis gets wrecked."
> If God exists, the theory of evolution would need
> major revisions.
Please give an example of such revisions? The only one I could think of is
"and God might have been involved" which theoretically isn't ruled out even
now.
> This is why evolutionists are rarely religious and
> creationists are never atheist.
I diagree. Anm atheistic creationist is silly because you have to believe in
God to believe in creationism. There is, however, no compulsion to be an
atheist if you believe in evolution, and indeed, a majority of people who
believe in God believe in evolution (despite the image of majority creationists
try to present).
> Hmm, just wondering. Is this a part of the t.o FAQ? If it isn't, it
> should be.
Actually, I have been considering writing up a FAQ on God and evolution.
Would there be any interest? (at the very least it would be something to throw
at the people who occasionally pop up and shout "I refuse to believe in
evolution because it denies the existance of God.")
| __L__ *******************************
-|- ___ * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub *
| | o | * kv...@iastate.edu *
|/ `---' * Iowa State University *
/| ___ * Math Department *
| |___| * 400 Carver Hall *
| |___| * Ames, IA 50011 *
J _____ *******************************
Andy Peters
>Evolution does not directly disprove God. The existence of God would not
>disprove evolution either. However, the two theories are indirectly in
>conflict.
Only very specific versions of "the two theories" conflict; or, more precisely,
evolution indirectly conflicts only with one version of the belief in
God.
If the theory of evolution is correct, then a major portion of
>Genesis gets wrecked.
Only the Fundie version of Genesis. Any sane interpretation of Genesis
has already expanded to include evolution.
If God exists, the theory of evolution would need
>major revisions.
Why?
Science _does_not_have_anything_to_say_ about the existence of God, one
way or the other. If a creationist chooses to believe _on faith_ that
God created the world and life 10,000 years ago, despite scientific
evidence to the contrary, then that person is merely choosing one Way
of Knowing (faith) over another (science); the two are orthogonal.
God may have created the world last Tuesday (I apologize for the cliche
example); scientists don't care. Science cannot and does not explain
phenomena in terms of the supernatural; this does not mean the supernatural
does not exist, it is merely outside the realm of science.
> This is why evolutionists are rarely religious
I know many religious "evolutionists."
and
>creationists are never atheist.
No. Creationists are never atheist because that would be completely
illogical (Hmm..that never stoped creationists before.) Let's just say
that an atheistic creationist is by definition impossible, because
creationism is a religion. A religious scientist is well within the
realm of possibility, because science and religion are orthogonal.
>Jani Patokallio | "God is dead and I want his job." -Anon.
>acc1bbs!jani.pa...@ssr.com | "Jesus should've been aborted." -Anon.
--
* Andy Peters * "Slugs are small and portable *From
* Program in Evolution, * Just stuff 'em up your nose *"Slugs,"
* Ecology, and Behavior * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes" *Greenberg
Seth Bradley
>In article <5359.17...@ssr.com>, jani.patokallio%acc...@ssr.com (Jani
>Patokallio) writes:
>> disprove evolution either. However, the two theories are indirectly in
>> conflict. If the theory of evolution is correct, then a major portion of
>> Genesis gets wrecked.
> How about "a rather speeculative and not wholly accpepted interpretation of
>Genesis gets wrecked."
I'd make this much stronger and say "a historically _very_ recent inter-
pretation of Genesis that has little support outside of a few extreme
sects and almost none within theological schools, and which is injurious
to any sect which holds it".
> Actually, I have been considering writing up a FAQ on God and evolution.
>Would there be any interest? (at the very least it would be something to throw
>at the people who occasionally pop up and shout "I refuse to believe in
>evolution because it denies the existance of God.")
I have a FAQ on theological objections to creationism in my archive, if
anyone is interested.
--
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: sbra...@scic.intel.com UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one. The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare. On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!" -Michael O'Brien
Herb Huston
OK.
>The existence of God would not
>disprove evolution either.
OK.
>However, the two theories are indirectly in
>conflict. If the theory of evolution is correct, then a major portion of
>Genesis gets wrecked.
So what? God and Genesis are not the same thing. While Genesis would be
in big trouble without God, God can do quite well without Genesis.
>If God exists, the theory of evolution would need
>major revisions.
Why?
>This is why evolutionists are rarely religious and
>creationists are never atheist.
Your statements about evolutionists and creationists might indeed be true,
but your supporting arguments seem weak.
>Hmm, just wondering. Is this a part of the t.o FAQ? If it isn't, it
>should be.
I disagree. Let's leave flawed argumentation to the creationists.
-- Herb Huston
mike.siemon
> Evolution does not directly disprove God. The existence of God would not
> disprove evolution either. However, the two theories are indirectly in
> conflict.
WHICH "two theories" do you have in mind? Creationist interpretation of
Genesis 1-3 (and of 6-9) would of course directly conflict with evolution.
However, even presuming we limit ourselves to what a Christian would mean
by "existence of God" there is no conflict, direct or otherwise, that I
see as necessarily present (granting that there are *some* theological
positions that *do* want to make claims vis a vis evolutionary arguments.)
> If the theory of evolution is correct, then a major portion of
> Genesis gets wrecked.
Hardly. The whole of the "primal history" in Genesis is a short prologue
-- the main body of Genesis is the story of Abraham, and the background is
a "cosmic" history redacted with a theological point of view that may or
may not be seen to be in conflict, direct or otherwise, with science.
If you like, a good analogy here is the "prologue in heaven" in the Book
of Job. Certain literal-minded readers draw bizarre "conclusions" from
this, too, as they do from Genesis. These people are WEIRD. They seem
to be totally unable to cope with standard literary devices -- the Job
bit, for example, is present in Ugaritic literature and is evidently a
"standard" ploy in northwest Semitic story-telling. To say that ANY of
the mythological/legendary framework [ of which, incidentally, the Bible
has quite a bit LESS than most other ancient Near Eastern material ] is
"a major portion" is to confuse genre and content.
> If God exists, the theory of evolution would need major revisions.
??? How so? Again, one *can* find theologizing arguments, such as
Teilhard's, that would require evolution to have goals, which would
either be vacuous or require modification of standard theory. But I
don't think there is ANY thing in commonly-accepted doctrine which
implies a damned thing about evolution. There is a fair amount of
pussy-footing, among Catholics in particular, about how "souls" get
into the evolutionary picture -- and simplistic forms of this presume
there was a literal pair of "first parents" with these supernatural
appurtenances -- but I don't think I've ever seen a reputable argu-
ment that would require modifications to evolutionary theory, except
on the basis of sectarian assumptions that are not at all universal.
--
Michael L. Siemon "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
As the tears scald and start;
m...@usl.com You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer With your crooked heart."
mike.siemon
> -- the main body of Genesis is the story of Abraham,
well, that's a bit too "typological" -- I meant no slight to Jacob or
Joseph. The "Joseph novella" in 37-50 is more extensive than the
Abraham material (12-23); I named Abraham as the _typos_ of partriarchs,
but any of the line *can* be used as _aition_ to "derive" some Jewish
institution/practice. In one sense, the best type is Jacob/Israel.
Eli Chiprout
>In article <5359.17...@ssr.com>, jani.patokallio%acc...@ssr.com
>(Jani Patokallio) writes:
>Creationist interpretation of
>Genesis 1-3 (and of 6-9) would of course directly conflict with evolution.
>However, even presuming we limit ourselves to what a Christian would mean
>by "existence of God" there is no conflict, direct or otherwise, that I
>see as necessarily present (granting that there are *some* theological
>positions that *do* want to make claims vis a vis evolutionary arguments.)
This is only true if your theology postulates properties of God completely
separate from the observable natural world. If that is the case, then you are
debating about words (a la Wittgenstein) rather than anything verifiable.
We might as well be discussing Pink elephants in the fifth dimension.
If however, your theology extends to implications in the natural world,
(i.e. an unmechanistic universe, goodness in nature, etc.) then the Christian
God comes seriously in doubt here, as the processes involved in evolution
deal will death, pain, unimprotance of the individual (vs. the
importance of information carried in genes).
>> If the theory of evolution is correct, then a major portion of
>> Genesis gets wrecked.
>Hardly. The whole of the "primal history" in Genesis is a short prologue
>-- the main body of Genesis is the story of Abraham, and the background is
>a "cosmic" history redacted with a theological point of view that may or
>may not be seen to be in conflict, direct or otherwise, with science.
>If you like, a good analogy here is the "prologue in heaven" in the Book
>of Job. Certain literal-minded readers draw bizarre "conclusions" from
>this, too, as they do from Genesis. These people are WEIRD. They seem
>to be totally unable to cope with standard literary devices -- the Job
>bit, for example, is present in Ugaritic literature and is evidently a
>"standard" ploy in northwest Semitic story-telling. To say that ANY of
>the mythological/legendary framework [ of which, incidentally, the Bible
>has quite a bit LESS than most other ancient Near Eastern material ] is
>"a major portion" is to confuse genre and content.
This is debatable. You are in the 20th century with your
studies of comparitive myths, legends, literary styles, projecting
your knowledge on these early writers. There are several points.
1. Myth, poetry, analogy and metaphor is no doubt an integral parts of
many biblical writing with the writer's knowledge, but it is not
always reasonable to transform all of the writings into such in
the writer's mind, when clearly, the writer has no other
greater superceding understanding and what we would consider mythical
writing/literary style today was his very world view then.
3. The judgement of whether the writer was using a literary/mythical
style or whether he actually believed his writing reflected on the
true order of things, or worse, if it was a combination of these,
is to be judged on a case by case basis, with some unresolvable
difficulties.
2. Books were not extant in the days Genesis was written as they are
today simply because of their expensive form and the lack of a
generally educated population. The simplest and most convenient
form was oral tradition. This implied the baggage that accompanies
oral tradition: paraphrase, contradictions and exageration.
4. The "main point" of the first books of the Bible is the history
of a people from the beginnings of creation and their implied
special relationship to the God of creation. Rather than give
the impression that Genesis is a literary introduction to that
account, with no real meaning to the seven days of creation, it
seems to be the best explantion possible for the state of affairs
in their observable world, with bits and pieces being taken from
different oral traditions. The seven days of creation, rather,
are taken quite seriously as they become the new temporal order
(Gen. 7:4) and they even become the basis for worshipping God
(Ex. 20:11). They are not just simple literary techniques.
5. Contrast this which Job, where there is a clear set-up of a
gigantic drama, with all of the preliminaries being dispensed
with immediately (God, Satan, the curse) so that the real discussion
can begin: "why does a man suffer?" (The answer is "who are you
to ask"!). There are no further implications of the introductory
chapters.
6. There is no evidence for the Biblical writers showing any
knowledge better than what is presented in Genesis. There is
no indication that the writers were using this story in the same way
as the writer of Aesop's fables, to tell a story, but
fully aware that mythical animals that converse verbally don't exist.
If they did, then where does their use of mythical epic stop and where
does that which they considered the true genealogy of Israel begin?
With Adam and Eve? With Noah? With Abraham, or with Moses? What
is their real world view, the Big Bang?
>> If God exists, the theory of evolution would need major revisions.
>??? How so? Again, one *can* find theologizing arguments, such as
>Teilhard's, that would require evolution to have goals, which would
>either be vacuous or require modification of standard theory. But I
>don't think there is ANY thing in commonly-accepted doctrine which
>implies a damned thing about evolution. There is a fair amount of
>pussy-footing, among Catholics in particular, about how "souls" get
>into the evolutionary picture -- and simplistic forms of this presume
>there was a literal pair of "first parents" with these supernatural
>appurtenances -- but I don't think I've ever seen a reputable argu-
>ment that would require modifications to evolutionary theory, except
>on the basis of sectarian assumptions that are not at all universal.
Again, if you are simply discussing about words, than of course,
there are no implications of Pink Elephants in the fifth dimension on
evolution either.
I find it a poor reasoning technique to completely separate the
object of inquiry from any verifiable implications. This has
been the ultimate end of theology, but it certainly did not begin
that way for obvious reasons. The theology in the Hebrew Bible
and the more developed theology of the NT all were meant to
explain the interaction of God and man (the universe). If their
is no interaction, then what's the point of discussing it?
>--
>Michael L. Siemon "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
> As the tears scald and start;
>m...@usl.com You shall love your crooked neighbor
>standard disclaimer With your crooked heart."
--
Eli Chiprout
Dept. of Electronics
Carleton University
e...@doe.carleton.ca
Dale Skiba
: In article <1992Sep10.002556.29590#bcrka451.bnr.ca>, sea...@bnr.ca
: (Seanna Watson) writes:
: -> In article <1992Sep9.202437.23671#linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
: ->
: -> atheism.
:
Athiests that use evolution to disprove the existence of God are
trying to attach their personal religious ideas to a Scientific
theory. I think this is what the fundies call the religion of
evolution. This may be the only thing that the fundies correctly
understand about evolution. Unfortunately, they listen to these
athiests and think that EVERY thing attached to evolution is ALWAYS
used to disprove the existence of God. Is it any wonder that they
behave in the way that they do?
I think it is very humorous, since athiests get really angry when
fundamentalists try to attach their personal religious ideas to a
theory. Both seem to be playing the same game.
--
Dale Skiba
Mike Huben
>Athiests that use evolution to disprove the existence of God are
>trying to attach their personal religious ideas to a Scientific
>theory. I think this is what the fundies call the religion of
>evolution. This may be the only thing that the fundies correctly
>understand about evolution. Unfortunately, they listen to these
>athiests and think that EVERY thing attached to evolution is ALWAYS
>used to disprove the existence of God. Is it any wonder that they
>behave in the way that they do?
It's hard here to tell whether it's atheists or fundies who are putting
the cart before the horse.
For millenia, atheists were told that they couldn't explain the natural
world: it had to be explained in terms of god and creation, thus there had
to be a god. Now, atheists can throw that back in the face of believers,
and point out that no god is required for evolution to explain the diversity
of life, and that believers were making a patently false argument from
ignorance all along.
It's a basic error of logic to go from "no evidence of god" to "evidence of
no god". Anbybody who supports that in this group will be properly
togue-lashed, either as a stupid atheist or a believer misrepresenting
atheists.
Mike Huben
"Religion is still parasitic in the interstices of our knowledge which have
not yet been filled. Like bed-bugs in the cracks of walls and furniture,
miracles lurk in the lacunae of science. The scientist plasters up these
cracks in our knowledge; the more militant Rationalist swats the bugs in the
open. Both have their proper sphere and they should realize that they are
allies." John Haldane in "Science and Life: Essays of a Rationalist".
Eli Chiprout
>jani.patokallio%acc...@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) writes:
>: -> The point that is being argued (I think) is whether evolution proves
>: -> atheism.
>Athiests that use evolution to disprove the existence of God are
>trying to attach their personal religious ideas to a Scientific
>theory. I think this is what the fundies call the religion of
>evolution. This may be the only thing that the fundies correctly
>understand about evolution. Unfortunately, they listen to these
>athiests and think that EVERY thing attached to evolution is ALWAYS
>used to disprove the existence of God. Is it any wonder that they
>behave in the way that they do?
>I think it is very humorous, since athiests get really angry when
>fundamentalists try to attach their personal religious ideas to a
>theory. Both seem to be playing the same game.
Atheism is not a belief but a lack of one.
You cannot prove atheism by any means or argument.
Atheism simply acknowledges the epistemological problems
of trying to come to knowledge of an agent that cannot be defined
or observed. Evolution is a fact of observation and it neither
proves nor disproves anything in the metaphysical sphere. However,
if a Christian (replace here by any religion) says that his
religion has certain implications in the way the world is
structured, then these and only these implications are verifiable.
If he has no implication in the observable world then the case
is closed and evolution does not interact with the religious
beliefs.
Fundies DO have a say in the implications of their religious
beliefs on the way the world is structured and these can be
shown to be unsupportable. It still does not "prove" atheism.
I challenge anyone to disprove my belief that there are pink
elephants in the infinite dimension. They have no interaction
with the present world or its people and I can only define
them by saying that they are not physical, not human, not...
(etc.)
>--
>Dale Skiba
mike.siemon
(citing James Lippard, but I dropped the attribution line; sorry)
> > The theist can, of course, maintain that there is no evidence of God that
> >you should expect to see, but few will say so unless pressed.
> The weak link in the chain is "appropriate searching". How much is
> appropiate? 75 years? 90 years? (time) North America? The earth?
...
> Theories that can be refuted have observable effects. Modern theology
> in the main claims no connection between god and observation (otherwise
> it might be refuted).
Mr. Chiprout's parenthesis (and a later comment) exempt him from being
taken too simply here. The fact is that modern theology, on these points,
is purely driven by REACTION to critique (both from within and without
the "believing" community) of earlier theological claims that there *is*
an observable connection. It may not be the ONLY motivation of modern
theology, but one can hardly avoid counting it an important one, that no
traditional claim of connection between god and observation can withstand
objective testing.
Mr. Lippard's rather tentative statement of the tendency created by this
failure of evidence to turn up (despite some fairly strong urging by
believers about what to look for and where to look, as with "healing"
for example) strikes me as quite fair (though he may very well by less
tentative in his personal evaluation of this -- I'd hardly blame him!)
What is interesting is that, having accepted this criticism and followed
the line of reasoning, and *still* accepting it in the tentative form, I
nonetheless find myself unable to maintain an atheist or even agnostic
position. Oh, well; such is life ... :-)
Eli Chiprout
>In article <19q3pb...@armory.centerline.com>, m...@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes...
>>It's a basic error of logic to go from "no evidence of god" to "evidence of
>>no god". Anbybody who supports that in this group will be properly
>>togue-lashed, either as a stupid atheist or a believer misrepresenting
>>atheists.
>Let me express some mild disagreement. No evidence of X, when you've done
>appropriate searching for evidence of X which you'd expect to see, is indeed
>evidence of X's nonexistence. That's how theories get refuted.
> The theist can, of course, maintain that there is no evidence of God that
>you should expect to see, but few will say so unless pressed.
The weak link in the chain is "appropriate searching". How much is
appropiate? 75 years? 90 years? (time) North America? The earth?
the Solar System (space)? We have no idea on our limitation to observe
the universe. If god chose to hid itself for 3000 years (since it
appeared on Sinai to Moses) it would be such a short time.
Theories that can be refuted have observable effects. Modern theology
in the main claims no connection between god and observation (otherwise
it might be refuted). So I'll believe in my pink elephants, thank you
very much. No amount of your searching will reveal that they do not
exist.
(I am just being fair logically, although I know what you mean)
>Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
>Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
>University of Arizona
>Tucson, AZ 85721
James J. Lippard
>In article <23SEP199...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>,
>lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>> In article <19q3pb...@armory.centerline.com>, m...@centerline.com (Mike
>Huben) writes...
>> >It's a basic error of logic to go from "no evidence of god" to "evidence of
>> >no god". Anbybody who supports that in this group will be properly
>> >togue-lashed, either as a stupid atheist or a believer misrepresenting
>> >atheists.
>>
>> Let me express some mild disagreement. No evidence of X, when you've done
>> appropriate searching for evidence of X which you'd expect to see, is indeed
>> evidence of X's nonexistence. That's how theories get refuted.
>> The theist can, of course, maintain that there is no evidence of God that
>> you should expect to see, but few will say so unless pressed.
>
>
> Consider the statement "All crows are black". Now, to find evidence for this
>claim, we seek out crows, and then see if they are black. Whenever we find a
>crow, and it is black, the support is given for the statement. Now, the
>contrapositive of the statement is an eqwuivalent claim. That is "All non-black
>things are not crows" is an equivalent statement.
>
> Now, this means we can provide supporting evidence for "all crows are black"
>by finding supporting evidence for "all non-black things are crows". Thus,
>rather than look for crows and seeing if they are black, we can look for
>non-black things and see if they are not crows. Since there are non-black
>things all over the place this simplifies the task. My computer is not black
>and it isn't a crow, so it is evidence.
>
> Would you consider this a sensible position?
If there are such things as crows, then showing that all non-black things
are non-crows *is* equivalent to showing that all crows are black. The
evidence of each non-black thing failing to be a crow, however, is much
less evidence for the statement than each black crow, because the number
of non-black things is vastly larger than the number of crows. Further,
you must avoid choosing an unrepresentative sample of non-black things.
(For the technical details on a resolution of Hempel's crow paradox, see
John Pollock, _Nomic Probability and the Foundations of Induction_,
1990 (?), Oxford Univ. Press, which I unfortunately do not have with me
at the moment.)
> How does this differ from trying to show "God does not exist" by trying to
>prove "everything that exists is not God"? How exactly has evidence been
>searched for the former rather than the latter claim?
Claims have been made about what and who God is, what properties he has,
and so forth. Some of these claims have had empirical consequences.
James J. Lippard
>no god". Anbybody who supports that in this group will be properly
>togue-lashed, either as a stupid atheist or a believer misrepresenting
>atheists.
Let me express some mild disagreement. No evidence of X, when you've done
appropriate searching for evidence of X which you'd expect to see, is indeed
evidence of X's nonexistence. That's how theories get refuted.
The theist can, of course, maintain that there is no evidence of God that
you should expect to see, but few will say so unless pressed.
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Warren Vonroeschlaub
lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
Huben) writes...
> >It's a basic error of logic to go from "no evidence of god" to "evidence of
> >no god". Anbybody who supports that in this group will be properly
> >togue-lashed, either as a stupid atheist or a believer misrepresenting
> >atheists.
>
> Let me express some mild disagreement. No evidence of X, when you've done
> appropriate searching for evidence of X which you'd expect to see, is indeed
> evidence of X's nonexistence. That's how theories get refuted.
> The theist can, of course, maintain that there is no evidence of God that
> you should expect to see, but few will say so unless pressed.
This sounds remarkably like the black crow paradox.
Consider the statement "All crows are black". Now, to find evidence for this
claim, we seek out crows, and then see if they are black. Whenever we find a
crow, and it is black, the support is given for the statement. Now, the
contrapositive of the statement is an eqwuivalent claim. That is "All non-black
things are not crows" is an equivalent statement.
Now, this means we can provide supporting evidence for "all crows are black"
by finding supporting evidence for "all non-black things are crows". Thus,
rather than look for crows and seeing if they are black, we can look for
non-black things and see if they are not crows. Since there are non-black
things all over the place this simplifies the task. My computer is not black
and it isn't a crow, so it is evidence.
Would you consider this a sensible position?
How does this differ from trying to show "God does not exist" by trying to
prove "everything that exists is not God"? How exactly has evidence been
searched for the former rather than the latter claim?
| __L__ *******************************
Jani Patokallio
(Andy Peters) writes:
-> >In article <5359.17...@ssr.com> jani.patokallio%acc...@ssr.com (Jani
-> >Patokallio) writes:
->
-> >Evolution does not directly disprove God. The existence of God would not
-> >disprove evolution either. However, the two theories are indirectly in
-> >conflict.
->
-> Only very specific versions of "the two theories" conflict; or, more
-> precisely, evolution indirectly conflicts only with one version of the
-> belief in God.
A clarification that I should have made: The evolution of species to
new species does not conflict with the Bible. However, the creation of
life itself, a part of evolution, does conflict. Also, note that I said
"conflict", not "disprove". Believing in both evolution and God is
very possible, just not very likely.
-> If the theory of evolution is correct, then a major portion of
-> >Genesis gets wrecked.
->
-> Only the Fundie version of Genesis. Any sane interpretation of Genesis
-> has already expanded to include evolution.
True.
-> If God exists, the theory of evolution would need
-> >major revisions.
->
-> Why?
Quite simple. If God created man and animals as stated in Genesis, life did
not arise spontaneously from a primordial sludge of amino acids. However,
evolution itself (the evolving of new species) wouldn't be affected.
-> Science _does_not_have_anything_to_say_ about the existence of God, one
-> way or the other. If a creationist chooses to believe _on faith_ that
-> God created the world and life 10,000 years ago, despite scientific
-> evidence to the contrary, then that person is merely choosing one Way
-> of Knowing (faith) over another (science); the two are orthogonal.
-> God may have created the world last Tuesday (I apologize for the cliche
-> example); scientists don't care. Science cannot and does not explain
-> phenomena in terms of the supernatural; this does not mean the supernatural
-> does not exist, it is merely outside the realm of science.
->
-> > This is why evolutionists are rarely religious
->
-> I know many religious "evolutionists."
There are some, but I'd say that there are more atheists, agnostics,
and nonobserving but religious evolutionists than devout believers in God.
BTW, I suggest that everybody stop putting quotes around evolutionist.
Granted, it's a sligtly unfair label, but so is creationist. And it's
simpler to use that "person who believes in the theory of evolution".
--
Jani Patokallio | "Ignorance is the soil in which belief
acc1bbs!jani.pa...@ssr.com | in miracles grows." -Anon.
Crunchy Frog
>In article <BuuI9...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
> adpe...@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu
>(Andy Peters) writes:
>->
>-> precisely, evolution indirectly conflicts only with one version of the
>-> belief in God.
>
>A clarification that I should have made: The evolution of species to
>new species does not conflict with the Bible. However, the creation of
>life itself, a part of evolution, does conflict. Also, note that I said
>"conflict", not "disprove". Believing in both evolution and God is
>very possible, just not very likely.
It is very possible and very likely. A large percentage of Xtians
believe in evolution.
.. deleted ..
>-> If God exists, the theory of evolution would need
>-> >major revisions.
>->
>-> Why?
>
>Quite simple. If God created man and animals as stated in Genesis, life did
>not arise spontaneously from a primordial sludge of amino acids. However,
>evolution itself (the evolving of new species) wouldn't be affected.
Since abiogenesis and evolution are separate things I take it you
*don't* think evolution needs major revisions. Oh yeah, abiogenesis
wouldn't either. You said nothing about God creating man and animals
originally, you just said "If God exists".
So, one more time: If we assume God exists (and nothing more, we do
*not* assume anything in Genesis or that s/he is responsible for life
on Earth) *why* would evolution/abiogenesis need major revisions?
>-> I know many religious "evolutionists."
>
>There are some, but I'd say that there are more atheists, agnostics,
>and nonobserving but religious evolutionists than devout believers in God.
>
>BTW, I suggest that everybody stop putting quotes around evolutionist.
>Granted, it's a sligtly unfair label, but so is creationist. And it's
>simpler to use that "person who believes in the theory of evolution".
How about the word "scientist"?
>Jani Patokallio | "Ignorance is the soil in which belief
C Frog
James G. Acker
: A clarification that I should have made: The evolution of species to
: new species does not conflict with the Bible. However, the creation of
: life itself, a part of evolution, does conflict. Also, note that I said
: "conflict", not "disprove". Believing in both evolution and God is
: very possible, just not very likely.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the first time I've ever done this:
I assume you have some numbers to back up this assertion?
I believe in Evolution. I believe in the Judaeo-Christian
God. I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. I don't
believe in a worldwide Noachian flood, or that there was one specific
Adam and Eve who were the progenitors of all humankind.
You think I'm unlikely? No -- there are tons of mainstream
liberal Protestants, but they don't make as much noise as the fundies.
: There are some, but I'd say that there are more atheists, agnostics,
: and nonobserving but religious evolutionists than devout believers in God.
I'm taking a bit of offense at this comment. How are you defining
"devout believers in God"? And there are several ways this comment can
be interpreted:
1. Atheists + agnostics + NOBSR Evos > Total [devout believers]
or
2. Atheist evos + agnostic evos + NOBSR Evos > Total [DB]
or
3. Atheists > Total [DB]
Agnostics > Total [DB], and
NOBSR Evos > Total [DB]
Which did you mean? If your definition of "devout believer" is extremely
narrow, 1,2, and 3 are likely to be true. If a devout believer is a
churchgoer evincing a faith in God, 3 is likely to be false. Plus, many
people do not consider themselves "evolutionists" in the sense that they
promote or advocate the theory of evolution, and if "evolutionists"
means "evolutionary biologists", the set is much smaller.
Please define terms. And include me among the devout believers,
unless that definition requires the literal interpretation of Genesis.
Jim Acker
jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
Chris Lee
>Granted, it's a sligtly unfair label, but so is creationist. And it's
>simpler to use that "person who believes in the theory of evolution".
NONONONONONO!
"Evolutionist" is a word that was hijacked by the fundamental Christian
sects that believe the Genesis creation legends actually happenned. Anyone
else who uses it implicitly accepts the creationist meaning of the word,
including all their assumed attributes.
Likewise "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are also their words. It
is very difficult to use them in a debate because they are like moving
goalposts. They have not been defined to everybody's satisfaction and
seem to mean whatever the creationists want at the time.Which makes it
difficult to debate constructively.
'"Evolutionist" = "person who believes in the theory of evolution"'
is an example: belief implies acceptance without taking account the
overwhelming evidence. To use it implicitly denies the evidence.
Until the definitions are fully understood by everybody, I will continue
using quotes.
>
>--
>Jani Patokallio | "Ignorance is the soil in which belief
>acc1bbs!jani.pa...@ssr.com | in miracles grows." -Anon.
>
Chris Lee
(*) Disclaimer for the ICR and its followers. This sentence does NOT imply
that the non-creationists on this board do not believe in evolution
fact and sometimes disagree on the theory
Mark Isaak
>Believing in both evolution and God is very possible, just not
>very likely.
You are making the highly chauvanistic assumption that the Bible has
something to do with God. Billions of people would disagree with
that belief. Worse, you are making the highly arrogant assumption
that your interpretation of the Bible and your interpretation of
God are the correct ones. Just about everyone in the world would
likely disagree with some point or another of your interpretations.
From my own perspective of the Bible, God, and evolution, your
conclusion is utter rubbish.
Also, you should note that the creation of life itself is (arguably)
not a part of evolution.
--
Mark Isaak "Every generation thinks it has the answers, and every
is...@aurora.com generation is humbled by nature." - Philip Lubin
Jani Patokallio
-> >conflict. If the theory of evolution is correct, then a major portion of
-> >Genesis gets wrecked.
->
-> in big trouble without God, God can do quite well without Genesis.
If Genesis is wrecked, a reasonable person's faith in the correctness of
Bible would be shaken quite a bit. After all, if one part is completely
wrong, it casts a shadow of doubt on the rest too. Since the Bible is a
major part of Christianity, it does pose a bit of a problem... Although
one can certainly continue believing in God.
-> >Hmm, just wondering. Is this a part of the t.o FAQ? If it isn't, it
-> >should be.
->
-> I disagree. Let's leave flawed argumentation to the creationists.
I didn't mean "this" as this particular post, I meant "this" as in
does-evo-disprove-god, since the question does appear occasionally.
BTW, apologies to all about the rather badly written original post, I should
have clarified more...
--
Jani Patokallio | "Ignorance is the soil in which belief
acc1bbs!jani.pa...@ssr.com | in miracles grows." -Anon.
---
. AME 1.07 . "Users are losers." - McRuff The Crime Dog
Stephen Watson
>If Genesis is wrecked, a reasonable person's faith in the correctness of
>Bible would be shaken quite a bit. After all, if one part is completely
>wrong, it casts a shadow of doubt on the rest too. Since the Bible is a
>major part of Christianity, it does pose a bit of a problem... Although
>one can certainly continue believing in God.
Clarification: the literal/fundamentalist variety of Christianity is in
in deep doo-doo. There have been some determined attempts to
rescue literalism by re-reading/re-interpreting/inventively-translating
Gen 1&2 to make them compatible with each other and with modern geology and
cosmogony. Since my Hebrew is limited to banalities like "L'Shanah Tovah"
(and THAT comes from having married into a Jewish family), I am unable to
assess the validity of such revisionist readings. But I am sceptical of
them.
Losing the literal (i.e. simple, obvious, on-the-face-of-it) reading
of Genesis does force one into neo-orthodox or liberal (note: both of these
are dirty words to fundamentalists) approaches to Scripture, in which
meaning is sought in the themes or messages which underly narratives which
may or may not be historically true. This can, of course be taken too far:
I go to a fairly 'liberal' church and I've heard some pretty wild stuff.
--
==Steve Watson: wat...@sce.carleton.ca===Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario==
| The above is the output of a 7th-order Markovian analysis of all posts on |
| this group for the past month. Not only is it not Carleton's opinion, it's |
| not even *my* opinion: it's really just a mish-mash of all YOUR opinions! |
Mark Isaak
>Bible would be shaken quite a bit. After all, if one part is completely
>wrong, it casts a shadow of doubt on the rest too.
Evolution doesn't make Genesis "completely wrong." It makes
some people's interpretation of Genesis completely wrong. It is
unfortunate that these people who have a faith so fragile that
it can be threatened by rocks are so often the same people who
steadfastly believe that their faith should apply to everyone
else as well.
Dale Skiba
e...@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
:
: Atheism is not a belief but a lack of one.
: You cannot prove atheism by any means or argument.
: Atheism simply acknowledges the epistemological problems
: of trying to come to knowledge of an agent that cannot be defined
: or observed.
I think you may be getting confused between Agnostisism and
Athiesim. Agnostics acknowledge that there are problems with
proving or disproving the existence of God, so they say that
they do not know. "Maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't a
God". This is a true lack of belief.
Athiests believe that God does not exist. This is a belief.
Your summary appears to be as follows: "People imagine all
sorts of silly things. I choose not to believe in the existence
of any of them unless they are observable."
: Fundies DO have a say in the implications of their religious
: beliefs on the way the world is structured and these can be
: shown to be unsupportable. It still does not "prove" atheism.
Agreed.
: I challenge anyone to disprove my belief that there are pink
: elephants in the infinite dimension. They have no interaction
: with the present world or its people and I can only define
: them by saying that they are not physical, not human, not...
: (etc.)
This is completely irrelevant if they have no interaction with
this universe. Virtually all Theists claim that the diety does
interact with this Universe. The problem is that such interactions
are usually "miracles" which imply a suspension of the rules. This
makes scientific discourse very difficult. It is a great place for
quack scientists to "investigate" though. :-)
: --
: Eli Chiprout
: Dept. of Electronics
: Carleton University
: e...@doe.carleton.ca
--
Dale Skiba
Stanley Friesen
|-> in big trouble without God, God can do quite well without Genesis.
|
|If Genesis is wrecked, a reasonable person's faith in the correctness of
|Bible would be shaken quite a bit. After all, if one part is completely
|wrong, it casts a shadow of doubt on the rest too.
It depends on where you start. If you take the Bible as a source of
*spiritual* truth, then Genesis is *not* (in this sense) proven wrong
by the scientific evidence. Of course this is not a *literal* reading
of Genesis, but it does retain the *message* in it.
Now, from this position there is no particular reason to believe that
a non-literal Genesis casts doubt on any of the spiritual truths in the
Bible. Yes, it does open the way to doubt the historical reality of other
passages, but so what? The historical reality is not what the book is about
any way.
--
sar...@teradata.com (formerly tdatirv!sarima)
or
Stanley...@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Stanley Friesen
|In article <5740.17...@ssr.com> jani.patokallio%acc...@ssr.com (Jani Patokallio) writes:
|>
|>BTW, I suggest that everybody stop putting quotes around evolutionist.
|>Granted, it's a sligtly unfair label, but so is creationist. And it's
|>simpler to use that "person who believes in the theory of evolution".
|
|NONONONONONO!
|
|"Evolutionist" is a word that was hijacked by the fundamental Christian
|sects that believe the Genesis creation legends actually happenned. Anyone
|else who uses it implicitly accepts the creationist meaning of the word,
|including all their assumed attributes.
It is also in the form of the name of a religion, and thus implies
a religious type of devotion to it.
|Likewise "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are also their words.
Actually these are not. They were originally coined, and used, by biologists.
I do not know the exact history of them, but they were central in the debate
on whether additional mechanisms were needed (beyond those of genetic drift
and natural selection) to explain the major changes of evolution.
|'"Evolutionist" = "person who believes in the theory of evolution"'
|is an example: belief implies acceptance without taking account the
|overwhelming evidence. To use it implicitly denies the evidence.
|
|Until the definitions are fully understood by everybody, I will continue
|using quotes.
I try to just avoid the word (that's not always easy though).
Herb Huston
>-> >conflict. If the theory of evolution is correct, then a major portion of
>-> >Genesis gets wrecked.
I'm experiencing a sensation of deja vu. The words that follow look like
something I wrote.
>-> So what? God and Genesis are not the same thing. While Genesis would be
>-> in big trouble without God, God can do quite well without Genesis.
Since I routinely look first for follow-ups to my postings, leaving my
network address in the article would be helpful.
>If Genesis is wrecked, a reasonable person's faith in the correctness of
>Bible would be shaken quite a bit.
This would be a good thing.
>After all, if one part is completely
>wrong, it casts a shadow of doubt on the rest too.
That seems reasonable.
>Since the Bible is a
>major part of Christianity, it does pose a bit of a problem...
For Christianity and Judaism and probably for Islam, too. Would anyone
else be affected?
>Although
>one can certainly continue believing in God.
Socrates had no problem if we can believe what Plato wrote.
>-> >Hmm, just wondering. Is this a part of the t.o FAQ? If it isn't, it
>-> >should be.
>->
>-> I disagree. Let's leave flawed argumentation to the creationists.
>
>I didn't mean "this" as this particular post, I meant "this" as in
>does-evo-disprove-god, since the question does appear occasionally.
It's probably a worthwhile item under "Philosophical aspects of evolution."
In one of his notebooks Darwin wrote, "Plato says in _Phaedo_ that our
'imaginary ideas' arise from the preexistence of the soul, are not derivable
from experience -- read monkeys for preexistence."
>BTW, apologies to all about the rather badly written original post, I should
>have clarified more...
Apology accepted. Please keep posting. The net is a great sounding board.
-- Herb Huston
Eli Chiprout
>I'll argue a bit here, just for fun.
>e...@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>:
>: Atheism is not a belief but a lack of one.
>: You cannot prove atheism by any means or argument.
>: Atheism simply acknowledges the epistemological problems
>: of trying to come to knowledge of an agent that cannot be defined
>: or observed.
>I think you may be getting confused between Agnostisism and
>Athiesim. Agnostics acknowledge that there are problems with
>proving or disproving the existence of God, so they say that
>they do not know. "Maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't a
>God". This is a true lack of belief.
>Athiests believe that God does not exist. This is a belief.
>Your summary appears to be as follows: "People imagine all
>sorts of silly things. I choose not to believe in the existence
>of any of them unless they are observable."
The line between Agnosticism and Atheism is actually very thin
or nonexistant. I suggest you tune in to alt.atheism. If you
post the same comment, you will find that many atheist disagree
with you. The prefix "a" in atheism means "without" or "not". But
because atheism is without or not theism leaves it with no meaning
of its own. An individual who feels that "God" is not a well
defined/formulated concept to have comments about can very well
be called an atheist. He does not believe in "God" because he
does not know what "God" is. The "strong" atheism to which you
refer, where the concept of God is felt to be fully understood,
and one has complete conviction that it is false, is actually
rarely encountered among most reasoning individuals. This would
indeed be a faith as much as theism. Most would
rather not give a higher place in their thoughts to a god with
no implications in the real world that to Pink Elephants unless
it shows more promise.
As for you comment about miracles, many a modern theologian
wonders about the veracity of the miraculous accounts accepting
that the enthusiam of the time allowed for this kind of wild
exageration in the Bible. So we are back to "no interaction"
with the verifiable world.
Eli Chiprout
>It depends on where you start. If you take the Bible as a source of
>*spiritual* truth, then Genesis is *not* (in this sense) proven wrong
>by the scientific evidence. Of course this is not a *literal* reading
>of Genesis, but it does retain the *message* in it.
>Now, from this position there is no particular reason to believe that
>a non-literal Genesis casts doubt on any of the spiritual truths in the
>Bible. Yes, it does open the way to doubt the historical reality of other
>passages, but so what? The historical reality is not what the book is about
>any way.
Please no more of this crap. What gives you the right to dissect the texts
in this manner? How do you discern this "spiritual" truth from the "historical"
truth? Are the former marked in red letters? Or is spiritual truth
considered to be what is not in conflict with your present morality?
The writers of Genesis would have turned in their graves if they knew
how their simple writings meant to convey their world view were being
so sterilized.
>sar...@teradata.com (formerly tdatirv!sarima)
> or
>Stanley...@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Dale Skiba
Interesting. I guess I must have defined "pure Agnosticism" and
"pure Atheism". Not everyone will fit into such categories, I
guess this makes things a bit more messy. I agree that there
are people who feel they are atheists that fit somewhere inbetween.
I guess you are saying that an atheist believes that God has no
implications in the real world. This still sounds alot closer to
"pure Atheism" than "pure Agnosticism" though. I think most theists
would agree that if God exists but has no implication in the real
world is the pretty much the same as no God existing at all.
: As for you comment about miracles, many a modern theologian
: wonders about the veracity of the miraculous accounts accepting
: that the enthusiam of the time allowed for this kind of wild
: exageration in the Bible. So we are back to "no interaction"
: with the verifiable world.
This is very controversial. Alot depends upon the seminary
that they study at. Some say there is wild exageration in the
Bible, some say there is no exageration at all in the Bible.
It is difficult to draw the line on what things are likely
exagerated. Some of this was done earlier when books containing
obvious exageration were left out of the Bible. If a real miracle
occurs, witness reports can apear to be exagerated. If a non-
miracle occurs, but is slightly exagerated, this sounds like a
real miracle.
The "no verifiable interaction" follows from the accepted fact
that we can not prove or disprove the existence of God. Theists
believe that there is an interaction, and most believe that they
actually do observe it, but they can not prove it emperically.
If they do prove the interaction, the have just done the impossible
and proven the existence of God. :-)
This is a sticky subject. It is nice to be able to discuss it
objectively without resorting to calling each other names.
--
Dale Skiba
William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50
>In <11...@tdat.teradata.COM> s...@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>>It depends on where you start. If you take the Bible as a source of
>>*spiritual* truth, then Genesis is *not* (in this sense) proven wrong
>>by the scientific evidence. Of course this is not a *literal* reading
>>of Genesis, but it does retain the *message* in it.
>
>>Now, from this position there is no particular reason to believe that
>>a non-literal Genesis casts doubt on any of the spiritual truths in the
>>Bible. Yes, it does open the way to doubt the historical reality of
>>other passages, but so what? The historical reality is not what the
>>book is about any way.
>
>Please no more of this crap. What gives you the right to dissect
>the texts in this manner?
I could make the same observation about your (presumably "literal")
interpretation of the Scriptures. The creationists' literalist approach
makes Genesis a battleground over the *mechanics* (the details, the
mechanisms) of creation. Is that really what God is telling us about in
Genesis? The creation/evolution problem poses a real danger of submerging
the Spiritual truth of Genesis in a battle over mechanics.
>How do you discern this "spiritual" truth from the "historical" truth?
>Are the former marked in red letters?
You have just a few chapters which describe how God created the
heavens and the earth. That's not enough even to describe even
the creationists' creation scenario in detail.
God has given us an outline in Genesis.
It's for scientists to fill in the outline by studying nature.
If scientists' conclusions don't
match a particular interpretation of scripture, it seems far more
honest to me to be willing to simply admit that a conflict exists,
until we understand nature, scripture, or both, better.
The creationist approach of mandating that the data must be
interpreted in a particular manner, is not intellectually honest.
>Or is spiritual truth
>considered to be what is not in conflict with your present morality?
Spiritual truth is what the Holy Spirit teaches me from the
scriptures about the attributes of God, How I relate to Him,
and what He requires of me. Spiritual truth convicts me that I
am a sinner and need the Savior, and that His death
on the cross is the *only* thing that makes me acceptable before God.
If that conflicts with my present morality, then my present morality
is wrong and I must ask Him to change me and obey what He tells me to do.
Spiritual truth is what convicts people that they are sinners and need the
Savior. Spiritual truth is what *does* conflict with my present morality.
BTW, most of the posters on this group are interested in the
*scientific* issues surrounding origins. Science is a "low level"
tool that is not appropriate for dealing with "high level" concepts
such as morality. So you are not likely to achieve much satisfaction
mixing science and morality on this group.
>The writers of Genesis would have turned in their graves if they knew
>how their simple writings meant to convey their world view were being
>so sterilized.
What is more important in the Scriptures?
The exact natural history of earth
with its geology, plant and animal life, or the sinfulness
of man, his need for a savior, and the fact that God has
provided that Savior?
>
>>sar...@teradata.com (formerly tdatirv!sarima)
>> or
>>Stanley...@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
>--
>Eli Chiprout
>Dept. of Electronics
>Carleton University
>e...@doe.carleton.ca
Bill Hamilton
GM Research and Environmental Staff
hami...@gmr.com
claude shouse
>
> The line between Agnosticism and Atheism is actually very thin
> or nonexistant. I suggest you tune in to alt.atheism. If you
> post the same comment, you will find that many atheist disagree
> with you.
The argument that Agnosticism being virtually the same as Atheism is
simply not valid. And the fact that you will find Agnostics over
on alt.atheism as a demonstration of your assertion is just plain
puerile. As if you would expect to find Theist Agnostics there.
To put this question is perspective one must separate belief and
knowledge. Being Theist or Atheist is a question of belief and
has nothing to do with being Agnostic which is a question of
knowledge. My view is that True Believers (tm) very often take
belief to be equivalent to knowledge and that the failure to
recognize the difference is the reason that many find them arrogant
and severely lacking in common sense. The statement of Mr. Chiprout
above is a consequence of this failure.
Claude Shouse
Bob Sarver
In <11...@tdat.teradata.COM> s...@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>It depends on where you start. If you take the Bible as a source of
>*spiritual* truth, then Genesis is *not* (in this sense) proven wrong
>by the scientific evidence. Of course this is not a *literal* reading
>of Genesis, but it does retain the *message* in it.
>Now, from this position there is no particular reason to believe that
>a non-literal Genesis casts doubt on any of the spiritual truths in the
>Bible. Yes, it does open the way to doubt the historical reality of other
>passages, but so what? The historical reality is not what the book is about
>any way.
/(emc)
/Please no more of this crap. What gives you the right to dissect the texts
/in this manner?
Um, perhaps because this is a discussion group devoted to the talk of
origins, and everything is up for scientific examination, even sacred
cows?
Just a guess.
/(emc)
/How do you discern this "spiritual" truth from the "historical"
/truth?
He doesn't. He was offering you a way out; a way to possibly reconcile
the scientific errors in your bible with observed science. Don't be so
nasty; he was doing you a favor.
/(emc)
/Are the former marked in red letters? Or is spiritual truth
/considered to be what is not in conflict with your present morality?
Oh, I see. We have now defined geology, biology, chemistry, and astronomy
as facets of "present morality". Obviously that is why you can declare
categorically that something in science is right or wrong: you are
using moral absolutism to judge the results of the scientific method.
Wrong tool for the job. Sort of like measuring someone's height with a
thermometer.
(emc)
/The writers of Genesis would have turned in their graves if they knew
/how their simple writings meant to convey their world view were being
/so sterilized.
Please, no more of this crap. What gives you the right to say what the
writers of Genesis would or would not have thought? Were you there?
Did you talk to them? Did you write the book?
Herb Huston
>(emc)
>/The writers of Genesis would have turned in their graves if they knew
>/how their simple writings meant to convey their world view were being
>/so sterilized.
>
>Please, no more of this crap. What gives you the right to say what the
>writers of Genesis would or would not have thought? Were you there?
>Did you talk to them? Did you write the book?
When I wanted to see the Burgess Shale fossils, I drove to the Smithsonian's
National Museum of Natural History (they're on your path as you walk from
the huge elephant whose name is *not* Jumbo to the dinosaurs). When I wanted
to see the original manuscript of _Alice In Wonderland, I visited the British
Museum (I found that its title was _Alice's Adventures Underground_; there
were other differences). In which museum can one find the original manuscript
of Genesis for comparison against present-day editions to guard against copying
errors and forgery?
-- Herb Huston
Eli Chiprout
>In article <emc.717533486@ro> e...@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>>In <11...@tdat.teradata.COM> s...@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>>>Now, from this position there is no particular reason to believe that
>>>a non-literal Genesis casts doubt on any of the spiritual truths in the
>>>Bible.
>>Please no more of this crap. What gives you the right to dissect
>>the texts in this manner?
>I could make the same observation about your (presumably "literal")
>interpretation of the Scriptures.
The polarization of the reading of Genesis into the literalist and
"intended-spiritual-meaning-ist" camps is utterly simplistic. If I
am not the latter, than I am naturally (according to you) the former.
We are not discussing a modern word of fiction. Genesis, it is clear,
from textual and linguistic analysis is a book composed from several
oral and written traditions. It is not out of context to the available
genre of the day. It is similar to other sources from which it derives
its material. Gen. 1 is written in different language and with a
different point of view than Gen.2. The Hebrew is different. The
story is different. The use of God (Elohim) in one vs. Lord God (YHVH
Elohim) in the other is different. There are other parts of Genesis
that have Middle Hebrew overlaying Old Hebrew. This is a cause for
many anachronisms. Are you sure that you know the inteded meaning
of each author in each case, including the later editings?
>Is that really what God is telling us about in
>Genesis?
If God spoke to you personally, then let us know. Otherwise,
I think you are in the same boat as all of us. You have to study,
the languages, history, context, etc. of the texts to slowly begin
to see what the writer is saying. People spend entire lifetimes at
this and sometimes still don't have enough information.
>>How do you discern this "spiritual" truth from the "historical" truth?
>>Are the former marked in red letters?
>You have just a few chapters which describe how God created the
>heavens and the earth. That's not enough even to describe even
>the creationists' creation scenario in detail.
Biblical writers had no knowledge of modern science or evolutionary
biology. So what?
>Spiritual truth is what the Holy Spirit teaches me from the
>scriptures about the attributes of God, How I relate to Him,
>and what He requires of me. Spiritual truth convicts me that I
>am a sinner and need the Savior, and that His death
>on the cross is the *only* thing that makes me acceptable before God.
Then you don't need a Bible. You have already established the truth
before reading it.
Dale Skiba
This is interesting. If being a Theist or Athiest has nothing to
do with being an Agnostic, then are you saying that Agnosticism is
independent from being an Athiest/Theist? Then it would be possible
to have Theistic Agnostics and Atheist Agnostics.
Or are you saying that Theists/Atheists put more emphasis on belief
than knowledge and Agnostics put more emphasis on knowledge?
It is good to define these two words for the context of talk.origins.
It appears that the terms "Athiest" and "Agnostic" have different
meanings to different people.
Being unable to seperate belief and knowledge may be a good explanation
for the antics of some fundamentalists. But it would be difficult to
argue that with them. They often argue that it is a common sense
approach.
--
Dale Skiba
Mark Isaak
>then are you saying that Agnosticism is
>independent from being an Athiest/Theist? Then it would be possible
>to have Theistic Agnostics and Atheist Agnostics.
It's worse than that. I, for example, sometimes call myself a
Theistic Atheist. (Usually I just ignore labels completely.) Before
anyone asks how such a stance can avoid being self-contradictory, I
ask that they provide a specific definition of "god" that we all can
agree upon.
>It appears that the terms "Athiest" and "Agnostic" have different
>meanings to different people.
Absolutely. Sometimes labels are more effective at obscuring meanings
than at communicating them.
Eli Chiprout
>In article <emc.717532405@ro>, e...@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>> The line between Agnosticism and Atheism is actually very thin
>> or nonexistant. I suggest you tune in to alt.atheism.
>The argument that Agnosticism being virtually the same as Atheism is
>simply not valid. And the fact that you will find Agnostics over
>on alt.atheism as a demonstration of your assertion is just plain
>puerile...
Usage and meaning of words is the result of a community of users,
not by a private declaration. I would ask atheists how they define
themselves before I resort to your personal validation. (Just as
I would ask Christians how they define themselves).
>To put this question is perspective one must separate belief and
>knowledge. Being Theist or Atheist is a question of belief and
>has nothing to do with being Agnostic which is a question of
>knowledge. My view is that True Believers (tm) very often take
>belief to be equivalent to knowledge and that the failure to
>recognize the difference is the reason that many find them arrogant
>and severely lacking in common sense. The statement of Mr. Chiprout
>above is a consequence of this failure.
Do you mean to say, that if I answer epistemological questions such as:
-How do I come to knowledge?
-How well does my knowledge represent reality?
-What is the value of secondary sources of knowledge (as
opposed to direct experience)?
-How well do I have to define something before I
am ready to judge its possibility as true or false knowledge?
-How much "proof" do I need before belief becomes knowledge?
-How much knowledge from experimental evidence do I need before
I believe that a proposed theory corresponds to reality.
Etc.
that there is no element of belief in the answers? In attempting
to find a clear demarcation between belief and knowledge you
have only backtracked one step, but still face the same problem
as the atheism/agnosticism one. The big problem in the
philosophy of "science" (as an acknowledged method of obtaining
knowledge) is that it is difficult to define a
universally accepted "Scientific Method". Yet, somehow, we all believe
we know what "science" means (oops! there is that word believe again).
(This discussion is better carried out in talk.religion.misc,
talk.philosophy, or, God forbid, alt.atheism)
Also, if you are going to quote me, please don't ignore relevant
statements that I made to the argument, such as: it is
possible to find people (however few) who feel their knowledge
is complete but still reject God -- "strong" atheism.
>Claude Shouse
James J. Lippard
Well, none, but we can determine what the originals must have looked like
by comparing different extant manuscripts (for which we can determine
approximate dates by such techniques as radiocarbon dating, for the Dead
Sea Scrolls, or by style of characters and type of materials used), thus
constructing a family tree. Of course, when evolutionists do the same thing
with fossil morphology, genetic data, and radiometric dating, it doesn't work.
mike.siemon
> Well, none, but we can determine what the originals must have looked like
> by comparing different extant manuscripts (for which we can determine
> approximate dates by such techniques as radiocarbon dating, for the Dead
> Sea Scrolls, or by style of characters and type of materials used), thus
> constructing a family tree. Of course, when evolutionists do the same thing
> with fossil morphology, genetic data, and radiometric dating, it doesn't work.
Setting aside that last barb for a moment, you give a fair enough
statement of critical method (omitting that the external evidence you
cite is not the only, and often not the major, evidence -- internal
evidence of style and language is generally more crucial, with the
most important data being the witness of divergent text traditions.)
Unfortunately for the OT books, and for the Torah in particular there
ARE no early manuscripts (Qumram is quite late in the history of Judah)
and the vast majority of what does exist represents a single line of
development of the text. The principal alternate to the common
Masoretic text is the Samaritan one, and the most prevalent opinion
I have seen is that (despite their claims to be the surviving remnant
of Israel) this as a religious group with its own text split off from
2nd Temple Judaism at about the time of the Maccabees (very roughly;
and that doesn't really address whether there might not have been a
real social continuity picked up on by that split -- I'm only looking
at the text question.) It is simply unknown how much earlier the Torah
existed than that, and what earlier forms (or their sources) looked
like. Qumram is valuable, as is the witness of Greek translations --
but there just isn't the DATA to make anything like a stemma in the
classical philological tradition, so all comments about the earlier
state of the texts depend on speculative reconstruction (from various
perspectives) of exiguous data.
Archaeological data show evidence of YHWH worship (primarily in the
onomasticon; names on seals for example are often theophoric in -iah)
but practically NO real information on religion, and no trace of the
texts until excruciatingly late in the history of the region. The
association of the full OT tradition with the Temple in Jerusalem is
quite certain, and attested by the time of its destruction. One is
reduced to inferences from these texts, as we have them. That is why
I made such a big deal about knowing what we are about, when we lay
our interpretations (as we must, to read them at all) over the texts.
As in Einsteinian physics, there simply IS no "preferred" frame of
reference, or at least not one that can be agreed on by all "obser-
vers" [i.e. readers.] And matters are worse than in relativistic
OR Newtownian physics, in that there is no simple transformation of
one frame into another. An archaeologist's or historian's framework
collapses when "transformed" into the orthodox frame, and vice versa.
The best one may hope for is people able to adopt MULTIPLE frameworks
without getting all worked up about some ONE of them being "right"
and everything else being idiotic. Any of us will tend to have one
view, or a collection of views, that we tend to use most and to rely
on for our ultimate reality testing -- and conversely we will find
some other views so absurd as to be unable to take them seriously.
I have a preference, even in my religious life, for a historian's
rather astringent view of the data. But there are times, most often
in liturgy (which combines ritual and myth in a manner that really
does PRESENT to me who I am as a member of a believing community and
in relation to God) when it is simply *irrelevant* that I would judge
the "historical sequence" in either Genesis 1 or 2 (explicit or by
more or less coherent inference) as "contradicting" the actual course
of events. I seriously doubt that the "original texts" if we could
reconstruct them showed any more consistence on this than our present
ones do, and I equally doubt whether the redactor who gave us our
combined stories *cared* very much. I know that Christian tradition
has NEVER considered it a big issue; the earliest extensive exegesis
of Genesis in Christianity ALREADY pointed out that it is literal
nonsense. And except for purblind sectarians verging on heresy,
rejection of historical or geological or paleontological evidence
in order to cling to a wooden "literalism" as the "one true reading"
simply is not an issue in Christian thought. (Yes, America has an
unfortunately large number of purblind sectarians, and a tendency
to export this nonsense elsewhere; but it is NOT a major thread in
Christianity.)
--
Michael L. Siemon "Oh, stand, stand at the window,
As the tears scald and start;
m...@usl.com You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer With your crooked heart."
Robert Derrick
: Of course, when evolutionists do the same thing
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: with fossil morphology, genetic data, and radiometric dating, it doesn't work.
:
: Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
: Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
: University of Arizona
: Tucson, AZ 85721
Ok, kids, I know that a lot of discussion takes place on a regular basis
about whether or not it is PC to use that word to respectfully refer to
those people. But when one of the most respected (or at least one for
whom I have a tremendous amount of respect) evolutionists uses the word,
I think we can safely say that it has entered into the canon. So I
would say that it is a safe bet that continued arguing about it only
stirs up the hornets, who need no further provocation.
Right?
Of course, _evolutionism_ is still verboten!
For you all TAE's, this is _your_ insult word for us, the evolutionists..
--
rob derrick ro...@cherry.cray.com
claude shouse
> In <7...@oscar.UUCP> sho...@oscar.UUCP (claude shouse) writes:
> >In article <emc.717532405@ro>, e...@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>
> >> The line between Agnosticism and Atheism is actually very thin
> >> or nonexistant. I suggest you tune in to alt.atheism.
>
> >The argument that Agnosticism being virtually the same as Atheism is
> >simply not valid.
>
> not by a private declaration. I would ask atheists how they define
> themselves before I resort to your personal validation. (Just as
> I would ask Christians how they define themselves).
>
But my point was that you were defining agnosticism by finding them
in the community of atheists thereby neglecting what I maintain to
be sizeable numbers of them in the ranks of believers. Theistic
agnostics is not a null set.
> >My view is that True Believers (tm) very often take
> >belief to be equivalent to knowledge and that the failure to
> >recognize the difference is the reason that many find them arrogant
> >and severely lacking in common sense. The statement of Mr. Chiprout
> >above is a consequence of this failure.
>
> Do you mean to say, that if I answer epistemological questions such as:
>
> -How do I come to knowledge?
> -How well does my knowledge represent reality?
> -What is the value of secondary sources of knowledge (as
> opposed to direct experience)?
> -How well do I have to define something before I
> am ready to judge its possibility as true or false knowledge?
> -How much "proof" do I need before belief becomes knowledge?
> -How much knowledge from experimental evidence do I need before
> I believe that a proposed theory corresponds to reality.
> Etc.
>
> that there is no element of belief in the answers?
Excepting self awarness, there is an element of belief in all knowledge
as Descartes has said. And while one may say there is an element
of belief in the apprenhension of physical reality, at some level
of functioning within it, one must "know" that there is an objective,
physical reality. In order to understand this physical reality,
modern science has provided a beautiful model of what it is and how
it works. The strength of the model lies in its coherence, structure,
integration, and mathematical underpinnings. It is so persuasive
one can *believe* it to the point of *knowledge*.
> The big problem in the
> philosophy of "science" (as an acknowledged method of obtaining
> knowledge) is that it is difficult to define a
> universally accepted "Scientific Method". Yet, somehow, we all believe
> we know what "science" means (oops! there is that word believe again).
I am not a scientist so it comes but it comes as a complete suprise
to me that the scientific method of thesis, hypothesis, synthesis,
experiment, prediction, etc. is not well established. I *believe* your
assertion here is false, but I do not *know* it to be so. (Much like
my belief in God. I believe there is a God but do not know it.)
> (This discussion is better carried out in talk.religion.misc,
> talk.philosophy, or, God forbid, alt.atheism)
I disagree. While the discussion is colaterally germane to those
groups, the implications for t.o are important. It is for those
whose religious beliefs intrude on scientific knowledge that this
group exists.
> Also, if you are going to quote me, please don't ignore relevant
> statements that I made to the argument, such as: it is
> possible to find people (however few) who feel their knowledge
> is complete but still reject God -- "strong" atheism.
I appologize if I edited something you consider important. But I
really doubt you are going to find many people in this group who
feel that their knowledge is complete except those who reject the
scientific evidence in favor of a literal interpretation of Gensis.
Best regards,
Claude Shouse
.
William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50
>In <90...@rphroy.ph.gmr.com>
>hami...@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton) writes
>>In article <emc.717533486@ro> e...@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>>>In <11...@tdat.teradata.COM> s...@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>>>>Now, from this position there is no particular reason to believe that
>>>>a non-literal Genesis casts doubt on any of the spiritual truths in the
>>>>Bible.
>
>>>Please no more of this crap. What gives you the right to dissect
>>>the texts in this manner?
>
>>I could make the same observation about your (presumably "literal")
>>interpretation of the Scriptures.
>
>The polarization of the reading of Genesis into the literalist and
>"intended-spiritual-meaning-ist" camps is utterly simplistic. If I
>am not the latter, than I am naturally (according to you) the former.
Based on the kind of "dialog" which frequently occurs on this group,
that was a reasonable assumption. You criticized
Stanley for "dissecting the texts" when all he had done was to observe
that nonliteral interpretations don't invalidate the spiritual message
of the Bible. You sounded like a literalist. Please accept my apology.
>We are not discussing a modern word of fiction. Genesis, it is clear,
>from textual and linguistic analysis is a book composed from several
>oral and written traditions. It is not out of context to the available
>genre of the day. It is similar to other sources from which it derives
>its material. Gen. 1 is written in different language and with a
>different point of view than Gen.2. The Hebrew is different. The
>story is different. The use of God (Elohim) in one vs. Lord God (YHVH
>Elohim) in the other is different. There are other parts of Genesis
>that have Middle Hebrew overlaying Old Hebrew. This is a cause for
>many anachronisms.
>Are you sure that you know the inteded meaning
>of each author in each case, including the later editings?
No. Are you?
>
>>Is that really what God is telling us about in
>>Genesis?
>
>If God spoke to you personally, then let us know.
I didn't make an assertion. I merely asked a rhetorical
question. Maybe I should rephrase it: Does it seem more logical that the
Creator of the Universe, after making man and giving him intelligence
so that he could investigate the universe God gave him, would then
proceed to explain to him in detail the earth's history, which man himself
can learn about from his own investigation, or that He would explain
to man something of Himself, which man can't learn on his own? Obviously
I don't claim to have *the* answer that *everyone* oughta accept, but it seems
to me that the main theme of the Bible is the relationship between man and
God. Archaeology confirms much of the history in the Bible, but it doesn't
necessarily follow that the creation account in Genesis is an exact description
of the events and timing God used to create things. If my assumption that
the Bible deals mainly with the relationship between man and God is accepted,
then it's reasonable to consider the possibility that the events before
the creation of man are only outlined.
>Otherwise,
>I think you are in the same boat as all of us.
So far as learning by normal scholarly methods is concerned
(textual analysis, study
of the cultural context from other ancient records, archaeology, ...) I'm
in the same boat as everyone else. Christians maintain, however, that
there is such a thing as spiritual truth, that it is written in the Bible,
and that much (most? all?) of it is discernable only by the work of
the Holy Spirit.
>You have to study,
>the languages, history, context, etc. of the texts to slowly begin
>to see what the writer is saying. People spend entire lifetimes at
>this and sometimes still don't have enough information.
Agreed. The spiritual truth and the truth that can be learned by normal
methods are not mutually exclusive. Just because I believe I can
discern spiritual truth from the Bible does not excuse me from
applying the normal methods that are applied to the study of any
other text.
>
>>>How do you discern this "spiritual" truth from the "historical" truth?
>>>Are the former marked in red letters?
Well, some Bibles do have the words of Christ in red :-). (Although
even a novice Greek student (me) knows that NT Greek does not clearly
separate quotations from surrounding text, so that there are debates
over where some quotations end.)
>
>>You have just a few chapters which describe how God created the
>>heavens and the earth. That's not enough even to describe even
>>the creationists' creation scenario in detail.
>Biblical writers had no knowledge of modern science or evolutionary
>biology. So what?
I was trying to point out that there isn't enough detail in
Genesis to develop even the creationist scenario without
some mental gymnastics. Therefore it doesn't seem logical to call it
a historical record. An outline, but not really a historical
record.
>
>>Spiritual truth is what the Holy Spirit teaches me from the
>>scriptures about the attributes of God, How I relate to Him,
>>and what He requires of me. Spiritual truth convicts me that I
>>am a sinner and need the Savior, and that His death
>>on the cross is the *only* thing that makes me acceptable before God.
>
>Then you don't need a Bible. You have already established the truth
>before reading it.
What led you to conclude this? Christians believe that the Scriptures
are the Word of God, and that the Holy Spirit enables them to understand
what God is saying on the Scriptures. According to 2 Tim 3:16 all
Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, for training in righteousness. And according to John 14:26, "the
Holy Spirit ... will teach you all things...". No Christian is claiming
that he discerns God's will independently of the Bible. Christians are
urged in II Tim 3:16 and elsewhere to study the Scriptures, and told in
John 14:26 and elsewhere that the Holy Spirit will teach them all things.
It would seem that the message is, "Study the scriptures and rely on the
Holy Spirit for understanding". You don't get to first base without studying
the Scriptures.
wat...@uctvax.uct.ac.za
> sects that believe the Genesis creation legends actually happenned. Anyone
> else who uses it implicitly accepts the creationist meaning of the word,
> including all their assumed attributes.
>
> Likewise "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are also their words. It
> is very difficult to use them in a debate because they are like moving
> goalposts. They have not been defined to everybody's satisfaction and
> seem to mean whatever the creationists want at the time.Which makes it
> difficult to debate constructively.
>
> '"Evolutionist" = "person who believes in the theory of evolution"'
> is an example: belief implies acceptance without taking account the
> overwhelming evidence. To use it implicitly denies the evidence.
>
> Until the definitions are fully understood by everybody, I will continue
> using quotes.
>
The terms Evolutionist, Microevolution and Macroevolution are terms derived
from people who hold to the validity of the theory of evolution. They were not
derived by people who hold to the validity of the theory of creation. If the
term Evolutionist HAS been hijacked by creationists, as you maintain, then it
is simply because people dicussing the issue HAVE NOT DEFINED THEIR TERMS.ie.
Evolutionists have ALLOWED the ground to be cut from under their feet by having
their terminology transformed.
However, I disagree with your premise that whoever uses the term Evolutionist
implicitly accepts the creationists' meaning of the word, including all their
assumed attributes. This would include a number of prominent authors who
maintain the validity of the theory of evolution. YOU may continue to place
quotes around the word Evolutionist, the rest of us prefer to ask what is meant
when someone uses the term. For understanding from where the other person is
coming-from is essential in any form of dialogue.
Gary
Michael Ladomery
deleted
>I didn't make an assertion. I merely asked a rhetorical
>question. Maybe I should rephrase it: Does it seem more logical that the
>Creator of the Universe, after making man and giving him intelligence
>so that he could investigate the universe God gave him, would then
>proceed to explain to him in detail the earth's history, which man himself
>can learn about from his own investigation, or that He would explain
>to man something of Himself, which man can't learn on his own? Obviously
I would argue that He has done neither; ie He hasn't given us a detailed
history; He certainly hasn't given us a 'natural history' and He
certainly made a mess of explaining Himself given the dozens of
different religions around the world.
deleted
>>Then you don't need a Bible. You have already established the truth
>>before reading it.
>
>What led you to conclude this? Christians believe that the Scriptures
>are the Word of God, and that the Holy Spirit enables them to understand
>what God is saying on the Scriptures. According to 2 Tim 3:16 all
>Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
>correction, for training in righteousness. And according to John 14:26, "the
>Holy Spirit ... will teach you all things...". No Christian is claiming
>that he discerns God's will independently of the Bible. Christians are
>urged in II Tim 3:16 and elsewhere to study the Scriptures, and told in
>John 14:26 and elsewhere that the Holy Spirit will teach them all things.
>It would seem that the message is, "Study the scriptures and rely on the
>Holy Spirit for understanding". You don't get to first base without studying
>the Scriptures.
Er.. if you're a Hindu or a Taoist biologist, are you suggesting that
in that case you "don't get to first base?"
Is it not a contradiction, that earlier you suggest that the Bible is
essentially about man/woman's relationship with God, and later you
quote Charlie 99:222 or whatever, who tells us that the Holy Spirit
'will teach all things'?
Cheers mike
(PS no offence intended)
Onar Aam
creationists put the spotlight on them. To an evolutionist micro- and
macroevolution virtually were the same thing because it was generally believed
that they were driven by the same causes. But creationists pointed out that you
could nuke fruitflies forever and get wird fruitflies, fruitflies with three
eyes, or legs instead of eyes etc., but they would still be within the
specie of fruitflies. And today we know why. It is because micro- and
macroevolution are independent drives. Thus, the two expressions HAS become
meaningfull in evolutionary terms. Ironically, perhaps, because of the
creationists.
Onar.
Morgan Burke
>"Microevolution" and "macroevolution" were meaningless expressions before
>creationists put the spotlight on them. To an evolutionist micro- and
>macroevolution virtually were the same thing because it was generally believed
>that they were driven by the same causes. But creationists pointed out that you
>could nuke fruitflies forever and get wird fruitflies, fruitflies with three
>eyes, or legs instead of eyes etc., but they would still be within the
>specie of fruitflies. And today we know why. It is because micro- and
>macroevolution are independent drives. Thus, the two expressions HAS become
>meaningfull in evolutionary terms. Ironically, perhaps, because of the
>creationists.
When I first ran across the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution"
in a creationist diatribe, I scuttled over to my nearest evolutionary
reference (Invertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, 2ed, can't remember
the author/editor) and found the following definitions (paraphrased):
Microevolution: evolution driven by forces of selection acting on
individuals of a species.
Macroevolution: evolution driven by forces of selection acting on
entire species or groups of species (sometimes referred to as
"species selection", if I remember correctly).
The text suggested that microevolution was the primary cause of
speciation and adaptive evolution, and that macroevolution had a much
lesser effect on these phenomena.
Armed with these definitions, I went back to my creationist literature
to read numerous quotes from "eminent" biologists who claimed that
while microevolution was undeniable, macroevolution was questionable
as an explanation for the development of life. Which turns out to be
exactly right, except that the creationists had cleverly re-defined the
terms to refer to the scope of the changes in a given species (resulting
in a nearly opposite meaning) before supplying the quotations for my
consideration.
So what is the current state of affairs? Are evolutionary scientists
now using the creationist definition of the terms, or do the above
definitions still hold sway?
-- Morgan Burke (mor...@reg.triumf.ca)
Chris Colby
>It is because micro- and macroevolution are independent drives.
Uh, what are you talking about? Just curious.
>Onar.
Chris Colby --- email: co...@bu-bio.bu.edu ---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
Onar Aam
>>creationists put the spotlight on them. To an evolutionist micro- and
>>macroevolution virtually were the same thing because it was generally believed
>>that they were driven by the same causes. But creationists pointed out that you
>>could nuke fruitflies forever and get wird fruitflies, fruitflies with three
>>eyes, or legs instead of eyes etc., but they would still be within the
>>specie of fruitflies. And today we know why. It is because micro- and
>>macroevolution are independent drives. Thus, the two expressions HAS become
>>meaningfull in evolutionary terms. Ironically, perhaps, because of the
>>creationists.
>
>When I first ran across the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution"
>in a creationist diatribe, I scuttled over to my nearest evolutionary
>reference (Invertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, 2ed, can't remember
>the author/editor) and found the following definitions (paraphrased):
>
>Microevolution: evolution driven by forces of selection acting on
> individuals of a species.
>Macroevolution: evolution driven by forces of selection acting on
> entire species or groups of species (sometimes referred to as
> "species selection", if I remember correctly).
>
>lesser effect on these phenomena.
>
>Armed with these definitions, I went back to my creationist literature
>to read numerous quotes from "eminent" biologists who claimed that
>while microevolution was undeniable, macroevolution was questionable
>as an explanation for the development of life. Which turns out to be
>exactly right, except that the creationists had cleverly re-defined the
>terms to refer to the scope of the changes in a given species (resulting
>in a nearly opposite meaning) before supplying the quotations for my
>consideration.
>
>So what is the current state of affairs? Are evolutionary scientists
>now using the creationist definition of the terms, or do the above
>definitions still hold sway?
>
There is a huge mixup here. It is due to the defenition of scale. When
creationists talk of micro- and macro- they mean the MAGNITUDE of change of a
specie. The above defenitions, which also are correct, imply the SCALE upon which
evolution occurs (i.e. antnests are due to macroevolution).
These are separate topics in evolution. Let me clear things up a bit.
In the meaning of magnitude:
microevolution is the change which occurs within a specie. In short, diversity.
macroevolution is the change which "transforms" a specie into another. In short,
INCREASE in complexity.
What creationists also has pointed out: Evolutionary change, more often than not,
occurs suddenly and in steps. Which is absolutely true.
On the other hand I agree that it is a filthy trick from creationists to mix
these terms in quotes. (Unless, of course, they don't understand the meaning of
the terms which, when I think about, actually makes more sence.)
Onar.
Stanley Friesen
|on...@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
|
|
|When I first ran across the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution"
|in a creationist diatribe, I scuttled over to my nearest evolutionary
|reference (Invertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, 2ed, can't remember
|the author/editor) and found the following definitions (paraphrased):
|
|Microevolution: evolution driven by forces of selection acting on
| individuals of a species.
|Macroevolution: evolution driven by forces of selection acting on
| entire species or groups of species (sometimes referred to as
| "species selection", if I remember correctly).
|
|The text suggested that microevolution was the primary cause of
|speciation and adaptive evolution, and that macroevolution had a much
|lesser effect on these phenomena.
|
|Armed with these definitions, I went back to my creationist literature
|to read numerous quotes from "eminent" biologists who claimed that
|while microevolution was undeniable, macroevolution was questionable
|as an explanation for the development of life. Which turns out to be
|
|So what is the current state of affairs? Are evolutionary scientists
|now using the creationist definition of the terms, or do the above
|definitions still hold sway?
|
always been kind of fuzzy. It is generally used for 'evolution above
the species level', and the main debate (misrepresented in the Creationist
texts) is (or was) about the nature and mechanisms of macroevolution.
[The definition your dictionary gave was based on the views of one side
of the debate].
In essence the debate was betwen those who felt that significant evolutionary
changes (and the patterns of them) above the species level required mechanisms
in addition to those involved in microevolution and those who felt that
macroevolution was simply the result of the application of the *same*
mechanisms over time.
The current position of most researchers is probably best desvribed as
some sort of compromise. One form this compromise has taken is the
concept of punctuated equilibria as proposed by Eldridge and Gould.
[But not the more saltationalist variants of thier position proposed
by a small group of die-hard supporters of additional mechanisms].
--
wat...@uctvax.uct.ac.za
This was EXACTLY my point to Onar's original posting. He is of the opinion that
EVEN evolutionary scientists are USING CREATIONIST DEFINITION OF TERMS, a
position with which I must strongly disagree. The terms were originally coined
by EVOLUTIONISTS, not by creationists. The expresions have meaning in
evolutionary terms because of EVOLUTIONISTS, NOT BECAUSE OF CREATIONISTS.
Onar's thesis is not justifiable.
Gary
a position
Onar Aam
Hey wait a minute. I thought I had already sorted this thing out. There are TWO
different meanings of micro/macroevolution. The thing we all agree about is that
creationists mix up these terms. But who and what came first is totally
irrelevant since these terms have very little to do with each other.
meaning 1: micro= evolution on individuals
macro= species selection
meaning 2: micro= changes WITHIN specie, i.e. diversity
macro= changes that "turns a specie into another specie", normally
associated with INCREASE in complexity.
These terms are of equal importance in evolution. And what I was trying to utter
earlier was that the second meaning stayed long in the shadows until creationists
put the spotlight on the problem. Originally this was meant as a critisism of
evolution, but some biologists (Eldridge and Gould) took the challenge of giving
an explanation to the problem which has brought our understanding of life even
further. Now, the crucial point: Evolutionists are using the "creationist
defenition" -NOT- because they feel they have to satisfy creationists. They are
using it because they are deeply needed in evolution to explain some rather
serious problems with the original darwinian theory.
Onar.
Michael Ladomery
deleted
>There is a huge mixup here. It is due to the defenition of scale. When
>creationists talk of micro- and macro- they mean the MAGNITUDE of change of a
>specie. The above defenitions, which also are correct, imply the SCALE upon which
>evolution occurs (i.e. antnests are due to macroevolution).
>
>These are separate topics in evolution. Let me clear things up a bit.
>
>In the meaning of magnitude:
>
>
>microevolution is the change which occurs within a specie. In short, diversity.
>macroevolution is the change which "transforms" a specie into another. In short,
>INCREASE in complexity.
(Assuming the above distorted definitions to be valid):
Do you propose that there is a different genetic mechanism underlying
macro and microevolution? If yes, what? If no, how do you draw the
line between micro and macro?
Why does speciation have to involve an 'increase in complexity'?
>These are separate topics in evolution. Let me clear things up a bit.
Convince us with concrete mechanistic explanations why these are
separate topics.
>What creationists also has pointed out: Evolutionary change, more often than not,
> occurs suddenly and in steps. Which is absolutely true.
They've manipulated the meaning of the terms to suit their interests by
describing an alleged barrier on variation that prevents speciation;
what this barrier is, they won't explain.
cheers mike
Keith Doyle
on...@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes:
>"Microevolution" and "macroevolution" were meaningless expressions before
>creationists put the spotlight on them. To an evolutionist micro- and
>macroevolution virtually were the same thing because it was generally
>believed that they were driven by the same causes. But creationists
>pointed out that you could nuke fruitflies forever and get weird
>fruitflies, fruitflies with three eyes, or legs instead of eyes etc.,
>but they would still be within the specie of fruitflies. And today we
>know why. It is because micro- and macroevolution are independent drives.
>Thus, the two expressions HAS become meaningful in evolutionary terms.
>Ironically, perhaps, because of the creationists.
What is your reference for "independent drives"? From the experiments
I've done with computer simulated evolution, one thing that I note that
explains the fruit fly experiments quite well, is you don't usually get
a characteristic if there are no selection pressures for it. In the
fruit fly experiments, you first would have to determine what it would
take to make a non-fruit-fly, and then add selection pressures for it.
Now a fruit fly isn't going to become something like an arachnid or
crustacean or something overnight, it will have to transition through
intermediate stages. The kind of pressures you would have to exert on
a fruit fly would be those which gradually attempt to change its
environment to the extent that the adaptation process would require it
to become something other than a fruit fly. So for one, you would have
to define what would make it NOT a fruit fly, which isn't easy to do,
and a fruit fly ain't likely to change into something else if it is
surviving just fine as a fruit fly. Selecting for random anomalies
just means that is what you are going to get, anomalous fruit flies.
You'd have to select for a different diet perhaps, and probably a
series of other things that once adapted to, would cause the organism
to be considered something other than a fruit fly. And even then,
I have no idea how long it might take.
Creationist clamoring about how fruit flies have never become anything
else, is simply more "reptile giving birth to a bird" straw-nonsense,
as no evolutionist (there's that word again) claims that such things
happen in such a fashion. And if the creationists don't realize they
are proposing a straw-argument, they are clearly unqualified to critique
evolution, with such a demonstration of their ignorance of its claims.
Keith
Onar Aam
>>macroevolution is the change which "transforms" a specie into another. In short,
>>INCREASE in complexity.
>
>(Assuming the above distorted definitions to be valid):
Science change, you know. So do defenitions, and I seem to be more up to date
than you.
>Do you propose that there is a different genetic mechanism underlying
>macro and microevolution? If yes, what? If no, how do you draw the
>line between micro and macro?
>
Yes, I do propose that there is a different mechanism underlying micro- and
macroevolution.
Microevolution are due to random changes (mutations)in the DNA-sequences. These
changes may cause new traits to occur. The problem, however, is that this is a
limited way of change. Ex: No matter how many random changes that occur in a
bacteria, the offsprings will not diverge severely from the 'original' bacteria.
(I.e. a random change,yes, even a billion random changes will not make a bacteria
into a dog.) In technical terms we might say that an organism (with N genes) is a
DYNAMICAL SYSTEM which means that the organism can successfully change BUT within
certain bondages. In other words, LIMITED change, or change within the DYNAMIC
RANGE of the system. (provided that the # of genes is constant)
How then CAN a bacteria change into something else? (All living organisms on
earth evolved from bacterias so they obviously have the ability) This is where we
turn to macroevolution. Since organisms are dynamical systems with a limited
dynamic range we have to ALTER the bondages of the system. And, as any genetician
can verify, these bondages can not be altered with random changes in the
DNA-sequences. The only way to alter these bondages is to alter the number of
genes. And because of the second law of thermodynamics this change must be
positive (increase in number of genes). A removal of a gene is lethal. (Obs!
there might be local exceptions). When increasing the number of genes there is a
possibility that the genetic system becomes unstable. This, in terms, means that
the bondages of the system can change. This, and only this, is the major cause of
speciation. As you might understand genes doesn't grow gradually, they pop up
suddenly (through gene duplication). This is the technical explanation to
Punctuated Equilibria (read the FAQ). The dynamical systems change suddenly,
and thus, species change suddenly and rapidly.
That the dynamic system is unstable means that new traits may have occured but
aren't fully adapted. I mean, imagine the first bird that flew. Couldn't have been
a pretty sight...
>Why does speciation have to involve an 'increase in complexity'?
Because of the defenition of complexity. Complexity is simply the amount of
information in the ACTIVE and distinct genes of an organism. And since severe
change in a specie can only occur by increasing the number of genes it is obvious
that speciation have to involve 'increase in complexity'
There are various examples of this. The best one I can think is the evolution of
the whales. Land animals evolved from fish. They lost the original traits of a
fish. Whales went 'back' so they had to evolve the same traits that their
ancestors had lost. This happened through increase in the number of genes.
Another point is that life on earth is tending toward greater featuristic
complexity (not just greater genetic complexity). Oh never mind. That is to large
a topic to explain.
>Convince us with concrete mechanistic explanations why these are
>separate topics.
>
>>What creationists also has pointed out: Evolutionary change, more often than not,
>> occurs suddenly and in steps. Which is absolutely true.
>
>They've manipulated the meaning of the terms to suit their interests by
> describing an alleged barrier on variation that prevents speciation;
>what this barrier is, they won't explain.
>cheers mike
>
These last questions have answered themselves based on my previous reasoning.
Onar.
Justin M. Sanders
>Microevolution are due to random changes (mutations)in the DNA-sequences.
>These changes may cause new traits to occur.
And what about selection? It is the combination of variation (mutations)
and selection that drives evolution.
>The problem, however, is that this is a limited way of change.
>Ex: No matter how many random changes that occur in a
>bacteria, the offsprings will not diverge severely from the 'original'
>bacteria. (I.e. a random change,yes, even a billion random changes will
>not make a bacteria into a dog.) In technical terms we might say that
>an organism (with N genes) is a DYNAMICAL SYSTEM which means that the
>organism can successfully change BUT within certain bondages. In other
>words, LIMITED change, or change within the DYNAMIC
>RANGE of the system. (provided that the # of genes is constant)
Just to make everything clear, no one (except the erectors of straw-men)
claims that bacteria can turn into dogs through a billion jugglings of
their DNA. Ignoring for a moment that we must properly deal with populations
contaning distributions of gene frequencies (a BIG ignoring). The
argument runs like this:
1. a few (maybe even one) mutations separate an "almost dog" from a dog,
2. a few (maybe even one) mutations separate an "almost almost dog"
from an "almost dog"
*** several steps deleted ****
X. a few (maybe even one) mutations separate "almost therapsid reptile A"
from therapsid reptile A.
*** several steps deleted ****
Y. a few (maybe even one) mutations separate "almost original life form"
from "original life form".
Note that each step is small and well within the constraints of your proposed
"bondages." However, while on the subject, please provide some evidence
that such bounds exist and in what manner they are implemented.
>How then CAN a bacteria change into something else? (All living organisms on
>earth evolved from bacterias so they obviously have the ability) This is
>where we turn to macroevolution. Since organisms are dynamical systems
>with a limited dynamic range we have to ALTER the bondages of the system.
>And, as any genetician can verify, these bondages can not be altered
>with random changes in the DNA-sequences.
How nice! Then it should be very easy for you to provide references showing
that these bounds exist, how they were discovered, why they cannot be
altered by mutation, etc.
>The only way to alter these bondages is to alter the number of
>genes. And because of the second law of thermodynamics this change must be
>positive (increase in number of genes).
Please explain how the second law of thermodynamics requires the number
of genes to increase.
>>They've manipulated the meaning of the terms to suit their interests by
>> describing an alleged barrier on variation that prevents speciation;
>>what this barrier is, they won't explain.
>>cheers mike
>
>These last questions have answered themselves based on my previous reasoning.
I didn't see any reasoning at all, just the unsubstatiated claim that
such barriers ("bondages") exist and that "any geneticist" will agree.
Therefore, I again request that you provide a respectable reference
for such a claim.
--
Justin M. Sanders "The science of mathematics has no more
Dept. of Physics bowels of mercy than has a cast-iron dog."
Kansas State Univ. --Rep. John A. Anderson of Kansas, 1882
Andy Peters
Onar: please make your attributions clear: to whom are you responding
here, etc., etc.
>Someone writes (in response to Onar?)
>>Do you propose that there is a different genetic mechanism underlying
>>macro and microevolution? If yes, what? If no, how do you draw the
>>line between micro and macro?
>
>Yes, I do propose that there is a different mechanism underlying micro- and
>macroevolution.
>
>Microevolution are due to random changes (mutations)in the DNA-sequences. These
>changes may cause new traits to occur.
Hmmm...something seems to be missing from this definition. Perhaps selection?
Perhaps variation through recombination?
The problem, however, is that this is a
>limited way of change. Ex: No matter how many random changes that occur in a
>bacteria, the offsprings will not diverge severely from the 'original' bacteria.
Hmmm...there seem to be a couple of problems with this statement:
(1) the changes in the population are not random. They are due to selection.
(2) those changes are exactly what many (dare I say most?) evolutionary
biologists believe to be the cause of speciation & macroevolution.
>(I.e. a random change,yes, even a billion random changes will not make a bacteria
>into a dog.)
Hmmm...*random* change? Transmuation from a bacterium to a dog? Where are you
getting this shit?
>in technical terms we might say that an organism (with N genes) is a
>DYNAMICAL SYSTEM which means that the organism can successfully change BUT within
>certain bondages.
Hmmm...I don't quite see how the use of the (capitalized) words DYNAMICAL
SYSTEM implies "bondages" (limits). Do you have evidence for such limits?
> In other words, LIMITED change, or change within the DYNAMIC
>RANGE of the system. (provided that the # of genes is constant)
Hmmm...could you tell us how to calculate the (capitalized) DYNAMIC RANGE
of a system?
...could you tell us why you assume that the number of genes remains
constant?
>How then CAN a bacteria change into something else? (All living organisms on
>earth evolved from bacterias so they obviously have the ability) This is where we
>turn to macroevolution. Since organisms are dynamical systems with a limited
>dynamic range we have to ALTER the bondages of the system. And, as any genetician
>can verify, these bondages can not be altered with random changes in the
>DNA-sequences.
Hmmm..."Any geneticist" wouldn't waste the time of day with this crap.
"Any geneticist" would look at you funny if you implied that such "bondages"
existed in the first place.
The only way to alter these bondages is to alter the number of
>genes. And because of the second law of thermodynamics this change must be
>positive (increase in number of genes).
Hmmm...the 2nd law governs the number of genes in a system? Please, Onar;
explain why?
> A removal of a gene is lethal. (Obs!
>there might be local exceptions).
Hmmm...those "local exceptions" are pretty useful as a rhetorical hand-waving
tool, aren't they?
[more garbage relying on the bogus existence of "bondages" deleted
non-lethally]
[even more garbage relying on the bogus necessity of increasing numbers
of genes deleted]
>Another point is that life on earth is tending toward greater featuristic
>complexity (not just greater genetic complexity). Oh never mind. That is to large
>a topic to explain.
Hmmm...
Onar, this post was completely bogus. From your unsupported assertions
regarding what "any geneticist" will tell us, to your bizzare appeal to
the 2nd law of thermo, to your blatant hand-waving and special pleading,
you sound like you recently graduated from the Loucks-Siivonen School
of Apologia.
>
>Onar.
--
* Andy Peters * "Slugs are small and portable *From
* Program in Evolution, * Just stuff 'em up your nose *"Slugs,"
* Ecology, and Behavior * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes" *Greenberg
Jon Livesey
>
> In technical terms we might say that an organism (with N genes) is a
> DYNAMICAL SYSTEM which means that the organism can successfully change
> BUT within certain bondages. In other words, LIMITED change, or change
> within the DYNAMIC RANGE of the system. (provided that the # of genes
> is constant)
What Mr Aam appears to have done here is to recognize the
difficulty with the usual claim of Creationists that there
are 'limits" to evolution. As we know, whenever they are
asked to show evidence of such limits, or to explain how
they are implemented, they back off and fall silent.
What Mr Aan has done is to bury his limits one level down
in the argument. Instead of asserting that change runs
up against unspecified 'limits", he proposes that micro-
and macro-evolution depend on different mechanisms because
of something he calls a "dynamic range".
But what is "dynamic range"? Surely Mr Aan now has to
show us evidence that such a thing as Dynamic Range really
exists, or even better, tell us how it works.
Incidentally, if he really means what he says about
organisms being dynamical systems, he's already in trouble,
since dynamical systems sometimes exhibit very large
state changes in response to very small changes in input.
In other words, there is no need to postulate two different
mechanisms for large and small scale state change.
jon.
L.A. Moran
Onar Aam writes is trying to come up with a theory that distinguishes
between micro- and macroevolution. He says,
"How then CAN a bacteria change into something else? (All living
organisms on earth evolved from bacterias so they obviously have
the ability) This is where we turn to macroevolution. Since organisms
are dynamical systems with a limited dynamic range we have to ALTER
the bondages of the system. And, as any genetician can verify, these
bondages can not be altered with random changes in the DNA-sequences.
The only way to alter these bondages is to alter the number of
genes. And because of the second law of thermodynamics this change
must be positive (increase in number of genes). A removal of a gene
is lethal. (Obs! there might be local exceptions). When increasing
the number of genes there is a possibility that the genetic system
becomes unstable. This, in terms, means that the bondages of the
system can change. This, and only this, is the major cause of
speciation. As you might understand genes doesn't grow gradually,
they pop up suddenly (through gene duplication). This is the technical
explanation to Punctuated Equilibria (read the FAQ). The dynamical
systems change suddenly, and thus, species change suddenly and
rapidly."
I usually consider such postings to be a form of light entertainment but
just in case anyone is confused by such ramblings let me point out that
all living organisms are NOT evolved from modern bacteria. It's true that
we all share a common ancestor that looked more like a bacterium than a
monkey but that does not mean that modern bacteria have the ability to
change into a monkey. Modern bacteria are highly evolved and specialized
organisms that are as far removed from our common ancestor as you and I.
It is not true that speciation is associated with a change in the number of
genes. There are thousands and thousands of species of bacteria, for example,
and they all appear to have about two thousand genes. Furthermore, it is very
unlikely that different mammals have significantly different numbers of genes
or that their common ancestor had fewer genes.
Onar was asked why speciation has to involve an increase in "complexity"
and he replied,
"Because of the definition of complexity. Complexity is simply
the amount of information in the ACTIVE and distinct genes of an
organism. And since severe change in a specie can only occur by
increasing the number of genes it is obvious that speciation have
to involve 'increase in complexity'.
There are various examples of this. The best one I can think is
the evolution of the whales. Land animals evolved from fish. They
lost the original traits of a fish. Whales went 'back' so they had
to evolve the same traits that their ancestors had lost. This
happened through increase in the number of genes."
This fanciful explanation doesn't deserve much comment but just for the record
I'm not aware of any evidence that species of whales have more genes than
other mammals. In fact, I'm not aware of any evidence that whales or other
mammals have more genes than fish or other vertebrates.
Let's assume, for fun, that Onar is correct. Beginning with an ancestral
vertebrate several hundred million years ago we now see three groups of
organisms that are the product of many speciation events; fish, whales,
and other mammals. Now, since all of these lines saw an increase in the
number of genes (recall that we are assuming that speciation is associated
with an increase in genes!), how can we predict which group will have the
most genes? Let's assume that the thousands of species of modern fish that
have evolved since the time of the common ancestor end up with more genes
than the various species of mammals (because there are more species of fish
than there are of mammals). If whales "revert" to the ancestral state won't
they have fewer genes than modern fish?
Onar goes on to say,
"Another point is that life on earth is tending toward greater
featuristic complexity (not just greater genetic complexity).
Oh never mind. That is to large a topic to explain."
Onar, please don't leave us in suspense. We'd love to know how you measure
"featuristic complexity" especially among those groups that are in the midst
of rapid radiations such as arthropods, flowering plants, molluscs, and
several catagories of bacteria.
Laurence A. Moran (Larry)
Onar Aam
>>These changes may cause new traits to occur.
>
>And what about selection? It is the combination of variation (mutations)
>and selection that drives evolution.
>
I was asked to come up with the PHYSICAL mechanism behind micro/macroevolution,
and so I did. Of course selection is the DRIVE of evolution, but that is
absolutely irrelevant. (I know that many will misunderstand this sentence, so I
will clarify.) Selection relies on variation to be active.( A uniform gene pool
will not give rise to selection, obviously) This variation in microevolution is
provided by mutations (random changes).
>>The problem, however, is that this is a limited way of change.
>>Ex: No matter how many random changes that occur in a
>>bacteria, the offsprings will not diverge severely from the 'original'
>>bacteria. (I.e. a random change,yes, even a billion random changes will
>>not make a bacteria into a dog.) In technical terms we might say that
>>an organism (with N genes) is a DYNAMICAL SYSTEM which means that the
>>organism can successfully change BUT within certain bondages. In other
>>words, LIMITED change, or change within the DYNAMIC
>>RANGE of the system. (provided that the # of genes is constant)
Justin M. Sanders wrote:
>Just to make everything clear, no one (except the erectors of straw-men)
>claims that bacteria can turn into dogs through a billion jugglings of
>their DNA. Ignoring for a moment that we must properly deal with populations
>contaning distributions of gene frequencies (a BIG ignoring). The
>argument runs like this:
> 1. a few (maybe even one) mutations separate an "almost dog" from a dog,
> 2. a few (maybe even one) mutations separate an "almost almost dog"
> from an "almost dog"
>*** several steps deleted ****
> X. a few (maybe even one) mutations separate "almost therapsid reptile A"
> from therapsid reptile A.
>*** several steps deleted ****
> Y. a few (maybe even one) mutations separate "almost original life form"
> from "original life form".
>
>Note that each step is small and well within the constraints of your proposed
>"bondages." However, while on the subject, please provide some evidence
>that such bounds exist and in what manner they are implemented.
>
Andy Peters wrote:
>Hmmm...there seem to be a couple of problems with this statement:
> (1) the changes in the population are not random. They are due to selection.
> (2) those changes are exactly what many (dare I say most?) evolutionary
> biologists believe to be the cause of speciation & macroevolution.
>Hmmm...*random* change? Transmuation from a bacterium to a dog? Where are you
>getting this shit?
I agree, random change was a bad expression. See my explanation below.
Now, let me make myself clear: I am NOT suggesting that evolution is driven
by chance although some people seemed to think I did.
Lets make a thought experiment: YOU are the ultimate genetician and you are given
an ultimate task. You are given a DNA sequence with a range of say 100,000
nucleids which is not too uncommon in bacterias. You are allowed to arrange this
genome ANY way you like. See what species you can come up with. (obs!limited time)
Now, you will probably have come up with an extremeley large number of species,
but you notice, however, that they do not differ extremely much from each other.
(You will for instance not have been able to make a dog). THIS (the total
number of species which is possible to make within the given limit) is the
theoretical dynamic range of the system. Of course, in nature the range is a lot
more narrow (but still very large) since there are combinations that
naturally will never occur. Have I made myself clear? Hope so.
L.A. Moran writes:
>It is not true that speciation is associated with a change in the number of
>genes. There are thousands and thousands of species of bacteria, for example,
>and they all appear to have about two thousand genes.
Yup, and they are all approximately within the same dynamic range of the system.
Andy Peters wrote:
>Hmmm...could you tell us how to calculate the (capitalized) DYNAMIC RANGE
>of a system?
I sure wish I could. That is one of the hottest topics in chaotic and complex
systems today. I don't know. And I don't think anyone else know either - yet.
It's a highly complex task. And we have only just started to understand the
processes behind it.
> ...could you tell us why you assume that the number of genes remains
>constant?
>
This is to ease the concept of dynamic systems. Obviously the number of genes
does not remain constant. But when drawing the line between micro- and
macroevolution this is an absolute necessity. (I'll explain in a minute.)
There are two kinds of change which can occur. Alterings in the existing sequences
and alterings in the length of the sequence. These are distinct of nature. And
when describing them it is important to have good defenitions to operate with.
Before I do anything else, I will clarify these defenitions.
For both, selection is the drive. However, the bases for selection are different.
In microevolution the basis is changes in existing genes. Any evolutionary step
which can be traced back as 'change in existing data' is microevolution.
Ex. It is widely believed that all human races have the same number of genes,and
in essence the same genes. But there are small differences in the sequences.
These have accumulated over the years and can all be traced back as the sum of
changes in existing data. This is an example of microevolution.
In macroevolution the basis is change in the number of genes. This can either be
deletion or addition of genes. I do not know of cases where the deletion of genes
has been a superior advantage for a specie. A delition is in rule lethal or
strongly disadvantagous. (If many examples of the opposite exists I
would love to hear about it) This leaves us with addition of genes which normally
is caused by gene duplication. Since macroevolution is hard to observe realtime
there are no brilliantly obvious examples Which can easily be verified that I can
think of. But what I CAN do is to sketch the 'typical' path of evolution:
Assume that you have a specie which is adapted to the environment in which it
lives. It can then be said to be in a state of genetic stability. The specie
remains approximately unchanged for a large amount of time, say 10 million years.
Suddenly there occurs a new gene in the genome which alters the specie
sufficiently to be called a new specie. The new specie is probably in the state
of genetic unstability. Therefore the selective preassure on the new specie will
be strong and will therefore undergo a time of rapid microevolution until genetic
stability once again is reached.
I will pick up again something that Justin M. Sanders wrote:
>Just to make everything clear, no one (except the erectors of straw-men)
>claims that bacteria can turn into dogs through a billion jugglings of
>their DNA. Ignoring for a moment that we must properly deal with populations
>contaning distributions of gene frequencies (a BIG ignoring). The
>argument runs like this:
> 1. a few (maybe even one) mutations separate an "almost dog" from a dog,
> 2. a few (maybe even one) mutations separate an "almost almost dog"
> from an "almost dog"
>*** several steps deleted ****
> X. a few (maybe even one) mutations separate "almost therapsid reptile A"
> from therapsid reptile A.
>*** several steps deleted ****
> Y. a few (maybe even one) mutations separate "almost original life form"
> from "original life form".
>
>Note that each step is small and well within the constraints of your proposed
>"bondages."
What you are suggesting is that any major evolutionary change is due to the sum of
many small changes. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Each step might be within the bondages
(read dynamic range) but they do not alter these bondages. To come from original
life to a dog you have to expand the original bondages. This, by defenition, can
only occur by an increase in the number of genes. (If this still burns your face,
see my explanation on dynamic range) Now, there are some problems with early life
since micro- and macroevolution were more closely related then.
We know that in bacterias there is a great overlapping of genes. Thus, it is
easy to understand how genes gradually could appear over time. This is not so in
most other organisms on earth. They do not rely on rapid replication and
therefore genetic efficiency is not a subject to selective preassure (at least
not in the same degree as in bacterias). Result: genes do not overlap to the
same extent as in bacterias. We also happen to know that most new genes occur
through gene duplication --> in steps, large steps.
Mr. Sanders view, if I understood him right, is way back in gradualism which
is dead, gameover, finito.
Happily the genetic system is nonlinear. This means that a large change in the
genome does not necessarily correspond with a large change in anatomy or
features. And for that matter, a small change does not necessarily correspond
with a small change in anatomy or features. A perfect example of this is the
relation between chimps and humans. We're genetically 99% identical, but it
doesn't look like it.
>Hmmm...I don't quite see how the use of the (capitalized) words DYNAMICAL
>SYSTEM implies "bondages" (limits). Do you have evidence for such limits?
>What Mr Aam appears to have done here is to recognize the
>difficulty with the usual claim of Creationists that there
>are 'limits" to evolution. As we know, whenever they are
>asked to show evidence of such limits, or to explain how
>they are implemented, they back off and fall silent.
A suggestion for all of you who find my explanations on dynamic systems
insufficient: use a year or two of your life to study Nonlinear-,Chaotic-,Complex-
and Dynamical systems. Then come back and discuss with me. Certain comments
indicates that certain people knows NOTHING about the topics I mentioned.
If a whole course is too much of a challange, try out the easy classic "CHAOS" by
James Gleick. It's an elementary and popular introduction to these topics.
And to all evolutionary biologists who doesn't know anything about dynamic
systems: you are out of date. Dynamic systems are essential to the understanding
of life and its evolution.
I need a brake. I'll continue my explanations on the general increase in
complexity in my next letter. So read on...
Onar.
Ray Ingles
[Onar's clarification that he didn't mean evolution was a chance process
deleted]
[Onar's relplies to and discussion of the idea that an increase in the
number of genes is required for altering the original life ancestor into
a dog, etc. deleted]
Here's how I (a non-biologist, so don't take my word for it- but then, I'm
unclear what biological background Onar has) would answer this point-
1) Well, yeah. Dogs presumably *do* have more genes (nucleotides, anyway)
than whatever was the original ancestor of life.
2) However, there is a major factor you're overlooking here- multicellularity.
Bacteria have enourmous selection pressure toward a small, efficient genome-
they can't afford a lot of junk sitting around.
Multicellular creatures become multicellular by turning on and off parts
of their genome during embryotic development. It would be hardly surprising
if perhaps some parts of the genome were *never* turned on simply by chance-
that portion *had* an effect a long time ago, but not now. (Consider what
would happen if the genes that code for an appendix were skipped- not a whole
lot.)
3) Indeed, it's even more complicated because there's so much junk DNA in
modern creatures. This drastically increases the 'dynamic range' you propose,
since we need not add genes to an existing species to expand the number of
active genes- just activate some junk. (Of course, it would be rare that such
an activation was beneficial, but beneficial point mutations are rare too.)
4) Gene increase happens all the time. I understand ome species of mosquito
gained a near-immunity to a common pesticide by doubling the gene that codes
for a protein that meabolizes the pesticide-- and this happened in recent
times. Given a few billion years, genome expansion is not all that unlikely.
(Does anyone have a reference for this?)
[deletion]
>Andy Peters wrote:
>>Hmmm...could you tell us how to calculate the (capitalized) DYNAMIC RANGE
>>of a system?
>
>I sure wish I could. That is one of the hottest topics in chaotic and complex
>systems today. I don't know. And I don't think anyone else know either - yet.
>It's a highly complex task. And we have only just started to understand the
>processes behind it.
Well, Onam, basically you need to calculate the range of phenotypes for
each possible genome of a given lenght. Then match it to the available
environments, etc. Actually doing it is left as an exercise for the reader.
>> ...could you tell us why you assume that the number of genes remains
>>constant?
>>
>
>This is to ease the concept of dynamic systems. Obviously the number of genes
>does not remain constant. But when drawing the line between micro- and
>macroevolution this is an absolute necessity. (I'll explain in a minute.)
As has been noted, gene increase happens commonly, and without speciation.
What is the difference between adding a brand new gene complex that does
something useful, and activating and selecting an existing but heretofore
dormant gene complex that does something useful? (I think the odds of the
second are much greater...)
>There are two kinds of change which can occur. Alterings in the existing sequences
>and alterings in the length of the sequence. These are distinct of nature. And
>when describing them it is important to have good defenitions to operate with.
>Before I do anything else, I will clarify these defenitions.
>
>For both, selection is the drive. However, the bases for selection are different.
>
>In microevolution the basis is changes in existing genes. Any evolutionary step
>which can be traced back as 'change in existing data' is microevolution.
>Ex. It is widely believed that all human races have the same number of genes,and
>in essence the same genes. But there are small differences in the sequences.
>These have accumulated over the years and can all be traced back as the sum of
>changes in existing data. This is an example of microevolution.
Many humans have extra chromosomes, extra genes attached to chromosomes,
and so forth. If some of them happened to become geographically isolated...
[deletion]
> But what I CAN do is to sketch the 'typical' path of evolution:
>
>Assume that you have a specie which is adapted to the environment in which it
>lives. It can then be said to be in a state of genetic stability. The specie
>remains approximately unchanged for a large amount of time, say 10 million years.
>Suddenly there occurs a new gene in the genome which alters the specie
>sufficiently to be called a new specie. The new specie is probably in the state
>of genetic unstability. Therefore the selective preassure on the new specie will
>be strong and will therefore undergo a time of rapid microevolution until genetic
>stability once again is reached.
This is almost exactly opposite to the way evolution is proposed to act.
Or is that your point? I mean, the general idea of evolution is that
if the *environment* changes the species alters to fit the new environment.
This has been recently extended to note that small, geographically isolated
populations are much more sensitive to environmntal pressure and much more
likely to speciate under such conditions.
(Again, I'm no biologist, and I'd appreciate someone summarizing that better.)
No, no, no. you seem to think that species undergo massive changes in short
periods of time. This is not supported in the fossil record. A new species
usually looks almost exactly like an old species. Not only that, they generally
have almost the same lifestyle as its 'parent' species- slight differences,
at most.
If the changes in environment are too great... the species goes extinct without
the chance to give rise to a new species that can handle it.
Sabretooth tigrs appaently evolved many times; when there were herds of
really huge cattle, some cat evolved to be big and have large teeth (apparently
to quickly sever the jugular veins.) When the really big cattle died off...
so did the sabretooths, without getting the chance to become smaller and
hunt something else.
You don't seem to recognize that there si a lot of pressure to keep new
species related to old... the more, and more major changes to DNA, the
exponentially more likely it is that something will go wrong. Small, safe
steps are the way to go.
>Happily the genetic system is nonlinear. This means that a large change in the
>genome does not necessarily correspond with a large change in anatomy or
>features. And for that matter, a small change does not necessarily correspond
>with a small change in anatomy or features. A perfect example of this is the
>relation between chimps and humans. We're genetically 99% identical, but it
>doesn't look like it.
Yeah, but don't read too much into that. In fact, it argues against your case;lif you can go from some common ancestor to either chimps or humans, without
adding genes, just doing small changes to gene sequences...
[deletions]
>A suggestion for all of you who find my explanations on dynamic systems
>insufficient: use a year or two of your life to study Nonlinear-,Chaotic-,Complex-
>and Dynamical systems. Then come back and discuss with me. Certain comments
>indicates that certain people knows NOTHING about the topics I mentioned.
>
>If a whole course is too much of a challange, try out the easy classic "CHAOS" by
>James Gleick. It's an elementary and popular introduction to these topics.
>
>And to all evolutionary biologists who doesn't know anything about dynamic
>systems: you are out of date. Dynamic systems are essential to the understanding
>of life and its evolution.
Hey, Im a chaos enthisiast too, Onam. (I also recommend that people at
least read Chaos, it's an awesome book!) But let's not get carried away.
We can't really know how chaos theory applies to evolution yet.
For example, how could we plot a strange attractor for evolution? How
many dimensions do you think it would have? What variables, and what would
be the Lyapunov exponents? Can we give a rigorous definition that would allow
us to state, "This species is more complex thant that one"? What routes to
chaos do you think apply... bifurcation? Period doubling? What would be
the initial critical points?
>Onar.
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles || The above opinions are probably
|| not those of the University of
ing...@engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.
Warren Vonroeschlaub
Livesey) writes:
> But what is "dynamic range"? Surely Mr Aan now has to
> show us evidence that such a thing as Dynamic Range really
> exists, or even better, tell us how it works.
What I think he is trying to say (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that any
given creature can only vary a small amount due to mutation. This is certainly
true in most cases. I believe I read in Sci Amer (okay, so I'm not a biologist)
that human (and I suppose most animal) cells "suicide" if their chromosome don't
match closely enough. This is supposed to be the same mechanism that prevents
species from interbreeding (in the article they talked about how it also gave
the boon of limited cancer prevention).
So if we allow error bars in our mutations, but limit them, we get the species
having offspring like this:
{--|--} <-parent with mutation limiting error bars
. . . <-children
. . <-impossible children (too mutated)
What Mr. Aan seems to forget is that mutation can slip into speciation by
cumulative changes within the range (the ranging is, after all, dynamic: the
error bars move along with the original creature). So the evolution of a new
species may look like:
{--|--}
{--|--}
{--|--}
{--|--}
{--|--}
{--|--}
Not that each generation falls within the acceptable mutation distance of its
predecessors, but the final creature does not even overlap the error bars of the
ancestor: they have become different species even with limitations on each step
of mutation.
The interesting thing is that there is no way to solve this problem. No
matter how much error detection or correction there is, the cumulative changes
can still build up to a new species.
| __L__ *******************************
-|- ___ * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub *
| | o | * kv...@iastate.edu *
|/ `---' * Iowa State University *
/| ___ * Math Department *
| |___| * 400 Carver Hall *
| |___| * Ames, IA 50011 *
J _____ *******************************
Justin M. Sanders
[lots of stuff about dynamical systems being limited deleted]
>Lets make a thought experiment: YOU are the ultimate genetician and you
>are given an ultimate task. You are given a DNA sequence with a range of
>say 100,000 nucleids which is not too uncommon in bacterias. You are
>allowed to arrange this genome ANY way you like. See what species you can
>come up with. (obs!limited time)
>Now, you will probably have come up with an extremeley large number of species,
>but you notice, however, that they do not differ extremely much from
>each other.
This is a bald-faced assertion. Do you have any evidence that this is the
case? I could just as easily claim the diametrical opposite: that there
will be species which differ extremely from each other. And we would each
have the same amount of evidence to back up our respective claims (i.e. none).
>(You will for instance not have been able to make a dog). THIS (the total
>number of species which is possible to make within the given limit) is the
>theoretical dynamic range of the system. Of course, in nature the range
>is a lot
>more narrow (but still very large) since there are combinations that
>naturally will never occur. Have I made myself clear? Hope so.
What you are saying seems to boil down to the fact that there are a
limited number of combinations of genes for a limited number of genes.
If that is your point, then it is certainly correct. And if that is
the extent of your "bondages" on variation, then that is probably
acceptable. However, you make much more extreme claims above (that
of all the combinations of genes, none will give rise to a significantly
different organism) which you have not substantiated.
[more deleted]
The part deleted seems to be making the point that if you increase
the number of genes, then the space of possible gene combinations
(and therefore the space of possible organisms) increases as well.
Which, put that way, seems perfectly reasonable.
>I will pick up again something that Justin M. Sanders wrote:
[my description of the step-by-step evolution of a dog from the
ancestral life form, deleted]
>>Note that each step is small and well within the constraints of your proposed
>>"bondages."
>
>What you are suggesting is that any major evolutionary change is due to
>the sum of many small changes. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Each step might be
>within the bondages (read dynamic range) but they do not alter these
>bondages. To come from original life to a dog you have to expand the
>original bondages. This, by defenition, can only occur by an increase
>in the number of genes.
I was suggesting that evolutionary change is the accumulation (under
selection) of changes (usually one or a few at a time). Whether those
changes are point mutations or gene doubling, was not my concern. I
don't see why it is necessary to make the distinction that you do between
the changes.
>Mr. Sanders view, if I understood him right, is way back in gradualism
>which is dead, gameover, finito.
"Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
I think this is Andy Peters (sorry if it's not!):
>>What Mr Aam appears to have done here is to recognize the
>>difficulty with the usual claim of Creationists that there
>>are 'limits" to evolution. As we know, whenever they are
>>asked to show evidence of such limits, or to explain how
>>they are implemented, they back off and fall silent.
>
>A suggestion for all of you who find my explanations on dynamic systems
>insufficient: use a year or two of your life to study Nonlinear-,
>Chaotic-,Complex- and Dynamical systems. Then come back and discuss
>with me.
The onus is on the one explaining to explain in such a fashion that
his readers can understand. Telling us to go away until we are
smart enough to talk to you is likely to be counterproductive and
doesn't improve communication.
Jon Livesey
|> In article <1bd9n8...@fido.asd.sgi.com>, liv...@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon
|> Livesey) writes:
|> > But what is "dynamic range"? Surely Mr Aan now has to
|> > show us evidence that such a thing as Dynamic Range really
|> > exists, or even better, tell us how it works.
|>
|> What I think he is trying to say (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that any
|> given creature can only vary a small amount due to mutation.
Well, that's what they *usually* say, more or less, and the
explanation you gave that follows is the correct rebuttal to
the usual claim. Why shouldn't small changes add up to a
large change.
However, that's not what Mr Aan is saying, exactly. He's
being a bit more subtle than the usual stuff about "limits"
on mutation. He's proposing instead that there actually
have to be two different mechanisms because there are certain
things he calls "bondages" which limit change unless you
change the number of genes in an organism.
In other words, he's not talking about damage, but about
some limit which is related to number of genes. So I
am asking, what is this limit, and how is it implemented.
Think of it this way: someone claims that simple dynamic
systems can only go through limited state changes. They're
simple, right? And the answer is: no, even simple dynamic
systems can sometimes experience large state changes in
response to a small increment of input.
jon.
Jon Livesey
>
> >What Mr Aam appears to have done here is to recognize the
> >difficulty with the usual claim of Creationists that there
> >are 'limits" to evolution. As we know, whenever they are
> >asked to show evidence of such limits, or to explain how
> >they are implemented, they back off and fall silent.
>
> A suggestion for all of you who find my explanations on dynamic
> systems insufficient: use a year or two of your life to study
> Nonlinear-,Chaotic-,Complex- and Dynamical systems. Then come
> back and discuss with me. Certain comments indicates that certain
> people knows NOTHING about the topics I mentioned.
What Mr Aan has done here is a piece of clever editing. The
paragraph from me that he quotes here without attribution
was a comment on the *usual* claims that there are built-in
limits to change. I then added a paragraph saying why I
thought his proposal was different to the usual claims, and
asking a number of questions about it.
What he has done here is to delete my questions without
answering them, and then to say I don't know about Dynamical
Systems.
But several of us, including me, specifically asked Mr Aan
to explain what he thought Dynamic Range was, and why he
thought it applied to mutational change. He didn't do
that. Instead, he continued to use the phrase Dynamic
Range as though he *had* defined it, and proceeded to
repeat most of the material from his original posting.
He also added a new claim:
"I was asked to come up with the PHYSICAL mechanism
behind micro/macroevolution, and so I did."
In fact he didn't. He tossed out a few buzz-words and
then ploughed on as though he had explained what he means
by them, and how they relate to mutation.
I'd like to see Mr Aan stop claiming that a change in the
number of genes is necessary for macro-evolution to take
place, and instead, explain why that is so. I would
also like him to explain what he thinks Dynamic Range
is, and why he thinks it is relevant.
And no, a casual reference to a popular book most of us
have already read is not an explanation.
jon.
Jon Livesey
>
> The onus is on the one explaining to explain in such a fashion that
> his readers can understand. Telling us to go away until we are
> smart enough to talk to you is likely to be counterproductive and
> doesn't improve communication.
Clap, clap. Right on. Also, Mr Aan telling us we're
not smart enough to talk to him is just a variant on the
religious Creationists' claim that we are not moral enough
to talk to them.
jon.
Andy Peters
the mechanisms he proposes are likely ones. Let's take a look at his
assumptions, though:
ASSUMPTION #1: MUTATION IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF GENETIC VARIATION (this
assumption is not critical to his model, but it's there (and wrong) all
the same)
Another source of variation, which cannot be ignored, is that due to
recombination. In sexual species, this is an extremely important
mechanism by which immediate variation occurs.
ASSUMPTION #2: THE DYNAMIC RANGE OF A SYSTEM IS NOT BROAD ENOUGH TO
ACCOMODATE "SEVERE DIVERGENCE" OF LINEAGES
Since you cannot even begin to predict what this complex range is, why do
you assume it to fall magically at the point at which macroevolution
begins? Yes, we all agree that mere changes in the nucleotides of a genome
without changing the size of the genome necessarily gives a finite number
of possible outcomes. But why do you insist that it is impossible to
get "severe divergence" within the dynamic range? I'm sure most of
us here would be willing to stipulate that you're right with your
extreme example of the bacterium and the dog, but you can't even prove
_that_ with your "dynamic range" concept, because you can't even
begin to quantify it. Your "dynamic range" is eerily similar to the
creationist's "kind."
ASSUMPTION #3: GENE DELETIONS ARE LETHAL/DISADVANTAGEOUS AS A RULE
Look up neoteny, paedomorphosis, and the evolution of direct-developers from
larval-developers (Raff & Kaufman's _Embryos, Genes, and Evolution_ is a
good source). In neoteny and paedomorphosis, what was the ancestral larval
form becomes the mature form. In other words, many of the genes coding
for transformation to maturity are lost. The evolution of direct development
is the other way around: the organism is born as the mature form, and
most of the genes coding for larval traits are lost. There are lots of
examples of both; the ones I can think of off the top of my head are
the axolotl for neoteny and a sea urchin for direct-development.
ASSUMPTION #4: CHANGES IN GENE NUMBER (ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS) NECESSARILY
IMPOSE "GENETIC INSTABILITY"
The important thing about the gene deletion examples is that,
counter-intuitive as it may be, messing with the early development
of an organism _doesn't_ necessarily wreak havoc on the rest of
its phenotype. To put it in Onar's terms, the loss of these genes
doesn't cause any more of a genetic instability than do mutations
within the original "dynamic range."
In addition, there is no reason to believe that the addition of new genes
necessarily causes "genetic instability" in the Aam sense (i.e. leading
somehow to an increased susceptibility to selection). Take for example
the most extreme form of gene addition: the evolution of polyploidy.
My advisor has triploid snails which he can't tell apart from diploid
except by electrophoresis. No "genetic instability" is in evidence, nor
is there particular evidence of an expanded dynamic range.
This assumption is the crux of the biscuit: if Onar can't show *with*
*empirical*data* that changes in the number of genes necessarily cause
more "genetic instability" than do mere changes in pre-existing genes,
his model collapses. I don't think he can do it.
ASSUMPTION #5: PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA HAVE BEEN PROVEN; "GRADUALISM" HAS
BEEN DISPROVED
(I just though I'd throw this one in here. It really doesn't affect
his model at all, but it is an incorrect assumption Onar makes. At least
I left out his assumptions about chaos theory and our understanding of
it.)
So, what do we have? Unless Onar can support his assumptions (particularly
#2 and #4) with data showing that biological systems really work the
way he insists they must, I figure his model tells us that there
must have been changes in gene number sometime during evolutionary history.
Wow, pretty earth-shattering, huh?
Onar Aam
Thankyou, Ray, for intelligent remarks.
> 2) However, there is a major factor you're overlooking here- multicellularity.
>Bacteria have enourmous selection pressure toward a small, efficient genome-
>they can't afford a lot of junk sitting around.
> Multicellular creatures become multicellular by turning on and off parts
>of their genome during embryotic development. It would be hardly surprising
>if perhaps some parts of the genome were *never* turned on simply by chance-
>that portion *had* an effect a long time ago, but not now. (Consider what
>would happen if the genes that code for an appendix were skipped- not a whole
>lot.)
If you read my text more carefully you will see that I stated that
multicellular life did not have the same selective preassure on efficiency as do
bacterias. This is effect the same thing you are saying.
> 3) Indeed, it's even more complicated because there's so much junk DNA in
>modern creatures. This drastically increases the 'dynamic range' you propose,
>since we need not add genes to an existing species to expand the number of
>active genes- just activate some junk. (Of course, it would be rare that such
>an activation was beneficial, but beneficial point mutations are rare too.)
Junk DNA is largely a biproduct of evolution. Much of it is pseudogenes, eroded
genes left over after a geneduplication.
> 4) Gene increase happens all the time. I understand ome species of mosquito
>gained a near-immunity to a common pesticide by doubling the gene that codes
>for a protein that meabolizes the pesticide-- and this happened in recent
>times. Given a few billion years, genome expansion is not all that unlikely.
>(Does anyone have a reference for this?)
This is exactly what I am saying. Although I never said that geneduplication HAS
to have great impact on the species. In most cases it does not. (Hence all the
junk DNA)
>> But what I CAN do is to sketch the 'typical' path of evolution:
>>
>>Assume that you have a specie which is adapted to the environment in which it
>>lives. It can then be said to be in a state of genetic stability. The specie
>>remains approximately unchanged for a large amount of time, say 10 million years.
>>Suddenly there occurs a new gene in the genome which alters the specie
>>sufficiently to be called a new specie. The new specie is probably in the state
>>of genetic unstability. Therefore the selective preassure on the new specie will
>>be strong and will therefore undergo a time of rapid microevolution until genetic
>>stability once again is reached.
>
> This is almost exactly opposite to the way evolution is proposed to act.
>Or is that your point? I mean, the general idea of evolution is that
>if the *environment* changes the species alters to fit the new environment.
>This has been recently extended to note that small, geographically isolated
>populations are much more sensitive to environmntal pressure and much more
>likely to speciate under such conditions.
> (Again, I'm no biologist, and I'd appreciate someone summarizing that better.)
Again, what you say is absolutely true. I never stated WHY it happened, I merely
stated HOW it happened. Thus, my statement does not contradict yours, does it?
> No, no, no. you seem to think that species undergo massive changes in short
>periods of time. This is not supported in the fossil record. A new species
>usually looks almost exactly like an old species. Not only that, they generally
>have almost the same lifestyle as its 'parent' species- slight differences,
>at most.
> If the changes in environment are too great... the species goes extinct without
>the chance to give rise to a new species that can handle it.
> Sabretooth tigrs appaently evolved many times; when there were herds of
>really huge cattle, some cat evolved to be big and have large teeth (apparently
>to quickly sever the jugular veins.) When the really big cattle died off...
>so did the sabretooths, without getting the chance to become smaller and
>hunt something else.
> You don't seem to recognize that there si a lot of pressure to keep new
>species related to old... the more, and more major changes to DNA, the
>exponentially more likely it is that something will go wrong. Small, safe
>steps are the way to go.
The fossil record supports long spans with no (read small) change and then
sudden change. It is called Punctuated Equilibrium. (the change need not be great)
>>Happily the genetic system is nonlinear. This means that a large change in the
>>genome does not necessarily correspond with a large change in anatomy or
>>features. And for that matter, a small change does not necessarily correspond
>>with a small change in anatomy or features. A perfect example of this is the
>>relation between chimps and humans. We're genetically 99% identical, but it
>>doesn't look like it.
>
> Yeah, but don't read too much into that. In fact, it argues against your case;lif you can go from some common ancestor to either chimps or humans, without
>adding genes, just doing small changes to gene sequences...
You are right again. I mentioned that to show that small changes (like a mutation)
could produce immense effects. An interesting thing to philosophise about is
whether chimps and humans can produce firtile offsprings. (Not under natural
conditions, that is. Some parts of the genomes need to be fixed a bit.) And the
scaring thing is that they probably could...
> Hey, Im a chaos enthisiast too, Onam. (I also recommend that people at
>least read Chaos, it's an awesome book!) But let's not get carried away.
>We can't really know how chaos theory applies to evolution yet.
> For example, how could we plot a strange attractor for evolution? How
>many dimensions do you think it would have? What variables, and what would
>be the Lyapunov exponents? Can we give a rigorous definition that would allow
>us to state, "This species is more complex thant that one"? What routes to
>chaos do you think apply... bifurcation? Period doubling? What would be
>the initial critical points?
Ray, I am sure that you know that biological clocks are governed by chaotic
mechanisms. Some of these have already been well mapped. That evolution is also
governed by chaotic mechanisms is also fairly well detected - and for the same
reasons. Biological systems (cells,organs,organisms etc.) are all
"far-from-equilibrium" systems; they need a constant flow of energy to retain the
potential that drives them. Take away the energy (food) and they die. An analogy
can be produced for evolution. Life as a whole is ultimately a
"far-from-equilibrium" system with its main energy source from the sun. The
energy is expressed in form of natural selection. If a gene is subject to
selective preassure then it will be preserved (potential retained). If not then
the gene will erode (die). This system is clearly a nonlinear process. And you
yourself stated the problems: we don't have a clue to how evolution "really"
works. That is perhaps some of the greatest tasks in biology in the future. Heavy
research is needed. And therefore I don't have the capasity to answer your
questions.
Onar.
Ray Ingles
>
>
>Thankyou, Ray, for intelligent remarks.
Well, it's nice of you to say so, but I think that we'd really benefit
from a real biologist or two hopping in... :->
>> 2) However, there is a major factor you're overlooking here- multicellularity
[deletions]
>If you read my text more carefully you will see that I stated that
>multicellular life did not have the same selective preassure on efficiency as do
>bacterias. This is effect the same thing you are saying.
Point (somewhat) conceded. I still think you are overlooking the degree
to which this affects things, but I can't really make a case for it so
I won't post a lot of ignorant speculation.
(I just realized that could be interpreted as a sideways insult to you.
That's not what I meant; I just don't feel qualified to argue this point.)
>> 3) Indeed, it's even more complicated because there's so much junk DNA in
>>modern creatures. This drastically increases the 'dynamic range' you propose,
>>since we need not add genes to an existing species to expand the number of
>>active genes- just activate some junk. (Of course, it would be rare that such
>>an activation was beneficial, but beneficial point mutations are rare too.)
>
>Junk DNA is largely a biproduct of evolution. Much of it is pseudogenes, eroded
>genes left over after a geneduplication.
But this just means that it is even more potentially functional than any
random peice of DNA. I still think this affects the 'dynamic range' you're
talking about drastically. I.e. there's a lot more DNA than is being used
at any given time; thus, new functions can be added simply by (fortuitously)
accessing junk DNA (or dropping some function into the 'junk') rather than
adding new genes _de_novo_. (I always wanted to use that phrase...:-> )
>> 4) Gene increase happens all the time. I understand ome species of mosquito
>>gained a near-immunity to a common pesticide by doubling the gene that codes
>>for a protein that meabolizes the pesticide-- and this happened in recent
>>times. Given a few billion years, genome expansion is not all that unlikely.
>>(Does anyone have a reference for this?)
>
>This is exactly what I am saying. Although I never said that geneduplication HAS
>to have great impact on the species. In most cases it does not. (Hence all the
>junk DNA)
I'm trying to understand your point, then. Are you saying that the role
of gene duplication (or other forms of genome expansion) is not fully
appreciated in modern evolutionary theory, or what?
>>> But what I CAN do is to sketch the 'typical' path of evolution:
>>>
>>>Assume that you have a specie which is adapted to the environment in
>>>which it lives. It can then be said to be in a state of genetic stability.
>>>The species remains approximately unchanged for a large amount of time,
>>>say 10 million years. Suddenly there occurs a new gene in the genome which
>>>alters the specie sufficiently to be called a new specie. The new specie
>>>is probably in the state of genetic unstability.
>>>Therefore the selective preassure on the new specie will
>>>be strong and will therefore undergo a time of rapid microevolution until
>>>genetic stability once again is reached.
>>
>> This is almost exactly opposite to the way evolution is proposed to act.
>>Or is that your point? I mean, the general idea of evolution is that
>>if the *environment* changes the species alters to fit the new environment.
>>This has been recently extended to note that small, geographically isolated
>>populations are much more sensitive to environmntal pressure and much more
>>likely to speciate under such conditions.
>>(Again, I'm no biologist, and I'd appreciate someone summarizing that better.)
>
>
>Again, what you say is absolutely true. I never stated WHY it happened, I merely
>stated HOW it happened. Thus, my statement does not contradict yours, does it?
So you are saying that current evolutionary theory has the cause and effect
reversed?
What current evolutionary theory says (as far as I understand it) is that
mutations, gene duplications, etc. happen at a fairly constant rate. (Except
maybe in some bacteria.) If a population is both small, and isolated from
other groups of the same species, then a given mutation, if beneficial,
has a much greater chance of spreading throughout the population.
Given a bit more time, and a few sets of mutations occurring, the isolated
subgroup may become unable to breed with the wider population; i.e. a new
species emerges. If the geographical isolation is later removed (an earthquake
opens up a previously isolated valley, etc.) the two species, old and new,
will intermingle. If the new species still competes with the old species,
and is better at competing, it will tend to drive out the old species.
What you seem to be proposing is that a new species will emerge if the
new mutation is such that it 'destabilizes' the previous equilibrium. In
the section I originally responded to, you seem to be saying that a species
which is already adapted to its environment still has selection pressure
to make major changes or something... What in the above characterization I
gave do you disagree with, or would like to add to?
>> No, no, no. you seem to think that species undergo massive changes in short
>>periods of time. This is not supported in the fossil record. A new species
>>usually looks almost exactly like an old species. Not only that, they generally
>>have almost the same lifestyle as its 'parent' species- slight differences,
>>at most.
>> If the changes in environment are too great... the species goes extinct without
>>the chance to give rise to a new species that can handle it.
[Sabretooth example deleted]
>The fossil record supports long spans with no (read small) change and then
>sudden change. It is called Punctuated Equilibrium. (the change need not be great)
'Sudden' on what scale? The timescale of the kind of mutation you seem to
be proposing is effectively instantaneous; speciation usually takes at *least*
a few hundred years (generally) I understand.
[deletions]
>You are right again. I mentioned that to show that small changes (like a mutation)
>could produce immense effects. An interesting thing to philosophise about is
>whether chimps and humans can produce firtile offsprings. (Not under natural
>conditions, that is. Some parts of the genomes need to be fixed a bit.) And the
>scaring thing is that they probably could...
I have heard that some genetics researchers have successfully combined
human and hamster genetic material; the resulting embryos develop for
quite awhile before dying. (I have no references for this, though... should
I hop over to alt.folklore.science with this one?) It's an interesting
question as to whether these 'humsters' could ever make it to term... but
I doubt it.
>> Hey, I'm a chaos enthusiast too, Onar. (I also recommend that people at
>>least read Chaos, it's an awesome book!) But let's not get carried away.
>>We can't really know how chaos theory applies to evolution yet.
>> For example, how could we plot a strange attractor for evolution? How
>>many dimensions do you think it would have? What variables, and what would
>>be the Lyapunov exponents? Can we give a rigorous definition that would allow
>>us to state, "This species is more complex thant that one"? What routes to
>>chaos do you think apply... bifurcation? Period doubling? What would be
>>the initial critical points?
>
>
>Ray, I am sure that you know that biological clocks are governed by chaotic
>mechanisms. Some of these have already been well mapped. That evolution is also
>governed by chaotic mechanisms is also fairly well detected - and for the same
>reasons.
We know biological clocks (like heartbeat, etc.) are governed by nonlinear
systems that can be pushed into chaotic regimes, yes. And many biological
structures can be successfully modeled as fractals (like lungs, blood vessels,
etc.) But that is because we can do the calculations and measure the effects.
I would *really* like to see how this effect has been detected in 'evolution'
(hopefully in some journal article?).
> Biological systems (cells,organs,organisms etc.) are all
>"far-from-equilibrium" systems; they need a constant flow of energy to retain the
>potential that drives them. Take away the energy (food) and they die. An analogy
>can be produced for evolution. Life as a whole is ultimately a
>"far-from-equilibrium" system with its main energy source from the sun. The
>energy is expressed in form of natural selection.
Um, actually, I think the energy is expressed in metabolizing and
reproducing. Natural selection is at least a second-order effect.
> If a gene is subject to
>selective preassure then it will be preserved (potential retained). If not then
>the gene will erode (die). This system is clearly a nonlinear process. And you
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
Not all that is nonlinear is chaotic/fractal, even though all that is
fractal/chaotic is nonlinear.
>yourself stated the problems: we don't have a clue to how evolution "really"
>works. That is perhaps some of the greatest tasks in biology in the future. Heavy
>research is needed. And therefore I don't have the capasity to answer your
>questions.
okay, so this is just your best guess/speculation, right? You're saying you
*suspect* this but can't prove it yet, I take it?
(That's not an attack, I'm trying to make sure I understand what you
say.)
Onar Aam
>selection) of changes (usually one or a few at a time). Whether those
>changes are point mutations or gene doubling, was not my concern. I
>don't see why it is necessary to make the distinction that you do between
>the changes.
>
>>A suggestion for all of you who find my explanations on dynamic systems
>>insufficient: use a year or two of your life to study Nonlinear-,
>>Chaotic-,Complex- and Dynamical systems. Then come back and discuss
>>with me.
>
>
>The onus is on the one explaining to explain in such a fashion that
>his readers can understand. Telling us to go away until we are
>smart enough to talk to you is likely to be counterproductive and
>doesn't improve communication.
>
Maybe I was a bit irrational, but I was so schocked that the repliers had never
heard about dynamical systems because they are crucial in the understanding of
life.
>[more deleted]
>The part deleted seems to be making the point that if you increase
>the number of genes, then the space of possible gene combinations
>(and therefore the space of possible organisms) increases as well.
>Which, put that way, seems perfectly reasonable.
Yes, and that is the theoretical limit of genetic diversity, but there is more to
it than that. Dynamic systems are dynamical (oh, really), but they are also to a
certain extent rigid. When, of all possibilities, a path in evolution has been
'chosen', there are restrictions in the ways this system can change (without
increasing complexity). On further thoughts I do admit that these limits need not
be within a specie. A specie is not THAT rigid a system, but it is still not that
loose, either. Read my 'Further Clarifications' to see examples of the rigidness.
Jon Livesey
|> >
|> >The onus is on the one explaining to explain in such a fashion that
|> >his readers can understand. Telling us to go away until we are
|> >smart enough to talk to you is likely to be counterproductive and
|> >doesn't improve communication.
|> >
|>
|> Maybe I was a bit irrational, but I was so schocked that the repliers had never
|> heard about dynamical systems because they are crucial in the understanding of
|> life.
I don't recall anyone saying that they had never heard of dynamical
systems. I know that what I asked you to do was to justify your
claims about them and their relationship to evolution.
|> Yes, and that is the theoretical limit of genetic diversity, but there
|> is more to it than that. Dynamic systems are dynamical (oh, really),
|> but they are also to a certain extent rigid. When, of all possibilities,
|> a path in evolution has been 'chosen', there are restrictions in the
|> ways this system can change (without increasing complexity).
Please explain in more detail.
jon.
Chris Colby
>It is not possible IMHO to claim that
>any of the early nodes rank higher (or lower) than later nodes or living
>species.
Um Larry, if you can spare some time out of your busy schedule, could
you try reading what I wrote and responding that? I am claiming that
_traits_ are distributed in a hierarchical (or nested) pattern. I am
not saying organisms (or species) are arranged in a hierarchy. At
(or before) the node on any dendrogram or cladogram would be the
_traits_, not the species. To use plants as an example, the trait
"flower" would be at the top of the angiosperm hierarchy. Branching
below this would be two lineages that both share this trait. But, one has
a collection of monocot traits (characteristic number of cotyledons (1)
and venation pattern) and other a collection of dicot traits (i.e. two
cotyledons and a different venation pattern.) This pattern of branching
leads to some _traits_ (have I mentioned that I'm not talking about
organisms?) being at higher levels than others.
A cladogram is a graphic representation of how traits are distributed
amongst species. The process of evolutionary descent with modification
is _inferred_ from this. So, (IMHO) you can't say that species are at
any one node _from cladistic information alone_. But, you can say a trait
is. You need to discriminate between the representation of the data and
the inferences drawn from it.
>Are we supposed to believe that
>different mechanisms of evolution operated at different periods in the past
>so that the process that gave rise to the ancestor of all chordates (for
>example) was different from that which gave rise to the ancestors of reptiles
>and amphibians?
No Larry, you are supposed to believe that it is in theory possible
for selection to work at different levels. For example, genes can be
a unit of selection (an example would be transposable elements or
segregation distortion genes -- these have a differential reproductive
success compared to other genes _within_ a genome). Individuals can
be a unit of selection. They can have a differential reproductive
success compared to others in a population. The individual is (IMHO)
probably the most common unit of selection. And, populations or
groups can be selected. Group selection is theoretically possible
and demonstrated in _Tribolium_ once (and that's it to the best of
my knowledge). In order for the group to be the unit of selection,
it must be the group as a unit that exhibits differential success
-- this difference must not reduce to a sum of differential repro
successes of individuals comprising the group. Put another way,
the group must exhibit an emergent phenomena that is heritable (at
the group level) and this heritable emergent property must confer
a differential reproductive success to the group as compared to
other groups. If selection is working at different levels of
organization (gene, organism, population) then the process of
evolution is hierarchical (or nested if you object to the term
hierarchy).
Endler, in his book "Natural Selection in the Wild", has a discussion
of this. Sober, in his anthology "Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary
Biology", has a section devoted to this. Richard Lewontin, Stephen
Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, William Wimsatt and Eliot Sober all
have a chapter devoted to this subject.
I think that selection operates primarily at the level of the
individual, although lower level selection is more common than
is generally recognised (IMHO). In addition, evolution (not
due to selection) also has a hierarchical (or nested) component
when you consider concerted evolution (a pattern of nucleotide
diversity seen within repetive genetic sequences). I do not
think "higher" levels of selection are important in the evolution
of life on this planet. In particular, I think the idea that
entire species are units of selection is ludicrous (although I'll
buy that populations may, on occasion, have the prerequisites for
selection to act among them.)
>Laurence A. Moran (Larry)
Andy Peters
>In article <1992Oct15.1...@hsr.no>, on...@hsr.no (Onar Aam) writes
>|> Maybe I was a bit irrational, but I was so schocked
>|> that the repliers had never
>|> heard about dynamical systems because
>|> they are crucial in the understanding of
>|> life.
>
>I don't recall anyone saying that they had never heard of dynamical
>systems. I know that what I asked you to do was to justify your
>claims about them and their relationship to evolution.
Yes, and I explicitly listed the unsupported assumptions of your (Onar's)
model; you have yet to respond. Did you miss the post? Until the
assumptions are supported, you have no basis to assert that dynamical
systems are important in the way you say they are.
>jon.
Herb Huston
>ASSUMPTION #3: GENE DELETIONS ARE LETHAL/DISADVANTAGEOUS AS A RULE
>Look up neoteny, paedomorphosis, and the evolution of direct-developers from
>larval-developers (Raff & Kaufman's _Embryos, Genes, and Evolution_ is a
>good source). In neoteny and paedomorphosis, what was the ancestral larval
>form becomes the mature form. In other words, many of the genes coding
>for transformation to maturity are lost. The evolution of direct development
>is the other way around: the organism is born as the mature form, and
>most of the genes coding for larval traits are lost. There are lots of
>examples of both; the ones I can think of off the top of my head are
>the axolotl for neoteny and a sea urchin for direct-development.
There are also some neotenous mammals. Humans are the most dramatic example.
Didn't Bolk describe us as "precocious fetal apes?"
-- Herb Huston
Onar Aam
Andy, If you read my reply, I moderated my assumption that species simply HAVE
to stay within its own 'kind', as you put it, unless an increase in complexity
occurs. This could easily be disproven by the fact that there are a lot more
species of birds, not to mention insects, than there are of mammals. If
speciation was due only to increase in the number of genes then this would imply
that birds as well as insects possess more genes than mammals. And this, as far
as I know, is false.
As far as "genetic unstability" is concerned: This is not some "magic"
expression which states that a duplication renders havoc in the genes. (I have
never stated this) It simply means that after a genetic change which leads to a
sufficiently large morphological change the specie is no longer adapted to its
environment. I used the examples of birds. When they first started using their
wings for flying they were not at all 'red barons' in the sky. I.e. there was
genetic unstability. (The term is abstract). Then a severe selective preassure
leads to the optimal solutions which we know from birds today. I.e genetic
stability was reached. Note that gene duplications does not automatically induce
genetic unstability. In fact, the opposite is true. Only a low percentage of the
gene duplications leads to genetic unstability. The rest will have little or no
impact on the specie and will gradually erode ( because of the second law of
thermodynamics.(I hope that I wont be flamed because of my free use of the 2nd
law of thermodynamics)). Hence the large amount of junk DNA (not all of it).
Also genetic unstability does not have to come from changes in the genome.
The original area where genetic unstability occurs is when the environment, in
which a specie lives, changes and thereof the adaption of the specie. In fact,
the analogy to genetic instability is how adapted a specie is to its environment.
I haven't seen any comments yet on 'Further Clarification'. Does this mean
that you have accepted my explanation?
Onar.
Andy Peters
>Andy, If you read my reply, I moderated my assumption that species simply HAVE
>to stay within its own 'kind', as you put it, unless an increase in complexity
>occurs.
Ahh, but this statement still carries the implicit assumption that
biological complexity cannot increase without an increase in genome
size, an assumption for which there is no support because you cannot
define the dynamic range.
> As far as "genetic unstability" is concerned: This is not some "magic"
>expression which states that a duplication renders havoc in the genes. (I have
>never stated this) It simply means that after a genetic change which
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>leads to a sufficiently large morphological change the specie is no longer
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>adapted to its environment.
This is all well and good. You still have to have empirical support for
your assumption that gene addition is more likely to lead to such a
genetic change than changes without changing the number of genes.
[deletions of more arguments which depend on the above assumption]
> Also genetic unstability does not have to come from changes in the genome.
>The original area where genetic unstability occurs is when the environment, in
>which a specie lives, changes and thereof the adaption of the specie. In fact,
>the analogy to genetic instability is how adapted a specie is to its environment.
If I may transform this argument from modified-chaotic to standard biological
terms: changes in selection on an organism may arise from changes in the
genome of the organism or from changes in the environment. This is nothing
new, except your terminology.
> I haven't seen any comments yet on 'Further Clarification'. Does this mean
>that you have accepted my explanation?
No.
Onar Aam
>>>gained a near-immunity to a common pesticide by doubling the gene that codes
>>>for a protein that meabolizes the pesticide-- and this happened in recent
>>>times. Given a few billion years, genome expansion is not all that unlikely.
>>>(Does anyone have a reference for this?)
>>
>>This is exactly what I am saying. Although I never said that geneduplication HAS
>>to have great impact on the species. In most cases it does not. (Hence all the
>>junk DNA)
>
> I'm trying to understand your point, then. Are you saying that the role
>of gene duplication (or other forms of genome expansion) is not fully
>appreciated in modern evolutionary theory, or what?
Yes, I am. I don't regard the enourmous genomeexpansions as "something that just
happens". I suspect that there is a mechanism behind it, perhaps an evolutionary
one. I am not saying that gene duplication evolved, although the thought is
interesting. Too me it seems that no mechanisms has evolved to prevent gene
duplication. On the conrary, it seems like the effect ofgene duplication has been
strengthened. Is this a way to make evolution more efficient? Remember, 3 billion
years was needed to produce multicellular life. Only 3/4 billion years was needed
to produce beings with often 100 times more genes than bacterias. THAT I think is
no coincidence.
[some deleted]
I have never thought of it that way. Normally when species are isolated for long
periods of time they tend to become LESS competitive than their competitors. Ex.
Look at the animals of Austraila. They have no natural enimies in carnivores.
Release some rabbits from Europe or a frog from America and all hell's breaking
loose... Normally if a specie is adapted it stays like it is until it HAS to
readapt. This means, I think, that I pretty much agree with you. Originally I
didn't state a cause, but that doesn't mean that there is no cause....
>>The fossil record supports long spans with no (read small) change and then
>>sudden change. It is called Punctuated Equilibrium. (the change need not be great)
>
> 'Sudden' on what scale? The timescale of the kind of mutation you seem to
>be proposing is effectively instantaneous; speciation usually takes at *least*
>a few hundred years (generally) I understand.
The 'sudden' I am talking about is from one generation to another. This is an
extremely punctuated kind of evolution. Of course I am not saying that from one
generation to another a completely new feature comes along. What I am talking
about are changes which trigger a strong selective preassure. THEN the specie
gradually adapts until equilibrium is reached (and the new feature has evolved).
( This might be all from 100s of years to 1000s of years, depending on the
selective preassure.) How common this is I do not know, but I suspect it to be not
uncommon at least.
[some more deleted]
>>Ray, I am sure that you know that biological clocks are governed by chaotic
>>mechanisms. Some of these have already been well mapped. That evolution is also
>>governed by chaotic mechanisms is also fairly well detected - and for the same
>>reasons.
>
> We know biological clocks (like heartbeat, etc.) are governed by nonlinear
>systems that can be pushed into chaotic regimes, yes. And many biological
>structures can be successfully modeled as fractals (like lungs, blood vessels,
>etc.) But that is because we can do the calculations and measure the effects.
> I would *really* like to see how this effect has been detected in 'evolution'
>(hopefully in some journal article?).
I don't have any immediate references, but try out stuff on supercriticality and
perhaps the popular book 'The arrow of time'. Author I do not recall.
> Biological systems (cells,organs,organisms etc.) are all
>>"far-from-equilibrium" systems; they need a constant flow of energy to retain the
>>potential that drives them. Take away the energy (food) and they die. An analogy
>>can be produced for evolution. Life as a whole is ultimately a
>>"far-from-equilibrium" system with its main energy source from the sun. The
>>energy is expressed in form of natural selection.
>
> Um, actually, I think the energy is expressed in metabolizing and
>reproducing. Natural selection is at least a second-order effect.
Of course it is. Natural selection is the energy expressed in competition
and "problem solving".
>> If a gene is subject to
>>selective preassure then it will be preserved (potential retained). If not then
>>the gene will erode (die). This system is clearly a nonlinear process. And you
> ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
>Not all that is nonlinear is chaotic/fractal, even though all that is
>fractal/chaotic is nonlinear.
I know. I didn't use the term 'nonlinear' without purpose, you know. Perhaps
evolution also is chaotic, but it is at least nonlinear. This is given by the
itterative nature of evolution. Besides, all the conditions for nonlinearity is
present.
>>yourself stated the problems: we don't have a clue to how evolution "really"
>>works. That is perhaps some of the greatest tasks in biology in the future. Heavy
>>research is needed. And therefore I don't have the capasity to answer your
>>questions.
>
> okay, so this is just your best guess/speculation, right? You're saying you
>*suspect* this but can't prove it yet, I take it?
> (That's not an attack, I'm trying to make sure I understand what you
>say.)
Yup.
Mickey Rowe
(Onar Aam) writes:
>Normally when species are isolated for long periods of time they tend
>to become LESS competitive than their competitors. Ex. Look at the
>animals of Austraila. They have no natural enimies in carnivores.
Onar, you once said something to the effect that you don't learn about
the Modern Synthesis from creationist literature. Could said
literature be your principal source of information? Despite the
chauvinism of a lot of us placentals, marsupials are not inherently
inferior. And the dingo, the marsupial wolf and the tasmanian devil
will probably be crushed to hear that you don't know of them. (Peter,
could you fill in some blanks here? What other examples am I missing?)
>Release some rabbits from Europe or a frog from America and all hell's breaking
>loose...
Kind of like the way it broke loose here in the U.S. when tamarisk was
introduced, or house sparrows, or rock doves, or Norway rats, or
horses, or South African clawed frogs or...
Please don't get the idea that I agree with the other things you wrote
just because I didn't explicitly respond to them.
Mickey Rowe (ro...@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Onar Aam
>the Modern Synthesis from creationist literature. Could said
>literature be your principal source of information? Despite the
>chauvinism of a lot of us placentals, marsupials are not inherently
>inferior. And the dingo, the marsupial wolf and the tasmanian devil
>will probably be crushed to hear that you don't know of them. (Peter,
>could you fill in some blanks here? What other examples am I missing?)
I have read quite a few books on creationism, but I have read numerous more on
biology, dynamical systems, genetics, quantum mechanics and several other topics.
But would you honestly say that Australian animals could survive in the
competition with ,say, the Europeian carnivores?
Onar Aam
>|> is more to it than that. Dynamic systems are dynamical (oh, really),
>|> but they are also to a certain extent rigid. When, of all possibilities,
>|> a path in evolution has been 'chosen', there are restrictions in the
>|> ways this system can change (without increasing complexity).
>
>Please explain in more detail.
>
>jon.
The best way to explain what dynamical systems are is to give some examples...
I am a composer so it would be natural for me to refer to music.
Most instruments are dynamical systems. They have ristrictions on what behaviour
they can produce. Music itself is a dynamical system. Chess is a dynamical
system. Organisms ( behaviour) are dynamical systems. So is chaotic systems. (but
dynamical systems are not necessarily chaotic.) In fact, most physical systems
which are more complex than the most elementary are dynamical and there
is no reason why evolution should be an exception.
Generally a dynamical system has certain bondages in some vector-space. But within
these bondages the system can freely respond to the environment. Also if a system
contains attractors it is most likely to be a dynamical system.
Examples that are outside their dynamical ranges respectively:
certain creationist explanations (hydrological sorting(?) ). They are outside the
dynamic range of the physical laws that governs the universe.
That humans can destroy life on earth ( Now, THAT would violate the 2nd law of
thermodynamics: A product of evolution is not capable of destroying the system
upon which it is based. Similarly, a cup of warm coffe could not suddenly turn
cold if the heat transfer is positive i.e. that cup is being heated more than it
is being cooled.)
PS: In theory this IS possible, but highly unlikely. Just like it IS possible for
the water in a glass to suddenly rise 10 feet above the glass without any
particular reason. (All molecules have a certain inner kinetic energy expressed
as stochastic (1/f^2 - noise) motion. If all the water molecules in the glass had
a motion directed upwards, the water would rise from the glass. The likeliness of
this event, however, is zero.)
And yes, thermodynamics is highly important in dynamical systems.
Mickey Rowe
>>Onar, you once said something to the effect that you don't learn about
>>the Modern Synthesis from creationist literature. Could said
>>literature be your principal source of information? Despite the
>>chauvinism of a lot of us placentals, marsupials are not inherently
>>inferior. And the dingo, the marsupial wolf and the tasmanian devil
>>will probably be crushed to hear that you don't know of them. (Peter,
>>could you fill in some blanks here? What other examples am I missing?)
>I have read quite a few books on creationism, but I have read
>numerous more ...
I have two questions for you then: Did you expect to read about the
modern synthesis in creationist literature? And have you heard about
it in other places at least?
>But would you honestly say that Australian animals could survive in the
>competition with ,say, the Europeian carnivores?
Some would, some wouldn't. It would largely depend on where the
"competition" was to take place. Do you really think that any of your
European carnivores could outcompete the crocodiles (I can't believe I
didn't think about them before!) in the crocodiles' native habitat?
Do you really think that many European carnivores would find the
echidna to be an easy meal? How easily could a wolf capture a koala
if you didn't pull the koala off of the eucalyptus tree first? Do you
really think that Australia is so isolated, and that carnivores on
other continents are so generalized that hunting in Australia is
like shooting fish in a bucket? If you do, then I think you're
*quite* mistaken.
Mickey Rowe (ro...@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Ray Ingles
[section where we discuss the idea that gene duplication is underrated
in modern evolutionary theory]
You could be right, I suppose. As a *very* indirect line of evidence,
I understand that there exist genes in certain bacteria that regulate
the rate of mutation of other genes. It seems that when mutation drops
below a certain level, the bacteria are generally found to be 'less fit'
in many environments that the mutation-prone varieties.
[big deletion]
>>>The fossil record supports long spans with no (read small) change and then
>>>sudden change. It is called Punctuated Equilibrium. (the change need not be great)
>>
>> 'Sudden' on what scale? The timescale of the kind of mutation you seem to
>>be proposing is effectively instantaneous; speciation usually takes at *least*
>>a few hundred years (generally) I understand.
>
>
>The 'sudden' I am talking about is from one generation to another. This is an
>extremely punctuated kind of evolution. Of course I am not saying that from one
>generation to another a completely new feature comes along. What I am talking
>about are changes which trigger a strong selective preassure. THEN the specie
>gradually adapts until equilibrium is reached (and the new feature has evolved)
>. (This might be all from 100s of years to 1000s of years, depending on the
>selective preassure.) How common this is I do not know, but I suspect it to
>be not uncommon at least.
I think you need to explain thos to me in a little more detail. I'm not sure
I understand. This seems to be a kind of 'saltationist' theory, where
a greatly-altered individual is born, and has to hope that another, similarly
altered individual is born at the same time...
[discussion of chaotic effects deleted]
>> I would *really* like to see how this effect has been detected in 'evolution'
>>(hopefully in some journal article?).
>
>I don't have any immediate references, but try out stuff on supercriticality
>and perhaps the popular book 'The arrow of time'. Author I do not recall.
Well, I've heard of the book. I'll see if I can track it down, but I
can't promise to read it anytime soon.
>> Biological systems (cells,organs,organisms etc.) are all
>>>"far-from-equilibrium" systems; they need a constant flow of energy to
>>>reatain the potential that drives them. Take away the energy (food) and
>>>they die. An analogy can be produced for evolution. Life as a whole is
>>>ultimately a "far-from-equilibrium" system with its main energy source
>>>from the sun. The energy is expressed in form of natural selection.
>>
>> Um, actually, I think the energy is expressed in metabolizing and
>>reproducing. Natural selection is at least a second-order effect.
>
>Of course it is. Natural selection is the energy expressed in competition
>and "problem solving".
No, no, I think you're mixing definitions here. Look at it this way; the
letters on the scren you're reading this from can be discussed as electrons
striking a reactive surface that then emits photons, or in terms of the
algorithims used to produce them, or at the level at which you read them
and understand them. Each description is valid, but emphasizes different
levels. It's not useful to talk about Schroedinger's Equation when describing
how you read the letters; nor is it useful to talk about the point I'm trying
to make when describing the materials the screen is made of.
Similarly, the energy the Earth receives from the sun fuels living things
on Earth; but natural selection is a law *about* life, not a law that
applies to any great degree over a single animal's lifetime.
I'm not expressing this very well; I'll think about a way to explain it more
clearly.
[deletions]
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles
ing...@engin.umich.edu
"The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to the
stars!" - Robert A. Heinlein
Ray Ingles
[deletions]
>That humans can destroy life on earth ( Now, THAT would violate the 2nd law of
>thermodynamics: A product of evolution is not capable of destroying the system
>upon which it is based.
[deletions]
You seem to be confusing levels again. The second law of thermo says
*nothing* about whether humans could destroy life on Earth or not. Imagine
using rockets to alter the orbits of many large asteroids, so that they
would all hit the Earth at once. It would be dificult, but no natural law
precludes us from doing it...
The second law of thermo no more prohibits humans from destroying life on
Earth than it prevents me from killing my parents. I can't see any reason
why I'd *want* to, but I could do it.
Onar Aam
>>>the Modern Synthesis from creationist literature. Could said
>>>literature be your principal source of information? Despite the
>>>chauvinism of a lot of us placentals, marsupials are not inherently
>>>inferior. And the dingo, the marsupial wolf and the tasmanian devil
>>>will probably be crushed to hear that you don't know of them. (Peter,
>>>could you fill in some blanks here? What other examples am I missing?)
>
>>I have read quite a few books on creationism, but I have read
>>numerous more ...
>
>I have two questions for you then: Did you expect to read about the
>modern synthesis in creationist literature? And have you heard about
>it in other places at least?
I don't really understand your questions. Of course I have heard about it in
other places. I do expect creationists to argue against the most current update
of evolutionary theory( on second thoughts, perhaps I don't. I have never heard
about a creationist who doesn't quote some evolutionist from last century...)
>>But would you honestly say that Australian animals could survive in the
>>competition with ,say, the Europeian carnivores?
>
>Some would, some wouldn't. It would largely depend on where the
>"competition" was to take place. Do you really think that any of your
>European carnivores could outcompete the crocodiles (I can't believe I
>didn't think about them before!) in the crocodiles' native habitat?
>Do you really think that many European carnivores would find the
>echidna to be an easy meal? How easily could a wolf capture a koala
>if you didn't pull the koala off of the eucalyptus tree first? Do you
>really think that Australia is so isolated, and that carnivores on
>other continents are so generalized that hunting in Australia is
>like shooting fish in a bucket? If you do, then I think you're
>*quite* mistaken.
>
>Mickey Rowe (ro...@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
We could bash about for hours with examples to make our point. We need to look at
this statistically. If we pick 1000 each of Europeian and Austrailian species at
random and then mix them together, would equally many species from Europe as from
Austrailia go extinct?
Onar.
Jon Livesey
|> >|> Yes, and that is the theoretical limit of genetic diversity, but there
|> >|> is more to it than that. Dynamic systems are dynamical (oh, really),
|> >|> but they are also to a certain extent rigid. When, of all possibilities,
|> >|> a path in evolution has been 'chosen', there are restrictions in the
|> >|> ways this system can change (without increasing complexity).
|> >
|> >Please explain in more detail.
|> >
|> >jon.
|>
|> The best way to explain what dynamical systems are is to give some examples...
No, I keep having to repeat this. I am *not* asking you to
explain to me what a dynamical system is. I am asking you
to explain how it is that dynamical systems support your
claims.
Now I have a slightly serious problem. You have evaded
this question three times in a row, even when I asked it
specifically. Each time, you brush it off with "You
need to read "Chaos"" or "You just don't know anything
about dynamical systems" or "Here are examples of dynamical
systems".
Now, one last time, what is it about dynamical systems that
supports your claims?
jon.
Onar Aam
>>and "problem solving".
>
> No, no, I think you're mixing definitions here. Look at it this way; the
>letters on the scren you're reading this from can be discussed as electrons
>striking a reactive surface that then emits photons, or in terms of the
>algorithims used to produce them, or at the level at which you read them
>and understand them. Each description is valid, but emphasizes different
>levels. It's not useful to talk about Schroedinger's Equation when describing
>how you read the letters; nor is it useful to talk about the point I'm trying
>to make when describing the materials the screen is made of.
> Similarly, the energy the Earth receives from the sun fuels living things
>on Earth; but natural selection is a law *about* life, not a law that
>applies to any great degree over a single animal's lifetime.
> I'm not expressing this very well; I'll think about a way to explain it more
>clearly.
>
>[deletions]
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ray Ingles
> ing...@engin.umich.edu
I understand what you are saying. I admit that this a quite free use of the 2nd
law of th. But the classical examples of the 2nd law are equally "off level" as
mine. Ex. a glass falls to he ground and breaks. Entrpoy increases. Ex. A drop of
ink is dropped into a glass of water. when stirring it, the color becomes
uniform. Entropy increases. This has really little to do with heat transfer and
stuff, right?
Onar.
Onar Aam
>Earth than it prevents me from killing my parents. I can't see any reason
>why I'd *want* to, but I could do it.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Ray Ingles || The above opinions are probably
> || not those of the University of
>ing...@engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.
Yes, you COULD do that. And some in fact do. But that is a local phenomenon. In a
glass of water there will be millions of molecules that are moving upwards. Some
would even escape the glass, but ALL of them would not suddenly do this.
You need to view the system as a whole. All humans wouldn't suddenly kill their
parents simultaniously. They COULD, but its highly unlikely.
Onar.
Herb Huston
This experiment has already been conducted. It was when the Isthmus of
Panama formed. Not only did some of the South American marsupials survive
the invasion by such North American predators as the jaguar, some of them
even established themselves in North America, e.g., the oppossum.
-- Herb Huston
Warren Vonroeschlaub
> > The second law of thermo no more prohibits humans from destroying life on
> >Earth than it prevents me from killing my parents. I can't see any reason
> >why I'd *want* to, but I could do it.
>
a
>glass of water there will be millions of molecules that are moving upwards.
Some
>would even escape the glass, but ALL of them would not suddenly do this.
Not suddenly, but given enough time it is guaranteed to happen (try it
yourself. A half liter glass will take 4 or 5 days, but it will eventually
loose all its water).
>You need to view the system as a whole. All humans wouldn't suddenly kill
their
>parents simultaniously. They COULD, but its highly unlikely.
This is more of a psycological limitation than a physical one. If someone
invented a way of remotely brainwashing everyone to kill their parents, it can
happen very quickly. The restrictions are mental, not physical.
| __L__ *******************************
-|- ___ * Warren Kurt vonRoeschlaub *
| | o | * kv...@iastate.edu *
|/ `---' * Iowa State University *
/| ___ * Math Department *
| |___| * 400 Carver Hall *
| |___| * Ames, IA 50011 *
J _____ *******************************
Onar Aam
>>>But would you honestly say that Australian animals could survive in the
>>>competition with ,say, the Europeian carnivores?
>>
>>Some would, some wouldn't. It would largely depend on where the
>>"competition" was to take place. Do you really think that any of your
>>European carnivores could outcompete the crocodiles (I can't believe I
>>didn't think about them before!) in the crocodiles' native habitat?
>>Do you really think that many European carnivores would find the
>>echidna to be an easy meal? How easily could a wolf capture a koala
>>if you didn't pull the koala off of the eucalyptus tree first? Do you
>>really think that Australia is so isolated, and that carnivores on
>>other continents are so generalized that hunting in Australia is
>>like shooting fish in a bucket? If you do, then I think you're
>>*quite* mistaken.
>>
>>Mickey Rowe (ro...@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
>>
>>We could bash about for hours with examples to make our point. We need to look at
>>this statistically. If we pick 1000 each of Europeian and Austrailian species at
>>random and then mix them together, would equally many species from Europe as from
>>Austrailia go extinct?
>
>This experiment has already been conducted. It was when the Isthmus of
>Panama formed. Not only did some of the South American marsupials survive
>the invasion by such North American predators as the jaguar, some of them
>even established themselves in North America, e.g., the oppossum.
>
>-- Herb Huston
As I said, we could bash about for hours with examples. I never said that no
Australian species would survive in the competition with others, I said that MORE
Europeian species than Australian species would survive. Of course this is a
mere thought experiment. I don't really think that it is possible to prove or
disprove either claims. (unless we complete the experiment that is!)
Onar.
Ray Ingles
What physical law prevents one human, equipped with the appropriate
technology, from arranging a large meteor strike on Earth?
Peter Lamb
>In article <1992Oct16....@hsr.no> on...@hsr.no
> (Onar Aam) writes:
>>Normally when species are isolated for long periods of time they tend
>>to become LESS competitive than their competitors. Ex. Look at the
>>animals of Austraila. They have no natural enimies in carnivores.
^^^lia
>Onar, you once said something to the effect that you don't learn about
>the Modern Synthesis from creationist literature. Could said
>literature be your principal source of information? Despite the
>chauvinism of a lot of us placentals, marsupials are not inherently
>inferior. And the dingo, the marsupial wolf and the tasmanian devil
>will probably be crushed to hear that you don't know of them. (Peter,
>could you fill in some blanks here? What other examples am I missing?)
(This is all from memory)
The dingo is a placental and a fairly recent arrival. It's simply a
variety of Canis familiaris & will interbreed in the wild with feral
dogs. It arrived in Australia with humans (I think in the second wave
of settlement about 20000 BP).
The marsupial wolf (aka. Tasmania tiger, thylacine) is now almost
certainly extinct. The last known living specimen died in the 1930's
in the Hobart Zoo. There have been no confirmed sightings since then.
Most `sightings' turn out to be of large conventional dogs. The history
of the thylacine lends some weight to the `placentals are superior'
story. The thylacine once ranged over most of eastern Australia; its
range started reducing at about the same time as the arrival of humans
and dogs in Australia. By the time of the first European settlement
(late 18C) it was restricted to the island of Tasmania. I think it is
still an open question as to whether the arrival of two very active
placental hunters was an important cause, or whether climate and
habitat changes were the main causes. The final extinction of the
thylacine was certainly by hunting. I think there was a bounty on the
Tasmanian tiger.
The Tasmanian devil is mostly a scavenger, but will kill if it needs
to. It's not very big; about the size of a large domestic cat. There's
also a "native cat" (I'll look it up if anyone is interested) which is
a rough analogue of the placental domestic cat (though not nearly so
analogous as the thylacine is to the placental dog family). It is not
very common.
Australia's best-known marsupials (the macropods and koalas) are
herbivores, and this sometimes leads to a false impression that the
Australia is not, like other places, "red in tooth and claw".
Of course, Australia's largest native predator is probably as big and
nasty as anyone elses: the saltwater crocodile, but its range is fairly
limited. There are also some reasonably large predatory birds, the
largest being the wedge-tailed eagle.
>>Release some rabbits from Europe or a frog from America and all
>> hell's breaking
>>loose...
The rabbits multiplied so fast because they were introduced free of
myxomytosis(sp?). When the disease was introduced into the Australian
stock, they were cut back drastically, although they are still a
problem in some parts of Australia. My parents live in one of these
areas, and the local shire councils in that area all have boards with
authority to compel farmers to kill rabbits (and control noxious weeds
like blackberry) on their properties.
Similarly, the cane toad lacks the predators, parasites and diseases
which control it in its native environment. As I understand it, there
is currently work being done on looking for natural control measures to
be taken against this introduced pest (which was itself introduced in
an early attempt at biological pest control), but finding something
that will attack just this species and no native species is not easy.
this species and no natof introduced plant species which have become a
problem, like the blackberry I mentioned above. The whole thing is much
more complicated than a simple "placentas are better than pouches"
argument. BTW, it appears that some marsupials are on the way to an
independent evolution of placentas. I've been saving up a posting on
this for the next "there's no such thing as half a wing" argument,
since there are some marsupials which have "half a placenta".
The main threat to Australian native fauna is, and has been
at least since the start of European settlement, loss of habitat.
Introduced predators, like foxes and feral cats and dogs, and
human hunting are a problem, but not so great as the loss of
their habitat.
Of course, some Australian native species have fared very well
since the start of European settlement. The larger kangaroos
in the more arid regions have benefited from the availability
of dams made for sheep and cattle; possums have adapted very well
to urban life.
--
Peter Lamb (p...@csis.dit.csiro.au)
Peter Lamb
> this species and no natof introduced plant species which have become a
>problem, like the blackberry I mentioned above.
Arrrggghh! This should read something like "There are a number of introduced
plant species ..."
--
Peter Lamb (p...@csis.dit.csiro.au)
Peter Lamb
>>>But would you honestly say that Australian animals could survive in the
>>>competition with ,say, the Europeian carnivores?
and the also writes:
>We could bash about for hours with examples to make our point. We need
>to look at this statistically. If we pick 1000 each of Europeian and
>Austrailian species at random and then mix them together, would equally
>many species from Europe as from Austrailia go extinct?
These are two very different questions. The answer to the first one is,
"Yes, certainly, and that's just what has happened." Carnivores, in
particular feral domesticated carnivores like cats and dogs, and foxes
(introduced so that the up-and-coming Australian aristocracy could
practice the "sport" accurately described by Oscar Wilde as "the
unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible") were introduced to Australia,
and native Australian species survive them.
Introduced carnivores have had (and continue to have) an impact on the
native species, but the threats to Australian native species are not
due simply to introduced wildlife, and the threats from introduced
wildlife are not restricted to predation by introduced carnivores.
Conversely, feral populations of wallabies survive in Britain, despite
their "inferiority" to European carnivores.
The answer to the second question has been addressed by Herb Hudson in
his post regarding the invasion of North America by marsupials from
South America (and the corresponding invasion of placentals in the
opposite direction). It is not at all clear whether the disappearance
of the marsupial megafauna in both Australia and S. America was due
solely, or even largely, to competition from placentals. Only two
placental species arrived in Australia at about this time.
--
Peter Lamb (p...@csis.dit.csiro.au)
Ray Ingles
to come from a placental mammal, and b) seemed to date *after* Australia's
separation from the other continents?
As I recall, this was taken as evidence that Australia's marsupials
may have outcompeted placentals fair and square way back when...
Onar Aam
Of course this could only be speculation, but most often with technology follows
the "wisdom" of how to handle it (I know many would disagree). Theoretically we
could blow up the earth very easily.I think it is fairly obvious that this
destruction has to be performed by a limited group of people. If this were to be
only ONE person he had to be either insane, religiously obsessed or a total
cynic. What is the chance that such a person(s) had the power and the opportunity
to perform this act? I would say close to zero. It is namely inherent in the
political systems that no single man or entity could possess this amount of
power. Sure, there are dictators, but even these have not the power needed.
But let's for a second assume that I am right. What is then the drive? It's
simple: People are afraid that the earth will go about, and THAT's why it wont.
What I am in effect saying is that the earth and life will not go about as long
as we believe that it CAN go about. And by the time we discover that it can't, no
human have the power needed. Ironically this means that my theory cannot for a
long time be generally accepted because that would disprove the theory. ;-}
Onar.
Onar Aam
True, but if you sum all the parents that have been killed by their children
during the history of mankind it will surely amount up to the number of living
humans. See, humans have an ability which water molecules don't - reproduction.
If we "helped" the water getting this ability by constantly pooring a little
water into the glass it would never run dry.
Onar.
cj...@minster.york.ac.uk
:...
: That humans can destroy life on earth ( Now, THAT would violate the
: 2nd law of thermodynamics: A product of evolution is not capable of
: destroying the system upon which it is based. Similarly, a cup of warm
: coffe could not suddenly turn cold if the heat transfer is positive
: i.e. that cup is being heated more than it is being cooled.)
(In Maxwell Smart accent)
That's the second most self-serving misapplication of the second
law of thermodynamics I've ever seen!
Felicitations -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Ray Ingles
>> What physical law prevents one human, equipped with the appropriate
>>technology, from arranging a large meteor strike on Earth?
>> Ray Ingles
[deletions]
What I gather is that you're arguing that no one would want to, so it
won't happen? This is different from saying a physical law prevents it,
which implies we are physicaly incapable of doing it. We are physically
incapable of accelerating an object to twice the speed of light; we
are not physically incapable of destroying all life on Earth. (That is,
it's possible, not that we could go out and do it tomorrow.)
>But let's for a second assume that I am right. What is then the drive? It's
>simple: People are afraid that the earth will go about, and THAT's why it wont.
^^^^^
(Just as an aside, I think the phrase you want is 'go *away*' rather than
'go about.')
>Onar.
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles
ing...@engin.umich.edu
"Icky icky icky icky fKANG zoop-boing n zowzyin..." -The Knights Who
So Recently Said "NEE!"