tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post116362562907928222..comments2023-10-05T00:44:33.255+08:00Comments on CreationEvolutionDesign: My critique of Dawkins' "The God Delusion" #4Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-967565196047802122007-07-24T14:04:00.000+08:002007-07-24T14:04:00.000+08:00Anonymous>>The bacterium in question, Flavobacteri...Anonymous<BR/><BR/>>>The bacterium in question, Flavobacterium Sp. K172 is still a bacterium, and indeed it remained the same species.<BR/><BR/>>That isn't the issue here. There isn't an evolutionist out there who argues that a single creative mutation would result in the creation of a *new* species. The argument is that mutations are sometimes capable of producing new information.<BR/><BR/>It <I>is</I> the issue here. As I said, change <I>within the species level</I> is just <I><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution" REL="nofollow">microevolution</A></I> and few (if any) creationists have any problem with that level of change. I certainly don't.<BR/><BR/>And, as Gould and Eldredge (citing Futuyma) point out, any change that does not result in speciation (i.e. a change <I>beyond</I> the species level), cannot become permanent by "retaining stepwise, the advances made in any one direction":<BR/><BR/>"But continuing unhappiness, justified this time, focuses upon claims that speciation causes significant morphological change, for no validation of such a position has emerged (while the frequency and efficacy of our original supporting notion, Mayr's "genetic revolution" in peripheral isolates, has been questioned) Moreover, reasonable arguments for potential change throughout the history of lineages have been advanced although the empirics of stasis throws the efficacy of such processes into doubt. The pattern of punctuated equilibrium exists (at predominant relative frequency, we would argue) and is robust. <I>Eppur non si muove</I>; but why then? For the association of morphological change with speciation remains as a major pattern in the fossil record. We believe that the solution to this dilemma may be provided in a brilliant but neglected suggestion of Futuyma [Futuyma, D.J., "On the role of species in anagenesis," <I>American Naturalist</I>, Vol. 130, 1987, pp.465-473)] He holds that morphological change may accumulate anywhere along the geological trajectory of a species. But unless that change be `locked up' by acquisition of reproductive isolation (that is speciation), it cannot persist or accumulate and must be washed out during the complexity of interdigitation through time among varying populations of a species. Thus, species are not special because their origin permits a unique moment for instigating change, but because they provide the only mechanism for protecting change. Futuyma writes: `In the absence of reproductive isolation, differentiation is broken down by recombination. Given reproductive isolation, however, a species can retain its distinctive complex of characters as its spatial distribution changes along with that of its habitat or niche...Although speciation does not accelerate evolution within populations, it provides morphological changes with enough permanence to be registered in the fossil record. Thus, it is plausible to expect many evolutionary changes in the fossil record to be associated with speciation.' By an extension of the same argument, sequences of speciation are then required for trends: `Each step has had a more than ephemeral existence only because reproductive isolation prevented the slippage consequent on interbreeding other populations...Speciation may facilitate anagenesis by retaining, stepwise, the advances made in any one direction.' Futuyma's simple yet profound insight may help to heal the remaining rifts and integrate punctuated equilibrium into an evolutionary theory hierarchically enriched in its light" (Gould, S.J. & Eldredge, N., "Punctuated Equilibrium Comes of Age," <I>Nature</I>, 18 November 1993, Vol 366, pp.223-227, pp.226-227. Ellipses in original).<BR/><BR/>As for "mutations are sometimes capable of producing new information," that is, as I said, my position too, but I am not an evolutionist.<BR/><BR/>>The wikipedia link you gave me provides a critique of the creationist viewpoint (quoted below):<BR/>><BR/>>"Creationists have disputed these conclusions, often citing analysis posted on the Answers in Genesis website ...<BR/><BR/>"<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis" REL="nofollow">Answers in Genesis</A>" are <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism" REL="nofollow"><I>Young</I> Earth Creationists</A>, and so do not speak for <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_Creationism" REL="nofollow"><I>Old</I> Earth Creationists</A>, like me.<BR/><BR/>>a mutation need not create a new species in order to support evolutionists' claims. It just needs to be capable of generating information that didn't previously exist. In this case, mutations enabled the bacterium to eat a material that hadn't been created until the 1935. <BR/><BR/>As I said, I have no problem with "a mutation ... capable of generating information that didn't previously exist." As I said, read my posts on my now-terminated <A HREF="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign/" REL="nofollow">CreationEvolutionDesign</A> group that contain the term "Sundry Times" to find out what <I>my</I> position is.<BR/><BR/>>PS. Could you simply link to your articles instead of having me run through hoops?<BR/><BR/>No. I have given you enough information for you to find out for what my information argument is. It is up to you to do your own homework.<BR/><BR/>Besides, as I also said, this is, as far as I can recall, not an issue I have yet addressed in a post on this my CreationEvolutionDesign (CED) blog, so it is off-topic here until I do. If it comes up in the future I will probably blog about it, time permitting.<BR/><BR/>As I posted recently here on CED, at present my primary focus is a paper I am writing for a Shroud of Turin journal, "<A HREF="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2007/05/proposal-to-radiocarbon-date-pollen-of.html" REL="nofollow">A proposal to radiocarbon-date the pollen of the Shroud of Turin</A>." <BR/><BR/>Now, as per <A HREF="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">my stated policy</A> on comments: "Since I no longer debate, any response by me will usually be only once to each individual on that comment, and then I will let him/her have the last word." So now you can have the last word if you want.<BR/><BR/>Stephen E. Jones<BR/>My other blog: <A HREF="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">TheShroudofTurin</A>Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-15464590857147310842007-07-24T11:05:00.000+08:002007-07-24T11:05:00.000+08:00>> The bacterium in question, Flavobacterium Sp. K...>> The bacterium in question, Flavobacterium Sp. K172 is still a bacterium, and indeed it remained the same species. <<<BR/><BR/>That isn't the issue here. There isn't an evolutionist out there who argues that a single creative mutation would result in the creation of a *new* species. The argument is that mutations are sometimes capable of producing new information.<BR/><BR/>The wikipedia link you gave me provides a critique of the creationist viewpoint (quoted below):<BR/><BR/>"Creationists have disputed these conclusions, often citing analysis posted on the Answers in Genesis website that says that this phenomenon was evidence that plasmids in bacteria were a designed feature intended to allow bacteria to adapt easily to new food sources or cope with toxic chemicals.[8] NMSR, among others, has responded by saying that gene duplication and frame shift mutations were powerful sources of random mutation.[9] In particular, proof that it was these mutations that gave rise to nylonase, rather than the process based on plasmids suggested by AiG, has been obtained from DNA sequencing.[10]"<BR/><BR/>a mutation need not create a new species in order to support evolutionists' claims. It just needs to be capable of generating information that didn't previously exist. In this case, mutations enabled the bacterium to eat a material that hadn't been created until the 1935. <BR/><BR/>PS. Could you simply link to your articles instead of having me run through hoops?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-32939162345467329122007-07-18T14:40:00.000+08:002007-07-18T14:40:00.000+08:00Anonymous>Why don't you talk about nylon bugs or o...Anonymous<BR/><BR/>>Why don't you talk about nylon bugs or other examples of mutations that are apparently creative and add new information? <BR/><BR/>First, I talked a <I>lot</I> about "mutations" and whether they are "creative and add new information" in my 11+ years (1994-2005) debating all comers on public Internet groups, the last 4+ years (2001-2005) being on my own now-terminated Yahoo group <A HREF="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationevolutiondesign/" REL="nofollow">CreationEvolutionDesign</A> (CED).<BR/><BR/>Second, although I cannot recall the topic of the "<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase" REL="nofollow">nylon bug</A>" even being raised by evolutionists in their debates with me, my position is that I don't regard it as being an example of the kind of "creativ[ity] and add[ing] new information" that Darwinists need.<BR/><BR/>Hint: do a search on "Sundry Times" on my Yahoo list to see what my position is on the adding of new information by random mutations.<BR/><BR/>The bacterium in question, <A HREF="http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=345072" REL="nofollow"><I>Flavobacterium Sp. K172</I></A> is still a bacterium, and indeed it remained the same <I>species</I>. That is, it is just another example of <I>microevolution</I> whereas Darwinists like Dawkins need evidence that the Darwinian mechanism of the natural selection of random mutations (NSRM)can <I>solely</I> account for <I>macroevolution</I>. <BR/><BR/>Indeed, as Dawkins himself put it, what Darwinism's NSRM needs to explain is "the ... complex multidimensional ... 'Paley's watch', or 'Organs of extreme Perfection and complication', kind of adaptation that seems to demand a shaping agent at least as powerful as a deity": <BR/><BR/>"The theory of species selection, growing out of that of punctuated equilibria, is a stimulating idea which may well explain some single dimensions of quantitative change in macroevolution. I would be very surprised if it could be used to explain the sort of complex multidimensional adaptation that I find interesting, the 'Paley's watch', or 'Organs of extreme Perfection and complication', kind of adaptation that seems to demand a shaping agent at least as powerful as a deity." (Dawkins, R., "The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene," [1982], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1983, p.108) <BR/><BR/>So this "nylon bug" is in fact more evidence of what the late leading anti-Darwinian French zoologist Pierre Grassé pointed out as evidence <I>against</I> Darwinism, that "Bacteria ... despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species":<BR/><BR/>"Bacteria, the study of which has formed a great part of the foundation of genetics and molecular biology, are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. This is why they gave rise to an infinite variety of species, called strains, which can be revealed by breeding or tests. Like <I>Erophila verna</I>, bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus <I>Escherichia coli</I>, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago!" (Grassé, P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," [1973], Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.87).<BR/><BR/>Third, if the topic of "mutations" being claimed to be "creative and add new information" in general, or the "nylon bug" in particular, comes up again in a science news article I will probably blog on CED about it.<BR/><BR/>>Why don't you interact with the case for evolution that Dawkins has made?<BR/><BR/>I <I>have</I> both in the past in my 11+ years (1994-2005) of debating on Internet groups and in the past 2+ years (2005-2007) on my blog CED (I now also have a second blog <A HREF="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">TheShroudofTurin</A> (TSoP). . Do a search on "Dawkins," "God Delusion" and/or "McGrath" for my arguments against "the case for evolution that Dawkins has made". <BR/><BR/>In fact, do a search on both my Yahoo group and my CED blog for "Darwin," "Darwinism" and "Darwinist" because all my arguments against Darwinism are, in effect, "interact[ing] with the case for evolution that Dawkins has made."<BR/><BR/>>And why don't you interact with his rebuttals to philosophical arguments favoring God's existence?<BR/><BR/>Same answer as above. <BR/><BR/>In fact I have gone one better and presented <A HREF="http://creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/07/daniels-70-weeks-proof-that-naturalism.html" REL="nofollow"><I>proof</I> that Christianity is true and therefore Dawkins' atheism is false</A>.<BR/><BR/>Also my evidence and arguments on my <A HREF="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">The Shroud of Turin</A> blog are also evidence and arguments that Christianity is true and therefore atheism is false. <BR/><BR/>So either directly, or indirectly, I both have been and <I>am</I>: 1) interact[ing] with the case for evolution that Dawkins has made"; and 2) "interact[ing] with his rebuttals to philosophical arguments favoring God's existence"! <BR/><BR/>Stephen E. Jones.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-73090069097455632132007-07-18T12:14:00.000+08:002007-07-18T12:14:00.000+08:00Why don't you talk about nylon bugs or other examp...Why don't you talk about nylon bugs or other examples of mutations that are apparently creative and add new information? Why don't you interact with the case for evolution that Dawkins has made? And why don't you interact with his rebuttals to philosophical arguments favoring God's existence?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com