tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post7335271334960936738..comments2023-10-05T00:44:33.255+08:00Comments on CreationEvolutionDesign: `WE have traced the evolution of man up from the fishes ... It looks like a succession of very fortunate accidents' (Broom)Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-59073005726727512822007-02-09T22:29:00.000+09:002007-02-09T22:29:00.000+09:00Unguided[...]>1. Don't you think it is a bit hard ...Unguided<BR/><BR/>[...]<BR/><BR/>>1. Don't you think it is a bit hard on Broom to hold him to this statement given he has not had the opportunity to see the fair amount of scientific research and discovery in genetics and mutation that has happened since 1951. For example the discovery of the structure of DNA. Is it not like holding Newton to his thoughts about physics knowing he was unaware of the works of Einstein.<BR/><BR/>On that basis Darwin would also be invalidated, because he did not know of Mendelian genetics, let alone not just "the structure of DNA" but the *existence* of DNA!<BR/><BR/>But Crick & Watson discovering "the structure of DNA" in 1953 did not make much (if any) difference to the understanding of genetics, given that the Neo-Darwinian synthesis of classical Darwinism and Mendelian genetics began in *1929* with R.A. Fisher's "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection."<BR/><BR/>Anyway, Broom was a paleontologist, specialising in the origin of mammals and humans, and so he based his argument (as shall be seen in subsequent posts in this series) on the fossil record. <BR/><BR/>His argument was simply that since "Much of evolution *looks* as if it had been planned to result in man" (my emphasis), therefore it is reasonable to assume that it *was*. <BR/><BR/>I agree with him, and in fact it had occurred to me, as stated in my "Construction Project Argument from Design" [see http://tinyurl.com/2nvcqa ; http://tinyurl.com/327dgv & http://tinyurl.com/2no32z] before I had heard of Broom's argument.<BR/><BR/>Broom's reference to "mutations" (which I assume he means *directed* mutations), is his suggested *mechanisms* that "some intelligent controlling power" brought about his (or its) plan.<BR/><BR/>My point was that it is just an *assumption* of Darwinism (both unproven and *unprovable*), that *all* mutations in the ~4 billion year history of life have been random (in the sense of *undirected*).<BR/><BR/>This has been pointed out by others (e.g. Denton), that just because "some mutations in bacteria are spontaneous" in the sense of *undirected* "does not necessarily mean that *all* mutations in *all* organisms throughout the entire course of 4 billion years of evolution *have all been entirely spontaneous*" (his emphasis):<BR/><BR/>"The idea of the spontaneity of mutation is taken as a proven fact by a great many biologists today. And this is the fundamental assumption upon which the whole Darwinian model of nature is based. If it could be shown that some mutations, even a small proportion, are occurring by direction or are adaptive in some sense, then quite literally the whole contingent biology collapses at once. What is very remarkable about this whole issue is that, as is typical of any `unquestioned article of faith,' evidence for the doctrine of the spontaneity of mutation is hardly ever presented. Its truth is nearly always assumed. In nearly all the texts on genetics and evolution published over the past four decades, whenever the author attempts to justify the doctrine of the spontaneity of mutation, he refers back to a series of crucial experiments carried out in the late forties and early fifties on the bacterium _E. coli_ that were associated with the names of Salvador Luria, Max Delbruck, and Joshua Lederberg. But the fact that some mutations in bacteria are spontaneous does not necessarily mean that *all* mutations in *all* organisms throughout the entire course of 4 billion years of evolution *have all been entirely spontaneous*. ... During the course of the past 4 billion years of evolution, countless trillions of changes have occurred in the DNA sequences of living organisms. There is simply no experimental means of demonstrating that they were all spontaneous." (Denton, M.J., "Nature's Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe," Free Press: New York NY, 1998, pp.285-286. Emphasis original) <BR/><BR/>>2. It is not correct to say that modern evolutionary theory is random and therefore unguided. <BR/><BR/>I did not say that "modern evolutionary theory is random and therefore unguided." But I do say that "modern evolutionary theory" *claims* (as an implicit starting *assumption*) that all mutations in the ~4 billion year history of life have been "random" in the sense of "unguided". <BR/><BR/>>Changes occur using a combination of random mutation and non-random selection.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for making my point that "modern evolutionary theory" only considers "*random* mutation" and then *assumes* that "selection" must be "non-random"!<BR/><BR/>But (apart from yours being a fallacy of equivocation on the word "random", in that it means *undirected* in respect of "mutation" but it does not mean *directed* in respect of natural "selection"), it is merely a question-begging *assumption* (which is unoproven and indeed *unprovable*), that there cannot be "non-random" mutations, in the sense of *directed*.<BR/><BR/>Richard Dawkins makes this point in asserting that "no mechanism is known" (i.e. once an Intelligent Designer is ruled out in advance as a possible "mechanism") "that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random":<BR/><BR/>"There is a fifth respect in which mutation *might* have been nonrandom. We can imagine (just) a form of mutation that was systematically biased in the direction of improving the animal's adaptedness to its life. But although we can imagine it, nobody has ever come close to suggesting any means by which this bias could come about. It is only in this fifth respect, the 'mutationist' respect, that the true, real-life Darwinian insists that mutation is random. Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement, and no mechanism is known (to put the point mildly) that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random in this fifth sense. Mutation is random with respect to adaptive advantage, although it is non- random in all sorts of other respects. It is selection, and only selection, that directs evolution in directions that are nonrandom with respect to advantage." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, p.312. Emphasis original).<BR/><BR/>This explains why Dawkins is so fanatical in attacking the existence of God as a "Delusion." If an interventionist God like the God of the Bible exists, then this *fundamental* assumption of Darwinism that *all* mutations must have been random, in the sense of undirected, because there is nothing which (or who) could have directed them, *collapses*!<BR/><BR/>>The process as a whole is most definitley guided by the ability or an organism to survive and reproduce. <BR/><BR/>See above. This is just a play on the word "guided." <BR/><BR/>It is *not* the meaning of "guided" that Broom is using it (as quoted by Lewin), in the sense of "some intelligent controlling power has specially *guided* one line to result in man" (my emphasis).<BR/><BR/>Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-21550561556632283872007-02-09T09:06:00.000+09:002007-02-09T09:06:00.000+09:00I was just wondering about the following:"Even tho...I was just wondering about the following:<BR/><BR/>"Even those who believe in mutations great or small have to admit that they know nothing of what may have produced them; and Darwin had to admit that what was behind variations was quite unknown." (Broom, R., "The Coming of Man: Was it Accident or Design?," H. F. & G. Witherby: London, 1933, pp.210-211).<BR/><BR/>Broom thus put his finger on what I have, in a previous post called, "the Achilles heel of Darwinism, the unproven (and unprovable) claim that all mutations in the entire ~4 billion year history of life have been random (in the sense of unguided)."<BR/><BR/>1. Don't you think it is a bit hard on Broom to hold him to this statement given he has not had the opportunity to see the fair amount of scientific research and discovery in genetics and mutation that has happened since 1951. For example the discovery of the structure of DNA. Is it not like holding Newton to his thoughts about physics knowing he was unaware of the works of Einstein.<BR/><BR/>2. It is not correct to say that modern evolutionary theory is random and therefore unguided. Changes occur using a combination of random mutation and non-random selection. The process as a whole is most definitley guided by the ability or an organism to survive and reproduce.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com