From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Atheistic creationism revisited
Date: 16 Nov 92 08:49:10 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Nov15.142243.4226@klaava.Helsinki.FI> cust_ts@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Sand) writes:
]I may regret reopening this 'atheistic creationism' thread (actually
]I'm sure I will), but, after a long pause, I want to clarify some
]things about your 'atheistic creationism' stand, assuming it's real.*
]Besides, it dilutes (a bit) the concentration of the Kalki-Ted-Lionel
]nonsense.

]* The reason for saying this is that when you argue with people like
]Kalki, Lionel, and (God forbid) Ted, you sound just like all the
]other normal people here. :-)

** Stick around.  I've been known to argue as a creationist and as an
evolutionist.  I've also been known to palm off quite outrageous nonsense
with a straight face.  I'm particularly noted for sticking pins in people
who are dogmatic and superficial in their evolutionism.  Sometimes I
try to put together some interesting speculations.

]So, here goes:

]>To be fair [we atheistic creationists are notoriously fair] this is
]>not the real line of argument.  The real line is that evolution, the
]>historical "fact", was established by other arguments; in turn the
]>indicated method was genetic change.  It is the evidence and arguments
]>for historical evolution that we address and refute.

]>These arguments follow three main lines, the paleontological record,
]>commonality of phenotype following the indicated paleontological
]>record, and imperfections in design.  There are three major mechanisms
]>proposed, selection, drift, and symbiosis.

]You left out mutation, recombination, and gene flow.

Well, yes and no.  Selection and drift are routes to altering allele
frequency.  Gene flow is a redistribution but not an alteration unless
accompanied by selection.  Mutation generates new variation.  Recom-
bination doesn't alter allele frequency; it merely (!) reduces the
unit of selection from the chromosome to the gene.  Symbiosis is much
more fundamental.

]>The imperfection of design evidence is really an argument against
]>the "God as a perfect designer" argument.  Since atheistic creationists
]>don't believe in God in the first place, we find this line of reasoning
]>to be irrelevant.

]A part of the "imperfect design argument" is indeed about God, but
]surely that isn't the whole point. "Imperfect design" also shows that
]organisms can't start from scratch, they have to build on what's
]already there, no? This, to me, points to common ancestry.

By itself this argument doesn't lead to common ancestry; it does argue
for lines of descent.  But this is already evident.  

]>Now consider selection.  We contend that selection cannot produce
]>the results claimed for it.  The principle argument is that life
]>forms are already adapted to their environmental niches.

]Actually, I think not - organisms aren't [perfectly] adapted to their
]environment, just nearly so - or, at least, to an extent so that it
]stays alive. I once read somewhere that it's not so much that the
]most fit survive*, but that the least fit perish. There's a
]difference between these two.

]* Yes, yes, I know evolution isn't 'the survival of the fittest'.

It all depends on how you define "fittest".  Actually, organisms are
well adapted to their environments, given the constraints.

]>The claim is
]>that changes in the environment change fitness, which in turn leads to
]>selection for a different adaptation.  However by far the normal
]>response to environmental change is to move or to die.  The difficulty
]>with natural selection is very simply that the time scales are wrong --
]>environments can change change much faster than genotypes.

]*Can*, but do they always? I think not.

Apparently adaptation to changes in the chemical environment can happen
quite rapidly; this makes sense -- the adaptations are at the cellular
level.  In the normal course of things a change in the environment is
met by moving or death -- when the environment changes other species
which are already adapted to the new environment move in.

[Hint:  What I'm saying is reasonably sound, but I'm cheating.]

]>Symbiosis reduces to selection.

]I've never heard symbiosis is a mechanism of evolution - it's a
]result, no?

Margulis thinks it is, e.g. the Eukaryotic cell.

]>What about mutation, that marvelous engine of new genetic variation?
]>The problem is that the life process is interlocked; it is easy to
]>produce neutral or deleterious mutations.  Deleterious mutations are
]>eliminated quickly [selection to the norm].  Neutral mutations are
]>not but that doesn't matter -- they do not have phenotypic
]signifigance.

]But neutral mutations change DNA, no? Assuming it changes a gene in a
]way that doesn't alter the function of the gene, *further* mutation
]at the same gene might produce an effect. In that sense, I would say
]that *all* neutral mutations don't have no significance (though most
]do). (Yikes, is that correct English?)

Your argument doesn't appear to lead anywhere -- the further mutation
must be good, bad, or neutral.  The same arguments apply to it.

]>Advantageous mutations of phenotypic signifigance have no
]>signifigant probability of occuring because they must be coordinated
]>changes. In other words it does not suffice to change a single gene;
]>several must be changed at once.

]Is this so? There certainly are some cases that needs a change in
]many genes, but again I don't think that's true in *all* cases.

Actually you can distinguish between changes in the cellular chemistry
and those that have structural impact.  The argument being made is
against those have structureal consequences.  For example, suppose that
the change is run faster.  This type of change has several components,
e.g. change in leg formation and increased capacity to use oxygen.

]>  The odds against multiple, simulataneous changes
]>are very long indeed.

]Agreed.

]>In short,

]Again you left out recombination.

And rightly so.

]> we atheistic creationists take the view that evolution as a
]>purported historical fact has not been established, and that the
]>purported
]>mechanisms cannot account for the results that are claimed for them.

]You claim 'evolution as a purported historical fact' (what does this
]mean? Either evolution occurs or it doesn't) has not been established.
]Well, I claim that your claim that the purported mechanisms *cannot*
]account for the results has also not been established.

You have to take into account that there are distinct meanings of
evolution floating around here.  The first is the thesis of common
descent, which is a statement about historical fact.  The second is
the concept of evolution as changes in genetic constitution.  Now
it is conceivable that you could have evolution in the second sense
without common descent or indeed any signifigant phenotypic changes
in a given descent line over time.  Before you make a statement that
evolution occurs or it doesn't, you have to make clear whether you
are talking history, genetics, or their presumed connection.

]>How, then, do we account for the observed variation in extant life
]>forms
]>over time?  Strictly speaking we are not obliged to; the role of
]>critic
]>is legitimate.  It is important in science to establish falsity of
]>existing dogma.  However one can speculate and frame tentative
]>hypotheses.

]Though I just did it, I must again point out that you haven't
]demonstrated this 'falsity of existing dogma'.

You want a complete theoretical tome in a usenet posting?  Give me
a break.  I gave an outline of an approach.  I even left pointers
to rope with which you could hang me; said rope lies there undisturbed.
"Didn't", "Did so" isn't a very productive line of argument.

]>This leaves us creationism which, in the absence of a directing
]>intelligence,
]>we may take as spontaneous creation.  We note that this is a
]>feasible
]>hypothesis in science; indeed Hoyle and Gold included it in the
]>Steady
]>State cosmology.  Hoyle proposed the spontaneous creation of
]>hydrogen
]>in intergalactic space.  I suggest the spontaneous creation of
]>genetic
]>information in life forms.

]1. Does anybody except Hoyle and Gold themselves believe in this
]theory?

"Did" is the operative term; the answer is yes.  Steady state and
Big bang were the two major contending cosmological theories.  Big
bang won out because of the evidence supported it rather than steady
state.  However both were in contention.

]2. Because a scientist says something, it doesn't mean it's science.

This is unworthy of you.

]3. Creation of hydrogen is to my mind a whole lot more likely than
]creation of genetic information.

Offhand, it would seem so.  However this is not a very good argument
in its own right; "likely" is really a statement about one's mode
of thinking.

]>The major difference between spontaneous creation of genetic
]>information
]>(SCGI) and mutation is that SCGI has no signifigant probability of
]>occurring randomly.  In addition SCGI can occur in more than one
]>individual
]>at the same time in a given population in a localized area.

]Only in cells, though, eh? Not, for example, on the street?

Er, do streets carry genetic information?

]>can bring new descent lines into being.  Clearly abiogenesis was an
]>SCGI
]>event; if one can occur then so can more.  If this is the case then
]>what

]Just a minute. Has anybody - besides you - suggested that abiogenesis
]was 'spontaneous creation of genetic information'?

Probably not -- a fact in which I take great pride.  Do you realize
how difficult it is to create *original* crackpot science?

]Unless, of course,
]by 'spontaneous creation' you mean forming molecules without
]intelligent intervention, and by 'genetic' anything that replicates.

Altering, not forming; otherwise yes.  We want to pay due deference
to the conservation of matter and the laws of thermodynamics.

]==================

]Finally, I want to bring up again your charge that I should consider
]alternatives. I replied "I won't", but maybe I should have said "why
]should I?" Do you consider alternatives for, say, the General Theory
]of Relativity?

Well, I don't, because I'm not a professional physicist.  However there
are professional physicists that do.  Dicke, for example.

More to the point -- how can you know whether Evolution is good science
if you are not willing to consider how it might be falsified and what
the consequences of falsification might be?

]==================

]Well, one more thing. I dropped this thread way back
]<whenever-it-was> because I got bored. However, I saved your original
]post and decided to read it carefully later. Well, now I did - one
]reason for it is that now I got bored with Kalki's stuff.

-------------------

To tell the truth, every once in a while I argue as a creationist
[I draw the line at Holdenism] because the average creationist is so
incompetent (besides being grossly outnumbered) that I feel they need
some help.

Kalki could be interesting if he would stick to expounding Vedic
philosophy -- it's always worthwhile listening to someone with a
different world view.  
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.