From: "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: dawkins/_the selfish
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:42:04 EST
Reply-To: "herb sutter" <herb.sutter@canrem.com>
Distribution: talk
Organization: Canada Remote Systems

Thanks for all the feedback (public and private) on my last article.  It's
appreciated.  I seem to have offended some people; please let me add some
apologies, corrections, and amplifications:


1. I don't mean to "argue from authority."  I think that's wrong, and I
should correct that impression.  I meant to respond to people who wrote:

   >They have their rank & file too cowed to check references.

   >The only failing the average JW has is that he lets fear of men and
   >laziness prevent him from thinking critically about his own religion.

...etc.  I am an average JW, and I felt addressed by that.  I don't feel
those statements are true of me or of any of the Witnesses I know.  I
wanted to show we aren't just stupid deluded people, but I didn't mean to
"argue from authority."


2. I use the term "evolution" broadly for convenience.  I know the
difference between "abiogenesis," "natural selection," "genetic drift,"
etc.  But I habitually use "evolution" to sum up a whole concept of
origins (as opposed to "special creation").  Instead of writing:

    "the theory that life came about without an intelligent designer
    by the gradual generation of life from inorganic matter followed
    by the evolution of this life into all species including man,"

for brevity I write: "evolution."

I should have said so.  I'm calling into question the whole "no-Creator"
school of thought, not just part of it.  I honestly feel abiogenesis is a
real difficulty for "evolution" (short for "the theory that life...").
Someone replied privately that no one claims to know the mechanism by
which life arose on this planet; part of my reply to that person was:

me> ...you're right:  evolutionists generally don't claim to know how life
me> arose on this planet originally, and they generally will/can not even
me> guess at a possible mechanism for it.  Since that is so, how can they
me> insist that it did in fact occur??  They are in the unenviable
me> position of claiming that something which cannot be proved to take
me> place now (generation of life from nonliving matter) DID IN FACT occur
me> sometime in the primeval past -- even though they have no probable or
me> even possible mechanism to propose for it!  I must question whether
me> that is reasonable.

Before I generate more flames, you can tone that quote down by an order of
magnitude...!  :-) I was just trying to express why I felt it was still a
real problem, and why saying that `no specific mechanism has been
generally proposed' does not solve my concerns, but only adds to them.


3. This may surprise many, but I cheerfully agree that "microevolution"
happens all the time.  :-) I just don't think it should be called
"evolution."  Of course there are blue finches and orange finches and
quite possibly purple polka-dotted finches, all descended from common
ancestor(s), but:  a) I would call this "variety within a `kind'" instead
of "evolution" (which implies eventual change of `kind'); b) the finches
are still finches, they haven't changed into dogs or cats.  (Aside:  If
you feel I'm using the term "microevolution" wrongly, please let me know!)

While there is obviously great variety within dogs (and within cats, and
horses, etc.), no matter how much time you allow one does not change into
another.  This harmonises with Genesis' statement that all living things
were created "according to their kinds."  While animals within the dog
`kind' (for example) may interbreed and form new varieties of dogs, you
can breed dogs for aeons and (breeding evidence seems to prove) you will
always end up with a dog.  You won't get a cat or bear or another `kind'.
There are established barriers in reproduction that prevent living things
from breeding outside their `kind'; when they breed too far away from
true, the offspring are sterile and cannot deviate further (e.g., mule).
These barriers between `kinds' are a difficulty for evolutionary theory,
which presumes (as I understand it, please jump on me if wrong) the
possibility of genetic drift producing completely new species (eventually)
outside the parent `kind'.  (In fact, in experiments with deliberately
mutated fruit flies, after several generations even the mutants eventually
bred true unmutated fruit flies again -- quite an interesting result.)

Herb

.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| There are two kinds of people in this world:  those who insist on dividing  |
| all people into two groups, and those who do not.                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|UUCP:canrem!herb.sutter INTERNET:herb.sutter@canrem.com COMPUSERVE:70312,1233|
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

:DeLuxe2 1.12 #9091 * File not found.  Should I fake it? (Y/N)
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: talk.origins