A Question for Evolutionists

February 3rd, 2002 | Sabertooth

[Sabertooth]

A Question for Evolutionists

Here's where I see the crux of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, and most appear to miss it:

Forget possible transitional forms, stratigraphy, and radiological clocks... at some level, both Creationists and Evolutionists wander back to singularities and have to cope with the issue of spontaneous cause.

Creationists say "God."

• Since God has chosen not to be heavy-handed, allowing us free will,
  this is neither scientifically provable nor disprovable.
• This is more a commentary on the material limitations of science than it is about the limitations of God.
  Both Creationists and Evolutionists need to come to grips with that.

Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation."

• Where has that been observed or demonstrated?

[Virginia-American]

Contrary to popular impression, Aristotle and later Hellenistic scientists believed that the earth was spherical.

Archimedes (287-212 BC) starts out the book "On Floating Bodies" by assuming as an axiom the fact that the surface of a liquid at rest is a part of the surface of a sphere whose center is the center of the earth.

[Nebullis]

Hello, eastsider. You can get even closer to the Church than the Greeks. That venerable Augustine was a spherical earther. He was also a bit of an evolutionist.

[Nebullis]

We do not see green men because there is no such gene in the human species.

At least you acknowledge a material basis for human traits.

[Sabertooth]

Would you be happy with spontaneous and random but without the mutagenic aspect? If selective pressures are considered to have played a role in speciation does that eliminate spontaneous and random? Or are you specifically speaking of those (possibly hypothetical) cases where speciation (is assumed) occurred without selective pressure?

Let me repost part of my reply at #73:

My feeling, at the risk of sounding neo-Lamarckian, is that there is some sort of built-in adaptive genetic mechanism which somehow induces mutation and/or speciation in response to external stresses or opportunities. Something akin to the triggers that cause stem-cells to differentiate into different tissues.

I have no evidence for this, but I just don't find random mutation over time compelling. Nor is there evidence for that theory.

The moment where a species originates is where we're all grasping at straws.

I should amend that last to say "evidentiary straws."

Let me elaborate a little on my neo-Lamarckian speculation... The possibility that makes the most sense to me is that we were designed to evolve. At times, organisms are in evolutionary stasis, at other times an evolutionary response is triggered. What that is or how that works... Beats me.

But the experiments cutting off rat-tails for 20 generations don't disprove Lamarck, they only fail to prove him. That being said, I have absolutely no proof for him.

But some of the underlying principles of stem-cell research intrigue me in this regard... Given that cells with the same initial genetic code differetiate into different tissues based on selective cultivation (not quite the word I want) of latent portions of that code, it seems to me analogous to the idea of a latent capacity in organisms for an evolutionary response.

But a theoretical mechanism for speciation needs to account also for the evolutionary dynamism of some families vs. the near stagnation of others. Why have the cichlids of lake Malawi radiated into nearly a thousand species and several dozen genera in a few million years, yet lungfish have evolved hardly at all in hundreds of millions of years?

It seems to me that random mutations would tend to even out over time, but they don't. For this reason, I also have big problems with so-called "genetic clocks," where rates of mutations are assumed to give such results as a 130 thousand year-old "African Eve."

How do we reconcile punctuated equlibrium and genetic clocks? If the big hand and the little hand can sometimes spin as fast as the second hand, how can we tell the time?

Earlier you made the point that 95% of all the scientists who ever lived are alive right now. Assuming your figures, and applying the axiom that 90% of everything is crap, we're left with the disconcerting conclusion that about 85% of all the garbage scientists who ever lived are alive right now... and most of them masquerade as "experts."

Obtuse experts are fertile ground for hubris. You made the statement: "Science is not a dogmatic philosophy---simply a methodolgy of inquiry." True of science, but huge numbers of scientists fall short of the scientific method and thrive on waxing dogmatic and philosophical.

See: Global Warming and the Ozone Hoax.

But what the hell? I see I haven't answered your question...

"Would you be happy with spontaneous and random but without the mutagenic aspect?"

It's actually what I believe to be the grossly unsubstantiated zealotry of many, many scientists for "random" that is the issue. It is a convenient fall-back for lazy thinking, IMO. As I said to jennyp, "random did it" is no more compelling than "God did it."

Basically, the random position says, "We can't think of anything else, therefore it's random."

I realize randomness is tough to prove, but so what? If it isn't proven, scientists shouldn't have a problem conceding that and qualifying their theories and conclusions accordingly.

[Sabertooth]

Galapagos Islands, Hawaii, almost anyplace you can look. Why giraffes in Africa and not Arizona?...etc...etc.

What you're describing is only the presence of species and the probability of speciation over time. Not the mechanism for it.

Here's the question...

""Where is the observation or evidence of random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?"

[Quila]

Would skinny puppies indicate a more fit species, or less?

The skinniness of the band members is probably mostly due to heroin, and the death of the drummer due to an overdose would probably indicate a less-fit species.

[Sabertooth]

The skinniness of the band members is probably mostly due to heroin, and the death of the drummer due to an overdose would probably indicate a less-fit species.

That damned lethality of mutagenic spontaneity rears its head again!

It's always the drummer.

[Rudder]

...built-in adaptive genetic mechanism which somehow induces mutation and/or speciation in response to external stresses or opportunities.

I get your point. I don't think there's is a total void concerning the existence of data supporting your position. I read recently an article regarding single-cell evolution (or mutagenesis for a better word.) The report was mostly about data and not much theory (and I can't find it right now), so I am going to have to dig it up to give you what exactly was said. In essence, it measured the genetic changes a certain strain of bacterium encountered as it continuously replicated--very much like the process you are describing! There were two (at least) alternative explanations: one was that it was built-in, the other was that it was due to the effects of unspecified cosmic radiation (which we do know can cause mutagenesis.)

I, for two (including you,) believe such a mechanism does exist and reached that conclusion about 3 decades ago while I was an undergrad studying cell physiology (a truly laborious task.) My thoughts focused then upon the effects of ever-present radiation upon nuclear chemistry, especially during meiosis and mitosis, (at which time, the nuclear material has a special affinity or vulnerability to radiation) and its role in mutagenesis. That, along with some knowledge of wide variation in rates of speciation (not unlike that you report for cichlids) caused me to reach conclusions in keeping with yours. Unfortunately, I never had the time to purse this further, nor did I hear much about it until the article (the one I can't find) on baterial mutagenesis came out--35 years later.

Demonstrating such a mechanism would certainly allow the explanation of many heretofore unanswered puzzles in evolutioary theory.

[Sabertooth]

The famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

I just want to clear up a few things... I'm not a big "E" Evolutionist, but that doesn't make me a big "C" Creationist. Therefore, I'm not threatened by the idea that Evolution of some sort has taken place. I'm persuaded that the Universe is 12 to 16 billion years old, and the Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. Most of what you believe about geology and genetics, I also believe.

I also beleive in God, and that He's the author of this in one way or another. I'm a big fan of good science, because I'm a big fan of truth.

But I also have little tolerance for sloppy science. Wouldn't you agree that there's a lot of that around? Cold Fusion, Ozone Hoax, Global Warming, etc....

I didn't start this thread at ground zero, and if you take a look, I've generally refrained from commenting on aspects of Creationism that are somewhat shopworn, IMO. BTW, your Creation/Evolution resource is a good one, and I've had it bookmarked for a while. Notice also, I've repeatedly tried to bring the thread back to a rather narrow question...

"Where is the observation or evidence of random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?"

Is that not a fair scientific question?

[Conservative til I die]

Evolutionists start out their argument with the assumption that evolution is true. A side point.....Ever notice the EVOLUTION of God? The cave man worshipped fire The Greeks and Romans had gods of fire, war, etc. Native Americans did their rain dance (god of weather?) The Incas and Egyptians had gods of sun, stars, agriculture. One-by-one ---- science uncovered the facts. One-by-one, all religions 'evolved' into an unprovable faith-based, invisible god [except the comet a few years back]. [the food for thought is that religion always keeps a step ahead of a science that chips away at religious assumptions] >>>>> Actually, no, I don't follow your reasoning here. You basically have reduced God to a weather-maker. If one-dimensionalizing the idea of God helps prove your argument or whatever, then more power to you.

[Sabertooth]

My thoughts focused then upon the effects of ever-present radiation upon nuclear chemistry, especially during meiosis and mitosis, (at which time, the nuclear material has a special affinity or vulnerability to radiation) and its role in mutagenesis.

And since a non-random cause for mutagenesis doesn't eliminate a role for natural selection, wouldn't natural selection encourage genetic engines more capable of utilizing this mutagenic fuel?

[Stultis]

In short we do not know how life originated

Exactly. And your continued speculation on the origins of species is based upon an assumption that it was entirely naturalistic and that there was nothing "supernatural" about it.

Speculations about the origin of species is based on a very great deal of relevant evidence, including the study of actual speciation events, an increasingly detailed knowledge of probable mechanisms (e.g. chromosomal mutations), and so on. We can look at the genetic code of the resultant species, map out their geographical distributions, look at fossils of similar creatures, etc, etc. This is of an entirely different order than the question of the origin of life as such.

The fact that only naturalistic mechanisms are considered is no different in evolutionary biology than in any other field of biology or any other department of science. This is the way science operates. Introducing the element of unrestrained supernatural cause would render a resulting scientific "theory" untestable, and thereby undercut and corrupt basic scientific methods.

That being said, the nature of science is by no means set in stone. Even the most fundamental scientific presuppostions have always been subject to revision, and many have been revised, but only to accomodate successful scientific theory. Before Newton proposed universal gravitation, for instance, it was a well nigh universal assumption of science that force was only tranmitted by actual physical contact or "impact" between particles of matter. Newton's ideas about a force that acted at a distance, without impact, violated a basic scientific assumption and early on was branded as an "occult" theory. Problem was that Newton's theory worked, and ruling scientific presuppositions were therefore abandoned or modified to accomodate it.

This indicates the necessary program for scientific creationists to pursue. It will do no good at all to whine incessesantly about the alledgedly "dogmatic" exclusion of supernatural cause. Such an exclusion is universal to all departments of science (not there just to protect evolution, or to irratate fundamentalists), and is based on sound and well proven pragmatic and philosophical considerations. Scientists are convinced that one simply cannot do supernatural science. The only way to convince them otherwise is to demonstrate that it can in fact be done by devising, devoloping, testing and applying a sucessful creationistic theory. Should creationists succeed at that, the nature of science will inevitably be modified to accomodate the theory. That's the way it always works.

Once again, for emphasis: Genuinely successful and useful scientific theories are never abandoned simply because they violate some standing assumption about what constitutes a good, acceptable or conforming scientific theory. Such assumptions will always be modified to accomodate successful scientific theories. But they will not be modified simply because some particular ideologically or religious modified group declares them "unfair". IOW, put up or shut up.

[Stultis]

religious modified = religiously motivated

[ShadowAce]

Just a thought here--has there ever been a case where exposure to radiation has brought a beneficial mutation to the host--either cellular or highr-level? Of course, we are not talking about killing off cancer cells here--but mutation of the host itself.

I would be interested to hear of one.

[PatrickHenry]

"Where is the observation or evidence of random spontaneous mutagenic speciation?" Is that not a fair scientific question?

No. It's a loaded question. You want to see an example of random speciation, when all we will ever see, in a human lifespan, is random mutation. The cumulative effects of the sometimes-successful mutations will, over time, generate a new species. If you are looking to see evidence of a goldfish spontaneously producing a dog, so am I. That would be a miracle, and I haven't seen any sign of that.

[Stultis]

And since a non-random cause for mutagenesis doesn't eliminate a role for natural selection, wouldn't natural selection encourage genetic engines more capable of utilizing this mutagenic fuel?

It did! Not knowledgable enough to give you the details, but I believe that are certain well defined portions or domains of DNA utilized in the creation of elements of the immune system which do mutate at significantly increased rates, and that this is part of a mechanism allowing the system to more rapidly create antibodies that bind strongly to foreign cells or particles.

[Sabertooth]

It's a loaded question. You want to see an example of random speciation, when all we will ever see, in a human lifespan, is random mutation. The cumulative effects of the sometimes-successful mutations will, over time, generate a new species

The fact that the question is difficult doesn't make it loaded, nor unfair.

I agree with your comments regarding obervations beyond a human lifespan, and I'm not recommending we table discussion untill enough lifespans have elapsed to make the call.

What I am suggesting is that science be more careful in its conclusions and qualify its statements better. Here's what I posted at #20 on this thread:

Confirmation or "proof" of scientific hypotheses depends on the repetition of experimental results. It is the nature of some hypotheses to be outside the realm of experimentation, and I think Evolution is one. Small scale experimental standards of scientific proof aren't really applicable to issues of vast time scales such as evolution or cosmology.

That's why I suggested the phrase "Postulate of Evolution" above. "Big Bang Postulate" would be another.

Unfair?

[eastsider]

Archimedes (287-212 BC) starts out the book "On Floating Bodies" by assuming as an axiom the fact that the surface of a liquid at rest is a part of the surface of a sphere whose center is the center of the earth.

Thanks, V-A, that's a new one on me. I assume by "the surface of a liquid at rest" he was referring to liquids larger than, say, dewdrops, which would diminish the volume of the sphere considerably.