Posted on 02/03/2002 9:07:58 AM PST by Sabertooth
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
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."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation."
|
|||
If you meant random to apply to the event, mutagenesis, then there is a possibility that mutagenesis may, in some instances (like those you propose) appear random but may actually be biased by epigenetic (environmental) pressures. This is okay with me, because either way supports you contention.
If said mutagenesis is truly endogenous, it may be also truly random or be driven by endogenous events hitherto undiscovered and deviate somewhat from randomness and yet still appear random. Either way, this would not detract from your position at this stage of the game.
What may be occurring is that there are unknown events that are not recognizable as selective pressures--either endogenous or exogenous--that are producing mutagenesis. Furthermore, this mutagenesis would be difficult to infer from inspecting paleontological data or anatomical comparisons.
An aside: Many scientists who promote evolutionary theory resort to a circular reasoning fault inasmuch as they proclaim an anatomical structure to have evolved as an adaptive evolutionary response. When, in fact, the structure may well be: 1. irrelevant in that it did not impede adaption 2. an atavistic throwback or vestigial structure 3. or one that was circumvented by other adaptations. The circularity comes in when they are asked to explain and they resort to: "The structure exists because it evolved and it evolved because it exists." "Neither" is also a distinct possibility.
Nevertheless, a process of mutagenesis that appears to be outside the vagaries of known selective pressures, one that seems to occur endogenously (that is without regard to exogenous factors) and one that is rather vigorous (and thus accounts for rapidity, variety and "surprises" in evolution) may well operating as the mystery behind those aspects of evolution which remain enigmatic.
There's no evidence otherwise. No one has noted anything that resembles a pattern or a plan in speciation other than of course what natural selection would dictate. We note spontaneous mutations all the time.
At the same time, no one suggests that a single mutation is responsible for speciation so your question as stated is not relevant. As for the causes of mutation - many are noted in intro bio texts. Of course any particular mutation is unpredictable which would be one way of saying it was random.
In short, we observe mutations all the time. However observing speciation over human time frames is difficult simply because as best as can be determined from the fossil record the process is much longer than a single human lifetime and is in fact much longer than hundreds of human lifetimes. The point of the theory of natural selection is that speciation in some sense isn't random but depends on the environment a species lives in.
I'm not sure this answers your question partly because I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make with line of questioning.
You're confusing me here, Bonaparte. I'm trying to move away from the word 'random'. It doesn't really apply as Sabertooth wants it to. The introduction of variation in nature is not guided, if that's what you mean. On the other hand, it, absolutely, follows natural laws and is contingent on historical and environmental context. Of course there are explanations. And we are learning more all the time.
I agree. But let me add this slight change:
"Of course any particular mutation is unpredictable which would be our way of saying it was random."
Yet, that is not truly random.
The concept of randomness as introduced here by Sabertooth is not germaine nor is the absence of randomness destructive to his position. I think that it is a pedagogical device to explain a type of mutagenesis which appears to be without exogenous causation.
What confuses me in your reply is that you've said, "The introduction of variation in nature is not guided," but also assert that "there are explanations." The lack of guidance would seem to suggest randomity, at least to me. But if a change, such as a particular mutation or new phenotype, has an explanation then randomity no longer applies.
I must agree with you that the term randomity can be problematic in these discussions. While its definition is straightforward, its statistical and philosophic implications are quite complex. Nonetheless, the term is abundent in the literature and frequently arises in these discussions, so it seems to me that it must be addressed.
As my son would say, "Rully Kewl!"
Since it is clear that He claimed to be part of the Godhead, God Himself manifested in human form, claims that He created the universe would not get THAT much print. I mean, what is the more outrageous claim, that one invented the universe, or that one was the Diety Himself in bodily form? That was the claim that Jesus made in the Gospels, which is where we have His direct quotes. Is it any wonder that the claim they speak most of is His Divinity? Off topic a bit I know, but I'm glad you asked.
Your use of thermodynamics is inappropriate and incorrect. You are discussing entropy in the context of information theory, not in the context of thermodynamics (which is essentially transaction theory). There is nothing in information theory that requires a tendency towards entropy or away from it. Either one can happen with equal probability. In thermodynamics, you can increase order and reduce entropy in an open system if you have an external enthalpy gradient. The earth is a blatantly obvious example of such a system and biology therefore breaks no rules of thermodynamics. If what you believed was true, diamonds could neither exist nor be manufactured.
Repeating the same dead argument over and over doesn't make it true.
And here, for me, is the crux of the difficulty. If randomity is being employed as a pedagogical device, then it must be teaching something, imparting new information. And yet, it is an "explanation" that explains nothing really. If a thing appears to be without cause then what could possibly account for its existence?
Also, the apparent absence of "exogenous causation" suggests the alternative of self-causation, which raises another difficulty, namely, that a thing can exist before it exists, in order to create itself.
You didn't address that post to me, but your question has gone unanswered so far. I don't agree with you at all. If you want to propose an "ultimate cause outside of our experience," you should have some reason for making such a proposal, other than "Hey, why not?".
Gee, tortoise, I forgot to whom you were responding, and who is also the author of the italicized comment.
The comment takes me back to basic college biology and the spirogyra ( not the musical jazz-fusion group, but a pond dwelling micro-organism of the plant kingdom) a strain of which can surivive within a water temperature range of, for example, between 32 and 40 degrees F. In this pond there is another form of spirogyra which survives well in the temp. range of 60 to 80 degrees F. The two strains, as you can see, each favor their own seasons of the year.
But, life changes and the weather pattern changed to include a much wider, non-seasonally-related variation, and the normally asexual spirogyra began to breed with one another.
The offspring of these parents adapted well to variation between 32 and 80 degrees F.
Whoever responded to you with that comment certainly doesn't appreciate "Hybrid Vigor," a phenomenon exhibited only by living, sexually reproductive organisms.
The laws of Thermodynamics are violated by life forms, a manifestation which virtually defines life--and, by another name: Negative Entropy.
Entropy is the tendency for reactive systems to reach equillibrium and, hence, become stable and intert. Negative entropy is the amazing "life force" that resists entropy and requires, among other things, exogenous energy supply and the ability to use it. Once either one gives way...then the laws of thermodynamics do most certainly apply.
Mutagens act without respect to fitness. Technically, they do not act randomly, because they can affect different parts of the genome in different ways. UV rays from the sun, for example, affect various parts of the body in different ways, depending on whether they are shaded or not. DNA is similarly shaded from harmful mutagens by structure and the cellular environment.
I think a loose and often truly false definition (connotation) of randomness has been used too much lately by both the public and the scientific laiety. You, your ownself, pointed this out clearly in one of your posts. We mean random to mean "unpredictable." We also use random to mean that all likely events are equiprobable.
Meeting the latter criteria are stringent, mathematical requirements, commonly overlooked by those who converse cavalierly--as most of us do--about randomness.
Maybe it was you who pointed out that we are--on initial and even after centuries of repeated observations on the same phenomena--unable to discern true randomness.
Nevertheless, we use the ragged concept quite effectively to explain and teach about well-documented-but-unexplained observations.
Sabertooth, I believe (where is he, now that we need him?) used the term quite appropriately. But once we entered the world of real scientific discourse, "random" suddenly evolved from common usage to precise one.
Sabertooth meant to imply, I believe, that random equates with "unpredictability."
I should have said "exogenous influence." I was referring to instances where vigorous speciation has occurred in certain organisms, but not for others who live in the same or simlilar environments. There are other examples (e.g. speculate the selective pressures that produced the human brain.) The point is that such manifestations may imply a mechanism of heritable mutagenisis which accounts for the remarkable evolutionary progress (our point of view) that has been so far well-documented yet quite unexplained.
My use of the term, "endogenous," in this context, means that, regardless of environmental pressures, the process apparently emanates from within the organism and not in response to extraneous variables.
Of course this is inherently fallacious...because all things have their cause.
We just don't what they are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
