Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Sunkist Starburst
Message-ID: <821@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Mar-85 17:28:04 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.821
Posted: Fri Mar 22 17:28:04 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Mar-85 05:17:35 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 204
> [Ernest Hua / Keebler]
> In this segment, we shall look at the incessant complaint about the
> mathematical probability of evolution by the creationists.
> The complaint has be raised in several forms. The simplest form of
> the argument is like this: "... the probability of an organism, so
> perfect, so organized, like the human-being, forming from elemental
> particles in random fashion is so ridiculously small, that it could
> never have happened, no matter how much time is allowed ..." Well,
> it sounds good. But, wait! Who is to say that the human being is
> even remotely near perfect? On what basis shall we rate the organ-
> ization of the human body? We might say that the shark is far more
> perfect since it has managed to survive so long and so simply.
Perhaps you should check your statements before you make them.
A S Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd ed, University of Chicago Press,
1966, pp. 37-38:
"In past times it was generally assumed that the absence of bone in
the Chondrichthyes was a primitive condition and that the sharks
represented an evolutionary stage antecedent to that of the bony fishes.
This assumption appears, at the present day, to be a highly improbable
one. Bone, as we have seen, appears in groups much lower down the
evolutionary scale; and if we believe the sharks to be primitive in
this regard, we must believe, rather improbably, that bone was evolved
a number of times by the vertebrates. Nor are the sharks, as one might
expect according to earlier beliefs, an early group geologically.
They are, in fact, the last of the major fish groups to appear in the
fossil record ... It might be argued that the absence of an earlier
record is due to the fact that the ancestral sharks were soft-bodied
and not preserved. But the first sharks were far advanced in the
evolution of jaws; and it is difficult to believe that the teeth of
these supposed earlier forms should have escaped our attention.
"The record, in fact, fits in better with the opposite assumption:
that the sharks are degenerate rather than primitive in their skeletal
characters; that their evolution has paralleled that of various other
fish types in a trend toward bone reduction; and that their ancestry
is to be sought among primitive bony, jaw-bearing fishes of the
general placoderm type. No well-known placoderms can be identified as
the actual ancestors of the Chondrichthyes, but we have noted that some
of the peculiar petalichthyids appear to show morphologically
intermediate stages in skeletal reduction. Increasing knowledge of
early Devonian placoderms may some day bridge the gap."
Sharks were the *last* major group of fishes to arrive on the
evolutionary scene; they haven't been around "so long" as all that.
Also, since you have indicated elsewhere your dislike for like my lack
of proposed mechanism, I am sure you would abhor the same failing in
yourself and will take this opportunity to propose to elucidate for
us why the simple sharks should degenerate from more complex
ancestors. This is particularly interesting as it apparently occurred
whie the teleostean fishes were increasing in complexity, and while my
lovely coelacanth ("be still, my heart") was refusing to budge in
complexity.
Or shall we simply say that "there is nothing to prevent this in
evolutionary theory?" Only at the price of the inability to rule out
any possible occurrence. And if we do that, we shall only add to the
frustrations of those who wish to prevent evolution (as a theory) from
being reduced to pure description, and who wish it instead to rise to
the stature of a "nomothetic discipline". (Gould's phrase.)
> And
> the virus must be the most organized since it is simplistic in con-
> struction and can remain dormant until food comes along. I doubt a
> creationist would admit to any of these comments.
Uh ... why do you doubt it?
> The GROSS ERROR
> here is the assumption that human beings are perfect, organized and
> a host of other adjectives that associate subjective, rather than
> objective, characterizations.
I think we might say that "organization" is a concept susceptible to
quantification. Perhaps even perfection is, as well. Since you assert
that this is not the case, the burden of proof is certainly on you to
show it, however.
But the REAL gross error is the assumption that all creationists must
argue on the basis of perfection. It is also erroneous to assert that
such arguments are always tied to human perfection. They aren't. One
instance of the canonical doctrine of perfection in a non-human context
is the bombardier beetle. There are others.
I may as well raise a related point. You seem to imply that perfection
is a concept over which creationists exert a monopoly. This is not
true, although the use of the concept by evolutionists perhaps more
often focusses on its antithesis, i.e., imperfection. You say "who is
to say that the human being is even remotely near perfect?" Who is to
say? Well, it's pretty obvious that you are. For clearly you wish to
assert the absence of perfection, which cannot be done without some
idea of what would constitute such perfection. So you have proceeded
to do what you mock, namely, make an estimate of the perfection of the
human body.
You also say "On what basis shall we rate the organization of the human
body?", and then go on to offer a couple of examples of statements you
think creationists ought to disagree with, apparently because the
rating of is made on the basis of criteria which, it is assumed,
creationists will or must deny. So, not only do you do that which you
argue against, you miss the point of your OWN argument, which is that
you CAN and DO offer criteria for assessment of the character of
perfection. Perhaps the criteria are poor - you seem to think so
yourself. But they are offered, and therein lies the crux of the
matter. If one wishes to say *anything* about perfection, either in
favor of its presence OR its absence, one must specify criteria. This
is no less true of the evolutionist who wishes to argue that
imperfections are evidence of evolution (Gould, for example) than it is
true of creationists who argue that perfections are evidence of
creation. So obviously, many people (creationists as well as
non-creationists) are willing to at least attempt to answer your
questions, "Who is to say that the human being is even remotely near
perfect? On what basis shall we rate the organization of the human
body?"
I think that you are sticking your head in the sand and saying "this
can never be solved, it's too subjective." Maybe, but how do you
know? You are arguing based not on what is known, but on what is
unknown. Dangerous ground.
----------
> Another form of the mathematical argument is like a proposition by
> Henry Morris of ICR (it might be Gish, or some other author): "The
> probability of 100 body parts forming any configuration is X (some
> large number). Even if one configuration were formed every second,
You mean some small number.
> the amount of time for evolution could not possibly account for the
> formation of a human body." This has several GROSS ERRORS. First,
> no scientist would even consider evolution by body parts. This ar-
> gument is made up by the author and is certainly false thus not too
> difficult to debunk.
Whether it's false or is not difficult to debunk, it does not come from
either Gish or Morris; it comes from Empedocles, a pre-Aristotelian
Greek philosopher.
By the way, this fact refutes the statement made in another article
recently that evolution is a relatively new concept:
> [Lief Sorensen]
> If you think the Creation story will vanish while Evolution prevades,
> you have a severely limited knowledge of history -- namely that Creation has
> been with us since the beginning of time, while Evolution has only come on
> the scene since the 19th century, obviously another passing fad.
Sorry, Lief, but it just is not so. (I'm kind of surprised that none
of you evolutionists bothered to point this out.)
> [Ernest Hua / Keebler]
> For the
> programmers out there, one can look at the set of statements in any
> language and see that a program can consist of countless variations
> containing different configurations of these statements. Is there
> a limit to the number of programs that will work? [I am sure that
> many creationists are going to say, "Well, there you have it! You
> need a PROGRAMMER to write a program! So there!" Don't waste my
> precious reading time because that is completely off the subject.
> Programs usually don't have billions/trillions (am I coming close to
> the right order of magnitude? I am refering to the number of mole-
> cules.) of statements put together, and I don't want to hear about
> your omniscient God until you prove His existence.]
I suggest that it would be difficult to prove the existence of *anything*
without talking about it. It would also be difficult to transmit the
proof without discussing the entity whose existence was in question.
So it would seem you have set up a condition impossible to satisfy.
Don't want to hear about X? (Substitute any X.) Fine, I won't talk about
X. Nor will I be surprised to hear you say you haven't heard of any
proof of X. Of course not. You carefully excluded that possibility at
the beginning.
----------
> As for biological evolution, one should look at the transitions
> that a grassland goes through as it evolve into a forest. I can
> just hear it now: "... the forest was there in the first place!
> The probability of all those trees growing together in one place
> is so small that ..." (Just kidding! I know none of you crea-
> tionists would even touch that statement ... would you?)
No, what I would say is that you have pulled a fast one with your use
of the term evolution here. The evolution of a grassland into a
forest involves the replacement of pre-existing species by other
pre-existing species. Grass does not "evolve" into trees when
grassland becomes a forest, any more than the sun evolves into the
moon during the night. Surely you're aware of that, but what
then is the point of such a statement?
Or of this article? You don't check your facts as far as I can tell,
and you fail, here as elsewhere, to understand the implications of your
own arguments.
--
|
Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+--
|
|