Professor James Tour accepts Nick Matzke’s offer to explain macroevolution

_{Vincent Torley

February 20, 2013

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In my last post, A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution, I wrote about Professor James Tour, who is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world – and a Darwin skeptic. Professor Tour is not an Intelligent Design proponent, but he is openly skeptical of macroevolution, which is generally defined as “evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time, resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups.” In 2001, Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, signed the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very interesting article on evolution and creation, in which Tour declares that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):

… I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

In a recent talk, entitled, Nanotech and Jesus Christ, given on 1 November 2012 at Georgia Tech, Professor Tour revealed that he had a long-standing offer to buy lunch for anyone who would sit down and explain evolution to him, but that no-one had taken him up on his challenge:

But about seven or eight years ago I posted on my Web site that I don’t understand. And I said, “I will buy lunch for anyone that will sit with me and explain to me evolution, and I won’t argue with you until I don’t understand something – I will ask you to clarify. But you can’t wave by and say, ‘This enzyme does that.’ You’ve got to get down in the details of where molecules are built, for me.” Nobody has come forward.

The Atheist Society contacted me. They said that they will buy the lunch, and they challenged the Atheist Society, “Go down to Houston and have lunch with this guy, and talk to him.” Nobody has come!

Nick Matzke makes an offer…

Nick Matzke, who is is currently a doctoral student in evolutionary biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and who is also the former Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education, declared on February 18 that he would “love to” take up Professor Tour’s offer of a free lunch, “if someone pays my airfare.”

Two offers to contribute towards the cost of Mr. Matzke’s air travel were made. Mung kindly offered to pay for part of the cost. Another contributor, groovamos, went further and declared: “I will buy a ticket for Nick to Houston and will buy a night at a hotel on a weekend.” Groovamos added that he lives in Houston and would like to attend the meeting. He also promised that he would remain silent throughout the meeting, requesting only that he be permitted to ask questions after the meeting.

… which Professor Tour accepts…

I have just received an email from Professor James Tour, in response to Nick Matzke’s invitation. I trust that he will not mind me quoting a brief excerpt, as it directly pertains to the terms of the invitation:

If you would please inform Mr. Matzke that I would be delighted to have him to lunch at the Rice faculty; my treat. I really want to learn this, and I hope he can help me. And I shall be fine with groovamos paying his airfare and joining us in the meeting, which will not extend beyond the three of us, please. I shall pay for groovamos’s lunch too as only members can pay at the faculty club. So if groovamos agrees to stay quiet and settle in as a quiet observer only, I am fine with that as long as Mr. Matzke agrees.

Professor Tour added that he would do his very best to listen attentively to Mr. Matzke’s description without interjecting, and that he would only question Mr. Matzke when he did not understand what he said. Professor Tour also expressed his deep appreciation to Mr. Matzke, saying that it was very kind of him to propose such an offer.

… on one condition!

There’s just one condition that Professor Tour attached to the meeting, however. In his email to me, he stated: “It shall not be recorded or extend beyond the three of us as this is not for show but for my edification.”

In my original invitation which I issued to Professor Tour, when I informed him that Nick Matzke would like to explain macroevolution to him in person, I naturally mentioned his wish that someone pay his airfare, but I neglected to mention his wish that the meeting be recorded. I gave Professor Tour the address of my Web post, to which the conditions of Nick Matzke’s offer were attached. However, Professor Tour is a busy man, and he informed me in his email that he has not viewed my post, as he rarely reads blogs.

Barry Arrington recently wrote a very entertaining post about the “No true Scotsman” logical fallacy. Well, Nick Matzke may not be a true Scotsman; but he is certainly a true scientist. And what distinguishes a true scientist from ordinary mortals is that he/she is passionately motivated by the pursuit of truth for its own sake. Mr. Matzke is also the the former Public Information Project Director at the National Center for Science Education. In other words, he’s someone who really cares about educating people in the truth. I take it, then, that Mr. Matzke would regard the goal of setting Professor Tour straight about evolution as a worthy objective, in and of itself. Let me add that in my experience, Mr. Matzke has always shown himself to be a true gentleman. I trust, therefore, that he would happily respect another gentleman’s wish for privacy – particularly when that gentleman is an esteemed and distinguished scientist.

Professor Tour is a very kind and courteous man, and he has also informed me that there is a chance that Mr. Matzke can get a flight to Houston from SFC in the morning, have lunch, and fly back on the same day. Professor Tour adds (and I hope he won’t mind me quoting him here): “If he needs a night here in Houston, he is welcome to stay in my home. Maybe we can have more conversations at our family dinner table. I enjoy seeing my children exposed to diverse insights from kind people.”

Finally, Professor Tour writes that Mr. Matzke is welcome to contact him directly to arrange a mutually agreeable time when they can reserve a couple of hours for a private lesson over lunch. He also suggested that Mr. Matzke contact groovamos. To facilitate matters, Professor Tour’s contact details are here and Mr. Matzke’s contact details are here. I sincerely hope that the parties concerned can make suitable arrangements.

I also asked Professor Tour about the Atheist Society’s offer to cover the cost, and he replied that the offer had been made from the national office, and not from Rice University. He added that it was made many years ago, and said that it might still be somewhere on the Web. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to locate it, so I presume that the relevant page must have been taken down.

In any case, it is now up to Mr. Matzke to respond to Professor Tour’s offer. The ball is in his court. Your move, Nick.

Comments

48 KF: I HAD an inquinal hernia - it's gone - no surgery - I am a believer - "Chosen, one who has heard His calling" (I write songs) - coincidence?alan_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

esc2 at #9 My thought exactly, but Nick and Kantian think "differently" don't you know. A simple and gracious offer and for its stated purpose.alan_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

I fail to see how “biological systems in general and evolution in particular” are exempt from this otherwise ubiquitous observation of minor change intolerance in complex systems.
What you fail to see is not really my problem and I am not here to champion evolution as a concept. Evolution manages very well as a work-in-progress that continues to match available evidence without my input. But regarding your
If you would, please explain why Bruce and I are wrong when we apply our emperical observations to “biological systems in general and evolution in particular”
I would simply say that a living cell or living organism bears only superficial resemblance to a car or a computer. Mechanical objects don't reproduce for example. A car does not carry the instructions to build another copy of itself that it can pass on. There are no embryo cars to grow into sexually active cars; cars don't heal when injured, are not a seething maelström of chemical reactions at the sub-cellular level. Other than that and lots more, I see what you mean.Alan Fox_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Alan, I am referring to your dismisal of Bruce's experience as outlined in his comment in #41 in particular and many other obsevers in general. As for myself, I have personal experience in designing, constructing, optimizing and troubleshooting electrical/electronic/pneumatic/hydraulic machinery in manufacturing environments. As well as computer and PLC programming and defining of the protocals for exchange of data between those computers in the machinery I have been involved in designing. Bruce is correct when he points out that all of these systems are utterly intolerant of even minor changes unless they are carefully integrated into the system. Whether those changes be unintentional component failures or intentional changes to the programmed logic of a computer system. I can force a mechanical system to continue to function by taking additional steps to "bypass" the failed component or restore the computer to functionality by adding the code to integrate the minor code change into the whole. I fail to see how "biological systems in general and evolution in particular" are exempt from this otherwise ubiquitous observation of minor change intolerance in complex systems. If you would, please explain why Bruce and I are wrong when we apply our emperical observations to "biological systems in general and evolution in particular" in 6000 words or less (or more, if necessary.) KF, Thanks for your support in #53. Stephensterusjon_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

AF: The pivotal issue is Irreducible complexity, as was noted on here some time ago. In simplest terms, until there are sound, empirical observation grounded answers to all five of the Menuge criteria C1 - 5, there is no sound incrementalist or exaptationist answer. It so happens that these are closely connected to the issues of systems integration that are being discussed in the thread. Their general applicability should be obvious:
For a working [bacterial] flagellum to be built by exaptation, the five following conditions would all have to be met: C1: Availability. Among the parts available for recruitment to form the flagellum, there would need to be ones capable of performing the highly specialized tasks of paddle, rotor, and motor, even though all of these items serve some other function or no function. C2: Synchronization. The availability of these parts would have to be synchronized so that at some point, either individually or in combination, they are all available at the same time. C3: Localization. The selected parts must all be made available at the same ‘construction site,’ perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed. C4: Coordination. The parts must be coordinated in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a flagellum are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant. C5: Interface compatibility. The parts must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if a paddle, rotor, and motor are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly. ( Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science, pgs. 104-105 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). HT: ENV.)
I trust this helps. KFkairosfocus_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

KN: Body Plans [and yes, we are using the English word] is a significant term in describing the functional integrated organisation of life forms, connected to taxonomy in many ways. These are built up during embryological development, or the equivalent, as we move from the Zygote or equivalent on up. And in the case of organisms undergoing complete metamorphosis, we have more than one body plan to deal with in the life cycle. As is usual we can cite Wiki speaking against known ideological interest:
A body plan is the blueprint for the way the body of an organism is laid out. Each species of multicellular organism—plant, fungus, red algae, slime mold, among others—has a body plan. This article is about animal body plans. An animal's symmetry,[1] its number of body segments and limbs are all aspects of its body plan. One of the key issues of developmental biology is the evolution of body plans as different as those of a starfish, or a mammal, which come from a close common biological heritage-both are deuterostomes. One issue in particular is how radical changes in body plans have occurred over geological time. The body plan is a key feature of an organism's morphology and, since the discovery of DNA, developmental biologists have been able to learn a lot about how genes control the development of structural features through a cascade of processes in which key genes produce morphogens, chemicals that diffuse through the body to produce a gradient that acts as a position indicator for cells, turning on other genes, some of which in turn produce other morphogens. A key discovery was the existence of groups of homeobox genes, which are responsible for laying down the basic body plan in animals. The homeobox genes are remarkably conserved between species as diverse as the fruit fly and man, the basic segmented pattern of the worm or fruit fly being the origin of the segmented spine in man. The field of animal evolutionary developmental biology, which studies the genetics of morphology in detail, is now a rapidly expanding one [1], with many of the developmental genetic cascades, particularly in the fruit fly drosophila, now catalogued in considerable detail.[2] Body plan is the basis for distinguishing animal phyla, and there are 35 different basic animal body plans, each corresponding to distinct animal phyla.
In the context of the Cambrian revolution, the relevant categories are at the phylum and sub phylum levels. Here is a significant 2004 discussion, by Meyer, in the context of that revolution:
The Cambrian explosion represents a remarkable jump in the specified complexity or "complex specified information" (CSI) of the biological world. For over three billions years, the biological realm included little more than bacteria and algae (Brocks et al. 1999). Then, beginning about 570-565 million years ago (mya), the first complex multicellular organisms appeared in the rock strata, including sponges, cnidarians, and the peculiar Ediacaran biota (Grotzinger et al. 1995). Forty million years later, the Cambrian explosion occurred (Bowring et al. 1993) . . . One way to estimate the amount of new CSI that appeared with the Cambrian animals is to count the number of new cell types that emerged with them (Valentine 1995:91-93) . . . the more complex animals that appeared in the Cambrian (e.g., arthropods) would have required fifty or more cell types . . . New cell types require many new and specialized proteins. New proteins, in turn, require new genetic information. Thus an increase in the number of cell types implies (at a minimum) a considerable increase in the amount of specified genetic information. Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs. Yet to build the proteins necessary to sustain a complex arthropod such as a trilobite would require orders of magnitude more coding instructions. The genome size of a modern arthropod, the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, is approximately 180 million base pairs (Gerhart & Kirschner 1997:121, Adams et al. 2000). Transitions from a single cell to colonies of cells to complex animals represent significant (and, in principle, measurable) increases in CSI . . . . In order to explain the origin of the Cambrian animals, one must account not only for new proteins and cell types, but also for the origin of new body plans . . . Mutations in genes that are expressed late in the development of an organism will not affect the body plan. Mutations expressed early in development, however, could conceivably produce significant morphological change (Arthur 1997:21) . . . [but] processes of development are tightly integrated spatially and temporally such that changes early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream. For this reason, mutations will be much more likely to be deadly if they disrupt a functionally deeply-embedded structure such as a spinal column than if they affect more isolated anatomical features such as fingers (Kauffman 1995:200) . . . McDonald notes that genes that are observed to vary within natural populations do not lead to major adaptive changes, while genes that could cause major changes--the very stuff of macroevolution--apparently do not vary. In other words, mutations of the kind that macroevolution doesn't need (namely, viable genetic mutations in DNA expressed late in development) do occur, but those that it does need (namely, beneficial body plan mutations expressed early in development) apparently don't occur.
The issues on the merits in this need to be answered, not waved away. KFkairosfocus_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Small changes, mostly by breakdown of existing structures, are easy to explain. Origin of highly complex and integrated function based on multiple parts, is another.
It's not as if we have even started to get a handle on the bacterial flagellum!Alan Fox_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

AF: He is speaking of people who work with complex technological systems, whether cybernetic, mechanical, electronics, robotics, process control, servo, or telecomms or chemical or computational etc. Systems integration is a difficult, even a daunting task. And, incrementalism does not explain such systems. Biological systems intersect with several of the above categories and the principles and issues of general systems theory speak to the situation. Loud and clear. KFkairosfocus_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

AF: The micro-macro distinction pivots on an very important issue, scope and scale of change, thus search cpacity of accessible resources. Small changes, mostly by breakdown of existing structures, are easy to explain. Origin of highly complex and integrated function based on multiple parts, is another. And waving it away does not change that systems reality. KFkairosfocus_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

...repeated experience by multiple observers in varied fields (myself included)...
Refers to what, exactly?Alan Fox_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

AF: On the contrary, the incrementalism challenge shows just why the issues of functionally specific complexity speak strongly to both computers and to living systems. The notion that you can get complexity dependent on the precise fitting, integration, arrangement and co-ordination of multiple parts, incrementally, each change functional all the way, is on its face, highly dubious. The OOL case, where the usual distractors about natural selection are out of the way, is simply the most clear case. And it is one where the blind watchmaker thesis is in a lot of trouble. Too often, glossed over. KFkairosfocus_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Mung:
So when Alan Fox asked you, why didn’t you just say that macroevolution is just repeated rounds of microevolution taking place in different species over very long timescales? That’s apparently what he thinks and you couldn’t even be bothered to disabuse him of the notion.
Nick's comment clarifies quite satisfactorily for me that we that there is no difference over facts or concepts, just descriptions. I don't see the need for the two words. Evolution covers it. There are perfectly good descriptives for sub-categories. As Nick said:
In a perfect world, scientists would refer to these specific processes rather than the very general micro/macro distinction, but as long as the terms are being used, it behooves us to understand what they mean within the scientific community.
Alan Fox_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

Alan, I find your hand-waving dismisal in #45 just above to be trivially interesting and wholly unpersuasive. What I would find utterly facinating is the 6000 word response to KF's challenge. Tell me, please, why is the application of repeated experience by multiple observers in varied fields (myself included) inapplicable to biological systems in general and evolution in particular. Stephensterusjon_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

AF: Actually, the need for God does not vanish with discovery of laws he has set up to order reality! (Notice, the context of that term, Laws of Nature. Ever seen laws without a lawgiver? BTW, a point noted on at least since Plato in The laws Bk X.) Feynman is wrong on that -- brilliant physicist (bit careless with RA stuff, they all were in the 40s, pity), but made a basic phil error here. The root reason people believe in God is in the first instance that a significant number of people have met him in their lives, as he has acted in power and in personal encounter. Just y/day, I had a talk with a young father whose daughter, just born, had a GI tract obstruction. In record time they got emergency travel docs and headed to Miami. At the a/port the sup took one look and waved them through -- two tired parents with a newborn girl with an IV drip in her foot; in the end, 50 hrs without sleep. They got a car and hotfooted through the night to Central FL, to the hospital. Then, as the father watched on screen (while Surgeons were scrubbing up), the obstruction vanished! They are back here, rejoicing in the God who heals. Even as Pascal, was transformed through his night of fire encounter with the Living God. Next, if you deal with God on an intellectual level, God is the necessary being at the root of being. And, so also, Architect and Maker of the contingent world in which we live, the Eternal Mind in whom eternal truths reside, and who is the author of our own minds, and the giver of core moral law that we find written on our consciences. And he is the gracious one, our Saviour. As the old poet put it, in him we live, move and have our being. KFkairosfocus_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out.
Richard Feynman quoted in Superstrings: A Theory of Everything, edited by P.C.W. Davies and J. Brown.Alan Fox_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

I designed, built, and modified large computer software systems. To me—and I believe that anyone who has worked with large complex systems of any kind would agree—it is prima facea true that it is impossible to make a major change to a complex system in small incremental steps if one includes the requirement that the system continue to work at least as well after each such modification as it did before.
Which demonstrates why analogies from computer engineering have limited use in attempting to understand biological systems in general and evolution in particular.Alan Fox_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

BD @ 41 Like! I second englishmaninistanbul. "The devil is in the details"Chris Doyle_{February 21, 2013
February
02
Feb
21
21
2013
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

BD @ 41 +1 "What I cannot create, I do not understand." -Richard Feynman.englishmaninistanbul_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT}

Some rules. Macroevolution must be explained using biological scientific evidence. No fossils, genetics, biogeography, marine mammals, what God would do , or any mere lines of reasoning.Robert Byers_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT}

KN: Hi there. Long time no talk. My professional career, from which I am now retired, was in IT. I designed, built, and modified large computer software systems. To me---and I believe that anyone who has worked with large complex systems of any kind would agree---it is prima facea true that it is impossible to make a major change to a complex system in small incremental steps if one includes the requirement that the system continue to work at least as well after each such modification as it did before. In software terms, you simply can't make a major modification to a system one line of code at a time and expect it to work after each such change. To someone who is familiar with systems, the proposition that a cardiovascular system based on a bellows lung could evolve into one based on a circular (avian) lung in small incremental steps is preposterous, to pick one example out of literally millions of similar ones. One the microscopic level, the proposition that a bacteria could evolve the ability to grow a useful flagellum in incremental, Darwinian steps is equally preposterous. I use the word "useful" in the preceding sentence because not only do all the components of the flagellum itself, based on some forty or so proteins, have to be present, but the program for constructing it, stunningly complex in itself, also has to be there, as well as sensing capability so that the organism knows in what direction it would be beneficial to move, and also the ability to control the motor (or motors, in the case of multiple flagella) to propel it in that direction. In other words, it is prima facea impossible for major innovations in living organisms to come about in Darwinian fashion, no matter how much time is available. Therefore, if one wishes to establish the validity of the Darwinian paradigm, the burden of proof is upon his or her shoulders. And general stories just won't do. There need to be specific scenarios presented that show how it could be possible for this to occur, and these scenarios need to be specific at the chemical level, because that is where the action is. Random mutations are chemical events. And their consequences are chemical first and morphological secondarily. Absent this level of explanation, Darwinism is no better than idle speculation. In my view, it is this intuitive understanding of the system nature of living organisms that underlies the skepticism of biochemists such as Behe and Tour (and many, many others).Bruce David_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

This was sold as an all too uncommon gracious attitude of disagreeing scientists meeting with another to discuss their differences and learn. I was looking forward to it happening just for the novelty of it. However reading Matzke definition of success being a "demonstration that Tour and his fans were not in the least educated enough on the topic to offer meaningful opinions on the validity of macroevolution, any more than someone who confused carbon and oxygen would be qualified to discuss chemistry" I see the graciousness and nobleness of it as being WAY oversold even to the point of disingenuity. I half suspect Matzke is trying to torpedo the meeting (especially since he considers the payoff low) or else why declare the goal as discrediting education levels rather than just enlightenment between two human beings? and why try take the molecular concerns off the table when we know this is Tour's major issue? and why insult the intelligence of a clearly intelligent man by assuming that he has not in fact educated himself on a subject to offer anything meaningful? Even if it does happen the odds are extremely high that it will be characterized differently by both sides so its waning in appeal given the revelations. With those attitudes going in the money might do better given to a charity.Sorroto_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

"plus adding that much CO2 to the atmosphere"
lolJGuy_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

In re: (38), yes, I took that to be implied in how I was using the terms.Kantian Naturalist_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

And in a sense, this is what the debate is all about — are mutation and selection sufficient to account for body-plans?
Not just mutation and selection, but random mutation and natural selection.William J Murray_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT}

Nick: @30:
If Tour learned that the scientific definition of “macroevolution” is something almost entirely different from the creationist definition of “macroevolution” . . .
Nick, I, for one, am interested to know your definition of macroevolution. You’ve told us things it isn’t. You’ve hinted at things that might support the idea. How would you define it — in a sentence or two?
Sigh. We covered this in the original thread: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-world-famous-chemist-tells-the-truth-theres-no-scientist-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/#comment-447204NickMatzke_UD_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

Here's a thought: evolution is the process whereby environmental information becomes genetic information.Kantian Naturalist_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

In re: Eric Anderson @ 28: Firstly, speciation has been observed in the wild, so it's just not true that all observed evolutionary events have been below the species level. Secondly -- and here I'll confess my ignorance -- I'm not aware of anyone in the pro-ID 'camp' who has really shown what is meant by "body-plan" and what one is committed to in using this term. Bauplane are, if memory serves, a term of mid-19th-century German biology. (Haeckel, maybe?) And in a sense, this is what the debate is all about -- are mutation and selection sufficient to account for body-plans? For a long time, I think, there was room for reasonable doubt, but the scope for reasonable doubt is narrowing the more we learn about evo-devo. A further point: post-Darwin, higher taxa (families, orders, etc.) aren't "really" real -- they're just convenient terms for labeling degrees of similarity and difference between species. (Post-Darwin, species are real, but they aren't kinds or essences -- they are real in the same way that armies, football teams, political parties, and nationalities are real. This is why "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" is exactly the same as "if we descended from the English, then why are there still English?") Point is, post-Darwin, body-plans are just convenient idealizations or models -- there's no higher level of biological reality that transcends the species-level. And if you want to continue to use "body-plan" in this pre-Darwinian way, there's some serious metaphysics that has to be worked out here.Kantian Naturalist_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

. . . phenomena which are actually mostly about processes that cannot be reduced to chemistry.
Nick, on another occasion you recently indicated that you believed all the information for an organism is contained within its DNA. (I won't debate that now; we'll just assume that is the case for the present question.) In addition, it would be fair to say, would it not, that what goes on in an organism -- from initial growth, to its life and sustainability -- is built on biochemistry. Whatever other phenomena you have in mind -- perhaps environmental factors, genetic effects, population specifics -- don't they all ultimately have to get incorporated into the biochemistry? Indeed, if everything is contained in the DNA, they have to all get incorporated into the very DNA itself. I'm just trying to understand what other phenomena would not ultimately manifest their macroevolutionary influence through the biochemistry?Eric Anderson_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

EA @ 28 +1. Too bad there isn't a thumbs up button.Optimus_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

Nick: @30:
If Tour learned that the scientific definition of “macroevolution” is something almost entirely different from the creationist definition of “macroevolution” . . .
Nick, I, for one, am interested to know your definition of macroevolution. You've told us things it isn't. You've hinted at things that might support the idea. How would you define it -- in a sentence or two?Eric Anderson_{February 20, 2013
February
02
Feb
20
20
2013
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply