dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/19/85)
> [Padraig Houlahan] > Paul DuBois, > Your initial response with the 'lack of specificity' comment was unclear > (see below) but you have now clarified the situation to my satisfaction, > and indeed there is no contradiction when your qualifications are taken > into acount. I'm very glad that we are communicating with each other! I hope the channels stay open. I have comment on only one statement of the rest of your article. The statement was: > Your analogy was not good to begin with. (The one thing that evolutionists > are in agreement on is the mechanism i.e. mutants arising in a population > that can take advantage of some resource that the rest of the population > is unable to tap into, causing the mutants to thrive and perhaps come > to dominate the population. There is no trepidation amongst evolutionists > on this issue that I am aware of). Keeping in mind that mutations are undoubtedly widely accepted, I am unable to agree that there is no trepidation about them. I will try to illustrate this with some passages from evolutionary writers. [Some of you will notice a certain amount of overlap with the "Case for Creation" articles (though I wrote this before those began appearing). Keep in mind that my aim is different.] ---------- T Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species, Columbia University Press, New York, 1951, page 73: "The studies on the genetic variability in natural populations have revealed a stuation which appears highly paradoxical at first sight. The mutation process constantly and unremittingly generates new hereditary variants - gene mutations and chromosomal changes ... And yet, a majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations, produce deterioriations of viability, hereditary disease, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks. "The situation seems even more difficult to understand because the mutation rates are subject to genotypic control: genetic factors reducing and enhancing the mutability occur apparently not infrequently ... since a majority of mutants are injurious, the adaptive value of strains with high mutability will tend to be lower than that of strains in which the mutability is reduced." Note: I know that Dobzhansky does in fact think that mutations are the source of evolutionary variability - but he does express at least a bit of hesitancy here. ---------- C P Martin, "A non-geneticist looks at evolution". American Scientist, 41, 1953, 100-106. "Certainly I, and most of my fellow recusants, unreservedly accept every established fact in genetics. But we feel that none of these facts, nor all of them together, establishes the mutation-selection theory beyond all doubt." [p100] "In natural populations endless millions of small and genic differences exist, but there is no evidence that they arose by mutation." Admits that the temptation is to think so, but "even with this admission, it would be wishful thinking to pretend that the mutation-selection theory rests on a firm foundation of definitely ascertained facts." [p101] "What is really disturbing to me, if I may presume to say so, is the almost total lack of scientific caution and self-criticism current in genetical circles in regard to the accepted theory of evolution by mutation. The recent textbooks of Huxley ... Dobzhansky ... Schmalhausen ... and others reveal an impressive and indeed overwhelming knowledge of mutations but the authors are all frank partisans of the accepted theory and almost completely devoid of a critical attitude. Their books are written entirely within the presupposition laid down by the theory; they take it for granted and proceed to interpret a vast array of observations in its terms. Naturally their observations appear to confirm, or at least conform to, the theory. Such practices certainly will never bring any fallacies to light which the theory may contain, but will only serve to deepen the faith of the believer. Consequently, by far the greater number of students that come my way - and they are drawn from many American and Canadian universites - are completely indoctrinated with the idea that the theory of evolution by mutation is a closed issue, an unquestionably established fact. It is not that they are aware of the difficulities which I have mentioned above and esteem them of little weight or importance; they have never heard of them and are amazed at the bare possibility of the accepted theory being criticized." [pp104-105] ---------- Ernst Chain, Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society, Council of Christians and Jews, London, 1970, page 1. "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it is amazing that they are swallowed so uncritically and so readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest." ---------- Pierre Grasse', "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation". Academic Press, New York, 1977. "Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore living things evolve. "This logical scheme is, however unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. "We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural selection. [Note that this is exactly the role natural selection plays according to many creationists - pd] Lethal mutations (the worst kind) are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. The human species provides a great many examples of this, e.g., the color of the eyes, the shape of the auricle, dermatoglyphics, the color and texture of the hair, the pigmentation of the skin. Mutants are present within every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution." [p88] (Note to Mike Huybensz: the above is the answer to your question "what did he say?" that you posted in response to the citation of Grasse' in one of the "Case for Creation" articles.) Earlier he says regarding bacteria: "Bacteria, the study of which has formed a great part of the foundation of genetics and molecular theory, are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants ... The bacillus _Escherichia coli_, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago! "What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect." [p87] None of this shows that mutations actually are insufficient to produce evolution, of course, and that is not what I am trying to show. It only indicates that the agreement on mutations as the source of evolutionary variability is not something to be taken for granted. Which also shows, perhaps, that if you want to discover whether evolutionists agree with each other on a particular issue, the expert you seek will often be a creationist. This is a great tragedy, in more than one way... -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (04/21/85)
Paul DuBois [ > ], Me (Padraig) [ >> ] > I'm very glad that we are communicating with each other! I hope the > channels stay open. I have comment on only one statement of the rest > of your article. The statement was: > > > Your analogy was not good to begin with. (The one thing that evolutionists > > are in agreement on is the mechanism i.e. mutants arising in a population > > that can take advantage of some resource that the rest of the population > > is unable to tap into, causing the mutants to thrive and perhaps come > > to dominate the population. There is no trepidation amongst evolutionists > > on this issue that I am aware of). > > Keeping in mind that mutations are undoubtedly widely accepted, I am > unable to agree that there is no trepidation about them. I will try > to illustrate this with some passages from evolutionary writers. > [Some of you will notice a certain amount of overlap with the "Case > for Creation" articles (though I wrote this before those began > appearing). Keep in mind that my aim is different.] > I am also pleased to see that we are communicating with each other, therefore I must point out that I am thoroughly confused over this article. You say that you cannot agree that there is no "trepidation", and include 4 extensive quotes to support your point. The only problem is that the word "trepidation" means "a state of fear or anxiety, nervous agitation" according to the Oxford Am. Dictionary, which was the interpretation that I had intended. None of your quotes support that interpretation. I suspect that you are confusing "hesitancy" with "trepidation", as is indicated by the following selected quotes and comments in your article: > Note: I know that Dobzhansky does in fact think that mutations are > the source of evolutionary variability - but he does express at least > a bit of hesitancy here. > > C P Martin, "A non-geneticist looks at evolution". American Scientist, > 41, 1953, 100-106. > > "Certainly I, and most of my fellow recusants, unreservedly accept > every established fact in genetics. But we feel that none of these > facts, nor all of them together, establishes the mutation-selection > theory beyond all doubt." [p100] > "In natural populations endless millions of small and genic differences > exist, but there is no evidence that they arose by mutation." Admits > that the temptation is to think so, but "even with this admission, it > would be wishful thinking to pretend that the mutation-selection theory > rests on a firm foundation of definitely ascertained facts." [p101] > >... > None of this shows that mutations actually are insufficient to produce > evolution, of course, and that is not what I am trying to show. It > only indicates that the agreement on mutations as the source of > evolutionary variability is not something to be taken for granted. > Finally you make the comment: > Which also shows, perhaps, that if you want to discover whether > evolutionists agree with each other on a particular issue, the expert > you seek will often be a creationist. This is a great tragedy, in more > than one way... Judging by your article with its confusion, it's clear to me where the tragedy lies. Padraig Houlahan.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/22/85)
In article <942@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > Pierre Grasse', "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New > Theory of Transformation". Academic Press, New York, 1977. > > "Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, > talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following > syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living > beings undergo mutations, therefore living things evolve. > "This logical scheme is, however unacceptable: first, because its > major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its > conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they > may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. Grasse' is correct here, in the same sense that wood does not produce a house. Mutations are thought to be the raw material of evolution: recombination and selection compose the actual process. However, his syllogism is a straw horse. Partly because of the distinctions between microevolution and macroevolution. > "We add that it would be all too easy to object that mutations have > no evolutionary effect because they are eliminated by natural > selection. [Note that this is exactly the role natural selection plays > according to many creationists - pd] Lethal mutations (the worst kind) > are effectively eliminated, but others persist as alleles. The human > species provides a great many examples of this, e.g., the color of the > eyes, the shape of the auricle, dermatoglyphics, the color and texture > of the hair, the pigmentation of the skin. Mutants are present within > every population, from bacteria to man. There can be no doubt about > it. But for the evolutionist, the essential lies elsewhere: in the > fact that mutations do not coincide with evolution." [p88] Population genetics has explained for decades that mutations (excepting dominant lethals) are NOT eliminated from populations: they are maintained at a relatively constant low level. This is the idea of genetic load (for harmful mutations.) > (Note to Mike Huybensz: the above is the answer to your question "what > did he say?" that you posted in response to the citation of Grasse' in > one of the "Case for Creation" articles.) And as can be seen from the above, it certainly doesn't refute evolution nor support creationism. > Earlier he says regarding bacteria: "Bacteria, the study of which has > formed a great part of the foundation of genetics and molecular > theory, are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce > the most mutants ... The bacillus _Escherichia coli_, whose mutants > have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader > will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove > evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a > material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion > years ago! Why will I agree? The choice of bacteria was made because (pragmatically) they have relatively simple genetic systems with fewer variables, and thus are easier to experiment upon. It would be foolish to experiment ONLY on them: but this hasn't happened. And the mechanisms discovered have been confirmed in eucaryotic organisms as well. The information discovered also reveals that bacteria have not "stabilized": they are in constant genetic flux, exchanging chromosomal material through viruses and sex. > "What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? > In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary > fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing > to the left, but no final evolutionary effect." [p87] How does he know they do not change? How would they refrain from mutating? The idea of fluctuations around a local optimum is an important one for explaining stability of species, but overlooks the possibility of new and changing environments providing new local optimums. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh