Re: P.Johnson on James Dobson

Richard Kouchoo (rkouchoo@firstdata.com.au)
Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:13:58 +1000

"Natural selection is primarily a mechanism of microevolution. Mutation is
the sole source for the origin of new structures (ie macroevolution).
People
often claim one mutation can't create a "wing" --- but... one mutation can
create a two-headed snake - we know that because people have seen it within
our lifetimes"

However the "two headed" snake scenario is just an example of the
duplication of 'code' by error (mutation). To create a "wing", a totally
NEW structure, NEW code is needed. I think this is where Johnson and others
are coming from.

---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Kouchoo/First Data Resources/AU
on 19/11/99 11:42 ---------------------------

"Wendee Holtcamp" <wendee@greendzn.com> on 20/11/99 03:13:26

To: RDehaan237@aol.com
cc: asa@calvin.edu (bcc: Richard Kouchoo/First Data Resources/AU)
Subject: Re: P.Johnson on James Dobson

Bob wrote:
>The problem for macroevolutionists is to employ natural selection to
account
>for "incipient structures", for example, between the mammalian land
ancestor
>to the "useful structures" of modern blue whales.
AND
>However, I am open to evidence that confirms macroevolution by natural
>selection if you have any that I may not be aware of.

Natural selection is primarily a mechanism of microevolution. Mutation is
the sole source for the origin of new structures (ie macroevolution).
People
often claim one mutation can't create a "wing" --- but... one mutation can
create a two-headed snake - we know that because people have seen it within
our lifetimes

In addition, the definition of "species" is completey man-made. We define
it
as two organisms that can't mate and/or produce viable offspring -- but
sometimes such populations are just separated by geographic distance, and
if
we brought them physically together they would be able to mate and produce
viable offspring. Sometimes geographically separated populations turn
(evolve) into creatures that can no longer mate and produce viable
offspring
because their body shape changes slightly. This is, according to
definition,
macro-evolution and it has occurred on time scales that human beings can
observe). Two species that once could have mated can no longer because of
changes caused by microevolution and therefore - by human definitions - are
no longer a single species. However, I don't know if the good Lord
considers
them still one "kind" (as the creation account defines what we call
species)
or not.

How does one know God didn't create organisms as broad "kinds" that are
able
to then diversify? That certainly seems to be what has happened if you look
at creation and what non-biased science has revealed. What we call a
species
is not necessarily what God calls a "kind".

As for Gould's opposition to Mivart; Gould proposed the theory of
punctuated
equilibrium, and he rejects certain of Darwin's ideas but not natural
selection as a whole. Mutation can cause new structures to appear and not
natural selection solely as proposed by Darwin. Certainly no single
scientist, Darwin and Gould included, have a perfect picture of the way
things work. Each person's ideas and theories and studies add a small bit
of
information to the great wonderful puzzle.

My apologies if I have made a mistake in my understanding of the above
things, but in my reading of both popular and scientific literature and my
graduate studies in ecology, that is my understanding. I am happy to listen
to new insight!

Wendee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wendee Holtcamp -- wendee@greendzn.com -- http://www.greendzn.com
Environment/Travel/Science Writer -- Poet -- Photographer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But the child's sob curses deeper in the silence than the
strong man in his wrath. -- Elizabeth Barrett Browning

FIRST DATA - CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
===========================================
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have
received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing, or copying of this e-mail and any file attachments is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please destroy the
original transmission (including any attachments) and immediately notify
the sender by telephone at +612 9959 7333 or by reply e-mail.

First Data takes all care to ensure that data transmitted is free from
viruses or other faults/defects but does not represent or warrant that this
communication or any attached file(s) is free from such computer viruses or
other faults or defects. First Data will not be liable to the recipient or
any other person for any loss or damage (including direct, consequential or
economic loss or damage) however caused which may result directly or
indirectly from the receipt or use of this communication or any files
attached to it. It is the responsibility of any person using this
communication or opening any files attached to this communication to
implement appropriate measure to ensure the integrity of their environment
is maintained.