BISTON BETULARIA

[Kenelm Philip]

	This thread has produced a number of interesting statements. My
comments on a few of these appear below:

> What I have a problem with is the notion that new genetic information
> can be generated randomly, especially when it is suggested that through
> such a process higher order can evolve from nothing.

	People who do not accept the idea of evolution often make this,
or some similar, statement. Evolutionists have no problem with the con-
cept that random variation PLUS natural selection can produce 'new
genetic information'. Anti-evolutionists may then add that no one has
seen such things happening, despite claims that it has occurred in the
past. It may be of interest, then, that in 1998 two Yale biologists
used random DNA sequences attached to histidine followed by 11 rounds
of mutation and selection to produce a powerful DNA enzyme that would
cut RNA. Since no DNA enzymes are known in nature, no biochemist could
have designed this from scratch--and thus we indeed have 'new information'.
Other striking successes with mutation plus selection have occurred in
computer simulations, but creationists tend to reject these as being
inapplicable to living systems. When the techniques work with DNA, how-
ever, it would appear (in my opinion) that there is no problem with
the idea of producing new genetic information through evolution.

> It was my (probably unguided) assumption that all theories of evolution
> were built upon the assumption that the only underlying mechanisms
> involved are purely stochastic.

	Mutation may be stochastic (subject to a few caveats: I suspect
that some mutations may be more or less probable than others, based purely
on the physics of DNA), but natural selection is most certainly _not_.
(And John Grehan will be happy to explain how mutations are not random,
if I understand him correctly.)

> Furthermore, I've seen nothing in my most humble observations of creation
> that would suggest or  demand that zillions of years have necessarily
> taken place since the origin of the universe.

	Try this one: If you list _all_ the radioactive nuclides with half
lives longer than 1 million years, and then delete from that list all those
which are being produced by ongoing processes (radioactive decay of more
massive nuclides, cosmic radiation, etc.) you will find something interest-
ing: all those with half lives of 80 million years or longer are present
in the earth--all those with half lives less than 80 million years are
absent. Either the earth is much older than 80 million years, or we have
a most amazing coincidence indeed (or God is trying to trick us into think-
ing the earth is more than 6000 years old).

> Species defnitions seem to be typological. Defintions such as the
> biological species defintion present a grouping in which the members
> of a population are considered replicas of the type - the "type" in this
> case being the essence of the species according to whatever definition
> is imposed. I think its unfair to label only creationists with this
burden.

	I have never before heard the claim that the BSC is typological.
One could equally well say the phylogenetic species concept is typological!
The BSC covers large variations in both phenotype and genotype. It is true
that species described under the BSC have type specimens--but that has
nothing to do with 'typology' as such. The type merely anchors the name
to a specimen, so if the taxon is split at some later time we'll know
which branch carries the original name, provided that the type can be
assigned to one of the branches. By _any_ definition, a member of a species
will share some characters (including its phylogeny) with other members
of that species--if that's 'typology' then typology is not a very useful
concept.

	If I sound a bit dogmatic/arrogant/elitist, you'll have to excuse
me. Last week I attended a couple of lectures by a visiting young-earth
creationist, who discussed 'creation science' for a few hours. I failed
to see much science, but I did see some logical holes you could drive an
eighteen-wheeler through. I asked him a question about the ages suggested
by work on stellar evolution, and was amused by his reply "That's just
mathematical modelling!" So is celestial mechanics (based on Newton's
_Theory_ of universal gravitation)--but our spacecraft nonetheless get
to their destinations (so long as NASA doesn't get the units wrong).

							Ken Philip
fnkwp at uaf.edu