Define 'species'

[mark kennedy]

I really don't know what the point of this exchange is but both of my statements that evolutionary thought represents a metaphysical premise is not just defensable, its obvious. Scientific positivism, pragmatism, secular humanism and even natural selection are strictly antitheistic in their orientation. If you ever want to get into this for real we could start a thread in the philosophy forum. What I really don't understand is why the evolutionists aren't celebrating their metaphysics rather then denying the premise.

 

[Vance]

I have talked to numerous scientists and have discussed this subject in depth with them and elsewhere. It is simply a cop-out for Creationists to believe that all scientists are philosophical naturalists rather than just methodological naturalists.

The bottom line is that even for those who do hold to philosophical naturalism, this is not the basis for their scientific conclusions. True, it may be the RESULT of their scientific conclusions, but the science itself stands on its own, based solely on naturalistic methodology, without any philosophical interference.

And this is very easily and irrefutably proven: the thousands upon thousands of Christian scientists who fully accept the scientific conclusions of evolution and an old earth. Obviously, these scientists are not influenced by any anti-theistic philosophical naturalism. Their very existence, and in large numbers, disproves your theory that the conclusions reached about evolution are based on metaphysics.

 

[mark kennedy]

Methodological naturalism is both a philosophy and has a definite theological premise. Notice there is no definition of science here and yet it is inextricably linked to evolutionary thought. A methodology never gets far from its philosophical premise and allways returns to it for substantive support. Good ole metaphysics it can even be expanded to include all scientific thought and refute a theological premise, its very transendental isn't it.

 

[Vance]

OK, where is the proof that methodological naturalism is necessarily based on an anti-theistic philosophical premise. Not just some particular atheistic scientists who present their own theological and philosophical beliefs along with their science, but evidence that ALL methodological naturalism is based an anti-thiestic premise. Without just restating your premise, back it up.

And, at the same time, you will have to explain how Christian scientists use methodological naturalism in their scientific work and come to the same conclusions regarding evolution and the age of the earth.

Again, it gives YEC's a warm fuzzy, and they like to say it a lot, but all they can ever point to is some isolated quotes from atheistic scientists who think their science supports their atheism, which is only evidence of two things:

-their atheism
-the fact that atheists can try and use evolution to attempt to discredit theism

This does not, in any way, prove that scientific conclusions about origins are influenced by atheistic philosophies. There are atheistic, agnostic and theistic scientists who ALL agree that evolution is correct. This alone entirely proves your statement wrong.

 

[mark kennedy]

"Eliminating God from science made room for strictly scientific explanations of all natural phenomena; it gave rise to positivism; it produced a powerful intellectual and spiritual revolution, the effects of which have lasted to this day.
Second, Darwinism refutes typology. From the time of the Pythagoreans and Plato, the general concept of the diversity of the world emphasized its invariance and stability. This viewpoint is called typology, or essentialism. The seeming variety, it of a limited number of natural kinds each one forming a class. The members of each class were thought to be identical, constant, and sharply separated from the members of other essences."

http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e36_2/darwin_influence.htm

Now if you seriously have no idea who Ernst Mayr is you might want to read this real quick.

http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e36_2/darwin_influence.htm#1

Any idea what positivism is? Its not that hard to find doing a Google search. Basically it teaches (I am paraphrasing Comte here), that all human reasoning goes through three sucessive stages. The theological (or the fictional), the metaphysical, and then finally the scientific. That's why the term for species had to rendered 'undiscoverable' it was designed to undermine the ideal of essense as a result of divine providence.

I have more, much more, but that should do as a start. This thing you call evolution is clearly philosophical and antitheistic in it's orientation. I see no reason why an orthodox evolutionist would even want to deny this.

 

[Vance]

1. The effect evolution may have had does not define either evolution itself or the methodology used to arrive at those conclusions. Very poor logic there.

2. Yes, evolution overturned the concept of "typology". Again, that is just an effect, not any evidence going to the nature of the methodology which arrived at the conclusions.

3. Yes, I know who Mayr is. I have his "What Evolution Is". And, yes, he is one of those who take the scientific conclusions of evolution and make use of them to further philosophical ends, IIRC. But again, this says NOTHING about the methodology that arrived at those conclusions.

4. Yes, I know what positivism is, and you have failed to show any evidence that this philosophical approach was instrumental in *causing* the development of evolution, or that it overlays naturalistic methodology.

You keep talking around the subject and simply showing that the conclusions of evolutionary theory can, and have, been used by some to support anti-theistic sentiments. Saying that this is evidence that the anti-theistic sentiment underlies naturalistic methodology is still very poor logic.

And you still have not addressed my simple proof that falsifies your theory before you even get started: All the theistic scientists, including a very large number of Christian scientists, who all use naturalistic methodology to arrive at the conclusions of evolutionary theory.

You are pulling typical YEC tactics: avoid the tough questions and just continue to restate the mantra of your premise without evidence to back it up.

 

[mark kennedy]

1. The effect evolution may have had does not define either evolution itself or the methodology used to arrive at those conclusions. Very poor logic there.

Did you even read the quote? That is exactly what methodological naturalism has done.

2. Yes, evolution overturned the concept of "typology". Again, that is just an effect, not any evidence going to the nature of the methodology which arrived at the conclusions.

What it is, is an attack on special creation and the divine providence. The evolutionist is not only bold but explicit in this regards.

3. Yes, I know who Mayr is. I have his "What Evolution Is". And, yes, he is one of those who take the scientific conclusions of evolution and make use of them to further philosophical ends, IIRC. But again, this says NOTHING about the methodology that arrived at those conclusions.

Then you know that the methodology is antithestic in its orientation and premise. You know that all of it is a secularized world view that has become completly intolerant of anything suggesting theistic reasoning. It is a philosophical premise and you have done nothing but affirm this.

4. Yes, I know what positivism is, and you have failed to show any evidence that this philosophical approach was instrumental in *causing* the development of evolution, or that it overlays naturalistic methodology.

So the most influencial thinker in evolutionary thought was wrong about the rejection of theistic reasoning being the most important element of the modern synthesis? You would dare to contradict Ernst Mayr on this point?

You keep talking around the subject and simply showing that the conclusions of evolutionary theory can, and have, been used by some to support anti-theistic sentiments. Saying that this is evidence that the anti-theistic sentiment underlies naturalistic methodology is still very poor logic.

You keep saying that but as yet this is an unsupported assumption. Try reading the essay and if you want to contradict the man most responsible for the modern sythesis I won't argue.

And you still have not addressed my simple proof that falsifies your theory before you even get started: All the theistic scientists, including a very large number of Christian scientists, who all use naturalistic methodology to arrive at the conclusions of evolutionary theory.

You are pulling typical YEC tactics: avoid the tough questions and just continue to restate the mantra of your premise without evidence to back it up.

Typical evolutionary tactics, if we stick to empirical proofs then we are agreeing, if we argue against the universal common ancestor we are denying science. You have allready contradicted the foremost authority on the subject and I wonder if you even bothered to read the essay.

 

[Vance]

"Did you even read the quote? That is exactly what methodological naturalism has done."

Yes, I read the quote, and no, that is not "what methodological naturalism has done." Methodological Naturalism is a process for reaching conclusions that does not deny the possibility of a God in any sense at all. All you are pointing to is what has resulted, for some, from the scientific conclusions reached by following Methodological Naturalism. You must be able to see the difference.

"What it is, is an attack on special creation and the divine providence. The evolutionist is not only bold but explicit in this regards."

OK, exactly how is Methodological Naturalism itself, as a methodology for scientific discovery, an attack on anything? It is just an approach, a method. What you are talking about is Philosophical Naturalism. The fact that a religion-neutral methodology results in scientific conclusions which are then used by others to attack theism is no proof at all that the original methodology is anti-theistic. And, no "the evolutionist" is not bold in making anti-theistic statements. Only the atheistic evolutionist does this. And, this is the result of his atheism, not evolution.

"Then you know that the methodology is antithestic in its orientation and premise. You know that all of it is a secularized world view that has become completly intolerant of anything suggesting theistic reasoning. It is a philosophical premise and you have done nothing but affirm this."

No, what you are talking about, again, is the Philosophical Naturalism, not Methodological Naturalism. The methodology is used by Christians and non-Christians alike. How can it be anti-theistic? Again, I have already falsified your premise, but you refuse to even address that issue.

"So the most influencial thinker in evolutionary thought was wrong about the rejection of theistic reasoning being the most important element of the modern synthesis? You would dare to contradict Ernst Mayr on this point?"

Well, of course I would. The fact that he gets evolution as a natural process correct does not mean he is equally correct when he takes it into atheistic territory. The fact that atheists are able to use evolution to attack theism is not proof that evolution is atheistic. Atheistic historians can use the Crusades and the inquisition to assert that Christianity is inherently violent and evil and, thus, not valid. The eminence of the historian in the field of medieval studies would not make this improper theological extension of the facts regarding historial events supportable. Both athiests are simple correct on the science and incorrect in the theology.

Now, please address the evidence of theistic scientists who use naturalistic methodology in their work every single day. What about these folks:

http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/

Are you going to tell them that their methodology is inherently anti-theistic? That is simply not supportable.

 

[Loudmouth]

Did you even read the quote? That is exactly what methodological naturalism has done.

Who cares what it does. The findings of science are based on natural mechanisms, period. How does this say anything about the existence of God?

What it is, is an attack on special creation and the divine providence. The evolutionist is not only bold but explicit in this regards.

Special creation is nothing but an attack on other christians' interpretation of Genesis. Creationists ignore God's creation, while most christians who accept evolution have come to the realization that science reliably investigates God's Creation. Evolution is not an attack on christianity, it is an honest interpretation of God's creation.

Then you know that the methodology is antithestic in its orientation and premise. You know that all of it is a secularized world view that has become completly intolerant of anything suggesting theistic reasoning. It is a philosophical premise and you have done nothing but affirm this.

So I guess you don't take antibiotics since they are the result of anti-theistic, secular, methodological naturalism. Or how about gravity, is that theory hogwash as well? Or better yet, can you name one theory that relies on the presence of a deity for it to work? That is, is there some equation or theory that is used in any science that relies on the regular input from the supernatural? According to you, science wouldn't be able to make any technological advances without first inserting God into all of their work.

So the most influencial thinker in evolutionary thought was wrong about the rejection of theistic reasoning being the most important element of the modern synthesis? You would dare to contradict Ernst Mayr on this point?

The most important part of Christianity is rejecting everyone elses' theological reasoning except for your own sect. Science only rejects one more supernatural deity as being responsible for natural phenomena than christians do.

Typical evolutionary tactics, if we stick to empirical proofs then we are agreeing, if we argue against the universal common ancestor we are denying science. You have allready contradicted the foremost authority on the subject and I wonder if you even bothered to read the essay.

You can argue against a universal common ancestor, but you have to do it with empirical data. That is the catch. Otherwise it is a theory based on faith, and science doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing which deity to go with each week. So, science rejects all faith and depends on what is testable.

 

[gluadys]

I'm not sure where you are getting the 1:1 ratio of alleles or what your point is. Further I don't have a clue what kind of an implication you see in explicitly demonstrated hybrid peas on possible genotypes. This isnt about implicite possibilities but explicitly demonstrated hybrids reduced to mathmatical ratios. Now H-W equilibrium is when there is no selected presure, natural selection,migration and only two alleles. Why would Mendel want to get to H-W equilibrium while crossing hybrids.

OK, Mark, now you have firmly and completely established that you have no clue about simple genetics or the implications of Mendel’s work. That is why you are making basic errors and incorrect conclusions.

I am getting the 1:1 ratio of alleles directly from the simplest of Mendel’s experiments. Look at my questions 2 & 2a.

2. Do you agree Mendels' work was based primarily on crossing two varieties which bred pure for the trait(s) he was testing, e.g. smooth or wrinked skin, yellow or green seed colour, etc.

2a. What does that imply for the genotype of P1 generation?

Although he didn’t know it at the time, by assuring that his parental plants were breeding true, Mendel was assuring that they were homozygous for the trait he was interested in. So, if he was interested in seed texture (smoothly round or wrinkled), he was making sure that round peas always yielded round peas and wrinkled peas always yielded wrinkled peas.

One of the things he discovered is that in the F1 generation of the hybrids, all the peas were round, but that in the F2 generation 25% were wrinkled. This is what led to the formulation of the 3:1 ratio for the dominant trait in the phenotype.

But what about the genotype? You are already aware that the dominant allele masks the expression of the recessive allele. That is why the F1 generation shows only the dominant trait.

But the genotype of the F1 generation is necessarily heterozygous. Since Mendel had unknowingly assured that his starter plants were both homozygous, the round-seeded peas could only pass on an allele for roundness (R) and the wrinkled-seeded peas could only pass on an allele for wrinkled seeds (r). Consequently, all F1 plants have the heterozygous genotype Rr. That is a 1:1 ratio of the alleles in spite of the complete dominance of the round phenotype.

Now to go to the F2 generation, we begin with plants that are all heterozygous. In meiosis each gamete receives either an R or an r allele, and receives them in a 1:1 ratio. So we now have four possible genetic outcomes in the zygote.

An R allele is received from both parents=RR genotype= round phenotype
An paternal R allele mates with a maternal r allele=Rr genotype=round phenotype.
A maternal R allele mates with a paternal r allele=Rr genotype=round phenotype.
An r allele is received from both parents=rr genotype=wrinkled phenotype.

The 3:1 ratio of phenotypes is obvious. But count up all the alleles.
1 paternal R allele in each RR zygote and in ½ of the Rr zygotes
1 maternal R allele in each RR zygote and in ½ of the Rr zygotes
1 paternal r allele in each rr zygote and in ½ of the Rr zygotes
1 maternal r allele in each rr zygote and in ½ of the Rr zygotes

The allelic ratio is 1:1 Is it clear now how I got that?

See also

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mendel.html

Why would Mendel want to get to H-W equilibrium while crossing hybrids.

He wasn’t trying to get to an H-W equilibrium. Mendel did not know that such a thing existed. He discovered it!!!

And it didn’t get a name until the formula was worked out in the 20th century.

But Mendel made the initial discovery and also discovered something else—which should have been your answer to questions 3 & 3a

3. How does dominance and recessiveness produce the H-W equilibrium in the F1, F2 and subsequent generations?

3a. What does dominance and recessiveness imply about the possible genotypes of organisms showing dominant and recessive traits?

We’ve just seen how the 1:1 distribution of alleles combined with the dominance of one of them leads to a heterozygous F1 generation with the dominant phenotype. In the F2 generation 25% are homozygous for the dominant trait and 50% are heterozygous. Both of these groups exhibit the dominant trait. The remaining 25% are homozygous for the recessive trait and exhibit the recessive phenotype. Hence the 1:1 allelic ratio yields a 3:1 phenotypic ratio.

It also shows that those expressing the recessive phenotype are homozygous for the recessive allele. But of those expressing the dominant phenotype, only 1/3 are homozygous for the dominant allele. The other 2/3 are heterozygous and can pass the recessive allele to their offspring even though they don't express it themselves.

What Mendel also discovered is that if you continue to allow the plants to self seed, these genotypic and phenotypic ratios will both be maintained.

In short, you will not get a reversion to the homozygous condition of either of the grandparents: all RR or all rr. In each generation 25% will have each of the two homozygous conditions, but 50% will continue to maintain the heterozygous genotype.

Now I am sure we will both agree the scenario above is very simple and ideal. You will only get it normally in the controlled situation Mendel created. In nature you seldom have a 1:1 allelic ratio. You can have more than two alleles at one gene locus. You get a spectrum of dominance---it is not always just one or the other. You have factors other than dominance also influencing the expression of genotypes.

And, you have selection pressure favoring one phenotype over the other.

But let’s stay with our controlled situation for now. See what you can do now with question 4, assuming that Mendel decided to apply a 10% selection pressure against either the dominant or recessive phenotype.

4. What if Mendel had decided to impose a selective pressure on his test subjects? How would he exert a selective pressure against a dominant trait? What would be the expected result in the next two-three generations? How would this differ if he exerted a selective pressure against a recessive trait?

It is a little disturbing that a relativly minor point can get turned into a major issue. Mendel's laws wouldn't even address the long term changes in things like bones and brain sizes in mammals. It would seem that all a creationist has to be is a creationist to be wrong on here.

Well, it’s not as minor as you think. And Mendelian genetics do address the long-term changes—but that is something to explore once you have answered question 4. No it's not a matter of being wrong because of being a creationist. It's a matter of being wrong because of not knowing genetics well enough and making mistakes because of it.

 

[mark kennedy]

The real problem with methodological naturalism is that it is true by definition and it has real world implications for theistic reasoning. Christians are not all living under a rock oblivious to what is going on in the secular world, they know that theistic reasoning is being systematiclly torn down.

"So why must a scientist proceed in accordance with methodological naturalism? Michael Ruse suggests that methodological naturalism or at any rate part of it is true by definition:
Furthermore, even if Scientific Creationism were totally successful in making its case as science, it would not yield a scientific explanation of origins. Rather, at most, it could prove that science shows that there can be no scientific explanation of origins. The Creationists believe that the world started miraculously. But miracles lie outside of science, which by definition deals only with the natural, the repeatable, that which is governed by law."

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/plantinga/mn/MN2.html

I checked out the link and tried a couple of the essays. What specifically was it that you wanted me to respond to? I happen to like the theistic evolution scientist since they are at least willing to try to understand that God actaully gets involoved. So far you have rejected the antitheistic elements of naturalistic methodology, what I would like to know at this point is what is left of it when you include God at any level?

 

[Tomk80]

The real problem with methodological naturalism is that it is true by definition and it has real world implications for theistic reasoning. Christians are not all living under a rock oblivious to what is going on in the secular world, they know that theistic reasoning is being systematiclly torn down.

I disagree with you here. Methodological naturalism is a tool science uses, not more. The reason why we use it, is because it keeps us searching for answers. If heat waves in France kill thousands of people, I can either say goddidit, or use this tool to search for alternative explanations. If God really did it, I will keep searching till the end of eternity, I will never discover. However, this has not yet happened, which proves the adequacy of the tool.

"So why must a scientist proceed in accordance with methodological naturalism? Michael Ruse suggests that methodological naturalism or at any rate part of it is true by definition:

I am wondering what you consider true by definition, and don't think Ruses' quote supports this. I interpred the following as follows:

Furthermore, even if Scientific Creationism were totally successful in making its case as science, it would not yield a scientific explanation of origins. Rather, at most, it could prove that science shows that there can be no scientific explanation of origins. The Creationists believe that the world started miraculously. But miracles lie outside of science, which by definition deals only with the natural, the repeatable, that which is governed by law."

The only thing I get from this is that, if creationism would be right, science won't be able to show this on all levels. Science would be able to show that the flood happened and that 7-day creation 10.000 years ago happened, but would not be able to give an answer to the how it happened, because miracles lie outside of science. In that case we might have to conclude that our tool leads us nowhere anymore, or keep on scratching our heads till we have no hairs left. Ruse doesn't say more than that in my opinion (at least not based on this quote).

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/plantinga/mn/MN2.html

I checked out the link and tried a couple of the essays. What specifically was it that you wanted me to respond to? I happen to like the theistic evolution scientist since they are at least willing to try to understand that God actaully gets involoved. So far you have rejected the antitheistic elements of naturalistic methodology, what I would like to know at this point is what is left of it when you include God at any level?

If you say antitheistic, you imply that people try to disprove God. IMO this is a misunderstanding. Not wanting to invoke a certain explanation because that way we stop searching for answers, differs markedly from being against God, which is what you are implying. Science in this sense is agnostic, not atheistic or antitheistic.

 

[Vance]

The real problem with methodological naturalism is that it is true by definition and it has real world implications for theistic reasoning. Christians are not all living under a rock oblivious to what is going on in the secular world, they know that theistic reasoning is being systematiclly torn down.

"So why must a scientist proceed in accordance with methodological naturalism? Michael Ruse suggests that methodological naturalism or at any rate part of it is true by definition:
Furthermore, even if Scientific Creationism were totally successful in making its case as science, it would not yield a scientific explanation of origins. Rather, at most, it could prove that science shows that there can be no scientific explanation of origins. The Creationists believe that the world started miraculously. But miracles lie outside of science, which by definition deals only with the natural, the repeatable, that which is governed by law."

http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/plantinga/mn/MN2.html

I checked out the link and tried a couple of the essays. What specifically was it that you wanted me to respond to? I happen to like the theistic evolution scientist since they are at least willing to try to understand that God actaully gets involoved. So far you have rejected the antitheistic elements of naturalistic methodology, what I would like to know at this point is what is left of it when you include God at any level?

No, theistic reasoning is not being torn down. Christianity, and other religions, are still growing, and at ever increasing rates. The only thing that is being torn down (was torn down long ago) is the concept that all scientific conclusions must conform to a particular interpretation of Scripture. What has been added since the time of Geocentrism is that, occasionally, scientific discoveries about God's Creation can actually inform our understanding of Scripture.

Science is simply the study of God's Creation as a natural phenomenon, ie how it works in the absence of supernatural activity. This means it is just one tool in finding truth, since it can not, and recognizes that it can not, provide any input whatsoever about the existence or non-existence of super-natural phenomenon. Naturalistic methodology does not deny the existence of such phenomenon, it just can not take it into consideration since that is not its job. It is the job of theology to then explain when and where God was involved.

Now there are some scientists who not only use a naturalistic methodology in the daily work, they also have a naturalistic philosophy which says not only that science can only study the natural, but goes on to say that the natural is all there is. All philosophical naturalists use methodological naturalism in their daily work, but not all who use methodological naturalism hold to this philosophical naturalism. Not by a long shot. Which leads to the link I gave you.

The point there is that each and every one of those Christian scientists use methodological naturalism every single day in their work as scientists. And they are obviously not anti-theistic. So, your premise that methodological naturalism is, by definition, anti-theistic is falsified.

And your quote simply furthers my point. Creation Science is not true science, and science must be based on methodological naturalism, even when used by Christians.

Any Christian will ultimately have to weigh the evidence that science provides about God's Creation against their interpretation of God's Scripture. It is a spectrum, not an absolute. The stronger the evidence for a scientific conclusion which happens to conflict with a given interpretation of Scripture, the more likely that interpretation is wrong.

 

[mark kennedy]

OK, Mark, now you have firmly and completely established that you have no clue about simple genetics or the implications of Mendel’s work. That is why you are making basic errors and incorrect conclusions.

I am getting the 1:1 ratio of alleles directly from the simplest of Mendel’s experiments. Look at my questions 2 & 2a.



Although he didn’t know it at the time, by assuring that his parental plants were breeding true, Mendel was assuring that they were homozygous for the trait he was interested in. So, if he was interested in seed texture (smoothly round or wrinkled), he was making sure that round peas always yielded round peas and wrinkled peas always yielded wrinkled peas.

Thats why I brought up the wildtype and mutant varieties there is a very important principle here somewhere. The homozygous recessive is 'known' and can reveal the unknown genotype of another individual when the two are crossed. Now I assume that you know that the appearance does not always reveal its alleles so I'll do what I can to follow your example.

One of the things he discovered is that in the F1 generation of the hybrids, all the peas were round, but that in the F2 generation 25% were wrinkled. This is what led to the formulation of the 3:1 ratio for the dominant trait in the phenotype.

Ok the expression of the outward trait is identified. You have been trying to get me to look at the signifigance for the genotype I think so lets see where you go with this.

But what about the genotype? You are already aware that the dominant allele masks the expression of the recessive allele. That is why the F1 generation shows only the dominant trait.

I'm with you so far.

But the genotype of the F1 generation is necessarily heterozygous. Since Mendel had unknowingly assured that his starter plants were both homozygous, the round-seeded peas could only pass on an allele for roundness (R) and the wrinkled-seeded peas could only pass on an allele for wrinkled seeds (r). Consequently, all F1 plants have the heterozygous genotype Rr. That is a 1:1 ratio of the alleles in spite of the complete dominance of the round phenotype.

Ok! We are working the Punnett square and due to the gamete cominations we get three heterozygous combinations but with one homozygote. Ok, I think I know what you mean by the 1:1 corrospondance, the ratio stays pretty consistant depending on the trait.

Now to go to the F2 generation, we begin with plants that are all heterozygous. In meiosis each gamete receives either an R or an r allele, and receives them in a 1:1 ratio. So we now have four possible genetic outcomes in the zygote.

So we are cross testing the genotype at this point and the homozygous recessive is the only genotype that can be identified by the phenotype.

An R allele is received from both parents=RR genotype= round phenotype
An paternal R allele mates with a maternal r allele=Rr genotype=round phenotype.
A maternal R allele mates with a paternal r allele=Rr genotype=round phenotype.
An r allele is received from both parents=rr genotype=wrinkled phenotype.

The 3:1 ratio of phenotypes is obvious. But count up all the alleles.
1 paternal R allele in each RR zygote and in ½ of the Rr zygotes
1 maternal R allele in each RR zygote and in ½ of the Rr zygotes
1 paternal r allele in each rr zygote and in ½ of the Rr zygotes
1 maternal r allele in each rr zygote and in ½ of the Rr zygotes

The allelic ratio is 1:1 Is it clear now how I got that?

Ok, I think I have a handle on the Punnett Square.

He wasn’t trying to get to an H-W equilibrium. Mendel did not know that such a thing existed. He discovered it!!!

And it didn’t get a name until the formula was worked out in the 20th century.

But Mendel made the initial discovery and also discovered something else—which should have been your answer to questions 3 & 3a

I think you are trying to tell me that the hybrids are something he wanted to stabilize but lets see the rest of it.

We’ve just seen how the 1:1 distribution of alleles combined with the dominance of one of them leads to a heterozygous F1 generation with the dominant phenotype. In the F2 generation 25% are homozygous for the dominant trait and 50% are heterozygous. Both of these groups exhibit the dominant trait. The remaining 25% are homozygous for the recessive trait and exhibit the recessive phenotype. Hence the 1:1 allelic ratio yields a 3:1 phenotypic ratio.

I'm still with you but really getting anxious about how this relates to speciation.

It also shows that those expressing the recessive phenotype are homozygous for the recessive allele. But of those expressing the dominant phenotype, only 1/3 are homozygous for the dominant allele. The other 2/3 are heterozygous and can pass the recessive allele to their offspring even though they don't express it themselves.

Yea they are carriers and it skips a generation.

What Mendel also discovered is that if you continue to allow the plants to self seed, these genotypic and phenotypic ratios will both be maintained.

In short, you will not get a reversion to the homozygous condition of either of the grandparents: all RR or all rr. In each generation 25% will have each of the two homozygous conditions, but 50% will continue to maintain the heterozygous genotype.

I assume this is not taking into consideration the autosomal dominant and recessive conditions but thats enough Biology 101 for the moment.

Now I am sure we will both agree the scenario above is very simple and ideal. You will only get it normally in the controlled situation Mendel created. In nature you seldom have a 1:1 allelic ratio. You can have more than two alleles at one gene locus. You get a spectrum of dominance---it is not always just one or the other. You have factors other than dominance also influencing the expression of genotypes.

And, you have selection pressure favoring one phenotype over the other.

But let’s stay with our controlled situation for now. See what you can do now with question 4, assuming that Mendel decided to apply a 10% selection pressure against either the dominant or recessive phenotype.

I'll give your questions another look and get back to you on the selective presure thing.

Well, it’s not as minor as you think. And Mendelian genetics do address the long-term changes—but that is something to explore once you have answered question 4. No it's not a matter of being wrong because of being a creationist. It's a matter of being wrong because of not knowing genetics well enough and making mistakes because of it.

Like I said I'll have to get back and take a look at these questions because I am not convinced that environmental pressures and genetic changes during meiosis are 100% compatable.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, theistic reasoning is not being torn down. Christianity, and other religions, are still growing, and at ever increasing rates. The only thing that is being torn down (was torn down long ago) is the concept that all scientific conclusions must conform to a particular interpretation of Scripture. What has been added since the time of Geocentrism is that, occasionally, scientific discoveries about God's Creation can actually inform our understanding of Scripture.

That is simply not the case, special creation is by definitition a miracle and is subsequently rejected by naturalistic methodology. This has nothing to do with Geocentrism or how the Bible may be interpruted. This is how theistic reasoning is systematiclly neutralized. It is a secularized world view and it is obviously opposed to theistic reasoning on all levels.

Science is simply the study of God's Creation as a natural phenomenon, ie how it works in the absence of supernatural activity. This means it is just one tool in finding truth, since it can not, and recognizes that it can not, provide any input whatsoever about the existence or non-existence of super-natural phenomenon. Naturalistic methodology does not deny the existence of such phenomenon, it just can not take it into consideration since that is not its job. It is the job of theology to then explain when and where God was involved.

Wrong! Science is simply the systematic accumulation of knowledge which is why the root word for the term means, 'knowledge'. Science at one time included theology but now it is taboo in virtually all secular universities. They have systematiclly poisoned the well. Now if theology is supposed to explain when and where God was involved then where does this explanation get introduced? It doesn't because God has nothing to do with it anymore.

Now there are some scientists who not only use a naturalistic methodology in the daily work, they also have a naturalistic philosophy which says not only that science can only study the natural, but goes on to say that the natural is all there is. All philosophical naturalists use methodological naturalism in their daily work, but not all who use methodological naturalism hold to this philosophical naturalism. Not by a long shot. Which leads to the link I gave you.

Sure but does the naturalistic methodology ever use theology? The answer might supprise you.

The point there is that each and every one of those Christian scientists use methodological naturalism every single day in their work as scientists. And they are obviously not anti-theistic. So, your premise that methodological naturalism is, by definition, anti-theistic is falsified.

Wrong word, it wasn't falsified it was rationalized. I supported my premise with irrefutable source material and argue all day long, it doesn't change the facts as you were presented with them.

And your quote simply furthers my point. Creation Science is not true science, and science must be based on methodological naturalism, even when used by Christians.

No, special creation even if it were proven wouldn't be science because its miraculous. Thats the premise, pure and simple, described in no uncertain terms.

Any Christian will ultimately have to weigh the evidence that science provides about God's Creation against their interpretation of God's Scripture. It is a spectrum, not an absolute. The stronger the evidence for a scientific conclusion which happens to conflict with a given interpretation of Scripture, the more likely that interpretation is wrong.

This isn't about interpretation its about historicity, have you still not bothered to read the essay?

 

[Vance]

"That is simply not the case, special creation is by definitition a miracle and is subsequently rejected by naturalistic methodology. This has nothing to do with Geocentrism or how the Bible may be interpruted. This is how theistic reasoning is systematiclly neutralized. It is a secularized world view and it is obviously opposed to theistic reasoning on all levels."

It is not rejected, it is simply not something naturalistic methodology can study or take into consideration, since it is the study of the natural world in the absence of the *super*-natural. Naturalistic methodology just says "well, there is no way for us to effectively identify and test a supernatural event, even if it occured, so rather than just throw our hands up on this one because there happens to be a supernatural explanation given by some people, let's see whether there is a natural explanation." Then they go out and, through a systematic process, see whether there IS a naturalistic explanation that fits the data. If there is, great, if there is not, then there isn't.

Think about lightning and thunder. At one point, there were supernatural explanations for these things in most cultures. If naturalistic methodology was not used to seek out an explanation other than that supernatural one, we would still think it was supernatural. Would that be a better solution? If scientists, using naturalistic methodology, searched, but could not find any natural explanation, maybe the supernatural one would stick.

I think you will need to explain what you mean by "theistic reasoning", since I have never heard this term before. If you mean reasoning, taking God into consideration, then that is something every Theist should do. Science, be non-theistic, tells us how the world works in its natural state. Atheists leave it at that. Theists take this and see how it fits into our theological beliefs. Sometimes, as a result of these beliefs, we will reject a naturalistic proposition because the proposition is weak compared to the strength of the particular theological belief. Other times, the naturalistic proposition is so well supported (ie, the source of thunder) that it will revise our theological belief. This is a process that takes place, for the Theist, on our own side. Science is just a tool for reaching truth, it is not truth itself.

And this is how it must be since there is no effective way to approach scientific enquiry of the *natural* by taking into account the *supernatural* other than as an alternative. I would agree that all naturalistic methodology should have built into it the premise "unless there is an supernatural cause", but the inclusion or exclusion of such a phrase would make no difference in the actual methodology since that methodology will still seek out naturalistic explanations *where they exist*.

"Wrong! Science is simply the systematic accumulation of knowledge which is the root word for the term, 'knowledge'. Science at one time included theology but now it is taboo in virtually all secular universities. They have systematiclly poisoned the well. Now if theology is supposed to explain when and where God was involved then where does this explanation get introduced? It doesn't because God has nothing to do with it anymore."

This is because it became very clear that the study of the natural world worked most efficiently and reached the correct results most often when it was not tied to theological restraints (ala my thunder example or as in the case of geocentrism). This does not mean that theology was invalidated, just that the role of the study of the natural world was done . . . naturally. Then those who hold theological beliefs filter it through their theology.

"Wrong word, it wasn't falsified it was rationalized. I supported my premise with irrefutable source material and argue all day long, it doesn't change the facts as you were presented with them."

No, it was falsfied. You said that all naturalistic methodology was based on anti-theistic philosophy. I pointed out a specific instance in which it is not. This means your statement is false.

And, yes, I did read the essay.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is because it became very clear that the study of the natural world worked most efficiently and reached the correct results most often when it was not tied to theological restraints (ala my thunder example or as in the case of geocentrism). This does not mean that theology was invalidated, just that the role of the study of the natural world was done . . . naturally. Then those who hold theological beliefs filter it through their theology.

That's the one I was waiting for, it does get filtered through a theological belief system. It is called optimal design:

"The proof that evolution, and not the fiat of a rational agent, has built organisms lies in the imperfections that record a history of descent and refute creation from nothing. ... Adaptation does not follow the blueprints of a perfect engineer. " ( Stephen J. Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes)

Need more proof of this, here you go:

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/abstracts/Nelson.html


You find this antitheistic premise at every turn in naturalistic methodology. Oh they hide behind what they call the evidence but there is an interpretatation involved, it just has nothing to do with the Bible, which is the whole point.

You have seen all the quotes and if you want to rationalize it away I am not going to waste anymore time with it. Noted evolutionists that not only admitt but emphasis the antitheistic premise that runs throughout their thinking and you claim that this is not metaphysics. Pardon my incredulity but I don't even get a clue how you figure.

What did you come back with? A link to a group of psuedo-theistic geology scientists without a comprehensive criteria for how God has anything to do with anything. Brilliant retort, but I think my point about how making the 'undiscoverable' species a fixture, represents the metaphysics of the secular scientist in no uncertain terms. It colors all of modernistic thought and it is essentially antitheistic. Argue all you like, I am through with argueing this in circles.

 

[Vance]

Yes, you can provide quotes from atheistic evolutionists all you want, but that won't make evolution an atheistic proposition. The analogy I gave regarding an atheistic historian is entirely apt. The facts of the inquisition do not become untrue just because an atheist uses them to promote atheistic conclusions.

What you have failed to do is show that evolution is the product of atheistic beliefs or that naturalistic methodology is, by definition, anti-theistic.

As for the example of the Christian Geologists, that was proof that naturalistic methodology is not anti-theistic. It is, indeed, a completely compelling "retort" because it shows that what you are saying is simply not true. You call them "psuedo-theistic", which is making judgments about their Christianity, a very dangerous thing to do. You doubt their Christianity because they don't present a "comprehensive criteria for how God has anything to do with anything". I am not sure what you are looking for from them. They believe that God created the earth, and they are discovering about this creation. What more is there? They can see how long ago He made it, what He made it out of, the processes by which He allowed the world to change and develop. This is what God left for them to discover.

But, one thing you are right about, YEC can never scientifically prove that God created the earth 10,000 years ago, or that he specially created the variety of species (or some group of "kinds") at that same time. And TE's can not ever scientifically prove that God was the Creator of all we see either. We can believe it, but this type of belief is not scientifically provable. And it does not need to be scientifically proven to be believed.

BUT, the question is what can be FALSIFIED. While we can not scientifically prove a supernatural event, we can definitely falsify that such an event took place at a given time or in a given way. If the evidence shows that the earth is 4 billion years old, then this conclusively falsfies that it was created 10,000 years ago. Not because of its supernatural nature, but simply because of the time frame. If the evidence shows that evolutionary processes account for the diversity of life on the planet, then this falsifies a special creation of all this diversity. Again, NOT because of the supernatural aspect of such a special creation, but because there is evidence that it didn't happen this way.

This falsification does not in ANY way mean that God is not the Creator of all things. It only means that we know how He DIDN'T do it.

And this is why the majority of Christians worldwide can, and have, accepted evolution and an old earth, and have accepted the falsification of YEC'ism, without it affecting our faith in God as the Creator of everything one iota.

 

[gluadys]

what I would like to know at this point is what is left of it when you include God at any level?

Of course, the essence of the TE position is that God is included at ALL levels.

 

[gluadys]

Thats why I brought up the wildtype and mutant varieties there is a very important principle here somewhere. The homozygous recessive is 'known' and can reveal the unknown genotype of another individual when the two are crossed. Now I assume that you know that the appearance does not always reveal its alleles so I'll do what I can to follow your example.

Mutations are an additional wrinkle. Mendel didn't deal with mutations. So let's keep it simple till we know we are on the same page.

Ok! We are working the Punnett square and due to the gamete cominations we get three heterozygous combinations but with one homozygote. Ok, I think I know what you mean by the 1:1 corrospondance, the ratio stays pretty consistant depending on the trait.

Your math is out. In the F1 generation we get 4 heterozygotes. In the F2 generation we get 2 homozygotes and 2 heterozygotes.

I think you are trying to tell me that the hybrids are something he wanted to stabilize but lets see the rest of it.

No I'm not. I never heard that he was. As far as I know he was simply exploring the results of various crosses.

I'm still with you but really getting anxious about how this relates to speciation.

At this level it doesn't. So far we are dealing strictly with variation in a single species. No speciation. But that will come.

I assume this is not taking into consideration the autosomal dominant and recessive conditions but thats enough Biology 101 for the moment.

Right, I am using the KISS principle to be sure we are beginning from the same page.

Like I said I'll have to get back and take a look at these questions because I am not convinced that environmental pressures and genetic changes during meiosis are 100% compatable.

I'll save you the trouble. They're not. And if by genetic changes you mean mutations, that is not what Mendel dealt with at all. The point here is to see the result of selection on the H-W equilibrium in the absence of mutations.