HERE IS QUESTION #1

How does homosexuality work within an evolutionary framework?

Natural selection insists that organisms produce the most possible offspring in order for the species to survive and to maintain itself. This fact alone defies an evolutionary explanation.

What do you think?

"Natural Selection insists that organisms produce the most possible offspring...."

I am not sure that I accept your premise above. Where did you get this idea? I agree that Darwin suggested that since more offspring are produced than can be supported by the ecosystem, that only a portion will survive. But that is somewhat different than there being a requirement that organisms produce the most possible offspring.

As for homosexuals, just because we do not now know of any survival advantage connected with that characteristic, does not mean that there isn't any. I may also note that homosexuals can and do produce offspring. If there is some slight survival advantage that offsets the disadvantage of producing fewer offspring, then that may favor the survival of homosexuals.

It is believed that some other inherited defects, such as the gene for sickle cell anemia, offer some survival advantage. In the case of sickle cell, this seems to be related to a resistance to malaria.

"Your comment: "Natural Selection insists that organisms produce
the most possible offspring...."

"Organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive..." (Gould, Ever Since Darwin, 1979, Pg. 11)

High reproduction is a must for a species to remain stable. For evolution to work, on the other hand, the organisms must produce many offspring, as the 'beneficial' mutation frequency in vertebrates is about 10^-8. Thus organisms that do not produce offspring at all are a hindrance to the species and the evolution process.

"As for homosexuals, just because we do not now know of any survival advantage connected with that characteristic, does not mean that there isn't any."

When you find one, let me know. It will simply serve to push Natural Selection theory further from science, as it will become all inclusive and thus un-falsifiable (how can you test a process that can be responsible for every possible effect?)

"I may also note that homosexuals can and do produce offspring. If there is some slight survival advantage that offsets the disadvantage of producing fewer offspring, then that may favor the survival of homosexuals."

I'm referring to 'pure' (I use the term loosely) homosexuality: those that do not reproduce because they mate with their own sex.

"It is believed that some other inherited defects, such as the gene for sickle cell anemia, offer some survival advantage. In the case of sickle cell, this seems to be related to a resistance to malaria."

You are now supporting my previous point: that Natural Selection theory is all inclusive. Everything is an advantage. As Walter ReMine put it, "...fitness is a combination of countless factors. Fitness is large size for combat, but it is also small size for hiding. Fitness is high-speed for catching and escaping, but it is also slow speed for energy conservation.

"...All these and more are heaped onto fitness making it less like a special definition or tautology. In the end, fitness becomes an [immeasurable] quantity. The concept is esoteric. It is not empirical." (ReMine, The Biotic Message, 1993, Pg. 103)

This is the concept of metaphysical fitness. Your support of Natural Selection theory is aiding its push to the unscientific.

Thank you for your e-mail. I was getting fairly lonely over here.

Steve Macks

"I'm referring to 'pure' (I use the term loosely) homosexuality: those that do not reproduce because they mate with their own sex."

You may be excluding an important part of the homosexual population with respect to evolution. If you want to understand nature, you can't pick and choose what data you will consider. The question you raise is an interesting one. But if you want to find the answer, look at all aspects of it, including those homosexuals who reproduce. They may be the ones who carry the trait down to succeeding generations. A recent study suggested that it is females who carry a gene for homosexuality, which would explain why it has not died out through natural selection. That is, the females carry the gene for male homosexuality but it is not expressed as female homosexuality.

Let's see if there is some plausible explanation as to why homosexuals might have had some advantage in the past, in the struggle for survival. In the present age, male homosexuals are at higher risk for AIDS than male heterosexuals and thus in regard to evolution and survival, are at a disadvantage. But suppose at some time in the distant past, say 10,000 years ago, there was some other sexually transmitted disease, which was as deadly as AIDS but was transmitted only by heterosexual sex. In that case, if male homosexuals had a much lower frequency of heterosexual relations, then being homosexual would have been an advantage and homosexuals would have had longer life spans. They might have even fathered more children than heterosexual men because they lived longer even though they had less frequent heterosexual relations. This would have allowed the homosexual trait to spread through a population even though it might not appear on the surface to be a trait with a survival advantage.

This explanation may or may not be right but it is at least plausible.

Robert Holloway

"If you want to understand nature, you can't pick and choose what data you will consider."

First of all, you're missing the point of the argument: what is the advantage of not reproducing?

"A recent study suggested that it is females who carry a gene for homosexuality, which would explain why it has not died out through natural selection. That is, the females carry the gene for male homosexuality but it is not expressed as female homosexuality."

There is no real proof that the so called 'gay gene' even exists. Ambiguous studies, un-referenced at that, which suggest but do not say outright don't fare well here.

"They might have even fathered more children than heterosexual men because they lived longer even though they had less frequent heterosexual relations. This would have allowed the homosexual trait to spread through a population even though it might not appear on the surface to be a trait with a survival advantage."

Once again, I'm referring to they who do not reproduce - I'm looking for the advantage in not reproducing.

By the way, might I remind you of what you just got done saying: "If you want to understand nature, you can't pick and choose what data you will consider."

Even if your Darwinian scenario is plausible, it still is very specific, and you are picking and choosing the data to consider.

Let's examine your scenario. It's an interesting answer as to the maintenance of homosexuality, but you have decidedly taken the naturalistic approach and ignored the origin thereof. What initial benefit would a 'true' or 'pure' homosexual have in the initial stages of development? (I will once again point out that a 'true' homosexual does not produce offspring!)

If there is a 'gay gene,' what benefit did it have at its conception? Why would it permeate humanity?

I suggest that natural selection is not the answer to the origin of homosexuality, although it should serve to eliminate it altogether, but rather certain psychological and environmental factors.

"This explanation may or may not be right but it is at least plausible."

Many 'plausible' explanations are later found to be way off base.

Response to Steven Macks Comments of October 25.

Since you really want to target evolution and natural selection in this debate, there is no reason why we should limit the discussion to homosexuality, which may not even be of genetic origin. Although there are some studies that seem to suggest a genetic component, there is no general agreement that it is a genetic characteristic. If homosexuality is genetic, it is possible that it is connected with some other trait that does offer a survival advantage. It is not unusual for a genetic defect to be linked to other genetic traits. Also, whether something is a defect or an advantage may depend on external forces. A defect in one era may be an advantage a few thousand years later.

In the case of sickle cell anemia, there is general agreement that it is genetically determined and yet it can be a disadvantage if a married couple both carry the gene for sickle cell. Their offspring will then express the sickle cell trait.

What do you think about the rationale for the current existence of the sickle cell gene? Is natural selection involved in the survival of the sickle cell trait or not? If it is, why isn't this a good model to look for a similar situation for other inherited defects? Do you accept the idea that the inheritance of defects can come about because they also offer some survival advantage in certain situations?

There is a size difference between human males and human females. Do you think this might have come about because females prefer big, strong and powerful males, in preference to weaker ones? Do you think there might be a tendency for big, strong and powerful males to have more children than weak, sickly males? If so, is there ANY possibility of males becoming bigger and stronger in later generations? Or is that just totally impossible? Darwin called that sexual selection and used it to explain the beautiful displays that some male birds are able to present. Peacocks are one example. Do you think that human females have no voice in the males they select for husbands? If they have a voice, does it make a difference in the physical traits of future generations of males? I am very interested in hearing what a creationist has to say about that!

For those who have had anything to do with ranching, I am sure that it will be obvious that the selection of a herd bull has enormous impact on the appearance of future generations of cattle. Surely not even a creationist would deny that!

Robert Holloway

"Since you really want to target evolution and natural selection in this debate, there is no reason why we should limit the discussion to homosexuality..."

I was merely using the question as a springboard to start debating: I was getting tired of the old "evolution's not true" vs. "yes it is!" types of debates.

"If homosexuality is genetic, it is possible that it is connected with some
other trait that does offer a survival advantage. It is not unusual for a
genetic defect to be linked to other genetic traits."

Once again, I repeat myself: all traits can be considered advantageous, thus there is nothing that Natural Selection theory can not explain. If it can explain everything, than no possible observation could refute it. Therefore, Natural Selection theory is unscientific.

"In the case of sickle cell anemia, there is general agreement that it is
genetically determined and yet it can be a disadvantage if a married couple
both carry the gene for sickle cell."

Does anyone disagree with this?

"Their offspring will then express the sickle cell trait."

Correction: their offspring MAY possibly express the sickle cell trait. The sickle-cell allele is recessive, so it is not expressed unless it combines with another sickle-cell allele, a one in four chance if both parents posses the trait. If only one parent does, then there is a zero in four chance that the offspring will express sickle-cell anemia.

"What do you think about the rationale for the current existence of the
sickle cell gene? Is natural selection involved in the survival of the
sickle cell trait or not?"

I consider the occurrence of sickle-cell anemia great evidence for design. Let me elaborate on this, maybe you'll understand.

As copies get less clear and less clear, so it is for our genes. As they copy themselves, the copy isn't a perfect reproduction. A pure, perfect gene must have been in existence in the past, not waiting for us in the future. Sickle-cell anemia is an expression of these poor copies, and is outside of the realm of natural selection: sickle-cell anemics do reproduce (homosexuality is different because, as I said, pure homosexuals do not reproduce). As I indicated just a few short sentences ago, applying infinite regress to the concept of increasingly muddled copies reveals a perfect gene. Evolution can not accommodate this, Intelligent Design theory can.

"Do you accept the idea that the inheritance of defects can come about
because they also offer some survival advantage in certain situations?"

You seem intent on proving my point about natural selection.

"Do you think there might be a tendency for big, strong and powerful males to have more children than weak, sickly males? If so, is there ANY possibility of males becoming bigger and stronger in later generations?"

There is a very small possibility. But the "weak" still reproduce and the women are still small "on average." So these factors offset a potential increase in average size.

"Do you think that human females have no voice in the males they select for husbands? If they have a voice, does it make a difference in the physical traits of future generations of males? I am very interested in hearing what a creationist has to say about that!"

No voice? Would I be wrong in thinking that 'choice' would be a better fit? Human females have plenty to say about who they marry (or more importantly here) who they bear children with. But the factors these days are outside of nature; money, fame, etc..

Natural Selection theory is a metaphysical concept, and thus, unscientific. Let's see what this alone does to evolution theory. Let me explain how evolution is theorized to work, so we can see this more clearly. Organisms give birth, and their traits are inherited (in part, at least). Occasionally, a random copy error, or a mutation (yes, random. Evolutionists insist on the randomness of mutation; there are no forces guiding which gene gets copied poorly) is passed along to the next generation. Nature then selects this 'advantageous' gene (assuming it is advantageous and in the correct environmental conditions for it to be advantageous...) and it permeates the population. Eventually, the organisms supposedly change into different forms, following these selective pressures. This, I'm sure you know already.

Now, if Natural Selection theory is metaphysical, and everything is advantageous, then every mutation must be selected. This is not the case, so this demonstrates that natural selection does not work. More importantly, however, anything all inclusive, such as metaphysical natural selection theory is UNSCIENTIFIC. There are only four parts to evolution theory:

Now, your theory is three parts random and one part unscientific, and you want to take up part of my school day to teach it to me? Dream on, buddy, I'd rather learn something important and useful.

I don't deny the existence of a selection force, but I disagree with evolutionary theory's verdict on it. I feel it is more of a maintenance force. I've got it! Natural Maintenance theory. Now I should write a book: On Maintenance of Species.

You seem to be a student and therefore don't know much. So I will overlook the touches of arrogance in your posted comments today. Let me deal with the issues you have raised in your comments given below:

"Now, if Natural Selection theory is metaphysical, and everything is advantageous, then every mutation must be selected. This is not the case, so this demonstrates that natural selection does not work. More importantly, however, anything all inclusive, such as metaphysical natural selection theory is UNSCIENTIFIC." ---Steve

Let us suppose that there is a deer family with two fawns. One of these fawns is a average runner while the other inherited from some distant ancestor, a much better ability to run. Let us suppose that this fawn is the "Secretariat" of the deer world, a world class runner. In some parts of the world, deer are preyed on by wolves. It is certainly reasonable to think that, everything else being equal, the deer that is the world class runner will have an advantage in the struggle for survival when the pack of wolves comes after the two fawns. This is not merely metaphysical because deer are killed by wolves, probably every day. There must be - there has to be, some selective forces at work here. It is very likely that over time, over many generations, more fast running deer escape from the wolves than slow running deer. It would be a miracle if that were not the case. So I see no problem at all in suggesting that deer herds who are subject to the predation of wolves will produce faster runners than herds who live where wolves are absent. It is reasonable to think that this natural selection will also affect the weight and body shape of the deer. In other words, with time and many generations, the deer will evolve into something different from what they would be without the wolves.

This is only common sense. It would be more of a miracle if it did not happen than if it did! I am from the south, a region that has plenty of deer now but no wolves. I think it is entirely reasonable to expect that as time passes, deer in the south will become heavier and less fleet footed than they were 200 years ago when they were constantly preyed upon by wolves. You can look at a deer now and easily conclude that their body build suggests an ability to run fast. It is entirely reasonable to believe that this sleek body and long legs are the result of thousands of years of running for their lives, perhaps even from an ancestral stock that was heavier and less able to run.

Now the deer does not know what the word "metaphysical" means but he probably does have some feeling of relief that he has the ability to outrun the wolves. He probably does not mind that you think the whole idea of natural selection is unscientific. The facts are that all deer do not have the same running ability. The facts are that wolves will deliberately select, as prey, those deer that cannot run rapidly. The fact, Steve, is that natural selection is real. There is a possibility, Steve, that even you are subject to natural selection. If you keep thinking this way, you may be even at a disadvantage in the struggle for survival.

"You seem to be a student and therefore don't know much."

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that a student doesn't know much. But hey, if you want to attack the man and not the argument (ad hominem), go right ahead.

"So I will overlook the touches of arrogance in your posted comments today."

Would you care to point out these 'touches' and make sure the tone you read was the tone that was intended? Until you do, you should refrain from calling me arrogant.

"However, it is not necessary to have you to explain that, to know that your comments above simply don't make any sense."

Look again.

"If you have any clear idea behind those words, you certainly have not explained the idea well."

I thought, perhaps, you could understand the concept unaided. I easily invoked understanding into some far less familiar with the topics of evolution and natural selection than I assume that you are.

"Let us suppose natural selection is metaphysical. It does not follow that it is unscientific."

Oh, but it does.

"Metaphysical explanations rationalize the empirical world, but they are untestable. Therefore they are not science." (ReMine, The Biotic Message, 1993, Pg. 103)

"You say that everything is advantageous, by that I suppose you mean every mutation is advantageous."

Every trait can be considered advantageous. (Maybe I wasn't clear enough on this point, and that was my major blunder of the last response) But no, every mutation is not advantageous. Several mutations cause rapid death to the organism. But there is no expressed trait for which an advantage can not be found.

Mayr himself wrote that "one can never assert with confidence that a given structure does not have selective significance." (Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution, 1963, Pg. 190)

Dobzhansky said that "[No biologist] can judge reliably which characters are neutral, useful, or harmful in a given species." (Dobzhansky, Book review in Evolution, Vol. 29, 1975, Pg. 376-378)

"You say also that every mutation must be selected."

Every advantageous trait is selected: this is the essence of natural selection in a nut-shell. The real question is in what condition and in what environment. When the environment is a factor, and a certain trait is advantageous in one environment and a hindrance in the next, this makes the selection process random as well.

Is every trait always selected? No. I was drawing a conclusion based on what I understand natural selection to be, and that because it selects the advantageous trait, and every trait can be found to be advantageous, every trait should theoretically be selected. I will quote myself, because I did say this in my last response: "...then every mutation must be selected. This is not the case..."

"Neither of these last two statements is correct as far as I can see and you certainly have not explained why anyone should accept your conclusion on these two statements."

Do they make sense now, or are you still having troubles?

"This is not merely metaphysical because deer are killed by wolves, probably every day."

Despite looking up the word, you do not know what it means. Abstractly defined, metaphysics is a highly abstract notion (how's that for a play on words?). Metaphysics is better described than defined. What I mean when I say that Natural Selection theory is metaphysical is that it does not have a coherent structure, that it is not empirical.

"So I see no problem at all in suggesting that deer herds who are subject to the predation of wolves will produce faster runners than herds who live where wolves are absent."

I don't deny this, and do not even pretend that I do. What I've been saying is that the slower runners have an 'advantage' as well. I will state very clearly what this means, for anyone who is still unsure. Fast or slow can be an advantage. Speed delivers from predation, but slowness saves energy. Either trait, fast or slow, can be considered advantageous, depending on the environment! In an area with high wolf populations, speed is important. But in an environment with low wolf populations, but at the same time a small food supply, energy conservation becomes important. This means that however advantageous a trait is depends greatly on the organisms surrounding environment, making the selection process random!

"In other words, with time and many generations, the deer will evolve into something different from what they would be without the wolves."

This is about the loosest use of the word 'evolve' I've seen in a while. While it yield a non-deer? No. Will it provide some characterization within the specific population? Definitely. This is not in question.

"The facts are that wolves will deliberately select, as prey, those deer that cannot run rapidly."

Did I ever deny this? This only insures the stability of the species, much like a quality control check-point at a car manufacturing plant. And it's not only the 'unfit' or the deer who cannot run the fastest that are taken as prey.

That is all for today,

Steve

To: Steven Macks - October 28, 2000

Steve,

I gather from your most recent response that you accept at least some form of natural selection. You also seem to accept that some changes are possible through natural selection. That is a good start in understanding the mechanism of evolution. Now let me discuss a critical point in your last response. Here are your comments:

"This is about the loosest use of the word 'evolve' I've seen in a while. While it yield a non deer? No. Will it provide some characterization within the specific population? Definitely. This is not in question."

Given that you accept some change as being possible in a deer herd as the result of predation by wolves, let us consider what limits there are on change. What exactly distinguishes a deer from a non deer? It turns out that the answer to this question is not as simple as it may appear. Biologists have been debating for decades as to the definition of a species. There are many deer species in the world. Darwin's famous book, by the way, had as a part of the name, Origin of Species. If one deer species gradually changed into another deer species, would that be evolution? Many biologists would contend that it would be evolution. I wonder if you would agree that one deer species could change into another species of deer? I think it could and not only that but I think it has and this is the origin of the many different species of deer that we have today. If one deer species can transform into another deer species, what hinders the species from undergoing even more transformation to become something like an elk? Is there any law of nature that says that a deer cannot, over many generations, evolve into a different species that would look quite different from a deer? The definition of a deer or the definition of a species is not something that was handed down by Moses on Mt. Sinai with the 10 commandments. You say that a deer will not evolve into a non deer. Do you have any proof of the statement that a deer cannot change into a non deer? What is your evidence? What physical characteristics do you recommend that we use to define a deer? Is it long legs or antlers or what exactly?

Do you think that elk may have descended from a common ancestor to both elk and deer? Maybe you say that elk are already deer, in spite of the substantial difference between the two animals. If so, what about Moose, or they deer also or do they deserve to be called a non deer?

I am trying to determine from you what are the limits on change by natural selection. You know I am sure, that deer are divided into more than one species. In your opinion is it possible for a deer species to change into another deer species or is the barrier to change (whatever it is in your mind) only a barrier that prevents deer from changing into non deer?

Let's consider two species of deer in the U.S. Consider for example, the Mule deer of the western states and the White- tailed or Virginia deer of the eastern states. Do you think it possible that these two species may be descendants of a common ancestor? I will wait for your answer. If you answer no, please explain why that is not possible.

Robert,

Perhaps this will sound pretentious, or arrogant, but it needs to be said. Before you respond to a posting in this debate format, you need to read the entire post. I can assume that you have not read my previous postings, as you said the following:

"I gather from your most recent response that you accept at least some form of natural selection."

Let's look at some of the previous posts of mine:

"I suggest that natural selection is not the answer to the origin of homosexuality, although it should serve to eliminate it altogether" (10/25)

"I don't deny the existence of a selection force, but I disagree with evolutionary theory's verdict on it." (10/26)

Just two examples prior to my last post that plainly say that I agree with the reality of natural selection. But I do not believe that it is the sole force at work, that it works 100% of the time, or that it is a rational scientific concept.

"You also seem to accept that some changes are possible through natural selection. That is a good start in understanding the mechanism of evolution."

I thoroughly understand the mechanisms of evolution. Change through natural selection, or speciation as it is commonly referred to, are very important to creationist models:

"...the creation model depends heavily on speciation. ... Demonstrating that speciation can happen in nature, especially where it can be shown to have happened rapidly, is ... a positive for creation theorists." (Carl Wieland, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/459.asp, 1997)

and:

"[R]apid speciation within a kind is good support for the creation model." (Steel, "The tower with many flaws" Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol. 14 (2), 2000, Pg. 43)

"Given that you accept some change as being possible in a deer herd as the result of predation by wolves, let us consider what limits there are on change."

You are reading more into this than what I said. Some traits will become prevalent in specific environments, but that's as far as I believe that change will go in this case. Many biologists feel that if two organisms can successfully mate, they are of the same species (don't get into sterility to try to twist my words around.) A fast deer and a slow, energy conserving deer would still be able to mate.

"Darwin's famous book, by the way, had as a part of the name, Origin of Species."

Whoop-dee-do. Forgive me if I don't jump for joy with this revelation.

"I wonder if you would agree that one deer species could change into another species of deer?"

So you say that the definition of the word "species" is not clear, then you ask a question with a specific definition in mind, but you never offer a definition. That is an act of obliquity! Why should I even bother answering the question.

But the answer has been lying around for years. Deer to deer change is what creationists call microevolution. Deer to non-deer is macroevolution. This would be an instance of microevolution: something observable, testable, repeatable, and scientific. I do not debate microevolution.

"I think it could and not only that but I think it has and this is the origin of the many different species of deer that we have today."

Creationists have not debated this point, not to my knowledge at least. Creationists and evolutionists generally agree that the different varieties of dogs came from one (or few) generic dog(s). This is the same for deer. Let's not debate what everyone agrees with.

"Is there any law of nature that says that a deer cannot, over many generations, evolve into a different species that would look quite different from a deer?"

For all who were wondering, this is an example of a loaded question. Or an ignorant question, but I prefer to give Dr. Holloway the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is being immoral and not just stupid.

A loaded question is a nonsensical question - one that you cannot possibly give a good answer to. It is like asking the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Especially in the heat of the moment, it is hard to give a good answer to it. This question, is there any law that says evolution can not happen, is a far more subtle loaded question. But it still is bluster.

The burden of proof is on you, the evolutionist, to prove that it can happen. While you think about that, think about this: Is there any law of nature that says that a person can not spontaneously combust? Does it mean that it happens? Is there any law of nature that says a cow cannot be mutilated by an alien space monster? Does that mean that it happens? The answer to all four questions is "No."

"Do you have any proof of the statement that a deer cannot change into a non deer? What is your evidence?"

I do not have to provide evidence that something does not happen, although I can. But, once again, the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

"I will wait for your answer. If you answer no, please explain why that is not possible."

I do not have to provide that sort of evidence, but yes, I do believe that all species of deer have common ancestors (common ancestor only applies to the asexual). Those would be the deer that walked off of Noah's Ark.

You suggest that I read your posts. I do read them and that is why that I find some contradictory statements by you on the subject of Natural Selection. For instance, you said:

"Now, if Natural Selection theory is metaphysical, and everything is advantageous, then every mutation must be selected. This is not the case, so this demonstrates that natural selection does not work."

In your most recent post, your view on natural selection is given by your words as follows:

"Just two examples prior to my last post that plainly say that I agree with the reality of natural selection. But I do not believe that it is the sole force at work, that it works 100% of the time, or that it is a rational scientific concept."

In your first quote above, you say that natural selection does not work and in the second post, you say that you agree with the reality of natural selection. It would be helpful if you would be consistent and not contradictory on this subject. If your actual view is that it does not work 100% of the time, then say that and not what you said in the first quote.

Now to the question of speciation. The question that I asked previously was whether or not you believe that the Mule Deer and the Virginia White Tailed deer could have had a common ancestor. Most evolutionists would believe that, without question. You answer yes, but then you say something about "asexual", that I don't understand. I am asking the question in terms of sexual reproduction and am asking whether the two species of deer are descendants, by blood, from a remote ancestor. Please clarify whether you agree with this possibility or not. I don't know what you mean by the phrase "common ancestor applies only to asexual". Note that I use the word ancestor in the singular, not plural.

I note that you quote Carl Wieland to the effect that the creation model depends heavily on speciation. That is new to me, because I thought that this was the primary criticism that creationists have against evolution, whether or not new species can be created from previously existing species. Darwin's theory maintains that speciation does happen. If there is a new breed of creationist that agrees with Darwin, then your side is making some progress. I suspect, however, that many on your side of the issue will not agree with that idea. I note also that there is a tone in your post that suggests that virtually everyone agrees on certain issues. I think you are optimistic on that because it has been my experience that there are dozens of different flavors of creationists. And of course evolutionists often do not agree about the details of evolution.

I asked you the following question. Is there any law of nature that says that a deer cannot, over many generations, evolve into a different species that would look quite different from a deer? You didn't provide such a law, so I assume you realize that it does not exist.

However, you claim to accept microevolution, while it seems that you do not accept macroevolution (deer to non-deer). So in your view, macroevolution is prohibited. You don't want to say exactly what prohibits macroevolution. You are the one making the claim that deer to non-deer change is impossible. You don't have to provide a reason, if you don't want to, but it seems to me that if a person makes a claim but is unable to provide evidence for that claim, then the claim is weakened considerably. I see no sharp dividing line between microevolution, which you accept, and macroevolution, which you do not accept. I will simply note here that you do not provide any reason at all, for your denial of macroevolution. It is curious that you accept one type of evolution and deny the other and yet are unwilling to provide a rationale for the difference in your viewpoint toward each type.

Evolutionists would maintain that there is no difference between these two types of evolution and that the distinction you make between them is entirely artificial. It seems that if you cannot explain your reasoning, then that weakens your case.

You say that you accept microevolution. Does micro- evolution permit new species? What exactly are the boundaries of microevolution? I realize that in asking this question, the definition of species is not always clear but you can explain, perhaps, the boundaries of microevolution as you understand them.

To conclude, let me again ask for a clear answer from you on whether the two species of American deer can be descendants of a single pair of deer that lived at some time in the past. Surely with the great wisdom that resides in creationist circles, you either already know or can find, the answer to this question.

Robert Holloway

"You suggest that I read your posts. I do read them..."

Apparently not, as you've yet again missed half of my response. We'll get into that in a little bit.

First, did I really contradict myself? Probably not.

"Now, if Natural Selection theory is metaphysical, and everything is advantageous, then every mutation must be selected. This is not the case, so this demonstrates that natural selection does not work."

Vs.

"Just two examples prior to my last post that plainly say that I agree with the reality of natural selection. But I do not believe that it is the sole force at work, that it works 100% of the time, or that it is a rational scientific concept."

The first quote has to do with evolutionary theory's proposal of natural selection: all beneficial traits are ideally selected, and this does not happen, so it doesn't work the way that evolutionary theory says it does. Does that mean I don't believe in a selection force? Nope.

"The question that I asked previously was whether or not you believe that the Mule Deer and the Virginia White Tailed deer could have had a common ancestor."

No, they did not have a common single ancestor. That is why I said that the singular 'ancestor' could only come from the asexual, where one organism can produce two offspring without a partner; these two had one single common ancestors. All deer had at least two ancestors. Not only did I say that all deer species came from (at a minimum) two generic deer, I also identified where the branch was.

I know what you are trying to do: you are trying to trap me into saying that I believe in evolution. I am not easily tricked.

What do creationists believe when it comes to speciation and variation within organisms?

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind..." (Genesis 1:24)

What does this mean? This means that deer will produce deer; that dogs will produce dogs; that whales will produce whales; and that humans will yield humans. A dog will not yield a human; a deer will not yield a whale; and a bacterium will certainly not produce a poet philosopher.

If you think that creationists believe in fixidity of the species, then you must be reading creationist material from the early 19th century.

"I asked you the following question. Is there any law of nature that says that a deer cannot, over many generations, evolve into a different species that would look quite different from a deer? You didn't provide such a law, so I assume you realize that it does not exist."

Ah, here we are: an example of you not reading my posts. I answered this, and I will repeat that answer.

Just because there is no law 'prohibiting' evolution, that doesn't mean that it happens. Is there any law that prohibits cows from being mutilated by alien space monsters? Does it mean that it happens? Answer those questions, maybe you'll see that just because there isn't a law prohibiting something, it doesn't mean that it happens. Is there a law prohibiting politicians from telling the truth? Does it mean that it ever happens?

I'm fairly sure that this is an attempt to pull me into the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument.

"You are the one making the claim that deer to non-deer change is impossible. You don't have to provide a reason, if you don't want to, but it seems to me that if a person makes a claim but is unable to provide evidence for that claim, then the claim is weakened considerably."

It is your job to establish your theory. I don't have to prove that something can't happen, you have to prove that it does! You don't prove something by not having proof against it, you prove an idea by supporting it empirically, which you haven't (and probably can not) do.

If you really want a reason, I can provide one. The approximate beneficial mutation rate in vertebrates is 10^-8. If we can extrapolate this figure across a high population (say, 100,000) with perfect selection (that is, the mutation is distributed throughout the population within one generation.) We'll assume a low generation length (20 years). Actually, let's bump up this mutation rate to 10^-6, so we can assume that there will be a new mutation every generation.

A mutation can change as little as one nucleotide site - this is useful in determining the effect this example has in total. Over a period of ten million years, what effect will this have? This will change approximately 500,000 nucleotides (10,000,000/20), or about the nucleotide content of one-hundredth of one percent of each human ovum.

This situation is blatantly in favor of evolution, but it doesn't provide evolution with enough time to work. 500,000 in 10 million years is not nearly enough to account for the change supposed in that amount of time.

So what reason do I have to reject macroevolution? It isn't plausible in the given time.

"Evolutionists would maintain that there is no difference between these two types of evolution and that the distinction you make between them is entirely artificial."

Even if there isn't a difference between the two, macroevolution isn't plausible in the given time. Now, it's up to you to demonstrate that there is no difference between the two.

"Does micro-evolution permit new species?"

Yes, if you use the word loosely. Microevolution does not, on the other hand, bring about new 'kinds.' What are the limitations of microevolution? In a sentence, variation within a generic kind.

"To conclude, let me again ask for a clear answer from you on whether the two species of American deer can be descendants of a single pair of deer that lived at some time in the past."

I already, very clearly answered this question:

"I do believe that all species of deer have common ancestors.... the deer that walked off of Noah's Ark." (10/28)

Is that clear enough or should I put some more Windex on 'er and wipe it down some more?

Steve

Steve,

You have clarified, to some extent, your views on whether the two species of deer had a common ancestor. But let me make a couple of comments. Obviously, any living thing has many ancestors. If a deer is a descendant of a pair of deer that were aboard Noah's Ark, obviously the deer has at least two ancestors in common. But it can also be said that it is a descendant of a single common ancestor. That is all I meant by asking the question in terms of the singular, not the plural. If I under- stand you correctly, you agree that these two deer species in the United States are descendants of some remote ancestor or ancestors. There are anywhere from 38 to 53 deer species in the world, and I suspect from your answer that you would agree that many deer species are descendants or could be descendants of a single pair of ancestral deer. By the way, Moose are considered deer also, and I suppose you would agree that both Moose, weighing upwards of 1,000 pounds and the tiny Florida Key deer, weighing only 50 pounds or so, could be descendants of a pair of deer who lived in the remote past. Correct me if that is not a correct statement of your views. If it is correct, you have gone a long way towards accepting evolution, because the creation of new species is the heart of Darwin's theory.

Don't read too much into my question. The fact that sexual reproduction, by a pair of deer, is necessary does not negate the statement that any particular deer or any two species can have a single common ancestor. They will of course also have more than one common ancestor. I put it in terms of singular just to make the point that the ancestry can be traced back to a one individual and that speciation has taken place if that is true. As nearly as I can tell, you agree that there is no problem in developing more than one species of deer from a single original species.

You bring up the word "Kind". I have always been puzzled by that term and I wonder if you can provide a definition. In other words, what can be used to define the boundaries of a kind? Is it a matter of fertility? Considering deer, for instance, there are many species of deer, including even Moose. Moose don't ordinarily breed with whitetail deer, even though they live in the same range. In relation to deer-like animals, what characteristi

Let me ask two more questions and that will be all for today. Also, if you wish to slow down the pace of this debate, feel free to do so, since I understand you have other things on your schedule. Consider the following types of organisms and respond if you will to the following questions given after the list.

Question 1. Do you think it is possible that all or some of these creatures are descendants of a common ancestor or ancestors? If so, which ones do you think have a common ancestor?

Question 2. Apply your definition of "kinds" and tell me which ones belong to the same "kind". If you think that these creatures represent several "Kinds", what characteristics do you use to place them in their appropriate "Kind"? This make take some effort, but then we must get down to the details if you want to show that creationists have a viable model with the use of "kinds" and the rejection of the idea that new kinds can appear. The devil is in the details. Let's talk about some of those details.

It is true as you say, that deer will produce deer, dogs will produce dogs, etc. When we see a dog, we recognize it as a dog. But I don't think that is the whole story. I think it is possible for dogs to change enough, so that there can be a point at which the identification is not certain. For instance, is a fox in the dog kind? They certainly look somewhat alike but we can distinguish between a fox and dog, can't we? Is a bear in the dog kind? It does have some characteristics that are similar to dogs. If it is not in the "dog kind" what characteristics do you depend on to exclude it from the dog kind?

What about a dog-like marsupial, such as the Tasmanian Wolf? Does being a marsupial, exclude it from the dog kind? What about a Jackal? Is a Jackal in the dog kind? How about a Hyena? Is a Hyena in the dog kind? If not why?

Actually evolutionists claim that the Tasmanian wolf (extinct now) was more closely related to Kangaroos than dogs, but I wonder if you will accept relationships as provided by evolutionists. You can see that there are many animals that have some resemblance to dogs. I am just trying to determine what characteristics are used by creationists in defining a "Kind". It is perhaps not as easy as you think to define boundaries between living things. That vagueness is exactly what would be expected if everything has a common ancestor.

You can see that what I have done above is to try to get some details on how creationists use some of their definitions. I am not trying to trick you into anything but merely to try to understand how creationists use various terms. Creationists claim to have an alternative model that better explains nature. By going into these details, it will either help or hurt your cause. Rather than fearing a trick, you should be happy to have a chance to explain your "superior" model. If the term "kind" has any real value, this is your chance to show that it does. Take as much time as you need to give a good answer. If the time required is a week or more, I will wait.

Sincerely,

Robert Holloway

December 3, 2000

Robert,

Alas, my triumphant return is upon you. I hope you are not hurt because I took too long. Time to get down to business.

"If I under- stand you correctly, you agree that these two deer species in the United States are descendants of some remote ancestor or ancestors."

You nearly understand me correctly. They could be. I stress the word could. I haven't studied these deer particularly closely, so I cannot make a rational judgment at this time.

As far as Moose and Florida Key Deer, I kind of doubt that they had a common ancestor. I can't be dogmatic, but I'm not going to make up my mind on the subject at this time.

"You bring up the word "Kind". I have always been puzzled by that term and I wonder if you can provide a definition."

I can no more provide an adequate definition for the 'kind' than the average scientist can for the word 'species.' But I would suspect that the ability to reproduce within the group is a major necessity for the definition of 'kind.'

"Question 1. Do you think it is possible that all or some of these creatures are descendants of a common ancestor or ancestors?"

I believe that Neanderthal is human, as is Homo Erectus. I do not believe that chimpanzee and gorilla had a common ancestor.

"Question 2. Apply your definition of "kinds" and tell me which ones belong to the same "kind"."

Since Homo-sapiens, Homo-erectus, and Cro-Magnon man are all one and the same, they all belong in the same group. Chimps and gorillas, on the other hand, are separate kinds.

"For instance, is a fox in the dog kind?"

A fox is not in the dog kind. I do not believe that foxes and, say, a Golden Retriever can breed.

"Is a bear in the dog kind?"

A bear is not in the dog kind.

I believe a kind can most aptly be defined as interbreeding monobaramin, which is a group related by common descent that can still breed among each other. Monobaramin is a term that I've stolen from Discontinuity Systematics, a relatively new system of classification.

Let me summarize (in lay terms) what a kind is: If two organisms share an ancestor, and can breed, then they are a kind. If they do not meet either of these criterion, then they are not of the same kind.

Steve

You definition of "kinds" is as good as any. Creationists have seldom defined the term, although they like to use it.

I would like to discuss Homo erectus at this point. As you probably know, Homo erectus is a well established species in mainstream science. There aren't any living now but the species lived for a very long time, going back to at least 1.8 million years ago. You consider Homo erectus to be human and yet the Homo erectus skulls are quite different in appearance from modern man. The differences between the skulls of the various races of modern man are minor compared to the differences between modern skulls and Homo erectus. Modern man has a much larger brain size for instance.

Do you accept the ancient age of Homo erectus, up to 1.8 million years ago? Also, how do you define what is human? What makes Homo erectus human? There is no evidence on the question as to whether Homo erectus and modern humans could interbreed, so perhaps some other criteria is necessary.

It seems to me that the existence of many species of man-like creatures is a serious problem for creationists, since they surely existed and lived a very long time ago, in stark contrast to creationist ideas. The explanation that is consistent with creationist ideas is that they weren't really different from humans.

But that explanation, which you seem to have accepted, runs up into the problem of the very real physical differences that are obvious in the fossil record. The time scale is also a problem for creationists, so you have to end up denying the time scale as well as the existence of separate human-like species.