The inevitable evolution debate thread

[Cardinalsrule]

Just a few comments on Thunderous's post.
1) Humans DID NOT evolve from apes. No evolutionary biologist or paleontologist, dating all the way back to Darwin, has EVER suggested that. Humans and modern apes (and chimps, etc., all anthropoids) evolved from a COMMON ANCESTOR. Apes are a different branch of the tree, if you will. The whole thing about us evolving from apes is basically the same lie repeated (by anti-evolutionists) ad nauseum, because it makes evolution so, well, distasteful. (No one wants to believe that they evolved from some shit-hurling monkey in Africa.)

2) I have to believe that you are being facecious with the comments about fish horses. They are not even in the same phylum, being only distantly related because they are both in Kingdom Animalia, why would you expect some weird mixed species?

3) There have been MANY of the 'link' species that you asked about that we know of in hominid evolution, try reading Donald Johansen's "Lucy". Have you ever heard of an Archeopteryx? A mix, ("bit inbetween" if you will) between reptiles and birds. An animal with traits of both - had teeth, which NO bird does, and feathers, which is a trait unique to birds.

4) Also, the 'slowly evolving' doesn't really work anymore. Google "punctuated equilibrium" to read on how most biologists believe evolution happens.

 

[codanostra]

First of all in answer to codas question i do belive there is a FORM of evolution on a small scale. For example, over the past few hunded years we are on average taller than the people before us (ive heard the really old pubs in england had very small cellings due to them being smaller to us modern couter parts. Evolution on a large scale though, i do not belive.

I have a few questions for people out there who belive in macro evolution and we evolved from bacterium (or what it was).

I will being by saying it is obvious you do not understand the principle of evolution as a result of natural selection. Evolution is the ends, not the means. Natural selection is the process. If you want to have a better understanding please read this wiki page

1)Where are all the middle bits in the evolution process? Like, apparently we evolved from apes, how come there are no half man, half apes walking around? or any half man, half ape remains? Surely there were not apes, then they randomly gave birth to human, and here we are. that question goes for all of evolution process, like why are there no fish horses walking/swimming around or snail lizards on earth? it seem we are left with the whole version of each step, but missing bits in the middle. For example, if Barceria were Version 1.0 of creatures, then some others (i dont know the process) Apes were version 9.0 of creatures and humans where Version 10.0 . where are the versions 9.1, 9.3, 9.3 and so on,where are all the bits inbetween. IF we evolved over millions of years, surely there would have been half man, half ape creatures. Either dead or still alive, yet we have none.

Again, there are no 'middle bits'. If you understood the principle of natural selection, you would understand there never was a fish horse or snail lizard. This makes no sense and is not what evolution is about. Humans did not evolve from apes, we have a common ancestor. If you are interested in human evolutionary steps, read all about it here. Each of those steps has been uncovered and documented. Noone believes humans evolved from apes; we believe that humans are primates like apes and have a common ancestor.

2)Why do we still have all the other creatures on earth if we apparently evolved. If Humans evolved from Apes, then why do we still have Apes on earth? Why didn't they all evolve (shouldn't they have evolved as well)? Were there just some that evolved? or just one that evolved(and how did that one produce off-spring)? What made that one or group of apes so special that they evolved, but there brothers and sisters did not?

See my previous answer. Humans did not evolve from apes. Again it seems you don't understand natural selection. The basic premise is that every so often a baby animal (lets say human) is born with a genetic defect. We see this all the time. Extra arms, tails, etc. Natural selection posits that if an offspring has a genetic defect that allows it an advantage over its siblings, it has a better chance of survival. Survival of the fittest, if you will. Assuming the defect human (now not a human, but very similar) survives and mates, and assuming its offspring has the same defect, then a new branch is born. Since this new branch is more suitable for survival than the previous humans, the new branch will flourish where the humans will diminish. The humans are still there, mind you. They didn't disappear just because of natural selection. If the humans were to move to a new habitat you would have both species co-existing.

The wiki article explains it much better than my crappy little example, but i hope you get the idea. Natural selection is absolutely random. Evolution is simply the notion that out of all that randomness, those who are more suited to survive the environment will survive, while those who are less suited will die out.

2.5) lol (kinda a combination of question 1 and 2) Why then, if we still have Apes, aren't some of them evolving slowly into humans. Shouldn't we have some of them evolving into humans, stuck in the middle of the evolutionary process, on the slow trek to humanhood?

Again please pleas please read about natural selection, i can't stress that enough. Evolution is the result of random genetic mutation. We see these random genetic mutations ALL THE TIME.

 

[WidowMakers]

He Thunderous. If I have time and no one else replies I can explain why to all these questions.
I don't believe in MACRO Evolution but I also do not believe that these questions are good in debating the issue and "proving" it wrong.
They make some wrong assumptions about how the process of MACRO Evolution is described as working.

But like I said, I will let Coda or Card rely first and if they don't I will.

BUT I REPEAT, I DON'T believe in MACRO Evolution but NOT for other reasons that posted above.

LOL. Either I am blind or my computer is REAL slow. I see both of you had already replied.

 

[WidowMakers]

Just a brief intro here about what my purpose is for writing this piece and participating in the discussion related to the topic. There are people from all walks of life with all different background who have experienced all different sorts of things. We all have things to bring to the table so that we can better understand each other.
Over the years I have heard both sides of the story (related to our current topic)

1) EVOLUTION IS TRUE – SCIENCE HAS PROVEN IT
2) CREATION IS TRUE – THE BIBLE(GOD) HAS PROVEN IT​

Now for the argument I am eliminating the Theistic evolution because in my opinion it does not fit with the true nature of evolution. We can discuss it more later but in quick, if God used evolution to create his desired creations and eventually end up with Adam/Eve, the process would not be random and thus not what naturalistic evolutionist believe.

But now back to the 2 views above. I hold neither of them. This may come as a shock to you and it did to me as well a few years ago. Once I realized that what I believe and what I can prove are different things. There are so many different aspects of how the universe works, where we came from, how the planets got here and so on, that evolution (simple life to complex life) or the creation of life plays only a small part in the grand scheme.

So when I respond, and state my view it will be based on looking at the evidence. I have to admit that many of the claims made by other people over the years in regards to proof of evolution have really shaken my faith. I have questioned if God really was real. Did I just follow my parents or church? Was I an ignorant Christian that had blind faith? And to tell you the truth, I was living a blind faith back then. I accepted what was told to me and figured it to be true. But that got me thinking. What is most likely true? Who is correct? Do I want to know who is correct? Can I know who is correct? Who/What makes more sense.

So I then stepped back and started looking at all the various aspects with both views: The Universe Existence, life (how it started), Life (variation and development), ethics, emotions, is there a purpose, etc.

After going through all of these and more, the view of a God based universe seems to me a more plausible and intellectually credible answer to the questions, why and how we are here.
Now I know people will disagree with me. People have disagreed with others on this for a long time. While I would like people to come around to my view (because I think it is the best one  ) I understand that they might not. This is a very important and powerful subject, the implications one way or another are HUGE to a person’s life. Making a stance, regardless of the side can have big impacts or a person’s social life, career, family situation, view point on issues, perspective on right/wrong, etc.

So basically what I am saying, a person might not always make the claim of “I KNOW FOR A FACT….” because it is a true fact. But because they do not want to deal with the potential implications to their life that the opposite view could be true and thus eliminate it as an option from the beginning.

“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.
It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief.
It’s that I hope there is no God!
I don’t want there to be a God;
I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

Nagel, Thomas, The Last Word, 1997, pp. 130–131.​

Now onto the article that Card sent the thread.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
I will make my best attempt to respond to the link in groupings of paragraphs.
I will quote from the start of the article, respond to that quoted piece and post that in the thread and I will do this for all the various sections in the article. And also through this entire response, I will be referring to Evolution as MACRO evolution, the changing from 1 different species to another. Not Micro evolution of changing within a species. And if you disagree with how I just stated my definitions, I disagree with the theory that we and all other life slowly evolved over millions of years from lesser complex organism to greater more complex organisms by mutations.
OK.

 

[WidowMakers]

According to idealized principles of scientific discourse, the arousal of dormant issues should reflect fresh data that give renewed life to abandoned notions. Those outside the current debate may therefore be excused for suspecting that creationists have come up with something new, or that evolutionists have generated some serious internal trouble. But nothing has changed; the creationists have presented not a single new fact or argument. Darrow and Bryan were at least more entertaining than we lesser antagonists today. The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

This above paragraph assumes that all the “facts” presented by science in support of evolution, have no holes. When you say nothing has changed, that statement assumes that all evidence points to a materialistic evolution and that it is a sealed shut case. It also assumes that the claims made by the creationists are not valid at all. But this is not the case. Many evolutionary theories and perspective have come and gone. The entire theory did not develop once and stay 100% the same since its inception. It has grown and changed in many areas. Plus there are MANY areas where speculation and assumptions are used that are not scientific but are viewed as facts.

Just a few examples of “facts” that evolutionist hold. These are assumed “facts” that the atheists evolutionist require to have happened:

1) Abiogenesis (life from nonlife) – There is no proof that this can or has ever happened. But it is assumed to have happened because life without a creator requires it.

2) Most mutations are neutral or bad – The amount of good mutations to create and build on one another is a huge number. Based on what we see in mutations, there is very little chance that this can happen. But evolutionist, while seeing the same data, just rely on billions of years and eventuality. They cite the fact that we see simpler life get more complex. But with the reliance on mutations (again mostly harmful) could it just be that when looking at all the different levels of life, they were created that way.

3) Information – Evolution supposes that inanimate matter, unordered and unguided, develops information on its own. When we look at anything in nature that is not alive, we see no indication that it can or even want to order itself. So why then do they adhere to a principle? They require inorganic matter to arrange and form information because it is required to allow evolution to start. Information is only good if there is a system to decode it. The reason you can read the sentences that are typed into this post, is that you understand the rules associated with the English language. It is not just a random group of symbols, but purposely ordered to convey and distribute information. And intelligence derived and designed the English language. It has had many changes over the centuries but not random unguided purposeless change. How then can we figure that an unguided process would not only create an instruction set to pass on but simultaneously create the process to decode and understand the instructions? Oh and by the way, these instructions which are used to explain how and what parts of the data are used for, are completely random and have no purpose but work out so well and create so complex and ordered systems?​

There are many more of these areas to discuss. Now I will fully admit that these things “COULD” be a possible answer to the problem (how we got here). There is a chance that all of these things I mentioned as problems might actually be the correct answer. It is impossible to prove that they did not happen. But is it wise or scientific to assume that they did? I say no.

Believing in life from nonlife is a HUGE leap of faith for an evolutionist because there is no proof it can happen and no proof that it did happen. There is only the desire and hope that it did so that a purely materialistic explanation for life can be made and God can be ignored.

But again, the argument is made that evolution has always been proven has been proven and the creationists don’t bring any new evidence. Is it perhaps that the atheistic evolutionists don’t want to consider the claims of creationist to begin with? Is it possible that the initial assumptions of the evolutionist do not allow them to think or consider other causes other than a naturalistic one?

‘It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Richard Lewontin, Harvard Geneticist, “Billions & Billions of Demons”, The New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, Pg. 31​

 

[WidowMakers]

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."

The first underlined sentence above automatically shows the bias towards evolution. Basically that we evolved from apes one way or another. There is no place for another explanation to the situation.
The view of the author is that there can only be a naturalistic explanation for these situations.
“We evolved from apelike ancestors one way or another” only allows for naturalistic explanation.
Why is that required? Why must everything have a naturalistic explanation? But we will get to that later as well.


I agree about the use of the word FACT and the use of the word THEORY. Whether you like it or not, we all have the same facts, but we have different theories about them.

1) Evolution uses those facts we have to create a theory that basically says we came from nothing and through mutations and natural selection randomly ended up here.
2) Creationism uses those facts we have to create a theory that we were created by God
​

Now I know that people will immediately say that #2 is not scientific and I would agree partially. One it is not scientific from the perspective that God cannot be evaluated by science. God would be beyond science because in the view of #2, God created science, He created everything. But there parts that are scientific. Based on how we see the world work now, could be conclude that things were designed. I believe so. We can look at the facts: how a cell works, how the planets spin, how the sun provides energy, all the other intricate processes and inner workings and propose a theory that there is a designer to all of this.

And on the flip side evolution does not have the answer to all of the issues it holds. I briefly touched o these before but: Where did life come from, where does purposeful instruction come from, how can mutations really be used to move up the information ladder? These questions either have NO ANSWER or the answer they give is used to extrapolate evolutionary direction that may or may not be possible but must be assumed true if evolution is to be correct.

"Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence."

[Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler and Adler Publishers, 1986) p. 261​

Since many of the aspects or assumptions evolutionists hold (and are required to hold) to keep the theory connected have not been proven, evolutionists are religious too.

Religion is defined as:
1.A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
2.A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons​

And I will again say this, they (evolutionist theories) could be correct. These theories and views might be accurate and the answer to how things came to be. But they are not scientifically based facts. And since they are not facts but parts of a theory to bridge current facts they need to be examined.

When we look at the second underlined sentence, we see that the FACT of evolution (MACRO) is already assumed even though it is based on a theory that is not yet fully understood.
This sentence says: FACT- evolution (MACRO) is true but ….THEORY -we just don’t know how it actually works but we think it is this way.

Wait one second, how can we know something is true if the trueness of it is based on a theory that we don’t yet know to be true?
The factuality and correctness of evolution (MACRO) is directly and 100% dependent on the theory to be correct. The assumed fact of evolution (MACRO) is the driving force in the desire to explain the theory of evolution. This makes no sense.

Here is an example #1:

1) 1910 - I see a new 10 oz steel pop can in stores (FACT)
2) 1940 - I see a new 12 oz steel pop can in stores (FACT)
3) 1980 - I see a new 12 oz aluminum pop can in stores (FACT)
4) 2010 - I see a new 24 oz aluminum pop can in stores (FACT)
5) 2010 - I DON’T see steel pop cans any more at stores (FACT)
6) Steel pop cans turn into Aluminum pop cans eventually (FACT)
7) Process in which steel pop cans turn into aluminum pop cans (THEORY)​

I know right away that people will be able to see what step I mislabeled as fact. #6 is not a fact. But how do we know it is not a fact? We understand how these two metals work. We can then ask(#7), what process or event can take place to cause #6 to happen but it should not be treated as a fact.

Here is another example #2:

1) Really, Really long time ago - I see a micro fossil with eyes (FACT)
2) Really long time ago - I see a small fossil with eyes and mouth (FACT)
3) long time ago - I see a medium fossil with eyes, feet and mouth (FACT)
4) Current - I see a large creature with eyes, feet, mouth and ears (FACT)
5) Current - I DON’T see a micro, small or medium fossil alive(FACT)
6) Micro animal turned to Small to Medium and finally Large (FACT)
7) Process in which micro animals turn to large animals (THEORY)​

So if we are honest we can see that people are trying to explain the theory of evolution (MACRO) with the assumed FACT that #6 is correct. But #6 assumes the theory #7 is already true just unanswered in process.

Richard Dawkins said this

‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening’

Transcript at: <pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html#dawkins​

He basically stated that items 1-6 are true just never seen happening. But wait, if we have never seen #6 happen then how do we know that is the process. It is again the atheistic evolutionary scientist that assume only science can explain the answers and thus they assume step number 6 is FACT even though they don’t know how it actually works and have never seen it.

 

[WidowMakers]

Thus Darwin acknowledged the provisional nature of natural selection while affirming the fact of evolution. The fruitful theoretical debate that Darwin initiated has never ceased. From the 1940s through the 1960s, Darwin's own theory of natural selection did achieve a temporary hegemony that it never enjoyed in his lifetime. But renewed debate characterizes our decade, and, while no biologist questions the importance of natural selection, many doubt its ubiquity. In particular, many evolutionists argue that substantial amounts of genetic change may not be subject to natural selection and may spread through the populations at random. Others are challenging Darwin's linking of natural selection with gradual, imperceptible change through all intermediary degrees; they are arguing that most evolutionary events may occur far more rapidly than Darwin envisioned.
Scientists regard debates on fundamental issues of theory as a sign of intellectual health and a source of excitement. Science is—and how else can I say it?—most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their implications, and recognizes that old information might be explained in surprisingly new ways. Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
Secondly, creationists claim that "the dogma of separate creations," as Darwin characterized it a century ago, is a scientific theory meriting equal time with evolution in high school biology curricula. But a popular viewpoint among philosophers of science belies this creationist argument. Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among its supporters. Their brand of creationism, they claim, is "scientific" because it follows the Popperian model in trying to demolish evolution. Yet Popper's argument must apply in both directions. One does not become a scientist by the simple act of trying to falsify a rival and truly scientific system; one has to present an alternative system that also meets Popper's criterion — it too must be falsifiable in principle.

Again the first underlined sentence assumes evolution (MACRO) is true and that all we can do is understand how it works. I have gone over this earlier so I will not repeat.
The second underlined sentence is very interesting.

A set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.

Now onto this quote:

"Why will many predictably persist in their acceptance of some version of chemical evolution? Quite simply, because chemical evolution has not been falsified. One would be irrational to adhere to a falsified hypothesis. We have only presented a case that chemical evolution is highly implausible. By the nature of the case that is all one can do. In a strict, technical sense, chemical evolution cannot be falsified because it is not falsifiable. Chemical evolution is a speculative reconstruction of a unique past event, and cannot therefore be tested against recurring nature."

[Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library, 1984), p. 186​

So there you have it. Based on the authors definition of science (ideas that cannot be falsified) and the other quote after, we can hopefully agree that unique events in the past that have never been seen or reconstructed CANNOT be science.

And if chemical evolution cannot be falsifiable since it is a speculative reconstruction of a unique past event, how can the speculative reconstruction of a past evolutionary (MACRO) event be science?

Atheistic evolutionary scientists are speculating on the past events in hopes to piece together how different species came to be. But as they speculate, they only assume that a natural process can explain it. But again that presupposes there can only be a materialistic explanation.

 

[WidowMakers]

"Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's leading intellectual, Duane Gish, Ph.D. from his recent (1978) book, Evolution? The Fossils Say No! "By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what process He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's italics]. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in the light of your last sentence, what then is scientific creationism?

First of all I need to stress that at least from my perspective neither scientific creationism nor naturalistic evolution (MACRO) is fact. They are both theories that are derived to describe the actual FACTS we have in the universe.

theory n. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.​

Based on the actual FACTS we have:

1) Many different types of life
2) Many different levels of levels of life complexity
3) May different forms of life share simple and complex characteristics with each other
4) Information exists in these systems
5) Information is used to allow these systems to grown and function
​

So from these facts, we can propose (at least) 2 theories:

A) There are many forms of life with varying levels of complexity that share simple and complex characteristics. These characteristics or information are shared in the system among all of the various forms of life. Since there seems to be a pattern we theorize that all life came from one initial source and slowly, gradually added information through mutations and shared those mutations through natural selection and eventually all that we see that is alive has come to be.
B) There are many forms of life with varying levels of complexity that share simple and complex characteristics. These characteristics or information are shared in the system among all of the various forms of life. Since there seems to be a pattern we theorize that all life came from one initial source and that source was some sort of initial creator. Since when we see complexity and design we can conclude there must be a designer involved.
​

These are two very specific theories that use the same FACTS to conclude different things about how those facts fit together and relate to each other. But I know you will say that option B is not science, well then lets see what science is.

science n. 1 the state or fact of knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied​

Do either of these theories above fit the definitions attributes of science? Nope. We CANNOT observe, study or do experiments on past events. From a previous post we see that events from the past are not falsifiable. Since no one was there we cannot know exactly what happened. And since we cannot know what happened, we speculate and form theories to try and conclude. I cannot conclude that either theory is wrong because both relay on observation and events from the past we don’t have. But then wy do some people disagree with option B of a creator. The answer is that they refuse to allow anything other than nature to answer the question.

naturalism n. philos. the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance​

It is important to understand, this is not a definition of “science”. It is a belief, but a belief in what? A belief that science can and will explain all the natural world in due time. But again what is this based on? It is based on the desire to not have anything that could be outside of nature or things that science can test, the supernatural.

The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like “There is no such thing as creation science!” or “If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!” What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists’ criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejection—by philosophical naturalists!

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp#b7​

 

[WidowMakers]

Our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general arguments. First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous populations of British moths that became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths rest. (Moths gain protection from sharp-sighted bird predators by blending into the background.) Creationists do not deny these observations; how could they? Creationists have tightened their act. They now argue that God only created "basic kinds," and allowed for limited evolutionary meandering within them. Thus toy poodles and Great Danes come from the dog kind and moths can change color, but nature cannot convert a dog to a cat or a monkey to a man.

I agree that this is observed and I do not disagree that these things have happened. But these small changes or MICRO evolution cannot be used to conclude that MACRO evolution has, does or can take place. Fruit flies are still fruit flies, the moths are still moths (plus this is an example of natural selection not micro evolution)

I agree with that last sentence nature cannot convert a dog to a cat or monkey to man.

Because we have seen such tiny changes, they argue, given enough time, large changes could also take place. Just because I can walk 5 miles per hour, does not mean I can walk to the moon regardless of the time I have to do it. Time is not a valid replacement for a proper mechanism.

 

[WidowMakers]

The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology.
The second argument—that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution—strikes many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms—the camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past history. And past history—the evidence of descent—is the mark of evolution.
Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor? An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent? Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Australia; many have been wiped out by placental mammals imported by man from other continents. This principle of imperfection extends to all historical sciences. When we recognize the etymology of September, October, November, and December (seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten months.

SO we admit that we cannot observe MAJOR or MACRO evolution because it takes so long. Then how do we know it happens at all?

He then sites geology and cosmology as example of sciences that use inference to explain things. But I would argue that those also have theories that cannot be proven as fact. The BIG BANG theory is a cosmological theory not FACT. It is a naturalist way to explain the origin of the universe but not a FACT. Geological rock dating uses the assumption of millions of years and fossils found in the layers. Fossils are used to date rocks based on their supposed age based on evolution but they are dated based on the location of the rock. It is circular reasoning. Plus the fossil record does not predict anything. It cannot be used to explain what we will find next. In fact the fossil record, age of fossils and age of rock layers have been rewritten over and over as new discoveries conflict with old assumptions. Now this might not seem bad but what is the purpose. If all we do is recalculate and arrange fossils and rock layers with new discoveries, how is that in any way a scientific study or practice? Why should we believe AS FACT a set of data that changes with new discoveries.

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.”

[Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]​

As far as human history that is completely different. We have records (manuscripts, tablets, rock carvings/paintings, etc) that we use to study and explain. We have actual data to work with. The information about ancient people is based on what they left for us to find.

“Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so in disorder.”

[Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]​

“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.”

[Arthur Koestler (evolutionist), Janus: A Summing Up, Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185.]​

As far as elegance and perfection, I don’t see why this has anything to do with the conversation.
First I agree that evolution would not and should not be expected to produce perfection since it is a random process and is unguided. But I also fail to see this imperfection automatically exclude supernatural creation. This assumes that if life was created it would be perfect and always stay perfect. Well it is easy to see that things that are created, trucks, houses, gardens, toys, etc are first not perfect and they lose fidelity or robustness the longer they exist. If nature was caused by supernatural creation it is safe easy to see that over the course of many generations, mutations do occur and those cause more and more imperfections.
So again we have same evidence, imperfections, explained two ways.

 

[WidowMakers]

The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.

This specific example also makes the assumption that these types of animals are descendants of each other. They could have just as easily been created in that fashion. Again there is no way to observe or test if a fossilized rock evolved or not into later fossil and then into what we see today. It is just speculation based round things we see. But not required to be the only explanation available.

Fossils are the remains, traces, or imprints of plants or animals that have been preserved in the earth’s near-surface rock layers at some time in the past. In other words, fossils are the remains of dead animals and plants that were buried in sedimentary layers that later hardened to rock strata. So the fossil record is hardly “the record of life in the geologic past” that so many scientists incorrectly espouse,

[K.K.E. Neuendorf, J.P. Mehl Jr., and J.A. Jackson, eds., Glossary of Geology (Alexandria, VA: American Geological Institute, 2005), p. 251.​

“The simple fact that species can be classified hierarchically into genera, families, and so on, is not an argument for evolution. It is possible to classify any set of objects into a hierarchy whether their variation is evolutionary or not.”

[Ridley, Mark (evolutionist), “Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist, vol. 90 (June 25, 1981), p. 832.] .​

 

[WidowMakers]

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)—reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate species—more than ten million years. Large, widespread, and well established species, on the other hand, are not expected to change very much. We believe that the inertia of large populations explains the stasis of most fossil species over millions of years.
We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1940, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as "hopeful monsters." (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium—see essays in section 3 and my explicit essay on Goldschmidt in The Pandas Thumb.) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the "punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory" and tells his hopeful readers that "it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor." Duane Gish writes, "According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced." Any evolutionists who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism—with God acting in the egg.

Well this still does not solve the problem. So when evolutionists figured that gradual slow evolution did not make sense or match up well with the fossil record, they developed a new theory for how things evolved. A new , un testable, unobservable, un knowable process and said that is how it all worked. Now, once again, how is that science? How does that have any more scientific credibility than any other theory I can dream up that is also un testable? Is it just due to the idea that it is a naturalistic explanation and thus must be the best option. Again this assumes that all things can best be explained by a naturalistic means.

Bt regardless of how fast or slow the organisms are speculated to have mutated and evolved, there is still the issue of how the information is actually generated.

Evolutionist say that random mutations occur and they are transported through the population through natural selection and thus the survival of the fittest wins out and the mutational trait is kept (or lost depending on the outcome) but variation on a small scale get large over a period of millions of years. Really? Evidence for this please.

‘A good example of alleged molecular homology is afforded by the a- and b-hemoglobin molecules of land vertebrates including man. These supposedly are homologous with an ancestral myoglobin molecule similar to human myoglobin. Two a- and two b-hemoglobin associate together to form the marvellous human hemoglobin molecule that carries oxygen and carbon dioxide in our blood. But myoglobin acts as single molecules to transport oxygen in our muscles. Supposedly, the ancient original myoglobin molecules slowly evolved along two paths until the precisely designed a- and b-hemoglobin molecules resulted that function only when linked together in groups of four to work in the blood in a much different way under very different conditions from myoglobin in the muscle cells. What we have today in modern myoglobin and hemoglobin molecules are marvels of perfect designs for special, highly demanding tasks. Is there any evidence that intermediate, half-evolved molecules could have served useful functions during this imaginary evolutionary change process, or that any creature could survive with them in its blood? There is no such information. Modern vertebrates can tolerate very little variation in these molecules. Thus, the supposed evolutionary history of the allegedly homologous globin molecules is a fantasy, not science.’

Kofahl, Robert E., Probability and the Origin of Life, http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_essays/essay44.htm.​

‘ ‘But there is no evidence that DNA mutations can provide the sorts of variations needed for evolution ... The sorts of variations which can contribute to Darwinian evolution, however, involve things like bone structure or body plan. There is no evidence for beneficial mutations at the level of macroevolution, but there is also no evidence at the level of what is commonly regarded as microevolution.’

Wells, J. 1999. Pers. Comm.​

Plus if information can come from randomness, how can it be used? A bunch of DNA could not come together and start making organisms because the information as to how the DNA needs to be arranged to make a proper organism is not know. How does the DNA know how to assemble? Where are the HUGE lists of combinations of DNA pieces to make worms, people, turkeys, etc?

Information is not inherent to the material it is stored in. The words I put in this post are not more English or less because they are typed. If I had written this by hand on paper with a pen or on a canvas with a paint brush, the information is the same but it is not an attribute of the material it is in or on. And since it is not a part of the material, it is not based on material. I agree that DNA come together to make things, but since we know that the code (arrangement of the DNA) is not built into each piece of DNA. So where are the blueprints for all life. Even if we assume that the random joining of the DNA can cause different forms of life, why does it know that. Where is the rule book for the system in which the DNA works? Information is not material it is conceptual. And since concepts are not material things, naturalistic processes cannot produce conceptual things, i.e. information.

 

[WidowMakers]

I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad. Sad for many reasons. Sad because so many people who respond to creationist appeals are troubled for the right reason, but venting their anger at the wrong target. It is true that scientists have often been dogmatic and elitist. It is true that we have often allowed the white-coated, advertising image to represent us—"Scientists say that Brand X cures bunions ten times faster than…" We have not fought it adequately because we derive benefits from appearing as a new priesthood. It is also true that faceless and bureaucratic state power intrudes more and more into our lives and removes choices that should belong to individuals and communities. I can understand that school curricula, imposed from above and without local input, might be seen as one more insult on all these grounds. But the culprit is not, and cannot be, evolution or any other fact of the natural world. Identify and fight our legitimate enemies by all means, but we are not among them.
I am sad because the practical result of this brouhaha will not be expanded coverage to include creationism (that would also make me sad), but the reduction or excision of evolution from high school curricula. Evolution is one of the half dozen "great ideas" developed by science. It speaks to the profound issues of genealogy that fascinate all of us—the "roots" phenomenon writ large. Where did we come from? Where did life arise? How did it develop? How are organisms related? It forces us to think, ponder, and wonder. Shall we deprive millions of this knowledge and once again teach biology as a set of dull and unconnected facts, without the thread that weaves diverse material into a supple unity?
But most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern among my colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy debate about theory that has brought new life to evolutionary biology. It provides grist for creationist mills, they say, even if only by distortion. Perhaps we should lie low and rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment—a kind of old-time religion on our part.
But we should borrow another metaphor and recognize that we too have to tread a straight and narrow path, surrounded by roads to perdition. For if we ever begin to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and should not exist, then we are truly lost.

I am also sad how people cannot see that believing in evolution is also faith. I do not write all of this so that I can make enemies or cause problems. I write I because I am troubled by all the people I come across who judge me for being close minded and unscientific but then use close-minded and unscientific beliefs of their own (masked in the guise of science) to proclaim I am wrong.

Now I will say again what I said before, I CANNOT PROVE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION WRONG. I can’t and I am not attempting to. My goal was to show how it is not able to be proven wrong thus unfalsifiable and thus not science but a belief in an idea. It is a belief in naturalism as apposed to creation. And in all actuality, it is not the science or theories around MACRO evolution that cause me to believe in a supernatural creation. While I think the theories have many holes and are incorrect, it is my belief in universal absolute truth (right and wrong) , origin of the universe, the working ability of the mind and the fact that life exists (apart from non life) that compels me more to believe in a creator.

But here is another perspective

“I am an atheist, out and out.
It took me a long time to say it.
I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have.
Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic.
I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason.
Emotionally I am an atheist.
I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.”

Isaac Asimov cited in Paul Kurtz, ed., An Interview with Isaac Asimov on Science and the Bible, Free Inquiry, Spring 1982, p. 9​

 

[codanostra]

damn bro, way to kill the discussion with your two pages of posts lol

 

[Badorties]

what just happened here????

 

[WidowMakers]

damn bro, way to kill the discussion with your two pages of posts lol

Well I hope you do realize my intention was not to kill the discussion.
I tried to cover as much of what I would have said in person as I could.
If there is no more desire to continue or anything then that is fine.
I just ask that card at least read what I said to see my perspective on the link he sent.
And if others wish to read as well then great.

what just happened here????

I posted my rebuttal to cards link from post #3.

EDIT: Also I meant to add this podcast link to the mix as well.
It is title Same evidence different conclusions.
http://www.veritas.org/Uploads/Audio/1066.mp3

45 minutes of John Lennox (mathematician) talking & 45 minutes of him answering some really tough questions.

 

[WidowMakers]

And here is another one Bado. It relates back to the oscillating universe theory and the infinite universe theory.
There are also many, many references and quotes from current, respected scientists who believe that science DOES point towards a creator.

The Big Bang, Stephen Hawking, and God
Again presentation and then questions
http://www.veritas.org/Uploads/Audio/1076.mp3

 

[Cardinalsrule]

I'm going to have to re-read all of that several times before I can respond, Widow.
Damn.

 

[WidowMakers]

I'm going to have to re-read all of that several times before I can respond, Widow.
Damn.

LOL. no worries. Happy 4th everyone.

 

[corcovado]

Wido, how old do you believe the earth is? Science generally accepts the earth to be around 4.5 billion years with pretty solid evidence that it is at least 3.8 billion years. Here is a link that explains how science came up with that number http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold. If you do not believe earth is that old then can you please explain how old you think it is and why.