|
Author
|
Topic: Evidence for Macroevolution
|
Heavenstorm
Community Member
Member # 5321
|
posted
I sense some hostility here from Chaos in his response to my questions. I see there are a lot of assumptions being made here, and maybe I can resolve some of them by stating my stance outright.
I believe in evolution, where evolution means there is a change over time that we observe.
I believe we have good support to conclude the timescale we are looking at is around 4.5 billion years since the formation of the planet.
Christian creationists seem to come from two major camps. One camp attests that we must translate the days of Genesis as literal days, and the geneologies as complete. This would make the earth about 10,000 years old.
I come from the camp that attests the days may be literally translated as long periods of time, and periods that are in order (In Genesis 1).
The universe has gradually evolved into what it is now over a period of 13.7 billion years, though we have no good explanation for the high level of design we see in it.
We know of one planet in the universe that contains biological life and it's been around for 4.5 billion years.
Within that timeframe we have a fossil record that indicates dramatic changes over short periods of time.
We have microorganisms appearing as soon as environmental conditions allow for them. We have creatures appearing in stages, as well as plants and entire ecosystems where the plants and animals emerge as being interdependent.
At the end of that period we have mankind emerging onto the scene with no intermediate lineage with past species. The earliest evidence of man emerging appears to be about 40,000 years.
That's a relatively short amount of time, and we
have seen no evolutionary changes since then.
And don't blame the incompleteness of the fossil record for the reason we don't see transitional forms. We have over 200 million catalogued specimens, over 250,000 fossil species. Over 79.1% of todays living organisms have been discovered in fossil form 87.8% when you exclude birds that don't fossilize well.
We see little or no change for the period we see fossils in the record to the time they go off the record.
I think these changes are best explained as supernatural creation by a transcendent creator who makes designs that are optimal to function in a physical universe and an earth that changes over time.
We see changes in the fossil record, and some of those changes can be explained from microevolutionary mechanisms such as natural selection.
Macroevolutionists come from different camps too. There is gradualism, and punctuated equalibrium, and other models presented that assert that nature created life without God's intervention.
It just doesn't make sense to me that something possessing the complexity of life emerges from nothing all over the earth and we conclude a naturalistic origin.
It doesn't make sense to me that human intellect emerged in the last 40,000 years and is explainable by naturalistic processes.
Why do you believe what you believe? Does naturalism have the power to explain these phenomena? Does it make sense to you?
Posts: 19 | From: Douglas County, Georgia | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
quote:
You have been indoctrinated in the myth of macro-evolutionary dogma, and it has no relevancy in empirical science.
This is both funny and sad. Funny in that you continue to demonstrate your ignorance about evolutionary theory; sad in that you, as a now revealed creationist, are accusing me of being indoctrinated.
quote:
<snip lies about Dr. Collins>
quote:
"Because creationists lack scientific research or evidence to support such theories as a young earth (10,000 years old), a world-wide flood (Noah's), and separate ancestry for humans and apes, their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists. When I published the first edition of this book I was hardly aware of creationism but, during the 1980s, like many other biologists I learned that one should think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context." (C. Patterson, Evolution, 2nd edition, p. 122)
So in other words the dishonest source you used is taking Patterson out of context and twisting the meaning of his words. While Dr. Patterson died in 1998 he did so without recanting or refuting evolution and was still vehemently opposed to creationism.
quote:
<snip more lies and misconception about evolution theory>
quote:
What is macroevolution?
In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, a macrophage means a bigger than normal cell, but it is only a few times bigger than other cells, and not an order of magnitude bigger.
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa.
Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.
Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution of genes and microevolution is within-species evolution of genes.
There are various kinds of dynamics of macroevolution. Punctuated equilibrium theory proposes that once species have originated, and adapted to the new ecological niches in which they find themselves, they tend to stay pretty much as they are for the rest of their existence. Phyletic gradualism suggests that species continue to adapt to new challenges over the course of their history. Species selection and species sorting theories claim that there are macroevolutionary processes going on that make it more or less likely that certain species will exist for very long before becoming extinct, in a kind of parallel to what happens to genes in microevolution.
The history of the concept of macroevolution
In the "modern synthesis" of neo-Darwinism, which developed in the period from 1930 to 1950 with the reconciliation of evolution by natural selection and modern genetics, macroevolution is thought to be the combined effects of microevolutionary processes. In theories proposing "orthogenetic evolution" (literally, straight line evolution), macroevolution is thought to be of a different calibre and process than microevolution. Nobody has been able to make a good case for orthogenesis since the 1950s, especially since the uncovering of molecular genetics between 1952 and the late 1960s.
Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.
Non-Darwinian evolutionists think that the processes that cause speciation are of a different kind to those that occur within species. That is, they admit that macroevolution occurs, but think that normal genetic change is restricted by such proposed mechanisms as developmental constraints. This view is associated with the names of Schmalhausen and Waddington, who were often characterised as being non-Darwinians by the modern synthesis theorists.
The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was the first attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called "eclipse of Darwinism" (Bowler 1983), he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist. Moreover Russian biologists of the period had a history of rejecting Darwin's Malthusian mechanism of evolution by competition.
In Theodosius Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of Species, he began by saying that "we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution" (1937, page 12), thereby introducing the terms into the English-speaking biological community (Alexandrov 1994). Dobzhansky had been Filipchenko's student and regarded him as his mentor. In science, it is difficult to deny a major tenet of one's teachers due to filial loyalty, and Dobzhansky, who effectively started the modern Darwinian synthesis with this book, found it disagreeable to have to deny his teacher's views (Burian 1994).
The term fell into limited disfavour when it was taken over by such writers as the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (1940) and the paleontologist Otto Schindewolf to describe their orthogenetic theories. As a result, apart from Dobzhansky, Bernhardt Rensch and Ernst Mayr, very few neo-Darwinian writers used the term, preferring instead to talk of evolution as changes in allele frequencies without mention of the level of the changes (above species level or below). Those who do are generally working within the continental European traditions (as Dobzhansky, Mayr, Rensch, Goldschmidt, and Schindewolf are) and those who don't are generally working within the Anglo-American tradition (such as John Maynard Smith and Richard Dawkins). Hence, the term is sometimes wrongly used as a litmus test of whether the writer is "properly" neo-Darwinian or not (Eldredge 1995: 126-127).
The term has been revived by a number of authors such as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, the authors of punctuated equilibrium theory (see Eldredge's 1992 Macroevolutionary Dynamics ), but there is a tendency in these authors to revert to the orthogenetic view that something other than within-species processes are causing macroevolution, although they disavow the orthogenetic view that evolution is progressing anywhere.
Conclusion
There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).
The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (eg, Gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change.
Link to source
quote:
<snip appeal to authority fallacy>
quote:
by Joyce Arthur
© copyright, February, 1995
published in OASIS, Volume 8, No. 17, Fall 1995
On January 26, B.C.'s community religious channel, Vision TV, aired a half hour program called On Main Street. The topic was evolution versus creation. The program was a good lesson in the workings of the creationist mind and a sad display of what happens when a bit of paranoia and some wishful thinking is mixed with an unhealthy dose of ignorance.
The host of the program was Dale Meyer, and his guest was creationist Dr. David Menton, Associate Professor of Anatomy at Washington University Medical School in St. Louis, Missouri. It should be immediately said that a medical doctor teaching anatomy is well out of his field of expertise when it comes to discussing evolution. Since an understanding of evolutionary theory is not critical to Dr. Menton's discipline, he is no more qualified to speak on evolution than the average intelligent layperson.
Host Meyer introduced the program with this statement:
"Did God play a role in the origin and development of man? The overwhelming majority of Americans say yes! But public schools, museums, and government-sponsored programs promote an evolutionary theory that excludes God completely."
Meyer quoted the Gallup poll which found that only 9% of Americans believe that evolution occurred without God, but 40% believe God played a role in evolution, while 46% believe that God did it all, creating everything suddenly without evolution. "Is it a fluke," asked the host, "that 86% of Americans are giving God some credit?" The question implied that the average American knows better than the average scientist about the origins and history of humanity.
In fact, creationists sincerely believe that the general population is indeed better-informed than scientists when it comes to the origin of man. In response to a question asking why Americans don't believe in evolution, Dr. Menton claimed it's because the average layman knows that complex things require an intelligent designer---nothing complex happens spontaneously by chance.
One of the overriding themes of the program was that scientists deliberately shut out God and ignore all evidence of creation. Apparently they do this, not because of the nature of science, or because there's anything wrong with creationism, but because, as Dr. Menton asserted:
"They prefer to believe that origins occurred in a way that is suitable for science. They would prefer that it not be supernatural." (italics added)
He complained that:
"Evolution holds sway because most of the scientific community considers creationism virtually unthinkable. It doesn't matter what the nature of the evidence is. If one view is unthinkable, it's not going to get explored."
It is clear that Dr. Menton did not even understand why the supernatural is excluded from science. He thought science should be open to all hypotheses, and claimed that the most "obvious hypothesis" includes a supernatural creator. He illustrated the unfairness of the rules of science by adapting William Paley's famous (but thoroughly refuted) watch designer argument. If we wanted to find out the origins of a watch by playing the "watch game," Menton said, where the only rule was "there is no watchmaker," we immediately discard the only real plausible hypothesis!
Throughout the show, Dr. Menton completely ignored the fact that most scientists (and a lot of evolutionists) believe in God. And of course, the real reason why science does not admit supernatural hypotheses is because they can't be subjected to scientific observation, experimentation, and falsification. The business of science is to try and explain things through naturalistic processes, because that's the only objective method we humans have of independently verifying how the world works. With a supernatural solution, not only is there no means to explain things, there's no point in explaining anything at all. If science does go beyond the bounds of natural phenomena, it stops being science and becomes metaphysics or theology. Nevertheless, creationists feel victimized and offended by what they see as a deliberate, mistaken, and unjust snubbing of the supernatural by science.
There was the usual assortment of errors and distortions, both from Dr. Menton and the audience. Here are a couple of choice examples from Dr. Menton:
"The Darwinian idea hasn't changed much in 130 years... there have been some small changes. We now talk of Neo-Darwinism, a new form of Darwinism. The only difference being that Darwin thought things sort of survived if they were genetically suited to survive. Neo-Darwinism says it's not a simple matter of life and death, it's a matter of differential offspring. Those who leave the most offspring survive while those who do not survive don't leave as many offspring."
Dr. Menton has got things perfectly backwards. How can it be that this self-appointed evolutionary expert has not even read Darwin's The Origin of Species, in which the idea of differential reproduction serves as a building block to the theory of natural selection? And of course, it was Mendelian genetics which largely transformed Darwin's theory into Neo-Darwinism.
"For evolution, I don't believe that we have a theory...because we must have something observable, repeatable, and testable... Scientifically, we can't understand how we got here."
The tired, oft-refuted argument that evolution is not science because it can't be observed has once again reared its stupid head. Atoms and gravity can't be seen, but few people claim that physics is not scientific. Besides, evolution has been observed in modern times, including some cases of macro-evolution (speciation). Evolution has also been scientifically deduced from the study of both fossils and living organisms, and from related fields such as geology and plate tectonics.
An audience member asked:
"People tell us that we came from amoebas. But we still have amoebas. Why would we still have amoebas if we came from them?"
Instead of correcting the questioner's very basic misconception by pointing out that parent species can live on unchanged, indefinitely, after giving rise to other species, Dr. Menton told her it was "a good question" and then veered off to talk about the alleged common ancestor of humans and fruit flies and how species just stay the same species and never become something else. Dr. Menton added, "We still have bacteria today," thereby confirming to all present that evolution just doesn't make any sense at all, darn it.
Creationists rarely talk about natural selection, because it spoils the random, strictly by chance, theory of evolution that they so love to hate. Dr. Menton was no exception. Even though he discussed Darwin and his theory, he didn't bother letting his listeners in on what Darwinism was actually all about---natural selection. Simply put, natural selection dictates that individuals with traits and variations better suited to the environment are more likely to survive than others who are less well-suited. Because they compete more successfully for mates and limited resources, and live longer, the fitter individuals leave more offspring, and their favourable traits are passed on to a larger portion of the succeeding generation. The traits spread through the population, and eventually, perhaps, cause it to evolve into a new species. Natural selection is literally a blind designer because it uses only the tools at hand and is not directed towards any ultimate, pre-determined goal. The random aspect of evolution is the unpredictable occurrence of traits and variations (caused by mutations and gene recombination) and environmental changes, not evolutionary change itself.
Dr. Menton promoted his random view of evolution in a garbled version of punctuated equilibria:
"Evolutionists say that animals change randomly until they hit on a winning combination, then they persist indefinitely. Now we have punctuated equilibria, so there is no fossil record left, all we see are the winners."
Punctuated equilibria is actually the theory that species may undergo long periods of stasis and short bursts of evolutionary change, fuelled by natural selection. The nature of the fossil record supports this theory in many instances, because it often shows species persisting unchanged for a very long time, only to be replaced by another species, which in turn may remain unchanged for a long time. The theory concurs with the earlier evolutionary views of great evolutionary biologists like Ernst Mayr, who showed that new species probably evolve in small, isolated areas, spread to other areas as they become more numerous and successful, and replace endemic species.
Dr. Menton also reserved a personal remark or two for Darwin:
"...as [Darwin] developed evolutionary views, he came to literally despise the word of God..."
That's enough to send devilish shivers up and down the spine of every Bible-believing Christian. You see, according to creationists, evolution breeds evil. Apparently, it is a direct cause of atheism, as well as many other social ills. However, Dr. Menton seems a little befuddled by the fact that:
"Some of my dearest friends are evolutionists and I find them to be very kind, honourable people."
How they got that way remains a complete mystery, however. As the good doctor explains:
"...the basis for determining right and wrong must depend on what our ultimate reality is. If God is our creator, that has a profoundly different effect than if we are just a spontaneous self-assembly process."
Although he had previously claimed that people generally don't believe in evolution anyway, he manages to completely contradict himself, twice, within the space of two sentences:
"If [a belief in evolution] were to become widespread, it would have a profound effect and has had a profound effect. We've got everybody believing that man is an animal."
So your appeal to authority is to someone for whom the science of evolution is not a primary field of study and who is not recognized or published as an expert in the field? You'll have to do better than that.
Drew, it is ok to admit that Creationism and ID theory are junk science, because they are by definition. It is ok to say that evolution is the best explanation for how life forms change over time, because from the scientific POV that correct.
And most importantly, it is ok to embrace both God and science. Recognizing that evolution theory is good science does not deny God. Calling creationism and Id theory junk does not deny God. One can embrace both. God is our Father and creator. I recognize that. My faith gives purpose to creation. God gave us rational minds and science to discover His creation and marvel at its beauty and join Him in being co-creators in this on-going wonder. Can you find that acceptable?
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
You have been indoctrinated in the myth of macro-evolutionary dogma, and it has no relevancy in empirical science.
Dr. Colin Patterson was the Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Paleontology Department at the British Museum (Natural History) when his following statements were made. In a talk he gave on November 5, 1981 to leading evolutionists at the American Museum of Natural History, he presented new data on amino acid sequences in several proteins of a number of animals. The relationships of these animals, according to evolutionary theory, has been taught in classrooms for many decades. He told a stunned audience that this new data contradicted the theory of evolution. In his words,
"The theory makes a prediction, we've tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely."
Although he acknowledged that scientific falsification is never absolute, he went on to say that he recognized now that "evolution was a faith," that he had "been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way," and "that evolution not only conveys no knowledge but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is harmful to systematics [the science of classifying different forms of life]."
"Prominent British Scientist Challenges Evolution Theory," audio tape transcription and summary by Luther D. Sunderland, personal communication. (Taken from In the Beginning, 5th ed., Walter T. Brown, Jr., p. 42).
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/theory.htm
What exactly is the "observable fact" of evolution? First you should be aware that evolutionists recognize two types of evolution -- micro evolution, which is observable, and macro evolution, which isn't. So called "micro evolution" is a process of limited variation among the individuals of a given species that produces the sort of variety we observe, for example, among dogs. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is a hypothetical process of unlimited variation that evolutionists believe transforms one kind of living organism into a fundamentally different kind such as the transformation of reptiles into birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has ever observed anything remotely like this actually happen.
The very name "micro evolution" is intended to imply that it is this kind of variation that accumulates to produce macro evolution though a growing number of evolutionists admit there is no evidence for this. Thus an observable phenomenon is extrapolated into an unobservable phenomenon for which there is no evidence, and then the latter is declared to be a "fact" on the strength of the former. It is this kind of limitless extrapolation that comprises much of the argument for evolution.
In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable by man. Special creation is accepted with faith by those who believe that the Bible is the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator whose Word is more reliable than the speculations of men. Both evolution and creation, however, can be compared for their compatibility with what we do observe of the facts of nature.
Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University. He has been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years.
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
Drew:
quote:
Nothing dug up out of the ground (or discovered anywhere else) has ever supported the theory of evolution.
Had I been drinking my coffe when I read this I would have spit it out on the screen. You're not serious are you?
You apologetic rationalization does nothing to support Creation theory or invalidate Evolution theory.
quote:
These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible.
Wrong. On a conceptual level this is false, because it presumes a hierarchical relationship in speciation that does not exist. On a empirical level it is false because there are examples at hand that show otherwise.
The rest is just semantic nitpicking. Bottom line is that Creation theory ahd ID theory both rest on foundations built out of logical fallacies and are therefore irrational and unscientific. What's so hard to understand about that?
quote:
Conclusion:
The use of models in presenting origins is the fairest and most logical methodology in differentiating between evolution and creation. The arrogance which propagandizes evolution from the hallowed halls of higher academia and which relegates creationism to the realm of superstition and anti-intellectualism is a grave detriment to the honest examination of origins.
To indoctrinate young teachers with the dogma of humanism, which in turn further perpetuates a societal bias, undermines the scientific education of our nation’s youth. Our students deserve a true education free from indoctrination and with the opportunity to examine scientific models with honest methodology.
This conclusion is just laughable for its dishonesty. The only anti-intellectualism going on is the lie that Christians hide behind when they pretend that Creation Theory and/or ID theory is even remotely scientific. Why do they do this? I don't know? Are they so uncertain of their faith that they can't deal with this particular reality? I don't know. The only indoctrination that is going on is when Christians teach their children not to think about the creation of which they are apart. The only thing that undermines scientific education is when Christians attempt to use public law to force junk science upon innocent minds.
<speaking to no one in particular, and not directly at Drew>:
If you are so uncertain about your faith and salvation that you have to prove God scientifically and force this junk science on other people through legislation so that you don't have to deal with a reality you can't accept, then perhaps it is time to re-examine your faith.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Caretaker
Advanced Member
Member # 36
|
posted
Within the hallowed halls of higher academia one hears the term, “The Theory of Evolution”, in regards to the origins of life. One also, though less frequently hears the term, “The Theory of Creation”, though spoken of in derogatory terms. It seems rather a shame that with the single word, “Theory”, places the debate outside the realm of empirical science and into the realm of the philosophical. Although seeking scientific credibility those using the term are outside the scientific method of analysis.
In the words of a noted Evolution apologist:
“These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter. And yet it is just such impossibility that is demanded by anti-evolutionists when they ask for ‘proofs’ of evolution which they magnanimously accept as satisfactory.” ( T. Dobzhansky, American Scientist Vol. 45 p.388 1957)
Evolution and Creation are neither theory nor hypothesis as neither can be tested experimentally for confirmation. They can however be formatted as models to be contrasted and compared in regards to observable data. The model allows the data to be organized and a systematic series of questions asked which can then be researched. The most correct model would be that which fits known facts with the least number of contradictions and inconsistencies.
The logical first step is to define the concepts, which are being systematically examined. Evolution is the gradual development of all forms of life by natural processes from a common ancestral form, which had arisen from the primordial “soup”.
Creation is the special creative and integrative processes, which are no longer in operation, which brought all forms of life into existence by acts of a supernatural God.
The two models are diametrically opposed to each other on every point. Evolution places the origin of life in the nutrient enriched primordial sea. The conditions were right for an ever increasingly complex build-up of compounds. At a certain point the common ancestral cell was formed from which all life on earth can trace its origin.
Creation places the origin of life under the operational intelligence and energy of a supernatural God with the appearance of all specific “kinds” of life appearing contemporaneous with each other. Each “kind” is an interfertile group which is not related to another interfertile group. All organisms of one “kind” can be traced back to the original created “kind”. A “kind” is limited to those able to produce zygotes from the union of sex cells, which is the ability to produce viable offspring. There is a genetic boundary separating differing “kinds”.
The evolutionary model contains no genetic boundary as there has been an on-going continuum of organisms, with new kinds appearing. This is why mutations are beneficial to the evolutionary model while being harmful to the creation model. The evolution model shows man as having ape-like ancestors while the creation model shows man as having no ape-like ancestors, with civilization contemporaneous with man. Evolution shows the origins of civilization as being a slow and gradual process.
One of the differences between evolution and creation not found in the particular models are the respective philosophies:
“Sir Julian Huxley, British evolutionist and grandson of Thomas Huxley, one of Darwin’s strongest supporters when he first published his theory, has said that, ‘Gods are peripheral phenomena produced by evolution.”
In essence the evolutionist has man creating God and the creationist has God creating man.
Conclusion:
The use of models in presenting origins is the fairest and most logical methodology in differentiating between evolution and creation. The arrogance which propagandizes evolution from the hallowed halls of higher academia and which relegates creationism to the realm of superstition and anti-intellectualism is a grave detriment to the honest examination of origins.
To indoctrinate young teachers with the dogma of humanism, which in turn further perpetuates a societal bias, undermines the scientific education of our nation’s youth. Our students deserve a true education free from indoctrination and with the opportunity to examine scientific models with honest methodology.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml
Since Darwin’s time, the theory of evolution developed through people writing books. Nothing dug up out of the ground (or discovered anywhere else) has ever supported the theory of evolution.
--------------------
A Servant of Christ,
Drew
1 Tim. 3:
16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..
Posts: 3978 | From: Council Grove, KS USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
chaoschristian
Advanced Member
Member # 5273
|
posted
First, stop using the term macroevolution. It seems to imply that you are confusing the theory of evolution with the theory of abiogenesis. Evolution theory pertains to the development and adaption of organisms to changing stimulu in the the environment over time. Intelligent Design has at its heart the origins of life. It says that the universe is so complex and that some particular parts of it are so complex that the only rational explanation would be the existance of a extra-natural (or super-natural if you prefer) force/creator.
So what do you want to talk about in this thread? Theories on species adaptation or theories on the origins of life? I like to keep to one topic on a thread.
Now to respond to your points:
quote:
You say there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that supports darwinian evolution. Can you provide some details of this evidence and why you think it is empirical?
First, call it what it is - evolution. Darwin/Darwinian has been and is used by ID/Creationist proponents as some sort of perjuritve term. That gets you on the path of ad-hominem attacks, and I know that you don't want to go down that road. Now, I'm not going to do your work for you. I presume they have libraries in Georgia and that you have some level of education that would have exposed you to biology at one point or another. I'm not going to catalogue the evidence here. And its empirical because its observable and measurable. In others words, it's not imaginary or made up. Thousands of scientists have spent who knows how many hours documenting these observations and collecting the data. Why would you even raise this issue unless perhaps you are inferring that some how the data does not exist? Tell me I'm wrong about that last part, please.
quote:
I think the Intelligent Design model may be incomplete but makes some excellent points about why it is more reasonable to interpret the evidence differently.
If it were so reasonable then why is ID soundly rejected by the scientific community? If it is so excellent then why isn't ID theory to found in peer-reviewed journals?
quote:
We don't see gradual changes in the fossil record. We have abrupt appearances of complex organisms in thier whole states. This isn't isolated to one geographical region or order or phyla. It's this way with just about every known order in the fossil record.
All you are doing here is restating the 'there are no intermediate fossils'arguement. If it hasn't occurred to you, all species are intermediate fossils in the making. All organisms are complex and all organisms are whole. What would you expect, to find half a reptile living on some desert island? What you are trying to say is that since you don't see an utterly complete fossil record that that somehow falsifies evolutionary theory. Well it doesn't. While I'm sure that those concerned are working hard each day of their professional careers to obtain more data, there is enough in existance right now to justify evolution as the best possible explanation.
quote:
What is the mechanism by which an organism can abruptly cross over from one species to the next in a very short period of time?
I think you are confused here. One species doesn't cross over to the next one as you claim. A species adapts to changing stimuli in the environment and the successful adaptors become a new species. You are putting the cart before the horse. You don't have a species X and a species Y and see species X become Y. We see a change in species X and identify it as species Y. There is an imporant difference there you know.
quote:
How can we conclude that the appearance of new species in the fossil record is best interpeted as organisms changing from one form to the next?
Umm, because within the scientific PV that's what the data suggest? Do you understand science and the scientific method? Do you understand what it means to make an observation, postulate a hypothesis, collect observable data and then submit the hypothesis to falsification?
quote:
Why would it be unreasonable to conclude that the mechanism can't be supernatural creation of new species?
Oh wait, I see that you don't. Are you aware that your statement is oxymoronic? Would it ever be reasonable to include the supernatural among the set of possible conclusions if one were looking at a particular phenomenon through a rational lense? No.
Now it's your turn. You provide sound, logical, scientific evidence that proves that ID trumps evolutionary theory. And I'm not even expecting you to present the Encyclopedia Creationica either. Just present a sound, logical scientific conceptual argument that supports the validity of Intelligent Design theory.
--------------------
Why are you reading my bio when you should be paying attention to the post?
Posts: 109 | From: Snack Food Capital of the World (Hanover, PA for those of you who don't know) | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Heavenstorm
Community Member
Member # 5321
|
posted
You say there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that supports darwinian evolution. Can you provide some details of this evidence and why you think it is empirical?
I think the Intelligent Design model may be incomplete but makes some excellent points about why it is more reasonable to interpret the evidence differently.
We don't see gradual changes in the fossil record. We have abrupt appearances of complex organisms in thier whole states. This isn't isolated to one geographical region or order or phyla. It's this way with just about every known order in the fossil record.
What is the mechanism by which an organism can abruptly cross over from one species to the next in a very short period of time?
How can we conclude that the appearance of new species in the fossil record is best interpeted as organisms changing from one form to the next?
Why would it be unreasonable to conclude that the mechanism can't be supernatural creation of new species?
Chris
Posts: 19 | From: Douglas County, Georgia | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
