Replies

"Your evidence for this is that in the relative blink of an eye that we've been watching, we haven't seen an enormous change in a single species."

Actually it's that we _can_ breed significant changes (even as far as speciation), but that there are limits.

"There are rare cases of members of different species producing viable offspring (lions and tigers, for instance), but that just goes to show that mother nature is far more intricate and fascinating than our boring classification system would like her to be."

That's what I said.

"It most certainly isn't. Sitting here for a few million years would provide the proof necessary to discount or finally accept the ToE. I've got some spare time, but not that much."

Exactly true. Evolution _requires_ a lot of proof which we don't have. Saying that because we can't gather the necessary proof, we don't need to is rediculous.

"It allows for anything under the sun. In fact, Creationism inherently explains each and every possible scenario, regardless of how bizarre or how unexpected it may be, with the words, "that's how God wanted it"."

The same is true for evolution. It accomodates fast changes, slow changes, changes which increase complexity, changes which reduce complexity, changes which help, changes which harm. It's impossible to come up with a scenario that would truly falsify evolution, because no matter what you come up with, evolutionists will say, "that's shows how amazing evolution is".

"Not at all - Darwin never said that breeding couldn't bring about the same kinds of changes as the normal evolutionary process."

Here's what Darwin said: "With species in a state of nature, it can hardly be maintained that the law [of compensation] is of universal application." The law of compensation is the observed fact that breeding holds limits. Darwin argued that a "state of nature" could break the law of compensation that breeders have been unable to cross.

Also remember that Darwin allowed for an initial species, or even _several_ initial species to be present for which natural selection to work on. If several, while not several thousand, or several million? The doctrine of special creation is not that God created every species that is extant today, but that He created "kinds" which are the ancestors of modern species. As mentioned by many others, the origin of life is not of particular concern to evolution, so the only disagreement appears to be of the question "are there limits to change?" Neither party has observed the past to know whether change has limits, so both are really pure speculation from a scientific standpoint. Science has not observed boundless change, and the fossil record does not support universal gradualism.

"Actually it's that we _can_ breed significant changes (even as far as speciation), but that there are limits."

The limits are only there (according to the ToE) because we make limited use of genetic variation (and actually nullify it to an extent), make almost no use of genetic mutation, make very limited use of natural selection, and have very little time with which to do all this. Of course there are limits, we're not doing 1% of what nature's doing to force adaptation.

"Exactly true. Evolution _requires_ a lot of proof which we don't have. Saying that because we can't gather the necessary proof, we don't need to is rediculous."

The ToE, like the theory of the Big Bang, and other such theories which can't ever be completely 'proven', can most certainly be tested. The ToE relies on certain principles and makes certain predictions about what we should and should not find in the fossil record. When something unexpected comes up (invariably the case when you have an imperfect theory based on imperfect knowledge), the ToE must either be able to adapt to it, or it must be scrapped. Thus far, nothing has struck a fatal blow to the ToE, though there certainly remain questions it must eventually answer. It's not that we don't need proof - it's that proof (the kind you're probably looking for) doesn't come around witin the limited lifetime of a human being. It can, however, be disproven as a plausible explanation for how things got from point A to point B. Knock out one of the major pillars of the ToE or bring irrefutable evidence of something that contradicts the ToE and you'll find that the ToE zealots trying to dance around your evidence are dancing all by themselves while the respectable scientific community searchs for a better theory to explain things.

"The same is true for evolution. It accomodates fast changes, slow changes, changes which increase complexity, changes which reduce complexity, changes which help, changes which harm. It's impossible to come up with a scenario that would truly falsify evolution, because no matter what you come up with, evolutionists will say, "that's shows how amazing evolution is"."

Not true at all. I'll give you a perfect example - show me a fruitfly which, within a generation or two, becomes a whale. That right there would completely contract the ToE. The ToE would say that's impossible. While that example is extreme, less extreme examples could have the same affect. Just find something that is impossible under the ToE and present evidence for it. If it's something the ToE is unable to explain, then all but the craziest zealot supporters of evolution theory will start looking for a theory that can explain it.

"Here's what Darwin said: "With species in a state of nature, it can hardly be maintained that the law [of compensation] is of universal application." The law of compensation is the observed fact that breeding holds limits. Darwin argued that a "state of nature" could break the law of compensation that breeders have been unable to cross."

Of course - you're comparing a heat lamp to the sun. As I stated before, with our limited time and limited application of the driving forces behind evolution, it's no wonder that there are limits to what we've accomplished. Nature has total control over the environment and has millions upon millions of years to sit back and let evolution do its thing. If and when man has total control over the environment and a few million years to sit back, he'll be able to 'breed' new species all he likes. Of course, one of those species will probably kill man, but we've never played it safe through our short history.

"Also remember that Darwin allowed for an initial species, or even _several_ initial species to be present for which natural selection to work on. If several, while not several thousand, or several million?"

Of course he allowed for initial species - he had no explaination for how they'd have sprouted from nothingness. We now have part of that puzzle. The conditions of early Earth lent themselves to causing the spontaneous formation of certain amino acids and carbon compounds. We've recreated this in a lab, and it's been observed. To the best of my knowledge, we've not yet seen the next step, which would involve something we would consider 'alive' forming from the compounds present. That being said, the building blocks for life as we know it pretty much will form on their own under the right conditions.

"As mentioned by many others, the origin of life is not of particular concern to evolution,"

I would disagree, as I think evolution should begin to start looking at things the moment the first 'living' organism comes into being. Certainly, even if the earliest lifeforms made no use of nucleic acids, there must have been some method of replication, as well as a method of passing information (something analogous to genetic material) from one generation to the next. Evolution shouldn't require specific compounds for the transfer of such information (DNA, RNA, etc), so it should function even at the most basic levels of life.

"the only disagreement appears to be of the question "are there limits to change?""

That's not the case at all. While it seems that many are willing to accept that at least some changes do occur over time, some are content to believe that everything that's alive today was always alive, which would include man running around being chased by dinosaurs (which is funny). Some think the whole fossil record is a forgery. Must be interesting to live life under such paranoia. Some think the fossil record was planted by God to fool the silly scientists who think they're so smart. That's a rather dim view of one's creator - a sadistic being that grants intellect to its creations just so it can mess with them. There remain a whole range of views, and I just hope we keep the crazier ones out of the classroom. That being said, I should hope that no students are being taught that the ToE is an unquestionable fact, or a law of nature. That's simply wrong, by any scientifically accepted standard.