Replies

Me:

You can't live long enough to see the cumulative effect of tens of thousands of generations -- except in the case of bacteria.

You:
Then you admit that there is no reproducible, scientific, experimental evidence of macro-evolution. Do I have your meaning correctly?

I do? Where? I said (and this point you skipped over):

What you call macro-evolution is nothing more than the cumulative effect of numerous instances of micro-evolution, which I assume you accept. You accept micro-evolution because you can literally see it happening from one generation to the next. You can't live long enough to see the cumulative effect of tens of thousands of generations -- except in the case of bacteria.

So, you insist that I drive the point home. Very well, here's the point: If you accept micro-evolution because of the evidence, and if macro-evidence is just a bunch of micro-evolution, what makes you say that there is no evidence? And why do these discussions so quickly arrive at the "Run, Spot, run" level of discourse?

Me:

But macro-evolution doesn't need to be experimentally reproducible, any more than the history of France does.

You:
The history of France had eye witnesses who wrote about it contemporaneously. Macro-evolution has no such witnesses. There is only evidence which is subject to differing interpretations.

Ah, you have joined your colleagues of the OJ jury in embracing the "no eyewitness, therefore no possibility of knowledge" rationale for rejecting evolution (and only evolution). And you seem to have added a new wrinkle: "when there are eyewitnesses (as in the history of France) there are no differing interpretations." What is left for us to discuss? All I can do is try to explain things for the reasonably intelligent person. But can't devote my efforts to removing each new obstacle you throw in your own path.

… I said (and this point you skipped over):

What you call macro-evolution is nothing more than the cumulative effect of numerous instances of micro-evolution, which I assume you accept. You accept micro-evolution because you can literally see it happening from one generation to the next. You can't live long enough to see the cumulative effect of tens of thousands of generations -- except in the case of bacteria.

Sorry, I thought I had addressed this issue. Nonetheless, based upon your comments, I obviously did so poorly. Therefore, please accept the following exposition as addressing the issue you have raised:

As I recall, experiments in genetics have been conducted successfully with fruit flies and other relatively complex animals that have short life cycles (in contrast to simple one-celled bacteria). Macro-evolution could conceivably be demonstrated in similar fashion as “tens of thousands of generations” could be observed relatively easily (at least, compared to other animals). Halley made and carefully recorded a prediction concerning the comet that bears his name using Newton’s theories. Halley knew his predictions could not be verified in his lifetime. Nonetheless, he recorded his predictions based upon theory and others, later, substantiated them.

Such a demonstration has not, to my knowledge, been forth coming in the case of macro-evolution. Given the potential, since Darwin first posited his theory in 1869, to possibly structure such an experiment, even if it required several temporally successive researchers to provide the observations to verify predictions, my challenge to the macro-evolution theory for lack of experimentally reproducible evidence seems to be valid. Do you have a cite for such an experiment to which you could refer me?

If you accept micro-evolution because of the evidence, and if macro-evidence is just a bunch of micro-evolution, what makes you say that there is no evidence?

Please see the above discussion for my response to this issue.

And why do these discussions so quickly arrive at the "Run, Spot, run" level of discourse?… But macro-evolution doesn't need to be experimentally reproducible, any more than the history of France does… All I can do is try to explain things for the reasonably intelligent person. But can't devote my efforts to removing each new obstacle you throw in your own path.

I do not fault your motive in attempting to “explain things for the reasonably intelligent person.” In fact, I applaud it. Nonetheless, where it is possible to find fault in your explanations is in what appears to be the fallacies of logic of your expositions. Please allow me to construct some admittedly overly simplistic syllogisms to illustrate my point:

First Syllogism:

Premise: Fossils, DNA sequencing, etc., exist.

Premise: The theory of macro-evolution provides a reasonable explanation of how these things came to be.

Conclusion: Therefore, the theory of macro-evolution is fact.

Alternate Syllogism:

Premise: Fossils, DNA sequencing, etc., exist.

Premise: The theory of intelligent design provides a reasonable explanation of how these things came to be.

Conclusion: Therefore, the theory of intelligent design is fact.

Both of these syllogism have the following logic fault:

Non causa pro causa

The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa occurs when something is identified as the cause of an event, but it has not actually been shown to be the cause. For example:

"I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache disappeared. So God cured me of the headache."

This is known as a false cause fallacy. Two specific forms of non causa pro causa fallacy are the cum hoc ergo propter hoc and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies.

I suppose where you and I clash is in what I perceive as your insistence that a theory (the theory of macro-evolution, specifically) is a fact rather than an explanation competing with other potentially valid explanations.

I am willing to entertain your counters to my exposition above if you feel it is not “at the "Run, Spot, run" level of discourse.”