Why evolution is a political question

Morse Code ^ | May 8,2007 | Chuck Morse

[Chuckmorse]

During the May 3 Republican presidential debate, moderator Chris Matthews asked the candidates “How many of you don’t believe in evolution?” Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo all raised their hands indicating that they did not believe in it. Rep. Barney Frank raised the same question in 2004 when he accused me, his opponent that year, of questioning the theory of evolution. Liberals are confident that those who question the theory of evolution will be held up for public ridicule and scorn. Many liberals pride themselves on questioning everything in life except when it comes to the theory of evolution, which they accept as bedrock science. But is it?

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. There is not a shred of evidence to indicate that mankind evolved from the amoeba, which evolved into the fish, which evolved into the bird, which evolved into the mouse, which evolved into the monkey, which evolved into man. While there is evidence of inter-species evolution, there is no proof of the basic thesis presented by Charles Darwin which is that one species evolves into another. In fact, science seems to favor creationism, also just a theory, as recent DNA evidence indicates that mankind is descended from one mother.

It could be therefore argued that the theory of evolution, since it is not science in the sense that there is no documented or empirical evidence to back it up, is based as much on religious belief as is creationism. Both theories are based on faith as opposed to scientific certainty and, I would argue, creationism contains better science. Yet the liberal establishment demands that the federal government mandate by law that only evolution is to be taught in the public school science class.

I would argue that Intelligent design, which is the theory that mankind was created by divine intervention, could be introduced into education in tandem with the theory of evolution without getting into any particular religious scenario, such as the Genesis story in the Bible, and without endorsing any particular religious denomination. If intelligent design were to be given equal time with evolution, the faith of the atheist would be no more compromised than that of the theist. In fact, such a presentation would be more honest and balanced since scientific inquiry is supposed to be open to all plausible theories.

The theory of evolution is a political question in American politics because liberal supporters demand that the federal government mandate it’s teaching and insist on a gag order when it comes to any discussion of intelligent design in the classroom. This is contrary to American traditions of free speech and the free and open expression of ideas. This also violates the right of the taxpaying citizen to have a say in the education of their own children and supplants the ability of local educators and elected local school board officials to determine curriculum.

Teaching intelligent design alongside evolution would open doors to important thought and inquiry. When the young student contemplates the possibility that mankind is more than just an evolving animal, amoral and bound to nature like other animals, than perhaps the student becomes aware of the uniqueness and value of every single human life. Implied in the theory of a divine creator is that there is a larger purpose to life and that there is a moral code. Intelligent design sets the stage for the individual to look to a higher power than the government, which is perhaps why liberals so adamantly oppose it. In these times of rampant school violence and moral relativism, the teaching of intelligent design, in a non sectarian way and alongside the teaching of the theory of evolution, would serve many positive purposes besides a simple striving for truth.

[CottShop]

There are more predictions which are comming true through careful annalysis such as the following:

1: The deeper we look, the more complex and finely tuned will be the results (We are just discovering through molecular biology just how true this is)

2:Life began complex and has remained so. (We’re seeing that even the simplest of life forms (which the evolutionist would argue are the beginnings of evolution) exhibit complexities beyond what we once thought possible. They aint so imple after all, and are again irreducibly compelx)

3: ID predicted that chemical manipulation could not create all the basic building blocks needed for life to even begin to evolve- (That’s exactly what we find- While it’s true that some amino acids were produced from chemicals in a highly controlled lab, there were massive natural obstacles that simply could not be overcome such as isolating left hand amino acids from the right hand ones which would have destroyed the correct amino acids right off the bat- and, controlling the destructive forces of the energy needed to produce those amino acids. In nature, this control of energy could not happen and thus what was created would certainly have been destroyed.)

4: ID predicted there would be a record of fast recovery of species from a catyclysmic event- that is exactly what we see in the fossil records- Evoltuion requires a slow gradual process that should be replete with many small transitional evidences, yet we rarely find these small transition, and the ones that are found are open to much fierce debate and differing views within the secular science realm.

[gondramB]

Good find. Let’s look over those tomorrow and see if we can get someone to translate for me.

[Stultis]

Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity.

ID doesn't "predict" that at all. For a scientific theory to "predict" something it has to have a mechanism or mechanisms and/or to make reasonably specific empirical claims. To "predict" means that the operation of the theory's mechanism and/or deducible implications of the theory's empirical claims entail consequences that can be observed.

ID has no mechanism. It asserts that there is, by inference, an "intelligent designer" [or designers?] but it refused to describe (or even speculate about) this designer in any way which would usefully characterize it as a theoretical mechanism. Thus ID makes no empirical claims. It won't say (or even suppose) either when, where or by what means the designer actually instantiates design events.

IOW your claim about this "prediction" is exactly backward. The existence of complexity is not an implication of ID, but simply an observed fact (and almost the only observed fact) from which ID is inferred. However proponents of ID falsely imply that these kinds of complexity uniquely implicate ID, which is false. There are well known mechanisms, for instance, whereby ordinary evolution (i.e. preceding in small, progressive steps, each individually viable) can produce "irreducibly complex" systems.

[Stultis]

2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record

Well, that one's shot. The fossil record goes back almost 4 billion years. The first few billion it contains ONLY prokaryotes (cells without an organized nucleus) like bacteria. About a billion years ago, IIRC, nucleated cells finally make an appearance. Then it's hundreds of millions of years before the first multicellular creatures appear. Then for a long time after that it's nothing but worms and other simple invertebrates. Etc, etc. The emergence of complex animals took literally billions of years.

[Stultis]

3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms

Since ID refuses to posit any specific claims about HOW the Intelligent Designer goes (or went) about formulating or embodying his [her? its?] designs, how can ID possibly "predict" this?

[CottShop]

This will be long, but it covers several replies, and covers important key points/allegations brought up.

**[Well, that one’s shot. The fossil record goes back almost 4 billion years]**

That is an opinion made on assumptions based on results of dating methods whos results are only accepted by peers less than 10% of the time. One has to ask why the other 90% are rejected?

**[About a billion years ago, IIRC, nucleated cells finally make an appearance. Then it’s hundreds of millions of years before the first multicellular creatures appear. Then for a long time after that it’s nothing but worms and other simple invertebrates. Etc, etc. The emergence of complex animals took literally billions of years]**

We’re all quite familiar with what evolution teaches based on preconceived opinion. The evidence has yet to show any of this.

**[Since ID refuses to posit any specific claims about HOW the Intelligent Designer goes (or went) about formulating or embodying his [her? its?] designs, how can ID possibly “predict” this?]**

How’s the ‘origin of species’ thing going? How is it that eovlution is allowed to propose somethign that can’t be proven or even showed and ID isn’t? Infact, all the proposed methods of origins fall apart and the exhaustive testing has only left more question than it’s answered, and presented more impossibilities for hte model, and shown that perhaps their proposals weren’t the mechanism by which life supposedly arose. I also wonder how the first vertebrates ‘evolved’- did they have just one spinal joint? Several? If so, where’d the NEW information come from? And more importantly, where are the fossils of the first evolving vertebrates? Istead, we find, as predicted by ID, fully formed vertebrates in the fossil records that appeared suddenly.

[3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms]

ID proposes that the design has markers that show a designer. They have predicted that the design will be found in unrelated species and the same designs will have different purposes- Bingo- that’s what we find.

**[Intelligent design theory predicts: 1) that we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity.
ID doesn’t “predict” that at all. For a scientific theory to “predict” something it has to have a mechanism or mechanisms and/or to make reasonably specific empirical claims. To “predict” means that the operation of the theory’s mechanism and/or deducible implications of the theory’s empirical claims entail consequences that can be observed.]**

It most certainly does predict specific complexity, and it most certainly is observable in even the most ‘simplest’ of organisms.

**[There are well known mechanisms, for instance, whereby ordinary evolution (i.e. preceding in small, progressive steps, each individually viable) can produce “irreducibly complex” systems.

]**

I’m afraid that’s not correct- precisely because irreducible complexity is absolutely undone by this so called ‘slow process of accumulation of mutations’ The whole premise behind irreducible complexity lies in the fact that the functioning organ in question would absolutely cease to function unless all the complex parts were inplace and operational to begin with.

When science finds all the parts lying around dormant for the Ecoli flagellum ‘motor’, please lemme know- or when science finds all the parts needed for the eye, just lying around dormant in a species- unnassembled, lemme know. ID predicted that we’ll find only completed fulyl functioning complex organs, and would not find all the parts just lying around dormant while the species waited billions of years for the improbability of accumulated mutaitons to create the last needed part before all the parts could start to migrate to the correct positions in order to ‘hook up’ so that the eye, the ecoli motor, the hearing etc, could all begin to work properly.

You showed a list of very different species with the jaw bones that when set side by side APPEARED to show a gradual movement- however, the drawings were deceitfully inept in that they didn’t mention that htese species were all so different that to suggest the ‘prediction’ that we’d see movement in the bones’ is nothing but an assumption/personal opinion, and open to MUCH fierce debate even amoungst secular scientists. Showing a hippo sized animal with the bone about mid way in the jaw, then setting that picture next to a rat sized animal with the same bone a bit further back, and suggesting that it ‘clearly shows the migration of hte bone’ is a HUGE assumption/personal opinion/leap of faith, and does nothign to undermine the equally valid view that they are nothign but two unique species with differenly positioned bones- that’s it!

**[ID has no mechanism. It asserts that there is, by inference, an “intelligent designer” [or designers?] but it refused to describe (or even speculate about) this designer in any way which would usefully characterize it as a theoretical mechanism]**

Since when do they ‘refuse’? As I mentioned, ID proposes that the designer’s fingerprint can be found in absolutely dissimiliar species sharing the same design features- it’s exactly what we find- the fingerprint of design. What we do NOT find however, (and what ID predicts) is transitional species showing the ‘evolution’ of these complex systems in the dissimiliar species. What we DO find is a very weak case for just ONE sytem- hearing, which is nothign more than assumptions based on VERY shaky evidences.

ID proposes testifiable, falsifiable predictions, nd that’s what we’ve got. Yuo test for design by observing the data- either the data supports or refutes the design proposal. Is design falsifiable? Certainly the observations will tell us.

Are Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity falisfiable? Absolutely! One can falsify intelligent design merely by showing that all the complexities of design features could arise naturally. Has science been able to do this? No. Despite having tried.

Darwinism has the magic wand of the omnipotent designer called TIME to fall back on in light of the absence of evidence, in the absence of a fingerprint. Time solves all- mention time, and the possibilities reportedly and supposedly abound. Given enough TIME we’re told, anythign could happen despite the overwhelming odds (as pointed out by ID). The lack of transitions is covered by the TIME argument despite the fact that we find fully formed, fully functional explosion of fully ‘created’ forms all at once, several times.. So tell me, which of the two models is unfalsifiable again?

You have a strong opinion about evolution, and I’m not deriding that, but I’d liek to ask that the same courtesy be afforded the science of ID as well. We may dissagree, but let’s be respectful of both sciences because both rely on testifiable models to degrees, and both are as valid an undertaking as the other.

[csense]

For a scientific theory to "predict" something it has to have a mechanism or mechanisms and/or to make reasonably specific empirical claims. To "predict" means that the operation of the theory's mechanism and/or deducible implications of the theory's empirical claims entail consequences that can be observed.

I agree with you completely here. A mechanism in a scientific theory must describe observable, physical phenomena.

That said, and in accordance with the terms given here, what physical event does natural selection explain, that isn't already explained by other mechanisms such as mutation, drift, and recombination...each of which, in and of themselves, do not infer evoution.

[Stultis]

That said, and in accordance with the terms given here, what physical event does natural selection explain, that isn't already explained by other mechanisms such as mutation, drift, and recombination...

Adaptive evolution.

[Stultis]

That is an opinion made on assumptions based on results of dating methods whos results are only accepted by peers less than 10% of the time. One has to ask why the other 90% are rejected?

The age of the earth at around 4.6 billion years, and the relative dating in that time span of it's geologic strata, is not an "assumption" within science. It is based on extremely strong, comprehensive and highly consilient evidence. (I have no idea which, of the many consilient, dating methods you're referencing with that arm waving factoid.) These ages and the relative dating are accepted, with good reason, by ALL scientists SOLEY excepting those who have an explicit basis in Biblical literalism for preemptively rejecting them.

In any case the RELATIVE dates (e.g. this strata being older than that one, as opposed to this strata being a particular number of years old) are what are operative wrt to your claim of the "rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record". These RELATIVE dates were not only accepted by pre-Darwinian creationists, they were established and confirmed by pre-Darwinian creationists. It's just that the strata they thought contained no fossils turned out, on closer examination and further prospecting, to have fossils, albeit relatively simple and/or microscopic ones.

And besides all that I thought -- indeed you specified -- that we were talking about "Intelligent Design". ID doesn't take any position on the age of the earth. Therefore since it doesn't dispute it, on a matter presumably relevant and demanding exception if any be taken, ID can only be presumed to accept the prevailing scientific view. So if you want to quibble about geologic dating you can't do so in the name of Intelligent Design.

[Stultis]

We’re all quite familiar with what evolution teaches based on preconceived opinion. The evidence has yet to show any of this.

You got it backwards. Evolution taught this long BEFORE the fossils were discovered. Late pre-Cambrian fossils weren't discovered, I believe, until the 20th Century (e.g. the Burgess Shale fauna discovered in 1909). And the microscopic, single-celled fossils that go back billions of years, as I recall those were only discovered sometime in the 1950's, and not really taken notice of by the scientific community until Tyler and Baghoorn published on the discovery of unicellular fossils in the Gunflint Chert in 1965.

So the evidence DOES "show this" (that complex animal and plant life was preceded by a long history of simpler forms) as evolution predicted long BEFORE the evidence came to light (e.g. Darwin's own express puzzlement at the absence of pre-Cambrian fossils, and his insistence that pre-Cambrian life must have existed whatever the reason for its then apparent absence of fossils).

[Stultis]

How’s the ‘origin of species’ thing going?

Fine. And anyway, once again, even professional creationists admit speciation. You have to go back to the 19th Century to find "fixed species" creationists.

In fact the origin of new species has even been observed (or can be securely inferred to have occured in historically recent instances) a number of times. See:

Observed Instances of Speciation

and..

Some More Observed Speciation Events

[Stultis]

I also wonder how the first vertebrates ‘evolved’- did they have just one spinal joint? Several? If so, where’d the NEW information come from? And more importantly, where are the fossils of the first evolving vertebrates?

First of all your conception -- that evolution must have preceded from one spinal joint to two and then more -- is all bollixed up. It may help if you understand that vertebrates are not (as often assumed) a Phylum, but are (or is it Craniata, animals with cranium that are?) rather a Sub-Phylum of Chordata, animals with notochords. The notochord is a flexible rod that runs lengthwise through the body of Chordates, although in vertebrates in only exists during embryonic stages. What happened in evolution (and what happens in embryological development) is that the vertebrae (and the spinal column) are built in relation to the notochord. Therefore there was no need for vertebrae to evolve one at a time since the pre-vertebrate Chordates had notochords into their adult stages, around which the vertebrae could grow in any number.

As to transitional forms, again a successful prediction from evolution is operative here. For years and years the living lancet amphioxus was presented as a model of what the progenitor of vertibrates must have looked like. Here's a diagram of this critter:

Now obviously amphioxus itself could not have been the transitional, or near to the transition, since it is a living creature. But the point was that it must have been something very much like amphioxus. However in recent decades a pre-Cambrian Burgess shale animal -- Pikia -- that had previously been assumed to be just another worm, turned out on closer examination to have notochord, and to be very similar to Amphioxus, a proto-Chordate ancestor in just the right place.

There are a series of other transitionals which progressively add features of Chordates, craniates and vertebrates. E.g. Haikouella, Yunnanozoon, Pikaia, Haikouichthys, and Myllokumingia.

[Stultis]

I’m afraid that’s not correct- precisely because irreducible complexity is absolutely undone by this so called ‘slow process of accumulation of mutations’ The whole premise behind irreducible complexity lies in the fact that the functioning organ in question would absolutely cease to function unless all the complex parts were inplace and operational to begin with.

Ah, subtly but crucially you've MISDEFINED "irreducible complexity" in a way that commits the elementary fallacy of embedding your conclusion as a premise. (Don't feel bad. IDer's do this all the time.)

The definition of an IC system is one were all the parts must be present for the system to function. This is not the same as saying that all the parts must be present "to begin with", i.e. from the beginning.

If you say the latter you're simply denying, by definition, and in advance and despite of any argument and evidence, precisely what is being argued: that it is possible for an IC system to be formed in stepwise fashion from one that is not IC.

Simply as a matter of logic and adequate reflection however it's clear that there ARE ways to do exactly that.

One example is "removal of scaffolding". Consider an ordinary stone arch. Although a "simple" structure it clearly meets the definition of being "inherently complex". It must have all it's parts together at once to function as an arch (e.g. a passageway through a wall). If the sides aren't present there's nothing to hold the keystone up. If the keystone isn't present the sides will collapse. And yet it clearly IS possible to build an arch in stepwise fashion by adding single stones one at a time. All you have to do is remove some of the stones (those inside the arch) at some point.

Other possibilities are "functional shift" (parts of the system shifting from one function to another, or the whole system shifting it's function) and optional parts becoming necessary parts (something that initially merely helped becomes necessary because of other changes). I'll leave it as an exercise to you and other readers to imagine examples of these.

The point is that the claim that its impossible by the very nature of IC systems for them to form in stepwise fashion is flatly and obviously false, even before one starts looking at biological evidence.

[CottShop]

[Fine. And anyway, once again, even professional creationists admit speciation. You have to go back to the 19th Century to find “fixed species” creationists.]

Well no- you don’t have to go backin time to find those creationists- Speciation is fact- we don’t dispute that. These aren’t examples of NEW species- they are examples of genetic variability in the SAME species KIND- As stated, species can vary widely due to mutations- however, they will always remain in the same KIND, and that’s exactly what we see in the fossil record.

Your response to Csense:

[That said, and in accordance with the terms given here, what physical event does natural selection explain, that isn’t already explained by other mechanisms such as mutation, drift, and recombination...
Adaptive evolution.]

Actually it is called- more precisely (and honestly) Adaptive natural selection- or, microevolution. The mechanisms of natural selection are well documented and not disputed- however, when macroevolution is proposed, we leave the realm of the observable, and have to rely on subjective priori opinion. I’ll be happy to elaborate furhter, but I’ll tackle your other comments first.

[These ages and the relative dating are accepted, with good reason, by ALL scientists SOLEY excepting those who have an explicit basis in Biblical literalism for preemptively rejecting them]

You ready to wager a mars bar on that absolute statement? lol No they don’t. I’ll have to do some research to find where I found the 10% figure, but the article stated that there was a repository that anyone could look up for themselves regarding the dayes presented and or rejected. It’ll take me some time to find again- Shoulda copied the link when I found it the first time. As well, it shoudl be noted that the ‘accepted’ dates are quite often changing? Odd, I thought the dating methods were accurate?

[These RELATIVE dates were not only accepted by pre-Darwinian creationists, they were established and confirmed by pre-Darwinian creationists. It’s just that the strata they thought contained no fossils turned out, on closer examination and further prospecting, to have fossils, albeit relatively simple and/or microscopic ones.]

Provided you ascribe to the priori beleifs and preconceptions of how old the earth ‘should be’ given that evolution needs a long time to operate. Again, all assumptions. The dating data can be run and rerun until a ‘close enough’ date is landed on- but alas, as you point out- we’re straying from topic here talking about dates.

[We’re all quite familiar with what evolution teaches based on preconceived opinion. The evidence has yet to show any of this.
You got it backwards. Evolution taught this long BEFORE the fossils were discovered. Late pre-Cambrian fossils weren’t discovered, I believe, until the 20th Century (e.g. the Burgess Shale fauna discovered in 1909).]

Taught what? Preconceptions? Yes, I know- that’s why I posted what I did.

[And the microscopic, single-celled fossils that go back billions of years,]

From Wiki: [The black layers in the sequence contain microfossils that are 1.9 to 2.3 billion years in age.]

Wowsers- quite an allowance of dates concidering how accurate we’re told dating methods really are.

Billions? According to whom? According to which ‘reliable’ dating method? We have evidence to measure the accuracy of billions of years by? Sorry, but we’re simply talking assumptions/preconsceptions here once again.

[First of all your conception — that evolution must have preceded from one spinal joint to two and then more — is all bollixed up.]

No it isn’t- where’s the fossil records showing the spinal evolution? All we find are fully formed spinal columns.

[If you say the latter you’re simply denying, by definition, and in advance and despite of any argument and evidence, precisely what is being argued: that it is possible for an IC system to be formed in stepwise fashion from one that is not IC.]

Lack of evidence for this, assumptions and your ignoring the fact that supposedly evolution ‘creates’ useful things. All the seperate parts of complex systems are useless on their own, and according to Darwinian evolution would have been discarded rather than being kept as baggage while waiting for the right next part to evolve in a billion years or so through the impossible means of microevolution, which as we’ve discussed, only works on organs already present. The information for new organs is also missing and there is no means to gain this genetic information outside of lateral gene transference- but again, lateral gene transference breaks down right from the beginning, because in order to gain more complex NEW information, a species must have already gained their information from a higher species form- see the problem?

[One example is “removal of scaffolding”. Consider an ordinary stone arch. Although a “simple” structure it clearly meets the definition of being “inherently complex”. It must have all it’s parts together at once to function as an arch (e.g. a passageway through a wall).]

Yes, I know how evos propose it works, but again, this ignores the shedding of useless organs/parts in the model of Darwininian evolution.

[If the keystone isn’t present the sides will collapse. And yet it clearly IS possible to build an arch in stepwise fashion by adding single stones one at a time. All you have to do is remove some of the stones (those inside the arch) at some point.]

Assumptions. We simply do not find all the supporting stones that would be necessary in the fossil records. There are many more ‘supporting stones’ in your example than there are functional stones- if this is the case, we should see an absolute abundance of all the supporting stones, yet we don’t- all we see are the arches- whgich as you must admit, might suggest a design being created- whether you agree with it or not, it is more probable a position concidering hte lack of evidence and lack of the multitude of supporting stones for the myriad of complex organs and systems that had to evolve.

[The point is that the claim that its impossible by the very nature of IC systems for them to form in stepwise fashion is flatly and obviously false, even before one starts looking at biological evidence.]

It’s not false given the facts stated above. The evidence simply doesn’t support this.

Your post 312 I’ll have to come back to- you’ve presented too many issues to address in one go.

[Stultis]

Speciation is fact- we don’t dispute that. These aren’t examples of NEW species

You admit speciation, but deny new species? Speciation IS new species! I don't understand this position.

they are examples of genetic variability in the SAME species KIND

There you go again. If you're equating "species" and "kinds" (by which creationists normally mean "created kinds") then you're denying speciation. But you say you don't deny speciation.

Provided you ascribe to the priori beleifs and preconceptions of how old the earth ‘should be’ given that evolution needs a long time to operate. Again, all assumptions.

I don't think you're aware of the history the science of geology. Therefore you are entirely missing the point.

The conclusion that the earth was exceedingly ancient in comparison to the time scale of human history (albeit before "absolute" dating via radioactive isotope ratios was possible) was reached by geologists BEFORE biological evolution was at issue, BEFORE Darwin was out of knee pants, and BY GEOLOGISTS WHO WERE TO A MAN CREATIONISTS.

Many of these geologists had previously attempted to construct or apply schemes that accommodated a global flood and a young earth, or at least a young age and biblical time scale for post flood deposits. They would have been perfectly happy for the evidence to have accommodated such efforts. It did not. It was the evidence, driving them against their biases, which caused them to accept that the earth was ancient.

You want to believe that scientists only concluded that the earth is old because it "had to be" because of evolution. But your belief is wrong. It isn't merely wrong as a matter of opinion; it is wrong as a FACT OF HISTORY.

That's all I have time for now.

[CottShop]

[You admit speciation, but deny new species? Speciation IS new species! I don’t understand this position]

I’m sorry- I should have been more precise- good catch. I should have stated that speciation doesn’t result in new KINDS- they are still the same species. a finch will always be a finch and never become a fly (or whatever you wish to suggest) as I metioned, there often is wildly differing variability within KINDS (I said species, but should have said KINDS), yet KINDS will remain KINDS, and we have ample proofs of KINDS varying to a great degree- even to the point of speciation- what we do NOT have however are KINDS becoming other KINDS through all these suppsoed accumulations of small mutations- the evidence simply is not there to support this hypothesis- to suggest it happens is to leave the realm of knowns and enter the realm of assumptions. Created kinds in no way denies speciation. How do you suggest it does? Speciation does nothign to undermine the created kind hypothesis.

[You want to believe that scientists only concluded that the earth is old because it “had to be” because of evolution. But your belief is wrong. It isn’t merely wrong as a matter of opinion; it is wrong as a FACT OF HISTORY.]

Symantics- As you point out folks beleivedcin old age BEFORE- meaning even before they had all these so called ‘accurate dating methods’ that we have today- so of course they HAD to rely on priori beliefs as to how old the THOUGHT the earth was. And, even though we have different measuring methods today, we still MUST go with a priori beleif of wicked old age due to the fact that the mthods have nothign with which to calibrate the methods with. The priori beleif comes into play, and simply throws out any dates given that don’t support that priori belief.

[Many of these geologists had previously attempted to construct or apply schemes that accommodated a global flood and a young earth, or at least a young age and biblical time scale for post flood deposits. They would have been perfectly happy for the evidence to have accommodated such efforts. It did not.]

Actually some indeed did support it, however, priori beleifs denied the evidences. There are evidences all over the world that suggest a global catastrophy happened, yet those who beleiuve in old age earth deny it or explain them away with more assumptions.

[Stultis]

O.K. Maybe a little more.

Lack of evidence for this, assumptions and your ignoring the fact that supposedly evolution ‘creates’ useful things. All the seperate parts of complex systems are useless on their own, and according to Darwinian evolution would have been discarded rather than being kept as baggage while waiting for the right next part to evolve in a billion years or so through the impossible means of microevolution, which as we’ve discussed, only works on organs already present. The information for new organs is also missing and there is no means to gain this genetic information outside of lateral gene transference- but again, lateral gene transference breaks down right from the beginning, because in order to gain more complex NEW information, a species must have already gained their information from a higher species form- see the problem?

Yeah. Sure I do. So did Darwin. He thought through those problems and came up with answers in The Origin. Shifting of function for example. A body part doesn't have to evolve and then sit around waiting millions of years for other parts to evolve. It has some function (or maybe no function IF it is a physiological consequence of something else that DOES have a function) all along. But that function can change. Birds may have had feathers for insulation, for instance, or display, before they were later adpated for flight. The front limbs of their ancestors were certainly, at some point, used exclusively for walking on the ground. But the ancestors of birds developed upright postures and bidpedalism (walking on two legs instead of four) for other reasons. As a consequence of that, however, the front limbs were now available and at hand to perform a different purpose than walking on land.

There are myriad such examples. Nearly every major evolutionary innovation involves functional shifts and recruitment of parts that were present but previously serving some other function.

This is really elementary stuff. If you don't know enough to anticipate and address these kind of points then, frankly, you don't know enough about evolution to effectively critique it.

No it isn’t- where’s the fossil records showing the spinal evolution? All we find are fully formed spinal columns.

O.K. Now you have me confused again. First we were talking about vertebrae specifically. Now suddenly we're talking about the much more general phenomena of a "spinal column". This leaves me without any idea of what you consider a "fully formed spinal column" to be.

So what is it? Is it a notochord with an spinal nerve column but no bone? Is that fully formed or partially formed? What about some fishes were the vertebrae aren't yet vertebrae, but are all in separate pieces just sort of vaguely surrounding the notochord? What about vertebrae that are just small slivers of bone sitting on top of the notochord, serving no function in structural support but serving only as attachment points for muscles?

[CottShop]

to quickly clear up any confusion, Species can lose enough information that they are no longer able to breed with one another- and yes, this would make them a new subspecies, however, it does not make them another kind. It is a form of regression, not advancement, and is contrary to the macroevolutionary model.

Yuo mentioned the supposed homology of the notochord, and science has attempted to prove common homology, yet clearly homology is not seen in all species. The worm you mention has the notocord, true, however, we don’t find worms with spines- just the notochords.

“Efforts to correlate homology with developmental pathways, however, have been uniformly unsuccessful. First, similar developmental pathways may produce very dissimilar features. At the molecular level, it is well known that virtually identical inducers may participate in the development of non-homologous structures in different animals. (Gilbert, 1994) At the multicellular level, the pattern of embryonic cell movements which generates body form in birds also generates body form in a few species of frogs. (Elinson, 1987) And even at the organismal level, morphologically indistinguishable larvae may develop into completely different species. (de Beer, 1958) Clearly, similar developmental pathways may produce dissimilar results.”

[Stultis]

That last is a very general problem by the way. Creationists are always throwing out this "fully formed" phrase, and invariably attaching it to phenomena for which many, many stages of complexity, development and variation exist. I've never once heard or read a creationist to explain what "fully formed" actually meant in any particular instance.

[Stultis]

The priori beleif comes into play, and simply throws out any dates given that don’t support that priori belief.

Again, that just not historically true. Do you have any idea of how science works? Have you ever read a research article, attended a scientific convention or seminar, etc?

For instance AFTER Darwin Lord Kelvin calculated an age for the earth (actually several different calculations, but they were all problematic) that was FAR too young for evolution, and even to young for conventional geology completely aside from evolution. Kelvin's calculations were based on the assumption that the earth had gradually cooled from a molten mass, using then new data about temperatures deep in the earth's crust.

Kelvin's calculations were flawed, of course, because it was then unknown that the decay of radioactive elements kept adding heat to the earth. Indeed before the existence of radioactivity was even known. So this was a puzzling and troubling result, which geologists (who, again, had been forced to conclude that the earth was old BEFORE, and DESPITE, and INDEPENDENT OF evolution on the basis of COMPELLING EVIDENCE not "assumptions") assumed would be explained somehow.

But they didn't just throw Kelvin's results out the window. They didn't deny them. They just said, basically, "well, there they are; it's a puzzle that will have to be worked out." Some geologists even tried to model speeded up geological process to imagine how the earth they observed might be only a few hundred thousand years old, but they didn't have much luck.

There are OFTEN such cross disciplinary conflicts in science. But your imagination as to how they are handled is completely divorced from all reality.