Burden of Proof: Why Most American Evangelicals Reject Long-Earth Evolution

ReligiousLiberty.TV ^ | 05/11/2012 | Michael D. Peabody

[BroJoeK]

1010RD: "I’ve often heard Drosophila flies used to foil the Theory of Evolution.
The argument goes that experimenters cannot genetically alter them through natural selection or even gene manipulation into a new species.
Is that correct?"

No.
The Drosophila fly (aka "common fruit fly") is often cited as a good example of evolution "caught in the act".
It breeds quickly and mutates readily, so evolution can be seen happening in a lab.

To which people like annalex have two main responses, as we've seen repeated here:

1. Evolution doesn't count if it happens in small critters -- you need elephants producing manatees before evolution is "proved".

2. It's not really evolution until it produces some "distinct" new species -- if you could make a fruit fly produce a zebra in a lab, then that might prove evolution.

Of course, much depends on our definition of the word "species".
Annalex insists that a "species" has to be "distinct", not just one sub-species that no longer wants to mate with another.
How distinct?
Well, in annalex's mind, monkey's and zebras are "distinct", but zebras and horses?
No real answer from annalex.

Scientifically speaking, annalex is out in looney-tune land.
Scientific definitions of terms like "sub-species", "species" and "genera" are set at degrees of differences and difficulty in interbreeding.
And so, by definition, two different sub-species of, let's say these common fruit flies, will become different species when they no longer interbreed.
Can this, has this ever been done in a lab?
I don't know, but what we do know is nature takes thousands-to-millions of generations of evolution to form truly "distinct" species, and that's asking a lot of even the most reproductively busy little fruit flies in a lab.

But some evolution -- so-called "micro-evolution" -- certainly has been reproduced in a lab, indeed is routinely produced for agricultural purposes and some of that "micro-evolution" even pushes into the "species boundary" where different sub-species no longer interbreed.

But none of it can possibly satisfy annalex -- nothing short of turning zebras into monkeys will do the job of providing "proof" of evolution theory in annalex's mind.
No number of "intermediate" fossils will do it, no counting of DNA alleles can matter, until you actually see monkeys coming out of zebras, in annalex's mind "evolution" is all just "voodoo" and "cult".

Some people are just harder to please than others... ;-)

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "Global Warming = Evolution 2.0"

Of course, I'm certain you agree with me that "global warming" is not a scientific hypothesis, nor a scientific theory.
Global warming is an easily demonstrated fact which you can test yourself most any day by first measuring the outside temperature at 6:00 AM, and then again at noon, to see if any "global warming" has occurred.
Do not be surprised if your measurements tell you it did. ;-)

Likewise evolution in its most basic form is neither hypothesis nor theory, it's a fact of life -- descent with modifications and natural selection can be easily observed and confirmed.

Nor is longer-term "global warming" in dispute, since geological evidence clearly shows the globe was in deep ice age as recently as 12,000 years ago, and endured a "little ice age" from 500 to 150 years ago.
And, current temperature measurements do show a slight increase in recent years.

Likewise, the theory of long-term evolution is confirmed by mountains of evidence, from fossils to the geological record, to radiometric datings to biological studies and DNA analysis.
The evidence is overwhelming, but some people insist it does not "prove" evolution, though they often refuse to say just what it might "prove".

Where "global warming" and indeed where science in general gets into trouble is when it mixes with politics and get's on somebody's agenda for ever-expanding government power over virtually everything.
Now "global warming" is hugely exaggerated and then used to justify new taxes, new regulations and less individual freedom.
That's where we have to cry "baloney".
It's where we have to insist on more objective data from less politicized scientists.

By contrast, evolution theory has not suffered the same fate as global warming.
For one thing, the theory itself is over 150 years old, and did not originate from the need for scientists to justify more government research grants.

For another, evolution theory is not being used today (so far as I can tell) to justify the growth of government power.
Evolution is still just a scientific theory which explains better than any other scientific ideas how life descended from common ancestors over many millions of years.
And evolution itself does not deny the Hand of God operating to create "descent with modifications" or "natural selection" of the best features.

Ironically, even allegedly man-made global warming, should it eventually prove true, may well be a good thing, since studies suggest we are now past-due on the next major ice-age, and the longer global warming can delay that, the better off will most life on earth be, especially ours. ;-)

[annalex]

In 116 I posted a brief description of the scientific objections to the hypothesis of evolution. In 120 I explained it to you in sufficient precision. In 130 and then in 134 I explained what parts of your hypothesis are indeed supported by fact and which are not. In 176 I defined an experiment that would prove your hypothesis.

Since then you made no substantive posts but a lot of repetitions of stuff previously ridiculed by me successfully. Even a good comedy gets tiresome with repetitions.

[papertyger]

...descent with modifications and natural selection can be easily observed and confirmed.

Then please do so.

[1010RD]

So have Fruit Flies been naturally selected (unnaturally in this case) into a new species?

[BroJoeK]

annalex: "In 116 I posted a brief description of the scientific objections to the hypothesis of evolution."

To which I responded at great length in post #118.

annalex: "In 120 I explained it to you in sufficient precision."

To which I responded at even greater length in post #125.

annalex: "In 130 and then in 134 I explained what parts of your hypothesis are indeed supported by fact and which are not."

Those, plus your posts #126 and 128 I responded to at incredible length in my posts #125, 127, 129, 131, 133 and 135."

annalex: "In 176 I defined an experiment that would prove your hypothesis."

I responded at great length to all nine of your posts between #134 and 176.
See my posts #137, 139, 152, 153, 162, 171, 173, 175 & 177.

annalex: "Since then you made no substantive posts but a lot of repetitions of stuff previously ridiculed by me successfully."

I note with interest that you consider "ridicule" a method of "successful" response to scientific arguments.

In fact, all ten of my posts from #179 to #200 are cogent, coherent thoughtful and lengthy responses to each of your arguments, "word salads" and ridicule (or ridiculous) posts.

Nothing you've claimed remains unanswered, but no answer matters to you, does it -- because actual science is not what you care about.
Discrediting science is what you care about, isn't it?

[BroJoeK]

BJK: "...can be easily observed and confirmed."

papertyper: "Then please do so."

You can observe "descent with modifications" and "natural selection" all by yourself, you don't need my help.

On "descent with modifications" simply note that no offspring are identical to their parents.
For "natural selection" simply note that in nature offspring born with defects often don't survive, while those born with something special more often survive and reproduce.

And that's evolution in a nut-shell.

[BroJoeK]

1010RD: "So have Fruit Flies been naturally selected (unnaturally in this case) into a new species?"

First remember, the Drosophila genus of Fruit Flies consists of about 1,500 named species, plus some thousands more estimated as yet to be discovered.
And, the Drosophila genus of fruit flies belongs to the larger order of Diptera, flies.
There are 152,000 named species of Diptera flies, including the 1,500 named Fruit Fly species.

So how, precisely do biologists distinguish between fly sub-species, species, genera, orders, etc, and have any genetic experiments produced offspring which meet the criteria for a new "species"?
Answer: I don't know, but probably not -- because major speciation typically takes many thousands, even millions of generations, and even Fruit Flies don't reproduce that fast.

But let's just suppose, only for sake of argument, that some biologist claimed they did breed a new "species"?
What exactly would be your response?
Would you say,

"oh, yes, now I see, after all these years, that evolution finally makes sense, and I agree that it is a confirmed theory, not just some wild hypothesis"?

Would you really say that?

No, of course you wouldn't, because science is not the source of your disagreement with evolution theory, is it?
You disagree with evolution for reasons which have nothing to do with science, and therefore nothing science might do will convince of it, isn't that correct?

[annalex]

But in most of your indeed, lengthy responses you exhibit no understanding of the essence of the objections to your cult, nor of the central ideas in the experiment that might resolve the dispute. That is funny.

[papertyger]

For "natural selection" simply note that in nature offspring born with defects often don't survive, while those born with something special more often survive and reproduce.

Something special such as...?

[papertyger]

But let's just suppose, only for sake of argument, that some biologist claimed they did breed a new "species"? What exactly would be your response? Would you say, "oh, yes, now I see, after all these years, that evolution finally makes sense, and I agree that it is a confirmed theory, not just some wild hypothesis"? Would you really say that? No, of course you wouldn't, because science is not the source of your disagreement with evolution theory, is it? You disagree with evolution for reasons which have nothing to do with science, and therefore nothing science might do will convince of it, isn't that correct?

That's some piece of prognostication, given you start the entire process with a rather gratuitous supposition.

What is shielding you from following the same script were the initial premise going in the opposite direction?

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“How many here think it’s a clear cut sin not to reject the old earth theories outright?”

‘Old Earth?’ - there is no conflict in believing that the earth/universe might be ‘eons’ old, created by God, but long before the Genesis account of the creation of Man, about 6,000 years ago.

And the concept of a previous creation on earth, supported by the Word of God (Bible) provides explanation for fossil evidence that the ‘evolvers’ like to say ‘proves’ evolution.

[BroJoeK]

annalex: "But in most of your indeed, lengthy responses you exhibit no understanding of the essence of the objections to your cult, nor of the central ideas in the experiment that might resolve the dispute."

Once again, your false accusation of "cult" proves how much you loathe science.

And sorry, annalex, but it's you who refuses to understand.
I understood perfectly the claims you made, and responded to each and every one with scientific answers.
You never once demonstrated an accurate understanding of the actual science I explained, and just kept repeating what amounts to "word salads" -- sentences which make no logical sense.

My suggestion is that you go back and carefully re-read every one of my posts -- until you begin to understand the actual science they refer to.
And if you need any help with that, just ask.
I'm here to serve... ;-)

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "Something special such as...?"

Anything you might imagine -- bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, better eyes, ears, nose, teeth, camouflage or endurance, more hot, cold, wet or dry weather adaptations, etc., etc.

Indeed, when humans first began to develop new breeds of domestic animals and plants -- thousands of years ago -- the only thing they did was replace evolution's "natural selection" with "human selection".
The results illustrate the whole idea of evolution's "punctuated equilibrium", meaning species can remain apparently unchanged for millions of years, and then "suddenly" evolve into something quite different looking.

Of course, a few thousand years is not enough for mutations to create a new "species boundary" (as annalex calls it) between breeds.
But human animal husbandry shows us how quickly species can change under the right conditions.

[BroJoeK]

papertyger: "...you start the entire process with a rather gratuitous supposition."

Nothing "gratuitious" about it, but feel free to correct me if my assumption is wrong -- would evidence of human induced speciation in any way effect your opinions on the Theory of Evolution?

papertyger: "What is shielding you from following the same script were the initial premise going in the opposite direction?"

There's no "shielding" here.
But for one thing, in fact the "initial premise" does not "go in the opposite direction".

And many other things -- confirmed facts which support the Theory of Evolution.
Finally, no scientific facts to confirm any other competing hypothesis.

[annalex]

I understood perfectly the claims you made

No you didn't. I corrected you a number of times even recently, and now I grew tired of it. You post cultist propaganda, and when you run out of arguments, you repeat the old ones.

The evolutionists' methods are an insult to any science.

[papertyger]

I see you’re going to stick with the “broken rocks” rationale.

I assumed as much, but intellectual integrity demanded I ask you to demonstrate your reasoning.

[papertyger]

Nothing "gratuitous" about it, but feel free to correct me if my assumption is wrong

Seeing as your initial premise hasn't ever been observed, and the entire reason you posited it was to give a basis for the rest of your assertion (thus making your hypothetical a circular argument), I'd pretty much call that "gratuitous" by definition.

There's no "shielding" here. But for one thing, in fact the "initial premise" does not "go in the opposite direction".

You're right. There is no "shielding." You are committing the very illegitimate argument you accused.

Of course the "initial premise" goes in the opposite direction...it's called "stability." And any researcher who claimed to have verified offspring are always of the same species as the parents would elicit nothing but a big "duh."

In fact, it is well known by even non-scientists that apart from intentional breeding manipulation, successive generations of dogs will tend to revert back to the same approximately 35 pound carnivorous quadruped that typifies the species "dog."

Finally, it is disingenuous at best to use any manner of "better" generational variation as a "something special" for the evolution we all know we are talking about here, as the genetics for said "improvement" is already resident in whatever species we're observing.

The only legitimate example you could proffer would be something exhibiting a new body plan, or sensitivity, that is not already extant in the genome of its predecessors.

[papertyger]

Nothing "gratuitous" about it, but feel free to correct me if my assumption is wrong

Seeing as your initial premise hasn't ever been observed, and the entire reason you posited it was to give a basis for the rest of your assertion (thus making your hypothetical a circular argument), I'd pretty much call that "gratuitous" by definition.

There's no "shielding" here. But for one thing, in fact the "initial premise" does not "go in the opposite direction".

You're right. There is no "shielding." You are committing the very illegitimate argument you accused.

Of course the "initial premise" goes in the opposite direction...it's called "stability." And any researcher who claimed to have verified offspring are always of the same species as the parents would elicit nothing but a big "duh."

In fact, it is well known by even non-scientists that apart from intentional breeding manipulation, successive generations of dogs will tend to revert back to the same approximately 35 pound carnivorous quadruped that typifies the species "dog."

Finally, it is disingenuous at best to use any manner of "better" generational variation as a "something special" for the evolution we all know we are talking about here, as the genetics for said "improvement" is already resident in whatever species we're observing.

The only legitimate example you could proffer would be something exhibiting a new body plan, or sensitivity, that is not already extant in the genome of its predecessors.

[BroJoeK]

annalex: "You post cultist propaganda, and when you run out of arguments, you repeat the old ones."

I've posted nothing but explanations of science, repeating as necessary what you've obviously failed to grasp.
And, the appropriate response to science is scientific argument, not false & vile epithets.
So surely your frequent resort to such language ("cult", "voodoo") simply demonstrates how much you loathe science, and how few actual scientific arguments you have to present.

annalex: "I corrected you a number of times even recently"

You "corrected" nothing, you simply repeated your non-scientific "word salads".

annalex: "The evolutionists' methods are an insult to any science."

My patient, careful and detailed explanations to correct your woeful misunderstandings are an "insult"?
Your hurling vile epithets like "cult" and "voodoo" are not insults?

It seems you live in a strange world, well beyond the reach of rational discourse, FRiend. ;-)