A Question for Evolutionists

February 3rd, 2002 | Sabertooth

[Sabertooth]

A Question for Evolutionists

Here's where I see the crux of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, and most appear to miss it:

Forget possible transitional forms, stratigraphy, and radiological clocks... at some level, both Creationists and Evolutionists wander back to singularities and have to cope with the issue of spontaneous cause.

Creationists say "God."

• Since God has chosen not to be heavy-handed, allowing us free will,
  this is neither scientifically provable nor disprovable.
• This is more a commentary on the material limitations of science than it is about the limitations of God.
  Both Creationists and Evolutionists need to come to grips with that.

Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation."

• Where has that been observed or demonstrated?

[VietVet]

No, Race, evolutionary theory did NOT begin by denying God, for what ever reason one might deny God. Darwin was, himself, a very devout man.

Evolutionary theory began when men began noticing that the fossil record included animals and plants which do not exist today, and did not include animals and plants which do exist today. That is what biologist mean when they say evolution is a fact, a fact which requires explaination. Darwin was led to his theory explaining this biological change by noticing all the different, but clearly related species which existed in certain isolated enviornments. Might these similar species once have been one species, introduced into this isolated environment at some point in the past, and changing to take advantage of all of the empty ecological niches available? How would these changes have taken place? He couldn't answer that, and he admitted that he couldn't, but he proposed that once the changes began, the mechanism he called natural selection would cause some to survive, and some to die out.

Why are you so afraid to consider that man may have evolved from non-man? Do you truly need a physical Adam, living at some specific time in the past, not born of man or woman (or even of male and female anthopoid) to establish the existance of evil, and the need for salvation? All right, then, consider the species most like us, not only genetically, but in behavior as well: the chimpanzee. Individual chimps can certainly commit acts of agression and selfishness, but can they sin? Can they be evil? I do not know; I do not think so, for I never met an evil chimp. But I have met evil men. Somewhere in that small genetic difference between chimps and men, that ability to distinguish right from wrong, and to make the choice between them came into existance. When? I don't know that either. Sometimes I think it is still happening, and not in all peoples at the same rate.

[Stultis]

both systems rely on faith as regarding origins, but I believe only Creation is the accurate system that is proved through observed processes, and is the only rational answer for unobserved process results

Surely you have overspoken here, possibly only through careless syntactic construction: You don't really believe that "creation" (bringing into being out of nothing, or without immediate material causation) is the only answer for "unobserved process results"? Read straightforwardly you would be claiming that no result without humanly observed (or confirmed?) causation can be rationaly inferred or preferentially supposed to have a natural cause. (E.g. the only "rational answer" with regard to the circulation of blood, before the action of the heart as a pump was observed, was that it was being done extra-naturally by God.)

[Stultis]

That some animals cannot mate with others is not proof that new characteristics have arisen, only that something is different.

Yeeeess... And what is different is that there are now two species where before there was one. Thus acts of speciation have been observed (or near as dammit). Since evolution at the species level is macroevolution, then macroevolution has been observed.

[AndrewC]

That some animals cannot mate with others is not proof that new characteristics have arisen, only that something is different.
AHEM, COUGH, SPRAY, SET DOWN GLASS, WIPE
Ahhh, gore3000, you're back in fine form!

How is his viewpoint much different from this?

PROBLEMS OF PYTHON CLASSIFICATION AND HYBRID PYTHONS.

With the exception of the Black-headed python and Woma (Genus Aspidites), all other Australian pythons have at various times been assigned to a number of different genera. Numerous schemes of classification for the remaining Australian species of python have been proposed. These include Hoser (1982), Mcdowell (1975), and Stull (1935). The schemes range from the placing of all species in the genus Python shared with other non Australian species, to placing the species in question in up to seven genera. Namely Bothrochilus, Chondropython, Liasis, Lisalia., Liasis, Morelia, and Python. The assignment of given species within a particular genus is also a matter of conflict. For example within the last ten years the Scrub python Morelia amethistina has been placed in the following genera, Liasis, then Python and now Morelia.

In reality all Australian python species excluding Aspidites are fairly closely related, and should perhaps be placed in a single genus with further placement in sub-genera. The conflict here is one between "Lumpers" who would agree with the above statement, and "Splitters" who would fear that by placing the pythons in question into a single genus, the relationships between species may be obscured.

HYBRIDS BETWEEN SPECIES

In the late 1970's, the Royal Melbourne Zoo had a male Carpet python Morelia spilota successfully breed with a female Scrub python Morelia amethistina, and Water python Liasis fuscus. The offspring produced were intermediate in characteristics between the parent snakes, and themselves appear to be fertile, although at the time of writing had not successfully bred. The snakes had however, produced eggs which failed to hatch. The snakes in question were held for some years by the Royal Melbourne Zoo before being transferred to Renmark Reptile Park (South Australia). The proprietor of this park, Joe Bredl Senior, allowed this author to photograph specimens resulting from both hybridisations. The photos clearly show the intermediate appearances of the snakes and are reproduced here.

That the Scrub python and Water python can cross breed in captivity with a Carpet python indicates that all three species must be closely related, and should in all probability be placed in a single genus. The above indicates potential problems for the 'Darwinian' classification of 'species'.

Hybridisation and creation of 'new' species are two practices which conservationists generally condemn, for a number of reasons. However, the case cited above was probably of great benefit to Australian herpetology, and in the long term will probably assist in the conservation of Australian pythons.

Which animal is the more "complex" or "advanced" or "evolved", pythons or worms? What exactly is the definition of a new species? (for the umpteenth time)

[irishtenor]

Ever have a child??????? That in and of itself is pure miracle.

[Stultis]

I fail to see any adequate explanation from the usual suspects. The evolutionists all insist that life began as a result of spontaneious generation,

Nope, you are wrong. A number of ideas and partial theories have been proposed to explain the origin of life, and the investigation of some of them has lead to robust and substantial scientific results (in the normal serendipidous way of science) but they have not so far resulted in a complete, successful or consensus theory. In short we do not know how life originated, so (apart from researchers, experts, or interested amatuers arguing for or against one or another of the "proto-theories") few evolutionists will "insist" that it happened in any particular way.

Furthermore I am pretty certain that most or all evolutionists here would specifically reject "spontaneous generation" as among the least likely explanations, as this term is generally taken to refer to a relatively "sudden" process, or one that is a a mundane (ordinary, everyday) natural process. The general presumption is that life originated as the result of some more gradual, step-wise process of chemical evolution which would not be considered "spontaneous"; or that, even if the immediate origin of life was in some sense spontaneous, there was a precusor chemical system of some substantial complexity which itself had evolved. (I haven't looked into this in years, but last I knew some very interesting self replicating chemical systems had been created, and I think there was expectation that some of them might have industrial application.)

but of course they have no explanation of how the mechanism of life "evolved" in the first place.

Right. Like I just said. Therefore we don't "insist" as to how life originated. We leave that to creationists.

[Quila]

Thus we simply have a theory of evolution and it should be designated as such.

Then a creationist finally agrees that evolution is a theory and should be treated as such. A theory being pretty much the pinnacle of an idea in the natural sciences (gravitational theory, relativity theory, quantum theory), that's a good complement.

[Quila]

Here's the story on the Long Beach sand worms (IMO the clearest example from the article):

That's the one I was thinking of. Thanks.

[Quila]

This is pretty much the definition of science as I learned it, and evolution easily fits into all five requirements. Creation most definitely fails 1, 2, 4 and 5 right from the start. Although I'd like a definition of natural law.

[Quila]

Actually, no, Evolution started by saying, I dont believe in God because it makes me recognize I am accountable to God because of sin, so there has to be another way.

That's a lot of hubris to think everything is targeted against your religion. Did you ever think they weren't even thinking of religion? Or maybe the opposite, that they could have been a bit scared because what they saw contradicted everything they believed. Remember, most people in that time and place were religious.

[Quila]

When it happens in the context of a lab experiment, it's not random or spontaneous.

You're going Heisenberg on me again. :)

In that case, they just separated populations. Unless I read it wrong, there was no selective breeding to create new species.

[Quila]

That some animals cannot mate with others is not proof that new characteristics have arisen, only that something is different.

Something is different -- the species. And that's what we're talking about.

[Quila]

silly nihilistic gibberish

Why does everyone have to bring nihilism into it whenever atheism is mentioned? atheism <> nihilsm

[garbanzo]

As far as I can tell, you're not accepting the obvious conclusions of such evidence. (And it's not even clear what's being asked here - the evidence of speciation is the fossil record and all of the physical evidence you're setting aside.)

You're like the defense attorney who says "forget about my client's fingerprints on the murder weapon, the DNA evidence linking my client to the crime scene, the 10 witnesses, and the videotape - what do you really got?"

[Dan Day]

Evolutionists start out their argument with the assumption that evolution is true.

Utter nonsense.

[Rudder]

One time it was considered truth that the world was flat since science could not prove otherwise.

That was before science existed. 95% of all scientists who ever lived are still alive today, science is that young. Science is nothing more than a methodology. It does not champion truth, only data and predictions made therefrom..

[Rudder]

"There is no God, therefore, what really happened?" That presumption is what taints modern science and it always will.

Such a presumption, were science to make it, certainly would taint. But science makes no such presumption.

[Rudder]

I went to UC Berkeley

Me too...Neuroscience-endocrinology-physiology

[The Raven]

Evolutionists start out their argument with the assumption that evolution is true.

A side point.....Ever notice the EVOLUTION of God?

The cave man worshipped fire

The Greeks and Romans had gods of fire, war, etc.

Native Americans did their rain dance (god of weather?)

The Incas and Egyptians had gods of sun, stars, agriculture.

One-by-one ---- science uncovered the facts. One-by-one, all religions 'evolved' into an unprovable faith-based, invisible god [except the comet a few years back].

[the food for thought is that religion always keeps a step ahead of a science that chips away at religious assumptions]

[Rudder]

The problem with your explanation is that if science knows the question cannot be answered anyone that provides an answer to such a question is not a scientist but a charlatan

Well...not to the point I was trying to make.

When I said science does not investigate questions it cannot answer that means science investigates only observable, measureable and quantifiable phenomena. All other phenomena are simply not within the realm of science. Science is a method, a way of gathering data, formulating hypotheses (e.g., predictions) suggested by these data and testing them. Science is not a dogmatic philosophy---simply a methodolgy of inquiry.

Therefore, if a question lies outside the realm of science (e.g, Does God exist?) there will be no scientific effort made to answer it. Should someone propose such an answer, science would not label the answer charlatansim, it would simply assert that science is unable to provide or deny confirmation.