Replies

All the reasoned arguments, papers, and experiments in the world from persons far more intelligent than I cannot convince you that under the accepted definition of evolution, not your definition, evolution has occurred.

It is important that we understand out terms otherwise we end up mis-stating the point of view of the other side.

What you have just presented is MICRO-EVOLUTION.

No creationist or ID proponent I know denies this and to say that they do is a caricature.

Natural selection is an observable process that falls into the category of operational science. We have observed mosquitoes, birds, and many microorganisms undergoing change in relatively short periods of time.

The problem is --- in the media, textbooks, and scientific literature the occurrence of evolution has become a “fact.” The definition of the word evolution has also taken on two different meanings that are not equal.

Evolution can be used in the sense of change in a species by natural selection. This is often referred to as microevolution and is accepted by evolutionists and creationists alike as good observational science. This type of evolution
allows change within groups but not between groups.

Now here's where the dispute lies ...

The other meaning of evolution involves the idea that all organisms on earth share a common ancestor by descent with modification. This idea is commonly referred to as macroevolution.

The two definitions are often used interchangeably.

Typically, textbooks show that new species can form—evolution has occurred—so they argue that it is obvious that evolution, in the molecules-to-man sense, must have occurred. The problem is that just because natural selection and speciation have occurred (and there is strong evidence to support such claims) the claim that all life has evolved from a common ancestor is based on many assumptions that cannot be ultimately proven.

People believe the ideas of the evolutionary development of life on earth for many reasons: it is all that they have been taught and exposed to, they believe the evidence supports evolution, they do not want to be lumped with people who do not believe in evolution and are often considered to be less intelligent or “backward,” evolution has the stamp of approval from real scientists, and evolutionary history allows people to reject the idea of God and legitimize their own immorality. Evaluating the presuppositions behind belief in evolution makes for a much more productive discussion. Two intelligent people can arrive at different conclusions using the same evidence; so their starting assumptions is the most important issue in discussing historical science.

When we deal with the issue of origins, we must realize that no people were there to observe and record the events. When scientists discuss the origins of the universe, the earth, or life on earth, we must realize that the discussion is based on assumptions. These fallible assumptions make the conclusions of the discussion less valid than if the discussion were based on actual observation. Almost all biology books and textbooks written in the last two generations have been written as if these presuppositions were true.

Proponents of the evolutionary worldview expect everyone to accept evolution as fact. This is a difficult case to make when the how, why, when, and where of evolutionary history are sharply contested or unknown by the scientists who insist evolution is a fact.

Evolutionists often claim that belief in Intelligent Design is not scientific because of the unprovable assumptions that it is based on.

What about looking at the mirror for a change ?

The fact that evolution is based on its own set of unprovable, untestable, and unfalsifiable assumptions is recognized by many in the scientific community.

Within the scientific literature, the mathematical and chemical impossibilities of the origin of the universe and life on earth are recognized. Many notable scientists, including Sir Fred Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, have gone so far as to suggest that life originated on other planets or was brought to earth by an intelligent being. These ideas are no less testable than special creation but avoid invoking God as our Creator.

Just because organisms can be observed to change over a period of time does not necessarily mean that macro-evolution ( change from one specie to another) is true. If we think of the classic peppered moth example, we started with light and dark moths (Biston betularia) and ended up with light— and dark—colored moths of the same species in different proportions. This SIMPLY exemplifies idea of variation within a kind. Any conclusion beyond that is EXTRA-POLATION.

Natural selection has been shown to change organisms but always within the boundaries of their OWN kinds. This type of change is often termed “microevolution,” and the hypothetical type of change that turns fish into philosophers is known as “macroevolution.” ( this is and has always been the point of contention )

The large-scale changes through time are simply dramatic extrapolations of the observed phenomenon of natural selection. This degree of extrapolation has no basis in operational science. There are limits to the amount and type of genetic change that can occur—no matter what amount of time is allowed. As an illustration: if you can pedal a bicycle at 10 mph, how long would it take to reach the moon? Bicycles have limits that would make this goal impossible regardless of the time you have to accomplish it.

So please, if you want to tell us evolution is a FACT, qualify your terms -- are you talking about evolution of the observable (i.e. MICRO ) kind ? Or are you talking about the HUGE and HUMONGOUS EXTRAPOLATION Darwinists have been claiming has occured ( which has never been observed ) ? If it is the later, then yes, many of us and most Americans have issues with you ( unless of course, you can show via operational science that it has indeed occured, not just give us just-so stories ).

No creationist or ID proponent I know denies this [microevolution] and to say that they do is a caricature.

That's what I thought, too. Then, I encountered GourmetDan, who to date has not acknowledged that under the most basic definition of evolution, change in allele frequencies of a population over time, evolution has occurred.

In my post 240, I asked the following question that you later quoted in post 250:

Under the accepted definition of evolution – change in allele frequencies of a population over time – has evolution happened?

GourmetDan’s response? “…the 'accepted definition of evolution' is a game where the word is defined to be consistent with observations and the same word is then used to refer to unobserved processes and events…It is nothing more than a game, however and many, many people see right through it.”

He doesn’t even acknowledge that under the simplest, most basic, and least offensive definition of evolution, allele frequency change at the population level, evolution has occurred. Basically, he doesn’t like the common definition, so he uses his own definition of evolution that no one in biology recognizes.

Microevolution does not conflict with intelligent design ideology, but GourmetDan simply does not realize that. It is no caricature to say that he denies the validity of microevolution.