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

[dc]O[/dc]n May 14, noted philanthropist and neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson is scheduled to give the commencement address at Emory University and receive an honorary degree. But there is a problem. In recent weeks Emory faculty and students have asked the University to disinvite Dr. Carson because he is a critic of evolutionary theory and advocate of creationism. Faculty and staff have written that Dr. Carson’s “great achievements in medicine allow him to be viewed as someone who ‘understands science’” poses a direct threat to science that “rests squarely on the shoulders of evolution.”

The anti-Carson letter describes how there is “overwhelming” evidence of “ape-human transitional fossils” and how this evolution process has advanced an ability to develop animal models for disease and that even “the work of Dr. Carson himself is based on scientific advances fostered by an understanding of evolution.” The letter then argues that “the theory of evolution is as strongly supported as the theory of gravity and the theory that infectious diseases are caused by micro-organisms.”

In 2010, Gallup released a poll that found that 40% of Americans believe in strict creationism, the idea that humans were created by God in their present form within the past 10,000 years. Thirty-eight percent believe that God guided the process of human evolution from lower life forms over millions of years , and only 16% believe that humans evolved without divine intervention. Sixty percent of those who attend church weekly believe that we were created less than 10,000 years ago. Gallup notes that the numbers have remained generally stable for the past 28 years.

That the number of adherents of creationism remains so strong, even though Charles Darwin’s book, “On the Origin of Species” has been around since 1859 and has been taught in most public schools since the 1960s, is a testament to the persistent strength of American religious belief and faith over contradictory concepts.

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="347" caption="Photo credit - iStockPhoto.com"] Earth - IStockPhoto

[/caption]

Perhaps the only way to explain how evolved human beings would end up with a soul is expressed in the hybrid evolution-creation concept advanced by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani generis (1950). Pius XII writes, "For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”

In Catholic thought, this has been interpreted to provide room for the concept that human beings were created over millions of years through evolution, and that God ultimately provided pre-existing, pre-created souls to those He designated and that these souls reconnect to God through practicing the sacraments.

In contrast, American evangelicals tend to view Adam and Eve as actual living people, who were literally created by God as clay forms into which God breathed the breath of life. There was no death before the fall of humanity. The time frames are important because they rely on the Biblical chronologies Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-28 to prove that Jesus was in the prophetically-designated ancestral line of David, and draw the genealogical line all the way back to Adam, the first created human being.

Many evangelicals reject the hybrid view of creation and evolution because it would necessarily require them to regard creation, as discussed in the books of Genesis and of a new earth in Revelation, as allegory and submit the pervasive teachings of the Bible referencing Creation and other supernatural activity to the realm of mythology or cultural contextualism. Acceptance of “scientific” views of evolution would then, by necessity, require a major reconfiguration of matters of faith – and that is something that most adherents to strict creationism are unwilling to do.

Knapp, whose own religious beliefs are not indicated, notes that while some churches have found ways to incorporate the idea of change over time into their belief systems, “for many Christians, evolution isn’t a minor fact of science that can be resolved into the mythos of their faith. It is, rather, a fundamental attack on their faith and many things that they believe.”

There have been a number of heated arguments on the campuses of a diverse array of religious universities regarding how issues of origins should be taught. Some have tried to walk the middle line of teaching “intelligent design” as an alternative to creationism and evolution. Critics of those teaching intelligent design point out that trying to split the issue down the middle does no favors to either side and in the end is nothing but a weakened form of creationism, and an explanation that is of no value to secular science.

Within the larger context of American Protestant Christianity the debate continues without resolution. Among Christians, creationists are often asked to consider various forms of evidence of a long-history of the earth, but those advocating for a long-earth have largely ignored discussion of the genealogies of the New Testament and the concepts of original sin and salvation. Christian evolutionists have failed to provide a verse-by-verse rebuttal to the Biblical Creation narrative or to acknowledge the extent to which acceptance of creation would impact theology.

Instead theistic evolutionists operate on the supposition that Creationists will eventually bifurcate their religious beliefs from scientific understanding, because incompatibilities must be resolved in favor of science. This places faith directly in conflict with science and any resultant battle on these issues will take centuries if true academic freedom is to be granted, but can resolve faster if the voices of religious dissent are silenced and those who have openly criticized evolution are denied a seat at the academic table.

The attempt to “purify” academia by silencing the voices of critics such as Dr. Carson would be the first step toward a secular Dark Ages. So far, it appears that despite the controversy, Emory University’s commencement ceremony will go forward as planned.

In response to the controversy at Emory, as of this writing nearly 2,000 people have signed a Petition to reaffirm “Dr. Ben Carson’s Welcome and Defend His Right to Express His Views.” Click here to view the Petition.

More than a few of the accusations of "Quote Mining(TM)" which you hear from evolosers involve Stephen Gould. The basic reality is that Gould was always playing a double game in this regard and the idea that anybody trying to quote him might be engaging in anything nefarious or dishonest is completely laughable.

Uncle Don Carney was the most popular childrens show on the radio waves in and around NY in the heyday of radio until the day when, having finished his goodbye song and thinking the mike was off, he uttered the famous

Quote:

"Well, I guess that takes care of the little bastards for another day".

I know, somebody is going to say that Snopes claims the entire story is an urban legend... My father heard the broadcast on the air and he tells me that he didn't normally listen to it but that his sister did and he'd gone to ask her some sort of a question and caught the thing as it happened; I.e. Snopes is not infallable.

Likewise, Steve Gould was a paleontologist and not an evolutionary biologist or anything of the sort. Starting from a point somewhere back in the 60s and 70s, evolutionary biology had become a dead hand over the entire field of paleontology; paleontologists simply were not being allowed to publish legitimate findings because they contradicted the dogmas of Darwinism as they pertained to the question of "intermediate fossils". And so, in order to make paleontology something which somebody could actually practice in the world, Gould, Eldredge, and a couple of others came up with what they apparently viewed as an appropriate concoction to "hold the little bastards" (how they viewed evolutionists) not just for another night, but for all time, while they went about their profession unmolested.

Now, in the automative profession, there are a certain number of unscrupulous salesmen who have devised a sort of a variant of Adolf Hitler's "big lie" principle adapted to the requirements of salesmanship, which goes thus: If I tell some potential buyer a lie so overwhelmingly preposterous that nobody with any brains or talent or even the IQ you normally associate with dogs and cats could possibly buy off on it, then my conscience is clear; I don't have to feel sorry for the guy.

This is undoubtedly the way in which Gould and Eldredge managed to construct their theory without having to worry about losing sleep over feeling sorry for anybody. The fact that PE is basically idiotic didn't even bother them since they viewed the intended audience as idiots.

Punctuated equilibria amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change has occurred amongst very small groups of animals living in isolated or closed-in areas; these creatures supposedly develop some genetic advantage and then spread out and overwhelm the larger herds of the older animals. The theory claims to resolve two gigantic problems with classical Darwinism: the total lack of intermediate fossils, and the problems of population genetics particularly the Haldane Dilemma and the gigantic spans of time it would take to substitute ANY genetic change through any large herd of animals.

Nonetheless there are a number of huge problems with PE and requiring ALL animal species to have arisen in such a way is the same proposition as requiring Custer to win at Little Big Horn every day for billions of years.

Real scientific theories (as opposed to evolution) do not require being reinvented every ten or twelve years.

But back to Gould, he was insisting on having his cake while eating it, in other words, he said what he had to to get rid of the evoloser yoke which was stifling palaeontology, and then cursed the creationists for quoting that material. That's a double game and a dishonest one.

annalex: "You can call me Alex. Ann is my wife."

I have a daughter named anna, so have been reading your name as anna-lex, but then wondering if maybe it wasn't some complaint against a previous an*l-ex? ;-)

annalex: "I, too, find theistic evolution compatible with Catholicism and I am Catholic.
It is evolutionists who often credit themselves with a proof that God is not "a necessary hypothesis" anymore, and bring in the anti-religion sentiment to a discussion of science."

Some comments on theistic evolutionsim:

"Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution.
In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation.
Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life."

American Scientific Affiliation says:

"...Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to religious belief and interpretation.
Theistic evolution supporters can be seen as one of the groups who reject the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – that is, they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict.
Proponents of this view are sometimes described as Christian Darwinists..."

"...This view is generally accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and some mainline Protestant denominations; virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures.
Various biblical literalists have accepted or noted openness to this stance, including theologian B.B. Warfield and evangelist Billy Graham...."

"...Theistic evolution holds that the theist's acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology.
The latter two are also based on a methodological assumption of naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural.
In this view, it is held both religiously and scientifically correct to reinterpret ancient religious texts in line with modern-day scientific findings about evolution.

St. Anselm described theology as "Faith seeking understanding"
and theistic evolutionists believe that this search for understanding extends to scientific understanding.

"In light of this view, authors writing on the subject, such as Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett, say that

Peters and Hewlett see science as a means of evaluating, understanding, and using to our benefit the intricacies of the world that God has created for us...."

It is rooted in a belief that everything depends upon God, or better, all is a gift from God

varmintman: "The basic reality is that Gould was always playing a double game in this regard and the idea that anybody trying to quote him might be engaging in anything nefarious or dishonest is completely laughable....
...But back to Gould, he was insisting on having his cake while eating it, in other words, he said what he had to to get rid of the evoloser yoke which was stifling palaeontology, and then cursed the creationists for quoting that material.
That's a double game and a dishonest one."

First, I don't accept any of your name-calling slanders against Gould as valid.
Gould was obviously bitter at the way Creationists had misconstrued his words.
Here is the link to my previous quote of Gould.
And here to Gould's entire article.

Second, punctuated equilibrium is simple common sense, regardless of your personal attacks on Gould:

Whenever a species has perfectly adapted to its environment then nearly every mutation which actually effects it must necessarily be negative, and so natural selection will weed it out.
And as long as a species interbreeds among all its members, then it can remain basically unchanged for many, many generations.

Only when a sub-group is isolated in a changed environment, and forced to either adapt or die out, can evolution (descent with modifications and natural selection) have major effects over relatively shorter time periods.

Yes, a well-adapted large population can change over time, more or less randomly, in what's called "genetic drift":

"The law of large numbers predicts little change over time due to genetic drift when the population is large.
When the reproductive population is small, however, the effects of sampling error can alter the allele frequencies significantly.
Genetic drift is therefore considered to be a consequential mechanism of evolutionary change primarily within small, isolated populations"

So, how much of evolution is driven by

A) "punctuated equilibrium", how much by
B) "genetic drift", and how much is just
C) natural selection of inherent characteristics (consider the example of dog breeds)?

No doubt the correct answer is:

D) all of the above, each to some degree.

But considered logically, wouldn't a separated sub-species suffering natural selections from a changing environment be most likely to produce more changes over the shortest time periods?

varmintman: "Gould was PRETENDING to be bitter at the way creationists were quoting him, and they were quoting him correctly."

First, curiously, I'd never even heard the term "Quote Mining" until you used it in post #161 above, but I see now that it is common practice among Creationists, and has been complained of for many years:

"Their [Creationists'] favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists.
Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin."

Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote

1973

Second, your claim that Gould lied and was only "PRETENDING to be bitter" is beyond ridiculous since:

You can't read Gould's mind, and
There's no logic to "PRETENDING" bitterness.
Your claim has nothing to do with the merits of Gould's case for evolution's punctuated equilibrium.

Gould intended his idea of "Punctuated Equilibrium" precisely to explain that dearth (but not total absence) of "transitional fossils" (quoting from your post #144):

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

January 1980

Gould writing in May 1981:

"...transitions are often found in the fossil record.
Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution... but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim."

In the first quote, Gould is making the case for punctuated equilibrium, and in the second he is responding to misrepresentations of his arguments -- to Quote Mining by Creationists.

The obvious truth of the matter is that every fossil is transitional between its ancestors and descendants, and that much of the alleged "stasis" is simply our inability to read the DNAs of bones long since turned to rock.
We simply can't say for certain, just by looking at fossils, whether two similar looking creatures were of sub-species which could interbreed, or of separate species which could not.
If they were separate species, then much of the alleged "stasis" disappears, and what we really see is just the results of relatively stable environment.

When an environment doesn't change much, then neither do creatures which inhabit it.

I've posted the same or similar comments here innumerable times

You did. My comment was referring to the post I was responding to, in which I only found that aspect in need of a reply.

my interpretation would be more along the lines of: "sub-species which do not naturally produce viable offspring have become separate species."

OK. Then there is no argument: according to this definition that third kind of zebra is a new species. But the definition is flawed: if you define species by their behavior in mating, then dogs are also not a single species, because big dogs and small dogs do not naturally interbreed: the hydraulics and the mechanics don't work. Also - as I noted before more than once, -- humans, too, have breeding preferences which they do not cross other than in "captivity" of some kind, i.e. are forced to or exchange reproductive products through things like sperm banks.

The definition of species, in my mind, needs to include other factors: can the specimens be bred in a lab? do they look alike? does the offspring itself reproduce? These are all factors generally recognized as a part of a definition: Species problem.

According to the latter, all these zebras are breeds of the species zebra.

Note, too, that this quadrille about definitions does not help the evolutionist myth. Sure one can define species so that they "evolve" all the time. But then you discover that maybe they do "evolve" according to your particular definition, but that "evolution" still confines the "evolved" specimens to a boundary that is not crossed. Evolution postulates that bona fide species evolve into species different in many ways. Further, the evolutionary hypotheses speculates that genera boundaries are crossed as well (e.g fins become legs, front legs become wings, etc.). So your zebra example falls still short: you simply adapted your definition of species to be narrow enough for it to show "speciation".

Dogs and wolves still interbreed, so by scientific definition, they are still the same species.

They interbreed under special conditions: in a lab, involving feral dogs, in captivity, etc. They do not naturally interbreed when mates of their own kin are available. I agree they are the same species, but so are the three zebras.

But other differences could not happen until DNA mutations came along to cause them.

But they are mutations inside the genome of an elephant or of a dog. They may help in artificial selection, but they do not work across species or at least across related fuzzy group you insist on calling separate species.

This would, indeed be a good avenue of research to pursue for someone interested in proving macro evolution. Start with a dog, and make a cat. Or the other way around. Or anything that is a non-dog and itself can breed. That would prove that random mutations with selection produce something selection alone could not produce.

That would also be what the scientific method calls for: test your theory with experimentation.

annalex: "But the definition is flawed: if you define species by their behavior in mating, then dogs are also not a single species, because big dogs and small dogs do not naturally interbreed."

What exactly is your problem with biological classifications into breeds, sub-species, species, genera, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom & domain?
These are all scientific classifications, each has criteria and every living thing is assigned its classifications according to those criteria.
So, if you wish to debate whether a certain creature belongs in this breed or that sub-species, it's a debate you can have -- with scientists who specialize in those issues.

I note, to pick an example, that African Elephants are not just a separate species from Asian Elephants, they are a separate genus, and that while African Elephants consist of two different species, Asian Elephants have only one species, but four sub-species.

Sub-species? Species? Genera? Where are the scientific dividing lines, you might ask?
Clearly these are matters for scientists to establish or debate, but the basic idea is that "species" is the rough dividing line between those groups which can interbreed and those which cannot.

In the case of elephants, fossil and DNA evidence shows African and Asian elephants split over 7 million years ago, and after 7 million years they are separate genera, which do not interbreed.

Contrast the case of dogs which were split from wolves only about 15,000 years ago, and which do readily interbreed.
Dogs are classified into breeds, together a separate sub-species from wolves.

Now consider normal DNA mutations, let's say at 50 per generation.
Among elephants over 7 million years of separation, we're looking at about 35 million mutations or over 1% of the elephant genome.
And that 1% is enough to physically prevent African and Asian Elephants from interbreeding.
By contrast, dogs over a mere 15,000 years of separation from wolves would accumulate only .01% mutations in their DNAs -- not enough to prevent interbreeding.

I ask again, what exactly is your problem with biological classifications?

annalex: ""According to the latter, all these zebras are breeds of the species zebra."

According to who? According to you personally?
Well, isn't that special?

Science has methods for classifying things.
I prefer scientific classifications.
In scientific classifications, all Zebras belong to the genus Equus, and are divided among two sub-genera, three species and seven living sub-species.

If you wish to see them all re-classified you'll need to discuss that with the "scientific classification board". ;-)

annalex: "Further, the evolutionary hypotheses speculates that genera boundaries are crossed as well (e.g fins become legs, front legs become wings, etc.).
So your zebra example falls still short: you simply adapted your definition of species to be narrow enough for it to show "speciation". "

There are no physical boundaries -- "boundaries" are a religious idea, not scientific -- in science the only real "boundary" is whether some group can interbreed with another, and even that, as you've noticed, is not so firmly fixed -- i.e., interbreed under which conditions, exactly?

So no species "crosses a boundary", it simply evolves, slowly, slowly, one generation after the other, until by various methods scientists can begin to see signs of separate breeds, then sub-species, species, genera, etc.
No "boundaries", just continuing evolution -- or if you prefer, "punctuated equilibrium".

And truly major changes do not happen at the breed, sub-species or even species levels.
The fossil record and DNA analyses show major changes happening over millions, tens of millions of years.

annalex: "I agree they are the same species, but so are the three zebras."

I'll refer you again to the "scientific classification board", and if they agree that you have a better classification system than they developed, I'll accept their and your judgment on the matter.
But if for some strange reason they don't agree with you, then I'll go with their judgment over yours, FRiend. ;-)

Seriously, who outside a scientific specialist would ever even care whether Zebras fall into one genus with two sub-genera, three species and seven sub-species -- as scientists tell us -- or whether they are all just one species with numerous sub-species, according to the "annalex classification system"?

annalex: "But they are mutations inside the genome of an elephant or of a dog.
They may help in artificial selection, but they do not work across species or at least across related fuzzy group you insist on calling separate species."

There you go again with that "across species" talk!
When creatures evolve, none of them -- zero, zip, nada -- know anything about a "species boundary" they are somehow not allowed to "cross".
Where did you get that idea?
I'm telling you, it's not from science -- it's some weird notion you have, and nothing to do with reality.

Species simply evolve (descent with modifications and natural selection) and adapt as best they can in changing environments.
They don't stop evolving just because they've crossed the "annalex species boundary".

annalex: "This would, indeed be a good avenue of research to pursue for someone interested in proving macro evolution.
Start with a dog, and make a cat.

No need, it was already done, by God, roughly 42 million years ago when He split up the Family of Miacids (primitive carnivours) into various carnivorous Orders including cats and wolves.

So 42 million years of evolution separate cats from dogs, and that will not be repeated in a lab anytime soon.
But, the actual DNA mutations, generation by generation, just might be reconstructed experimentally in a super-computer, in effect working backwards through time to genetically recreate the common ancestors.

Interesting thought... hmmmmm... let's see, if I were in charge of the scientific enterprise, I think I'd put that the "to do" list right after they complete the task of mapping out the DNA genomes of every living creature.

annalex: "That would also be what the scientific method calls for: test your theory with experimentation.

I'm sure, if you wish to design and propose a scientific experiment, there will be some government agency with money to fund it. ;-)

there will be some government agency with money to fund it. ;-)

Exactly, and, with manatees, you'd spend a lot of time in Florida, win-win.

On your main part, I think that the classifications currently adopted by "science" or whatever it is your cult calls itself, are adopted specifically to support the evolutionary hypothesis. There may very well be no esstablished definition of the boundary that exists and through which neither natural selection or even artificial selection, with or without mutations, does not cross. Roughly, that boundary is species -- defined as those capable of producing viable and reproducing offspring at least in the lab.

The idea that species have to be able of producing offspring not only in the lab but also in the wild, naturally -- is a flawed definition because you then allow in factors that are behavioral and not purely genetic. Conveniently for you it allows to call breeding speciation when it is convenient.

So the evolutionists need to produce a clear example of speciation by the above criterion.

It is true that your hypothesis postulates that this happens very slowly, so a direct experiment is not feasible. But first, it is not my problem; second, with the instrumentarium of genetic engineering on hand perhaps you can take a manatee and produce a non-manatee within a couple of decades. That would be a better use for your evolutionists' money than giving it to lawyers to "prove" your theories in a courtroom. We are Americans -- we can do it if it can be done. I propose, it cannot. But I am willing to wait.

"annalex": "...the classifications currently adopted by "science" or whatever it is your cult calls itself, are adopted specifically to support the evolutionary hypothesis."

By no recognized definition is "science" a "cult".
By no possibly accurate accusation is "science" my "cult."
So your continuing use of these false accusations says nothing about science or me, and a lot about you, FRiend.

But, yes, biological classifications certainly do support the now many-times confirmed Theory (not hypothesis) of Evolution.
Indeed, recent decades have seen biological classifications revised & overhauled in light of many DNA analyses showing that some creatures are more closely related (i.e., hirax, elephant, manatee) and other less so (i.e., Giant Pandas and Red Pandas) than had been previously understood.

"annalex": "There may very well be no esstablished definition of the boundary that exists and through which neither natural selection or even artificial selection, with or without mutations, does not cross.
Roughly, that boundary is species -- defined as those capable of producing viable and reproducing offspring at least in the lab.

You will have a moment of awakening -- the intellectual light will come on (and hopefully not blind you) -- when you finally realize, there is no physical boundary to be crossed.
There's no scientific evidence for a "boundary", there's no hypothesis or theory of why a "boundary" should exist.
It's just not there.

And that's why evolution can happen -- one mutation at a time, one natural selection at a time, generation after generation, for thousands, then millions, then tens of millions of generations.
At a certain point, these DNA changes will begin to discourage separated sub-species from interbreeding with each other, and over much longer times, will actually prevent the possibility of species or genera from interbreeding, even in a zoo or laboratory.

That's what "evolution" is all about -- there's no "revolution" in "evolution", no "storming the gates" to "cross species boundaries" -- it's all just one-mutation-at-a-time generation by generation, until natural selection finds features which improve a species survival.

And that's the lesson of all those examples mentioned here: Zebras, Elephants, cats & dogs, Pandas.
Each has different

breeds (most dog breeds eagerly interbreed),
sub-species (zebra sub-species don't usually interbreed, but can be "encouraged" in captivity),
species (only interbreed if forced) and
genera (African and Asian elephant genera cannot interbreed, period).

"annalex": "The idea that species have to be able of producing offspring not only in the lab but also in the wild, naturally -- is a flawed definition because you then allow in factors that are behavioral and not purely genetic."

Your "definition" here makes no sense, and does not correspond to scientific classifications.
I'm guessing it's just a straw-man you put together to support your argument, right?
Why else would you ignore actual definitions?

"annalex": "So the evolutionists need to produce a clear example of speciation by the above criterion."

What criteria? And why would they "need to"?
Does nature itself not already provide endless examples?

"annalex": "...second, with the instrumentarium of genetic engineering on hand perhaps you can take a manatee and produce a non-manatee within a couple of decades."

Since you are obviously not serious in proposing a trick, will you accept as a serious answer the definition of "non-manatee": any creature which cannot successfully interbreed with wild manatees?
If so, then the object could be achieved fairly quickly simply by artificially modifying a "non-manatee's" genetics to make them infertile.

More seriously, my understanding of scientific "state of the art" today is: attempting to record and analyze DNAs of every living creature.
Also, DNA modifications are being made for agricultural purposes, modifications which themselves can produce new species.

But there is no effort (that I know of) to, in effect, create entirely new DNA and then "grow" something from it.
Logic suggests this might eventually happen, but nothing to date reports it has.
Indeed, if you consider reported attempts to "resurrect" the Woolly Mammoth, none sound particularly "hi-tech".

So the only conceivable way to simulate millions of generations of evolution would be as some kind of super-computer decoding program which works on DNA analyses of different creatures, and attempts to evolve "backwards" to what would have been the DNA of their ancient common ancestors.
A bit far-fetched sounding, may not see it in our life-times... ;-)

Why else would you ignore actual definitions?

I don't argue about definitions. If you (*) want an idiotic definition of "species" that makes taxonomy dependent on sexual behavior, go ahead. The human homosexuals will be ecstatic. I am here to tell you that a boundary exist, -- no matter how fast you move definitions, -- which cannot be crossed through random mutations. When you see the light, -- or rather the dark hole that evolutionism is, -- you can call that boundary Annalex. It kind of sounds Latin, doesn't it?

why would they "need to"?

Because their hypothesis and cult object is that species evolve from other species in a way that the new species is, overtime, radically different form the original: does not produce viable offspring even in a lab, looks different, -- like an elephant and a manatee. Not like zebra 1 and zebra 2 that you consider a proof of something.

will you accept as a serious answer the definition of "non-manatee": any creature which cannot successfully interbreed with wild manatees?

If you followed and understood the objection to the evolutionary hypothesis you would know the answer. The non-manatee must not interbreed with a manatee even in a lab, but interbreed and produce viable offspring that does likewise, with the new species of non-manatees. To have a different look and behavior, -- remember, the claim is that evolution produced such visibly different creatures as manatee and an elephant and a hairy rat, -- would be nice too.

Hypotheses need an experimental proof, -- that's what makes storytelling a science.

Good luck.

(*) Nothing personal. "You", not "thou". You were not expressing any individual research here, did you?

The boundary is a population, let's call it Species Proper, that can interbreed at least in laboratory setting, produce offspring, and the offspring can likewise interbreed; productive interbreeding with another Species Proper is not possible or becomes not possible after several generations; the subsequent generations of a Species Proper are generally healthy to sustain their number in a given stable environment, natural or emulating natural. For example, artificial climate control is an emulated natural environment; routine drug injections or corrective surgeries are not.

The evidence is absent that any known Species Proper evolve into another Species Proper. It is then is a boundary by laws of nature.

The experiment to falsify this is easy to define: pick the original population, inseminate and manipulate the embryos randomly, emulating a random mutation. Adjust the climate to favor a certain developing feature. Let the sick die and repeat insemination and gene alteration with the healthy adult specimens. Make control inseminations of healthy specimen with the original species. Observe the core population stable, and control inseminations progressively less successful, to the point of becoming impossible.

If this experiment is successful, it will prove the foundation of the evolutionary hypothesis: that given time and changing environment, random mutations will produce a new Species Proper better suited for the changed environment.

Prove me wrong by experiment; not by calling in cult authorities.

annalex: "Prove me wrong by experiment; not by calling in cult authorities."

Well, first of all, you've "called in" no "authorities" at all, "cult" or otherwise.
So what you express is simply your opinion, and no doubt your religious belief, though for some reason you wish not to admit that.

Remember, the US Constitution's First Amendment guarantees your right to believe whatever you wish regarding religious subjects, and so there is no legal requirement -- zero, zip, nada -- for you to accept as true whatever scientist might say on evolution, or on anything else.
In this regard at least, it's still a free country.

But that's not quite the end of the story, especially for those whose rejection of Evolution Theory supports their religious beliefs.
Because, in case you forgot, while the First Amendment allows you to believe whatsoever you might wish, the Ninth Commandment requires you to tell the truth about it.

And your labeling of normal, ordinary working scientists as "cult authorities" is simply not truthful, and no matter how misguided you've been in life, you can't fail to know that, can you?

OK, now let's look at the merits of your claims...

annalex: "The boundary is a population, let's call it Species Proper, that can interbreed."

There are no "boundaries" on a species, it is simply a population which can interbreed.
When sub-populations (i.e., sub-species) get separated and evolve over time to the point where they can no longer interbreed, then we call such population a separate species.
Among examples mentioned here, Zebras and Elephants consist of populations science classifies as "sub-species", other groups considered "species" and still others in separate "genera."

And when you analyze the DNA of these various categories, what you find is that those sub-species which can interbreed have much more similar DNA than those which cannot.
So the obvious scientific conclusion is that sub-species with more similar DNAs share more recent common ancestors than those species and genera with less identical DNAs.

In short, a simple rule can be observed: the more similar the DNAs, the more recent was the common ancestor, and the more likely is successful interbreeding.
As DNAs become more and more dissimilar, then interbreeding becomes more and more difficult, until at some point -- i.e., African and Asian Elephant genera -- interbreeding is impossible.

Interbreeding experiments to test this rule have been done innumerable times, and always hold true.
Indeed, scientists use such data to help determine whether different populations are just breeds & sub-species, or actually different species & genera, etc.

annalex: "The evidence is absent that any known Species Proper evolve into another Species Proper.
It is then is a boundary by laws of nature."

In fact, evidence is everywhere in nature -- of different similar animals (i.e., Elephants, Zebras) in various breeds, sub-species, species, genera, etc.
I think it takes a willful act of blindness not to see it.

annalex: "The experiment to falsify this is easy to define:"

The "experiment" you define is conducted in nature, by God, every day, every generation and over many millions of years.
Yes, there's no physical evidence suggesting that natural evolution in large creatures happens on time scales of less than many thousands of generations.
But abundant evidence suggests separated populations (breeds, sub-species) continue to evolve until interbreeding becomes difficult and finally impossible.

annalex: "If this experiment is successful, it will prove the foundation of the evolutionary hypothesis: that given time and changing environment, random mutations will produce a new Species Proper better suited for the changed environment."

God has been running that experiment for untold millions of years, and the results we can see: before any two populations evolve into separate species which can no longer interbreed, they first change to become separate breeds (i.e., dogs) which look different but do eagerly interbreed.
Then over time, breeds change into different sub-species which grow more reluctant to interbreed, before they finally evolve to separate species which can physically no longer interbreed.

That's what physical evidence shows us, and it's what Evolution Theory explains.
So what exactly is your problem with it?

annalex from post #176: "The boundary is a population, let's call it Species Proper, that can interbreed."

Throughout this thread you've invented mythical terms for things which don't exist in the real world.
Among those are:

The annalex "species boundary" which somehow prevents evolution from making one sub-species incapable of interbreeding with another.
Those mysterious "evolution cult authorities", who are somehow so different from ordinary working scientists they can't be given even the minimum respect of correct job titles.
And now we see the "annalex Species Proper" defined as not ordinary scientific species, but rather only those "species" which all possess the mythical annalex "species boundary" preventing evolution in sub-species from ever reaching the point where interbreeding is impossible.

So regardless of what results breeders & ordinary scientists (aka "evolution cult authorities") achieve in laboratories, the "annalex species boundary" excludes any evidence of "Species Proper" violations.

My response is: your terms and their definitions are not scientific.

annalex from #178, referring to experiments in interbreeding among different sub-species, species & genera:
"I have not seen any actually presented by the Evolutionists.
You, for exampe, gave me the zebra example about breed selection inside a species, that only becomes an example of speciation by carefully choosing the definition of a species to fit the mythology."

First, I gave no examples defined as "breed selection inside a species" -- that is another of your weird expressions, which you use to avoid the scientifically accurate descriptions of evolution: 1) "descent with modifications" and 2) "natural selection".

Second, the scientific definition of different "species" is what it is -- groups which cannot normally interbreed, and/or produce non-viable offspring.
So, if that definition doesn't match up with the "annalex Species Proper", how is it the fault of scientists?

Examples of results of interbreeding attempts are mentioned in standard references which discuss the differences between sub-species, species and genera.
Typically "sub-species" readily interbreed and different "genera" cannot, while "species" interbreed only under human controlled conditions.
On this thread we've already mentioned examples of Zebras, Elephants, cattle, and bears among others.

Here's the summation: Instead of a hard and fast "boundary" there's a wide range of increasing difficulty interbreeding between sub-species, species and genera.

And even among certain genera, the imaginary "Species Proper boundary" would not apply, for example cattle (genus bos) plus bison (genus bison) = the viable "beefalo".

annalex referring to evidence of natural evolution operating over many millions of years:
"That should have closed the argument for anyone interested in science rather than in storytelling."

And exactly what scientific rule says scientists can't deal with evidence which spans more than a few thousand years?

annalex: "Yes, and then the boundary that prohibits further evolution is reached and no speciation happens.

You have in no sense defined or provided scientific evidence of a "species boundary", and so it remains just a myth in your mind.
In reality, scientific evidence of speciation is found in every large biological group.
Only willful ignorance refuses to see it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

DON'T SAY IT!!!!!