Posted on 08/26/2005 8:57:58 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
My mother says she is a Darwinist. I’m not sure of all the things that could or should imply. I take it to mean the she does not believe that the Cosmos and all that it contains is the result of the will of a Supreme Being. Nature just exists and that is all there is to it. Asking what is the purpose of human existence is a nonsense question. It has no meaning. As we have no conscious origin, we have no conscious destination. Hence no purpose.
This idea is quite troubling to many humans as we are quite reluctant to attach no meaning to the thoughts and desires coursing through the synapses of our brains. And so, for most of human existence, the idea that there was no God was a heresy to be condemned, punished, reviled, tortured and even burned at the stake.
When our social institutions evolved to the point where asking such a question wasn’t as quite as painful or harmful to one’s health, science, in the sense that we use today, began to blossom. And it bloomed because of its explanatory power, its predictive power. If you combine A, B, and C – bingo! – you get D. And no one had ever seen, heard or thought of D before!
One of the best and most widely known examples of this is Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc^2. Exactly what this means is not, for the purposes of this discussion, important. What is important is that this conclusion results from a very simple postulate. Namely, that the speed of light is constant relative to an observer – hence the term “relativity” theory. The other postulate is that we are only dealing with non-accelerated frames of reference. That means constant velocities and no gravitational fields. Hence the term “special” relativity. General relativity, dealing with accelerated frames of reference, is, both conceptually and mathematically, a great deal more abstract and difficult. And, unfortunately, I’m not one of those privy to its secrets.
We still believe, given compliance with the postulates, that the mass-energy equivalence equation is an accurate description of physical reality. For someone with an undergraduate’s knowledge of physics and fair skill with the calculus, it isn’t even very difficult to derive. But that is not the reason for its endurance. Our “faith” in this equation is borne out by innumerable observations, experiments and even a couple of unfortunate events in Japan that took place just about sixty years ago. Though the details of specific processes may, to some extent, still elude us, we have an explanation for the enormous energy levels and extreme duration of the power generated by stars. It was this question that stumped some of the greatest scientific minds of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Einstein’s answer still has no competing theory and it does not leave unanswered questions as to its validity lying about unaddressed.
The same cannot be said of evolutionary theory. There are unanswered questions. Evidence that does not fit. “Facts” that have proven illusive or false. Fabricated evidence. Explanations that are logically incomplete. Jerry-rigged computer models – oops! – sorry, that’s global warming. Result? A competing theory, Intelligent Design or ID, has been proposed as an alternative to Darwin’s rumination. Is this “unscientific” as many wail and gnash in their haste to keep “God” out of science? No. It’s an alternative hypothesis. A competing theory. Not religion. Not superstition. Not a conspiracy by those pesky right-wing, Christian fundamentalist – fundamentalist Christians, if you prefer. A proposed theory. This is how science advances. If one never questions, there are no answers to be had.
If you would like to bone-up on the fundamentals of ID, I suggest that you read Dan Peterson’s piece in the American Spectator, “The Little Engine That Could...Undo Darwinism.” He gives a rundown of the main players in the ID debate along with their academic backgrounds and achievements as well as the main arguments supporting their positions. For an opposing view by a man of science in the field of evolutionary theory, read Jerry Coyne’s offering in the New Republic Online, “The Case Against Intelligent Design.” This was at one time linkable without a subscription as I have a copy saved. But alas, one now seems mandatory.
Based on my brief acquaintance with the subject, there seems to be two fundamental lines of argument used by ID theorists. The first is that which asserts the probability of the complex molecules that form our DNA occurring by chance is infinitesimally small and therefore unlikely to have ever happened by chance. This is the argument put forth by the mathematician and physicist William Dembski.
Michael Behe, who popularized the flagellar motor found in e. coli and other bacterium as an example of intelligent design, is a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. His arguments are based on the concept of irreducibly complex processes or structures as opposed to those that are cumulatively complex. Those that are irreducibly complex do not lend themselves without great difficulty to explanation by a theory of evolution. For Darwin himself stated that if one could show that a blind, incremental process could not explain a natural phenomenon, his theory would fall apart.
Darwin’s theories are being questioned, but here we are not talking about religious zealots making the inquiry. We’re talking about real, live, grown-up scientists, who, because of our advancing knowledge of the molecular basis of life, and not just bible stories, are asking legitimate and profound questions that are undermining the basis of Darwinism. And they’re not doing so with the desire nor intention of substituting scripture for textbooks. God, as the Jews or Christians or even Muslims perceive Him, is not being offered in place of Darwin.
What is? Good question. I’ll ask my mom. She always had the answers.
The difference is that scientists in the past never used "god did it" as a scientific explaination. Once you say God did it you cannot look any further.
For example Intelligent Design claims the bacterial flagellum is IC and therefore must be intelligently designed. However anyone who believes this conclusion would immeditately stop looking for natural origins for the bacterial flagellum. That is pulling the plug on this line of research.
So what do they do instead? Well they just don't.
ID people admit they can't study the design process, or anything about the purpose of the object, or anything about the designer. So once you conclude an object is intelligently designed there is no more research to be done on it's origin. You simply move on to the next object.
So it really seems to me that claiming an object is ID is effectively a research stopper.
That is not true but I have heard it a lot. In fact many evolutionists claim to believe just that. They say the Bible says who did it (God), but it doesn't say how he did it (evolution). That is precisely "God did it and then looking further after accepting that God did it.
So it can be said quite logically that you are wrong in your statement that people cannot say God did it or they end science right there.
On the contrary, you can say God did it and then take it apart and look at it your whole life and see how it works and how He may have done it.
yes you are right
No, Macro-evolution is changing single cell to human.
At least in turns of a theory trying to explain where man came from .
When a fish turns into a Reptile, or a Reptile into a Mammal, then you have Macro-evolution. And also when one species of reptile turns into another species of reptile you also have macro-evolution.
Not if the reptile is still a reptile.
Unless you are just playing word games.
Is the Salamander still a reptile? There are about 500 species of salamander. In fact there are 10 different families of salamander.
Is it a reptile?
So do you believe one species of salamander turning into another species of salamander is possible? Is this an example of micro or macroevolution? Is one family of salamander turning into another family of salamander possible in your opinion? Is this an example of micro or macroevolution?
If it is still a reptile then it is a example of micro-evolution, not Macro, at least not in the sense that Darwanian evolution is attempting to allege that man came about, from single cell to man.
Do you accept that all salamanders could share a common ancestor and can be derived by darwinian evolution?
Salamanders share the common ancestor of reptiles and that is what they will remain.
That is not Darwinian evolution.
Man has the common ancestor of Adam and Eve.
That is an example, not a definition. The biological definition for macroevolution is change above the species level, and even many anti-evolutionists accept this (but they deny new species can evolve). That means one species of grass becoming another species of grass is an example of macroevoluion.
If it is still a reptile then it is a example of micro-evolution, not Macro, at least not in the sense that Darwanian evolution is attempting to allege that man came about, from single cell to man.
This implies that a snake turning into a T-Rex is not microevolution because it is still a reptile. I know you don't accept this, so your above explaination must be wrong. The problem is that you are not objectively seeking a definition. You are instead trying to define microevolution as "possible" and macroevolution as "impossible". The premise you start out with is that macroevolution, whatever it is, must be impossible in all situtations.
Salamanders share the common ancestor of reptiles and that is what they will remain.
Salamanders aren't just the same creature in a different size or color. Different species of salamanders differ in structure and organs. There is more variation amongst salamanders than amongst great apes (chimpanzees, humans, gorillas, etc). Chimpanzees and humans are in the same family. But there are 10 families of salamander, in fact there are 3 sub-orders. If you accept a new family of salamander can evolve, then there is no room to deny humans could evolve from a chimpanzee ancestor, as that would be evolution below the family level.
Salamanders share the common ancestor of reptiles and that is what they will remain. Salamanders aren't just the same creature in a different size or color. Different species of salamanders differ in structure and organs. There is more variation amongst salamanders than amongst great apes (chimpanzees, humans, gorillas, etc). Chimpanzees and humans are in the same family. But there are 10 families of salamander, in fact there are 3 sub-orders. If you accept a new family of salamander can evolve, then there is no room to deny humans could evolve from a chimpanzee ancestor, as that would be evolution below the family level.
LOL!
No, a salamander is still a salamander isn't it?
That is what you are still calling it, is it not?
And a chimp will always be a chimp and a human always a human.
Juggling definitions does not change the reality of that fact.
No a chimp will always be a primate, and a human will always be a primate.
Both just primates? OMG that must mean they can evolve into one another using your logic.
And where did these primates come from?
Did not (according to evolution) they start out as a single cell and then a fish, and they became birds that became primates
That is the vertical evolution we are talking about.
When you find a semi chimp/man let us know.
Did not (according to evolution) they start out as a single cell and then a fish, and they became birds that became primates
Nope, birds are a different branch. But besides even if a bird did turn into a human how do I know you wouldn't claim the change isn't macroevolution because "its still a vertebrate"
Using the "its still a.." argument above the species level is wrong. For example if a newt turns into a hellbender that is macroevolution, even though both are salamanders. Saying "it is still a salamander" is just stating the obvious, and doesn't negate the fact that the change is macroevolution.
Now we are playing word games.
The 'macroevolution'that we are talking about is a vertical one not a horizontal one.
Macroevolution From CreationWiki
Unclean animals, such as the canines, existed as only a single species following the global flood. Most organisms on Earth have speciated numerous times (shown as branches), and now exists as many genera (shown as boxes) with several species.A common definition for macroevolution is the - "the evolution of higher taxa". In other words, it is long-term evolution that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. The process of evolution, given enough time, will eventually lead to the development of groups above the species level (i.e new genera, families, etc.). Macroevolution is distinguished from microevolution, which is the lesser quantity of change that occurs within a population.
Macroevolution describes a complex evolutionary history, which includes many speciation events and extinctions. For example, macroevolution is used when describing the theoretical evolution of all arthropods from some ancient ancestral species. In contrast to this position, creationists believe that there are many baramin or created kinds within the Phylum Arthropoda. In such examples, evolutionists use macroevolution to propose an evolutionary relationship between organisms that are vastly different, and in fact claim that the process is responsible for the common descent of all organisms on Earth. Furthermore, they rely upon a non-catastrophic interpretation of the fossil record as their only real evidence for macroevolution.
Because of such claims by evolutionists, creationists are found to typically agree that microevolution happens, but proclaim that macroevolution does not. This may be true in relation to certain specific examples, such as those described above, but as a general rule of nature, this statement is incorrect. Based on the common use of the word, any evolutionist would also describe the evolutionary history of a created kind as macroevolution. Therefore, it is indeed more accurate for creationists to state that all organisms have undergone macroevolution since the creation. From the creationists perspective, macroevolution describes the entire evolutionary history of each created kind, which includes speciation events and adaptions after the Fall, then again after the flood, and a great many extinctions as well.
While the typical use of microevolution vs. macroevolution by creationists might be true for some specific examples, as a general rule, this classic distinction should be avoided. Most creationists agree that the created kind is most closely synonymous with the Family level of the taxonomic hierarchy. It is also readily accepted that only a single species, from some kinds, was spared from the flood. Each species from the ark has evolved since the flood into a great many distinct genera, each with many new species. This history is best described as macroevolution.
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/inde...=Macroevolution
CreationWiki: Most creationists agree that the created kind is most closely synonymous with the Family level of the taxonomic hierarchy
Well that isn't really true. I would say from experience that most creationists don't accept evolution of new species at all. Other creationists put the created kind as synonymous with the Genus of the taxonomic hierarchy. Others put it even higher at the Order level. Others avoid Linnaean heirarchy entirely and try to personally define created kinds. Others say that created kinds cannot be determined at all. I would say this last one is more honest as if it were possible to define kinds then there should be a list somewhere of all species on earth and the kind they are in.
One major problem for the CreationWiki's kind concept is that it has no genetic basis. At least speciation was a real barrier - it is a unique event with unique mechanisms that causes a sub population to become incapable of interbreeding with the main population making it a new species. All you have to do is deny these mechanisms are possible. Once CreationWiki accepts those mechanisms and also accepts a certain level of genetic divergance (evolution above the genus level) then it is on a slippery slope.
The question is what is the barrier that prevents divergance continuing above the family level? There is no such barrier proposed.
Humans and chimpanzees are in the same family, and are genetically similar enough that some people have proposed they should in fact be in the same genus. Making an arbitary exception for humans and chimpanzees doesn't seem very objective but it is what CreationWiki would have to do.
Another problem is that many transitional fossil series contain gaps below the family level. For example the reptile to mammal series does have gaps, but these gaps are smaller than the family level. Ie any two neighbouring fossils in the series are similar enough that they could be classified into the same family if they were both living.
No, that would take a giant leap.
The assertion that you can't walk around the world is pretty lame, intellectually. The oceans present a problem to walking, but the distance is well within the capability of any healthy person.
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.