It's not simply a matter of interpretion... the fossil record, albeit incomplete, is certainly consistent with evolution. It's not consistent with literal reading of Genesis, that the earth and all life were created in seven days.

---

_______________________________________________

Right, designing such an experiment to test macro-evolution is pretty easy, while executing it is more difficult, due to the amount of time it would take. Agreed. But until that happens, you can't really claim the macro-evolution is testable and repeatable, can you? How do you know how the experiment will turn out? You don't. There seems to be this assumption that, well, if we did the experiment, we already know it would turn out with results favorable to macro-evolution. Hardly a scientific approach.


Maybe I can answer with some analogies. The theory of plate tectonics explains how mountains form. We cannot see the action of the mountains forming, but by looking at many instances of mountain formation throughout the world, we can test the theory. If the theory is right, then when we discover new mountains there will be nothing about them that contradicts the theory.

Astrophysicists are developing several theories to explain the mechanics of star formation. We cannot see the stars forming, but we can point our telescopes at many different samples and observe whether the predictions of the theory hold true. If the theory is right, then every time we find a star in the midst of formation, nothing about the process will contradict the theory.

In both cases, the theory is repeatable, in that every time we find a new situation, it obeys the theory. The theory is testable, in that we can find new situations, about which we have no previous knowledge, to which we can apply the theory and see if it holds up.

In the same way, we can test evolution by observing the behavior of species through time and in currently existing ecosystems. As cliche as it is, the Galapogos islands form a fantastic "experiment" where an entire ecosystem has adapted to the ecological pressures of a smaller habitat. Speciation has occured, but we can test the relationship of those species to the decendants of the original population in South America, who did not feel the same ecological pressures. The original species (on the mainland) form the control group, and the population on Galapogos forms the test group. Again, we can't see the evolution taking place, but evolution predicts that changes will take place (it does not predict *what* changes will take place, only that adaptations will occur) and that eventually the decendants in the new environment will not be able to interbreed with descendants in the original environment.


As for executing this experiment in the real world, why does it have to be complete within the span of one career? Surely there have been other experiments that have taken long enough to require the work of successive teams of scientists?


Scientists are human beings in human society. They need to feed their families, which means earning money. They earn money by winning grants, which means they must publish results from experiments. That means the experiment has to end before the scientist starves. There are very, very few single experiments that have lasted beyond the career of the scientists who start them. There are more examples of a series of experiments, where some results are obtained at various steps along the way but the overall experiment doesn't complete for a long time.

Lee

I'm not following that. Radiometric dating is not consistent with a literal 7-day creation and a young earth, but I don't see where the fossil record necesasarily is not.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

OK, then setting aside fossils for a second, how do you reconcile that statement with your literal belief in Genesis?

---

_______________________________________________

Maybe I can answer with some analogies.

I understand the analogies you present, and don't disagree with them. Which is why I don't say that macro-evolution is completely ridiculous. It's an explanation that seems to fit with much of what we observe in the world around us. But it isn't proven. And it presents a logical problem, considering what we actually do know about biology. Here's another analogy: At one point, it seemed reasonable, from what we knew at the time, that the sun rotated around the earth. It was an explanation completely consistent with what people observed at the time. Later developments- more complete observations and advanced knowledge invalidated the theory. The case for macro-evolution is up in the air.

Galapogos islands form a fantastic "experiment" where an entire ecosystem has adapted to the ecological pressures of a smaller habitat. Speciation has occured

I don't think that's correct.

we can't see the evolution taking place, but evolution predicts that changes will take place (it does not predict *what* changes will take place, only that adaptations will occur) and that eventually the decendants in the new environment will not be able to interbreed with descendants in the original environment.

Yes, evolution predicts that eventually the descendants in the new environment won't be able to interbreed with their ancestors. But we haven't yet observed that for a fact, and therefore can't say that the idea has been tested, or proven.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

[b] (Evolution is) an explanation that seems to fit with much of what we observe in the world around us. But it isn't proven. [/b]

You've made my point precisely. In many, many, many cases, science can't [i]prove[/i] anything. Science deals with being able to make predictions, and a theory is accepted, not proven, when it makes accurate predictions. [i]Proof[/i] is a much higher standard.

Science is good at proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but not good at absolute proof. Theories come to be accepted because of their predictive power, not necessarily because we understand why they work.

[b]The case for macro-evolution is up in the air[/b]

At some point you have to ask yourself which theory is best able to predict what we actually observe. You might still believe that the theory has flaws that need to be reconciled with observations, but you can also say that it fits observations and has better predictive power than other theories.

Quantum mechanics is one of the most widely accepted theories in physics because it explains the behavior of actual materials to an accuracy of many decimal places. Nonetheless, most physicists will tell you that it's incomplete because it cannot be reconciled with the very accurate, very well acepted theory of gravity.

Evolution is not a complete theory. It has areas that have not been tested adequately to quell reasonable doubt. It does not answer the question of origin of life at all, although it doesn't try to. But it has far better predictive power and repeatability and testability than creationism, and it is subject to revision in the face of contradictory evidence.

Lee

Evolution is not a complete theory. It has areas that have not been tested adequately to quell reasonable doubt. That's my point exactly. It has areas that haven't been tested adequately enough to quell reasonable doubt.

It does not answer the question of origin of life at all, although it doesn't try to. Some say it does. The spontaneuous origin of life is key to those who believe evolution itself is evidence against creation by God. I understand you're not necessarily one of those. But there are plenty of them out there.

But it has far better predictive power and repeatability and testability than creationism, and it is subject to revision in the face of contradictory evidence. That's funny, because I don't really see a conflict between creationism and evolution, necessarily. But I think we covered that already.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

So I'm guessing you don't read Genesis literally?

---

_______________________________________________

So I'm guessing you don't read Genesis literally?

I don't read it as a science text.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Natural Selection is a theory. It is tested every day in petri dishes around the world.

Side Note: I read the other day that the idea of Natural Selection was first presented by creation scientist Edward Blythe in 1835 (24 years before Darwin), although Darwin's influence is usually credited with being the economists whose name I cannot remember right now. Anyone ever hear of Blythe before?

Creationism is not a theory. It is a belief system, based on an interpretation of a religious faith. That belief system was created at a time when science did not have adequate answers to many questions about where we came from and how other creatures got to be the way they were.

You are making a horrible assumption that all creationists are "Biblical creationists". There are plenty of folks that think an omnipotent God is about as believable as Santa Claus ... but they do accept the idea of a Creator. Creationism is a theory that says life did not start itself [One could argue that all of our evidence that says life cannot start itself is positive evidence FOR a creator, not just "currently missing evidence" for abiogenesis]. Creationism is readily accepted by Biblical Christians, but does not mean all Creationists are Biblical believing Christians. There is becoming so many different factions of "creationists" [gap, theistic, literal, etc] that understanding what a creationist is ... is akin to trying to figure out which definition of evolution one is using for each factor of development.

A Theory of Creation http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

Tim Wallace has come up with his theory of creation. Does a side by side comarison of creationism & evolution. I have not read this yet, although I did skim it [i.e. the comparsion tables].

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Natural Selection is a theory. It is tested every day in petri dishes around the world.

Side Note: I read the other day that the idea of Natural Selection was first presented by creation scientist Edward Blythe in 1835 (24 years before Darwin), although Darwin's influence is usually credited with being the economists whose name I cannot remember right now. Anyone ever hear of Blythe before?

***Edit*** Actually it was Wells in 1813.

Creationism is not a theory. It is a belief system, based on an interpretation of a religious faith. That belief system was created at a time when science did not have adequate answers to many questions about where we came from and how other creatures got to be the way they were.

You are making a horrible assumption that all creationists are "Biblical creationists". There are plenty of folks that think an omnipotent God is about as believable as Santa Claus ... but they do accept the idea of a Creator. Creationism is a theory that says life did not start itself [One could argue that all of our evidence that says life cannot start itself is positive evidence FOR a creator, not just "currently missing evidence" for abiogenesis]. Creationism is readily accepted by Biblical Christians, but does not mean all Creationists are Biblical believing Christians. There is becoming so many different factions of "creationists" [gap, theistic, literal, etc] that understanding what a creationist is ... is akin to trying to figure out which definition of evolution one is using for each factor of development.

A Theory of Creation http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

Tim Wallace has come up with his theory of creation. Does a side by side comarison of creationism & evolution. I have not read this yet, although I did skim it [i.e. the comparsion tables].

---------------------------------------

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

The thing that bothers me is that evolution no longer attempts to make predictions, but just accomodates whatever evidence comes around. For example, evolution *predicts* that animals from a common ancestor should be similar at the beginning [ancestry] and become increasingly different as they develop [evolution]. But, after fertilization, the classes of vertebrates (fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) all have different and unique patterns of post-fertilization [one fertilized cell] cleavage [cell division] up to gastrulation. Later, in embryonic develop they look somewhat similar for a brief time [looking at embryonic photographs, not Haeckel's fraudulant copied images] and then become different. This observance should have deadly to the idea that each class of vertebrate led successively to the nest. Tye result? The accomodation of divergent evolution followed by convergent followed by divergent. The amount of critical missing information, and interpretations and extrapolations based on that missing information amaze me. Who would tolerate that from a non-evolutionists standpoint? .... not to mention we use "evolution" as the reference point to interpret the evidence (like pretending to knw who the murderer is and THEN searching the crime scene.

The actual procedure of evolutionists and creationists are remarkable similar ... [1] pretend to already know what happened before-hand, [2] interpret the information so that it fits into your theory, [3] dismiss/accomaodate any damaging information, [4] use unscientific imaginations, extrapolations, and "just-so" stories as evidence rather than the poor "possible explanantions" that they are, and last, but certainly not least, when all seems to be going wrong ... pull out the ol fail-safe. For creationists it "If that's what the creator wanted to do ...", and for evolutionists, "imagine what could happen over billions and/or millions of years. I consider very little of what goes on for both sides to be science. Both sides "smell strongly of faith ... of wantingly and willingly accepting any type of evidence in order to continue believing what they currently and originally do".

-------------------------------

That's the best thing (for evolutionists) about punctuated equilibrium ... missing links are no longer a problem. Note: A missing link is not just a missing fossil, it's a missing chain of fossils that make it questionable about whether any chain exists. In other words, there isn't one missing fossil in between primates and humans ... there's a whole chain of missing, successive links that calls into question the idea of whether humans and primates share a common ancestor or not.

Anyway, PE says that evolution happens [1] so rapidly, and.or [2] in so few individuals, that the fossil record would not record it. In toher words, no longer do you need gradualistic fossils form mouse to bat ... you just say "the mutations/adaptations from mouse to bat happen so rapidly that they are not recorded in the fossil record, so the bat seems to just 'apear' ". No FAITH required in that? No faith in darwinists assuming that the fossils between mouse and bat exist?

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Here is a series that have read a few times. Very interesting. It's article-rebuttal format and point-counterpoint. warning: The "29 Evidence for Macroevolution series" is in 6 parts and over 100 pages when you include both sides points/rebuttals. Some part are really technical, but the volutionists site give a "phylogenic primer" for a quick review.

After reading it, there are 3 things that are readily apparent: [1] both sides interpret the exact same evidence in different ways. The same stuff used for evidece of evolution is used for evidence of creationism. [It's all dependent on pre-existing beliefs .. i.e., the tint of your sunglasses], [2] both sides can accomodate any type of evidence, and [3] neither side will ever switch to the other ... they'll simply scrap the idea and start new or rely on the fail-safe.

29 Evidence for Macroevolution [Theobold] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

29 Evidence for Macroevolution [Camp] -- Critique http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

Theobolds rebutaal to Camp's critique http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html

-------------------------------

Another good series ...

5 Major Miconceptions about Evolution [Isaak] http://www.talkorigins.org/...-misconceptions.html

5 Major Evolutionists Misconceptions About Evolution [Wallace] http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

A Critique of Wallace http://www.mindspring.com/~duckster/evolution/

Wallace Answers Duck http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_tw_02.asp

***Edit *** I just re-read this series last night, and it is [IMO] very good. It shows that most of the problems deal with the *actual* definition of evolution and the ones that shift to encompass other aspects that do not fit the *actual* definition.

I also read the creation theory article. One thing that stands out is that some scientists have done a great job propogating that theory must be "naturalistic theory" although mnothing in the definitions of science and/or theory states or implies that. Interesting. I'm glad I actually read that article.
-------------------------------

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Strawman. Evolution does not predict "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." There is absolutely no reason to predict that the evolution spanning millions of years would be recapitulated during embryonic development. It was kind of a cool idea but based on misinterpreation of anatomic structures and (as you said) probably fraudulent drawings of various embryos to make them look more alike than they really were. It's an outdated idea and should be removed from textbooks, but the core principles of evolution are not dependent (or at all supported) by Haekel's theory.

---

_______________________________________________