Creation: The Modern View Stepping Backward II
- By: Gregg
- On:
- 68 Comments
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Creation: The Modern View Stepping Backward II”.
AbiogenesisBiologyCharles DarwinChemical EvolutionCosmic evolutionCreationCritical ThinkingDarwinian Evolutionary ModelDarwinian MythologyDarwinian MythsDarwinismDarwinistDarwinistsEpistemologyEthologistsEvolutionFallacyIndoctrinationIntelligent designLife from non-lifeMacro-evolutionMethodological NaturalismMicro-evolutionModern evolutionary synthesisNeo-DarwinismPhilosophical BiasPhilosophy of sciencePhysical lawPunctuated equilibriumReligion/BeliefRichard DawkinsScienceScientific LawScientific methodScientific theorySecular HumanismSocial DarwinismSpontaneous generationStellar evolutionStephen Jay GouldSupernaturalThermodynamicsWorld view
Logging In...
Comments are closed.
Last reply was 30 May 2012
I really do not have time to read your very long, very scattered post. I can skim it and i have one very broad question.
It seems that your whole argument against Evolution is that current understanding of science cannot fully explain it or recreate it, so it must not be true. And thus, God must have magically created it all without any structure, completely ignoring scientific laws that govern our known universe.
Why the leap from science to magic? obviously you recognize value in science, evidenced by all your gathered knowledge.
…”Because a protein is actually a 3 dimensional object that must “fit” together with other proteins absolutely precisely, this highly complex specificity is vital and 100% unforgiving 100% of the time. Thus, any single mistake in the very long sequence of amino acids, one transcription error in the code, results in a completely useless protein.”
.
Well, thats false.
Is it? I don’t think so. It either creates a protein with a different surface area or a useless protein, either of which cannot be used in the way that the original protein was intended. I realize that I wasn’t very specific, but the post isn’t really about protein synthesis.
You said, “I really do not have time to read your… post.”
.
Yet you had time to leave a comment, I see.
.
No, that is not my argument.
.
My argument, in short, is that there is a great deal of evidence that refutes the Darwinist models, yet they persist as a paradigm in spite of these known contradictions.
.
Also, your remark is logically arbitrary. I could be just as easily equally arbitrary and note that a great deal of the Darwinist models are merely very authoritative sounding arguments from ignorance. As in, “There isn’t any way this could be the result of special creation by a supernatural God, therefore it must have been magically created as an act of nature though this completely ignores all known scientific laws that govern the universe.”
.
Your observation is only less logically sound when one considers that God created all of nature, including all known laws that govern our universe, and therefore is not Himself bound by His creation any more than you are bound to behave only in an identical manner to anything you create. If you bake a cake, you are not bound to behave henceforth only as a cake, are you?
.
A large number of the Darwinist apologetic depends upon an assumption of of a supernatural event taking place as a result of a natural act. I call that magic.
.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
Keep up the good work Gregg. Thanks for your post.
i have had this type of conversation with you before. i find your posts to be too long and too broad. I would love to focus on one issue and talk about that. we could just start with your hypothesis that everyone believes in Darwinian Evolution. From anything i have read that is no longer the primary focus in the scientific community. They fully admit that there are flaws in it. The vague theory of evolution is still possible.
For the record, i do believe in God as the creator. I just don’t believe in his creation by magically “poof” = things exist.
Gregg,
.
I also don’t have time to read the whole thing at the moment, but I will get into it in more detail later. Regarding an early portion of your post, though, you claim that there is no evidence for different forms of life (e.g. man, ape-like ancestor of man, “mouse-like animal”) being found further back in time.
.
The evidence that modern science claims here would first and foremost be the sequential nature of the fossil record. For example, we’ll never find human fossils in strata past a certain age, and we’ll never find dinosaurs in strata younger than approx. 65 mya. Do I take it that the reason you’re dismissing this because you don’t accept dating methods? Or do you have some other reasoning behind this dismissal?
You said, “…you claim that there is no evidence for different forms of life (e.g. man, ape-like ancestor of man, “mouse-like animal”) being found further back in time.”
.
I make no such claim. Obviously, fossils exist in the present.
.
I make the rather sound claim that there is no evidence that human beings came from those animals — or any other animals for that matter — that they are not part of our lineage.
.
Thanks for your comment,
Gregg
My pleasure.
So in general you agree that different kinds of organisms exists in different rock layers of different ages, you’re just saying there is no ancestral connection between them. Remains of modern homo sapiens can be found in the most recent layers, something between man and an ape-like ancestor in the somewhat older layers, something further removed from man and closer to an ape-like ancestor yet further back, and so on. So you’re on board with these different forms having lived at different times. Did I understand that right?
I don’t understand the last part of your article where you say you can tell people that a goddier God made God, and so on. I’ve never heard anything like that in the Bible or from a person. To me, God just has always been. He has no beginning or end. Thank you for the article.
It is not biblical nor is it my belief.
.
I put that together to demonstrate how silly the belief that there is no God who is all knowing, all mighty, and all powerful is when one applies logic. The “goddier God” argument is simply a logical argument to counter the secular argument that there is no God. When the secular argument is that God had to be “created” or “taught” how to do the things He does (like create the universe), then the argument simply chases that back logically to conclude in an all knowing and all mighty being we call God. Personally, I have trouble relating to the secular world view myself.
.
Thanks for your comment.
Gregg
No.
.
There are NO intermediate forms between man and ape or between lizard and bird or between amphibian and reptile or between fish and mammals.
.
No, I do not agree. Where are you reading that?
.
I do agree that there are fossils of all kinds of dead things, many varieties of living things, that exist in the present geological layers. I utterly disagree that thousands of unfounded assumptions can be made by unearthing them. Finding a dead thing can give you one assumption that is sound — it died. Other than that, one cannot assume that a dead thing ever successfully reproduced in its lifetime, what its parents looked like, etc. To assume that a monkey turned into a man “just add time” is not an assumption I ever agree with.
.
Thanks for your comment,
Gregg
Many proteins have different parts to their structure. Some of those parts can require a precise sequence of amino acids to function correctly. But other areas can be more accepting of variation. A change in amino acids in those regions could have no effect on the function. Or it might have an effect that would still allow the protein to function but with some change so that it might work better or worse in different conditions. In some regions you could add on amino acids or remove them without preventing the protein from functioning.
.
(e.g. different isoforms in fetus, adult, different tissues. Splice variants. Polymorphisms. Proteins in different species which have the same function and very similar but not identical sequence of amino acids. Genetic engineering.)
You said, “Some of those parts can require a precise sequence of amino acids to function correctly. ”
.
Yes, I know. And if they are not arranged in the exact highly specific order, they are 100% useless.
You said this:
“Any single mistake in any single sequence in any single protein results in a non-living mass of organic material, not in a living organism.”
.
That is NOT the same thing as saying that some subsection of a protein cannot have a single mistake but that other sections of that same protein can vary without a loss of function.
I think it’s an important distinction.
.
(and if the organism has two chromosomes, it might not matter if there’s an error in an allele of a gene on one chromosome, depending on the gene and the error)
Once again — the post isn’t about protein synthesis. And while I appreciate your specificity, the fact remains that an error in transcription in large key parts of the protein results in a useless protein. This is 100% factual. Like you said, parts of protein chains “… require a precise sequence of amino acids to function correctly.” That is all I am saying. If you feel I was intentionally trying to mislead, then make your case. If you feel I was completely lying, as your first statement, “Well, that’s false” kind of indicates, then make your case.
.
I understand the distinction. I believe my remarks are accurate in context, and I adjourn from further defense of my remarks.
Ah, I thought you were just disputing the connection between different remains, not the existence of the remains themselves. So would you claim that, for example, no fossil remains of Australopithecus have ever been found? Or homo ergaster?
May I ask precisely what I wrote that brought you to that conclusion?
Actually, I just noticed you seem to have misread my previous comment, for example this bit: “in general you agree that different kinds of organisms exists in different rock layers of different ages”. I did not say that you agreed there were intermediate forms.
.
A certain progression can be discerned, however, from for example Australopithecus, some of the early homos to our current homo sapiens. Seeing as these were found in layers of different, successive ages, I was wondering on what basis you do not see a progression here.
When I read the statements in your post – using words like 100% – I did not think you were lying; I thought you were uninformed. And when you said in response to my comment a protein could not serve the same function if there were a change, I thought you were still misinformed.
But now I get the idea that you were not misinformed but rather that you were simplifying. And maybe you think I’m quibbling over a detail.
But to me it is an important point. If no amino acid in a protein can ever change without death to the animal (or a completely useless protein), then mutation could not be a source of evolution. Howvere if mutations in some parts of a protein can change its function without making it useless, then mutation CAN be a source of evolution. So to me the distinction is worth pointing out.
.
If you’ll notice, it wasn’t a conclusion, but a question.
.
You said there were categorically no intermediate forms between man and ape. While that in itself is true, since man did not descend from apes, but instead both man and ape share a common (ape-like) ancestor, what I gather you meant to say is that man did not descend from ape-like ancestors.
.
Since there is evidence that indicates that man did descend from ape-like ancestors, I’m trying to figure out on what basis you dismiss this evidence. Is it that you agree that the fossils exist and that the dating methods don’t work, or that the fossils don’t exist, or that the fossils do exist but no ancestral relationship between them has ever been proven?
Most mutations are nuetral or lethal. Very, very rarely are mutations “beneficial.” Mutation isn’t a source of so called macro-evolution.
My basis for believing that human beings did not evolve from so called “lower life forms” is that there is no proof that human beings evolved from lower life forms.
.
It is almost universally recognized that Austrolopithecus is not related to human beings in any way.
.
http://www.halleethehomemaker.com/2010/12/creation-darwinian-evolutionary-frauds-pt-xiv/
Hm, that’s the second time in succession that you responded with a non sequitur.
.
It seems to me that your claim “It is almost universally recognized that Austrolopithecus is not related to human beings in any way” is not supported by facts, as just about any source you can read on this sees Australopithecus as being related in a very specific way, namely that it is an ancestor of homo sapiens”.
.
The article you link to doesn’t back up your claim either. There are two general claims:
.
1. Lucy is ape-like rather than human-like. Given that she’s not meant to be human, but an ape-like human ancestor, this is hardly a problem or even surprising.
.
2. The skeleton is said to consist of parts from two different skeletons. This appears to be false. The 40% of Lucy that were found are all said to stem from the same skeleton. There is an unsubstantiated rumor that the knee came from 3 km away (and from different strata), but that was a reference to a different find that was never claimed to be part of Lucy. Johnson’s own writings clarify this.
.
Be that as it may, I don’t see how this backs up your claim that “It is almost universally recognized that Austrolopithecus is not related to human beings in any way”. But perhaps you didn’t mean for this article to confirm that.
.
To get back to the question, do you agree in general that different kinds of organisms exists in different rock layers of different ages?
“To get back to the question, do you agree in general that different kinds of organisms exists in different rock layers of different ages?”
.
No.
.
I agree that there are fossils but they do not exist in different ages. They exist in the present.
.
I agree that fossils are found at different levels in sediment.
.
I try not to make unfounded assumptions based on those facts.
Since we’ve apparently reached the maximum depth of comments, this is in response to Gregg’s comment that may appear below this one.
.
“I agree that there are fossils but they do not exist in different ages. They exist in the present.”
.
Yes, they exist in the present. I did not say that they “existed in different ages”, though that is certainly a reasonable conclusion to draw, based on the evidence. What I did say was that they “existed in different rock layers of different ages”.
.
As I suspected (and indicated in previous comments), I suspect that your issue is with the validity of dating methods themselves. You “agree that fossils are found at different levels in sediment”. Your explanation for not accepting that these layers represent different ages is that you “try not to make unfounded assumptions based on those facts”.
.
Do I have this right so far?
.
Now, is it possible to draw conclusions based on facts, for example, the relative layering of different types of rocks and fossils, accompanied by, say, radiometric dating methods?
“When the secular argument is that God had to be “created” or “taught” how to do the things He does (like create the universe), then the argument simply chases that back logically to conclude in an all knowing and all mighty being we call God.”
.
I think you have this argument precisely backwards. The argument that the universe must have been created, therefore God must have created it (as a first cause), an easy response is that something in turn must have created God. Does this lead to the conclusion that it really must be God, or does it lead to the conclusion that there is something fishy with the argument to begin with?
.
Without any prejudice to whether God exists or not, I submit that the argument itself is faulty, and that there is no physical nor philosophical basis on which it can be claimed that there must have been a first cause.
It is also possible to conclude that the layers were laid down rapidly as a result of hydro-logic sorting which would account for fossilized objects that span several hundred or thousand layers.
“It is also possible to conclude that the layers were laid down rapidly as a result of hydro-logic sorting which would account for fossilized objects that span several hundred or thousand layers.”
.
1. Such a conclusion would mean first of all a denial of abundant evidence to the contrary from dating methods. Is there an alternate explanation for the results obtained using radiometric dating that does not indicate an old Earth?
.
2. Such a conclusion does not take into account the peculiar and highly consistent sorting of fossils in the respective strata. You mention “hydro-logic sorting”, but does this provide any verifiable explanation that accounts for the positioning of the fossils?
.
Barring these, it doesn’t seem like a very sound conclusion to me.
….”There are NO intermediate forms between man and ape or between lizard and bird or between amphibian and reptile or between fish and mammals.”
.
okay, again I mention Tiktaalik… what is your definition of intermediate form that excludes Tiktaalik as an intermediate between fish and tetrapods?
Tiktaalik is a fish. You can HOPE and have FAITH that it isn’t but it is a fish.
.
Fish experts, and avid Darwinists Ahlberg and Clack concede that “in some respects Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic.” Ahlberg, P.E. and Clack, J.A., News and Views, Nature 440(7085): 747–749), 6 April 2006.
.
Furthermore, if Tiktaalik is supposed to be the evidence for the transition from a swimming fish to a fish that walked around on two fins, then four-footed walking animals predated it by several hundred thousand years according to other Darwinists. Quote, “…the Polish tracks suggest that elpistostegids were an evolutionary dead-end.”
.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/01/06-02.html
.
You can say that if I don’t accept this fish as a transitional form, then I will never accept anything as a transitional form, but that is an arbitrary accusation. I could as easily be arbitrary and state that you see transitional forms in every fish that looks like it might be able to walk around on its fins.
.
Gill structures and lungs are radically different. How do you explain Tiktaalik being able to respire both air and water if that is the hypothesis?
.
Gregg
The fish quote is not relevant IMO – having a combination of characteristics is exactly what you would need to see some transitional feature.
The tracks info is interesting. I didn’t read it or forgot the details. It does imply that Tiktaalik was either not in the direct line or else the line to tetrapods branched off of it (or its cousins) a long time before the date of the Tiktaalik fossils. So Tiktaalik might have been a offshoot of the ancestor rather than an ancestor (which was always an accepted possibility).
The timing doesn’t change the fact that the Tiktaalik fossil shows the tetrapod forelimb bone structure and neck structure within a fish body. This shows the transition. Other fish could perhaps drag themselves along by their fins, but the important thing about Tiktaalik is the bone structure. Whether the original change in bone structure happened at an earlier time than the Tiktaalik fossils does not change that. This is a fish fossil with a tetrapod forelimb bone structure instead a fin bone structure, which makes it an example of an intermediate form between fish and tetrapods.
.
I forget the details of gill and lung but they can both occur at the same time. Lungs did not evolve from gills but from the swim bladder IIRC. There are examples of this in lungfishes and also some amphibians e.g. tadpoles and axolotls. Being able to get oxygen from the air is an advantage to fish living in murky water near the surface and some fish without lungs get oxygen from the air by taking it into their mouths and/or swim bladder or gut ( I forget details) where some oxygen is absorbed across the moist surface of those tissues.
Of course the fish quote is relevant.
Maybe relevant wasn’t the right word.
If you’re using that quote to say that Tiktaalik doesn’t count as a fish-tetrapod intermedate because it is a fish, again, I would ask how you would recognize an intermediate form as intermediate if it didn’t have some features of each? If it had no fish-like qualities, wouldn’t you reject it as an intermediate?
Your quote says that IN SOME RESPECTS Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fish. A few sentences in 6the article after that quote is this line: “Tiktaalik is clearly a transitional form, more tetrapod-like than Panderichthys in its breathing and feeding apparatus, but with similar locomotory adaptations.”
If you meant to imply that these “fish experts” were rejecting Tiktaalik as a transitioonal form in that quote when they said the two species were IN SOME RESPECTS straightforward fish, you would be incorrect.
You put in a quote by Dohzhanzky from his book in 1937. Referring to the second sentence in that quote, which I include below, you said this:
.
….” What they seem to leave out is Dobzhansky’s very precise and rather telling definition.”
.
And you put an emphasis on the word “assumption in that sentence:
.
….”For this reason we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of micro- and macro-evolution, and proceeding on this assumption, to push our investigations as far ahead as this working hypothesis will permit.” (Dobzhansky, 1937.)
.
.
I bought a copy of this book from Amazon used, and without realizing it I ordered the 3rd edition, published in 1951, rather than the 1937 edition that you had used. The first sentence you quoted from Dobzhansky appears essentially unchanged But in the 1951 edition, Dobzhansky has removed the sentence that you quoted above from that paragraph (the one containing the word “assumption”). He added some more paragraphs after it which include this section:
.
“A geneticist can approach macroevolutionary phenomena only by inference from known microevolutionary ones. It is obviously impossible to reproduce in the laboratory the evolution of, for example, the horse tribe, or for that matter the genus Drosophila. All that is possible is to examine the evidence bearing on macroevolution which has been accumulated by paleontologists and morphologists, and to attempt to decide whether it agrees with the hypothesis that all evolutionary changes are compounded of microevolutionary ones. This difficult but important task has been brilliantly accomplished in recent years by Simpson (1949) for paleontological and by Schmalhausen (1949) and Rensch (1947) for comparative anatomical and embryological evidence. The three authors find nothing in the known macroevolutionary phenomena that would require other than the known genetic principles for causal explanation. The words “microevolution” and “macroevolution” are relative terms, and have only descriptive meaning; they imply no difference in the underlying causal agencies.”
.
(and I should have added that 1951 was before Watson and Crick figured out the DNA molecule. It was many years before our current ability to sequence whole genomes and to compare their sequences, as well as the ability to investigate genes and gene expression in embryos. These add new dimensions to our ability to investigate the relationship between species at different taxonomic levels. Comparing sequences gives us a window into the past which we didn’t have before.)
Interesting that he recanted. So, essentially, with the final sentence he now also equivocates his earlier definition of macro with micro just as neo-Darwinists do.
Good point. Crick has some interesting quotes, too.
So, your assumption is that evolution is true, therefore commonalities in the gene code point to a common ancestor.
.
My assumption is that commonalities in the gene code point to a common DESIGNER.
I’ve been wanting to respond to this point about a common designer. I think the evidence doesn’t actually point that way. It depends a bit on what kind of designing process you would envision. I haven’t put together a good reponse yet.
Suppose you are right and that all ‘kinds’ were created separately in a couple of days. What we see in the genomes fits with the idea of evolution. So the rats and mice look very similar in their sequences. The primates – humans, apes, monekys – look similar. Carnivores look more similar to each other than the other lines. If a designer planned all this, it was planned in a way that fits closely with the idea of evolution. But maybe you would say that the designer used some kind of carnivore design plan to make the carnivores and some kind of primate design plan to make the primates, even though each primate kind was actually created separately.
But it isn’t as simple as that. The similarities are not just in the functional genes but in the nonfunctional introns where mutations can accumulate over time. And the patterns of change in synonymous sequences for amino acids within the genes fit the idea of evolution. It is hard to see why a designer would produce this kind of sequence – unless there was a lot of accumulated error in the actual design process (maybe the designer farmed the project out to a bunch of error-prone angel teams).
I would like to do a better comment with some examples of this, but I haven’t done it yet, and I feel bad about that, but maybe someone else will do it. Or maybe this will come up in more detail when you do the posts about information.
(also I think a source of info is the location of SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms). And also the arrangement og genes on the different chromosomes.)
I think ‘recanted’ does not fit as a description here. First, it is a loaded word IMO. I think it has overtones of, first, being about religious beliefs, and this book is not about religion. Despite the definitions you want to use, science is not religion, and in particular this consideration of macro and microevolution has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Second, to me it suggests beliefs that are given up as a result of weakness – either a belief held that the person denies because of being pressured, or a belief given up because it wasn’t a true conviction. Either way I think it suggests some kind of insincerity and weakness. So I dislike the use of that particular word. (Also the word ‘equivocates’ in my opinion is another word with overtones of lying or insincerity or uncertainty, another loaded word.) But even if my sense of the overtones of this word as you used it is not correct, I still don’t see how it fits. I don’t see that he is withdrawing from a position he formally held. I think the increased evidence which he cited has strengthened his position, so that he has stated it more strongly. (Also if he is the first one to use the term macroevolution, as you said, and if he is one of the sources of the Modern Synthesis, then if he defined the word, I don’t see how he could be recanting.) Anyway – not important, but this is one reason why it’s hard for me to respond to a whole post – even one word can carry extra freight and your posts are very long.
.
I looked at a talkorigins post on the definition of macroevolution which eventually got way too philosophical for me to follow. But the idea I got from it was that the word macroevolution was used in different ways, with not that much concern for an exact definition. As far as I’m concerned, if that’s true, the easiest thing would be not to give too much significance to that word. Instead of talking about how the evolutionary biologists are shifting the goalposts or whatever, concentrate on the meaning you’re interested and not whether the word ‘macroevolution’ is applied to it.
First let me say that Christianity and Science find ways to make their view points narrow and unyeilding. Science is based on testable hypotheses. Christianity is based on the only way to heaven is through Christ. My assertion is why must these two views be so far apart among the extremists on both sides. I am a biologist. I see and believe that change in species does occur as changes in nature selects those things that are most beneficial. These selections allow a species to gradually change over time. For this reason, African Elephants differ from Indian Elephants. etc. I also strongly believe that Christ died to save me from my sins. I believe in an all knowing God who has overseen ever process that occurs in this universe. End of discussion! MY QUESTION and MY BELIEF is WHY IS IT WRONG TO BELIEVE THAT THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CREATED BY GOD TO ALLOW US TO EVOLVE AND GROW AS A SPECIES? WITH EACH IMPROVEMENT WE BECOME BETTER FITTED TO OUR ENVIRONMENT AND CLOSER TO REACHING THE PERFECTION HE INTENDED FOR US. Couldn’t creation be an ongoing process without boundaries limited by the imagery of Genesis?
Your shouted, “WHY IS IT WRONG TO BELIEVE THAT THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CREATED BY GOD TO ALLOW US TO EVOLVE AND GROW AS A SPECIES? WITH EACH IMPROVEMENT WE BECOME BETTER FITTED TO OUR ENVIRONMENT AND CLOSER TO REACHING THE PERFECTION HE INTENDED FOR US.”
.
My answer is : There is absolutely no reason you can’t believe whatever you want to believe as long as you are willing to ignore the Bible.
.
If you want to believe the Bible, you will. If you don’t, you won’t.
.
Who am I to say that is right or wrong? One day, you will discover that answer for yourself.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
God created me and all that is. Christ died to forgive me of my sins and give me eternal life. Where in the Bible does it say the process of evolution does not exist. I BELIEVE in the Bible. BUT it does not contradict my views on Evolution. Christians who chose to dismiss ideas they don’t understand give all Christians a bad name. The church has always been slow to accept science that they felt contradicted biblical teachings (ie. Geocentric Theory/Heliocentric Theory) In the end, science only strengthens the legitimacy of the Bible. The conflict you are choosing to create between the Bible and Evolution is being made out of ignorance of what the theory of evolution states. I don’t have to wait to discover for myself that God will forgive my sins and willingly accept me into his Kingdom, I already know. As my preacher once told me, it doesn’t matter how you understand, translate, or paraphrase, it doesn’t matter whether you are a literalist or not, what matters is that you believe in Jesus Christ.
As far as who are you to decide what is right or wrong? That’s exactly what you are trying to do in this blog. Your are pushing an agenda that you think is right. Nothing wrong with that, just don’t deny what you are trying to do. .
“…Mutation isn’t a source of so called macro-evolution”
.
.You said this in your comment, but of course that is contrary to the conclusion of evolutionary biologists. Mutation is considered the source for the variation in organisms. It doesn’t matter whether you are talking about examples of what might be called macro-evolution or micro-evolution (e.g. macro-evolution from the hypothetical ancestor for both cats and dogs to cats in one line of descent and dogs in another line of descent, or microevolution from a cat kind to lions and tigers, or a dog kind to wolves and coyotes). In either case mutation is the source of variation. In general, I think that macroevolution is a loose term for talking about large differences in phenotype such as between cats and dogs. But it is considered a reasonable assumption that this change was the accumulation of generations of small changes which for each step could be labelled microevolution, so no change in mechanism. An additional possibility is that for some distinct changes, mutations might be especially likely to be in regions controlling development. But the source of variation is considered to be mutation in all cases.
…”Punctuated Equilibrium, the second hypothesis, assumes that some as yet unknown or unidentified “evolutionary force” (which sounds an awful lot like “magic” to me) can lead to, excuse me but I simply must, can lead to “Cladogenesis!” This notion states that, basically, a lizard can “evolve” into an avian, such as a finch, in the space of a scant 50 to 70 thousand years and leave absolutely no trace of having done so in the fossil record. ”
.
.
This is not how I understand it at all. First, there is no unknown evolutionary force; it’s just the same processes, mutation, natural selection, plus statistical effects on populations like drift and bottlenecks.
Second, I’d like to see a reference for anyone thinking a finch evolved from a lizard in 70,000 years. This is not what Gould was saying. I think you exaggerated for effect or else you don’t understand the idea of punctuated equilibrium.
Here’s an explanation:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIA1bPunctuated.shtml
Also:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIA1aHypotheses.shtml
(I don’t know why you are so contemptuous of the use of precise definitions in technical discussions. Doesn’t your field have its own language? (I think it’s related to computers but I’m not sure; but certainly computer science has its own particular terms. The army surely has its own precise terms. And if you think all biological terms (many of which go back to Latin or greek roots) seem pompous and meant to sound authoritative, what about gene names like Sonic hedgehog? Personally I had never heard of some terms you’ve used like anagenesis, although maybe they are used frequently in particular fields.)
You say “Christians who chose to dismiss ideas they don’t understand give all Christians a bad name.”
.
I find that remark highly judgmental. It is nearly as judgmental as a fallacious proclamation along the lines of “Highly judgmental people who profess Christianity give all Christians a bad name.”
.
You say, “The conflict you are choosing to create between the Bible and Evolution [sic.] is being made out of ignorance of what the theory of evolution states.”
.
I find that highly judgmental remark to be greatly uninformed of my level of understanding, my intellectual acumen, and my mental prowess. May I ask why you chose to capitalize the word evolution?
.
You say, “As far as who are you to decide what is right or wrong? That’s exactly what you are trying to do in this blog. Your are pushing an agenda that you think is right. Nothing wrong with that, just don’t deny what you are trying to do.”
.
That is not my goal. In fact, I studiously do not to engage in any kind of religious debate. I continue to harken back to a scientific questions at hand and debate the merits of the science whether based in fact, logic, or assumption. If you had read more than one post, you would have gathered that rather obvious fact.
.
To restate, it is entirely up to you to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For the record, I do believe on Jesus Christ as my savoir and the perfector of my faith. So if, as you say, “nothing else matters” then why do my literal beliefs in the infallibility of God’s holy word offend you so much? Why does that matter to you?
.
And if, as you say, there is “nothing wrong with [my alleged agenda]” — then what exactly is your objection? Even if your assessment is accurate (which it isn’t) then why protest so very much?
.
Or, is it that you are not being completely truthful? Be honest. In your opinion, is there actually something wrong with my beliefs outside of my faith in Christ? And does your opinion explain your epithetical inferences concerning my alleged agenda?
.
In other words, if you were consistent in what you state are your beliefs, you would not object so stringently to a fundamental belief in ALL of God’s word as authoritative. It is much more comfortable to exist as a compromised Christians when you can ignore rebukes concerning the areas of your faith that you have already compromised. I understand that since I was once were you are.
.
But please, deal with yourself and others honestly. Understand why you choose to believe what you believe. Understand that capitalizing “evolution” in your heart does not make it true or even factual, or something other than a secular ideology. Understand all of the assumptions that you must accepting as fact do contradict God’s holy word in many ways. And if there is really “nothing wrong with” a Christian faith that is — let’s say more rigorous — than your own, then try not to stand in such harsh judgement of those who are not so liberal with their beliefs as you appear to be.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
Honestly — don’t you think you can get all kinds of different cats without mutation? Don’t you think you can derive all kinds of dogs without mutation? Or corn? Or pine trees? Or peas? Or geraniums? Or anything that can sexually reproduce and thus hybridize absent mutation? And isn’t that just selection (which I support as observable and thus operational science, whether artificial selection or occurring in nature) and not reliant on mutation?
.
It is my understanding that mutation is allegedly the “engine” for lack of a better term, that accounts for the rapid speciation that allegedly allows one kind to “evolve” into another kind — ala lizards to birds.