Moe,
Please read it all, I know it's a bit long, but you need to read it all to see where I am coming from. I beleive in creation in the sense that the big bang and spontaneous generation don't make logical sense to me. I am sure Funkyderek and Jan will have some fun with me on this one. And please remember - I respect your beliefs, please respect mine.
I respect you. I do not respect any false ideas or opinions, though I of course tolerate that people harbour those ideas.
Let me start with.....Definition of the word *theory* according to New Webster's Dictionary:
THEORY - Speculate... abstract thought...general abstract principles of science... hypothetical set of facts... scientifically acceptable body of principle offered to explain phenomena.. for the sake of argument..
This was a bad start, Moe. You should have consulted an authoritative scientific textbook to learn defintions on scientific terms. Luckily, this wasn't as bad as it usually gets when philologers move into the field of hard science. I guess they learn too. I have bolded the part of the defintion of theory that is relevant to scientific theory. But it is quite incomplete to explain that "theory" to a layperson means something completely different from what "theory" means to a scientist.
Then I will explain what a scientific theory is, or rather, I will let a known scientist do it. Stephen Jay Gould is a dubious authority on evolution in some respects, but surely very good at expressing his ideas, and nobody explained better how creationists and others misuse a confusion to create an impression that the word "just a theory" in any way implies evolution is less than a fact. Gould says (and please pay attention now, Moe, I'd hate to have to repeat this simple fact to you over and over again):
"In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact" - part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): 'Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science - that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.'Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent'. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of evolution." (Stephen J. Gould "Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981; bold added)
If you paid attention through all that, Moe, you will see that it's totally meaningless to say that evolution is "just a theory". It is exactly as meaningless as saying that "gravity is just a theory" and then walk off a tall building expecting to suspend in mid-air. Gravity, you see, is a fact, and if you walked off a tall building you would experience that very quickly. Evolution is also a fact, as anyone who has been infected with some nasty viruses have learned the hard way.
Evolution is a fact, Evolution is also a theory. These words do not say very much about the degree of certainty, they tell us what they are. Evolution is observed data: allele change in populations over generation. It is a definite fact. Evolution is also a theory (indeed, a few theories). It is a theory that evolutionary change can be explained by Darwin's theory of natural selection, and in particular what is called the Neo-Darwninian theory of evolution by Hamilton and Fisher. This theory of evolution by natural is not in any way uncertain or in doubt.It is a solidly established principle of science, beyond any reasonable or sane doubt.
Definition of the word *evolution* according to New Webster's Dictionary:A theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other pre-existing types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations and a process where the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena.
I have no idea what the author of these lines had smoked when he wrote it, but I can tell you this: he started off well, he started to lose it in the middle, and the less said about the end, the better. The stuff about the "whole universe" sounds like some new age crap. It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, neither about the fact of biological evolution.
Micro-evolution vs. Macro-evolution - (For you science buffs)I believe in micro-evolution - and not macro-evolution, so here are some notes to ponder from my research and personal findings.
It is rarely scientists who use the terms "micro" and "macro" to distinguish between small- and large-scale evolution. Mostly, it is creationists. Macro/micro are for examples used in economics, to distinguish between models dealing with individual actors and models dealing with a whole society, consisting of millions of such actors. In that case, it will be absurd to accept the "micro" model and reject the "macro" model.
While not denying there exists situations where this disntinction between small-scale timeframes (and therefor smallscale evolutionary changes) and large-scale timeframes (and changes) can be a valid and useful one, I have to point out that it's logically indefensible to affirm microevolution and deny macroevolution except if 1) you deny that the longer timeframes are possible (as young earth creationists do, asserting universe is no more than 10,000 years old); or 2) you can demonstrate that there exists mechanisms in nature that prevents small-scale change from accumulating into larger changes over longer periods.
Micro-evolution reflects biological variations within a species or biological kind (varieties/breeds of dogs and cats, etc...) This is not a theory because it is taught as scientific fact and it has been proven.
As I pointed out above, you are totally confused about what is a fact, and what is a theory. Surely, genetic variations are observed every day. You can see the phenotypic expression of this variation every day, in humans and animals alike. The theories explaining this variation, for example natural selection and genetic drift, are not at all controversial. They are extremely common-sensical and can be tested easily both in real life and in mathematical models. Again, the fatcs (data) and theory (explanative model) are not at different levels in the hierarchy of certainty, in this case.
I now have to come with a caveat regarding your use of the word "proved" or "proven". Especially when you use constructs like "proven scientific fact", you really say something about your lack of experience about anything in science. It is true that occasionally (luckily, not often), even real scientists find themselves tempted to use such terms when describing their level of certainty in a fact or theory. Science doesn't deal with "proof", it deals with evidence. Science is a system that deals with uncertainty in both observation and human thought, and attaches error bars to these factors, using methods of mathematics and statistics. In popular science, you do not see these error bars. In real scientific journals, they are always there. Of course, the residue uncertainty in even the most certain scientific theory all too often provide a way out for the intellectually dishonest who for religious or other reasons refuse to accept a scientific fact, That is, intellectually, like walking off a tall building becuase there still exists some chance that a quantum coincidence will save their lives by bringing them safely down to the ground.
Be that as it may, I always avoid the use "proof" when dealing with other things than mathematical proof. The word "scientific proof" is an oxymoron. Yet, no discipline in human thought really has more basis for certainty (in specific cases) than natural sciences.
Back to topic.
Macro-evolution teaches that biological variations in nature occurred with simple to complex species or biological kinds to the extreme sense that their biological kind over time was totally altered and changed into another biological type. This theory is taught as scientific fact but has not been proven.
This is the assertion upon which all your conclusions rest. Fact is, large scale evolution has been demonstrated as fact beyond any reasonable doubt.
To deny macro-evolution while affirming micro-evolution is equivalent to accepting that it is true (an observed fact) that a continent can drift ten centimeters in a century, while still denying that multiplication works and that a continent can drift 1 km in a million years.It is logically indefensible and absurd.
I will now outline some of the solid evidence which is the reason biologists do not even consider denial of large-scale evolution worthy of serious thought. Rightfully, anti-evolutionism is considered the domain of religious fanaticism, among undereducated people who simply refuse to accept even the most obvious facts.
Fossil evidence: If direct creation were true, there is no reason to believe that intermediate forms between known (contemporary and past) life forms should have ever existed. Neither was there any reason to believe that the vast majority of species are long extinct. Yet, those are predictions made by the theory of evolution. The alternative theory, direct creation, indeed makes the opposite assumption. Predictions are the most important way to test theories, because then you can obtain independent testing and are unable to save it by ad-hoc assumptions.
Example one: there are massive differences between reptiles and mammals. For one, reptiles lay eggs (with very few exceptions), while mammals give birth. And there are also mammals who lay eggs, somewhat a surprise for the biologers who discovered them, and a good confirmation of evolution if that was needed. More important, however, were the fundamental differences between the bone structure in the head of reptiles vs mammals. And there have been found fossils of intermediate forms that shows how small bones have cirtually wandered around in the head to rearrange a reptile to a mammal. If you want details, just ask. Or, better, open some textbooks on evolution. If evolution is not a fact, how come these fossils exist?
Example two: human evolution is what most creationists find most challenging to their little world view. Obviously, finches may well have evolved, but the topic human evolution hits too close to home for comfort.
If human beings evolved from ape-like ancestors, we can predict certain intermediate forms that should have existed.
The major differences between modern man and [modern] apes is the fact that humans are bipedal and that we have larger brains. So, the theory of evolution predicts that there should exist intermediate forms which shows a gradual development of 1) brain size, and also 2) ape-like forms which were bipedal. Some other differences should also be explained by intermediate forms, like the difference between human and ape teeth.
What do the facts show?
1) Is there evidence that there has been a gradual evolution of ape-like creatures with increasing brain capacity? That is clearly the case:
Look at this summary of information from The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1986 printing, vol 18, p. 954): Alas, this board doesn't seem to support tables, but I will try to make this readable:
Smaller Australopithecus, 440 cc avg. braincase, 6 fossil samples, age 2,000,000-4,000,000 years
Robuster Australopithecus, 519 cc avg. braincase, 4 fossil samples, age >1,800,000 years
Homo Habilis, 640 cc avg. braincase, 4 fossil samples, age 1,800,000-2,000,000 years
Javanese Home erectus, 883 cc avg. braincase, 7 fossil samples, age 1,500,000-300,000 years
Chinese (Peking) H. erectus 1043 cc avg. braincase, 5 fossil samples, age as above
H. Sapiens 1450 cc avg. braincase
This is exactly as predicted by the theory of evolution.
2) Is there any evidence there ever existed bipedal apes? One word: Lucy. This species, Australopithecus Afarensis, can be described as a chimpanzee that walked upright, like we do. Some other differences exist, for example, afarensis had teeth much like ours, not the larger canine teeth modern chimps has. Afarensis was an intermediate form between ancient apes and modern humans.
The evidence is therefor fully in accordance with the theory. If the hypothesis of direct creation and design was true, there is no reason to expect these species to have existed at all. But they did!
Genetic evidence: While the evidence for evolution was overwhelming already in Darwin's days, which is the reason his theory had such a massive impact on scientists and other intellectuals in his day, a knowledgable person could perhaps be somewhat intellectually sane and still deny it back then. After the development of modern genetics, however, all counter-arguments have been effectively silenced. It is simply not intellectually feasible to deny the fact that all organisms on this planet are related, when we see how the DNA code of ourselves and all other organisms provides direct testimony about the evolutionary process, and direct evidence of kinship.
It is a well-published fact that we share about 99.7 % of our DNA with the chimps. The most interesting fact in this context, however, is related to what is called psuedocode or junk code.
The question of common descent between humans and other species on this planet is no longer up for debate. And it's the DNA that gave us the ultimate smoking gun.
You may be aware that some map makers put "copyright traps" into their maps. That is small irregularities not important for the map's purpose. If someone copies the map and tries to sell it as their own, including these intentional "errors", any court of law will convict them of copyright violation. It will be beyond reasonable doubt that they copied from the map, not the terrain.
As it is, our DNA is full of errors. While it is true that the replication of DNA is remarkably accurate, errors do occur. Every human being has a number of mutations in their code. Most such errors have no consequences for the phenotype.
However, as times goes by and evolution changes species considerably, this means a lot of junk accumulates in the DNA. In fact, most of the DNA we have in us -- and this is true about every other organism -- is useless junk code, so-called pseudocode. Some of it contains copies of code used elsewhere (reduplications). Lots of it is code that was used by some of our ancestors. And, when we see that we share these meaningless sequences with chimps and other species as well, it is direct evidence to the fact of evolution.
Much of this pseudocode made sense once, when it was carried in our distant ancestors. Some of it was perhaps used to make gills on a fish, to control the temperature in one of our reptile ancestors, or, more recently, they provided the tails that some of our ape-like ancestors had. And in the latter case, we can see direct evidence quite often: it is not uncommon that a human baby is born with a visible tail (promptly removed with modern surgery), a throwback to our ancestors and direct evidence that we descend from a species that had tails. If this is not direct evidence for macroevolution, what is?
Other species have more dramatic throwbacks. Sometimes, a whale is caught which has the bone structure of legs inside its fish-like body structure. Whales with legs? Yes, throwbacks to the time when the ancestors of whales walked on dry land. This is absolute, undeniable evidence that the whales descends from land animals, just as the theory of evolution predicted. If this is not direct evidence (or proof, as you would say) of macro evolution, what is?
Charles Darwin assumed in his theories that because micro-evolution occurs then macro-evolution must also be possible, but scientific evidence only supports a possibility of natural variation. Example, a mule is the product of a horse and a donkey, but this biological variation is unable to reproduce and is still considered to be an equine type animal (horse, donkey and mule.) (For your reference - a mule is a cross between a mare/female horse and a male donkey. A hinny is a cross between a jennet/female donkey and a male horse.) Dogs and cats can change in color, size and shape, but will not mutate into another animal or sub-species.
First, you are obviously ignorant about Darwin's work. His personal intimate knowledge of thousands of species of organisms, and fossils of known past organisms, was unsurpassed in his days. His writings were encyclopedic in scope, and his attention to detail breathtaking. It is pathetic to see people who have no clue about how Darwin work, propagate some wild idea that he jumped to his conclusions just by observing species of finches on the Galapagos.
You here assert that there is some sort of "species barrier" that stops evolution. In fact, no physical evidence supports this, and considering the fact briefly outlined above, we can safely reject that claim as absurd and contrary to facts.
Macro-evolution is a theory that does not establish any biological limits different variations and change. Example, macro-evolution teaches that over time a fish evolved into an apelike creature and that ape evolved into a human form. This theory was founded upon similarities in design (monkeys resemble humans just like Eartha Kit looks like a cat )
As I have demonstrated, it was founded on much more than that. It has also, since then, been demonstrated as a fact by fossil and genetic evidence, among other things. And yes, evolution assumes such mythical "boundaries" does not exist, because they don't.
You claim such boundaries exist. You should provide evidence for this claim, which somehow has escaped the attention of all the world's foremost biologers for the last 130 years or so.
Macro-evolutionary changes are not a theory that can be proven (A theory means to speculate, abstract thought, see above definition) even over millions of years. Creationists believe that genetic and biological similarities between different species is a result of being designed two serve similar functions.
And, as I have demonstrated above, creationists are wrong. There is no evidence for design. Evolution is a fact, and that includes large scale evolution,
The fossil record and mutations (a cleft palate, multi-headed frog, Siamese twins, etc...) serve as the evidence for evolution.
You quickly jump over all inconvenient evidence that contradicts your pet theory. It is tempting to see this as evidence of intellectual dishonesty.
The basis of evolution is the belief that life originally evolved from nonliving matter, or "spontaneous generation."
This is utter hogwash. Evolution is and remains a fact, regardless of the status of abiogenesis.
Naturally, considering that we know that life consists of mulecules that have a strong tendency to self-organize under the right circumstances (as demonstrated in experiments by Miller et al), it's not exactly a stretch to consider this evidence that primitive life once originated by this process.
If the competing theory is that a super-complicated being, able to create entire universed at will, somehow spontanously originated in nothingness, there is no doubt where the evidence points.
This theory was successfully refuted by the experiments of Louis Pasteur (he discovered that most infectious diseases are caused by germs) in the late nineteenth century. (***see bottom of page for more on Louis's findings***) Evidence points to the fact that life can only result from pre-existing life.
This is a massive red herring. Pasteur's evidence does not in any way contradict self-organizing of organic molecules into self-replicating ones.
Scientists cannot create a life from (even a once celled organism) nonliving materials, but they can alter established life forms through genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is very complex process and often times is performed by transplanting a gene from one living species into the DNA of another species which doesn't have that particular gene.
Another meaningless red herring.
Scientists also cannot regenerate life using a dead cell. In order to alter genetics, they must use living organisms only.
A whole tin of red herrings. This is getting boring.
There are four types of nucleic acids which make up DNA. A single DNA molecule contains anywhere from thousands to millions of those four types. It is a precise sequence and order of nucleic acids in DNA that determines the sequence of the various amino acids making proteins constructing our body and it's tissue/matter. The DNA of a bacteria is three million sequential letters long, but the DNA of a human cell is three billion (yes, that is billion vs. million) sequential letters long.
And?
It's obvious that the life that first originated, probably on earth but perhaps elsewhere, was much less complex than even the most primitive life that exists today.
This has very little to do with the fact of evolution.
Louis Pasteur facts:(snip)
As others have pointed out, a meaningless appeal to authority. Evolution was in its very infancy when Pasteur lived. Being right in one thing does not make him right about everything else, especially not when he has not even seen the evidence available then, and of course, could not dream about what we have today.
I have provided you with some pointers to the lines that directly establish evolution, including large scale evolution, as a fact beyond any serious doubt. You claim to have studied this topic, yet you are either unaware of these facts, or you have purposedly ignored them. I will have to assume you were simply ignorant, I will encourage you to heed the oft-repeated advice to continue your education and learn before you try to teach.
Like others, I strongly advice you to read Richard Dawkins' books, in particular The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker.
- Jan
--
"People are apprehensive when they meet me. They think I'm going to eat
them. But underneath it all, I'm quite shy." - Freddie Mercury
