NewWay

Joined

• started 8 topics
• posted 196 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by NewWay

• 
  114

  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

  short and to the point.. this is the first page.

  click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewWay

  Grunt: Thanks for your encouraging words! I will be leaving this subject for others to discuss as I've already spent more time on it than I was bargaining for. Also, I've just received a book (on an entirely different subject) ordered several weeks ago which I had to import from the USA, so my head will be buried in that for the next couple of days.
  
  Kind regards.
• 
  114

  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

  short and to the point.. this is the first page.

  click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewWay

  Original Message: I'm not joking, but when I opened Internet Explorer I got a pop-up dialogue box telling me that my hard disc had been prepared for formatting and the next time I started the computer I would have to reinstall the operating system. It seems my computer has picked up a 'virus', so if you don't see any posts from me soon, you will know why! Thankfully, my knowledge of computers and software will mean that the initial task to up-and-running will take at most a couple of hours, but sorting out all my data and programs for reinstallation will take some time.
  Update:
  
  It turns out that my computer might have been be playing tricks with me, as everything went 'normally' through the startup procedure. I may reformat it anyway, just to make sure I get rid of any lurking gremlins. (Edited to include update message)

  Edited by - NewWay on 7 August 2002 20:34:19
• 
  114

  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

  short and to the point.. this is the first page.

  click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewWay

  A SUMMARY AND COMMENTS ON "OBSERVED INSTANCES OF SPECIATION"

  
  1. Introduction
  
  [1.1] This article addresses the main points covered in the September 1, 1995 version of the article "Observed Instances of Speciation" ("OIOS") written by Joseph Boxhorn. Mr Boxhorn refers to himself, at the time of writing his article, as 'a student' who is obviously attending some academic institution (see "OIOS" 3.0, para. 2).
  
  [1.2] Please note that when the term 'non-specialist' is used in this article it refers to those people who have not studied biology. Likewise, the term 'specialist' refers to those academics who fall under the general title of 'biologists' (zoologists, botanists, etc).
  
  [1.3] Although you the reader may be a specialist, I have tried to write in such a way so that even those with no knowledge of biology whatsoever can follow my analysis. So, if at times I may be stating the obvious (in your informed mind), I would ask for your patience and understanding.
  
  [1.4] A reference number has been given for each paragraph (e.g. [1.4]) in order to facilitate easier location of a specific text appearing in a particular paragraph, should this be necessary for discussion purposes. This numbering system should not be confused with that which is used for subject division in legal, business, and academic documents.
  
  [1.5] Unless stated or indicated otherwise, the text of this article is completely my own work.
  
  2. Purpose Of This Article
  
  [2.1] "OIOS" was brought to my attention via a thread in an online forum discussing evolution and 'creationism'. I had made this assertion:
  
  [2.2] "We have no tangible evidence that one species evolved into another"
  
  [2.3] Now, it has to be remembered - and I am being quite candid here - that beyond what I was taught at school (over 25 years ago), biology has never been a personal field of study. Therefore, my statement was based upon a non-specialist everyday common view of the word 'species'.
  
  [2.4] Although my knowledge of biology is obviously limited, I hope that the reader will judge what is written here on its own merits, looking at any conclusions I have come to on the basis of logical reasoning alone. I have, of necessity, had to consult certain reference works in order to get a better understanding of terms used by biologists.
  
  [2.5] This article is certainly not a vehicle for expressing contempt for Mr Boxhorn's "OIOS". I found his article to be very well researched, well written, informative and indicative of a character who wishes to be sure of what he has been taught via the scientific community. Therefore his article, in my opinion, is worthy of respectful consideration.
  
  3. Short Glossary Of Words
  
  [3.1] Presented below, is a small word list especially for the benefit of non-specialists. Each entry has been defined according to the relevant meaning found in the Oxford English Reference Dictionary.
  
  [3.2] taxonomy - "The Science of classification, esp. of living and extinct organisms."
  
  [3.3] genus - "1. Biol. A taxonomic grouping of organisms having common characteristics distinct from those of other genera. usu. containing several or many species and being one of a series constituting a taxonomic family. 2. A kind or class having common characteristics"
  
  [3.4] species - "1. A class of things having some common characteristics. 2. Biol. A taxonomic rank below a genus, consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding and denoted by a Latin binomial."
  
  [3.5] strain - "A breed or stock of animals, plants, etc."
  
  [3.6] speciation - "Biol. The formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution."
  
  [3.7] zoology - "The scientific study of animals, esp. with reference to their structure, physiology, classification, and distribution."
  
  [3.8] entomology - "The branch of zoology concerned with the study of insects."
  
  [3.9] morphology - "Biol. The study of the forms of organisms."
  
  [3.10] phylogenesis - "The evolutionary development and diversification of groups of organisms or particular features of organisms."
  
  [3.11] obligately - "Biol. That has to be as described (obligate parasite)."
  
  [3.12] hypothesis - "1. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without the assumption of its truth. 2. A supposition made as a starting point for further investigation from known facts."
  
  4. What Does 'Species' Mean?
  
  [4.1] Before considering the discussion on this subject as dealt with in "OIOS", I think it of importance for non-specialists to note this quote from "Encyclopaedia Of Animals" (page 12, para. 1), edited by Dr Maurice Burton:
  
  [4.2] "It was, however, left to a Swedish botanist, Karl von Linne (1707-1778), or Carolus Linnaeus as he preferred to be known, to take a revolutionary step. Linnaeus suggested that each species should be known by two names, a generic name and a specific name. Thus, the domestic dog is Canis (name of genus) familiaris (name of species)"
  
  [4.3] After Mr Boxhorn's introduction, he takes up the subject of "Species Definitions" (2.0). He says, "A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species". He reveals to the non-specialist that "This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community". Of the "different species concept currently in use by biologists", he gives a resume of four, which he appears (to me) to consider of particular note. Of the four concepts, two especially stand out as being of particular relevance to how non-specialists and specialists often classify living things into 'species'.
  
  [4.4] "The Folk Concept of Species" (2.1) is shown to be a mental grouping of animals and plants according to both their reproductive compatability and what they look like. It is used particularly among people who live "close to nature". FCS seems to me to be closer to the specialist term 'genus'. For instance, a horse and an ass not only have 'horse-like' features, but are able to mate and thus produce a 'horse-like' mule. Both the horse and the ass share a common genus (Equus).
  
  [4.5] "The Biological Species Concept" (2.2) is apparently "the theoretically preeminent species definition" according to "OIOS". So it would seem that this concept (BSC) has wide acceptance amongst biologists, although Mr Boxhorn says, "The BSC is most strongly accepted among vertebrate zoologists and entomologists" (2.2.1). Although there have been variations on the definition of BSC, I understand from "OIOS" that the current view of what constitutes a 'species' is a "reproductively isolated" group. This creates a more restrictive classification than FCS, as it is not based on whether one type of animal is capable of reproducing with another, but whether it naturally does so. When zoologists look at animals in their natural habitat, it becomes apparent by their behaviour whether or not they 'belong' to each as a group. That is why although a horse and an ass share the same genus according to the taxonomy of biologists, they have a different 'species' label, that is 'caballus' and 'asinus' respectively.
  
  [4.6] "OIOS" informs us that there "is an abundance of asexual populations that this definition just doesn't apply to" (2.2.2). It also states that "the BSC cannot be practically applied to delimit species". For practical reasons it may not be possible to test where the boundary between one 'species' and another may lie. Mr Boxhorn gives an interesting example concerning bluegill sunfish. He tells us that where he lives (Wisconsin) there are "16,000 lakes and ponds", and estimates that to test all possibilities of crossbreeding amongst varieties of bluegill sunfish would require a test sample of 60,000,000 of these fish!
  
  [4.7] According to "OIOS" in practice even those who strongly support BSC use other means of identification such as "Phenetic (or Morphological) Species Concept" (2.3), in which 'species' is defined as "the smallest groups that are consistently distinct by ordinary means". Even here, the author points out that "ordinary means" can mean different things to different biologists.
  
  [4.8] Another way of defining 'species' is via "Phylogenetic Species Concepts" (2.4), of which there are several. Each of these asserts that "classifications should reflect the best supported hypothesis of the phylogeny of the organisms".
  
  [4.9] Mr Boxhorn makes a most important observation with regard to the whole subject of observed instances of 'speciation': "What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts" (2.5) At this point in "OIOS" the author warns against using the BSC as a universal tool of measurement for delineating 'species'. Although, as he says the most reasonable concept to apply in many cases will be the BSC, in "many other cases some other definition will be more appropiate".
  
  5. Mr Boxhorn Looks For Reports Of 'Speciation'
  
  [5.1] The first hurdle Mr Boxhorn had to negotiate was that of the lack of accessible collections of reports on 'speciation' events. Such a situation was indicative to him of a seeming lack of interest in biologists wanting to reference these events. He put this lack of interest down to the belief that "the biological community considers this [i.e. about actual 'speciation' events] a settled issue" (3.0).
  
  [5.2] He also thought another reason to be that they had accepted the view that many 'speciation' events would take far too long to be observable in the lifetime of a human being, so a lot more theoretical 'speciation' events have been discussed than those that have actually been observed. Lastly, he notes the current trend towards discussion of 'How?' rather than 'Where?'
  
  6. "OIOS" Notes On Valid 'Speciation'
  
  [6.1] "OIOS" remarks on the BSC's reasonably "unambigious" way of testing for 'species'. However, it is argued that physical isolation itself or selective breeding is not evidence of a 'species' boundary. Mr Boxhorn gives a very good example where human beings might selectively mate according to hair colour (4.1.1). So, in that case the BSC could be used to define blondes, brunettes, and redheads as different 'species', even though they are all human beings. There may be a physical reason why a human being cannot mate with another human being, but that does not place a 'species' boundary between the two.

  [6.2] Concerning "obligately asexual organisms", "OIOS" asserts that "it is not obvious how much change is necessary to claim that a population has speciated" (4.2). Of course, as "OIOS" points out, there are those 'species' which change shape within their lifetimes, but this does not make them a new 'species'. An example of this would be a caterpillar (i.e. it 'changes' into a butterfly).
  
  7. Observed Instances Of 'Speciation'
  
  [7.1] This article will deal only with observed 'speciation' examples given in "OIOS" to which BSC can be applied via the taxonomic scheme. It will not accept as 'evidence' those examples which have been 'hypothesized' or thought 'may' have been cases of 'speciation'. I will refer to these examples as 'observed BSC-definable'. Since I don't currently feel qualified to make comments in the field of genetics, I will not attempt to discuss those reports that deal explicitly with unusual chromosomal changes, nor any cases that fall into the category of "ambigious".
  
  [7.2] "OIOS" gives four examples of observed BSC-definable 'speciation' in plants (5.1.1). In three of these cases each had a common genus - Primula, Trapopogonan, and Brassica.
  
  [7.3] The strange case of the radish and cabbage is of particular interest as both have a different genus (Raphanus and Brassica, respectively). "Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species." These plants "had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage". If this report is verifiable, then those who would define a 'species' by genus, would probably think that biologists might like to take another look at how they group vegetables. Certainly in this case there is obviously some compatibilty between the two groups. Nevertheless, I do find this example to be worthy of note.
  
  [7.4] In the case of Woodsia abbeae (5.1) both 'parents' came from the same Woodsia genus. Likewise with the examples involving genus Stephanomeira and genus Zea.
  
  [7.5] The cases reported involving fruit flies (5.3) all involve 'strains' of the same type of fly. So, any 'speciation' occurred within the same genus. This is true of examples relating to houseflies (5.4) and the Gall Former Fly (5.5).
  
  [7.6] Examples involving flour beetles (5.6) and Lab Rat worms (5.7) involved the same type (different "strains"), as did the "parasite or symbiont" example (5.8).

  8. Conclusion

  
  
  [8.1] Its seems that the whole subject of 'speciation' is not as simple as it might at first seem. Given that their are differences of opinion over what constitutes a 'species', then 'speciation' events are open to interpretation based upon one's definition of 'species'. In the scientific community it appears that BSC as a means for determining 'species' plays a dominant role, however, there are other ways which are used in certain circumstances.
  
  [8.2] The classification system in common use amongst biologists, is an academic framework in which to look at life forms, and like all man-made systems is not perfect. All the reports that I have commented on, bar one, have taken place within the same genus. My own definition of 'species' was at the time I made my online statement close to what biologists call a 'genus'. Such a demarkation of 'species' is based on actual procreational compatability. It is based upon a belief that there is a certain point at which cross-breeding meets a barrier which reads, "So far you may come, but no further".
  
  [8.3] So to the online forum member who took issue with my statement concerning 'speciation', I would like to re-phrase it with the following additions:
  
  [8.4] I am not aware of any observable generation of any lifeform that would fall into the category of 'species' as I would mentally classify it. If I were pushed for a straight definition within the taxonomic system used by biologists, I would reply 'genus'. I am aware of a case where apparently a new 'genus' was produced from two different genera, but I reserve judgement on this until at least another example of this occurrence can be produced in such a manner that it can be examined (e.g. photographs, video stills) to my satisfaction. I hope you will respect my non-commital, for would you make a major change to a personal opinion on the basis of one third-hand piece of 'evidence', and one which you could not personally examine to your satisfaction?

  9. Important Update
  
  [9.1] The same evening that I completed this article, I thought I would take a look at the genera for camels and llamas. I was amazed to find that these both have different genera (Camelus and Lama). However, both share the same 'family' name (next category above genus) of Camelidae. You may be wondering why I was interested in those two types of animals and why I was surprised by the different genera. Good point! Here is the reason why.
  
  [9.2] Several months ago I was watching a documentary channel on cable television and saw with my own eyes a 'hybrid' produced from a camel and a llama. It appeared in good health. I was at first wide-eyed looking at this animal as if it had come from outer space!
  
  [9.3] The first thing I wondered was how on earth this was possible from two different animal types. However, after the initial shock of seeing this hybrid, I realised that llamas and camels have a lot in common. If we take away the hump(s) and consider not the size, but the main characteristics of both animals it becomes apparent that there is a definite number of 'family' traits. Most noticeable to me were the unusual face (especially the eyes and mouth), the longish neck, and the legs.
  
  [9.4] So, I looked up the entry on llamas in my animal encylopaedia and read that "of all the domestic animals it is the most suitable for the steep mountain paths and the hard ground and can go without food and water longer than any other". It also said that on "the march the animals go in single file, like camels", so it seemed they also share important biological and behavioural traits.
  
  [9.5] These similarities made me think that in some cases genera as determined by biologists are not always as inclusive as perhaps they should be, and the 'family' name would be more akin to the idea of genus. Which is why adopting the biologists definitions, in my opinion, should not be used as an unbendable rule for determining types of groupings. Perhaps, then the "Folk Concept of Species" or the mental grouping of animals according to what they look like has a role to play here. My idea of 'species' is intrinsically based upon extremely distinct lifeforms, so a new 'species' to me would be the product of, say, a cat and a dog as they are significantly dissimilar. This means that convincing evidence of 'speciation', to me, would have to be on that level. (Edited to include update. Original text not changed)

  Edited by - NewWay on 7 August 2002 20:30:2
• 
  114

  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

  short and to the point.. this is the first page.

  click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewWay

  Me

  : We have no tangible evidence that one species evolved into another.
  
  Jan: False. Numerous species have been observed to evolve into new species in our own time.
  
  As will be demonstrated in the following post, the meaning that one applies to the word 'species' will dictate whether the first statement is true or not. The definition I had in mind at the time was not the same as Jan's. On the one hand, looking at the word from Jan's 'compact' point of view, he is correct. On the other hand, looking at the word from my original 'broader' view, I still believe that my statement is correct.
  
  It took me several hours to compile the article which follows, so I hope those who wish to comment on it will do me the courtesy of actually reading all the way through. I did not so much as look at the front page of any literature certain people here would class as 'Creationist', so my comments are completely my own, devoid of any 'help'. Thank you.
  
  Kind regards.
• 
  114

  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

  short and to the point.. this is the first page.

  click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewWay

  plmkrzy: When I said, "In the mind of the general public 'evolution' occurs when one species changes into another", I did not mean that I have followed along with the opinions of the general public, rather that the word, in everyday used as perceived by me is understood that way by the general public. That is why it is important to make sure that in discussing a topic the people participating either agree to use a specific word in a specific way, or agree that each one has bis/her own understanding of that word.
  
  Xander: I appreciate what you said regarding evolution being based on small changes, but my view is that the small changes pointed to do not constitute a part of a process in which the body that is evolving into a different species. I realise now that I should have made that more clear. You are, of course right that the basic meaning of evolution is "gradual development, esp. from a simple to a more complex form" (definition from The Oxford English Reference Dictionary).
  
  Jan: I've read and studied the material presented in "Observed Instances Of Speciation". I made a number of notes, and will be presenting my comments on this document soon. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, it is well written and very informative.
  
  Kind regards.
• 
  114

  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

  short and to the point.. this is the first page.

  click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewWay

  BTW, the use of the word 'evolution' to apply to tiny changes in physical makeup is the thin end of the wedge. Once a person is able to get others to agree to using the word in this sense, it is only a matter of time before they are coerced in to accepting that greater changes were/are possible. I do not accept such a definition as applying to these small changes. In the mind of the general public 'evolution' occurs when one species changes into another. Indiscriminate use of this word actually serves the interests of evolutionists in a way they may not even be aware of, as people can seem to be agreeing to something that they don't actually believe.
• 
  114

  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

  short and to the point.. this is the first page.

  click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewWay

  "We are in a similar predicament with our understanding of the origin of life. Since we don't have detailed information on the exact steps we will have to be content with developing plausible scenarios based on information concerning conditions on the early earth around the time life originated nearly four billion years ago. One plausible scenario holds that the first life on earth was based on ribonucleic acids (RNA), a simpler chemical cousin of DNA. Many researchers have focused on RNA because it can store genetic information and it can catalyze reactions; these are essential processes in living systems. In this scenario, it is proposed that RNA, a polymer (long-chain molecule), arose from the gradual stringing together of repeating chemical units, known as monomers, that naturally arose on the primitive earth."

  
  plausible - 1 (of an argument, statement, etc.) seeming reasonable or probable. 2 (of a person) persuasive but deceptive. - Oxford English Reference Dictionary.
  
  scenario - 1 an outline of the plot of a play, film, opera, etc., with details of the scenes, situations, etc. 2 (a) a postulated sequence of future events. (b) any situation or sequence of events. - Oxford English Reference Dictionary.
  
  So the above paragraph is saying that although scientist are in a 'predicament' (thanks for being refreshingly honest!), they still do not fear 'developing' (some will read here 'making up') what they see as reasonable or probable. Note too that this is not cast in stone, for it is only one 'plausible scenario'. Sorry Jan, but this paragraph does not tell me that scientists know what the earliest form of life was, only what they think may have been.
  
  Jan: I don't know when, or even if I will have the time to be able to read let alone fully understand the arguments put forth in "29+ Evidences For Macro-evolution..." I didn't realise it was such a large document, so I think I will have to leave discussion of that particular work to someone else. I will, however, peruse the first few pages, in order to get an idea of what is being presented. Perhaps, as this is 'your' thread and you have made certain assertions, you would like to highlight the main points in order for us to get the gist of the evidence being presented (maybe you already have and I've missed it). I've printed out a copy of "Observed Instances of Speciaton" and will be reading it, as I said, with interest. I will let you know my thoughts when I've fully absorbed all the information (it ran to 16 pages).
  
  Kind regards.
• 
  45

  ".......... but are as angels in heaven"

  by Ice Blue in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of the many teachings that troubled my conscience matthew 22:30. does this mean that after armageddon there will essentially be several different classes of people ie survivors (who may marry) and resurrected ones (who may not) and those born after armageddon (presumably who may)?

  does this mean the resurrected ones will be sexless - like 'drones'?

  surely then they will not be the same person that they were?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewWay

  Amen!
• 
  114

  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

  short and to the point.. this is the first page.

  click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewWay

  Jan and Xander:

  Is it not possible that people are not convinced of evolution simply because they are not convinced. Should not the same courage and independent thinking that this board often applauds not be shown the same respect when applied to other matters? For instance, evolutionists will commend Darwin and others who did not keep with the 'status quo'. It seems to me that just as the tables have now turned in popular support of evolutionists, so do we often see the same attitudes from evolutionists that they decried in theologians when theologians had the popular vote. Really this proves that humans beings in general are no different to each other. On the one hand we have the faith of those who believe in Creation, on the other hand we have the faith of those who believe in Evolution.
  
  I'm am not so happy with the term Creationist as some associate it with those who believe in a literal six-day creation, for instance. I certainly don't believe that. As has been pointed out, evolution should not be seen as synonymous with atheism. So my rejection of evolution is certainly not based on a fear that this could endanger my belief in God. I would also make the point that 'one man's poison is another man's medicine', so one's perspective of what constitutes 'poison' can be simply a matter of personal bias. I think it better not to use potentially inflammatory remarks and labels which, for instance, by association at least, calls into question a person's intellect. That is not an honourable way of debating an issue, as many of us (evolutionists or otherwise) have noted concerning the WTS. I assure you I am anything but lazy when it comes to research, but as I hope you will appreciate it all takes time. Jan, you said with regard to one's educating oneself on evolutionary evidence that, "doing so would require reading some quite technical books and articles". Most people do not have the time to trawl through such literature, which is why evolutionists must seriously consider presenting their evidence in forms that the non-specialist can digest. I will in fact be reading the article you pointed out.
  
  I wrote what I did not to 'stir things up' but to present my thoughts on the first page of the article. I hope you will not consider me to be among those you call 'braindead', since you should know from my various posts (if you've read them), that my brain is very active! Also, if you wish to convince me of your views then you will have to do so by reasonable, logical answers, and not by pointing to my belief in God as an excuse to hold my actual arguments in contempt. I am reminded of the person who argues for the non-existence of God on the basis of not being convinced of God's care for humanity, but that same person would not judge the existence of a human being on the basis of his/her personality or morality, since we know that 'good' and 'bad' people exist. So, lets adopt an academic approach to the subject, devoid of labelling.
  
  Thank you for providing a link on the subject of observable transformation of species, which I will read with interest.
  
  Kind regards.
• 
  114

  15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

  by JanH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  scientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.

  short and to the point.. this is the first page.

  click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  NewWay

  I'd like to post a few responses to the text of the article that appeared in Jan's first post. I hope Jan won't mind, as there is no debate without opposing views! Obviously it would take a huge amount of time to comment on everything that was said, so here are some comments on the first few paragraphs. "...but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination."
  Okay, well if this is so, then those who make documentaries and other educational resources have not done a very good job with the general public in showing how this is so. In fact, at least here in the UK, the only information we get on the subject assumes that the audience already accepts evolution as a fact. I'm still waiting to see all this evidence that has "established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt". "Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage."
  One may ask that since, "evolution's truth" is "beyond reasonable doubt", then why would teachers feel besieged? Considering all this 'evidence' for evolution refuting 'creationism' should be a doddle! Could it be that children are becoming more demanding in wanting proof? That meekly accepting what is taught as 'fact' is no longer an option?
  
  "In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling."
  
  That the fossil record provides abundant evidence for evolution, is purely a matter of interpretation, therefore it is not a fact, and should be treated with the same amount of caution as those interpretations that assert that species were created individually at specific intervals by God. Really, it is a matter of faith. "All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain."
  The point is that the 'proof of the pudding is in the eating'. If it has not been proved, then it is still a theory. No doubt those who believed that the earth was a sphere before it was proved by circumnavigation and satellite pictures from outer space, had indirect evidence. But the burden of proof rested upon those who made the assertion. Although most of us today have never been high enough above the earth's atmosphere to see earth as a sphere, nevertheless we are convinced that it is a fact, because the assertion can be 'measured' from a host of different human experiences, but more to the point it rests on tangible evidence that we see today, not what we interpret as having been the case millions of years ago. We have no tangible evidence that one species evolved into another. If we had then we have indirect credible evidence as a basis for asserting that life evolved in the past, even though we could not prove that this is actually the way life in general came about.
  
  The example of the finches only provides evidence that this type of bird is capable of 'adapt' the shape of its beak, but it is not evidence for the transformation of major body parts into completely different ones, such as a wing changing to an arm. We know from what we observe in the present that it is possible for members of the same species to differ in size, shape, and colour. Noses, for instance, can be long or short, thin or fat, straight or curved, but that doesn't prove that humans are or were capable of adapting it to a non-human type proboscis.
  
  On the interesting comment about chimpanzee's made by Trauma_Hound:
  
  It seems that in order for animals to share very close physical features with a human beings, it is necessary for their DNA to be very close to that of human beings. That is something that obviously can be proved via what is known about DNA. Any argument beyond that is still a matter of interpretation.
  
  P.S. It is an assumption that all species have common linking ancestors, so all the charts in the world is not proof of that interpretation.
  
  (Edited for typos, and to include the P.S.)
  
  

  Edited by - NewWay on 5 August 2002 10:51:3