Does evolutionary theory provide any useful scientific benefit?


How do pseudogenes test that a reptilian heart became an avian heart via a process of biological evolution? You seem to be assuming that a “test” is the same as “evidence”.

Incidentally, don’t you find it a bit odd that an organism retains a pseudogene (so called) for a morphological feature that may have disappeared from the ancestral line millions of years previous? I mean, why should the morphological feature disappear but not the DNA remnant? I suspect there is much we don’t know about “pseudogenes”.

Tikitaalik. So, a single find is statistically significant?

I accept that biological evolution is the best SCIENTIFIC explanation for the fossil record, but I also accept that there is much more to reality than the very limited parameters of science, so I accept that the best scientific explanation for the fossil record may be a very long way from being a “fact”.

Atheists claim biological evolution as a “fact” because (a) they have no other choice, and (b) it makes them feel “intellectually fulfilled”.

But because the creation of the first life-forms were supernatural events, then it’s a fair bet that the fossil record was also the result of supernatural events. God is the author of life, after all (or was He so disinterested in creating life on earth that He subcontracted that boring task out to a mindless biological process?).

  1. The Cambrian explosion is an example of “only altered them slightly from everything before” and demonstrates that “common descent is true”? I don’t think so - the Cambrian explosion not only contadicts Darwinism, it is powerful evidence of creation.
  2. Where are all those transitional fossils that evolution predicts? They should be plentiful, not rare.

(Steve Schaffner) #501

Every time you go looking for “evidence for a theory” (or evidence against a theory)
you are testing a theory. If the theory that the inner ear bones of a mammal evolved from the jaw bones of a reptile is true, there should have been intermediate forms. So you look for them.

The genomes of extant creatures can be used to test if they share a common ancestor in a creature that lived millions of years ago.

Give me DNA from you and from your cousin and I can tell you that you shared a set of grandparents. I don’t need to have access to the grandparents’ DNA to do so.

Unless your knowledge of the practice of biology is both broad and deep, you are in no position to judge whether my statement was true. “All mammals share a common ancestor” is a scientific statement, it has been tested extensively, and it is of great practical use in generating more scientific knowledge.

(Randy) #502

Let us not throw stones, lest we get our own glass houses broken. This is not at all the reasoning I have found in speaking with atheists, let alone evolutionists.

Do we ignore evidence because it would disrupt our world view?

(Steve Schaffner) #503

No, it’s not odd in the slightest. Organisms generally pass on their DNA to their descendants quite faithfully. A single mutation can remove the trait while leaving most of the DNA that coded for the trait intact. You can even calculate how long the DNA is likely to remain and be recognizable.

Certainly – if the probability of finding the single find under the null hypothesis is less than your significance threshold. And what makes you think there’s only been one intermediate predicted and then found?

I’m not an atheist and I claim that common descent is a fact because it is so well supported by evidence that we can treat it as true. Now it is certainly true that supernatural events could have occurred that left traces that merely look exactly like the result of common descent. So sure, common descent could still be false. But the same could be same about every other conclusion we draw about the world around us, from particle physics to auto mechanics. What’s the point in having the word ‘fact’ if you can never apply it to anything?

They are plentiful.

This is a figure I post from time to time. It shows measurements of one lineage of vertebrate fossils; the numbers next to the lines show the number of fossils in each measurement. The plot covers 5 species. It’s chock full of transitionals. What do you think is going on here?

(Stephen Matheson) #504

Classy. Happy Easter.

(Phil) #505

Including linguistics and archeology, which would certainly
put us in a bind in Bible translation and reading as my ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek language skills are a little rusty.