Indeed. His reasoning was rather straightforward.
2 Likes
I haven’t met you before, Henry. Welcome.
It’s clear that you’ve put some effort into this analysis. I’d like to give you something to think about. How would your “kinds with overlap” hypothesis predict the following classes of evidence?
Chronological stratification of biological orders by age.
Your analysis contends that genotypic kinds have always existed at every point in history (after the creation week), but that overlapping phenotypes might show up in a more unpredictable fashion. What the fossil record shows is that what you would call “kinds” did not appear more or less simultaneously. Instead, some “kinds” like the trilobites appeared fairly early then died out eons later, while others like primates do not appear until very late in geological history. In other words, the fossil evidence shows widespread presence of certain features in a narrow time band, such as the Cambrian, then their subsidence or disappearance when other features appear.
For example, trilobites disappeared in the Permian extinction event, and you can’t find them anywhere subsequently. Fish did not appear until the Devonian. Amphibians did not appear until the late Carboniferous. Dinosaurs did not appear until the Triassic. I could list dozens more examples, especially if we were to look at the plant kingdom as well.
Close alignment observed between genotype and phenotype
We do not find worms with feathers, primates with beaks, or bipedal ruminants. You rely on an analogy (synthesized music) which does not actually mimic the close relationship observed in biology between genotype and phenotype.
Nested hierarchy in genomes
Mathematical studies of genomes find that ancestral relationships are most accurately described as a nested hierarchy, rather than as independent "kind" lineages with overlap.Nested hierarchy in characters (phenotypes)
Mathematical studies of what biologists call characters show that ancestral relationships are best described as a nested hierarchy, rather than as independent “kind” lineages with overlap.
Nested hierarchy in fossil lineages
The fossil record, though incomplete, provides strong evidence of nested hierarchy. For example, just a few kinds of proto-mammals showed up in the Triassic, but then they diversified relatively rapidly in the Cenozoic. The diversification from an ancestral root is well depicted by the descent from Pakicetus in the Paleocene, to early whales in the Eocene, to today’s broad array of cetaceans (dolphins and whales).
Consilience of nested hierarchies
The three kinds of nested hierarchy patterns – genomic, phenotypic, and fossil record – point in the same direction. For example, mathematical studies of cetacean genotypes, of cetacean phenotypes, and of cetacean fossils all point to a nested hierarchy relationship.
Evolution is the theory that predicts these classes of evidence
The theory of evolution predicts that nested hierarchies will be the mathematical pattern that describes ancestral relationships between today’s species.
The theory of evolution predicts the chronological stratification of biological orders by age.
The theory of evolution predicts the strong relationship between genotype and phenotype.
“Kinds with overlap” does not predict these observations; therefore, “kinds with overlap” is not scientifically viable, in my opinion.
Peace,
Chris
P.S. You can maintain a strong faith in Biblical revelation while also upholding the work of the scientific community. But since you focused on the scientific analysis, that was my focus as well.
3 Likes
Hello Sir, thanks. It may take me some time to respond, but I can make sense of these classes of evidence, actually.
First thing to notice here,is, that evolution is merely a >forensic interpretation< of observable data. It’s not a scientific hard fact, but an explanation of how the observable data got here. Let’s keep that in the back of our heads, when discussing my points. I’ll be back soon.
Precisely.
What creationists usually misunderstand is that transitional fossils by themselves don’t evidence evolution. It is the PATTERN of transitional states that points to evolution and common descent. That pattern is a nested hierarchy, or phylogeny. In fact, certain transitional fossils, if found, would pose real problems for the theory of evolution. Those potentially problematic transitional fossils include bird to mammal transitions, fish to whale transitions, and worm to snake transitions.
What creationists need to explain is why we only see certain mixtures of characteristics and not others.
1 Like
Evolution is both a fact and a theory:
Theory is as high as any idea can get in science. The “it’s just a theory” argument doesn’t work well with scientists.
3 Likes
Evolution is clearly not a fact! All we empirically observe is fine-tuning of existing parameterized biological systems due to recombination and/or epigenetic reactions to the environment. The rest is mere interpretation.
Evolution is a fact. We observe that life changed over time in the fossil record. The theory of evolution explains this fact.
1 Like
Gravitation is just a theory. Intelligent Falling, anyone?
2 Likes
No, we don’t. We see similarities and dissimilarities between fossils. That’s all we see!
You assume ‘change over time’ due to a worldview-dependant ideological commitment to Darwinism that dictates that rock layers represent millions of years. It’s an interpretation based on unprovable assumptions about the past - not empirical evidence.
Hi, Henry - we have a lot of quite intelligent professional specialists here who can really get into the detailed science with anybody else who is curious over areas of their specialty. And that can be you too, if you’re willing to look at evidence and ask questions about it. In order to do so you might begin by looking over any of the areas of evidence that interest you - here is an essay that gives an overview of various areas of evidence. But if one of those piques your interest … fossil record? genetics? dating methods? … you can just do a search on those terms as well at the biologos.org home page and find good essays that show how there is indeed a multitude of things that are well explained by evolutionary theory. Even though you might prefer to read other web sites, I think the Biologos essays tell the much more complete story without leaving out inconvenient truths.
Otherwise you will always be playing “catch up” to those who know much better than you do all the various lines of evidence that do indeed exist for all to see. There is no truth that any Christian need fear, since we believe our God is a God of truth and nothing less.
4 Likes
You are making an argument from majority opinion here, Mervin. You can be sure that I know the evidence for evolution.
It’s based on
- worldview-dependant interpretation of the observable data
- unprovable assumptions about the past
- re-definition of terms like “information”, “life”, “science” and “knowledge”
- an equivocation of terms like “microevolution” and “macroevolution”
- an unreasonable equalizing of the explanatory power of empirical and forensic science and
- hoaxes to support the theory.
But thanks for the advice.
It’s based on evidence. What is your natural history museum?
1 Like
It is based on nothing of the sort.
No. The observable data is interpreted using mathematics and measurement, which is NOT dependent on worldview. Mount Everest is 8,848 metres tall whether you are a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, or an atheist.
No. Assumptions about the past are NOT unprovable. They can be tested by cross-checking different measurements against each other, or by making testable predictions. If different methods give the same results to within a few percent, that is a strong indication that their underlying assumptions are robust.
Here’s an example:
No. Evolutionary scientists aren’t redefining these terms at all. They are using them in the same sense of the word as every other branch of science. Information is measured in bits and bytes. Science is defined by the scientific method. It sets down certain principles, practices, protocols and standards of rigour and quality control that every area of science is expected to follow. Evolutionary science follows these standards and protocols every bit as rigorously as every other area of science.
No. There is no equivocation because there is no difference between “microevolution” and “macroevolution” except in terms of scale. Both work using exactly the same mechanisms. It’s like describing a drive to your local supermarket as a “microjourney” and a drive to the other end of the country as a “macrojourney.” Unless you can demonstrate the existence of a clear boundary where one ends and the other begins, the distinction is meaningless.
No. It is not unreasonable because both follow the same principles and practices and have to meet the same standards of rigour and quality control.
You mean Piltdown Man?
I’m sorry, but Piltdown Man was laid to rest sixty-seven years ago. Yet science deniers still make a song and a dance about it as if it somehow falsified the hundreds of thousands of fossil finds, genome sequences, and other studies in the decades since.
Seriously, this one is like claiming that there’s no such thing as the Internet because Grace Hopper found a bug in a computer program on September 9th, 1947. Patent nonsense.
6 Likes
That has nothing to do with Darwinism. It is an objective fact that there were different species through time as shown in the geologic record. These facts don’t go away just because you refuse to accept them.
The half life of isotopes is an empirical observation. The ratios of isotopes in rocks is an empirical observation. The measured age of rocks is an empirical observation. The morphology of fossils is an empirical observation. None of these are assumptions.
6 Likes
New evidence always supports the antiquity of the earth and it continues to build. One of my favorite evidences for the antiquity of the earth:
1 Like
Evolution is just biology over time, and biology is most certainly a fact.
Not at all. The arguments for an old earth derive from experimentation, observation, and measurement.
5 Likes
Yes, it is.
That argument clearly displays a lack of knowledge about the differences in scientific methodology between empirical and forensic science.
You cannot prove if processes you observe today have always worked the same way. You cannot prove that radiometric decay rates have always been the same, for instance. You cannot prove that the fossil “record” has formed gradually and without the influence of water.
You cannot prove any assumptions. Not one. What you can do, is, that you find indications that your assumptions are likely to be right. That may grant them explanatory power, but that doesn’t make them true. Science is based on hypotetico-deductive. A theory is “scientifically true” as long as it cannot be falsified. But what if it isn’t verifiable in the first place? Evolution is not verifiable. It’s a worldview-dependent interpretation of the observable data. In the case of the evolution-vs.-creation issue, there are two explanations for the existing observable data that have exactly the same explanatory power competing over the same evidence. Every evidence for evolution is re-interpretable for creation / intelligent design. There’s not a single evidence for which this isn’t possible. I guarantee you.
Sure they do. Information, for instance, is not just a quantity of bits and bytes. It has meaning and presupposes abilities for communication and is based on syntactic logic and apobetics. Information has a transcendent quality to it - it’s not just a bunch of pattern locked into place.
The scientific method of empirical science deduces from the observation of present-day processes happening live to be analysed. If these observations cannot be done, you have to deduce from assumptions. And that’s where forensic / historical science begins. The origins-issue is based on forensic science - not empirical science. We cannot observe the big bang, the forming of stars, or life popping into existence, we cannot observe macroevolution or anything else but variation due to recombination and/or epigenetic reactions to the environment. The problem with forensic science is, that its evidential value decreases the longer the temporal distance between cause and effect becomes. If you have millions or even billions of years inbetween cause and present-day observable effect, its evidential value tends against zero.
You’re way behind your science, I assure you. Microevolution is selection acting on the phenotypic results of recombination + epigenetic reactions to the environment. This mechanism doesn’t cause new genetic information as it doesn’t change the DNA!
Macroevolution is selection acting on phenotypic results of mutations.
Now, you can of course believe, that mutations made the DNA that allows for recombination and epigenetics, if you want, but there’s no empirical data to support it. All you have is endogenous retroviruses -which are not a watertight argument in support for evolution, as I could show you- and transposons etc. Non of these are really observable while they happen. All you see is genetic similarities and dissimilarities onto which you put your worldview-dependent interpretation of descent with modification.
Well, not only. Nebrasca man, etc. 9 Fossils and Finds That Were Total Fakes
But this list is by no means complete.
I clearly resent being called a science denier.
I just make a difference between science and interpretation of observable data. Profound difference! Those “hundreds of thousads” of fossils that allegedly evidence evolution actually evidence the overlapping variation potentials of Mendelian Variation, as well. And very sufficiantly so! I can very well make sense of transitional fossils by my (creationist) hypothesis. No problem.
Same with genome sequences etc.
False analogy. You are either desperate or blind or way behind the data or willingly ignorant.
Get me your best evidence for evolution and I’ll show you why it’s not scientifically watertight.
The buzzword is “over time”. You are absolutely right, that the rock layers have been deposited is a certain timely order, of course, but you are not right about their ages! They could very well have been deposited within days, assuming huge amounts of water playing a role in the process. Of course you’d not accept that option due to your bias pro evolution caused by your ideological commitment to Darwin.
You assume that your observation of today processes and today circumstances and today states are the key to the past. These assumptions are not necessarily true!