“Arguments against macroevolution, based on so-called gaps in the fossil records, are also profoundly weakened by the much more detailed and digital information revealed from the study of genomes. Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory.”–Dr. Francis Collins, “Faith and the Human Genome”
3 Likes
An infinite number of universes now would require an infinite number of universes “all the way down”.
From the black hole. I don’t know if it’s even talked about any more, but back some decades it was suggested that a black hole should result in a white hole, and since the black hole supposedly had a singularity at the center then the white hole could expand into an entire universe.
Back then it was considered pointless because there was no evidence suggesting other universes, though it was a fun idea. But these days lack of evidence seems to be no longer a barrier to such speculation . . . so why not bring it back?
I ran into someone arguing that the structure we see in the universe is evidence of other universes, that gravity works between adjacent universes and that explains “great attractors”.
But the measurements involved would have to be so precise I don’t know if that would even be a useful test.
It seems to rest on the assumption that only one universe could have formed, but then there’s the question, “Formed from what?” And unless we can pin down the “what”, there’s no way to claim any other universe but this one is possible – and since this one exists the chance of it happening is 1, but so would the chance of any other universe once formed. And there’s also no way to tell if there could be more than one universe sprouting from whatever birthed this one; heck, maybe universes have to come in sets covering all the axes of potential spacetime – three axes would give us six universes, so the more dimensions one thinks match reality there could be twice that many universes just out of symmetry.
I don’t follow the logic. If we don’t know what the universe formed from then how can we possibly say this universe is the only possible one? We would have to know what the universe formed from in order to make that conclusion.
Although gaps exist (particularly for where the fossil record is not good, such as squishy or physically featureless stuff), biological evolution is a prime example of the constantly shrinking gaps that are not a good place to say “this cannot be explained scientifically”. New fossils are found, more DNA is sequenced, more models are tested. The pattern observed is that using non-miraculous means to create new kinds of organism works very well as a model. Of course, pinning down exactly whether a particular instance followed one set of steps versus another is quite difficult, but showing that there’s a strong connection between two organisms that fits better with evolutionary than non-evolutionary models is not too difficult. (This does require that “better” includes a concept of specificity. Of course, in principle an intervention-style designer could make things that looked like they had evolutionary connections, but an intervention-style designer could make things that look like anything, whereas evolutionary models predict that we should see some things and not others.)
Now it is true that there are highly hand-waving “there must be an evolutionary explanation” claims, particularly in sociobiology and evolutionary neurobiology. Gould cautioned that the actual evolutionary explanation for some things is “it was just some random side mutations that happened to be associated with something else that worked”. But as far as building physical organisms, I would strongly recommend against any claim that there’s an unbridgeable gap in biological evolution.
Again, “I think this seems more (or less) likely to have been achieved miraculously”, as a personal opinion subject to adjusting with new data is not unreasonable; the problem comes when purported proof is on shaky ground.
2 Likes
In my mind, there are a lot of parallels with geology. I could probably find a tiny piece of some rock layer that no geologist could give a blow by blow, day by day history for. However, no one doubts that geologists have a firm grasp on how geology has shaped the Earth, and not knowing the granular details of a specific rock layer does not put that knowledge in doubt. There’s no need to fill the granular details of geology with “God did it” any more than we need to do so in the granular details of evolutionary lineages.
1 Like
Do you ordinarily stop reading before you respond to posts?
The only claim of divine intervention that ever made any sense to me was one that said God had intelligent bipedal mammals in mind from the start, so He tweaked things along the way to get to us. One guy at university who held that belief claimed to have calculated that God could have achieved this with just seven specific mutations along the way – I wish I could remember them; I think spinal cords was one, warm-bloodedness another, but the rest?
{now where’s that meme of God deciding to throw a rock to get the dinosaurs gone?}
Why?
Do we just claim that the evolutionary process is a cure-all? That time will allow anything to happen or change? What if there are parameters beyond which the evolutionary process cannot change? Not because the change is not found, but because the progression defies the method of process? We appear to have stopped looking for any other means of change, be it physical or spiritual. It would appear that Evolution is now impeachable and that because it can be demonstrated in small changes it must be responsible for all change.
Richard
I have been ridiculed and shunned on this forum for my claims about the fallibility of Evolutionary theory. As I understand it scientists have been studying microscopic organisms with hyper-short life spans to watch Evolution. Have they ever produced a new life form beyond the basic microscopic one they started with? Can they produce even an amoeba?
They claim genetic heredity as a proof. A church and a prison can be built from the same basic materials but changing from one to the other would be almost impossible you would have to dismantle and rebuild, and in the meantime you have a building site whose only function is to facilitate the change. It cannot be used to accommodate anything.
Similarity in construction does not always mean hereditary connection. It may just be the building blocks necessary for function.
Richard
Why?"
Because biological evolution is working very well as an explanation and is making significant progress in the gaps, and because rapidly advancing technology is enabling new analyses that further fill in the gaps. Keep in mind also the difference between claiming that an unbridgeable gap is known to exist and looking for one. Looking for gaps in any scientific model is useful (if the effort is of good quality and fairly assesses the alternatives, as opposed to the “I don’t like this so I want any excuse I can to ignore it” approach), but claiming that X will never be explained when explanations are getting closer and closer (or already exist) is unwise.
The physical laws of nature do impose a number of constraints on evolution, but the pseudostatistical approach favored by ID is not a good one. Consider the question “what is the probability of cars being invented?” Well, it’s 100%. It has happened. OK, what is the probability that, given a planet reasonably similar in resources and inhabitant ability to early humans, cars would be invented? The probability that a caveman would find a chunk of iron ore and think “I could build a '56 DeSoto out of this!” is quite small. But the probability of eventually developing some sort of self-propelled, wheeled conveyance is quite large. And once one step is working, having that as a model makes further steps easier. But quantifying that with any precision is impossible - how many ways are there to make some sort of car? how likely is it for such organisms to want to get somewhere faster? how stable is the average planetary system versus solar flares, orbital disruption, etc.?
1 Like
IOW we are not looking any further… and do not believe the criticism of impossible changes… and we will get all the answers eventually
Yeah
Richard
I don’t think you have an appreciation for the scope of the evidence. It is all encompassing. All life fits into the patterns that we would expect to see if evolution is true. For complex eukaryotes like us, that pattern is a nested hierarchy. That pattern is everywhere, from the distribution of characteristics in living species to the fossil record to the genomes we sequence. Everywhere.
The very fact that we can identify where the gaps are is because of how powerful the evolutionary explanation is. At one time we knew there was a gap between humans and other apes because that is where the theory told us that our lineage came from. There wouldn’t be identifiable gaps in the fossil record if life didn’t evolve.
So what happens if someone hears you claiming that they can know God exists because we don’t know the granular details some very specific evolutionary transition, and then have that evolutionary transition explained? What are they to think about their belief in God? What if someone believed in God because no one had found any hominid transitional fossils that span the gap between humans and other apes? What would happen to that belief when they were shown those very transitional fossils? Given the mountains of evidence that is found everywhere in biology for evolution, neutrality would seem to be a more prudent approach at the very least.
1 Like
No, it is not. There is no actual proof of macro evolution, only so called genetic coroboration which I still dispute. Similarity does not prove heredity.
All the evolutionary process can be proved to do is adjust, develop and specialise. It has yet to demonstrate any change of class or type. A Galapagus finch is still a finch no matter which one you look at.
I am not arguing against any evolution. Nor do I argue YEC or Geneis 1. I just dispute the way Evolution is both taught and assumed.
Richard
The Egyptians and the Aztecs both built pyramids. They are different in design but there are obvious similarities in construction, materials and so on. No one in their right minds would claim any actual connection between the two cultures, Your comparisons of genetics are no more than comparing building blocks. They do not prove any connection other than that
Richard.
It is the pattern of similarity which proves macroevolution beyond any reasonable doubt, and that pattern is the nested hierarchy. You can deny it all you want, but the proof doesn’t go away. This proof was obvious even in the 1800’s.
Genetics has only further supported this conclusion.
Both chimps and humans are apes, as was our common ancestor. We are still the ape class.
Both bears and humans are mammals, as was our common ancestor. We are still in the mammal class.
Both fish and humans are vertebrates, as was our common ancestor. We are still in the vertebrate class.
Both fir trees and humans are eukaryotes, as was our common ancestor. We are still in the eukaryote class.
Pyramids don’t reproduce. Life does.
Life falls into a nested hierarchy. Pyramids do not.
Again, it isn’t simply similarities. It is the PATTERN of similarities that evidences evolution. Until you tackle this pattern you haven’t addressed the evidence for evolution and common ancestry.
1 Like
Ooh, pretty patterns!
I am sorry, but you are so wrapped in your own convictins that no comparison, analogy or similarity (other than genetics) will convince you. it’s called Tunnel Vision.
Have you ever seen shapes in clouds? Your patterns are no more convincing to me than tea leaf reading.
Richard
I am saying that the nested hierarchy is evidence for common ancestry and evolution. If your analogies don’t address the nested hierarchy then they aren’t valid analogies because they don’t address the evidence.
And this isn’t even about genetics. Romanes was pointing to the same evidence in 1882 way before modern genetics. This evidence applies equally to the distribution of physical features, both in living species and in fossil species. Again, it is the PATTERN that points to common ancestry and evolution, not simply similarities. If there was a species with feathers, mammary glands, flow through lungs, and three middle ear bones these would be a combination of features shared with other species. However, this would cast serious doubt on evolution because it violates the tree-like structure we would expect to see. A species can share similarities with other species and DISPROVE evolution.
1 Like
Some combinations appear to be physically impossible. That proves nothing either way. (or does it?)
Why can’t Unicorns exist?, Dragons? Giffiins? Manticores? Why shoud random nature have parameters?
Richard