Evolution and special creation?

[phank]

Too many fossils would be problematic for identifying transitionals

Indeed. If we had the fossilized bones of - for the sake of argument - one member of a generation of every being that ever lived, it would be nearly impossible to classify dividing lines between species and determine which one was a transitional. However, due to the rarity of fossils, all we have are periodic snapshots of certain populations. Those snapshots tend to be far enough removed morphologically and temporally that they possess characteristics of two different taxa or of a taxa genus or above, but doesn't match any known species.

For a while, some years ago, I was into identifying the constellations. I had a field guide book to help me. What I didn't realize was the biggest help was the fairly thick air due to water vapor, and the ambient light pollution. These things made the constellations EASY to pick out. And one day, I was in the tropics, out on a boat on the ocean on a moonless night. And I couldn't find a single constellation, because I could clearly see TEN TIMES as many starts. The patterns were lost in the sheer density of them all.

Fossilization is like the water vapor and light pollution - it limits observation to just the high points, so that historical biological patterns of evolution become more clearly outlined. Maybe the fossil condition also adds a full moon, in terms of reducing the number of visible stars. About all we can do is note that the fossil record as we know it is exactly the sort of thing we'd expect to find, based on a theory not derived from the fossil record at all. Imagine having a theory of digital photography, but without any actual photographs to examine. And imagine that over time, we find a pixel here and a pixel there, all of which would be perfectly consistent with a digital photo, IF we had the whole thing. As the picture gradually filled in, we could even predict to some degree what color pixel we might find where.

[Adrift]

Okay . . . I went back to my control panel and tried to track down at least my confusion and yes . . . I should be calling myself an Open Creationist . . . one who is apathetic about evolution.

Well... I always felt that the label "Open Creationist" as I've used it on the forum, and as used by others on this forum, is less about Evolution specifically, and is more an open view on the process of the creation of the world (or universe) by God. TolkienFan gives a good definition of it here. For some its an apathetic view of creation, but I, personally, am not apathetic, I'm just open to the possibility of the truthfulness of a number of competing theories (or even a marriage of those theories). I currently lean more towards a literalist Old Earth Creationist view (specifically Historical Creationism), but am open to other views.

One's view on creationism (Open or otherwise) is not necessarily linked to their view on the theory of evolution though. There are Old Earth Creationists who may not find the current state of the ToE satisfactory, or are open to other interpretations of the data, and there may be some YEC's who accept the ToE (though, I'm not sure how they'd work that into their worldview). The Protology section on the Profile page sort of mixes views on creationism with views on evolution together because they're both concerned with beginnings, and because most people tend to lean more heavily towards one particular concept or theory than another. If I had the option, I'd probably highlight at least 4 of the selections available, but I think Open Creationism fits the bill well enough.

That WILL come up on a Google and direct a link to a TWeb OP.

Yeah, if you search for "Open Creationist", you'll probably see that the top link is the article I linked above. I don't know if TWeb coined the term (it probably did), but its a view a number of people held before we knew a name existed for it, I think.

I don't remember how I could have screwed that into Open Evolutionist but I have the capacity to screw anything up at random and completely unpredictable times and ways . . . Its a talent of mine

Same here. That's why I'm constantly editing my posts after posting.

[phank]

The Protology section on the Profile page sort of mixes views on creationism with views on evolution together because they're both concerned with beginnings

I would appreciate if you could explain this. My understanding is, the theory of evolution is a set of proposed mechanisms for biological change over time and multiple generations. So what beginnings are we talking about here?

[Adrift]

I would appreciate if you could explain this. My understanding is, the theory of evolution is a set of proposed mechanisms for biological change over time and multiple generations. So what beginnings are we talking about here?

Humans I'm assuming. You'll have to ask the mods for more clarification than that.

[phank]

Well, anyway, evolution is NOT a theory of beginnings, it is a theory to explain a constant process of change.

[Adrift]

Well, anyway, evolution is NOT a theory of beginnings, it is a theory to explain a constant process of change.

If you say so. Your issue is with the owners and maintainers of the website, not me.

[AlphaBravo]

Well, anyway, evolution is NOT a theory of beginnings, it is a theory to explain a constant process of change.

That's just semantics. Why do evolutionists keep riding that tired horse. It has no practical meaning since evolution ostensibly began the moment two organic molecules began to dance around each other.

Editing...

Seriously is it just to keep peace with the alien seeding crowd?

[phank]

That's just semantics.

Not at all. The theory of evolution is the proposed explanation of an observed process.

Why do evolutionists keep riding that tired horse.

Because the goal here is to explain the mechanisms of that process. So "evolutionists" keep "riding that tired horse" for the same reason that "physicists" keep riding the "tired horse of gravity". Because it exists, because it is not fully understood, because there is always more to learn.

It has no practical meaning since evolution ostensibly began the moment two organic molecules began to dance around each other.

And presumably the universe began at the big bang. But studying how our universe works is not a "tired horse" just because it had a beginning, and studying biology (or anything else whatsoever) isn't "practically meaningless" because the universe started sometime.

Then again, if you wish people would just quit trying to understand how evolution works, you are free to die of any of the many many diseases that knowledge of evolution has permitted us to cure. Yeah, it's all just organic molecules, so living or dying really doesn't mean anything, right?

[Xru]

The theory of evolution is the proposed explanation of an observed process.

Observed in the sense of real time as in the laboratory . . or in the fossil record?

Then again, if you wish people would just quit trying to understand how evolution works, you are free to die of any of the many many diseases that knowledge of evolution has permitted us to cure.

Hmmmm . . . course my knowledge is limited in this area unlike yours phank .. . and so could you list a few of the diseases that knowledge of evolution has permitted us to cure?

That would be most helpful and interesting . . just off the top of your head.

[phank]

Observed in the sense of real time as in the laboratory . . or in the fossil record?

Both, although in different ways. What is observed in the laboratory (and in our own children, of course) is a process of change, such that offspring are not identical to their parent(s). What is observed in the fossil record is a (very) partial illustration of the results of the process.

I think I should emphasize that these are different things. What's observed in the lab is analogous to watching someone shuffle and deal a bridge hand. We see it in action. What we see in the fossil record is the particular hand that got dealt over geological time. But the number of possible hands this process could have dealt is without limit.

Hmmmm . . . course my knowledge is limited in this area unlike yours phank .. . and so could you list a few of the diseases that knowledge of evolution has permitted us to cure?

That would be most helpful and interesting . . just off the top of your head.

Like you, all I need to do is look. But [url=http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/viruses-and-evolution]here's a start for you[/i]. With a few seconds of effort, you can find thousands of such explanations. And it might be helpful if you DID spend a few minutes doing so. It helps me!

[Xru]

Both, although in different ways. What is observed in the laboratory (and in our own children, of course) is a process of change, such that offspring are not identical to their parent(s). What is observed in the fossil record is a (very) partial illustration of the results of the process.

I think I should emphasize that these are different things. What's observed in the lab is analogous to watching someone shuffle and deal a bridge hand. We see it in action. What we see in the fossil record is the particular hand that got dealt over geological time. But the number of possible hands this process could have dealt is without limit.


Like you, all I need to do is look. But [url=http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/viruses-and-evolution]here's a start for you[/i]. With a few seconds of effort, you can find thousands of such explanations. And it might be helpful if you DID spend a few minutes doing so. It helps me!

Thanks

[AlphaBravo]

Not at all. The theory of evolution is the proposed explanation of an observed process.

Evolution an observed process? Some other time.

Because the goal here is to explain the mechanisms of that process. So "evolutionists" keep "riding that tired horse" for the same reason that "physicists" keep riding the "tired horse of gravity". Because it exists, because it is not fully understood, because there is always more to learn.

You are fighting a straw man here. The "tired horse" is the semantic distinction between the origin and the evolution of organic life.

And presumably the universe began at the big bang. But studying how our universe works is not a "tired horse" just because it had a beginning, and studying biology (or anything else whatsoever) isn't "practically meaningless" because the universe started sometime.

Yes. And the study of the big bang is included within the field of physics. They don't constantly whine about how the big bang is actually "cosmology" not physics.

Editing... I'm just asking. What is the value of the distinction in this debate?

Then again, if you wish people would just quit trying to understand how evolution works, you are free to die of any of the many many diseases that knowledge of evolution has permitted us to cure. Yeah, it's all just organic molecules, so living or dying really doesn't mean anything, right?

When it comes to making predictions and curing diseases the general theory of evolution is as statistically effective as a placebo in clinical trials.

[phank]

Evolution an observed process? Some other time.

Any time. The process has been going on for billions of years, and isn't expected to stop or change anytime soon. So there's no hurry.

You are fighting a straw man here. The "tired horse" is the semantic distinction between the origin and the evolution of organic life.

No, evolution refers to the process of change. Origins in this sense is sort of like taking a rainbow and saying "right HERE is the origin of green". In other words, your "origins" is an attempt to draw an arbitrary line (or a number of them, you're not clear) on a continuum. Kind of like looking at a height measurement and saying "right HERE is the origin of tall." This is a simple category error.

(Now, here's a mind experiment. Imagine taking a thousand evolutionary biologists back in a time machine to before there was anything remotely resembling organic life. Imagine stopping the time machine every million years and taking a sample. What the sample would show is organic compounds becoming increasingly complex, at some point due to some means of replication. So at that point, you start taking a vote of your biologists. Is this "alive", yes or no? Do this every million years or so until 50% of the biologists decide the stuff they're looking at is "life" in their opinion. And at THAT point, you might drive a stake into the continuum of development and say "RIGHT HERE is the origin of life. 50% of the biologists think so." And Please Note that the evolutionary process has been going on for maybe a few hundred million years before that time.)

Yes. And the study of the big bang is included within the field of physics. They don't constantly whine about how the big bang is actually "cosmology" not physics.

Your complaint reflects a misunderstanding, which I tried to illustrate with my mental experiment above. Adaptive feedback processes are evolutionary processes, whether or not "life" is involved. So I tried to emphasize that as organic molecules become increasingly complex, at some point we can legitimately say they are alive. But just last year, we wouldn't. At least not according to at least 50% of our experts. And this is ALWAYS the problem with trying to draw an arbitrary line across a continuum of gradual change.

We see this problem and deal with it in many other ways than in evolutionary biology (like, how different do two populations have to be to be categorized as different species?). For example, you might reflect on the inherent absurdity of the instant you became an adult, and could legally drink or drive or vote or whatever. One instant you're too young, the next instant you're not! And yet you didn't change so much as a single atom during that instant of zero-time! This is the sometimes necessary absurdity of drawing lines on continua.

Editing... I'm just asking. What is the value of the distinction in this debate?

As I've been trying to explain, I think the distinction is arbitrary. If making such a distinction is convenient, then pick some reasonable-looking place and make it. But if there's no really good reason to draw distinctions without differences, it's kind of silly to do so. And this is why I emphasize that evolution is a process, not a study of origins at all. At some rather hazy fairly long periods during this process, non-life gradually becomes sophisticated enough to be regarded as "alive", and breeding populations become divergent enough to be given different names. But these are both very slow processes of change, not lightswitch yes/no points.

When it comes to making predictions and curing diseases the general theory of evolution is as statistically effective as a placebo in clinical trials.

??? I don't know what you're trying to say here. It really is the case that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. And THAT was said by a very devout, conservative religious man!

[magellan004]

... evolution ostensibly began the moment two organic molecules began to dance around each other.

Evolutionists can't tell us when evolution started. There is no reason to assume (using their theory) that evolution automatically started when life started. So why did evolution begin? And how was death an advantageous modification? Interesting questions dangling in the universe

Magellan

[AlphaBravo]

As I've been trying to explain, I think the distinction is arbitrary. If making such a distinction is convenient, then pick some reasonable-looking place and make it. But if there's no really good reason to draw distinctions without differences, it's kind of silly to do so.

I guess this is my point. The distinction between origins and evolution is arbitrary and is only based on the definition of life. The actual process that is taking place 1 million years before or 1 million years after the consensual beginning of life in your thought experiment is still essentially an evolutionary process. You have just arbitrarily decided to call one "origins" and the other "evolution".

And thank you for being kind. I am trying to be less snarky.