Keith Devens .com

Evolution has been shown to apply in case after case. The debate is over -- the detractors are simply ignoring the facts.

Evolution has been shown to apply in case after case.

No, it hasn't. We've never even observed an increase in an organism's complexity due to random mutations. In fact, I claim that (macro) evolution isn't even scientific at all, since it isn't based on observation and repeated experiment. To me it's much more of a religious commitment than scientific fact.

The debate is over -- the detractors are simply ignoring the facts.

You show your ignorance. The debate is in no way over. In fact, the debate within the evolutionary community itself is far from over. If you've studied this at all (which you obviously haven't), you'd know that there are two major schools of evolutionists, who can't even agree on fundamental elements of evolutionary theory. It is you who is "ignoring the facts".

I'm guessing you're referring to punctuated equilibrium vs. the other school (whose appelation escapes me at the moment.)

There's no debating when religion and science get together, I've been learning this all my life. Faith can encompass reason and fact only so far, and then it becomes impossible to hold both at once without some compromise: whether it's a slow erosion of faith in that which cannot be seen, or the dispensation of facts for a trust in the unknown/unseen.

I don't think that way. As a Christian, I don't believe that fact will ever contradict my faith, or that I'll ever have to choose to ignore facts to keep my faith intact. It's all God's creation after all. Since I've been a Christian I've only found "reality" to confirm my faith, not contradict it.

"There's no debating when religion and science get together" - debate often gets muddy because people aren't conscious about what "level" they're arguing on. Our beliefs are complex things, and some of our beliefs are more basic, or more central, to us than others. So often people debate the things higher up on the chain without realizing that they can never argue fruitfully because beliefs more central to each person preclude them from ever agreeing. That's what happens when people "argue past each other".

I'm guessing you're referring to punctuated equilibrium vs. the other school (whose appelation escapes me at the moment.)

Yes, whose two largest proponents were the recently late Steven J. Gould and Richard Dawkins. People present "evolution" as if there's this unified view of what that is, when there isn't. Plus, both of those schools are considered "neo-Darwinian"... they're not just "Darwinian" anymore because their theories are different than Darwin's, which have been discredited.

By the way, the connection I meant to make in my previous comment, but didn't, was that many people hold "science" with as much religious fervor as anyone who believes in God. It's ironic that those who try to find an escape from "religious" beliefs wind up creating their own religion. Man is a religious creature, and it seems that if one refuses to believe in God, he needs to replace it with something, and that's often "science", even though science is no thing, but rather just a method of inquiry. That's why the whole "science vs religion" dichotomy is misguided. People often argue past each other on the "science vs religion" issue, not because the issues are naturally contradictory, but because proponents of each side fundamentally believe in different religions.

Anyway, enough philosophising for me for now

We've never even observed an increase in an organism's complexity due to random mutations.

That simply isn't true - see <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html">this FAQ</a>. As an atheist I find evolution far more convincing than other explanations, but I appreciate that there remain many unanswered questions relating to that field. Still, there are some parts of evolution that have been observed and are supported by overwhelming scientific evidence.

That page on talkorigins.org doesn't address my claim. It refers to speciation, which can happen without an increase in complexity of the organism and without any information gain whatsoever. In fact, every example on that page, as is to be expected, is an example of speciation through loss of information or reshuffling of existing information. In other words, no new information in the DNA has been created. Rather, all of the variations cited come from existing genetic information.

It's like how we got all types of dogs probably from wolves, and how we got all the different "races" of people from two original parents. My view of evolution supports these kinds of changes. In fact, this type of change is what Darwin did document and prove.

The problem is this, and I'll quote a comment I made on the site referred to by my link above:

Darwin proposes no mechanism by which we can get large-scale increases in complexity, but rather just fudges it and says "well, we know there are small changes because of genetic diversity and natural selection", and he extrapolates that to say that all living creatures must have evolved from simpler things. To me that doesn't follow at all.

Back to Simon:

there are some parts of evolution that have been observed and are supported by overwhelming scientific evidence

Sure, and I believe those parts, but what's been observed is essentially genetics and natural selection. We haven't observed large-scale genetic information gain like you'd get with an amoeba turning into a cat, or an ape-like creature evolving into man. We've never observed very important things like a single-cellular organism evolving into a multi-cellular organism, or an asexually reproducing organism evolving into a sexually reproducing organism. Or really any information increase at all. This is why I don't think these types of speculations are really "scientific" at all. At best, they're historical extrapolation.

In fact, I can't say I've ever seen any evidence presented that supports the evolution of more complex organisms from simpler organisms. In every biology textbook I've ever seen, this type of large-scale evolution is simply taken for granted. Simon, why do you find evolution convincing?

We haven't observed large-scale genetic information gain like you'd get with an amoeba turning into a cat, or an ape-like creature evolving into man.

Strange, I always thought that evolution of man has been proved by fossil hominid finds. See the articles at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/. For me these traces form a very convincing picture of how apes evolved first to ape-like creatures and later to our pre-ancestors. We can't just observe this process directly because of the huge time span such a process takes. But that doesn't make the theory unscientific for me, the stages of transitions can be shown at the fossils. A lot of theories can't be observed directly, but are nevertheless accepted, e.g. as in astrophysics or archaelogy.
Keith, what is your explanation for the evolution of man?

I'll admit there are some very open questions left in evolutionary theory. Like how could random mutations in bats yield specialized organs to generate their sound 'sight', specialized ears to be sensitive to those sounds, and a specialized brain to interpret the feedback, since all of those would have to happen at random in unison for them to have a good chance of passing on to later generations.

But, Gibson's claim is bogus. We didn't evolve from current monkey species. We evolved from "something that would seem very monkey-like". Early man happened to get lucky with his mutations. Modern chimps didn't.

And where, exactly, did all the various species come from? Or were humans here from the beginning of time?

Oh my gosh, people keep quoting talkorigins. I've always been extremely unimpressed with that site.

Actually, there's really basically NO hominid fossil evidence (of transitional forms, I mean). You know that famous display at the museum of natural history showing the transition of man (like on this page)? It's completely fabricated. They simply don't have fossil evidence for each of those kinds of man. In addition, for hominid fossil evidence that we do have, a lot of it has found to be either fully man or fully ape, and I think some of it has also been shown to be from things like pigs. What we do have, we mostly have skulls and teeth, and from these evolutionary scientists create a whole new transitional form in man's evolution. They're fitting the evidence into their beliefs, not forming their beliefs from the evidence. Plus, existing man is so diverse... my friend jokes that if they found the skull of the bus driver from "Speed" they'd think he was a transitional form. With nutrition deficiencies or disease, you can wind up with deformed skeletons as well.

Really, there's been so little that's been found, and the issue isn't just the few supposedly hominid fossils that have been found. If (macro) evolution were true you'd expect to find tons of transitional forms for all the animals of nature lying around, but you just don't. In fact, the fossil record shows exactly the opposite: a complete lack of transitional forms. That's why I think it's great that there are two main camps within evolutionary theory. Dawkin's camp and more "traditional" evolutionary theory claims that the fossil evidence supports evolution, but what we've discovered is that it really doesn't. This is why Gould supported the theory of "punctuated equillibrium", where there's no evolutionary progress for awhile, and then all of a sudden you have massive changes happen. As someone who doesn't believe in this stuff, I think that's great, because punctuated equillibrium is basically a theory to explain why we don't have evidence for evolution! It happened so fast we missed it. I think that's laughable.

Keith, what is your explanation for the evolution of man?

I don't think we evolved. I'm a creationist. I believe that God created us. In fact, with all the design inherent in us and in nature I think that's the natural conclusion, not that we're here "by accident". One of the best analogies for me, that I think will effective for you and Simon as well since you're technically minded people, is this: DNA is source code. It's essentially a computer program, but far more complex than anything we've been able to come up with with all of our human intelligence. The more we learn about it the more fascinating it is. It has stuff like self-modifying code in it, crazy stuff like sections of code that code for more instructions than is possible given the length of the code because the DNA is read at different "offsets" - if you know how codons work (in sets of three base pairs), think of it as shifting the offset at which the codons are read - it's sort of like byte boundaries that way. Anyway, this stuff is so fascinating and so complex that I think it shows obviously intelligent design.

The way I often put it is that if you see a line of rocks in the forest marking a path you inherently know that a person must have put it there because nature doesn't do that. But when we see things like our bodies people say "Oh, of course we're here by accident... you know, some chemicals got together... and well... here we are!" I think it's silly, and as a "man of faith" myself I think it takes a far greater leap of faith to believe in (macro) evolution than it does to believe in Christianity.

KD, you say "Anyway, this stuff is so fascinating and so complex that I think it shows obviously intelligent design."

Douglas Adams wrote a convincing argument to the contrary (check out the Salmon of Doubt). Imagine a self-aware puddle coming into existence after it rains. It looks at itself and the hole it's in, and says "WOW! I fit this hole so perfectly, I must have been designed by something so intelligent as to be able to deal with the complexity of the hole's shape. I must have been made for it!"

Also, I find it interesting that you knock down pro-evolution statements for having little-to-no evidence, and jab at punctuated equilibrium as laughable, since it seems like just a way to brush big questions under the carpet. But at the exact same time, you whole-heartedly believe in creationism, the ultimate sweep-under-the-carpet, because either:

1) Your parents told you so when you were young and impressionable.
2) A man in a fancy robe told you so when you were young and impressionable.
3) A book told you so. A book rendered credible by either your parents, a man in a fancy robe, or someone else who heard it from them...

Like how could random mutations in bats yield specialized organs to generate their sound 'sight', specialized ears to be sensitive to those sounds, and a specialized brain to interpret the feedback, since all of those would have to happen at random in unison for them to have a good chance of passing on to later generations.

Interesting example. There are a lot of things in nature that it doesn't seem possible that they could stand on their own like that. One of the classic examples I'm aware of is the bombadier beetle. It basically has a chemical factory in its ass that can shoot boiling toxins out at a predator. It has two chambers within its body of chemicals that aren't harmful when separate, but when they're combined there's a chemical reaction that makes the mixture extremely volatile. It's specifically designed with these chambers separated and a third mixing chamber, with special muscles to squirt the chemicals and everything. None of these structures would have been necessary or beneficial unless they were all in place from the beginning.

Another example is the woodpecker's tongue. The woodpecker has an extremely long tongue so that it can shoot it into a tree (after it's bored a hole in it) and swish its tongue around (which has sticky glue on it) and pick up bugs. In some woodpecker species, to "store" the tongue, the woodpecker has it freaking wrapped around its head, going over its skull and through its nose socket. There would have been no evolutionary advantage for the tongue to start going around its head, and in fact would have been useless in any transitional forms (which we don't find fossils of, of course). Examples like this abound.

But, Gibson's claim is bogus. We didn't evolve from current monkey species. We evolved from "something that would seem very monkey-like".

Yeah, I'm aware that we didn't evolve from apes, but rather "ape-like" creatures, and modern man and modern ape are both descendents of this original proto-hominid or whatever. It's a common error to say we evolved from apes. I'm not sure if Gibson is aware of the distinction, but I think his point stands. It seems strange to me that we don't find any transitional forms in nature currently existing, let alone in fossils. We certainly don't get the impression that evolution is "in progress" by looking around at nature. Rather, every species is pretty much set.

And where, exactly, did all the various species come from? Or were humans here from the beginning of time?

Well, AFAIK some of the species we have now are originally descended from a common ancestor. In other words, animals have a lot of latent information in their DNA and through geographical separation, etc., or the deliberate actions of man (think dogs and wolves, though I'm not sure if this is a good example), the animals speciated. So that certainly is a type of evolution -- I believe in evolution, just not that man evolved from ape-like creatures, or that we were all originally rats, and before that fish, and before that amoebas. As a Christian I believe that Adam was created within the first 6 days of creation and mankind has been largely unchanged since. The point is that the examples of evolution I'm referring to in this paragraph are all possible given the original DNA these creatures were created with, and don't involve new DNA that evolved through random mutations. Random mutations have never been shown to produce new biological structures or increases genetic information. That's the primary mechanism by which evolutionists claim evolution happened, but we have NO evidence for it.

"people say 'Oh, of course we're here by accident... you know, some chemicals got together... and well... here we are!'"

No, people say some chemicals got together, countless interations of mutation and passing-of-fittest-genes over countless years took place, and well... here we are! You kind of left out the whole argument.

Theists, on the other hand, say "Oh, of course we're here by God... you know, he snapped his magic fingers together... and well... here we are!"

Man, why does everybody post anonymously? Even just a first name would be nice so I could have some idea of who said what.

Douglas Adams wrote a convincing argument to the contrary (check out the Salmon of Doubt). Imagine a self-aware puddle coming into existence after it rains. It looks at itself and the hole it's in, and says "WOW! I fit this hole so perfectly, I must have been designed by something so intelligent as to be able to deal with the complexity of the hole's shape. I must have been made for it!"

That's probably the silliest argument I've ever heard against intelligent design. I'm not just dismissing it, I really do think it's a silly argument. Actually, I can't even call it an argument. It's sort of a version of the anthropic principle, but it's so ridiculous to compare the inconceivable complexity of living systems around us to water in a puddle. Water naturally fits in a puddle, that's just gravity. We have laws to explain that (although we don't understand those laws fully). In other words, we have a mechanism to explain that. What we don't have, is a mechanism to explain evolution.

I'll respond to your "young and impressionable" comments (which aren't true anyway since I grew up believing in evolution and I considered myself an atheist) by simply saying that it has no relevance. It's a fallacy to argue that since my parents told me something and I believed it that it's false.

Furthermore, I can say the exact same things about you regarding evolution. You only belive it because you learned it throughout the education system when you were "young and impressionable". I doubt you've ever seriously considered the truth of evolution, whereas I have questioned and thought for myself, but you're so biased that the only way I could possibly believe differently than you is because I've been brainwashed. Ad hominems are no substitute for arguments (of which you offered none).

Hey John, thanks for giving your name

No, people say some chemicals got together, countless interations of mutation and passing-of-fittest-genes over countless years took place, and well... here we are! You kind of left out the whole argument.

I certainly didn't leave out the whole argument, since that's what I've been arguing against the whole time! The part you quote was clearly a charicature of the position, not an argument in itself.

I for one find the D.Adams puddle-analogy quite illustrative. It's not about that we actually know how gravity works, the puddle is the one who doesn't. So if we don't know how evolution, the creation of the cosmos or some other intricately complex system works, it does not follow from that there must have been an intelligent designer originally putting things into shape. That's a logical fallacy (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#bifurcation). We just don't know/understand everything yet, but maybe someday we will. But to use a creator to explain why things are as they are explains absolutely nothing. I can understand that this idea springs to mind in regard to DNA as a form of sourcecode, but hey, why didn't the DNA-Hacker leave some comments in his code? . Bad style I say. And the manual is rather hard to read. And imcomplete.

What I don't understand is why you claim that there is no fossil evidence of a transitional form showing the evolution of man. You seem to have a very special idea of which criteria this transitional form must meet, and I would like to hear them. I know some creationists argue that the fossils in question are either man or ape, but they do not seem to be very clear on what's an ape and what's not - very telling indeed.
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html - even if you are not impressed by this site, you should at least read it. Or post alternate sources.).

I am no palae-anthropologist, but I refuse to believe in a world-wide scam where a whole science is built up from questionable sources. If forensists are able to determine age, gender and nutrition facts from a skeleton of the middle ages, they should be also be capable to determine when a skeletal fragment exhibits more ape or man-like features. Or so I think.

I will use this space to register my complaint with creationists, in that they condemn me and call me a heretic, and evolutionists, who say that my faith is stupid.
In response to the more theological side of the argument I will merely link to this lovely article

So if we don't know how evolution, the creation of the cosmos or some other intricately complex system works, it does not follow from that there must have been an intelligent designer originally putting things into shape.... We just don't know/understand everything yet, but maybe someday we will.

Yes! You supported exactly my point that evolution is a faith commitment and not a scientific belief.

That's a logical fallacy.

Yes, but it's one I didn't commit. I never argued that because evolution is false that therefore the Christian view of creation is true.

Or post alternate sources

Ok, my favorite creationist site is AnswersInGenesis.org. Here's something super short for you to read that says basically what I've been saying. For more, here's a search at Answers In Genesis for 'hominid'. Here's a good one, and here's a search for 'java' to get some of the stuff on Java man.

I think it's a fantastic site, and I really can't recommend it highly enough. You should explore there a bit and go through a few of the articles linked from that search. Even if you just read the beginning of a few of the articles you'll get a flavor for what the each article says.

I refuse to believe in a world-wide scam where a whole science is built up from questionable sources.

Look at it how I do, as a religion. People believe in strange religions all the time, yet delusionally claim that they're based in fact. To me, this is no different. I also look at it this way... modern cosmology and anthropology are as rife with "creation myths" as any religion is. The big bang and the philosophy that we evolved from nonliving chemicals are simply the atheist's creation myth.

If forensists are able to determine age, gender and nutrition facts from a skeleton of the middle ages, they should be also be capable to determine when a skeletal fragment exhibits more ape or man-like features.

Yes, you're right, although the history of evolutionary scholarship has been absolutely rife with fabrication and lies. When Huxley, "Darwin's bulldog", put forth the myth that during a fetus's growth it goes through phases like that of a fish, a frog, a pig, a chicken, etc. he completely made it up, and actually fabricated evidence by using pictures of actual animal fetuses. No one believes that theory anymore, of course. In some ways I look at the history of evolution with the same humor as I look at the history of Mormonism, for instance. Now their beliefs are strange.

I'll end by quoting this bit from an article at AiG about Australopithecus ramidus that is really representative of the type of stuff that's considered "evidence" by the evolutionary community.

What was found? Fossils were collected from the surface at 17 different positions7 spread over 1.55 km (see Figure 1)8 and probably represent 17 separate individuals. The holotype (ARA- VP-6/1) is based solely on eight teeth, most of which were damaged. Other material discussed as representing A. ramidus included parts of the base of a skull (ARA- VP-1/500) found 550m away, and fragmented arm bones (ARA- VP-7/2) found 270 m away. The larger pieces of bone exhibited carnivore teeth marks. Eleven of the fossils were comprised of a single tooth, a piece of tooth or, in one case a piece of bone. The paucity of material is illustrated in the detailed treatment given a single deciduous (temporary) molar tooth found 1.55 km from the location of the holotype.9 In appearance and measurements this tooth looks identical to a chimpanzee (Pan paniscus) tooth.

Those numbers are footnotes. I'll end with this: The reason people keep getting all excited about finding the "missing link" is because we really haven't found it yet. Think about that.

Keith - you say that "In fact, the fossil record shows exactly the opposite: a complete lack of transitional forms".

There are fossils that show an apparent progression from one species to another (archaeopteryx for example - which is similar to both a reptile and bird).

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

I assume that you would not consider this to be a transitional form.

From your pov, what would a fossil need to be for you to consider it a transitional form?

Archaeopteryx was just a bird, not a "transitional form" between reptiles and birds. Birds and dinosaurs are very different.

To be a transitional form, it would have to show a transition between two different species we know of. For instance, we would have to find something that had scale-feathers, and had half arms, half wings, which probably couldn't fly yet, etc. Each of the features of the archaeopterix are fully bird-ified. Scales and feathers are very different things, for instance. Scales can be shed as a sheet (think of snakes shedding their skin) while bird feathers have features similar to hair folicles, and are individually anchored into the skin. I'll quote a bit of some of one of the articles (same as the last link above):

Many evolutionists claim that dinosaurs developed feathers for insulation and later evolved and refined them for flight purposes. But this fails to explain how they evolved—scales are folds in skin; feathers are complex structures with a barb, barbules and hooks. They also originate in a totally different way, from follicles inside the skin in a manner akin to hair. There has been no report yet of a fossil showing scales turning into feathers or a leg turning into a wing.

The dinosaur bird–to–bird theory has its critics, even among evolutionists. University of North Carolina ornithologist Alan Feduccia says: 'It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipeds with foreshortened forelimbs and heavy, balancing tails', exactly the wrong anatomy for flight.

We've really found nothing I know of which would lead me to believe that animals evolved like this. Maybe we will someday, but for now evolutionists are completely without evidence. Again, I consider evolution very much of a "blind faith", to use the term people so often use about religion.

"For instance, we would have to find something that had scale-feathers, and had half arms, half wings, which probably couldn't fly yet, etc."

To be a transitional form, wouldn't it also need to be a viable organism? Something with half-arms, or half-wings I wouldn't expect to be viable.

I had thought that evolutionary theory was not that organisms changed slowly over time (i.e developing a nub, then a short tail, then a longer tail), but that it occurred in fits and starts.

For you conceptualization of transitional forms to occur, you would need a kind of rolling, piecemeal genetic mutation. In evolutionary theory organisms change more violently than this, from one form to another without a smooth morphing between forms.

To be a transitional form, wouldn't it also need to be a viable organism? Something with half-arms, or half-wings I wouldn't expect to be viable.

Ha, yes! Exactly my point. Which is why I think evolution is silly. Yet something like what I described would have had to have been a half-way point between a dinosaur and a bird. But these examples can be multiplied many times over. There are many transitional phases life would have had to have gone through for it to be in its current form today. Two examples I commonly cite are the transition from single-cellular organisms to multi-cellular organisms, and from asexually reproducing organisms to sexually reproducing organisms^[1]. Each of these two types of "life-forms" are so radically different from each other (a multi-cellular organism is much more than just a bunch of single celled organisms "stuck together") that I can't even imagine a transitional phrase, nor have I ever heard even a theory to try to explain these transitions. Like a lot of the problems in evolutionary theory, they seem to be ignored.

I had thought that evolutionary theory was not that organisms changed slowly over time (i.e developing a nub, then a short tail, then a longer tail), but that it occurred in fits and starts.

Well, as time goes on evolutionists revise their theories. Traditionally evolutionary theory has said that life evolved very gradually. As evolutionists are faced with a total dearth of evidence they keep revising their theories. All the time I see news stories that say "Evolution really happened faster than we had previously thought". The "fits and starts" you refer to is the theory of "punctuated equilibrium". I get the impression that that is the more mainstream view today. What's really the case is that they've found NO evidence to support a gradual evolution of life, so they keep revising their theories to support a much faster rate of change. Since they haven't found any evidence to support transitional forms, what they're essentially saying with “punctuated equilibrium” is that "Evolution happens so fast that we have no evidence for it." And that supports my point exactly.

For you conceptualization of transitional forms to occur, you would need a kind of rolling, piecemeal genetic mutation. In evolutionary theory organisms change more violently than this, from one form to another without a smooth morphing between forms.

That's not true. Organisms must change gradually for evolution to be true. In other words, a dinosaur can't lay an egg and have a bird fly out of it, any more than a monkey can have a baby and have it be a human. Transitions must occur gradually, at each stage the organism must be viable, and every change at each stage must confer enough of a survival or reproductive advantage that that genetic line goes on to dominate the species, over and over and over again. The "violent" changes, or "fits and starts", of punctuated equilibrium aren't changes where within a generation or two you have a completely different species. Keep in mind that we're talking about an evolutionary time scale. So to evolutionists, "quick" is something like 10,000-100,000 or maybe a million years or so, rather than the 10-100 million years that they previously thought an evolutionary change took to happen (though I'm fudging the dates a little, the important thing to note is the order of magnitude difference).

Footnotes:
[1]: Or heck, even from nonliving chemicals to life itself – keep in mind that none of these transitions has actually ever been observed, yet they're so fundamental to evolutionary theory. And by “life itself”, I'm not just talking about organic compounds that people claim they're able to make in a lab by electrocuting some slime in what they imagine was an “early earth” atmosphere with ammonia and stuff in it (and what they don't often mention is that the ammonia destroys the organic compounds immediately after they're formed). The simplest life we know of, even a single-celled organism, is wondrously complex

Thanks for the clarification. I would disagree and say its not necessary for organisms to change gradually for evolution to be true (it can be quick).

Personally I find it hard to reconcile creationism with an engineering view of the universe. Perhaps evolution as it is currently conceived is incorrect, but it would seen that there should be some kind of physical mechanism which allows the creation of new life forms.

Interesting side note concerning the bizarre machinations that genetics can do (and produce occasionally viable organisms - at least with plants):
http://www.geocities.com/we_evolve/Plants/c_doubling.html

I would disagree and say its not necessary for organisms to change gradually for evolution to be true (it can be quick).

What, do you mean that all of a sudden (like within one generation) an organism can change from having arms to having wings, and from having scales to having features?

Interesting side note concerning the bizarre machinations that genetics can do (and produce occasionally viable organisms - at least with plants):

I'm confused as to the relevance of this. Is this about mutation, or just recombination of existing DNA?

By the way, it's interesting that lately we've been discovering that a lot of times where we thought something could have been a mistake in the copying of DNA, it turned out it was a "non-random" mistake, and actually was an intended change in the DNA. In other words, a whole section of DNA might be "turned off" by what would appear to be a mutation, but in fact the particular "mutation" would be non-random. In certain cases it appears that the DNA meant to make a given copying mistake, maybe because we observe the same mistake many times. I'm not familiar enough with those discoveries, though the little bit I've heard about them has fascinated me. This plant DNA doubling might be an instance of that.

Perhaps evolution as it is currently conceived is incorrect, but it would seen that there should be some kind of physical mechanism which allows the creation of new life forms.

The primary mechanism for the creation of new information in a species's DNA is mutation, which is not a viable mechanism for change, since it's random, and involves mistakes copying an existing strand of DNA. Mutations have never been shown to increase complexity in an organism, and are destructive (or ostensibly harmless) in every single observed case.

We understand that if a mistake is made in copying a computer program, for instance (say, if you have a faulty piece of RAM, or a faulty disk which causes some bits to be changed in a program), we know that that program won't run correctly, or the change might be benign. If we take the Microsoft Word executable and randomly flip a few bits in it, we know that we won't have created a new feature. Yet that's what evolutionists say is possible.

Personally I find it hard to reconcile creationism with an engineering view of the universe.

What do you mean?

I'm confused as to the relevance of this. Is this about mutation, or just recombination of existing DNA?

I pointed it out as a curiosity. I wanted to demonstrate cases where there can be a radical change in DNA of an organism and still produce a viable organism (such as going from diploid to tripoid chromosome sets). It would seem that plants can handle this kind of thing much better than animals.

Isn't mutation essentially a recombination of existing DNA?

In other words, a whole section of DNA might be "turned off" by what would appear to be a mutation, but in fact the particular "mutation" would be non-random.

I've seen references to this. I don't think that its been observed for whole chromosome strands, only certain sections. But it is very interesting (my guess is that they're not really "turned off").

Mutations have never been shown to increase complexity in an organism, and are destructive (or ostensibly harmless) in every single observed case.

See the plant case. The changes to the organism didn't necessarily make a better plant, but did make viable plants (with greater genetic complexity) that continued to survive.

What do you mean?

We understand the world based on physical engineering principals. Every physical process apparently has a clearly defined, predicable, causitive pattern that it follows - and we make equations and laws based on these phenomena.

We assume the existence of gravitrons even though they have never been observed. We do this because there is a particle associated with every other type of force, and because our existing theories and models show that there should be a particle that governs gravity. We do the same with dark matter - we assume it exists because the universe is predictable.

Similarly, its seems that there should be some physical process that allows for the creation of new life form - if only because there is a mechanical process that governs every other action. We know that new organisms have appeared at times on this planet. There's probably a mechanical/chemical process that allows for this to happen.

Perhaps the numbers we're using are wrong. After all, one 1 of the 9 planets we can directly observe has a tremendous diversity of life - and those aren't bad odds.

Note: I do not discount the idea of a Prime Mover. I would say that He's probably an engineer (or, as the Masons said, the Great Architect).

Ok Keith, I took the time to have a thorough look at the sources you posted. I have to admit, it provides a fascinating window into a totally different mindset than my own. I'll write about one article that tries to sum up the reasoning process of creationists, and which I found very telling: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp. Coming citations are from this article, accompanied by my thoughts/problems with them.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

It says rightly "claim", not evidence.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

I would say the existence of God is irrelevant for understanding the theory of evolution. The needed presuppositions consist of the mechanics at work in physics, chemistry, biology, logic and mathematics. In our everyday world, these mechanics serve to make correct and good assumptions which can be verfied or falsified, so it's save to assume that these principles should have been at work also in former times.

‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts.

NACK. Why is it that the Bible is the only source of presuppositions a Christian may employ in his reasoning? Surely alternate interpretations may be made without having to rely on the bible as a given.

A non-Christian is not neutral.

A Christian isn't either.

1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles).

Not arguing the bible quotes, but isn't falling back on them and drawing conclusion from these assumed facts also "interpreting" the facts, as mentioned above? I would like to know if a creationist would allow an argument in which the "facts" taken from the bible would be questioned. If someone picks a quote from the bible and applies it arbitrarily to a context and draws his conclusions from it, in what way is that different from "interpreted facts"?

If one would say, the bible is true and can't be argued with, okay, I can live with that. It's a personal choice of oneself to agree to this position or don't. However, such a position puts the debate somewhat out of science. Since every theory needs be falsifiable (Popper) to actually be a theory, the "science" creationists make us believe they practice actually isn't science. Faith can't be argued with. OTOH, evolution theory can be argued with. If you collect enough counter-evidence for an alternate, consistent theory, and if that serves to explain it's topics better, then evolution theory will be a thing of the past. That, however, is not what is done in the articles on answersingenesis.org. Lack of evidence does not equate to counter-evidence, but it's hard to argue against positions put forth because they must be true.

BTW, about that bombardier beetle. There is an article on http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html which offers a very detailed view regarding the "intelligent design" issue. I find this more convincing than the "it looks like it must have been created" argument.

Please note that this post is not about refuting faith. It's just a summary of the conclusions I drew from reading about the creationists position, and from this my opinion why this debate is pointless, as both parties are not operating on even terms.

Hey, this is a really great discussion.

I'll have to comment in more detail than this later, as my brain is on hiatus protesting my lack of sleep. My eyes seem a little miffed too.

Since every theory needs be falsifiable (Popper) to actually be a theory, the "science" creationists make us believe they practice actually isn't science.

The Popper reference here isn't really helpful. The distinguishing feature of science isn't that it produces things that are falsifiable, it's that it involves experiment and repeated observation. In other words, it follows the Scientific Method. While scientific theories should be falsifiable, it's important to note that not everything that's falsifiable is scientific. Often, people consider things to be scientific when they're really not.

Evolution isn't scientific because it's primarily concerned with history. Evolutionary theory isn't based on the scientifc method (you can't make predictions based on it, and you can't make repeated experiments and observations based on what happened in the past) Genetics and biology, in contrast, clearly are scientific.

With Answers In Genesis you have to keep something in mind. They're a ministry that focuses on creation and evolution. So their articles range through the theological and evangelistic as well as scientific. You may not have intended to imply this, but it seems you may be discounting what they say about scientific matters because they're a religious organization, or because they talk about both issues within a given article. Did you mean what you said this way?

If you collect enough counter-evidence for an alternate, consistent theory, and if that serves to explain it's topics better, then evolution theory will be a thing of the past. That, however, is not what is done in the articles on answersingenesis.org.

A lot of what Answers In Genesis does in their articles is question evolutionary theory and evidence, and refute a lot of the claims of evolution (for instance, that Archaeopterix was a transitional form, or that Lucy walked upright). They of course have their own "theory of origins" based on the Bible, and they don't propose a view of creation apart from the Bible (as some do, cf. the "intelligent design" movement). They also provide evidence that the Biblical account of history better accounts for things than the evolutionary account of history, specifically in discussing the flood. They believe that a catastrophic, worldwide flood better explains the geologic features we see today than other theories do.

But I can't stress this enough: I don't believe "creationism" is a scientific theory either. It's a theory of origins, and is not any more open to the scientific method than evolution is. When we discuss the flood, for instance, we may be covering archaeology or geology, but we're not doing real science. They're different categories of study.

Ok, my brain's given out. More later BTW, I made this comment box a little bigger since we're all writing so much.

One more thing:

If you collect enough counter-evidence for an alternate, consistent theory, and if that serves to explain it's topics better, then evolution theory will be a thing of the past.

You seem to imply that evolution is the "default" explanation for the origin of life, and unless we can come up with a better theory (than that God created us) then evolution "stands". On the contrary, I don't think the case for evolution has been made at all, and I think it's refuted on solid scientific grounds (information theory and biology, for instance). I don't think there's any reason to believe in evolution at all, and I can't claim to have ever seen evidence attempting to "prove" it. Instead, it's just accepted as orthodoxy^[1]. So, I don't view this as that I have to prove my case. If anything, I think I should challenge you to give reasons for why you believe in evolution.

Footnotes:
[1]: For instance, I've looked through biology books looking for reasons why they accept evolution and there never are any, and I asked my friend's girlfriend, who's going to medical school at the Mayo clinic (which is supposed to be one of the top medical schools anywhere), why she believes in evolution and I got a blank stare.

Well Keith, it seems your eyes were really weary, because I can't find any other explanation why should dismiss my Popper reference and yet link to a site that explains in detail why falsifiability is an absolute key ingredient for a scientific theory. Just scroll that page you link to a little further down, it's all there. Just what I said, I'll quote from the page:

There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue.

Which is exactly my point, I was refering to my doubts about the scientific credibility of AoGs "theories". I have no problems that they are religious organization. But since most of their articles are in line with a crude would-be-theory, yet failing the above mentioned criteria, I get dubious about their other claims of refuted evidences. I was not able to find on their site a definiton for a fossil hominid that shows a transitional stage between ape and modern man. Whenever they discuss a hominid find, they seem to have only two categories into everything must be fitted, no matter how awkward the argument is. Reminds me of the saying "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
Take for instance one article you linked too with the words "good one" (http://answersingenesis.org/docs/263.asp). Quote from it:

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind.

Aha. Due to disease. Sure, every fossil that was found was that of a sick Neanderthal man. Where's the reference to the source that claims that this is now common knowledge among anthropologists? Which disease exactly BTW? Nowhere on this page a single reference to these "it is now know"-claims is given.
Further down:

Conclusion: There is no fossil evidence that man is the product of evolution. The missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist. The Bible clearly states, "then the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

Splendid. What a convincing explanation. The missing links are apparently missing because they... just don't exist, they somehow know that. Well, they ruled out every possibility of a missing link by broad and general statements before, and by using Bible quotes to strengthen their point.

At least we both agree that creationists don't have a scientifical theory. Where we differ is that you think that evolution isn't a scientific theory either, and I don't. We also differ in regard to which disciplines are scientific and which not. I say that you make an error in your list of criteria, they describe a very tight frame within mainly natural sciences do operate, but is harder to apply to different disciplines, yet not impossible. My understanding from science is that disciplines like history, archaelogy, political science and psychology can also make adequate scientific theories. Even history can have it's experiments. Think of Thor Heyerdahl. Further, I do firmly opppose your view that geology is not science,

When we discuss the flood, for instance, we may be covering archaeology or geology, but we're not doing real science.

Look into any geology textbook and you will see that it is full of difficult topics from physics, chemistry and biology. It's not that people stand over a piece a rock and debate it's artistic beauty. It's rather like a specialized physics/chemistry course.

From the theory of evolution you can of course make predictions. You can predict that in very old geological strata, you won't find fossils of complex plants, like flowers. You can also predict that you won't find remains of modern man neither with dinosaurs nor australopithecus remains in the same stratum. Concerning speciation and adaption, you can make predictions that you will find species which adapt to their environment and survive, and some don't. You can also predict that in isolated regions endemic populations develop unique "features". Think of visiting the Galapagos archipelago, and then comparing that to the Seychelles.

So what about the shortcomings of a theory, as you have pointed out in detail? To answer that, see this article.
I'll quote from it:

So how can the Truth change? Well the answer is that it hasn't. The Universe is still the same as it ever was. When a theory is said to be `true'' it means that it agrees with all known experimental evidence. But even the best of theories have, time and again, been shown to be incomplete: though they might explain a lot of phenomena using a few basic principles, and even predict many new and exciting results, eventually new experiments (or more precise ones) show a discrepancy between the workings of nature and the predictions of the theory. In the strict sense this means that the theory was not `true'' after all; but the fact remains that it is a very good approximation to the truth, at lest where a certain type of phenomena is concerned.

A little long for a quote, but illustrates what I was meaning with providing counter-evidence to advance the theory/develop a new one. Think about it like this: Einstein's relativity theory aimed to be very accurate, yet it couldn't predict/explain some anomalies. Now, we have quantum mechanics. Does that rule out Einstein's theories totally? Does it make the theory completely untrue? Not at all, see linked article.

You asked me why I believe in evolution. I don't believe in it. It's not some kind of faith, at least that's how I see it, reasons mentioned above. For me evolution as a theory is very capable of explaining the development of life in its diversity, and doing that consistent with my other knowledge of natural principles. When I look around, there are plenty of examples for evolving systems. Even suns have a lifecyle. Certain systems are capable of self-organisation (Prigogine). Why should life not have similar mechanics?
I would agree with you about the "dark spots" in evolution theory that are not answered yet. One should a theory just because it is the current paradigm. So asking these important question you did is very valid and within the operational frame of scientific method. Where we disagree is that you debunk the whole theory, and I see most of it's points still as useful for explaining the topic evolution is about. But I'm confused about your view of evolution, it seems as if you partly agree with it (speciation), yet on the other hand you don't agree at all?

BTW: Thanks for enlarging the comment field. Much appreciated.

Urgh, this sentence

"One should a theory just because it is the current paradigm."

should rather read

"One should not adopt a theory just because it is the current paradigm."

Blame my sore eyes.

Falsifiability: I didn't say it was an unimportant aspect of scientific theories (and yes, I did see the passage you quoted in the article before I linked to it). I chose to emphasize the scientific method, which is a much more important critereon for determining what is scientific. Like I said, not everything that is falsifiable is scientific (and in fact falsifiability is contingent upon the scientific method). So I used this to point out why evolution isn't scientific, because it doesn't follow the scientific method (you can't make predictions based on it, for instance).

As for whether evolution is falsifiable, I could probably argue strongly that it isn't falsifiable. Look at the flow chart on that page - predictions and tests precede falsifiability. Since you can't make predictions about evolution, and you can't do tests for evolution, it can't be "inconsistent", and therefore you can't falsify it. Again, evolution is a theory of origins, and therefore it seems people can use any evidence against it and it won't matter unless the person already doesn't believe in it. For instance, I've showed the complete lack of transitional forms, I've argued that mutation cannot produce an increase in complexity of an organism, I've pointed out evolution isn't scientific, etc. Yet when people find lack of evidence, they make up a new theory to fit around it -- think punctuated equillibrium.

The main reason I didn't like your criterion of falsifiability, besides the fact that it wasn't helpful in determining what is scientific and what isn't, is that it has a very messy philosophical history. Ever hear of the logical positivists? Their argument was a little bit different, since they were arguing about whether statements were meaningful, not whether theories were scientific, but I was worried that falsifiability in this particular case might fall into the same trap, and I didn't want to have to worry about it. It turns out I was right, since I now believe that evolution isn't falsifiable. Really, any deeply held belief isn't falsifiable. Think of all the "the Jews run the world" conspiracy theories some people insist on believing. Evolution is particularly messy, because it invokes "religious" sentiment from its believers, and it isn't scientific so it's hard to provide evidence that someone would accept as falsifying it. Whereas with a theory that is scientific, it tends to be easier to falsify something - make a prediction, test, and if the prediction doesn't hold then there's something wrong with the theory.

But since most of their articles are in line with a crude would-be-theory, yet failing the above mentioned criteria, I get dubious about their other claims of refuted evidences.

See, this is one of the reasons I didn't post AiG sources from the start of the discussion, because exactly what I figured would happen has happened - they're being discounted because they're a religious organization and believe in creation.

I was not able to find on their site a definiton for a fossil hominid that shows a transitional stage between ape and modern man.

I don't think this is a good sign of an error, as I question whether you'd be able to find a definition on an evolutionist's site. Even if you could (I'd be interested to see if you could find one, say on talkorigins.org), I still don't think it would necessarily be an error, since I think it has a pretty obvious operating definition, and they further serve to define the word through their arguments.

In fact, I just searched for "definition of transitional form" on Google and found a link to this page where someone gives a working definition:

My understanding of "transitional" is that it is an intermediate form between two already observed forms. There are numerous fossils that are not intermediate even though they may share characteristics with other fossils.

Which is similar to my definition above. Again, I think the definition is fairly obvious. But that link has some interesting observations which go along with what I've said here... it questions whether all fossils can be considered transitional forms, or whether if it's a fossil if it definitely isn't a transitional form (since it was obviously a "regular species" at one point rather than a "transition" from one to another). I wouldn't make an argument based on it, but I think it's an interesting observation that points out how our underlying presuppositions can lead us to interpret evidence in different ways.

Nowhere on this page a single reference to these "it is now know"-claims is given.... What a convincing explanation. The missing links are apparently missing because they... just don't exist, they somehow know that. Well, they ruled out every possibility of a missing link by broad and general statements before, and by using Bible quotes to strengthen their point.

You're making a serious error here. This page was clearly intended as a summary. Whereas they normally use extensive footnotes to back up their claims, on this page they used none, which should have been a sign to you. Maybe I shouldn't have linked to it, but I thought it was a good summary.

For one of their "regular" articles on Neanderthal man, read this. You should be more comfortable with this one, as it doesn't mention the Bible once

I'll quote a relevant portion here:

In 1957, the anatomists William Straus and A. J. Cave examined one of the French Neanderthals (La Chapelle-aux-Saints) and determined that the individual suffered from severe arthritis (as suggested by Virchow nearly 100 years earlier), which affected the vertebrae and bent the posture. The jaw also had been affected. These observations are consistent with the Ice Age climate in which Neanderthals had lived. They may well have sought shelter in caves and this, together with poor diet and lack of sunlight, could easily have lead to diseases that affect the bones, such as rickets. In any event, the big toe was definitely not prehensile (grasping) as Boule had claimed, and the pelvis was not found to be ape-like. In their report they commented that: "if he (Neanderthal man) could be reincarnated and placed in a New York subway provided he were bathed, shaved and dressed in modern clothing it is doubtful whether he would attract any more attention that some of its other denizens." (Quarterly Review of Biology, December, vol. 32, pp. 348-63)

In fact, with the very few skeletons that have been found, I'd personally be much more likely to say they were humans with arthritis than a whole new species of being that had thousands upon thousands of members and lasted millions of years or whatever. Unless your decision to consider them a "transitional form" is determined by your preexisting belief in evolution, necessitating the discovery of transitional forms, I really don't think there's enough evidence to say that they are.

Further, I do firmly opppose your view that geology is not science

I'll take it back, that's fair. I'm sure there are scientific aspects to it (which I didn't mean to exclude by my statement). When I referred to it as not a "real" science I meant in the sense that physics is, for instance. For example, there are parts of geology that, simply because they take place over "millions" of years, just can't be directly observed. So those parts aren't strictly scientific. That's all I had meant.

Think about it like this: Einstein's relativity theory aimed to be very accurate, yet it couldn't predict/explain some anomalies. Now, we have quantum mechanics. Does that rule out Einstein's theories totally? Does it make the theory completely untrue? Not at all, see linked article.

I disagree here. I don't think there's any way you can compare evolution to the theory of relativity. It's not the "grand unified theory", and no one thought it was, but it explains (and predicts!) a great deal of phenomena and unifies a lot of different things. Quantum mechanics and relativity have to be unified some day. I'm confident they will be, like electricity and magnetism were. But evolution is not this kind of a theory. How will mankind look in a million years? How will a given species evolve? There's no way possible to make predictions based on evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory can only make statements about what's already happened.

For me evolution as a theory is very capable of explaining the development of life in its diversity

And I disagree that it is capable at all. I read part of your bombardier beetle link (before I fell asleep, literally, (I told you I was tired) so I didn't finish it, unfortunately), and the part where he comes up with a contrived series of steps that can explain how the beetle could have evolved piecemeal is laughable. I don't think it's worth going over in detail, but if I had the energy I'd love to quote things from it that say things like "This thing evolved", and "This thing was elongated", without explaining what benefit that could have had to the organism. In any case, I can dismiss the whole thing by calling it a "just so" story, since we have no evidence that his story actually happened. For someone who doesn't believe in evolution, making a story up like that isn't convincing.

This is a good segue into answering your last question. To me, the biggest problem with evolution is that it has no mechanism by which to support itself. Ever see that episode of South Park with the underwear gnomes (great episode!)?

Step 1. Steal underwear.
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Profit!

Evolution is like that. For everything that's been said, that's my biggest problem with evolution, and that may not have been clear, but it's essential to explaining my distinction for the parts of evolution I believe in and the parts I don't. It's vitally important, because with the huge lack of evidence for evolution it's very easy for me to say "Come back to me when you have some reason to believe in your weird creation story", but I believe that the absence of a mechanism is a more severe criticism because if my criticism is right then it means that evolution is simply impossible in principle, which I believe it is.

Where we disagree is that you debunk the whole theory, and I see most of it's points still as useful for explaining the topic evolution is about. But I'm confused about your view of evolution, it seems as if you partly agree with it (speciation), yet on the other hand you don't agree at all?

Worst part about all this is that there are no clear terms to use. I like to use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, but I've been told that the words don't mean what I took them to mean. Actually, that article didn't tell me what they meant, it just said not to use the words as part of your argument. But especially when reading that bombardier article when author used the word "microevolution" in a completely different way than I understood it, I realized that there really is a big difference in common understanding. However, I've never seen these words defined. It seems to be "microevolution" means "small" changes, and "macroevolution" means "large" changes, but what constitutes small or large is never specified.

Anyway, this is how I understand the words, and for future reference, if I ever use the words (which I've been trying to stay away from since I discovered people understand them far differently than I do -- or I make sure to define them before I use them), this is how I mean them. It's frustrating since there's no other words to use. I should coin my own. For now, I use "microevolution" to mean "changes to an organism that involve only recombinations of existing DNA", and "macroevolution" to mean "changes to an organism through the creation of new DNA". Microevolution is simply genetics and natural selection, and that I believe in. Macroevolution involves changes to an organism's DNA, through mutation, that code for new structures, and increase the complexity and information content of that organism's "source code".

So to reiterate, microevolution involves existing DNA, while macroevolution involves new DNA. The problem is, the only mechanism there is to explain how new DNA can be formed is mutation, and mutation can't account for what it needs to.

Mutation involves mistakes in copying existing DNA. Mistakes don't cause increases in complexity and order, they cause decreases. There's never been shown to be a mutation that caused an increase in the complexity of an organism (by creating new "features" within the organism). In fact, if information theory is correct in saying that it is impossible for order to arise from randomness, then the very foundation of evolutionary progress is faulty. The best book I know of on this subject is Dr. Lee Spetner's Not by Chance (though in the interests of full disclosure I must say I haven't gotten to read much of it).

Damn, I wrote so much I was worried I was going to blow out the size limit on my comment field (which has a limit of 64k), but it turns out I had plenty of room to spare. Nevertheless, I'm sorry this was so long, and I haven't even responded to everything you and Steve wrote.

Hey, this is a good time to respond to Steve's comments...

I pointed it out as a curiosity. I wanted to demonstrate cases where there can be a radical change in DNA of an organism and still produce a viable organism (such as going from diploid to tripoid chromosome sets). It would seem that plants can handle this kind of thing much better than animals.

Isn't mutation essentially a recombination of existing DNA?

No, not at all. Mutation involves an error in copying DNA. There are a few different types of mutations. There are "point" mutations, that change one base-pair, there are shifts where some DNA could be moved within a strand, there are copies where some DNA would be copied twice, etc. I don't know if you remember this from biology, but DNA is read in sets-of-three-base-pairs called codons, and each codon codes for a protein (or amino acid?). Each codon is like a machine instruction in a computer, and each base pair is like a bit or a byte. Again I think the computer analogy is a good one. You can't take an existing computer program, change bits of the program around, and have it create new features. It's impossible.

This thread is exploding... I have only insufficient time to expand some arguments, so here it goes:

So I used this to point out why evolution isn't scientific, because it doesn't follow the scientific method (you can't make predictions based on it, for instance).

Darwin traveled to the Galapagos, observed the diversity of finch species and deduced his evolution theory from it. Why is this method not scientific? Further, you can make predictions about evolution. I made some in my former post. What about them? Let me point out that by the definitions you use, astronomy isn't science either. A theory about the inner workings of the sun is clearly not testable through a lab experiment. But lab experiments are not the only experiments available to science, see natural experiment on wikipedia. While skimming through this site, here's another article that hopefully creates some common ground between our positions as to what micro- and macroevolution is.

Since you can't make predictions about evolution, and you can't do tests for evolution, it can't be "inconsistent", and therefore you can't falsify it.

Read my last post. Why are the predictions I made not valid predictions? I you find a fossil that contradicts a made prediction, it is suitable to falsify the theory. I really don't see any methodical problem with this approach. See also this article about macro-evolution. To each section a point is added what would falsify this specific point.

Really, any deeply held belief isn't falsifiable. Think of all the "the Jews run the world" conspiracy theories some people insist on believing.

ACK. But evolution is not a question of belief. The fossil records are not some product of secret evolutionist's cabal. The observed speciation of species isn't either.

Evolution is particularly messy, because it invokes "religious" sentiment from its believers, and it isn't scientific so it's hard to provide evidence that someone would accept as falsifying it.

It's your own, very personal decision to claim that evolution is not scientific. As I have showed, it fullfills all requirements, even for the scientific method. I didn't understand what you mean by '"religious" sentiment'. If you meant that people adopt evolution as a given without prior fact-checking, then it's a dogmatic view. But the same is true for creationists arguments. And further, reiterating myself, you didn't provide any evidence for different theory yet. So please, where is your theory? Does it stand up to the same claims about the scientific method?

See, this is one of the reasons I didn't post AiG sources from the start of the discussion, because exactly what I figured would happen has happened - they're being discounted because they're a religious organization and believe in creation.

You are free to post other sources. They are not discounted because of their type of organization, but because they put their beliefs into their particular philosophy of science that produces their theories. I just pointed out that their theories aren't scientific theories. I thought we were in agreement about this point?

I don't think this is a good sign of an error, as I question whether you'd be able to find a definition on an evolutionist's site. Even if you could (I'd be interested to see if you could find one, say on talkorigins.org),

I stand up to this challenge. Here it is, the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ. A very extensive source of models and examples of transtional fossils. Can you find a similar resource on answersingenesisis.org? Have a look at their introduction which gives a very detailed definition of what a transitional form actually is. Also interesting to note, the author of the FAQ offers some ideas in his conclusion where God would fit into these models. And probably contrary to what you think right now, God's possible role is not denied at all.

But that link has some interesting observations which go along with what I've said here... it questions whether all fossils can be considered transitional forms, or whether if it's a fossil if it definitely isn't a transitional form

See, the definition you use is rather vague. Basically it does not give you enough operational criteria to accurately judge what fossil is a transitional fossil and what not. It's pretty obvious and trivial that not all from fossils are intermediate forms if they share a common characteristic. The archaeopteryx is not an intermediate form to the T-Rex because both fossils have teeth and claws. But can the archeopteryx be considered an intermediate form between reptile fossils and modern birds? It has no beak as modern birds, yet a teeths and tail bones like reptiles. In order to come the conclusion that it is not an intermediate form, I need more specific criteria. How many characteristics of form A must be met, and how many of form B? Is there a general guideline? Can there be one at all? Evolution predicts that these transitional forms should appear in a chronological order. That is, until now, always the case. Please post an alternate explanation.

Since the whole thread hinges somewhat on the question of what a transitional form actually is, I'd like to mention this post from a mailing list. It bascially addresses the same point you mentionend, that every species could be regarded as a transitional form itself. It also makes an analogy to the development of language, which I found good to illustrate the dynamic form of transitional shapes.

About our Neanderthal friends: I never claimed that Neanderthal man were primitve apemen and qualify as a transitional form for proving the link of modern man to a common ancestor of both man and ape. The article you posted brings up the same old creationist myth, that diseases like rickets and arthritis explain the bone structure of homo sapiens neanderthaliensis. Both diseases weaken the bone, they don't strengthen it! They can't explain the much stronger, thicker bones of Neanderthals!
And don't fall into that trap that "Neanderthals were just humans". As you seem to regard DNA analysis as very fool-proof analysis, see this article that explains that Neanderthalers are definitely genetically different from modern humans.

n fact, with the very few skeletons that have been found, I'd personally be much more likely to say they were humans with arthritis than a whole new species of being that had thousands upon thousands of members and lasted millions of years or whatever.

I am unable to find any exact numbers how many neanderthal remains were found until now. Do you have a source, and how many is "few"? Given that every fossil is a rarity, I would be inclined to say that if the number were larger than, say 150, it would be extremly unlikely that all remains are that of bone-sick individuals.

Unless your decision to consider them a "transitional form" is determined by your preexisting belief in evolution, necessitating the discovery of transitional forms, I really don't think there's enough evidence to say that they are.

That's your personal choice. Be reminded that you only evade the question of what actually would be sufficient evidence for you, in a transitional form. And I can't stress that I don't view evolution as something I believe in it is not comparable to faith. For me, it's the best and consistent explanation of the origin and diversity of life on this planet. Please post an alternate explanation that I might consider, if there is more evidence for it. Having said that - are you free of preexisting beliefs, or could it possibly be that you don't accept evidence because of your preformulated view of the world? Since you push me into the corner and question my presuppositions, I demand the same from you.

Concerning the difference to other sciences:

How will mankind look in a million years? How will a given species evolve? There's no way possible to make predictions based on evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory can only make statements about what's already happened.

I was not aware that physics allow you an accurate view into the future. How mankind will look depends on what we do in the future, right now it looks as if were heading to extinction, taking a lot of other species with us. I would expect that speciation will continue among species. And that is already observable, so what is your point? New species will also emerge, given a large enough timescale. That's all in consistency with evolution theory. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that evolution can only make statements about the past. Spinning this thought further, astrophysics would fall into this same false dilemma.

I won't go into your last statements. I see no sense in doing that if the above controversial points aren't resolved before. I said a couple of predictions that can be made from evolution theory, yet you don't address them. The comments are starting to longer and longer, and right now none of either side is going to accept each other's views. Even more, I have no idea what your theory for the origin of life is, and if it can stand up to the same criteria you apply to invalidate the theory of evolution. I start asking myself if it's really worth continuing the debate any longer. If it's okay for you, I would end the debate from my part with the outcome that we both agree to disagree.

If it's okay for you, I would end the debate from my part with the outcome that we both agree to disagree.

Haha, did you expect any different?

I'll respond later.

I'm not going to respond in detail tonight, but for now I'd like to post some quotes which I think are awesome:

Dr Colin Patterson:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them... Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record....

It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. 'So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job . . .'

Patterson works (or at least worked) at the British Museum of Natural History in London, and he seems to have achieved some notoriety for asking the question of an audience he was speaking to: "Can you tell me anything about evolution, any one thing, that is true?". Here too, but he doesn't cite his source (though it's also cited in the link below).

Here's a whole list of some great quotes.

Oh man, as I'm searching I'm finding too much great stuff. I'd like to go through and paste quotes I like in here, but I'd rather go to bed . [Later... looks like I did it anyway]

Ah, though here's one of the most succinct quotes I've ever seen that illustrates the difference I tried to illustrate above:

"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."

That's from Steven Jay Gould.

Here's another from him:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

This is a good one too:

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in "The Fresno Bee", August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.

http://www.evoluSHAM.com/ has some funny stuff too The most important point I'll highlight is the lack of a mechanism for evolution. Gould puts it very well. Natural selection is the mechanism by which the "unfit" are "eliminated", but there is no mechanism for life to have evolved from simpler organisms.

That's why I think that:

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups." Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France, J. Rostand, "LaMonde et la Vie," October 1963, p. 31 from V. Long, "Evolution: A Fairy Tale for Adults," Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Vol 78 (1978), no. 7, pp. 27-32

(from this link above)

Anyway, off to bed.

I'm not going to respond in detail tonight

haha

Hehe. Well, what I said was true Some of the quotes I picked out did touch on a lot of relevant points though.

Nice. Very amusing, Keith. Are these quotations arguments to authority or should their anecdotal value correspond to natural fact?

About the Patterson quote. I find it strange and highly amusing that the only thing I have to do to uncover that it's a grave misquote out of context is by typing the name "Patterson" into the search field of talkorigins.org and up comes a skeptic article which explains why it's a misquote (along with a scan of a letter from Patterson!). Just one quote out of this letter:

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

About Bounoure, the french zoologist, here's the explanation why it's also a misquote.

About Stephan Jay Gould: Now we're really getting absurd. The quotes you posted are so way off that regarding what I found from Gould, I can only conclude they were intentionally posted as misleading quotes. Did you even bother to visit a different source to check if the quote does even slightly fall into his line of arguments, and is not quoted out of context? Here's what he's thinking about this (ab)use of his writings by creationists. Quoted from it (near the bottom of the page):

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."

Searching the web shows that many sites from evolution critics use these misquotes. Apparently the misuse is so abundant that there's even a general article about this dishonest practice on talkorigins.
But since you decided to open up a round of quoting, I won't stay behind and will also post some.
I freely admit that the sources from where I took them hold evolution for a fact, and I don't see sense in twisting the words or a creationist to strenghten my point. I searched a bit to find the most reliable original source I could find. Additionally, I did my best to search for an indication of a probable misquotation of them on answersingenesis, but did not find anything.

Isaac Aasimov:

The details of evolutionary theory are in dispute precisely because scientists are not devotees of blind faith and dogmatism. They do not accept even as great thinker as Darwin without question, nor do they accept any idea, new or old, without thorough argument. Even after accepting an idea, they stand ready to overrule it, if appropriate new evidence arrives. If, however, we grant that a theory is imperfect and details remain in dispute, does that disprove the theory as a whole?

Theodor Dobzhansky

The evolution of life, and the evolutionary origin of mankind, are scientifically established as firmly and completely as any historical event not witnessed by human observers. Any concession to anti-evolutionists, suggesting that there are scientific reasons to doubt the facticity of evolution, would be propagating a plain untruth.

idid.:

Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution

It's a headline of an article, therefore the capitalization.

Although I'd agree by the points made in these quotes, do these quotations actually add something to our debate? I'd say no. So please, no more "great" quotes. Rather check your sources. They might be wrong.

P.S: Still waiting for the transitional fossil definition...

Hey Ben. I have to admit I'm really not sure how the Patterson quote is a "misquote". The source I gave seemed to include every bit of the quote that Patterson seemed to say had been left out. I had read that he had been taped without his knowledge at one point, and that some of what was transcribed from that was inaccurate, so I stayed away from anything that originated with that tape. But as best as I can tell he seems to have been quoted accurately, but that the "creationist interpretation" is wrong because it doesn't take into account the rest of Patterson's beliefs. That may be a totally fair criticism, but it doesn't seem that he was misquoted.

Also, when the author of the article at talkorigins quotes Patterson as writing:

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

he never includes his interpretation "at the end of [the] letter" he sent, so I'm having trouble discerning exactly what interpretation that is. I think that's a pretty severe omission, since I can't be sure exactly what Patterson is responding to. I'm not trying to be duplicitous or ignore anything, I'm just really having a hard time finding out what the grave mistake is... maybe you can explain it to me?

The best I can gather is that Patterson really doesn't believe that evolution is false (I knew that, which is why I thought the quote was even significant in the first place), and that he believes that transitional forms exist, but that it's impossible to say for sure whether they are really "transitional forms" because ". . .Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else." That's why he refers to the "philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record".

Essentially all of this was within my original understanding of the quote, so again I'm not really sure what the controversy is, and I've read the article over a few times. If you could explain to me what I'm missing I'd appreciate it.

However, I found this bit telling...

". . .Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else."

It is actually this statement which is the key to interpreting the Sunderland quote correctly; it is not possible to say for certain whether a fossil is in the direct ancestral line of a species group. Archaeopteryx, for example, is not necessarily directly ancestral to birds. It may have been a species on a side-branch. However, that in no way disqualifies it as a transitional form, or as evidence for evolution. Evolution predicts that such fossils will exist, and if there was no link between reptiles and birds then Archaeopteryx would not exist, whether it is directly ancestral or not. What Patterson was saying to Sunderland was that, of the transitional forms that are known, he could not make a watertight argument for any being directly ancestral to living species groups.

I think it's significant that between what Patterson says and what this quote says, it is clear that the evaluation of transitional forms as such is a "philosophical" (Patterson's word) interpretation on existing data. Rather than evolution being evident from the fossil record itself, they're led by their preexisting belief in evolution to evaluate given fossils as evidence for evolution. Which I think supports my points. Anyway, I could be dumb and be missing something obvious, so let me know. Anyway, that's long enough for now, so I'll continue this later.

Yep, I think you're missing something. I regarded the quote as a misquote because in the way you used it. It is clear from the talkorigins article that Patterson holds evolution and transitional froms for a fact, see this quote out of his book (on the talkorigins page):

In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types.

You are correct in critisizing Theunissen that he does not include the letter he sent to Patterson. However, he mentioned his interpretation, and it's exactly the paragraph you quoted last. I thought that was obvious from the article. From Pattersons response it is clear that he does not condone the creationist interpretation. And I think that your interpretation is wrong too. The key word is "direct".

I think it's significant that between what Patterson says and what this quote says, it is clear that the evaluation of transitional forms as such is a "philosophical" (Patterson's word) interpretation on existing data.

Patterson never says that the regards the evalution of transitional forms as a philosophical issue. What he says is that it's philosophical to speculate if these are the direct ancestors of a later-living species! This might sound as nitpicking, but in fact it's a key difference. It's philosophical because evolution allows for other, slightly different variation and thus other species in the gap between the now known fossils which have not yet been found. Thus the fossil itself can not be identified as the direct ancestor. What is so difficult to understand about this sentence (now quote from Theunissen):

However, that in no way disqualifies it as a transitional form, or as evidence for evolution.

From which you seem to follow

Rather than evolution being evident from the fossil record itself, they're led by their preexisting belief in evolution to evaluate given fossils as evidence for evolution. Which I think supports my points.

which seems inplausible to me. The "preexisting belief" is your interpretation, it does not follow from the articles. And it is unfair to twist the words of Patterson to further one's own points.

Anyway, the problem of identifying direct ancestors is yet a new point in this debate. We should refocus on the last controversial points. I still miss your definition of a transitional form (yes, I know I'm a pain in the backend ). Without it, any arguing about it is useless, because I don't know the criteria which you employ to come to your judgement that they simply don't exist.

Anyway, I could be dumb and be missing something obvious, so let me know. Anyway, that's long enough for now, so I'll continue this later.

S