eene2 writes:
There are at least 6 different and unrelated meanings to the word "evolution." Students are deceived into thinking all six types of evolution below have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called Micro-evolution.
It would be more accurate to say that scientific models pose several (only 6? I doubt it) challenges to a theory that a god created the universe, everything in it, the Earth, and all life including humans some 6000 (or so) years ago and that they have remained essentially static ever since. These models span several separate disciplines and draw on a vast weight of data from many, many sources. Not simply observed adaptations in nature as this implies.
1.) Chemical evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
2.) Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space, and mater. The Big Bang.
3.) Stellar and planetary evolution - origin of stars and planets.
4.) Organic evolution - origin of life from inanimate matter.
5.) Macro-evolution - origin of major kinds
6.) Micro-evolution - variations within kinds. Only this one has been observed.
1. is observed from physics experiments (fusion of hydrogen into heavier elements.)
2. a cosmological theory to explain the origin of the universe. The universe is expanding, so a theory that it all started from one place is not unreasonable (and highly supported by the data.)
3. astrophysics models. Supported by data and computer modeling.
4. chemical hypothesis. data on abiogenesis is sketchy at best because the initial conditions of the lifeless Earth are difficult to reconstruct. However, much promising research is being done in terms of creating self-replicating molecules.
5 and 6. The standard creationist tactic of separating "micro" and "macro" evolution. "Kinds" is not a scientific taxa nor an effective way to categorize animals. In fact the operating creationist definition of kinds is essentially "when two groups are so different that no intermediate stages can be found, they are different kinds." Which is circular if you plan to use "kinds" to disprove "macro" evolution. The actual ToE does not distinguish between "micro" and "macro" because, in reality, there is no distinction.
One definition of evolution (decent with modification) is given, and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith and are religious.
This is simply untrue, as there is much evidence for these models in their respective disciplines. Biologists will of course not tend to be familiar with the data because is not in their field. These are all separate theories from evolution.
1.) No evolution at present
2.) No new species
3.) No known mechanism of evolution
4.) No fossil evidence (any possible evidence have been proven wrong...and yet some are still taught today)
5.) No recapitulation or vestigial organs
Again, more falsehood. Evolution proceeds to this day. Speciation happens regularly, both in the wild and in the lab. (Essentially, speciation happens almost every time parts of one population become reproductively isolated from each other.) Random, heritable variation acted on by natural selection provides the mechanism. The fossil evidence is legion. Vestigal features in organisms persist mostly in the genetic codes of organisms, with vast stretches of redundant or unused genes. Occasionally, vestigal organs persist (unless you can tell me the function of the appendix?)
1.) Where did the space for the universe come from?
2.) where did matter come from?
3.) Where did the laws of the universe come form (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4.) How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5.) Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6.) When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
1. is a mistaken question. The universe doesn't expand into space. The universe simply expands. That that is outside the universe is by definition inaccesable to science, and therefore cannot be known. The same is true of the universe's physical laws. We don't know the laws that constrain the kinds of laws universes can have because we only observe our own universe. One thing is for sure, though. If they weren't the way they were, we wouldn't be here to observe them. (This is the weak anthropic principle.) Matter comes from energy, spontaneously. This has been demonstrated in the lab and is governed by that E = MC^2 equation you may have heard of. Matter is by no means perfectly organized. It is sufficiently organized, however, that atoms bond into molecules that react chemically with each other. Some molecules are self-organizing, and some are catalysts that catalyze the formation of molecules like themselves. This could be the basis for life. Certainly (re: question 6), any living thing must reproduce. Thus the first truly living things were those complex molecules that could reproduce and govern chemical interations. Life didn't "learn" to reproduce any more than hydrogen and oxygen need to "learn" to form water. It's just what they do. In that sense life is a natrual result of the physical laws that govern the universe.
I just want to encourage you to think critically.
As we want to encourage you. But belief in the disproven words of an unproven god do not represent critical thinking, nor does blind acceptance of the arguments of creationists motivated not by a search for truth but by a desperate need to "confirm" their ancient beliefs. I was once like them. But critical thinking led me to examine the evidence for scientific models of evolution (imagine my surprise when I discovered that the scientific theory was much different than the "theory of evolution" creationists had been talking about). And I discovered not only that the weight of evidence was for the scientific account (and it gets stronger every day), but that there simply wasn't a shred of evidence for the Biblical account (not to mention strong evidence against.) It became clear to me that no truly critical thinker could accept a position of biblical inerrancy and special creation.
I'm sorry that this is so long (and with no clear topic). I tried to at least suggest that there are answers and explanations for the "problems" that "Dr. Dino" poses, answers that you could find in two seconds. Of course, the scientific account of the history of the universe is far more complicated than the Bible's "godidit" story. If you want simple stories, sure, read the Bible. If you're interested in an accurate picture of how it really could have happened, get ready for the complicated scientific account. I promise you it's not simple by any means. I'm still working on understanding it, myself. I'm no scientist, just a person interested in what really happened (with the realization that we can never really know for absolutely sure).
As a topic, perhaps Eene2 could identify one specific issue he'd like to discuss? Then we could provide him with links to relevant scientific literature (so he doesn't have to take our word for it).
------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.
Next time I'll share, promise.
™ Version 4.2
