Where is the evidence for evolution?

Well, you could try taking him at his word. "I don't know" seems pretty straightforward to me, especially on something of a peripheral point. Alternatively, you could pin him down with a nice, "Okay, you don't know. Fine. Does anyone?", which forces him (if so inclined) to go scrambling about the journals looking for information. Finally, you could simply drop that particular issue and go on to something else - like responding to the points he DID make or refuting something he wrote. What irritates a lot of evos is the immediate leap from "I don't know" to "Aha! See, evolution is dead". If you're serious about asking questions, then ask. If not, then rant away - the tactics are pretty well known, so don't be surprised if you're called on it.

I can't seem to answer each and every one of sonnike the creationists questions - we all know what that means.EVOLUTION IS JUST A BELIEF!It is taken on Faith alone!It is a dead paradigm!It is intended to do away with religion!Didn't you guys get the memo?As has become obvious, Sonnike is not up to any sort of dialogue.
He does not want to learn.I think my rant was right on - he is just searching for that crack to slime his way throough - to find justification for his flimsy anti-science beliefs.And now he has found an excuse to 'go away' and conclude - laughably erroneously - that there is some big problem in evolution because I cannot answer one of his tangential questions (ignoring, of course, the fact that he has ignored nearly everything I had presented thus far).He's Freddy Williams without the bad haircut.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-28-2003]

This is starting to come into better focus, and I think I understand better now the issue you, and many other Creationists, have with this sort of reply. I'll take a stab at this, and you can let me know whether I've gotten any closer.I think the issue isn't so much that Scott doesn't know the answer, but more that he just assumes the answer must fit within an evolutionary framework. You're amazed that he can just assume that a branch of biology with whose deep details he's unfamiliar fits into the same evolutionary framework as those parts of biology with which he's better acquainted.There are so many ways to address this that I don't know where to begin or which ones to use. I suppose I could start out by saying that when practicing science you assume that all phenomena have natural, as opposed to supernatural, explanations. If this assumption leads the investigation into a corner of contradictions then I suppose one could begin considering the supernatural, but then you encounter the problem of determining how one tells the difference between a really thorny problem and a miracle.So far, the history of science is of one thorny problem after another giving way to naturalistic explanations. If you look at the thorny problems at the beginning of the 20th century, such as the indetectable ether that just *had* to exist, and said, "Here be God," then in 1906 when Einstein came out with his special theory of relativity you would have had to say, "Whoops, guess not." Or if you go back further in time to the 16th century and examine the thorny problem of what mechanism keeps the planets in their orbits and said, "Here be God," then when Newton came along you would have had to once again say, "Whoops, guess not."This is why ID always focuses on the frontiers of scientific advancement, because that's where the thorniest questions are, and that's where it's easiest to say, "Aha, this problem is so thorny and complex (irreducibly complex in Behe's case) that not only can no one figure it out, it will *never* be figured out, and therefore 'Here be God.'" And in most cases within 20 years or so you'll again be wrong.Those unfamiliar with the history of scientific advances, a couple examples of which I've just provided, can easily believe that science doesn't really advance, that it's really just a collection of facts and theories that scientists like to play with, and that in the case of evolution what they're really doing is playing with blasphemy and the denial of God's word. But not acknowledging that science studies the world and universe as it really is and as science actually finds it, and that this knowledge can grow and increase and build on itself, would be to deny reality. Science has made dramatic contributions to the changes and advances of the past few centuries. It is easy for anyone to look back over the last hundred years and see the marks of scientific progress by talking to parents and grandparents. My own mother grew up on the Alberta prairie in a house with no electricity or plumbing (rural electrification took longer in Canada than in the US). One of the dramatic advancements she remembers is when the pump was installed next to the kitchen sink from having been out in the yard, but now she uses a computer, watches a TiVo and cooks in a microwave. She hits a button and her car starts so it can be warm by the time she goes out.Scientific advances have also come in biology, many of them with medical consequences. If scientists were just making it up then they couldn't look at a baby's DNA and determine whether it had a certain genetic defect. DNA identification wouldn't be admissible in court. We wouldn't even know what DNA looks like. We wouldn't have CAT scanners and MRIs, or even electroencephalographs and fetal monitors.And at no point during all this scientific development has an area that we couldn't eventually penetrate been found. Maybe some of the current thorny problems represent the first cases of such problems, but I wouldn't bet on it because it would run counter to the example of 500 years of scientific advances.Where I think the problem comes in for you is that you *know* evolution is wrong, but even more pertinent, you seem to believe that scientists are covering up some deep secret of missing evidence, and so you grasp at every hint of the unknown as the smoking gun.But there is so much that is unknown. You should have no problem finding things we don't know because there are simply so many of them. There are more scientists alive today then at any time in world history - if there were not a lot that we didn't know then there would be little for them to do and they'd move into other professions. So get used to the idea that there are lots of things we don't know.And, of course, as Scott has pointed out, science today is so big and so complex that to make progress almost everyone has to sub-specialize and sub-sub-specialize into narrow disciplines. I don't even attempt to explain my area of sub-sub-specialization to anyone outside my field. When my father was still alive and we got together one question he would invariably ask would be, "So, tell me, what is it you do again?" And I could never explain it to the point where he could understand, and this man was an organic chemist. By the way, please don't think I'm bragging. I'm not claiming to be brilliant, just very, very specialized, as are most scientists today. But the important point is that all this specialization means that many scientists know little outside their specialty beyond the general principles of their own branch of science.There's another aspect to all this, and it's a very important one. There is a significant and extremely important difference between these two things:

• Evidence of evolution, for instance, fossils in the geologic column, or classification systems for living organisms, or genetic relationship trees, etc.
• Projection of an evolutionary framework onto a biological question. This means asking how evolution might have produced something, say an eye or a hand. It is *not* evidence. The proposed scenario might be bolstered by evidence, or it might be completely speculative.

I'm no biologist and have no idea whatsoever whether there's a good answer today for the question you asked about the evidence for how various genetic control mechanisms might have evolved. But, the evidence we have so far indicates that all living things have arrived at their current forms through the process of evolution, ie, mutation and selection, because these are the only naturalistic processes we know that produce new species, and to this point in time no one has ever come across a scientific problem that indicates non-natural means must be considered. So, if one is doing science then one has no choice but to project what we know onto the question. Hence, when you ask your question, the only scientific answer possible is that the evolution of genetic control mechanisms took place through the same process as all other evolution, ie, mutation and selection.So now I think it's time to throw the question back to you. In light of all I've just explained, when Scott says he doesn't know how genetic control mechanisms might have evolved, but that it probably had something to do with mutation and selection, does it still make sense to you to assume that, even if science has no good answers, that this represents a thorny problem calling into question not only all of biology, whose modern form is based upon evolution, but even all of science, which is based upon the assumption of naturalistic causes?Hope this gets closer to your question. If not I promise to be briefer next time.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Please, Scott, I know I'm responsible for prodding you to be more patient and forthcoming and that subsequent developments have tended to reinforce your viewpoint and not mine, but if I could indulge upon your patience a little longer it would be appreciated.By the way, about my tongue-in-cheek portrayal of your email, yes, Moose mentioned to me the email you sent him, but I actually had in mind a parody of the email you sent me last year after your first suspension. It wasn't intended to be accurate or anything, hence the smiley, I apologize if I stepped over a line. I was just trying to point out to Sonnikke that during your time here we've been more at loggerheads than anything else, and that charging us with complicity made no sense.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

Admin:
Please, Scott, I know I'm responsible for prodding you to be more patient and forthcoming and that subsequent developments have tended to reinforce your viewpoint and not mine, but if I could indulge upon your patience a little longer it would be appreciated.

---

I will try.

quote:

---

By the way, about my tongue-in-cheek portrayal of your email, yes, Moose mentioned to me the email you sent him, but I actually had in mind a parody of the email you sent me last year after your first suspension.

---

Well, I felt the same way then, too. And I don't believe I used the phrase "two-bit" then, either.

quote:

---

It wasn't intended to be accurate or anything, hence the smiley, I apologize if I stepped over a line. I was just trying to point out to Sonnikke that during your time here we've been more at loggerheads than anything else, and that charging us with complicity made no sense.

---

What line?My goodness, some folks are so serious.

SLPX can you direct me to so supportive evo literature addressing the issues ranging from basic to advanced?

If it helps, rmwilliamsjr had a book recommendation for human evolution in this message:http://EvC Forum: Let us reason together. -->EvC Forum: Let us reason together.--Percy

I'm new, too. I'm a Christian, but never entered into the argument before. Recently, I realized that Genesis 1:1 referred to the creation of the original earth. Today, we call it evolution, but I think if was more of a devolution because God doesn't create junk. I believe that man was created and satan, in his attempt to be greater than God, perverted the creation until it was slime. At that point, the world was destroyed by the FIRST flood, causing geological changes and the DESTRUCTION of life; thus the world became without form and void, Genesis 1:2. At that point, God gave the old world new life, such as we see it today. satan is still attempting to pervert this world, but there are more obstacles in his way. There is also a time table attached to this world. It will not have as many years to devolve. I know that this is not an accepted theory, but it came from a very HIGH SOURCE. YOU WILL NEVER FIND A TRANSITION BETWEEN THE TWO WORLDS. THEY HAD NO LINKAGE.

what you are describing is the gap theory. ie big gap between gen 1:1 and 1:2. lots of history and comments on it.gap theory of genesis one chapter onegap theoryand there is a gap-theory.com site even.....and that is just the first page at a yahoo/google search.richard williams------------------
Signature too long, 100 chars max.

This thread has become focused on genetic evidence for evolution. Discussion of the creation of the world should be moved to a thread in either the Cosmology and the Big Bang forum, or the Geology and the Great Flood forum.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Admin:
... subsequent developments have tended to reinforce your viewpoint and not mine, but if I could indulge upon your patience a little longer it would be appreciated.Boy, it sure is rough being right so often....

Hi Admin,
I'll try to re-quote as little as possible (I know you frown upon it )
Certainly I agree and applaud the advancements of science. I doubt *anyone* would do otherwise. That is not to say that scientific advancements = proof for evolution, it absolutely does not.
I can see the problem of specializing and sub-specializing etc. Which really means that scientists (who are just like the rest of us) rely on information from other scientists, and either trust it or not, correct? It should be noted that many scientific advancements were made by bible believing christians, and undoubtedly are still being made today (unless I'm mistaken wasn't the invention of the CT scanner by a creationist?) Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation ResearchYou cite "evidence" You would have to agree that this "evidence" can and does just as easily apply as evidence for creation, would you not? What new species are you talking about?That's a pretty bold statement. So are you saying that all the opposition to evolution basically counts as "no one"?And given our limited and changing knowledge, is it not safe to assume that saying "mutation and selection did it" is potentially if not probably incorrect, especially if a paradigm is so held to as to not allow for conflicting evidence to be presented. Only when you have a priori commitments would you say "the only scientific answer possible". Well I'm not sure if this is what you are trying to say, but it sounds like you are saying that because of an a priori commitment to naturalism and evolution, the only answer to such questions is obviously within that framework. How is that not dogmatic I ask?Finally, you have aroused my always curious nature so I would like to ask you Admin, what is your speciality? (If you don't mind me asking).Thank you,
Sp.s. I *really* hope the above does not get seen as un-serious as happened previously. I am in this thing solidly and sincerely.

If that's "obvious" to you, I wonder how "obvious" scientific discoveries are to you. Now you are just acting like a kindergarten bully who is bragging to his buddies about un-truths that makes himself feel good and important. I'm glad you are not a psychologist. When did you see my picture? Let me know when you are back from recess so we can keep talking,... if you still want to.S.

I've already stepped much too far outside the bounds of moderator. One thing you said is helpful, though. If you do not accept science's definition of science, in your case the requirement that only evidence in some way available to the five senses be considered, then it explains why you accept so little that is explained. You might find it helpful to explore the issue of what constitutes acceptable scientific evidence over in the Is It Science? forum.My interest here is to keep discussion on-topic and moving forward. I'd like to request that you and Scott diminish the number of content-free exchanges.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

I always get a kick out of such lists, as they are at best red herrings and are, with little doubt, quite completely irrelevent as to the validity of creationism as a scientific field.Of that hallowed list, how many of the 'fields of science' or scientific contributions were the result of the 'creation scientist's' reliance upon a literal interpretation of the bible?Did the 'inventor' of gynecology, for example, use the bible as his anatomy/physiology text? Did a literal reading of Genesis (or would it be Ruth?) inspire the discovery of the vagina?As for the Admin's comment on content-free posts, I think it clear that I have been trying to get some content from Sonnike in order to move on. As my initial intuition has largely been shown to be correct, that Sonnike was merely out to find a 'chink in the armor' to seize upon, I would hope that the greatest change in post content be from Sonnike.