Re: POLITICS - Evolution | Creation | Intelligent Design

[Guest guest]

Hi Chris:

Perhaps one of the most common logical fallacies held by

evolutionists happens when they assert that evolution

(macroevolution: the ameoba to man senario)is demonstrated through

speciation (microevolution). This is the common logical fallacy of

equivocation, that is, the use of a term in an argument that shifts

meaning so that the conclusion does not validly follow. Your stating

that evolution (meaning macroevolution by context) is observed

through speciation (microevolution) is the fallacy of equivocation.

Take care,

Marla

>

> No, evolution is based on science. The only faith it requires is

faith in

> the scientific method. Creation is based on faith, but one can

make a

> scientific case for it as well, and in fact that is done all the

time. It just happens

> that those cases are generally closer to " pseudo-science " and

almost

> exclusively use lies and strawmen, and thus, are not very effective.

>

> There are currently no observations of life springing from

> > non-life.

>

> That's true to my knowledge, but has nothing whatsoever to do with

biological

> evolution, which does not state, as a scientific theory, that life

arose from

> non-life.

>

> It is erroneous to say that evolution is based on science

> > since none of it is testable and repeatable. At least it hasn't

been

> > done to this day. Those who say that evolution is science are

> > confused with what true science is. Gravity is demonstratable,

as is

> > the first and second laws of thermodynamics. These types of

things

> > are demostratable through the scientific method.

>

> The process of genetic mutations is demonstrable, and the process

of natural

> selection is demonstrable. In fact, their synthesis-- speciation,

has been

> observed several times in worms and rodents.

>

>

> Both evolution and > creationism are scientific " models " which

can not be

> > proved or

> > disproved by the scientific method (the scienfic method requires

> > observation, experimentation, and repeatablity).

>

> You assert this, yet scientists use the scientific method to study

evolution

> every day.

>

> We are neither

> > observing the evolutionary process of kinds of creatures

developing

> > into other kinds.

>

> Only if you arbitrarily defined " kind " in such a way as to

deliberately

> exclude the speciation we've observed.

>

> We know, by observation, that:

> --random mutations occur

> --mutations that enhance reproductivity and survival of offspring

have a

> greater probability of surviving and increasing in the gene pool,

as well as the

> converse

> --the synthesis of this process produces differentiable species

that cannot

> interbreed

> -- some mutations can cause characteristics of other animals to be

manifest

> in one animal-- case in point, humans with webbed appendages.

>

> Even after the first two, which are demonstrable, you'd have to

assert that

> there is some arbitrary mechanism preventing mutations to occur

that would

> bring about differentiation in reproductive capacity, although

that's also been

> observed. After the third, you'd have to say that " species " don't

count as

> different " kinds, " because the worm is still a worm and the mouse

is still a

> mouse, and that there are arbitrary but existing limits that

prevent qualitative

> characteristics from being interchanged among animals, but the

fourth point

> proves that false.

>

> So in what way are the mechanisms of evolution not observed?

>

> Nor are we observing the creation of new kinds of

> > creatures. Since the scientific method requires observation and

> > repeatability of processes and since neither evolution nor

creation

> > are truly observed nor are we able to repeat evolution or

creation in

> > a laboratory situation, then neither are valid scientific

theories.

>

> That would be perfectly good reasoning if it weren't false.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/27/04 11:23:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> I really don't think any of this matters, though, because I have never

> understood why anyone saw the slightest challenge to the glory and power of

God

> in accepting that evolution is true or likely. Most people who object to the

> theory of evolution on religious grounds appear to be using very contorted

> definitions of evolution, designed to exclude any sort of spiritual component

to

> life or existence. This is simply false.

It's particularly absurd, because if there is a God, than it is God who

created so-called " randomness. " So to say " Do you think " randomness " could

account

for complex organisms? " is essentially saying, " Do you think the divinely

created laws of the universe, forged by the hand of God, could yield a complex

organism? "

Chris

[Guest guest]

>True science is based on observation. Science laws are those that

>can be observed and repeated in a predictable manner. Given that no

>one was around to " observe " and document evolution, all we have

>are " speculations. "

Actually, evolution has been observed constantly. I read a great

article by a biologist who studied a certain kind of bug ...

the bugs were isolated in two different areas but were of

the same species. The bugs in one area started looking different

from the bugs in the other area, and eventually their DNA and

coloring differed enough that it would be difficult for them

to interbreed.

Similarly, we can see bacteria " evolving " to be antibiotic

resistant. That is all evolution is ... how animals change from

generation to generation. Scientists and breeders have

been changing animals from generation to generation for

thousands of years ... that's how we got dachshunds from

wolves, and huge cows that give 25 gallons of milk a day from

little runty cows that gave maybe one gallon a day.

And yes, they've even bred them to the point they

can't interbreed with another, which is the definition of " species " .

And they've bred them to be more complex or bigger. It doesn't

take a lot of genes changing to change an animal ... the genes

in a mouse and a man aren't as different as you would think.

And shoot, they can even manipulate the genes directly and

make GMO crops, and we've seen genes deform from

natural causes too.

So there you have it ... people have observed evolution.

Now if you want to say this ONLY happens if an intelligent

agency is directing the process, then lots of people agree

with you ... but the fossil record AND human history

make it pretty clear that animals change slowly over time.

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Hi Chris:

Macroevolution in the most general sense is the grand and unobserved

proposal that complex kinds of life developed from simple kinds of

life which developed from inanimate life. This grand fantasy is not

observed.

Microevolution in its most basic form is the observation that kinds

of life including species exhibit genetic diversity.

Evolutionists propose that from the minute variations we observe in

species, there is the conclusion that all life was derived from

simple one celled organisms.

Natural selection is an observed phenomena by which the genetic pool

is lessened. Natural selection does not even remotely explain how

mutations increase complexity of organisms which is required for

macroevolution to have occurred.

What is not observed is the grandly spun story that mutations via

time and chance and natural selection will make a man from an amoeba.

Take care,

Marla

> In a message dated 2/27/04 8:16:02 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> talithakumi@m... writes:

>

> > Perhaps one of the most common logical fallacies held by

> > evolutionists happens when they assert that evolution

> > (macroevolution: the ameoba to man senario)is demonstrated

through

> > speciation (microevolution). This is the common logical fallacy

of

> > equivocation, that is, the use of a term in an argument that

shifts

> > meaning so that the conclusion does not validly follow. Your

stating

> > that evolution (meaning macroevolution by context) is observed

> > through speciation (microevolution) is the fallacy of

equivocation.

>

> Marla,

>

> It isn't, because you haven't defined " macroevolution " in such a

way as to

> differentiate it from " microevolution. " In order for this argument

not to be an

> utter logical fallacy on your part, you need to define in some non-

arbitrary

> what magnitude of mutational changes constitute " macro-evolution "

and you need

> to give some reasonably plausible explanation as to how there is a

> qualitative difference between the process of mutational changes

that lead to speciation

> and the process of mutational changes that lead to " macro-

evolution. "

>

> But so far, you have not proposed any such definitions.

>

> And so far, the non-arbitrary differentiation between groups of

organisms--

> that of the species-- has shown to be fluid, not static. The irony

is that

> where the fossil record is relatively weak in transitions between

species, it is

> absolutely abundant in higher order transitions, and it is

precisely the

> higher order transitions that you claim cannot occur.

>

> So, thus far, you have committed the logical fallacy by introducing

random

> differentiations among a single phenomenon that you have chosen not

to define.

> Until you attempt to define your categories and properly propose a

> differentiation, my " equivocation " of a single phenomenon remains

just.

>

> An analogy: If we observe that a rock weighing 10 Kg falls for 10

seconds

> and lands with a velocity of 98 m/s^2, and with a force of 98

Newtons, and a

> rock of 100 Kg does the same, hitting with a velocity of 98 m/s^2

and 980

> Newtons, we can form a law that the velocity will always be a

function of the time

> spent accelerating due to gravity, and that the force it hits the

ground with

> will be a function of the mass, namely it's mass times it's

acceleration due to

> gravity.

>

> We can extrapolate from that that if a mass of 1000Kg were to hit

the earth

> after 10 seconds of falling it would do so at 98 m/s^2 with a force

of 9800

> Newtons, even if we never observe such an event.

>

> And suppose-- hypothetically-- that we can't observe such an event,

because

> masses of that magnitude do not fall spontaneously, and we have no

way of

> engineering such an event.

>

> An argument analagous to the argument you're making now, is that it

would be

> the logical fallacy of " equivocation " to say that " micro-falling "

that is,

> falling of masses with a magnitude on the order of 100Kg or less,

is

> qualitatively equal to " macro-falling " , that is, falling on the

order of 1000Kg or more,

> when in fact they are entirely different phenomena, and no one can

prove that

> " macro-falling " exists, let alone follows the same laws as " micro-

falling. "

>

> I would, in that case, suggest that you propose to establish some

clearly

> defined method of differentiating between the two phenomena;

otherwise,

> everything we've observed would indicate that a falling mass of any

size obeys the same

> physical laws as a mass of any other size.

>

> This is analagous to your current argument, with the exception that

you have

> not even bothered to define a quantitative or qualitative boundary

that

> differentiates the two (as opposed to the hypothetical limits of

<100Kg and >1000Kg

> in the previous example.)

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>> I've read the analogy that evolution is like

throwing a deck of cards out of a flying plane, and those cards

landing on the ground all in one stack and in complete order. That

just doesn't happen from what we have observed. <<

Except that the perception of what " order " is, is inextricably linked to our

observation of it. We perceive what we are as the end result of either some

grand design (seems reasonable) or the product of chaos (seems impossible).

But the fact is, we perceive ourselves as an " end result " because WE are the

ones doing the observing, and WE are the ones who have conceived of, and

defined, " order. " In fact, we also conceived of and defined " chaos. "

I really don't think any of this matters, though, because I have never

understood why anyone saw the slightest challenge to the glory and power of God

in accepting that evolution is true or likely. Most people who object to the

theory of evolution on religious grounds appear to be using very contorted

definitions of evolution, designed to exclude any sort of spiritual component to

life or existence. This is simply false.

No scientist would ever say there is no God, because any good scientist knows

that you can't prove a negative. Since no one can " prove " there is no God, it's

absolutely unscientific to make the assertion in the first place. The idea that

God created everything that exists is not at all incompatible with the theory of

evolution or the Big Bang.

However, I do agree that those theories are totally incompatible with the idea

that God created Adam and Eve a few thousand years ago and that's where we came

from. And I think THAT is really the problem, more so than the other way around.

Christie

[Guest guest]

Sheryl wrote:

> It only appears chaos to you. . .It is called Divine order.

Christ wrote

Sheryl,

You are so severely missing the point. The seed turns the same chemicals

into life that you claim couldn't be turned into life. The " chaos " of water,

gases, and organic compounds that " evolved " into life is no more " chaos " and no

less " divine order " than the water, gases, and organic compounds that a seed

turns into a growing plant.

I didn't claim they couldn't be turned into life. I said that what you

described as chaos being turned into order was actually divine order. I was

saying that it is divine power that caused these things to do what they do.

Because you can't understand the power of God and his divine order does not mean

it does not exist. Just as you can not understand infinity and the beginning of

time.

Sheryl

Sheryl Illustrations

http://dovedesignsrus.com

[Guest guest]

here is a good one for you. Think about this. . .

This list is chaos and order at the same time.

Sheryl

Sheryl Illustrations

http://dovedesignsrus.com

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/28/04 4:36:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,

dovedesignsrus@... writes:

> I didn't claim they couldn't be turned into life. I said that what you

> described as chaos being turned into order was actually divine order. I was

> saying that it is divine power that caused these things to do what they do.

> Because you can't understand the power of God and his divine order does not

mean

> it does not exist. Just as you can not understand infinity and the

> beginning of time.

It's rather ironic that you're making the same point I am. You say evolution

requires life to come from " chaos " as if that " chaos " were not " divine

order. " If God created randomness, it's an insult to God to imply that

randomness

is godless.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>but the fossil record AND human history

>make it pretty clear that animals change slowly over time.

And sometimes very quickly.

-

[Guest guest]

Heidi and ,

There is no substantiated record that fossils change over time.

April

Re: POLITICS - Evolution | Creation | Intelligent Design

Heidi-

>but the fossil record AND human history

>make it pretty clear that animals change slowly over time.

And sometimes very quickly.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/28/04 6:16:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,

dovedesignsrus@... writes:

> One quality in a first-class debater is be able to have respectful

> dialog with ones opponent. I require respect from anyone I debate with. By

> stating that I have insulted God, you have crossed that line of respect that I

> require, and I will no longer involve myself in this debate with you.

>

You've done the same to me:

" Just as God is not a part of people’s reality who believe in evolution. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

wrote:

It's rather ironic that you're making the same point I am.

Sheryl wrote: No I am not. One reason you get so many people upset with you

while debating, is the fact that you are constantly misconstruing their words. I

really am not sure if you do it on purpose, I will try to give you the benefit

of the doubt, but it is really quit annoying.

wrote: You say evolution requires life to come from " chaos " as if that

" chaos " were not " divine order. "

Sheryl wrote: No that is not what I am saying. To coin one of your

phrases. " You are so severely missing the point. "

Let me clear this up for you.

Evolution is not even a part of my reality. Just as God is not a part of

people’s reality who believe in evolution. I was and am saying that life did not

evolve by accident. God created it. wrote:

If God created randomness, it's an insult to God to imply that randomness is

godless.

Sheryl wrote: I did not imply that at all. You are now creating your own

argument. Hey there is an idea. Try making up your own topic and arguing

with yourself. You might find that easier than you think.

I said that God created life and it did not just evolve on its own. I did not

and would not insult God, and for you to imply that I did is disrespectful and

repugnant. Which shows a lack of maturity on your part.

Up until now, though I found your debating skills with other people in this

group juvenile at times, I also found them to be entertaining at times. Not

always mind you. . .I said " At times. " Once again let me say I found them

entertaining " AT TIMES. "

I was willing to converse with you, although I did not directly ask for

involvement.

One quality in a first-class debater is be able to have respectful dialog

with ones opponent. I require respect from anyone I debate with. By stating that

I have insulted God, you have crossed that line of respect that I require, and I

will no longer involve myself in this debate with you.

Sheryl

Sheryl Illustrations

http://dovedesignsrus.com

[Guest guest]

>> Hi Chris:

Hi Marla.

> Macroevolution in the most general sense is the grand and unobserved

> proposal that complex kinds of life developed from simple kinds of

> life which developed from inanimate life. This grand fantasy is not

> observed.

>

> Microevolution in its most basic form is the observation that kinds

> of life including species exhibit genetic diversity.

I believe you've just turned one logical fallacy into two. The first was

that you introduced an arbitrary distinction and failed to define it. The

second

is that you've conflated evidence of a phenomenon or instances of it with the

entire aggregate of its instances.

I asked you to clearly define macroevolution. I'll rephrase the question:

please supply an example of an INSTANCE of macroevolution that we would be able

to observe if it occurred, and please explain how it is distinct, in a

non-arbitrary way, from a comparable instance of microevolution.

I'll rephrase it a second time for clarity: The basic, fundamental instance

of one of the two fundamental evolutionary mechanisms is genetic mutation.

From the perspective of an evolutionist, mutations are random, and a mutation

that could lead to an insignificant change or a very small change is part of the

same phenomenon that could lead to a larger change. But, more importantly,

larger changes are seen to come from simply a larger number of the same kind of

mutations.

So, please explain how a mutation or set of mutations that leads to

" macroevolution " is qualitatively different from a mutation or set of mutations

that

leads to " microevolution, " and how one can occur but the same natural laws can

prevent the other from occuring.

> Evolutionists propose that from the minute variations we observe in

> species, there is the conclusion that all life was derived from

> simple one celled organisms.

That's not exactly the proposal... It's as much or more based on similarities

than differences.

> Natural selection is an observed phenomena by which the genetic pool

> is lessened. Natural selection does not even remotely explain how

> mutations increase complexity of organisms which is required for

> macroevolution to have occurred.

Natural selection itself doesn't, but no evolutionist proposes that it does.

Behe wrote of " irreducably complex " systems in _Darwin's Black Box_.

Numerous people have reviewed the book and shown how those systems are not

irreducibly complex. There are some reviews located at www.talkorigins.org.

> What is not observed is the grandly spun story that mutations via

> time and chance and natural selection will make a man from an amoeba.

Well of course we can't " observe " that in the sense of watching it happen.

But an enormous preponderance of evidence suggests that it has occurred.

You've criticized the evidence for evolution by saying on the one hand that we

observe speciation only within a " kind " of animal/plant, but not true

" macroevolution " , and have at the same time criticized the lack of transitions

between

species in the fossil record. But that's like, in the absence of a video

recorder, me taking a picture and an audio recording, and you criticizing the

picture

for having no auditory evidence and the casette tape for having no visual

evidence. We wouldn't expect, given the nature of geology, to find an abundance

of species transitions, but we do find transitions of higher orders of

taxanomy in the fossil record. We wouldn't expect to see drastic aggregates of

speciations leading to departures at higher orders of taxanomy within a

laboratory

or within our life time, but we do find that speciation occurs. That

evidence of speciation fills in the gaps in the fossil record to show that both

occur.

Chris

[Guest guest]

What is your god like Chris?

Re: POLITICS - Evolution | Creation | Intelligent Design

In a message dated 2/28/04 6:16:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,

dovedesignsrus@... writes:

> One quality in a first-class debater is be able to have respectful

> dialog with ones opponent. I require respect from anyone I debate with. By

> stating that I have insulted God, you have crossed that line of respect that

I

> require, and I will no longer involve myself in this debate with you.

>

You've done the same to me:

" Just as God is not a part of people’s reality who believe in

evolution. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> Hi Marla.

> > Macroevolution in the most general sense is the grand and unobserved

> > proposal that complex kinds of life developed from simple kinds of

> > life which developed from inanimate life. This grand fantasy is not

> > observed.

> >

> > Microevolution in its most basic form is the observation that kinds

> > of life including species exhibit genetic diversity.

>

> So, please explain how a mutation or set of mutations that leads to

> " macroevolution " is qualitatively different from a mutation or set of

mutations that

> leads to " microevolution, " and how one can occur but the same natural

laws can

> prevent the other from occuring.

I believe that speciation is generally regarded as the major

distinguishing characteristic between micro- and macroevolution.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/29/04 3:12:33 AM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

> >So, please explain how a mutation or set of mutations that leads to

> > " macroevolution " is qualitatively different from a mutation or set of

> mutations that

> >leads to " microevolution, " and how one can occur but the same natural

> laws can

> >prevent the other from occuring.

>

> I believe that speciation is generally regarded as the major

> distinguishing characteristic between micro- and macroevolution.

And it's clearly the only non-arbitrary division between the two, but Marla

explicitly said she considers speciation to be " microevolution. " When I asked

her to define the difference the first time, she said that " macroevolution " is

the entire process of all evolutionary history and that " microevolution " is

genetic variance, and conveniently left speciation entirely out of the

equation.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/29/04 12:01:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,

talithakumi@... writes:

> Macroevolution (change from one kind of living organism to another

> kind of living organism) is NOT observed.

You conveniently fail to define " kind. " There are a wealth of taxanomic

terms at your fingertips. It should not be difficult to state precisely what

you

mean using them.

We do not observe, for > instance, worms turning into fish, fish turning

> into amphibians, amphibians turning into reptiles, reptiles turning into birds

> or

> mammals, monkeys turning into apes, apes turning into humans.

Your definition of " kind " that you are implicitly using crosses taxanomic

borders. Please define " kind " in terms of taxanomy.

This > is macroevolution.

In other words, macroevolution is the aggregate of microevolutionary changes.

You are still failing to distinguish between the possible INSTANCES of

singular evolutionary changes and the impossible INSTANCES of singular

evolutionary

changes.

Obviously, if a genetic mutation is possible, then multiple genetic mutations

are possible. Both point to a fluidity in the genetic information an

organism can contain, and speciation shows that the border of species is also

fluid.

You claim that " kinds " are a definite, rather than fluid, boundary. In order

for this to be a remotely reasonable claim, you must do three things:

-- Define precisely what a " kind " is.

-- Give some plausible explanation of how we can, non-arbitrarily,

distinguish between the kind of mutation or set of mutations that will produce

speciation within a kind on the one hand, and speciation that crosses the border

of

" kinds " on the other.

-- Give some plausible explanation of how the natural laws as we understand

them allow the former to occur, but disallow the latter to occur.

You haven't done any of these. Thus, a mutation remains a mutation,

regardless of the type or magnitude of variation it results in-- and we know

mutations

to occur.

>These things are not observed.

The preponderance of the evidence (multiple kinds of evidence) indicates they

occur, and evolutionary theory predicts that it would be almost impossible

for us to observe such occuring within the life span of one human. The fossil

record is abundant with transition fossils between orders of taxonomy higher

than species. Yet you criticize it for not showing transitions between species

(abundantly). We observe speciation in laboratories and the wild. Yet you

criticize that evidence for not showing transitions between higher orders of

taxonomy. Again, this is like demanding VHS or DVD evidence with video and

audio, and rejecting a picture and audio recording because the picture contains

no

auditory evidence and the audio recording contains no visual evidence.

Observation is > required by the Scientific Method.

No it isn't. You're conflating observation of an actual phenomenon with

observation of evidence of that phenomenon. No one can see or " observe " an ion

of

hydrogen dissociate from a molecule of acetate. But we know it happens

because we can observe the things that clearly indicate it happens.

Therefore macroevolution does not > conform to the Scientific Method.

Only if you use a conveniently undefined concept of " macroevolution " and make

conflations in your analysis of the Scientific Method that rule out the

acceptance of most other scientific theories.

A fundimental law of biology that > DOES conform to observation and

> experimentation of the Scientific Method is that kinds of animals, for

example, are

> never observed to

> change beyond a certian limit: cats always stay cats, birds always

> stay birds, sharks always stay sharks, sponges always stay sponges,

> etc.

Only if you conveniently fail to define " kind, " and thus protect yourself

from being proven wrong. The fact that your assertion is completely

unfalsifiable for this very reason makes it ipso facto unscientific.

For example, what makes a " turtle " a " turtle " ? How many heads does a

" turtle " have? Most people would answer " one. " Yet in one museum in my state

there

is a turtle with two heads.

What makes a " human " a " human " and differentiates it from a " duck " ? Well,

one thing is humans don't have webbed appendages. But thalidymide babies have

webbed appendages.

What makes " broccoli " " broccoli " and differentiates it from " cabbage " ? You

could answer this in two ways. Scientifically we usually differentiate by

species, but these are the same species, as they can interbreed. So if we are

to

differentiate by " kind " we'd say that cabbage is a big ball and broccoli is

stalky with tiny seeds protruting from its branches in clusters. Yet we know

that they have been artificially bred from a common ancestor, and we know that

we can interbreed them to produce yet another " kind " of plant.

All of these are examples of genetic variation that cross the boundaries of

what we normally believe to constitute a " kind " of animal or plant. Cabbage

doesn't look *anything* like broccoli, for example. Webbed feet are properties

of ducks and other animals, but not humans. Two heads are generally not a

property of animals at all. Most, but not all of these, are maladaptive. But

evolutionary theory predicts that mutations occur all the time, but adaptive

mutations are rare-- so it is just what we'd expect.

Macroevolution does not occur observationally, therefore it

> does not happen and there is no reason to believe that it has

> happened or that it will happen. Unmerrited FAITH is required to

> make the leap to believe in macroevolution.

Scientific observation is the only thing required to believe it, despite your

unmerited and undefined concept of " macroevolution. "

> Microevolution happens not via mutation. No OBSERVATIONAL mutation

> is required to produce microevolution.

Yet mutations do occur observationally-- constantly.

Microevolution is simply > variation exhibited in kinds of life forms

> already preexisting human scientific observation.

You already admitted speciation occurs, so you cannot now simply claim that

microevolution is merely " variation. "

Dogs exhibit vast amounts of diversity

> without any observation that this diversity is the result of NEW

> genetic material.

This may or may not be true-- I'm not a dog evolution expert-- but it's

irrelevant, because it is established by observation that mutations occur.

Certainly two-headed turtles are not normally found in the turtle gene pool.

Blue

lobsters cannot possibly exist from pre-existing genetic material, because the

laws of probability combined with those of genetics prevent them from being so

rare if their existence were not due to a mutation.

The evolutionist has FAITH that all genetic

> material is the result of mutations, but this assertion is beyond the

> realm of scientific observation.

No it isn't.

We can only limit our inquiry to

> what we observe through the Scientific Method. Dogs exhibit great

> variation, for example, as wolves, cayotes, toys, great danes,

> collies, etc. This is microevolution. Now the term evolution infers

> change, but no actual genetic change is required or even OBSERVED for

> these varieties to exist.

That may or may not be true, but we know that humans do not have webbed

appendages among their natural pool of phenotypic possibilities, and we can

observe

how the mutation occurs.

All this genetic diversity has existed

> preceding our human observation. We cannot claim that this great

> amount of genetic diversity exhibited in dogs and other kinds is the

> result of mutations, since we have not observed these mutations

> actually taking place. Evolutionist just assume by a leap of faith

> that it is a result of mutation.

You just use convenient examples for which this is true and ignore the

multiude of examples for which it's not.

>

> NATURAL SELECTION does act upon the already existing non-mutational

> variations exhibited in dogs, for example. But natural selection

> actually works against MACROevolution buy limiting the gene pool in

> various geographical locations.

It could, or it could work toward speciation, by affecting the gene pool of

an isolated population differently than a population of the same species in a

different geographic location in such a way that the two become unable to

interbreed over time, and thus mutations will accumulate within one

interbreeding

population over time indpendently of the other, regardless of whether the two

populations cross paths geographically after this speciation has occurred--

which has been observed in the wild and in the lab.

If only small dogs that can hide

> well can survive predators in a certain natural condition, then that

> NATURAL SELECTION will bread out already existing genetic diversity,

> but natural selection does not cause mutation, that is, it does not

> cause new genetic material.

And no one argues that it does, so way to go defeating that straw man.

A dog is always a dog observationally

> and therefore scientifically.

And you always, thus far, use such concepts without defining them

taxanomically, preventing your argument from being shown to be correct or

incorrect.

>Microevolution is not true EVOLUTION

> as the term evolution is most commonly used. Microevolution is just

> variation in simplest terms.

You previously considered speciation to be " microevolution. "

> The fact that the premise of EVOLUTION (or the macroevolution ameboa

> to man concept) is a logical fallacy of EQUIVOCATION should be clear.

It isn't, because you've committed the converse logical fallacy in order to

make this argument, by failing to define the differentiation between the

mechanisms that could lead to macroevolution and those that lead to

microevolution,

and have still as yet failed to define macroevolution in precise terms that

are available to you.

>

> The fallacy goes something like this . . .

>

> 1)We observe small changes (which are not actually genetic changes at

> all).

Or large changes, such as turtles with two heads, blue lobsters, broccoli

that looks like a big ball in stead of stalks and seed clusters, humans with

webbed appendages, etc etc.

> 2)Therefore, great leaps of change have occured.

We infer this from the fact that we know mutations to occur and we know that

aggregates of sets of mutations would lead to great leaps of change, and

because the fossil record shows such transitions between higher orders of

taxonomy,

and because genetics and protein analysis reveals that only tiny changes in

genetics are required for radical changes in the function of a protein. And

we've also documented how these large changes can occur, such as Darwin's

analysis of the evolution of the eye, or the several reviewers of _Darwin's

Black

Box_ that have shown how Behe's supposedly " irreducibly complex " systems could

have evolved, and of course the evidence that such explanations are correct.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Hi

Macroevolution (change from one kind of living organism to another

kind of living organism) is NOT observed. We do not observe, for

instance, worms turning into fish, fish turning into amphibians,

amphibians turning into reptiles, reptiles turning into birds or

mammals, monkeys turning into apes, apes turning into humans. This

is macroevolution. These things are not observed. Observation is

required by the Scientific Method. Therefore macroevolution does not

conform to the Scientific Method. A fundimental law of biology that

DOES conform to observation and experimentation of the Scientific

Method is that kinds of animals, for example, are never observed to

change beyond a certian limit: cats always stay cats, birds always

stay birds, sharks always stay sharks, sponges always stay sponges,

etc. Macroevolution does not occur observationally, therefore it

does not happen and there is no reason to believe that it has

happened or that it will happen. Unmerrited FAITH is required to

make the leap to believe in macroevolution.

Microevolution happens not via mutation. No OBSERVATIONAL mutation

is required to produce microevolution. Microevolution is simply

variation exhibited in kinds of life forms already preexisting human

scientific observation. Dogs exhibit vast amounts of diversity

without any observation that this diversity is the result of NEW

genetic material. The evolutionist has FAITH that all genetic

material is the result of mutations, but this assertion is beyond the

realm of scientific observation. We can only limit our inquiry to

what we observe through the Scientific Method. Dogs exhibit great

variation, for example, as wolves, cayotes, toys, great danes,

collies, etc. This is microevolution. Now the term evolution infers

change, but no actual genetic change is required or even OBSERVED for

these varieties to exist. All this genetic diversity has existed

preceding our human observation. We cannot claim that this great

amount of genetic diversity exhibited in dogs and other kinds is the

result of mutations, since we have not observed these mutations

actually taking place. Evolutionist just assume by a leap of faith

that it is a result of mutation.

NATURAL SELECTION does act upon the already existing non-mutational

variations exhibited in dogs, for example. But natural selection

actually works against MACROevolution buy limiting the gene pool in

various geographical locations. If only small dogs that can hide

well can survive predators in a certain natural condition, then that

NATURAL SELECTION will bread out already existing genetic diversity,

but natural selection does not cause mutation, that is, it does not

cause new genetic material. A dog is always a dog observationally

and therefore scientifically. Microevolution is not true EVOLUTION

as the term evolution is most commonly used. Microevolution is just

variation in simplest terms.

The fact that the premise of EVOLUTION (or the macroevolution ameboa

to man concept) is a logical fallacy of EQUIVOCATION should be clear.

The fallacy goes something like this . . .

1)We observe small changes (which are not actually genetic changes at

all).

2)Therefore, great leaps of change have occured.

This argument is also stated as so . . .

1)Microevolution is observed.

2)Therefore, macroevolution has happened and is the prevailing

biological principle.

But the fallacy of equivocation exists in the term -evolution. In

statement 1, -evolution is not true genetic change, just variation of

observationally preexisting genetics. In conclusion 2, -evolution

means grand mutational change that is not ever observed, not simply

genetic variation.

This is the most fundamental logical fallacy exhibited by the grand

model of EVOLUTION. This is just the beginning of logical fallacies.

Marla

> >> Hi Chris:

>

> Hi Marla.

>

> > Macroevolution in the most general sense is the grand and

unobserved

> > proposal that complex kinds of life developed from simple kinds

of

> > life which developed from inanimate life. This grand fantasy is

not

> > observed.

> >

> > Microevolution in its most basic form is the observation that

kinds

> > of life including species exhibit genetic diversity.

>

> I believe you've just turned one logical fallacy into two. The

first was

> that you introduced an arbitrary distinction and failed to define

it. The second

> is that you've conflated evidence of a phenomenon or instances of

it with the

> entire aggregate of its instances.

>

> I asked you to clearly define macroevolution. I'll rephrase the

question:

> please supply an example of an INSTANCE of macroevolution that we

would be able

> to observe if it occurred, and please explain how it is distinct,

in a

> non-arbitrary way, from a comparable instance of microevolution.

>

> I'll rephrase it a second time for clarity: The basic, fundamental

instance

> of one of the two fundamental evolutionary mechanisms is genetic

mutation.

> From the perspective of an evolutionist, mutations are random, and

a mutation

> that could lead to an insignificant change or a very small change

is part of the

> same phenomenon that could lead to a larger change. But, more

importantly,

> larger changes are seen to come from simply a larger number of the

same kind of

> mutations.

>

> So, please explain how a mutation or set of mutations that leads to

> " macroevolution " is qualitatively different from a mutation or set

of mutations that

> leads to " microevolution, " and how one can occur but the same

natural laws can

> prevent the other from occuring.

>

> > Evolutionists propose that from the minute variations we observe

in

> > species, there is the conclusion that all life was derived from

> > simple one celled organisms.

>

> That's not exactly the proposal... It's as much or more based on

similarities

> than differences.

>

>

> > Natural selection is an observed phenomena by which the genetic

pool

> > is lessened. Natural selection does not even remotely explain

how

> > mutations increase complexity of organisms which is required for

> > macroevolution to have occurred.

>

> Natural selection itself doesn't, but no evolutionist proposes that

it does.

> Behe wrote of " irreducably complex " systems in _Darwin's

Black Box_.

> Numerous people have reviewed the book and shown how those systems

are not

> irreducibly complex. There are some reviews located at

www.talkorigins.org.

>

> > What is not observed is the grandly spun story that mutations via

> > time and chance and natural selection will make a man from an

amoeba.

>

> Well of course we can't " observe " that in the sense of watching it

happen.

> But an enormous preponderance of evidence suggests that it has

occurred.

> You've criticized the evidence for evolution by saying on the one

hand that we

> observe speciation only within a " kind " of animal/plant, but not

true

> " macroevolution " , and have at the same time criticized the lack of

transitions between

> species in the fossil record. But that's like, in the absence of a

video

> recorder, me taking a picture and an audio recording, and you

criticizing the picture

> for having no auditory evidence and the casette tape for having no

visual

> evidence. We wouldn't expect, given the nature of geology, to find

an abundance

> of species transitions, but we do find transitions of higher orders

of

> taxanomy in the fossil record. We wouldn't expect to see drastic

aggregates of

> speciations leading to departures at higher orders of taxanomy

within a laboratory

> or within our life time, but we do find that speciation occurs.

That

> evidence of speciation fills in the gaps in the fossil record to

show that both

> occur.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

********

Macroevolution does not occur observationally, therefore it

does not happen and there is no reason to believe that it has

happened or that it will happen.

*******

Without getting into the evolution debate, I would like to comment that this

logic is not sound. Just because we can not observe something does not mean

it doesn't happen. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. I'm

sure we can all think of many cases where this idea would fit. For

instance, we can not observe the center of the earth. We have made educated

guesses as to what material and what state it is in. But just because we

haven't observed it, does not mean it is not a molten iron-nickel alloy.

Assuming the premise that something (such as macroevolution) has not been

observed is a correct statement, then the only logical conclusion you can

draw is -> therefore it has not been observed.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>> I said that God created life and it did not just evolve on its own. <<

There is no conflict between these two ideas. I still have no idea why anyone

thinks there is.

>> God is not a part of people's reality who believe in evolution. <<

This, too, is a completely false statement:

Until the people who deny the possiblity of evolution grasp that they are using

an incorrect definition of evolution, this discussion will get absolutely

nowhere.

However, I don't believe it's really the issue of God per se that is the problem

here. The issue is the story of Adam and Eve, and the Genesis account of the

origins of the universe. Since the theory of evolution says nothing at all about

the existence, power, glory, or anything else of God..... that's clearly not the

problem. The problem is that the theory of evolution conflicts with the specific

Genesis story. This is not about God. It's about one small segment (the biblical

literalists) of a religion that is itself believed in by a minority of people on

this planet, and how it conflicts with any other story or theory of how our

species came to be where it is today.

The Roman Catholic Church has no problem with accepting the theory of evolution,

nor do the majority of Christians and Christian theologists. That is because the

theory of evolution does not exclude God. ALL it excludes is Adam and Eve.

Period.

Christie

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/29/04 3:25:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> The Roman Catholic Church has no problem with accepting the theory of

> evolution, nor do the majority of Christians and Christian theologists. That

is

> because the theory of evolution does not exclude God. ALL it excludes is Adam

> and Eve. Period.

I disagree with this. Genetic evidence, according to two evolutionist

science professors I've talked to (neither of whom are " intelligent design " ists)

indicates that humans came from a very, very tiny bottle-necked populations,

possibly ONE couple.

If this is true, it isn't the Adam and Eve story that is the problem, it's

simply the literal interpretation of the geneologies and ages of the patriarchs,

and the assumption that the addition of those numbers to Christ yields the

length of time in years, minus 2000, that humans have been living on earth.

(And a lot more scientific evidence that evolution prooves that's false, and

worse, sheer insanity).

It would also be wrong to believe that the earth was created in six days, but

the bible says that one day with the Lord is like 1000 years and 1000 years

is like one day, and St. Augustine warned in the 4th century against a literal

interpretation of the six-day creation.

I don't see any conflict between believing in evolution and believing in Adam

and Eve. Of course, if one's opinions are based on science, than one would

have to be willing to abandon the idea if genetic evidence turned out to show

otherwise, but my understanding is that as of yet, it is consistent with the

Adam-and-Eve theory.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>The Roman Catholic Church has no problem with accepting the theory of

evolution, nor do the majority of Christians and Christian theologists. That is

because the theory of evolution does not exclude God. ALL it excludes is Adam

and Eve. Period.

>

>Christie

Actually, if you read C.S. , he didn't think it necessarily

excluded Adam and Eve either .... his thought was that perhaps

Adam and Eve were a special case of beings that came into

self-consciousness somehow and spawned the rest of the

human race.

Which actually isn't far off from some of the newer gene

theories, as in Discover Channel's " the real Eve " --- that there

was a " bottleneck " genetically such that most of us DO have

the same mitochondrial DNA of one shared female ancestor

(actually it could have been a tribe of about 200 people

with similar mitochnodrial DNA, but it was a severe genetic

bottleneck no matter how you view it).

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>> Which actually isn't far off from some of the newer gene

theories, as in Discover Channel's " the real Eve " <<

I agree, it's not. However, most proponents of the " Adam and Eve " theory would

not see it that way.

Christie

[Guest guest]

>I agree, it's not. However, most proponents of the " Adam and Eve " theory would

not see it that way.

>

>Christie

Esp. certain sections of that group ... the part I like about the

Discover version is it means we all came from a race of darkly-colored

folk. <weg>

-- Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

>> I disagree with this. Genetic evidence, according to two evolutionist

science professors I've talked to (neither of whom are " intelligent design " ists)

indicates that humans came from a very, very tiny bottle-necked populations,

possibly ONE couple. <<

The absolutely literal Adam and Eve story of Gen 1 and 2 is not, in fact,

compatible with the current theory of evolution - but I agree with you and Heidi

that to a person who doesn't require strict literal belief in the Adam and Eve

story in all its details, that it represents a shorthand or parable version of

something that actually did occur.

But to say that the story about God creating Eve out of Adam's rib - literally -

or that there were no living creatures until God created Adam and Eve, and

animals .... this is the belief that evolution threatens. It doesn't threaten

the belief in God. As you yourself have pointed out in other posts.

Christie