Evolution is a Belief System

[Bravus]

The whole concept of 'missing links' is a mistaken one. It suggests that evolution is 'teleological' - that is, that it has a pre-defined end point. A 'link' only makes sense in moving from one form toward another, pre-defined form. On the contrary, every lving thing is simply itself, living and getting on with life, adapted as well as it can be for its environment and it's ecological niche. So, while for example there are creatures that look, in modern terms, like a cross between a lizard and a bird, thinking of them as the 'missing link' between dinosaur ancestors and bird descendants misses the realisation that these creatures are just what they are...

(as always, this is my simplistic understanding, and I'm happy to be corrected)

[Dr. Shane]

We have had fake "missing links" that were "discovered". We have also had fake religious artifacts that have been "dicovered". Which shows these "religious" people and these "scientists" were not either looking for truth but just looking to prove their preconcieved beliefs.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

Crossing 'taxa' simply means crossing categories within a taxonomy. Within the biological taxonomy, 'species' is one such category. So if you mean 'crossing categories at levels higher than species (the next one up is genus), then you should probably talk about that specifically, since the examples I quoted constitute 'crossing taxa' at the species level.

---

I prefer to use as few keystrokes as possible, so I abbreviate terms. When I tried to do that on the public forum, I kept getting responses about the terminology, so had to frequently repeat the long version. So that we are clear on our understanding of terminology here, permit me to clarify the following:

"Evolution" as used herein, is Darwinian, long-age evolution.

"Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species. In contrast, microevolution refers to smaller evolutionary changes (described as changes in allele frequencies) in populations."

"Crossing taxa" means the following:

1) for an individual or a population to change from one taxon to another, at a higher category than speciation (that is, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom);

2) for an individual or a population to change from one taxonomic category to another (for example, for a fish to become a cow).

Keeping those definitions in mind, then:

1) Evolution is a belief system based on insupportable assumptions.

2) There have no recorded instances of anyone actually observing macroevolution.

3) There have been no recorded instances of anyone actually observing any organism to cross taxa.

David Koot

[Bravus]

Your 2 and 3 (in the last set) can't be used to support your 1, because, as I noted above, Darwinian evolutionary theory *predicts* that that's what we would observe, and a correct prediction cannot be used to falsify a theory.

You might be able to rephrase your (1) as 'Evolution is a belief system based on assumptions that cannot be supported by observational evidence that is obtainable within human time scales'. I think that's a true and uncontroversial statement. But to say 'insupportable' is to explicitly reject the vast amount of supporting evidence found in the fossil record. I don't say you can't do that, but you should be explicit about it if you do.

[David Koot]

Ahhh, I will get to that. But, I do wish to stand on # 1 as I had stated it--that is, not limiting it to "observational evidence that is obtainable within human time scales."

I do believe that this will be an interesting discussion. We shall get to the fossil record erelong. Meanwhile, then, do I understand you to agree with #2 and # 3 as they are stated?

Oh, one more question. You said that "a correct prediction cannot be used to falsify a theory." On what basis would you say that evolution's predictions are correct? Are you suggesting the fossil record? Or something else?

[Bravus]

Yep, I'm willing to posit 2 and 3.

The successful prediction I had in mind was 'we will not observe changes at the genus or higher levels on human timescales'. So no, not talking about the fossil record. Talking about the strawman argument (which I'm not accussing you of making) that 'I've never gone to the lion cage at the zoo in the morning and discovered that it had evolved into a wolf'. That is, it's bad logic to say 'we don't observe these kinds of changes in our lifetimes, therefore evolution is wrong', since that observation is precisely what evolutionary theory predicts.

[David Koot]

Ahhh, okay. Yes, I have no problem with that. I am not attempting to 'disprove' evolution, actually. If I were, that would, indeed, seem to be a 'strawman' argument.'

I am taking a look at the assumptions on which the theory of evolution is based. Now, I would like to take a closer look. Taking a careful look at the little variations in species, resulting from genetic drift, natural selection, cross-breeding, etc. (biological evolution)

On what type of data would scientists rely, in predicting changes of the magnitude of crossing taxa? Do they claim to have observed a pattern in those changes which would support such an assumption? IOW, as organisms such as those described in your excerpted article, undergo a series of little changes, does the sum of those changes bring them closer to crossing taxa lines? (above speciation, remember)

Or, are they simply changes on the order of speciation, without any observed direction toward another genus or family?

[David Koot]

Permit me to give an example--one which far overstates the possibilities, for the sake of illustration. A species of fish is observed to develop legs, over a time period of, say, 1,000 generations. Now, I am not suggesting that such would actually occur. I am attempting to give an illustration. Let's say, instead, that over the span of those 1,000 generations, a series of minute changes is observed. Does that series of minute changes appear to an unbroken chain of observers, generation after generation, who keep careful notes, to even be going in the direction of the fish sprouting legs? That is the kind of thing I am asking for.

[Bravus]

We're out in the outer fringes of my knowledge here, but:

1. 1000 generations is far too few for something as complex as legs, with all their nerves, muscles, bones and the brainpower necessary to balance and move to be generated in evolutionary terms: 1000 generations might be enough to remove the fringe around the end of a lobe-like fin (like the ones on the coelacanth) and make it into something that allows to fish to pull itself along in the shallows.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Does that series of minute changes appear to an unbroken chain of observers, generation after generation, who keep careful notes, to even be going in the direction of the fish sprouting legs?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

2. See my comments elsewhere about non-teleology: the adaptations should not be thought about as 'going in a direction'. At every step the adaptation is simply something that increases the organism's ability to survive in the environment. So yes, with enough observations, changes would be seen: as are currently being seen in, for example, squirrel breeding cycles in response to climate change. But they are just changes, not 'changes toward'. It's possible that with enough time and enough environmental change the squirrels might, for example, become hairless with very large ears to dissipate heat.

3. Given that 1000 generations is too few, and it might take millions, and given the lifespan of fish, there may not have been sufficient time in human history for a set of observers to make such observations, and the questions become about how the experiment gets continued over the generations... is there a secret order that observes the fish and records its observations? Mind you, for things like fruit-flies with much shorter generations, such observations are possible, and speciation has been observed (see the material I cited).

4. What you're asking for here is rooted in a misconception, in that the taxonomy is itself a human construction. A creature is just itself: it doesn't know where it fits in the category system, it is just living in its ecological niche. So there is nothing magical about the species and genus categories, and enough small changes (that can be seen as occurring within the species category) can accumulate that it would constitute moving out of that species. In more time, enough can accrue to move across the (artificial, human-created) genus boundary. It's just more of the same - the difference is qualitative, not quantitative.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

See my comments elsewhere about non-teleology: the adaptations should not be thought about as 'going in a direction'. At every step the adaptation is simply something that increases the organism's ability to survive in the environment.

---

I am not referring to a teleogical movement here. I am referring to a measurable change in the anatomy of the organism, and the steps in the development of that change.

Quote:

---

So yes, with enough observations, changes would be seen

---

Are you referring to the example of the fish? Are you suggesting that, in time (who knows how many millions of years) the fish would indeed develop legs?

Quote:

---

as are currently being seen in, for example, squirrel breeding cycles in response to climate change. But they are just changes, not 'changes toward'.

---

They are changes in a measurable direction-that is, for example, breeding cycles at different times of the year than were observed in the past. Being quantifiable is not necessarily being teleological. Being quantifiable is, I would think, essential to being observable.

Quote:

---

What you're asking for here is rooted in a misconception, in that the taxonomy is itself a human construction. A creature is just itself: it doesn't know where it fits in the category system, it is just living in its ecological niche. So there is nothing magical about the species and genus categories, and enough small changes (that can be seen as occurring within the species category) can accumulate that it would constitute moving out of that species. In more time, enough can accrue to move across the (artificial, human-created) genus boundary. It's just more of the same - the difference is qualitative, not quantitative.

---

I would think that you meant quantitative rather than qualitative. As for the man-made genus boundary . . . indeed, man's obsession with imposing order upon nature! Nevertheless, such attempts would, we hope, be made with an effort to approximate reality on some level.

The point? What if there is a limit to the scope of the changes which could occur? (say, for example, at the genus level or the family level) What if, no matter how many millions of generations of fish, and no matter how many millions of years, the fish never would develop legs? Can science say with certainty that such could not be the case? Conversely, can science say with certainty (using the fish only as an example) that the fish certainly WILL sprout legs? I think not. There would be no observational basis on which to make such an assumption.

Or, applying the same principles to the example of the fruit flies . . . Speciation has occurred. Yet, after all the observations of all the generations of fruit flies, and all the cross-breeding under controlled conditions in the lab, the upshot has been different species of fruit flies. IOW once a fruit fly, always a fruit fly. Same for the Madeiran mice. Even after considering the observations over a time period of five hundred years, with the speciation which reportedly occurred, they are still Madeiran mice. Once a mouse, always a mouse.

Professor, can science say with certainty, based on observational evidence, that such would not be the case?

Oh, one more thing I would like to add. As for teleology . . . isn't classical Darwinian evolution teleological? Take, for example, this entry from Yahoo encyclopedia (I typed 'evolution' in the search field, and this is the first hit) :

"Organic evolution, as opposed to belief in the special creation of each individual species as an immutable form, conceives of life as having had its beginnings in a simple primordial protoplasmic mass (probably originating in the sea) from which, through the long eras of time, arose all subsequent living forms."

That certainly seems to sound teleological--organic soup (??) developing into simple organisms, and from thence evolving into more complex organisms. And that is an example of the common understanding of evolution.

David Koot

[Bravus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I would think that you meant quantitative rather than qualitative.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

You're right, thanks for catching that one for me.

Teloelogical doesn't just mean developing or changing, and it doesn't just mean become more complex and capable. It means progressing *toward a pre-specified end point*. This may be a popular conception of evolution, but it's not a scientific one. Each organism is not striving to evolve into some 'higher' form, it is simply striving to live and breed in the environment in which it finds itself.

As for evidence of larger scale changes, science can state that such occur based on observational evidence from the fossil record, but not based on observational evidence from the laboratory (due the the time scale required). And yes, the fossil record requires more interpretation than does seeing a particular living creature.

What you're asking is 'can creatures undergo small changes (microevolution) but not big ones (macroevolution)'.

But the whole point of the (miscued) qualitative/quantitative distinction above was that these boundaries are artificial. What would it be that sets the 'thus far and not further' sign on evolutionary change? Not a human-constructed category system. If a Madieran mouse changed enough, in response to environmental changes, it might become a Madieran rat or vole. No evidence of that in the lab, plenty of evidence in the fossil record... so there's where we would have to part ways.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

It means progressing *toward a pre-specified end point*. This may be a popular conception of evolution, but it's not a scientific one. Each organism is not striving to evolve into some 'higher' form, it is simply striving to live and breed in the environment in which it finds itself.

---

I understand that. I also understand that any observable change in form or function of an organism, must be quantifiable. I would expect that this is where interpretation of data comes into play. At some point in the process, an observer will look at the critter and think, Hmmmm, looks like legs (or vestigial legs, for example.) That may raise a more basic issue of the limitations of thought and words, in describing an event or phenomenom. If words cannot be chosen to describe what an observer sees, then it is impossible to communicate what he sees. And, the words must make sense to the reader. An interesting and challenging aspect of the problem, and one which would seem to go to the heart of the issue of accuracy in reporting and describing observations. To what extent do language and experience result in deductive reasoning?

Quote:

---

As for evidence of larger scale changes, science can state that such occur based on observational evidence from the fossil record, but not based on observational evidence from the laboratory (due the the time scale required). And yes, the fossil record requires more interpretation than does seeing a particular living creature.

---

Splendid, old chap, simply splendid!

Quote:

---

No evidence of that in the lab, plenty of evidence in the fossil record

---

Very well, then, we seem to have completed an initial stage of the inquiry. The hour grows late, and I should like to summarize on the morrow.

David Koot

[Bravus]

I look forward to the continuation.

Just a note - it may be better to describe changes in terms of function rather than structure: to say 'those look like legs' binds us to certain approaches, when what's happening might be something different. To say 'this specimen is developing something that allows it to walk in the shallows rather than just swim in the deep' might just be less inclined to trap us in preconceptions.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

No evidence of that in the lab, plenty of evidence in the fossil record

---

The issue can be summarized as this

(a) If we look at the living creatures in the world around us, we see that they tend to breed within somewhat loosely defined groups. Within these 'species' breeding is almost always possible (but not always, you can get cases where human-male-A can not produce an offspring with human-female-B even though with most other mates they are both fertile). We define the groups precisely by this ability to interbreed. The ability can be lost because of differing courtship rituals, differing anatomy, or different genetics. However you definitely get cases where group A can breed with group B, group B with group C, but group A can not breed with group C. This lack of transitivity ruins almost all attempts to strongly define species.

( Never the less, they breed true enough to let us create a huge list of living species - of non-interbreeding groups. Looking in the fossil record causes us to grow this list to even larger numbers.

© Looking at archaeology shows this list has not changed a lot between now and 2000BC.

(d) We have to account for this huge diversity, and for the patterns we see in the fossil record.

(e) Evolution has an adequate explanation based on mutation and natural selection. This explanation consists of huge numbers of mutations based on large populations and long periods of time.

(f) Literally reading the Bible - a Genesis 6000 years ago, and a world wide Flood 4000 years ago with a single ark - can not explain either the fossil record or the current biodiversity

You are worried about can evolution produce the species - your bigger problem is - can your creationist model?

Evolution is not a belief system, because it does not require any beliefs or assumptions. Creationism is, because its adherents don't test it extensively against the world around them, and when it fails the tests they apply they believe it is a test problem, not a creationism problem.

/Bevin

[Bravus]

...except that you've applied the naturalist (no miracles) assumption in your description without acknowledging that it is there. As I said at the start of the thread, that's one assumption that is inescapable. if we assume no miracles, then creationism is a non-starter, by definition. But that's an assumption for which there is only negative evidence available.

[melvin mccarty]

No I'm not replying to anyone. Just a simple question. An ordinary rattlesnake...how did it get it's fangs and poison? Evolution simply says given enough time anything can happen! No problem! What would be the answer from a creationist viewpoint?

mel

[Bravus]

It's an interesting one, Mel.

I know people in the past have said 'oh well, Satan distorted the animals after the Fall', but that gives Satan creative power, which doesn't seem right. Others seem to have to fall back on evolution/adaptation after the fall, but unless they accept a long age for the earth that's not plausible under evolutionary theory. Did God recreate creatures for survival in a post-Fall world? That would make Him directly responsible for the rattlesnake's venom. Hmm, that's a tough one!

(could be we want to start another thread for it, though, since this one has a broader purpose... I dunno)

[Nicodema]

Steps in ...

Notices no one bothered to address two very excellent posts by Bevin.

Wonders what they are afraid of.

Steps out again.

[Bravus]

(erm, I replied directly to bevin)

[Nicodema]

Musta missed it. Sowwy.

Edit: I was looking specifically for a comprehensive reply to this:

Quote:

---

Yes, I deny that evolution rests on assumptions.

I feel pain, and I don't like it.

I sense my environment.

I develop ways of predicting pain based on my senses.

I see that they work by seeing if they correctly predict when I will feel pain before I do.

I develop ways of manipulating the environment.

I test that they work by seeing if the pain decreases.

I use these same methods of predicting other aspects of my environment.

I use them to predict what I will find if I look under this rock.

If the prediction is wrong, I work on improving either the inputs or the algorithm.

At no point do I need to assume anything. If I get a bad prediction I slowly back up - did I get the result right?did I do the modelling right? did I get the inputs right? Eventually I decide the model itself was wrong and I correct it - and use the corrected model to check my previous work.

I never assume I got anything right - I am prepared to be wrong at all levels. There are no assumptions.

Heck - I even know that it is possible that my sense of pain is wrong and my memory is wrong.

Pragmatically though, I like avoiding pain.

The repeated application of 'observe, predict, check, fix model' is what has lead science to evolution. There are no assumptions required.

---

As well as a more thorough answer to this:

Quote:

---

The issue can be summarized as this

(a) If we look at the living creatures in the world around us, we see that they tend to breed within somewhat loosely defined groups. Within these 'species' breeding is almost always possible (but not always, you can get cases where human-male-A can not produce an offspring with human-female-B even though with most other mates they are both fertile). We define the groups precisely by this ability to interbreed. The ability can be lost because of differing courtship rituals, differing anatomy, or different genetics. However you definitely get cases where group A can breed with group B, group B with group C, but group A can not breed with group C. This lack of transitivity ruins almost all attempts to strongly define species.

(

Never the less, they breed true enough to let us create a huge list of living species - of non-interbreeding groups. Looking in the fossil record causes us to grow this list to even larger numbers.

© Looking at archaeology shows this list has not changed a lot between now and 2000BC.

(d) We have to account for this huge diversity, and for the patterns we see in the fossil record.

(e) Evolution has an adequate explanation based on mutation and natural selection. This explanation consists of huge numbers of mutations based on large populations and long periods of time.

(f) Literally reading the Bible - a Genesis 6000 years ago, and a world wide Flood 4000 years ago with a single ark - can not explain either the fossil record or the current biodiversity

You are worried about can evolution produce the species - your bigger problem is - can your creationist model?

Evolution is not a belief system, because it does not require any beliefs or assumptions. Creationism is, because its adherents don't test it extensively against the world around them, and when it fails the tests they apply they believe it is a test problem, not a creationism problem.

---

You did respond to the second one here, I see, but your response was kind of terse and didn't go beyond stating that Bevin had an implicit assumption of "no miracles".

A charge that while perhaps epistemologically fair is not intrinsically fair, since NOWHERE in science are miracles assumed ... NOWHERE ... at least not that I'm aware of.

Bowing out -- cuz I don't know enough to participate cogently here.

[Bravus]

negative perspiration <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[melvin mccarty]

I thought maybe we'd be better equipped to handle a "narrower" purpose but like you..I dunno neither! lol

[Bravus]

I agree, nowhere in science are miracles included. That's an assumption though, not something that can be itself empirically tested. The statements 'miracles occur' and 'miracles never occur' are not scientific statements, because they are not empirically testable. The fact that science doesn't address miracles is not a negative thing or a shortcoming of science, it's just a demarcation criterion of what is, and is not, science. But bevin's statement was that evolution includes zero assumptions, whereas I'd continue to maintain that is does include the naturalistic assumption, as it must.

Without the naturalistic assumption, all bets are off. There is no aboslute, definitive, scientific, empirical means of telling that the universe is more than 5 minutes (or a picosecond) old. If an omnipotent God decided to create a universe that looked 14 billion years old but was really only 5 minutes old, and to falsify our memories to match, there is no way we could tell. Similarly if he made it 6000 years ago, but made it look 14 billion years old. God has the power, and can do that. The question of whether He did or not is a theological and metaphysical one, not a scientific one.

The only thing we can say about evolution is 'assuming no miracles, this is what likely happened'.

[David Koot]

I have been away from the Forum all day, and am now sitting down to post. I would like to bring the thread back to its original focus. The purpose of this thread is not to disprove the theory of evolution, or to prove the theory of recent creation. Neither attempt would be possible. The specific purpose of this thread is to examine the assumptions on which Darwinian, long-age evolution is based. The position statement at the start of the thread was:

"Evolution is a belief system based on insupportable assumptions."

Looking at the progress of the thread, I would like to adopt Bravus' revision of that assumption as to the scope of the discussion thus far. Later, I will get back to the broader scope of the original position statement. Here is Bravus' revision:

"Evolution is a belief system based on assumptions that cannot be supported by observational evidence that is obtainable within human time scales."

That is an agreed statement reflecting the proceedings of the discussion up to this point. In addition, the following are agreed statements:

"There have been no recorded instances of anyone actually observing macroevolution."

"There have been no recorded instances of anyone actually observing any organism to cross taxa."

These statements incorporate the definitions of the terms, "evolution," "macroevolution" and 'crossing taxa," posted earlier on this thread.

Summarizing, then, we see that evolution must rely upon assumptions about the past. It "cannot be supported by observational evidence that is obtainable within human time scales." Evidence from the past necessarily requires assumptions to be made, because the observer today, was not actually present to observe the event. Such evidence would also be considered 'hearsay,' in a broad sense.

Professor Bravus referred to the fossil record. Evolution must stand or fall, on the basis of the fossil record. Please be so kind as to summarize precisely what the fossil record shows in support of the theory of evolution.

Thanks and best regards.

David Koot

[bevin]

Quote:

---

"Evolution is a belief system based on assumptions that cannot be supported by observational evidence that is obtainable within human time scales."

---

As I pointed out to you earlier, and you completely ignored, evolution does not depend on any assumptions.

You are clearly steering this "conversation" down a path that you have already determined. My first remark stands - this is a troll and you have no intention of actually discussing the issues.

Never the less, because there are other people reading this over our shoulders, I will continue to summarize the issues. I hope this discussion will help people who are trying to understand the current problems the SDA church is running into in the NAD with evolution, and will help such people begin to form their own understanding of the world that is compatible with both its natural facts and having been created and sustained and interacting with a loving God, not a lying one. For if the short-age creationists are right, God has created a huge lie.

Summary so far:

1) Evolutionary theory attempts to explain the world that we see it as a product of the processes that we see around us. It does not assume this is possible - this is merely the hypothesis that is being examined

2) Examining genetics in the world around us shows (a) mutations occur, ( there are no obvious boundaries in the genetic code that stop one sequence from mutating into another, © that some sequences are more likely to reproduce than others

3) Examining geology in the world around us shows (a) there is no evidence for a world wide flood 4000 years ago, ( there is evidence for application of the normal laws of chemistry and physics having been at work on the planet for hundreds of millions of years, © there is evidence that the creatures living here have mutated by huge amounts over those times

For instance: The location and quantity of meteors in Antarctica. The location and quantity of rocks on the floor of the oceans around Antarctica. The location and wearing of meteor impact craters. The location and fossils found in rocks on different continents. The height of the Himalaya. The temperature of the core of huge formations of bent rock. The geology around Uluru. The Hawaiian chain.

4) The fossil record shows that significant mutations have occured. For instance - whales, where we have a very complete picture of the chronology of the changes that lead to these huge sea mammals - a chronology that the short age creationists have absolutely no explanation for

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/11/01/html/ft_20011101.4.html

"Earth’s largest animals are sometimes born with a leg or two, a startling genetic reminder of the time, 50 million years ago, when their ancestors walked on dry land. "

http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/landtosea.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html

and many more.

This chain of fossil record, with the dating that comes attached to it from geology, clearly provides us with an observation of an animal mutating a huge distance across the taxa.

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

/Bevin