Evolution is a Belief System

[Bravus]

You've returned the favour of neglecting responses though, bevin, by completely ignoring my contention that there is a single assumption - the naturalistic assumption - underlying every case of evolutionary theory, as well as all the geological examples, that you advance.

This is not just me being stubborn or demanding attention: this is the basic centre of disagreement in this debate. No agreement is possible unless the miraculous is taken into account, since divine creation is by definition miraculous. If it is your position (and I'd argue that it's an assumption, but you can reject that label if you like) that miracles never occur, then there is seriously no point in further discussion, because you're arguing with people who do believe miracles occur.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

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

---

I did read your post, and I understood you to say that evolution does not depend on any assumptions. That is a statement of your opinion, and you have so stated it. I'm wondering if there would be anything further to discuss with you on this particular topic?

As for the three summary statements, you have responded to one of them. How about the other two--that noone has actually observed macroevolution occur, and that (perhaps redundantly) noone has actually observed any organism to cross taxa?

David Koot

[bevin]

Quote:

---

No agreement is possible unless the miraculous is taken into account, since divine creation is by definition miraculous. If it is your position (and I'd argue that it's an assumption, but you can reject that label if you like) that miracles never occur, then there is seriously no point in further discussion, because you're arguing with people who do believe miracles occur.

---

Evolutionists do not deny that miracles can happen.

Since the whole point of any scientific theory is to predict the results of experiments (e.g: If I cut open this cliff, what will I find?), it does not matter whether God made the earth 5 minutes ago looking like evolution happened, or whether evolution really happened. Both lead to the same theory with the same predictions - and again without assumptions.

However the idea that the miracles resulted in a young earth that looks like it is the product of natural law playing out over millions of years casts God as a liar - as a being who deliberately sets out to deceive men and then damns them for being deceived.

Personally, while I can conceive of such a god, I have no idea why (a) he would want to be so deceptive, or ( why I would want to love and worship such a god.

This leaves the Literal Biblical Creationists with the huge dilemma - how do you explain such a God?

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

---

and that (perhaps redundantly) noone has actually observed any organism to cross taxa?

---

Records are the only way we can observe things that atke longer than a human lifetime.

For example: Noone has actually observed the writing of the Bible.

Taxa by definition are things that a very distinct genetically. Genetic changes are slow. Therefore the change takes time. Therefore it can't be observed.

As I pointed out, there is extremely solid evidence in the fossil record of the evolution across taxa leading to whales.

In the fossil record, we observe macroevolution across taxa. It just takes too long for one person to see all the steps as they happen. You have to look at the records.

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

---

I did read your post, and I understood you to say that evolution does not depend on any assumptions. That is a statement of your opinion, and you have so stated it. I'm wondering if there would be anything further to discuss with you on this particular topic?

---

If you think it is a matter of opinion whether or not evolution depends on assumptions, then the only thing left to discuss about that is = is it?

There is an old saw that "anyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts".

If evolution depends on assumptions, you should be able to produce at least one that it depends on. So far you have been unable to do so.

All you have produced is a "it assumes it can happen". If you want to use that, then YOU ARE STILL WRONG because evolutionary science would love to have a proof that it can't happen. It is not an assumption that it happened - it is a hypothesis that has survived repeated detailed tests.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

Records are the only way we can observe things that atke longer than a human lifetime . . . You have to look at the records.

---

Records? To be reliable as direct evidence, the following would be needed:

1) An unbroken chain of observers, to record each step as it occurred;

2) An unbroken chain of custody of the records.

I trust that you don't assert either of those???

If either is not present, then you are left with having to make assumptions.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

Records are the only way we can observe things that atke longer than a human lifetime.

---

If your case is going to be built on the basis of records, then you will necessarily have to make a number of assumptions, at different levels.

Quote:

---

Taxa by definition are things that a very distinct genetically.

---

A taxon is not a 'thing' genetically. It is a man-made desscription of such a thing.

Quote:

---

Genetic changes are slow. Therefore the change takes time. Therefore it can't be observed.

---

And that is a major part of the problem, in terms of reliability.

Quote:

---

As I pointed out, there is extremely solid evidence in the fossil record of the evolution across taxa leading to whales.

---

Please summarize concisely, the evidence. Please do not merely post links. Many of us do not have time to follow up with links. Nor do we have time to vet them. Summarize briefly, the key items of evidence. Do use quotations, if you possible. If you do so, then please include cites.

Quote:

---

In the fossil record, we observe macroevolution across taxa.

---

That is a rhetorical statement which doesn't tell us anything.

---

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

It is not an assumption that it happened - it is a hypothesis that has survived repeated detailed tests.

---

Rhetoric.

But, question for you. What is the difference between an assumption and a hypothesis? Secondly, please give a cite for our review, of any one of these tests, which actually prove that macroevolution has occurred.

As for assumptions, I must tell you, Bevin, that every scientist with whom I have discussed this issue, agrees that evolution makes assumptions. According to the scientits, it is a necessary component of 'doing science.'

[bevin]

Quote:

---

If either is not present, then you are left with having to make assumptions

---

Now you are getting silly, as well as wrong. I realize that you will say and do almost anything to avoid admitting that evolution depends on assumptions, but really...

By this standard EVERYTHING is an assumption. For instance:

Witness 1: I observed the defendent crossing the road

Prosecution: How can you be be certain you did not dream that you witnessed it?

Witness 2: I observed witness 1 observing the defendent crossing the road

Prosecution: How can I be sure that you have not been paid to say that?

Witness 3: I testify to the character of witness 2

Prosecution: How can I be sure that you are a good judge of character?

Witness 4: I can testify that witness 3 has excellent character judgement skills

Prosecution: How can I be sure you are not a pathological liar?

Witness 5: ...

...

Prosecution: There, you see, you are just ASSUMING that all these witnesses are correct. Your case rests of ASSUMPTIONS.

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Please summarize concisely, the evidence. Please do not merely post links. Many of us do not have time to follow up with links. Nor do we have time to vet them. Summarize briefly, the key items of evidence. Do use quotations, if you possible. If you do so, then please include cites.

---

Or, to summarize, "don't bother me with facts"

If I point you to the details, you don't want to examine them. If I don't, you claim assumptions.

This is nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with you using ignorance and foolishness to justify your preferred mental state.

Stop being so lazy and go and read the links. I have not even asked you to spend $20 on a book.

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

---

But, question for you. What is the difference between an assumption and a hypothesis? Secondly, please give a cite for our review, of any one of these tests, which actually prove that macroevolution has occurred.

---

Labeling something "an assumption" is a rhetorical device used by laymen and lawyers to discredit a conclusion.

Labeling something "an hypothesis" is a statement by a scientist that an idea is being explored and tested.

Quote:

---

As for assumptions, I must tell you, Bevin, that every scientist with whom I have discussed this issue, agrees that evolution makes assumptions. According to the scientits, it is a necessary component of 'doing science.'

---

Perhaps they were trying to politely get out of a pointless conversation with someone they realized didn't want to hear what was being said.

/Bevin

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

. I realize that you will say and do almost anything to avoid admitting that evolution depends on assumptions

---

Not at all. In fact, that is exactly what I have said all along.

Quote:

---

Witness 1: I observed the defendent crossing the road

---

That is exactly where your illustration differs from the facts here. There WAS no witness. Noone has observed macroevolution. That is why the theory of evolution must rely upon assumptions.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

Labeling something "an assumption" . . .

---

Here is the dictionary definition of an assumption:

"1. something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption.

2. the act of taking for granted or supposing."

Quote:

---

Labeling something "an hypothesis" is a statement by a scientist that an idea is being explored and tested."

---

IOW a form of assumption. Both words are similar in that they deal with suppositions rather than fact.

The only way to know for a fact that macroevolution occurred, would be to have actually observed it occur. You have already stated that it is not possible to actually observe macroevolution occur. Therefore, it necessarily involves assumptions.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

If I point you to the details, you don't want to examine them.

---

Looking at previous threads where you have participated in discussions about this topic, I found that a number of the links were obsolete. I do not have time to vet your links. Nor do I have time to read through a large volume of material. Rather than simply posting a link, it would be helpful if you could quote the key statements from the source, and give the cite as well.

On this thread, you posted a link which talked about an article in National Geographic. There was one sentence from that brief discussion which you cited, about whales reportedly growing legs. There were no footnotes, there was no peer review, there was no way to document the blurb. There was some claim about the phenomenon showing how whales' ancient ancestors walked. However, that is the rankest supposition. Sheer speculation. Are those the 'details' you are referring to?

If you would like to focus on the whales with legs as evidence, then I should be pleased to do so. First of all, let's see some documentation. then, I shall respond.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

bevin said:

. I realize that you will say and do almost anything to avoid admitting that evolution depends on assumptions

---

Not at all. In fact, that is exactly what I have said all along.

---

Sigh - of course I typo'ed that and meant the exact opposite of what I said...

/Bevin

[bevin]

Your fundamental flaw is this...

One can observe that something happened, without observing the actual event, by observing the evidence for it.

Macro-evolution can be observed, just like a supernova can be observed, by comparing two measurements that straddle the period.

In one case we have two photos measuring light that has travelled for many years - and on one we see the star and the next the explosion.

In the other case we have two fossils that have been preserved in the rock for millions of years - and on one we see functional legs and on the other we see vestigal legs.

This is an observation of macro-evolution.

As for the 'broken links' argument - like I said, quit being lazy and go and look at the evidence for yourself.

/Bevin

[Bravus]

To put Bevin's same point a different way, David: before I go and find and bring in evidence from the fossil record for macro-evolution, I need to know what would count as 'evidence' for you.

As I've said above (repeatedly) each creature is simply a creature, so showing two creatures in the fossil record, one in a later geological strata than another, and the later one is in a different genus, will potentially not be construed as evidence by you: it's easy enough to claim that they were different all along, or that there's a 'missing link' between them somehow.

Interpeting the fossil record is clearly not as simple as seeing animal A turn into animal B: there are the considerations of dating the fossils, which gets into a whole different area, and there is the whole 'family tree' of life to consider, not two simple examples.

The example of whales and some 'snake-lizards' having vestigial legs is, I guess, an example of a 'transitional form': a creature discovering (not consciously, through selection) that a feature that was once a good adaptation is no longer helpful, and therefore that feature gradually gets smaller and eventually disappears, or else morphs into something else. Deep cave fish that have eyes but are born blind might be another example of that kind of 'reverse evolution' process.

So, tell me: what would count as evidence? What is the test? What could I point at in the fossil record that you would accept as evidence of macro-evolution?

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

showing two creatures in the fossil record, one in a later geological strata than another, and the later one is in a different genus, will potentially not be construed as evidence by you: it's easy enough to claim that they were different all along, or that there's a 'missing link' between them somehow.

---

In fact, the idea that the earlier one could somehow have 'evolved' into the later one does seem rather far-fetched. The roots of such an idea go back to the mindset of the 'age of optimism.'

Quote:

---

Interpeting the fossil record is clearly not as simple as seeing animal A turn into animal B: there are the considerations of dating the fossils, which gets into a whole different area,

---

The issue of radiometric dating is indeed a controversial one, and one which, once again, requires assumptions to be made.

Quote:

---

and there is the whole 'family tree' of life to consider, not two simple examples.

---

The family 'tree of life' makes sense in terms of a Creator 'building' different creatures on a common platform. Thus, a mouse's DNA may be 90+ percent similar to a human's.

Quote:

---

The example of whales and some 'snake-lizards' having vestigial legs is, I guess, an example of a 'transitional form': a creature discovering (not consciously, through selection) that a feature that was once a good adaptation is no longer helpful, and therefore that feature gradually gets smaller and eventually disappears, or else morphs into something else. Deep cave fish that have eyes but are born blind might be another example of that kind of 'reverse evolution' process.

---

What are alternative explanations? (other than evolution)

Quote:

---

What could I point at in the fossil record that you would accept as evidence of macro-evolution?

---

I would like to hold off on responding to that question until we address the issue of reliability. What are the assumptions on which the fossil record is presented as evidence of evolution? Your preceding paragraph seems to present some general concepts, including assumptions. Are these the assumptions in support of evolution?

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Has there been any "missing links" found in the fossil record?

---

Speaking of missing links, it seems yes, they have found some recently:

Ethiopian skull find:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/03/25/missing.link.ap/index.html

From sea to land:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm

In service,

Nico

Disclaimer: as an "Hebrews 11:3-ist," I neatly avoid the need to have human science and faith match one another. Thus I'm free to enjoy the fruits of each, in their proper respective spheres. Wheeee!

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

One can observe that something happened, without observing the actual event, by observing the evidence for it.

Macro-evolution can be observed, just like a supernova can be observed, by comparing two measurements that straddle the period.

In one case we have two photos measuring light that has travelled for many years - and on one we see the star and the next the explosion.

In the other case we have two fossils that have been preserved in the rock for millions of years - and on one we see functional legs and on the other we see vestigal legs.

This is an observation of macro-evolution.

---

There is a fundamental difference. Light transmits an exact image of the object, so that an observer may actually see the object and a later observer may see the same object at a later time. A sequence of observers over the centuries, may readily record the phases of development. We are dealing with one object. Verification that it is, in fact, the same celestial object, may easily be accomplished. There is accuracy. This has been done with a number of celestial objects, over the centuries.

In the case of the theory of macro-evolution, you are looking at two different objects, separated by who knows how many purported generations between them, as to which there is no way to know if they are at all related.

[David Koot]

Quote:

---

Nicodema said:

Speaking of missing links, it seems yes, they have found some recently

---

How do you know they are links?

[Nicodema]

That is what the articles call them. I'm just sharing the articles, not joining the debate.

[David Koot]

Ahh, okay. Then, to whomever . . . How do you know they are links?

[bevin]

So now we are getting to the root of the problem. David wants to show that we can't prove evolution - that it rests on 'assumptions'.

David. Prove to me that 1 + 1 = 2. Prove that you exist. You can't. If you can't prove either your existence, or that 1 + 1 = 2, then you have a USELESS definition of 'proof'. If EVERY arguement depends on assumptions, then you have a USELESS definition of 'assumption'.

Evolutionary Scientists:

Have found lots of interesting things under rocks.

Care about building a model that accurately predicts what they find under rocks.

Have built a very reliable predictor of what they will find - so good it is used every day for everything from finding oil to understanding avian flu.

This model is so consistent, and so at odds with the literal reading of the Bible, that if the literal reading is correct then our loving an all-powerful God is the greatest liar.

David:

Doesn't want to look under rocks

Doesn't care about building a model that predicts what he finds under rocks

Wants to argue about things like 'reliability' because he knows that NOTHING is reliable, and therefore of course evolution is not reliable, and therefore he doesn't have to change his ideas to cope with it

Doesn't care about the fact that evolution is MUCH better than creation at predicting what will be found under a rock, because he doesn't want to look under rocks, because what he finds there might upset his cute little philosophically pleasing ivory tower

If you want to live in pleasant little creationist houses, amuse yourself with your word games, and avoid AT ALL COSTS looking at the real world.

If you want to live in the actual universe that God created, start finding rocks, predicting what you find under them, and looking there.

This was illustrated at the final Faith and Science Conference, when the organizers took the theologians and administrators, showed them long ice cores, explained why the scientists think the cores are tens of thousands of years of ice - and the theologians and administrators went off to their ivory towers untouched by reality.

Ignorance of reality is a shield. Don't let it down.

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

---

How do you know they are links?

---

You find two things, estimate their ages, and discover that one Early (E) precedes Late (L) by a big amount.

You hypothesis that there is a series of steps from E to L, most of which you have not found.

You search and find a Middle thing that contains some but not all of the differences between earliest and latest

You test your prediction that M dates later than E and before L. Your prediction is true.

This increases the likelyhood that there is a series of steps from E to L, most of which you have not found, and that M is a close offshoot of one of the intermediate stages.

This increases your distrust in all models that predict M does not exist or that predict M does not come from a time between E and L.

This increases your trust in all models that predict M exists and its age.

Since the creation model does not even predict the existence of M, and since it incorrectly predicts the age of M, you have increased the likelyhood the creation model is generates wrong predictions.

Since the evolution model does this, you have increased the likelyhood that the evolution model generates correct predictions.

/Bevin