Are there transitional fossils?

[pitabread]

I'm still confused as what the argument is over. So the term "evolution" is used to refer to common ancestry of organisms and also to the process by which that occurs.

What's the issue again?

 

[Speedwell]

That's exactly what I've said throughout the thread and since I've posted here, it's not one thing but two things. I must have quoted half a dozen sources showing exactly that but invariably the Creationist must be characterized as fundamentally ignorant and/or dishonest.

So you were angling for a definition which includes common descent. What are you going to do with it? I don't know about the rest of our colleagues, but if I had known what you wanted I would have stipulated it just to see where you were going.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's exactly what I've said throughout the thread and since I've posted here, it's not one thing but two things. I must have quoted half a dozen sources showing exactly that but invariably the Creationist must be characterized as fundamentally ignorant and/or dishonest.

Well, that's possibly part of the problem. You are a bit wordy too; if you use simpler words and are as concise as possible, it makes for fewer opportunities to be misunderstood. Emphasis on fewer.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm still confused as what the argument is over. So the term "evolution" is used to refer to common ancestry of organisms and also to the process by which that occurs.

What's the issue again?

My impression was that Mark wanted a definition of evolution which included an assertion of universal common ancestry as the basis of some argument he wants to bring off. Let's agree that it does and see what he makes of it.

 

[pitabread]

Well, that's possibly part of the problem. You are a bit wordy too; if you use simpler words and are as concise as possible, it makes for fewer opportunities to be misunderstood. Emphasis on fewer.

Agreed. No sense in posting a wall of text when a single paragraph will do.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm still confused as what the argument is over. So the term "evolution" is used to refer to common ancestry of organisms and also to the process by which that occurs.

What's the issue again?

I think the issue is that people, as a result of using the term for both things, don't recognize the distinction that the observation is "species change over time across populations and generations", and that the theory of evolution is the explanation of how that happens. It's like if a person named both their kids Bobby. "Who cleaned the dishes? Bobby. Who mopped the floor? Bobby." Did the same kid do both things, or...? That's the issue as I see it, in a nutshell.

Since "evolution" is often used as a short hand for both things, it results in a lot of debate issues. For example, if a creationist says "evolution doesn't happen", are they saying that species don't change over time, or that the explanation of how they change over time is wrong? This can become especially problematic for people that agree that species do change over time, but disagree with the how.

 

[mark kennedy]

And nowhere in there do I see any mention of the phrase "exclusively naturalistic means" except in your own phrase.
All this leads to me believe that the only reason you are bringing this up is because you find that science clashes with your religious beliefs and you don't like that.

And you STILL haven't shown me where I insulted your religious beliefs, which leads me to conclude that I in fact did not insult your religious beliefs and you are lying about me. Real class act.

No I base it on the definition of Darwin who attributed it to Lamarck:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

This was blended during the development of Mendelian Genetics during the 30s and the 40s in a unified theory known as the Modern Synthesis, aka Neo-Darwinism:

The Modern Synthesis describes the fusion (merger) of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian evolution that resulted in a unified theory of evolution. It is sometimes referred to as the Neo-Darwinian theory. The Modern Synthesis was developed by a number of now-legendary evolutionary biologists in the 1930s and 1940s.l (Modern Synthesis)
​

Since then evolution has been understood in terms of the genetic changes in populations over time, because the best way to track evolution statistically is population genetics. I don't know if you think that's some kind of a rebuke, or mischaracterization but it's not a difficult point to understand or defend. Instead of learning more about Darwinism and the unified theory so many brilliant scientists worked on you would rather just contradict me. If anything I would think evolutionists would be bragging about it, do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a unified theory in science?

 

[mark kennedy]

It sounds like you're creating an argument in your mind and then trying to win that argument.

I stopped bothering with arguments a long time ago, you just don't need one.

Sure, although I'd argue that second part of that statement is worded a bit poorly. For one, "exclusively naturalistic means" is redundant given we're talking about science. Science by definition deals with exclusively naturalistic means.

Which would presuppose there is no such thing as miraculous events like creation. The truth is that there is very little science in these discussions, it's largely matters of fact and opinion related to natural history. History does not have the same limitation that natural science does, an event in history is just an event in history.

Second, it's less of an assumption and more of a conclusion by this point. Just genetics alone is overwhelmingly pointed in the direction of all life on Earth sharing common ancestry. It's the only thing that makes any sense.

First you assume exclusively naturalistic causes because that all science can consider then pass off your conclusion as if it were not a presupposed fact.

Finally, it's not really a philosophy beyond accepting the basic philosophy required to accept scientific findings as true (i.e. the universe is not deceiving us). Which is why I find people arguing that species were individually created so odd. Even if one accepts that view, it doesn't change how life on Earth looks. And life on Earth looks like it evolved and shares common ancestry.

Science has always been a philosophy, when what we are calling science was being developed both Descartes and Newton wrote books on 'the first philosophy', which has become synonymous with science. It's really never been more then an epistemology (theory of knowledge), the word 'science' itself even means knowledge.

Believing in special creation, particularly the YEC view of things, is basically accepting that the universe is inherently deceptive.

Believing in the doctrine of creation is essential Christian theism. I've look at the evidence from genetics and paleontology and it's hardly conclusive. What's more the age of the earth is irrelevant to the doctrine of creation but why would I expect someone to understand Genesis 1 when an honest admission of the definition is impossible.

Again, I think you're just trying to win an argument of your own making.

That's not an argument, that's a baseline. I insist on something I know to be an irrefutable fact, well sourced and completely comprehensive. From there I determine the integrity of the poster by a willingness or unwillingness to accept the obvious.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think the issue is that people, as a result of using the term for both things, don't recognize the distinction that the observation is "species change over time across populations and generations", and that the theory of evolution is the explanation of how that happens. It's like if a person named both their kids Bobby. "Who cleaned the dishes? Bobby. Who mopped the floor? Bobby." Did the same kid do both things, or...? That's the issue as I see it, in a nutshell.

Since "evolution" is often used as a short hand for both things, it results in a lot of debate issues. For example, if a creationist says "evolution doesn't happen", are they saying that species don't change over time, or that the explanation of how they change over time is wrong? This can become especially problematic for people that agree that species do change over time, but disagree with the how.

That's kind of the thing, I'm actually very interested in adaptive evolution. It really puzzles me to see creationists arguing against evolution when the real problem is Darwinism. No one sane would deny that things change over time, I've never seen a creationist who argues against Mendelian genetics. This comes down to a philosophy of natural history and there is one dramatic difference that separates the Creationist and Darwinian by an irreconcilable gulf, the time line.

Creationists, when you think about it, are actually radical evolutionists. The inhabitants of that boat emerge as the first parents of all birds, reptiles and mammals including humans, 4000 years ago. This is an accelerated evolution that would have sacred Charles Darwin to death.

 

[Speedwell]

Which would presuppose there is no such thing as miraculous events like creation.

Science makes no such presupposition. It appears that you have confused the methodological naturalism of science with the metaphysical naturalism of atheism.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No I base it on the definition of Darwin who attributed it to Lamarck:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

This was blended during the development of Mendelian Genetics during the 30s and the 40s in a unified theory known as the Modern Synthesis, aka Neo-Darwinism:

Lamarck might have inspired Darwin to be interested in the idea of species changing over time, I wouldn't know. However, Lamarck's proposed mechanism of how species change over time is not incorporated into the modern understanding of how species change over time at all. In fact, Lamarck's ideas were disproven ages ago, and are now considered somewhat of a joke. "The neck of the giraffe became taller because the preceding generation stretched its neck, and this got passed down so little by little, with each generation having a slightly longer neck than the one that preceded it, the giraffe neck as we see it today came to be." Hahaha, no. It doesn't matter how much you personally work out and build muscle, that won't mean your kids will be better at building muscle than you were. Lamarck's ideas were literally presented as a humorous reference to what preceded Darwin's theory of evolution in my high school biology textbook, and they don't even get a mention in my college one.

The Modern Synthesis describes the fusion (merger) of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian evolution that resulted in a unified theory of evolution. It is sometimes referred to as the Neo-Darwinian theory. The Modern Synthesis was developed by a number of now-legendary evolutionary biologists in the 1930s and 1940s.l (Modern Synthesis)

Note the lack of Lamarck here. Additionally, the theory of evolution has been improved much since then, just the more basic ideas were developed by this point. Further detail has been added by a great extent. I will also mention that the field of genetics has far expanded from its Mendelian roots.
​

Since then evolution has been understood in terms of the genetic changes in populations over time, because the best way to track evolution statistically is population genetics. I don't know if you think that's some kind of a rebuke, or mischaracterization but it's not a difficult point to understand or defend. Instead of learning more about Darwinism and the unified theory so many brilliant scientists worked on you would rather just contradict me. If anything I would think evolutionists would be bragging about it, do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a unified theory in science?

I've mentioned that evolution is the unifying theory of biology before, but I will admit that I hadn't considered that such a unifying theory was uncommon. Don't get me wrong, I was certainly aware of it, but I hadn't put much thought into how significant that really was.

I would also absolutely agree that population genetics is the best way to track how a species changes over generations. It's a shame that, with the current human lifespan compared to reproduction rate, I don't get to enjoy observing the effects of genetic drift in my own species very much.

 

[mark kennedy]

Science makes no such presupposition. It appears that you have confused the methodological naturalism of science with the metaphysical naturalism of atheism.

No I'm aware that natural science is focused on natural phenomenon and I'm perfectly fine with that. That marks the limits of that discipline and as long as it stays in it's lane it does wonderful things. Again, Darwinism is one thing and evolution is another, I can be skeptical of the natural history philosophy without it effecting my understanding of adaptive evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

No I'm aware that natural science is focused on natural phenomenon and I'm perfectly fine with that. That marks the limits of that discipline and as long as it stays in it's lane it does wonderful things. Again, Darwinism is one thing and evolution is another, I can be skeptical of the natural history philosophy without it effecting my understanding of adaptive evolution.

Since you are aware of the distinction and apparently satisfied with adaptive evolution as a process of variation and selection, you must see what you call "Darwinism" as making some additional claims that you identify with metaphysical materialism. Is that right? What are they?

 

[mark kennedy]

Lamarck might have inspired Darwin to be interested in the idea of species changing over time, I wouldn't know. However, Lamarck's proposed mechanism of how species change over time is not incorporated into the modern understanding of how species change over time at all. In fact, Lamarck's ideas were disproven ages ago, and are now considered somewhat of a joke. "The neck of the giraffe became taller because the preceding generation stretched its neck, and this got passed down so little by little, with each generation having a slightly longer neck than the one that preceded it, the giraffe neck as we see it today came to be." Hahaha, no. It doesn't matter how much you personally work out and build muscle, that won't mean your kids will be better at building muscle than you were. Lamarck's ideas were literally presented as a humorous reference to what preceded Darwin's theory of evolution in my high school biology textbook, and they don't even get a mention in my college one.

Lamarck and Darwin were living in a time when creationism, specifically catastrophism, was the prevailing view. It was this bizarre idea that God had created life multiple times and life was ended multiple times. The basic premise was that God created living things again, pretty much as they appear today. Darwin wrote in a very conversational way, passing over various anecdotal points of divergence, he appears to have been fascinated with variety that he uses interchangeably with species. I wouldn't dismiss them quite so readily, their influence is undeniable and Darwin did more then anyone I'm aware of to popularize naturalism.

​

Note the lack of Lamarck here. Additionally, the theory of evolution has been improved much since then, just the more basic ideas were developed by this point. Further detail has been added by a great extent. I will also mention that the field of genetics has far expanded from its Mendelian roots.

Your really missing the progression here. Think about it, Euclid puts together his famous Elements cyclical in ancient Greece some 2500 years ago. That really didn't change and hasn't to this day. However, when Newton introduces Calculus the ability of scientists to measure the Y squared in motion takes technology to new heights. Mendel established a model for inheritance that hold true to this day, the Initial Sequence of the Human Genome spoke of his work with great respect. Mendelian Genetics has grown by leaps and bounds, he was as important to the life sciences as Newton was to physics. Just not as accomplished in his time.

​

I've mentioned that evolution is the unifying theory of biology before, but I will admit that I hadn't considered that such a unifying theory was uncommon. Don't get me wrong, I was certainly aware of it, but I hadn't put much thought into how significant that really was.

Well, I'm more of a Liberal Arts major, I get to roam around more. Darwinism was a unified theory at a time when Genetics wasn't even considered a science. I know that sounds a bit odd since geneticists were doing profoundly empirical lab work. The cause and effect could not be reconciled until the DNA double helix model, since then no one has suggested Genetics isn't true science.

I would also absolutely agree that population genetics is the best way to track how a species changes over generations. It's a shame that, with the current human lifespan compared to reproduction rate, I don't get to enjoy observing the effects of genetic drift in my own species very much.

Those things are being tracked, population genetics is a very big deal. I get things piecemeal, recently I read a paper on how the visual cortex in norther populations of humans is 20% different then those of a more southern hemisphere. I just find that so fascinating. Something I have always wondered though. Darwin had in his library Mendel's only surviving paper uncut. When they printed books then they would be printed accordion style so they had to be cut in order to read them. Darwin didn't speak German so he never bothered, I've often wondered what might have came from Darwin actually reading Mendel, guess we will never know.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No I base it on the definition of Darwin who attributed it to Lamarck:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

This was blended during the development of Mendelian Genetics during the 30s and the 40s in a unified theory known as the Modern Synthesis, aka Neo-Darwinism:

The Modern Synthesis describes the fusion (merger) of Mendelian genetics with Darwinian evolution that resulted in a unified theory of evolution. It is sometimes referred to as the Neo-Darwinian theory. The Modern Synthesis was developed by a number of now-legendary evolutionary biologists in the 1930s and 1940s.l (Modern Synthesis)
​

Since then evolution has been understood in terms of the genetic changes in populations over time, because the best way to track evolution statistically is population genetics. I don't know if you think that's some kind of a rebuke, or mischaracterization but it's not a difficult point to understand or defend. Instead of learning more about Darwinism and the unified theory so many brilliant scientists worked on you would rather just contradict me. If anything I would think evolutionists would be bragging about it, do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a unified theory in science?

And yet what Darwin said is not the be-all and end-all of the theory. Plus, we have also come a long way since the 1930s and 1940s.

And YOU STILL HAVEN'T SAID WHERE I INSULTED YOUR RELIGION! Will you now admit that you lied about what I said?

 

[mark kennedy]

Since you are aware of the distinction and apparently satisfied with adaptive evolution as a process of variation and selection, you must see what you call "Darwinism" as making some additional claims that you identify with metaphysical materialism. Is that right? What are they?

Darwinism doesn't really make claims, it has a propositional logic. Rather then inferring, 'miraculous interposition', as Darwin put it, they uphold: 'the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species... all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law'. There is nothing dramatic going on here, this is normative Darwinian thinking. I would agree with virtually all of it with the exception of the point of origin, specifically the creation of life and the time line.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Darwinism doesn't really make claims, it has a propositional logic. Rather then inferring, 'miraculous interposition', as Darwin put it, they uphold: 'the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species... all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law'. There is nothing dramatic going on here, this is normative Darwinian thinking. I would agree with virtually all of it with the exception of the point of origin, specifically the creation of life and the time line.

And if you read the scientific literature, the theory of evolution does not cover the bolded segment.

 

[Speedwell]

Darwinism doesn't really make claims, it has a propositional logic. Rather then inferring, 'miraculous interposition', as Darwin put it, they uphold: 'the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species... all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law'. There is nothing dramatic going on here, this is normative Darwinian thinking. I would agree with virtually all of it with the exception of the point of origin, specifically the creation of life and the time line.

Be careful that you do not fall into the grievous metaphysical error of assuming that if a natural causes is identified for any phenomenon (including the origin of life) divine causality is thereby denied.

 

[mark kennedy]

And yet what Darwin said is not the be-all and end-all of the theory. Plus, we have also come a long way since the 1930s and 1940s.

And YOU STILL HAVEN'T SAID WHERE I INSULTED YOUR RELIGION! Will you now admit that you lied about what I said?

I'm not doing this with you, I avoid religious discussions in these forums like the plague. This is a pretty typical slight of the historical aspects of Creationism:

No, you're wrong. It's you and only you who are trying to turn evolution in to a philosophy when the rest of us are talking about science.
Also, your definition of evolution is begging the question because of three simple words: "developed at creation". It is the use of those three words that shows that you are the one is not talking about evolution scientifically since you're the one who is bringing religion in to it.

Living systems are complete at creation and everyone who seriously thinks about Creationism realizes this:

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.(D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial)​

 

[mark kennedy]

Be careful that you do not fall into the grievous metaphysical error of assuming that if a natural causes is identified for any phenomenon (including the origin of life) divine causality is thereby denied.

Metaphysics comes down to transcendence and God's power to create life transcends all of Scripture and all of history. I see no trap, I'm not limited to exclusively naturalistic cause.