Vance said:
Then feel free to provide a creationist model that fits the evidence and explains all that we have discovered. This is what is sorely lacking from the creationist side. And, you specifically say that you favor the YEC viewpoint. One of the facts that I did not mention above is that we have evidence (very clear evidence) that life existed LONG, LONG before 10,000 years ago. But really, feel free to present a YEC model that fits ALL the evidence, not just bits and pieces and ignores vast amounts of evidence that would falsify it.
Is this the kind of evidence you are refering to?
"The position of A. afarensis in the phylogeny of early humans is under debate. Many feel that it is ancestral to the east African "robust" early humans, and possibly to all robust forms. Additionally, A. afarensis is proposed as the ancestor to later Homo. Yet, research now suggests that A. africanus might be ancestral to later Homo."
The phylogeny of this fossil is not clearly demonstrated in fact its skull(430cc) is not that different from the modern chimpanzee. "From this, it is clear that there are many significant difference between A. afarensis and its ape predecessors, one of which is crucial to later human evolution, bipedality."
The crucial demonstration here has to be the bipedality, here is how they determined that a transition was underway. It is actually a composite of three specimans, "composite reconstruction based on several specimens, the famous Laetoli footprints, and the AL 129".
Australopithecus afarensis
This is based on questionable phylogeny and peicemeal forensics
Ok fine, identify the mechanism and the methodology. Does evolution, or the adaptive modification of adult form, occur because genes are subject to mutation? If so does it occur in the development of the fertilized egg, the embryo, or subsequent alterations of the DNA in adult morphology?
I am not sure what you are getting at here. Mutation is only one of the methods for adaptive modification, as you know. But no, I dont know exactly when the mutation in a given individual occurs. Is this an issue?
Of course it is an issue you are claiming that genetics is one of the primary areas of proof for universal common descent. In order for mutation to cause the dramatic differences of their supposed ancestors on the level you are suggesting then dramatic changes in the DNA is absolutly crucial. If there are other methods for adaptive modification then tell me how adaptive modification occurs without altering the DNA in a major way.
If we knew absolutely nothing of the other phenomena of development, should we be obliged to believe in the truth of the Theory of Descent, solely on the ground of the existence of vestigal organs?
No, it is the accumulation of such evidence and the complete absence of any other viable explanation for such evidence that should point us clearly toward a theory of common descent. It is when you add up ALL this evidence, with the common features, vestigal organs, genetic evidence, etc, etc, that it becomes impossible to deny common descent unless you have specific and overpowering theological reasons for such denial. The evidence on its own all points in one direction.
First you offer no mechanism for altering the DNA that is not deletreous or harmfull and then you claim that vestigal organs alone do not constitute sustantial proof. You go on to say that overpowering theological reasons are to blame for denial which is self defeating since the vestigal organs argument is another word for sub-optimal design that is popular amoung evolutionists from Darwin to Gould.
"Can we feel satisfied by saying that each Orchid was created, exactly as we now see it, on a certain "ideal type:" that the omnipotent Creator, having fixed on one plan for the whole Order, did not depart from this plan: that he, therefore, made the same organ to perform diverse functions -- often of trifling importance compared with their proper function -- converted other organs into mere purposeless rudiments, and arranged all as if they had to stand separate, and then made them cohere? Is it not a more simple and intelligible view that all the Orchideae owe what they have in common, to descent from some monocotyledonous plant...."?
(Darwin, C.,The Various Contrivances by Which Orchids Are Fertilized by Insects.)
Would removing the theology from Darwin's argument for the common descent of the Orchideae eviscerate it?
In their biology textbook A View of Life, for instance, Salvador Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, and Sam Singer argue as follows:
"A whale's flipper, a man's arm, a bird's wing, and a dog's foreleg...perform functions about as different and varied as styles of locomotion in vertebrates can be, yet all are built of the same bones. Why would God have used the same building blocks, and distorted and twisted them in such odd ways, if He had simply set out to make the best swimming, running, and flying machines? The common structure must reflect common descent from an ancestor possessing these bones."
Do any of the vestigal organ or optimal design questions employ theological concepts, aesthetic or teleological notions?
But on the issue of vestigal organs, I have yet to see a YEC theory which would explain why manatees have vestigal toenails on their vestigal back feet which are all hidden beneath the skin. To say that they descended from a creature which had back legs with toenails would obviously blow the whole kinds approach out of the water.
Then it would blow the concept of species in the modern systhesis out of the water as well since they are identical.
Exactly. It was developed based on all the OTHER evidence, and this new genetic evidence is just independent support for the theory. In other words, the theory of common descent by evolution would predict that if such genetic information was available, it would show X, Y and Z. Then the evidence comes along and actually shows X, Y and Z. This is what happens with sound theories.
That is a philosophical idea know as corrospondance and you allready said that vestigal organs were not enough to prove evolution. You have made it clear that theologicial notions hinder our understanding of the natural world and yet the vestigal organ argument is predicated on an explicitly theological permise. Common descent is not an issue for either the evolutionist because both schools of thought accept it. The universal common ancestor model is not a warranted conclusion and is based exclusivly on naturalistic assumptions.
The creationist model does not deny, in fact it predicts, common descent, just not from some mystical protoorganism.
No, the creationist model only predicts minor variation within some kinds, not descent from earlier "kinds". What is the model you propose that would explain all the diversity of life on this planet, all the common features between different kinds (ie, five-fingered hands, with remarkably similar bone structures, on such diverse kinds as humans, bats and whales), the fossil record which lines up so well to show earlier forms in conformity with common descent over billions of years and the genetic code which shows the same?
A common mechanism does not mean the universal common ancestor model can be trusted. It only means that the 'kinds' were created with simular mechanisms, neither natural selection nor or limited modification within the progeny of common ancestors have an explanation for this. This either represent a mystery with regards to God's will or a mystery within natural history. Either way it is inexplicable and the inexplicable makes for poor science and theology for that matter.
What do you mean by its? Naturalistic methodology is just a process for investigating the natural world. This does not make change possible. I honestly am not sure what you mean by this.
Natural selection is itself a naturalistic methodology, observing unicellular organisms under a microscope is an artifical methodology as would be any minipulation of nature like experimenting with hybrids.They may well yeild insights into naturalistic methodology but they themselves are artifical.
Are you saying you believe in mutability beyond some kind barriers? After all, that is where the dispute lies. There is no longer any dispute over whether creatures change over time, it is only an issue of how much.
No, I am saying that the term for kind in Genesis and the term species in the modern sythesis are identical except for the universal common ancestor.
Well, no, that is not true. YECs certainly do not accept that all mammals had a common ancestor, or even that elephants and manatees had a common ancestor (just to pick one example), not to mention humans and apes having a common ancestor. The dispute is not limited to universal common ancestor, but is drawn by every YEC I have heard from at some type of kind barrier within the last 10,000 years.
Find then identify the common ancestor of the Manatee and the elephant and show me the transitionals that lead to the two progeny. This would be a great boost for me personally if you have any genuine proof.
Well, that is just bunk and you should know it. I am not sure who modern biology is, but there are some biological scientists who are searching for a natural method of first causation of life. This is not strictly evolution, however, and so you would be correct to stat that modern evolutionary biology does not concern itself with first causation (and never has, as opposed to abandoning it). And, no, evolutionary biology is not confined to the manifestation of nature that is presently demonstratable since it can properly review evidence from genetics, the fossil record and modern species to make very sound statements about what happened in the past. It is not ill-equipped in the least to perform this task.
It may well be that natural history is an essential part of evolutionary biology but the fossils do not support the concept of gradualism, much less the universal common ancestor model.
What makes you think I am not fully aware of what one modern evolutionary biologist says about something outside of evolution, or how many might agree with him. He does not speak for all evolutionists when he speaks about abiogenesis, and regardless of how many might agree with him, he is still talking about something beyond evolution. The fact that a large majority of evolutionary biologists might also believe in abiogenesis means nothing for evolution in itself.
If you reject this point then you reject descent from a universal common ancestor as well. Abiogenesis was a term coined by early evolutionists that insisted that they were limited to exclusivly naturalistic methodologies for the development of living systems. Believing in abiogenesis is not only the logical consequence of naturalistic methodology it is far easier to believe then sponges turning into crestations.
We are not talking about semantics, we are talking about scientific evidence and what that evidence tells us. We are talking about what scientific models fit the evidence, make predictions which are proven true and which have not been falsified. Right now, the theory of evolution is not only the best model, it is a model that fits very tightly with the evidence, is being shown to be true by every new discovery and by independent studies.
I agree wholeheartedly as far as the demonstrated evolutionary process in modern biology goes. It does not give us a mechanism that can explain the enormous amount of transmutation that must have occured. In fact since it is not a falsifiable the universal common ancestor is not even a very good hypothesis. It is at best metaphysics and most likly it isn't even that, its a modern myth.
So? And besides, I am just denying his conclusion as to abiogenesis, not evolution.
Deny both abiogenesis and the statements of the leading evolutionists of our times and you are for all intents and purposes a creationist since you are left with no other alternative.
No, I am not dogmatic about a universal common ancestor, since the firm evidence for common descent does not go back all the way to a common ancestor (although it does go back billions of years). But I accept it is a very, very viable theory since it makes perfect sense with everything we do know, and there is simply no theological reason for me to DIS-believe such a theory.
There is at least one, the arguments of sub-optimal design with regards to vestigal organs. Now that you have made a valiant attempt to refute Mayr will you now go after Darwin and Gould? I would applaud such an effort and make every effort to encourge you in your attack.
