John Doe's Photo Album

[Ishmael Borg]

We hear from YECs that microevolution is valid because it has been directly observed, but macroevolution is invalid because it has only been inferred from microev evidence. What do you think of this analogy?:

John Doe is twenty years old, and a singleton (non-twin). I have a photo album of John Doe's life from infancy to present, but there are two-year periods of time (gaps), here and there, where there are no pictures. By comparing similarities between the pre-gap photos of Mr. Doe, and the post-gap photos, I can reasonably conclude that despite the gaps, Mr. Doe is still the subject of the photos. I can probably even accurately predict what Mr. Doe should look like in the gaps. Maybe we'll even find photos from the gaps in John's grandma's attic someday, and our predictions can be evaluated. I've only known John for one year, and he doesn't seem to have aged a day. With his photo album in hand, can I safely conclude that he indeed developed from that infant, despite my direct study which indicates that he has developed little, if at all?

Of course, individuals do not evolve, populations do. But do you see my point?

Edited to include:
Clarification: My argument here is not necessarily for common descent, but instead for macroevolution. So John Doe's infant-->adult development is analagous to whale evolution, or even reptile-->bird evolution. Abiogenesis does not come into play.

 

[the_cloaked_crusader]

But we don't have the starting photos of evolution: we have no way to find out whether, say, abiogenesis can happen. We know John could have been born, obviously, because we have his photos. We're postulating a whole album from about four picture's worth of information--all from way at the back, where our biological version of John has flaws and scars he probably didn't start out with.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

But we don't have the starting photos of evolution: we have no way to find out whether, say, abiogenesis can happen. We know John could have been born, obviously, because we have his photos. We're postulating a whole album from about four picture's worth of information--all from way at the back, where our biological version of John has flaws and scars he probably didn't start out with.

That's ok. His conception has nothing to do with his development from infant to adult, and that's the analogy I'm using (abiogenesis would be analagous to conception, and this thread is about neither). I have thousands of photos from the nursery until adulthood. Don't try to mess up the analogy, just deal with it.

 

[the_cloaked_crusader]

OK . . . But my point was that I don't think it really works. We don't have an album, we just have dozens of photos (fossils etc) we gathered from all over the world to that we're basically trying to make into an album. And if I just deal with it without trying to correct the flaws, there's nothing to say . . .

 

[challenger]

OK . . . But my point was that I don't think it really works. We don't have an album, we just have dozens of photos (fossils etc) we gathered from all over the world to that we're basically trying to make into an album. And if I just deal with it without trying to correct the flaws, there's nothing to say . . .

much more than dozens, actually.

 

[the_cloaked_crusader]

I'm trying to make this fit the analogy . . . dozens of 20,000 fossil units, how's that?

 

[Aduro Amnis]

Isn't the fossil count in the millions?

 

[the_cloaked_crusader]

Then I over-estimated! Yay for me!!!! But that doesn't matter . . . We don't really know if most of the "photos" are even from this "person's" "life".

 

[Ishmael Borg]

OK . . . But my point was that I don't think it really works. We don't have an album, we just have dozens of photos (fossils etc) we gathered from all over the world to that we're basically trying to make into an album. And if I just deal with it without trying to correct the flaws, there's nothing to say . . .

Before I got a little huffy (sorry), I should have clarified something. My argument here is not necessarily for common descent, but instead for macroevolution. So John Doe's infant-->adult development is analagous to whale evolution, or even reptile-->bird evolution. Abiogenesis doesn't come into play. I'll edit the OP.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

You YECs seem to hate my questions. It's a greater compliment than you realize!

 

[Logic]

The conditions for to create fossils (no scavengers, quick burial, not much weathering, fossilization or crystallization occur) are very rare, only some small percent of the creatures that died were preserved for us to observe today, this is why there are so many gaps in the fossil record. At least that's what I think.. But if we have A and C and we can conclude there is a B in there .

 

[Valkhorn]

The conditions for to create fossils (no scavengers, quick burial, not much weathering, fossilization or crystallization occur) are very rare, only some small percent of the creatures that died were preserved for us to observe today, this is why there are so many gaps in the fossil record. At least that's what I think.. But if we have A and C and we can conclude there is a B in there .

Exactly. If there is enough evidence a very solid conclusion can always be made. Forensics works the same way, and sometimes all it takes is a single footprint or fingerprint or fibre to link the murderer to the victim and to put them behind bars.

Nevertheless we don't stop crime scene investigation because some fringe group says it's biased, or that there's just no real proof anyways so you can't come up with a conclusion - or worse yet saying that there's no Biblical evidence linking the suspect to the crime.

If a YEC's logic - the same logic they use to support a literal bible interpretation all the while ignoring every other shred of real evidence to other things in this world - ran the world, it would be a very rotten world to live in that's for sure.

 

[the_cloaked_crusader]

Before I got a little huffy (sorry), I should have clarified something. My argument here is not necessarily for common descent, but instead for macroevolution. So John Doe's infant-->adult development is analagous to whale evolution, or even reptile-->bird evolution. Abiogenesis doesn't come into play. I'll edit the OP.

I didn't think it was even an arguement, just an analogy. OK, OK, I'll stop using Evil Evo tactics (i.e., nit-picking). But still, our album is (1) far less complete than John's and (2) far less certain that John's, since not only do we have a lot of missing photoes, but we also have photoes not from one book, but many. We can't prove that this photo of a land mammal with clumsy limbs is the "younger" version of that sea mammal with thick fins.

You YECs seem to hate my questions. It's a greater compliment than you realize!

Uh . . . What was the question?

<stuff>

See above . . . And actually, it seems that investigations are being halted (or at least greatly altared) because of fring groups saying that very thing . . .

 

[Ishmael Borg]

We can't prove that this photo of a land mammal with clumsy limbs is the "younger" version of that sea mammal with thick fins.

Umm. Nothing can be absolutely proven (I know you already know this). In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there is more evidence/proof for ambulocetus-->whale evolution than for the existence of Christ. The photo album is only an analogy; these evolutionary series are derived from painstaking research in physiology/morphology (read about whale ear bones sometime), not from comparing photographs. Why do those thick fins have digits inside them anyway? Why don't shark fins have digits inside?