Monkey to Man: Don't call it science!

[oncelost]

The following is a Letter to the Editor that I'm working on. I'm looking for criticism. If you're so inclined, blast away.

Those who accept the theory of evolution say it is a fact. They say if we accept that genes change over time, we’ve already accepted the theory of evolution. The problem is that they do not clearly define their terms and they do not understand where observable science ends and their own faith (in evolution) begins. They use bullying arguments, implying that not accepting convention means you’re a Kool-Aid drinking moonbat.

First, the whole notion of using science to explore origins (of the universe, life and the many forms of life) is more akin to forensic theory than scientific theory, and does not lend itself well to the scientific method. After all, we cannot fashion an experiment to re-create the universe, or life from nonlife. Our origin is a matter of the distant past, and the scientific method is geared to exploring the world as it presently operates. Some call this the distinction between origin science and operational science.

Anyway, genes change over time. Okay. No problem. But does that necessarily mean that all living things have a common ancestor that came to life when lightning struck billions of years ago? That’s where observable science ends and faith begins. Observable science demonstrates that species vary within limits via natural selection or manipulation. Over countless generations, we can observe fruit flies turning into some variation of . . . . . . a fruit fly. Finches, finches. Dogs, dogs. We will never manipulate tomatoes to be the size of a house or fruit flies to be resistant to sledge hammers. In the end, we only observe variation within very finite limits. To take observable evolution (microevolution), which is undisputed, and then argue that this is evidence of common ancestry (macroevolution) takes a leap of faith -- a leap from the observable to the unobservable. I say it takes more faith to believe in common ancestry and abiogenesis (life randomly forming from nonlife) than it does to believe in a Creator.

Darwinian evolution found legs because Darwin never fathomed that a single cell is more complex than the space shuttle or that 150 years of palaeontology would yield less transitional fossils rather than more. Darwin even acknowledged that the incremental, gradual changes of natural selection would not likely cause something as complex as the eye to form, as hundreds of simultaneous mutations would be necessary. He either believed in the face of the apparently impossible or he hoped that someone might pick up that ball and run with it -- either way, he was wrong. It turns out that, just as a Kindergartner can look at Mount Rushmore and conclude that it was formed by design and not chance, honest scientists can look at the eye and make the same conclusion. Evolution cannot begin to explain the origin of the eye.

So why has Darwinian evolution been the convention for the last 150 years? I believe there is an element that we as a society find attractive an idea that rules out our Creator. But even more so, ivory tower scientists will not accept a supernatural explanation for the origin of the universe or the life in it. They miss the point that the philosophy of naturalism is a reasonable limitation upon operational science -- not so much in origin science.

No one disputes evolutionary theory as it relates to observable variations. The theory has proven useful with medicine and genetics. We do dispute extrapolating the observable scientific facts (variation within limits) to the conclusion of common ancestry and abiogenesis without acknowledging that you’ve left the realm of science and entered the realm of storytelling. I guess it's fine to tell the story of the monkey’s transition to man -- just don’t call it science, don’t make the story immune from criticism, and don’t teach it to my children with my tax dollars. Or, at least, have the honesty to teach it along with the other, and even more popular, creation account.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Science can not talk about origins.
Why?
because it was too long ago?
or because it was full of miracles and supernatural events?
why exactly can't science investigate origins?

what is the difference between last week, last year, a hundred years ago, a thousand years ago, a million years ago? where is this demarcation line that exists where science can talk up to this line but not older than it?

what is this line?
a supernatural universal and global flood?
a creation out of nothing?

how come science doesn't detect any kind of proposed line?
we have literally hundreds of different ways of dating. none of them show this demarcation line.

so you propose this barrier or demarcation line?
what evidence do you have for it?

 

[oncelost]

Science can not talk about origins.
Why?

Where'd you get that?

The assertion was that origin science is more akin to forensic theory than scientific theory, and does not lend itself well to the scientific method. If that bothers you, explain why. I'm not saying science cannot talk about origins. It's just that a theory of origins is more a matter of an interpretation of evidence (forensic theory) than it is testing a hypothesis of common ancestry with an experiment that can yield data demonstrating common ancestry (scientific theory).

 

[Dannager]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Science.

 

[Dannager]

It's just that a theory of origins is more a matter of an interpretation of evidence (forensic theory) than it is testing a hypothesis of common ancestry with an experiment that can yield data demonstrating common ancestry (scientific theory).

Hypothesis: man is descended from a common ancestor shared by modern hominids.

Procedure: examine fossil record, genetics for evidence of common ancestry.

Observations: fossil record and genetics surverys strongly indicate that at one point a common ancestor population existed.

Conclusion: the data shows that at one point a common ancestor population existed that branched off into populations which eventually led to the modern hominids seen today, including man. The hypothesis has been shown to be accurate.

Ta-da, scientific method!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Where'd you get that?

The assertion was that origin science is more akin to forensic theory than scientific theory, and does not lend itself well to the scientific method. If that bothers you, explain why. I'm not saying science cannot talk about origins. It's just that a theory of origins is more a matter of an interpretation of evidence (forensic theory) than it is testing a hypothesis of common ancestry with an experiment that can yield data demonstrating common ancestry (scientific theory).

You are trying to build the usual YECists distinction between origins and operational science by defining science as only that which can be tested in the present via experiments.
see:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_science.asp
for an example for this argument.

and it is as i outlined introducing a demarcation line in the past where science can talk up to the but not past it.

All sciences are a mixture of this historical and experimental nature. I do an experiment today and write it up. For everyone reading that paper it is historical unless they repeat the experiment themselves. they accept the results based on me doing my job properly. it is even more obvious for all the rest of the people reading that paper who can not repeat the experiment.

now i do an experiment with c14, i demonstrate it's decay rate, i investigate the ratio of c14 and c12 and invent c14 dating.

someone else finds the calibration for c14 with dendrochronology and another person finds the connection with dating the pollen in lake varves and yet another the bubbles in ice cores.

now all of these are projections into the distant past. they assume a uniformity of current physics, for example radioactive dating assumes the constancy of both the strong and weak forces.

there is an experimental and historical nature to it. the historical nature doesn't invalidate the science. Forensic science is no more like YECism origin science then is astronomy because they can't create stars and experiment with them in the lab, the distinction of origins and operational is nonsense.

the whole system involves this demarcation line in the past where operational science works up to that point and only origins science can go beyond it, all you have done is change origins to forensic. the name changes but the game remains the same. essentially arguing that extrapolation into the past is not valid past some imaginary line.

 

[oncelost]

Hypothesis: through multiple generations and incremental changes one type of creature can evolve into an entirely different type of organism (note this does not even necessarily prove common ancestory but it is a necessary component)

Procedure: attempt to observe this actually happen

Observations: still looking?

Conclusion: common ancestry not yet proven by scientific method.

AS OPPOSED TO:

Evidence: fossil record, genetics

Interpretation of evidence: common ancestry

Ta-da, forensic theory!

 

[Willtor]

Those who accept the theory of evolution say it is a fact. They say if we accept that genes change over time, we’ve already accepted the theory of evolution. The problem is that they do not clearly define their terms and they do not understand where observable science ends and their own faith (in evolution) begins. They use bullying arguments, implying that not accepting convention means you’re a Kool-Aid drinking moonbat.

It might help you to make your case, here, if you cited some examples of evolutionist bullying. If you're only saying that proponents of evolution use fallacious rhetoric against their opponents, that, of course, goes both ways. After all, what evolutionist thinks humans evolved from monkeys?

First, the whole notion of using science to explore origins (of the universe, life and the many forms of life) is more akin to forensic theory than scientific theory, and does not lend itself well to the scientific method. After all, we cannot fashion an experiment to re-create the universe, or life from nonlife. Our origin is a matter of the distant past, and the scientific method is geared to exploring the world as it presently operates. Some call this the distinction between origin science and operational science.

The theory of evolution doesn't deal with the formation of the universe, or life from non-life. The former is dealt with by astrophysicists, and the latter is dealt with by abiogeneticists. I don't have a problem with either, but I think you'll find that some TEs, here, are not proponents of abiogenesis. Categorizing evolution and abiogenesis (and even to a greater degree, astrophysics) together weakens the case you are trying to make. Better to choose one of these three fields and limit your arguments to that one, IMO.

For the rest of my response, I'm going to assume you are attacking evolution, so I won't say any more about abiogenesis or astrophysics.

Anyway, genes change over time. Okay. No problem. But does that necessarily mean that all living things have a common ancestor that came to life when lightning struck billions of years ago? That’s where observable science ends and faith begins. Observable science demonstrates that species vary within limits via natural selection or manipulation. Over countless generations, we can observe fruit flies turning into some variation of . . . . . . a fruit fly. Finches, finches. Dogs, dogs. We will never manipulate tomatoes to be the size of a house or fruit flies to be resistant to sledge hammers. In the end, we only observe variation within very finite limits. To take observable evolution (microevolution), which is undisputed, and then argue that this is evidence of common ancestry (macroevolution) takes a leap of faith -- a leap from the observable to the unobservable. I say it takes more faith to believe in common ancestry and abiogenesis (life randomly forming from nonlife) than it does to believe in a Creator.

Fruit fly to fruit fly, or finch to finch is not contrary to evolution. If a fruit fly begat anything other than a fruit fly, evolution would be falsified. Consider a phylogenic tree. Nothing at any particular point is categorically different from its ancestors or its descendants. As such, if we were to follow fruit flies for billions of generations and document each organism in the population, at the end, we might have something that is unrecognizable as our mental image of a fruit fly, but its ancestor was clearly recognizable as such. At what stage did it cease to be a fruit fly? None, really, says evolution. Giving a particular species a name is really the work of a human, but we can't assume that everything will always fit into well-defined classifications.

In short, if you want to dispute macroevolution (and I assume you mean speciation by that), it won't help to say that fruit flies beget fruit flies because the theory of evolution predicts that this and only this will occur.

Darwinian evolution found legs because Darwin never fathomed that a single cell is more complex than the space shuttle or that 150 years of palaeontology would yield less transitional fossils rather than more. Darwin even acknowledged that the incremental, gradual changes of natural selection would not likely cause something as complex as the eye to form, as hundreds of simultaneous mutations would be necessary. He either believed in the face of the apparently impossible or he hoped that someone might pick up that ball and run with it -- either way, he was wrong. It turns out that, just as a Kindergartner can look at Mount Rushmore and conclude that it was formed by design and not chance, honest scientists can look at the eye and make the same conclusion. Evolution cannot begin to explain the origin of the eye.

When you talk about the eye, be careful in your citation of Darwin. There is a common
Darwin quote that has been mined by certain less-than-reputable individuals that seems to suggest that Darwin thought that the eye could not have evolved. But in context, he proceeds to say that reason tells him that it did so. In fact, there are such notions as to how it might have evolved, today. If you include this paragraph, anybody who has read evolutionary literature will know that you have not.

So why has Darwinian evolution been the convention for the last 150 years? I believe there is an element that we as a society find attractive an idea that rules out our Creator. But even more so, ivory tower scientists will not accept a supernatural explanation for the origin of the universe or the life in it. They miss the point that the philosophy of naturalism is a reasonable limitation upon operational science -- not so much in origin science.

This is a common misconception about evolution: that it rules out a Creator. It doesn't. Now, it doesn't presuppose that there is, but only because it doesn't make such distinctions. Rather than saying that it rules out a Creator, it might be more accurate to say that it doesn't address a Creator.

Also, when you use the term, "ivory tower scientists," you run the risk of alienating any scientists who read your letter.

No one disputes evolutionary theory as it relates to observable variations. The theory has proven useful with medicine and genetics. We do dispute extrapolating the observable scientific facts (variation within limits) to the conclusion of common ancestry and abiogenesis without acknowledging that you’ve left the realm of science and entered the realm of storytelling. I guess it's fine to tell the story of the monkey’s transition to man -- just don’t call it science, don’t make the story immune from criticism, and don’t teach it to my children with my tax dollars. Or, at least, have the honesty to teach it along with the other, and even more popular, creation account.

The only thing that I'd readdress, here, is to say that if you talk about a "monkey's transition to man" it will be apparent to your readers that you are misrepresenting evolution, either deliberately or through ignorance. That's probably not an ethos you want in a letter-to-the-editor.

 

[Assyrian]

It's just that a theory of origins is more a matter of an interpretation of evidence (forensic theory)

Is that forensic science you are talking about?

than it is testing a hypothesis of common ancestry with an experiment that can yield data demonstrating common ancestry (scientific theory).

They have done lots of that too.

I would recommend you don't just read creationist books and websites about what Darwin said, especially about the eyeball http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Hypothesis: through multiple generations and incremental changes one type of creature can evolve into an entirely different type of organism (note this does not even necessarily prove common ancestory but it is a necessary component)

Procedure: attempt to observe this actually happen

Observations: still looking?

Conclusion: common ancestry not yet proven by scientific method.

AS OPPOSED TO:

Evidence: fossil record, genetics

Interpretation of evidence: common ancestry

Ta-da, forensic theory!

astronomy is a forensic science. no one has seen a star evolve, nor can anyone put star material on the workbench to study it.

anything that has a significant historical component or is not strictly an experimental science gets moved into this forensic science category.

what you are trying to do is define the "scientific method" as only experimental. but it is not, the elements of reproducibility and testability are not absolute components of the method. These "forensic" sciences are no less science than is physics or chemistry because they have a higher amount of historical elements in them. The rules and ways of working with the historical elements are different than experimental but not less scientific for it.

 

[Mallon]

Thanks for posting your letter here, oncelost. Hopefully, any counter-arguments here might help you to make a better case,

Those who accept the theory of evolution say it is a fact. They say if we accept that genes change over time, we’ve already accepted the theory of evolution.

I think you may be off to a rocky start here. You're painting evolutionists with a mighty broad brush. Most evolutionists out there would happily admit that the theoretical part of evolution ("macroevolution", if you will) is just that -- theory, based on various lines of evidence.
That doesn't make evolution any less plausible or factual, however. Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequences through time. And because we can observe this happening, it is a fact. Creationists don't like this, because they know that to deny it would be stupid. But in order to accept this sort of "microevolution", they feel the onus to accept all the baggage that comes along with it (i.e., "macroevolution"). Why? Because there is no real dividing line between "micro-" and "macroevolution". So instead, they call it "adaptation" and rest easy.

The problem is that they do not clearly define their terms

Example?

and they do not understand where observable science ends and their own faith (in evolution) begins. They use bullying arguments, implying that not accepting convention means you’re a Kool-Aid drinking moonbat.

Example? Don't think you won't be put to the test on this. You're dishing out a lot of unsubstantiated claims so far.

First, the whole notion of using science to explore origins (of the universe, life and the many forms of life) is more akin to forensic theory than scientific theory, and does not lend itself well to the scientific method. After all, we cannot fashion an experiment to re-create the universe, or life from nonlife

You're making a HUGE mistake, here, by associating the theory of evolution with the creation of the universe/life. Evolution seeks to explain neither. It never has, and it never will. Your beef is with abiogenesis, in this case.

Anyway, genes change over time. Okay. No problem. But does that necessarily mean that all living things have a common ancestor that came to life when lightning struck billions of years ago?

You're barking up the wrong tree again, here.
But I agree with you that the fact that genes change over time doesn't necessarily imply a common ancestor. Thing is, this isn't the only line of evidence that suggests such. VERY strong evidence for common ancestry lies with the study of the distribution of endogenous retroviruses, transitional fossils, biogeography, the organization of life within a nested hierarchy, etc. Except for unsubstantiated denial, none of these lines of evidence have been scientifically refuted by creationists.

That’s where observable science ends and faith begins. Observable science demonstrates that species vary within limits via natural selection or manipulation. Over countless generations, we can observe fruit flies turning into some variation of . . . . . . a fruit fly. Finches, finches. Dogs, dogs. We will never manipulate tomatoes to be the size of a house or fruit flies to be resistant to sledge hammers. In the end, we only observe variation within very finite limits.

You have yet to demonstrate those limits. Creationists like to pretend that there's some sort of invisible barrier to evolution, but are unable to point it out. The fact is that we have seen speciation occur. We can see directional selection in operation today. What is to stop directional selection from mutating one species into an entirely different species thousands or even millions of years down the line? We can see anagenetic/phyletic change in the fossil record that suggests just this. You say 'dogs' (as we now know them) remain 'dogs', but you haven't observed their descendancy long enough to know that evolution doesn't happen over the long timespans postulated. In fact, the very earliest dogs don't look much like modern dogs at all. We just call them all "dogs" because we know they share a common ancestry. In the same way, humans are called "apes".

To take observable evolution (microevolution), which is undisputed, and then argue that this is evidence of common ancestry (macroevolution) takes a leap of faith -- a leap from the observable to the unobservable.

But again, where do you draw the line between micro- and macroevolution? What prevents the former from becoming the latter over long periods of time? Macroevolution is simply microevolution acting over millions of years. For example, say the numbers listed below represent species:

00000--->00001--->00011--->00111--->01111--->11111

The change from one "species" to the next is only very minor -- a single digit change. We might even assign adjacent species to the same genus (that's how closely related they seem). But it is quite obvious that the accumulations of those changes with time result in a new species that looks quite different from the original. This is macroevolution. In the above example, where does microevolution end, and macroevolution begin?

I say it takes more faith to believe in common ancestry and abiogenesis (life randomly forming from nonlife) than it does to believe in a Creator.

Why must both understandings be mutually exclusive?

Darwinian evolution found legs because Darwin never fathomed that a single cell is more complex than the space shuttle or that 150 years of palaeontology would yield less transitional fossils rather than more.

I'm not quite sure what this sentence means, but the comment about transitional fossils is just plain wrong. We've found fossils spanning the divisions between every major clade of life (though we're admittedly still looking for the ancestors of bats and turtles. Stick God in that box, if you will.).

Evolution cannot begin to explain the origin of the eye.

Ummmmm... actually, it has. Believe it or not, evolutionary science has come a long way since Darwin. There is a vast amount of literature out there on the evolution of the eye. You just have to make an attempt to read it!

So why has Darwinian evolution been the convention for the last 150 years? I believe there is an element that we as a society find attractive an idea that rules out our Creator.

Except it doesn't. There are hundreds of thousands of evolutionary scientists out there who are Christian.

But even more so, ivory tower scientists will not accept a supernatural explanation for the origin of the universe or the life in it.

I challenge you to name one scientific discipline that does accept supernatural explanations. Just one.

Or, at least, have the honesty to teach it along with the other, and even more popular, creation account.

Which one?

Anyway, interesting letter, though we've all heard those arguments before. One last suggestion: The science of natural history cannot be repeatable for the simple reason that it is just that -- history. That doesn't make the theory of evolution unscientific, however. The theory is testable, which is another tenet of science, and it has withstood all tests to date. THAT is why the theory remains today -- not because of anyone's will to deny God (though some might use that excuse). The predictions put forth by creationism are also testable, and every one of which have failed testing.

Good luck!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

t's just that a theory of origins is more a matter of an interpretation of evidence (forensic theory)

let's look closer at this idea.

interpretation of evidence, is this opposed to say the interpretation of cloud chamber data? Is the mere fact that the evidence is from the past (demarcation line again) the issue? or is it the inability to experiment and reproduce the evidence in the lab?

forensic science has a significant component of reproducibility and experiments. They are used to connect the dots (so to speak) in the evidence. demonstrating the nature of the cause and effect links proposed to organize the science.

of by interpretation of the data do you mean the problem of the underdetermination of theory by the data? that there are multiple theories that all explain the data equally well?

if you believe that this underdetermination allows creationism to be an equal theory to evolution in the origin of the variety of life we see on earth today, you are wrong. creationism explains nothing about the evidence.

this distinction of forensic science based somehow on interpretation of data rather than experimental data doesn't seem to be the way science works nor does it appear to get anywhere like YECism's origins science claim.

 

[oncelost]

astronomy is a forensic science. no one has seen a star evolve, nor can anyone put star material on the workbench to study it.

anything that has a significant historical component or is not strictly an experimental science gets moved into this forensic science category.

what you are trying to do is define the "scientific method" as only experimental. but it is not, the elements of reproducibility and testability are not absolute components of the method. These "forensic" sciences are no less science than is physics or chemistry because they have a higher amount of historical elements in them. The rules and ways of working with the historical elements are different than experimental but not less scientific for it.

Good comments to all. Thank you.

I need to be clear that when I say forensic theory, I don't mean forensic science. By forensic theory a mean to take the evidence produced by forensic science (say, DNA matching), and then to interpret that evidence as a cohesive theory of an historical event.

And I don't mean to say that origin science is forensic as that term is defined. I just think it is more like that (for lack of a better term) than a scientific theory. Discerning history versus discerning the present.

 

[Mallon]

I need to be clear that when I say forensic theory, I don't mean forensic science. By forensic theory a mean to take the evidence produced by forensic science (say, DNA matching), and then to interpret that evidence as a cohesive theory of an historical event.

Fair enough. I wouldn't posit an elaborate scenario based on a single piece of evidence, either.
But what about when you have dozens of lines of evidence, all of which point to the same scenario? That's the situation we find re: the theory of evolution. Biogeography, genetics, comparative anatomy, embryology, biostratigraphy, etc. all point towards evolution. With this in mind, it becomes a little harder to reject the theory outright.

Out of curiosity, oncelost, how do you feel about the incarceration of rapists or murderers based strictly on forensic evidence? Do you feel OJ should be a free man today?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

To take observable evolution (microevolution), which is undisputed, and then argue that this is evidence of common ancestry (macroevolution) takes a leap of faith -- a leap from the observable to the unobservable.

what you seem to be doing is calling the observable-->proven and the unobservable-->conjecture, then saying that we should never accept conjecture because it isn't proven.

first, science never does proof, it does evidence tied together with theory. not even the observed is proven, it is facts or data, the whole system of cause and effect is not provable (see Hume) it is evidenced to a standard, something like beyond reasonable doubt.

second, the TofE has long since (1920's) left the arena of conjecture and is well evidenced theory with lots of consilience and multiple lines of sufficient evidence to persuade people that it is a good theory. it's unobservability doesn't make it either bad science or invalidate the lines of reasoning that lead one to accept the theory.

This idea that unobservability means not scientific is an odd one. For in general YECists are not scientifically trained, not even to the BA/BS level. They essentially accept all of their science as unobserved, for they have not gone through the years of laboratory science that many people here have. What is the real difference about believing that 2H2 +O2= 2H2O if you have never performed or seen the experiment and the statment that HERV's are a third independent clade demonstrating human common descent from the great apes? i don't see a difference in the two, one is potentially reproducible and one not, but if you haven't personally reproduced the experiment, aren't you just taking it on faith and testimony of authorities?

 

[oncelost]

Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequences through time. And because we can observe this happening, it is a fact. Creationists don't like this, because they know that to deny it would be stupid. But in order to accept this sort of "microevolution", they feel the onus to accept all the baggage that comes along with it (i.e., "macroevolution"). Why? Because there is no real dividing line between "micro-" and "macroevolution".

Why? Because micro is observed, macro is not. That's a fair distinction. Micro is far more reliable because we've seen it. Macro is less reliable because we haven't.

Example [of bullying argument]? Don't think you won't be put to the test on this. You're dishing out a lot of unsubstantiated claims so far.

You folks in OT are pretty cool. Go to the C/E or any other atheist forum and you'll see it.

You have yet to demonstrate those limits. Creationists like to pretend that there's some sort of invisible barrier to evolution, but are unable to point it out. The fact is that we have seen speciation occur. We can see directional selection in operation today. What is to stop directional selection from mutating one species into an entirely different species thousands or even millions of years down the line? We can see anagenetic/phyletic change in the fossil record that suggests just this. You say 'dogs' (as we now know them) remain 'dogs', but you haven't observed their descendancy long enough to know that evolution doesn't happen over the long timespans postulated. In fact, the very earliest dogs don't look much like modern dogs at all. We just call them all "dogs" because we know they share a common ancestry. In the same way, humans are called "apes".

What is to say it can't happen over multiple generations that we can't live long enough to observe???? That's not good science, is it? That shifts the burden? And that's kinda my point. We can't observe it happening. If we can't observe it, it's based on interpretation not scientific method. It's far less reliable than what we can observe.

Anyway, I gotta pay some attention to my kids. Thanks for the comments. I'm just a dumb ole' lawyer trying to sort through this. You folks seem to be well grounded in science. Interested, what is your [all of you] experience, training in science.

 

[oncelost]

Biogeography, genetics, comparative anatomy, embryology, biostratigraphy, etc. all point towards evolution. With this in mind, it becomes a little harder to reject the theory outright.

Out of curiosity, oncelost, how do you feel about the incarceration of rapists or murderers based strictly on forensic evidence? Do you feel OJ should be a free man today?

Okay. One more. Can't ressist.

Biogeography. Not even sure what you mean by that. In any event, haven't looked into it.

Genetics. Microevolution is seen. Macro is not. Evidence also implies common designer.

Comparative atatomy, embryology = common designer.

Biostratigraphy. What?

Rapists and murderers. Depends how good the evidence is. For example, DNA evidence is usually pretty good evidence, but evidence of what? If it is sperm in a prepubescent, I'd say there's only one plausible interpretation. If it is a hair at the crime scene, there are likely multiple interpretations of the evidence.

OJ. He should be waiting on his final appeal on death row.

 

[Willtor]

Why? Because micro is observed, macro is not. That's a fair distinction. Micro is far more reliable because we've seen it. Macro is less reliable because we haven't.

If you're speaking precisely, though, this definition of macroevolution is not useful because that which constitutes macro gets pushed back with every experiment that is performed. Certainly you know that speciation is observed, and that the development of new systems is well documented. But these used to be called "macroevolution" by creationists. What can you set as a well-defined barrier across which evolution cannot progress? Not that there is no such barrier, if you can't define one, but that it would be irresponsible for scientists to incorporate an undefined barrier in their research.

Anyway, I gotta pay some attention to my kids. Thanks for the comments. I'm just a dumb ole' lawyer trying to sort through this. You folks seem to be well grounded in science. Interested, what is you folks experience, training in science.

My education is in Computer Science, so really... applied math. Not so much in the hard sciences. Though CS, of course, operates with a similar peer-review journal system. I have quite a lot of family in the sciences, and I've been into scientific methodology and science history, as well as the particulars, for a while. It helps to go to technical schools where a lot of people are in various sciences.

 

[Mallon]

Why? Because micro is observed, macro is not. That's a fair distinction. Micro is far more reliable because we've seen it. Macro is less reliable because we haven't.

Don't you see that the very way you define "micro-" and "macroevolution" prevent you from ever being able to accept the latter? You essentially define it out of existence!
In fact, the way science defines these terms, "microevolution" is change within a species; "macroevolution" is change between species. We have observed both.

We can't observe it happening. If we can't observe it, it's based on interpretation not scientific method. It's far less reliable than what we can observe.

Part of the scientific method IS interpretation. With all due respect, what sort of schooling do you have in science?

Interested, what is you folks experience, training in science.

I'm currently working towards my PhD in vertebrate palaeontology, studying Late Cretaceous palaeoecology.

 

[Mallon]

Biogeography. Not even sure what you mean by that. In any event, haven't looked into it.... Biostratigraphy. What?

Again, with all due respect, you haven't even heard of some of the best evidence in support of evolution and yet you're so quick to dismiss it!
Biogeography = study of the distribution of organisms across the face of the earth through time.
Biostratigraphy = study of the orderly distribution of fossil organisms within the rock record.

Genetics. Microevolution is seen. Macro is not. Evidence also implies common designer.

There is STRONG genetic evidence to suggest that man and monkeys share a common ancestor (see the fusion of chromosome 2). According to creationists, 'man' and 'chimps' are different "kinds". Therefore, according to this logic, such genetic evidence would constitute support for macroevolution. Right?

Comparative atatomy, embryology = common designer.

Question: If God's invisible qualities are clearly seen in His creation (Romans 1:20), what does the creation and organization of life into twin-nested hierarchies tell you about God's invisible qualities?

Rapists and murderers. Depends how good the evidence is. For example, DNA evidence is usually pretty good evidence, but evidence of what? If it is sperm in a prepubescent, I'd say there's only one plausible interpretation. If it is a hair at the crime scene, there are likely multiple interpretations of the evidence.

DNA evidence is usually pretty good evidence, eh? Well, as luck would have it, DNA evidence also points towards common ancestry!!! Hooray!

OJ. He should be waiting on his final appeal on death row.

... But the only evidence against him is forensic in nature. Evidence based on events long past. Such events are not repeatable. Why would you banish him based on such 'shakey' evidence? Don't you see the hypocrisy in all this?