The catch-22 of creationist demands for fossil transitions

[pitabread]

Creationists often demand evidence for fossil transitions to "prove" evolution. But I've noticed a pattern when presented with evidence for these requests:

1) If it's a finely graduated transition within a specific group of organisms then it's simply accepted as evolution within a "kind".

2) On the other hand if it's broader transitions across higher taxa, then the fossil transitions are rejected as being independently created creatures. Then the demand is made for more finely graduated transitions in between taxa, and it's back to claiming evolution within a "kind".

Basically, there's no way to satisfy these kind of demands because creationists will always reject connecting graduated transitions to transitions across higher taxa. It effect they've left themselves an automatic "out" when it comes to accepting or rejecting fossil evidence and reconciling that evidence within their existing belief system.

 

[Valetic]

ELABORATE!

 

[Bumble Bee]

I really do not believe it is an "out." I honestly and truly believe there is such a thing as evolution, but only within kinds. I believe that it is small, genetic changes, like skin tone, freckles, hair color, etc. Gene mutations causing deformities or other abnormalities that can be passed on. I do not believe there is evidence of interspecies evolution because I do not believe interspecies evolution exists. In that sense, I believe that you are right in saying there is a catch-22 because there is no evidence that can be provided of interspecies evolution to satisfy the creationists request.

 

[Valetic]

I really do not believe it is an "out." I honestly and truly believe there is such a thing as evolution, but only within kinds. I believe that it is small, genetic changes, like skin tone, freckles, hair color, etc. Gene mutations causing deformities or other abnormalities that can be passed on. I do not believe there is evidence of interspecies evolution because I do not believe interspecies evolution exists. In that sense, I believe that you are right in saying there is a catch-22 because there is no evidence that can be provided of interspecies evolution to satisfy the creationists request.

There is observable adaption of environment of a species over Generations. Yeah evolution is kind of real there's just not nearly as much evidence to side with macro-evolution as a concept then it is to easily accept creationism.

 

[pitabread]

I really do not believe it is an "out." I honestly and truly believe there is such a thing as evolution, but only within kinds. I believe that it is small, genetic changes, like skin tone, freckles, hair color, etc. Gene mutations causing deformities or other abnormalities that can be passed on.

"Kind" has no biological reality. If there is a biological boundary preventing compounded evolution then what is that boundary? Nobody has ever demonstrated such a boundary exists in nature.

I do not believe there is evidence of interspecies evolution because I do not believe interspecies evolution exists.

Speciation has directly witnessed and documented in both nature and lab experiments. But then the claim is that speciation is still just evolution within a "kind".

This is what I find odd though is that the fundamental mechanism for all of this is the same: generation-to-generation changes in gene pools. Creationists accept the process, they just draw an arbitrary line in what they accept for the output.

 

[pitabread]

Yeah evolution is kind of real there's just not nearly as much evidence to side with macro-evolution as a concept then it is to easily accept creationism.

What is the mechanism by which 'modern' fully-formed species are created? If not biological reproduction then how else is this accomplished?

 

[Valetic]

"Kind" has no biological reality. If there is a biological boundary preventing compounded evolution then what is that boundary? Nobody has ever demonstrated such a boundary exists in nature.



Speciation has directly witnessed and documented in both nature and lab experiments. But then the claim is that speciation is still just evolution within a "kind".

This is what I find odd though is that the fundamental mechanism for all of this is the same: generation-to-generation changes in gene pools. Creationists accept the process, they just draw an arbitrary line in what they accept for the output.

Specifically biblical creationist and that's because the Bible actually says the word kind. We're not trying to prove creationism we're trying to prove the Bible. Like I already said we can obviously observe environmental adaptations over few Generations of species without them becoming a different kind of animal.

 

[Valetic]

What is the mechanism by which 'modern' fully-formed species are created? If not biological reproduction then how else is this accomplished?

Supernatural

 

[pitabread]

Specifically biblical creationist and that's because the Bible actually says the word kind.

The Bible says the Hebrew word min.

"Kind" is merely a translation that everyone seems to interpret differently. Ask a dozen creationists to define that word and you'll get 13 different answers.

We're not trying to prove creationism we're trying to prove the Bible.

"Proving" the Bible by blatantly contradicting what we observe in the natural world seems an odd route to me. Rather that proving it, you appear to be setting it up for falsification.

Like I already said we can obviously observe environmental adaptations over few Generations of species without them becoming a different kind of animal.

A few generations isn't much with respect to biological change though. But if you compound those changes over hundreds, thousands, or millions of generations would you not expect greater level of change?

 

[pitabread]

Supernatural

That tells me nothing. I'm asking how something was done. Specifically how are life forms created fully formed from scratch. Explain the details.

 

[Bumble Bee]

That tells me nothing. I'm asking how something was done. Specifically how are life forms created fully formed from scratch. Explain the details.

And there is another catch 22. Christians believe that God can create through the power of His word, non Christians do not. We could go in circles about it, but if someone does not believe in God, they cannot believe in his omnipotence. Some say “magic.” I say “The power of the living God.” I wonder sometimes why Christians and non-Christians debate the origins of the universe because it seems to me that it is the wrong place to start when it comes to God. Before someone can comprehend creation as told in the Bible, they need to understand who God is or it ends up being a series of catch 22s.

 

[Chesterton]

2) On the other hand if it's broader transitions across higher taxa, then the fossil transitions are rejected as being independently created creatures. Then the demand is made for more finely graduated transitions in between taxa, and it's back to claiming evolution within a "kind".

You don't think that's a reasonable demand? Also, don't you think a kind of catch-22 exists for evolution, since every time you identify something as a transitional fossil you create two new gaps between transitions, where there used to be one? And the next discovery creates four, and so on. Like a Zeno's paradox, the search for demonstrable transition could go on forever.

 

[pitabread]

Also, don't you think a kind of catch-22 exists for evolution, since every time you identify something as a transitional fossil you create two new gaps between transitions, where there used to be one?

I think you're probably making fun of creationists if you even think that is a remotely sensible argument. They even made fun of this on Futurama (skip to 1:10) :

 

[pitabread]

Christians believe that God can create through the power of His word, non Christians do not.

This isn't about what is believed or not. It's about whether you have a plausible mechanism.

If you're going to argue that life forms are created fully-formed from scratch, then at least propose some sort of mechanism by which that can happen. And then from that mechanism you could derive testable predictions about what you would expect to find if said mechanism was used to create life in that matter.

Otherwise I don't see how creationism will ever hope to be viewed as more than just a crank anti-science movement that flies in the face of what we observe in the natural world.

Before someone can comprehend creation as told in the Bible, they need to understand who God is or it ends up being a series of catch 22s.

That's a subject that even theists can't seem to agree on. What hope is there for everyone else?

 

[Bumble Bee]

This isn't about what is believed or not. It's about whether you have a plausible mechanism.

If you're going to argue that life forms are created fully-formed from scratch, then at least propose some sort of mechanism by which that can happen. And then from that mechanism you could derive testable predictions about what you would expect to find if said mechanism was used to create life in that matter.

Otherwise I don't see how creationism will ever hope to be viewed as more than just a crank anti-science movement that flies in the face of what we observe in the natural world.

And yet how can we provide a tangible mechanism when one believes that the Lord and His word are that mechanism and the other believes he does not exist?

 

[SkyWriting]

Creationists often demand evidence for fossil transitions to "prove" evolution. But I've noticed a pattern when presented with evidence for these requests:

1) If it's a finely graduated transition within a specific group of organisms then it's simply accepted as evolution within a "kind".

2) On the other hand if it's broader transitions across higher taxa, then the fossil transitions are rejected as being independently created creatures. Then the demand is made for more finely graduated transitions in between taxa, and it's back to claiming evolution within a "kind".

Basically, there's no way to satisfy these kind of demands because creationists will always reject connecting graduated transitions to transitions across higher taxa. It effect they've left themselves an automatic "out" when it comes to accepting or rejecting fossil evidence and reconciling that evidence within their existing belief system.

True, but not a valid "Catch 22."

 

[pitabread]

And yet how can we provide a tangible mechanism when one believes that the Lord and His word are that mechanism and the other believes he does not exist?

By presenting a theoretical model by which life forms could be created from scratch. Again, 'belief' is irrelevant here and there is no point getting hung up on that.

Case in point, even if you reject the mechanism by which evolution produces diversity of species I can still explain to you how that can occur. Whether you believe it or not doesn't matter. The explanation is independent of your acceptance of it.

Likewise whether I believe your model for the creation of individual species from scratch is irrelevant. I'm just asking how such a thing is supposed to have occurred.

 

[Bumble Bee]

One of the other members said earlier “supernatural “ and was told they meant “magic.” I say the mechanism is that the Lord spoke and there it was. How is that different? I can show you with the immaculate conception of Jesus. There was no sperm and yet Jesus was conceived. Again, something from nothing. However, because matter now exists, it cannot be re-demonstrated as a process of “something from nothing” when we are talking about large scale creation. God put the natural processes we see into order.

 

[Dan the deacon]

One of the other members said earlier “supernatural “ and was told they meant “magic.” I say the mechanism is that the Lord spoke and there it was. How is that different? I can show you with the immaculate conception of Jesus. There was no sperm and yet Jesus was conceived. Again, something from nothing. However, because matter now exists, it cannot be re-demonstrated as a process of “something from nothing” when we are talking about large scale creation. God put the natural processes we see into order.

Sound good to me.

 

[Bumble Bee]

God’s spoken word and power is not something that can be contained in a lab and then tested. We accept Him creating our universe by speaking it into existence as a matter of faith, knowing that His words have proven true in all other matters. How can someone ask for a creationist to give another mechanism when the Lord Himself is the mechanism?