Have you ever heard or read the phrase, "Evolution is a fact"? I am hearing this statement more often these days. What does it mean to say that evolution is a fact?

It is important to note that this statement is most often construed as referring to the ontological status of the theory. In other words, it is a statement about whether the theory agrees with what is happening in the natural world. Now some people like to say that evolution is a fact because it is based on factual data like fossils and genetic data. I would argue that that saying evolution is a fact because it is based on factual data is a misleading argument and should be avoided. 

Fine. Now let’s move on.

There are two major categories of research in science; there is theory explanation and there is theory testing (justification). Sometimes these two categories overlap and they share similar research characteristics, but they are very different. I bring up these two categories (theory testing and theory building) because sometimes evolutionists and others confuse them. This confusion leads to unjustifiable truth claims about evolution (more on this in a bit).

When talking about the factuality of evolution, it is essential to distinguish between two types of evolution. Now I know that some evolutionists don’t like to distinguish between micro and macroevolutionary processes, and that’s fine; the distinction may not be important in their everyday work. However, the distinction is important when exploring the question “Is evolution a fact?” It turns out that one type of evolution has been subjected to rigorous testing and passed while the other has not. 

Microevolutionary processes within a species is a demonstrable fact. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt with rigorous testing. Specifically, random genomic mutations and environmental selection have been shown to create change within a species.

However, macroevolutionary processes across life forms is not a demonstrable fact.  It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Then why do so many evolutionists and others claim that macroevolution is a fact? I think there are two main reasons for this mistake. First they confuse the theory description and theory testing processes, and second, they do not understand the kind of testing that justifies “beyond a reasonable doubt” truth claims. 

Much of the evidence for macroevolution is descriptive in nature. Here is what I mean. Macroevolution involves a lot of descriptive research wherein one goes out into the real world, gathers data, and best explains that data in a manner consistent with macroevolution. Gathering real world data and explaining that data in a manner consistent with a theory is an inductive process. Sometimes it is called making an inference to the best explanation or it is sometimes called ‘abduction’. Much of the real world data “fits” into the macroevolutionary theoretical framework, however, because the data are inductive in nature, they do not provide certain evidence of macroevolution. 

If you are feeling confused, the following example should help. 

Sherlock Holmes used induction when he collected observable facts and used those facts to reconstruct what happened at a crime scene. (It is interesting to note that Holmes said he was using ‘deduction’ - actually he was using ‘induction’.) In philosophical terms induction is going from particulars to a single explanation, and that is what Holmes did; he went from particular evidence to a single conclusion about who committed the crime. In the same way evolutionists collect facts in the natural world and explain or describe them using macroevolution (common descent). This too involves moving from particular field evidence to a single conclusion (macroevolution). Although the evidence may appear to support a conclusion, we cannot be certain that either conclusion is correct. Holmes never saw the crime being committed and an evolutionist never witnessed common descent (evolution from one life form to another). This sort of evidence does not lead to certainty.

Yet evolutionists argue that macroevolution is on the same footing as relativity and gravity, because, they claim, relativity and gravity were built using the same inductive methodology. This is true. Relativity and gravity were built using the same inductive methods; however, evolution is not on par with these two well established theories. Why not? The answer is that macroevolution lacks rigorous testing; it has not been subjected to, and passed, tests of hypotheses to the same extent that relativity and gravity have. 

What macroevolution lacks are controlled crucial tests of its core tenets, and assuming that such tests could be carried out, the theory would also have to survive those tests. A major barrier to carrying out a controlled, crucial test is time – too many years are required to observe change from one life form to another. (Note that some evolutionists like to point to one species of salamander evolving into another “species”. I am talking about going from a salamander to another significantly different life form like a platypus.)

On the other hand, relativity and gravity have been subjected to crucial tests of their core tenets, and survived. The last time you accidentally dropped something you unwittingly submitted gravity to a crucial test, and I am sure it passed (the item fell). In 1919 a research team led by Sir Arthur Eddington submitted relativity to a crucial experiment by measuring shifts in the Hyades star field near the sun during an eclipse. And in 1971 Hafele and Keating submitted relativity to a crucial experiment by measuring time differences in previously synchronized atomic clocks flown in jet airplanes.  Relativity passed both tests.  Because of these and other successes, we've elevated gravity and relativity to law-like status. For the time being they have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt – macroevolution has not.

So the bottom line is that microevolution is a fact, but macroevolution is not.  This does not mean that macroevolution is necessarily false; it does mean, however, that it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  In a manner of speaking, yes, it is still just a theory.
 


Comments

Jeff G

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 3:35:44 pm

Errrr, not quite.

First off, the reason why evolutionists are so uncomfortable with the micro/macro distinction is because it leads people to say meaningless things such as "Microevolutionary processes within a species is a demonstrable fact." What evolution describes (both "micro" and "macro") is the change of the species itself, not change within the species.

Second of all, it is important to understand the difference between fact and theory. Theory is something which explains facts. Fact is not just another word for "really good theory" or something like that. Instead, facts are observation which need to be explained by theories. Facts are observation and theories are explanations of those observations.

Now let's go back to the drawing board. Scientists have observed species evolving. This fact of evolution (call it "micro" if you want) needs to be explained. There is, however, another fact which needs explaining, namely the fact that the species which have inhabited the earth have drastically changed as well. This fact of evolution (clearly a case of macro) also needs explaining.

Darwin's theory was that the same mechanism (natural selection) explains both facts of evolution. This theory had a number of corollaries to it, including the common descent of all life, etc. These are all a (VERY well confirmed )part of the theory of evolution as well.

Now I expect that Dave will probably agree with everything I've said with the caveat that the evolutionists who claim evolution to be a fact aren't really limiting themselves to the "facts" as I have described them, but are instead including Darwin's theory of natural selection and common descent as well.

I agree. This is the problem which I have with most attempts to analyze the "evolution is a fact" claim. The words "evolution" and "fact" simply lend themselves to too much equivocation. If you take both words in their technical sense, the claim is clearly true (the species have and do change and this needs to be explained). If you take both words in their common, everyday sense, it really is true as well (the theory of evolution is very, very, very well confirmed). Dave will probably agree with the first claim and disagree with the second.

That issue can be covered in another thread, the main point is that the micro/macro distinction simply shouldn't enter the picture at all.

 

Tim

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 3:36:48 pm

I think many scientists refer to it as a fact because of the public's ignorance of what a theory is (as in "evolution's just a theory.")

As far as evolution creating new species, I previously posted this line on this blog:

All I have to do to create two new species from one is to destroy a few specific populations of salamanders in California. Just like that, a new species is created.

In other words, some species have evolved so much and have so much variation that, if you take out the intermediate populations, the populations on either extreme would be unable to breed with each other, and thus you would have two species instead of just one. For an oversimplified example, say you have a species of geese. Population A, living in Eastern Canada, can breed with population B in central Canada, population B can breed with population C in Western Canada, but population A and population C are too different too successfully breed with each other. Take out population B (natural disaster, atomic bomb, whatever), and instead of one species, you have two. That fits macroevolution quite well (at least your definition of it).

 

Tim

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 3:41:12 pm

And please let me know if I misunderstood your definition of macroevolution (as opposed to microevolution).

 

Jeff G

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 4:27:46 pm

Tim,

It seems to me that all people mean when they deny macro evolution is that they accept natural selection as a mechanism powerful enough to account for the evolution we can observe in species, however it is not powerful enough to explain the common descent of all life. Thus, they accept evolution without accepting the common descent of all life.

Would you say that's fair, Dave?

 

Stan

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 5:28:51 pm

Here is a clarifying quote from a well respected LDS biologist (Thanks Steve P.!)

"As I’ve said before saying you believe in micro evolution but not macro is as laughable to a biologist as saying, I believe in inches, but I don’t believe in miles. These are only artificial constructs to delineate the scale over which evolution takes place, not two different kinds of evolution."

How much micro equals a macro? Why would there be some boundary over which accumulated micro changes cannot cross? Do you have evidence for this boundary? Why would you just make that boundary up?

According to your reasoning galaxies do not collide and stars are not formed due to gravity. We have pictures of galaxies in various stages of collision, but we don't watch the process of a single collision from start to finish and we can't reproduce it in the lab. We can only take the principles we have learned in the lab at a "micro" level, like falling objects etc... and extrapolate it to the "macro" level. Even Newton's theory of gravity was not complete but correct enough for us to launch some folks to the moon and return them safely. I am certain evolution is in a similar state. It is correct but there is more to learn and add and yes, modify. It is correct enough to give us a beautiful picture of life. Darwin was evolution's Newton and we may never see an Einstein like dramatic leap forward, but more evidence and understanding of evolution is being piled on rapidly.

 

Stan

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 5:48:02 pm

Gaaaah! Reading my previous post I see it comes across a bit too aggressively. Look at it as if coming from an enthusiastic but friendly supporter of evolution who is wildly gesticulating with flecks of spittle flying into the crowd. I mean no disrespect. =:)

 

S.Faux

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 9:01:32 pm

Dave C:

I keep having to disagree with you. But, I guess that is the fun of it all. (Yet, we agree on the truthfulness of the gospel).

Yes, there are evolutionary facts. The job of science is to explain facts. For example, science must explain why planets orbit around the sun. Science must explain why diseases are associated with bacteria and viruses.

In the same way, science must explain the systematic distribution of fossils within the layers of rock. The types of organisms represented by those fossils are NOT random. Furthermore, they can be dated by multiple independent methods that produce converging results. Those fossils demand a parsimonious explanation. (Sorry, but the "reused earth" theory holds no mustard).

Another fact of evolution is found in comparative nucleotide sequences. Differences in nucleotide sequences from many organisms can be converted into genetic distances. Those molecular data reconstruct genealogical relationships (clades), and those reconstructions reaffirm (at least in general) the broad taxonomic categories suggested by the fossil record and comparative anatomy.

In short, systematic changes in the fossil record over geological time demand a scientific explanation. Also, systematic changes in nucleotide sequences over time and over species demand a scientific explanation.

These evolutionary FACTS are not going away, no matter who runs away from them.

Do "evolutionary theories" answer all our questions. NO!! But, then what scientific theories answer all our questions? None.

We Mormons should NOT have to spin the facts to feel comfortable with them. Neither should we have to march out of step with the vast majority of the scientific world.

I have got to stop now. I need to go back to my studies of cytochrome C.

 

Dave C.

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:11:03 pm

It looks like all the pro evolutionists are out in force. I love a lively debate.

I'll respond to your comments asap.

 

Aaron

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 5:22:54 am

Frankly, no. I have never heard anyone refer to evolution as a "fact" unless they are trying to set up some kind of straw man. Please give us your own facts here. Who exactly is referring to evolution as a fact? Are reputable scientists doing this? I doubt it very much.

 

S.Faux

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 7:50:34 am

Perhaps this is a word game. I don't know. But, the word "proven" should be removed from scientific vocabulary, except for mathematics.

I do NOT make the same argument for the word "fact." There are facts, and the job of science is to find them and explain them.

Here is how I would define a scientific fact:

A scientific fact is that set of propositions that produce predictable results, time and time again, when subjected to systematic scrutiny, either observational or experimental.

Notice that my definition does not use the word "proven."

Here are some facts:

1. Planets orbit the sun.
2. Some viruses cause disease.
3. The fossil record shows systematic evolutionary change over geological time.

Again, science must try to explain these FACTS.

I would argue that fact #3 is just as important as than the other two. Further, it is just as strong.

 

Daven C.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:46:04 am

Thanks for the insightful comments.

Here are some thoughts I had as I read what you wrote.

(Jeff)

“What evolution describes (both "micro" and "macro") is the change of the species itself, not change within the species.”
– I Disagree. At its most fundamental level neo-darwinian evolution is change in the genome. Every visible phenotype expression of genetic change is an outward expression of genetic change. You are drawing distinctions about what is and is not evolution at too high a level. We can’t say that evolution is change across species while change within species is not evolution – they are both outward expressions of genetic change (evolution). If it is meaningless to talk about change within species being evolution then it is equally meaningless to talk about change across species as being evolution. Both are phenotype expressions of the same processes.
Wikipedia: “In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.” (First line quote).

“Darwin's theory was that the same mechanism (natural selection) explains both facts of evolution. This theory had a number of corollaries to it, including the common descent of all life, etc. These are all a (VERY well confirmed )part of the theory of evolution as well.”
--We have moved beyond mere Darwinism to neo-darwinism which includes both natural selection and random mutations.

“the main point is that the micro/macro distinction simply shouldn't enter the picture at all.”
-- From a philosophy of science perspective, I disagree. I suspect that one reason that evolutionists do not like the distinction because it raises the issue of lack of empirical support demonstrating common descent beyond a reasonable doubt.

(Tim)

“As far as evolution creating new species, I previously posted this line on this blog: All I have to do to create two new species from one is to destroy a few specific populations of salamanders in California. Just like that, a new species is created.”
-- While that is good evidence, it does not rise to the level of allowing us to conclude common descent beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Take out population B (natural disaster, atomic bomb, whatever), and instead of one species, you have two. That fits macroevolution quite well (at least your definition of it).”
-- Once again, good evidence, but it does not rise to the level needed to prove common descent beyond a reasonable doubt. By macro processes I mean changes across life forms. At the end of the day, the 2 geese species that cannot mate still look, fly, and poop on golf courses like a geese.

(Jeff)

“It seems to me that all people mean when they deny macro evolution is that they accept natural selection as a mechanism powerful enough to account for the evolution we can observe in species, however it is not powerful enough to explain the common descent of all life. Thus, they accept evolution without accepting the common descent of all life. Would you say that's fair, Dave?”
-- I concede that changes from one species to another may be powerful enough to create common descent, but it has not been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Requiring it to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is not an unreasonable request given that evolution is going on all around us right now.

 

Dave C.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:46:47 am

More thoughts on your comments.

(Stan)

Steve Peck: “As I’ve said before saying you believe in micro evolution but not macro is as laughable to a biologist as saying, I believe in inches, but I don’t believe in miles. These are only artificial constructs to delineate the scale over which evolution takes place, not two different kinds of evolution."
-- Just goes to show that most evolutionists reject the distinction. I believe that evolutionary research has proven “inches” beyond a reasonable doubt, but it has not proven “miles” beyond a reasonable doubt.

“How much micro equals a macro? Why would there be some boundary over which accumulated micro changes cannot cross? Do you have evidence for this boundary? Why would you just make that boundary up?”
-- I concede that micro changes may add up to micro (new life form) changes. I do not criticize evolutionists for accepting micro + micro + time = macro. It sounds logical to me. I do not accept it for theological reasons, and the lack of demonstrable evidence allows me to continue with my theological reasons for rejecting macro changes. IF science ever changes one life form into another then I will not “move the goal posts” and come up with new arguments to reject macroevolution. I will adjust my theological beliefs.

“According to your reasoning galaxies do not collide and stars are not formed due to gravity. We have pictures of galaxies in various stages of collision, but we don't watch the process of a single collision from start to finish and we can't reproduce it in the lab. We can only take the principles we have learned in the lab at a "micro" level, like falling objects etc... and extrapolate it to the "macro" level. Even Newton's theory of gravity was not complete but correct enough for us to launch some folks to the moon and return them safely. I am certain evolution is in a similar state.”
-- This is a good analogy. One difference worth pointing out is that evolution is accessible to us (it is happening all around and to us), galactic processes are not; they are beyond our reach to study in a controlled setting.

(S.Faux)

“Sorry, but the "reused earth" theory holds no mustard”
-- Like you, I do not accept the idea of a re-used earth. Here is one problem with that idea: If LDs theology teaches that all living beings are resurrected, then why weren’t the fossilized animals resurrected if they came from other worlds? Just sounds a bit inconsistent to me.

“In short, systematic changes in the fossil record over geological time demand a scientific explanation. Also, systematic changes in nucleotide sequences over time and over species demand a scientific explanation.”
-- Agreed, which is why I support evolutionary research.

“Perhaps this is a word game. I don't know. But, the word "proven" should be removed from scientific vocabulary, except for mathematics.”
-- I see what you’re saying, but I don’t think “proven” is going away. It is ingrained in the scientific lexicon. When I use the word, I am talking about a theory being proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

“I do NOT make the same argument for the word "fact." There are facts, and the job of science is to find them and explain them.”
-- This statement, I think, refers to the theory building, describing, and explanation of data that I referred to in my post. These are inductive processes according to the philosophy of science. They are an essential part of evolutionary science. However, there are other facts which arise through theory testing via the hypothetico-deductive model of science. These facts provide justification (proof) for a theory. It is these facts that are lacking in the area of common descent research.

 

Rob Osborn

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 1:10:48 pm

I can't believe we can't get the "facts" straightened out between a "fact" and a "theory". I agree fully with the OP in that microevolutionary change within a species type is a "fact". Where it stops being fact and instead goes into "theory" territory is as the OP states, if evolutionary theory can explain massive change from one species to an entirely new species. By "species" I mean from say a dog to a cat. The whole analogy of inches added up lead to a mile in evolutionary theory comparing micro with macro is not a fact. It has not been shown that these so called "inches" go anywhere outside of it's species type. For all we know the inches just go around in random circles and never make any linear headway- that which is required for macr to be correct.

I also found this a bit amusing from S.Faux-

"Here are some facts:

1. Planets orbit the sun.
2. Some viruses cause disease.
3. The fossil record shows systematic evolutionary change over geological time."

Perhaps #1-2 can be considered facts. However, #3 is anything but a "fact"! Let's break it down- The fossil record is a fact, that much is easily documented. "Geological time" is a theory because known methods for dating rocks have been shown to be false (the opposite of fact). "Systematic evolutionary change" is by far anything but a fact when viewing the fossil record. There are other plausible theories to explain the fossil record (the fact) in the geologic column. First we must ask- Is the geologic column as presented in how it formed falsifiable? Very much so! Scientists are in fact working to falsify the theory of how the geologic column is said to have been formed- over a long uniform time. If they can show that thick layers do not nor have not settled over a long uniform time but instead over a short catastrophic period in the past, then they can also show where the fossil record and how it formed is in error.

A "fact" is not something that is fasifiable, or has been shown to be absolutely true- without excuse. So, if macroeveolutionary theory rests entirely upon the geologic column and the fossil record found within it, then of coarse all one has to do to prove macroevolutionary theory wrong is to show how the column formed rather rapidly over a short period of time. Scientists and geologist are doing just that!

All evolutionary theory has shown to us is that species can change within their kind not outside of their kind. There does seem to be a factual part of evolutionary theory that holds true- No matter how many mutations and changes you create within a general species, it cannot go outside of that barrier and still exist and perpetuate. For example- beetles can and do change over time, they can even get to a point to where they may no longer breed with each other. But they still remain beetles! Macroevolutionary theory is a separate and distinctly different thing than change leading to variety "within" a general species.

 

Jeff G

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 1:30:27 pm

Dave,

"At its most fundamental level neo-darwinian evolution is change in the genome. "

-I disagree. Not all biological evolution is due to change in the genome. It's true that change in the genome is the primary factor responsible for biological evolution, but to say that genomic change is what biological evolution is all about is incorrect. Indeed, the discovery of genetics only served to support the Darwinian theory of evolution which had already existed, and therefore must have been about something other than genetics.

-Biological evolution is about the change in biological species across space and time. The primary factor underlying this change in species, it came to be discovered, is the change in gene frequencies within a population. In other words, the change of gene frequencies within a population is simply one of the ways (the primary way, in fact) in which a species changes. It is for this reason that your suggestion that there is change within but not across species doesn't make any sense. The changes within a population just ARE the changes of the species.

-For a subject as counter-intuitive and difficult to grasp as biological evolution I strongly suggest you avoid wikipedia as a source. Rather, I strongly suggest that all parties, both for an against, read the following paper. I can all but guarantee that you will find some correction to your beliefs therein (I sure did):

http://www.springerlink.com/content/2331741806807x22/fulltext.html


"I suspect that one reason that evolutionists do not like the distinction because it raises the issue of lack of empirical support demonstrating common descent beyond a reasonable doubt."

-But this makes it sound as if the only difference between micro and macro evolution is simply whether you happen to accept it or not. "Micro" is simply whatever you happen to believe there is enough supporting evidence in favor of, and "macro" is, at best, where you believe the jury to still be out.

-I know you say "IF science ever changes one life form into another...", but quite frankly I have no idea what this even means. Given that there is no non-arbitrary answer to when species A becomes species B (in exact parallel to there being no non-arbitrary way of delineating micro from macro evolution), how will you ever know when this happens? It's not that you are moving the goal posts. It's more like you don't have any clear goal posts set up at all.

-"Requiring it to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is not an unreasonable request..."

-Let me also come out once and for all, as if there was any doubt on the subject, that if I were sitting on a jury for a murder trial, and the prosecution mounted even a fraction of the evidence that there is in favor of "macro" evolution, I would convict the man and sleep like a baby that night knowing I had done the right thing. You make it sound like the only "proof beyond unreasonable doubt" is having multiple eye witnesses to a murder. It's not.

 

Jeff G

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 1:35:31 pm

Rob,

Read the link I just posted above (and below for good measure). Seriously.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/2331741806807x22/fulltext.html

 

Stan

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 1:45:10 pm

"because known methods for dating rocks have been shown to be false"

Gaaa! My head just exploded! =:)

 

Tim

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 1:47:47 pm

"By "species" I mean from say a dog to a cat."
Classic. Just classic.
I had the exact same thoughts about "moving goal posts" as Jeff G. Where are the goal posts right now? Creation of a new species? (And I'm not talking Rob Osborn's definition of species...) A brand new beneficial trait? A new organ?
Since it's demonstrated that new species can be created, I'm guessing that that's not your goalpost. So how much evolution are we talking about?

 

Jeff G

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 1:56:31 pm

Another link worth checking out in the current context is

"Evolution as Fact, Theory and Path"

http://www.springerlink.com/content/21p11486w0582205/fulltext.html

I'm sure Dave will disagree with most of it, but if he could point out where and how he disagrees, I'm sure we'll make a lot more headway in the discussion.

 

Rob Osborn

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 3:46:58 pm

"So how much evolution are we talking about?"

Enough to not be called variation, I mean like a lot. I do not mean like different populations of geese or salamanders. Perhaps maybe like geese to salamanders- now that would truly be macroevolution!

Micro+ Micro+ Micro+ Micro= Micro, and it never has been shown to = Macro.

 

John C.

Sat, 26 Sep 2009 7:07:54 pm

I'm not terribly interested in the evolution debate, but please stop shouting in every post title. It's irritating.

 

Jeff G

Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:20:06 pm

Rob,

You've been frequenting the bloggernacle debates on evolution ore than long enough to know that no evolutionist believes that dogs came from cats, cats came from dogs, geese came from salamanders or salamanders from geese. You also know that no evolutionist believes that we would ever observe something like that happen over the course of 100 generations of diligent scientists. When you say things like that, it makes you look obstinate at best.

Dave,

Do you require eye witnesses in a case for proof beyond all reasonable doubt to be met?

Do you believe in an ancient earth/universe?

I think its safe to say that the evidence for "macro" evolution is stronger than the evidence in either of these examples.

 

Stan

Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:42:21 am

"Do you require eye witnesses in a case for proof beyond all reasonable doubt to be met?"

Actually eye witnesses accounts are notoriously incorrect. I think Dave knows this fact very well. Scientific inference is much more reliable. And what do you know? So many facts dealing with evolution come from scientific inference. Even if a Salamander turned into a Goose right before Rob's eyes, I wouldn't believe it until a thorough analysis had been done and that analysis fit well with current theories.

 

Stan

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 2:28:07 am

Rob, Dave

I'm wondering what the difference is between Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution. My understanding of Theistic Evolution is that all the processes we understand as 'Evolution' work pretty much as we understand them with an unseen force guiding selection, much like human selection guiding the domestication of animals and plants. The time scales for Theistic Evolution are the same as natural Evolution, as I understand it.

As I understand ID, each species was created as is via the 'Swish and Flick' method.

So given my understanding, if one species were to transform to another in the lab would you, Rob, consider that to be true evolution, humanistic evolution, as opposed to theistic evolution, or Intelligent Design? Would it disprove Intelligent Design because it used evolutionary principles or would it support ID because an intelligent person performed the experiment? Based on your comments from another post related to genetic algorithms on computers, I am guessing you would call it Intelligent Design. Given this assumption, is Intelligent Design simply accelerated evolution under the control of a designer as opposed to 'Swish and Flick'? Does ID embrace common decent? Is it really Theistic Evolution? I honestly want to know.

Dave, I think this would be a great topic for a future post.

 

Dave C.

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:16:47 am

John,

I put the title in all caps to set it apart and make it more visible among the posts listed on this site. Just for you, I will try lower case for a while.

Shouting was not intended.

 

Dave C.

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:31:14 am

Jeff,

RE:"The primary factor underlying this change in species, it came to be discovered, is the change in gene frequencies within a population. In other words, the change of gene frequencies within a population is simply one of the ways (the primary way, in fact) in which a species changes. It is for this reason that your suggestion that there is change within but not across species doesn't make any sense. The changes within a population just ARE the changes of the species."

You focus on change in gene frequency as the main driving force in evolution is not consistent with several of the sources I have read (beyond Wiki). While I admit that this change in frequency is important in evolution, changing frequencies via natural selection is not enough to account for macroevolution. There needs to be an underlying change in the genome. But I will read the link you sent.

I would appreciate if others out there can confirm that change in gene frequency is enough to account for changes across lifeforms. If it is not, then my argument that, at its fundamental level, neo-darwinian evolution is change in the genome, stands.

Re: "if I were sitting on a jury for a murder trial, and the prosecution mounted even a fraction of the evidence that there is in favor of "macro" evolution, I would convict the man and sleep like a baby that night knowing I had done the right thing."

In the legal field we only convict if guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

Dave C.

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:05:16 am

Stan,

Through discussions with you and others I’ve come to accept theistic evolution as you described it: “Theistic Evolution is...all the processes we understand as 'Evolution' work[ing] pretty much as we understand them with an unseen force guiding selection, much like human selection guiding the domestication of animals and plants.” I believe that the Lord works in this way, to a certain extent.

IMO, you raise some good questions about ID (e.g., what kind of evidence would support or not support ID?) These questions demand a legitimate answer if ID is to be considered a serious science. It would make a good post. I need to do some more research :~o

 

Dave C.

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:09:52 am

Jeff,

RE: “Rob, You've been frequenting the bloggernacle debates on evolution ore than long enough to know that no evolutionist believes that dogs came from cats, cats came from dogs, geese came from salamanders or salamanders from geese. You also know that no evolutionist believes that we would ever observe something like that happen over the course of 100 generations of diligent scientists. When you say things like that, it makes you look obstinate at best.”

Rob has expressed a legitimate concern. Evolutionists claim common descent. I don’t know which life from was supposed to have evolved from another life form in the evolutionary tree of life. I do know that the onus is on evolutionists to demonstrate that this process can happen. IMO, it is the Holy Grail of evolution research.

Re: “Dave, Do you require eye witnesses in a case for proof beyond all reasonable doubt to be met?”

I require demonstrable, confirmatory evidence when scientific truth claims are made saying that macroevolution is a proven fact, that it is more than a theory. The current level of evidence does not support such claims.

Re: “Do you believe in an ancient earth/universe?”

Yes, largely because of the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (e.g., there is no beginning to creation).

 

Tim

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 2:57:47 pm

I can assure you that almost all biologists accept evolution BRD (beyond a reasonable doubt). That includes "macro" evolution.
Rob told us what his goalposts are--are those yours also? What level of evidence do you require? New species? New organs? A new phylogenetic kingdom?

 

Dave C.

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 3:51:17 pm

Tim,

RE: "I can assure you that almost all biologists accept evolution BRD (beyond a reasonable doubt."

Then they accept something that has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt as have other well accepted theories of science. There is nothing wrong with this.

I require demonstrable, replicable, empirical evidence from controlled studies where one life form evolved into another life form (take your pick of any life forms from the evolutionary tree of life).

 

Jeff G

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 5:30:23 pm

Dave,

The main difference between your idea of "a change in the genome" and my idea of "gene frequencies" is that yours is based in an inappropriate essentialist mind frame. There is no "standard human genome", but rather there are about 6 billion different human genomes complete with a boat load of gene frequencies. The same can and should be said for all species. That link that I posted covered this common misconception:

"Since Darwin (1859), evolutionary theory has been based strongly on “population” thinking that emphasizes differences among individuals. By contrast, many naïve interpretations of evolution remain rooted in the “typological” or “essentialist” thinking that has existed since the ancient Greeks (Mayr 1982, 2001; Sinatra et al. 2008). In this case, species are conceived of as exhibiting a single “type” or a common “essence,” with variation among individuals representing anomalous and largely unimportant deviations from the type or essence. As Shtulman (2006) notes, “human beings tend to essentialize biological kinds and essentialism is incompatible with natural selection...
"The incorrect belief that species are uniform leads to “transformationist” views of adaptation in which an entire population transforms as a whole as it adapts (Alters 2005; Shtulman 2006; Bardapurkar 2008). This contrasts with the correct, “variational” understanding of natural selection in which it is the proportion of traits within populations that changes (Fig. 2)."

With regard to Rob's concerns, I'm actually surprised that you are not making greater efforts to distance yourself from his position.

You want to see one "life form" turn into another "life form." We have no clue what you mean by that. If by "life form" you simply mean "species", then science has already observed it. Apparently you are hoping for more than that, but the bigger the change you are hoping to observe, the bigger your misunderstanding of neo-darwinian evolution would seem to be.

For instance, Rob wants to see one pre-existing species turn into another pre-existing species. This will never happen ever, ever, ever.

If you are expecting to observe changes that took many millions of years to happen, we aren't going to see that either.

So the question remains, what do you mean by "life form"? If you choose a change that is too small, we have already observed it and you don't think its enough. If you choose a change that is too big, evolution don't claim that we should be able to observe it and you are misrepresenting evolution.

 

Dave C.

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 1:48:49 pm

Jeff,

Jeff,

I have read and discussed the Hellenization of western thinking and Christianity. I have never encountered the effects of Hellenization (Greek philosophy) on evolution before. I find it intriguing that such a relationship exists.

Anyway, as someone who works directly with geneticists I am aware that there is no single monolithic genome for any species. My argument that random mutation is the foundation of evolution applies to any organism in any unique genetic state at any point in time.

Re: "You want to see one "life form" turn into another "life form." We have no clue what you mean by that. If by "life form" you simply mean "species", then science has already observed it."

-- Yes, science has shown evolution across species. Now the next step in proving common descent beyond a reasonable doubt is showing evolutionary change that works across genus, family, order, class, and phylum. For example, start with a species in environment A and another organism from the same species in environment B and show how the two can evolve into a different genus, family, order, and class.
Let's see evolution at higher taxonomic levels - this is what I mean when I say "from one life form to another". This is not an unreasonable demand given that evolution claims common descent. If this is not possible then evolution across life forms cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Re: "the bigger the change you are hoping to observe, the bigger your misunderstanding of neo-darwinian evolution would seem to be."

--If evolution claims common descent, I say show me the crucial test/experiment that confirms it beyond a reasonable doubt. Grandiose claims demand grandiose data to back them up. Evolutionists should put up (show the crucial evidence for common descent) or shut up (stop claiming that common descent has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt).

Re: "If you are expecting to observe changes that took many millions of years to happen, we aren't going to see that either."

-- You're right, which is why I always say that the crucial test proving common descent beyond a reasonable doubt will always be lacking.

 

John C.

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 8:25:04 pm

Dave,
Thank you, thank you, thank you!

 

Jack

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 9:23:16 pm

Quit holding out on us John. We know you really wanted to shout: THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!

 

S.Faux

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 6:58:22 am

Dave C.:

In good fun and with best wishes, <a href="http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com/2009/11/happy-mutability-day.html">Happy Mutability Day</a>.

I know we disagree about evolution, but we do agree on the on the central importance of the gospel. The gospel is infinitely more important. Even so, I tip my Darwinian hat to you.

 

Comments are closed.
Google Analytics