Age of the Earth and Evolution

[buffalo]

I can see cracks and flaws that will eventually lead to a paradigm shift, but we aren’t at that point yet (that I know of).

We are in fact past it.

 

[buffalo]

Just wanted to say I appreciate this response. There’s a tendency to throw not just evolution but a dozen other scientific fields into a pot, and if you can find a single unexplained phenomenon in the whole pot, throw the whole pot away. Likewise even for something like evolution, there’s the fundamental principles which would be very difficult to overturn given how much evidence there is, and then there’s the ‘cutting edge’ research trying to use those principles to understand more complex systems; the idea being if cutting edge research is still asking questions you can dismiss the whole theory I guess.

There is not one piece of empirical evidence for macro-evolution.

 

[Inquiry]

The moment of paradigm shift isn’t the point where it becomes obvious to some people. It is the point where it hits critical mass and everything starts shifting. It’s usually not possible to see until it is already past.

 

[Dan123]

There is not one piece of empirical evidence for macro-evolution.

Define macro-evolution.

 

[buffalo]

Define macro-evolution.

Molecules to man. In other words through blind unguided chance operation greater and greater complexity and new novel features emerge.

 

[Dan123]

Molecules to man. In other words through blind unguided chance operation greater and greater complexity and new novel features emerge.

Okay a fairly rudimentary piece of evidence would be the appearance of features as you move through the fossil record. That’s why it’s just absurd to say there’s no evidence. You can if you’d like say there isn’t enough evidence for you to be convinced but it’s objectively wrong to say there’s no evidence.

 

[buffalo]

Okay a fairly rudimentary piece of evidence would be the appearance of features as you move through the fossil record. That’s why it’s just absurd to say there’s no evidence. You can if you’d like say there isn’t enough evidence for you to be convinced but it’s objectively wrong to say there’s no evidence.

There is not one piece of empirical evidence.

 

[Inquiry]

That’s not macro-evolution, though. You cast the net too wide. The macro-evolution argument, as I understand it, is this:

Micro-evolution is the idea of genes surviving over time if they have a neutral or positive benefit to the species. Things like sickle cell anemia fall here. It required the mutation of one gene, that gene has a method of propagating through the population, etc. Micro-evolution is observable but does not create advanced structures.

Macro-evolution is the emergence of complex structures from changes in the genome. The development of eyes, new structures in the brain, etc. With artificial selection we can induce dramatic differences in size and appearance in species, but there is a limit. The argument is that we have not observed those changes happening through natural or artificial selection so we can’t be sure they happen that way. We can see them in the fossil record, but we are not sure if the happenstance assembly of the right genes can give rise to them or if we should be looking for another mechanism.

Yes, the issue of macro-evolution is a problem, but it doesn’t show the current theories to be wrong just (potentially) incomplete. With other issues it might add up to an eventual paradigm shift, but on its own it’s just an opportunity for further investigation.

 

[buffalo]

Micro-evolution is the idea of genes surviving over time if they have a neutral or positive benefit to the species. Things like sickle cell anemia fall here. It required the mutation of one gene, that gene has a method of propagating through the population, etc. Micro-evolution is observable but does not create advanced structures.

Macro-evolution is the emergence of complex structures from changes in the genome. The development of eyes, new structures in the brain, etc. With artificial selection we can induce dramatic differences in size and appearance in species, but there is a limit. The argument is that we have not observed those changes happening through natural or artificial selection so we can’t be sure they happen that way. We can see them in the fossil record, but we are not sure if the happenstance assembly of the right genes can give rise to them or if we should be looking for another mechanism.

Yes, the issue of macro-evolution is a problem, but it doesn’t show the current theories to be wrong just (potentially) incomplete. With other issues it might add up to an eventual paradigm shift, but on its own it’s just an opportunity for further investigation.

The gene centered theory has given way to the cell centered theory.

 

[Dan123]

We can see them in the fossil record, but we are not sure if the happenstance assembly of the right genes can give rise to them or if we should be looking for another mechanism.

And therein lies the difference between people who understand the scientific process and those who do not. When there’s a hole or even just the possibility of a hole actual scientists try to fill it with knowledge, you don’t tear everything down. Newton’s laws of motions fail to explain some of Mercury’s movements, it took general relativity to explain it. We knew newton’s laws worked in most instances so they weren’t wrong, just incomplete. A new paradigm didn’t replace newton’s laws or invalidate them, just contextualized them. I feel like this discussion 100 years ago would include someone trying to say we needed to throw out heliocentrism because of issues with the Mercury theory.

 

[rossum]

There is not one piece of empirical evidence for macro-evolution.

For once I agree with you buffalo. There are thousands of pieces of evidence for macro-evolution. That is a lot more than one piece.

 

[buffalo]

For once I agree with you buffalo. There are thousands of pieces of evidence for macro-evolution. That is a lot more than one piece.

I only asked for one piece of empirical evidence. (observable, repeatable and predictable)

 

[buffalo]

And therein lies the difference between people who understand the scientific process and those who do not. When there’s a hole or even just the possibility of a hole actual scientists try to fill it with knowledge, you don’t tear everything down. Newton’s laws of motions fail to explain some of Mercury’s movements, it took general relativity to explain it. We knew newton’s laws worked in most instances so they weren’t wrong, just incomplete. A new paradigm didn’t replace newton’s laws or invalidate them, just contextualized them. I feel like this discussion 100 years ago would include someone trying to say we needed to throw out heliocentrism because of issues with the Mercury theory.

We have just a few pieces of a 1,000 piece puzzle. How can we know the picture on the box, unless we a priori defined it.

 

[Dan123]

You said we didn’t have any pieces, not a single one, so I guess that’s progress. But it’s not a puzzle, it doesn’t form a picture at the end, it’s a process and one despite your claims we do see happening, and find evidence of happening when we look at embryology, genetics, fossil records, biogeography, and numerous other fields of study.

 

[buffalo]

You said we didn’t have any pieces, not a single one

Correct. Once again there is no empirical evidence of macro evolution.

 

[rossum]

Coming late to this thread, a response to parts of the OP.

For those Catholics …

I am Buddhist, not Catholic, but I hope my comments are relevant.

… who believe in evolution as laid out by Darwin and others

Here “believe” is the wrong word. Something like “accept” is better. That acceptance is based on the available scientific evidence. If the evidence changes than my acceptance can change.

… it would mean that before the creation of Adam and Eve there was millions of years of chaotic life, and death and evolution, all which contradict the Biblical account of a world created perfect by God and into which death only entered after Adam and Eve’s sin?

I do not see the world described as “perfect” in Genesis. I can see “good” and “very good” as well as a “not good” (Gen 2:18). Can you supply a verse for “perfect”? Eden contained the serpent. Can somewhere containing that serpent be “perfect”? Romans 5:12 talks about death coming to all men. It does not talk about death coming to armadillos or oak trees. Even if Adam and Eve were vegetarian, they would have brought death to plants.

Secondly, for those in this category who accept human evolution from primates, do you really believe that a sub-human primate without a soul gave birth to Adam? And Eve? That Adam was born into a world already filled with death and savagery? How do you reconcile all this with the Bible?

Do some research on Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. It is scientifically established that they both existed. They are not the Biblical Adam and Eve, but any of their ancestral pairs: parents, grandparents, great-grandparents etc. could have been the Biblical original pair.

Science cannot detect a soul, either in a fossil or in DNA. Hence the presence, or not, of a soul is not a scientific question.

As a general point, if God made the world and God inspired the Bible, then both are equally from God. We do not have the original autographs of the Bible, we only have copies of copies of copies. We do have the original universe that God created. Assuming that God is not deceptive, then the correct interpretations of both the Bible and the world must agree. Yes, scientists disagree about interpretations, as Christians similarly disagree about interpretations. If there is disagreement, then one or both interpretations are wrong.

 

[whatistrue]

There is not one piece of empirical evidence

Of course there isn’t if you automatically dismiss anything that is presented. Kind of like atheists automatically dismissing any argument from a theist. Objectively, there is a plethora of evidence; that is why the theory has stuck around this long.

 

[rossum]

I only asked for one piece of empirical evidence. (observable, repeatable and predictable)

Repeatable? How many million years do you want to wait?

You see no evidence because you ignore any evidence that you do not like.

For those, unlilke buffalo, who are prepared to look at the evidence, here is evidence of a new species evolving with just three genetic changes: Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci.

I can also reference a paper from 1905 and an example of a species change in a single generation if needed.

 

[buffalo]

Repeatable? How many million years do you want to wait?

You see no evidence because you ignore any evidence that you do not like.

For those, unlilke buffalo, who are prepared to look at the evidence, here is evidence of a new species evolving with just three genetic changes: Sympatric Speciation Based on Allelic Changes at Three Loci.

I can also reference a paper from 1905 and an example of a species change in a single generation if needed.

Lineage splitting (aka speciation) is devolution.

 

[whatistrue]

is devolution.

From a biological perspective, there is no such thing as devolution.