two questions about evolution as I consider leaving the church

[rossum]

First, Hall’s experiment: Bacteria evolves into…Bacteria. To claim this to be a macroevolutionary change requires a pinch of fiction and a pound of faith.

Do you realise what you are saying here? Have you any idea of how wide a spectrum of life the word “bacteria” covers, even if we restrict it to the eubacteria and exclude the archaea? I would point out that at the root of the Tree of Life has three classifications: bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes (with viruses as a possible fourth). Your statement is equivalent to saying “Amoeba evolve into humans - eukaryotes evolve into eukaryotes.” Are you claiming that humans evolving from a single-celled eukaryote is just “microevolution”?

Part of the problem is the use of two different definitions of the word “macroevolution”:* science - macroevolution is evolution at or above the level of species.

• creationism: macroevolution is evolution between created kinds, and so cannot happen.

Fourthly, in regards to macroevolution: It is my understanding that the point of distinction between it and microevolution resides in the modifications taking place beyond the barrier of species. Hall’s case does not meet this standard unless you are to define species in a way that conforms. What is your definition then?

The word “bacteria” covers a multitude of different species. E. coli is just a single species among many. For an example of species level evolution see the AiG article Brisk Biters.

rossum

 

[Leela]

Hi Fran, (Byron)

Do agree with Byron that evolution is not faslifiable?

Best,
Leela

 

[rossum]

Do agree with Byron that evolution is not faslifiable?

I am not sure if that was addressed to me, but I will answer it anyway.

Evolution is two things, some observations and a theory. The observations are that things do evolve, as with bacteria evolving immunity to antibiotics and humans beginning to evolve responses to malaria. These observations are not falsifiable, though new observations can be added to the existing body of observations.

The theory of evolution is the current best explanation of why those observations are happening. The theory is, in principle, falsifiable though evolution is a very well established theory and I think it is more likely to be modified rather than outright falsified in future.

There is an analogy here with gravity, the observation of gravity - things go ‘thud’ - is obvious. Theories of gravity have changed over time. Newton was replaced by Einstein who will eventually be replaced by a theory of quantum gravity. The observations stay the same and are not falsified, merely added to; the theories can be modified or falsified and replaced.

rossum

 

[Leela]

I am not sure if that was addressed to me, but I will answer it anyway.

Evolution is two things, some observations and a theory. The observations are that things do evolve, as with bacteria evolving immunity to antibiotics and humans beginning to evolve responses to malaria. These observations are not falsifiable, though new observations can be added to the existing body of observations.

The theory of evolution is the current best explanation of why those observations are happening. The theory is, in principle, falsifiable though evolution is a very well established theory and I think it is more likely to be modified rather than outright falsified in future.

There is an analogy here with gravity, the observation of gravity - things go ‘thud’ - is obvious. Theories of gravity have changed over time. Newton was replaced by Einstein who will eventually be replaced by a theory of quantum gravity. The observations stay the same and are not falsified, merely added to; the theories can be modified or falsified and replaced.

rossum

Hi Rossum,

In understand that falsifiablility is not about the likelihood of being falsified but rather about the conveivability of evidence that would contradict evolutionary theory.

Can you give any examples of evidence that if presented would contradict evolution?

Is such evidenence imaginable for ID?

Best,
Leela

 

[rossum]

In understand that falsifiablility is not about the likelihood of being falsified but rather about the conveivability of evidence that would contradict evolutionary theory.

Correct.

Can you give any examples of evidence that if presented would contradict evolution?

Certainly, start with Darwin:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

• both from Chapter Six of Origins.
  It is worth noting that Behe used Irreducible Complexity to try to meet the first of these two criteria. He failed, but it was an interesting failure resulting in much valuable work to refute it.

Other evidence is possible, Haldane’s “Devonian rabbit” for instance - evolution is a theory of gradual development from ancestors, so a rabbit appearing before any close ancestors to rabbits would be a big problem. Also the phylogenetic tree can be disproved by transitionals that are forbidden by the tree, for example a transitional between a bird and a mammal such as a Pegasus. In the normal tree when bird ancestors and mammal ancestors diverged both then still had scales; fur and feathers both developed later.

Is such evidenence imaginable for ID?

Not until ID defines what the designer/s are and are not capable of. Space aliens with limited design techniques could be contradicted by any organsm designed using techniques not available to those aliens. Omnipotent designer/s have no limitations so it would not be possible to specify something that could not possibly have been designed by such designers. I have sometimes quoted Darwin as above and asked ID supporters to provide a similar method to contradict ID theory. So far I have not had a satisfactory answer.

rossum

 

[Byron_Bramwell]

Do you realise what you are saying here? Have you any idea of how wide a spectrum of life the word “bacteria” covers, even if we restrict it to the eubacteria and exclude the archaea? I would point out that at the root of the Tree of Life has three classifications: bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes (with viruses as a possible fourth). Your statement is equivalent to saying “Amoeba evolve into humans - eukaryotes evolve into eukaryotes.” Are you claiming that humans evolving from a single-celled eukaryote is just “microevolution”?

Part of the problem is the use of two different definitions of the word “macroevolution”:* science - macroevolution is evolution at or above the level of species.

• creationism: macroevolution is evolution between created kinds, and so cannot happen.

The word “bacteria” covers a multitude of different species. E. coli is just a single species among many. For an example of species level evolution see the AiG article Brisk Biters.

rossum

Rossum,

Once again: DEFINE for me the term species. That is, give me a definition that can actually be applied to, and function with the macroevolutionary theory.
For example: 1. an interbreeding population of organisms, 2. organisms with the possibility of exchanging of genes, etc.

OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY:
Macroevolution: The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.

Therefore, what must be understood is the classification of species if we are to continue this debate.

      Sincerely in Christ, 
            Byron

 

[Fran65]

Hi Leela,

Of course is evolution is falsifiable. Hypotheses can be written and tested. Observations either support or contradict the prediction.

Rossum has given some excellent examples of observations that could prove evolutionary theory wrong. I do agree though, that it is unlikely to be proved wrong, and is more likely to be modified as we collect more observations.

Rossum goes on to make a point that I tried to make in another thread, “The observations stay the same and are not falsified, merely added to; the theories can be modified or falsified and replaced.” That’s what I meant (in the other thread) about the distinction between observations of evolution and evolutionary theory.

 

[Fran65]

Darwin points out that the presence of an omnipotent deity would actually undermine his theory. He argued against theistic evolution since God guiding the process would ensure that only ‘the right variations occurred … and natural selection would be superfluous.’"

That is only true if we specify how God works.

As mere human beings, we presume a lot if we believe that we know in detail how God works through evolution.

I don’t see that God’s existence makes natural selection unnecessary. It is a physical process, subject to physical laws and therefore originates in God, as the creator. That does not mean that He necessarily guides the process, anymore than He controls us. He gave us freewill, why couldn’t He set the process in motion and step back? Being omnipotent He knows that humans will be created, but He doesn’t necessarily control in detail the process that led to the development of different species. He knows which moths will survive and how their survival will come about, but He doesn’t necesarily guide each step to some moths becoming darker than others.

 

[Leela]

Certainly, start with Darwin:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

• both from Chapter Six of Origins.
  It is worth noting that Behe used Irreducible Complexity to try to meet the first of these two criteria. He failed, but it was an interesting failure resulting in much valuable work to refute it.

Other evidence is possible, Haldane’s “Devonian rabbit” for instance - evolution is a theory of gradual development from ancestors, so a rabbit appearing before any close ancestors to rabbits would be a big problem. Also the phylogenetic tree can be disproved by transitionals that are forbidden by the tree, for example a transitional between a bird and a mammal such as a Pegasus. In the normal tree when bird ancestors and mammal ancestors diverged both then still had scales; fur and feathers both developed later.

Not until ID defines what the designer/s are and are not capable of. Space aliens with limited design techniques could be contradicted by any organsm designed using techniques not available to those aliens. Omnipotent designer/s have no limitations so it would not be possible to specify something that could not possibly have been designed by such designers. I have sometimes quoted Darwin as above and asked ID supporters to provide a similar method to contradict ID theory. So far I have not had a satisfactory answer.

Hi Rossum,

Thanks for the response. You’ve convinced me that evolution is a valid scientific theory and ID is not.

Best,
Leela

 

[Byron_Bramwell]

Ah but you do admit that they evolved?
Once that happens you’re stuck, unless you suppose some mechanism to stop the process at some arbitrary point. The distinction between macro and micro is fictitious in my mind.

True there are those who suffer in the pursuit of truth. But in the aggregate it is better.

What lesson is Genesis trying to teach? That God made us. The exact details are unimportant to that Truth.

A species is a population that is inter-fertile. The “barrier” as you put it has geographic and chronological extents.  Species that differentiated themselves longer ago are completely reproductively incompatible.   While in species where the separate is more recent there is some limited inter-fertility e.g. horses and donkeys or dogs and wolves.

When it comes to Bacteria, I think strain is more precise than species.

Steve,

I will be straightforward: [edited] if you are seriously attempting to put forth a universal definition of species. 
The main idea here is that what we observe, today and always, is the limited change within kinds of animals. There are a great variety of cats (domestic, tigers, panthers, cheetahs, lions, jaguars, lynx, etc.), however, they are still cats; each and every one of them. None have been observed to change into anything other than a variation of the cat kind. 
Yes, I agree completely with microevolution. I do so because: 1. The Bible clearly teaches that each animal brings forth after its own kind, and 2. It is the only truly scientific model of change in organisms that actually conforms to the universe that exists; we are able to test and observe such things, whereas with the macroevolutionary model, we must awaken our imaginations in order to even begin to fathom its unreality.
I suggest you look into the Popperian distinction between science and pseudoscience. For example, astrology, while it puts forth a host of predictions (some of them inevitably being successful; some scorpios *are* a bit whorish for example), it does not qualify as science due to the fact that it cannot be tested by a falsifiable hypothesis. Hence, my friend, your are endorsing and defending a pseudo model of change. 
The same problem is placed before the macroevolutionary model in that it ultimately cannot be falsified; whereas the Creationist model can not only put forth radical and testable hypothesis, but these hypothesis can actually be falsified by the comparison of its conformity to the existing world (The evidence for the universal flood, when actually examined, far outweighs that of uniformitarian thought). 
Moreover, ask a breeder (pigs, dogs, whatever) whether biological barriers exist only in chronological and geographical form and see if they do not look at you as if you were an idiot.

       In all sincerity, 
         Byron

 

[Fran65]

My contention, and you are welcome to disagree, is that this runs counter to the Gospel, which says that God made all things good and upright; perfect and absent from all evil; and furthermore, that man brought death into the world by a willful disobedience.

You are right, We do disagree. This, from the CCC is my understanding:

310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better. But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world “in a state of journeying” towards its ultimate perfection. In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.

I sense that it is really yourself that is so offended by the idea of one believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis that you felt compelled to reply. Do the Creationist model offend you, Fran?

No. It simply does not make sense to me.

I don’t find the Creationist model incompatible with the evidence depending on how Genesis is interpreted. I happen to believe that God is our creator, but the Earth is much older than the account in Genesis suggests; to give one example.

You may counter that as there is little (or no) evidence for God and Christianity according to some; that balking at Creationism is like straining at a gnat, having swallowed an elephant. God being omnipotent and omniscient is capable of creation just as Genesis describes it. However, I believe that God gave us reason so that we could reason our way to Him and would not expect us to believe anything in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Now, again, some might say, but that’s just what we are doing by believing in God. That is not true either, because there is no evidence that God does not exist.

 

[Byron_Bramwell]

You are right, We do disagree. This, from the CCC is my understanding:

No. It simply does not make sense to me.

I don’t find the Creationist model incompatible with the evidence depending on how Genesis is interpreted. I happen to believe that God is our creator, but the Earth is much older than the account in Genesis suggests; to give one example.

You may counter that as there is little (or no) evidence for God and Christianity according to some; that balking at Creationism is like straining at a gnat, having swallowed an elephant. God being omnipotent and omniscient is capable of creation just as Genesis describes it. However, I believe that God gave us reason so that we could reason our way to Him and would not expect us to believe anything in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Now, again, some might say, but that’s just what we are doing by believing in God. That is not true either, because there is no evidence that God does not exist.

Fran,

Your citing from the Catechism does not support evolutionary theory except by an implicit stretch of the imagination. “The state of journeying” can be best understood within the plain text of Scripture; that time is not cyclical but linear, the bride of Christ progressing towards their Savior and their eternal home of glory.
The question should never be whether God was capable of creating the world this way or that. Of course, I assume, we both believe that God could have created the world in six seconds or in six billion years without trouble. The question is, by what authority do we rest our understanding: reason or revelation? Now, this is not to say that your reasoning is totally separated from revelation, or that revelation is void of reason; both are cooperative. However, one must take precedence over the other necessarily. I believe that God has revealed Himself in truth through His Self-revelation and by the authority of the church. I see no reason why we should abandon a plain interpretation of Genesis, as that is the way it is written.

 Sincerely in Christ, 
     Byron

 

[Namesake]

I see no reason why we should abandon a plain interpretation of Genesis, as that is the way it is written.

Do you mean a literal reading?

 

[Orogeny]

Barbarian,

First, Hall’s experiment: Bacteria evolves into…Bacteria. To claim this to be a macroevolutionary change requires a pinch of fiction and a pound of faith.

Barbarian was giving you an example of how an irreducibly complex system can evolve, not an example of macroevolution, although if the new bacteria is a new species, it is an example of macroevolution.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

Barbarian was giving you an example of how an irreducibly complex system can evolve, not an example of macroevolution, although if the new bacteria is a new species, it is an example of macroevolution.

Peace

Tim

This bacteria has actually gained information?

 

[The_Barbarian]

First, Hall’s experiment: Bacteria evolves into…Bacteria.

But bacteria with a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Precisely what Behe first claimed was impossible, and later merely too improbable. So much for irreducible complexity as a creationist argument.

Second error, of course, is saying “bacteria evolved into bacteria” is like denying the Pope’s point about human evolution by saying “animals evolved into animals.”

To claim this to be a macroevolutionary change requires a pinch of fiction and a pound of faith.

Perhaps you forgot what we were talking about. I pointed out that the evolution of irreducible complexity had been directly observed. Macroevolution has certainly been observed. There are a good number of speciations directly documented. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Second, concerning your defense of the pursuit of truth: I apologize for my assuming you to be either an atheist or an agnostic.

I don’t know why. My opinion on evolution is the same as our Pope’s. But I don’t consider it to be shameful to be an atheist or agnostic. Just an error.

I agree with you on the global aspect. However, tactically I cannot agree that all who search for truth do better in this world.

God says that if we do, we will be happy. He doesn’t guarantee that we will be successful as the world counts success. So far, it’s worked for me.

Thirdly, as to my sliding away from uncomfortable truths: Irreducible Complexity does fit into a coherentist position regarding the creationist view of the world; as does the Anthropic Principle, and a host of teleological arguments.

Irreducible complexity is completely compatible with evolutionary theory. There are many ways it can evolve. You’ve just learned about one of them.

Foremost, however, I believe Scripture to speak plainly on the matter. I personally hold to a literal six days, though I do understand the reasons behind adopting the framework hypothesis. Scripture is often both allegorical and historical simultaneously. I believe Genesis to be in this characterization.

As St. Augustine long ago observed, a literal six-day creation week cannot be reconciled with Scripture.

Fourthly, in regards to macroevolution: It is my understanding that the point of distinction between it and microevolution resides in the modifications taking place beyond the barrier of species.

Yes. It turns out that irreducible complexity can evolve within a species. Speciation is not as common as the evolution of irreducible complexity, but it has been directly observed.

 

[Orogeny]

This bacteria has actually gained information?

Is gaining information (however you might define that) a scientific requirement for evolving?

Peace

Tim

 

[Byron_Bramwell]

Do you mean a literal reading?

Yes. I only mean to say that we should read Scripture the way the church has always read it, interpreting each passage as a straightforward statement of what is meant. I am well aware of the allegorical qualities of the Genesis account, yet this does not somehow divorce it from its historical context. How do you read other books?

 

[Byron_Bramwell]

Barbarian,

Augustine, while I admire him greatly, had erroneous views in some parts of his theology. His soteriological position of limited atonement for example. He certainly is not a final authority on the days of Genesis. 

The Pope also, while I too admire his work, is not the final authority on the theory of evolutionary processes. Popes have been wrong in their own personal assessments on matters of great many areas throughout the church's history. I am neither in rebellion to the Catechism, or to Scripture; and I am certainly not in rebellion with the coherency of my position in relationship to the natural world. 

DEFINE SPECIES. Every time I debate with a staunch evolutionist it is always reduced to my begging for a definition of species and their manufacturing diversions from an actual response. 

   Sincerely in Christ, 
          Byron

 

[The_Barbarian]

Your citing from the Catechism does not support evolutionary theory except by an implicit stretch of the imagination. “The state of journeying” can be best understood within the plain text of Scripture; that time is not cyclical but linear, the bride of Christ progressing towards their Savior and their eternal home of glory.

St. Augustine agreed, except he understood that the state of journeying included the appearance of new “beasts” from other things that existed before.

I see no reason why we should abandon a plain interpretation of Genesis, as that is the way it is written.

That is what YE creationism does. It is incompatible with God’s word in Genesis.

I suggest you look into the Popperian distinction between science and pseudoscience. For example, astrology, while it puts forth a host of predictions (some of them inevitably being successful; some scorpios are a bit whorish for example), it does not qualify as science due to the fact that it cannot be tested by a falsifiable hypothesis.

That’s very appropriate to the discussion. Michael Behe testified in the Dover trial that ID is a science in the same sense that astrology is a science.

BTW, the Bible does not say that organisms reproduce according to kind. It says that they were created according to their kind, but does not say how God did that, except that the first living things were brought forth by the Earth.

Hence, my friend, your are endorsing and defending a pseudo model of change.
The same problem is placed before the macroevolutionary model in that it ultimately cannot be falsified;

If you could show that a complex metazoan appeared without ancestors, that would do it. Showing that there is no genetic relationship between groups connected by evolutionary theory would do it. A rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian deposits would do it. I’m sure you can think of many more.

whereas the Creationist model can not only put forth radical and testable hypothesis, but these hypothesis can actually be falsified by the comparison of its conformity to the existing world (The evidence for the universal flood, when actually examined, far outweighs that of uniformitarian thought).

You’ve been misled on that. There is no evidence for a universal flood. But more to the point, Scripture does not describe a universal flood.

Moreover, ask a breeder (pigs, dogs, whatever) whether biological barriers exist only in chronological and geographical form and see if they do not look at you as if you were an idiot.

I know a number of animal breeders. I don’t know of any who don’t accept evolution, although there must be some, somewhere.

I have no idea what you mean by “biological barriers”, and I suppose they wouldn’t, either. So they might very well look at me as if I was an idiot, if I asked that question. It certainly isn’t part of evolutionary theory.