Saturday, December 10, 2011

Solution to Pop Quiz: Who Believes and Promotes the Fixity of Species Belief?

Like punctuated equilibrium, Ernst Mayr occasionally sprinkled his work with unintended bits of brilliance. In one spurt, he once told Michael Ruse that “People forget that it is possible to be intensely religious in the entire absence of religious belief.” Indeed, atheists say they are not religious because, after all, they don’t believe in god, and creationists say atheists are religious because, after all, believing in evolution requires faith. But both are wrong.

When atheist PZ Myers says he doesn’t think god would have created this universe or atheist Richard Dawkins says our eye’s backward photocells would never have been designed, they are expressing non scientific, religious beliefs. There is no scientific experiment that demonstrates Myers’ or Dawkins’ convictions. These atheists are “intensely religious in the entire absence of religious belief” in god.

This oft-heard argument that god doesn’t exist because god wouldn’t have created this world is not an argument from atheism. The conclusion is atheism, but the argument is from theism. Ironically, not believing in god usually entails beliefs about god.

Who believes in the fixity of species?


How does this apply to the fixity of species? The fixity of species refers to the religious belief that if god created the species they would be fixed. Populations would not undergo any kind of biological change under the divine plan. This belief that once created, all species remain fixed throughout history is often associated with the eighteenth century Swedish super-scientist Carl von Linne, or Linnaeus. But Linnaeus soften his views and no longer accepted the fixity of species in his later years.

Linnaeus had tremendous influence, but not enough to rid the world of the doctrine of the fixity of species. And so a century later Darwin inherited the view that if god created the species they would be fixed.

This is why those differing bird populations on the Gallapagoes Islands were so significant for Darwin. Surely god would not stoop so low as to create slightly different variants of birds on some remote islands. The great botanist and natural theologian John Ray had made this argument a century earlier and by Darwin’s time the infra dig (beneath god’s dignity) argument was well entrenched.

But on the other hand, if these differing bird populations were different species, then the species were not fixed. And if the species were not fixed, then god must not have created them, because if god did create them, they would be fixed. Therefore those bird species must have evolved.

So while arguing that the species are not fixed, Darwin also argued they would be fixed if god had created them. God didn’t do it, because here’s how god would do it. As Mayr said, it is possible to be intensely religious even when god is removed from the picture.

The tiny differences between the bird species did not suddenly reveal to Darwin how fish could change to amphibians, or how amphibians could change to reptiles, or how reptiles could change to mammals. Rather, the revelation was that the idea of creation was suddenly becoming untenable. The crucible for Darwin was not an abundance of positive evidence for evolution but rather negative evidence against creation.

This has become even more true today. Darwin had no scientific reason to think that variations between bird populations revealed that all life arose spontaneously. And today the evidence even more so rejects such a move. Even evolutionists agree that the massive biological changes their theory requires must have come about by some unknown mechanisms more powerful than the adaptive mechanisms we observe at work in populations.

But such problems are inconsequential, for evolution has been proven. True we don’t know how macro evolution could have occurred, but we know god did not create the species. As Mayr points out, the doctrine of fixity of species was a key barrier to overcome in order if the concept of evolution was to flourish:

Darwin called his great work On the Origin of Species, for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution. The fixed, essentialistic species was the fortress to be stormed and destroyed; once this had been accomplished, evolutionary thinking rushed through the breach like a flood through a break in a dike.

This is why the species barrier, as fuzzy as it is, has always been so important to evolutionists. They do not believe the species are fixed, but they do believe in the fixity of species.

Today’s evolutionists inherit these religious ideas and replay them over and over. In his Toward a New Philosophy of Biology Mayr writes that “evolutionary change is also simply a fact owing to the changes in the content of gene pools from generation to generation.”

What? Changing gene frequencies make the spontaneous origin of all life a fact? This would be laughable if not understood within its historical context. But such statements do make sense once we understand the historical context of the fixity of species doctrine.

Isaac Asimov claimed that color changes in the peppered moth prove evolution. Steve Jones wrote that the changes observed in HIV (the human immunodeficiency virus) contain Darwin’s “entire argument.” According to science writer Jonathan Weiner, the changes in the beaks of birds show us “Darwin’s process in action.”

Likewise Professor Marta Wayne tells us that “Evolution is change in gene frequency” and science writer Emily Willingham defines evolution as “a change in population over time.” Professor Pamela Bjorkman states that a mutating virus is “evolution at work” and that “In the same way, people have evolved, but over a much slower time scale.”

These statements by evolutionists make no sense from a scientific perspective. Evolutionary thought would be absurd in the absence of its historical context. But it is perfectly logical when we understand the underlying metaphysics. Remember, it is possible to be intensely religious in the entire absence of religious belief.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

67 comments:

  1. Cornelius:

    "In his Toward a New Philosophy of Biology Mayr writes that “evolutionary change is also simply a fact owing to the changes in the content of gene pools from generation to generation.”

    What? Changing gene frequencies make the spontaneous origin of all life a fact?
    "

    So when Mayr says "evolutionary change", you take that to mean "spontaneous origin of all life".

    Perhaps you have spent too much time interpreting biblical passages to mean what you want them to mean, and now this tendency has inadvertently spilled over to other writings.

    ReplyDelete
  2. CH: This oft-heard argument that god doesn’t exist because god wouldn’t have created this world is not an argument from atheism. The conclusion is atheism, but the argument is from theism. Ironically, not believing in god usually entails beliefs about god.

    I'll again ask, how do you differentiate between criticizing the beliefs of others about God with actually holding those beliefs themselves? I've yet to hear your response, despite asking you directly on multiple occasions.

    In the absence of an explanation as to why God *would* create the biosphere in a particular way, what you have is a mere possibility. And, in science, we discard a near infinite number of mere possibilities every day in every field.

    In fact, we explain our relatively recent ability to rapidly create knowledge in that people have the ability to create explanations, which we use as a criteria to determine what we should or should not test.

    Why should God or the biosphere be any different?

    Furthermore, we test theories via observations, not vice versa.

    One doesn't have to believe any particular God exists to criticize how someone else identifies any particular God's supposed actions is contradictory to their own claims.

    For example, one might claim the maximum efficiency of an internal combustion engine (ICE) is 30,000 mpg. It's possible this is indeed the case. However, what we lack is an explanation for why 30,000 mpg is the maximum. Until then, it's a mere possibility, which we discard.

    One might claim the maximum efficiency of a ICE is 30,000 mpg because the spark plug in an ICE is connected to the crankshaft. Here we have some sort of explanation which we can test.

    However, observations reveal that not all ICEs actually use spark plugs. And when the do, they are not directly connected to the crankshaft. As such, this explanation has been found in error by observations - even before any ICE was fired up to test its fuel efficiency.

    Until another explanation is presented, the 30,000 maximum mpg reverts back to a mere possibility, which we discard. Finding this theory in error doesn't mean 30,000 isn't the maximum, in reality, but we certainly should justify such a conclusion based on the above explanation.

    Again, we test theories via observation, not vice versa.

    it's just as possible that a perfectly good God and his equally powerful perfectly evil twin brother created the biosphere we observe. Or a highly technically advanced alien civilization that has existed for billions of years. However, we lack a good explanation as to how or why they would have created specifically what we observe. As such, we discard them.

    This might be true, in reality, but we certainly shouldn't justify a conclusion that they did based based on a mere possibility, a bad explanation, or explanations found in error via observations.

    Again, it's unclear why your particular variant of God and the biosphere are any different.

    It wouldn't happen to have anything to do with a voice in a whirlwind, would it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks CH for another insight. This is a subset of the contra biblical argument that God created the universe as an autonomous machine. These people seem to misunderstand the commandment to love God. If you can love God then He is active in this world, not some distant automoton.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cornelius Hunter: "Ironically, not believing in god usually entails beliefs about god."

    Star Wars nerd 1: You know, I don't think Emperor Palpatine was such a bad guy. I bet he really only wanted power so he could make the galaxy a better place; in his heart, he genuinely loves all the people he rules over.

    Star Wars nerd 2: That's ridiculous. The Emperor clearly had selfish motives for taking power. There is no reason to think his motives were anything other than-

    Star Wars nerd 1: WHAT!? DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE EMPEROR IS A REAL PERSON! WHY YOU MUST BELIEVE THAT HE IS REAL BECAUSE YOU"RE COMMENTING ON WHAT HE WOULD OR WOULD NOT DO AND WHAT KIND OF CHARACTERISTICS HE HAS OH MY GOODNESS I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M TALKING TO SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES EMPEROR PALPATINE IS REAL!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Derick,

    I remember a few years ago many Wikipedia articles on Star Wars characters* had no context in the introduction, so that they looked like articles about real people, at least until you reached the "Concept and development" section (if there was one). Today all of the articles start with "X is a fictional character in the Star Wars Y franchise/universe". That must have been a major editorial effort.

    * No. I'm [fortunately?] not a Star Wars fan.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Star Trek geek 3:

    An ancestor of mine maintained that when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. If we did not fire those torpedoes, another ship did.

    Captain Spock

    Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)


    Mister Spock had wise ancestors.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Eugen,

    I didn't know Sherlock Holmes was a Vulcan, and, more shockingly, that he had descendants.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sherlock's ears evolved into pointy ones :)

    Star Wars - kick Chewbacka

    Star Trek -pass me those Vulcan ears

    ReplyDelete
  9. "This oft-heard argument that god doesn’t exist because god wouldn’t have created this world is not an argument from atheism. The conclusion is atheism, but the argument is from theism. Ironically, not believing in god usually entails beliefs about god."

    How about another version:

    This oft-heard argument that the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist because the flying spaghetti monster wouldn’t have created this world is not an argument from apastafarianism. The conclusion is apastafarianism, but the argument is from pastafarianism. Ironically, not believing in the flying spaghetti monster usually entails beliefs about the flying spaghetti monster.

    The point being: "god" has no more evidential support than the FSM (neither of them have any evidential support), so not believing in "god" is no different than not believing in the FSM.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The whole truth:

    How about another version:

    Sure, metaphysical argument are metaphysical arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is a good thread on many points.
    Evolution has been a line of reasoning from micro evolution observations, true or not, and artificial selection.
    if micro happened then macro did.
    Even if true its not science. its just a line of reasoning.
    I see this always.
    i insist marine mammals adapted from land creatures but this as a special case.
    Evolutionists use this fact to prove all life evolved from this tro that .
    A line of reasoning.

    Yes they did say if they proved god didn't put a birdie on each isle then there must be a another mechanism that can reject any creator at all.
    In fact however the option of creation and then a disaster in nature , the fall, can easily explain all things.
    The great need to survive demanding great mechanisms in biology.
    It would be this way if genesis was true. it only be.

    The bible teaches fixity of kinds. Yet kinds can be diverse upon need.
    The great case is the serpent.
    There was one snake kind originally and then many after the fall.

    If evolution is not true then it couldn't have evidence of note behind it.
    Much less acclaimed higher standards of evidence called science.
    Evolution must of always been and is greatly a line of reasoning.
    However reasonable its not research.
    These lines of reasoning , as shown in this thread, can be seen to be very important in the whole grand historical intellectual error of evolution.
    A error coming to a end in our time as it is right now.
    A prediction.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Robert Byers:

    Evolution has been a line of reasoning from micro evolution observations, true or not, and artificial selection.
    if micro happened then macro did.


    If you think so then you are woefully mistaken.

    Microevolution and macroevolution are driven by exactly the same processes. In effect, they are the same process. The only difference between them is one of scale. To demonstrate the mechanisms of microevolution is to demonstrate the mechanisms of macroevolution.

    You really need to stop thinking of them as separate processes. They are not.

    ReplyDelete
  13. CH -

    Once again, no-one is saying: "Definitely not God, therefore evolution." No-one is making that claim. No-one is using that train of logic - not Darwin, not Dawkins, no-one. That is just a strawman you keep hitting.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cornelius,

    Solution to Pop Quiz: Who Believes and Promotes the Fixity of Species Belief?

    Well, if it follows that Darwinists believe in the fixity of species because they believe that someone else believes in it, then it also follows that Cornelius believes in it because he believes that someone else believes in it.

    Arguments from Abbott and Costello are quite fun.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Robert Byers,

    if micro happened then macro did.

    As you say, macro evolution does not necessarily follow just because micro evolution has been demonstrated. But then, that isn't the argument. Instead, microevo is evidence for macroevo just as the lack of microevo would be evidence against macroevo.


    Even if true its not science. its just a line of reasoning.

    Your reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  16. CH: Sure, metaphysical argument are metaphysical arguments.

    On one hand, theists complain science does not take them seriously. However, when it does, they turn around and claim it's a form of religious belief.

    We start at a mere possibility. From here, some theist claims their favorite variant of God can be identified as taking a number of specific actions in the world. One of these actions includes designing the biosphere.

    Given that God is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient, this is an extremely shallow and easily varied explanation. Despite being a bad explanation, we can still test it via observations.

    Our earliest conceptions of gods were amoral and limited in ability and knowledge to specific domains. They represented our attempt to explain why good things happened to some people, but not others and means by which we attempted to exhibit influence in situations beyond our knowledge and control.

    However, we've observed these claims evolve into variants of a single entity that is supposedly perfectly moral all knowing and all powerful.

    For example, one's aunt contracts some sort of illness or condition. People pray to their preferred God for her to get better. She does. If God did supposedly did intercede in the course of her illness it was to heal her. God does not directly cause her illness to worsen or introduce complications, but chooses to allow her illness to run it's course.

    God might allow children to contract cancer, but he does not directly cause it. Being all knowing and all powerful, he might use their illness to bring about some mysterious good end, but he didn't directly cause them to contract it. If God was involved, he makes good out of bad situations, not vice versa.

    God doesn't pull people to their deaths as a direct cause of gravity, he merely takes an impartial position and let's the laws of nature he created take their course. God does not directly cause aircraft to break down, lighting strikes or wind shears, but occasionally, directly, omnipotently and omnisciently intercedes to save a few passengers in some miraculous way when they do occur.

    In other words, theists claim their God's actions, or lack there off, can supposedly be identified by observations of what we human beings define as good applied through a great power and knowledge.

    That is, with the exception of the biosphere.

    Here, what we observe is not what humans consider good. Over 98% of all species have gone extinct. God deigns animals so they eat or parasitically consume each other. God designs bacteria and illnesses with supposed built in response mechanisms to evade our attempts to treat them, etc. We observe "just good enough" designs of the sort we'd expect if they were carried along from earlier ancestors, etc.

    Of course, we cannot rule of that some sort of supernatural being is responsible in both cases. However, we can rationally criticize the particular God they claim exists via observations. And we can do so not based on our beliefs, but the beliefs they themselves put forward.

    Again, this doesn't mean that some tinkering God does not exist. Nor does it mean that there could be some mysterious "good" reason why their God would bring about the specific biosphere we observe. However, one could appeal to "That's just what an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good God must have wanted" in an attempt to explain just about anything. In the absence of a good explanation, it becomes a mere possibility that we discard.

    This doesn't mean that some supernatural being might have done it, in reality, or that God doesn't exist. But we certainly shouldn't justify such a conclusion based on the above theistic "explanation", as it's been found to be in error by observations, a bad explanation in that it could explain anything, or some combination of both.

    Until some better explanation appears, by which we can test via observations, it's a mere possibility we discard.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ritchie:

    Once again, no-one is saying: "Definitely not God, therefore evolution." No-one is making that claim. No-one is using that train of logic - not Darwin, not Dawkins, no-one. That is just a strawman you keep hitting.

    Where did I say that?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hawks:

    Well, if it follows that Darwinists believe in the fixity of species because they believe that someone else believes in it

    Such as who? Who is that "someone else"?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Richie
    Oh no.
    This is about the claims of evolution that it is the origin of biological results.
    You make my point.
    You are indeed saying that if micro is true then macro was true.
    A line of reasoning.
    Yet this is biological research (science) evidence.
    If macro was not true then by your reasoning micro must not be true.
    Yet there is no reason to say so.
    Micro evolution processes are not evidence that macro evolution took place by these processes or ever happened at all.
    This is a strange flaw that evolutionists fail in observing their own logic.

    The evolution of biology as proclaimed by TOE must be on the merits of its evidence that this happened.
    Especially since there is historic and present criticism.
    The evolution of biology CAN NOT be based on the evidence of minor actions extrapolated to have accumulated .
    this is just a line of reasoning. However reasonable(it ain't) it still is just that.
    Creationism has a good point here.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. CH -

    Where did I say that?

    From your OP:

    "Linnaeus had tremendous influence, but not enough to rid the world of the doctrine of the fixity of species. And so a century later Darwin inherited the view that if god created the species they would be fixed.

    This is why those differing bird populations on the Gallapagoes Islands were so significant for Darwin. Surely god would not stoop so low as to create slightly different variants of birds on some remote islands. The great botanist and natural theologian John Ray had made this argument a century earlier and by Darwin’s time the infra dig (beneath god’s dignity) argument was well entrenched.

    But on the other hand, if these differing bird populations were different species, then the species were not fixed. And if the species were not fixed, then god must not have created them, because if god did create them, they would be fixed. Therefore those bird species must have evolved."

    So Darwin believed that a creator God meant the fixity of species, and since he noted species aren't fixed, therefore they weren't made by God, therefore evolution, right?

    It is a thoroughly silly argument. No-one arrives at evolution as a conclusion of the basis that God cannot possibly be the answer. Because it is impossible to discount God as an answer. Just as it is impossible to discount fairies, ghosts and evil wizards as an answer. But that doesn't mean science should take such 'answers' seriously until there is any reason to think they actually exist. To do otherwise is to totally undermine the scientific method and to render scientific discovery impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hawks.
    Yes your right it doesn't follow.
    Your wrong. Darwin and the rest always make this point to prove their case.
    They do invoke micro evolution steps adds up to macro evolution results.
    Others posters here said that.
    THe evidence for results in biology is said to be from steps of changes.
    There is no evidence for this processes or that it actually happened.
    All there is IS a confidence that micro steps having been observed (or artificial selection) thats its reasonable to presume macro results from these steps.
    Yet its all line of reasoning and all it could be.
    First because nothing is observable or repeatable.
    Second because evolution is not true. it did not create biology results
    A logical flaw has been missed by the evolutionists in their claims of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Byers -

    "Micro evolution processes are not evidence that macro evolution took place by these processes or ever happened at all."

    Utterly wrong. Microevolution IS evidence of macroevolution. Because they are the same. They are derived from the exact same processes and mechanisms. Therefore, demonstrate the processes and mechanisms of one and you demonstrate the processes and mechanisms of the other too.

    Consider walking. Walking a short distance is 'microwalking' and walking a long distance is 'macrowalking'. You are still talking about the same process of locomotion. You are still talking about walking. Demonstrate that a person can walk and how they do, and that is evidence for both microwalking and macrowalking. But you are making the utterly foolish assertion that studying someone walking is evidence only for microwalking and NOT evidence for macrowalking! Can you see how ridiculous that sounds now?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Cornelius,

    Me: Well, if it follows that Darwinists believe in the fixity of species because they believe that someone else believes in it

    Cornelius: Such as who? Who is that "someone else"?



    Eeeer, the people they believe believe it. Did you have an actual point?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Robert Byers,

    All there is IS a confidence that micro steps having been observed (or artificial selection) thats its reasonable to presume macro results from these steps.

    Taking lots of other evidence into account, that's closer to what is going on. "if micro happened then macro did" is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Again,

    If it follows that Darwinists believe in the fixity of species because they believe that someone else believes in it, then it also follows that Cornelius believes in it because he believes that someone else believes in it.

    Arguments from Abbott and Costello are quite fun.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Richie.
    No.
    We are talking about real things here.
    Did biological diversity and complexity come from macro evolution.
    Your saying it did because of micro evolution true evidence. (If so).
    If there is micro going on then thats the evidence macro results could be from this and are.
    I appeal to your reason here.
    Even if micro steps did lead to the macro results it would still be just a line of reasoning to say this iS what happened.
    Macro results is not proved by micro results.
    We should not be arguing about this.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hawks
    AMEN. Micro is not evidence for macro.
    Let Darwin and company did and do this all the time.
    They argue the reasonableness of micro evolution (or artificial selection) is evidence for macro evolution claims in biology.
    A fatal flaw in logic for Darwin.
    He persuaded himself of great results from minor results.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Robert Byers,

    AMEN. Micro is not evidence for macro.
    Let Darwin and company did and do this all the time.
    They argue the reasonableness of micro evolution (or artificial selection) is evidence for macro evolution claims in biology.
    A fatal flaw in logic for Darwin.
    He persuaded himself of great results from minor results.


    Eeeer. It's almost like you didn't read my post or are deliberately misrepresenting it. Micro IS evidence for macro. However, your statement "if micro happened then macro did" is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Robert Byers -

    You still do not understand.

    Microevolution and macroevolution are NOT different processes!

    Go back to my walking example. Walking a short distance is 'microwalking' and walking a long distance is 'macrowalking'. But to walk a long distance you just need to do a lot of microwalking. You could 'microwalk' a long distance and then say 'I haven't been macrowalking, I've just been microwalking all the way.'

    Likewise we could say that the diversity of the whole of life on Earth is just the result of microevolution - lots of it over a really long time. But lots of microevulution over a really long time IS macroevolution!

    Do you see how silly it is now? It really is silly to try to draw a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. They are the same process, and evidence for one is evidence for the other.

    Microwalking and macrowalking are not different. They are the same process - walking, but merely considered on different scales.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ritchie, the problem with the definition of evolution, micro and macro, and such is that many different biological processes are lumped together to confuse and distort the subject matter. For example cyclical bird beak variation due to regulation of an existing bmp4 protein is not a little change that is leading somewhere directionally. If you compare it to walking, you are walking in place... you're not going in a new direction. You're taking steps (change) but not covering any new ground directionally.

    E-Coli citrate digestion is like breaking your leg and jumping up and down in place on one foot.

    So lots of jumping up and down or walking in place for a million years does not take you anywhere.

    Understanding biological processes is hindered by sloppy and slippery categorizing terms such as micro and macro and evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Tedford the idiot said...

    E-Coli citrate digestion is like breaking your leg and jumping up and down in place on one foot.


    FAIL again Tedford. The evolution of E coli to digest citrates was a major physiological change. It would be the equivalent of humans evolving the ability to drink gasoline instead of water. One of the defining characters of normal E. coli is its inability to utilize citrates.

    So lots of jumping up and down or walking in place for a million years does not take you anywhere.

    But nothing constrains us to walk in place. We can walk to the corner store, or we can walk across the country given enough time. That's what all the evidence shows.

    Understanding biological processes is hindered by sloppy and slippery categorizing terms such as micro and macro and evolution.

    You mean *your personal* understanding is hampered by the proper use of scientific terminology. That's because you're an idiot, not because of any inherent problems with the terms.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Neal -

    Ritchie, the problem with the definition of evolution, micro and macro, and such is that many different biological processes are lumped together to confuse and distort the subject matter. For example cyclical bird beak variation due to regulation of an existing bmp4 protein is not a little change that is leading somewhere directionally

    No, Neal, the finches' beaks DID evolve directionally. They followed the demands of the season. Natural selection favoured finches with beak sizes to suit their habitat. A dry summer produced an increase in beak size. But then the next year the average beak size returned to normal. Why? Does beak size have limits? Is there a limited range of beak size that finches cannot possibly exceed? Are finches genetically limited in how much their beaks can vary from a standard 'norm'? No. Not at all. The beak size returned to normal because the following year the rainfall returned to normal, so the selective pressure for large beaks eased off. It is the seasons which is cyclical, not genetic variation. And that, I'm afraid, will come as no revelation to anyone. Keep the selection pressure constant and you will get a constant result.

    E-Coli citrate digestion is like breaking your leg and jumping up and down in place on one foot.

    I don't understand this metaphor at all. And I'm not convinced you really do either. The bacteria displayed positive information gain through random mutation and natural selection.

    Understanding biological processes is hindered by sloppy and slippery categorizing terms such as micro and macro and evolution.

    No, it is hindered by sloppy usage of such terms. Such as when people use them to imply they are different processes when they are nothing of the sort.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ritchie:

    It is a thoroughly silly argument. No-one arrives at evolution as a conclusion of the basis that God cannot possibly be the answer.

    Actually everyone arrives at it this way (I'm not disagreeing with the silly part). Proofs of the fact of evolution are metaphysical.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hawks:

    Hawks: Well, if it follows that Darwinists believe in the fixity of species because they believe that someone else believes in it

    CH: Such as who? Who is that "someone else"?

    Hawks: Eeeer, the people they believe believe it. Did you have an actual point?


    You would probably find this source (http://ncse.com/rncse/26/4/species-kinds-evolution) supplied by Geoxus to be trustworthy. In it the author writes:

    The idea that species were universally thought to be fixed prior to Darwin is simply wrong — many creationist thinkers of the classical period through to the 19th century thought that species could change.

    There is more to say on the subject, but not only do we not have contemporary creationists believing in fixity of species, it was also not held firmly even before Darwin.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Cornelius:

    Actually everyone arrives at it this way (I'm not disagreeing with the silly part).

    I'm stunned. Not that you think this, but that you can actually acknowledge this openly and not see how comic-book villain ridiculous it is. You are literally telling me what I (and millions of others) believe. I am telling you I did not arrive at the conclusion that evolution is correct via the reasoning that 'God could not possible have done it therefore it must have been evolution' and you are telling me that I am WRONG?! You think you know my own thoughts, my own beliefs, better than I do myself?

    The arrogance is absolutely staggering.

    Proofs of the fact of evolution are metaphysical.

    Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.

    Science deals in evidence. Which, yes, is empirical. It does presuppose naturalism. That alone does not make it metaphysically or religiously biased. It is a necessity of science (ALL of science, every single theory in every single field, so using this to criticise a SPECIFIC theory is even more ludicrous). This is a point I must have made a hundred times on here and yet you never bring yourself to acknowledge it, much less attempt to address it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ritchie:

    I'm stunned. Not that you think this, but that you can actually acknowledge this openly and not see how comic-book villain ridiculous it is. You are literally telling me what I (and millions of others) believe. I am telling you I did not arrive at the conclusion that evolution is correct via the reasoning that 'God could not possible have done it therefore it must have been evolution' and you are telling me that I am WRONG?! You think you know my own thoughts, my own beliefs, better than I do myself?

    The arrogance is absolutely staggering.


    Actually I’m merely explaining to you what evolutionists write. Give me an example of an evolutionist showing that evolution is a fact, without metaphysics, and I’ll be glad to agree with you.


    It does presuppose naturalism. That alone does not make it metaphysically or religiously biased.

    Agreed.

    It is a necessity of science (ALL of science, every single theory in every single field, so using this to criticise a SPECIFIC theory is even more ludicrous). This is a point I must have made a hundred times on here and yet you never bring yourself to acknowledge it, much less attempt to address it.

    Actually I’ve addressed this many times. Evolution (not science in general) entails religious claims.

    ReplyDelete
  38. CH said:

    "Actually everyone arrives at it this way (I'm not disagreeing with the silly part). Proofs of the fact of evolution are metaphysical."

    That may be true for some people but it certainly is NOT true for "everyone". It's obviously impossible for you to realize that many people really do have open minds about the diversity of living things and just want to find and know the facts.

    What people with open minds don't want is to be distracted and burdened with mind-closing, non-evidential, superstitious fairy tales that explain nothing.

    The bottom line is that religious people have blinding biases that prevent them from seeing and accepting reality. If or when science finds something new, using credible scientific methods, that questions, challenges, or even contradicts currently accepted theory, science will seriously investigate the new evidence and explanation and will modify or discard the theory if necessary, even if it takes awhile.

    Religious people, and especially the most zealous ones, on the other hand, are stuck in old, non-evidential, absurd fairy tale dogma and are either rarely willing to accept anything new or will never accept anything new no matter how evidential and convincing it is.

    Just because science doesn't cater to bible thumpers doesn't mean that science is a competing religion or that scientists are closed minded. Unless you believe in and worship every god that has ever been posited, you are an atheist many times over, and using your way of thinking I could also say that you're closed minded, and that you have a religious belief about all of the gods you don't believe in.

    You're just one god short of me when it comes to being atheistic, and believing in even one god (and the associated fairy tales) makes you up-front biased against anything that questions, exposes, challenges, or disproves your superstitious beliefs.

    I (and I'm sure many others) do NOT 'worship' science, scientists, Darwin, evolution, evolutionary theory, or any of the other stuff you religious zealots often say we do. I (and I'm sure many others) DO want to know the actual facts about nature. Those facts never have been and never will be found in or explained by ridiculous, mythical, religious fiction.

    Science pursues and explains reality. Religion denies and/or distorts reality. Scientists aren't perfect, and mistakes and misperceptions are made, but science is a helluva a lot better than religion when it comes to studying, understanding, and explaining nature.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The whole truth:

    "Actually everyone arrives at it this way (I'm not disagreeing with the silly part). Proofs of the fact of evolution are metaphysical."

    That may be true for some people but it certainly is NOT true for "everyone".


    So can you cite an evolutionist who demonstrates the fact of evolution without the usual metaphysics?


    Religious people, and especially the most zealous ones, on the other hand, are stuck in old, non-evidential, absurd fairy tale dogma and are either rarely willing to accept anything new or will never accept anything new no matter how evidential and convincing it is.

    Agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Ritchie: It is a thoroughly silly argument. No-one arrives at evolution as a conclusion of the basis that God cannot possibly be the answer.

    CH: Actually everyone arrives at it this way (I'm not disagreeing with the silly part). Proofs of the fact of evolution are metaphysical.

    I've pointed out time multiple times on this thread exactly my position on evolution, which does not fit this description. Yet, by using the sweeping term "everyone", he just claimed I arrived there by concluding God couldn't possibly be the answer.

    As such, it seems that Cornelius just knowing presented a falsehood, or he's holding some presupposition or belief which he has yet to disclose.

    For example, as a confessing Christian, it's likely that Cornelius believes in salvation of the human soul, in that those that accept God will be saved. Those that reject God will not. However, if our salvation hinges on the acceptance or rejection of God, this must mean that God has revealed himself to us in a way that makes this choice meaningful. Otherwise, it's an arbitrary criteria.

    In other words, unless he's a Calvinist, Cornelius' concept of salvation depends on the theological belief that God reveals himself to each and every one of us.

    As such, Cornelius could assume my acceptance of evolution is just one of many facets of rejecting God's revelation of himself.

    Otherwise, It's unclear exactly why Cornelius just swept me into an assumption.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Cornelius, since we're not supposed to throw out evidence, but work with it, exactly how did you conclude that I fit into this category?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Cornelius,

    There is more to say on the subject, but not only do we not have contemporary creationists believing in fixity of species, it was also not held firmly even before Darwin.

    And that is completely irrelevant. Evolutionists don't believe in the fixity of species either. The only reasons I can think of why you would think so is:

    1) Some evolutionists believe that some other people believe it (and, Cornelius, that is not the same thing).

    2) You are making an argument from "sandbox" (i.e. if evolutionists claim that creationists believe in the fixity of species, then I shall claim that evolutionists also believe in the fixity of species. na na na na naaa na).

    Or do you have any other arguments?

    ReplyDelete
  43. CH: So can you cite an evolutionist who demonstrates the fact of evolution without the usual metaphysics?

    Why don't you explain how it's even possible to demonstrate anything is a "fact" in the sense you're implying? Otherwise, this appears to be the sort of typical hand waving we see here on a regular basis.

    There is little difference between having a divine revelation-shaped hole in one's scheme of things and believing divine revelation is a valid means of justifying conclusions.

    We do not demonstrate that anything is "true". Rather we create theories from conjecture, which are tested via observations. Those theories found to be in error are discarded.

    Evolutionary theory is a long chain of hard to vary explanations that have yet to be found in error. Given that the predictions of scientific theories are not prophecy, we know Evolutionary theory is incomplete and contains errors. The question is where, and to what degree.

    This is how science works in all fields, not just biology.

    Furthermore, we explain our ability to make progress in that the truth about reality consist of hard to vary explanations about the physical world. As such, we're justified in concluding Evolutionary theory is a model of reality that becomes more and more accurate over time.

    Of course, if the truth about reality doesn't consist of hard to vary explanations about the physical world, then exactly how do you explain our ability to make progress?

    Is it "Magic"? Is that just what God must have wanted?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Cornelius -

    Actually I’m merely explaining to you what evolutionists write. Give me an example of an evolutionist showing that evolution is a fact, without metaphysics, and I’ll be glad to agree with you.

    The 'metaphysics' you are referring to is an absolute essential part of the scientific method. Every evolutionist insists on naturalism and empirical evidence, true, but so does every other scientist in every field. Evolutionists are doing absolutely nothing different.

    Actually I’ve addressed this many times. Evolution (not science in general) entails religious claims.

    What religious claims does evolution entail that other scientific theories do not?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Ritchie,

    What religious claims does evolution entail that other scientific theories do not?

    I think that Cornelius' "thinking" goes like this:

    Some evolutionists compare evolution to religion. Therefore all evolutionary claims are and have to be religious.

    To you and me it would seem like there is something missing in the above argument.

    PS. If Cornelius responds to this post, he will probably write that what I think is wrong, without actually explaining himself.

    ReplyDelete
  46. CH said:

    "So can you cite an evolutionist who demonstrates the fact of evolution without the usual metaphysics?"

    I'm going to assume that by "evolutionist", you mean non-theistic evolutionists.

    So, if by "metaphysics" you mean not considering, or deliberately excluding, supernatural (religious/miraculous) causes/effects/mechanisms/interventions, then I suppose it could be said that non-theistic 'evolutionists' employ "metaphysics".

    But, if by "metaphysics" you mean that non-theistic 'evolutionists' think of evolution and/or the theory of evolution as their religion, then I would say that you're wrong.

    Something to consider is that many people have little to no knowledge of, or interest in, 'evolution' and/or the ToE, yet they are atheists, and many people do have at least some knowledge of and interest in 'evolution' (and accept it) and the ToE (and accept it, at least generally) yet they believe in a god.

    I'm curious as to what you think of 'theistic evolutionists'? You apparently believe that 'evolutionists' believe in and practice their own religion that is based on evolution and/or the ToE. Since being 'theistic' is definitely a religious belief, it would appear to some people that there's a conflict in being a theistic evolutionist. I suspect that you see it as a war between two very different religions and as an irreconcilable conflict within a person.

    Acceptance of evolution and/or the ToE may be part of a worldview, but I don't see how anyone can say that accepting evolution and/or the ToE is a religion.

    As others have said, many things are either not considered or are bluntly rejected by scientists (including "evolutionist" scientists) but that does not mean that the non-consideration or rejection of those things constitutes a religion. It doesn't take any sort of religious beliefs to not-consider or reject imaginary pink unicorns as the explanation for the diversity (or origin) of the life on Earth. It also doesn't take any sort of religious beliefs to not-consider or reject imaginary gods, and they're ALL imaginary. There's as much evidence for gods as there is for pink unicorns: NONE.

    As has also been stated by others, science MUST stick to things that it can investigate and explain. It cannot investigate or explain every wacky thing that people imagine. No one here is telling you that you can't believe or believe 'in' whatever you want. What you're being told is that acceptance of evolution, the ToE, and science in general is NOT a religion, and that religion (and pink unicorns) should stay out of science.

    If you want to believe in and practice some mythical hogwash that's your business, but when you try to inflict that hogwash on science it becomes the business of anyone who wants to keep science from being ruined and/or replaced.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Hawks.
    Micro evolution results or observations are not evidence for macro evolution results as proclaimed.
    Its just a line of reasoning and not scientific investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  48. ricjie
    Lets walk a little further here.
    Your trying to prove macro evolution by micro evolution results.

    I say macro evolution results proclaimed are not evidenced by micro evolution results observed. ( For this I presume they are)
    its just a line of reasoning.

    We are talking about evidence and logic.

    Saying micro evolution steps could lead to macro evolution steps is not the point here.
    Saying it is as worth as evidence anything that is said.

    Micro evolution (and artificial selection) if true as origins for biological change can never be logically or scientifically invoked in any way as evidence for results claims to have occured by evolution.
    micro truth doesn't equal or hint at macro truth.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Robert Byers -

    I say macro evolution results proclaimed are not evidenced by micro evolution results observed.

    That is like saying 'Microwalking results are not evidence for macrowalking'.

    Do you see the problem? Anytime we observe or demonstrate walking as a process, someone could call it merely evidence of 'microwalking' and then refuse to accept it as evidence for 'macrowalking'.

    It's total nonsense. It's the SAME PROCESS.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Robert Byers,

    Micro evolution results or observations are not evidence for macro evolution results as proclaimed.

    You're wrong. I see little point in explaining myself further, as you won't understand it anyway.

    Its just a line of reasoning and not scientific investigation.

    As opposed to what you write, it is reasoning. And scientific.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Ritchie:

    What religious claims does evolution entail that other scientific theories do not?

    “we can clearly understand these analogies, if species once existed as varieties, and thus originated; whereas, these analogies are utterly inexplicable if species are independent creations.” –Darwin

    ReplyDelete
  52. Hawks:

    There is more to say on the subject, but not only do we not have contemporary creationists believing in fixity of species, it was also not held firmly even before Darwin.

    And that is completely irrelevant. Evolutionists don't believe in the fixity of species either. The only reasons I can think of why you would think so is:

    1) Some evolutionists believe that some other people believe it (and, Cornelius, that is not the same thing).

    2) You are making an argument from "sandbox" (i.e. if evolutionists claim that creationists believe in the fixity of species, then I shall claim that evolutionists also believe in the fixity of species. na na na na naaa na).


    No, I’m not saying 1 or 2. For instance, evolutionists do not say these things.


    Or do you have any other arguments?

    Yes, the long version is in the OP and the earlier OP. Here’s the short version. Evolutionists repeatedly claim that minor changes such as allele frequency changes in a population, or point mutations in a virus, etc., are proof texts for evolution, per se. That is, these empirical observations are not proof texts for allele frequency changes or mutations. That would be trivial. The point they are making is that these observations are demonstrations of the whole idea. You can see the quotes in the OP.

    Now these statements alone make no sense. Equating allele frequency changes or mutations with all of evolution would be silly. Particularly given the fact that even evolutionists agree that macro evolution does not appear to be merely the accumulation of repeated rounds of adaptive change.

    So if we knew nothing else than this, we might surmise that there is an unspoken premise at work here, which is that allele frequency changes and mutations disprove the alternatives, leaving evolution as the only one standing. In other words, the fixity of species. Now would that be an unreasonable, unrealistic leap of logic? How could we possibly think such a thing? Could evolutionary thought possibly entail metaphysical premises?

    Of course the answer is yes. Not only do such premises run all through today’s apologetic literature, but you can easily trace it back to Darwin and before. There’s no mystery here and Mayr even explained it. These contemporary evolutionists such as Wayne, Bjorkman, Asimov, etc, are not saying anything new. This is what they teach. This is what they were taught. And this is what evolutionists have been saying for centuries. I’m just telling you what the evolution genre is about.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Cornelius Hunter said...

    I’m just telling you what the evolution genre is about.


    No, all you ever do on this blog is tell us what your twisted misrepresentation of the evolution genre are about.

    But we understand - Christmas is coming and the extra cash the DI pays you for writing this swill will come in handy.

    ReplyDelete
  54. The whole truth:

    "So can you cite an evolutionist who demonstrates the fact of evolution without the usual metaphysics?"

    I'm going to assume that by "evolutionist", you mean non-theistic evolutionists.


    No, I didn’t mean that.


    So, if by "metaphysics" you mean … deliberately excluding, supernatural (religious/miraculous) causes/effects/mechanisms/interventions

    Again no, that’s not what I mean. In science we allow assumptions like uniformity and parsimony. Such assumptions need not even be acknowledged. Beyond that, theological assumptions should be acknowledged.


    But, if by "metaphysics" you mean that non-theistic 'evolutionists' think of evolution and/or the theory of evolution as their religion

    No, I didn’t mean that.


    Something to consider is that many people have little to no knowledge of, or interest in, 'evolution' and/or the ToE, yet they are atheists, and many people do have at least some knowledge of and interest in 'evolution' (and accept it) and the ToE (and accept it, at least generally) yet they believe in a god.

    Yes, agreed.

    I'm curious as to what you think of 'theistic evolutionists'?

    Evolution entails metaphysics. This is the case regardless who is making the case (a theist, atheist, whatever …). The whole theist vs atheist distinction is not relevant.


    You apparently believe that 'evolutionists' believe in and practice their own religion that is based on evolution and/or the ToE.

    Well it’s not so much that I believe this, rather, this is what they write. And to say it is their “own religion” would be a bit misleading. All of this comes out of Christian thought (at least in modern times). Evolutionists are not making anything up here, it clearly traces back to the Lutherans and Anglicans of the Enlightenment and before (and Roman Catholics to a lesser extent). You could say it’s mainly a Protestant project, though of course the others (Christian, non Christian, atheist, etc.) have all readily jumped on board.


    Acceptance of evolution and/or the ToE may be part of a worldview, but I don't see how anyone can say that accepting evolution and/or the ToE is a religion.

    Well we need not get caught up in semantics. The fact of the matter is the claims of evolution entail religious premises that have been around for a long time. Whether you want to say that is a religion, or entails religion, or is metaphysical, whatever. (It is also scientifically ridiculous, so we have religion mixed with bad science. Quite a brew).


    It also doesn't take any sort of religious beliefs to not-consider or reject imaginary gods, and they're ALL imaginary.

    No, no, that is not relevant here.


    As has also been stated by others, science MUST stick to things that it can investigate and explain.

    Then how can evolutionists make their religious claims?


    If you want to believe in and practice some mythical hogwash that's your business, but when you try to inflict that hogwash on science it becomes the business of anyone who wants to keep science from being ruined and/or replaced.

    I agree with your sentiment, but I’m afraid it is being directed in the wrong direction.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Cornelius,

    This is how things are:

    Mutations etc are evidence for evolution.
    Mutations etc are evidence neither for nor against some religious alternatives (such as biblical creation).
    Therefore, comparing evolution to various versions of ID is meaningless.
    If someone makes such a comparison, then THEY are wrong. It makes their arguments religious, it does not make evolution religious. THAT is simple logic.

    Now, I still have no idea why you think that evolutionists believe in the fixity of species, simply because I found no coherent argument in favor of that position. The closest "argument" I found was something about evolution being the only alternative standing, therefore fixity, which makes no sense.

    Perhaps someone else can help me parse what Cornlius is trying to say.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Hawks:

    Mutations etc are evidence for evolution.

    But even evolutionists agree that adaptive change is insufficient to explain the large-scale, macroevolutionary change required by the theory. So adaptive change could only be evidence for the theory in a very weak sense.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Hawks, include me in the "Perhaps someone else can help me parse what Cornlius is trying to say." group.

    He appears unable or unwilling to give straight answers to straight questions.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Richie
    Process is process .
    Results are results.
    Micro walking observed is not proof that macro walking took place.
    One could of walked 20 feet and then a car take one twenty miles and drop one off and someone say micro steps led to this macro result.
    Micro observations in nature, if true even, are not evidence or to be even included as evidence for macro claims about nature.
    darwin and the rest have made a fatal logical flaw here .
    They truly persuaded themselves that it was reasonable to conclude micro changes was evidence for macro changes.
    it was nothing but a line of reasoning.
    Therefore one needs only other lines of reasoning to discredt macro evolution concepts.
    One needs no scientific evidence, on this point, as no scientific evidence is being claimed.
    Got'im

    ReplyDelete
  59. The whole truth:

    He appears unable or unwilling to give straight answers to straight questions.

    Well for which questions of your was my answer unclear? I'll give it another try.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Well for which questions of your was my answer unclear? I'll give it another try.

    Your conclusion that evolutionists believe in the fixity of species never follows from any sort of argument. You just pop it in there, as when you wrote:

    ...leaving evolution as the only one standing. In other words, the fixity of species.

    Where the frick did that come from?

    Me: Mutations etc are evidence for evolution.

    Cornelius: But even evolutionists agree that adaptive change is insufficient to explain the large-scale, macroevolutionary change required by the theory. So adaptive change could only be evidence for the theory in a very weak sense.


    Why did you write that in response to what I wrote? I never specifically wrote about adaptive changes, did I? And you don't even seem to disagree that it is evidence for evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Cornelius asked:

    "Well for which questions of your was my answer unclear? I'll give it another try."

    Maybe the best thing for now would be for you to state what you're for, not just what you're against. In other words, tell what you think happens in nature, why it happens (if there is a 'why'), and how it happens (especially regarding the diversity and history of life).

    It's abundantly clear that you don't like anything about the ToE, or at least your perception of it, so I would like to see your hypothesis (and supporting evidence), in as much detail as possible. If you'll do that it might help clarify your position.

    It would also be helpful if you'd state your definition/interpretation of key terms, such as evolution, evolutionists, information, mutation, selection, natural, mechanism, specified, complex, etc., etc., etc.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Hawks:

    Your conclusion that evolutionists believe in the fixity of species never follows from any sort of argument. You just pop it in there, as when you wrote: …

    OK, so here’s the logic:

    1. Evolutionists find trivial levels of change, such as changes in allele frequencies, to be significant. In fact, they equate such small levels of change with evolution itself. These levels of change are cited as demonstrations of evolution.

    2. Evolutionists are well aware of the science, from which it is clear that evolution does not equal such small levels of change. Perhaps this will change in the future, but adaptive change is not known to add up to macro evolution. In fact there are good reasons to doubt this, which even evolutionists agree with.

    3. Therefore adaptive change is not a demonstration of evolution, and evolutionists know this.

    4. Adaptive change is a demonstration of biological variation, and thus that the species are not fixed.

    5. The fixity of species is the doctrine that if the species were individually and specifically designed and created by divine intervention, then they would be fixed.

    6. The fact that the species are not fixed shows that the fixity of species is not true.

    7. Therefore, given the fixity of species doctrine, we can conclude the species were not individually and specifically designed and created by divine intervention. This means the species must have arisen via natural means somehow.

    8. Therefore, small levels of change may be equated with evolution itself

    ReplyDelete
  63. Cornelius Hunter said...

    7. Therefore, given the fixity of species doctrine, we can conclude the species were not individually and specifically designed and created by divine intervention. This means the species must have arisen via natural means somehow.


    There's the fatal flaw in your strawman argument right there CH.

    No one in science says the non-fixity of species means that species were not individually and specifically designed and created by divine intervention. A sufficiently powerful and clever designer could create non-fixed species if It so chose.

    Science therefore does not say non-fixity of species eliminates a designer, thus evolution wins by default. Science merely says that positing such a Divine Designer is not necessary, that non-supernatural evolutionary mechanisms can account for all the observed data.

    Your whole argument against science is one big illogical strawman, and a particularly dumb one to boot.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Cornelius,

    what a mess.

    1. Evolutionists find trivial levels of change, such as changes in allele frequencies, to be significant. In fact, they equate such small levels of change with evolution itself. These levels of change are cited as demonstrations of evolution.

    Yes, they are demonstrations of evolution. They are not all of evolution.

    2. Evolutionists are well aware of the science, from which it is clear that evolution does not equal such small levels of change.

    Evolutionists know that. You obviously don't.

    3. Therefore adaptive change is not a demonstration of evolution, and evolutionists know this.

    Eeer, yes it is a demonstration of evolution. YOU don't understand this.

    4. Adaptive change is a demonstration of biological variation,...

    Not only of biological variation.

    5. The fixity of species is the doctrine that if the species were individually and specifically designed and created by divine intervention, then they would be fixed.

    No, it's not any kind of divine intervention. Some people think that the bible specifically says so or that bible believers believe so.

    6. The fact that the species are not fixed shows that the fixity of species is not true.

    Sounds tautologically true to me.

    7. Therefore, given the fixity of species doctrine, we can conclude the species were not individually and specifically designed and created by divine intervention. This means the species must have arisen via natural means somehow.

    No, it doesn't.

    8. Therefore, small levels of change may be equated with evolution itself

    No, small levels of change is evidence for evolution.

    So, your premises are all crud. Even if they weren't, you still haven't made an argument for why evolutionists believe in the fixity of species... go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Hawks:

    1. Evolutionists find trivial levels of change, such as changes in allele frequencies, to be significant. In fact, they equate such small levels of change with evolution itself. These levels of change are cited as demonstrations of evolution.

    Yes, they are demonstrations of evolution. They are not all of evolution.


    No, it is absurd to say that changes in allele frequencies are “demonstrations of evolution.” Changes in allele frequencies do not turn fish into amphibia or reptiles or birds or mammals. Changes in allele frequencies do not even create a new species. In fact, changes in allele frequencies do not even create a new gene. This is the sort of manipulation and misrepresentation of science that unfortunately we get from evolutionists over and over.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Cornelius Hunter said...

    No, it is absurd to say that changes in allele frequencies are “demonstrations of evolution.”


    Your mangling of logic and reason is almost beyond comprehension CH. Evolution is defined as changes in a population's allele frequencies over time. That doesn't mean just changes in the ratios of existing alleles. Changes in the frequencies also incorporate the evolution of new alleles and even new genes via know naturalistic mechanisms.

    Changes in allele frequencies do not turn fish into amphibia or reptiles or birds or mammals.

    But the evolution of new alleles and new genes do.

    Changes in allele frequencies do not even create a new species.

    But the evolution of new alleles and new genes do.

    In fact, changes in allele frequencies do not even create a new gene.

    But known naturalistic processes do.

    This is the sort of manipulation and misrepresentation of science that unfortunately we get from evolutionists over and over.

    No, it's really the sort of manipulation and misrepresentation of science that unfortunately we get from you, personally, over and over.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Cornelius,

    And you still haven't made an argument for why evolutionists believe in the fixity of species... go figure.

    ReplyDelete