The bizarre thing is that evolution is completely compatible with religion - you can just decide that some deity put the evolutionary mechanisms in place if you like. It’s this blind belief in baseless ideas that is what started off this argument in the first place, and hence why I think religion stifles rational thought.

Cause I realize that we are going down the exact same road when creationists and evolutionists debate. And the outcome of this debate cannot be decided by facts alone cause both sides have facts and scientefic evidence depending on what assumptions each has made at a starting point.

Consider this simplistic example.

You have amnesia and have walked into an empty garage full of different types of cars, motorcycles and bicycles and these objects are totally foreign to you (for illustrative purposes, you can still reason things). The science of common descent establishes the fact that all these items have shared components that are “similar” but with variations - shafts, gears, steering wheels, tyres, etc.

(Please don’t argue with the analogy - it’s not perfect but you are smart people so you know what I am trying to get at).

In this hypothetical example, how you get to the conclusion based on that same observable facts is determined by what assumptions you make at the start. And there are two starting points that one has to accept as fact i.e. by FAITH:

1. That is happened by some naturalistic means or chance, but not created.

2. That these objects were there by design and someone created them.

Let’s be clear: These two are “statements of faith” which one has to take as “given” at the starting point as a basic premise. The people who are theists state “by faith” that these objects are created (and assembled); whilst aetheists
state “by faith” that there is no way there can be a creator who placed the objects there.

Depending of which one of these assumptions you chose to make, what conclusions you draw from observations of the SAME items can be different. So each side will have evidences (and lots of them, both sides can have scientific evidences e.g. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/index.html — yes, even people who believe in God do practice science and logical thinking. And I have learned a lot from this site as well).

If you choose to believe that there is absolutely NO WAY that somebody designed and built those cars, motocycles and bicycles, you will be smart enough to come up with stories around the data in order to come up with a story to support your initial assumption. I work with market research people a lot: And so I know that one can look at the same data and can tailor your story around the data.

So if you have made that absolute assumption that there is no creator, you will conclude that because there are common parts and functions to these “family of objects”, and there is a progression of the simple-to-the complex, therefore cars must have evolved from a motorcycle, and a motorcycle from a bicycle from millions of years of bring a the garage, being subjected to whatever environmental factors (except a creator/designer). Perhaps the wheel must have evolved into two wheels, and three and then four (macroevolution). You get the picture…. You will find interpretations that explain your initial assumption.

My point here is that somewhere at a starting point of the theory of evolution, an assumption has been made (by Darwin?) which cannot be supported by science: in this case, the absolute refusal to believe that God can play a role in the equation (because science can neither prove nor disprove God - inferences of judgement can be made, but not 100% conclusions). In this vehicle example, no matter how many experiments you do on these cars, motorcycles or bicycles you can always explain it as caused by nature or by random forces - even if the creator signed a signature as long as the DNA code, you can say that environmental forces did it!

I quote from God’s truth in the bible (which I am sure you will refute or have things to say on, but at least let your mind be open and read it!):

“For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God. Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead. And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people, or birds and animals and snakes.” So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies.” (ROMANS 1:19-25, NLT)

Please note that what I say about starting points apply similarly to the assumption that there is a creator. There will be stories and interpretations of scientific evidences that point to design and the handywork of an Intelligent Creator (as in the websites I have referred above).

To conclude: As I said to someone recently, I cannot convince a person just by reason / facts alone. And as I alluded, it does require faith. The only difference is what is the OBJECT OF THAT FAITH. A religious person would say God. A person who believes in evolution would claim “no faith”, but in actual fact, faith exists - just not in a Creator being. Perhaps in Darwinism, scientific processes, mankind’s superiority, or whatever label you chose to put on it.

Anyway, I thank you for your thoughts. It has been fascinating having this ‘debate’.

Peace,
~Sal

p.s. my quotations based on the article from John Adler with John Carey is in Newsweek November 3, 1980. It certainly will not be heavily publicised by proponents of evolution just by the virtue of its sensitive nature. Please do get back issues of Newsweek, you’ll find it there.

“I mean people who are aetheists often say they do not have faith, but that is one huge statement of faith if I ever saw one”

Lil said ‘could’, not ‘will’ But I see what you’re saying. The ‘faith’ I have in science is my belief that every effect has a cause. If I witness an effect from a cause, and the cause is repeated without any variables changing, I expect to witness the same effect again - at least until you get down to the level of quantum probabilities. Nothing in the universe has ever suggested this isn’t the case, and the whole of science follows from this definition of logic. I think.

It is a requirement that scientific theories make predictions which can then be confirmed or rejected based upon empirical evidence. The theory of macroevolution makes many predictions which can then be tested, and these are explained in the talk origins article.

The author first explains each prediction, shows the empirical confirmation (providing peer-reviewed sources), then details the kind of discoveries which would effectively disprove the theory of macroevolution. If any one of these was found, the theory would be thrown out. The predictions from the theory of macroevolution are independent of the mechanism of evolutionary change (even Larmackism would produce the same results) as well as not assuming the truth of macroevolution a priori.

I hope this is what you are looking for. Much of the article was new to me, and I hope you find it as fascinating as I did!

(I don’t know what to say about that quote, by the way. The only references I can find to the article are that particular quote, and I can’t seem to track down the authors. It doesn’t tally with the findings of other paleantologists, as far as I’m aware. I would guess that it’s an out-of-context quote that’s in relation to punctuated equilibrium - an alternative idea of the rate at which evolution progresses.)

The finches have adapted (changed) but are technically still finches, but different variants (as with many animals of the same family). Sounds like microevolution.

The fruit flies which the ‘main modern experiements’ have created are mutated, and by the way dysfunctional fruit flies which eventually die. But still fruit flies. Sounds like microevolution.

The animal fossil (Latin name Primelephas gomphotheroides) is still a type of elephant. Sounds like microevolution.

So where are we really finding evidence for macroevolution, the ability to cross species boundaries? Sounds like it’s certainly not in factual evidence of history or recent observations / experiments. The only assertions I hear so far (but without facts to back it up) are:
– “…could be more extreme weather events that select for new species…”
– “…average temperature could increase and select for a species with a bigger surface area/volume ratio”
– “…new plant could colonise the island and a species could arise that is adapted to eating its fruit/seeds”

But where is the scientific evidence?? Otherwise, these are what I would call fictional postulation.

The essence of Darwin’s theory is that minor adaptations can be EXTRAPOLATED over vast periods of time to explain major differences between taxonomic groups. But since 1980, it has been known that small changes simply don’t add up the way the THEORY requires.

Let me explain:

In a Newsweek article that year about a landmark conference titled ‘Macroevolution’, held at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History, paleontologists bravely told the biologists what they least wanted to hear: that the fossil record does not, and never will, support the Darwinian scenario of a smooth, continuous progress of life forms, nicely graded from simple to complex. Instead, the rocks show a pervasive pattern of gaps: New forms appear suddenly, with no transitional forms leading to them, followed by long periods of stability during which they show little or no change at all.

What made the Macroevolution conference so significant was that many paleontologists finally seemed to be throwing in the towel. Since Darwin, fossil hunting has been carried on intensively for more than a century, but instead of filling in the gaps, new findings have actually made the gaps more pronounced than ever. Why? Because the fossil forms tend to fall WITHIN the existing groups, leaving clear gaps BETWEEN groups - just as there are clear gaps between modern animals like horses and cows, dogs and cats. Put another way, variation tends to be limited to change WITHIN groups, instead of leading gradually from one group to another.

Here’s a quote from that article:

“The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated.”
–(John Adler with John Carey: Is Man a Subtle Accident, Newsweek, Vol.96, No.18 (November 3, 1980, p.95)

The science of evolution was touted as, and built on the tenets of being scientific. SO WHERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR MACROEVOLUTION THE WAY THAT EVOLUTIONALISTS HAVE POSTULATED?? I am open to it, but have not heard it despite asking so many times.

Peace,
~Sal

Can we just clarify definitions, because you jumped from small adaptations to ‘amoeba to humans’ with no inbetween in your first post… The fact that finch beak sizes are changing over generations (ie. gene frequencies are changing) is micro-evolution - like you said, they’re adapting to their environment. This continues and leads to macro-evolution - new, separate species (then genera, then families, etc.). They’ve already split from one ancestoral species (the first finch on the islands) into 14 species - and if selective pressures continue, the little hybridisation that still occurs will disappear (like lions and tigers).

Obviously the main ‘modern scientific experiment’ examples of creating new species (ie. macro-evolution) are of organisms with a short generation time (e.g. flies), so that a new species can be created before the human has to retire I will also use studies of the fossil record and DNA - YES the fossil record is incomplete, but all that means is that I can’t give you a huuuuuuge family tree of every species that has ever lived. I can still show a study of eg. An animal fossil (Latin name Primelephas gomphotheroides) where morphological and DNA tests have shown that it is the ancestor of both modern elephant groups.

I said there COULD be some interesting changes because it all depends what on what the selective pressures (the main driving force of evolution) do! The pressures could stay as they are and the species could continue separating. There could be more extreme weather events that select for a new species that is adapted to drought eg. extracts water from its food more efficiently. Average temperature could increase and select for a species with a bigger surface area/volume ratio. A new plant could colonise the island and a species could arise that is adapted to eating its fruit/seeds… Or of course the islands could be obliterated by rising sea levels/nuclear bombs!

Btw, I especially like that assertive statement of faith that you made — “there COULD be some interesting changes over the next few thousand years!” =) I mean people who are aetheists often say they do not have faith, but that is one huge statement of faith if I ever saw one. Are you going to say next that the finches will evolve into fish and swim away in order to survive? Common guys - give me something based on the facts you so claimed in your statements, please. That IS the tenet of the science of evolution, isn’t it?

Peace
~Sal