The Truth of Evolution

[axeplayer]

Hello everyone. I'm not sure if this has been brought up before in the forum, so if it has, forgive me. But I was wondering if any of the evolutionists out there could answer this question for me......do you know of any truths that exist in the theory of evolution? In other words, is it purely based on speculation and the combination of completely different fossils to make it look like gradualism? Or is there actually truth to it?

[axeplayer]

I think we'll have to be Clintonesque here, and ask you to define "witness." Do you want someone to stand there, and observe every birth of every individual in all populations of a species, and then watch as descendents of the first group try to mate, but cannot produce offspring?

Since Darwin's time, there has not been a single shred of evidence put forward to show that natural selection causes living things to evolve. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London and a prominent evolutionist, stresses that natural selection has never been observed to have the ability to cause things to evolve:

No one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it, and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.

Pierre-Paul Grassé, a well-known French zoologist and critic of Darwinism, has these words to say in "Evolution and Natural Selection," a chapter of his book The Evolution of Living Organisms.

The "evolution in action" of J. Huxley and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species [i.e. living fossils that remain unchanged for millions of years].

A close look at a few "observed examples of natural selection" presented by biologists who advocate the theory of evolution, would reveal that, in reality, they do not provide any evidence for evolution.

[Chem]

Hmmm Interesting.

Of course natural selection is not intelligent. Again, here are people who have problems with Evolution, taking a quote and twisting it to their own use. Are there any YEC's who don't use such devices or do they yet have to evolve?

Methinks that this is another of those would be "straw men" constructions.

Natural selection has no idea which change is good or bad. As explained in a previous post, what would be considered a hinderance to development (sickle cell anemia) can provide resistance against malaria thereby giving the people suffering from this disorder an advantage when it comes to living in areas where maleria is prevalent. [/quote]

[Jose]

I think we'll have to be Clintonesque here, and ask you to define "witness." Do you want someone to stand there, and observe every birth of every individual in all populations of a species, and then watch as descendents of the first group try to mate, but cannot produce offspring?

<cut and paste from Refuting Darwinism>

uhhh...your cut-and-paste doesn't address the question. It merely makes erroneous statements that, if we choose to be charitable, indicate that the author is rather misinformed. Can you try writing something out that might tell me what you're trying to get at?

We could throw other people's statements at each other forever, without once allowing a thought to enter our heads...but that's not debate. It would be kinda like having each of us bring recordings of others' speeches to a conference room, turn them on, and then leave. We could go out and have a couple of hamburgers while the "debate" goes on.

[USIncognito]

Since Darwin's time, there has not been a single shred of evidence put forward to show that natural selection causes living things to evolve. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London and a prominent evolutionist, stresses that natural selection has never been observed to have the ability to cause things to evolve..."

I'm going to call your bluff. Can you provide Colin Patteson's quote, in context with citation? Just asking...

Let me address your cut and paste's initial assertion by noting an ex post facto observation. Birds that have retained flight have survived the natural selection of the arrival of humans and introduced species like dogs and cats that selected against flightless birds in many isolated environments. And as long as were on birds, I would suggest you check the incidences of evolution amongst Galapogos finces when periods of rainfall and drought occured.

[Jose]

And as long as were on birds, I would suggest you check the incidences of evolution amongst Galapogos finces when periods of rainfall and drought occured.

What a silly idea. The YECs have already proved that those finches are irrelevant, because "no net evolution took place." It's the same as the peppered moths--"no net evolution took place." Besides, the finches are still finches, and the moths are still moths. Where's the evolution?

Apparently, if natural selection first favors trait A, so evolution drives the population to express primarily trait A, and then the selection pressure changes to favor trait B, so that evolution drives the population back toward a gene frequency similar to the starting condition, then there's no evolution. You know, like when I drive to Ottowa and back, I end up in the same place, so I obviously never went anywhere.

It's funny logic, but I guess it's tied up in the misconception that "evolution" must be the instantaneous change of a creature from one species into another. "Evolution" couldn't possibly be what scientists say it is, because then we would have to accept that it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. We'd have to give up on these debates, and turn our attention to real problems facing the world.

[Gollum]

US

I doubt that you will get much response from AxePlayer on the Colin Patterson quote but the truth of the matter is here.

Just more quote-mining from the creationist camp.

[micatala]

Since Darwin's time, there has not been a single shred of evidence put forward to show that natural selection causes living things to evolve. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London and a prominent evolutionist, stresses that natural selection has never been observed to have the ability to cause things to evolve:

No one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it, and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.

I don't understand how you could say this, given Jose's post on the previous page about beetles. Here is EXACTLY what you asked for a few pages back. The development of one species into several through natural selection and observed by humans.

As noted by Gollum, the quote is out of context. It is also irrelevant, as a quote from one scientist does not refute a theory. The science is based on scientific evidence.

Hello everyone. I'm not sure if this has been brought up before in the forum, so if it has, forgive me. But I was wondering if any of the evolutionists out there could answer this question for me......do you know of any truths that exist in the theory of evolution? In other words, is it purely based on speculation and the combination of completely different fossils to make it look like gradualism? Or is there actually truth to it?

On the original question: Does evolution have any 'truth'. Well, many scientists would say science is not about 'truth', it is about giving the best explanation for all the evidence we have. The explanation should be capable of making predictions about what additional evidence should exist. This is true of evolution as well as any other science.

Evolution is not based on 'speculation' but on a mountaint of evidence, including fossil, genetic, geological, and molecular evidence.

If you wish to replace evolution with a different scientific theory, then you need to create a comprehensive explanation which explains all the data that exist at least as adequately as does the theory of evolution. As science is based on data from the natural world, according to the common definition of science, the theory should not include 'supernatural' features. It is permissible for the theory to not answer all possible questions, as long as it is consistent with the existing data.

In short, the question as stated is really irrelevant to science.

[Jose]

If you wish to replace evolution with a different scientific theory, then you need to create a comprehensive explanation which explains all the data that exist at least as adequately as does the theory of evolution. As science is based on data from the natural world, according to the common definition of science, the theory should not include 'supernatural' features. It is permissible for the theory to not answer all possible questions, as long as it is consistent with the existing data.

You know, I might even be willing to go so far as to say that "supernatural" features of the model need not be ruled out a priori. They just have to be justified by the evidence.

I don't include the ID notion that if we can't explain it 100%, then it must be designed. That's invoking the supernatural on the basis of a lack of evidence, rather than basing the conclusion on evidence that points inexorably in that direction. That's not only non-scientific, but it is also an inappropriate restriction of God to those bits of the world that we cannot fully explain. I would think that theists of all flavors would find this to be objectionable, since it guarantees that God's role must become smaller and smaller as time goes on.

In short, the question as stated is really irrelevant to science.

It may be irrelevant in the sense you describe--in terms of Absolute Truth as opposed to the current-best explanation of the data. However, if we equate "truth" in axeplayer's question with "fact," then we get a different answer. The theory of evolution is explanation, but the information upon which it is based is fact (or, various truths). The fossils do exist, and they do have the characteristics we describe. DNA sequences do exist, and they do have the similarities and differences that we describe. It is fact that human and chimp sequences are very similar, and that human and frog sequences are rather more different. The "nested hierarchy" of relationships is fact. Furthermore, the geological strata are fact, as are the types of fossils they contain, and the fact that strata can be correlated on the basis of their fossils. The radioisotope ratios are facts. There's actually a whole lot of true stuff involved.

The debate, really, is about the history that gave rise to these facts. As you say, evolution is a remarkably simple theory that explains all of the facts remarkably well. To make biblical creation fit the facts, we have to add lots of qualifiers--epicycles on epicycles, if you will. We have to invoke very strange changes in the laws of physics. We have to invoke a mysterious stirring of the waters of the Flood to move things around, yet at the same time, invoke very calm water to allow sediment to deposit. We need to propose a great many special conditions to make the model fit the data--so many, in fact, that scientists felt forced by the data to abandon the model over a century ago.

So, there are lots of true things. It's just a question of how they came to be.

[axeplayer]

They no longer look similar to each other--nor do they look like the original French population, either. Evolution is happening, and these three populations are evolving differently, as is required by the genetic mechanisms that make it happen.

This is not evolution. The divergence of the three species would simply be from interbreeding among the three species. There were no mutations involved so that the environment could select which beetle was better suited to it: it was simply the african dung beetles mating with French or North American dung beetles which combined the three kinds of beetles.

[Gollum]

divergence of the three species would simply be from interbreeding

That's muddled thinking. "Divergence" means that their characteristics are becoming more distinct; less like each other. Interbreeding would have exactly the opposite effect. It would combine characteristics from different strains and make them more alike.

There were no mutations involved

See one of Jose's other posts in this forum. Current measurements indicate (if I recall Jose's numbers correctly) that there are about 264 mutation based differences between parents and their offspring and possibly as many as 6000 mutational differences from one individual to the next within the population generally. It seems that between any two individuals there are mutational differences. No reason to think that beetles are exempt from this.