This is my point. The creationist can grant the evolutionist natural
selection because it is observable, empirical. However, it is unproven --
and most likely unprovable -- that the same mechanisms are responsible for
macroevolution. Thus, there is grounds for the creationist and the
evolutionist to disagree, even if the creationist grants the evolutionist
microevolution.
> > In the first case, random mutations are unprovable. How can you prove
> > that an event is random, versus the possibility that perhaps you just
> > don't know enough about the system in question to factor in all
> > causalities? A computer can feign randomness, but in the end, it is not
> > random at all, it is algorithmic.
>
> I don't think this is a sticking point for most theories of evolution.
> That is, if mutations are non-random in some way, that is interesting,
> but in order to make the case, you'd have to perform experiments
> demonstrating the non-random nature of the mutations, and showing how
> knowing they weren't random was an important explanatory device. For
> example, if there were some effect which imitated Lamarckian-style
> mutations that specifically reinforced somatic patterns, that would
> be interesting, and observable.
Well, I don't know anything about Lamarck or somatic patterns. However,
let me expand upon my point. How do you know whether or not a mutation is
random, or pre-determined? How do you know if ANY event is random or
pre-determined? Well, just about the only way is to see if there is a
pattern to the event.
If there is a pattern to the event, it is a safe bet that it is
pre-determined. However, it doesn't take long to see that life on our
planet does not follow a pattern, at least, not one we can discern.
So if there is no pattern to the event, is the event random? Maybe. But
maybe not. I can't read Chinese; to me, it looks like random marks on a
page. It might be a great Chinese novel, or it might be someone's laundry
list; I can't tell. I can't discern the pattern.
Whether or not the event is random is not academic to the evolutionist, it
is of utmost importance. If the event is truly random, then you can
easily say that evolution is a purely naturalistic process -- which
evolutionists do say. But if the event is not random, if it is
pre-determined somehow, then what are the determining factors?
>
> > In the second case, scientists are fond of telling us that you can't PROVE
> > macroevolution because it just takes too darn long. Okay, I reply, then
> > quit assuming macroevolution to be true, and admit that macroevolution is
> > merely a theory, not a "fact".
>
> No, common ancestry is assumed to be true, not because someone was
> videotaping it, but because of many different lines of physical evidence,
> one of the most important of which is the nested heirarchical patterns
> found in the DNA of living things.
Well, again, you're venturing into areas I know nothing about. However,
common ancestry is not enough to prove macroevolution. Nested
heirarchical patterns in DNA is not enough to prove macroevolution.
Let me rephrase those bold statements: common ancestry and hierarchical
DNA patterns ARE enough to prove macroevolution IF you assume the
mechanisms are sufficient to bring these about. But the mechanisms are
precisely what we want to prove! You can't prove that which you've
already assumed. Thus, the tautology arguement.
> Paleontological discoveries of the
> time frames in which the various species existed, transitional fossils, and
> so on are all supporting lines of evidence for this conclusion.
Perhaps, but they are at best circumstantial evidence. I could conceive
of a creationist theory that also accounted for not only the existence of
these fossils (whether or not they are truly transitional is always open
to debate), but for the absence of other fossils. So, where would that
leave us?
> (This
> is nowadays, of course; Darwin reached the conclusion on much slimmer
> grounds, but sufficient for he and his contemporaries to realize common
> ancestry. In those days, it was considered impossible to notice the
> "microevolution" of species, because it was thought to be too slow
> a process.)
>
> The worry about 'fact' and 'theory' is usually a misnomer: any scientific
> idea is 'theoretical' in the sense that further observations can overturn
> or modify it. Some are so well grounded, though, that they serve further
> investigations in the role of 'facts.'
>
Not "any" scientific idea, but EVERY scientific idea! But if that is
true, why do scientists such as Gould speak of "the fact of evolution" as
if no further observations could overturn it?
The worry about 'fact' and 'theory' is a real problem, not just a semantic
one. The concern is that treating evolution as a 'fact' leads scientists
to make assumptions, and that taints their research. Not that assumptions
aren't necessary, but you have to be willing to follow the findings of
your research to their conclusion, wherever that might be. If you are
already convinced that evolution is a 'fact' and simply must have
occurred, you may be reluctant to follow your own research to its
logical conclusion.
Erich Hurst
Houston, Tx