Let me just begin by saying that I think we agree on this more than we
disagree. And I appreciate the discussion. I hope you haven't
interpreted anything I've said as a personal or vindictive attack, because
that wasn't my point. My original point was to respond to one email which
said that if creationists concede microevolution, they've forfeited the
whole ball game. I disagree. I think there is still plenty of grounds for
a good, healthy debate in the arena of macroevolution.
Now, what do I MEAN by micro- and macroevolution? We've danced around it
several times here, I guess I never thought I needed to explicitly define
what I meant by the terms. By microevolution, *I* mean the observable
variations in populations, usually at or perhaps just above the species
level (the biological definition of "species" changes so much, it is hard
to nail down a definition in terms of "species", but I think you get the
idea). Variations in populations at higher levels would be what *I*
consider macroevolution.
Even a creationist has to admit to the existence of microevolution, for if
microevolution did not exist, there would be no variation within the
population of humans. Even a creationist has to admit to at least the
concept of "common ancestry" at the microevolutionary level, because all
humans are descendents of Adam -- Adam is our common ancestor. When you
look at it this way, shouldn't a creationist be a stronger proponent of
microevolution than an evolutionist?
As I've said before, though, microevolution does not "prove"
macroevolution, even though many evolutionists act like it does. Just
because there is a common "human" ancestor, or a common "fish"
ancestor, or whatever, does not mean that, if you just go back far enough,
there is a single (or a few) Common Ancestor(s) for all living beings on
the face of the planet.
And that's all I'm really trying to say, in this thread anyway.
Now, to some specific points:
> > Niles Eldredge himself once claimed that paleontologists who had found
> > fossils that didn't seem to support the currently accepted theory of
> > evolution were considered "failures, and, more often than not, weren't
> > even published." That's one of the things that can happen when you start
> > treating a theory as a fact, which the NABT and NAS seem to encourage.
>
> Gould, at least, has some rather pointed comments about the wattage of
> people who make him out to look like a Creationist. I can't imagine
> Eldredge would think much differently. You are aware, aren't you, that
> both of them are firmly behind common ancestry, and are of the opinion
> simply that they have a new way of explaining that; that is, they are
> involved in the modern pursuit of explanations *for* common descent,
> and not defenses *of* it?
So what?
Yes, I am aware that Eldredge, like Gould, is a staunch evolutionist. But
the quote from Eldredge above has nothing to do with creation or
evolution.
My quote was directed to the point I was trying to make regarding certain
scientists (I certainly didn't mean to imply ALL scientists) who accept a
theory -- any theory! -- so strongly that they consider it a "fact," and
no longer feel it necessary to investigate -- even when they find evidence
to the contrary! When they find such evidence, they just assume their
findings must be wrong and discard them as failures, or if they do believe
their findings they suppress it anyway because it will never get published.
Eldredge (and Gould, too) both acknowledged that that did indeed happen
in the past. Does it still happen today? I don't know, but the NAS
handbook worries me in that it would seem to encourage such behavior.
One of the reasons why Eldredge and Gould proposed the theory of
punctuated equilibrium was all of this evidence that paleontologists were
uncovering which didn't fit the accepted theory of the day: that life
evolved at a continuously gradual pace. Punctuated equilibrium gave these
paleontologists' findings a legitimacy that they didn't have before.
There. Does that satisfy you that I'm not quoting Eldredge out of
context?
> > > Just like astronomers still are not trying to convince
> > > people that telescopes actually record real things when pointed at the
> > > heavens, and are not instruments of evil, biologists are, for the most
> > > part, uninterested in rehashing the settled arguments of the past.
> >
> > Oh, come on! Are you equating astronomy with evolution? At least I can
> > SEE the stars, whether they are real or painted on. None of us have seen
> > or can ever hope to have seen the Great Common Ancestor To Whom We All
> > Owe Our Lives. One is based on direct observation. The other is based on
> > inferences made from 500 million year old fossils.
>
> I can't imagine you aren't aware that the proposition is that the
> stars are much older than that...
>
Augh! That's not my point. Jupiter exists today. It is right there. We
can see it. We even sent a satellite out to take pretty pictures of it.
Direct Observation. We've been observing it for thousands of years. When
was the last time we observed The Great Common Ancestor?
> > My only point through this whole discussion has been that a distinction
> > needs to be made between microevolution and macroevolution. One is an
> > observable fact, the other is a mere theory -- at best.
>
> I'd understand you much better if you'd use more conventional terms,
> but your objection to common ancestry is noted.
>
I wasn't aware that microevolution and macroevolution weren't
"conventional terms." They're right there in my handy-dandy Webster's
Ninth Collegiate Dictionary. Were they taken out since then?
> > And why shouldn't a distinction be made? Must the same mechanisms acting
> > at the micro level also be responsible for macroevolution? Sub-atomic
> > particles disobey the laws of gravity in favor of atomic forces.
>
> Leaving aside the bit about gravity (you understand the business about
> orders of magnitude, right?),
Yes, yes. "Disobey" was a poor word choice, is all.
> there is no necessity that the mechanisms
> we observe today are responsible for common ancestry.
Exactly my point. You see, we agree more than we disagree.
> If they are
> *sufficient* to account for it,
That's where I disagree. I don't think they are sufficient. And I fear
many evolutionists just assume it to be sufficient. Maybe I'm
over-reacting. I hope so.
> and we never find evidence that something
> else interfered, then that will probably always be the scientifically
> defensible position.
Once again, I will raise the issue that we will never "find evidence that
something else interfered" if we just assume the mechanisms to be
sufficient. And that, for example, seems to me to be the attitude the NAS
proposes.
> It appears you aren't up on your economics, either.
Gosh darn it, ya caught me. I was bluffing about there being different
theories for macro and microeconomics. I'm not even sure there IS such a
thing as micro or macroeconomics. I'm not quite sure why they gave me an
A in those classes that I THINK were called "Intro to Macroeconomics" and
"Intro to Microeconomics" about four years ago, or why they decided to
give me an MBA degree since those classes -- if they exist, that is -- are
required courses. Yep. Don't know nothin' 'bout economics here!
Sorry. I just couldn't resist. You attacked me. I'm just defending
myself. I know what I know. I'm sorry if I don't keep up on the latest
developments in every course of study I have ever taken in my 30 years of
life on this planet. I wasn't aware that four years were enough to change
the entire nature of economic theory.
Look, I wasn't even delving into the details of economic theory -- I may
have aced the courses, but I didn't like economics, it was not my
specialty -- just the aspect of it that it is split into two levels: micro
and macro. There's a reason for that. There are certain theories to
explain how individuals behave economically, and other theories to explain
how masses of people behave.
You could make the same analogy with sociology (macro) and
psychology (micro) (I won't, because I haven't studied those AT ALL;
see, I know what I know). And I already made the analogy with gravity
versus atomic forces. You just don't study gravitational forces at the
sub-atomic level. Why? They are not significant.
Couldn't the same be applied to evolution? Couldn't microevolution and
macroevolution be separated in the same manner, since the mechanisms we
see evident in one (micro) do not appear to be sufficient to explain the
other (macro)?
Whew! I'm tired. This 30-year-old body ain't good at keeping up with you
college boys anymore!
Erich Hurst
Houston, TX