Subject:
|
Re: The Origins "Debate"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Sep 2001 00:18:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1815 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> > To be more precise, evolution is a fact, just as gravity is a fact. The
> > Darwinian model of natural selection is an evolutionary theory--that is, a
> > theory that hopes to explain the process by which the fact of evolution occurs.
>
> Let me restate my position this way:
>
> FACT: Many, many species exist and have existed on Earth. The first species
> which appeared were very simple, single-celled organisms, without nuclei.
> After these, nucleotic cells appeared, and after these, various multi-celled
> organisms appeared. Species after species appeared in increasing
> complexity, leading to the variety of organisms existing on Earth today.
>
> I don't think this can be correctly called evolution; it has to be called
> what it is, which would be "the continual appearance of organisms of
> increasing complexity". This is evident from the fossil record. On the
> other hand, *explanations* for the mechanism by which these organisms
> appeared *are* theories.
>
> The theory of evolution states that these organisms developed of their own
> accord, by means of spontaneous, large-scale genetic mutations in a
> completely random fashion. Those organisms which had the most beneficial
> mutations survived and gave rise to new organisms.
>
> The theory of creation states that these organisms were created by God and
> installed on Earth as described in Genesis 1. God created species of
> increasing complexity to fill the Earth, humans (Homo sapiens) being the
> final and crowning work of His creation. He has created no new species
> since then. (This theory is the same among both the old-Earth and the
> young-Earth creationist camps. I'm an OEC.)
There is more evidence around than just the fossil record though. For
instance, my work involves comparing DNA sequences from different organisms.
We can measure the differences between sequences, and draw a tree or nested
set describing how similar they are. So for instance (((humans, chimps)
gorillas) orangutangs) corresponds to the pattern apparent in DNA sequences
for four types of primate.
How do we explain this evidence historically (without a time-machine)? We
can look for either a natural or a supernatural process. Natural theories
can be tested; Lamarckian evolution can be rejected since we don't see
inheritance of acquired characteristics. With the advent of whole genome
sequencing we will soon be able to replicate Darwinian macroevolution, by
knocking out and inserting genes that differ between two species.
Supernatural explanations on the other hand are untestable. The only items
of evidence that support the existence of supernatural processes are
personal testimony and written authority, non-personal miracles being fairly
thin on the ground. These forms of subjective evidence may be appropriate in
some disciplines, but not natural history. The supernatural is by definition
not part of science. If ghosts, goblins or God were directly observable then
they would come into the scope of science; since they aren't they don't.
So how can we explain the similarity between human and chimp DNA sequences
for instance? Either we accept that it indicates a common ancestor or we
don't. If we accept that chimps and humans (and all life on earth) share a
common ancestor we can model evolution as a natural process. If we reject
evolution (no other natural theory being proposed) then we are forced to
invoke untestable supernatural explanations.
--DaveL
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The Origins Debate
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> (...) Let me restate my position this way: FACT: Many, many species exist and have existed on Earth. The first species which appeared were very simple, single-celled organisms, without nuclei. (...) (23 years ago, 21-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
98 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
