evolution discussion with faith

Cor, do you suppose you'd be such a rich man now if our chemical models about the structure of atoms, and in particular their electrical interactions, weren't basically accurate?If the modern conception of the atom - if, indeed, there were not even such things as atoms - wasn't basically right, would you have been able to find the proper additive? Would you have been successful if atomic theory were just wishful thinking, or a model that everybody agreed to simply cram the data into, as Faith has accused evolution of being?I submit that you'd be a poor man indeed if atomic theory was simply something that you had to submit to, and conceal instances where it simply didn't work, and act like everything was just fine. I submit that the simple fact that biologists too are able to employ their theories to achieve real accomplishment is proof that the theory of evolution is not just wishful thinking but an accurate model of the development of life on Earth.

Right. It's the fossil record that proves the process doesn't ultimately go in the direction you're describing. The trend would show up in the fossil record, and since we don't see it there, we know that your position is not correct.It's a good try, though, Faith. Honestly. You developed a testable proof against evolution. Most creationists don't make it that far. Compared to that, the fact that your proof didn't pass the test is really insignificant. Science proceeds as much from our failures as from our successes. The most exciting words in science are not "Eureka!" but "Hrm, that's funny..."

A flood could never organize the creatures, and especially the plants, the way that they're organized. So, in fact, the pattern of the fossil record proves that it is not a record of one big flood, but of the development of life over millions of years. Flood explanations are inconsistent with the fossil record as observed. You do understand that an organism's phenotype is a reflection of its genetics, yes? Increasing diversity of phenotype must mean an increasing diversity of genotype. There's absolutely no way that a trend of contracting genetic diversity could be associated with an increase in morphological diversity. Therefore, the trend we see in the fossil record - increasing phenotypic diversity - proves a trend of genetic diversity increasing over time. Incontrovertable.New phenotypes means new genetic diversity, no matter what. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that genes have no meaning, have no influence over the phenotype of the organism, which is not a position supported by any evidence.

If it doesn't interfere, then how does it handicapp anybody?Unless you're saying that scientific exploration is unhindered in any field except for biology; but then, wouldn't that be something that we would detect? That every scientific discipline but biology made progress?Isn't the simple fact that biologists get the job done an indication that, in fact, they're handicapped by absolutely nothing?

Wouldn't that depend on the population? For instance, bacteria are used a lot in genetics research because their genomes are small (being prokaryotic) but also because they have a very short generation time. It's easy with a commerical bioreactor to culture hundreds of generations in a very short period of time. Also, we can simulate the effects of selection and mutation (determined via experimentation) on populations using computers.So, given the power of modern genetics research to test these long-frame changes within populations, I don't see the validity of your assertion that this would all be too long-term to test. If the basic mechanisms of evolution have the effect you say they do, we should be able to detect it, even if it's such a small effect that it would take many many generations to detect. We have the capability to detect even those changes. Why not? How do you do valid scientific work under a critically flawed model?That's how the history of scientific progress works. Eventually progress in a field sort of peters out, new discoveries are made that can't be made sense of under the old models, nobody gets anywhere for a while, and then bam - a new model (a new "paradigm") puts the new data in context, makes it make sense, and it's like the floodgates let go, and all these new discoveries pour out.If there were fundamental flaws in the evolutionary model, how would it be possible to discover anything? Much less maintain the breakneck pace of biological discovery we've been enjoying for the past 50 years?

Shouldn't all decendants of birds be birds, and never finches? How is this speciation within kinds if you've got the "bird" kind speciating into the "finch" kind?

Isn't a bird a tetrapod? Isn't a tetrapod a vertebrate? Isn't a vertebrate an animal? Isn't an animal a multicellular organism? Isn't a multicellular organism a life?When you accept one round of hierarchial classification of organisms, and common descent for several species from one species, there's nowhere to draw the line. The organization of species we observe is a powerful indicator of common descent, for the reason that you just gave in this post.

But that's not the question. After all, the Finch kind doesn't include anything that isn't a finch, in either model. But the bird kind contains many other sub-kinds, including finches and other things that are not finches.So, obviously, it's likely that whatever kind contains the bird kind also contains other things that are not birds, like mammals and the like. But what kind did that original bird belong to? What kind did the parent of that original bird belong to?

Why can't you concieve of an organism with the genetic potential to generate all living things? Does that really seem more improbable than what you're suggesting? Indeed.

Well, if the scientific rigor of the theory isn't what you're basing your decision on, I guess I really don't have anything to talk about you with. You're certainly not interested in my thoughts on the Bible, I suspect.Sort of funny, though, that you're a former evolutionist and I'm a recovering creationist. A frightful symmetry.

No offense, but that's what it means to think along with someone in the sciences. Somebody has an idea, and everybody around them comes up with the reasons that it can't possibly be that way. It's a very discouraging procedure until you get used to it, but the result is that only the really good ideas see the light of day.The sort of rigor in the sciences can really be off-putting for those who aren't prepared for it. And the scientific community doesn't promote the idea of doing it tactfully. What matters is advancing knowledge, not people's feelings. I appreciate that, when you voice these ideas, it feels like everybody's immediately leaping to attack them. And they are. But honestly, you should feel honored that, unlike most creationists, you give the science-minded folks here something to grapple with scientifically. Most of the time, creationist thinking is so scientifically without merit that it's not worth doing anything but dismissing with a laugh.You're worth refuting. Hopefully, paradoxially, that's something you can take a little bit of pride in.

That's the price you pay if you want your positions to merit scientific interest.