Evolution & Creation CAN coexist!

[Turtle]

...

 

Huh. Trying to articulate these things in a balanced way is challenging - part of the reason I joined... I'm so excited and interested in the amazing things science discovers every day I want to dialog about it - I'm bummed that the hostility between science and faith (which I don't think needs to exist at all) has reached such a state that a site like this threatens to ban me so quickly.

 

i think the phrase "site like this" is a gross over-generalization. i can't be sure as i don't belong to others. :hyper: anway, the hostility stems from our history and many of us who know enough of it prefer to cut to the chase as every keystroke spent on explaining it anew is a keystroke not spent on what we all prefer to keystroke on.

 

quite frankly, and cutting to the chase as it were, we're sick & tired of the creationism debate. if you will take the time to read the few dozens if not hundreds of threads on it archived here -found by using our search function for "creationism" - and then, and only then, if you find something not covered then by all means foist it on us. :Guns: you may of course assume many of us are keenly aware of what that content entails. :eek2: :lol:

 

au revoir

~ ;)

[mhatch]

you may of course assume many of us are keenly aware of what that content entails.

 

Thanks Turtle. I assume that tired content generally includes debate about young-earth creationism? Would any other position (or any position) on creationism be worthy of debate? What about one that aligned with what science says about the world and posed testable models?

[Buffy]

Re-thinking my intent in posting the scripture - I was not trying to direclty support the viewpoint, but rather show that extinction/explosion events were potentially described by Psalmic writers thousands of years before science discovered them in reality. I will think twice in the future about it, though, and make sure I describe my intent.

You might want to do more than that: If you're really trying to find an early explication of the Evolutionary forces that have since been supported by scientific discovery, you'll have to take a look at how poorly this excerpt from Psalms supports the scientific theory.

 

The effect you're pointing to here is the notion of Punctuated Equilibrium an evolutionary theory developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge explains why we see evolution proceeding in fits and starts. This theory has superseded the theory of Evolutionary Gradualism, that was never really very well supported, but came directly out of the post-Darwinian discovery of changes to genomes proceeding by genetic mutation at a measurably regular rate.

 

Eldridge and Gould's breakthrough was realizing that the real engine of morphological changes was environmental shocks that force many accumulated changes to provide the diversity to allow the few that can survive those dramatic changes in environment to appear to cause "unexplainably rapid change" in the form of the dominant species.

 

So "crap happens and you're gonna be surprised at what survives" or as Bob Dylan said, "for the loser now will be later to win."

 

Now, about the only thing in that Psalms passage that might possibly parallel this is: "give them their food at the proper time" which does sort of get across the notion that some weird mutation at the proper time will actually turn out to be critical to survival given the right conditions ("at the proper time") but it forces that issue of "purpose" on what science says was a totally random event (e.g. a big meteor out of nowhere).

 

So,

In my mind, I was not trying to insert God as an explanation for the life explosion events, but rather say that since we see explosive events in the geological record, one potential purpose for those events would be to provide the right life for each period to prepare the earth. But now that I've tried to explain myself I see that saying there is a 'purpose' to it doesn't sound much different to anyone that doesn't believe there is a purpose.

 

Huh. Trying to articulate these things in a balanced way is challenging...

And there you have it.

 

It's trying to push "purpose" and "unexplained events are caused by God" that'll get you into big trouble if you're trying to reconcile Science and Religion. Any notion that anything is not caused by natural forces is going to run into extreme resistance from the science side of the equation, and with good reason.

 

Personally I've reconciled the two, in that I envision God as the "woman that pushed the Start button," which can be seen as a variation of the cosmological application of Copenhagen Interpretation, but that's pretty offensive to those who believe in a meddlesome God who's constantly making inexplicable changes to what happens based on who prays the right way.

I'm bummed that the hostility between science and faith (which I don't think needs to exist at all) has reached such a state that a site like this threatens to ban me so quickly.

Just realize that the vast majority of religiously inclined folk come barging into this site like Daniel into the Lion's Den, certain that they're going to slay all the unbelievers for their apostasy.

 

If you feel persecuted by the instantaneous hostility, remember you're in the minority in taking the approach you are, and it's really unfortunately up to you to prove you're the exception to the rule....

 

It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls, :Guns:

Buffy

[Turtle]

Thanks Turtle. I assume that tired content generally includes debate about young-earth creationism? Would any other position (or any position) on creationism be worthy of debate? What about one that aligned with what science says about the world and posed testable models?

 

no problemo. that's what they pay me the big bucks for. :hyper: so thens, we have got it all from urantia book, to hydrogen core earth, hydroplate blowhole theory, hollow earth with angels & aliens inside, meteor blast, yada, yada, yada, bleh, bleh, bleh. :Guns: so nyet. not interested. ;)

[mhatch]

It's trying to push "purpose" and "unexplained events are caused by God" that'll get you into big trouble if you're trying to reconcile Science and Religion. Any notion that anything is not caused by natural forces is going to run into extreme resistance from the science side of the equation, and with good reason.

 

So, in order to find places where the theories are the 'weakest' (without just saying God did it), one needs to look more deeply at those weaknesses, yes? The backlash for trying to look at the weakness already has me overwhelmed. The mere suggestion that the support for something like macro-evolution is weak (in fact even calling it macro-evolution is 'explained away' by saying there is no difference between micro and macro evolution) results in a downpour. I'm not naturally a debater, I'd prefer to suggest ideas and have open dialog - but that does not seem to be welcome.

 

Just realize that the vast majority of religiously inclined folk come barging into this site like Daniel into the Lion's Den, certain that they're going to slay all the unbelievers for their apostasy.

 

If you feel persecuted by the instantaneous hostility, remember you're in the minority in taking the approach you are, and it's really unfortunately up to you to prove you're the exception to the rule....

 

It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls, :Guns:

Buffy

 

I don't want to come in here and try to save people, but have a dialog on the possibilities of both science and faith. When methodological naturalism prevents dialog on anything outside of the natural, that appears difficult - certainly unwelcome.

 

Thanks for your time Buffy.

[Buffy]

So, in order to find places where the theories are the 'weakest' (without just saying God did it), one needs to look more deeply at those weaknesses, yes? The backlash for trying to look at the weakness already has me overwhelmed.

...and that would be a gross misrepresentation of what you've encountered.

 

We're actually pretty proud of the way that we tolerate "alternative theories" here and our openness to questioning the conventional wisdom. Thus, accusing us of "orthodoxy" when trying to support "theories" that have been soundly debunked over and over again is actually the best way to say "f#@& you" to our members.

 

So,

The mere suggestion that the support for something like macro-evolution is weak (in fact even calling it macro-evolution is 'explained away' by saying there is no difference between micro and macro evolution) results in a downpour.

...there's a reason for that. The terms "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution", while they have colloquial usage associated with major and minor changes in morphology are not accepted terms in Evolutionary theory, but the *are* heavily used by Creationists who are forced to reconcile the undeniable evidence of small-scale evolutionary processes, with their denial that things could have changed in any significant way without intervention by an Intelligent Designer.

 

Thus your dismissal right here of well-supported theory--instances of "macro-evolution" in the fossil record have corresponding environmental shocks--shows that you either dismiss the theory and are not looking for reconciliation, or you have not done the study necessary to find the reconciliation.

 

The later would be fine, but don't be surprised at the reactions you receive until you've done some research into why those reactions might be perfectly understandable...

 

Watch the parking meters, :Guns:

Buffy

[Qfwfq]

An alternative explanation is that there are useful common design patterns. We see this in architecture. I'm not an adherent to ID as a movement, but couldn't reuse of common designs patterns explain the recurrence of hip bones?

It doesn't require a Go4 explanation, it has been addressed since the beginnings of Darwin's doctrine of natural selection.

[Eclogite]

The terms "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution", while they have colloquial usage associated with major and minor changes in morphology are not accepted terms in Evolutionary theory,

Sometimes I despair. I really do. This has all the appearance of a knee jerk response and the parading of dogma.

 

Goldschmidt certainly used the terms in his studies on gypsy moths in the late 1920s and 1930s. He had come to believe that the traditional Darwinian process of accumulation of small changes could account for variation within species, giving rise to variants, races, or sub-species. This he considered to be micro-evolution. Changes that gave rise to new species he considered to be examples of macroevolution. [He expanded on these ideas in The Material Basis of Evolution, a work not well received at the time.]

 

Dhobzhansky, who was one of the founding fathers of the Modern Synthesis, was also happy to use the two terms, though in a different sense from Goldschmidt. He saw microevolution as being responsible for speciation and macroevolution for the origin of the larger taxonomic groupings, genera, families, etc. Thus the differences between the two terms were quantitative rather than, as was the case for Goldschmidt’s view, qualitative,. Yet Dhobzhansky was unable to demonstrate this identity because ‘the genetics of the isolating mechanisms remains almost a terra incognita, [and so] an adequate understanding ….of the process of species formation is unattainable.’

 

(Ironically Goldscmidt’s arguments for systemic mutation being the mechanism responsible for macroevolution were based largely upon Dhobzhansky’s research on fruit flys.)

 

George C. Williams, for example, publishing in the 1960s, thought a separation of the mechanism of microevolution and macroevolution (he used those terms) was essential. Just like Goldschmidt, Williams saw no way in which small adaptive changes, arising from variations in allele frequency and micromutations could account for speciation.

 

In the 1970s onwards Stephen J. Gould was also perfectly content to refer to micro and macro evolution when promoting the theory of punctuated equilibria with Niles Eldridge, his colleague at Columbia.

 

In short, the two terms are not the invention of creationists; they have a long history within the development of evolutionary theory; and they represent distinctive concepts, both in terms of probable mechanism and certainly of end result. Might it be that failure to acknowledge this allows creationists to make justifiable claims that ‘evolutionists’ are as capable of following dogma as any bible belt preacher.

 

Thus, while some evolutionists would argue that the difference between micro and macro is simply one of duration, this is not a universal position. To claim that it is is simply incorrect.

[mhatch]

This is the kind of information I'm looking for. Thanks Eclogite, not for coming to my defense (which I know was likely not your intent), but for providing information about the background/use/definition of terms. That is where so many disagreements come from.

[Buffy]

Sometimes I despair. I really do. This has all the appearance of a knee jerk response and the parading of dogma.

Whew! Glad it's only the *appearance*!

 

No, thank you for catching my poor choice of words here, but with a bit of clarification I'd like to point out that the twisting of your catch--as of course we see immediately after your post--cannot be dismissed.

 

I have used the term "colloquial" and "accepted" here in a way that is overstatement of the facts, but the point that I'm making is pretty much in line with your post: The terms have certainly been both created and used by evolutionary theorists, but hardly in a way that leads to clear and specific meanings to the terms. As you note, there's disagreement between Goldschmidt and Dhobzhansky in seeing the distinction between the two terms as being either qualitative or quantitative, a distinction that can hardly be glossed over as quibbling over minor perceptual differences.

 

Indeed you point out one of the things that is a critical weakness in the quantitative view as you point out in the quote you cite:

Thus [in Dhobzhansky's view] the differences between the two terms were quantitative rather than, as was the case for Goldschmidt’s view, qualitative,. Yet Dhobzhansky was unable to demonstrate this identity because ‘the genetics of the isolating mechanisms remains almost a terra incognita, [and so] an adequate understanding ….of the process of species formation is unattainable.’

...as one delves into the definition of speciation, it becomes really clear that it's subject to much debate: is it the inability to reproduce? Is it more than that? Is it really like Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography, "I know it when I see it?"

 

And as many use speciation as one of the key beginnings of the fuzzy dividing line between micro and macro, the distinction simply becomes a handy way to differentiate "smaller" versus "bigger" without anyone being able to define when one crosses over from "small" to "big".

 

That doesn't mean the two terms are meaningless--and as you very correctly point out there are indeed many references to their use in the literature, they are indeed handy "rough approximation" terms to the point that:

...Stephen J. Gould was also perfectly content to refer to micro and macro evolution when promoting the theory of punctuated equilibria...

Yes, they're used as the easy-to-understand way of getting the point across to a non-professional audience.

 

HOWEVER, even granting frequent citation, trying to state that the terms as they are used by these luminaries is identical to the way they are used in Creationist literature is an extreme misrepresentation: in Creationist thought, microevolution is "explainable" because of the fact that there is endless data demonstrating that it exists, and is impossible to deny. But they draw a line in the sand with macroevolution in claiming that there is no way that microevolutionary changes can progress--gradually or punctuatedly--into the larger morphological changes represented by macroevolution.

 

And there is a clear recognition of the overlap and interaction of the various factors that interact to create small and large changes over time that lead most to caution against overstating the distinction between the two:

...transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution

While I'll come back to it in a minute, please do note that he says "events that take place" and not "genetic variation"....

 

When one digs through the Creationist/ID theory a bit more, macroevolution gets defined as any change big enough to require more time than a single human could observe in a lifetime, or even a few, because the observation could not be verified.

 

And the fundamental goal here is to create a clear distinction: microevolution might be possible--although it's really completely pointless--but macroevolution is impossible: it requires an intelligent designer to make dramatic changes that can be shown to have no natural mechanism that can cause them. And this of course is far from what every Evolutionary theorist believes.

 

Now you're also absolutely right about the issue of the difference in potential causes of minor versus major changes in morphology being an important one, but to misread your statement:

Thus, while some evolutionists would argue that the difference between micro and macro is simply one of duration, this is not a universal position. To claim that it is is simply incorrect.

...as a claim that evolutionists think that it's all random mutation is well, simply incorrect.

 

As I pointed to in the Mayr quote above, Evolutionary theory points to many different "events" that have an impact on evolution, while Creationists do try to limit microevolution to simply random mutation and make that the clear limit of any perceptible evidence of Evolution, and misrepresent the Evolutionary scientists usage of that term as limited to that one aspect of the theory.

 

The *reason* that Stephen Jay Gould used the terms is because the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium points specifically to "microevolutionary changes via mutation" being the fodder from which "macroevolutionary shifts in environment"--far more than simply "time"--which indeed may be causing changes not just in the observable environment but triggering many non-genetic mechanisms (e.g. hormones, changes in biological processes) that affect the rate at which large morphological changes occur.

 

------------------

 

So yes the terms are useful, but they're hardly used in the black and white manner that Creationists use to misrepresent the meanings they are intended to convey.

 

And yes, there are certainly dogmatic views on the evolutionary side, but claiming that Evolutionists universally advocate the view that "random mutation is everything except for time" is a gross misrepresentation that Creationists use to bolster the notion that all of Evolution is simply dogma.

 

And last but not least the worst and most contradictory misrepresentations going on is that--depending on whether it's Tuesday or a blue moon--Evolutionists are either dogmatically in universal agreement or at each other's throats because there's no evidence to support any of it.

 

You know, "teach the controversy"...

 

-----------------------------------

 

My point here is that there certainly is lots of overstatement going on--and mea culpa for having edged into it here!--but it's easy for me to back off on my poor word choice because it is--and again thank goodness it's only a perception--really not dogma! :)

 

Thanks for keeping me on my toes E! :cheer:

 

So Mr. Hatch:

This is the kind of information I'm looking for. Thanks Eclogite' date=' not for coming to my defense (which I know was likely not your intent), but for providing information about the background/use/definition of terms. That is where so many disagreements come from.[/quote']

You might want to think about my post a bit: while Eclogite rightly thwacked me for doing something that *does indeed* potentially do harm to the Evolution side of the argument, what he said certainly has limits, and doesn't leave much in the way of new openings to further your argument of potential reconciliation.

 

But I really do have an interest in seeing where you're trying to go with this, so please do carry on.... Any thoughts about my earlier posts?

 

The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only common feature, the dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our centrality in the cosmos, :phones:

Buffy

[mhatch]

So Mr. Hatch:

 

You might want to think about my post a bit: while Eclogite rightly thwacked me for doing something that *does indeed* potentially do harm to the Evolution side of the argument, what he said certainly has limits, and doesn't leave much in the way of new openings to further your argument of potential reconciliation.

 

But I really do have an interest in seeing where you're trying to go with this, so please do carry on.... Any thoughts about my earlier posts?

 

The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only common feature, the dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our centrality in the cosmos,

Buffy

 

I haven't replied because, as you might have been able to tell from my earlier responses, the way some of you respond may not seem aggressive to you (since you've been doing this longer), but it is to me. If I'm not adding value to the conversation, or receiving responses that invite dialog, I'll probably back off. I did respond to a gentleman on this thread, though, which is currently running at a temperature that I can handle :phones: (although I wonder for how long). :cheer:

[maikeru]

Sometimes I despair. I really do. This has all the appearance of a knee jerk response and the parading of dogma.

 

Goldschmidt certainly used the terms in his studies on gypsy moths in the late 1920s and 1930s. He had come to believe that the traditional Darwinian process of accumulation of small changes could account for variation within species, giving rise to variants, races, or sub-species. This he considered to be micro-evolution. Changes that gave rise to new species he considered to be examples of macroevolution. [He expanded on these ideas in The Material Basis of Evolution, a work not well received at the time.]

 

Dhobzhansky, who was one of the founding fathers of the Modern Synthesis, was also happy to use the two terms, though in a different sense from Goldschmidt. He saw microevolution as being responsible for speciation and macroevolution for the origin of the larger taxonomic groupings, genera, families, etc. Thus the differences between the two terms were quantitative rather than, as was the case for Goldschmidt’s view, qualitative,. Yet Dhobzhansky was unable to demonstrate this identity because ‘the genetics of the isolating mechanisms remains almost a terra incognita, [and so] an adequate understanding ….of the process of species formation is unattainable.’

 

(Ironically Goldscmidt’s arguments for systemic mutation being the mechanism responsible for macroevolution were based largely upon Dhobzhansky’s research on fruit flys.)

 

George C. Williams, for example, publishing in the 1960s, thought a separation of the mechanism of microevolution and macroevolution (he used those terms) was essential. Just like Goldschmidt, Williams saw no way in which small adaptive changes, arising from variations in allele frequency and micromutations could account for speciation.

 

In the 1970s onwards Stephen J. Gould was also perfectly content to refer to micro and macro evolution when promoting the theory of punctuated equilibria with Niles Eldridge, his colleague at Columbia.

 

In short, the two terms are not the invention of creationists; they have a long history within the development of evolutionary theory; and they represent distinctive concepts, both in terms of probable mechanism and certainly of end result. Might it be that failure to acknowledge this allows creationists to make justifiable claims that ‘evolutionists’ are as capable of following dogma as any bible belt preacher.

 

Thus, while some evolutionists would argue that the difference between micro and macro is simply one of duration, this is not a universal position. To claim that it is is simply incorrect.

 

People should keep in mind that at some levels the differences between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" can become debatable. For example, mutations, recombination, horizontal gene transfer, etc. in bacteria (or some higher organisms) can induce "speciation."

 

The Phylogenomic Species Concept for Bacteria and Archaea

 

I agree that it is not a matter of time. It is a matter of what and to what degree.