Peaceful coexistence between scientists and theologians

[Dr.Who]

Evolution is a scientific theory.

It is a theory with a lot of strong and solid evidence. One I believe God directed.

It is a theory with a large community of followers and scientists who have a lot of money to make or lose if they say the right things. They have leaped faster than they can look and have made assumptions in the details that will need to be worked out and revised in future years.

Worst of all it is not difficult to find many people who will state and fight for the idea that it is proven science when to date not a single example of one species evolving slowly into another distinct species has been observed or demonstrated. Such changes from one species to another probably occur but it damages the credibility of all scientists when claims beyond what can be supported by the evidence are made.

 

[PLC1]

It is a theory with a lot of strong and solid evidence. One I believe God directed.

I agree. The latter statement is not a part of the theory, but it is a personal belief that I also share.

It is a theory with a large community of followers and scientists who have a lot of money to make or lose if they say the right things. They have leaped faster than they can look and have made assumptions in the details that will need to be worked out and revised in future years.

Details are still being discovered. The idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds was at one time quite controversial to say the least. Most mainstream scientists thought it was not very likely. Today, the mainstream thought is that the dinos to birds hypothesis is the correct one. The reason, of course, is new facts coming to light.

Still, the theory of evolution is the basis for modern biology.

Worst of all it is not difficult to find many people who will state and fight for the idea that it is proven science when to date not a single example of one species evolving slowly into another distinct species has been observed or demonstrated. Such changes from one species to another probably occur but it damages the credibility of all scientists when claims beyond what can be supported by the evidence are made.

One example

CHANGES in the same species of fish living in the same lake could have serious implications for evolutionary thought.

Some colourful cichlid fish in Africa's Lake Victoria formed a new species by adapting their vision, showing that geographical isolation is not essential for divergence, researchers said.

The fish evolved to improve their ability to see food and predators at different depths, and this also affected the way they saw colours and attracted mates, said Ole Seehausen, who led the study published in the journal Nature.

"The split of one species into two was initiated by adaptation of the sensory system, in this case the eyes, to the local environment," said Seehausen, an evolutionary biologist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology in Kastanienbaum.


The cichlid fish are an important model for evolutionary biologists because no other group of vertebrates has split into so many species - about 2,000 - so quickly, Seehausen said in a telephone interview.

Then there is the grizzly bear to polar bear. The two are about 70,000 years apart, and are considered separate species, but are so similar that there is some controversy over whether the one is really a subspecies of the other. Polar and grizzly bears share a common ancestor, and have been evolving apart.

 

[Dr.Who]

I agree. The latter statement is not a part of the theory, but it is a personal belief that I also share.



Details are still being discovered. The idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds was at one time quite controversial to say the least. Most mainstream scientists thought it was not very likely. Today, the mainstream thought is that the dinos to birds hypothesis is the correct one. The reason, of course, is new facts coming to light.

Still, the theory of evolution is the basis for modern biology.



One example



Then there is the grizzly bear to polar bear. The two are about 70,000 years apart, and are considered separate species, but are so similar that there is some controversy over whether the one is really a subspecies of the other. Polar and grizzly bears share a common ancestor, and have been evolving apart.

I agree that when one is talking about two bears calling them two different species or calling them subspecies can be somewhat arbitrary.

The standard notion that if they cannot breed they are different species fails to hold water. For example, a female Chihuahua is more likely to be killed in any mating attempt with a male Great Dane than it is to produce offspring. While separate species of plants cross pollinate all the time but the offspring don't reproduce. Without a means of classifying living and extinct species according to DNA there will always be problems.

So, the fish...

You have given us an example of two chichlids. The article says that they evolved different visual abilities (though clearly that is an example of adaptation and not evolution and probably the result of the talents of the journalist and not the scientists) and that those abilities lead to them becoming different species. Of course, the article also says that "We knew there were two different species but we didn't know how that came about." Which is it? Do they know how the species split or do they not know? No evidence is presented as to how or what they know. Is it possible that they were always two different species? The author has not told us. But the article does tell us...

Oddly enough:

"The findings have implications for conservation efforts because they suggest that pollution that changes the light in the water would lead the two species to collapse and merge into a single one, Seehausen said."

Wait! The scientist is saying that these two species of chichlids can mate (merge) with each other? I smell a rat, er, I mean something is fishy.

And lastly the article says that the evolution took place rapidly while one of the criteria I set up is that the example would show slow evolution.

It is far more likely that what we have here is two fish that are members of the same species, they live in the same local, they can mate with each other, and some have adapted differently than others. It is a classic mistake to confuse adaptation with evolution. Adaptation is when members of a species change. Evolution is when they change from one species into another. In my book for them to be different species they must look different, have different enough DNA that the DNA cannot do its thing and replicate.

But I thank you for the article because I have been looking for a reference to species merging for along time now and have failed to find one. It is my theory that species just might sometimes merge and now I have a quote from an evolutionists saying so.

 

[PLC1]

I agree that when one is talking about two bears calling them two different species or calling them subspecies can be somewhat arbitrary.

The standard notion that if they cannot breed they are different species fails to hold water. For example, a female Chihuahua is more likely to be killed in any mating attempt with a male Great Dane than it is to produce offspring. While separate species of plants cross pollinate all the time but the offspring don't reproduce. Without a means of classifying living and extinct species according to DNA there will always be problems.

So, the fish...

You have given us an example of two chichlids. The article says that they evolved different visual abilities (though clearly that is an example of adaptation and not evolution and probably the result of the talents of the journalist and not the scientists) and that those abilities lead to them becoming different species. Of course, the article also says that "We knew there were two different species but we didn't know how that came about." Which is it? Do they know how the species split or do they not know? No evidence is presented as to how or what they know. Is it possible that they were always two different species? The author has not told us. But the article does tell us...

Oddly enough:

"The findings have implications for conservation efforts because they suggest that pollution that changes the light in the water would lead the two species to collapse and merge into a single one, Seehausen said."

Wait! The scientist is saying that these two species of chichlids can mate (merge) with each other? I smell a rat, er, I mean something is fishy.

And lastly the article says that the evolution took place rapidly while one of the criteria I set up is that the example would show slow evolution.

It is far more likely that what we have here is two fish that are members of the same species, they live in the same local, they can mate with each other, and some have adapted differently than others. It is a classic mistake to confuse adaptation with evolution. Adaptation is when members of a species change. Evolution is when they change from one species into another. In my book for them to be different species they must look different, have different enough DNA that the DNA cannot do its thing and replicate.

But I thank you for the article because I have been looking for a reference to species merging for along time now and have failed to find one. It is my theory that species just might sometimes merge and now I have a quote from an evolutionists saying so.

It's possible that two closely related species have merged.

The problem with determining when one species leaves off and another begins is that there is a continuum from one to the other. This develops usually over long periods of time, so it's not something that can be observed in a human lifetime, except, of course, by examining the fossil record.

Since the change from one to another is an evolutionary, i.e., gradual change, the line between species can be blurred.

Perhaps this will clarify the issue:

To the question:

Has any species ever evolved into another species at any point in history?

(part of the answer, you can follow the link for the whole thing)

Of course, if you mean an existing species evolving into another already existing species (like a dog evolving into a cat) then of course not ... but that is a ridiculous caricature of what evolution says ... so you should be a bit embarassed if that's what you meant.

So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are asking if there is evidence "in history" of a species giving birth to new species (what we call 'speciation').

If you mean the history of the earth, then yes, of course. This evidence is recorded in fossils, and in the genes, and in the DNA of every living creature alive today.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I always find it odd how much proof is required for some to believe in Evolution...that somehow science must solve every mystery, and have a fossil record found of every stage of every evolution...

But yet there own beliefs about religion...would not even come close to passing if had to meet the incredibly high bar set buy them for Evolution or other issues.

Also the complete lack of understanding of the use of the word "theory" with evolution...as if because its a theory..its just easy to dismiss and throw out. the word theory is treated as if it was just a guess.

But religion always has 2 great advantages over Science...
A. that science is always looking for more info, looking to test the limits of theory. To find out the existence of things that we can't fit into current theories, and then build on the old theories and improve them...or find out that they could have been off. And sometimes...finding out a theory was wrong...only to later find out that in fact what we felt wrecked a theory..with more looking actuly has it still hold true...

B...when ever science finds anything...all the Religious man has to do is just simply state...ok yes thats true...because God made it true. Is it possible they are correct if they say it? sure. Does it have much scientific weight to it? no , very little if any at all...Because it relies on faith, and belief in things that can't be proven...where science relies on providing proof and being able to test.

Good example of this is...the idea some have...that the earth is 6000 years old...science suggests its about 4.54 Billion years...One is based on tons of research and study, testing on the oldest known materials found on earth...the other...words in a book. Science says that Dinosaurs died off long long before man was on the earth...some say nope, they lived together....one uses all the known fossil evidence in the world...the other...simply states it because it must be true or said age of world would be wrong. One finds many forms of earth human, evolving closer and closer to current man, and over time fills in more and more of the gaps....the other...suggest that the evidence is there as some form of a trick by a powerful god to test us....

No, I don't believe that all Christians, or even the majority believe everything there, about the age of earth, dinosaurs, or fossils as tricks..But a fair amount believe in at least some of it...And it shows the difference is the burden of proof one side is held to vs the other.

 

[Dr.Who]

It's possible that two closely related species have merged.

The problem with determining when one species leaves off and another begins is that there is a continuum from one to the other. This develops usually over long periods of time, so it's not something that can be observed in a human lifetime, except, of course, by examining the fossil record.

Since the change from one to another is an evolutionary, i.e., gradual change, the line between species can be blurred.

Perhaps this will clarify the issue:

To the question:



(part of the answer, you can follow the link for the whole thing)

(For the reader: some of those sections quoted were not quoted from me)

I read your link and it is a good one. many examples of speciation however quite a few obviously fail to be examples of gradual adaptation over long periods of time due to mutations and resulting in one species becoming a new species. Perhaps you would like to pick the example you think is the best shining star and we can discuss that one.

We will see if any of them will show gradual adaptation as a result of genetic mutation resulting in a change from one species to a new species.

However, if one looks back on this thread we will see that the more important point to be made is not that speciation ever occurs or nor but that most people will argue strongly that it does when they don't have a clue what they are talking about. In light of that lets read a quote from your link;s link:

"The literature on observed speciations events is not well organized. I found only a few papers that had an observation of a speciation event as the author's main point (e.g. Weinberg, et al. 1992). In addition, I found only one review that was specifically on this topic (Callaghan 1987). This review cited only four examples of speciation events. Why is there such a seeming lack of interest in reporting observations of speciation events?

In my humble opinion, four things account for this lack of interest. First, it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question. Many researchers feel that there are already ample reports in the literature. Few of these folks have actually looked closely. "

This is an important problem I have with science today - the willingness to consider issues to be settled when they are not.

I am willing to bet that after examination of the examples of speciation in that link we will find examples of evolution but they will not fit the standard mold that evolutionary theory says they are supposed to look like. Clearly the theory needs adjustment.

The theory probably needs to be adjusted to indicate that evolution is not necessarily driven by mutations, that it does not necessarily take place over long periods of time, and that plasticity plays a much larger role than previously thought.

 

[Dr.Who]

I always find it odd how much proof is required for some to believe in Evolution...that somehow science must solve every mystery, and have a fossil record found of every stage of every evolution...

But yet there own beliefs about religion...would not even come close to passing if had to meet the incredibly high bar set buy them for Evolution or other issues.

Also the complete lack of understanding of the use of the word "theory" with evolution...as if because its a theory..its just easy to dismiss and throw out. the word theory is treated as if it was just a guess.

But religion always has 2 great advantages over Science...
A. that science is always looking for more info, looking to test the limits of theory. To find out the existence of things that we can't fit into current theories, and then build on the old theories and improve them...or find out that they could have been off. And sometimes...finding out a theory was wrong...only to later find out that in fact what we felt wrecked a theory..with more looking actuly has it still hold true...

B...when ever science finds anything...all the Religious man has to do is just simply state...ok yes thats true...because God made it true. Is it possible they are correct if they say it? sure. Does it have much scientific weight to it? no , very little if any at all...Because it relies on faith, and belief in things that can't be proven...where science relies on providing proof and being able to test.

Good example of this is...the idea some have...that the earth is 6000 years old...science suggests its about 4.54 Billion years...One is based on tons of research and study, testing on the oldest known materials found on earth...the other...words in a book. Science says that Dinosaurs died off long long before man was on the earth...some say nope, they lived together....one uses all the known fossil evidence in the world...the other...simply states it because it must be true or said age of world would be wrong. One finds many forms of earth human, evolving closer and closer to current man, and over time fills in more and more of the gaps....the other...suggest that the evidence is there as some form of a trick by a powerful god to test us....

No, I don't believe that all Christians, or even the majority believe everything there, about the age of earth, dinosaurs, or fossils as tricks..But a fair amount believe in at least some of it...And it shows the difference is the burden of proof one side is held to vs the other.

Demanding excessive burdens of proof is not just a trick that only some people play.

Has anyone here demanded excessive burdens to believe evolution. I stated that I believe in it so that would not be me.

But I am showing that the theory and the examples of evolution we have do not square up.

I don't remember who was doing it but someone on this board thinks that theories are proven. They have support but they ARE often closer to guesses than they are to proofs.

 

[PLC1]

Hm... speciation. OK, let's look at the humble mayfly, order ephemeroptera. I can remember looking at a picture of the creatures scientists believe existed during the age of amphibians, hundreds of millions of years ago, and seeing what looked much like the kind of mayfly that trout are eating today. I found out that, yes, indeed, there were mayflies way back then, and that's why there are so many different species of the order today.

Fly anglers like me carry a box of imitations in a variety of sizes and colors, all to try to fool the trout. The reason for such a large variety is speciation: Mayflies have evolved literally hundreds, if not thousands of different species over the eons.

So, where did all of these species of ephemeroptera come from if they didn't evolve from a common ancestor?

 

[Dr.Who]

Hm... speciation. OK, let's look at the humble mayfly, order ephemeroptera. I can remember looking at a picture of the creatures scientists believe existed during the age of amphibians, hundreds of millions of years ago, and seeing what looked much like the kind of mayfly that trout are eating today. I found out that, yes, indeed, there were mayflies way back then, and that's why there are so many different species of the order today.

Fly anglers like me carry a box of imitations in a variety of sizes and colors, all to try to fool the trout. The reason for such a large variety is speciation: Mayflies have evolved literally hundreds, if not thousands of different species over the eons.

So, where did all of these species of ephemeroptera come from if they didn't evolve from a common ancestor?

I beleive I asked for an example of evolution that would demonstrate that the theory occurs as described. To answer the question you should say that species A evolved slowly into species B through a long slow process. You would have to show that they are in fact different species and not just examples of one species that have adapted differently and which could reverse said adaptation. (I.e. the heights of eohippus and horses are often given up as evidence that eohippus evolved into horses. But horses today can still be just as short. And since we cannot know if they could interbreed or not...)

What you have done is ask a question: Where did the various species of mayfly come from?

Possible answers:

1) they evolved through a process only a little like evolutionary theory as we know it.
2) they evolved through a process like evolutionary theory as we know it.
3) they have always existed, but in the past in such small numbers that the fossil record does not contain any examples
4) they were created
5) they evolved from some species other than a mayfly

I am sure that I could list more.

At this time I do not think there is enough evidence to favor #1 or #2 more than the other. But I go back to myu original statement: there is no example of a species evolving slowly into another through mutation and survival of the fittest. There are examples of species evolving very rapidly through other processes.

#5 could probably be eliminated pretty easily.

#4 must compete with the great deal of support for #1 and #2. But it would have to be evaluated on an individual bases for each species as a creator could certainly have both created evolution and created one or two species as a product of special creation.

#3 seems unlikely when considering all species (not one species) because even if they did not end up in the fossil record, the record does seem to indicate that there is development.

 

[PLC1]

I beleive I asked for an example of evolution that would demonstrate that the theory occurs as described. To answer the question you should say that species A evolved slowly into species B through a long slow process. You would have to show that they are in fact different species and not just examples of one species that have adapted differently and which could reverse said adaptation. (I.e. the heights of eohippus and horses are often given up as evidence that eohippus evolved into horses. But horses today can still be just as short. And since we cannot know if they could interbreed or not...)

What you have done is ask a question: Where did the various species of mayfly come from?

Possible answers:

1) they evolved through a process only a little like evolutionary theory as we know it.
2) they evolved through a process like evolutionary theory as we know it.
3) they have always existed, but in the past in such small numbers that the fossil record does not contain any examples
4) they were created
5) they evolved from some species other than a mayfly

I am sure that I could list more.

At this time I do not think there is enough evidence to favor #1 or #2 more than the other. But I go back to myu original statement: there is no example of a species evolving slowly into another through mutation and survival of the fittest. There are examples of species evolving very rapidly through other processes.

#5 could probably be eliminated pretty easily.

The original first mayfly no doubt did evolve from another order. When and how that happened is unknown, but like all other life, they started as single celled organisms.

#4 must compete with the great deal of support for #1 and #2. But it would have to be evaluated on an individual bases for each species as a creator could certainly have both created evolution and created one or two species as a product of special creation.

#4 is not at all incompatible with #1 and #2. Evolution tells the process by which life was created. It says nothing about the creator.

#3 seems unlikely when considering all species (not one species) because even if they did not end up in the fossil record, the record does seem to indicate that there is development.

#3 is unlikely. Even the Earth itself has not always existed. If Mayflies existed before the Earth was created, where did they live? They would have had to have been brought here from somewhere else.

It is possible that some species appeared rather suddenly, as opposed to gradually having evolved from other species. I've read writings by serious biological scientists, not "creation scientists" who posit that very thing. Their ideas are quite controversial, and unproven, but they do elicit some thought. One I read recently in Discover Magazine hypothesizes that genes from viruses and one celled organisms actually mix with those of a more complex organism, creating a new species.

This is a fascinating subject, with a lot of unknowns. What is certain is that many new discoveries remain to be made, and that the basic theory of life having evolved from simple to more complex organisms is not going to be refuted at this point.

 

[Dr.Who]

The original first mayfly no doubt did evolve from another order. When and how that happened is unknown, but like all other life, they started as single celled organisms.

If you have not demonstrated that it evolved then you cannot say that it no doubt did evolve. You could have demonstrated that either through observation or deduction and you have done neither. Additionally, if we were to demonstrate that one or some organisms evolved from single cell organisms you would still not know that all did.

#4 is not at all incompatible with #1 and #2. Evolution tells the process by which life was created. It says nothing about the creator.

If evolution explains the process it could still have been by the hand of a creator. I never said that I was limiting myself to non-theistic explanations so it does not matter if evolution says nothing about a creator or not. (though too many evolutionists do have something to say about a creator when they should remain silent on the issue)

#3 is unlikely. Even the Earth itself has not always existed. If Mayflies existed before the Earth was created, where did they live? They would have had to have been brought here from somewhere else.

Ha. My bad. aI did not mean always even that is what I wrote. I just meant prior to the time when the mayfly you described existed.

It is possible that some species appeared rather suddenly, as opposed to gradually having evolved from other species. I've read writings by serious biological scientists, not "creation scientists" who posit that very thing. Their ideas are quite controversial, and unproven, but they do elicit some thought. One I read recently in Discover Magazine hypothesizes that genes from viruses and one celled organisms actually mix with those of a more complex organism, creating a new species.

It is more than just possible that some species appeared rather suddenly. In the link that you provided earlier the first example was of a plant that speciated over the course of one season and became established over the course of only about 20 years. Which goes back to the ppoint I am trying to make. Evolution happens but so far there have been no examples showing it to be gradual over long periods of time as a result of mutations and survival of the fittest. IMO we need to seriously consider abandoning the mutation theory.

This is a fascinating subject, with a lot of unknowns. What is certain is that many new discoveries remain to be made, and that the basic theory of life having evolved from simple to more complex organisms is not going to be refuted at this point.

I agree in part. We have demonstrated that a few species have speciated from simple to complex and in ways different from the standard theory. We cannot yet generalized that to all species.

 

[PLC1]

If you have not demonstrated that it evolved then you cannot say that it no doubt did evolve. You could have demonstrated that either through observation or deduction and you have done neither. Additionally, if we were to demonstrate that one or some organisms evolved from single cell organisms you would still not know that all did.





If evolution explains the process it could still have been by the hand of a creator. I never said that I was limiting myself to non-theistic explanations so it does not matter if evolution says nothing about a creator or not. (though too many evolutionists do have something to say about a creator when they should remain silent on the issue)

Ha. My bad. aI did not mean always even that is what I wrote. I just meant prior to the time when the mayfly you described existed.



It is more than just possible that some species appeared rather suddenly. In the link that you provided earlier the first example was of a plant that speciated over the course of one season and became established over the course of only about 20 years. Which goes back to the ppoint I am trying to make. Evolution happens but so far there have been no examples showing it to be gradual over long periods of time as a result of mutations and survival of the fittest. IMO we need to seriously consider abandoning the mutation theory.



I agree in part. We have demonstrated that a few species have speciated from simple to complex and in ways different from the standard theory. We cannot yet generalized that to all species.

OK, so those species that did not evolve, where did they come from? What is the alternative?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

OK, so those species that did not evolve, where did they come from? What is the alternative?

magic

 

[Dr.Who]

OK, so those species that did not evolve, where did they come from? What is the alternative?

I did not say that the species did not evolve.

I said that it has not been demonstrated that they evolved in the way that standard evolutionary theory would suppose they would.

Without support for one particular theory the standard operating procedure for scientists is to generate a list of hypotheses and test each one. Instead what is happening in evolutionary circles is that they are becoming more vehement that they are right and they are searching, a priori, for support for the theory that is less supported by the facts than others.

 

[Dr.Who]

magic

Snide comments don't make much sense when you don't keep up with the discussion.

Special creation is a hypothesis that would be testable if we were technically more advanced or if a creator decided to reveal Himself to us. However, a fundamental tenet of science is that it does not evaluate the non-empirical so examining that "hypothesis" is outside the realm of science not for purely for practical reasons but for ideological reasons.