What constitutes scientific evidence? I have already written that science cannot be done in a vacuum, nor should science be confused with history. I left last week with a question about the nature of scientific evidence, how it is used, and how it supports or refutes the claims given. Before I get into that, I need to go into what scientific evidence is NOT.
Scientific evidence is NOT a mathematical construct. Math never lies; however, wrong equations certainly will. When studying origins, it is critical to understand the difference between the models being proposed and the scientific studies those models are built with. This goes for both the Evolution side and the Creationist side, and I fear both sides get so excited about their models that they forget where the science stops. That being said, Creationists generally tend to be more aware of this issue than their secular peers.
When Stanley Miller and Harold Urey performed their classic experiment to try to generate amino acids, they had their concoctions based upon the scientific principles they knew to try to generate them. They did get a few, however it was mostly mush, racemic, and most certainly not anything resembling even primitive life forms. Here is my question about this experiment: how could anyone know the conditions they were testing is what was present way back when? The whole experiment was not based on observations of these acids coming together by natural means, but how they could generate them under very specific conditions. The same issues goes for stellar evolution and the formation of stars. The model is these giant gas clouds start condensing and heating up, and with enough forces to keep them contained from expanding, nuclear fusion takes place and stars are formed. Problem: There’s never been a single observation of gases doing this on their own. The gas laws themselves would force expansion long before gravity could corral them together. These are examples of looking at possible scientific formulas we have discovered and trying to come up with possible configurations of how they could work together to produce the Evolutionary model. These are not scientific evidences, but mathematical constructs. As I said at the beginning of this post: math does not lie, but wrong equations will.
But what about the Young Earth Creation side? We have had several models from the Canopy Theory, to the Hydroplane Theory, to White Hole Cosmology, and others. YEC too take the mathematical constructs of what we know and observe, go check out the historical account of the Bible, and construct a model of how the events of Genesis could take place. This looks very similar to what the secularists do, but there is one critical difference: YEC starts with a known history in the Bible. That does not make YEC a scientific model, nor a scientific claim. It is a historical claim. YEC need to be careful here, because it is really easy for us to deride the secular models for their lack of actual science in their models when some of our own may fall into the same trap. Of both sides, YEC is the only one to anchor their models to something concrete: the Bible. Of both sides, only YEC’s models reflect the observations we have made in the real world.
What are other scientific claims that are not actually scientific? The Phylogenetic tree has been cited to me by a PhD in population genetics to be the best evidence for Evolution. There’s one big problem: the whole tree has no actual science behind it. It’s purely an opinion. When Carl Linnaeus organized the classification system it was arbitrarily how he chose to organize the species. He could have used any other way to combine things. Here is an example: Is a bat a bird or a mammal? Answer: It’s an opinion of how you organize things. A bat is classified as a mammal because it gives birth to live young and feeds its young with milk, but one could easily classify it as a bird because it flies. It’s just an arbitrary opinion, a convention we have chosen to adopt.
What is the scientific test that determines what is a species? A genus? A phylum? There is none. The Bible-skeptics keep asking YEC what a “kind” is and the ironic thing is that a “kind” is the ONLY classification of species that has a scientific test that goes with it: Can the species interbreed? If so then we have the same kind. If we have documented evidence of interbreeding, we can call it the same kind. It is not arbitrary nor opinion-based.
The classic textbook evidence for Evolution is homology. Every book has the pictures of different forelimbs showing the similar structures. It’s nice to show similarity but similarity involves something else: opinion. What no one ever cites is the evidence that actually links them together. What is the evidence that links man and apes? Chromosome 2 fusion, which has no evidence fusion actually took place, and even if it did, the timing creates a problem for the evolutionary claim. The evidence is “similarity in DNA,” which again is an opinion. There is no experiment done to show the connection. There is observation, but observation is not science. It is part of science, but just observing characteristics does not make it scientific. You need experimentation, including testing and repeating. And a skeptic of the claim needs to be able to go and validate the claims independently (assuming given the same resources and funding) to call it science.
I frequently hear Evolution is to biology as gravity is to physics. The problem is that someone who doesn’t believe in gravity can go do the experiments, and no one can do any experiments for Evolution. There hasn’t been enough time. That makes it an interesting theory but NOT a scientific theory. YEC are constantly harassed for calling Evolution just a theory, accusing them of not understanding what a scientific theory is. Actually they mean exactly what they say: It’s just a proposition. They mean precisely that it is not a scientific theory. It has never been demonstrated scientifically, and we have numerous quotes in writing from numerous experts in science and academia that agree.
Scientific evidence must pass through the scientific process or it is not a scientific claim. To be scientific it must be observable, testable, and repeatable. You can have evidence that is not scientific, as every court system well knows. You can use science to reinforce a historical piece of evidence. Archaeologists do this all the time to determine if an artifact belongs to this time period or that time period or this culture or that culture. The pottery and manuscripts do undergo some scientific tests for certain details but none of them are scientific evidence; they are historical evidence.
However, the evidence needs to do more than just back up a claim. It needs to work together cohesively with other evidences to validate a claim. Does the evidence give a quality explanation for the claims? More on that next week.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
20 comments:
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/scientific-evidence.html
"What is the scientific test that determines what is a species? A genus? A phylum? There is none. The Bible-skeptics keep asking YEC what a “kind” is and the ironic thing is that a “kind” is the ONLY classification of species that has a scientific test that goes with it: Can the species interbreed? If so then we have the same kind."
That only works if you are saying that kind means species. (And therefore every land-based species had to board Noah's Ark as in Genesis 6: 19-20.) Is that what you believe? (I rather suspect it is not.)
"There hasn’t been enough time." There has been plenty of time in Earth history but we can't (genuinely) go back in time and evolution is slow so too little time has elapsed since scientists were looking for real-time evidence of evolution 'in action'. And of course evolution is a scientific theory. Still not debunked.
Members of the same species can routinely breed successfully. Not so for so-called 'kinds' if that means eg genera.
"The Phylogenetic tree has been cited to me by a PhD in population genetics to be the best evidence for Evolution. There’s one big problem: the whole tree has no actual science behind it. It’s purely an opinion."
No. It is NOT just an opinion. There is tons of "actual science behind it." Massive volumes of documented experiments and observations based upon the scientific method cannot be casually dismissed. Telling one's self that they don't exist may be comforting but it is a habit that is neither wise nor Biblical. (The Book of Proverbs contains many warnings about rejecting wisdom and knowledge and the instruction of those who possess knowledge.)
Moreover, the development of genome mapping has been a powerful, slam-dunk, continual series of confirmations for the phylogenetic trees which had already been developed and published for centuries. They won't go away just because some people don't like them and fear their implications when compared with deeply cherished, manmade traditions which have recently arisen in some denominations and fellowships of American fundamentalism.
Your claim that there is "no actual science behind it" is what is purely an opinion.
Yes, I understand that you believe that the international science academy is wrong and that you are exposing vast gaps and deficiencies in well-documented science. And yes, it can be fun to think that you have it right and everybody else has it wrong. It appeals to the flesh. Unfortunately, there is a long history of this kind of science-denialism in some segments of the Christian world for centuries now---and it has a very consistent, well-documented losing streak. (e.g., Read some of the rants by Martin Luther et al against the idea of the earth and the other planets orbiting the sun.) Indeed, most Christians prefer to forget those many anti-science propaganda failures in the history of Western Christianity. Yet, it is nothing new and history tends to repeat itself.
It is not just similarities per se which support the relationships in phylogenetic trees. It is the fact that those similarities fall into predictable nested hierarchies---and that the homologies of those nested trees also correspond so beautifully with the molecular nested hierarchies found in comparing the genome maps. Indeed, that evidence is so overwhelming that I've noticed a significant number of Young Earth Creationists misrepresenting outright that data, often using deceptive quote-mining to claim that the two are in obvious conflict rather than in harmony. (As a result, many of my Christian brethren in the science academy accuse them of lying outright. I am usually hesitant to call it lying when I can't necessarily determine the underlying motives and exactly what an author does and doesn't understand about the science. Obviously, I would prefer to think that those who publish such falsehoods are simply ignorant of the science, and are not intent on deliberately lying about it. Yet, I can't help but wonder. Nevertheless, The Lord alone will determine why they misrepresent so much of the evidence.)
Of course, if they are certain that the science academy is wrong and that they have evidence and analysis which can discredit phylogenetic trees and debunk the Theory of Evolution itself, they are welcomed to publish their ground-breaking exposition in a respected peer-reviewed journal which will immediately grab the attention of the entire world. That's how Albert Einstein exposed the shortcomings of Newtonian physics. Rewriting and/or replacing a long-established concept in the textbooks is the best route to fame and academic tenure---and a virtually certain Nobel Prize for the one who debunks the Theory of Evolution. Within a year or two you can count on a Nova program on PBS , entirely devoted to such a groundbreaking accomplishment---along with a flattering biography and interesting sound-bites from former schoolmates and neighbors.
On the other hands if God has filled his creation with evidence of its history and with plenty of examples of observable evolutionary processes all around us, we have no reason to deny the abundant Divine revelations in God's grand book of truth which we call the universe. Indeed, seeing how God authored both the universe and the Bible, any perceived conflict between the two must be in our perception and interpretation of one, the other, or both. God doesn't contradict himself, so we must constantly be aware of human fallibility in interpreting God's revelations in scripture and in creation.
The world of science loves to see established paradigms toppled. But it requires documented evidence which survives the scrutiny of peer-review, not just opinions and Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacies. The evolution-denialists will only begin to be respected by the Christians and non-Christians of the science academy when they finally start getting beyond mere opinions, misrepresentations, deceptive quote-mines, and personal incredulity.
Christ-followers who are genuinely interested in resolving the traditionally perceived conflicts between God's revelations in his creation and his revelations in the scriptures will find like-minded seekers among the many YEC, OEC, EC, and other Christian brethren at the Biologos.org website, many of whom are Ph.D. scientists and theologians actively researching and publishing in academic fields relevant to these topics. Those who are accustomed to the perpetually recycled, trite slogans and lame pseudoscience of "creation science" ministries and origins industry entrepreneurs will find the differences in knowledge and experience refreshing. The Biologos discussion forum warmly welcomes the challenges of Young Earth Creationist visitors. (Read the forum archives to see what I mean.)
Rather than preaching to the choir, why not try out those anti-evolution arguments against the evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, geneticists, genomic engineers, taxonomists, Bible translators, missionaries, and Biblical scholars who author the Biologos.org articles and frequent the forum? Can your "worldview" withstand the scrutiny of knowledgeable Christian brethren? Or can it only survive in protected echo chambers where contrary ideas are quickly censored so that readers are never allowed to learn of equally committed and God-fearing Christian brethren who praise God for the evolutionary processes he created to carry out his Divine will?
Ashley,
The Biblical understanding of a "kind" is not the same as modern taxonomy. We tend to describe them as somewhat similar to between a genus and family, but please keep in mind that there are 14 definitions that science has used to describe species. Among them is the Biblical understanding of "kind" and the modern sub-taxa of genus. The way AiG is running their kind tests is they go back in history and look for any documentation of different species interbreding. That is why they put foxes in with the "wolf" kind. Because there have been some documents of such happening, while today I believe that would not happen. I don't agree with everything they say, but that should be a reasonable approach, even if it is not perfect.
You admit that Evolution cannot be directly observed because we cannot go back in time and not enough time has passed for looking for such evidence and you still expect me to believe it is scientific? Again, where is the application of the scientific method? Observable, testable, repeatable. This does not debunk Evolution. It simply proves it's not a scientific theory. Here is the definition provided by Wiki.
//A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]//
Where is the scientific method used with Evolution? You admitted they can't do it. Where is the repeated testing? Where is the protocol of observations and experiments? Why can't any expert actually point us to any of this? I hear the claims that it can withstand scrutiny, but who is doing the scrutiny? I ask about test cases all the time and that very term is a total foreign concept. A robust method is able to address unusual data input. Evolutionists loath to even try to test their methods for robustness. If Evolution does not fit the definition of a scientific theory, I can't call it that. I would by ignorant, lying, or both. Evolution can be considered an interesting theory, but you can't call it scientific unless it COMPLETELY fits that definition. All that being said, I will not call Creation a scientific theory either because it does not fit the definition.
"Professor Tertius"
// Massive volumes of documented experiments and observations based upon the scientific method cannot be casually dismissed.//
So what were these experiments and observations that Carl Linnaeus use to develop the tree? Not those done after the fact. What were the tests used to initially create the tree because that is what I am addressing?
//(The Book of Proverbs contains many warnings about rejecting wisdom and knowledge and the instruction of those who possess knowledge.) //
The rest of the Bible also contains many warnings about listening to false knowledge and false teachers...especially when they are of the world system and know not of God. Keep that in mind as you continue to support worldly wisdom. 1 Corinthians 1 says a lot about the wisdom of the world. You've not done a good job at demonstrating you know the difference between the world's wisdom and God's wisdom, because you use the former a lot.
//Moreover, the development of genome mapping has been a powerful, slam-dunk, continual series of confirmations for the phylogenetic trees which had already been developed and published for centuries. They won't go away just because some people don't like them and fear their implications when compared with deeply cherished, manmade traditions which have recently arisen in some denominations and fellowships of American fundamentalism. //
And yet it is us YEC who have been decades ahead of that process, not you guys. We knew what the "Junk DNA" did years before you ever considered it would have function. We should expect DNA to have a lot of similarities within the trees but I got news for you: had the tree been organized any other way...the "predictions" would still follow the same patterns. I would expect the DNA comparisons to follow the same patterns as the tree. It would follow the same patterns under any organization pattern. Again, using bats as the example. They were put under mammals because they feed their young with milk. So there will be DNA similarities between bats and all mammals because they have that phenotype in common. But if they were put under birds because they fly...guess what...the commonality between bats and birds would also be similar. That doesn't prove the tree to be true at all, let alone any evolutionary relationships. You need something a lot stronger than "similarity" to demonstrate common ancestry. You also need something a lot more than common gene sequences. Here is proof. The FOXP2 is over 400 amino acids long. The difference between this gene is apes and humans are are mere two amino acids. Yet the functionality is VASTLY different. Why? Because there's more the equation than what the expressed code offers. We are looking for that. Are your scientists? I would dare say no because it will lead to refuting their arguments.
//Your claim that there is "no actual science behind it" is what is purely an opinion. //
So instead of claiming there is science behind it, show it. Again, I'm looking at the basis for building the tree, not for analyzing the tree after it was already built. Everything you mentioned was done after the fact and was not used in building the tree to begin with.
Professor Tertius cont...
//It is not just similarities per se which support the relationships in phylogenetic trees. It is the fact that those similarities fall into predictable nested hierarchies---and that the homologies of those nested trees also correspond so beautifully with the molecular nested hierarchies found in comparing the genome maps.//
What are the "predictions"? I hear that claim repeated frequently and word for word, I feel like I am talking to a parrot. So you have all mammals able to feed their young with milk. The "predictions" you are making is "we should be able to predict that the genomes in primates would have the code for young to feed upon milk". That's not a prediction. That should be a logical conclusion. Yet that kind of thing is what Evolutionists call "predictions" and when it's not that, it is something contrived to make it fit such as Tiktaalic, where with more scientific investigation, it has been revealed that it cannot be the "missing link" it is proclaimed to be. A prediction is not a logical deduction. You and Bill Nye and many other "scientists" need to realize this.
// Indeed, that evidence is so overwhelming that I've noticed a significant number of Young Earth Creationists misrepresenting outright that data, often using deceptive quote-mining to claim that the two are in obvious conflict rather than in harmony.//
Yet, it is so hard for the very experts you listen to to show us any of it. If you are so concerned about us misrepresenting the data, perhaps you could show us by example what that looks like? I haven't seen you do it yet. For all your former defense of YEC as you claim to have done, I am quite amazed at how ignorant you are of our actual arguments.
//Of course, if they are certain that the science academy is wrong and that they have evidence and analysis which can discredit phylogenetic trees and debunk the Theory of Evolution itself, they are welcomed to publish their ground-breaking exposition in a respected peer-reviewed journal which will immediately grab the attention of the entire world. //
You clearly only know how peer review is SUPPOSED to work, not how it actually works. We will never be accepted into the scientific community and science has nothing to do with it. They accept you because you aren't a threat to their Godless system. We are. Have you looked into what Mary Schweitzer when through to get her discovery published? She's not even a YEC, but her discovery certainly created a stir. Her supervisor sent her back 17 times because he refused to believe it was soft-tissue. She struggled with numerous publishers to get them to look at it and ultimately it wasn't until she came up with the iron preservation claim that enabled her to get through...why? Because they had to keep the Evolutionary model intact.
//Rewriting and/or replacing a long-established concept in the textbooks is the best route to fame and academic tenure---and a virtually certain Nobel Prize for the one who debunks the Theory of Evolution.//
And doing so is the most difficult thing to do. We can't even get them to remove the junk that has been long proven false. The Haekel fraud is the most cited example of this, not only because it is one of the best examples of repeated lies in the textbooks that even Stephen Gould long fought to get them out (Eugenie Scott has a problem with taking them out, because while knowing they are false, they are useful to "prove a fact"). Haekel's faked drawings are also the most documented case of textbooks that don't update on the most accurate scientific evidence. The only Nobel Prize that will go to disproving Evolution will go to the one who provides another Godless alternative. What is also interesting is no one has won a Nobel Prize for PROVING Evolution to be true. You guys compare Evolution to gravity all the time. Ever heard of a physicist comparing gravity to Evolution? I haven't.
Professor Terius cont...
//On the other hands if God has filled his creation with evidence of its history and with plenty of examples of observable evolutionary processes all around us, we have no reason to deny the abundant Divine revelations in God's grand book of truth which we call the universe. Indeed, seeing how God authored both the universe and the Bible, any perceived conflict between the two must be in our perception and interpretation of one, the other, or both.//
Ah, the classic "The universe is the 67th book of the Bible" claim. You need more than observation to call it science. You need to be able to test it and repeat it. And no scientist will ever say we know much about this universe. They will say something along with "the more we know, the more we know we don't know". Many scientists say we know less than 1% of what there is to know about the universe. So considering how little you do know, and considering that with even a little more scientific investigations, every evidence for a old earth falls apart. Yes, we are fallible and yet any conflict must be in our interpretation of science, the Bible or both. Yet, you side 100% with secular science every time and adjust your understanding of the Bible with the ever-changes tides of the times. That doesn't make you educated. It makes you gullible. Because if the scientists got together and said a giant potato made everything, you'd believe it. I can stand firm among the winds and waves this world has to offer because I stand on something concrete and does not change.
//The world of science loves to see established paradigms toppled.//
Ever read Thomas Khun? He strongly disagrees and every observation of the scientific community disagrees as well. It's well claimed...but never carried out. And even if that was the case, that is strong reason to NOT trust the paradigms because it means they are not trustworthy. So with this very statement, you undermine your own position. You say you'd love to see the evidence that disproves Evolution. No you don't. Because you dismiss it without even thinking about it. I've watched you. You've never thought it all through. If it's brought up by a YEC you automatically dismiss it just because its from a YEC. I've never seen you actually think through any evidence; you just repeat what you have read.
//The evolution-denialists will only begin to be respected by the Christians and non-Christians of the science academy when they finally start getting beyond mere opinions, misrepresentations, deceptive quote-mines, and personal incredulity.//
This might be news for you, but we really don't care about the opinions of the scientific community. It's clear you do. We care about being right to the Word of God. And woe to the one who seeks the praise of men, because that's all your going to get. We will never be respected by the scientific community because we actually believe God did what he did in Genesis...and is the real boss over the creation. We also believe he is the standard of truth and that he is God...and we are not. Have you even tried to listen to the scientific community? They think they are God. They think they are cause of the problems and they think they are the solution. Again, nothing wrong with science. But when you make science your god, that's idolatry. And you keep following idolaters...and mock and ridicule us for not following suit.
Professor Tertius cont...
I have looked at what the heretical Biologos have said. No, I not interested in participating there. Sure we will be welcome...as a sheep is welcome into a wolves' den. I'm not stupid. You are not welcoming of other ideas. You can't show us by example what you want us to do. Not all who call themselves Christian are Christian. And the only evidence you have presented in being one is your claim. Yet every word you say betrays such claims. You cannot love God and the world system. You do not believe the Bible, because if you did, you would submit to it. You do believe the world, because you submit to them. That makes you an enemy of God. That's the Bible saying it, not me. I seriously recommend studying 1 John and 2 Corinthians 13:5, because you fail basic fruit inspection.
// Can your "worldview" withstand the scrutiny of knowledgeable Christian brethren? Or can it only survive in protected echo chambers where contrary ideas are quickly censored so that readers are never allowed to learn of equally committed and God-fearing Christian brethren who praise God for the evolutionary processes he created to carry out his Divine will? //
And you think you are an example of that? Please [note the sarcasm]. Trying to bounce my worldview off you or Biologos is like asking a kindergartner who hasn't learned how to count to ten how my calculus is? You really think we are just an echo chamber? We bounce our ideas off each other no differently than your scientific community bounces their ideas around....only we actually do correct each other when we are wrong. It's not our ideas that can only survive in protected echo chambers. We don't require government protection or funding to defend itself. We don't require suing institutions for teaching ideas contrary to our own. Yours does. I know who I can trust and I don't trust yes men. I certainly don't trust those who cover their selfish, worldly ideas with Christianity. I'm not talking about OEC/TE exclusively on that one.
You may be equally committed but you certainly are NOT equally God-fearing. At least not regarding the One True God. Unlike you, I don't define who God is or what he did. I agree with what he said he is like and what he said he did. I get myself out of the way and I submit to and agree with him. The god who creates via Evolution is no god at all, because he doesn't exist. Just like Evolution itself, such a god is a figment of the imagination. I have no desire to "prove my case" over in your forums. Nor do I have any need to. I have no need to be as the Greek scholars who want nothing but discussions and never get to anything factual. When Paul went before them, not only did he not compromise to make his message "palatable" to them, he flat out told them they were all wrong. They called Paul a "babbler" a bumbling fool, talking nonsense. They were not interested in his message. They wanted to mock and ridicule him. Sound familiar? It should. Because YEC and actual Christianity have gone hand in hand. OEC/TE (like Biologos) have gone hand in hand with the world system, feigning Christianity but denying the power thereof. I'll stick with Scripture, even if it looks foolish to you and the scientific community. The world never received the Gospel either. It should be no surprise they won't accept the Creation part of the Gospel.
AiG at least have concocted a definition/description of 'kind' that is based upon fiction not even the Bible, and has never ever been observed and is unsupported by any evidence from nature (see mainly the second link).
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/what-are-kinds-in-genesis/
"A plain reading of the text infers that plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind."
No supporting verse is quoted and that looks like agenda-driven eisegesis. I would suggest that a plain reading is that 'kind' refers to what we today call 'species' and the Bible is saying that two members of the same SPECIES (not kind in a wider eg 'all birds' or 'all passerine birds' sense) normally can successfully produce viable offspring and thus perhaps multiply in number. Hybridisation of natural species (ones not altered by Man as with some garden plant cultivars) is comparatively rare in nature (can the offspring breed) and not hinted at in Genesis either.
And this is pure FICTION (as well as not being found in scripture)
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/did-natural-selection-play-a-role-in-speciation/
"In our series, we’ve concluded that many new species have formed from the kinds that Noah took on board the Ark. We also observed that, when God created the kinds, He frontloaded them with genetic differences—with the potential to form all sorts of new species and varieties."
The Bible does NOT say 'God created kinds'. It simply uses the phrase in some English translations 'according to kind'. The animals described in Genesis 1 and 2 exist NOW (and they are members of species).
"You admit that Evolution cannot be directly observed because we cannot go back in time and not enough time has passed for looking for such evidence and you still expect me to believe it is scientific?" Some object due to religious adherence, but so far it continues to meet scientific tests for a science theory. Predictions have been made and some were confirmed eg a fossil like Tiktaalik was indeed discovered. But it is your right to disbelieve evolution. However I think I also have the right to challenge your non-factual claim that evolution is "not a scientific theory".
Ashley,
Is AiG required to quote Scripture for every single statement, when it is quite obvious what they are referencing? How exactly is "God created kinds" different from "And God said....according to their kinds?" I find the differentiation to be pulling at straws to find something to complain against. Now, did you read the rest of the article? Such as this statement?
//If two animals can produce a hybrid, then they are considered to be of the same kind.1 However, the inability to produce offspring does not necessarily rule out that the animals are of the same kind, since this may be the result of mutations (since the Fall). //
Is there a problem with using this as a test?
Hybridization is indeed rare today, however mutation rates have certainly proven to take place faster than what most think and while it can happen today, it would certainly happen more often in the past.
What exactly is fiction about their description of the kinds? Are you talking about the "boundaries"? I admit it is rather hard to pinpoint an exact definition of these but if you look at all the observations we DO make, it certainly indicates there is something there. We have not observed anything that indicated common ancestry between the kinds such as cats and dogs, finches and eagles, etc. For me to consider common ancestry, I need something a bit stronger than "similarity" and what already matches my own model.
//Some object due to religious adherence, but so far it continues to meet scientific tests for a science theory. Predictions have been made and some were confirmed eg a fossil like Tiktaalik was indeed discovered. But it is your right to disbelieve evolution. However I think I also have the right to challenge your non-factual claim that evolution is "not a scientific theory". //
If it actually matched the definition, I'd consider it a scientific theory. But it has not been observed, it has not been tested, it certainly has not been repeated. The scientific process has not been carried out to demonstrate it. And if you think it has, there are a lot of PhDs that would like to know about it because they keep looking for it. They never can point to anything to us concrete that does not have issues of its own. Tiktaalik is one of those examples that is a claimed prediction fullfiller but after more thorough investigation, it showed to fall through. It's at least not a fraud like numerous other proposed links but according to Evolution's own time line, what Tiktaalik was to evolve into was already around 20 million years before it was found. So it does not do what you need it to do. Yes, I am entitled to my opinions. You are entitled to yours. That doesn't make mine "non-factual". To make it so, you'd need to earn your Nobel Prize for doing something 200 years of science has not been able to do: demonstrate scientifically that Evolution has actually taken place. You got nice stories, but it's not science.
AiG (and you) are not the word of God. (Nor of course am I.) This whole 'kind' stuff is pure eisegesis. Genesis refers to creatures reproducing and multiplying (not to hybridisation as far as I can ascertain).
I already told you what (from AiG) I consider 'pure fiction'. "He frontloaded them with genetic differences—with the potential to form all sorts of new species and varieties." None of that is found in the Bible. But speciation is certainly real. Thus YECs are pretending that it was 'in the Bible all along'.
They also ignore the fact that scientists often struggle to categorise ancient fossils as either dinosaurs or (extinct) birds (suggesting the breaching of a YEC 'kind boundary') even though the Bible says they were created on separate days and thus all dinosaur/reptile 'kinds' must be entirely 'separate' from all bird 'kinds'.
It is unsurprising that YECs have attempted to debunk Tiktaalik (but the exact morphology of the fossil, in line with what was predicted, still exists).
"You got nice stories, but it's not science." I beg to differ. Because it's not just 'my' stories.
Okay, Ashley, I'll humor you. For argument's sake, let's say AiG's understanding of a "kind" is rather made up and not based on the Bible. Would that have any impact on the argument I made? The answer is no, not one bit. Allow me to refresh your memory. The argument I made is that the "kind" has a scientific test that goes along with it. I quoted it above twice, once in the article and once here in the comments. The other part of the argument is that the entire phylogenetic tree has no scientific test that goes with it. And since you have argued against an issue I was not making, allow me to clarify it for you. What is the scientific test that determines what belongs in a genus or an order, or a phylum? I am not asking about comparing genetic sequences that is already inherent with the organization. I'm asking for something that is not arbitrary in the establishing of the taxonomies. That is the argument I made. If you wish to challenge me on that, you are free to do so...but you are not challenging me when you are semantics as you are doing now. When your best argument is over semantics, it shows you really have no answer for the argument being made.
"What is the scientific test that determines what is a species? A genus? A phylum? There is none. The Bible-skeptics keep asking YEC what a “kind” is and the ironic thing is that a “kind” is the ONLY classification of species that has a scientific test that goes with it: Can the species interbreed? If so then we have the same kind." No. Almost without exception we have the same species or perhaps sub-species. Not some vague made-up 'kind' which could according to young earth creationist apologists sometimes refer to a whole biological family.
The phylogenetic tree as it is referenced at your link is unlikely to be 100 per cent correct, but the fact is that fossil, genetic and dating evidence makes it possible to sketch out such a (bushy) tree. And not an 'orchard' of separate trees.
Again, Ashley, you are battling definition semantics and not the argument being made. You fail to realize the phylogentic tree was created BEFORE the fossil, genetic, and dating evidences had come around. Even then, none of them actually addresses what I am talking about. None of them can be used to determine what belongs in a genus, or order, or family, or phylum. Why? Because the classifications were already determined prior to analysis. Address this issue first. I'm not going to let you dominate this discussion on a rabbit trail in attempt to keep away from the actual argument I made.
Tell me what allegedly ignored argument you have put forward (that is pertinent to this discussion) because I cannot see any such argument (just your far-fetched fantasies about an alleged scientific test existing for so-called YEC 'kinds' only, 'kinds' being a term you have not even defined - ie an argument that I have not already addressed and indeed shredded).
I already explained it to you four comments above this one for the upteenth time. I'm not going to repeat myself again. If you refuse to see it, that's your problem, not mine.
For information only ie not expecting this to appear as a comment though would not object if it did:
http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3812&p=51541#p51541
I'm not going to stop you from saying what you will over there. But we do appreciate the free advertising.
Post a Comment