From: smullins@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (Scott H Mullins)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Subject: Re: Examining the evidence for evolution (part 1)
Date: 17 Apr 92 19:09:27 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network


This entire discussion boils down to the folowing:

BB: There is a limit to the amount of change possible through evolution.
SM: Show that this is true.
BB: I do not have to provide evidence of this. We have only seen small
    changes occur, therefore only small changes are possible.
SM: But lots of small changes added together over time amount to large 
    changes.
BB: That is not possible.
SM: Why?
BB: Because we have only seen small changes.
etc. etc. ....

Notice there is no argument that there have been large amounts of time 
available for evolution to occur. This is a very weakened argument from
the one that claims the earth is only a few thousand years old and that 
therefore evolution has not had sufficient time.

I have broken the original post into two separate replies due to space.

>Scott Mullens writes:

Mullins, actually.

>
>>> me [BB]
>
>>>Evolutionists are also proposing the existence of X -'X' in this case being
>>>a process (or processes) which could create the variations we see between
>>>organisms.  It is therefore incumbent upon them to show evidence of this.
>>>Unless you require *equal* evidence from the holders of *each* theory, you
>>>are showing a double standard.
>
>>The process has been demonstrated. You admit this further on in your post.
>>Genetic variation coupled with natural selection has produced measurable
>>changes in species, in the wild, and in a realtively short perios of time.
>>(approx. 100 yrs). It has even produced a speciation event(s) (Hawaiian 
>>wallabies).
>
>"Measureable change" is not the issue.  What evolutionists claim is that all
>varities of life arose from one original form.  If they want to establish this
>theory scientifically, they need to show "change sufficient produce all
>varities of life." This is something *quite* different than "measureable
>change."  Examples of the latter do nothing to indicate that the former exists.

Wrong. It is not *quite* different than "measurable change". Change is
change. Examples of the latter show that "sufficient" change is possible. 
Geology, paleontology, and astronomy show that sufficient time is available
for "sufficient" change to happen.

>>In Rob's post "X" referred to _your_ proposed limit on possible variation.
>
>Correct.  But as I pointed out, and do so again, my proposal should be treated
>the same as others, in terms of the supporting evidence required.

Good. Then we can reject your proposal completely since there is no
supporting evidence whatsoever. The fact that _you_ do not observe
"sufficient" (in quotes this means sufficient for _you_) change in your
lifetime to "prove" (quotes for same reason as above) evolution is not 
evidence that "sufficient" change is not possible. Therefore, by your
own rules we can eliminate your proposal.

>>Again, a process for evolution has been proposed and demonstrated.
>
>The results demonstrated for the process do not come within orders of
>magnitude of the claims made for it.
>
>>You are claiming that there is a problem with this process because there is
>>a limit on the variation it could bring about.
>
>The problem is that, since no process has been demonstrated which produces
>the magnitude of change that evolution requires, the process of evolution is
>only a speculative process.  It is incorrect to treat it as a scientific fact.

I will state this again: process + time = "sufficient" change
I can tell that I am beating my head against a brick wall here. Your entire
argument is based on "I have not seen it therefore it did not happen".
Argument by obtuseness? Argument by lack of imagination?

>>SHOW THAT YOUR ASSERTION IS SO! PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE!
>
>The evidence is the measureable change observed in the wild that Scot
>referred to.  I also mentioned other examples -- fruit flys, agricultural
>research.  My proposal is that the magnitude of change which should be
>ascribed to genetic variation and natural selection be roughly that which we
>have observed. I take every example which shows change due to genetic
>variation and natural selection to be evidence as to the magnitude of change
>they can produce.

Wrong. This is not evidence that "sufficient" change is not possible. This
is evidence that change is possible and does happen.

>Those who say that theses cause can produce what we have *not* seen should
>explain why we should ignore the evidence.

Argument by lack of imagination again.

>>Given that you are talking about an _extremely_ short period of time (100's
>> yrs), yes the variation is limited. Given the time scale over which
>>neo-Darwinian processes have had to operate (100's of millions of years) the
>>change is _vast_.
>
>What is the evidence that vastly more change happens in vastly longer times?

The fossil record that you refuse to accept.

>>Do you understand the magnitude of difference between the amount of time 
>>people have been making such observations to the amount of time that
>>the earth has been supporting life? The difference in magnitude between the
>>age of the earth and all of recorded history? I think you do not. 
>
>Of course I do.  (For purposes of this discussion, I will use the commonly-
>accepted time scale.)
>
>However, the important ratio is not:
>
>     (time of life on earth) / (time of observation)      (ratio 1)
>
>but
>
>     (change during time of life) / (change during observation)    (ratio 2)
>
>In order to determine whether evolution is possible, we need to know the
>value of ratio 2.  Scott, and evolutionists in general, cite ratio 1.  This is
>only valid if you can show (NOT assume) the relationship between ratio 1 and
>ratio 2.
>
>>Your argument runs along the following lines: 
>>Where do books come from? There are two possibilities, either they are written
>>by people or they are created individually by supernatural forces. Lets 
>>examine the evidence; a book is hundreds of pages long and a person can only 
>>type around 30 words per minute. Therefore typing is not a mechanism that
>>could have produced books.
>
>At this point, Scott's argument deviates completly from mine!  He starts, as I
>did, by saying "Let's examine the evidence."  What do we find when we do so?
>we find that there are observations showing that people *have produced* books
>by typing.  Following my argument that the capapabilities of a process should
>be based on what we observe it to do leads directly to the conclusion that
>books can be produced by typing.
>
>Somehow, Scott reaches the opposite conclusion.

Somehow, you have ignored the point to my analogy. Let me try again, though
I begin to think it a waste of my time. Your observation time is exactly
one minute long. In one minute you can not observe someone write a book.
Understand? If you have deliberately misconstrued my analogy then you are
a real slimey son of a bitch. (note no smiley and the _if_)

>>>That depends on how you look at it.  Evolutionists see no larger examples of
>>>change in the present than I do.  We agree on these present examples.
>
>>>The difference is that evolutionists use a model in which change increases
>>>with time.  There is another possible model in which the magnitude of change
>>>increases to its maximum fairly quickly and then remains relatively constant.
>
>>Wrong! Most models of evolution I have seen argue that evolution procedes
>>at a _relatively_ constant rate (all arguments of punctuated eq. and genetic
>>clocks aside). Where did you get this idea from?
>
>"My" idea was that "evolutionists use a model in which change increases with
>time."  How is that different than what Scott says?

The phrasing of your statement made me think you were talking about the rate
of evolution rather than the total amount.

>>>We don't know which (if either) of these models is correct.
>
>>>To base a theory only on one model when multiple models are possible is an
>>>assumption.
>
>>To base a theory on the only model shown to agree with the evidence is good
>>sense.
>
>I agree.
>
>The evidence: Examples of changes known to be caused by genetic variation and
>     natural selection, all of which are trivial in magnitude compared to the
>     changes to produce all life through evolution.
>
>Theory 1 (as I propose): The magnitude of changes caused by genetic variation
>     and natural selection is most likely trivial compared to the magnitude
>     of change needed to produce all life through evolution.
>
>Theory 2 (as evolutionists  propose): The magnitude of changes caused by
>     genetic variation and natural selection is at least equal to the
>     magnitude of change needed to produce all life through evolution.
>
>According to the standard given above, those who want to base their models
>on theory 2 need to show that it agrees with the evidence.  But to this point,
>Scott has only said I am wrong and that I have not provided evidence.  I
>disagree with the latter.  However, even if he is right on this,  this does
>not establish his theory.  If he does not show how it agrees with the evidence
>better than my theory (which is derived from the evidence), there is no reason
>for me to accept it.

The "evidence" you provide is not the evidence you need. The relatively small
changes observed are evidence that change is possible, not that larger amounts
of change are impossible.

I will attempt another analogy:

1+1 = 2
1+1+1 = 3
.
.
.
1+.........+1 = 10**1000

Show that the last line is possible, that is, that there is some way that
10**1000 can be formed by summing together enough ones. I claim that there is
a limit to the largest number that can be formed using this sort of sum.
The only proof I will accept is for you to sit down and actually perform the
sum. In other words, _show me_.

end analogy.

[deletions]
>It undoubtedly is true that we can't do the expierments needed to verify
>evolution.  What conc;usions can we draw from this?  Evolutionists seem to
>somehow conclude that, if they can't determine whether evolution is true or
>false, they are entitled to assume it is true.  This is not a scientific
>conclusion.  The scientific conclusion is that, since we don't know if
>evolution is true or false, *we cannot claim definately one way or the other.

Partly correct. We can not assert with absolute and irrefutable certainty
that evolution is correct. Whoever said that anything in science is
absolute and irrefutable? Actually nothing is.

I have a return question for you BB. Where are the flowers? In the fossil
record, I mean.

Scott