From: bobb@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Bob Bales)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Examining the evidence for evolution (part 1)
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:58:49 GMT


Scott Mullens writes:

>> me

>>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

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

>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?

>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.

>>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?

>>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 analagous situation regarding evolution would be to start with the
>>orignal organism, or close to it, determine what other organisms variation
>>could produce, look at them likewise, continuing in this manner until
>>reaching all organisms that could be, or were, produced.

>I see. So to satisify your criterion of evidence for evolution all we have to
>do is create a simulation of the entire history of the earth from the moment
>of accretion to the moment that I am writing these words. You don't ask for
>much, do you?

The criterion I am using is that if someone wants me to believe that something
actually happened, they should show that it did.  But it is not "my"
criterion.  It is the criterion acepted and used in areas of science other
than evolutionary theory.

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.

>Actually we do not need to do this. We have the evidence of the original to
>examine and evolution explains it very well.

This is not so. If evolution explained the evidence, then it could be derived
from the evidence.  But consider the present discussion. My position is that
the characteristics of change due to genetic variation and natural selection
should be derived from the examples (evidence) of such change.  The
evolutionists, on the other hand, say the examples we have don't fairly
represent such change.

The same thing occurs in other areas.  Evolution says that innumerable
organisms existed as transitions between the forms we see.  When we look at
the evidence, we see none that these forms existed.  Evolutionists have
theories as to why we don't see the organisms that they say existed.  But
theories are not evidence.  If we look at just the evidence, there is no
reason to believe the organisms existed.  Evolution does not explain the
evidence, but adds to it.

>As an example:
>All of your arguments that this or that fossil is not a transitional form
>simply begs the question. You claim that Archaeopteryx is not a 
>transitional form because many (but not all!) of the "reptilian" 
>characteristics attributed to it can be found in present day birds.

Why should the features found in present-day birds even be called
"reptillian?"

>You say that "bird x has this _A_ characteristic" and "bird y has this 
>_A_ characteristic" and so on. You are making a very good case to me that 
>_A_ is really the common ancestor of these present day species since each
>of them contain some special resemblance to _A_ as well as having most
>of the usual bird-like features.


If we already know (or assume) that present-day species have a common ancestor,
this is so. However, when the goal is to show that evolution is correct, common
ancestry must be the outcome of the argument and cannot be used at the start.
Under these circumstances, the characteristics of _A_ and of present-day birds
do not, by themselves make such a case.  To make the case for common ancestry,
you need a scientific observation or experiment showing that the pattern of
characteristics *would* exist if there was common ancestry and *would not*
exist if there was not common ancestry.  What is this observation/experiment?

>What you are not explaining is:

>1. Why _A_ lived on the earth only in the time period it did. Why don't
>   we see them today?

_A_ has, obviously, become extinct.  The theories that _A_ was created and that
_A_ evolved from reptiles both address the origin of _A_.  Since, again
obviously, _A_ became extinct some time after its origin, the extinction is
outside of the scope of either theory.

>2. Why there were no creatures existing prior to _A_ which were as or more
>   bird-like than _A_?

Point 1: Some class _A_ as a bird.  What is more bird-like than a bird?

Point2:   Sefi Weisurd, in "Oldest Bird and Longest Dinosaur" (_Science News_
130:103, 1986, as quoted by Ronald Ecker in _The Dictionary of Science and
Creationism_ [1990]) quotes the discoverer of a bird called _Protoavis_ as
saying the latter was "a much more advanced bird than than the _Archaeopteryx_
fossils," even though they share some characteristics.  _P_ was dated 75
million years older than _A_.

Point 3: If _A_ was created when birds were created, why should there be
previous bird-like creatures?

>3. Why the present day birds were not around at the time of _A_.

How do we know that there weren't?  I expect that the prompt answer would be,
"We don't find any fossils of modern birds in the time period of _A_."
Apparently, we are to interpret the history of bird origins according to the
principle that an absence of fossils at a given time indicates the organisms
didn't exist.  Applying this principle consistently would lead to the
conclusion that organisms with intermediates between feathers and scales didn't
exist prior to _A_, since we find no fossils.  This, in turn, would make it
almost impossible for _A_ to have evolved from reptiles.

In reality, evolutionists use the above principle to support evolution when
the absence of organisms accords with evolution, but ignore it when evolution
says that organisms existed, but we have not found fossils.  This is another
example which shows that evolution does not explain the evidence but makes the
evidence to be what evolution requires.

>4. Why there are fossils between _A_ and the present day birds that are
>   successively less and less like _A_ and more and more like present
>   day bird species?

In my reading on _A_, I didn't see a reference to this.  Could you sketch what
the sequence is?  My first reaction is that, since there are present-day birds
with varying degrees of resemblence to _A_, it is not surprising that there
were past birds which also had differing degrees of resemblence.

>5. Why wasn't _A_ on the ark? Was it just too ugly to save? :-)
>   (no need to answer the last question as it is contained in the first
>   question)

The ark is associated with one particular version of creation, not with the
basic idea that organisms were created.

An article in _Science Digest_ ( "Serpent-bird of the Mayans," Vol. 64, Nov
1968, as quoted by Henry Morris in _Scientific Creationism_)is interesting:

     "An ancient Mayan relief sculpture of a peculiar bird with reptilian
     characteristics  has been discovered in Totonacapan, in the
     northeastern section of Veracruz, Mexico.  Jose Diaz-Bolio, a Mexican
     archaeologist-journalist responsible for the discovery, says there
     is evidence that the serpent-bird sculpture, located in the ruins
     of Tajin, is not meely the product of Mayan flights of fancy, but a
     realistic representation of an animal that lived during the period
     of the ancient Maya -- 1000 to 5000 years ago.

     . . . .The archaeornis and the archaeopteryx, to which the sclupture
     bears a vague resemblence, were flying reptiles that became extinct
     during the Mesozoic age of dinosaurs."

   Bob Bales
   Tektronix, Inc.

I help Tektronix make their instruments. They don't help me make my opinions.