Is all TRUTH scientifically knowable?

[UTEOTW]

Deacon said "Science was designed to "explain the phenomena"."

Scott J responded "No. Science should be about pursuit of the truth unless it is shaded by philosophical presuppositions about what is allowable "truth"."

Scott then added "You nailed it dead center- O-B-S-E-R-V-E...Observe!"

It is necessary to put the two things together. Evolution does seek to explai the observations.

We observe many things in genetics, development, and fossils. Evolution happens to be the theory that explains the observations best at this point int time. Can others propose alternate explanations? Yep. But they generally fail to account for what we see as well as the theory of evolution.

"And pick up their imaginations. I am reading a book that quoted a evolution believing paleontologist who said that the actual fossils used to support the ape to man evolution would fit into a small box."

Would that happen to be Wells quoting Gee? Or someone repeating Wells' quote of Gee?

What Gee actually said was that the human fossils "between about 10 and 5 million years ago [...] can be fitted into a small box." What Wells leaves out is that the best specimens for human evolution are in the range of 5 million years ago to the present. For example, all the Australopithecus are within about the last four million years. In this period, the most crucial for humans, we actually have a pretty rich history.

"...nor has a mechanism for achieving the necessary change been proven."

Mutation is an abserved phenomenon and has been shown to generate new genes.

"Neither apparently is the mechanism that results in macroevolution. So far, its sum total is the imagination of people who presuppose evolution to be true. "

Duplication and mutation. Drift. Stasis. Natural selection. Sexual selection. Gene flow. Recombination. Migration. Gene exchange.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UTEOTW:


It can offer explanations about htings that it can study, however. But I would assert that this falls under a different meaning of truth than what you are after. At the very least, "truth" can mean different things.

No. Truth is truth. You either ate an apple or you didn't. I am either 6'1.5" or I am not.

YOu may need to define what you mean by "Truth."

truth ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)
1-Conformity to fact or actuality.
2-A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3-Sincerity; integrity.
4-Fidelity to an original or standard.

5-Reality; actuality.
6-often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence. </font>[/QUOTE]Your definition is lacking in various points. For example, TRUTH is something different from being true. It is more than purely existing. It may be true that I threw up this morning but it is not TRUTH because it has no larger meaning or purpose than the event itself. This is trivia, not truth.

On the other hand, TRUTH is something timeless and universal. It is more than being because it has content and meaning. The so-called reality shows on TV depict events that really take place but they have no TRUTH because there is no meaning or purpose larger than the momentary entertainment value. Since it has a larger context than mere existence, TRUTH is not simply what is true or exists. The existentialists, who believe in being only, say there is no TRUTH. All of life and existence is meaningless and absurd for the existentalists. How do you think existentialism came to be? Simply because they would not empirically establish or verify TRUTH. Therefore, they concluded that it did not exist since they had a priori rejected revelatory TRUTH.

There is no scientific TRUTH. Since we cannot be at all points of the universe for eternity, we cannot call anything TRUTH scientifically because we cannot be there to observe it. Scientific facts and laws are not TRUTH. Facts and laws are what work. They fit our observation and explanation of reality as we see it. Of course, we never see reality face to face; we only sense our perception of it. things are not as they appear. You are reading these words as black symbols on a white background but the reality is based on a digital format wholly hidden from your observation.

Science cannot tell us TRUTH. I challenge anyone to state one TRUTH discovered by science. Someone will probably say, “Oh, the Law of Gravitation—its universal.” Well, this is a good approximation but is it TRUTH? Can you explain a three-body gravitational problem? What do you know about gravity inside a black hole or other unknown points in the universe? Furthermore, what we know is descriptive rather than definitive. Please kindly explain to me what gravity (i.e. gravitation) is. Don’t describe what it does but tell me what it is.

Only God can reveal TRUTH in the timeless and universal sense. Science is tentative. Any scientific idea, fact, or concept is subject to refutation and/or modification at any time. Scientific research is constantly changing and refining concepts. Therefore, it can never, by its very nature and limitations, arrive at TRUTH. Science does not know reality; it can only give approximations and models of reality. The development of the concept of an atom is a simplified illustration of this. We do not have the final word on atoms today. We have a better model in wave equations than say a Bohr model but future generations will find our concepts naïve. (I remember, as a high school student, reading the Report of the Manhattan Project and understanding it. Yet, it was a highly technical document and understood only by the scientific elite twenty-five to thirty years before.)

Science is not what the layman popularly believes it to be. Most laymen confuse scientism, a belief that science is a panacea, and science. One only needs to read the works of philosophers of science Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper to be disembodied of this misconception. The scientific method is NOT an avenue to TRUTH. I pretty much accept Gordon Clark’s definition of “operationalism.” Science can tell us what works but it cannot tell us TRUTH. We only have approximations and models, not reality itself.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
No it cannot. It is limited to certain aspects of life.

Science cannot give us answers to things such moral or religious questions.

It can offer explanations about htings that it can study, however. But I would assert that this falls under a different meaning of truth than what you are after. At the very least, "truth" can mean different things. YOu may need to define what you mean by "Truth."

Can it tell us the distance to the sun or the angle of the bonds in water? Can it tell us what DNA is made of or what the acceleration of gravity is in a vacuum at a given location? Yes.

Can it tell us about sin? Or about evil? Or good? No. Do we hold to certain ideas that we consider "Truth" in these areas? Yes.

(OK, I fell like I need to go watch a Don Rumsfield press conference after asking and answering my own questions. Maybe I did?)

Yet, none of these things is TRUTH. TRUTH is absolute, final, eternal, and universal. Science cannot give us TRUTH. It can tell us what works, give approximations and measurement, and provide models for understanding the physical universe. Give us TRUTH? NO!

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UTEOTW:
There is no reason to believe that physical laws were different in the past. So that is a good assumption.

No it isn't... for exactly the same reason in reverse. There is no reason to believe that physical laws or their impact on various things were not different in the past.

[snip] </font>[/QUOTE]There is a confusing of processes and laws. A law is a generally accepted principle such as gravitation. It may be rejected or modified in light of new evidence. Processes on the other hand do change due to a fluctuation of the variables influencing the process. In the matters of fossilization, carbon absorption, etc., the concurrent conditions during the process would greatly affect what we see today in geology and radiometric dating. If the ice ages occurred, then it is reasonable to assume that conditions were different in the past than today since we are not living in an ice age now. We can only speculate what the conditions were since we were not there to observe and no man left any written record of prehistory. On the other hand, if the Bible is indeed the revealed Word of God, we have a written account of what did occur. Otherwise, we are believing and arguing religious myths invented by man. As Joshua said, “Choose ye this day . . . . . “

 

[UTEOTW]

"Yet, none of these things is TRUTH. TRUTH is absolute, final, eternal, and universal. Science cannot give us TRUTH. It can tell us what works, give approximations and measurement, and provide models for understanding the physical universe. Give us TRUTH? NO!"

Exactly why the original poster needs to define what context he means "truth" to take for the purpose of this thread. If he means your view of truth, then he has asked a question that does not make sense.

"There is a confusing of processes and laws. A law is a generally accepted principle such as gravitation. It may be rejected or modified in light of new evidence. Processes on the other hand do change due to a fluctuation of the variables influencing the process."

I am not sure what you are criticzing. Yes laws and processes are different things. Who said they were not?

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
[snip]
"There is a confusing of processes and laws. A law is a generally accepted principle such as gravitation. It may be rejected or modified in light of new evidence. Processes on the other hand do change due to a fluctuation of the variables influencing the process."

I am not sure what you are criticzing. Yes laws and processes are different things. Who said they were not?

I am saying that uniformatarianism is false. It deals with processes and the variables have changed with time. Uniformatarianism must postulate constant non-variable processes. Another poster stated this but he confused process and laws.

 

[UTEOTW]

"I am saying that uniformatarianism is false. It deals with processes and the variables have changed with time. Uniformatarianism must postulate constant non-variable processes."

Now if we were 175 years ago and I was Charles Lyell, you might have a point. He based his geology on the uniformity of law, the uniformity of process, the uniformity of rate and the uniformity of state.

Now modern geology is a bit different. The first two are not so different. There is no reason to believe that physical laws were different in the past. So that is a good assumption. The second assumption is also a pretty good one in that when we see the results of processes today, that when you see the same results in the past it is a reasonable expectation that they had a similar cause. Modern geology does recognize some differences even here.

Now the last two are not really used anywhere near as much. Lyell went overboard in thinking that all processes always run at the same pace. We now know that this is not true. Even though the same processes are at work and even though they leave the same evidence at different points in time, we know know that the rate of change can be highly variable and can include catastrophic events.

Even less useful is Lyells assumption that the earth has always been more or less in the same state. This is just not true.

Modern geology then rests on something different than Lyell style uniformitarianism. It recognizes both gradual processes and catastrophic processes. These may include things such as landslides, volcanoes, floods, earthquakes, glaciers and river erosion. It also recognizes that these things may occur on small or large scales and at different rates. But, events of today can be extrapolated to other such events and these events all take place under an umbrella of unchaging physical laws.

So, just where is the principle of uniformitarianism, as used by modern geology, false? What physical laws are different? What processes leave different results today than they did in the past?

 

[Scott J]

So, just where is the principle of uniformitarianism, as used by modern geology, false? What physical laws are different? What processes leave different results today than they did in the past?

I should ask you the same thing. Macroevolution is not occurring around us. The mechanism for macroevolution has never been observed nor has it been recreated in a lab. It is pure conjecture... a possibility... just like the contention that things could have operated under different rules in the past or even are doing so in different parts of the universe.

Neither of the samples of evidence that you employ to assume even the modern brand of uniformatarianism are substantial enough. Look at your own post. Information in the past 175 years has changed the accepted view... do you think discover has ceased? Do you think that the case is now closed to further review?

OK, maybe you do. But judging from history and mathematical probability, I don't.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Yet, none of these things is TRUTH. TRUTH is absolute, final, eternal, and universal. Science cannot give us TRUTH. It can tell us what works, give approximations and measurement, and provide models for understanding the physical universe. Give us TRUTH? NO!"

Exactly why the original poster needs to define what context he means "truth" to take for the purpose of this thread. If he means your view of truth, then he has asked a question that does not make sense.

It makes perfect sense.

Evolution is being sold as "truth". It is being presented in 4th grade textbooks as "truth". Anyone who dares oppose this "truth" is treated as a moron.

We have even recently seen a judge rule that a school district couldn't put a sticker in textbooks saying that evolution is only a theory and not factual truth.

Truth is truth, period. One truth does not conflict with another truth. Either the Genesis account is truth or it is not. Either evolution is truth or it is not.

In response to an early objection, "truth" is true. If it is not true then it is not truth. Not sure exactly how something could be false and truth.

"There is a confusing of processes and laws. A law is a generally accepted principle such as gravitation. It may be rejected or modified in light of new evidence. Processes on the other hand do change due to a fluctuation of the variables influencing the process."

I am not sure what you are criticzing. Yes laws and processes are different things. Who said they were not? [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Yet, none of these things is TRUTH. TRUTH is absolute, final, eternal, and universal. Science cannot give us TRUTH. It can tell us what works, give approximations and measurement, and provide models for understanding the physical universe. Give us TRUTH? NO!"

Exactly why the original poster needs to define what context he means "truth" to take for the purpose of this thread. If he means your view of truth, then he has asked a question that does not make sense.

It makes perfect sense.

Evolution is being sold as "truth". It is being presented in 4th grade textbooks as "truth". Anyone who dares oppose this "truth" is treated as a moron. The scientific credentials of ID converts are questioned on no other basis than the rejection of evolution as "truth".

We have even recently seen a judge rule that a school district couldn't put a sticker in textbooks saying that evolution is only a theory and not factual truth.

Truth is truth, period. One truth does not conflict with another truth. Either the Genesis account is truth or it is not- and no, you still haven't proven textually that it was written as anything other than a narrative so don't waste time by bringing it up. Either evolution is truth or it is not.

Most important to our interaction, either the naturalistic presupposition of evolution is truth/true or it is not. I am talking in the universal sense used by the theory itself. I know very well that natural explanations can be "true". But is the contention that everything has a natural explanation true?

In response to an early objection, "truth" is true. If it is not true then it is not truth. Not sure exactly how something could be false and truth.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Macroevolution is not occurring around us."

How do you know? IF evolution has happened, the time frames are much too long for new families and orders and such to have been observed forming in real time.

But I think even you will acknowledge that microevolution happens. I think I could likely even provide you with examples of observations of new species that you would accept. So, where is the dividing line? What prevents the kinds of changes we do observe from accumulating into macroevolution.

Even the development of a new class, such as the mammals from the reptiles, happens as a series of speciation events. I can even walk you through an extensive and detailed set of transitional fossils connecting the mammals and reptiles. And each step consists of just simple changes. Things you would accept as mere microevolution. But over the course of 100 million years or so, it leads to a new class.

"The mechanism for macroevolution has never been observed nor has it been recreated in a lab."

It is a collection of mechanisms, not just one. One of the more promenient would have to be mutation. This we have observed forming new genes with new functions.

Another would be natural selection. Again, I am sure you could easily think of examples of this with which you are familiar.

Another would be sexual selection. I imagine that this is a process most of us have participated in. (No kids for me, yet, so no results from my selection.)

Another method is recombination. Again, this is something we have observed. Look up chimeric genes for examples.

Another would be gene exchange. Anyone familar with the problems of antibiotic resistance should understand the advantages to the bacteria about being able to swap genes around between bacteria both of the same species and of different species.

Another would be migration. Surely you can see how animals that migrate to somewhere new can become geographically separated from others of the same species and can start adapting to their new conditions.

Another example is gene flow. Remember those animals above that migrated and began adapting to a new niche? What if a few of them make it back to the original population later? They just might bring in new genes that were not part of the original population.

So we have observed some of the mechanisms that lead to macroevolution.

"Neither of the samples of evidence that you employ to assume even the modern brand of uniformatarianism are substantial enough."

It is (again) a bad assumption to say that laws are the same now as they were in the past and that processes will leave the same effects today as they would in the past?

"Evolution is being sold as "truth". It is being presented in 4th grade textbooks as "truth". Anyone who dares oppose this "truth" is treated as a moron."

In the view of modern science, that evolution happened and happens is considered fact. The theory seeks to explain how that happened/happens. They are merely being consistent with the current view.

"We have even recently seen a judge rule that a school district couldn't put a sticker in textbooks saying that evolution is only a theory and not factual truth."

Because one theory was singled out for such treatment on religious grounds. No one wants a sticker for the theory of gravity or germ theroy or atomic theory or relativity.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Macroevolution is not occurring around us."

How do you know? IF evolution has happened, the time frames are much too long for new families and orders and such to have been observed forming in real time.

How incredibly convenient.

You get to sit back and say "where is your proof and mechanism for the idea that animals were created with a high degree of genetic variability then descended/speciated into groups with much more limited adaptability/variability... but then you can use time as an excuse not to demonstrate the mechanism for macroevolution.

But I think even you will acknowledge that microevolution happens.

Absolutely. I am even inclined to believe that it resulted in speciation.

I am not inclined to think however that any animal ever transformed from one species to another over any period of time on the basis of genetic information acquired from any source than their parents.

Information doesn't create itself nor has it ever been proven that it can arise from natural causes.

I think I could likely even provide you with examples of observations of new species that you would accept. So, where is the dividing line? What prevents the kinds of changes we do observe from accumulating into macroevolution.

The mechanism. The source of the information that coupled with environment resulted in change.

I can even walk you through an extensive and detailed set of transitional fossils connecting the mammals and reptiles. And each step consists of just simple changes.

Except that you actually can't. The fossils have been categorized as they would if macroevolution had occurred. They cannot then be turned around and used as proof for the way something happened. A possibility? Certainly. But not fact. Not "truth".

"Neither of the samples of evidence that you employ to assume even the modern brand of uniformatarianism are substantial enough."

It is (again) a bad assumption to say that laws are the same now as they were in the past and that processes will leave the same effects today as they would in the past?

Yes and no.

Yes, it is never a good assumption to accept something as a foundation without substantial proof.

No, it is acceptable to use models so long as you are honest about your assumptions and why you think they are likely and NEVER give leave someone with the impression that something that is assumed is concrete fact.

"Evolution is being sold as "truth". It is being presented in 4th grade textbooks as "truth". Anyone who dares oppose this "truth" is treated as a moron."

In the view of modern science, that evolution happened and happens is considered fact. The theory seeks to explain how that happened/happens. They are merely being consistent with the current view.

So were the Nazis...KKK... Spanish Inquisitors...

"We have even recently seen a judge rule that a school district couldn't put a sticker in textbooks saying that evolution is only a theory and not factual truth."

Because one theory was singled out for such treatment on religious grounds. No one wants a sticker for the theory of gravity or germ theroy or atomic theory or relativity.

So what? If someone wants to object to these theories and the way they are presented then they also have a right to petition government for redress of grievance.

But the bottom line is that macroevolution is not like these other theories and you know it. It does not have a working model. It has implications that go well beyond the realm of the purely scientific. It makes statements about what kind of creature man is, where he came from, and ultimately about his relationship with and responsibility to a Creator.

Evolution seeks to put God out of a job. And while you might be in denial, many evolutionists are not. They assert that if we are not dependent on a creator for our existence then we are not responsible to him for our behavior. Naturalism turns God, if He exists at all, into nothing more than a cosmic bully or killjoy.

Bottom line is that there is a huge difference between these theories... especially when alternatives to evolution are arbitrarily dismissed not because they don't agree with the evidence but because they rely on a intelligent designer/creator rather than naturalism and chance.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UTEOTW:
I have a BS in chemical engineering...

Engineering. That brings up an interesting thought.

Would you agree that a basic definition of "to engineer" is to apply information/intelligence in order to manipulate available materials to accomplish a desired result?

Essentially: Intelligent use of information + Materials = Intended outcome. </font>[/QUOTE]Bump to UT.

 

[UTEOTW]

"How incredibly convenient.

You get to sit back and say "where is your proof and mechanism for the idea that animals were created with a high degree of genetic variability then descended/speciated into groups with much more limited adaptability/variability... but then you can use time as an excuse not to demonstrate the mechanism for macroevolution."

Did you not read the above. I gave you several mechanisms, some of which you can observe all by your self.

As far as time goes, I can demonstrate these mecahnisms happening in the present and I can show fossil series that show these mechanisms creating greater change over longer periods of time. Just because you do not accept the evidence does not mean it does not exist. You on the other hand present no data just speculation.

"The mechanism."

It is a collection of mechanisms, not just one. One of the more promenient would have to be mutation. This we have observed forming new genes with new functions.

Another would be natural selection. Again, I am sure you could easily think of examples of this with which you are familiar.

Another would be sexual selection. I imagine that this is a process most of us have participated in. (No kids for me, yet, so no results from my selection.)

Another method is recombination. Again, this is something we have observed. Look up chimeric genes for examples.

Another would be gene exchange. Anyone familar with the problems of antibiotic resistance should understand the advantages to the bacteria about being able to swap genes around between bacteria both of the same species and of different species.

Another would be migration. Surely you can see how animals that migrate to somewhere new can become geographically separated from others of the same species and can start adapting to their new conditions.

Another example is gene flow. Remember those animals above that migrated and began adapting to a new niche? What if a few of them make it back to the original population later? They just might bring in new genes that were not part of the original population.

"The source of the information that coupled with environment resulted in change."

Duplication and mutation has been shown to generate new genes with new functions and even completely new metabolic pathways. It IS observed.

"Except that you actually can't. The fossils have been categorized as they would if macroevolution had occurred. They cannot then be turned around and used as proof for the way something happened. A possibility? Certainly. But not fact. Not "truth". "

Once again, evolution is the explanation for what we observe. In this case we observe a long series of fossils at various intermediate stages between reptile and mammal. We also observe a particular order of these fossils in the geologic record. Evolution is the best explanation of the observation especially when combined with other observations.

"If someone wants to object to these theories and the way they are presented then they also have a right to petition government for redress of grievance."

They can and hopefully their petitions would be similarly met.

"But the bottom line is that macroevolution is not like these other theories and you know it."

It is a well researched theory that has much evidence in support of it, thatexplains many things about what we observe and is accpeted by essentially everyone in the field. I think it is much like the others.

You know I can point you to a journal that doubts relativity if you want to attck Einstein, too.

"It does not have a working model."

You are entitled to that opinion but it is not one shared by those in the field.

"Evolution seeks to put God out of a job. "

Can't be done.

"Engineering. That brings up an interesting thought.

Would you agree that a basic definition of "to engineer" is to apply information/intelligence in order to manipulate available materials to accomplish a desired result?

Essentially: Intelligent use of information + Materials = Intended outcome. "

That would be acceptable way of stating things.

 

[Scott J]

"Did you not read the above. I gave you several mechanisms, some of which you can observe all by your self."

I answered you on the other thread.

These things together do not necessarily add up to macroevolution. There is no proof either from nature or a lab that they ever did or ever will.

They fit just as cleanly into my proposal that all species descended from specially created animals with higher genetic variability than current animals.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Engineering. That brings up an interesting thought.

Would you agree that a basic definition of "to engineer" is to apply information/intelligence in order to manipulate available materials to accomplish a desired result?

Essentially: Intelligent use of information + Materials = Intended outcome. "

That would be acceptable way of stating things.

What happens if you take intelligence and design out of this equation?

How many working systems arise from other working systems purely via chance bi-product?

Naturalism does in fact take intelligence out of this equation.

 

[gb93433]

Nobody has been able to explain life. You can have all the elements and the animal or plant is still dead.

For something to be scientific it must be repeatable. History is not repeatable. God is not repeatable. The Holy Spirit's working is not repeatable.

 

[UTEOTW]

"These things together do not necessarily add up to macroevolution. There is no proof either from nature or a lab that they ever did or ever will."

They are the mechanisms and they are observed. No one has presented evidence of a barrier that prevent the observed micro mechanisms from leading to macro in the long term.

With this you must combine all the evidence that points towrds common descent. The twin nested heirarchy. Genetic vestiges. Developmental. Pseudogenes. Morphological vestiges. The unity of phylogenies from different sources. The known transistional series. The correct chronology of these series. Ontogeny. Biogeography. Molecular parahomology. Anatomical parahomology. Suboptimal function. Transposons. Retroviral inserts.

"They fit just as cleanly into my proposal that all species descended from specially created animals with higher genetic variability than current animals. "

You proposal can at best make ad hoc explanations of the above. There is no evidence for the rich genome you propose.

"What happens if you take intelligence and design out of this equation?

How many working systems arise from other working systems purely via chance bi-product?"

We don't know. But, life appears to be more a result of natural design rather than intelligent design. Many things just do not seem very intellignetly designed. They appear more like random tinkering around pre-existing structures. Do you need examples?

 

[UTEOTW]

"Nobody has been able to explain life. You can have all the elements and the animal or plant is still dead."

Are you saying that even the processes of life need constant supernatural attention? Are you saying that life does not simply operate on chemical principles?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"These things together do not necessarily add up to macroevolution. There is no proof either from nature or a lab that they ever did or ever will."

They are the mechanisms and they are observed.

The mechanisms are observed but the mechanisms resulting in macroevolution is not observed. While I know it evolutionists think the arbitrary blending of microevolution and other observed processes with macroevolution makes for good argument- it isn't.

No one has presented evidence of a barrier that prevent the observed micro mechanisms from leading to macro in the long term.

Silence is not proof. You haven't presented a barrier that prevents these micro mechanisms from resulting in speciation under the framework I proposed.... and you objected vigorously to my proposing it without giving positive proof.

Yet here you are without positive proof yourself asserting that these mechanisms that we both can to a great degree agree upon can onlyl result in macroevolution as you believe and not the system of common descent from an original set of animals that I proposed. You contend that I don't have proof that these animals were more genetically variable but you don't have proof that the ancestors of living animals were genetically simpler either.

With this you must combine all the evidence that points towrds common descent.

If we were actually discussing common descent then we wouldn't be disagreeing on principle. But you aren't actually proposing common "descent". You are proposing common "ascent".

I am the one arguing common "descent". The idea that all of our genetic traits were inherited.

The known transistional series.

There are no "known" transitional series. As I stated elsewhere, much of the shape of these extinct animals often comes from the imagination of artists rather than real fossils.

Further, they are positioned into the evolutionary model on the assumption that they should. The theory is the producer of the evidence... not the fossil record itself.

"They fit just as cleanly into my proposal that all species descended from specially created animals with higher genetic variability than current animals. "

You proposal can at bestmake ad hoc explanations of the above. There is no evidence for the rich geneome you propose.

Right back at you. My explanation can incorporate basically everything you argue as proof for macroevolution... but just poses a different conclusion about the starting point of life.

There is just as much evidence for a "rich genome" as there is for the notion that genetically complex animals evolved from genetically more simple animals. Without going "pre-Cambrian", you have a group of animals that very quickly speciate (assuming evolution's model of time which you know I disagree with).

The explanations available under the Darwinian model are inadequate to explain the sudden explosion of such tremendous diversity. I would argue that this provides a basic outline for what I propose. Animals such as those were directly created by God. They could give rise to numerous species and adaptations quickly because they were genetically programmed to do so.

The fossil record suggests that this explosion tapered off does it not? The descendents became genetically fixed in ways the ancestors were not.