The Religion of Evolution

Helen, I agree that the notion that an embryo retraces the evolutionary path of its ancestors is invalid; this is the original meaning of "recapitulation." However, the observations that gave rise to the concept were possible because embryological development is highly conserved, and the fact that we now know this is scientifically useful.

The nature and importance of embryological conservation is a hot topic in evolution, with proponents and opponents arguing various aspects. I doubt whether anyone would deny it completely -- though some might argue that it is a minor aspect of evolution.

As you pointed out, there are numerous exceptions. These occur in part because developmental changes are not restricted to the terminus of development; it's just hypothesized they are more likely to be successful near the terminus. The same observations that gave rise to "recapitulation" seem to confirm this.

Scientifically, we are just beginning to understand how and when various regulatory mechanisms affect embryonic development. The theory of evolution will help us understand these mechanisms and the mechanisms will tell us more about evolution.

I stand by my opinion: the original notion of recapitulation was oversimplified, overblown, and misunderstood; yet there remains a kernel of truth to the observation that is even more important because it is better understood. The early conclusions about recapitulation vs. our more recent understanding are an example of the success of science, not its failure.

-Neil

p.s. And if my opinion is proved wrong, it will be because embryologists and developmental evolutionists do the the scientific heavy lifting to prove it wrong. In which case I will gladly accept their scientific conclusions.

 

Arguing that something sounds too incredible for you is not exactly arguing against the facts.

No attempt to give a better explanation for the fossil sequence, just astonishment that it could happen at all.

You argue on one side about how cells are too complex to have evolved, yet you don't seem to grasp that getting from the first cells to the first eukaryotes was a long task to get all the right parts in place. Which is it? Is a eukaryote cell too complex to have evolved or is it too simple to have taken that long?

You reveal a bit too much with your calculation of 120 million generations to get from a reptile to a mammal. Really think about it. Your starting point, the synapsid reptile is already most of the way there. The eukaryote cell evolved long ago, bilateralism, brain and spinal cord, cranium, lungs, tetrapod body, most organs, and so on. To get to the mammal your talking about changes in the way the legs hang under the body, changes in the jaws and teeth, add a diaphragm, body temperature regulation changes, some skull changes. Peanuts compared to what got you there. And you have 120 million generations! And you even show many trillions of generations to get to those reptiles.

By your own calculation trillions of generations and yet you question why we don't see macro changes in the lab.

 

To quickly take one of your examples...

Look at monotremes. In monotremes it is easiest to see that the mammary glands are merely modified sweat glands that secrete a body fluid onto hair to be lapped off by the young. See, it is not so hard to evolve mammary glands.

But that is how evolution often works. Modification of an existing structure to get something new and useful.

You still sound as if you are arguing that it is to incredible for you to believe rather than here is the proof it could not happen.

And still no damning evidence against the proposed reptile to mammal fossil record.

 

That's being disingenious Helen. No one is saying that a lizard magically changed into an ape as you are suggesting. Species change slowly, very slowly in fact, and there are many intermediate steps inbetween. It takes millions of years and (probably) millions of small little changes for such transformations to occur. This magic you suggest is a mischaracterization of evolution, and further more, *you* should know better.

So again, I ask you (or anyone else), what prevents microevolution from becoming macro? You've dodged the issue quite well, but you haven't addressed it.

 

You continue to chant this mantra as though it has some sort of gravity. It doesn't. Macroevolution cannot be "falsified" therefore for the exact same reasons evolutionists condemn creation as "unscientific", evolution is unscientific.

Your asking us to "disprove" something for which no one has ever conceived a repeatable, testable, mechanism for accomplishing.... much less a mechanism that has actually made that great final leap from micro to macroevolution in a natural, unguided environment.

The observed truth is that animals do not evolve anything outside of their inherited genetic capabilities.

 

The first link you referred me to are from a “puzzled reader” as to why some of the reference links were broken on an article by Dr. Sarfati. Wow big deal, find and buy the book, he lists both the title and page number…

The second link is from an atheist named Stear who has a hard time comprehending written words (much less the Bible) and is actually adding to what he believes to be a miss quote by Dr. Sarfati. Nowhere does Dr. Sarfati take the atheist Provines’ statement out of context that I can see.

The atheist Stear believes Dr. Sarfati is adding the remarks of “dating methods” to the atheist Provines’ quote. Here’s the quote at the end chapter 8 of Dr. Sarfati Book:

Dr. Sarfati rebukes atheist Stear by replying:

Since chapter 8 deals with the fossil record along with dating methods Dr. Sarfati is demonstrating from the atheist Provines comments that not all of what these scientists learned in school is accurate including dating methods.

 

Explain exactly how macroevolution is any different then an accumulation of microevolutionary 'steps'. Macroevolution, just like microevolution can be falsified. However I feel that if I present some evidence of falsification techniques you will focus on that rather then the difference between micro and macro evolution.

I've given evidence of both macro and micro (which are essentially the *SAME* thing, unless you will pick up the gauntlet and prove otherwise) in this very thread.

So the broken record continues, what prevents micro from becoming macro, over an extended period of time?

What are these "inherited genetic capabilities"? What are the limits of them?

 

Read the entire article John, including his Safarti's response.

Here's Safarti's actual response, John:

BTW-why did you drop the "qualifications" aspect of you previous post? Didn't realize that Safarti wasn't a biologist did you .

 

OK. You keep asserting this. Show the barrier that prevents organisms from evolving into something new. Show the list of orignal "kinds" and show that they are completely unrelated. Show some kind of boundary that prevents evolution.

We have observed where evolution "made that great final leap from micro to macroevolution in a natural, unguided environment." If you do not accept the fossil record of the reptile to mammal transition, please show it to be false. Otherwise, accept that we have observed those kinds of major changes, not just "microevolution" or speciation. It took about 240 million years so complaining that you cannot observe it in a few days (or decades) down at the lab is meaningless.

 

Has it really come to this? Are you really going to argue from a lack of positive proof? The proof is that it does not occur and cannot even be made to happen in a genetic lab through anything remotely approaching a naturally reproducible means.

Is that how "science" works? One person says something that they cannot positively prove then declare it true because it cannot be disproven?

Analogy- Please prove that the thunderstorm we had this morning was not due to sophisticated weather manipulation by space aliens.

The proof is that even the best models of supposed progressive evolution have huge transitional gaps requiring 1000's increases in genetic complexity. Yet this mechanism eludes evolutionists. What we observe is that animals derive their genetic characteristics from their parents and can be no more complex than they were.

So unless your argument for which you have no positive proof is proven false... you must be correct? I hope you can see how this notion of yours fails a simple test of logic.

No it isn't. You haven't provided a viable mechanism for macroevolution to have occurred in 1 minute, 1 year, or 1 trillion years. You can breed dogs for the next 240 million years subjecting them to all kinds of environmental changes and they will either go extinct or still be dogs. Every generation will inherit its genetic makeup from its ancestors and none of them will ever acquire more genetic information so as to become a dog with a grasping thumb.

 

There is no such thing as "positive proof" in science. I present evidence and the best interpretation of that evidence. If you disagree, please present a better interpretation that beter fits the data.

I am asking you to justify your claim. You, and others, have asserted repeatedly that these barriers exist. I want to see the barriers. I want to see the list of "kinds."

You part right at least. Things in science are not generally "proved." These are not my claims, these are the claims of many, many scientists. The data shows what it shows. Contradict it if you can.

Cannot do it and you know it. If I were a meteorologists and I had access to the weather data for your area I could show how the prevailing weather effects led to that thunderstorm. Someone else could blame aliens, and while I could not "positively" disprove them, I could rest assured in my interpretaion of the data available that I was right. And he could not offer any proof that the aliens cuased the weather no matter how much he asserted so.

Which is what is happening here. The data, in the specific case I brought up, points to the gradual evolution of mammals from reptiles over millions of years. Scientists accept the evidence as quite good and quite likely. Can they prove it? Of course not. But the evidence is considered quite convincing.

Then you run up and claim that barriers exist that would prevent that kind of evolution and that everything only varies within "kinds." I'm just asking that you back up your claims. If there are barriers, show them to us. If the reptiles to mammals transition did not occur, show where the data is misinterpreted and tell us the better explanation. (There might be a Nobel Prize in it for you.) If there are "kinds", tell us what the different kinds are and why there are not related through common descent.

I assert the evidence shows what it shows. They are not my ideas but I think they are right. If you disagree, show me why I am wrong. And what logic am I failing? I showed the hypothesis and some of the evidence. Granted it was on another thread, but you are free to read it. I'm just asking for you to show where the interpretation is flawed.

A dog with a grasping thumb! Cool! Where can I see this? If it doesn't exist and no one has claimed that it exists, what are you talking about?

Mutations change what is inherited from its parents.

Mechanisms? Here:

There are multiple mechanisms there.