Posted by GaDS on August 27, 1998 at 12:28:21:
In Reply to: It's the only theory posted by rpcman on August 26, 1998 at 20:23:01:
: : As I said before, DO we know how evolution works? Or is evolution actually only an attractive theory?
: It's the only theory that fits the facts. From your posts it appears that you have read much creationist literature. What full-length books have you read on evolution?
: If you "remain unconvinced" of evolution despite the fact that it synthesizes so many of the sciences (biology, genetics, cytology, embryology, systematics, botany, paleontology, morphology, etc.) what is your theory for common observations like a) the diversity of species, b) the fossil record, and c) the molecular similarities Darwinism predicts?
I actually read many pro-evolutionary tomes when I majored in Biology at UCLA. My overall impression is that the theory of evolution of species is a theory, and nothing more, that attempts to fit the facts. It is not immutable law (or immutable, period) that automatically precludes the validity of other theories that fit the facts. One non-creationist theory is that evolution of species through natural selection is a sham, and that periodic global catastrophes randomly select which organisms make it to the next round (rather than through the classic belief of species outcompeting each other). In light of evidence that an asteroid impact wiped out the dinosaurs rather than mammals outsmarting them, this theory seems more valid than speciation by natural selection. And yet it was an idea that was pooh-poohed until recently.
As to your question "Why are there molecular similarities", I propose (in addition to the obvious constraints of physical environment - life based upon phosphorus is very bad in an oxygen atmosphere) that it is for the same reason that programmers (good ones) re-use existing code. If a design works, stay with it. Why re-invent the wheel (or leg or ear or kidney) if the design does what it's intended to do? One strange misconception people have is that God is not practical. Why shouldn't God be practical? Why should He have had to come up with completely new designs for each creature or plant He chose to make?
As far as species diversity goes, it should be apparent that too limited a ecosystem is unstable. If something comes along that targets one species (a selective virus, say) or specific traits like heterothermy (say from the aforementioned asteroid impact). Even within a species diversity is necessary for survival. And we all know from sad experience the dangers of wiping out even one species.
As for the fossil record, again, similarity of form does not mandate progression of species. Even among evolutionists, the snake evolved from legged reptiles, and not from worms, and cetaceans from terrestrial species, and not from fish.
I'm not trying to convince anyone one way or the other, since 1) I'm not convinced by the arguments of either creationists or evolutionists, and 2) one can never expand some system of thought beyond the limitations of its own axioms. If an axiom precludes the existence of God then it cannot hope to establish that God exists, and conversely. One analog to the creationist/evolutionist schism is the case of Euclidean vs. Non-Euclidean geometries. One postulates that only one line parallel to a given line can pass through a point not on the line, and the other postulates that more than one line parallel to the given line can pass through a point not on the line. Both systems are self-contained and internally consistent, but irreconcilable with each other because the postulates conflict. So which is right? For the longest time Euclidean held sway (and still does in all but specific college-level courses), since practical experience confirmed what Euclidean geometry predicted. Then with the ideas of curved space non-Euclidean geometries became a more sensible approach in certain cases. If it doens't matter to one whether there is an afterlife or not, the existence of God is pointless and a waste of time, but if an afterlife is a serious concern the existence of God becomes much more significant. Neither side has all the answers to questions the other side poses. Creationists believe answers will come through faith, evolutionists by reason. To my knowledge, science still can't answer the greatest challenge creationist pose, which is the origin of life. If nature can do it, Man should surely be able to by the element of chance. Extraplanetary travel? Yawn. Fission? No problem. Fusion? Been there, done that. Life from non-life? Umm, er, uh...give us a little while more. Consciousness and sentience from random biochemical reaction? Uh...artificial intelligence should be cracking that someday.
Evolution (or creationism) the only theory? Only when it (and only it) can explain everything, I think.
GaDS
[ Follow Ups ] [ Exmormon.org- Honest Inquiry Message Board ] [ FAQ ]