Posted by Tom on September 17, 1999 at 16:33:59:
In Reply to: I'd say... posted by Robert on September 17, 1999 at 08:34:01:
: : : The only evidences of macroevolution that I'm familiar with
: : : are based on speculative interpretations.
: : Speculative? Did you read and look at the evidence provided in the link? There is little to speculate about. A speculative theory is one that posits species being created out of thin air when such events have never been witnessed.
: : : Even where the fossil records
: : : seems to suggest such changes, (and these instances are rare), there is NO evidence
: : : that natural selection plus mutation is capable of producing them.
: : I see you don't bother to look very hard. If I offered you a dozen or so books on the subject, would you read them?
: : Virtually every ancient fossil ever found (and this is not a number that can be considered 'rare') is evidence of macroevolution. You'll be hard pressed to find fossils older than a few million years ago that closely resemble species still alive today.
: : : A lab-induced organism that has a complex
: : : organ that it previously lacked.
: : Wouldn't that be nice. Unfortunately, evolutionary theory does not predict real-time macro-evolution.
: : : Tropical birds losing the capacity to
: : : fly don't impress me.
: : And apparently the observed instances of speciation that have been referred to on this board don't either.
: : Tell me what would impress you that wouldn't violate the constraints (namely time) of current evolutionary theory.
: ...that no amount of evidence, references, etc., will satisfy him and convince him that macroevolution is and has happened. I don't believe that he desires to change his view concerning his religious doctrine. Many of these believers possess faith so weak that if any small part of their precious belief system is called into question, they worry that they may then have to abandon ALL of their religion, should they give in to this one doubt.
What you're saying is certainly plausible. Anything can be doubted. One can suppose that even if one could,say, induce
the evolution of wings in lab rats, some people would deny it as fraud. But nothing that dramatic has
been put forward by evolutionary science. Jumbling the genes of Drosophyila and getting legs or wings to
spring from the head doesn't particularly impress me. From my non-technical standpoint in understanding science,
that seems like a case of getting something different but not really NEW in the sense which Darwin's
theory of speciation predicts. However, I am quite willing to concede that modern science has given serious challenge the doctrine of
the fixity of species. I simply don't wish to conlude that that means that the creative devlopment of these living things is purely
explicable in naturlistic terms. You seem to surmize that siding with an interpretation of the facts which comports with one's religious
beliefs is necessarily a bad choice. I don't. So far as I can assess the evidnece, the argument that God entered history in
Jesus Christ is as logically and historically compelling as any good scientific theory. I certainly find it more heuristic that Darwin's
theory.