Change Over Time and Evolution

[Furrowed Brow]

In the thread Evolution Vs Creation Fisherking quotes a Dr Jonathon Sarfati and supplies this link to the full text.

Sarfati is disturbed by what he sees as equivocation by evolutionists. In fact he thinks they perpetuate a deceit regarding the General Theory of Evolution of GTE.

A common tactic is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution’, then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and Creation disproven.

But the implication throughout is that without the GTE, it would be impossible to understand that:

All living things reproduce.
Offspring are similar to but not exactly like their parents.
Offspring have to grow up (or change; e.g., metamorphose) before reproducing themselves.
There is a fit between individuals, or species, and their environment (e.g., terrestrial, aquatic, aerial). …
Natural selection determines the differential survival of groups of organisms.

But understanding these concepts does not depend on the GTE.

Sarfati is I think attempting to say that understanding “change over time” does not require invoking common descent or what might be dubbed macroevolution.

So is Dr Sarfati correct. Is it possible to understand “change over time” without the "General Theory of Evolution"? Are evolutionists guilty of deceit?

Safati then has a specific complaint.

The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus)….. To claim that mere change proves information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant sells goods, he can sell them for a profit. The origin of information is a major problem for the GTE .

So if I read Sarfati right, the GTE is not necessary for understanding change over time, and in fact invokes a specific type of change. A type of change he thinks is problematic.

So are evolutionist introducing unnecessary problems for understanding change over time?

[McCulloch]

I see no reason to assume any of the species listed on the table are related to man. They could just be an ape-like species that is now extinct... like I said, it would help if we could ask them.

I fully agree that all of the species listed on the table are ape-like species. Apes are any of various primates with short tails or no tail at all. Guess what? Humans also are an ape-like species.

[QED]

From the example you give of your car could it be that the real problem for you is that you see things apparently going against the all too familiar 2nd law?

I didn't realize I had a problem

Be fair, you specifically mentioned not having a problem understanding change that was due to entropy. In a debate such as this, and given your credentials as a believer in "Intelligent Design" -- it had to be pointed out that changes due to things other than entropy and ID are permitted by physics. This could have been you're primary argument -- that only entropy or ID could effect change. Your reaction suggests that you do not believe this. Fine

If a viable mechanism for the kind of change we see

Ahh, what kind of change do we see?

The emergence of different classes of animals such as; Mammalia, Phylum; Chordata, Subphylum; Vertebrata. You don't think mammals like us were contemporary with the likes of Trilobites or Anomalacaris do you?

I would suggest that the natural explanation be adopted on the grounds of parsimony until it can be demonstrated to be unviable. It's a little depressing to know that in Darwin's day the mechanism (genetics) was not even understood by him, yet the principle set out in his theory was compelling enough to persuade people of it's validity. With our vast increase in knowledge regarding genetics, it seems incredible that such a philosophical preference for the supernatural still appears to be alive and kicking.

Naturalisic philosophies need not be invoked to understand change over time (evolution) though. Hitler persuaded a whole country to accept his philosophy, but that doesn't mean it was the correct one.

And by invoking Hitler you demonstrate what exactly? I see nothing of significance other than what could only be termed "an unjustifiable attempt" at drawing a pejorative association between a psychopath and an impartial Scientific Theory. Naturalistic philosophies would seem to be your enemy in this case. Naturalistic explanations would then be what? Unacceptable apriori?

Supernatural explanations are not necessarily rejected on symmetrical grounds, they are just as equally found to be unnecessary by some. For example, if I find that my car-keys have gone missing, it could be that the mischievous pixies of folklore have moved them -- or it could be that I have too many matters on my mind and have previously forgotten to return them their expected position. This would be the more parsimonious solution. To reject a naturalistic explanation that is compatible with observation, in preference to a supernatural one for no reasons other than philosophical would seem to be inconsistent with reason. Typically at least, vocal supporters of ID come forward with specific arguments that could pass for reasoned arguments. If you're not debating in this kind of way then I can't see anything to debate.

[Fisherking]

Your fine gentlemen are illuminating the a priori commitment you have to common decent and I'm thinking I am the only one in the discussion that sees it.

How so? Common descent means that different life forms, residing on different branches of the evolution tree have a common ancestor. In the picture I am offering Australopithecus afarensis for example will be an ancestor of modern humans and only modern humans.

Why assume any of these are human ancestors?

But why does their ability to talk define whether they can be a human ancestor. You are permitting change as a fact. Well one of the changes could be the ability to talk. If you were able to go back in time and ask them a question but the reply you got was an animalistic grunt, that does not mean they could not be human ancestors.

I was merely pointing out we have no way of knowing because:

Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else. (Evolution p.109(1999), Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at British Museum of Natural History)

In addition. The evidence shows modern humans are missing from the vast majority of the time this planet has supported living organisms.

The absence of modern human fossils does not mean they are not there somewhere. We could invoke the "we just haven't found them yet" mantra as many believers in common decent have in the past---doing so is not strong evidence for or agaist either though. The emperical evidence we have now suggests men are men and monkeys are monkeys.

Fossils that if they turn up may well look just as ape-like as our friends on the table, or maybe they will look like modern humans.?

Let me have some clay and 2 or 3 Australopithecus africanus facial bone fragments and I can make it look like Cindy Crawford or an orangutan depending on what I think it should look like.

[Confused]

After reading the entire text from the OP, does anyone else find if ironic that the author uses the "evolved" form of creationism?

Creationism used to say that God created man and all animals exactly as they appear today. Now we get:

But AiG does not deny speciation — in fact, it is an important part of creationist biology — see Q&A: Speciation. Creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). Thus the biblical kinds would have originally been distinct biological species, i.e. a population of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, but that cannot so breed with a different biological species.

But creationists point out that the kind is larger than one of today’s ‘species’. This is because each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.

Loss of information through mutations (copying mistakes), e.g. in proteins recognizing ‘imprinting’ marks, ‘jumping genes’, natural selection, and genetic drift, can sometimes result in different small populations losing such different information that the offspring from crossing different varieties (hybrids) may be sterile, or not survive. Or changes in song or color might result in birds no longer recognising a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Either way, a new ‘species’ is formed. Thus each created kind may have been the ancestor of several present-day species.2

But again, it’s important to stress that speciation has nothing to do with real evolution (GTE), because it involves sorting and loss of genetic information, rather than new information.

[Cathar1950]

After reading the entire text from the OP, does anyone else find if ironic that the author uses the "evolved" form of creationism?

Creationism used to say that God created man and all animals exactly as they appear today. Now we get:

But AiG does not deny speciation — in fact, it is an important part of creationist biology — see Q&A: Speciation. Creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). Thus the biblical kinds would have originally been distinct biological species, i.e. a population of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, but that cannot so breed with a different biological species.

But creationists point out that the kind is larger than one of today’s ‘species’. This is because each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.

Loss of information through mutations (copying mistakes), e.g. in proteins recognizing ‘imprinting’ marks, ‘jumping genes’, natural selection, and genetic drift, can sometimes result in different small populations losing such different information that the offspring from crossing different varieties (hybrids) may be sterile, or not survive. Or changes in song or color might result in birds no longer recognising a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Either way, a new ‘species’ is formed. Thus each created kind may have been the ancestor of several present-day species.2

But again, it’s important to stress that speciation has nothing to do with real evolution (GTE), because it involves sorting and loss of genetic information, rather than new information.

Theologies, religions all evolve too.
I would imagine Creationism will evolve too.
It would seem the closer they get to understanding science and evolution the more they would have to limit their arguments.
To even imagine you are doing science you have to deal with the real world.
The agenda is the Creator which is impossible to separate from their religion and thus they are not a science to be taught.
It has no choice but to openly Endorse religion.
But anything is possible.

[Jose]

Naturalisic philosophies need not be invoked to understand change over time (evolution) though. Hitler persuaded a whole country to accept his philosophy, but that doesn't mean it was the correct one.

MY FEELING AS A CHRISTIAN POINTS ME TO MY LORD AND SAVIOUR AS A FIGHTER. IT POINTS ME TO THE MAN WHO ONCE IN LONELINESS, SURROUNDED ONLY BY A FEW FOLLOWERS, RECOGNIZED THESE JEWS FOR WHAT THEY WERE AND SUMMONED MEN TO THE FIGHT AGAINST THEM AND WHO, GOD'S TRUTH! WAS GREATEST NOT AS SUFFERER BUT AS FIGHTER. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before - the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago - a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.

I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lords work.

Apparently, Hitler used any and all arguments to convince people to rally behind his evil cause.

So we draw timelines to show the earlier forms and then go try and figure out how we can fit these earlier forms into the timeline we drawed

You fine gentlemen are illuminating the a priori commitment you have to common decent and I'm thinking I am the only one in the discussion that sees it

Why assume any of these are human ancestors?

Very interesting. Why, I ask, do you insist that there is some kind of assumption, or a priori commitment here? This isn't the same as religion, wherein one takes someone else's word for that otherwise-impossible things occurred, and that some mystical, invisible being has done magical things. It's just plain examination of the world, and putting together the various clues that are in it. Anyone can do it. No one has to take anyone else's word for it.

Why not try a different tack, and look at some of the data? It doesn't bite. I don't mean "read some anti-evolutionist's 'summary' of the data," and I don't mean "read some evolutionist's summary of the data." I mean look at the actual data.

[Fisherking]

If a viable mechanism for the kind of change we see

Ahh, what kind of change do we see?

The emergence of different classes of animals such as; Mammalia, Phylum; Chordata, Subphylum; Vertebrata. You don't think mammals like us were contemporary with the likes of Trilobites or Anomalacaris do you?

The emergence? No, I do not have to believe different classes of animals "emerged" to understand evolution (change over time). We can look at adaptations and changes that can be understood and observed empirically without invoking preconceived religious philosophies (creationism vs naturalism, materialism, ect). To stay on topic, one does not need any religious philosophy to understand evolution (change over time).

I would suggest that the natural explanation be adopted on the grounds of parsimony until it can be demonstrated to be unviable.

Of course you would, I would not expect you to suggest any explanation that would discredit faith in naturalism.

Persons who want naturalistic evolution to be accepted as unquestioned fact must therefore use their cultural authority to enact rules of discourse that protect the purported fact from the attacks of unbelievers. First, they can identify science with naturalism, which means that they insist as a matter of first principle that no consideration whatever be given to the possibility that mind or spirit preceded matter. Second, they can impose a rule of procedure that disqualifies purely negative argument, so that a theory which obtains some very modest degree of empirical support can become immune to disproof until and unless it is supplanted by a better naturalistic theory. (P. Johnson - Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990)

Naturalisic philosophies need not be invoked to understand change over time (evolution) though. Hitler persuaded a whole country to accept his philosophy, but that doesn't mean it was the correct one.

And by invoking Hitler you demonstrate what exactly?

....I see nothing of significance other than what could only be termed "an unjustifiable attempt" at drawing a pejorative association between a psychopath and an impartial Scientific Theory.

The fact that certain people are persuasive does not mean the object of their persuasion is the truth - that was my only point.

To reject a naturalistic explanation that is compatible with observation, in preference to a supernatural one for no reasons other than philosophical would seem to be inconsistent with reason.

I do not reject all naturalistic explanations and hopefully it doesn't seem that I do.

[Fisherking]

Why not try a different tack, and look at some of the data? It doesn't bite. I don't mean "read some anti-evolutionist's 'summary' of the data," and I don't mean "read some evolutionist's summary of the data." I mean look at the actual data.

Why assume I haven't? Could this assumption have anything to do with with how neo-darwinism thinks I should interpret the data?

[QED]

The emergence of different classes of animals such as; Mammalia, Phylum; Chordata, Subphylum; Vertebrata. You don't think mammals like us were contemporary with the likes of Trilobites or Anomalacaris do you?

The emergence? No, I do not have to believe different classes of animals "emerged" to understand evolution (change over time). We can look at adaptations and changes that can be understood and observed empirically without invoking preconceived religious philosophies (creationism vs naturalism, materialism, ect). To stay on topic, one does not need any religious philosophy to understand evolution (change over time).

I don't see any Trilobites or Anomalocarus around today, and I haven't seen any cats or dogs in the fossils containing Trilobites and Anomalocarus either. In fact there are very sound reasons for accepting a huge amount of change in the kinds of animals that have, at one time or another, lived on this planet. I therefore understand that "creation" was not a one-off event that populated the world with all living things in one hit. Rather, observation, empirical data etc. reveals a long succession of life following a distinct branching pattern wherein the animals themselves would seem to be responsible for the forks in each branch (forks that occur at different times scattered throughout natural history).

I would suggest that the natural explanation be adopted on the grounds of parsimony until it can be demonstrated to be unviable.

Of course you would, I would not expect you to suggest any explanation that would discredit faith in naturalism.

You should assume that any explanation I offer is one which involves the least number of unprovable conjectures. The principle of parsimony is one which allows us to reject explanations of the kind that invoke pixies where known agencies having equal explanatory powers exist.

Persons who want naturalistic evolution to be accepted as unquestioned fact...

There are numerous critiques of Dr.Johnson's commentary. As a lawyer, I would suggest that he knows far more about presenting selective evidence to manufacture doubts than he does about what constitutes genuine scientific theory. My reply to his assertion here is that, as in all scientific endeavours, questioning is always most welcome as it provides the fuel that drives the engine of discovery

...must therefore use their cultural authority to enact rules of discourse that protect the purported fact from the attacks of unbelievers.

Cultural authority is only won through rational argumentation. It is the argument standing on its own merits that resists the attacks of unbelievers.

First, they can identify science with naturalism, which means that they insist as a matter of first principle that no consideration whatever be given to the possibility that mind or spirit preceded matter.

On the contrary, much consideration has been given to the precedence of mind before matter, yet no principles have thus far been identified which would permit the concept in reality. On the other hand, sound logical principles have been identified which permit the precedence of matter before mind. It may be less glamorous, but it is the only pattern we see in nature.

Second, they can impose a rule of procedure that disqualifies purely negative argument, so that a theory which obtains some very modest degree of empirical support can become immune to disproof until and unless it is supplanted by a better naturalistic theory.

There are no such rules or procedures. Only when an equal or greater amount of empirical support can be given for a supernatural theory will it deserve to supplant any other theory. There are many ways that evolutionary theory could be contradicted but so far none have been forthcoming. In this sense it is much more sound than the creationist model that has a great deal of evidence to contradict it.

(P. Johnson - Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism First Things October 1990)

The fact that certain people are persuasive does not mean the object of their persuasion is the truth - that was my only point.[in mentioning Hitler]

I agree that's all too scarily true which is why I believe it so important that we each listen carefully to what we're being told and follow it through in our minds. Evolution makes sense to me. I can see how it works in principle and I can see examples of that principle applied to the creation of novel designs in practice. In nature I can see a diverse set of animal types of which those alive today are but a tiny subset. Not only that, but they are distinctly different to animals that were around in previous times... so much so that a time-travelling zoologist could probably identify which one percent of the age of the planet he had arrived at purely from the appearance of the flora and fauna. If you still want to disagree I think you are duty bound to start unpicking the argument from this point.

I do not reject all naturalistic explanations and hopefully it doesn't seem that I do.

No, but you seem to be displaying an unwarranted amount of distrust in the painstakingly careful interpretative process that is scientific enquiry. We haven't touched much on cosmology, but if you were to apply your distrust to the area where science has worked out the way the universe has evolved from the first 10E-43 seconds onwards, you might appear to be even more justified -- yet even in this extraordinary span of human knowledge the detailed theory is demonstrably sound being as it is supported by an impressive array of interlocking data and accurate predictions. Exactly the same is true of current evolutionary theory. Unlike in certain circles, it is not arbitrary philosophical commitments that lead rational thinkers to their beliefs in these things.

[Confused]

Why not try a different tack, and look at some of the data? It doesn't bite. I don't mean "read some anti-evolutionist's 'summary' of the data," and I don't mean "read some evolutionist's summary of the data." I mean look at the actual data.

Why assume I haven't? Could this assumption have anything to do with with how neo-darwinism thinks I should interpret the data?

I have to ask, do you reject the evolutionary theory? Or just portions of it? If you reject any of it, I then have to ask what your qualifications are for interpreting the data and making a sound, objective analysis of it. Consider how many evolutionary theists exist that are well-respected scientists who have contributed much to the field of science, whose reputations are above reproach, who not only admit to evolution but still retain a strong faith in God despite this. Are you more qualified than them?

I have reviewed the credentials of the author of the link you provided. He is noted for chemistry and physics. How is he more qualified to judge evolution than noted biologists, geneticists, archaeologists, etc... It seem to me that this author has over stepped his field of expertise. There isn't anything in his profile that would suggest he could even comment on much of this. Now if he was arguing the evolution of the universe, then he would be more than qualified. Here is what he is noted for:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... arfati.asp

Creationist Physical Chemist and Spectroscopist
(Australia)

Biography
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati studied science at Victoria University of Wellington. He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled “A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules”. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules. He also had a co-authored paper on high-temperature superconductors published in Nature when he was 22.

Dr. Sarfati was a co-founder of the Wellington Christian Apologetics Society (New Zealand).

Dr. Sarfati is also a former New Zealand Chess Champion. In 1988, F.I.D.E., the International Chess Federation, awarded him the title of F.I.D.E. Master (FM).

Education
B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry (with condensed matter and nuclear physics papers substituted)
Ph.D. in Spectroscopy (Physical Chemistry)
Honors/Awards/Associations
1988, F.I.D.E. Master title, The International Chess Federation