RICHARD PISACRETA wrote:
> I must have missed something. Evolution within a species is a fact.
> Evolution between species is a theory. I have seen no
> definitive proof of
> one species through intermediate steps becoming a new species.
Again, evolution within a species is the same thing as evolution between
species.
Repost:
=================
Jim Guinee wrote:
> The most cogent reading I have done by a Christian writer on
> evolution was making the distinction between microevolution and
> macroevolution. He claims that you cannot refute micro -- there is
> too much evidence. Macro has not been sufficiently proven, so it
> must be held suspect. So, no debunking, just suggesting that
> perhaps evolutionists would have us automatically believe what has
> not been proven.
I believe that this is a very compelling notion, and one that is taken
advantage of by people who are simply being dishonest. As another TIPSter
(Paul Brandon) points out, macroevolution IS microevolution. It's the same
process. What makes the distinction compelling is the human tendency towards
essentialism - the notion that besides the physical characteristics
distinguishing one "species" from another, there is some separate distinct
"essence". This leads people to say things like the following (get a load of
this! It's from a letter to the editor of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
earlier this summer):
"...we can breed a strain of bacteria that is resistant to the antibiotic
medicine. This process is what we mean by microevolution. It happens in
every farmyard. Macro-evolution claims that left alone long enough, the
bacteria will eventually become a beaver or maybe a buffalo. Instead of
removing genetic information as in breeding, macroevolution requires that
new genetic information be added to the organism. So far, this hasn't been
done despite many laboratory experiments".
Notice that this writer apparently believes - in fact, assumes without
examination - that there is a principled distinction between species BESIDES
the kinds of characteristics that are programmed into the genetic material.
In other words, he believes that one kind of animal can evolve into another
kind, provided both kinds are of the same species. But not "across species".
No recognition whatsoever that the notion of "species" is nothing more than
our way of classifying organisms.
(here's the key:)
It is as though he believes that besides the genes coding for antibiotic
resistance, and leg length, and fur color, there must be a _separate_
something inside the animal that codes for what kind of critter this really
is. As though if you somehow bred rhinoceri (?) so that they became
physically identical in every way to elephants, you'd have rhinoceri that
merely had all the physical characteristics of elephants, rather than
(obviously) MORE ELEPHANTS.
Ever hear the joking question "How do meteorologists tell what the
hurricane's name is?"? If you believe in a principled distinction between
micro and macroevolution, you're thinking in such a way that you'd expect
that meteorologists send up weather balloons to find the hurricane's name.
By the way, perhaps the best place to observe this is in the field of
birdwatching. One year the Bullock's Oriole, the Northern Oriole, and the
Baltimore Oriole are considered three different species. The next year,
they're two different species. The next year, it's all ONE species. What's
changed? Nothing but our classification decisions.
The writing you describe is probably also compelling because of the almost
universal confusion about the notion of "proof", and the importance of proof
to science (hint: "proof" is almost entirely unimportant).
> Very often today evolution is talked about as a fact, not a
> theory. Same thing with the big bang theory -- I have seen many
> presentations that it is discussed as a fact. Yet, my physics friends
tell me the big
> bang theory rests on many (as of yet) unproven assumptions.
Of course. But so does everything else we know about the physical world.
Everything. The "but it's unproven" notion just simply isn't very
interesting. When people use this kind of compelling but completely false
argument to sell books and (more importantly) to KEEP books from being
sold, they're being dishonest. There is no excuse for not knowing better,
and in fact I no longer am willing to assume that those publishers and
authors simply don't know better. I've already given them far more benefit
of the doubt than I give to myself. I think that in general, they're simply
liars. And they've just screwed the entire state of Kansas.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
