ben kenobie wrote:Getting back on topic, I'll explain why Evolution is false. But the idea Darwin initially had was right. I'll start with how Darwin came up with the idea of Evolution. Darwin noticed that living organisms had the ability to change and adapt to their environment. While studying a the Galopagos Islands, he noticed that each island had finches (a type of bird), but the finches were all different.
On islands where the birds could find food by sticking their beaks into crevices in the trees and logs, the finches had long, narrow beaks. On islands where woods were scarce, however, the finches had short, fat beaks that allowed them to burrow for food. Darwin imagined that at one time, both of these types of finches were the same. When the finches began living on separate islands, however, their species began to adapt to the different food sources, and after many, many generations, they developed different kinds of beaks that were appropiate for the different food supply on each island.
Darwin was absolutely right on this point. Today, scientists have shown quite conclysively that species do have the ability to adapt and change in response to their environment. For example, in 1977, there was a major drought on Daphne, one of the Galopagos Islands. Researchers had been measuring the beak sizes of finches on that island for some time, and they continued to measure beak sizes long after. They found that the very next generation of finches on the island has beaks that were, on average, about 5% larger than the generation of finches that existed prior to the drought. Since the drought caused a shortage of seeds on the island, the finches with larger beaks were better able to crack open the few, tough seeds left on the island. Thus, the size of the finches beaks varied in response to the drought. FACT
In 1983, there were strong rains on the same island. This resulted in an abundance of seeds for the finches on the island. Sure enough, scientists who were measuring beak sizes noteced that, on average, the next generation of finches had smaller beak sizes. Once again, the finches adapted to a change in their environment. Since seeds were plentiful, a large beak provided no specific advantage for survival. Thus, the finch beaks began to decrease in size again. These two instances really showed that Darwin's idea was right. The population of finches could indeed adapt to changes in their surroundings from generation to generation. FACT
Even though Darwin was right on this point, he was dead wrong when he tried to extrapolate his data. (Extrapolation-Following an established trend in the data even though there is no data availible for that region) He said that since species have the ability to change, they should be able to change into a different species. In other words, if a population of finches can, through several generations, slowly develop different beaks, why can't they also develop different wings, heads, bodies, and feet so that they change into eagles? Why can't after many years of such change, develop into a completely new species? Darwin thought that this could, indeed, happen. This idea became the foundation for the theory of evolution.
The problem is that Darwin made a big mistake in extrapolation. He took small changes that he observed in animals and extrapolated them into huge changes. Darwin noticed that the finches on the Galapagos Islands had changed their beaks, their feather color, and (to some extent) their body sizes to adapt to the environment of each different island. Those kinds of changes, however, are very small compared to the kinds of changes necessary to turn a finch into a completely different species of bird. Thus, Darwin took a small amount of data and tried to make a huge extrapolation with it!
I got this from my 10th grade chemistry book, and the author, a Christian and creationist, used this as an example of an unwise "extrapolation." You can't take a small amount of something you know is fact, such as finches being able to slightly change due to changes in their environment, and then say that because they can change a little over a little amount of time, they can change a lot over a large amount of time.
First, I think we all appreciate such well written, clear and even reasonably referenced posts.
That said, the author you quoted is a prime example of poor scientific reasoning and why so many of us (Christian or not) get frustrated by the "scientific" creationist movement.
Let's start with your final paragraph.
The problem is that Darwin made a big mistake in extrapolation. He took small changes that he observed in animals and extrapolated them into huge changes. Darwin noticed that the finches on the Galapagos Islands had changed their beaks, their feather color, and (to some extent) their body sizes to adapt to the environment of each different island. Those kinds of changes, however, are very small compared to the kinds of changes necessary to turn a finch into a completely different species of bird. Thus, Darwin took a small amount of data and tried to make a huge extrapolation with it!
There are two VERY BIG problems with your textbook's explanation. 1.Even if it were correct, that Darwin did extrapolate his theory "just" from finch beaks (or even everything he saw in the Galapogos),
this isn't a factual, scientific statement. It is a THEORY presented AS IF IT WERE FACT. That is, your author believes that Darwin over-reached, but where is the proof (and sorry, no, don't say Genesis). There is nothing here but opinion. As such, it could be correct or it could be wrong. SCIENCE requires proof. If your textbook disagrees ... fine, but don't confuse it with fact and do present evidence. Your textbook did neither (at least that you showed)
2. Moreovere the statement is, in fact, WRONG, for several reasons. A.
Darwin, and certainly scientists since, have not just looked at changes in finch beaks and extrapolated the entire theory of evolution from that. Even with the finches, Darwin looked at much more than just beak size. But this statement ignores mountains and mountains of other evidence -- what happens on farms in breeding, differentiation and similarities between and amongst many, many species, the fossil record, etc., etc., etc. B. Simple farm breeding shows that differentiation of species IS, in fact, possible. Look at the changes in dogs, just to show one example. Now, technically a Chihauha and a Great Dane can breed, BUT it already takes some careful manipulation. For one thing, the mother HAS to be the Great Dane and not the Chihuaha. Many scientists suggest that these two breeds are almost different species already. If they were in the wild, it is extremely unlikely that they would breed. Now, you can argue that this isn't natural, that it is human manipulation and therefore not a valid example. Except, your author's point was that this kind of differentiation was
not possible.... You could also argue that these really are not true species yet. I picked this example becuase it is familiar to me and, no doubt you as well. BUT there actually ARE other examples out there of TRUE differentiation of species. I DO remember reading, learning them, but it was a long time ago.
(and let me diverge a moment and deal with one big problem in this thread and in life ... you see, the REAL truth is that most adults CANNOT pull the evolutionary proofs out at the snap of their finger. It is stuff we learned in school and then forgot... but does that mean it is false or that the proofs are not there, that we really did not learn them? Not many adults can balance a chemical equation fully now, either .. or explain basics of Trigonometry, never mind the Calculus. You cannot look for proof or validation amongst the "joe smoes" about. You need to look at real SCIENCE, at what the SCIENTISTS, real scientists, are saying. I may know a little bit more than the average adult, but I am not an expert. I WAS a bit of an expert at one time, but am only getting back into this issue again after 20 years of little attention .. because it is affecting my son.)C.
CURRENT Evolutionary theory does NOT claim that all species arose merely through mutation and gradual differentiation. Instead, they look at very long periods of very little change. Then there are periods of huge die-offs. Why and
exactly how is debated, but generally it seems that the climate changed very quickly.
On smaller scales, we have seen this with volcanic eruptions, earthquake action, etc. Nor is it absolute? Why did marsupials persist in Australia and not elsewhere? Chance (or God, if you wish). You see this is wildlife right now. Generally, the biggest "baddest" buck is the one that gets to mate with more females BUT .. what if he happens to get hit by a landslide (or, in modern time, a car) before breeding season? Also, sometimes smaller, "weaker" bucks can "sneak in" and "have a go" at the females while the big buck is occupied elsewhere --either with another doe or defending against yet another buck. Further, not all traits are genetic. In deer, food availability has a lot to do with size. Now, it
could be that the
reason that big buck had more food was because his body used the food "more efficiently" (that is he gained slightly more muscle per pound of food he ate) OR, it might just be that he happened to wind up on an island that is cut off most of the year by high water so that he did not have to compete with other bucks until he was already bigger. Anyway ... this is just a very, very "simple" (and greatly simplified) example. In the real world, things are exceedingly complicated ... whether talking about deer or ancient dinosaurs.
D. The time periods postulated are phenomenal, in human terms. Hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years. Look at the HUGE changes humans have created in just a few hundren years in dogs, as I noted above. If human beings can intentionally create such huge changes -- changes as big or bigger than the natural changes Darwin saw -- in such a very, very short period of time, isn't it just
possible that these sorts of changes occured naturally (especially if helped by huge die-offs) in this HUGE amount of time?
Of course, I recognize that creation scientists dispute this time period. Maybe there is an alternative explanation. BUT, you have to use REAL SCIENCE to prove it. YOU cannot just pretend that you are soing science, when you are really doing little more than grabbing anything you can to support the idea you already "know" to be true.
Understand, as a Christian, I, personally, do NOT believe that the changes that occured were
entirely random. I believe that everything has followed God's plan. However, I ALSO believe that that plan included each and every process that we observed. CAN God subvert or "go against" the "nature" that HE set up? Of course, but does he? I argue no. But, I also say that there is far more that we don't know about it all than facts that we know for sure are true. The PROBLEM comes when the two are blurred, as was done in your textbook.
And that gets to the biggest problem and frustration in this so-called "debate". Understand, there absolutely ARE
legitimate questions and
legitimate points of debate/discussion ... but not the points you mentioned ... or any of the points I have seen brought up by Creation "Scientists". Few TRUE scientists are really opposed to open debate about ANY issue (note: politics are a different story .. sometimes professional scientists DO have to give voice to what their government wants, sometimes they are only allowed to publish data that the company who hired them likes .. but those are not real science, they are PROBLEMS outside of pure science). Scientists are human and fallible and some do err, but generally, most will acknowledge that a free and open debate
where there really is a true question is helpful.
BUT, and here is the big point. As your example shows, Creation "science" crosses that line.
Other things that are FACT:
Carbon-14 dating. There IS variation. It is not exact, in the sense that your clock is exact. EARLY attempts (and some attempts by less skilled scientists) have erred, but it HAS been validated. That is, the dates put forward by carbon dating have been compared to real dates based on combinations of written records, tree ring data (trees DO put new rings on more or less each season ... depending on the species) and other methods. We know the problems are problems and not "errors" because other scientist have gone back and checked.
Other dating techniques are now even more accurate.
Fossils DO represent real life. Okay, this is actually border-line theory. I believe they have shown that minerals can and do replace living tissue in the manner required to make fossils. BUT was anyone back there to observe, no? On the other hand, this is one case where it really and truly defies any humanly possible explanation outside of the old "miracle" (or Satan did it) argument to explain how these rocks could have things in such. such great detail... and in such variety. Even the most critical of scientists will talk of fossils as fact, though if strongly pressed they might say it is theory. At some point, we have to say, "no we don't absolutely 100% know that daylight will occur tommorrow ... but, in a practical sense, we do". And here, again, is an issue with Creation "science". The probability that fossils are something other than a representative of life that lived previously is so astromomically less than, say the probability that species diversified from a single place as to be incomparable. Yet. the fact that most TRUE scientists will admit that they cannot absolutely PROOVE that fossils came from life, is leaped upon as "evidence" that there are valid alternative explanations out there and therefore Creationism should be taught in school. (and, actually, as I said earlier, I think they basically can prove all the parts necessary could have happened and likely did...) It just isn't so!
Two final points:
1. To be science it must be TESTABLE, PROVEABLE and REPEATABLE by anyone. (who correctly follows the procedures
2. Go to the source WHENEVER you question a study, techniques or result. Otherwise, you are looking at someone else's interpretation ... and like the old "telephone" game .... may well be hearing a distortion and not the reality. I suspect your pastor tells you to check what he says against the Bible ... In science, the "bible" is all the many studies published in legitimate scientific journals. Perhaps not the "gold" standard, but good, are magazines such as Scientific American, National Geographic, Nature ... even Discover, etc. All have more "readable" versions of recent studies, scientific debates and science of interest to the "general" (non-scientific) community.
3. DO continue to challange and question, but challange EVERYTHING. No, I am not suggesting you argue with your teacher in class. I AM saying you should question in your mind... and any GOOD teacher will ask you to do the same (though not necessarily right in class!).
