I’ve heard this idea before… of course, there’s no evidence for it, but neither is it really falsifyable.
But what I wonder is: why would a god do something like that? I mean, there is this vast, overwhelming body of evidence that the earth and the universe are both very, very old, and there are many independent ways to reach that conclusion. Sure, an omnipotent creator could fool us by making it look like it’s very old by basically “planting evidence”. But if that’s true, it seems like he is trying to intentionally mislead us. Why?
“I know that feelings are very strong on both sides of this issue; and I’d like to keep the discussion light and friendly. I don’t mean to be a smart-alec, but the question has to be asked: what are these new species? (turning a fly that’s black into a fly that’s brown doesn’t count)”
First off, you may be trying to be light and friendly, but you are also firmly convinced that you are right, and - at this point - all you do is provoke people by (1) refusing to even consider that you have misunderstood evolution all along (2) insisting on “proof” which cannot be supplied, and which no evolutionary biologist has ever claimed is part of the picture (3) making it clear that NO proof, even if it meets your criteria, will change your mind.
A new species is a new species, and how different it LOOKS is utterly meaningless. You apparently won’t be happy until, as you quipped, a cat gives birth to a dog; if so, no matter HOW many new species you can be shown, you’ll probably never, ever be satisfied. It is a very rare thing for a new species to be dramatically different from its ancestor. The fossil record (and present life on the planet) is jam-packed with transitional forms, and just because you don’t know about them doesn’t mean they aren’t there. Try looking up “Basilosaurus eos” some time, for one of the closest examples to what you’re after (it’s a fossil whale that had small, functional hind legs).
Others here also commented that evolutionary biology is not predictive. That is not true. If I spray a marsh with DDT, I can predict that some of the insects in the area will evolve to be DDT-resistant, through natural selection. This is also repeatable. If I spray a field of plants with teratogens, I can predict that I will get new species via polyploidy every once in a while. This is in fact a tool for plant breeders, which yields new flower varieties (I know of some Begonias that are new species of this sort). Predictable, repeatable. Show me an introduced exotic plant or pest, and any good biologist can predict which organisms are most likely to evolve to feed on it or parasitize it. The phrase “Nature abhors a vacuum” is an observation about the predictability of evolution.
Of course, according to “The Matrix”, we’re all experiencing virtual reality inside a computer program run by aliens, so all this argument is pointless - evolution works however the alien programmers decide it will. Neither you nor I nor anyone can disprove this, either. In all respects, this is just as good a hypothesis as the existence of God, since it has JUST as much evidence to support it, and is JUST as open to being tested.
“Joemill wrote:
“I know that feelings are very strong on both sides of this issue; and I’d like to keep the discussion light and friendly. I don’t mean to be a smart-alec, but the question has to be asked: what are these new species? (turning a fly that’s black into a fly that’s brown doesn’t count)”
First off, you may be trying to be light and friendly, but you are also firmly convinced that you are right, and - at this point - all you do is provoke people by (1) refusing to even consider that you have misunderstood evolution all along (2) insisting on “proof” which cannot be supplied, and which no evolutionary biologist has ever claimed is part of the picture (3) making it clear that NO proof, even if it meets your criteria, will change your mind.” sigh
I don’t mean to “provoke” people in the sense that you imply; I’m simply trying to get you to think.
To answer #1: I think I pretty much understand what evolution theory entails.
#2: “Proof that cannot be supplied” I will grant you that you cannot “prove” evolution or creation; but you can look at the scientific evidence to see which one it does not support.
#3: You may be right here; because even if scientists combine basic elements: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and so on and actually create a form of life from basic elements, I still wouldn’t believe in evolution. Why? It still took intelligence to create it. I haven’t seen a scientist yet who is able to create life intentionally from basic elements, but we’re asked to believe it all happened by accident.
The simplest conceivable form of life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that only ONE molecule could form by chance by the arrangement of amino acids in the proper sequence is far less than 1 in 10 (raised to the power of 450). (The magnitude of that number can be appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is about 10 (raised to the power of 28) inches in diameter.
Evolutionary theory is the only “science” where the law of entropy doesn’t apply. Think about that…
And why would you make the claim that the law of entropy is not applied in evaluating evolution? (Although I suspect that I’ve already seen the incorrect answer several dozen times.)
Well, since you asked. We’re asked to believe that the whole universe began with a big bang. (first thing I do when I want to make something is blow it up) We’re to believe that from that total disorder, order came about. Usually things go from order to disorder, not disorder to order. The only way I know to get order from disorder is to apply an intelligent force to it. A stack of lumber stays a stack of lumber (or becomes less orderly) and doesn’t become a house until a carpenter (intelligence) builds (force) with it.
The Bible says that the world was perfect when God was done with it and it has been going downhill ever since; evolution says that the start was chaos and it has been getting better and more complex ever since. Which one better fits the law of entropy?
Wrong. False. Flat out incorrect. Completely mistaken.
This betrays a collosal ignorance of what entropy is and what the laws of thermodynamics actually DO say. They are very specific, and it’s clear you don’t understand them one whit.
You know, this tired old misconception gets really old after a while.
Get yourself an introductory physics text. Read it. Learn.
Hmmm. And how did that lumber come about? It started as a little seed. But then, somehow, all these disordered molecules ended up in this ordered piece of lumber. Does that mean an intelligent force told all those molecules where to go?
And how about crystalline structures? A diamond is surely more ordered than a bunch of carbon atoms flying around. Yet somehow they all came together to form that diamond. A miracle!
You are laboring under major misconceptions about physics. I suggest you do some reading on the subject before you act like you know what you’re talking about.
“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”
– William Kingdon Clifford
Sorry, but you are off here. The state at the big bang was the state of maximum order in the universe. It seems that you might be falling to the common illusion that the big bang was an explosion (as in explosives). Well, it wasn’t. The big bang didn’t “blow up” the universe. Rather the universe “fell apart” from that extreme state of order.
Or a constant input of energy. Like, say, the sun. Or maybe you can come up with a different way in which a carrot is created from a seed, water, manure, dirt and light.
Just once I would like to see thread on evolution that did not degenerate into a debate on the scientific validity of the theory. Of course, that will never happen because there are just too many people who, for reasons of their own, refuse to see the evidence all around them. Such is life.
I will devolve this topic to Great Debates.
(Better late than never, eh David?)