Comment Re:But the beginning of life doesn't matter (Score 1) 2035
>The recent story of macro-evolution is available in current or recent evidence--the genomes of living creatures. Even if you completely ignore fossil evidence it is possible to find genetic commonalities between species that indicate common ancestors. With the fossil evidence it makes a very strong case.
As always the devil is in the detail. To get from one species to another (as currently determined by a pair of genetic pools) requires a viable path. Not just stepping stones but a real, viable path. For every protein, every gene, every process that is needed to support life.
The conventional dogma is that this occurs through a multiplicity of small changes (we have observed such small changes in real experiments - I have seen such data from my own lab) , each of which gradually moves the population (genetic drift). The problem is that whilst this is a cosy theory, there is little remenant of this. We should now have more species than at any time ever, and species should not be distinct but a continuum (if we take the slow steady mountain climb approach advocated by the likes of Dawkins). This is not something that makes sense but is very nice for putting very long timescales on things. Burst evolution, where dramatic environmental changes radically alter the genetic pressure on organisms whilst providing the circumstances to allow genetic change can be observed experimentally but, being unpredictable, throws all the happy 'slow steady climb' molecular clocks out of the window.
There are also distinct problems with establishing mechanisms for major events - evolution of sex, evolution of DNA duplication, evolution of completely novel genes etc. I'm not claiming these are insurmountable, but there are gaps in the set of mechanisms needed to demonstrate a full feasibility for an evolutionary origin.
And beyond establishing the possibility of a mechanism, to demonstrate that mechnism was THE cause is actually impossible. Evolution as a theory of origins is a faith, albeit one with a rational base that may or may not be orthogonal to any particular theological position. Evolution as a theory of relationships is powerful and useful in interpreting and understanding the way the world works now. To give a definition of micor and macro evolution.
Micro evolution: Directly obeservable changes to the composition (ie number of distinct variants) in a gene pool. Not to be confused with natural selection which does not increase the number of variants but just alters their relative proportion. We can do experiments on this.
Macro evolution: Hypothesis driven interpretation of existing data. This is not provable by experiment, but can be examined for consistency, though not correctness. A hypothesis which is not consistent is not correct. A hypothesis which is correct is consistent. A hypothesis which is consitent is not necessarily correct. This would include interpretataion of the fossil record (including genomic comparisons).
To say evolution is a done deal is far from the truth. Evolution is a useful tool for aiding understanding. For the agressively militant atheists who cling to it as a faith of origins, it is a crutch as much as a belief in creation is for a theist. From a scientific standpoint (and I am a scientist who makes use of evolutionary theory to aid understanding) I am quite content that I do not know how I got to be here. I am also aware that there are numerous consistent models for the formation of the earth which are incompatible, and numerous interpretations of the other data, again consistent but incompatible.
What should be interesting is to examine the result of the Tsunami in Asia in 2004 to see if fossil creation can be observed from such a cataclysmic action. I don't know if anyone is doing that. ..d
As always the devil is in the detail. To get from one species to another (as currently determined by a pair of genetic pools) requires a viable path. Not just stepping stones but a real, viable path. For every protein, every gene, every process that is needed to support life.
The conventional dogma is that this occurs through a multiplicity of small changes (we have observed such small changes in real experiments - I have seen such data from my own lab) , each of which gradually moves the population (genetic drift). The problem is that whilst this is a cosy theory, there is little remenant of this. We should now have more species than at any time ever, and species should not be distinct but a continuum (if we take the slow steady mountain climb approach advocated by the likes of Dawkins). This is not something that makes sense but is very nice for putting very long timescales on things. Burst evolution, where dramatic environmental changes radically alter the genetic pressure on organisms whilst providing the circumstances to allow genetic change can be observed experimentally but, being unpredictable, throws all the happy 'slow steady climb' molecular clocks out of the window.
There are also distinct problems with establishing mechanisms for major events - evolution of sex, evolution of DNA duplication, evolution of completely novel genes etc. I'm not claiming these are insurmountable, but there are gaps in the set of mechanisms needed to demonstrate a full feasibility for an evolutionary origin.
And beyond establishing the possibility of a mechanism, to demonstrate that mechnism was THE cause is actually impossible. Evolution as a theory of origins is a faith, albeit one with a rational base that may or may not be orthogonal to any particular theological position. Evolution as a theory of relationships is powerful and useful in interpreting and understanding the way the world works now. To give a definition of micor and macro evolution.
Micro evolution: Directly obeservable changes to the composition (ie number of distinct variants) in a gene pool. Not to be confused with natural selection which does not increase the number of variants but just alters their relative proportion. We can do experiments on this.
Macro evolution: Hypothesis driven interpretation of existing data. This is not provable by experiment, but can be examined for consistency, though not correctness. A hypothesis which is not consistent is not correct. A hypothesis which is correct is consistent. A hypothesis which is consitent is not necessarily correct. This would include interpretataion of the fossil record (including genomic comparisons).
To say evolution is a done deal is far from the truth. Evolution is a useful tool for aiding understanding. For the agressively militant atheists who cling to it as a faith of origins, it is a crutch as much as a belief in creation is for a theist. From a scientific standpoint (and I am a scientist who makes use of evolutionary theory to aid understanding) I am quite content that I do not know how I got to be here. I am also aware that there are numerous consistent models for the formation of the earth which are incompatible, and numerous interpretations of the other data, again consistent but incompatible.
What should be interesting is to examine the result of the Tsunami in Asia in 2004 to see if fossil creation can be observed from such a cataclysmic action. I don't know if anyone is doing that.
