tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post112639328338013975..comments2023-08-08T04:19:26.974-07:00Comments on THE CALLADUS BLOG: Black or White, The Highway Ring of Evolution.Calladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-57718372255294320312008-10-02T16:53:00.000-07:002008-10-02T16:53:00.000-07:00Oh thank you! I appreciate your help.Uhm. Could ...Oh thank you! I appreciate your help.<BR/><BR/>Uhm. Could you please quote the study involved?Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-62035032280004312142008-10-02T16:00:00.000-07:002008-10-02T16:00:00.000-07:00Ensatina is almost certainly not ring species. The...Ensatina is almost certainly not ring species. The "ring" formed by the Sierra Nevada, Coast Ranges, and Transverse Ranges in California apparently has a permeable center, with salamanders able to cross the Central Valley (at least historically). Also a few of the birds have been disproved. Maybe something else will come up. Good luck.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-62690387410594004752006-09-08T15:04:00.000-07:002006-09-08T15:04:00.000-07:00“Just So” stories are a form of hypothesis. Where...“Just So” stories are a form of hypothesis. Where does the rainbow come from? Because it’s God’s promise. Why does the sun come up? Because it revolves around the Earth that is at the center of God’s universe. Why do animals look so different from each other? Because God created them that way. <br /><br />In Jonathan Well’s ‘just so’ story in the “Horse Icon” he quotes Tim Berra’s analogy about the Corvette, pointing out that each species could, instead of evolving new species, be created separately from each other, without going through that difficult evolution nonsense.<br /><br />This exposes a lot of Dr. Well’s own beliefs that he hints at from time to time in “Icons”. Personally, I don’t think that anyone who is a biblical literalist, or Young Earth Creationist, would be able to stomach Dr. Wells since he has no problem with a 4.5 billion year old Earth. Dr. Wells uses evidence of an ancient fossil microbe in one of his refutations. He uses the possibility of divine creation of the species that dot the fossil record as an alternative explanation to evolutionary theories that he finds to be flawed. It soon becomes clear that if Wells were to re-write the Bible he would have to add several hundred chapters to Geneses I & 2. <br /><br />The interesting thing about a divinely guided pseudo-evolutionary hypothesis, where slightly different (but wholly new) species were created one after another, is that the hypothesis requires a divine entity who is extremely interested in the ‘hit or miss’ method of biology. (A lot of his creations weren’t so much of a success since most of them went extinct. But he sure hit the ball out of the park with beetles. God is a real nut for beetles!)<br /><br />This leads us to a ‘just so’ story that is not only not provable, but needlessly complex.<br /><br />I have an idea, let’s remove some of that complexity, and take away the idea of God as an omnipotent Dr. Frankenstein. It makes as much sense as the other ‘just so’ story, and isn’t nearly so cluttered.<br /><br />There would be an excellent way to disprove the theory of evolution, and prove the theory of divine evolution – proof of an Intelligent Designer in action. As soon as definite proof is found for sudden, disconnected morphology, like a cat giving birth to a dog, all evolutionary scientists will hang up their lab coats and become beetle collectors.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-22739206837872862912006-09-08T13:25:00.000-07:002006-09-08T13:25:00.000-07:00Calladus,
The problem with using "just so" stori...Calladus,<br /> <br />The problem with using "just so" stories to defend an idea, like evolution in this case, is that every other "just so" story is equally valid. In addition, your first examples are circular. Your morphing story, for example, assumes the very thing it attempts to demonstrate: that evolution occurred as some long unbroken chain of minor variations through time. Even if such evolution did occur, imagining a pretty example does nothing to support the theory. Your maternal chain is in the same situation; you have to assume that such an unbroken chain exists in order to use your example to buttress the idea. As for your "woman takes a powder" example of why a gap is unproblematic, you again have to assume that the master chain exists in order to state that such a gap was at one time filled. You can't use stories like these, which assume their conclusion, as supporting evidence. If all you're trying to do is provide handy analogies to evolutionary theory, given the assumption that evolution is true and not trying to prove anything, then you have some fine examples.<br /> <br />What about your ring species? You have collected some evidence here of variations among like creatures. You first mention antibiotic resistant bacteria, although they have nothing to do with ring species, as evidence that evolution occurs. You then discuss salamanders in California that have speciated in a ring pattern. Your evidence is fine, no one has a problem believing those things. Your conclusion is the problem. What makes you think that variations among bacteria and salamanders support the macroevolution of all life in existence? Your examples betray you. The bacteria you discuss are all still the same kind of bacteria, and the salamanders are still all the same kind of salamanders. Sure we can give them fancy latin names to distinguish them using taxonomic labels, but that only changes their name - not their makeup. You are certainly aware that taxonomy is subjective and arbitrary. Salamanders of the same kind can be divided up based on minute criteria ad infinitum and yet the enormous variation among common dogs (even among dogs that can no longer physically mate) is all lumped together under one species name. Taxonomy does not delineate reality, it is an abstract tool we created to describe it. If you have evidence that one kind of creature can evolve into a completely new and different kind of creature, you have yet to show us. All you have shown is that species contain a wide variety of variation. We already knew that. The evidence at hand does nothing to help us determine whether genetic variation has impassable limits. Any extrapolation beyond that point is mere speculation.<br /> <br />But I digress, my point is to show that your example of the salamanders is a "just so" story. Your evidence is neutral. I have no problem believing that salamander populations mate or do not mate based on the ring diagram. I don't know it to be a fact, but I can assume that it is true for the sake of this discussion. What does that prove? It only proves that these salamander species exist in a ring pattern which affects their mating and geography. Using this data, you want us to believe that they will continue to diverge, ultimately becoming such wildly different beings as the ostrich and the elephant, or at least that such divergence occurred in history. Of course, there isn't evidence for this other than that salamanders have some degree of variation, however small. Why should we believe that this leads to macroevolution? Your authority? The authority of scientists? That doesn't help me any more than if I told you that they won't evolve based on the authority of biblical scholars.<br /> <br />Here's another "just so" story. Let's say that salamanders were genetically designed to manifest slight and non-random genetic mutations to best adapt to their particular environment. Let's assume that this genetic variation is specific and precise and has impassable limits. Salamanders will always be salamanders even though they will always display variation within their various populations. Over time these changes will ebb and flow, salamanders always being salamanders. Some pupulations may die, some may thrive. Some may not be able to mate with others as long as certain criteria are in place. Through these specialized changes, salamanders remain a viable creature on this planet.<br /> <br />Notice how the actual evidence at hand does nothing to help distinguish between our stories. One of us could be right, both of us could be wrong, but the evidence does not help us. We base our stories on assumptions and speculation. We may have reasons, good reasons, to say and believe what we do, but our stories describe life beyond the boundaries of our evidence. We each say, it happened "just so", and point to the same data.<br /> <br />The problem here, which the great majority of Americans don't seem to grasp, is that "just so" stories are not science.Seamushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07964199522448458621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-1147292082467631772006-05-10T13:14:00.000-07:002006-05-10T13:14:00.000-07:00You know, I don't really understand why you felt y...You know, I don't really understand why you felt you had to tear me down when it would have been so much easier to build me up? <BR/><BR/>After all, I ask in my <A HREF="http://calladus.blogspot.com/2006/03/id-creation-science-challenge.html" REL="nofollow">Creation Science Challange</A> post for help in understanding the Creationist position. And I've gotten damn few takers.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps tearing down is the easier path to take. Plus it makes you feel so good too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-1147289266138329142006-05-10T12:27:00.000-07:002006-05-10T12:27:00.000-07:00Why thank you, Phillip. It's always nice to see t...Why thank you, Phillip. It's always nice to see the warm regards given to me by loving believers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-1147278482136513332006-05-10T09:28:00.000-07:002006-05-10T09:28:00.000-07:00It is obvious that you are not an Athiest because ...It is obvious that you are not an Athiest because you go to great lengths to support your "belief" in a process that could make a brand new Mercedes from a junk yard as long as enough time is given. Good luck to you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com