The Evolution Experiment
One argument that I see evolutionists make against Intelligent Design (ID) is that it isn't testable and therefore hasn't had any experimentation to "prove" its veracity. The claim is that evolution has generated experimentation.
The fact is that evolution does not have an experimental history. Evolution is a construct that consists of elements spanning multiple disciplines. Any experimentation is limited to a single hypothesis in a single discipline, the likes of which are not sufficient for claiming an experiment either in favor of or against a broad-based theoretical construct. Either the hypothesis is disproved or a likelihood for the truth value of the hypothesis is demonstrated. Evolutionists merely plug the results into the evolutionary picture in order to categorize the results. And when their current picture of evolution is defied by the results, they change the picture. ID does the same with the same results: Except that ID is exceptionally a more likely proposition than naturalistic evolution.
The linchpin in the evolutionary machine is macroevolution. Microevolution is demonstrable. Microevolution is the genetic diversity possible within the confines of a genetic structure. It is the difference, for example, between breeds of dogs. It has been tested and evidences of microevolution abound. Macroevolution happens to some extent. Macroevolution happens when the genetic structure itself changes in a beneficial way. Some micro-evidences of macroevolution have been discovered. ID-ers and creationists alike agree to these facts. However, macroevolution happens entirely by accident. It can be caused by a number of external factors. What usually happens when these external factors affect genes is detrimental. Often the genetic structure isn't affected, but the code becomes unusable at a certain location. This is the benefit of having two sets of code, one from the mother and one from the father. Where unusable code exists as a result of this genetic degradation, the code from the other set of genes can be used. This is why families shouldn't inbreed, the bad code often ends up being duplicated in offspring and genetic defects are likely. Sometimes, instead of just messing up the code within a structure, the structure itself is changed. In rare cases, this change of structure is beneficial to the organism. What doesn't pass logical muster is that macroevolution happens through the same process as genetic degradation, but it is much less likely. Therefore, if the rate of genetic degradation exceeds the rate of beneficial macroevolution, then no species can evolve in time enough to overcome genetic degradation.
Therefore, my question is: What is the extent of genetic degradation? Combined with its rate versus that of macroevolution, we should get an idea of the initial generation of life on planet earth.
The fact is that evolution does not have an experimental history. Evolution is a construct that consists of elements spanning multiple disciplines. Any experimentation is limited to a single hypothesis in a single discipline, the likes of which are not sufficient for claiming an experiment either in favor of or against a broad-based theoretical construct. Either the hypothesis is disproved or a likelihood for the truth value of the hypothesis is demonstrated. Evolutionists merely plug the results into the evolutionary picture in order to categorize the results. And when their current picture of evolution is defied by the results, they change the picture. ID does the same with the same results: Except that ID is exceptionally a more likely proposition than naturalistic evolution.
The linchpin in the evolutionary machine is macroevolution. Microevolution is demonstrable. Microevolution is the genetic diversity possible within the confines of a genetic structure. It is the difference, for example, between breeds of dogs. It has been tested and evidences of microevolution abound. Macroevolution happens to some extent. Macroevolution happens when the genetic structure itself changes in a beneficial way. Some micro-evidences of macroevolution have been discovered. ID-ers and creationists alike agree to these facts. However, macroevolution happens entirely by accident. It can be caused by a number of external factors. What usually happens when these external factors affect genes is detrimental. Often the genetic structure isn't affected, but the code becomes unusable at a certain location. This is the benefit of having two sets of code, one from the mother and one from the father. Where unusable code exists as a result of this genetic degradation, the code from the other set of genes can be used. This is why families shouldn't inbreed, the bad code often ends up being duplicated in offspring and genetic defects are likely. Sometimes, instead of just messing up the code within a structure, the structure itself is changed. In rare cases, this change of structure is beneficial to the organism. What doesn't pass logical muster is that macroevolution happens through the same process as genetic degradation, but it is much less likely. Therefore, if the rate of genetic degradation exceeds the rate of beneficial macroevolution, then no species can evolve in time enough to overcome genetic degradation.
Therefore, my question is: What is the extent of genetic degradation? Combined with its rate versus that of macroevolution, we should get an idea of the initial generation of life on planet earth.
posted by Jim Pemberton at 2:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home