Evidence for Evolution

[Ken]

Hilaire Belloc accepted evolution in a sense, but insisted that each species was a new creation.

That remains vague and philosophical for now, but I think it’s also what Eric Voegelin argued in substance. It remains a problem for philosophy but I’m inclined to agree with this intuitively.

The problem is that speciation is both horizontal and longitudinal. What do I mean by that?

First horizontal: a single species can branch into several different species which usually is the result of geographic separation. So, for example, both polar bears and grizzly bears are thought to be descended from a single ancestral brown bear species originating from Europe (probably Ireland) during the ice ages (Pleistocene) maybe 500,000 years ago. So you have one ancestral species splitting into two new species. And one can probably find the point in time when those two different bear populations diverged enough to effectively became separate species.

Second, longitudinal: Sometimes a single species can change over time due to changing habitat or conditions without branching. The evolution of the modern horse would be an example. In this case, paleontologists might identify and name various intermediate fossil species. But the identification of different species is really an artificial construct since there is really just one long continuous process. And the intermediate species that are named are largely just a consequence of the fossils that are found and identified. It is kind of like the color spectrum. How many colors you identify in the spectrum is arbitrary. Do you skip from red to yellow or do you include all the various shades of orange as well and consider them separate colors? Just like how many species you identify in a longitudinal sequence and where you place the break points is also arbitrary.

In point of fact, both processes tend to happen at the same time. So in the case of the horse we had both horizontal changes (branching) and longitudinal changes.

The larger point is that the notion of "species" itself is an artificial construct. In nature, different plants and animals don't have their own name tags identifying them as different species. That is just the result of the human desire to sort and classify and make order out of the world that we observe. It works pretty well, but the world is really more complex than that and there are always exceptions and complications. And there are many longstanding debates about whether different populations should be considered different species or subspecies. That is going on now with salmon originating form different ancestral streams and rivers. For example, are the Chinook and Coho salmon in the Klamath River in California a different subspecies from those in the Columbia River in the Pacific Northwest, or the Yukon river in Alaska?

Nature doesn't always sort itself into tidy and neat categories simply to accommodate the human desire to classify, name, and sort things.

[Falco Knotwise]

Hilaire Belloc accepted evolution in a sense, but insisted that each species was a new creation.

That remains vague and philosophical for now, but I think it’s also what Eric Voegelin argued in substance. It remains a problem for philosophy but I’m inclined to agree with this intuitively.

The problem is that speciation is both horizontal and longitudinal. What do I mean by that?

First horizontal: a single species can branch into several different species which usually is the result of geographic separation. So, for example, both polar bears and grizzly bears are thought to be descended from a single ancestral brown bear species originating from Europe (probably Ireland) during the ice ages (Pleistocene) maybe 500,000 years ago. So you have one ancestral species splitting into two new species. And one can probably find the point in time when those two different bear populations diverged enough to effectively became separate species.

Second, longitudinal: Sometimes a single species can change over time due to changing habitat or conditions without branching. The evolution of the modern horse would be an example. In this case, paleontologists might identify and name various intermediate fossil species. But the identification of different species is really an artificial construct since there is really just one long continuous process. And the intermediate species that are named are largely just a consequence of the fossils that are found and identified. It is kind of like the color spectrum. How many colors you identify in the spectrum is arbitrary. Do you skip from red to yellow or do you include all the various shades of orange as well and consider them separate colors? Just like how many species you identify in a longitudinal sequence and where you place the break points is also arbitrary.

In point of fact, both processes tend to happen at the same time. So in the case of the horse we had both horizontal changes (branching) and longitudinal changes.

The larger point is that the notion of "species" itself is an artificial construct. In nature, different plants and animals don't have their own name tags identifying them as different species. That is just the result of the human desire to sort and classify and make order out of the world that we observe. It works pretty well, but the world is really more complex than that and there are always exceptions and complications. And there are many longstanding debates about whether different populations should be considered different species or subspecies. That is going on now with salmon originating form different ancestral streams and rivers. For example, are the Chinook and Coho salmon in the Klamath River in California a different subspecies from those in the Columbia River in the Pacific Northwest, or the Yukon river in Alaska?

Ken, I understand that the idea of species has been a problem even for science, that is, hard to define. These were some of the questions being asked about that I found hard to understand. Because, when you talk about the species, you cannot just refer to its genetic makeup, or even various kinds of traits, you’re really (imo) talking about an organized whole, even the essence of something, which is a question for philosophy. Hopefully, I’ll be capable of a more intelligent response in the future sometime. The problem itself is interesting.

[Ken]

Ken, I understand that the idea of species has been a problem even for science, that is, hard to define. These were some of the questions being asked about that I found hard to understand. Because, when you talk about the species, you cannot just refer to its genetic makeup, or even various kinds of traits, you’re really (imo) talking about an organized whole, even the essence of something, which is a question for philosophy. Hopefully, I’ll be capable of a more intelligent response in the future sometime. The problem itself is interesting.

I don't know if it is a problem for science so much as simply an illustration of how our desire to categorize and name things is really just an artificial construct.

Plant and animals do tend to separate into different breeding populations and so they do generally tend to fall into our species categorization schemes. But we do need to recognize that it is still an artificial construct and there are plenty of exceptions. No matter how elaborately we define the various rules for defining what is a species, there are always going to be plenty of exceptions. Life doesn't always accommodate our desire to impose our own sense of order onto it.

[Falco Knotwise]

Hilary Belloc accepted evolution in a sense, but insisted that each species was a new creation.

That remains vague and philosophical for now, but I think it’s also what Eric Voegelin argued in substance. It remains a problem for philosophy but I’m inclined to agree with this intuitively.

I think many assumptions regarding evolution are wrong and shoddy but I am a "Creation" magazine subscriber. So, of course, that influences my views as does my background. Amish, Mennonites and Hutterites are Creationists and I appreciate that worldview.

Sciences that start out with the Bible and then try to evaluate claims scientifically is interesting to me. Anybody in search of the lost ark or something like that (for example) can get my attention, if for no other reason than I find it interesting. Biblical archaeology is also interesting.

What is the difference between intelligent design and creation science? Am I right that creation science starts out from the text of the Bible then seeks to find scientific evidence for it, but intelligent design seeks to infer an intelligent designer from the complexity and wholeness of organisms?

[Falco Knotwise]

Ken, I understand that the idea of species has been a problem even for science, that is, hard to define. These were some of the questions being asked about that I found hard to understand. Because, when you talk about the species, you cannot just refer to its genetic makeup, or even various kinds of traits, you’re really (imo) talking about an organized whole, even the essence of something, which is a question for philosophy. Hopefully, I’ll be capable of a more intelligent response in the future sometime. The problem itself is interesting.

I don't know if it is a problem for science so much as simply an illustration of how our desire to categorize and name things is really just an artificial construct.

Plant and animals do tend to separate into different breeding populations and so they do generally tend to fall into our species categorization schemes. But we do need to recognize that it is still an artificial construct and there are plenty of exceptions. No matter how elaborately we define the various rules for defining what is a species, there are always going to be plenty of exceptions. Life doesn't always accommodate our desire to impose our own sense of order onto it.

Genesis 2:19

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

It seems to me God is portrayed here almost as a partner in the process of Adam naming the animals, and that the name truly signifies the essential being of the creature. This implies, to me, that it’s more than just a futile, human desire. That’s really a metaphysical assumption you’re introducing there, I think, and not a statement for science.

[MaxPC]

That’s really a metaphysical assumption you’re introducing there, I think, and not a statement for science.

Or we could also say:

[Falco Knotwise]

Awesome point, Max!

If you’re confusing epistemology with metaphysics how would you know indeed, especially if you start out with the assumption that metaphysics is meaningless?

The first thing that happens in Genesis is the division of light from dark, the division of heavens and the earth, etc… making distinctions according to the light.

John 1:5. “And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” King James Version (KJV).

We have to be willing to look with the eyes of faith.

[Josh]

I sure wish I could generate random computer code and use it to finish jobs for clients.

[Ken]

Ken, I understand that the idea of species has been a problem even for science, that is, hard to define. These were some of the questions being asked about that I found hard to understand. Because, when you talk about the species, you cannot just refer to its genetic makeup, or even various kinds of traits, you’re really (imo) talking about an organized whole, even the essence of something, which is a question for philosophy. Hopefully, I’ll be capable of a more intelligent response in the future sometime. The problem itself is interesting.

I don't know if it is a problem for science so much as simply an illustration of how our desire to categorize and name things is really just an artificial construct.

Plant and animals do tend to separate into different breeding populations and so they do generally tend to fall into our species categorization schemes. But we do need to recognize that it is still an artificial construct and there are plenty of exceptions. No matter how elaborately we define the various rules for defining what is a species, there are always going to be plenty of exceptions. Life doesn't always accommodate our desire to impose our own sense of order onto it.

Genesis 2:19

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

It seems to me God is portrayed here almost as a partner in the process of Adam naming the animals, and that the name truly signifies the essential being of the creature. This implies, to me, that it’s more than just a futile, human desire. That’s really a metaphysical assumption you’re introducing there, I think, and not a statement for science.

Well, if you go out to your garden and scoop out a teaspoon of soil it will likely contain over a billion different individual bacteria cells comprised of maybe 10,000 to 100,000 different individual species of bacteria, many of which have not actually been described and named by science except in larger categories (genus, family, etc.). If you do it in the tropics you might have upwards of a million different species of bacteria in your teaspoon of soil.

I somehow don't think that Adam and God sat down to name all of them, especially since the existence of bacteria wasn't discovered until the 18th century when microscopes became powerful enough to see them.

Likewise, for larger animals that we can see? How about insects? They are mentioned in the Bible. There are estimated to be over 1 million species of insects on the planet. About 7,000 new insect species are discovered and described every year. You think Adam named them all when most of them exist nowhere near Mesopotamia where people generally think the Garden of Eden was located if you are reading Genesis literally.

Or birds which are specifically mentioned in Genesis 2. There are upwards of 20,000 different bird species on the planet. Most of which go nowhere near the middle east. And species distinctions are especially fluid with birds and there are lots of arguments to this day about species versus subspecies definitions of birds. For example, there are 18 different species of penguins, most of which never leave the coast of Antarctica. Do you think Adam cataloged and named them all?

[Ken]

I sure wish I could generate random computer code and use it to finish jobs for clients.

The correct analogy would be AI. Which can indeed do work, assemble code, and accomplish tasks without the intervention of humans.