mikes@tekecs.UUCP (Michael Sellers) (09/20/86)
[...] > Which brings to mind the claim of certain Claddists and others that there is > really not a single FACT that supports the Theory of Evolution. I find that > somewhat of an amazing thing to say. So how about it. Can someone give a > SINGLE fact in support of the Theory of Evolution???? > > Remember, "vertibrates evolved from invertibrates", and "thumbs evolved to > make it easier to handle toilet paper" are tautologies, not 'facts'. > > Remember the 'creationists' silly listing of points that seemed to go on and > on forever? Let's hear it from the Evolutionists!! > > Go ahead. Make my day. > > Regards, > Ken Arndt Well, I started thinking about this, and, off the top of my head, about several dozen pieces of solid evidence that are often used in support of evolution. I even started quite a lengthy essay on evolutionary theory, the nature of archeological and geological evidence and 'fact'. In the end though, I just couldn't bring myself to do it. First, I'm not sure what you want. If I bring up fossils and the reasons why they couldn't be diluvial or catastrophic deposits, you could just say "that isn't a fact; its just an old bone, and the archeologists are probably wrong anyway." If I bring up something as straightforward as speciation evidence from the Galapogos Islands or something as esoteric as Carbon 14 dating you'd either misunderstand or pick some nit. If I brought up domestication and alteration of plants and animals by humans, you might say "that isn't evolution, that's a poor example of artificial hybridization." Basically, there is probably no piece of evidence that someone who does not *want* to believe must believe; it always could be a fraud or a mistake or a faulty hypothesis. Second, I don't know that someone who accepts evolution as a scientifically based theory can speak meaningfully to someone else who, at the outset, is already decided on the issue, not as a result of observation or informed consideration, but as a way of propping up what might otherwise be a sagging faith. If you do not accept the methods of obtaining scientific evidence or if you have not had enough exposure to scientific methodologies to understand how hypotheses, evidence, theory, and fact are related, then I don't know that anything I say will really make a difference. The observations taken as evidence for evolution are not static things like "it is sunny outside" or "I am male" that can be empirically tested. They are rather resident in the relations between objects: two birds are found on adjacent islands that are very much alike and yet different in notable ways. Why? 1) God made them that way. 2) The two types of birds have always been that way. 3) Both birds are distantly related by an ancestor bird, and the two types have changed (by an apparently non-directed process) in response to evolutionary pressures that enabled some to survive longer and better than others (e.g. if the differences between them are in beak type, perhaps there are significant dietary needs enforced by their respective environments). Now, which of the three answers matches most closely that which we can observe, and provides the most explanatory and predictive power? I vote number 3. In short, if you want to see evidence for evolution, do two things: read some responsible, semi-original sources (I recommend _Thread of Life_ by Roger Lewin from Smithsonian Books as an excellent place to start no matter what your background; good hearty writing and lots of very pretty pictures), and then do take a semi-critical look around you. Why must it be that God created all of this around us *snap crackle pop*? Because Bishop Ussher or Jerry Falwell says so? Of those who come to the issue with a vested interest in seeing God come out on top, there are very few evolutionists. On the other hand, of those who may (or may not) have some persuasion of religious faith but who are willing to take the time and examine the evidence (and not limit God to what *we* say must be) and make their decision by it without prejudice, there are few, if any, creationists. [I'm sorry this came out with a negative tone. This argument has been going on for so long and is of such questionable importance in the first place, that when someone made the claim that there is no factual evidence for evolution, it just seemed a little unbelievable and in a way sad to me.] -- Mike Sellers UUCP: {...your spinal column here...}!tektronix!tekecs!mikes INNING: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL IDEALISTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 REALISTS 1 1 0 4 3 1 2 0 2 0