Do Pixels Reveal the Picture?

TalkOrigins.org is a website dedicated to explaining the various evidences for evolution.  On an intro to biology segment it explains that macroevolution (evolution from species to another species) cannot be observed but can be extrapolated from microevolution (evolutionary changes within a species), which has been observed.  It goes on to say “But this extrapolation, in and of itself, does not provide a compelling explanation of the patterns of biological diversity we see today.  Evidence for macroevolution, or common ancestry and modification with descent, comes from several other fields of study”

Many other fields of study are detailed, for example,  29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.  This article and others on that website contain many compelling arguments worthy of notice.

This evidence, however good, represents just a relative few pixels in the whole high definition screen of life origins.  The individual pixel arguments, yes, could be argued as fact and are presented as such.  But the whole extrapolation, and that is what it is, that we can trace our origins back to sea worms and the like – this part is not fact.  This part of it is unprovable – it is extrapolated from the existing pixel-like evidences.

The high definition image of life origins cannot be revealed from the limited number of existing pixel arguments, however bright they may be.

Microevolution or Macroevolution?

I’ve read often that the terms microevolution and macroevolution are just brought on by creationists to muddy the waters.  But microevolution and macroevolution are not terms that come from creationists.  Evolutionists’ own gurus explain it quite well.

This is a quote from TalkOrigins ( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html): “Microevolution can be studied directly. Macroevolution cannot. Macroevolution is studied by examining patterns in biological populations and groups of related organisms and inferring process from pattern. Given the observation of microevolution and the knowledge that the earth is billions of years old — macroevolution could be postulated. But this extrapolation, in and of itself, does not provide a compelling explanation of the patterns of biological diversity we see today. Evidence for macroevolution, or common ancestry and modification with descent, comes from several other fields of study.”

This is the main point: Macroevolution is interpolated from studying microevolution.  I totally agree that microevolution (changes within species) is observed and “proven” by scientific method, and these microevolution studies are observable, repeatable, and have good accuracy.  But it is in the inferences to macroevolution (which cannot be observed, just like God cannot be observed) that the uncertainties I talk about arise.

Just because evolution exists within species does not automatically mean species evolve to other species.  Yes, that is what science is trying to show, and there is so called evidence (such as common DNA), but it is not yet in the “proven” realm.  The species to another species part of it is not yet considered “fact of evolution” and that is why it is termed with accuracy of only “fairly certain” or “informed speculation” (or something less than “proven”).   Evolutionists’ own publications indicate this.  This is where the confusion lies.  Why has this become the stumbling block for the public?

The Fact of Evolution

I took some heat for my recent post, The Exquisite Beauty of Women.  Do you not think the part about “our Neanderthal ancestors would have died in agony at a hollow dry tree knot” is at least a little bit funny?

That post was not meant to be a scientific discussion of evolution.  It was meant to be poking fun!  But yes, there was one serious point.  And that was to ask:  Can the lineage of beautiful women really be traced back to animals that looked like jellyfish, sea anemones and earthworms?

Evolutionists will point out that evolution should not be viewed as a “ladder.”  Point taken.  The heart of the matter, though (at least for me), is the tree truck.  “A Brief History of Life” is nicely detailed in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html, with a caveat that “The material here ranges from some issues that are fairly certain to some topics that are nothing more than informed speculation.”

I am often reminded that “evolution does not attempt to explain how life began” (this is referring to abiogenesis). Perhaps that’s true.  But science certainly wants to explain life all the way back to the first life form and that’s what I’m talking about.  “Animals start appearing prior to the Cambrian, about 600 million years ago” (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html), and by animals they’re referring to things that look like jellyfish, sea anemones, earthworms and those sort of things.

In all my posts about uncertainties in scientific observations, data, etc. (supported precisely by the caveat from Talk Origins above), my case rests with this very issue:  Should we not question when the “fact of evolution” is mistakenly applied to too wide a range of scientific observations/extrapolations, implying that there must be negligible uncertainty in some of these things when in fact only “fairly certain” or “informed speculation” accuracy exists?  Please reread this paragraph because it is at the core of why many evolution claims should be seriously challenged.

So on the accuracy scale, where do statements such as this fall?: “Beautiful women can trace their lineage back to the first animals that looked like jellyfish, sea anemones and earthworms.”  Yes, this macroevolution claim is extrapolated from microevolution scientific research, but what is the accuracy in doing so?  Not the highest accuracy that should be demanded for such an important claim.  And certainly not enough to be in the category fact of evolution.  “Fairly certain” is fine for some details, but not this one.

This has been my beef all along.