open system theory applied to evolution., page-204

have been away, and am now back for a short break. Although I haven't being adding to the debate I have been thinking about the question.

Can you provide Observable evidence of Darwinian evolution of something changing it's kind?

Here is what occurred to me.

In looking at the evolution from species A to Species B evidence provided on this forum are snapshots of species between the two that are linked by time, structure and sometimes by genetics. Each snapshot in time represents a species moving further A and closer to B.

The objection as I understand it is that this does not show something changing its kind. To me the examples provided show the intermediate changes in the chain to get from A to B. Changes are too slow to observe in real time so I don't know what evidence of "something changing it's kind" really means.

Here is analogy of how I see the objection to the theory of evolution.

I have already posted this but thought it worthwhile mentioning it again with more explanation.

I plant a tree. I didn't see the tree grow. Maybe it grows too slowly to see the tree grow. I look at it a few weeks later and it is bigger. Then a few weeks later still and the tree is bigger still, and so on. All these observations are intermediaries between that when I first planted the tree and my final observation.

I could believe that I am observing one tree that is growing and gaining in complexity by natural laws or I can say this is cannot be the case using the same logic that I think creationists use.

All these trees from the one that planted to the one finally observed are all different trees that have been created along the way. The evidence that I have for believing this follows

the trees observed at different times are bigger and more complex than the ones previously observed. The last one even had flowers on it.

and

I never saw the trees growing bigger and more complex and can say with confidence that a single tree could not have changed through a natural process.

and

At each stage the tree was more complex. This could not possibly have happened because that would contradict the second law of thermodynamics which requires an increase in disorder. Clearly each tree that I observed is more complex than previously observed trees and must therefore have been created.

Does this sound ridiculous? Yes, of course it does, but to me no more so than arguments against the theory of evolution put forward by opponents with similar points.

There is an equivalent question to Can you provide Observable evidence of Darwinian evolution of something changing it's kind?.

In the context of the above analogy, the question is: can the observation of the trees provide evidence that it is one tree that is growing and developing rather than a number of created trees? Yes, there are artificial constraints in the analogy placed by limited observations, but this reflects the limitations of the long time for evolution to change species.

Back to the question posed:

Can you provide Observable evidence of Darwinian evolution of something changing it's kind?

So the answer to the question is "no", but with a caveat. The caveat is that "no" simply implies that it is not possible to observe changes that take a very long time actually occurring because changes take too long. The "no" doesn't imply that there is no evidence for evolution.

I don't think that the question makes any more sense than the one in the tree analogy, namely: can the observation of the trees provide evidence that it is one tree that is growing and developing rather than a number of created trees because one cannot see the trees actually growing?

a "no" would not imply that there is no evidence for evolution - it would mean we could not observe species changes (other than bacteria and related life) taking place in a human lifespan.

The question therefor just can't lead to sensible debate because it makes this incorrect assumption about the theory of evolution as if it were undeniable fact. The question of the tree in the analogy also makes no sense because the tree grows too slowly to see it grow.

This coupled with a not particularly clear phrasing of the question is a well known technique used by people wanting to score points rather than engender de abate. This may not apply to the questioner - only he/she will be able to tell us the real intent of the question.

The question when first asked of me was along the lines that I better respond or the questioner would assume that I believed by faith (I can't remember whether the faith was supposed to be blind to begin with). This veiled threat coupled with an unclear question based on an incorrect assumption as if it were true, warned me that something was going on beneath the surface. I ignored my instincts and replied. Then rest, as they say, is history. This is not a standard approach for someone seeking a debate.

Someone on this forum (sorry I can't remember who it was - I would like to give him/her credit for the statement) said something along the lines that you can tell more about a person from the questions he/she asks than by the answers that he/she provides.

Very insightful.