Evolution vs Creation

[Servant222]

As a Christian who is also a scientist, I am often asked whether I believe in evolution.

My first response is always: how do you define "evolution"?

If evolution refers to changes that occur in life forms, then the answer is "yes"- animal breeding, changes that we see in viruses, etc. all demonstrate evolution. But the question is, how far does that "evolution" go- for example, can new species be produced through evolution? An even more basic question to ask an evolutionary biologist is: how did life begin; how was that first living organism produced?

In order for life to begin, an evolutionary biologist needs to believe two things: that through some accident, inorganic material was given the breath of life AND that at exactly the same instant, that new life was given the ability to reproduce itself.

For me, thinking as a scientist, it is simply impossible for those two "accidents" to happen without divine guidance, without the direction of a divine Creator.

 

[random_guy]

First, congratulations on being a scientist. It's something I'm striving to acheive (and I'll find out in the next couple of months if I make the next step). Just wondering, what kind of science do you study?

As for your questions, the theory of evolution encompasses many different areas of biology since it's central to the study of biology. Without universal common ancestory, biology is nothing more than observations and no explanations.

We can observe speciation. There are hundreds of peer reviewed journal articles on speciation and many lab experiments that cause speciation. Second, with fossil record evidence and genetic evidence, common ancestory is very well supported. Without common ancestory, our phylogenetic tree or comparative protein analysis would make no sense. Finally, evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis (formation of the first life) since it doesn't matter where life came from, only that it exist, it is an imperfect replicator, and competition for resources exists. These criterias are the only things necessary for evolution. Also, I think your views on abiogenesis are incorrect. You're thinking of it as non-life -> life in one giant step. How organic chemists hypothesize is many steps with grey inbetween areas. There exists self replicating RNA, while not alive, shows how some of the intermediate steps may have occurred.

Finally, science can not prove or disprove God's intervention in the creation of life. However, no one knows exactly how or what involvement He played. I personally believed that He set up the universe and let it go.

 

[Mallon]

I'm going to take a wild guess and say he's not a biologist.

I will also point out for the 435,785,255,868th time that regardless of how life started, whether through a miracle or by natural cause, evolutionary science takes off where that first common ancestor began. Evolutionary theory does not depend on how that first lifeform came about. It just had to be there for natural selection to act upon.

 

[shernren]

Hi Servant222!

I hope you're not discouraged that you'll see a lot of TEs (theistic evolutionists) answering you.

Well firstly I would say that I don't "believe" in evolution: I accept it as currently the best explanation of the evidence we have about life. There's a subtle difference there.

Secondly, if you keep up with most modern research on abiogenesis (not that it attracts much funding in modern biology, unfortunately, compared to other fields) you'll see that most structures they propose are already replicating structures right from the start. In fact life, almost by definition, replicates; even viruses that are barely alive replicate given the right helps (i.e. other life forms to feed off ). Within that framework, we would expect the first life or proto-life to be chemical replicators of some sort. For example, phospholipids spontaneously assemble into bilayer micelles in water (see: coacervates, microspheres), and if a particular micelle grows so large that it cannot be held together by surface tension it would break up into a few smaller micelles. One micelle -> many micelles: replication, of a sort.

Another example of chemical replication involves amino adenosine triesters, or AATE for short: when AATE molecules are introduced into a solution of precursor molecules, the AATE molecules catalyze formation of other AATE molecules from the precursors present. Again, chemical replication. AATE itself isn't a serious candidate for an initial chemical in the origin of life, but it's more of a "proof-of-concept" that chemical replicators do exist. RNA can catalyze various biochemical reactions (including the synthesis of further RNA fragments from suitable chemical precursors), and obviously so do proteins.

Do we have the exact pathways by which all these mechanisms produced life? Definitely not.
But, we do not see at the moment any theoretical difficulties which would forbid abiogenesis. Improbability, certainly - but not impossibility.

The bigger difficulty is actually obtaining the chemical precursors - amino acids, ribose sugars, and nucleic bases need to be present and induced to condense (in an aqueous environment which would favor hydrolysis) repeatedly. I'll freely admit that we don't know enough about that yet, although some findings (e.g. presence of glycine, the simplest amino acid, in some nebulae) stir hope. But per your objection, once the chemicals are in place, the actual step to imperfect replication isn't a big step.

 

[Servant222]

...with fossil record evidence and genetic evidence, common ancestory is very well supported.

I believe the fossil evidence is fragmentary at best- I am not aware of any direct evidence that provides scientific "proof" of major changes in a life form- for example, for one species evolving into another.

But more important is the premise that common ancestry is as well explained by the notion that God created all life forms with the same basic genetic make-up.

...evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis (formation of the first life) since it doesn't matter where life came from

An evolutionary biologist cannot draw artificial boundaries and say "here is how species evolved, but I'm not going to talk about how the process started; you'll have to get an organic chemist to explain that." The biologist may have to rely on the work of another specialist, but he/she cannot ignore a fundamental part of a theory.

Finally, science can not prove or disprove God's intervention in the creation of life.

True- no science is absolute. But just like a scientist knows that a dropped stone will, statistically, most likely fall to the earth, so I believe the very existence of life demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt the existence of a Creator.

I personally believed that He set up the universe and let it go.

I believe He set up the Universe, and oversees every aspect of its continuing existence; he is alive and there, every second, in every aspect of life- mine included.

 

[random_guy]

I believe the fossil evidence is fragmentary at best- I am not aware of any direct evidence that provides scientific "proof" of major changes in a life form- for example, for one species evolving into another.

But science doesn't deal with "proofs" since that's for math and alcohol. You may believe the fossil record is fragmentary, but there are transitional fossils for all the major clades (right word?). Again, as a scientist, it should be pretty easy to access the papers. If you want to know more, I can list references for you.

But more important is the premise that common ancestry is as well explained by the notion that God created all life forms with the same basic genetic make-up.

The common design argument is nice until you examine it more closely. You know that scientific theories need to do more than explain, it must be able to have predictive powers. How does common design explain faulty pseudogenes and the similarities and differences between species with defective genes? According to the ToE, the pseudogene for vitamin C should be more similar in humans and apes than guinea pigs, and this holds. How does common design explain the difference between chromosome count in humans and apes? According to the ToE, it was predicted that either chromosomes fused in humans or chromosomes fissed apart in apes. When we finally had sequencing ability, it turns out the fusion theory was correct. What scientific framework does common design have in this explanation?

An evolutionary biologist cannot draw artificial boundaries and say "here is how species evolved, but I'm not going to talk about how the process started; you'll have to get an organic chemist to explain that." The biologist may have to rely on the work of another specialist, but he/she cannot ignore a fundamental part of a theory.

Are you also saying that a chemist shouldn't ignore the origins of electrons when explaining how atoms bound? Physicists shouldn't ignore the origins of matter when studying laminar flow? Abiogenesis is not fundamental to evolution in any more than the origins of matter fundamental to studying gravity.

True- no science is absolute. But just like a scientist knows that a dropped stone will, statistically, most likely fall to the earth, so I believe the very existence of life demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt the existence of a Creator.

You may believe that, but that's not scientific. However, evolution is scientific, and if you want to attack evolution, you should use scientific arguments, and not "I feel that..." Also, why would evolution preclude the existence of a Creator? Why can't a Creator use evolution?

I believe He set up the Universe, and oversees every aspect of its continuing existence; he is alive and there, every second, in every aspect of life- mine included.

Yes, I believe in the same thing, but this is all semantics. For example, I don't say, "God created the PS3" nor do I say, "God caused me to roll snake eyes last night". People invented the things, and physics caused the dice roll, but it was through God that these things are even possible. I believe God is there, and I view how life was created is the same as every other event that ever occurs. They are all part of God's plan from the beginning.

Could you give which scientific field you study or what scientific work you do? I can try to show the parallels between evolution and the scientific field you study. Maybe that'll make more sense.

 

[Mallon]

I believe the fossil evidence is fragmentary at best- I am not aware of any direct evidence that provides scientific "proof" of major changes in a life form- for example, for one species evolving into another.

There is actually excellent evidence for speciation in the fossil record. See:
Cronin, T. M., and C. E. Schneider. 1990. Climactic influences on species: Evidence from the fossil record. Trends in Evolution and Ecology 5: 275-279.
(I'll assume that since you're a scientist, you have access to TREE.)
The evidence for speciation is so overwhelming, in fact, that even evolution-denyers like AiG are forced to accept speciation.
So yes, the fossil record as a whole is fragmentary, but there are many instances of high resolution deposition that allow us to see speciation in effect.

But more important is the premise that common ancestry is as well explained by the notion that God created all life forms with the same basic genetic make-up.

I don't know about that. According to Genesis, God created birds and fish from different material (water)than He created land animals (dirt). Following this logic, birds and fish should have a biochemical make-up that stands apart from that of land animals. This is not the case.

An evolutionary biologist cannot draw artificial boundaries and say "here is how species evolved, but I'm not going to talk about how the process started; you'll have to get an organic chemist to explain that."

Why not? We give astronomers the benefit of the doubt when they defect to astrophysists on topics like atomic fusion. Abiogenesis is a topic completely independent of evolution. Hence, there is a completely independent field of research dedicated to it.
Speaking of invisible barriers, would you care to demonstrate, from a scientific POV, what the invisible barrier to heritability is? Creationists often toss around the idea that evolution cannot progress beyond the taxonomic level of "kind." What does that mean?

The biologist may have to rely on the work of another specialist, but he/she cannot ignore a fundamental part of a theory.

Abiogenesis is not a fundamental part of evolutionary theory. Natural selection is. Heritability is. Differential reproduction is. But you should know all this stuff -- you're a scientist!

I believe He set up the Universe, and oversees every aspect of its continuing existence; he is alive and there, every second, in every aspect of life- mine included.

As do I. You don't seem to think God has the ability to create a self-sustaining universe, however.

By the way, since you brought up the issue of your science background, what is your background in science? This is the second time in as many days that someone has claimed to be a scientist and then refuse to state their credentials.

 

[Logos1560]

the theory of evolution encompasses many different areas of biology since it's central to the study of biology.

You seem to agree with the claim of neo-Darwinist Theodosius Dobzhansky who asserted that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

Several of the major disciplines or areas in biology were pioneered by scientists who had never heard of Darwinian evolution or who rejected Darwinian evolution.

Agricultural science existed before Darwin.
Medicial science existed before Darwin.

Is science supposedly synonymous with Darwinism?

 

[random_guy]

You seem to agree with the claim of neo-Darwinist Theodosius Dobzhansky who asserted that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

Several of the major disciplines or areas in biology were pioneered by scientists who had never heard of Darwinian evolution or who rejected Darwinian evolution.

Agricultural science existed before Darwin.
Medicial science existed before Darwin.

Is science supposedly synonymous with Darwinism?

I should've put modern biology. There was studies in biology before evolution, but without evolution, modern biology makes no sense. Of course, don't take my word for it, here's statements by different scientific organizations:

"Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."

To make progress, to learn more about botanical organisms, hypotheses, the subcomponents of theories, are tested by attempting to falsify logically derived predictions. This is why scientists use and teach evolution; evolution offers testable explanations of observed biological phenomena. Evolution continues to be of paramount usefulness, and so, based on simple pragmatism, scientists use this theory to improve our understanding of the biology of organisms. Over and over again, evolutionary theory has generated predictions that have proven to be true. Any hypothesis that doesn’t prove true is discarded in favor of a new one, and so the component hypotheses of evolutionary theory change as knowledge and understanding grow. Phylogenetic hypotheses, patterns of ancestral relatedness, based on one set of data, for example, base sequences in DNA, are generated, and when the results make logical sense out of formerly disparate observations, confidence in the truth of the hypothesis increases. The theory of evolution so permeates botany that frequently it is not mentioned explicitly, but the overwhelming majority of published studies are based upon evolutionary hypotheses, each of which constitutes a test of an hypothesis. Evolution has been very successful as a scientific explanation because it has been useful in advancing our understanding of organisms and applying that knowledge to the solution of many human problems, e.g., host-pathogen interactions, origin of crop plants, herbicide resistance, disease susceptibility of crops, and invasive plants.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Evolutionary science plays a fundamental role in modern biology. [/FONT]

This statement is also supported by the American Institute of Biological Sciences. So here's just a sample of 4 different groups, all are involved in biological studies, all support that evolution is fundamental to biology.

 

[Mallon]

The link between biogeography, biostratigraphy, genetics, and morphology certainly doesn't make sense except in the light of evolution. For example, is it a coincidence that Afrotheria form a genetically distinct clade that originated in Africa? I think not!

 

[Servant222]

At the risk of sidetracking the original discussion, let me say the following:

Mallon wrote:

By the way, since you brought up the issue of your science background, what is your background in science? This is the second time in as many days that someone has claimed to be a scientist and then refuse to state their credentials.

Are you suggesting that my opinions have no validity because I haven't stated my scientific credentials? Correct me if I'm wrong, but did I detect a sense of unnecessary causticness in this and one of your previous 435,785,255,868 comments?

shernren warned:

I hope you're not discouraged that you'll see a lot of TEs (theistic evolutionists) answering you.

As a newcomer here, I guess I can't claim that I wasn't warned, but some of the remarks smack of more than just "discouragement" I was hoping a Christian forum would be a place where even subtle belittlement wasn't commonly used to try and make a point.

FWIW, I'm not a biologist. And no, I don't have free electronic access to Cronin, T. M., and C. E. Schneider. 1990. Climactic influences on species: Evidence from the fossil record. Trends in Evolution and Ecology 5: 275-279. Perhaps you could provide me with a link to a free electronic version, or at least give me a relevant quote from the paper.

The message I'm getting from some posters here suggests that I'm not qualified to bring up this subject and should just slink away to a more blase forum and keep my opinions on this topic to myself. O.K. point taken.

 

[Mallon]

Are you suggesting that my opinions have no validity because I haven't stated my scientific credentials?

Not at all. But realize that you are far from being the first to deny evolution and speciation here, and that everything you've said thus far has been refuted here by actual Christian biologists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did I detect a sense of unnecessary causticness in this and one of your previous 435,785,255,868 comments?

Probably. And I am sorry for it. But having to answer the same questions over-and-over again does test the nerves a little. It is frustrating having to defend well-established evolutionary theory from logical fallacies and arguments-from-ignorance every day.

FWIW, I'm not a biologist. And no, I don't have free electronic access to Cronin, T. M., and C. E. Schneider. 1990. Climactic influences on species: Evidence from the fossil record. Trends in Evolution and Ecology 5: 275-279. Perhaps you could provide me with a link to a free electronic version, or at least give me a relevant quote from the paper.

PM me your email and I will send the paper your way.

 

[Melethiel]

Don't worry, despite the tone of some posts, you don't have to be a biologist to have an opinion. After all, they tolerate ME here, and I only have basic undergrad stuff.

 

[Servant222]

Mallon:

Thanks for the clarification- and the apology; it's always worth being patient and kind, even if you find yourself repeating something for the n th time to a newbie like me who may not have your specific expertise. I'm so new, I can't even send you a PM yet with my email until I do a few more posts!

Now I didn't say I don't believe in evolution- quite the contrary, I think evolution is as incontrovertible a fact as the law of gravity. And I find that that view is entirely consistent with my Christian beliefs.

But one of the questions I have is: how much evolution can science credibly explain? For example, is there really evidence in the fossil record that demonstrates that all species today have evolved from previous ones? There are a few oft-quoted examples (eohippus comes to mind) that purport to show speciation- but, in my opinion, the evidence is pretty theoretical and limited. If speciation is to be more than just speculation, it should provide evidence for how ALL life forms today were derived from previous species AND for how that life started in the first place. Of course, we know that that is impossible, given the very limited and selective preservation that is present in the fossil record.

When I go to so-called science museums like the Tyrrel Dinosaur museum in Drumheller, I am always disappointed that they present the evolutionary "tree of life", from the first living cell to present day organisms, as the gospel truth (pun intended) when in fact there very little evidence- if any- to support this giant leap of faith. At best, it is sheer speculation, at worst, pretty questionable science that should not be presented as fact in a science museum.

 

[random_guy]

Mallon:

Thanks for the clarification- and the apology; it's always worth being patient and kind, even if you find yourself repeating something for the n th time to a newbie like me who may not have your specific expertise. I'm so new, I can't even send you a PM yet with my email until I do a few more posts!

Now I didn't say I don't believe in evolution- quite the contrary, I think evolution is as incontrovertible a fact as the law of gravity. And I find that that view is entirely consistent with my Christian beliefs.

But one of the questions I have is: how much evolution can science credibly explain? For example, is there really evidence in the fossil record that demonstrates that all species today have evolved from previous ones? There are a few oft-quoted examples (eohippus comes to mind) that purport to show speciation- but, in my opinion, the evidence is pretty theoretical and limited. If speciation is to be more than just speculation, it should provide evidence for how ALL life forms today were derived from previous species AND for how that life started in the first place. Of course, we know that that is impossible, given the very limited and selective preservation that is present in the fossil record.

When I go to so-called science museums like the Tyrrel Dinosaur museum in Drumheller, I am always disappointed that they present the evolutionary "tree of life", from the first living cell to present day organisms, as the gospel truth (pun intended) when in fact there very little evidence- if any- to support this giant leap of faith. At best, it is sheer speculation, at worst, pretty questionable science that should not be presented as fact in a science museum.

You seem to be looking for exact fossil transitions when this isn't possible. It's impossible to know which fossil gave rise to which group since evolution is a tree, not a ladder. We do find many fossils that share characteristics of different groups, as predicted by the common descent. How much of the evidence have you examined? For example, have you read the papers linking dinosaurs and birds due to theropods fossils? Tetrapod fossil linking fish and amphibians? Synapsid fossil linking mammals and reptiles?

What is your take on these papers, and why do you feel they are inadequate? If you haven't read them, then you know that through peer review, the scientists find the evidence quite convincing. Why is it prestigious journals such as Nature publishes papers that support common ancestory through fossil evidence? As a scientist, do you also believe that evolution and common descent is given a free pass due to some atheist conspiracy, or that the majority of scientists accept evolution and common descent because of the evidence? Perhaps you can tell us what field you study so we can give a more convincing argument by using analogies in your field on showing why your field is a science, as is evolutionary biology.

 

[Servant222]

random_guy wrote:

...or that the majority of scientists accept evolution and common descent because of the evidence?

I am not a biologist; my expertise is in geology and engineering so please bear with me if I appear to be ignorant of the language biologists use, and haven't read all the peer-reviewed papers in a field other than my own. But don't evolutionary biologists believe in the "tree of life"- that through natural selection, a single, accidentally-formed simple living cell produced every species seen today?

Many Christians subscribe to the notion that God created most individual species, including humans, in one instant of creation. Some of those individual living species (like dinosaurs) became extinct, others evolved to produce the variations that we see in each species (Europeans, Asians, Afro-Americans, First Nations, etc.; which begs the interesting question of what race Adam and Eve were).

So one theory is that life began as a single point, the other that life started from many points- all created by God in one instant of creation, as described in Genesis.

 

[shernren]

As a newcomer here, I guess I can't claim that I wasn't warned, but some of the remarks smack of more than just "discouragement" I was hoping a Christian forum would be a place where even subtle belittlement wasn't commonly used to try and make a point.

Oh dear, oh dear. I didn't choose my words properly, then. What I meant to say is simply don't be surprised if you see some Christians who accept evolution here replying you. What's happened is that people come in, post their piece stating just how evolution is flawed, expect lots of agreement and affirmation or at least some comments pointing out better ways to floor evolutionists, and instead get half-a-dozen TEs on their case shoving everything from talkorigins to PubMed at them. Then they look around, go "Isn't this a Christian forum? Why are there so many evolutionists here?" and stalk out in a huff.

I was merely trying to warn you that such a thing might happen; I certainly didn't intend to make you feel that you're not qualified enough or anything. Why, I'm just a college student waiting to go to uni, so I'm hardly qualified enough for this sort of thing if qualification is what matters. What does matter is to have an open mind and to rationally consider the evidence that is brought forward. We promise to consider your arguments, and you in turn should consider ours, instead of making a knee-jerk "Golly I thought they were Christians, how come they're all evolutionists!" remark - which to your credit you don't look like you'll be doing any time soon.

I generally err on the side of caution when welcoming newcomers. By all means, keep on presenting your case here. It's always good to have civil discussion and I look forward to more of the same.

 

[Mallon]

I'm so new, I can't even send you a PM yet with my email until I do a few more posts!

Email me, then. jmallon(at)ucalgary.ca.

But one of the questions I have is: how much evolution can science credibly explain? For example, is there really evidence in the fossil record that demonstrates that all species today have evolved from previous ones?

The fossil record, as you state in your earlier post, is not complete. It IS scrappy at times. That said, we have morphological (and genetic) evidence for transitions between most major clades (turtles and bats excluded). We have the vertebrate transition, the fish-amphibian transition, the amphibian-reptile transition, the reptile-bird transition, the "pelycosaur"-mammal transition, etc. (If you couldn't tell, my interests are with the vertebrates). Do we have fossil species to fill the gaps the entire way along? No, thanks to the incomplete fossil record. But we certainly have enough to give us a good idea of what's going on and who evolved from who. Why would God independently create animals like Microraptor, Protarchaeopteryx, Sinornithosaurus, Archaeopteryx, etc. that all resemble transitional taxa between dinosaurs and birds?

If speciation is to be more than just speculation, it should provide evidence for how ALL life forms today were derived from previous species AND for how that life started in the first place.

I just don't see, contrary to your logic, how one can extrapolate processes where life gives rise to life, to processes where non-life gives rise to life.

When I go to so-called science museums like the Tyrrel Dinosaur museum in Drumheller, I am always disappointed that they present the evolutionary "tree of life", from the first living cell to present day organisms, as the gospel truth (pun intended) when in fact there very little evidence- if any- to support this giant leap of faith.

I'm doing my grad work out of the Tyrrell. I'll be sure to let them know you're unhappy.

At best, it is sheer speculation, at worst, pretty questionable science that should not be presented as fact in a science museum.

To be honest, I don't remember the exhibit you're talking about. I don't remember an abiogenesis exhibit. I thought at the Tyrrell, the furthest back they go is the Cambrian Burgess Shale fauna. Maybe you can enlighten me?

 

[notto]

When I go to so-called science museums like the Tyrrel Dinosaur museum in Drumheller, I am always disappointed that they present the evolutionary "tree of life", from the first living cell to present day organisms, as the gospel truth (pun intended) when in fact there very little evidence- if any- to support this giant leap of faith. At best, it is sheer speculation, at worst, pretty questionable science that should not be presented as fact in a science museum.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Read this in its entirety and then get back to us. My guess is that you really haven't actually read or researched the evidence for common descent that is available.

Calling it sheer speulation or questionable science is the first clue that you are really dismissing something for religoius reasons that you haven't studied in the first place.

What research have you done? What books by actual evolutionary biologists have you read?

What are the primary lines of evidence used to show common descent (after all, if you are familiar enough with the evidence to dismiss it, you should be able to list the evidence).

Can you demonstrate that your dismissal of evolution is an educated and objective one?

 

[SuperSaint4GodDBZStyle]

As a Christian who is also a scientist, I am often asked whether I believe in evolution.

My first response is always: how do you define "evolution"?

If evolution refers to changes that occur in life forms, then the answer is "yes"- animal breeding, changes that we see in viruses, etc. all demonstrate evolution. But the question is, how far does that "evolution" go- for example, can new species be produced through evolution? An even more basic question to ask an evolutionary biologist is: how did life begin; how was that first living organism produced?

In order for life to begin, an evolutionary biologist needs to believe two things: that through some accident, inorganic material was given the breath of life AND that at exactly the same instant, that new life was given the ability to reproduce itself.

For me, thinking as a scientist, it is simply impossible for those two "accidents" to happen without divine guidance, without the direction of a divine Creator.

I agree Servant. My favorite car is the Mistubishi Evolution Lancer. This is a good example of micro-evolution in which we observe. They have all these different types of Evo's from Japan but it doesn't turn into a Galant, it stays in the form of Lancer. As God created man, this is an example of Man creating cars. But many evolutionists say that it must be naturalistic, but it just can't happen without the help of a Creator.