Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[olgamc]

But there was a moment in time where they changed enough that they passed a point of no return.

Right. Just like our bucket. After 10 drops. After enough changes have been accumulated.

 

[Job 33:6]

I know. I never said it wasn't. It's unfortunate, but that's just the way that it is.



Thanks. Well that's what I've been trying to express to our friend here. The latter half at least, that there is such a thing as a "first member" of a new species that is born.


Yea that's an interesting observation. Though I've noted above that this wouldn't be the case for a single lineage, because you can't have a hybrid that is a cross between a currently living species and some species that has yet to come into existence. Well, we wouldn't be able to identify such a thing as a hybrid at least. So, though it is interesting, it didn't really help us out there.


Ultimately the question was, could an individual of 1 species, give birth to an individual of another species. And my thought is, as strange as it sounds, the answer has to be yes. Because if mothers only ever had children of the same species that they were, then new species would never arise. So at some point, some mother, somewhere, at some time, must give birth, to an individual that is of a different species. Because if the new species (it's individuals in particular) is not born into existence, then there is no other way that a new species could come to be.

And so we went on this rabbit trail of analogies related to colors of paint and drops in a bucket.

Even though evolution is usually described in terms of populations. Individuals of a new species still must be born. Which results in this situation where a mother of one species must give birth to an individual of another species, at some point in time. Even if the mother is practically identical to her child.

 

[Job 33:6]

Right. Just like our bucket. After 10 drops. After enough changes have been accumulated.

Ok, so that's the same with speciation. At some point, there must be a point of no return.

So once we hit that moment, we have two different species. And of that latter species B, if we break that down into individuals, one of those individuals had to come first in time.

 

[olgamc]

it's quite possible for a first member of the new species to be born, and then for that individual to give birth to a member of the old species

Ultimately the question was, could an individual of 1 species, give birth to an individual of another species.

Right, so ultimately the question is, could an individual of one species give birth to an individual of another species while still being able to interbreed? Or are we changing the definition of species mid-way through that sentence?

 

[olgamc]

Ok, so that's the same with speciation. At some point, there must be a point of no return.

So once we hit that moment, we have two different species. And of that latter species B, if we break that down into individuals, one of those individuals had to come first in time.

You are confused because you are changing definitions. Stick with the same definition throughout your thought. Do different species interbreed or not?

I agree that an individual has to be born with all the traits of the new species. (The 10th drop in the bucket) But that individual has to have enough traits in common with the population at the time, that that individual is the same species as the population at the time. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to find a mate.

Watch the movie again. Relative to the island population, the birds never stopped interbreeding. Relative to the original mainland population, they did. So each bird along that continuum could be a different species as compared to the original, and same species as compared to each other's immediate family. That's why dogs and wolves are the same species and different species, depending on who you ask.

 

[Job 33:6]

Right, so ultimately the question is, could an individual of one species give birth to an individual of another species while still being able to interbreed? Or are we changing the definition of species mid-way through that sentence?

Yes. One way we could imagine this happening is if it were broken down into subspecies. Like in a case of ring speciation. One of the colors is unable to interbreed with the original population (red to purple), but there are always still other subpopulations bridging the gap. So there are always others around to breed with. And at some point in time, one of these colors has crossed a point of no return. And of that color/population/subspecies, one of the individuals of that group came before the others.

 

[Job 33:6]

You are confused because you are changing definitions. Stick with the same definition throughout your thought. Do different species interbreed or not?

I agree that an individual has to be born with all the traits of the new species. (The 10th drop in the bucket) But that individual has to have enough traits in common with the population at the time, that that individual is the same species as the population at the time. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to interbreed.

Watch the movie again. Relative to the island population, the birds never stopped interbreeding. Relative to the mainland population, they did. Species is not an absolute concept. It's fuzzy, it's relative, it changes, and that's why a dog is a different species depending on who you ask.

I'm staying comfortably on track here.

With subspecies, you can have new species arise while still retaining options interbreeding.

And of all those subspecies, they consist of individuals. And of those individuals, one had to come first. Because entire populations arent instantaneously born at the same time.

 

[olgamc]

Yes. One way we could imagine this happening is if it were broken down into subspecies. Like in a case of ring speciation. One of the colors is unable to interbreed with the original population (red to purple), but there are always still other subpopulations bridging the gap. So there are always others around to breed with. And at some point in time, one of these colors has crossed a point of no return. And of that color/population/subspecies, one of the individuals of that group came before the others.

Exactly! But compared to it's close relatives, each one can reproduce.

 

[Job 33:6]

Exactly! But compared to it's close relatives, each one can reproduce.

View attachment 345294

Ok sure. But we still would have a case of a mother giving birth to a child of a new species. Even if she could bizarrely or grossly interbreed with her own child.

 

[olgamc]

I'm staying comfortably on track here.

With subspecies, you can have new species arise while still retaining options interbreeding.

And of all those subspecies, they consist of individuals. And of those individuals, one had to come first. Because entire populations arent instantaneously born at the same time.

So species can interbreed? You just changed the definition.

 

[olgamc]

Ok sure. But we still would have a case of a mother giving birth to a child of a new species. Even if she could bizarrely or grossly interbreed with her own child.

Not bizarrely. That child, in order to pass his new mutation, should be able to interbreed with any number of individuals from his time. He should have no problems attracting a mate. He should be more attractive actually, not less.

 

[Job 33:6]

So species can interbreed? You just changed the definition.

In the sense of a mother having babies with her child, yes. And as noted before, grizzleys and polar bears interbreed, as can lions and tigers. And I'm pretty sure I pointed that out multiple times when we first began this conversation.

 

[Job 33:6]

Not bizarrely. That child, in order to pass his new mutation, should be able to interbreed with any number of individuals from his time. He should have no problems attracting a mate. He should be more attractive actually, not less.

I mean grossly, in the sense of incest.

 

[Job 33:6]

Not bizarrely. That child, in order to pass his new mutation, should be able to interbreed with any number of individuals from his time. He should have no problems attracting a mate. He should be more attractive actually, not less.

Ok, so now that we've beat that dead horse into oblivion, we've reached a point where we observe that a mother can give birth to a child of a different species.

So we can now rewind 35 pages back to your original analogy with circles and squares.

 

[Job 33:6]

"So if Adam had parents, we are observing an event of speciation over one generation. Which, according to our theory of evolution is impossible. "

That was the original statement of interest. And as complicated as the topic is, this statement just cannot be.

Speciation is a process. But individuals of species, individuals like Adam, could and indeed have to, arise through birth. In one generation (if we assumed that Adam was the first of his species rather than George or Lucy etc).

 

[olgamc]

In the sense of a mother having babies with her child, yes. And as noted before, grizzleys and polar bears interbreed, as can lions and tigers. And I'm pretty sure I pointed that out multiple times when we first began this conversation.

But we just decided that the hybrid does not have it's own species, and that an individual somewhere in the transition period is not a hybrid. So hybrids don't really apply here. And yes, hybrids are confusing because again, the definition of species is changing here. Species don't interbreed, but they do. What?

When you say that I don't understand evolution - you are wrong, I do. What I don't understand is what exactly is a species in your mind? It doesn't seem like you know. It doesn't seem like anyone knows. So if we can't decide what a species actually is, how can we argue that a species evolved? What evolved exactly? When exactly? What is the definite line you were talking about between species A and species B if we don't know what species is?

 

[olgamc]

Ok, so now that we've beat that dead horse into oblivion, we've reached a point where we observe that a mother can give birth to a child of a different species.

So we can now rewind 35 pages back to your original analogy with circles and squares.

You are too quick to jump to conclusions. If Adam could interbreed with other people at the time, then species can interbreed. If species can interbreed, then what exactly defines a species? If Adam and his mom were different species, Adam's mom had some kind of small difference from Adam. Like a skin color for example. So Adam's white skin makes him human, while his black mom is not. See the issue here?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Where’d all the monkey men go? If macro evolution only happens thru millions of years of repeated micro evolution and it’s been going on for hundreds of millions of years years we should have billions of monkey men running around everywhere today. We still have the starting animal and we have the final product where’s the billions of micro transitions in between? They had to have survived for millions of years in order to eventually change into us. Why don’t we find any still alive today?

 

[HarleyER]

Yes, I wrote that. Did you not understand the question? You didn't answer it.

Do you think no one believed in God before the Bible was written, or that no non-Christian believes in God?

Yes, I know the verse. Your invocation of it here is flawed for multiple reasons.
1) 'Inspired' in English does not mean 'inerrant'. Something can be inspired and still be wrong in spots.
2) The verse says that every writing is profitable. It doesn't anything like what you're saying, which is that belief in them is required for salvation. Lots of things are profitable for reproof, correction, training in righteousness. I can point you to numerous sermons and books that are profitable for those things. No one would claim that belief in the infallibility of those sermons and books.
3) 'Every writing' does not mean the Bible, which didn't exist what II Timothy was written. The author is presumably referring to Jewish religious texts, many of which went on to become our Old Testament after the process of canonization, but which did not include the New Testament and which very likely included other texts not in our Bibles.
4) All of this presumes that θεόπνευστος is correctly translated as 'inspired'. John Poirier has a book-length treatment of this word (The Invention of the Inspired Text) that makes a pretty persuasive case that when II Timothy was written, the meaning of the word was more like 'life-giving' (there's another word available in Greek that means inspired, 'ενθεος').

The New Testament is pretty clear: to be a follower of Christ means to believe the Gospel and to follow him. All of the early conversions recounted in the Bible arise from people believing the preaching of the Gospel, before the Bible even existed as such. Requiring people to believe something specific about the Bible is adding to the Gospel.

I'm not sure what you are asking.

1) No one can be saved apart from the Word of God working in their hearts.

Romans 10:14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!” 16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

As far as "Inspired does not mean inerrant", I quite frankly don't know where one would get such a crazy idea. God doesn't make mistakes. Yes, there are some minor transcript errors in numbers and other minor items. But none of these transcription errors affect any major doctrine of the church. These are not the fault of God or the inspired authors but of transcribers. And, given the we have literally thousands of pages of Old and New Testaments, we are able to compare various text with each others to insure things are accurally transcribed.

2-3) No, the Scriptures are not on the same level as what any of us write. They are God breathe, infallible, and inerrant.

2 Peter 1: 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

4) You quoted from John Poirier but based on your statement, how do you know he's correct? Couldn't he be in error? Considering he only wrote two books and there is very little on his bio page I'm not sure what he believed. Do you? Frankly, given the title of the book you quoted, you seem to want to find things wrong with the scripture, which makes me wonder if you have a teaching heart.

5) As far as "the Bible arise from people believing the preaching of the Gospel, before the Bible even existed" is nonsense. They didn't just run around saying, "Hey, Jesus rose from the death. Take our word for it." Jesus on the road to Emmas explained to the disciples through the Old Testament:

Luke 24:21 But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, it is the third day since these things happened. 22 But also some women among us amazed us. When they were at the tomb early in the morning, 23 and did not find His body, they came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said that He was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just exactly as the women also had said; but Him they did not see.” 25 And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

Stephen gave his testimony in Acts 7 using the history of the Jews about how they murdered the Christ. Peter referred to the Old Testament in his Pentacostal sermon in Acts 2 and again in Acts 3. Paul mentions the Law and the Prophets in Acts 24 in presenting the gospel to Felix. The book of Hebrews extensively talk about the Jews. Matthew, along with other gospel writers constantly refer to Old Testament references to support their argument.

There was already scripture in place. It wasn't just made up as they went.

 

[Job 33:6]

But we just decided that the hybrid does not have it's own species, and that an individual somewhere in the transition period is not a hybrid. So hybrids don't really apply here. And yes, hybrids are confusing because again, the definition of species is changing here. Species don't interbreed, but they do. What?

What I'm pointing out is that, interbreeding is not a make or break concept for new species. That's all that is about.

And yes, you'll find different definitions or ideas for what defines a species. The interbreeding concept is a common one, but as noted multiple times now, there are exceptions.

And with that said, indeed a mother can give birth to an individual of another species.