Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[Job 33:6]

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?

People are defined by more than just skin color. We could look up a list of traits that make homo sapiens unique from other hominids if you would like.

 

[olgamc]

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.

Alright then, what defines a homo sapiens? Or, I should say like this, what would Adam's mom have to be like in order to be a not homo sapiens?

 

[HarleyER]

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?

Not only why don't we find any still alive today, but why don't we find skeleton remains or fossils of various stages of these monkey men?

 

[olgamc]

People are defined by more than just skin color. We could look up a list of traits that make homo sapiens unique from other hominids if you would like.

Of course, people are defined by more than just skin color or eye color or hair color or size or weight etc etc. So yes please, find a trait that makes homo sapiens unique from other hominids.

 

[Job 33:6]

Alright then, what defines a homo sapiens? Or, I should say like this, what would Adam's mom have to be like in order to be a not homo sapiens?

Well, if we assumed Adam to be something like the first homo. I guess we would be looking at the question of, what is the difference between homo sapiens and homo heidelbergensis. I'm not an anthropologist or primatologist, but that's probably in the ball park.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not only why don't we find any still alive today, but why don't we find skeleton remains or fossils of various stages of these monkey men?

I’m gonna take a wild guess here and say because we’re descendants of Adam who was made from dust, not monkeys?

 

[HarleyER]

I’m gonna take a wild guess here and say because we’re descendants of Adam who was made from dust, not monkeys?

Your guess would be spot on. : O)

But, I still like bananas.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Your guess would be spot on. : O)

But, I still like bananas.

That’s evidence for evolution. If humans like bananas that proves that we came from apes. Man if I only could’ve predicted that you like bananas I would’ve been famous!!

 

[olgamc]

Well, if we assumed Adam to be something like the first homo. I guess we would be looking at the question of, what is the difference between homo sapiens and homo heidelbergensis. I'm not an anthropologist or primatologist, but that's probably in the ball park.

Alright, well, it seems that you are a little bit unsure. When I wrote my proof, I went with my own ability to reason and what I knew at the time about homo sapiens and the Bible. Since then I did a bit more research. Here are a couple of interesting articles (not long and not very heavy) that you may want to look at:

On the evolutionary origins of executive functions - PubMed

In this paper it is proposed that the prefrontal lobe participates in two closely related but different executive function abilities: (1) "metacognitive executive functions": problem solving, planning, concept formation, strategy development and implementation, controlling attention, working...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The traits that make human beings unique

We’re all just animals… right? Not so fast, says Melissa Hogenboom, a few things make us different from any other species.

www.bbc.com

The first article talks about metacognitive executive function, which is unique to homo sapiens.
The second article talks about how we are uniquely intelligent, uniquely social, uniquely capable of faith, and uniquely capable of good and evil.

Sounds familiar to my argument? A little freaky for me, actually, to see how spot on I was with how I understand the biblical "being made in God's image", as it relates to the physiology of the brain.

Here is what you were looking for - a comparison between homo sapiens and homo heidelbergensis. Sure enough, the difference is the brain.

Evolution of Modern Humans: Homo heidelbergensis

Now tell me. If to possess these soft qualities from the second article we needed to have the brain described in the first article, is it possible with what we know of the theory of evolution today that this could could have happened over one generation? Could a mom with no developed metacognitive executive function naturally produce an offspring that had it? And if she did, would you have no problems in saying that she was not human just because she was not as smart as Adam?

That’s evidence for evolution. If humans like bananas that proves that we came from apes. Man if I only could’ve predicted that you like bananas I would’ve been famous!!

That's not evidence of evolution. That's evidence of similarity.

 

[Job 33:6]

This video looks like a good place to start. Robust brow ridge. Robust cheek bones. Slightly smaller brain size. They used hand tools. Had an elongated brain case.

 

[Job 33:6]

Now tell me. If to possess these soft qualities from the second article we needed to have the brain described in the first article, is it possible with what we know of the theory of evolution today that this could could have happened over one generation? Could a mom with no developed metacognitive executive function naturally produce an offspring that had it? And if she did, would you have no problems in saying that she was not human just because she was not as smart as Adam?

That's not evidence of evolution. That's evidence of similarity.

Your argument before had a simple error in it, we've moved on and your arguments get progressively worse. We've already covered that Adams mother wouldn't have lived 400+ thousand years ago. Genesis talks about agriculture, domesticated animals, and stone and iron tools. Such things didn't exist back then.

I don't mind discussing fossils for the sake of discussing fossils, but the idea you have of lining it up with science doesn't make any sense.

 

[olgamc]

Your argument before had a simple error in it, we've moved on and your arguments get progressively worse.

We did not move on. I said a Homo sapiens could not have evolved over one generation. You said it was an error, but you did not prove that a Homo sapiens could have evolved in one generation. The other person chimed in and said that an individual can belong to more than one species. So sure, sometimes speciation does happen instantly. It’s been observed with some plants for example. But we are not talking about plants. So, does our current knowledge of evolution support that the kind of brain that is unique to Homo sapiens could have been created in one generation? My argument is correct - the answer is no. You just don’t want to accept it.

You said you could draw a line between an empty bucket and a full one, but you did not draw the line. Or, more like, you drew the line, but you did not defend it as the correct line. Are you not willing to admit that it’s not the correct line?

You didn’t even provide an example of a species being definitively named after one generation. By definitively I mean no grey, no two species, no subspecies, we just clearly went from A to B. Is it because there aren’t any examples?

And even IF you could convince me that a very smart Adam could have been born to a not so smart Lucy, you still refuse to answer the question that follows. Would you categorize Lucy as not human just because she was not as smart as her son? The other person didn’t seem to see an issue with that, which is kind of worrisome to me personally. If we go that route as society…

We've already covered that Adams mother wouldn't have lived 400+ thousand years ago. Genesis talks about agriculture, domesticated animals, and stone and iron tools. Such things didn't exist back then.

Who is talking about Genesis? I asked you a purely biological question. Could a homo sapien brain have evolved naturally in one generation? Nothing religious or supernatural about this question.

I don't mind discussing fossils for the sake of discussing fossils, but the idea you have of lining it up with science doesn't make any sense.

Right. You missed the point of the cylinder. Just like you missed the point of the bucket. And the point that no matter how you define bara you can’t escape the fact that God created us a certain way. And you mussed the point that teledoths overlap. But like I said multiple times, I can’t help you if you keep missing these points.

But this time - this is right up your field. You are an expert, and my understanding of evolution is rudimentary, I think the word you used? You enjoy discussing fossils and you even have palaeontology publications. You are so highly qualified, (though you don’t know how to categorize a hybrid). Please be so kind as to answer these questions:

Is dog the same or different species than wolf?
What defines a human?
What define our species?
Provide those definitions please, then logically prove that my argument is wrong.

 

[olgamc]

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.

I just re-read what he said. He actually said that you are wrong to claim that an individual has to belong to only one species. So this “first member” can be categorized as multiple species, which is exactly what I said. Same species as his parents, different species from his ancestors.

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

Yes, and all because you decided that an individual cannot be 2 different species - same compared to his immediate family, different compared to a more removed relative. I said before and I will say it again, evolution is a gradual process.

 

[Diamond72]

I’m gonna take a wild guess here and say because we’re descendants of Adam

Bible Adam or Time Magazine Science Adam. Gentiles are not Jewish and Jewish are not Gentiles. We are grafted into the tree and not natural branches. Romans 11:22 "24 For if you were cut from a wild olive tree, and contrary to nature were grafted into one that is cultivated, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!…"Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of Israel. Matthew 15:24 He referred to the gentiles as dogs. Matthew 15:26 "“It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs." The disciples were very surprised to see that the gentiles could receive the Holy Spirit. Acts 10:45 "The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles".

The Bible is a history of Israel and Judah, My apology for anyone offended by the use of the slang word: "Jewish".

About half of Jewish people around the world today identify as Ashkenazi. Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Shem the son of Noah.

Haplogroup G is found at modest percentages amongst Jewish men within multiple subgroups of haplogroup G (Y-DNA), with the majority falling within the G2b and G2c category

23 and me says
you may have evidence of Jewish ancestry in your mitochondrial haplogroup (also known as a maternal haplogroup), available in the Maternal Haplogroup Report. The mitochondrial haplogroup is determined from your mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from mothers to their children (Figure 2).

Four mitochondrial haplogroups are found at high frequency in people of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry and rarely found in non-Ashkenazi Europeans: N1b, K1a1b1a, K1a9, and K2a2a. Therefore, Europeans carrying one of these haplogroups likely have Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry on their mothers-only line. However, approximately half of people with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry do not carry one of these four haplogroups, so having a different haplogroup does not mean you don't have Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.

 

[Job 33:6]

I just re-read what he said. He actually said that you are wrong to claim that an individual has to belong to only one species. So this “first member” can be categorized as multiple species, which is exactly what I said. Same species as his parents, different species from his ancestors.

Yes, and all because you decided that an individual cannot be 2 different species - same compared to his immediate family, different compared to a more removed relative. I said before and I will say it again, evolution is a gradual process.

No thats not what he said. He said:

"The fact that any organism has to be classified as belonging to exactly one species(*) is an artifact of our arbitrary naming scheme, not a fundamental biological reality."

So to shorten it "the fact that it has to be classified as belonging to exactly one species"

He's actually affirming my position. He's just saying that this is due to an artifact of our naming scheme. Which I agree with.

And indeed, this is part of the reason why I am correct, and you, olga, are not.

 

[Job 33:6]

We did not move on. I said a Homo sapiens could not have evolved over one generation. You said it was an error, but you did not prove that a Homo sapiens could have evolved in one generation. The other person chimed in and said that an individual can belong to more than one species. So sure, sometimes speciation does happen instantly. It’s been observed with some plants for example. But we are not talking about plants. So, does our current knowledge of evolution support that the kind of brain that is unique to Homo sapiens could have been created in one generation? My argument is correct - the answer is no. You just don’t want to accept it.

You said you could draw a line between an empty bucket and a full one, but you did not draw the line. Or, more like, you drew the line, but you did not defend it as the correct line. Are you not willing to admit that it’s not the correct line?

You didn’t even provide an example of a species being definitively named after one generation. By definitively I mean no grey, no two species, no subspecies, we just clearly went from A to B. Is it because there aren’t any examples?

And even IF you could convince me that a very smart Adam could have been born to a not so smart Lucy, you still refuse to answer the question that follows. Would you categorize Lucy as not human just because she was not as smart as her son? The other person didn’t seem to see an issue with that, which is kind of worrisome to me personally. If we go that route as society…

Who is talking about Genesis? I asked you a purely biological question. Could a homo sapien brain have evolved naturally in one generation? Nothing religious or supernatural about this question.

Right. You missed the point of the cylinder. Just like you missed the point of the bucket. And the point that no matter how you define bara you can’t escape the fact that God created us a certain way. And you mussed the point that teledoths overlap. But like I said multiple times, I can’t help you if you keep missing these points.

But this time - this is right up your field. You are an expert, and my understanding of evolution is rudimentary, I think the word you used? You enjoy discussing fossils and you even have palaeontology publications. You are so highly qualified, (though you don’t know how to categorize a hybrid). Please be so kind as to answer these questions:

Is dog the same or different species than wolf?
What defines a human?
What define our species?
Provide those definitions please, then logically prove that my argument is wrong.

Organisms are either one species or another. And yes, we've recognized that mothers of one species can give birth to children that are individuals of another species. So a non-homosapien, something like a homo heidelbergeneis, can in theory give birth to a homo sapien.

Indeed, this is the only way any homo sapiens could ever come into existence, that is through birth from a mother.

 

[tonychanyt]

So can a person be a Christian and believe in evolution? A more pointed question, along the same vein, would be "Can a person be a Christian and believe only parts of the Scriptures."

These are two different questions. See Adam rules over Eve and follow up there

 

[olgamc]

Organisms are either one species or another. And yes, we've recognized that mothers of one species can give birth to children that are individuals of another species. So a non-homosapien, something like a homo heidelbergeneis, can in theory give birth to a homo sapien.

Indeed, this is the only way any homo sapiens could ever come into existence, that is through birth from a mother.

You missed the point again!!! Look at what he said:

"The fact that any organism has to be classified as belonging to exactly one species(*) is an artifact of our arbitrary naming scheme, not a fundamental biological reality. Species are generally classified by their traits, not by their genetics. Since most traits are affected by multiple genes, there need not be a specific set of mutations that define a new species. If one picks some arbitrary threshold in some traits as defining the new species..."

So IF you pick an arbitrary set of traits, THEN it is possible for an old species to give birth to new and visa versa. But BIOLOGICALLY this is NOT how things work, and you do not HAVE to pick THAT threshold. You are at liberty to pick a different one.

So to give you an example. From a red bird to a yellow bird - what defines a new species? In the video they defined it as too different to interbreed. So if that is the threshold and you apply that same threshold to the bird and his mother, the bird and his mother are the same species.

In my example, what made a new species? You want to arbitrarily pick the color red. So any bird with even a hint of red would be a new species. Sure, then the original speckled bird and his white mother are different species. But why stop there? Why not arbitrarily pick a number of red feathers as defining a new species. 1 feather - species A. 2 feathers - species B. And so on. Then every single red feathered bird would be a different species. That's why they don't do that. They don't pick one defining characteristic, they pick many, including non-physical, like behavior. And as a result, the boundary is fuzzy. Our original speckled bird does have a red feather, but otherwise he is exactly like his mom - so he is the same species as his mom, but he has a trait of the new species.

But a boundary between a human and an animal is NOT fuzzy. So the evolution model just doesn't work.

Between George and his mom Lucy there is a definite clear and large difference, and it includes both physiology and behaviour. That's not how evolution works. Evolution works in small subtle changes, not huge chunks. Unless you are a hybrid, like in this example, and even then it took 3 generations, not one. And as far as we know, George was not a hybrid.

Again, from the cylinder analogy that you did not understand. Animals are squares - biological beings. Humans are cylinders - bio-spiritual being. A square can evolve into a rectangle or into a pentagon, or into any other 2D shape. A square cannot evolve into a cylinder or any other 3D shape, because evolution is a 2D concept. And again, this is something that you can’t seem to understand, and so there is nothing I can do to make you understand. Or maybe you understand but not want to accept. Whatever it is, if you can’t see it, I can’t make you see it.

So in short, I don't really have time to argue these silly arguments. Also I noticed your tendency that when you can't prove yourself right, you just go back to repeating whatever you believe to be true and call yourself right. That's not a debate. I am not debating to win - I just want to know what people think and why, and whether their opinions are logical and well thought out. You don't debate - you argue, you want to win. Ok, fine, call yourself a winner and call George's mom an animal because she is not as smart as George, or because her forehead is just a little bit lower or her eyebrows are just a little bit bigger. Suit yourself.

 

[HarleyER]

These are two different questions. See Adam rules over Eve and follow up there

No, I think these questions on evolution, Adam and Eve, the Great Flood are all linked together. One can't separate them from the other. For example, what good is talking about evolution and discussing how old the earth is, if all the animals were destroyed during the Great Flood 6,000 years ago. Evolution then would have had to start at the period of the Great Flood. No matter how many millions of years old one might thing the earth is, it doesn't matter if you believe in the Flood. The only natural conclusion is that if one believes in evolution, then one also has to dismiss the Flood. They are tied together.

Genesis 1-11 is really the Cliff Notes of Scripture. One can't just take one topic in Genesis 1-11 apart from all else just like one can't discuss sanctification apart from justification. If you don't know how you are justified, then sanctification means nothing. Likewise, you can't talk about evolution without talking about Adam and Eve, the Flood, lifespans, etc.

 

[HarleyER]

That’s evidence for evolution. If humans like bananas that proves that we came from apes. Man if I only could’ve predicted that you like bananas I would’ve been famous!!

Well, I'm not about to pick fleas off people's back. : O)