Macro-Evolutionism and/or Theistic Evolutionism? Please Explain

[Merlin475]

Hello, I would enjoy hearing and discussing the conclusions of macro-evolutionists and theistic evolutionists as well as the corresponding methodologies they utilize when observing the universe and how they come to their results.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Cool. I enjoy that, also.

 

[Merlin475]

Cool. I enjoy that, also.

What are your thoughts on evolution?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

What are your thoughts on evolution?

That it's the corner stone of biology. What are yours?

 

[Merlin475]

That it's the corner stone of biology. What are yours?

Oh I don’t know a whole lot about of evolution. I was hoping you could break it down for me and provide me with some of the fundamentals

 

[Occams Barber]

Hello, I would enjoy hearing and discussing the conclusions of macro-evolutionists and theistic evolutionists as well as the corresponding methodologies they utilize when observing the universe and how they come to their results.

Hello Merlin

I've been talking with Christians about Evolution for several decades. Unfortunately, I often find that there is usually some confusion about the meaning of 'Evolution. A number of separate and independent scientific concepts often get muddled together.

These concepts are;

1. Big Bang (the earliest known state of the Universe)
2. Abiogenesis (the transition from non-life to the first life form)
3. Evolution (the development of multiple life forms; for example various species; through the processes of mutation and natural selection)

1 and 3 are well accepted scientific theories while 2 is still regarded as a hypothesis.

When you say Evolution are you referring to 1,2 or 3 or some combination?

OB

 

[Ophiolite]

Oh I don’t know a whole lot about of evolution. I was hoping you could break it down for me and provide me with some of the fundamentals

Multiple strands of evidence point to the following:

• All terrestrial life is related
• All terrestrial life evolved from a common ancestor
• There was a multiplicity of branching from this common ancestor, generating a rich diversity of living organisms
• This branching involved changes both microscopic and macroscopic, including - in some instances - increases in complexity

In a greatly condensed summary, multiple strands of evidence show that this occured via the following mechanisms

• Mutations of the genetic material that determines the broad character of the organism
• Selection of certain genes based upon their fitness for a given environment
• Other processes that lead to the success, or failure of a given genetic heritage

Since these brief conclusions are based upon millions of research papers, the work of hundreds of thousands of researchers, tens of thousands of textbooks and monographs and billions of hours of research effort in hundreds of scientific disciplines it would be best if you focus in on something you find the most puzzling.

 

[Merlin475]

Hello Merlin

I've been talking with Christians about Evolution for several decades. Unfortunately, I often find that there is usually some confusion about the meaning of 'Evolution. A number of separate and independent scientific concepts often get muddled together.

These concepts are;

1. Big Bang (the earliest known state of the Universe)
2. Abiogenesis (the transition from non-life to the first life form)
3. Evolution (the development of multiple life forms; for example various species; through the processes of mutation and natural selection)

1 and 3 are well accepted scientific theories while 2 is still regarded as a hypothesis.

When you say Evolution are you referring to 1,2 or 3 or some combination?

OB

When thinking about Evolution, I definitely think of the Big Bang and #3. I haven't heard of Abiogenesis, but that is a stage I would like to learn about. Are these ordered chronologically? I think you were implying these theories can exist independent of each other? Right now, it's a bit hard to decide on a specific Evolution belief to discuss because like you said there are a number of them. But this is whatever you are willing to talk about, and I'm sure I'll have questions

 

[Merlin475]

Multiple strands of evidence point to the following:

• All terrestrial life is related
• All terrestrial life evolved from a common ancestor
• There was a multiplicity of branching from this common ancestor, generating a rich diversity of living organisms
• This branching involved changes both microscopic and macroscopic, including - in some instances - increases in complexity

In a greatly condensed summary, multiple strands of evidence show that this occured via the following mechanisms

• Mutations of the genetic material that determines the broad character of the organism
• Selection of certain genes based upon their fitness for a given environment
• Other processes that lead to the success, or failure of a given genetic heritage

Since these brief conclusions are based upon millions of research papers, the work of hundreds of thousands of researchers, tens of thousands of textbooks and monographs and billions of hours of research effort in hundreds of scientific disciplines it would be best if you focus in on something you find the most puzzling.

Thank you for the easy-to-digest statements and points. I'll bounce around the different subtopics you brought up.

I'm wondering, what are the origins of the common ancestor? What type of animal/entity was it? How was it created?

 

[Occams Barber]

When thinking about Evolution, I definitely think of the Big Bang and #3. I haven't heard of Abiogenesis, but that is a stage I would like to learn about. Are these ordered chronologically? I think you were implying these theories can exist independent of each other? Right now, it's a bit hard to decide on a specific Evolution belief to discuss because like you said there are a number of them. But this is whatever you are willing to talk about, and I'm sure I'll have questions

Big Bang and Abiogenesis are NOT Evolution - they are Big Bang and Abiogenesis.

Scientifically they are all independent concepts: for example, disproving Big Bang would not disprove Evolution or Abiogenesis. Disproving Abiogenesis doesn't disprove Evolution.

Since you need a Universe before you can have life, and need life before it can evolve, there is an obvious chronology.

Like @Ophiolite I suggest you limit your focus. Trying to get a grip on all three processes amounts to a minor University degree and (I suspect) a significant shift in your thinking. Theistic Evolution- explaining Evolution in theological terms- is another, separate topic.

A CF Forum is not the place to start. I suggest you begin by reading a little to educate yourself. Judging from your post you have much to understand in order to ask sensible questions.

OB

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm wondering, what are the origins of the common ancestor? What type of animal/entity was it? How was it created?

Scientists are wondering the same thing. This is where abiogenesis and evolution overlap. However the first life emerged, whether by some chemical process, or divine intervention, the result was a very simple single celled organism. We don't know whether this happened only once, a few, or many times, but once such organisms existed then the mechanisms of evolution I mentioned earlier come into operation. The mechanisms are independent of the origin of the first cells. Some organisms prove more successful than others till ultimately that genetic content becomes the ancestor to which all life on Earth can be traced.

I agree with @Occams Barber that you have a massive amount to learn if you wish to grasp even just the fundamentals. I recommend you read a copy of The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins. It is an engaging, technically sound introduction to evolution and works back towards the common ancestor.
Dawkins has a bad reputation in the eyes of some Christians for his often aggressive attitude to religion. I have shared, to a degree, a distaste for some elements of his approach to that aspect of his work, but I forgave him all that for the eloquence of The Ancestor's Tale.
In the meantime there are several members who can answer, usefully, specific questions you may have, but digesting the content of Dawkins' book will provide with you with the backgrouns to ask them.


Aside: Be aware of one danger in discussions on evolution. Like many words evolution has multiple meanings. We can talk about the evolution of planetary systems, the evolution of stars as they work through their life cycle, the evolution of my understanding of Roman architecture - a very stunted evolution at present! These are all valid uses of the term, but do not confuse them with biological evolution, which is the subject of your enquiries. Some indivduals, through either ignorance or design, seek to obfuscate the distinctions between them and thereby draw flawed conclusions. Such equivocation is the enemy of comprehension.

 

[Astrid]

Hello, I would enjoy hearing and discussing the conclusions of macro-evolutionists and theistic evolutionists as well as the corresponding methodologies they utilize when observing the universe and how they come to their results.

If you don't mind...there's no such thing as
a "macroevolutionist".

 

[Ophiolite]

If you don't mind...there's no such thing as
a "macroevolutionist".

Incorrect. Since macroevolution is a concept and a field of study within evolution it follows that those who work within in that field may aptly be called macroevolutionists. Please do not fall for the egregious claim that microevolutiuon and macroevolution are inventions of young Earth creationits.

 

[Astrid]

Incorrect. Since macroevolution is a concept and a field of study within evolution it follows that those who work within in that field may aptly be called macroevolutionists. Please do not fall for the egregious claim that microevolutiuon and macroevolution are inventions of young Earth creationits.

I'm being a bit irritable I guess. Is it in the dictionary?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hello, I would enjoy hearing and discussing the conclusions of macro-evolutionists and theistic evolutionists as well as the corresponding methodologies they utilize when observing the universe and how they come to their results.

Hi, Merlin!

What is it about macroevolution that piques your interest?

 

[Occams Barber]

I'm wondering, what are the origins of the common ancestor? What type of animal/entity was it? How was it created?

Down below I've given you a link to a series of short videos in the Stated Clearly series. Most of the videos are simple, 5–10-minute, cartoon style explanations of various aspects of Evolution and Abiogenesis (see 'What is Chemical Evolution?').

Although I am not generally a Dawkins fan I agree with @Ophiolite that The Ancestors Tale is a good primer.

(if my responses seem slow it's because I'm in a time zone on the other side of the world)

Videos • Stated Clearly

Our animations clarify scientific topics so everyone can understand. Great for use in the classroom and for learning on your own.

www.statedclearly.com

OB

 

[BCP1928]

Hello, I would enjoy hearing and discussing the conclusions of macro-evolutionists and theistic evolutionists as well as the corresponding methodologies they utilize when observing the universe and how they come to their results.

You're not doing very well starting off with a false dichotomy. Macroevolution and theistic evolution are entirely compatible.

 

[Merlin475]

Hi, Merlin!

What is it about macroevolution that piques your interest?

I wish to be less ignorant of the concept of biological evolution. A lot of people believe in it, and the more I understand about this worldview, the more conversations I can have with others about it. Evolution is very interesting, and I plan to deepen my knowledge of it.

 

[Merlin475]

You're not doing very well starting off with a false dichotomy. Macroevolution and theistic evolution are entirely compatible.

I used both terms in an attempt to reach a larger response group where users would relate more to one or the other.

A natural difference I see between the two is that theistic evolution is not supported by the Bible which is wrongly used as a reference for theistic evolution. Macro-evolution can hold enough contrast to be its own field and does not need to rely on the Bible at all, which I think macro-evolution is what I am leaning towards focusing on in my personal studies.

 

[BCP1928]

I used both terms in an attempt to reach a larger response group where users would relate more to one or the other.

A natural difference I see between the two is that theistic evolution is not supported by the Bible which is wrongly used as a reference for theistic evolution. Macro-evolution can hold enough contrast to be its own field and does not need to rely on the Bible at all, which I think macro-evolution is what I am leaning towards focusing on in my personal studies.

The reason that I brought it up is that macro-evolution is merely evolution past speciation. It is neither theistic or atheistic. Theistic evolution doesn't change the science any, it's still macroevolution.