Can you be Christian and believe in evolution?

[2PhiloVoid]

We observe? I think not.

Has there ever been a recorded observation of a speciation event? Has there ever been a recorded observation of a macro-evolution event that produced a being with more faculties than its progenitors? A living being from non-living elements? A sentient being from non-sentient parents? A rational being from non-rational parents? Nope.

Science is the novel word for Philosophy of Nature. The theory of evolution is a beautiful theory that unfortunately, lacks evidence and as a philosophy, violates first principles, ie., the Principle of Sufficient Reason, among others.

If Liebniz had lived after Darwin, then he might have slightly changed his assumptive tune.

 

[o_mlly]

If Liebniz had lived after Darwin, then he might have slightly changed his assumptive tune.

Possibly but I doubt it. An unbounded philosophy is indistinguishable from pure imagination.

 

[trophy33]

So how does one interpret Eve being created from the man, an the man being here before any women existed? No descent there.

Not literally, of course.

 

[trophy33]

We observe? I think not.

Has there ever been a recorded observation of a speciation event? Has there ever been a recorded observation of a macro-evolution event that produced a being with more faculties than its progenitors? A living being from non-living elements? A sentient being from non-sentient parents? A rational being from non-rational parents? Nope.

Science is the novel word for Philosophy of Nature. The theory of evolution is a beautiful theory that unfortunately, lacks evidence and as a philosophy, violates first principles, ie., the Principle of Sufficient Reason, among others.

Can Evolution Be Observed, and Therefore Proven? - Consensus: AI Search Engine for Research

Evolution can be observed through genetic changes, experimental studies, and the fossil record. While proving evolution involves demonstrating that these changes are due to evolutionary processes, recent research has shown that genetic evolution can be somewhat predictable. Theoretical models...

consensus.app

 

[o_mlly]

Can Evolution Be Observed, and Therefore Proven? - Consensus: AI Search Engine for Research

Evolution can be observed through genetic changes, experimental studies, and the fossil record. While proving evolution involves demonstrating that these changes are due to evolutionary processes, recent research has shown that genetic evolution can be somewhat predictable. Theoretical models...

consensus.app

Specifically, what in your AI citation do you claim as evidence for macroevolution?

 

[The Barbarian]

The theory of evolution is a description of mechanism for a specific part of nature we observe.

We observe? I think not.

Constantly. All living populations evolve over time, and by sampling populations genomes, we can document how they are changing. Would you like some examples?

Has there ever been a recorded observation of a speciation event?

Yep.

http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/Genetics/Genetics-1935-20-4-377.pdf

In fact, most YE creationists now admit the fact of speciation, even admitting new genera and sometimes families.
Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

Speciation

Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action. Rather, it demonstrates the incredible variety God put within each created kind.

answersingenesis.org

If they retreat just a little more, we won't have much to argue about.

Has there ever been a recorded observation of a macro-evolution event that produced a being with more faculties than its progenitors?

Yep. That happens even in microevolution:

Altitude adaptation in Tibetans caused by introgression of Denisovan-like DNA - Nature

Admixture with other hominin species helped humans to adapt to high-altitude environments; the EPAS1 gene in Tibetan individuals has an unusual haplotype structure that probably resulted from introgression of DNA from Denisovan or Denisovan-related individuals into humans, and this haplotype is...

www.nature.com

A living being from non-living elements?

Evolutionary theory assumes living populations and describes how they change. The origin of life is not part of the theory.

A sentient being from non-sentient parents? A rational being from non-rational parents?

Give us testable definitions of "sentient" and "rational", so we can test your assumption. Tell us about it. At this point, most YE creationists dodge the question. But maybe you're different. Tell us your definitions.

 

[trophy33]

Specifically, what in your AI citation do you claim as evidence for macroevolution?

We are talking about the theory of evolution. Not about a theory of macroevolution. Evolution works in small accumulative steps, mostly. Its called "macro" only when looking back, to the distant past.

 

[o_mlly]

All living populations evolve over time, and by sampling populations genomes, we can document how they are changing. Would you like some examples?

Got any that demonstrate something other than microevolution? We have no problem with that.

Yep.
http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/Genetics/Genetics-1935-20-4-377.pdf

Nope. No speciation event evidenced so far in your citation. I admit that I stopped reading after noting:

• Differs from Drosophila pseudoobscura Frolowa by a larger size ...
• a darker coloration of the whole body ...
• Miranda has larger sex combs than pseudoobscura …

My sibs differ in size, two in six tan w/o burning, and we just do not examine each other's private parts. So, what in this citation do you think gives evidence of speciation?

In fact, most YE creationists now admit the fact of speciation, even admitting new genera and sometimes families.

As I am not a YE creationist, their positions are not arguments that I have put forward.

That happens even in microevolution:

Altitude adaptation in Tibetans caused by introgression of Denisovan-like DNA - Nature

Admixture with other hominin species helped humans to adapt to high-altitude environments; the EPAS1 gene in Tibetan individuals has an unusual haplotype structure that probably resulted from introgression of DNA from Denisovan or Denisovan-related individuals into humans, and this haplotype is...

www.nature.com

Adapting to an environment is only a microevolution event. We're still looking for evidence of a speciation event, preferably in nature, not in the lab via unnatural human manipulation.

Evolutionary theory assumes living populations and describes how they change. The origin of life is not part of the theory.

That evolution theory is not comprehensive, to which I agree, puts it under suspicion and warrants skepticism.

Give us testable definitions of "sentient" and "rational", so we can test your assumption

Sure. Evidence a weed that evolved into a sighted being. Evidence an irrational animal whose offspring developed rationality, ie, the ability to abstract from particulars to generals and thereby radically change their lifestyles. For instance, do you know of any animals that developed the ability to farm the land rather than gather the roam about the forest to pluck whatever they could reach, or now have developed the skills of animal husbandry rather than the tooth and claw method for obtaining meat? Move radically faster and farther than their predecessors?

 

[o_mlly]

We are talking about the theory of evolution. Not about a theory of macroevolution.

? I don't think many evolutionists would agree with that. However, if you only accept microevolution as evidenced then we agree.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Possibly but I doubt it. An unbounded philosophy is indistinguishable from pure imagination.

That's possibly analogous, but the evolutionary theorists I resource don't present any "unbounded" aspects in their presentations of evolutionary theory as far as I can tell.

Despite all of that, I'm not going to insist that other fellow Christians assume the same conceptual praxis that I do, and if they think they see causality sufficiently leading back to God, then I can appreciate some of that.

 

[trophy33]

if you only accept microevolution as evidenced then we agree.

As directly observed. Macroevolution is evidenced in the past (either in the fossil records or in genetics).

Also, just "micro" without a "macro" does not make any sense. Its like saying you accept only micro chemical reactions, but not a birth of a new star in a galaxy. God would need to supernaturally create new and new species all the time, because its obvious they did not exist in the distant past. There was no cow and no bird in the era of dinosaurs.

 

[The Barbarian]

Got any that demonstrate something other than microevolution? We have no problem with that.

Sure. Speciation is not a surprise. Macroevolution isn't as common as microevolution, but that's how we get new species. Even YE creationists admit the fact.

The apple maggot fly didn't exist when Europeans first came to America. But they brought apple trees with them. And not surprisingly, a new species of fly evolved to take advantage. The hawthorne maggot fly and the apple maggot fly are now separate populations and do not interbreed.

Speciation in the apple maggot fly: a blend of vintages?

https://www3.nd.edu/~mpfrende/Evolutionary_Biology/PDFs%20for%20Essay/Jiggins.pdf

Even Answers in Genesis no longer denies speciation:
Nine out of ten species alive today have arisen in the last 200,000 years, according to a genetic study looking at select portions of DNA from 100,000 species.

Speciation

Speciation, the formation of new species, is not evolution in action. Rather, it demonstrates the incredible variety God put within each created kind.

answersingenesis.org

Nope. No speciation event evidenced so far in your citation. I admit that I stopped reading after noting:

• Differs from Drosophila pseudoobscura Frolowa by a larger size ...
• a darker coloration of the whole body ...
• Miranda has larger sex combs than pseudoobscura …

And reproductively isolated. A new species. Rather similar to the species from which it evolved. And this is a huge problem for YE creationism. Looking at the world, we see (as Darwin predicted) that there would be lots of transitional species, half-species, and so on. If YE creationism were true, there would be nice, well-defined boundaries. But there aren't. Creationists have no explanation for these facts.

Adapting to an environment is only a microevolution event.

But as you see, even the within a species, evolution produces new and useful functions. Again, something incomprehensible to YE creationism, but perfectly understandable with Christians, who realize that God gave living things the ability to evolve to fit environments.

Evolutionary theory assumes living populations and describes how they change. The origin of life is not part of the theory.

That evolution theory is not comprehensive, to which I agree, puts it under suspicion and warrants skepticism.

In the sense that gravitational theory doesn't explain redox reactions. No one who has any understanding of science at all, thinks this is an issue. Theories only account for the phenomena they explain. Anyone who wasn't sleeping in middle school science class knows this.

(Asks about the evolution of sentient and rational)
Give us testable definitions of "sentient" and "rational", so we can test your assumption

Sure. Evidence a weed that evolved into a sighted being.

So your assumption is that any "sighted being" is sentient and rational? You sure about that? You really have no idea how to define these things, do you? Or would you like to try again?

Evidence an irrational animal whose offspring developed rationality, ie, the ability to abstract from particulars to generals and thereby radically change their lifestyles.

When you provide a testable definition of those things we'll see what we can do. Do you consider other apes to be rational? Let us know what you think.

For instance, do you know of any animals that developed the ability to farm the land

Ants, for example.

How Ants Became the World’s Best Fungus Farmers ​

How Ants Became the World’s Best Fungus Farmers

Ancient climate change may have spurred a revolution in ant agriculture, Smithsonian researchers find

www.smithsonianmag.com

I really think you haven't given this much thought. First step, go back and get us testable definitions of "rational" and "sentient."

Then we'll see what that tells us.

 

[truthpls]

Not literally, of course.

So Jesus was wrong when talking about man and woman from the beginning? All references to Eve in the bible are not really talking about a woman? How about Noah and Abraham, should we think they were really ducks?

 

[o_mlly]

As directly observed. Macroevolution is evidenced in the past (either in the fossil records or in genetics).

You do know that the fossil records are still (after ~100 years) lacking?

Do you have a genetic study that evidences a new species? Species, I define, are distinguished by radical differences in morphologies or preferably faculties. Otherwise, species is merely a convenient human invention and not discoverable in nature.

 

[trophy33]

So Jesus was wrong when talking about man and woman from the beginning? All references to Eve in the bible are not really talking about a woman? How about Noah and Abraham, should we think they were really ducks?

Jesus was talking about the text. The text really places Adam and Eve to the beginning of the Jewish history.

 

[trophy33]

You do know that the fossil records are still (after ~100 years) lacking?

Not sure what you mean by that. Try to rephrase the question.

Do you have a genetic study that evidences a new species?

Yes, there is a genetic study that provides evidence for the emergence of a new species. The research, conducted by scientists from Princeton University and Uppsala University, tracked the development of a new species of Darwin's finches on the Galápagos island of Daphne Major.
The study documented how a new lineage, which the researchers call the "Big Bird" lineage, arose in just two generations.

Study of Darwin's finches reveals that new species can develop in as little as two generations

The arrival 36 years ago of a strange bird to a remote island in the Galápagos archipelago has provided direct genetic evidence of a novel way in which new species arise.

www.princeton.edu

Species, I define...

We will stick with the common scientific definition when we are talking about the scientific theory of evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

You do know that the fossil records are still (after ~100 years) lacking?

Well, let's ask a YE creationist who is familiar with the evidence...

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between
rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and
the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Species, I define, are distinguished by radical differences in morphologies or preferably faculties.

You would find that within species. The usual criteria is reproductive isolation. This is why most creationists have now conceded the fact of speciation. There's really no point in denying something in evidence.

 

[truthpls]

Jesus was talking about the text.

I see, so when He talked of Noah and Abraham He was not talking about actual people either? I guess we all need to check in with you as to who we must erase as actual people? You are basically saying God makes stuff up, such as certain people with certain histories.

The text really places Adam and Eve to the beginning of the Jewish history.

No, there were no Jews then, of course. Genesis is a record of beginnings.

 

[trophy33]

I see, so when He talked of Noah and Abraham He was not talking about actual people either? I guess we all need to check in with you as to who we must erase as actual people? You are basically saying God makes stuff up, such as certain people with certain histories.

Adam and Eve could be real people living in the beginning of the agricultural era in Mesopotamia. Or they could be mythological representative figures. Both works.

However, even if they were real people, the context they are placed in is symbolic (like being formed from the dust and similar) or a mixture of symbolic and real (like the description of the location of Eden mentioning already existing countries around - e.g. Cush and Asshur).

No, there were no Jews then, of course. Genesis is a record of beginnings.

Adam and Eve are Jewish names. Genesis is a Jewish literature, its "the origins" part of the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law was given to Jews only, till Christ.

Other nations do not have Adam and Eve in their creation myths or in their historical literature.

 

[o_mlly]

The apple maggot fly didn't exist when Europeans first came to America. But they brought apple trees with them. And not surprisingly, a new species of fly evolved to take advantage. The hawthorne maggot fly and the apple maggot fly are now separate populations and do not interbreed.

Adapting to a new environment is not speciation. Are Eskimos a different species than the people of the tribes in Africa. No.

The hawthorne maggot fly and the apple maggot fly are now separate populations and do not interbreed.

Prove that the two cannot interbreed. If the populations exist in different locations, of course, they do not interbreed. But that does not conclude that they cannot.

But as you see, even the within a species, evolution produces new and useful functions.

Nope. You have not offered any evidence in support of the claim.

When you provide a testable definition of those things we'll see what we can do. Do you consider other apes to be rational? Let us know what you think.

Seems you could not handle the testable definitions I provided.
Apes are not rational. Let us know what you think.

Ants, for example.

Oh, I see you have googled something that you think is testable from my post. Come clean in the future.

From you citation:

The DNA data suggests …. Ants appear to have developed … may have sparked agricultural innovation … It looks like whatever … So if ants are growing ...​

I really think you haven't given this much thought.

Apparently, taken in by the evolutionists' Kool-Aid, you have devolved your notion of science as being identical to that which is pure speculation.

Finally, the likely loss of function does not evidence its opposite: Schultz and colleagues noted in previous research that ants likely lost the ability to make a key amino acid, arginine ...

Please read what you cite before posting it and note specifically what in the citation supports your claim. I'm getting weary of doing your job for you.