Creationists: Describe your conceptual understanding of evolution.

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
One of the biggest gaps in discussions around evolution seems to be a result of differing understanding of the very subject of evolution.

To try to get a handle on different understandings, I've created two thread: one for creationists and one for evolutionists to describe their respective conceptual understanding of evolution. The companion evolutionist thread is here: Evolutionists: Describe your conceptual understanding of evolution.

Areas for discussion of conceptual understanding can include:
  • the scope of the theory of Evolution;
  • the process of evolution;
  • evolutionary history of life on Earth; and,
  • evolution of biological complexity.
For the context of these threads, "creationist" refers to anyone who does not fully accept the current scientific understanding of evolution. Likewise, "evolutionist" refers to anyone who does accept the current scientific understanding thereof.

And for creationists specifically, describing your conceptual understanding of evolution does not necessarily imply agreement. Your understanding of evolution and agreement with it are two distinct things. In this thread, I am interested in your conceptual understanding of evolution, not necessarily what you specifically agree with.
 

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I understand full blown evolutionary theory to be the idea that the diversity of life that we see today is explained by common ancestry and evolution.

Common ancestry is that all of life has descended from some common ancestor. Some life forms have closer ancestors than others, but all life on earth shares some common ancestor.

Evolution is the idea that variation and diversity is explained by random genetic mutation winnowed by natural selection.

Accordingly, every species has some theoretical evolutionary history even though we do not know precisely what this history is for any given species. Every species should be able, in theory, to be traced back to the earliest life on earth highlighting a history of genetic mutation winnowed by natural selection.

I accept that the mechanism of natural selection is a thing. I accept that species can adapt and evolve. I accept that an evolutionary history for any given species might be theoretically possible. I accept that God might have created all of life through the means of evolution. But because I believe in special creation and a literal, seven day creation, I do not believe that any species in fact has a complete evolutionary history.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,814
36,109
Los Angeles Area
✟820,431.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
I kinda wanted to see this thread get more attention. Oh well.

The other one didn't get much activity either. I found it hard to address 'concepts', myself. Maybe pitabread can try again with a narrower focus, or with some preconstructed template sentences with fill in the blanks answers.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,521
9,489
✟236,303.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I found it hard to address 'concepts', myself.

Yeah, I'm not quite sure I'm answering the OP. But I'll throw something out there.

The best conceptual description of evolution I am aware of is the simple phrase, "descent with modification". However, I do believe the most current definition states that evolution is a change in the allele frequency of a population. As far as scope, my understanding is that current biology claims evolution explains the entire diversity of life that we know of.

I'm never completely clear on the process. I understand the idea of the mutation of DNA, some of it helpful, some of it harmful, and some of it neutral - and that selection plays a role in determining which mutations continue on. But there also seems to be a confusing web of competing explanations regarding all the possible processes involved. Maybe that's simply because one needs to be a professional biologist to grasp the breadth and depth of the field.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,730
✟247,332.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I'm never completely clear on the process. I understand the idea of the mutation of DNA, some of it helpful, some of it harmful, and some of it neutral
The process which creates eggs and sperm and merges the DNA together is fault tolerant, but every so often mistakes happen. The mistakes are random, without design, without purpose.

- and that selection plays a role in determining which mutations continue on.
The offspring needs to grow up, find a partner and procreate. That isn't that easy.
e.g. The faster cheetahs can catch the fast food, the slower cheetahs don't get to eat, so don't live long enough to procreate.
Or more beautiful male fish gets to procreate because the female fish selects him, but then again if his beauty comes with high visibility then he might end up eaten so the fish somewhere in the middle of beauty and hidden get to survive and procreate. There can be multiple selection pressures going on at the same time. Life isn't easy.


But there also seems to be a confusing web of competing explanations regarding all the possible processes involved. Maybe that's simply because one needs to be a professional biologist to grasp the breadth and depth of the field.
Not sure what is meant by this, but the finer points are probably quite complex, e.g. cross breeding, junk DNA, etc
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The process which creates eggs and sperm and merges the DNA together is fault tolerant, but every so often mistakes happen. The mistakes are random, without design, without purpose.


The offspring needs to grow up, find a partner and procreate. That isn't that easy.
e.g. The faster cheetahs can catch the fast food, the slower cheetahs don't get to eat, so don't live long enough to procreate.
Or more beautiful male fish gets to procreate because the female fish selects him, but then again if his beauty comes with high visibility then he might end up eaten so the fish somewhere in the middle of beauty and hidden get to survive and procreate. There can be multiple selection pressures going on at the same time. Life isn't easy.



Not sure what is meant by this, but the finer points are probably quite complex, e.g. cross breeding, junk DNA, etc

OK. Nothing you've said is new with respect to my understanding of evolution.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I'm never completely clear on the process. I understand the idea of the mutation of DNA, some of it helpful, some of it harmful, and some of it neutral - and that selection plays a role in determining which mutations continue on. But there also seems to be a confusing web of competing explanations regarding all the possible processes involved.

In general, explanations in science are simplifications of the actual processes involved. Whereas the reality is that biology is a complicated, messy subject.

One of the areas I think that is overly simplified is the very idea of classifying mutations are beneficial, neutral or harmful. In some cases explicitly harmful mutations are easy to identify (e.g. lethal mutations). But in others it is more nebulous, especially since environmental conditions can change the way particular mutations or traits are beneficial or not.

I'm also fascinated by the evolution of complexity. But there as well it's not a strict case of a linear series of beneficial mutations building organs, etc, over time. Rather, evolution of complex functions and organs seem to be a mixture of deleterious, neutral and beneficial mutations over time. Especially fascinating to me is how loss-of-function mutations can increase functional dependence in systems by having functions become more specialized.

In some ways, I find the easiest way to approach biology is to remove some of these preconceived labels and categories that get applied to things.
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
OK, maybe you know more than me on the topic.
That's not saying much though. I find it interesting, but I'm not a scientist.

I appreciate the reply. I wasn't quite sure what to say to you, but I wanted to acknowledge your reply.
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
One of the areas I think that is overly simplified is the very idea of classifying mutations are beneficial, neutral or harmful.

It's nice to hear you say that. I've often had the same thought, but never expressed it because, given I have "CREATIONIST" stamped on my forehead, my comments are typically met with derision.

It would be nice to find a sandbox we could both play in.

I've always wondered if the mathematics of other areas could apply to biology? For example, could the chaos math from my own work apply to the complexity of biological systems? However, without the proper basis, I'm not even sure where to begin.

Which brings up a question. There was virtually no math in my high school biology class, but that's not a good measure. What background do current biologists have in mathematics? Are they comfortable with it or wary of it?
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
It's nice to hear you say that. I've often had the same thought, but never expressed it because, given I have "CREATIONIST" stamped on my forehead, my comments are typically met with derision.

It would be nice to find a sandbox we could both play in.

I've always wondered if the mathematics of other areas could apply to biology? For example, could the chaos math from my own work apply to the complexity of biological systems? However, without the proper basis, I'm not even sure where to begin.

Which brings up a question. There was virtually no math in my high school biology class, but that's not a good measure. What background do current biologists have in mathematics? Are they comfortable with it or wary of it?
They had better be comfortable with it; there is plenty of math in evolution.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
They had better be comfortable with it; there is plenty of math in evolution.

Mathematics is a broad field. Even within my own work there are plenty of people who are intimidated by the math despite supposedly having a working knowledge. It's not uncommon for people to get by because the math has been programmed for them. They use the program, but don't understand the math to much depth.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Mathematics is a broad field. Even within my own work there are plenty of people who are intimidated by the math despite supposedly having a working knowledge. It's not uncommon for people to get by because the math has been programmed for them. They use the program, but don't understand the math to much depth.
You're talking about PhD level research scientists???
 
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You're talking about PhD level research scientists???

In some cases.

And there's no shame in that. A team takes all kinds. Some of the guys I know who are poor in math are invaluable in the lab. Some of the guys who can tackle the most abstract math wouldn't be able to find the light switches in a lab. This is real life we're talking about, and people come in all shapes and sizes with a variety of different skills.

The person who does an amazing job in field study may be weak with theory. It happens.

Some biologists may be amazing at mathematics because it's a skill they have, not because it's required of all who seek the degree. It happens.

With respect to biology I'm asking the question. How much math are they required to study for their degree? Just because they're a PhD in biology doesn't mean they also qualify for a PhD in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and geology.

I guess it's not that hard to check. I'll go survey a random biology program, see what I find, and get back to you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I guess it's not that hard to check. I'll go survey a random biology program, see what I find, and get back to you.

Maybe not as easy as I thought. Biology is like engineering, where there is no single engineering degree. Just as engineering has mechanical, electrical, chemical, materials, industrial, etc. with biology there are many different paths.

Regardless, it appears that for an undergraduate biology degree there is a required Calculus I and Statistics I course. Then, depending on what you plan for a specialization, you have an option for either a Calc II class OR a Stats II course. That's less math than is required for undergraduate engineering. And no computer science whatsoever.

On to graduate programs.

And again, I'm not trying to shame biology. I was just curious what goes into building a biologist.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

J_B_

I have answers to questions no one ever asks.
May 15, 2020
1,258
365
Midwest
✟101,755.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
On to graduate programs.

Here, not surprisingly, the path appears to split. In many graduate biology programs, it appears the additional math requirement is little to none. But there is a specialization called "mathematical biology", which understandably, requires more: differential equations, discrete math, optimization, and stochastic modeling. That makes it comparable to graduate engineering programs, but not in excess of them.

Still, I expect we'll get some clarification from those here who are biologists.
 
Upvote 0