Evolution conflict and division

[Fervent]

Evos often use microevolution events and masquerade them as macro. You're just repeating yourself. I've moved on; so should you.

What, mechanistically speaking, is supposed to separate macroevolution from microevolution? What is the supposed obstacle?

 

[The Barbarian]

Evos often use microevolution events and masquerades them as macro.

As you learned, even may YEC now admit the evolution of new species,genera, and sometimes families. As you also learned, "microevolution" is allele changes within a species, and "macroevolution" is the evolution of new species or higher. Would you like me to show you again?

Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. It is an area of study concerned with variation in frequencies of alleles that are shared between species and with speciation events, and also includes extinction. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.

Macroevolution Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary

Macroevolution in the largest biology dictionary online. Free learning resources for students covering all major areas of biology.

www.biologyonline.com

As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time...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

AIG tried to redefine "macroevolution" to mean the evolution of new "Biblical kinds", a vague idea they seem to equate to family or order. Evolution of new species and genera within "kinds" is just fine with them. However since the Bible says bats and birds are the same "kind", this produces huge difficulties for YEC doctrine.
Leviticus 11:13 Of birds these are they which you must not eat, and which are to be avoided by you: The eagle, and the griffon, and the osprey, 14 And the kite, and the vulture, according to their kind, 15 And all that is of the raven kind, according to their likeness.16 The ostrich, and the owl, and the larus, and the hawk according to its kind. 17 The screech owl, and the cormorant, and the ibis, 18 And the swan, and the bittern, and the porphyrion, 19 The heron, and the charadrion according to its kind, the houp also, and the bat.

Now, given YE beliefs, this looks like an error in the Bible; after all, if bats can evolve from other birds, that means YEC cannot be true. The error is obvious. The Biblical notion of "kind" was a functional one, not a taxonomic one. YE creationists attempted to make it a taxonomic or genetic classification, and thereby fell into error.

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

I have been reading through this thread from the beginning, and although a good part of it has been sailing over my head, mostly due to my self-imposed ignorance of scientific language and definitions, enough has gotten through to further my joy in departing from the institutionalized, man-made grip of orthodoxy.

I love the peace that has come to me through knowing Him and understanding that all things were created by Him, through Him and for Him. That is an all encompassing truth that helps guide my personal walk of faith. Therefore, whatever the means, methods and intent my Creator uses to unveil His glory, and for my own good, brings me immense joy and simultaneously dispels the fear of losing my preconceived notions of how my Creator brought forth, nurtures, directs and guides His creation.

I have a question for all who emphatically reject the theory of evolution, of which at this point I neither affirm or reject, mostly due to my self imposed ignorance. What will happen to your faith if the theory of evolution is found to be acknowledged as the truth of His chosen means, for His creation and mankind’s development and progress as a species, by both the unbelieving and believing world of the scientific community?

Personally … I would praise my Creator for correcting my ignorance and adjust my way understanding how I interpret the Scripture. No longer a big deal to me … my hope and faith abide in His Son, not the Scripture, of which the volume of them are written of Him. I see the role of Scripture much like the role of an earthly father, giving the had of his daughter to her husband in marriage. I believe the Scripture is the means by which God uses to place our hand in to the hand of His Son. Who is the creator and sustainer of all things, and who IS THE TRUTH, which has set me free from the fear of death and liberated me as a soul and son to find my rest in Him.

blessings,

 

[The Barbarian]

I believe the Scripture is the means by which God uses to place our hand in to the hand of His Son. Who is the creator and sustainer of all things, and who IS THE TRUTH, which has set me free from the fear of death and liberated me as a soul and son to find my rest in Him.

Today's winner.

 

[The Barbarian]

What, mechanistically speaking, is supposed to separate macroevolution from microevolution? What is the supposed obstacle?

Well, technically, evolution within a species is microevolution, and speciation is macroevolution. But it's a fuzzy boundary, with no clear border. In fact, in the case of ring species or clines, microevolution can retroactively become macroevolution. Leopard frogs in North America are like that. Adjacent populations can interbreed, but the far north and far south populations cannot. If the intermediate populations were to go extinct, there would be two species of leopard frogs.

And in nature, we see lots of cases (as Darwin predicted) of intermediate forms that have evolved almost to speciation, but not quite. This is a huge problem for YEC, but not for science.

Edit: Perhaps you were asking about the actual isolating mechanism. It can vary. For example, there are many birds that will not interbreed in the wild, but can, in captivity, be induced to interbreed. They are two separate species. There are species like brown bears and polar bears that only recently evolved into two species. They have interbred in zoos, but until recently they haven't done so in nature because they live in entirely different habitats. As the world warms up, the polar bears are losing habitat, and are coming ashore to forage. And we are seeing some pizzley bears or grolar bears or whatever in Canada, now.

In other cases such as humans and other apes, a chromosome fusion makes a cross very likely impossible; the chromosomes just don't line up correctly. In other cases, there are developmental problems that kill the embryo before development. It's complex.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evos often use microevolution events and masquerade them as macro.

As you learned, you've just been given an incorrect definition of the term. Even YEC groups like ICR and AIG now admit the evolution of new species and genera. They retreated a bit, and then tried to redefine the term to cover their retreat. It's not working. YEC is a very recent revision of the Bible. The Scopes trial creationists were old Earth creationists. The great evangelist Billy Graham faced the issue directly:

I don’t think that there’s any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we’ve tried to make the Scriptures say things that they weren’t meant to say, and I think we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course, I accept the Creation story. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man … whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man’s relationship to God.”
Billy Graham in Doubt and Certainties (1964)

This is why YECs always dodge when asked to point out which of the four points of Darwin's theory have been refuted. None of them have. As the Vatican points out, while there is debate about the pacing and mode of evolution, there is widespread agreement among scientists about the observed fact of evolution.

Let it be God's way, and it won't trouble you any longer.

 

[Fervent]

Well, technically, evolution within a species is microevolution, and speciation is macroevolution. But it's a fuzzy boundary, with no clear border. In fact, in the case of ring species or clines, microevolution can retroactively become macroevolution. Leopard frogs in North America are like that. Adjacent populations can interbreed, but the far north and far south populations cannot. If the intermediate populations were to go extinct, there would be two species of leopard frogs.

And in nature, we see lots of cases (as Darwin predicted) of intermediate forms that have evolved almost to speciation, but not quite. This is a huge problem for YEC, but not for science.

Edit: Perhaps you were asking about the actual isolating mechanism. It can vary. For example, there are many birds that will not interbreed in the wild, but can, in captivity, be induced to interbreed. They are two separate species. There are species like brown bears and polar bears that only recently evolved into two species. They have interbred in zoos, but until recently they haven't done so in nature because they live in entirely different habitats. As the world warms up, the polar bears are losing habitat, and are coming ashore to forage. And we are seeing some pizzley bears or grolar bears or whatever in Canada, now.

In other cases such as humans and other apes, a chromosome fusion makes a cross very likely impossible; the chromosomes just don't line up correctly. In other cases, there are developmental problems that kill the embryo before development. It's complex.

I was actually asking for some reason that natural selection can't explain macroevolution that microevolution isn't subject to. Not what isolates species, but why one should be treated any differently from the other via explanatory framework.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'll just add this too, for people interested in Genesis from a Biblical perspective, as opposed to a scientific perspective:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Scripture and science are comfortably compatible when scripture isn't perceived of as a modern science textbook.

 

[Fervent]

Scripture and science are comfortably compatible when scripture isn't perceived of as a modern science textbook.

Kind of, but by treating causation as exclusively being efficient causation scientific modeling excludes God at an assumptive level. So science also can't be used as the arbiter of truth or having any bearing on philosophiical(and by extension theological) questions that are embedded in its procedures.

 

[The Barbarian]

I was actually asking for some reason that natural selection can't explain macroevolution that microevolution isn't subject to.

Not sure what that means. But yes, natural selection can cause macroevolution.

 

[Fervent]

Not sure what that means. But yes, natural selection can cause macroevolution.

It's directed at people who treat it as if there is some impossible barrier between what they call "microevolution" and "macroevolution"...kind of like if someone was cclaiming that "microerosion" can explain grooves but the grand canyon requires "macroerosion"...to people who think one happens and not the other, my question is what is the supposed barrier?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll just add this too, for people interested in Genesis from a Biblical perspective, as opposed to a scientific perspective:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Scripture and science are comfortably compatible when scripture isn't perceived of as a modern science textbook.

I like your perspective, but at the same time I keep my Bible separate from my science and refrain from intimating either their compatibility or their tension. I personally don't think they're "comfortably" compatible, although I'll affirm that I don't think they're uncomfortably incompatible.

In other words: it did take me some time and mental effort to dig out from under all of the paleontological, geological and biological academic rubble to finally find a place in my thinking where I could continue to affirm the work of Niles Eldredge and Stephen J. Gould without the felt need to punt the Bible over into the gutter.

 

[Job 33:6]

Kind of, but by treating causation as exclusively being efficient causation scientific modeling excludes God at an assumptive level. So science also can't be used as the arbiter of truth or having any bearing on philosophiical(and by extension theological) questions that are embedded in its procedures.

Scientific models assume things like:

- events are regular enough to be studied
- causes can be measured, manipulated, or inferred

- explanations should be publicly testable

They do not assume:

- that only natural reality exists
- that God does not exist
- that intelligence or purpose are unreal

Those would be ontological assumptions, and science doesn’t make them.

With that said, I was wondering what you mean by "scientific modeling excludes God at an assumptive level."

Thanks

 

[Fervent]

Scientific models assume things like:

- events are regular enough to be studied
- causes can be measured, manipulated, or inferred

- explanations should be publicly testable

They do not assume:

- that only natural reality exists
- that God does not exist
- that intelligence or purpose are unreal

Those would be ontological assumptions, and science doesn’t make them.

With that said, I was wondering what you mean by "scientific modeling excludes God at an assumptive level."

Thanks

Scientific models assume that only efficient causes exist, that is causes between one object and another. This can't be the case if God exists, because there must also be final causes influencing things. So while they do not directly affirm the existence(or non-existence) of God, the reduction of causation to efficient causes rules out any sort of transcendent God, allowing for a deistic picture at best.

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

Scientific models assume that only efficient causes exist, that is causes between one object and another. This can't be the case if God exists, because there must also be final causes influencing things.

But do not the scriptures affirm God as both the causation of all things AND the sustainer of all things? Help me understand how efficient causation only, between two objects, cancels out or implies the absence of God in light of the Scriptures below?

”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.“
‭‭John‬ ‭1‬:‭1‬-‭3‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

”in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,“
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭1‬:‭2‬-‭3‬ ‭NASB1995

blessings

 

[The Barbarian]

Kind of, but by treating causation as exclusively being efficient causation scientific modeling excludes God at an assumptive level.

No. It doesn't exclude God. It just can't confirm or deny Him.

. So while they do not directly affirm the existence(or non-existence) of God, the reduction of causation to efficient causes rules out any sort of transcendent God

No. For example, it's consistent with God being involved in every particle of the natural world.

 

[Fervent]

But do not the scriptures affirm God as both the causation of all things AND the sustainer of all things? Help me understand how efficient causation only, between two objects, cancels out or implies the absence of God in light of the Scriptures below?

”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.“
‭‭John‬ ‭1‬:‭1‬-‭3‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

”in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,“
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭1‬:‭2‬-‭3‬ ‭NASB1995

blessings

Efficient causes imply that the past events are responsible for current conditions, but God is the end and the beginning. Which means that not only do past events cause current conditions, but current conditions are being moved toward an end. It's the difference between the universe having a telos(purpose) and not having a telos. It's a metaphysical issue, and isn't a weakness for science only a reality that some questions are not susceptible to scientific inquiry.

 

[Job 33:6]

Scientific models assume that only efficient causes exist, that is causes between one object and another. This can't be the case if God exists, because there must also be final causes influencing things. So while they do not directly affirm the existence(or non-existence) of God, the reduction of causation to efficient causes rules out any sort of transcendent God, allowing for a deistic picture at best.

Scientific models restrict themselves to efficient causes because those are the only causes they can operationalize and test. That restriction doesn’t imply that only efficient causes exist, nor does it rule out final causes or a transcendent God. It simply reflects the limited explanatory scope of scientific modeling.

 

[Fervent]

No. It doesn't exclude God. It just can't confirm or deny Him.

No. For example, it's consistent with God being involved in every particle of the natural world.

Can science proceed without causal closure?

 

[Fervent]

Scientific models restrict themselves to efficient causes because those are the only causes they can operationalize and test. That restriction doesn’t imply that only efficient causes exist, nor does it rule out final causes or a transcendent God. It simply reflects the limited explanatory scope of scientific modeling.

I am aware of why the restriction exists, but that restriction is a major impediment for scientific models being treated as factual approximations. If there are more than efficient causes, then one of the basic contingencies for scientific truth is violated.