Evolution, Science, Creation

[MyChristianForumID]

Not since we learned that feathers first appeared in dinosaurs and that some dinosaurs exhibit primitive feathers.

Ok, but did you consider how complex the feather and the supporting biological features are? How could the feather appear on birds skin? How could it evolve into flight? I am extremely doubtful. Could you provide some links for me to study on this phenomenon? It is still much more likely to me that it is created design.

Thanks,
MyChristianForumID

 

[ManofWar]

Of course science can't disprove your views, since it's based on faith. I'm just trying to point out that evolution is science, and this is what it says.

I might not have been very clear, but I just wanted to point out to other people that evolution is scientific and this is what it says. However, it does not make it the Truth (science doesn't deal with Truths). I'll admit, I have more respect for people like you that admit that their position is faith base, than people trying to force supernatural beliefs into a scientific position.

Hello, I am new here. I am excited to find Christians discussing origins. It is an important topic though it does not determine our fate come judgement day. I must disagree with random_guy. I do not believe that evolution is scientific. Now at this point we must define evolution.

I think you would agree that evolution basically means descent with modification, or change over time. Let us define it further.

Microevolution-change or variation within a kind of animals

Macroevolution-change or variation that leads to new kinds(species) of animals

Since science deals with the observable, testable, and repeatable, then we would have to say that microevolution is scientific. However, to say that macroevolution (molecules to man evolution) is scientific is a stretch.

Never has a dog produced anything besides a dog. Macroevolution has never been observed, tested, or repeated, thus it would not be science.

Now I apologize for any confusion I may cause. When dealing with evolution it is easy to get lost in definitions.

BTW I am a 6 literal-24 hr-days creationist. I believe that God created the world about 6,000 years ago. I believe he created animals to reproduce after their kind, allowing new variations, but no new kinds.

Thanks for you time, and I look forward to hearing back from you.

 

[Sabazi]

Evolution is a theory. To become proven fact, there would have to be further evidence gathered by watching all species of the planet continue to evolve over the next several thousands of years. If, in several thousand years the human race.... or any species on the planet for that matter, has had the DNA of the entire species altered I would have to accept evolution as fact because then it would be proven. Since evolution is a theory based on the evaluation of evidence of the past, it is simply a theory.

Actually, there have been changes in human DNA in the past millenium or so.

 

[Sabazi]

http://www.nurseminerva.co.uk/adapt/evolutio.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/feathers.html

here's two

I'm too bored to look for more

 

[shernren]

hmm. Let's just be really, really clear about what we mean. What is a species?

 

[gluadys]

Ok, but did you consider how complex the feather and the supporting biological features are? How could the feather appear on birds skin? How could it evolve into flight? I am extremely doubtful. Could you provide some links for me to study on this phenomenon? It is still much more likely to me that it is created design.

Thanks,
MyChristianForumID

Sabazi already provided some good links. Here is a list of many others.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=feathered+dinosaurs&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Yes, of course I am considering the complexity of the feather in its current formation. Are you taking into consideration that it would not need to be so complex when it first appeared? Its first use was probably as insulation, not to support flight. And feathers may also have had (still have) a role in sexual attraction as well. Neither of these uses require the specific formation needed for flight. But once feathers exist, for any reason, they become subject to variations, and variations which allowed flight and improved flight can be favored by natural selection.

Never assume that the final product--or its primary use--is what a species began with.

As for a feather appearing in the skin, that is no more difficult than a scale, a claw, a shell or a tooth appearing.

 

[gluadys]

Hi ManofWAr. Welcome to CF and Origins Theology.

I think you would agree that evolution basically means descent with modification, or change over time.

Right. Specifically it refers to a change in the proportional distribution of alleles in a population that transcends generations. Are you familiar with the term "allele"?

Let us define it further.

Microevolution-change or variation within a kind of animals

Incorrect. This should read change or variation within a species--any species including plants, fungi, bacteria and protists as well as animals.

Macroevolution-change or variation that leads to new kinds(species) of animals

I note that you are equating kinds with species. Most creationists avoid that equation.

Let us note as well that micro- and macro- only refer to whether the process occur within a species or includes the production of new species. Macro-evolution does not require any new mechanism over those that produce micro-evolution. It is the same process. Macro-evolution is only the end product of a lot of micro-evolution.

Since science deals with the observable, testable, and repeatable, then we would have to say that microevolution is scientific. However, to say that macroevolution (molecules to man evolution) is scientific is a stretch.

No one in science claims "molecules to man" evolution for two reasons:

1. Molecules are not a form of life. Evolution is a process which happens in living species. If you don't already have a living reproducing species, there is no opportunity for evolution to happen. So evolution does not begin at the level of molecules.

2. Evolution doesn't lead to anything in particular. So it is incorrect to think of evolution as leading to humanity. It didn't lead to humanity any more than it led to herons and iguanas and oak trees and E. coli bacteria. Of course, all these things are outcomes of evolution, but not because evolution planned for them and targeted them as a goal.

I also see you have jumped from "Macroevolution-change or variation that leads to new kinds(species) of animals." (i.e. speciation) to "Macro-evolution = the whole panorama of the history of common descent--and more." Would it not be more consistent to stick with one definition rather than using the same word for two quite different ideas?

When "macro-evolution" is used in science, it is mostly used to mean the derivation of two or more species from one. That is close to your first definition. And the production of new species has been observed. So by this definition macro-evolution is an observed fact.

The second idea, that all today's species go back to a universal common ancestor is usually called "common descent" though occasionally this is also called "macro-evolution". (Depends on who you are reading.)

Now I would be interested in why you find it difficult to accept common descent. When I first heard of it, I was still a creationist. But the first time I heard this idea, it excited me no end. I thought "How wonderful of God to think of that! It makes so much sense!"

So what do you see as the problem?

Never has a dog produced anything besides a dog. Macroevolution has never been observed, tested, or repeated, thus it would not be science.

Well a dog producing something that is not a dog is not macro-evolution. Evolution would be quickly falsified by events like that, because there is no way, using evolution, that a dog could ever produce anything other than a dog. See the first line in my signature.

Now if you thought this was an example of macro-evolution, it shows that you don't really know what macro-evolution is. So maybe your problems with macro-evolution are really imaginary fantoms. Maybe you need to learn how macro-evolution really works. I assure you, you will not find any kind of leap from one species to another---and certainly not to something hugely different that would need to be classified in a wholly different family or order.

Now I apologize for any confusion I may cause. When dealing with evolution it is easy to get lost in definitions.

When discussing science, it is a good idea to stick to standard scientific definitions. Otherwise you end up burning a lot of straw men. "kind" is not a scientific term for example. It has no clear, useful definition.

I believe he created animals to reproduce after their kind, allowing new variations, but no new kinds.

You should have no problem with evolution then. This is what evolution predicts too.

 

[MyChristianForumID]

In past times, feathers were probably first used as insulation, much like hair in mammals, and were probably hair-shaped, as some of those other types of feathers mentioned above still are. At some point, some of the proto-birds developed branching projections from the early feathers. These were better at insulating, and so natural selection favored those animals that possessed them.

- Paul Keck

The feather argument (of Keck) is based on the (somewhat vital) assumption that feathers were first used as insulation. And the further assumption that branching projections (barbules) would provide better insulation (by interlocking the barbs together).

Keck could have been more complete in his analysis if he would have tried to explain why a central vane, plus barbs and barbules would be favored over "just more or thicker hair".

Both the arboreal and cursorial hypotheses for the origin of bird flight have explanatory gaps. For example, gliding tree-dwellers of the present day such as the flying squirrels and lemurs make no effort to prolong their flight by flapping their appendages, raising the question of why tree-living ancestors of the birds may have done so. With regard to the cursorial hypothesis, it is necessary to suggest an explanation as to why natural selection would have favoured the development of protowings in running ancestors of birds. Dial observed that some predominantly ground-living species of extant birds routinely run up tree-trunks and other inclined surfaces to reach safety, and beat their wings to improve traction as they do so (work described by Wong, 2002). This wing-flapping behaviour was also observed in juveniles of these species even before they were able to fly. Thus Dial proposes that the use of wing-beating during inclined running might have provided the necessary incentive for the evolution of wings in ancestors of the birds.

- Dial ( Nurse Minerva website )

Dial is quoted on the web page but no indication is given of who he is, or any references. But he does acknowledge the explanatory gap. Why would feathers be favoured for the tree dwellers? He suggests running up tree trunks would be faster with feathers. This only attempts to explain why "developed feathers" would be selected but not why they "starting developing" in the first place. That goes back to the insulation factor. But why develop such an incredibly complex feather structure (with a million parts per feather) for insulation when simple hair would do.

I don't see how you get from hair - to feather. This specific part is all theory and not any real evidence.

The feather still looks like created design to me.

 

[gluadys]

I don't see how you get from hair - to feather. This specific part is all theory and not any real evidence.

The evidence is that some dinosaur fossils have feathers without the bells and trimmings. And they obviously did not fly. So what is the purpose of their feathers?

The feather still looks like created design to me.

So explain the feathered but flightless dinosaurs.

The explanatory gap you mentioned did not refer to the development of feathers, but to the development of flight. We don't yet have closure on the development of flight. But what you asked for was the evolution of feathers. Since feathers do not coincide perfectly with flight--even in birds--it does not follow that they were originally designed for flight.

To understand evolution you need to stop thinking teleologically. A new feature like feathers does not appear because the descendants of this creature will fly. Indeed it does not appear for any reason at all.

But if it offers an advantage, in the present (not future) circumstances, it will be preserved.

 

[RenHoek]

But if it offers an advantage, in the present (not future) circumstances, it will be preserved.

The problem with this is that it would be an encumbrance before it became a useful feature over millions of years.

 

[The Lady Kate]

The problem with this is that it would be an encumbrance before it became a useful feature over millions of years.

Only if the sole purpose of feathers was flight. They also do a great job of dispersing heat away from the body...

 

[RenHoek]

Only if the sole purpose of feathers was flight. They also do a great job of dispersing heat away from the body...

That still does not compute for a cold blooded creature. They prefer the heat, hence lizards sunning themselves.

 

[Edmond]

That is certainly one interpretation, another might be that it is a sign of how God went about creating species, i.e. via evolution.

Agreed

I understand but disagree with that interpretation.

Thank you for the laugh!

(I realize it may not have meant to be funny, but the image of Jesus holding forth at length on proper theology while he and his audience are nailed to a cross produces either laughter or tears for me, and I choose laughter)

That is laughable. It was intended to be that way to show why it is so absurd that your earlier comment about salvation being synonymous with believing a literal interpretation of Genesis is so difficult to imagine.

------------------------------------

 

[Bobber]

BTW I am a 6 literal-24 hr-days creationist. I believe that God created the world about 6,000 years ago. I believe he created animals to reproduce after their kind, allowing new variations, but no new kinds.

I agree with you there ManofWar and welcome to the thread

 

[Edmond]

Oh dear, not that strawman again. I shall show how TEism is not invalidated by the statement you are undoubtedly quoting:

And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? (Matthew 19:4-5 NKJV)

God indeed created. We do not have any problem with that. For us TEs, He created us through evolution.

The problem is, the position you have just taken is not consistant with what Genesis record. Apparently you need to read the text again.

And from when there were humans they have always been male and female. ... so you show how this statement cannot accommodate TEism.

So basically you are saying, by invoking the supernatural, that things happened exactly how you read them from Genesis 1 - no matter what the evidence? Well, be my guest. YECism can only be true at the expense of being scientific.

Don't contradict yourself.

Science is a naturalistic exploration of the physical cause-effect relationships that govern the universe. Now, if you want to accept supernatural causes, as you said above, you will have to accept that the physical natural cause-effect relationships we observe sometimes break down. Therefore at points in a supernatural universe science will invariably be wrong.

It's only natural that creationism seems scientific to you if you define science however which way you want to.

So did Louis Agassiz (who found evidence against a global flood) and Georges Cuvier (famous for his talents at fossil reconstruction), who were devout Protestant Old-Earth Creationists, found their observations on "a redisposed (??) bias that disbelived and disapproved of the teaching of the Genesis account of creation"?

Rethinking Cuvier's position.....

"Although Cuvier's research paved the way for Charles Darwin's ideas about evolution, Cuvier himself never concluded that life must have evolved. Instead, from observing the way in which sudden breaks appeared in the fossil record where one group of species were replaced by another group,"
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/evolution/bldef_cuviergeorges.htm

"Yet Cuvier rejected the idea of organic evolution. He was an essentialist, convinced that plants and animals of all types were created for their particular roles and places in the world's environment, and that they were unchanging throughout their existence. There was no scale of perfection, in Cuvier's view, because each animal was perfectly adapted to its position in the natural world. He could see no evidence for a steady increase in complexity or perfection as claimed by those who believed in a "great chain of being." But in the course of history, he said, catastrophic events had killed off all members of some species, and their fossils would no longer be seen in the rocks. Subsequently, he believed, the old species were replaced by new ones that repopulated Earth."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/02/1/l_021_01.html

------------------------

 

[gluadys]

But if it offers an advantage, in the present (not future) circumstances, it will be preserved.

The problem with this is that it would be an encumbrance before it became a useful feature over millions of years.

An advantage is, by definition, a useful feature. Therefore it is not an encumbrance.

Also a feature which is not useful need not be an encumbrance either. In such a case it will not be favored by selection, but will not be suppressed either. It may become a distinctive feature of a varietal nature.

It is then available if changing environmental pressures turn it into an advantage.

 

[gluadys]

That still does not compute for a cold blooded creature. They prefer the heat, hence lizards sunning themselves.

Lizards only prefer warm places when the air is cool. On hot days they seek cool places in the shade of rocks or in cooling water.

However, birds evolved from dinosaurs, not lizards, and there is evidence that at least some dinosaurs were not cold blooded.

 

[shernren]

The problem is, the position you have just taken is not consistant with what Genesis record. Apparently you need to read the text again.

Mmm? Bait-and-dodge? In your original post you were saying that the Matthew passage you were quoting was inconsistent with TE. So when I show that it is consistent, you now turn around and say "No, it is inconsistent with Genesis." One thing at a time, shall we? Does that mean that TE is consistent with the Matthew passage, after all?

Rethinking Cuvier's position.....

"Although Cuvier's research paved the way for Charles Darwin's ideas about evolution, Cuvier himself never concluded that life must have evolved. Instead, from observing the way in which sudden breaks appeared in the fossil record where one group of species were replaced by another group,"
http://atheism.about.com/library/gl...viergeorges.htm

"Yet Cuvier rejected the idea of organic evolution. He was an essentialist, convinced that plants and animals of all types were created for their particular roles and places in the world's environment, and that they were unchanging throughout their existence. There was no scale of perfection, in Cuvier's view, because each animal was perfectly adapted to its position in the natural world. He could see no evidence for a steady increase in complexity or perfection as claimed by those who believed in a "great chain of being." But in the course of history, he said, catastrophic events had killed off all members of some species, and their fossils would no longer be seen in the rocks. Subsequently, he believed, the old species were replaced by new ones that repopulated Earth."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/l...1/l_021_01.html

Understood and agreed - Cuvier was not an evolutionist. However, he did believe in an old earth (something quite a few prominent creationists today say is anti-Biblical) and his paleontological techniques are the precise ones that were / are used by evolutionist paleontologists to derive conclusions from sparse fossil evidence. If it's "blind, wild guesswork" when they do it, what does that say about Cuvier?

 

[Edmond]

Mmm? Bait-and-dodge? In your original post you were saying that the Matthew passage you were quoting was inconsistent with TE. So when I show that it is consistent, you now turn around and say "No, it is inconsistent with Genesis." One thing at a time, shall we? Does that mean that TE is consistent with the Matthew passage, after all?

Tell me then, please define the steps you would take to converge the definition of what happened in Gen.2:7, then keep that event seperated by some period of time as identified in the gap that takes us to Gen. 2:21 & 22 and then take both of those events and marry them into the processes of evolution.

Understood and agreed - Cuvier was not an evolutionist. However, he did believe in an old earth (something quite a few prominent creationists today say is anti-Biblical) and his paleontological techniques are the precise ones that were / are used by evolutionist paleontologists to derive conclusions from sparse fossil evidence. If it's "blind, wild guesswork" when they do it, what does that say about Cuvier?

Since life and the earth are assmed by some to be very old.... this question then follows. Where is any evidence for the presence of recorded human history that extends beyond 6 to 10 K years ago?

----------------

 

[gluadys]

Since life and the earth are assmed by some to be very old.... this question then follows. Where is any evidence for the presence of recorded human history that extends beyond 6 to 10 K years ago?

----------------

Cave paintings 25,000 years old
http://www.beyondbooks.com/art11/2a.asp

Stone tools made 40,000 to 80,000 years ago
http://www.paleodirect.com/m088.htm

Use of fire 1.5 million years ago
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3557077.stm