Evolution, Science, Creation

[Robert the Pilegrim]

We were not there. Therefore we cannot be sure of this. We cannot validate any of the modern fossil dating techniques without a time machine.

By observing light from the stars in our galaxy we see no difference in the light that comes from stars 4 light years away, 1000 light years away or 60,000 light years away. If the speed of light had changed we would expect to see changes in the light emitted before and after the change.

By looking at the interaction of light coming from ~13 billion light years away with intersteller dust we can tell that a basic constant that includes the speed of light in its calculation has not changed.

In 1987 we observed a supernova that occurred ~179,000 light years away.

(do a search on SN1987A or supernova 1987 for more information.)

[questions about appearance of age]

Was Adam created with a scar on his left knee where he fell as a child?

 

[RenHoek]

Was Adam created with a scar on his left knee where he fell as a child?

More importantly, did he have a belly button?

 

[ManofWar]

LewisWildermuth: What numbers to these questions did you use in your calculations? Where did you get them? How do you test whether they are reliable answers or not?

First of all these are not my calculations, and I did tell you specifically where I found them. I am certainly willing to anwser questions, but I would appreciate it if you would carefully read the post before making assertions that are false.


LewisWildermuth: 1. There is a 1 in 1 chance that you have a mutation that neither of your parents have. So that is 100%

Again please go back and read the parts of the post labeled "Rare Mutations" and "New information." Do remember these are not my numbers but I encourage you to go see them for yourself.


LewisWildermuth:3. One replication, the one that created the mutation. If it is selected for, which means the carrier has more surviving children than the non-carriers, then incorporation of that mutation into the larger genetic pool is inevitable.


3. That depends on the creature you are talking about, the types of mutations incurred and the isolation in which those changes take place.

For these last two go look at the numbers for yourself.

Hold the fort.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

So, ManofWar, you have just, with the help of the YEC authors cited, shot down the YEC theory that Noah could have taken just a few "kinds" into the ark and had them diversify into the life we see today. Thank you, saves me a lot of work. I will refer your fellow YECs to your posts the next time this idea crops up.

 

[gluadys]

I am glad to be back. Thank you for your reply. I never like to rush ahead without laying the proper ground work.

A wise precaution. Please take any of my unreferenced statements in the same light. That is as invitations to explore deeper.

I challenged you because we regularly have a string of newbies who will blather out all the garbage they have been told about evolution and never come back to look at the replies. Not even to ask a question about something they misunderstood. Or to challenge something they think is wrong.

So you've earned some brownie points just by coming back to discuss.


However, before we get into the meat of your post, let me tell you that you have said nothing that I have not heard before many times. This is not new ground for me. In fact, TEs often come from a creationist background, and even if they don't they are often much more knowleadgeable about the creationist or ID position than the latter are about evolution.

Your list of references, for example, is entirely creationist/ID. And the substance of your posts--especially when you are dealing with "problems" for evolution, suggest that you are getting 95-99% of your information on evolution from creationist/ID sources.

In any sort of discussion or debate, the wise speaker prepares by learning what the position of the opposition is. The Roman orator, Cicero, once said he spent twice as long preparing his opponent's case as he did his own.

Much of the information about evolution from creationist/ID sources is just plain wrong. As shernren has been saying they are lies. And he is right.

Most of the rest is taken out of context and distorted. But the greatest problem with creationist/ID sources is the sin of omission. They simply never tell you about most of the existing evidence for evolution.

If your research is as unbalanced as it appears to be, you owe it to yourself to spend as much time getting information on evolution from evolutionists as you are currently doing getting misinformation about evolution from creationist/ID sources. If for no other reason than to be better equipped to show what is wrong with evolution.

So in the next posts I will get to your specific arguments and indicate what illusions about evolution they reflect, and why, since they are built on misinformation or at best incomplete information, they don't undermine either the fact or theory of evolution.

 

[gluadys]

This post is intended to show why mutations can not produce evolution (“the gradual development of organisms from other organisms since the beginnings of life,” from the text book

Now here is what I mean about not knowing what your opponent's position is. You went to a lot of work preparing this section and I appreciate it. But if you had asked any TE, or read any literature on evolution by an evolutionist, you could have saved yourself a lot of work. We agree that mutations cannot produce evolution.

Let me repeat that.

Biologists agree that mutations do not produce evolution.

Mutations are a pre-requisite for evolution, so it is fair to state that you can't have evolution without them. But mutations are not what makes evolution happen.

But so as not to waste your work, let's look at it more closely.

Here comes the statement. Mutations are absolutely necessary for evolution (“the gradual development of organisms from other organisms since the beginnings of life,” from the text book) to occur. If mutations fail then the evolutionary bridge will fall.

While mutations do not produce evolution, they are a prerequisite for evolution. So it is fair to say: no mutations=no evolution.

However, I doubt you are upholding the thesis that mutations do not happen. So your real thesis is not that mutations can't happen or don't happen, but that in spite of mutations happening every time a cell replicates, they are an insufficient basis for evolution, right?

Well, we've already agreed to that.

“…mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation and thus makes evolution possible.”

Yes, notice the wording here. 'Mutation...thus makes evolution possible." "Mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation..."

What mutation produces is variation, not evolution. But variation is the pre-requisite for evolution. Variation, and hence mutation, which is the ultimate source of variation, make evolution possible. But they do not make evolution happen.

These are all quotes from biology textbooks.

And they are all good quotes. Did you read the rest of the textbook too?

It would be good to now try to define “new information” or “additional information” since I have referred to it many times without trying to give a clear definition. In short I would say it means – new genetic characteristics. This however is very weak as many short definitions are.

It is not its brevity that makes it weak. It begs for definition as much as "new information does". How do you define "new genetic characteristics"?

I realize that all changes in genetics can result in microevolution;

That should read "evolution".

However for evolution (“the gradual development of organisms from other organisms since the beginnings of life,” from the text book), to take place, does require new information.

Wait a minute here. You are quoting only half of that definition. The full definition, as cited in post 162 is:

"a change in the characteristics of a population from one generation to the next; the gradual development of organisms from other organisms since the beginnings of life”​

"Evolution" includes the first part, especially the underlined section, as well as the second part. The second part is a consequence of the first.

This is a common creationist/ID lie---and I am going to call it a lie, because anyone who understands evolution understands that you cannot split evolution into two distinct processes. I don't think the leaders of the organizations who make such statements are that ignorant of evolution that they do not know they are lying. The lie is that "evolution" does not include "micro-evolution". It only refers to the generation of new species and phylogenies.

That is not the case. Evolution is not just the gradual development of new species from old. It is all that happens within a species before that as well. Lots of evolution does not result in new species. But that is always a possibility under certain circumstances.

Furthermore, if you do not understand how evolution works within species, the process of generating new species will always be a big mystery, inviting disbelief. But if you understand how evolution works within species, most of the mystery of speciation is solved.

[

Gluadys mentioned:[/font][/color][/i] Sometimes just a single mutation in a unicellular organism makes it a new species, but this is also rare.[/size]



I have never heard of such an example…can you give one? I don’t mean to try to discount it without ever seeing it, but based on what little I know about mutations, I don’t think you can give me an example of a single (one) mutation making a new species. I do have an open mind and will stand corrected if you can give such an example.

The best known example is the nylon bug.

Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence", Ohno, S, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81:2421-2425, 1984. Frame shift mutation yielded random formation of new protein, was active enzyme nylon linear oligomer hydrolase (degrades nylon) http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
2. http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CB/CB904.html
3. http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CB/CB101_2.html
4. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/ar...%20God's%20Help
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...2&dopt=Abstract6. http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/12/18547. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/inf...ipoprotein.html8. http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf9. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/8/3485

1. Rare mutations

Mutations, beneficial, neutral, or harmful, that get passed on to future generations are rare. When considering the amount of mutations necessary for evolution (“the gradual development of organisms from other organisms since the beginnings of life,” from the text book) to take place, 3.2 billion years is not enough. Why are they so rare?

We need some figures here. What percentage of mutations are passed on to future generations?

What calculation shows that 3.2 billion years is not enough?

There are three reasons why mutations that get passed on to offspring are rare.

It is not just mutations which are passed on to future generations which are rare. Mutation itself is a rare event. Note these figures:

Mutations are rare events.

This is surprising. Humans inherit 3 x 10^9 base pairs of DNA from each parent. Just considering single-base substitutions, this means that each cell has 6 billion (6 x 10^9) different base pairs that can be the target of a substitution.

Single-base substitutions are most apt to occur when DNA is being copied; for eukaryotes that means during S phase of the cell cycle.

No process is 100% accurate. Even the most highly skilled typist will introduce errors when copying a manuscript. So it is with DNA replication. Like a conscientious typist, the cell does proofread the accuracy of its copy. But, even so, errors slip through.

It has been estimated that in humans and other mammals, uncorrected errors (= mutations) occur at the rate of about 1 in every 50 million (5 x 10^7) nucleotides added to the chain. (Not bad — I wish that I could type so accurately.) But with 6 x 10^9 base pairs in a human cell, that mean that each new cell contains some 120 new mutations.​

underline added

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutations.html#Frequency_of_Mutations

Note two things. The frequency given is for mammals, not all animals and not for non-animal species. Other groups may have a frequency which is more or less than this.

Second, the underlined part. Each new mammalian cell contains on average 120 new mutations. Everytime a new skin cell or blood cell or liver cell forms in your body, that new cell is distinguished from its parent cell by dozens of mutations. That doesn't sound very rare. But it is when you consider that every new cell calls for the replication of 6 billion nucleotides in sequence.

1. It is estimated that “A cell’s DNA is copied with less than one mistake in a billion nucleotides.

You will note that this is a different figure than Kimball's for mammalian species. It would be good to know the source of this figure and what range of species it covers. The figure may be correct in context, but we need to know what the context is.

2. For a sexually reproducing organism to pass on a mutation, that mutation must be in a gamete. Therefore evolution is limited to mutations that are in the sex cells (for those organisms reproducing sexually).

Quite right, but since we know that in mammals, every new cell contains around 120 new mutations, we know this applies to new sex cells too. Each new human zygote begins life with approximately this number of differences from the genomes of both parents.

3. If a sex cell with a mutation is produced is then it must be the one used in propagating offspring.

Right again, but the same figure applies to every sex cell used in propagating offspring as to every sex cell which is not used.

It is also important to note that many animals, i.e. tuatara, elephants, and many of the larger mammals, produce offspring rather slowly, and will only produce a few offspring in a lifetime, therefore hindering evolution (“the gradual development of organisms from other organisms since the beginnings of life,” from the text book).

This doesn't really make as much difference as it appears since animals which produce large numbers of offspring often do not nurture or protect them. Over its life-time, an elephant may have just as many surviving offspring as a trout which lays hundreds of eggs each season.

“In general, new mutations are more likely to be harmful to survival than adaptive.” p 149, 44

This is close to being false information, unless there is something in the context which you did not quote. New mutations, by a large majority are most likely to be neither harmful nor adaptive. Of the small fraction (about 3%) which do make a difference to fitness, it is true that new mutations are more likely to be harmful than adaptive.

“The altered information [mutation] shows up in the offspring, usually as a defect.“ p 149, 44

This is true, of course, only of the small fraction of mutations which are harmful

We should caution here as well that it is not really correct to say that a mutation is harmful or adaptive. These terms really apply to the variations produced by mutations, and then only in a relative way. A variation is harmful, neutral or adaptive in an existing environment. It is not harmful, neutral or adaptive in its abstract essence.

Mutations that give rise to substantial changes in the physical characteristics of the organism, however, are unlikely to be advantageous.” p 149

, 44

underline added. This qualifier is important. Most beneficial mutations are not substantial.

“Most mutations that cause a visible change are harmful.” p 149, 44

Of course. Most visible changes are substantial.

“Rarer advantageous mutations are swamped by more frequent deleterious mutations The best that natural selection can do, subject to a specified environment, is to hold the deleterious mutations in check,”-Fred Hoyle. p 150,44[

This is false, no ifs ands or buts about it. Advantageous mutations are not swamped by deleterious ones. Is this the late Fred Hoyle the physicist who believed in alien origins of life? He knew zip about biology and evolution.

“Most mutants, even if they have positive survival values will be wiped out by random effects.

…A single mutation, even if it is a positive one, has only a small chance of survival. As a result, a single mutation is unlikely to play much of a role in evolution.”-Sir Ronald Fisher p 151, 44

These need to be set in context.

What does he mean by "mutant" as opposed to "mutation"?

What random effects is he referring too?

Is he speaking of one instance of a mutation or of all instances of the same or similar mutation? Many deleterious mutations continue to pop up time and again at low but steady rates. Neutral mutations can also occur independently at measurable rates and will not be weeded out by purifying selection. It is true that one instance of a beneficial mutation could be eliminated by random effects (an owl makes a meal of the only rabbit carrying a beneficial mutation). But since other mutations occur spontaneously more than once, it is likely that a beneficial one would as well. Will it fail to survive every time?

Furthermore, he is apparently not taking into account that for every rabbit that expresses a variant, there may be hundreds more that have the mutant gene without expressing it. So picking off the only existing mutant does not mean the mutation disappears without hope of retrieval.


Enough for now. I'll deal with the other topics in futher posts.

Feel free to ask questions. And if you want a really good read on mutations look for a book called


The Cooperative Gene : How Mendel's Demon Explains the Evolution of Complex Beings
by Mark Ridley

http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/702-6119047-9024000

This is a popularization written for the scientific layperson, so its not hard to follow.

 

[gluadys]

2. New Information

The whole “new information” issue is really a red herring, partly because the concept has no clear definition, partly because, as yet, we have very little information about the specific effects of specific genes and therefore very little information about what effects to expect from mutations to those genes.

Almost all examples of deleterious mutations are fairly simple ones of a single gene being disabled by a mutation so that the normal development attributable to that gene does not take place e.g. a mutation to the ASPM gene connected with overall growth of the brain normally results in arrested brain growth or micro-encephaly.

Many physical characteristics, however, are the expression of many genes operating in combination. It is very difficult to pin down a problem to one gene or to predict how much impact a single mutation will have. Research into the impact of genes on character traits has focused primarily on those which cause problems in humans or in plants and animals important to humans. There has been much less research on normal development. Still less on the evolutionary development of normal genes. The volume of research in these areas is expanding rapidly, especially since the sequencing of the human genome. New announcements in the field are being made almost daily. But it will still be years, perhaps decades before we have anywhere near a comprehensive picture of how genes operate to produce specific features, and of how mutations affect gene expression. And that is just for humans. There are still millions of genomes to be catalogued and thousands of cross-species comparisons to be made.

So very few detailed conclusions can be made about genetic information in relation to evolution at all.

General conclusions are easier. Genes do affect biological traits. Genes are the carrier of inherited traits. Mutations to genes can add new information. None of this is disputed.

You probably just rolled your eyes, but this cannot go unnoticed. As mentioned above, mutations passed onto offspring are rare in comparison to the amount of DNA, but I dealt with all mutations. Now try to find a mutation that is beneficial to an organism’s survival and it limits us further.

Be careful about conflating different issues. A mutation which is beneficial will not necessarily add information. A mutation which adds information will not necessarily be beneficial.

However the real question at hand is not a loss of information that promotes survival, but a gain of information.

Well, is this the real question? Why is this the real question? What makes this question more important than the question of beneficial mutations (i.e. those that promote survival)?

In cases where a mutation benefits an organism, it is only because of loss of some genetic characteristic. We never see an organism get a mutation that gives it a new genetic characteristic that it did not have before.

This cuts to the problem with trying to apply information theory to evolution. It assumes (as Shannon theory does) that every change of information is a loss of information, because something of the original message must be lost in order to be replaced. But this also assumes that there is one “correct” message and that any deviation from the “correct” message is a loss of information.

Let me give you an analogy. Here are two statements.

a) He rose to greet her.
b) He rode to meet her.

Now in Shannon theory, if a) is the “correct” message, then b) represents a loss of information. Something of a) has been lost to create b) so the original and "correct" message has not been received.


But what if there is no “correct” message? In biology, if a gene still works, or if an organism still survives and produces surviving offspring, it doesn’t really matter whether the message is a) or b). On that basis, how does b) represent a loss of information?

Changes in DNA are not, per se, changes from a “correct” message to an “incorrect” message. They are changes from one message to another, neither of which has a claim on being the correct message. So although the information is changed, there is no reduction in information.

“But mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences.”

This is false. The great majority of mutations are neutral in terms of harm or help.

3. Irreducible Complexity

Coined by Michael J. Behe this term refers to a structure that if one component of this structure were to be removed, it would fail to function completely.

Now you probably know where I am going with this…I’m going to the bacterial flagellum. Such an amazing structure could not have originated by accumulation of genetic mutations or by means of natural selection. All of the components of this cell “motor” had to be there for it to run. It could not have formed little by little, or natural selection would have eliminated it.

And you have also gone to one of the most thoroughly refuted arguments in ID. This is also another red herring because irreducible complexity can be produced by numerous evolutionary pathways. To date, no one at Discovery Institute has produced a clear case of irreducible complexity that could not be produced by evolution. That includes the bacterial flagellum.

Now, it is true that all of the components of the “motor” would have to be present to function as a motor. But it doesn’t follow that it could not be formed little by little. All you need is sub-assemblies which have their own function. Then they can be co-opted for use in a “motor”. Biologist, Dr. Kenneth Miller has shown the existence of one such sub-assembly in the bacterial secretion system.

Other instances of IC can be generated through loss of scaffolding or the transformation of useful but unnecessary assisting function into a necessary one.

The argument rests on a false premise as well. It basically claims that because we don’t know how a particular complex feature evolved, therefore it did not evolve. Ignorance is turned into a positive claim for specially created design. The fact is that ignorance is ignorance, not knowledge that an alternative is true.

I begin to conclude with this. What is the overall probability of getting a new species to arise via accumulation of mutations?

It is 1.

Actually, not quite. As I said at the outset, mutations are the pre-requisite for evolution, not the cause of evolution. You also need selection, and usually isolation to get new species.

But if you have the other elements acting on mutations, the probability is 1.

How do we know this? Because the probability of any event which has actually taken place is always 1. And the emergence of new species is a direct observation both in nature and in experiments. All the theoretical math in the world is useless against an observed fact. And speciation is an observed fact.

Gluadys said: “show me, given what we know of reproduction, and given what we know of the dynamics of changing environments, what would prevent a species from evolving.”

The ball is back in your court.

You have focused so far on three topics: mutation, new information and irreducible complexity. The last two are red herrings. They do not really deal with evolution at all. The first is a pre-requisite for evolution, but that is agreed to by all. And it is also agreed by all that mutations in and of themselves are not an adequate mechanism of evolution. Mutations are only the first step in the process and without additional mechanisms you will not get evolution.

To show that evolution cannot happen, you need to focus on what mechanisms are proposed that drive evolution. I mentioned two: reproduction and environmental change. And that is without mentioning the true driver of evolution: selection.

Many people have only vague ideas on all three of these. Natural selection, in particular, seems to be a very difficult concept to grasp. (I don’t know why. I think it is an elegantly simple idea.) Since you have already discussed mutations, I suggest you present to the best of your ability what you think evolutionists say about the spread of mutations through a population and how this is affected by natural selection. And why you still consider that the combined mechanisms of mutation, reproduction and natural selection are still not sufficient to support evolution.

The point of asking you to do this, of course, is to turn your attention from typical creationist/ID red herrings and focus on what evolution actually is. If you want to debunk evolution, you have to go for the heart of the theory, not fiddle with the edges. I think you are up to the challenge.

“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macro-evolution…At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” p 106-107, 43


“That theory [orthodox neo-Darwinian extrapolationalism], as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy.”-Stephen Gould

Ah, dear! You have fallen victim to the quote miners. Check out the meaning of “mined quote” at The Quote Mine Project, and then look up these entries to see how the meaning has been distorted by quote miners. If it is still not clear how these quotes have abused the actual meaning of the authors, feel free to ask for a fuller explanation.

Another book that gives some great information on mutations is Creation Facts of Life, written by Gary Parker, another man who once believed evolution as much as you.

You have got to be kidding. Your exposure to real information has been very limited indeed if you think Gary Parker is a good source. What I have seen of his propositions is frankly laughable. You really need to read some actual science. He is scarcely more sophisticated than Ken Hovind.

“We know that evolution works.” I don’t know how you can say this, unless you simply mean microevolution. Microevolution does work, but you or anybody else is no where near knowing that evolution (“the gradual development of organisms from other organisms since the beginnings of life,” from the text book) works.

Remember, this is only half the definition of “evolution”. “Evolution” cannot be limited to either micro- or macro-evolution. It is all one process. And it is because micro-evolution works that macro-evolution works. They both work on the same principle. The “gradual development of organisms form other organisms” is an observed fact. I mean that. It is an observed fact that new species arise from ancestral species. So there is no question of limiting evolution to changes within a species boundary. We know that evolution includes the formation of new species, not by theoretical logic, but through direct observation. (Darwin, btw, did not know this. He successfully predicted that speciation must happen, but he never personally observed it.)

“…this bridge is just not falling down.” You sound like you have already predetermined that the bridge is just not falling no matter the weight of facts against it. It appears that it is falling, that is evolution (“the gradual development of organisms from other organisms since the beginnings of life,” from the text book) is crumbling.

Well, what are “the facts against it”? So far you have introduced three which you believed to be facts against evolution, but are not. As I see it, you are looking in the wrong places to try and find facts against evolution. And that is probably because you have never truly looked at the basic principles of evolution. Remember the items I outlined? Mutation, reproduction, selection. If the “bridge” of evolution is to be brought down, this is where you have to find the ammunition to bring it down.

I am very disappointed with this, that a Christian, especially one with your intellect, would believe in evolution(“the gradual development of organisms from other organisms since the beginnings of life,” from the text book).

Evolution is not my faith; Christianity is. But because I am a Christian, I set a great store by the truth. That includes the truth of creation. From the evidence I am convinced that the truth of creation includes evolution.

I have yet to see the Bible fail though it is being attacked very heavily by our adversary the devil.

Ditto. But evolution does not attack the bible. It only makes one particular interpretation of a few chapters demonstrably incorrect.

I do not expect you to support Biblical Creationism without scientific support; that is why I am attempting to show that evidence is against evolution and for creationism.

Do keep trying. The effort will force you to become much more familiar than you currently are with the evidence that scientists have accumulated. I warn you that becoming more familiar with the evidence may change your mind. But even if it doesn’t, you will improve your skills in discussing/debating this issue immensely.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

More importantly, did he have a belly button?

According to the medieval clerics he did.

 

[MyChristianForumID]

.... we regularly have a string of newbies who will blather out all the garbage they have been told about evolution and never come back to look at the replies. Not even to ask a question about something they misunderstood. Or to challenge something they think is wrong.

I do look. I am still a YEC so far. You haven't changed me yet. I will continue to research it, but only when I have the time. And I have precious little right now. My Christmas holidays are over. But I won't accept anything blindly which appears to contradict the scriptures without learning it for myself. But you could be more polite. After all it doesn't seem to me that evolution could a possible explanation for our origin.

 

[gluadys]

I do look. I am still a YEC so far. You haven't changed me yet. I will continue to research it, but only when I have the time. And I have precious little right now. My Christmas holidays are over. But I won't accept anything blindly which appears to contradict the scriptures without learning it for myself. But you could be more polite. After all it doesn't seem to me that evolution could a possible explanation for our origin.

You don't like me referring to "all the garbage they have been told about evolution"? Unfortunately, what some people say about evolution is garbage. And you will note that I was appreciative of the fact that ManofWar is not one of these newbie trolls. So it was not a matter of being impolite, but of explaining why TEs are sometimes impatient.

I know it doesn't seem possible to you that evolution could explain our origin. But the discussion is not about your opinion or mine. It is about what God's creation reveals about our origins. I find that it shows evolution as the means of our origin. I firmly believe that anyone who takes a fair-minded study of the evidence will agree. I firmly believe that one cannot explain the evidence of nature itself in any other way, except by denying the existence of some of the evidence or by assuming that the evidence is appearance only and not connected with the reality of nature.

But I don't expect anyone to take this on my say-so. I expect people to examine the evidence and see for themselves.

 

[MyChristianForumID]

... not one of these newbie trolls. So it was not a matter of being impolite, but of explaining why TEs are sometimes impatient.

What is a newbie troll?

Love is patient and kind.

Satan works hardest among believers to split us up. Keep the faith!!!!

MyChristianForumID

 

[gluadys]

What is a newbie troll?

Love is patient and kind.

Satan works hardest among believers to split us up. Keep the faith!!!!

MyChristianForumID

You cut and pasted the description from my post and told me I was impolite to post it. Why do you need me to post it again?

You, btw, are not a newbie troll because you do come back to carry on the conversation. I hope you did not assume I was referring to you personally when I described these one-post wonders to ManofWar?

And I appreciate you coming back too. Discussion is much more fun when there are two or more participants. Even when (maybe especially when ) we disagree.

 

[MyChristianForumID]

I like the discussion.

 

[ManofWar]

This is going to be my final post. I am going back to school soon, and time is severely lacking. I apologize for taking so long to reply. Thank you for your time, I have learned much from this discussion in research, apologetics, and mutations. You stayed very reasonable throughout our discussions (many do not). Before I make my closing remarks I would like to say that if theistic evolution were true, and you were to convert many people to the truth of TE but never led more than a handful of people to Jesus Christ, then you have failed utterly. The same goes for me. If I converted the whole world to YEC and it was the truth, but never led a single person to Jesus Christ, then I have failed utterly. I just pray that your belief in evolution does not hinder the spread of the gospel because evangelism is the ultimate goal.



That being said, I will now move on to my closing remarks. I will be checking the forum again later to see your reply (I know you will have one after reading this post), but will not remark on it. So thank you for your time, and it has been a pleasure…









I feel (though feelings don’t mean much for science) that this debate did not accomplish too much. We did cover some excellent ground in the last posts, but much of the time was wasted on unclear definitions. Even now as I reply to the final post, I am still unclear on gluadys’s definitions.



Gluadys said:

​

​

​

​

'"I realize that all changes in genetics can result in microevolution;'[ManofWar]​

​

​

​

​

​

That should read 'evolution'."​

If evolution means “the gradual development of organisms from other organisms since the beginnings of life” then this certainly should not read evolution (go back and read the quote from textbook. The semicolon indicates two separate, but related definitions. A colon represents that the succeeding independent clause further defines the first. This is not the case.).



Much of this debate has been a debate over supposed straw men, and ultimately the whole question of straw man argument became a straw man argument. So enough on mutations, in my closing statements I would like to ask you one final question, totally off the topic of mutations. Since we both claim to be Christians, I would like to end by taking us back the Bible.



Draw your sword.



I do carefully step on this ground, but I am curious how you reconcile the Bible and evolution when they seem like complete polar opposites. The Bible clearly teaches special creation as opposed to evolution. Now whether or not it was millions of years is another question. But how can evolution from a bacterium to man possibly be reconciled with the Bible. I have seen your responses to these verses in previous posts, I would like to approach it differently.



If the Evolution is true then what parts of the Bible must be false?



1. Genesis 1-2



Just read these two chapters and it is obvious why you must reject them, or reject evolution.



2. The Law, or at least Exodus



Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.



3. Psalms



Psalm 94:9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?



There are many more verses dealing with the creation of heaven and earth, but these would not fall into the category of evolution. Psalm 94:9 however does clearly states that it was God that formed the eye, not evolution, but I don’t doubt you will get around this verse as well.



These are all verses found in the Old Testament. Many people use the excuse that many portions of the Old Testament are false, but the New Testament, and Jesus, are all correct. Let’s take a look at the New Testament and see what we find.




Continued on next post.

 

[ManofWar]

First off, the NT says in II Timothy 3:15-16



And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:



“Scripture” is not talking about the NT, this is talking about the OT…the NT was not around yet, and it certainly was not around when Timothy was a child. So you cannot believe the NT and reject the OT, the NT supports the OT. Based on this, the OT verses should be enough, but let’s look at the NT anyways.



I Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.(Adam and Eve were not myth)



Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:



Romans 5 speaks extensively about Adam, and never portrays him as a mythical character



Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;



John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.



These again do not deal with the creation of the heaven and earth, but contradict directly what evolution claims.



If evolution is true then death has always existed since the appearance of the first bacterium. Death brought man into the world rather than man bringing death into the world. Therefore death had been around long before Adam and Eve or if you don’t believe in Adam and Eve, then death was around long before the first humans. Therefore death was around long before sin. This contradicts the teaching of the New Testament, which any Christian surely must believe.



Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:



The final verse I would like to present is Matthew 19:4:



And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female



This is a quote by Jesus himself. This verse which clearly speaks of Adam and Eve says God made male and female at the beginning. If evolution were true then male and female were not made at the beginning, and Jesus is a liar. If Jesus is a liar then he cannot be our savior.



A very famous evolutionist, Ernst Haechel, once wrote in his book Natural History of Creation



“…Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce? May we not say, then, that Christianity is anti-evolutionary in its aim?”



Why in the world would any Christian support a theory that many evolutionists say is opposite of Christianity?



I close with a very interesting quote from an atheist named Frank Zindler:

“The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is not need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there in no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.”​

Upon reading this message, I would like to think that you have completely changed your way of thinking back to Biblical Creationism…but I know you didn’t. Rather, now that you have finished reading this message, you are upset, or maybe laughing. You are now going to find some way to wiggle around God’s word and still believe in evolution. Why? I know not. Just realize that when you support theistic evolution, you are also helping to support atheistic evolution. Don’t put Jesus into the ranks of the unemployed.



Hold the fort,

Joel Brown

 

[MyChristianForumID]

Excellent post. Thank you Joel. You said what I have been trying to say as well.

 

[notto]

“The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is not need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there in no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.”​

Apparently ManofWar agrees with this atheist. I as a Christian do not. Problem solved.

(anyone remember that thread where TE's were accused of being yoked with atheists to try to discredit fellow believers? )

What is going to lead more people to Christ? Me telling them that they can accept science and evolution and still be a Christian or you telling them that they have to reject valid science to be one?

 

[gluadys]

This is going to be my final post. I am going back to school soon, and time is severely lacking. I apologize for taking so long to reply. Thank you for your time, I have learned much from this discussion in research, apologetics, and mutations. You stayed very reasonable throughout our discussions (many do not).

Thank you, and I appreciate that you have also done so.

Gluadys said:
'"I realize that all changes in genetics can result in microevolution;'[ManofWar]
That should read 'evolution'."

If evolution means “the gradual development of organisms from other organisms since the beginnings of life” then this certainly should not read evolution (go back and read the quote from textbook. The semicolon indicates two separate, but related definitions. A colon represents that the succeeding independent clause further defines the first. This is not the case.).

Well, scientists may not be the best grammarians. It is certain that biologists would include both clauses in a definition of evolution, and affirm that the second is the consequence of the first. A standard definition of evolution in several textbooks is that evolution is "a change in the proportional distribution of alleles from one generation to the next." Since speciation usually takes more than one generation, this definition clearly refers to those changes in species, not to speciation. Speciation is dependent on the evolution that occurs in species. Creationists affirm they agree that species change, but they pay precious little attention to species change. They want to understand speciation without understanding how species change. That is wanting to run before you have learned how to walk.

I do carefully step on this ground, but I am curious how you reconcile the Bible and evolution when they seem like complete polar opposites.

Appearances can be deceiving.

The Bible clearly teaches special creation as opposed to evolution.

If it does, (and I do not agree that it does) the Bible contradicts God's revelation in his created work. Therefore it cannot be scripture, for what disagrees with a revelation from God cannot be a revelation from God.

But how can evolution from a bacterium to man possibly be reconciled with the Bible.

You are still hung up on this idea of evolution "from x to man". As far as we know evolution has no particular species as a goal. Evolution may have begun with a bacterium--or something simpler--but it did not go from there to human. It went from there to over 20 different phyla of bacteria, to over 50 different phyla of unicellular eukaryotes, and to millions upon millions of species of plants, fungi and animals. Among the latter is humanity. But every other species is just as much the end point (for the time being) of evolution as humanity is. There is no evidence that evolution had any more purpose in creating humanity than in creating dandelions.

This means that any teleological purpose for evolution does not lie in the process (which can be studied by science) but in the mind and will of the creator (which cannot be studied by science).

If the Evolution is true then what parts of the Bible must be false?

None. However, many cannot be interpreted literally without doing violence to the integrity of the Creator. Non-literal interpretation does not imply that the bible is false.

1. Genesis 1-2
Just read these two chapters and it is obvious why you must reject them, or reject evolution.

If you choose to read it so. I choose to read it differently, consistent with the witness of creation itself.

2. The Law, or at least Exodus

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Only if you consider the days to be historical.

3. Psalms
Psalm 94:9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?

I see nothing problematical with this.

Psalm 94:9 however does clearly states that it was God that formed the eye, not evolution, but I don’t doubt you will get around this verse as well.

It says he formed the eye. It does not say that he rejected evolution as the means of forming it.

Evolution does not deny God's role in creation.

I Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.(Adam and Eve were not myth)

Your conclusion is not justified by the text. This says nothing about whether Adam and Eve were historical or mythical characters. The text makes perfect sense either way.

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Nothing problematical here. All TEs would affirm this.

Romans 5 speaks extensively about Adam, and never portrays him as a mythical character

Or always does. To me Romans 5 makes more sense if Paul is speaking mystically of the Adam in all of us.

Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Again nothing problematical here. All TEs affirm this as true.

These again do not deal with the creation of the heaven and earth, but contradict directly what evolution claims.

That is your conclusion. I do not see how it is justified by the text. I have to think you are reading something into the text that is not there. Or that you have erroneous conceptions about what is and is not consistent with evolution.

If evolution is true then death has always existed since the appearance of the first bacterium.

Natural, biological death, yes. The evidence is clear that many species went extinct before humanity appeared on earth. There is no scripture that contradicts this, however. Scriptural texts on death refer exclusively to human death.

Death brought man into the world rather than man bringing death into the world.

Not possible. No being can be born of a species which is already extinct. Humanity, like all other extant species, is the descendant of those who did not die, but survived and reproduced.

Romans 5:12 is susceptible to many interpretations. Some contradict evolution and some don't. Since God's creation indicates evolution happened, I prefer interpretations that are consistent with the work of God's hands.

The final verse I would like to present is Matthew 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female

This is a quote by Jesus himself. This verse which clearly speaks of Adam and Eve says God made male and female at the beginning. If evolution were true then male and female were not made at the beginning, and Jesus is a liar. If Jesus is a liar then he cannot be our savior.

No, Jesus is not a liar. Referring to mythical people does not make the person who speaks of them a liar. As for "beginning" define it. Clearly, since even Genesis 1 places the creation of humanity last not first, it does not mean "first moment" or "first created". And since the bible is centered on God and humanity (and even more specifically on God and his chosen people) there is no reason for "beginning" not to refer to the whole sweep of time up to the creation of humanity. Makes for a pretty long "beginning" from our perspective---but who is to say how much history is yet to come?

I take it that "beginning" does not refer to the time before humanity was created, but to what was the beginning from a human perspective.

A very famous evolutionist, Ernst Haechel, once wrote in his book Natural History of Creation

"Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce? May we not say, then, that Christianity is anti-evolutionary in its aim?”

What makes a non-Christian an authority on the implications of evolution for Christian theology?

I close with a very interesting quote from an atheist named Frank Zindler:

As above. Why would I listen to an atheist to tell me how evolution must impact on my faith? Zindler does not know what he is talking about when he tries to consider what must happen to Christianity given the facts of evolution.


It has been good talking to you, Joel. Hope you have time to come back some day.

God bless

 

[MyChristianForumID]

Arguments against theistic evolution theory follow ...

A. Something to Ponder.

1) If evolution occurred then it is still occuring.
2) If so, what we are now is not what we will be.
3) If so, we are becoming something completely different.
4) If so, eventually humans will be replaced by some other thing.

.. that is bizarre to me .... how do you wrap your head around these things? ..

B. Impossible odds.

1) Let's say evolution is God's method of creation.
2) Evolution involves chance only (not intelligence).
2) Since we are here, therefore evolution has resulted in intelligence.
3) Therefore intelligence can result by chance.

... that doesn't make sense to me. How can chance result in intelligence? If you saw a watch would you theorize that possibly by some chance (not intelligence) the pieces came together to form a watch? Of course not. Why then, when you see a flower, would you theorize that it could result by pure chance (not intelligence)? Clearly it is far more complex than the simple watch design.

C. Physical death occurred prior to the fall of man (IMPOSSIBLE):

1) Adam's (or first humans) ancestor was not a man and had no soul.
2) Adam (or first humans) received a soul.
3) All Adam's offspring also receive a soul after this.
4) Some time (long or short) later Adam (or first humans) sinned.
5) The penalty for sin is death (or death of the soul).

If Adam (or first humans) had not sinned, in your view there would still be physical death. The soul of all humans would live on for eternity in heaven. The sinless humans would continue to die a physical death. Ultimately they would eventually become one or more different species.

Some questions for TE's about this world of sinless humans that very well might have been. And yes I was hoping you might consider and answer them, because I wasn't sure if you ever considered such things:

1) Would cancer still exist?
2) Would parkinsons still exist?
3) If not, what would people die from?
4) Would dying still cause pain or would it be painless?
5) Could they be killed by an animal?
6) Why recent ancestors didn't get a soul (just as intelligent)?

Note: The above questions are intended to invoke thought that would prove the idea of evolution preposterous in your minds, and hopefully change your minds. The ideas they invoke are proposterous to me.

There is no conclusive evidence for evolution theory. Will you now please choose to put your faith in a literal creation?

You cannot prove to me or anyone else that physical death of man or animal occurred prior to the fall of Adam.

Thanks,
MyChristianForumID

 

[notto]

Arguments against theistic evolution theory follow ...

A. Something to Ponder.

1) If evolution occurred then it is still occuring.
2) If so, what we are now is not what we will be.
3) If so, we are becoming something completely different.
4) If so, eventually humans will be replaced by some other thing.

.. that is bizarre to me .... how do you wrap your head around these things? ..

You should try to understand relativity some time. Your ability to understand something has no impact on its validity. No argument against TE here.

B. Impossible odds.

1) Let's say evolution is God's method of creation.
2) Evolution involves chance only (not intelligence).
2) Since we are here, therefore evolution has resulted in intelligence.
3) Therefore intelligence can result by chance.

... that doesn't make sense to me. How can chance result in intelligence? If you saw a watch would you theorize that possibly by some chance (not intelligence) the pieces came together to form a watch? Of course not. Why then, when you see a flower, would you theorize that it could result by pure chance (not intelligence)? Clearly it is far more complex than the simple watch design.

Chemistry and Natural Selection are not chance events. Your inability to understand a theory has no impact on its validity. No argument against TE here.

C. Physical death occurred prior to the fall of man (IMPOSSIBLE):

1) Adam's (or first humans) ancestor was not a man and had no soul.
2) Adam (or first humans) received a soul.
3) All Adam's offspring also receive a soul after this.
4) Some time (long or short) later Adam (or first humans) sinned.
5) The penalty for sin is death (or death of the soul).

If Adam (or first humans) had not sinned, in your view there would still be physical death. The soul of all humans would live on for eternity in heaven. The sinless humans would continue to die a physical death. Ultimately they would eventually become one or more different species.

Not sure how this is supposed to be an argument against TE. As far as physical death occuring before the fall, again, interpretation is everything. Saying it is impossible isn't an argument. You haven't addressed why you think it is impossible other than your literal interpretation.

Some questions for TE's about this world of sinless humans that very well might have been. And yes I was hoping you might consider and answer them, because I wasn't sure if you ever considered such things:

1) Would cancer still exist?
2) Would parkinsons still exist?
3) If not, what would people die from?
4) Would dying still cause pain or would it be painless?
5) Could they be killed by an animal?
6) Why recent ancestors didn't get a soul (just as intelligent)?

Of course TE's consider things such as this. Not sure what the point is. This certainly isn't an argument against TE?

Note: The above questions are intended to invoke thought that would prove the idea of evolution preposterous in your minds, and hopefully change your minds. The ideas they invoke are proposterous to me.

Sorry, you will have to try harder. Nothing new to ponder here and nothing to change my mind. Again, your inability to grasp, explain, and understand a theory has no bearing on its validity.

There is no conclusive evidence for evolution theory. Will you now please choose to put your faith in a literal creation?

Because you say so? Why is it that the overwhelming majority of the worlds scientists accept evolution regardless of their faith, sex, nationality, or background? You claiming there is no conclusive evidence for evolution is simply a statement made out of what I can only assume is ignorance of the subject. What study have you done that would lead us to accept your conclusion? What research have you looked at? What books by scientists have you read?

You cannot prove to me or anyone else that physical death of man or animal occurred prior to the fall of Adam.

That's all fine and good. If it is a central part of your theology I understand that you will not be swayed. Fortunately, it is not a central part of Christian theology so even if evolution is true, there is no conflict with Christianity.

Thanks,
MyChristianForumID

Your Welcome.