Evolution true or false?

[gluadys]

Can a fictional story be a true story?

This is a key question regarding the truth of the bible.

Yesterday, at a book sale, I picked up some re-issues of Madeleine L'Engle's time travel series (A Wrinkle in Time, A Wind in the Door, A Swiftly-Tilting Planet, Many Waters). In her introduction to them Madeleine L'Engle says:

"What a delight to see these beautiful new covers for the Time Quartet. It is another indication that stories have a life of their own, and that they say different things to different people at different times. And it is an affirmation that story is true and takes us beyond the facts into something more real."

Story, even fictional story, possibly especially fictional story, is true.
Story takes us into something more real that mere facts.

As an inveterate reader and former teacher of literature, I agree strongly with L'Engle on this point. That is why I find it amazing that people suggest those of us who consider the biblical accounts are story rather than history are denying the truth of the bible. Story, biblical story, may not always be fact, but its purpose, like that of all great literature is to connect us with that which is more real than mere fact.

As I see it, the truths of scripture are of such a nature they require the clothing of story to reveal to us what is most real.

Even the ability of story to say different things to different people at different times provides an insight into God's wisdom in choosing to convey truth through story.

People of different times and places and experiences come to story with different questions. A bare historical account of creation or any historical event cannot adapt to people's differing needs to have different questions answered. But a story can be lifted up like a many-faceted jewel and looked at from many different angles. Through the adaptability of story to different people, different times, different places, different experiences posing different questions, God can assure, as through no other vehicle, that each questioner hears the answer s/he needs to hear to connect with the true reality revealed in the story.

 

[Blackmarch]

How do poeple feel about this. I think it is foundless myself.

I feel that evolution is but one tool god has for putting his creations on earth. As to how it applies to man I don't know, it does effect us in some degree. But out respect for adam and god I hold to that Adam did not come from an ape- for in the scripturesit says that god formed man from the dust.
However I would like to point out that it does not say that in the bible for all the other animals...

 

[Aron-Ra]

So if I (who understands nothing about evolution) is getting the jist of it...isn't evolution...natural selection, the strongest survive...Isn't that what Hitler was doing? Purifying the race?

Its actually, "the fittest survive". And "fit" just means well-suited to that environmental niche'. Hitler didn't know squat about evolution, as demonstrated by his ignorance of the larger gene pool. He only understood enough to breed Dobermans.

How can you say that Genesis (a book which Jesus himself quoted a number of times himself) may be wrong...then how does anyone believe anything in the bible...including all of the promises Jesus made. He was the very som of God...if Genesis was wrong, I doubt he would have quoted it much.

In point of fact, you don't know that Jesus did quote it. All you have is hearsay about that, and have to believe that this book never got any of the details wrong. In the history of human journalism, when have we ever documented anything where there were no errors anywhere? Especially in any document written several decades later, and as emotionally-charged as this one? The only book I know of that pleads for belief as much as the Bible is the Weekly World News.

Also...if you believe we all came from a rock...then how does that tie into the creation of Adam and Eve?

No one believes we came from a rock, except possibly for creationists. They believe that Adam was an animated dirt golem.

They are the 1st humans...or did God just make up a story about the 1st 2 people to come down from the trees.

God didn't write Genesis. People did. In reality, Adam and Eve never existed as real people. That story is based on a number of related references from much older documents; the epics of Atrahasis, and Gilgamesh, as well as the Sumerian creation myth, Enuma Elish.

Evolution is unscriptural. So if we evolved, then we are still evolving...into what? Gods?

A god is an anthropomorphic being with magic powers that enable it to survive the death of any of its corporeal forms. There is no way to evolve magic powers. We are still evolving, but we're diversifying too. That's how evolution works, by producing numerous different versions of whatever it started with.

So then aren't the apes left in the word (our apparent relatives) just un evolved humans?

No, we're just highly-specialized apes. We are the most successful version of apes.

The bible is the inspired word of God...If somthing is inspired by the perfect God, I think he would have the humans write it down correctly.

Funny, but that's exactly what they said about the Zend Avesta of Zoroaster, the sacred writings of the Ba'b, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Qur'an, the Shaster, the Popul Vuh, the Tao te Ching, and the Book of Mormon. Almost all of them proclaim themselves to be the "word" of the "one true god".

God also said he created Adam and Eve on the 6th day and then rested on the 7th...does that mean that Adam and Eve lived for the millions of years between the 6th and 7th day.God also said the 7th day was to be made holy. So are we supposed to work the 1st 6 days and then take the rest of our life off?

God didn't write either of these passages. Humans did. If you want to find something God would have written that humans couldn't have, look at the fossil record. In the earliest version of this story, the world was created in seven generations. The sixth generation of gods created Adamah, (the man of the red Earth) out of an animated clay figurine,. It became man's job to complete creation so that the seventh generation of the gods could rest.

I may no little about the smallest details of evolution, but I believe what the Bible tells me.

The problem is that most of evolutionary theory has been repeatedly tested and demonstrated to be true. While at the same time, several elements of Genesis have been conclusively disproved. For example, we know for certain that new species have evolved out of parent species, and we know for certain that there was never any global flood.

The bible says that God created the world and everything in it in 6 days...and rested on the 7th. Evolution contradicts the bible....therfore contradicts Gods word.

Evolution contradicts one very limited interpretation of a popular compilation of Bronze-age Semitic folklore. Genesis was written some time in the 1st Millenia BCE and appears to have been based on a collection of pagan predesessors from several hundred years earlier in the same ancestral tradition. Genesis was written by people claiming to speak for God, the same as all the other holy books were.

 

[Blackmarch]

I would like to point out that the bible does not say how god created things, the closest we get is that he created man from the dust...

 

[Nathan Poe]

Actually, there were quite a few "accidents" leading to her birth.
1. You were born.
2. Her mother/father was born.
3. The two of you met.
4. You fell in love.
5. You had sex at a time when conception was possible. (unless you watched the calendar so that it was not an "accident".)
6. Sperm and ova were formed in which genetic factors from your parents and parents-in-law were randomly sorted.
7. One out of millions of sperm penetrated and fertilized one egg.

It should be noted that using #5 as a method to not conceive has resulted in a staggering number of "accidents" of its own over the years.

 

[kedaman]

By testable I mean falsifiable, thus asserting categorical predictions, not probable. No counterexample can falsify evolution theory because it would only be very improbable, not impossible.
There cannot be any molecular and morphological data that would falsify evolution theory.

Testable predictions from evolutionary theory:

1. If common ancestry is true then all life descends from a common ancestor. If this is true, then there should be a single family tree, called a phylogeny, for all species, past and present. If this is true then independent analysis of molecular and morphologic data should yield the same family trees within a statistically significant margin of error. This is, of course, confirmed with the twin nested hierarchy: http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/evoevidence.html#hierarchy
2. If common ancestry is true then there should be a statisitcal correlation between the stratigraphic record and phylogeny. This is confirmed through analysis: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#chronology
3. If common ancestry is true, then shared genetic defects such as pseudogenes and endgenous retroviruses should produce phylogenies that match those produced through other analysis. Confirmation: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254
4. If evolution is true, then we should not find highly derived character traits, like feathers, in species that are not connected by a common ancestor with that trait. For example, we should not find a whale with feathers.
5. If evolution is true, we would expect that occasional mistakes in genetics would cause the reemergence of previously inhibited ancestral traits. This is confimed in such things as the occasional atavistic tail in humans, and atavistic whale legs: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms

I think that's enough to make the point.

Some of the mechanisms of evolution include mutation, recombination, gene flow, natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift.

natural selection or any selection cannot add to evolution.

 

[kingreaper]

By testable I mean falsifiable, thus asserting categorical predictions, not probable. No counterexample can falsify evolution theory because it would only be very improbable, not impossible.

Thats like saying that everything suddenly repelling each other for ten minutes wouldn't falsify our understanding of gravity

Sure it could be the result of an amazing series of quantum events, but thats hardly gonna make for a good defence of gravity

There cannot be any molecular and morphological data that would falsify evolution theory.

So if it were found that one species of frog had identical ERVs to humans, that wouldn't do the trick?

natural selection or any selection cannot add to evolution.

Of course not

It's a REQUIREMENT of evolution

Something that is basic to a thing, cannot be supplementary

 

[kedaman]

Well, why is it different? More importantly, why not just give us totally different joints, better suited to our respective locomotive styles?

I don't know how to answer either of your questions. I was just pointing at the structure of the matter as the model. There are many things we lack that would suit some purposes, point is, what purpose justifies the use of them we do have?

 

[aeonian_mist]

No counterexample can falsify evolution theory because it would only be very improbable, not impossible... There cannot be any molecular and morphological data that would falsify evolution theory... natural selection or any selection cannot add to evolution.

I think what what you're getting at is that there's no one observation that can entirely discredit The Theory of Eovlution (ToE).

I think you're more or less right. However, this is only the case because there is so much in suport of Evolution. Ondoher provided a nice list of just some of the supporting evidence.

For instance, no amount of evidence would "falsify" the helicentric model because there is an astounding amount of support for the model. There is not a single purported counter-evidence that can destory the heliocentric model.

Even more then that, I would be willing to argue that Creationists lack any persuasive evidence either against evolution or for Creationism. So it's not if there any counterexamples to falisfy evolution, it's if there are any good counterxamples period.

 

[kedaman]

Thats like saying that everything suddenly repelling each other for ten minutes wouldn't falsify our understanding of gravity

Sure it could be the result of an amazing series of quantum events, but thats hardly gonna make for a good defence of gravity

Quantum mechanics and Relativity don't work together, you must be wrong somewhere..

So if it were found that one species of frog had identical ERVs to humans, that wouldn't do the trick?

Do what? I know that if you say some results are probable but not necessary for a theory then there is no fact that can disprove it.

 

[kedaman]

I think what what you're getting at is that there's no one observation that can entirely discredit The Theory of Eovlution (ToE).

I think you're more or less right. However, this is only the case because there is so much in suport of Evolution. Ondoher provided a nice list of just some of the supporting evidence.

For instance, no amount of evidence would "falsify" the helicentric model because there is an astounding amount of support for the model. There is not a single purported counter-evidence that can destory the heliocentric model.

Even more then that, I would be willing to argue that Creationists lack any persuasive evidence either against evolution or for Creationism. So it's not if there any counterexamples to falisfy evolution, it's if there are any good counterxamples period.

Creationism is not scientific, however my point is to say that the theory of evolution is not scientific either. Any fact can support a theory that cannot be falsified, its just pure metaphysics.

 

[Ondoher]

Creationism is not scientific, however my point is to say that the theory of evolution is not scientific either. Any fact can support a theory that cannot be falsified, its just pure metaphysics.

Evolution can be falsified, I gave examples in the previous post alluded to above, and in my response below.

A failure of any of these predictions would have demonstrated evolution false. Evolution cannot accomodate all hypothetical observations.

 

[Ondoher]

By testable I mean falsifiable, thus asserting categorical predictions, not probable. No counterexample can falsify evolution theory because it would only be very improbable, not impossible.
There cannot be any molecular and morphological data that would falsify evolution theory.
natural selection or any selection cannot add to evolution.

All of the examples above, if failed to confirm, would falsify evolution.

Morphological evidence that would falsify evolution: Whales with feathers. Molecular evidence that would falsify evolution: if the genes that coded for functionally equivilent proteins were more similar in species with a more distantly proposed evolutionary link than those that were closer.

 

[kedaman]

All of the examples above, if failed to confirm, would falsify evolution.

Morphological evidence that would falsify evolution: Whales with feathers. Molecular evidence that would falsify evolution: if the genes that coded for functionally equivilent proteins were more similar in species with a more distantly proposed evolutionary link than those that were closer.

We have found a mouse with a human ear, does it violate evolution theory? No.
And for the latter, doesn't similarity in genes imply a closer evolutionary link?

 

[Ondoher]

We have found a mouse with a human ear, does it violate evolution theory? No.

We did not find a mouse with a human ear, humans made a mouse grow an ear shaped growth of cartilage using an ear shapped scaffolding.

And for the latter, doesn't similarity in genes imply a closer evolutionary link?

Yes, which was the point. If we found that species more distantly related had more similar genes than those that were more closely related, we'd have a problem. For example, if the gene that coded for Cytochrome C was more similar between humans and bananas than it was between humans and chimpanzees, we'd have a problem. If we consistently found that we could not draw correlations between genetics and morphology, we'd have a problem. We would have shown that common ancestry is not a good explanation for the data.

Basically, this would be molecular evidence in conflict with morphological evidence.

 

[kedaman]

We did not find a mouse with a human ear, humans made a mouse grow an ear shaped growth of cartilage using an ear shapped scaffolding.

So humans aren't the result of evolution then?

Yes, which was the point. If we found that species more distantly related had more similar genes than those that were more closely related, we'd have a problem. For example, if the gene that coded for Cytochrome C was more similar between humans and bananas than it was between humans and chimpanzees, we'd have a problem. If we consistently found that we could not draw correlations between genetics and morphology, we'd have a problem. We would have shown that common ancestry is not a good explanation for the data.

I hope you understood my question, if X implies Y and not Y, then not X (Modus Tollens) I'm asking whether your statement is tautological or not.

 

[Ondoher]

So humans aren't the result of evolution then?

A mouse growing an ear shapped bit of cartilage through human manipulation was not the product of evolution. No more than is a mouse with two amputated legs.

I hope you understood my question, if X implies Y and not Y, then not X (Modus Tollens) I'm asking whether your statement is tautological or not.

It isn't. Through morphological data we can infer phylogenies using various cladistic methods, such as maximum parsimony. If the molecular data, such as the DNA that codes for Cytochrome C, disagrees with the morphological data, then we have a situation that cannot be explained by common ancestry.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Creationism is not scientific, however my point is to say that the theory of evolution is not scientific either. Any fact can support a theory that cannot be falsified, its just pure metaphysics.

And here we have the current Creationist tactic: Having realized that their own position cannot be supported, they seek to drag down their competition to their level.

 

[kedaman]

A mouse growing an ear shapped bit of cartilage through human manipulation was not the product of evolution. No more than is a mouse with two amputated legs.

If there are animals that aren't the result of evolution, then surely there can't be evidence to falsify evolution? Any animal that doesn't match the theory could be said to be a nonevolutionary phenomena.

It isn't. Through morphological data we can infer phylogenies using various cladistic methods, such as maximum parsimony. If the molecular data, such as the DNA that codes for Cytochrome C, disagrees with the morphological data, then we have a situation that cannot be explained by common ancestry.

I have to say that I don't know half of what the terms you are using means. But in answering my question, you say that its possible to find for instance genes for Cytochrome C in banana that are equivalent to ours? What if a virus carrying the same Cytochrome C injected its code into DNA of both humans and bananas?

 

[kedaman]

And here we have the current Creationist tactic: Having realized that their own position cannot be supported, they seek to drag down their competition to their level.

That it is not possible to find evidence against something doesn't mean that evidence to support it cannot be found, on the contrary all facts do.