Evolution

[FaithT]

What’s the LCMS position on micro and macro evolution? And what does it teach about fossils and such that suggest evolution is true?

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

To this very day there is no mechanism in any cell that could increase/add information. There is not a single mutation known that is not a loss of information.
To this very day there is also no single case known of a species developing into a different species. Dogs stay dogs, bacteria stay bacteria. No matter how much you breed them, no matter how much you change their DNA on purpose.

Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is easily observable, but there is no observable evidence that would hint to a evolution from amoeba to man.
One of evolution’s leading advocates in the world today, Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College, London, wrote: „The fossil record – in defiance of Darwin’s whole idea of gradual change – often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection, many species appear without warning, persist in fixed form, and disappear, leaving no descendents. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution".

 

[Daniel9v9]

LCMS recognises Microevolution as it is a hard science and it does not compete with Scriptures.

They reject Macroevolution, however, because it is not a hard science. It's a theory that cannot be proven with hard facts, and it's a theory that is competing with Scriptures.

Macroevolution is a very popular and widely accepted theory, but it's a system of thought built on interpretation of data from a particular Pantheist or Deist worldview and presupposition. It's compelling and it makes sense in its own framework, but, it makes some serious big assumptions and leaps of faith. So, ultimately, it is a belief system; a theory, based on scientific evidence that has been interpreted in a particular way, in connection with philosophy. And I think these days, it's often assumed to be true because it's so popular, but just because something is commonly held doesn't mean that it's necessarily true.

It's a very complex issue, and I think it's worth appreciating that it's not like the LCMS are full of ignorant and unscientific people. But that they reject Macroevolution for good reasons, even if we disagree. It's not as simple as people often think it to be, so it's good to study the details of it.

 

[FaithT]

To this very day there is no mechanism in any cell that could increase/add information. There is not a single mutation known that is not a loss of information.

One of evolution’s leading advocates in the world today, Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College, London, wrote: „The fossil record – in defiance of Darwin’s whole idea of gradual change – often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection, many species appear without warning, persist in fixed form, and disappear, leaving no descendents. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution".

What about the great leaps from one form to the next, appearing and disappearing? Doesn’t that suggest Macroevolution? if not, why not?

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

What about the great leaps from one form to the next, appearing and disappearing? Doesn’t that suggest Macroevolution? if not, why not?

Macroevolution means that one form developed into another, therefore we expect intermediate stages. Fossils that are a combination of 2 forms, known as "missing links". The interesting part about those missing links is that they are missing indeed.
The "great leaps from one form to the next" means that the fossils show huge differences and don't allow the assumption of development from one into another. Based on the observable facts it is much more likely that the forms were created the way they are. Nothing indicates that they developed into it.

 

[FaithT]

Macroevolution means that one form developed into another, therefore we expect intermediate stages. Fossils that are a combination of 2 forms, known as "missing links". The interesting part about those missing links is that they are missing indeed.
The "great leaps from one form to the next" means that the fossils show huge differences and don't allow the assumption of development from one into another. Based on the observable facts it is much more likely that the forms were created the way they are. Nothing indicates that they developed into it.

In English.... your point is?...

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

In English.... your point is?...

Macroevolution = species develop from one into another.
Observations in science: no development from one into another.

Conclusion: Macroevolution is a belief, not a scientific theory. A belief that we know of is not the truth because we know that God is the creator.

 

[FaithT]

Macroevolution = species develop from one into another.
Observations in science: no development from one into another.

Conclusion: Macroevolution is a belief, not a scientific theory. A belief that we know of is not the truth because we know that God is the creator.

What about this? I found it on the internet. I’m sure there are many scientists who’d say Macroevolution is real.

What is an example of macroevolution?

Occurs at the level of the species or above. Such changes often span long periods of time (but can also happen rapidly). Examples of macroevolution include: the origin of eukaryotic life forms; the origin of humans; the origin of eukaryotic cells; and extinction of the dinosaurs.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

What about this? I found it on the internet. I’m sure there are many scientists who’d say Macroevolution is real.

What is an example of macroevolution?

Occurs at the level of the species or above. Such changes often span long periods of time (but can also happen rapidly). Examples of macroevolution include: the origin of eukaryotic life forms; the origin of humans; the origin of eukaryotic cells; and extinction of the dinosaurs.

There are indeed many scientists who belief in macroevolution. Science cannot allow supernatural things like God and evolution is the only wide-spread theory to explain our world without a creator. But is the theory of evolution logical?

Professor Richard Lewontin, a leading evolutionary geneticist, claimed to speak for many when he confessed: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Read that quote a few times. You'll start to understand why today's scientists support macroevolution although it is an "unsubstantiated just-so story" that is "against common sense" and a "patent absurdity".

Now towards the specific points you mentioned:

1) eukaryotic cells/life:
Trefil called the evolution of prokaryotes (cells without organelles) into eukaryotes (cells with organelles and other structures lacking in prokaryotes) an "enduring mystery of evolution" because of the lack of evidence of the evolution of organelles, and the total lack of plausible links between eukaryotes and prokaryotes.

The difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells are striking, to say the least. But if the latter evolved from the former, why are there no intermediate stages between the two? Why, for example, are there no cells with loose DNA and organelles? If the evolutionary line really went from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, and we have many living samples of each, why did none of the intermediate stages survive?

2) origin of humans:
I could write a whole book about this, but here's the very short version:
Assuming that humans have ape-like ancestors without a single half-ape/half-human creature found, is an absurdity. Not only has never a half-ape/half-human been found, evolutionists even had to try to fake such thing (Piltdown forgery) because they needed "proof". Scientists calculated that for the thousands of mutations from ape to "modern man" you need some 150,000,000,000 "forerunners", often represented as cave-dwelling hunters. Not only are there not enough fossils, tools, or whatever, found to believe in such a vast amount of pre-humans, the General Population Conference also kills all hope of the evolutionists. Data of the development and extrapolation into the past make clear that the assumption of thousands of millions of pre-humans is both physically and archaeologically unrealistic.

3) Extinction of dinosaurs
I've honestly never heard of a way to use dinosaurs to support evolution. In fact Mary Schweitzer (an atheistic scientist) was one of the first scientists to discover soft tissue (like blood cells) in dinosaur bones. Every biologist knows that soft tissue cannot survive millions of years, and its existence is a very strong evidence to the conclusion that dinosaurs existed thousands of years ago, not millions of years. Schweitzer is since then working hard on figuring out a way how soft tissue could survive long enough to fit it back in with the theory of evolution - so far without success.

The existence of life itself is one of the greatest mysteries for atheistic scientists, and no theory they came up with to this day does even remotely make sense.
Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, who worked alongside astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, and is widely regarded as an expert on this subject, calculated the odds against life starting accidentally as one in 10 to the power of 40,000. Wickramasinghe says that is equivalent to no chance: „I am 100 per cent certain that life could not have started spontaneously on earth.“ He says that his conclusion had come to him as quite a shock, because he had previously been „strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation“. He concludes: „The only logical answer to life is creation – and not accidental random shuffling“.

 

[FaithT]

There are indeed many scientists who belief in macroevolution. Science cannot allow supernatural things like God and evolution is the only wide-spread theory to explain our world without a creator. But is the theory of evolution logical?

Professor Richard Lewontin, a leading evolutionary geneticist, claimed to speak for many when he confessed: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Read that quote a few times. You'll start to understand why today's scientists support macroevolution although it is an "unsubstantiated just-so story" that is "against common sense" and a "patent absurdity".

Now towards the specific points you mentioned:

1) eukaryotic cells/life:
Trefil called the evolution of prokaryotes (cells without organelles) into eukaryotes (cells with organelles and other structures lacking in prokaryotes) an "enduring mystery of evolution" because of the lack of evidence of the evolution of organelles, and the total lack of plausible links between eukaryotes and prokaryotes.

The difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells are striking, to say the least. But if the latter evolved from the former, why are there no intermediate stages between the two? Why, for example, are there no cells with loose DNA and organelles? If the evolutionary line really went from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, and we have many living samples of each, why did none of the intermediate stages survive?

2) origin of humans:
I could write a whole book about this, but here's the very short version:
Assuming that humans have ape-like ancestors without a single half-ape/half-human creature found, is an absurdity. Not only has never a half-ape/half-human been found, evolutionists even had to try to fake such thing (Piltdown forgery) because they needed "proof". Scientists calculated that for the thousands of mutations from ape to "modern man" you need some 150,000,000,000 "forerunners", often represented as cave-dwelling hunters. Not only are there not enough fossils, tools, or whatever, found to believe in such a vast amount of pre-humans, the General Population Conference also kills all hope of the evolutionists. Data of the development and extrapolation into the past make clear that the assumption of thousands of millions of pre-humans is both physically and archaeologically unrealistic.

3) Extinction of dinosaurs
I've honestly never heard of a way to use dinosaurs to support evolution. In fact Mary Schweitzer (an atheistic scientist) was one of the first scientists to discover soft tissue (like blood cells) in dinosaur bones. Every biologist knows that soft tissue cannot survive millions of years, and its existence is a very strong evidence to the conclusion that dinosaurs existed thousands of years ago, not millions of years. Schweitzer is since then working hard on figuring out a way how soft tissue could survive long enough to fit it back in with the theory of evolution - so far without success.

The existence of life itself is one of the greatest mysteries for atheistic scientists, and no theory they came up with to this day does even remotely make sense.
Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at Cardiff University, who worked alongside astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, and is widely regarded as an expert on this subject, calculated the odds against life starting accidentally as one in 10 to the power of 40,000. Wickramasinghe says that is equivalent to no chance: „I am 100 per cent certain that life could not have started spontaneously on earth.“ He says that his conclusion had come to him as quite a shock, because he had previously been „strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation“. He concludes: „The only logical answer to life is creation – and not accidental random shuffling“.

one in 10 to the power of 40,000.......English please

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

This chance equals 0. An event with this chance will not happen.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

To this very day there is no mechanism in any cell that could increase/add information. There is not a single mutation known that is not a loss of information.

So bacteria and viruses getting resistant to antibiotics is loss of information ?

Can you explain how loss of information helps bacteria and viruses to overcome antibiotics ?

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

View attachment 286545

This chance equals 0. An event with this chance will not happen.

What do you think are the chances of exactly a human with your life experiences, genome and surrounding world events that conspired you to write this exact comment to happen ?

Equals 0. Yet it happened. Funny that. Looks like unlikely things happen after all.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

So bacteria and viruses getting resistant to antibiotics is loss of information ?

Can you explain how loss of information helps bacteria and viruses to overcome antibiotics ?

This has been dealt with so many times that I hesitate to even mention it. However, for some reason evolutionists keep bringing it up, almost ad nauseam. You could've found the easy answer by just using google, but... oh well.

Bacteria become resistant by random mutations. While it seems to be beneficial for the bacteria the mutation is always a loss of information.
These bacteria proliferate in an environment filled with sick people (like hospitals) who have poor immune systems and where antibiotics have eliminated competing bacteria that are not resistant.

Although the mutant bacteria can survive well in the hospital environment, the change has come at a cost. The altered protein is less efficient in performing its normal function, making the bacteria less fit in an environment without antibiotics. Typically, the non-mutant bacteria are better able to compete for resources and reproduce faster than the mutant form.

Bacteria resistance is neither adding information nor is the bacteria evolving nor is it beneficial for the bacteria in a normal environment.

What do you think are the chances of exactly a human with your life experiences, genome and surrounding world events that conspired you to write this exact comment to happen ?

Equals 0. Yet it happened. Funny that. Looks like unlikely things happen after all.

I'm a conscious being with a soul. Those mathematics can only be applied to the cause-and-effect principle that limits the materialistic world. A bomb that explodes in a copy shop will not produce a complete dictionary, no matter how often you try.

 

[FaithT]

This has been dealt with so many times that I hesitate to even mention it. However, for some reason evolutionists keep bringing it up, almost ad nauseam. You could've found the easy answer by just using google, but... oh well.

Bacteria become resistant by random mutations. While it seems to be beneficial for the bacteria the mutation is always a loss of information.
These bacteria proliferate in an environment filled with sick people (like hospitals) who have poor immune systems and where antibiotics have eliminated competing bacteria that are not resistant.

Although the mutant bacteria can survive well in the hospital environment, the change has come at a cost. The altered protein is less efficient in performing its normal function, making the bacteria less fit in an environment without antibiotics. Typically, the non-mutant bacteria are better able to compete for resources and reproduce faster than the mutant form.

Bacteria resistance is neither adding information nor is the bacteria evolving nor is it beneficial for the bacteria in a normal environment.



I'm a conscious being with a soul. Those mathematics can only be applied to the cause-and-effect principle that LIMITS THE MATERIALISTIC WORLD. A bomb that explodes in a copy shop will not produce a complete dictionary, no matter how often you try.

Meaning.......?

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Those mathematics can only be applied to the cause-and-effect principle that limits the materialistic world. A bomb that explodes in a copy shop will not produce a complete dictionary, no matter how often you try.

Since a bomb is not a living, evolving organism that analogy is just bull.

 

[FaithT]

Since a bomb is not a living, evolving organism that analogy is just bull.

Ok

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Since a bomb is not a living, evolving organism that analogy is just bull.

You did exactly the same when you compared the chance of a living being with the chance of life coming from non-life. The chance that non-living matter produces life is smaller than the chance that a bomb in a copy shop results in a dictionary. Both events have nothing "alive" to start with.

 

[Friedrich Rubinstein]

Meaning.......?

In science you can only look at observable things. Supernatural things cannot be proven/disproven. Every effect in the natural wold has a cause. If something exists then it has a cause.
But this principle does not apply to supernatural things like God, our soul or our consciousness. These things cannot be explained or grasped by science and therefore we can't apply math to them.

 

[FaithT]

In science you can only look at observable things. Supernatural things cannot be proven/disproven. Everything effect in the natural wold has an effect. If something exists then it has a cause.
.

And that cause is God, correct?