Evolutionary debate

[Doveaman]

Sure, it sounds good. But what is the foundation for this statement?
A solid truth is not just something you came up with last week.

The way I see it, we were created by a spiritual God in a physical form. Both the spiritual and the physical is our experience of reality. Scientists explain the physical. Theologians explain the spiritual. We may have two separate explanations of our experience of reality - the physical by the scientists and the spiritual by the theologians- but each explanation is simply focusing on the two sides of the same "reality coin", assuming that both explanations are correct.

 

[Doveaman]

Macro-evolution would be the micro-evolution of one Kind into another. As we don't know what the Kinds were, we can't prove macro-evolution one way or the other.

Okay. But when I say "macro-evolution" I'm using it the way evolutionists use it, like a dinosaur becoming a bird for example:

Do you think macro-evolution at this level might have occurred?

Additionally, since the Fall of Man, all of creation is under the umbrella of Sin so the documented changes we see in biology may or may not be working according to design.

Agreed.

It's been shown that bacteria are moving large amounts of DNA sideways across species screwing up traditional Evolutionary models.

 

[Doveaman]

So i guess the leg bones in whales,

Speculation.

the legs of snakes,

Speculation.

our coccyx,

Our coccyx isn't exactly useless.

our wisdom teeth,

What about it?

the eyes of blind mole rats

Possible mutation from the interbreeding of different species of rats (like a fertile donkey and a fertile horse producing a sterile mule).

 

[SkyWriting]

Okay. But when I say "macro-evolution" I'm using it the way evolutionists use it, like a dinosaur becoming a bird for example:

Do you think macro-evolution at this level might have occurred?

I would seriously doubt such extensive changes. But I don't have a clue if God draws the same boundaries as I would. No, I don't think any creatures that truly fly could possibly be re-purposed lizards. I don't believe that mammals made it off the ground through trial and error either.

On the other hand, I am open to what I see yet try not to impress my preconceptions onto fossils we find.

 

[SkyWriting]

The way I see it, we were created by a spiritual God in a physical form. Both the spiritual and the physical is our experience of reality. Scientists explain the physical. Theologians explain the spiritual. We may have two separate explanations of our experience of reality - the physical by the scientists and the spiritual by the theologians- but each explanation is simply focusing on the two sides of the same "reality coin", assuming that both explanations are correct.

Like I said, it sounds valid. But if you don't have any authoritative support for it, I'll have to let it go as one person's reasonable opinion. Bible believing Christians laid much of the foundation for modern science. I'd try to quote at least one of them to support your thoughts.

 

[lucaspa]

Okay. But when I say "macro-evolution" I'm using it the way evolutionists use it, like a dinosaur becoming a bird for example:

That's not the way evolutionists use the term. Macroevolution is speciation and then the generation of higher taxa.



Macroevolution from dino to bird is a series of speciations.

 

[SkyWriting]

[/color][/color]

That's not the way evolutionists use the term. Macroevolution is speciation and then the generation of higher taxa.

Almost close:
Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History


In evolutionary biology today macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species.

 

[Split Rock]

Why would paternity tests be needed if similar looking body structures were accurate?

Because we are all related and the differences between human indivduals are relatively minor. Please explain why, if paternity tests work, while phylogenetic analysis does not.

Also, have you come up with any way of generating a nested nierarchy without heredity?

 

[SkyWriting]

Because we are all related and the differences between human indivduals are relatively minor. Please explain why, if paternity tests work, while phylogenetic analysis does not.

Also, have you come up with any way of generating a nested nierarchy without heredity?

Why would I be trying to do that?

 

[Split Rock]

Macro-evolution would be the micro-evolution of one Kind into another. As we don't know what the Kinds were, we can't prove macro-evolution one way or the other.

Once again, I would like to point out that if you are correct about created "Kinds," then it should be relatively easy to identify them. Each Kind should form its own independent nested hierarchy that is unrelated to any other such nested hierarchy. Unfortunately, we do not find this in nature.

Additionally, since the Fall of Man, all of creation is under the umbrella of Sin so the documented changes we see in biology may or may not be working according to design.

How exactly does Sin affect evolution? What mechanisms are in play? What is this "design" you are refering to?

It's been shown that bacteria are moving large amounts of DNA sideways across species screwing up traditional Evolutionary models.

Horizontal gene transfer between multicellular organisms and between uicellular and multicellular organisms is minor, though not insignificant. Such DNA usually can be identified, however. Movement between unicellular organisms is quite significant, and does impede phylogenetic analysis. Horizontal gene transfer between very eary life forms was likely very significant, which is why we really can't talk about a single common ancestor for all life on earth.

 

[Split Rock]

Why would I be trying to do that?

Because you continue to insist that the similarities between related species (such as the Vertebrates) are not necessarily due to common descent, but may instead be due to common design. Or am I missing something?

 

[Split Rock]

I would seriously doubt such extensive changes. But I don't have a clue if God draws the same boundaries as I would.

What does God's boundaries have to do with it? I thought you claimed Sin was the big influence on evolutionary change now?

No, I don't think any creatures that truly fly could possibly be re-purposed lizards.

I guess it wouldn't matter if I told you that dinosaurs were not lizards... would it?

In any case, the evidence for birds evolving from theopod dinosuars is very strong now. Not only do we have transistionals like Archaeopteryx, but we have now established that both theropod dinosaurs and birds have both scales and feathers.

I don't believe that mammals made it off the ground through trial and error either.

Does that include sugar gliders? http://lis.epfl.ch/research/projects/SelfDeployingMicroglider/Pics/sugarglider.jpg

On the other hand, I am open to what I see yet try not to impress my preconceptions onto fossils we find.

That's good, have you seen these fossils?
Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Confuciusornis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Microraptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

Macro-evolution would be the micro-evolution of one Kind into another. As we don't know what the Kinds were, we can't prove macro-evolution one way or the other.
​

Once again, I would like to point out that if you are correct about created "Kinds," then it should be relatively easy to identify them.

Each Kind should form its own independent nested hierarchy that is unrelated to any other such nested hierarchy. Unfortunately, we do not find this in nature.

Sounds likely, though I wouldn't count on it.



Originally Posted by SkyWriting

Additionally, since the Fall of Man, all of creation is under the umbrella of Sin so the documented changes we see in biology may or may not be working according to design.
​

How exactly does Sin affect evolution?
What mechanisms are in play?
What is this "design" you are referring to?

Excellent questions.


Originally Posted by SkyWriting

It's been shown that bacteria are moving large amounts of DNA sideways across species screwing up traditional Evolutionary models.
​

Horizontal gene transfer between multicellular organisms and between uicellular and multicellular organisms is minor, though not insignificant. Such DNA usually can be identified, however. Movement between unicellular organisms is quite significant, and does impede phylogenetic analysis. Horizontal gene transfer between very eary life forms was likely very significant, which is why we really can't talk about a single common ancestor for all life on earth.

If you say so.

One isn't such a lonely number. All life on Earth shares a single common ancestor, a new statistical analysis confirms.
The idea that life-forms share a common ancestor is "a central pillar of evolutionary theory," says Douglas Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass.



"common ancestor for all life on earth" -

About 996 "Exact match" Search Results

Protein test supports common ancestor for all life - Baltimore Sun ...

 

[lucaspa]

Like I said, it sounds valid. But if you don't have any authoritative support for it, I'll have to let it go as one person's reasonable opinion. Bible believing Christians laid much of the foundation for modern science. I'd try to quote at least one of them to support your thoughts.

However, Bible believing Christians rejected creationism:
"For nothing is so mischievous as the apotheosis of error; and it is a very plague of the understanding for vanity to become the object of veneration. Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings, seeking for the dead among the living; which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy but also a heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give to faith that only which is faith's." Francis Bacon. Novum Organum LXV, 1620 Francis Bacon: Novum Organum (1620)

In terms of spiritual vs physical, a number of Christians have stated the difference over the years, as well as a few agnostic scientists. Stephen J. Gould's NOMA (non-overlapping magisterium) says pretty much what Doveaman said.

"With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans. " Pope John Paul II CIN - Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution For It Involves Conception of Man - Pope John Paul II Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences October 22, 1996

I would also refer you to Rev. James McCosh The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 1890.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

Macro-evolution would be the micro-evolution of one Kind into another. As we don't know what the Kinds were, we can't prove macro-evolution one way or the other.

​

Once again, I would like to point out that if you are correct about created "Kinds," then it should be relatively easy to identify them.

Sounds likely, though I wouldn't count on it.

Oh no. If kinds are true, then they should be easy to identify because they must be completely distinct from other kinds, particularly on the DNA level. There must be a barrier that prevents DNA of one kind becoming DNA of another kind. Saying "I wouldn't count on it" is simply introducing an ad hoc hypothesis to avoid kinds being disproved.

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

Additionally, since the Fall of Man, all of creation is under the umbrella of Sin so the documented changes we see in biology may or may not be working according to design.​

​

Not according to scripture. The punishments for Adam and Eve's disobedience are spelled out explicitly in Genesis 3:19-24. Contrary to Paul's hyperbole, they are very limited.

​

It's been shown that bacteria are moving large amounts of DNA sideways across species screwing up traditional Evolutionary models.

If you say so.

Oh, it's so. Lots of documentation of horizontal gene transfer. It's one of the more common methods, for instance, of spreading antibiotic resistance.

The problem is that HGT keeps us from finding that common ancestor because all the cladistic methods are based only on gene transfer from parent to offspring, not from second cousin to second cousin, or even more distant relations.

 

[lucaspa]

But I don't have a clue if God draws the same boundaries as I would.

It doesn't matter. If boundaries exist, then we could find them. Phylogenetic analysis would have found them if morphological analysis did not.

No, I don't think any creatures that truly fly could possibly be re-purposed lizards.

You can think what you like, but the evidence refutes what you think. Birds are an excellent series of examples of exaptation. That is where a trait evolves for one purpose but then has a totally different purpose.

Feathers are modified scales. In fact, scales can be turned into feathers by the timing of expression of BMP:
5. Zou H, Niswander L , Requirement for BMP signaling in interdigital apoptosisand scale formation. Science 1996 May 3;272(5262):738-41 "Expressionof dnBMPR in chicken embryonic hind limbs greatly reduced interdigital apoptosis and resulted in webbed feet. In addition, scales were transformed into feathers."

Originally, feathers were used for attracting mates, as happens many times in modern birds. But, as the feather displays covered more and more of the body -- thus becoming more and more effective in attracting a mate -- the first exaptation happened: feathers are also good for insulation. Other research has shown that many dinosaurs, including theropods, were warm-blooded. Insulation was beneficial to smaller theropods.

Theropods were already bipedal predators, using their forelimbs to grasp prey. As feathers covered the forelimbs, they also had another use than insulation: "flapping" the forelimbs allow the animal to run up an inclined plane:
3. Kenneth P.Dial, Wing-Assisted Incline Running and the Evolution of Flight. Science, 299: 402-405, Jan 17, 2003.

The small theropods could run up slopes and trees to either catch prey or to escape larger predators. As the feathers get longer and denser, they enable the animal to run up even steeper slopes. Eventually they are so good that the animal can run up a 110 degree slope -- more than vertical. However, right here is where the feathers also start to get the animal off the ground! Voila! Instant flight.

Another exaptation accounts for insect flight, but there it involves the ability of the modified gills (future wings) as heat exchangers.

On the other hand, I am open to what I see yet try not to impress my preconceptions onto fossils we find.

I'm somewhat skeptical about this. You see, historically people who were not tring to impress preconceptions onto fossils, most of whom were creationists, looked at the first fossils of Archeopteryx and realized that here was an intermediate between dinos and birds. Archie was among the first major example of an intermediate species for macroevolution. I doubt you view Archie that way, but instead I bet you go thru all kinds of mental gymnastics (a la Duane Gish) to deny that Archie is an intermediate.

 

[lucaspa]

Speculation.
Speculation.

Not "speculation", conclusions. That whales still have leg bones is a holdover from land dwelling ancestors is not "speculation", but rather a conclusion or inference from the observation. The same applies to the fact that dolphins and whales swim with a modified running motion.

Again, leg bones in snakes is an inference to a legged ancestor. This is reinforced by the living family of skinks where different species have legs ranging from legs like other lizards that are used for locomotion graded down thru smaller and smaller legs to no legs at all like snakes. All the intermediates in the process present in living species.

Our coccyx isn't exactly useless.

That's not the claim. Instead, the coccyx is a remnant left over from tailed ancestors.

Possible mutation from the interbreeding of different species of rats (like a fertile donkey and a fertile horse producing a sterile mule).

But blind mole rats are not interfertile. They are a viable species. What's more, a mutation of such interbreeding would apply only to a single individual, not every member of the whole population. Besides, which rat species would you have for the original interbreeding that lives its entire life underground? This attempt to dismiss the vestigial eyes of the mole rats runs afoul of reality. Nice hypothesis, but testing it against available data already shows it to be wrong.

 

[SkyWriting]

However, Bible believing Christians rejected creationism:"For nothing is so mischievous as the apotheosis of error; and it is a very plague of the understanding for vanity to become the object of veneration. Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings, seeking for the dead among the living; which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy but also a heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give to faith that only which is faith's." Francis Bacon. Novum Organum LXV, 1620 Francis Bacon: Novum Organum (1620)In terms of spiritual vs physical, a number of Christians have stated the difference over the years, as well as a few agnostic scientists. Stephen J. Gould's NOMA (non-overlapping magisterium) says pretty much what Doveaman said."With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans. " Pope John Paul II CIN - Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution For It Involves Conception of Man - Pope John Paul II Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences October 22, 1996 I would also refer you to Rev. James McCosh

The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 1890.

Interesting stuff. If I do produce my list again, I'll try to remember to cross off Bacon if he happens to slip in.
The Pope has never been on any lists, that I recall.

 

[SkyWriting]

Not "speculation", conclusions. That whales still have leg bones is a holdover from land dwelling ancestors is not "speculation", but rather a conclusion or inference from the observation. ...

Its been observed that many species use legs to help align during mating.
I find them useful.

 

[SkyWriting]

Oh no. If kinds are true, then they should be easy to identify because they must be completely distinct from other kinds, particularly on the DNA level. There must be a barrier that prevents DNA of one kind becoming DNA of another kind. Saying "I wouldn't count on it" is simply introducing an ad hoc hypothesis to avoid kinds being disproved....

I'm sure it sounds like that. But you don't know details of what I think about the creation process. I believe God uses "natural" processes but using His own source for time which humans don't "experience."

God can take all the time needed to create great wine, but in our reality, it's instantaneous.
God can take all the time needed to heal somebody, but in our reality, it's instantaneous.

1. Cure of two blind men (Matt 9:27-31)
2. The deaf and dumb man (Mark 7:31-37)
3. The blind man of Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26)
4. Jesus passes unseen through the crowd (Luke 4:28-30)
   
5. The miraculous draught of fishes (Luke 5:4-11)
6. The raising of the widow's son at Nain (Luke 7:11-18)
7. The woman with the spirit of infirmity (Luke 13:11-17)
8. The man with the dropsy (Luke 14:1-6)
9. The ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19)
10. The healing of Malchus (Luke 22:50-51)
    
11. Water made wine (John 2:1-11)
12. Cure of nobleman's son, Capernaum (John 4:46-54)
13. Impotent man at Bethsaida cured (John 5:1-9)
14. Man born blind cured (John 9:1-7)
    
15. Lazarus raised from the dead (John 11:38-44)
16. Draught of fishes (John 21:1-14)
17. Syrophoenician woman's daughter cured (Matt 15:28; Mark 7:24)
    
18. Four thousand fed (Matt 15:32; Mark 8:1)
19. Fig tree blasted (Matt 21:18; Mark 11:12)
20. Centurion's servant healed (Matt 8:5; Luke 7:1)
21. Blind and dumb demoniac cured (Matt 12:22; Luke 11:14)
22. Demoniac cured in synagogue at Capernaum (Mark 1:23; Luke 4:33)
23. Peter's wife's mother cured (Matt 8:14; Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38)