For me, it's either theistic evolution or nothing.

Buzzard3

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2022
1,382
204
63
Forster
✟41,958.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
We have the mechanisms demonstrated repeatedly on a smaller scale and we make predictions based on that data to a larger scale.
... which is like saying,

"We observe that humans are now running 100 metres in less than 10 seconds, which is faster than what they ran 60 years ago.

Based on this observation we predict that one day humans will run 100 metres in one second."
 
Upvote 0

Buzzard3

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2022
1,382
204
63
Forster
✟41,958.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
We have the mechanisms demonstrated repeatedly on a smaller scale and we make predictions based on that data to a larger scale.
... which is akin to saying,

"We observe that humans are now running 100 metres in less than 10 seconds, which is faster than what they ran 60 years ago.

Based on this observation we predict that one day humans will run 100 metres in one second."

Wild evolutionary extrapolations are easy to make, but impossible to prove.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
How do you test this hypothesis?
Because there isn't any gene for dam building activities. Its something a creature does, a new behavior that the creature introduce which alters its environment thus altering the course of natural selection.

Niche construction is common among living things. Humans are the most prolific niche constructors so much so that they have negated natural selection altogether in some cases.

Niche construction is the process by which organisms alter environmental states, thereby modifying the conditions that they, and other organisms, experience, and the sources of natural selection in their environments. Organisms adapt to their environments through natural selection. However, they also modify natural selection through niche construction. In this way they influence evolution.

Niche construction theory contrasts with conventional conceptualizations of evolution in recognizing niche construction as an evolutionary cause or process. The niche-construction perspective seeks to explain the adaptive complementarity of organism and environment in terms of a dynamic, reciprocal interaction between the processes of natural selection and niche construction.

The distinctive aspects of the niche-construction perspective are illustrated by the familiar example of the beaver. Generally, the evolutionary consequences of beaver dam building are modeled in terms of fitness ‘payoffs’ to the underlying genes; selection favors dam-building alleles over their alternatives.

Niche construction
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What about spiders spinning a web? Is that another example of a living thing taking control of its own destiny?
How did their silk-making apparatus evolve in terms of mutations and natural selection?
How do you test your hypothesis?
I am not saying their silk making mechanism was not the product of genetic mutation. But web building gives spiders the ability to alter their environment and create an environment that is well suited to its needs and survival rather than being genetically adapted to the environment. In that sense creatures can direct their own evolution to a large degree.

By the way its not my hypothesis.
Is this how it went? ...
Once upon a time a beaver had a great idea - "If I cut down some trees with my teeth (which just so happen to be capable of doing that) I can build a dam, within which I can build a nest and the resultant pond will enhance my chances of survival."
Basically yes. Obviously initially beavers were not as adapted to dam building as today. But as beavers passed their niche construction behavior down beavers became more adept. The point is the behavior came first and then the genes followed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Buzzard3

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2022
1,382
204
63
Forster
✟41,958.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
Obviously initially beavers were not as adapted to dam building as today. But as beavers passed their niche construction behavior down beavers became more adept. The point is the behavior came first and then the genes followed.
Nice story, but impossible to test, so is meaningless as science. Typical Darwinist fairy tale ... dream up some fantasy and pretend it's science.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Buzzard3

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2022
1,382
204
63
Forster
✟41,958.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
I am not saying their silk making mechanism was not the product of genetic mutation.
How do you suppose a mutation formed the genesis of the spider's silk-making mechanism? Entertain me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Nice story, but impossible to test, so is meaningless as science. Typical Darwinist fairy tale ... dream up some fantasy and pretend it's science.
Niche Construction is well evidenced. Its one of several forces that come under the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. There has been an ongoing research program that includes testing the hypothesis which is proving well supported here
Research projects – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

The EES actually challenges some of the core assumptions of Darwin's theory. But just looking at human niche construction can provide ample evidence. For example humans have been able to adapt to almost any environment on earth by altering it to suit suit them. We may even adapt to other planets through technology. We have managed to defy nature through medicine and ward off diseases that would usually kill people in the wild.

In doing that we have created artificial environments that are conducive to human survival rather than being subject to the perils of nature. You could say living things are engaging in artificial selection. So much so for humans that we are negating natural selection altogether which actually causes harmful mutations to build in humans.
 
Upvote 0

Buzzard3

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2022
1,382
204
63
Forster
✟41,958.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
Not sure, how do you think it did.
I don't offer evolutionary explanations, esp ones that can't be tested. I leave that form of science-fiction entertainment to Darwinists ... they're experts at it.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't offer evolutionary explanations, esp ones that can't be tested. I leave that form of science-fiction entertainment to Darwinists ... they're experts at it.
Doesn't the Catholic church support Theistic evolution.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SkovandOfMitzae

Active Member
Apr 17, 2022
257
70
35
Southeastern USA
✟8,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
... which is like saying,

"We observe that humans are now running 100 metres in less than 10 seconds, which is faster than what they ran 60 years ago.

Based on this observation we predict that one day humans will run 100 metres in one second."

maybe within YECism but that’s definitely not something that is believed to be probable through science or those that accept science including evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Buzzard3

Well-Known Member
Jan 31, 2022
1,382
204
63
Forster
✟41,958.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
Doesn't the Catholic church support Theistic evolution.
The CC teaches that theistic evolution (with certain conditons) is not incompatible with Church teachings. A Catholic is free to accept thestic evolution or reject it. A Catholic is also free to accept a literal interpretation of Genesis and believe in a young earth.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The CC teaches that theistic evolution (with certain conditions) is not incompatible with Church teachings. A Catholic is free to accept theistic evolution or reject it. A Catholic is also free to accept a literal interpretation of Genesis and believe in a young earth.
OK so from what I understand your saying that people have different views on evolution and belief. We are lucky in some ways we have a society that allows for different individual views and beliefs.

The problem I see is when people take dogmatic positions and claim they hold the "truth" whether that's about scientific or religious beliefs. As far as belief in God is concerned I think our salvation and relationship with God is more than how people understand how existence and living things came about. The important thing is that we believe that God is responsible.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BPPLEE
Upvote 0

SkovandOfMitzae

Active Member
Apr 17, 2022
257
70
35
Southeastern USA
✟8,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
If interested in spiders you may enjoy this podcast. It’s written by two scientists. This is their episode on spiders.

Episode 123 – Spiders

I’ve not studied the evolutionary history of spiders and so I am not sure myself. You can tell it’s evolved within the animal world a few times though since caterpillars use it also.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If interested in spiders you may enjoy this podcast. It’s written by two scientists. This is their episode on spiders.

Episode 123 – Spiders

I’ve not studied the evolutionary history of spiders and so I am not sure myself. You can tell it’s evolved within the animal world a few times though since caterpillars use it also.
Certainly there's a lot going on with spiders and insects though they are different classes. In Australia we have plenty.

It seems new species are popping up all the time with spiders but especially insects. Though I am not an expert on this. I think there's a lot of HGT going on especially in insects which live off vegetation. Not sure about spiders but HGT is now regarded as fairly common in eukaryotes.

There are other factors such as developmental bias and plasticity that can also influence variation. I think evolution follows a more constructive and reciprocal process where creatures interact with each other and the environment and can control their own evolution which have an affect on evolutionary paths and variation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SkovandOfMitzae

Active Member
Apr 17, 2022
257
70
35
Southeastern USA
✟8,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
Well epigenetics and learned social clues can alter evolution. Such as less rattles snakes are rattling their tails and less rattle snakes are getting as big of rattlers because there is less natural selection for those. It’s happening because of humans and wild hogs killing noisy rattle snakes. But they can’t consciously choose to do this or that genetically.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,567
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well epigenetics and learned social clues can alter evolution. Such as less rattles snakes are rattling their tails and less rattle snakes are getting as big of rattlers because there is less natural selection for those. It’s happening because of humans and wild hogs killing noisy rattle snakes. But they can’t consciously choose to do this or that genetically.
As far as I understand epigenetics doesn't change the underlying gene but how it is expressed which can be a source of variation. This is covered by evolution beyond genes where behavior can influence future generations.

This places the creature in a central role in determining evolutionary outcomes where natural selection is operating on multiple levels and not just the gene mutation level. Sometimes phenotype variation happens first and then the gene is cemented for that variation. But the difference is its the creature/organism behavior that is directing things and not mutation. This can have positive and negative affects as far as survival is concerned.

There is also a reciprocal relationship between living things and with the environment. So a creatures behavior can affect other living things and the environment. A beaver creates a positive niche environment for themselves but this also influences the environment which then changes other creatures behavior evolution and natural selection does the rest.

Humans are prolific at this and disrupt the course of nature positively and negatively. Whereas I think all other living things go with the flow of nature. In that way ecosystems also evolve.
 
Upvote 0

SkovandOfMitzae

Active Member
Apr 17, 2022
257
70
35
Southeastern USA
✟8,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Engaged
As far as I understand epigenetics doesn't change the underlying gene but how it is expressed which can be a source of variation. This is covered by evolution beyond genes where behavior can influence future generations.

This places the creature in a central role in determining evolutionary outcomes where natural selection is operating on multiple levels and not just the gene mutation level. Sometimes phenotype variation happens first and then the gene is cemented for that variation. But the difference is its the creature/organism behavior that is directing things and not mutation. This can have positive and negative affects as far as survival is concerned.

There is also a reciprocal relationship between living things and with the environment. So a creatures behavior can affect other living things and the environment. A beaver creates a positive niche environment for themselves but this also influences the environment which then changes other creatures behavior evolution and natural selection does the rest.

Humans are prolific at this and disrupt the course of nature positively and negatively. Whereas I think all other living things go with the flow of nature. In that way ecosystems also evolve.
What I was referring to is that evolution is more than just natural selection. It’s not just purely random chance. I don’t mean this in a intelligent design type or argument either. I reject YECism, OECism and ID. My response was that animals can’t decide how to evolve but they are not completely “deistic” in how it happens either. Epigenetics , neutral drift and so on affects vertical gene transfer, and horizontal gene transfer also affects vertical gene transfer. Other studies have shown how instincts can be learned in a single generation. Like the Swiss chicken maze study. This is not a parent teaching their kids a new thing, it’s the experience of the chicken affecting the sperm selection and proteins of wrapping genes. It’s pretty neat. A good podcast episode that is a decent primer on this is
‎Recovering Evangelicals: #70 – Origin and evolution of … species (part 1) on Apple Podcasts

Again, none of this is about the supernatural and evolution. It’s all purely scientific.

Here is a link that is good also.
https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

In the last few years of academia there has been some major new data.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,675
7,744
64
Massachusetts
✟339,441.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The theory of evolution cannot explain the Cambrian explosion.
Sure it can. The difficulty there lies not in the impossibility of coming up with an explanation but with figuring out which of multiple possible explanations was (or were) most important, given the limited evidence that's survived since then. What exactly do you think is impossible to explain here?
How did the lense in the eye, for example, evolve in terms of mutations and natural selection?
By recruitment of proteins that were already present in species that already had functioning eyes but lacked lenses. Lenses appear rather later in eye evolution and the specific proteins recruited vary between lineages. There is a large literature on this -- here is one paper I grabbed at random.
How do you test your hypothesis?
You test the hypothesis that lens proteins evolved from other functional proteins by comparing the DNA coding for the lens proteins with the coding sequence for the whole set of proteins within the same lineage. It's quite easy to identify proteins that have descended and diverged from a common ancestral protein (at least at the kind of time depth we're talking about here), and the relatives are indeed found for lens proteins.
How you explain the evolution of the dam-building by beavers in terms of mutations and natural selection?
How do you test your hypothesis?
Since we don't know the genetic basis of most behavioral traits. reconstructing their evolution is pretty much impossible at the moment. What makes you think this would be a problem for evolution to achieve? Animal behaviors clearly have a genetic basis, and whatever has a genetic basis can change with mutation. What's the problem?
How do you explain the evolution of a spider's silk-making apparartus evolve in terms of mutations and natural selection?
How do you test your hypothesis?
Since you're the one who is arguing that evolution cannot scientifically explain these features, how about you support your own argument here? Spider silk comes in a wide variety of forms, coded for by an array of genes in different species. What hypotheses have been advanced to explain this set of genes? What evidence has been advanced to support those hypotheses? What do you find lacking in those explanations?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
8,118
4,528
✟269,140.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Sure it can. The difficulty there lies not in the impossibility of coming up with an explanation but with figuring out which of multiple possible explanations was (or were) most important, given the limited evidence that's survived since then. What exactly do you think is impossible to explain here?

By recruitment of proteins that were already present in species that already had functioning eyes but lacked lenses. Lenses appear rather later in eye evolution and the specific proteins recruited vary between lineages. There is a large literature on this -- here is one paper I grabbed at random.

You test the hypothesis that lens proteins evolved from other functional proteins by comparing the DNA coding for the lens proteins with the coding sequence for the whole set of proteins within the same lineage. It's quite easy to identify proteins that have descended and diverged from a common ancestral protein (at least at the kind of time depth we're talking about here), and the relatives are indeed found for lens proteins.

Since we don't know the genetic basis of most behavioral traits. reconstructing their evolution is pretty much impossible at the moment. What makes you think this would be a problem for evolution to achieve? Animal behaviors clearly have a genetic basis, and whatever has a genetic basis can change with mutation. What's the problem?

Since you're the one who is arguing that evolution cannot scientifically explain these features, how about you support your own argument here? Spider silk comes in a wide variety of forms, coded for by an array of genes in different species. What hypotheses have been advanced to explain this set of genes? What evidence has been advanced to support those hypotheses? What do you find lacking in those explanations?

Do we even understand yet the genetic basis for instincts? It's something I've always been curious about.
 
Upvote 0