How Have You resolved the Creationism vs Evolution Debate?

[Erth]

God creates living things individually by immediate acts of creation,not gradual processes. Living things are conceived or reproduced immediately and as individuals. It doesn't make sense to say that humans were created through the process of evolution when natural selection and genetic mutation do not produce individual creatures. Natural selection is a process of elimination,not a creative process,and genetic mutations do not accumulate to the extent of causing a species to evolve beyond itself,because very few traits are subject to mutations.

I think I can agree with that actually. But it does raise a question. Couldn't it have been that at one point in graceful evolution, God immediately created man, and by extension mankind, in the first individual human being?

 

[Somchai]

It appears to me that he simply wished to apply an additional approach to proving a young earth, distorting scriptural interpretation to do so.

If he was sincere just about being born again, why did he leave and stop talking?

 

[Geode]

If he was sincere just about being born again, why did he leave and stop talking?

Maybe he didn't want to give answers to the test I posed to him? If he couldn't answer he would be exposed as blowing smoke. And let us be honest, nobody has the answers to those questions.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

I think I can agree with that actually. But it does raise a question. Couldn't it have been that at one point in graceful evolution, God immediately created man, and by extension mankind, in the first individual human being?

Before we speculate about how God may have created man through evolution or from a prior species,we should analyze the theory of evolution to see if it's supposed causes and effects make sense. We should not attribute to God a manner of working when there is no testimony nor logical entailment that the things he is said to have done really happened.

As I said in my previous post,natural selection and genetic mutations do not produce individual creatures.
Species exist as individual creatures,which come into existence immediately at conception or reproduction. Evolution theory ignores this reality and talks about groups as if they existed apart from the individual creatures that constitute them. NS is a process of elimination and mutations are only relevant to change in species through acts of reproduction,and they affect few and minor physical traits. So these processes cannot have produced the variety of species that came into being,as Darwin claimed.

 

[gluadys]

As I said in my previous post,natural selection and genetic mutations do not produce individual creatures.
Species exist as individual creatures,which come into existence immediately at conception or reproduction. Evolution theory ignores this reality and talks about groups as if they existed apart from the individual creatures that constitute them. NS is a process of elimination and mutations are only relevant to change in species through acts of reproduction,and they affect few and minor physical traits. So these processes cannot have produced the variety of species that came into being,as Darwin claimed.

I am not sure what reality you say evolution is ignoring.

No, natural selection does not "produce individual creatures" as in order for a selection to be made, there must be a group of individual creatures from which the selection is made. So the individual creatures already exist. But while natural selection does not produce individual creatures, it does select individual creatures (some would say individual genomes, but as that comes to the same thing, its a bit of a quibble). And that selection affects the character of future generations, does it not?

As for genetic mutations, they occur in individual creatures. No mutation occurs in a species as a group. So what is the role of mutations if not to generate new combinations of differences between one individual creature and another?

If a species is a group of individuals, what makes this particular group a species differentiated from another group of individuals i.e. another species? IOW how did we ever come to classify individuals in groups at all? Are we wrong to do so? What reason is there to say of this Beluga whale, that gray wolf and this garter snake that they are different species as well as different individuals? Or why do we not classify one Beluga whale with another Beluga whale but a different Beluga whale with a sperm whale instead? In short, is there any validity to the term "species" at all, and if so, what is it?

In your perspective, when God creates a new individual, how does that relate to the appearance of a new species? Do you think a new species begins with a single individual that is sufficiently differentiated (genetically and/or morphologically) from its parents to be identified as a new species?

Note: I am assuming throughout here that you are correct in saying God creates each organism directly and individually. I am just trying to figure out what implications you draw from that in terms of the grouping and classification of individuals. Are you stating that no natural groupings exist?

 

[Somchai]

Maybe he didn't want to give answers to the test I posed to him? If he couldn't answer he would be exposed as blowing smoke. And let us be honest, nobody has the answers to those questions.

Well, I doubt I will ever be able to answer those questions before dying.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Couldn't it have been that at one point in graceful evolution, God immediately created man, and by extension mankind, in the first individual human being?

Why shoehorn "evolution" in there at all then?

 

[Drogheda]

Hello One_In_Christ

The biggest question for Christians is probably human evolution. I have no problem knowing humans evolved from apes or that we are a special creation - at some point in history God chose a particular animal, a kind of upright ape it seems, to be made in His image.

in evolutionary theory we did not evolve from apes but Homo habilis and them other *homo x*. that is why there are still apes(in evolutionary theory we are just related to the ape line) and there are not homo habilis anymore.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

I am not sure what reality you say evolution is ignoring.

I'm talking about evolution theory,with its historical claims,not just evolution as a concept. It ignores the fact that species exist and come into existence as individual creatures,and the fact that whatever genetic modifications may occur are only passed on through reproduction,which is individual creation. It ignores the implications of these facts in regard to the study of groups. The study of origins and biological descent should be centered on the beginnings of individual creatures,and inheritance through reproduction. It should not view species or genetic inheritance as if they were separate from individual creation and individual creatures.

No, natural selection does not "produce individual creatures" as in order for a selection to be made, there must be a group of individual creatures from which the selection is made. So the individual creatures already exist. But while natural selection does not produce individual creatures, it does select individual creatures (some would say individual genomes, but as that comes to the same thing, its a bit of a quibble). And that selection affects the character of future generations, does it not?

Natural selection is not an actual thing or force that selects,it is an effect - how differentials play out because of reproduction and death rates.

As for genetic mutations, they occur in individual creatures. No mutation occurs in a species as a group. So what is the role of mutations if not to generate new combinations of differences between one individual creature and another?

I don't deny that mutations do that. What I deny is the idea that mutations have accumulated to the extent claimed by evolution theory and have resulted in macro-evolution. Only a very few traits in a species are subject to variable alleles,and if they are changed it is not nearly enough to lead to macro-evolution.

If a species is a group of individuals, what makes this particular group a species differentiated from another group of individuals i.e. another species?

Physical traits.

IOW how did we ever come to classify individuals in groups at all? Are we wrong to do so? What reason is there to say of this Beluga whale, that gray wolf and this garter snake that they are different species as well as different individuals? Or why do we not classify one Beluga whale with another Beluga whale but a different Beluga whale with a sperm whale instead? In short, is there any validity to the term "species" at all, and if so, what is it?

Yes. Species means kind or form,and kinds and forms of living creatures exist. They are identified by their physical traits and by reproductive relatedness. But there are different levels of species. Some kinds or forms are more general (such as felis silvestris catus) and others are more particular (such as felis silvestris silvestris) and should be recognized as being species within species,or subspecies of a more general species.

In your perspective, when God creates a new individual, how does that relate to the appearance of a new species?

A new kind of individual may be the beginning of a group that scientists will identify as a new species. But every individual creature is a species in itself,because all creatures are kinds and forms. Species in the scientific sense of the word exist because individual creatures are kinds and forms.

Do you think a new species begins with a single individual that is sufficiently differentiated (genetically and/or morphologically) from its parents to be identified as a new species?

Yes. There has to be a first new individual kind or form for there to be a new species in the sense of group. The ambiguity of where to delimit species in the sense of groups,or when a group should be called a new species,should not obscure the fact that species have specific beginnings with individual creatures.

Note: I am assuming throughout here that you are correct in saying God creates each organism directly and individually.

Each organism exists and begins as an individual creation. That is a natural reality. So if you believe that God creates living things at all,you should know that he creates them directly and individually. The use of natural elements does not mean that creation is indirect. It is God who makes natural things live,and therefore,exist as organisms,by giving spirit to them.

I am just trying to figure out what implications you draw from that in terms of the grouping and classification of individuals. Are you stating that no natural groupings exist?

They do exist. The implication of individual creation by God is that the origins and descent of groups depend entirely upon it and cannot be rightly understood apart from it.

 

[gluadys]

I'm talking about evolution theory,with its historical claims,not just evolution as a concept.

I truly do not know what you mean by this. What historical claims? What concept? Is it the historical claims or the concept which ignores the existence of individual organisms, and how?

It ignores the fact that species exist and come into existence as individual creatures,and the fact that whatever genetic modifications may occur are only passed on through reproduction,which is individual creation. It ignores the implications of these facts in regard to the study of groups. The study of origins and biological descent should be centered on the beginnings of individual creatures,and inheritance through reproduction. It should not view species or genetic inheritance as if they were separate from individual creation and individual creatures.

I am still not seeing any presentation of fact that evolutionary theory (or history) ignores. In fact, usually I am the one reminding an anti-evolutionist that a species is a population composed of many individuals. Certainly evolutionary theory recognizes that species exist and come into existence as individual creatures, as populations of organisms, not as one giant organism we call "species". It certainly recognizes that genetic modifications occur in individuals, not simultaneously in the whole population group we call a species. And it certainly recognizes that inheritance is from individual to individual. Depending on their religious beliefs or lack of them, scientists may or may not recognize the production of an individual as an individual creation. What I don't see is what is being ignored. If it is the idea of individual creation, I don't see how that affects the case.

Natural selection is not an actual thing or force that selects,it is an effect - how differentials play out because of reproduction and death rates.

No problem with that. But do you agree that the way these differentials play out affects the character of the next generation? If so, I am still wondering what the problem is that you are speaking of.

I don't deny that mutations do that. What I deny is the idea that mutations have accumulated to the extent claimed by evolution theory and have resulted in macro-evolution.

You are actually saying two things here and they need to be dealt with separately.

Are you saying that mutations never accumulate? That you cannot have a mutation occurring as great-grandpa is conceived which is inherited three generations later at the same time as a second mutation also occurs in one of his great-grand children such that great-grand child hosts two changes from the genome of great-grandpa's parents? What would prevent mutations from accumulating over generations?


Macro-evolution is not really about accumulating mutations. It is about speciation. If you check out the species in the same genus, you will find they can be very similar to each other. In some cases, certain species of mammals have no distinguishing characters of their own, but are only identified because they have different species of parasitic ticks. Each tick specializes in one species. Yet these are still examples of macro-evolution, not because they have accumulated an array of mutations, but because, similar as they are, they have differentiated into different species.

So macro-evolution is only loosely related to accumulating mutations. It is not a matter of macro-evolution only happening when lots of mutations have accumulated.

Only a very few traits in a species are subject to variable alleles,

Where did you get that information. I have not heard that claim before and I would like to know the basis for it. I am not sure I have heard of any trait that is not variable. Certainly no morphological trait.

In any case, you only need one to make macro-evolution a potentiality. If that one leads to assortative mating you can get speciation on that basis.

If a species is a group of individuals, what makes this particular group a species differentiated from another group of individuals i.e. another species?

Physical traits.

OK. We have some common ground here. I expect you agree that this is not something evolutionary theory ignores.

So what you expect to find, in order to differentiate species, is that all individuals in one group share a trait that is not found in the other, and vice versa. Right? In fact, if we list all the traits found in both species, they would probably fall into several categories such as
a. traits found in all individuals in both groups
b. traits found in some individuals in both groups
c. traits unique to one group or the other, found in all individuals in one group, but not in the other.

Would you agree that only those in the last category are useful in distinguishing one species from another?

Would you agree than an analysis of the DNA of individuals from each group would likely show a difference related to traits in category c?

Yes. Species means kind or form,and kinds and forms of living creatures exist. They are identified by their physical traits and by reproductive relatedness.

Good. more common ground.

But there are different levels of species. Some kinds or forms are more general (such as felis silvestris catus) and others are more particular (such as felis silvestris silvestris) and should be recognized as being species within species,or subspecies of a more general species.

Agreed. But why do you say "should be recognized"? Doesn't the fact that they have been duly named and described show that they HAVE been recognized--in this case as sub-species of Felis silvestris?

A new kind of individual may be the beginning of a group that scientists will identify as a new species. But every individual creature is a species in itself,because all creatures are kinds and forms. Species in the scientific sense of the word exist because individual creatures are kinds and forms.

I am not sure what you mean by "every individual creature is a species in itself". Certainly every individual creature displays some kind of form which identifies it with a species. Sometimes, especially with fossils, only one individual of the species has ever been observed. But it still gets a species name (and a genus, family, order, class and phylum name). That is how taxonomy works. Presumably, however, the fact that only one individual has been observed doesn't mean the observed individual is the only creature in its species (unless it is the last of a species which will be extinct with its demise).

Yes. There has to be a first new individual kind or form for there to be a new species in the sense of group. The ambiguity of where to delimit species in the sense of groups,or when a group should be called a new species,should not obscure the fact that species have specific beginnings with individual creatures.

ok. This is where a problem is. You mentioned earlier that species are identified by physical traits and reproductive relatedness. A species, by definition, is a group of individuals who can and will mate with each other. (Except in asexually reproducing species which have to be defined on traits alone). Typically (however much the idea is morally repugnant to humans) a parent can mate and reproduce successfully with its own offspring and vice versa. (There are a few exceptions, but this is the norm.) So by definition parent and offspring are necessarily grouped in the same species.

So the ambiguity you speak of is not just an artifact of not being able to see closely when the new kind of individual appears. It is a real ambiguity in the sense that although a child is necessarily of the same species as its parent, it is not necessarily of the same species as a more remote ancestor. If reproductive isolation is the key component in speciation (and by evolutionary theory it is) then it does not happen in more than a handful of cases that one individual is reproductively isolated from the population into which it was born. So in most cases, a new species cannot begin with only one individual, because reproductive isolation is a gradual process in itself and by the time it is completed you have a group on each side of the isolating boundary, not one individual.

Now this in no way conflicts with the idea that each creature is a direct individual creation. That can still be the case. But it does mean that a new species cannot emerge in the form of a single individual because single individuals are almost never reproductively isolated from siblings, parents or children. That group (as well an any larger population they are a part of) will always be identified as the same species sharing the same gene pool. Dividing the gene pool has to be done in such a way that there is a population on both sides of the divide.

Each organism exists and begins as an individual creation. That is a natural reality. So if you believe that God creates living things at all,you should know that he creates them directly and individually. The use of natural elements does not mean that creation is indirect. It is God who makes natural things live,and therefore,exist as organisms,by giving spirit to them.

No problem with this. It doesn't conflict with evolutionary theory in any way that I can see. So I still don't know why you say evolutionary theory is ignoring something relating to this.

They do exist. The implication of individual creation by God is that the origins and descent of groups depend entirely upon it and cannot be rightly understood apart from it.

OK, it seems to me that the only problem here is that you seem to have a faulty understanding of how cladistic speciation occurs. Unlike a lot of people you do seem to understand the workings of mutation and of natural selection. So if we can clear up the mode of speciation, and why it does not conflict with what you are saying about individual creation by God, I don't see any reason why your ideas would not be acceptable as a form of evolutionary creationism (aka theistic evolution).

 

[Erth]

Why shoehorn "evolution" in there at all then?

Is it forbidden to mention evolution in connection with God? God guides his creation and we can see that creation is not static but constantly evolving. What problem do you have with that?

 

[Jase]

Why shoehorn "evolution" in there at all then?

Because evolution is a fact, and therefore must be part of the equation.

 

[mathetes123]

Is it forbidden to mention evolution in connection with God? God guides his creation and we can see that creation is not static but constantly evolving. What problem do you have with that?

The problem I have with it is that it is not biblical. I will put my faith in God and His word over man any day.

 

[gluadys]

The problem I have with it is that it is not biblical. I will put my faith in God and His word over man any day.

There is a lot of modern knowledge about the universe that is not biblical. How much of it do you reject and why? I know of some Christian sects, for example, that do not use organs because that musical instrument is not named in the bible. A stricter sect does not use instruments at all because they are not mentioned in the New Testament.

Planets (in the modern meaning of a satellite of a star) and galaxies are not mentioned in the bible. Nor are plastics or computers.

Polyester is not only not mentioned in the bible, the principal use of polyester in wool-polyester fabrics would seem to violate a biblical injunction.

If you sing hymns along with an electric guitar, use a computer (which you obviously do), believe the earth is a planet circling the sun in a galaxy and wear any sort of mixed fabric, I think you need a better argument than "not biblical" to reject evolution.

 

[mathetes123]

There is a lot of modern knowledge about the universe that is not biblical. How much of it do you reject and why? I know of some Christian sects, for example, that do not use organs because that musical instrument is not named in the bible. A stricter sect does not use instruments at all because they are not mentioned in the New Testament.

Planets (in the modern meaning of a satellite of a star) and galaxies are not mentioned in the bible. Nor are plastics or computers.

Polyester is not only not mentioned in the bible, the principal use of polyester in wool-polyester fabrics would seem to violate a biblical injunction.

If you sing hymns along with an electric guitar, use a computer (which you obviously do), believe the earth is a planet circling the sun in a galaxy and wear any sort of mixed fabric, I think you need a better argument than "not biblical" to reject evolution.

Your examples are issues that are not mentioned in the Bible. I was referring to evolution, which is a direct contradiction of the Biblical account of creation in Genesis.

 

[Mikecpking]

Your examples are issues that are not mentioned in the Bible. I was referring to evolution, which is a direct contradiction of the Biblical account of creation in Genesis.

Only if you insist on a literal interpretation of Gen 1 and 2. Do you apply the same literalism to Isiah 14:8 when Isaiah mentions that trees talk?

 

[Erth]

The problem I have with it is that it is not biblical. I will put my faith in God and His word over man any day.

It IS biblical. "In the beginnining God created heaven and earth." (Genesis 1:1.) After "the beginning" God said "Let us bring forth ..." the things that flourish and live on the earth that was created in the beginning. (Gen. 1.) In other words God guided the evolution of his creation and brought forth those things. It is perfectly biblical.

 

[gluadys]

Your examples are issues that are not mentioned in the Bible. I was referring to evolution, which is a direct contradiction of the Biblical account of creation in Genesis.

That depends on how your theology tells you to read Genesis, doesn't it?

Lots of Christians don't find evolution (which is also an issue not mentioned in the bible) to be a direct contradiction of the Biblical account of creation in Genesis at all.

Why do you?


And actually, mixed fabrics are mentioned in the bible. There is a law prohibiting them.

 

[TasManOfGod]

And actually, mixed fabrics are mentioned in the bible. There is a law prohibiting them.

Not so much a law but an enablement to live a Holy life. Why did god mention it? Well because the mixing of fabrics produced a garment that couldn't be washed due to the shrinking chararacteristics. Therefore if it was worn into the temple it would be likely to stink a little.

 

[gluadys]

Not so much a law but an enablement to live a Holy life. Why did god mention it? Well because the mixing of fabrics produced a garment that couldn't be washed due to the shrinking chararacteristics. Therefore if it was worn into the temple it would be likely to stink a little.

I expect all of the law was intended as an enablement to live a holy life. That doesn't make the laws mere suggestions. Also the context of this law suggests it is the mixing itself that is forbidden. Note that all around it are other laws. And further that the two laws immediately preceding these also refer to not mixing two things together and I doubt either of them had anything to do with shrinking or stinking.

If you come across a bird's nest beside the road, either in a tree or on the ground, and the mother is sitting on the young or on the eggs, do not take the mother with the young. 7 You may take the young, but be sure to let the mother go, so that it may go well with you and you may have a long life. 8 When you build a new house, make a parapet around your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your house if someone falls from the roof. 9 Do not plant two kinds of seed in your vineyard; if you do, not only the crops you plant but also the fruit of the vineyard will be defiled. 10 Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together. 11 Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together. 12 Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear.​

Deuteronomy 22