If evolution is not true, what was the process of creation?

[Resha Caner]

In the absence of any evidence... we'll have to conclude the claim is false, and move on.

By "we" I assume you mean you. I know the experience I had, but you're free to conclude whatever you please. I really don't care.

If you believe evolution is false, what then do you think or believe was the process of creation?

Let's try a reboot. First, we probably need to establish what we're talking about. In essence, when most people use the term "evolution", they seem to be talking of "descent with modification" as an explanation for a diversity of life coming from common ancestry. That's a colloquial phrasing; there are more technical versions, but I think it serves well enough.

I am aware of 3 positive ideas that have been presented as alternatives:
1. Spontaneous Generation
2. Intelligent Design
3. Rapid Emergence

There are also a few ideas that could have shown evolution does not explain diversity of life, but they weren't positive alternatives ... such as:
1. Species stabilization
2. Douglas Theobald's "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry"

Are you aware of others? Are you interested in discussing one of those I listed?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
In the absence of any evidence... we'll have to conclude the claim is false, and move on.

By "we" I assume you mean you. I know the experience I had, but you're free to conclude whatever you please. I really don't care.

If many universities have written policies for it, you shouldn't have any trouble showing us one.

Let's try a reboot. First, we probably need to establish what we're talking about. In essence, when most people use the term "evolution", they seem to be talking of "descent with modification" as an explanation for a diversity of life coming from common ancestry.

Properly, it's "change in allele frequency in populations over time." "Descent with modification is Darwin's term; at the time, no one knew the mechanism for heredity, so the former is the definition used today. Common descent is a consequence of evolution, but not a necessary one. It could have been possible that several independent forms of life evolved into other forms. As you know, the evidence shows that did not happen.

I am aware of 3 positive ideas that have been presented as alternatives:
1. Spontaneous Generation

Sorry, that's not an alternative. Evolutionary theory is not about how life came to be.

2. Intelligent Design

Since ID is a religious doctrine with the purpose of advocating theism, that's not an alternative, either. It's a religious doctrine, not a scientific theory. There are some scientists like Behe, who accept evolution, who have the religious belief in ID. But it's not an alternative to science.

3. Rapid Emergence

Rapid emergence is a theory that is part of evolutionary theory as it is today. Nothing in it excludes Darwinian evolution. Indeed, the observed cases procede by Darwnian evolution.

There are also a few ideas that could have shown evolution does not explain diversity of life, but they weren't positive alternatives ... such as:
1. Species stabilization

Darwin discussed that at some length in his book, pointing out that a well-adapted population in a constant environment should evolve very slowly, if at all. Modern theory calls it "stasis" and it's an important part of modern evolutionary theory.

2. Douglas Theobald's "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry"

Theobald concludes that his test confirms common ancestry:

A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry
Douglas L. Theobald
Nature volume 465, pages 219–222 (13 May 2010)
Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory1. As first suggested by Darwin2, the theory of UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past3,4,5,6. The classic evidence for UCA, although massive, is largely restricted to ‘local’ common ancestry—for example, of specific phyla rather than the entirety of life—and has yet to fully integrate the recent advances from modern phylogenetics and probability theory. Although UCA is widely assumed, it has rarely been subjected to formal quantitative testing7,8,9,10, and this has led to critical commentary emphasizing the intrinsic technical difficulties in empirically evaluating a theory of such broad scope1,5,8,9,11,12,13,14,15. Furthermore, several researchers have proposed that early life was characterized by rampant horizontal gene transfer, leading some to question the monophyly of life11,14,15. Here I provide the first, to my knowledge, formal, fundamental test of UCA, without assuming that sequence similarity implies genetic kinship. I test UCA by applying model selection theory5,16,17 to molecular phylogenies, focusing on a set of ubiquitously conserved proteins that are proposed to be orthologous. Among a wide range of biological models involving the independent ancestry of major taxonomic groups, the model selection tests are found to overwhelmingly support UCA irrespective of the presence of horizontal gene transfer and symbiotic fusion events. These results provide powerful statistical evidence corroborating the monophyly of all known life.

I haven't checked all of his data, but what I've seen, supports his conclusion.

Are you aware of others? Are you interested in discussing one of those I listed?

There are still a few Lamarckians around, and they find a little support in epigenetics, although such changes don't seem to make any lasting difference in evolution.

 

[Resha Caner]

Rapid emergence is a theory that is part of evolutionary theory as it is today.

I think we're referring to different things. Do you have a reference that would explain what you're talking about?

 

[The Barbarian]

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Volume 70, Issue 4, 1 April 2015, Pages 997–1007
Genomic insights into the rapid emergence and evolution of MDR in Staphylococcus pseudintermedius
Alex J. McCarthy Ewan M. Harrison Kinga Stanczak-Mrozek Bernadette Leggett Andrew Waller Mark A. Holmes David H. Lloyd Jodi A. Lindsay Anette Loeffler
Importantly, the data suggest that MDR MRSP evolved rapidly by the acquisition of a very limited number of MGEs and mutations, and that the use of many classes of antimicrobials may co-select for the spread and emergence of MDR and XDR strains. Antimicrobial stewardship will need to be comprehensive, encompassing human medicine and veterinary disciplines to successfully preserve antimicrobial efficacy.

That's what the term means in biology. What is your understanding of it?

 

[Resha Caner]

That's what the term means in biology.

OK. I had found that with Google. To me the use in that paper just sounds like a synonym for "fast evolution", but I'm not a biologist. I thought you might have something more to add.

 

[The Barbarian]

It seems that evolution can, under the right circumstances, move pretty fast. I notice most of this reported rapid emergence comes from bacteria and other prokaryotes, which have very rapid generation times.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

By "we" I assume you mean you. I know the experience I had, but you're free to conclude whatever you please. I really don't care.



Let's try a reboot. First, we probably need to establish what we're talking about. In essence, when most people use the term "evolution", they seem to be talking of "descent with modification" as an explanation for a diversity of life coming from common ancestry. That's a colloquial phrasing; there are more technical versions, but I think it serves well enough.

I am aware of 3 positive ideas that have been presented as alternatives:
1. Spontaneous Generation
2. Intelligent Design
3. Rapid Emergence

There are also a few ideas that could have shown evolution does not explain diversity of life, but they weren't positive alternatives ... such as:
1. Species stabilization
2. Douglas Theobald's "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry"

Are you aware of others? Are you interested in discussing one of those I listed?

...you might add "epigenetics" as another theorized possibility to the list. This is what was suggested to me by a fellow, secular biology student at my university a while back.

 

[The Barbarian]

Epigenetics is the notion that acquired characteristics can be passed on to future generations. In at least some cases, this has been verified, although it appears that the effect is not permanent, as genetic changes are known to be.

Epigenetics can affect evolution when epigenetic changes are heritable.[8] A sequestered germ line or Weismann barrier is specific to animals, and epigenetic inheritance is more common in plants and microbes. Eva Jablonka, Marion J. Lamb and Étienne Danchin have argued that these effects may require enhancements to the standard conceptual framework of the modern synthesis and have called for an extended evolutionary synthesis.[94][95][96] Other evolutionary biologists have incorporated epigenetic inheritance into population genetics models and are openly skeptical, stating that epigenetic mechanisms such as DNA methylation and histone modification are genetically inherited under the control of natural selection.[97][98][99]

Two important ways in which epigenetic inheritance can be different from traditional genetic inheritance, with important consequences for evolution, are that rates of epimutation can be much faster than rates of mutation[100] and the epimutations are more easily reversible.[101] In plants, heritable DNA methylation mutations are 100.000 times more likely to occur compared to DNA mutations.[102] An epigenetically inherited element such as the PSI+ system can act as a "stop-gap", good enough for short-term adaptation that allows the lineage to survive for long enough for mutation and/or recombination to genetically assimilate the adaptive phenotypic change.[103] The existence of this possibility increases the evolvability of a species.

More than 100 cases of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance phenomena have been reported in a wide range of organisms, including prokaryotes, plants, and animals.[104] For instance, mourning cloak butterflies will change color through hormone changes in response to experimentation of varying temperatures.[105]

The filamentous fungus Neurospora crassa is a prominent model system for understanding the control and function of cytosine methylation. In this organisms, DNA methylation is associated with relics of a genome defense system called RIP (repeat-induced point mutation) and silences gene expression by inhibiting transcription elongation.[106]

The yeast prion PSI is generated by a conformational change of a translation termination factor, which is then inherited by daughter cells. This can provide a survival advantage under adverse conditions. This is an example of epigenetic regulation enabling unicellular organisms to respond rapidly to environmental stress. Prions can be viewed as epigenetic agents capable of inducing a phenotypic change without modification of the genome.[107]

Direct detection of epigenetic marks in microorganisms is possible with single molecule real time sequencing, in which polymerase sensitivity allows for measuring methylation and other modifications as a DNA molecule is being sequenced.[108] Several projects have demonstrated the ability to collect genome-wide epigenetic data in bacteria.
Epigenetics - Wikipedia

 

[MartyF]

If you believe evolution is false, what then do you think or believe was the process of creation? Fair enough if you disagree with darwinian evolution, but think some other sort of theistic evolution process was involved, but if you don't agree with any kind of evolutionary theory how then did birds, animals, fish, humans, come into existence. I am asking about how God created these? Can that be found out by science?

Just read the first Chapter of Genesis. It explains the process. If you want, the second chapter goes into more detail.

 

[The Barbarian]

Just read the first Chapter of Genesis. It explains the process.

No. It gives only the vaguest sort of outline of what happened, but doesn't say anything at all about the processes by which it happened. Yes, the earth did bring forth living things, but Genesis doesn't say how that process worked. That's not what Genesis is about.

 

[Resha Caner]

...you might add "epigenetics" as another theorized possibility to the list. This what was suggested to me by a fellow, secular biology student at my university a while back.

Right. I forgot about that. So which one on the list interests you most?

 

[The Barbarian]

What about epigenetics do you think is a problem for evolutionary theory?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Right. I forgot about that. So which one on the list interests you most?

Truthfully, I just take the Theory of Evolution in a very general kind of way, meaning that I'm open to considering whatever truly scientific hypotheses and/or potentialities scientists of all kinds may put forth. Personally, I take ToE generally because I really don't expect to see the "Ghost in the Machine." This means, too, that as a Christian, I lean much more heavily on the BioLogos side of things, scientifically speaking, than I do on the I.D. side of things, the latter of which I see as a more phenomenal type of analysis and not a full-fledged scientific one.

So, the answer to your question is: ALL of them, and NONE of them. However, I do like the idea of Howard J. Van Till's "The Fully Gifted Creation," when speaking in evolutionary terms.

How about for yourself? Which line of evidence or line of theory interests you?

 

[Resha Caner]

What about epigenetics do you think is a problem for evolutionary theory?

Are you asking me that? None from a conceptual perspective. There may be some confounding issues to deal with at a practical level. From a paradigmatic perspective, it amuses me ... but it's not polite to admit that.

 

[Resha Caner]

So, the answer to your question is: ALL of them, and NONE of them.

Yeah, I get that.

How about for yourself? Which line of evidence or line of theory interests you?

For a long time my answer was "None of them." I've never had an interest in biology. Physics is my thing. So, it never stimulated my intellectual curiosity nor did I have any practical need for it. I was happy to let doctors be doctors, etc.

Further, Confessional Lutheran theology doesn't make this a salvation issue the way American Christianity does. It can be a stumbling block, as can anything, but it's not a defining issue.

But the convergence of three things finally caught my attention. First, I've accepted the underdetermined nature of math and science since my Dad first introduced me to it. It's what made math and science fun for me - the exploration of the infinite expanse where I could look at what interested me without butting heads with others. Second, all the bluster between evolutionists and creationists finally irritated me enough that I took the time to think about it, and realized evolution does present inescapable theological problems. So, third, it then became an intellectual challenge to see if I could formulate my own idea.

That's a long way of saying: I guess what interests me most is my own ideas ... rather arrogant and self-absorbed, isn't it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, I get that.



For a long time my answer was "None of them." I've never had an interest in biology. Physics is my thing. So, it never stimulated my intellectual curiosity nor did I have any practical need for it. I was happy to let doctors be doctors, etc.

Further, Confessional Lutheran theology doesn't make this a salvation issue the way American Christianity does. It can be a stumbling block, as can anything, but it's not a defining issue.

But the convergence of three things finally caught my attention. First, I've accepted the underdetermined nature of math and science since my Dad first introduced me to it. It's what made math and science fun for me - the exploration of the infinite expanse where I could look at what interested me without butting heads with others. Second, all the bluster between evolutionists and creationists finally irritated me enough that I took the time to think about it, and realized evolution does present inescapable theological problems. So, third, it then became an intellectual challenge to see if I could formulate my own idea.

That's a long way of saying: I guess what interests me most is my own ideas ... rather arrogant and self-absorbed, isn't it?

....no, I wouldn't necessarily classify that as "arrogant and self-absorbed." Rather, just knowing that you're an educated and very thoughtful individual, I would rather say that you're a rational person who, after much thought, is self-realized. The truth of the matter is, you didn't ACTUALLY arrive at your present outlook on life, science and faith all by your own little lonesome, as is the lot of many people these days. That is, they more often than not jump to conclusions without having considered and evaluated a good many things, and in your case as it contrasts to theirs, there is such a thing as observing the difference between 1) thinking BY one's self, and 2) thinking FOR one's self. I think you're clearly in the second category, Resha.

So, I can understand your aversion to the tension between Creation and Evolutionary issues; I've arrived at a similar, even if not identical, position.

 

[MoneyGuy]

Evolution is a lie and for those Christians who believe in it obviously do not believe that God created the earth and humans. We did NOT come from apes. Wake up and stop letting Satan deceive you. I feel so sorry for you all

Evolution doesn't opine that humans descended from apes.

What if evolution is God's tool and directed by God?

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution doesn't opine that humans descended from apes.

Genetically, anatomically, biochemically, we are apes. Chimps and humans form an ingroup separate from all other apes. Of course we didn't evolve from chimps any more than chimps evolved from us. We have a common ancestor which was neither human nor chimp.

What if evolution is God's tool and directed by God?

Then reality and the Bible are completely compatible.

 

[The Barbarian]

Physics is my thing.

"Biology is a much more difficult discipline than physics."
Erwin Schrödinger - What is Life?

That little book led me to become a biologist. I was blown away by Schrödinger's brilliant prediction that heredity would be found to reside in "aperiodic crystals."

 

[The Barbarian]

Thanks.

There does seem to be a difference between more recent evolutionists (such as dawkins) and their explicit avowal of atheism,

Some do. Others are theists, many of us Christians. And you probably should know that Dawkins has said he isn't sure that God doesn't exist.

Darwin himself seemed ready to admit conditions, or observations under which his theory would break down (ie . irreducible complexity).

No. Irreducible complexity is a modern notion, and it does happen by Darwinian evolution.

If Neo-darwinists cannot provide a darwinian mechanism, by which the bacterial flagelium comes about in single steps (Michael Behe's challenge to them) then they would have to abandon the theory?

There actually isn't a single "bacterial flagellum." There are a number of kinds, some more complex than others. So by definition, it's not irreducibly complex. And there are simpler forms of the organelle, such as pilli used for transfer of material between cells, with an entirely different function. There are irreducibly complex traits in living things but they can evolve by the usual means.

Behe seems far more in accord with the spirit of science than some of his opponents,

I don't think so. For example, he testified that by his definition of science, astrology would be a science.