If Evolution were true...

Deaver said:

From this statement, am I to assume that you do not believe the Genesis account recorded in the Bible?

Click to expand...

Magic gardens, talking snakes, and a God who goes from all-knowing ruler of the universe in chapter one to Garfield's hapless owner in chapter 3. What's not to believe?

I don’t seriously whether those on either side of the evolution/creation difference of opinion will change their minds. However, I submit this, for consideration, to all those that support evolution aside from a creator.

How does evolution square with DNA? Human cells contain 46 chromosomes, in 23 pairs. Each pair is responsible for certain activities in the body. Any defect in the chromosome pairs results in irreparable damage. The probability of the coincidental formation of the code of an average protein in the human body has been mathematically determined to be 1 over 1 followed by 600 zeros. This number, means in practice "zero" probability of it happening by "accident," "chance," or "coincidence."

Think about what you are reading in this thread right now. How would you regard someone who claimed that letters have come together by chance on their own to form this writing? It is evident that it was written by an intelligent and conscious person. This is no different from the status of DNA.

From “The Miracle of Creation in DNA” by Harun Yahya consider this:

“To show that this claim [macro-evolution] is unreasonable, let us again compare DNA to a book. We have already mentioned that DNA is made up of letters lined up sideways just as in a book. Mutations are like the letter errors that occur during the type-setting of this book. If you like, we can do an experiment on this subject. Let us ask for a thick book about the history of the world to be type-set. During the type-setting, let us intervene several times and tell the type-setter to press one of the keys blindfolded and at random. Then let us give this text containing letter errors to someone else and have him do the same thing over again. Using this method, let us have the book type-set from the beginning to the end several times, thus having a few more letter errors added to it at random each time...

Could this history book ever develop by this method? For instance, would an additional chapter emerge, named, "The History of Ancient China," when it had previously not been present?”

Lion Hearted Man said:

So I assume you've never heard of a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis?

Click to expand...

I have, and I accept that their are portions of the Bible that can allow for "metaphorical interpretation". One part of the Bible I believe does not allow for that is "In the beginning God created..." The first verse of the Bible is foundational for belief in the Bible.

Deaver said:

I don’t seriously whether those on either side of the evolution/creation difference of opinion will change their minds. However, I submit this, for consideration, to all those that support evolution aside from a creator.

How does evolution square with DNA? Human cells contain 46 chromosomes, in 23 pairs. Each pair is responsible for certain activities in the body. Any defect in the chromosome pairs results in irreparable damage. The probability of the coincidental formation of the code of an average protein in the human body has been mathematically determined to be 1 over 1 followed by 600 zeros. This number, means in practice "zero" probability of it happening by "accident," "chance," or "coincidence."

Click to expand...

That point has been considered and refuted a thousand times. You've got two correct statements, followed by three totally erroneous statements based upon those correct statements. Your erroneous statements do not reflect the process of evolution in any way. Nothing to consider apart from that. You, on the other hand, should consider learning about evolution before spouting nonsense against it.

Deaver said:

Now let’s look at a summary of the Genesis theory of Creation:

God made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them in the following order:

· Day 1: The earth without any form; water; light
· Day 2: The sky, the earth’s atmosphere
· Day 3: The bodies of water; the dry land; vegetation
· Day 4: The sun, moon, and stars to serve as signs, seasons, days, and years.
· Day 5: The aquatic creatures; the birds
· Day 6: The land creatures; man

Can these two things, evolution and creation, work together?

As a Christian, I believe in creation (In the beginning God created…) with ongoing micro-evolution of the species.

Click to expand...

Yes, they can work together if you understand the context of Genesis and do not make naive assumptions about the purpose and intent of the authors. Genesis 1-2 is not an historical account, nor was it intended for an audience used to a modern understanding of "history." It is a story intended to teach theology.

Deaver said:

Isn’t that really the argument of evolution – that all life on Earth has resulted from the speciation of earlier organisms? I am sure you have some, so can you give me examples of when speciation has occurred.. Please include the definition used to definition of what constitutes a species.

Click to expand...

Here is a truncated copy of a list of observed speciations originally posted by Lucaspa:

Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies Speciation through homoploid hybridization between allotetraploids in peonies (Paeonia)
3. Scruffy little weed shows Darwin was right as evolution moves on new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. Science Magazine: Sign In Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

Skaloop said:

That point has been considered and refuted a thousand times. You've got three correct statements, followed by three totally erroneous statements based upon those correct statements. Your erroneous statements do not reflect the process of evolution in any way. Nothing to consider apart from that. You, on the other hand, should consider learning about evolution before spouting nonsense against it.

Click to expand...

No disrespect meant, however, would you please more specific about which statements you think are in error. Also, I am not “spouting nonsense”, I have not seen any definitive proof that humans evolved from some non-human life form – that is a change in the gene pool of some non-human population over generation to generation, eventually becoming human. If you have it please present it. Otherwise, I will continue to defend Biblically supported position of creation. I do understand that most that have views on this topic are pretty much unmovable from their view.

Deaver said:

I don’t seriously whether those on either side of the evolution/creation difference of opinion will change their minds. However, I submit this, for consideration, to all those that support evolution aside from a creator.

How does evolution square with DNA? Human cells contain 46 chromosomes, in 23 pairs. Each pair is responsible for certain activities in the body. Any defect in the chromosome pairs results in irreparable damage. The probability of the coincidental formation of the code of an average protein in the human body has been mathematically determined to be 1 over 1 followed by 600 zeros. This number, means in practice "zero" probability of it happening by "accident," "chance," or "coincidence."

Think about what you are reading in this thread right now. How would you regard someone who claimed that letters have come together by chance on their own to form this writing? It is evident that it was written by an intelligent and conscious person. This is no different from the status of DNA.

From “The Miracle of Creation in DNA” by Harun Yahya consider this:

“To show that this claim [macro-evolution] is unreasonable, let us again compare DNA to a book.
...

Click to expand...

False analogy. The 'letters' did not come together by chance, and during embryonic development, they are not read like a book.

Deaver said:

I don’t seriously whether those on either side of the evolution/creation difference of opinion will change their minds. However, I submit this, for consideration, to all those that support evolution aside from a creator.

Click to expand...

In other words, a copypasta argument from your favourite creo site. Take it away...

How does evolution square with DNA? Human cells contain 46 chromosomes, in 23 pairs. Each pair is responsible for certain activities in the body. Any defect in the chromosome pairs results in irreparable damage.

Click to expand...

Fine so far.

The probability of the coincidental formation of the code of an average protein in the human body has been mathematically determined to be 1 over 1 followed by 600 zeros.

Click to expand...

Mathematically determined....HOW? Where is the calculation for this? Or are you just believing your source's figure to be correct because he says it is? And what is "coincidental" formation? Is this just looking at banging particles randomly together with independent probabilities? Or is this actually looking at possible chemical reactions (chemistry being in essence an odds-improver for compound formation)?

This number, means in practice "zero" probability of it happening by "accident," "chance," or "coincidence."

Click to expand...

No, no, no, no, no.

It means (if correct, which it's not) the probability is 10^-600. 10^-600 is not zero. Please, please, PLEASE, disabuse yourself of this notion, it's probably the most cringingly bad example of creationist maths that gets recycled by you guys.

Shuffling a few packs of cards together results in a sequence of cards produced - the odds of occurrence of that particular sequence are about the same as the number you quoted. Does that mean a blackjack dealer is a miracle worker?

Think about what you are reading in this thread right now. How would you regard someone who claimed that letters have come together by chance on their own to form this writing? It is evident that it was written by an intelligent and conscious person. This is no different from the status of DNA.

Click to expand...

Except the Roman alphabet hasn't shown itself to be capable of crossing letters over, duplicating, self-copying - so evidently we're comparing apples and oranges here.

“To show that this claim [macro-evolution] is unreasonable, let us again compare DNA to a book. We have already mentioned that DNA is made up of letters lined up sideways just as in a book. Mutations are like the letter errors that occur during the type-setting of this book. If you like, we can do an experiment on this subject. Let us ask for a thick book about the history of the world to be type-set. During the type-setting, let us intervene several times and tell the type-setter to press one of the keys blindfolded and at random. Then let us give this text containing letter errors to someone else and have him do the same thing over again. Using this method, let us have the book type-set from the beginning to the end several times, thus having a few more letter errors added to it at random each time...

Could this history book ever develop by this method? For instance, would an additional chapter emerge, named, "The History of Ancient China," when it had previously not been present?”

Click to expand...

No - but no-one's claiming that DNA formed entirely by random events. Goodness, if that were how chemicals formed, any kind of compound-forming chemical reaction would be a miracle.

Split Rock said:

...Genesis 1-2 is not an historical account, nor was it intended for an audience used to a modern understanding of "history." It is a story intended to teach theology....

Here is a truncated copy of a list of observed speciations originally posted by Lucaspa:

Click to expand...

On the first point, I agree. However, just because it was intended to teach theology doesn't mean that it cannot, also, present a historical account of what happened.

Regarding the list, thanks. I think that both evolutionists and creations generally agree that are some degrees of speciation. That neither proves nor disproves the existence of a creator that created humans. I have no problem with man being created some time ago and then experiencing "evolution", bringing man to where he/she is today.

I mean no disrespect to anyone in this thread. However, from what I have observed in discussions, such as this thread, it seems that pro-evolutionist want to take examples of speciation and leap to classic macro-evolution – ape begets man. I know I over simplified that, but let me continue. As we move the discussion forward to its conclusion we will get to the beginning of life.

What I find troubling with evolution is that, eventually, it requires that non-living chemicals organized themselves into a self-reproducing organism. All types of life are alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from some ‘simple’ life form. For this to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the DNA information in living things today.

Deaver said:

On the first point, I agree. However, just because it was intended to teach theology doesn't mean that it cannot, also, present a historical account of what happened.

Click to expand...

True -- but if there's a conflict between theology and history, which one gets edited?

Deaver said:

For this to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the DNA information in living things today.

Click to expand...

It's called chemistry.

Deaver said:

I mean no disrespect to anyone in this thread. However, from what I have observed in discussions, such as this thread, it seems that pro-evolutionist want to take examples of speciation and leap to classic macro-evolution – ape begets man. I know I over simplified that, but let me continue. As we move the discussion forward to its conclusion we will get to the beginning of life.

Click to expand...

What, if not speciation, would you consider macro-evolution?
The only difference between micro and macro is the length of time involved. They are both evolution.

Also, ape doesn't just beget man, according to the Theory of Evoultion, man is ape, as are chimpanzees and orangutans. We didn't come from chimpanzees and orangutans, we share a common ape ancestor.

What I find troubling with evolution is that, eventually, it requires that non-living chemicals organized themselves into a self-reproducing organism. All types of life are alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from some ‘simple’ life form. For this to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the DNA information in living things today.

Click to expand...

That's because what you're describing isn't covered in the Theory of Evolution. What you're describing is covered by the study of abiogenesis.

The reason, I think, creationists tend to focus on the theory that describes gradual change from species to the next as opposed to the origin of life, is because the suggestion that we're not some magically special species preferred by an almighty creator hurts their feelings. I don't think most creationists would care if originated from dirt (bible) or organic polymers (abiogenesis) ...just a guess.

Skaloop said:

It's called chemistry.

Click to expand...

Never been proven in the lab, so it's called religion.

Deaver said:

No disrespect meant, however, would you please more specific about which statements you think are in error.

Click to expand...

Okey doke.

Any defect in the chromosome pairs results in irreparable damage.

I disagree with you (and Cabal) that any defect causes irreparable damage. Although I will grant you that it depends on how you define defect. But some defects can improve function, or otherwise be beneficial.

The probability of the coincidental formation of the code of an average protein in the human body has been mathematically determined to be 1 over 1 followed by 600 zeros.

If you can provide a citation for this, I will recant my statement that it is erroneous. Provided that the calculations and methods used to determine that number are themselves are not erroneous or faulty. But in past experience, this is little more than "A really big number to impress" rather than anything of substance.

This number, means in practice "zero" probability of it happening by "accident," "chance," or "coincidence."

Wrong on two counts; it's not zero probability, and it didn't happen by accident, chance, or coincidence. Chemistry occurs according to rather strict rules, making chemical reactions none of those three things.

jpcedotal said:

Never been proven in the lab, so it's called religion.

Click to expand...

Chemistry is "proven" in labs across the world every single day.

jpcedotal said:

Never been proven in the lab, so it's called religion.

Click to expand...

I took the liberty of whiting out the mistake.

And FYI, ^^^ The processes of Chemistry are demonstrated in labs all the time.

Edited to fix grammar.

Deaver said:

I have, and I accept that their are portions of the Bible that can allow for "metaphorical interpretation". One part of the Bible I believe does not allow for that is "In the beginning God created..." The first verse of the Bible is foundational for belief in the Bible.

Click to expand...

That part..."in the beginning God created..." is not the part that theistic evolution people "metaphorically interpret". They believe God created, they just also believe that the method was not magically poofing things into existence but rather evolution.

Francis Collins, arguably the brightest evangelical Christian who is a scientist, believes this. He accepts evolution, but believes that God put it in place. When it boils down to it, evolution is correct. If that conflicts with your interpretation of scripture, that's your problem that you need to fix. Note how I said your interpretation of scripture, and not scripture itself there. It would be foolhardy of you to think that your interpretation of scripture should be absolute and unchanging when you have new experiences.

Lion Hearted Man said:

but rather evolution.

Click to expand...

There's no reason to integrate a falsified conjecture.

Skaloop said:

It's called chemistry.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are trying to say. However, I want to keep going further back in time. Keeping with the pro-evolutionist viewpoint, we still have to get to that first something. Who created that first something?