If individual life forms were created, why assume a biological limit to evolutionary changes?

[pitabread]

Creationists often argue that there is a biological limit to evolutionary changes. The argument is usually made with respect to trying to refute the idea of common ancestry. It generally is as follows:

1) There is a biological limit to evolutionary changes in life forms;
2) Therefore, organisms can't share common ancestry beyond a certain point;
3) Therefore, individual organisms had to have been created and there is no universal common ancestry.

The inverse of this argument, however, doesn't follow. For example:

1) Individual organisms were created and there is no universal common ancestry;
2) Therefore, there are biological limits to evolutionary changes in life forms.

The problem is that #2 doesn't logically follow from #1. There is no reason to necessitate that evolutionary changes should be limited if organisms were spontaneously created.

As an example, consider terrestrial mammal to aquatic mammal transitions. Creationist generally believe that terrestrial mammals and aquatic mammals were created separately. But even if that were true, why couldn't populations of created terrestrial mammals still undergo evolutionary changes over time; going from terrestrial to semi-aquatic to fully aquatic.

In looking at this argument this way, I feel the attempts to argue for biological barriers in created life seem a bit backwards. Arguing that created life cannot evolve past certain biological points is not the same argument as arguing that individual life forms were created in the first place.

 

[Abraxos]

Having limitations to an animals biological structure is a common understanding in Christian creation (Genesis 1:24-25), especially in YEC.

For example, we have many varieties of dogs that are generally agreed upon were descendant from wolves. That means the wolves where all these varieties of dogs descendant from had the required genetic make-up for all these common traits seen in dogs. Two ears, K9 teeth, paws, tail, fur, etc.

To go beyond that, like say, a dog starts growing a fish tail, seems oddly curious to assume is a creation necessity.

 

[pitabread]

Having limitations to an animals biological structure is a common understanding in Christian creation (Genesis 1:24-25), especially in YEC.

I'm just wondering where that understanding comes from. Even if one interprets the "reproduce after their kind" phrase, all that really implies is that the descendants will be ancestral to a particular lineage. It doesn't suggest anything to do with limits to biological evolution.

To go beyond that, like say, a dog starts growing a fish tail, seems oddly curious to assume is a creation necessity.

Leaving aside the slight evolutionary strawman (dogs could never grow a fish tail since those are separate lineages), this is the point I'm making. It seems that the arguments for biological limits are made out necessitating creation as an origin for individual life forms. But there is nothing inherent to the idea of created life forms having evolutionary limits imposed upon them.

 

[Abraxos]

I'm just wondering where that understanding comes from. Even if one interprets the "reproduce after their kind" phrase, all that really implies is that the descendants will be ancestral to a particular lineage. It doesn't suggest anything to do with limits to biological evolution.



Leaving aside the slight evolutionary strawman (dogs could never grow a fish tail since those are separate lineages), this is the point I'm making. It seems that the arguments for biological limits are made out necessitating creation as an origin for individual life forms. But there is nothing inherent to the idea of created life forms having evolutionary limits imposed upon them.

It seems you have a different idea on what creation should be rather than what is exclusively followed depending on who we are talking about. That isn't to say that some creation views don't have fish growing toes (i.e., OEC), but all I'm alluding to is it's a little odd to say 'creation requires biological freedom'.

 

[pitabread]

That isn't to say that some creation views don't have fish growing toes (i.e., OEC), but all I'm alluding to is it's a little odd to say 'creation requires biological freedom'.

I'm not saying creation requires biological freedom. Rather, I'm saying that creation doesn't necessitate biological (evolutionary) limitations.

 

[Abraxos]

I'm not saying creation requires biological freedom. Rather, I'm saying that creation doesn't necessitate biological (evolutionary) limitations.

Of course it doesn't, but in order to support that view, there should be many examples that contradict the view of "biological limitations."

 

[pitabread]

Of course it doesn't, but in order to support that view, there should be many examples that contradict the view of "biological limitations."

The only real observable biological limits are non-biologically viable forms; for example, lethal mutations/genotypes that don't allow for developed phenotypes.

But that doesn't necessarily impose the same type of limits such as arguing that dogs must stay "dog-like" and can't evolve to occupy different environmental niches. If creationists want to argue the latter, the burden of proof is on them to show where those limits lie. But so far nobody has demonstrated such limits and perhaps such limits don't exist in the first place. Even if one believes in creation.

 

[Abraxos]

The only real observable biological limits are non-biologically viable forms; for example, lethal mutations/genotypes that don't allow for developed phenotypes.

But that doesn't necessarily impose the same type of limits such as arguing that dogs must stay "dog-like" and can't evolve to occupy different environmental niches. If creationists want to argue the latter, the burden of proof is on them to show where those limits lie. But so far nobody has demonstrated such limits and perhaps such limits don't exist in the first place. Even if one believes in creation.

Heh, yeah, in order to provide examples of "biological freedoms," you use a non-biological "example?"

Also, it's fine to assume that a dog could turn into a fish depending on the environment, but that view leaves science and enters into a belief system however reasonable or unreasonable it may sound. The limitations biologically that we see in the world are an observable fact. So the burden of proof really lies upon those that claim that a dog could become a fish.

 

[Brightmoon]

Having limitations to an animals biological structure is a common understanding in Christian creation (Genesis 1:24-25), especially in YEC.

For example, we have many varieties of dogs that are generally agreed upon were descendant from wolves. That means the wolves where all these varieties of dogs descendant from had the required genetic make-up for all these common traits seen in dogs. Two ears, K9 teeth, paws, tail, fur, etc.

To go beyond that, like say, a dog starts growing a fish tail, seems oddly curious to assume is a creation necessity.

. You have obviously never looked at Pakicetus which slightly resembled a coyote and is related to ( and probably is the ancestor of ) modern whales . (Here’s your “dog with a fish tail” or as close as reality allows) . Those pictures should be down here - oh well!

 

[pitabread]

Heh, yeah, in order to provide examples of "biological freedoms," you use a non-biological "example?"

I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Also, it's fine to assume that a dog could turn into a fish

No. Full stop.

A dog would never turn into a fish; that would be completely contradictory to how evolution works. This is similar to how aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals didn't evolve into fish. They remain mammals.

Rather, I'm saying there doesn't appear to be anything preventing the descendants of a population of dogs from evolving to occupy different environmental niches including semi-aquatic or aquatic ones.

That is not the same as claiming a dog would evolve into a fish. I'm not making that argument at all. That's not how evolution works.

 

[Brightmoon]

Y’all forgot about seals which are caniform Carnivora. There’s nothing preventing a quadruped lineage from evolving and returning to the water permanently. It’s already happened to whales and manatees . The phocidae ( Seals) and some otters ( Feliform Carnivora) are well on their way. But a dog will not turn into a fish nor will it grow a fish tail. that type of change is best reserved for fairytales.

 

[Job 33:6]

Creationists often argue that there is a biological limit to evolutionary changes. The argument is usually made with respect to trying to refute the idea of common ancestry. It generally is as follows:

1) There is a biological limit to evolutionary changes in life forms;
2) Therefore, organisms can't share common ancestry beyond a certain point;
3) Therefore, individual organisms had to have been created and there is no universal common ancestry.

The inverse of this argument, however, doesn't follow. For example:

1) Individual organisms were created and there is no universal common ancestry;
2) Therefore, there are biological limits to evolutionary changes in life forms.

The problem is that #2 doesn't logically follow from #1. There is no reason to necessitate that evolutionary changes should be limited if organisms were spontaneously created.

As an example, consider terrestrial mammal to aquatic mammal transitions. Creationist generally believe that terrestrial mammals and aquatic mammals were created separately. But even if that were true, why couldn't populations of created terrestrial mammals still undergo evolutionary changes over time; going from terrestrial to semi-aquatic to fully aquatic.

In looking at this argument this way, I feel the attempts to argue for biological barriers in created life seem a bit backwards. Arguing that created life cannot evolve past certain biological points is not the same argument as arguing that individual life forms were created in the first place.

Most young earthers try to stick with a very specific interpretation of scripture. That which involves use of the word "kind". Scripture also isn't explicit in describing evolution. So young earthers conclude instantaneous creation of kinds without any form of change. It was "good" after all.

And so, yes it's true that creation doesn't necessarily conflict with evolution (post creation) but in their strict or aggressive view, it must.

 

[Abraxos]

Most young earthers try to stick with a very specific interpretation of scripture. That which involves use of the word "kind". Scripture also isn't explicit in describing evolution. So young earthers conclude instantaneous creation of kinds without any form of change. It was "good" after all.

And so, yes it's true that creation doesn't necessarily conflict with evolution (post creation) but in their strict or aggressive view, it must.

I'm curious, what is the OEC's interpretation of the use of the word "kind"? I actually thought it was known to be variations within a species, like a varieties of dogs we see.

 

[Abraxos]

View attachment 239594 View attachment 239593 View attachment 239595 View attachment 239596 . You have obviously never looked at Pakicetus which slightly resembled a coyote and is related to ( and probably is the ancestor of ) modern whales . (Here’s your “dog with a fish tail” or as close as reality allows) . Those pictures should be down here - oh well!

I wish that would convince me too, but that is really just a lousy confirmation claim based on very flimsy evidence. I can't take comparative anatomy as sufficient enough reasons to be making the claim that the Pakicetus is supposedly the ancestor of a whale. This terrestrial mammal was no more amphibious than a tapir if one looks at it without any presuppositions.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm curious, what is the OEC's interpretation of the use of the word "kind"? I actually thought it was known to be variations within a species, like a varieties of dogs we see.

I don't think old earthers tyoically perceive Genesis as a book to be taken as a direct or blunt description of reality. Talking snakes, a woman made from a rib bone and man hiding from God and God casually strolling around in the evening.

The word "kind" is man's early understanding of life. Of course Genesis appears void of descriptions of evolution, man had no idea what it is nor could we have even understood it in the days of God's chosen ones trying to survive in Israel, or any chosen people who might have had the message before them.

People have also has an arrogant approach to interpretations of Genesis in history as well. Many used to interpret scripture as suggesting that the earth was the center of the universe. Of course Galileo was shunned and kept under house arrest the rest of his life. Eventually scientific discovery succeeded and people accepted reality of a pale blue dot. But many religious never lost the view of man still being at the center of the universe. Then came Darwin's discovery and discovery of an old earth. Discoveries which suggest that man was not instantly created "good" as human beings, but rather historically were once something entirely different. Which must not be good if we changed. As if God's creation which was once perceived as unique and perfect man, was turned into creation if something that used to be no more than...a fish, which isn't considered as special as man.

Some people just haven't let go of these conservative views. Just as many didn't let go of geocentrism. And here we are today.

 

[Job 33:6]

I wish that would convince me too, but that is really just a lousy confirmation claim based on very flimsy evidence. I can't take comparative anatomy as sufficient enough reasons to be making the claim that the Pakicetus is supposedly the ancestor of a whale. This terrestrial mammal was no more amphibious than a tapir if one looks at it without any presuppositions.

The strength in the fossil succession comes in that it aligns with genetics. For example, people have used DNA sequences to predict the temporal and spacial location of fossils (how deep they are underground and what country on earth they might be found). Actually this is why paleontology has skyrocketted as a successful science in modern geology over the past 250 years or so. We can also used the fossil succession to predict genetic relatedness in organisms. For example, you could name any 3 clades of animal and based on fossils, k could tell you which have more or less similar DNA to one another.

Imagine, someone looking at your DNA and then predicting that a fossil of a tetrapod with fish scales could be found 10 feet underground in a remote place in the cold tundra of northern Canada. And imagine if they took a helicopter to the middle of Canada and found the predicted fossil tetrapod. Without the theory of evolution, such things would be impossible. But in today's age, such practices vand predictions have become common. And no denier of evolution has an explanation for how such things are possible.

Nor do you.

 

[Abraxos]

I don't think old earthers tyoically perceive Genesis as a book to be taken as a direct or blunt description of reality. Talking snakes, a woman made from a rib bone and man hiding from God and God casually strolling around in the evening.

The word "kind" is man's early understanding of life. Of course Genesis appears void of descriptions of evolution, man had no idea what it is nor could we have even understood it in the days of God's chosen ones trying to survive in Israel, or any chosen people who might have had the message before them.

People have also has an arrogant approach to interpretations of Genesis in history as well. Many used to interpret scripture as suggesting that the earth was the center of the universe. Of course Galileo was shunned and kept under house arrest the rest of his life. Eventually scientific discovery succeeded and people accepted reality of a pale blue dot. But many religious never lost the view of man still being at the center of the universe. Then came Darwin's discovery and discovery of an old earth. Discoveries which suggest that man was not instantly created "good" as human beings, but rather historically were once something entirely different. Which must not be good if we changed. As if God's creation which was once perceived as unique and perfect man, was turned into creation if something that used to be no more than...a fish, which isn't considered as special as man.

Some people just haven't let go of these conservative views. Just as many didn't let go of geocentrism. And here we are today.

Seems your interpretation of the creation account in the Bible is to dismiss it entirely, which is I think a common view most theistic evolutionists hold to. I guess the discussion would end there, however, that is not to say that all theistic evolutionists believe as you do, in fact, a great deal of them believe evolution is very much prevalent in the creation account such as Hugh Ross and InspiringPhilosophy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists often argue that there is a biological limit to evolutionary changes.

You mean like sterility?

 

[AV1611VET]

Even if one interprets the "reproduce after their kind" phrase, all that really implies is that the descendants will be ancestral to a particular lineage.

Yes.

That is the way God intends.

Leviticus 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

The parts that make up one kind, can not accept input from parts of another kind and produce a viable "third kind."

The equipment is all wrong.

 

[Job 33:6]

Seems your interpretation of the creation account in the Bible is to dismiss it entirely, which is I think a common view most theistic evolutionists hold to. I guess the discussion would end there, however, that is not to say that all theistic evolutionists believe as you do, in fact, a great deal of them believe evolution is very much prevalent in the creation account such as Hugh Ross and InspiringPhilosophy.

]

Dismiss it? No of course not.

Genesis is a great book. It tells us of our personal God. It teaches us of values in honesty. Adam and Eve ate from the tree and immediately hid, blamed others for their actions. It teaches us to be open and vulnerable to God rather than to hide in shame and sin. It teaches us of companionship. The beauty in the love and relationship that a man and woman can have, and how God created us for one another. It tells us that we are special and loved by God, and its a love that never ends, despite the shortcomings we present throughout all of scripture. It tells us that none can compare in relationship with man than a women. It tells us that in the beginning, God's creation was "good" and God intended to keep it "good" until...forever, with Jesus saving us on the cross, just as God saved us after the we fell into sink with mankind eating the forbidden fruit.

Genesis of course is a very special book.

But one thing it is not, is a scientific text book. It says very little about creation. The creation of earth is wrapped up in maybe 1 or 2 verses. Meanwhile we have hundreds of thousands of research papers on the earth and we are still learning and publishing more every day.

Genesis was never meant to be a book that answers all questions of the mechanisms of creation. That was never it's purpose. But young earthers seem to believe it was.