Interesting....

[TwinCrier]

I'm not certain exactly what this is leading to. Is the assumption that the Holy Spirit had no influence on Darwin's work?

That is my assumption. Are you suggesting that Darwin was motivated by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Gold Dragon]

However, it seems to me that it is dangerous to continue on the assumption that evolutionary theory is valid without acknowledging the fact that according to evolutionary theory evolution could not have happened. As I said in another post, evolution works at the population level. It requires a large population. (This is not an abiogenesis question).

I thought I was able to explain this to you last time but I guess not.

I'm not sure why you think that requiring a large population somehow makes evoluationary theory invalid. Evolutionary theory does not deny that it works on the population level and requires populations. Populations happen when individuals reproduce.

Where is the conflict?


It may be that your definition of evolution is in conflict with the requirement of populations. However, the one that scientists and TEs use is not in conflict with this fact. Here is a defintion from PBS that may help clear things up.

PBS : Evolution FAQ - The Basics

1. What is evolution?

Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms' genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations. Sometimes, individuals inherit new characteristics that give them a survival and reproductive advantage in their local environments; these characteristics tend to increase in frequency in the population, while those that are disadvantageous decrease in frequency. This process of differential survival and reproduction is known as natural selection. Non-genetic changes that occur during an organism's life span, such as increases in muscle mass due to exercise and diet, cannot be passed on to the next generation and are not examples of evolution.

 

[artybloke]

Are you suggesting that Darwin was motivated by the Holy Spirit?

Yes. All knowledge is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Darwin and evolutionary theory doesn't give insights on how to interpret God's word while the Holy Spirit does.

Newton's Theory of Gravity doesn't give insights into how to interpret God's word either. It does, however, give insights into how to interpret God's world.

 

[statrei]

I thought I was able to explain this to you last time but I guess not.

I'm not sure why you think that requiring a large population somehow makes evoluationary theory invalid. Evolutionary theory does not deny that it works on the population level and requires populations. Populations happen when individuals reproduce.

Where is the conflict?

If the individuals have been able to successfully exist and become a population without the aid of evolution why is it that when they become a sufficiently large population that evolution would suddenly be necessary to determine whether they would survive?

 

[Gold Dragon]

If the individuals have been able to successfully exist and become a population without the aid of evolution why is it that when they become a sufficiently large population that evolution would suddenly be necessary to determine whether they would survive?

I think I see your misconception. Evolution is not a theory about what is necessary to survive. It is a theory about changes in populations that survive to the next generation.

Survival is not necessarily dependent on those changes although sometimes it is if changes in the environment become quickly fatal to those individuals without a specific trait. But the changes that dominate and survive to the next generation are the ones that evolve.

I think you have a causation fallacy in your definition of evolution.

Does this clarify things?

 

[Gold Dragon]

If the individuals have been able to successfully exist and become a population without the aid of evolution why is it that when they become a sufficiently large population that evolution would suddenly be necessary to determine whether they would survive?

I think your misunderstanding comes from the common faulty understanding that evolution is "survival of the fittest".

Here is a response on that PBS FAQ that should help clarify this common misunderstanding.

PBS : Evolution FAQ - The Basics

8. Are evolution and "survival of the fittest" the same thing?

Evolution and "survival of the fittest" are not the same thing. Evolution refers to the cumulative changes in a population or species through time. "Survival of the fittest" is a popular term that refers to the process of natural selection, a mechanism that drives evolutionary change. Natural selection works by giving individuals who are better adapted to a given set of environmental conditions an advantage over those that are not as well adapted. Survival of the fittest usually makes one think of the biggest, strongest, or smartest individuals being the winners, but in a biological sense, evolutionary fitness refers to the ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment. Popular interpretations of "survival of the fittest" typically ignore the importance of both reproduction and cooperation. To survive but not pass on one's genes to the next generation is to be biologically unfit. And many organisms are the "fittest" because they cooperate with other organisms, rather than competing with them.

9. How does natural selection work?

In the process of natural selection, individuals in a population who are well-adapted to a particular set of environmental conditions have an advantage over those who are not so well adapted. The advantage comes in the form of survival and reproductive success. For example, those individuals who are better able to find and use a food resource will, on average, live longer and produce more offspring than those who are less successful at finding food. Inherited traits that increase individuals' fitness are then passed to their offspring, thus giving the offspring the same advantages.

 

[statrei]

Gold Dragon, my problem is that during reproduction, which you admit is what transforms the individual into a population, genes are passed on. This, based on what you have told me, occurs without the action of evolution. Of course, we have the task of determining how large a population is necessary before evolution is thought to begin operation. To me, hese are fundamental questions that must first be answered before attempting to interpret reality with the parameters of the theory.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Gold Dragon, my problem is that during reproduction, which you admit is what transforms the individual into a population, genes are passed on. This, based on what you have told me, occurs without the action of evolution. Of course, we have the task of determining how large a population is necessary before evolution is thought to begin operation. To me, hese are fundamental questions that must first be answered before attempting to interpret reality with the parameters of the theory.

These are good questions and they are easily answered with a basic correct understanding of evolution and populations.

Another misconception here:

There is no set population size where evolution starts happening. Evolution describes what happens to populations. A population could be a population of one, although since that population would die in the lifespan of that one individual, the evolutionary story of that population would be very unexciting.

Evolution is still happening to the population, not the individuals. It just so happens that population is one and no changes get passed to the next generation of the population since there is no next generation. So the evolutionary change in that population is zero.

So I guess I was a little misleading when I said that populations happen via reproduction. A technically more accurate statement would have been populations of evolutionary interest happen via reproduction of individuals. Sorry.

 

[statrei]

There is no set population size where evolution starts happening. Evolution describes what happens to populations. A population could be a population of one, although since that population would die in the lifespan of that one individual, the evolutionary story of that population would be very unexciting.

Based on this I, on the other hand, conclude that there is no evolutionary process of the macro type postulated popularly.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Based on this I, on the other hand, conclude that there is no evolutionary process of the macro type postulated popularly.

Then that would be a faulty conclusion. You must still have some really strong misunderstanding of what evolution is because the fact that evolution is a population characteristic is not normally used by antagonists of evolution who have a correct understanding of evolution to discredit it. Your arguments aren't very well articulated.

Based on what? That a population of one would die with no evolutionary changes? How does that impact macroevolution?

 

[herev]

taking out the trash

 

[herev]

OK, I've removed a series of posts with baiting and flaming and then those that quoted or referenced those. Let's try again. This time there were zero warning on either side

 

[Gold Dragon]

OK, I've removed a series of posts with baiting and flaming and then those that quoted or referenced those. Let's try again. This time there were zero warning on either side

Thanks herev. Flaming from both TEs and YECs are counterproductive to the sharing of knowledge and understanding as well as the building up of unity among Christians in this forum.

 

[gluadys]

There is no set population size where evolution starts happening. Evolution describes what happens to populations. A population could be a population of one, although since that population would die in the lifespan of that one individual, the evolutionary story of that population would be very unexciting.

Evolution is still happening to the population, not the individuals. It just so happens that population is one and no changes get passed to the next generation of the population since there is no next generation. So the evolutionary change in that population is zero.

Actually you are forgetting that if the population of one is a bacterium which reproduces by asexual fission, it can quickly become a larger population. Furthermore if a mutation occurred in that first reproduction event, you would already have the two daughter cells varying, so there could be a difference in their success in reproducing---hence, evolution.

So there can be a next generation and evolution, even with a beginning population of one.

 

[TwinCrier]

So are mutating and evolution the same process?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So are mutating and evolution the same process?

No. Evolution requires mutation, but it only progresses by natural selection pressures acting on the genetic diversity that mutation creates.

 

[statrei]

Actually you are forgetting that if the population of one is a bacterium which reproduces by asexual fission, it can quickly become a larger population. Furthermore if a mutation occurred in that first reproduction event, you would already have the two daughter cells varying, so there could be a difference in their success in reproducing---hence, evolution.

So there can be a next generation and evolution, even with a beginning population of one.

Yet, all this does is demonstrate how the theory of evolution can fit into the present reality. It does not show that evolution is the ONLY plausible explanation. Which brings us to one of our biggest problems, that of explaining within the theory of evolution how man would come up with another explanation for origins.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Actually you are forgetting that if the population of one is a bacterium which reproduces by asexual fission, it can quickly become a larger population. Furthermore if a mutation occurred in that first reproduction event, you would already have the two daughter cells varying, so there could be a difference in their success in reproducing---hence, evolution.

So there can be a next generation and evolution, even with a beginning population of one.

Excellent point. Thanks for reminding me gluadys. I guess it is easy to get stuck on simply looking at sexual reproduction.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Yet, all this does is demonstrate how the theory of evolution can fit into the present reality. It does not show that evolution is the ONLY plausible explanation. Which brings us to one of our biggest problems, that of explaining within the theory of evolution how man would come up with another explanation for origins.

Honest scientists are much more careful with words and wouldn't say that "evolution is the ONLY plausible explanation for origins". Instead, they would acknowledge the presence of many competing "theories" of evolution which are all based on the basic observable "facts" of genetic shifting and natural selection. They would describe this family of theories as continually changing when new evidence comes to light (sometimes dramatic changes) to be the theories best supported by the scientific evidence available to us at any given point in time.

 

[statrei]

Honest scientists are much more careful with words and wouldn't say that "evolution is the ONLY plausible explanation for origins". Instead, they would acknowledge the presence of many competing "theories" of evolution which are all based on the basic observable "facts" of genetic shifting and natural selection. They would describe this family of theories as continually changing when new evidence comes to light (sometimes dramatic changes) to be the theories best supported by the scientific evidence available to us at any given point in time.

Hold on. What is the difference? Accepting that there is diversity in the field of evolution still is reduced to the claim that "evolution is the ONLY plausible explanation for origins".