Let's be reasonable about evolution

[Yoder777]

I think the antiquity of the universe is quite obvious. Just look at night sky. Not only are there stars millions of light years away but we see the light of supernovas and other astronomic events that happened millions of years ago. It's hard to believe that God would try to deceive us through the Creation.

Furthermore, I find it personally reasonable to believe in the universal common descent of all life forms on this planet. Though there are many missing links and the notion that natural mechanisms alone are responsible for the complexity and diversity of life is unprovable, I personally believe that evolution was God's method of creation. Then again, I can understand why someone might look at the same evidence and conclude that similar structures in species is due to common design, not common descent.

If you don't believe in evolution, however, please don't label anyone who does as a false Christian, heretic, or some other bullcrap. It's really offensive and shows intolerance and ignorance on your part.

 

[verysincere]

Then again, I can understand why someone might look at the same evidence and conclude that similar structures in species is due to common design, not common descent.

Common Design and Common Descent actually look very dissimilar to anyone who has made the effort to study them. Only a very superficial comparison would allow someone to mistake Common Design for Common Descent. I often ask evolution-deniers to tell me some of the major differences between the two---and they go silent.

If you don't believe in evolution, however, please don't label anyone who does as a false Christian, heretic, or some other bullcrap. It's really offensive and shows intolerance and ignorance on your part.

Indeed, those who make such ignorant statements (e.g., "No true Christian can affirm The Theory of Evolution.") betray their ignorance of the Gospel itself and the Bible in general. But Jesus warned that there would be many who loudly claim to be his disciples and yet are tares among the wheat: "Did we not cast out demons in your name?" is answered by "Depart from me, I never knew you."

Check out the "Evolution is stupid!" thread where the author of the OP demands that those who don't agree with his interpretations of the Bible will go to hell---and those who TEACH that evolution theory is in harmony with the scriptures will receive "extra extra judgment" and he implies mind-boggling tortures await Christ-followers like me. [I guess he denies Romans 8:1.] But when his hubris is pointed out, he replied in terms of "No, you must agree with me because everything I say comes from the Bible." So apparently he speaks the very words of God.]

 

[Yoder777]

Common Design and Common Descent actually look very dissimilar to anyone who has made the effort to study them.

Please elaborate. Creationists often say that, even if humans and chimps are 98% similar in our DNA, that 2% is responsible for such a vast amount of differences between humans and chimps that natural explanations alone could not explain.

 

[verysincere]

Please elaborate. Creationists often say that, even if humans and chimps are 98% similar in our DNA, that 2% is responsible for such a vast amount of differences between humans and chimps that natural explanations alone could not explain.

Creationists say all sorts of things. But I have no idea how this relates to my statement that Common Descent and Common Design have very different characteristics. (Do you dispute the fact that they are easily distinguished?)

For example, check out the concept of nested hierarchies. They fit Common Descent but not Common Design. Once you understand the differences, the "percentage genetic differences" argument will sound silly to you. (Among many other observations: Doesn't it sound rather naive to assume that a 2%** "gross" genetic difference is all that descriptive when it is HOW those differences are distributed within the genome which would be much more meaningful? The nested trees of those differences point to Common Descent in ways which Common Design would make no sense whatsoever.)

But does it REALLY sound likely that the world's biologists all got it wrong (or are all involved in a fiendish conspiracy) while a bunch of science-illiterates---who are little more than hecklers who misuse basic terminology and ignore key concepts--- somehow know better? And if those hecklers have sound arguments, they can publish in peer-reviewed journals and shred the prevailing theories concerning those nested hierarchies. [Automobiles show lot of evidence of Common Design but NOT Common Descent. Ask yourself how automobiles from different manufacturers would have their features "organized differently" if their origins were explained by Common Descent rather than Common Design. Notice the differences now??]

I've yet to meet a young earth creationist who could articulate the obvious differences in characteristics of Common Design and Common Descent. And that's because they never bothered to investigate the topic even to a shallow look at the basics. (A very young child, perhaps 2-years-old and just learning to talk, will sometimes confuse very small dogs with cats. Because they don't yet understand the many differences between dogs and cats, they may use the word "cat" for both---as long as they see four legs, a somewhat small size, and some fur. But as they get more skilled, they realize that cats also have whiskers, ca purr loudly, have retractable, sharp claws, and behave in ways different from dogs. So a 5year old is too knowledgeable to confuse "cat" and "dog". The older child collects much more evidence and notices the differentiating characteristics between dogs and cats. The 5-year-old realizes that a small dog is NOT a cat because he/she recognizes the many critical differences between those two species. Science-illiterate young earth creationists are often analogous to the 2-year-old who doesn't understand why the adults laugh when he/she thinks that cats and small dogs look very much alike. But small children quickly learn from their mistakes while tradition-bound creationists tend to dig in further to protect their dogma and continue to IGNORE the evidence. And that helps explain why I had to leave the YEC camp despite my years of speaking/debating as a "creation science" advocate.)

** [By the way, HOW does one go about calculating percentage differences in DNA? Think about it.]

 

[verysincere]

Creationists often say that, even if humans and chimps are 98% similar in our DNA, that 2% is responsible for such a vast amount of differences between humans and chimps that natural explanations alone could not explain.

That kind of reasoning is also known as the Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacy.

 

[Coire]

if u's want 2 know what i think about this whole debate, its this:
God did indeed create the universe, do u really think it matters how He created it? no one is ever going to agree and does it not say in the bible to stay away from foolish arguments that don't build anyone up?
now im not trying to find a compromise to try to please every body, i just think it is far more important to focus on our walk with God and building each other up, not arguing about something we will probally never know for sure. God is creator, y can't we just leave it at that?

 

[verysincere]

if u's want 2 know what i think about this whole debate, its this:
God did indeed create the universe, do u really think it matters how He created it? no one is ever going to agree and does it not say in the bible to stay away from foolish arguments that don't build anyone up?
now im not trying to find a compromise to try to please every body, i just think it is far more important to focus on our walk with God and building each other up, not arguing about something we will probally never know for sure. God is creator, y can't we just leave it at that?

No. "It is to the glory of God to conceal a matter. It is to the glory of great men to search them out." Thus saith the scriptures. We are created in the Imago of God and that includes the divine "seed" in us which drives us to understand all that we can about creation. God blesses that quest, as the scripture states.

Ignorance is NOT a fruit of the Spirit. And just because some young earth creationists go about accusing the rest of us of "not being a TRUE Christian" if we disagree with them about origins does not mean we all are going to accept NOT KNOWING as a desirable state. Progress (such as the computer you are using) results when people refuse to accept the "let's stay stupid" philosophy of the know-nothings.

 

[Coire]

No. "It is to the glory of God to conceal a matter. It is to the glory of great men to search them out." Thus saith the scriptures. We are created in the Imago of God and that includes the divine "seed" in us which drives us to understand all that we can about creation. God blesses that quest, as the scripture states.

Ignorance is NOT a fruit of the Spirit. And just because some young earth creationists go about accusing the rest of us of "not being a TRUE Christian" if we disagree with them about origins does not mean we all are going to accept NOT KNOWING as a desirable state. Progress (such as the computer you are using) results when people refuse to accept the "let's stay stupid" philosophy of the know-nothings.

ok and i understand and respect that. i myself don't like to be ignorant. but wat im saying is that it is far more important to build each other up.
"Christ died for us so that, whether we are dead or alive when he returns, we can live with him forever. So encourage each other and build each other up, just as you are already doing." 1 Thessalonians 5:10-11
if the argument leads to fellow christians judging anothers salvation, then the Word of God isn't being followed is it? it is far more important that we be found building up each other and the church on the day that Christ returns. God is making aa new heaven and a new earth. once He does that it won't matter in the least how HE created the first heaver and the first earth. all this time spent fighting about the mechanics of how He created it will all be in vain very soon. It could be spent loving eachother and encouraging and winning the world to Christ. that is the most important thing.

 

[Yoder777]

That kind of reasoning is also known as the Argument from Personal Incredulity fallacy.

If you are not a reductionist, it's hard to believe that human intelligence is the result of blind nature.

A high degree of genetic similarity (as high as 99% according to some studies) between humans and chimpanzees leads evolutionary biologists to conclude the two species share a common ancestor. However, a closer look at the genomic data presents a less certain and far more complex picture. It shows significant differences between humans' and chimps' gene expression and regulation—most notably in regard to brain structure.
http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/humanchimpdnasimilarities

Though I accept common descent, the idea that blind nature alone is responsible for the vast differences in brain structure and intelligence between humans and apes is quite bogus. There is no evidence whatsoever.

 

[tansy]

We are created in the Imago of God

Sorry..had to chuckle at the above inadvertant slip ....seems to imply that God is going to change into something else! LOL

 

[verysincere]

If you are not a reductionist, it's hard to believe that human intelligence is the result of blind nature.

Though I accept common descent, the idea that blind nature alone is responsible for the vast differences in brain structure and intelligence between humans and apes is quite bogus. There is no evidence whatsoever.

The theory of evolution only addresses what science CAN address: natural processes. Whether or not one believes it is "blind" and involves a creator as well is a theological matter. (Personally, I believe in the creator described in the Bible. But that's not science, that's theology.)

Is the Law of Gravity "blind"? Newton's Laws of Motion? Germ Theory?

 

[verysincere]

Sorry..had to chuckle at the above inadvertant [sic] slip ....seems to imply that God is going to change into something else! LOL

IMAGO DEI is Latin for "image of God". It is a standard theological term.

(But I'm entirely in favor of finding chuckles wherever one can!)
.

 

[tansy]

IMAGO DEI is Latin for "image of God". It is a standard theological term.

(But I'm entirely in favor of finding chuckles wherever one can!)
.

Oops! Sorry, I was thinking of 'imago' in relation to insects! Didn't know imago in Latin meant image. Learn something new every day

 

[Yoder777]

The theory of evolution only addresses what science CAN address: natural processes. Whether or not one believes it is "blind" and involves a creator as well is a theological matter. (Personally, I believe in the creator described in the Bible. But that's not science, that's theology.)

Is the Law of Gravity "blind"? Newton's Laws of Motion? Germ Theory?

What actual evidence is there that natural mechanisms were responsible for the development of the human brain and human intelligence? While I personally believe in the common descent of all life forms on this planet, I'm also very skeptical of the naturalistic assumptions that some would like to attach to common descent.

 

[CabVet]

What actual evidence is there that natural mechanisms were responsible for the development of the human brain and human intelligence?

The fossil record and DNA evidence.

 

[Yoder777]

The fossil record and DNA evidence.

The fossil record and DNA only tell us that common descent happened. It doesn't tell us how. Again, how did human intelligence develop from natural mechanisms?

 

[Strathos]

I think the antiquity of the universe is quite obvious. Just look at night sky. Not only are there stars millions of light years away but we see the light of supernovas and other astronomic events that happened millions of years ago. It's hard to believe that God would try to deceive us through the Creation.

Furthermore, I find it personally reasonable to believe in the universal common descent of all life forms on this planet. Though there are many missing links and the notion that natural mechanisms alone are responsible for the complexity and diversity of life is unprovable, I personally believe that evolution was God's method of creation. Then again, I can understand why someone might look at the same evidence and conclude that similar structures in species is due to common design, not common descent.

If you don't believe in evolution, however, please don't label anyone who does as a false Christian, heretic, or some other bullcrap. It's really offensive and shows intolerance and ignorance on your part.

 

[Loudmouth]

Though I accept common descent, the idea that blind nature alone is responsible for the vast differences in brain structure and intelligence between humans and apes is quite bogus. There is no evidence whatsoever.

Then how do you explain the Ka/Ks ratio for coding regions vs. non-coding regions when comparing the human and chimp genomes?

How do you explain LTR divergence in orthologous ERV's shared by humans and other apes?

These are just a couple of the problems that you need to deal with. The fingerprint of random mutation and natural selection is well evidenced in our genome.

 

[Loudmouth]

The fossil record and DNA only tell us that common descent happened. It doesn't tell us how.

Genetics does tell us that random mutations and selection were active in ape lineages, including humans. Like I list in the post above, the ratio of synonymous to non-synonymous mutations is different in coding and non-coding regions which is smoking gun evidence for random mutations and natural selection. I could go on and on about genetic features and markers which irrefutably demonstrate random mutation and natural selection.

Again, how did human intelligence develop from natural mechanisms?

Through the observed mechanisms of mutation and selection.

 

[Loudmouth]

Please elaborate. Creationists often say that, even if humans and chimps are 98% similar in our DNA, that 2% is responsible for such a vast amount of differences between humans and chimps that natural explanations alone could not explain.

Why don't you show us these differences that mutations and natural selection could not produce. Show us some aligned sequence and show us how mutations could not produce those differences.