Macro Evolution in the present is not a problem for YEC

[Calminian]

Still reeling from the title?

I don't know if many realize this, but YEC and special creation would be unscathed if a macro-type evolution (the increasing of information over time) were observed and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. You see the issue is not about current observable processes, but starting points.

Was the beginning a series of natural events, or a miracle?

Could God have created multiple original creatures all with the built in ability to develop new information and change into other kinds of creatures over time? (according to our definition of kinds)

Proof of evolution in creatures in the present, says nothing about their origins. Now don't get me wrong, I don't believe this type of evolution exists, but it really doesn't harm the idea of a miraculous starting point. God could have created the original creatures with the ability to only make changes within a species (from loss of information). And God could have created the original creatures with the ability to make changes far beyond that. From a theological young earth standpoint, it really doesn't matter.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

What you're describing would either be theistic evolution or deism. But not creationism - especially not young earth.

 

[miamited]

Hi calminian,

Ok I'll allow all the macroevolution you can bring to the table that you believe has occurred in 6,000 years.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Calminian]

Hi calminian,

Ok I'll allow all the macroevolution you can bring to the table that you believe has occurred in 6,000 years.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

As I said, to don't believe any has occurred nor ever will. I'm merely saying that if it were proven in the present, it doesn't mean there wasn't special creation in the past a short time ago. The doesn't always explain the past, especially when dealing with a God of miracles.

It's a hard concept for many to grasp as this debate so revolves around science and the scientific method. But it's not a scientific debate in its essence. It's a philosophical debate between theism and deism/atheism. Was creation a special event, or a random even?

My point is simply this. If there were a breakthrough experiment or observation in which macro evolution were proven, it would have no bearing on young earth creation.

 

[miamited]

Hi calminian,

Ok, I guess I did misunderstand your inference. My point was that according to generally accepted evolutionary theory these changes that produced different 'new' creatures occured over hundreds of thousands of years and there just hasn't been enough time for changes, such as espoused by evolutionary theory within the framework of the Scriptural creation account.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Calminian]

Hi calminian,

Ok, I guess I did misunderstand your inference. My point was that according to generally accepted evolutionary theory these changes that produced different 'new' creatures occured over hundreds of thousands of years and there just hasn't been enough time for changes, such as espoused by evolutionary theory within the framework of the Scriptural creation account.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

It's good to be understood!

My overriding point that an event in the present doesn't necessarily shed light on an event in the past. I.e. evolution in the present doesn't automatically mean millions of years. That conclusion will entirely depend on one's starting point. Did God make a single evolutionary ancestor a long time ago. Or did God many numerous evolutionary ancestors a short time ago?

Prove of macro evolution would do little to harm YEC. Conversely, proof against macro evolution would completely preclude a TE conclusion.

 

[gluadys]

Hi calminian,

Ok, I guess I did misunderstand your inference. My point was that according to generally accepted evolutionary theory these changes that produced different 'new' creatures occured over hundreds of thousands of years and there just hasn't been enough time for changes, such as espoused by evolutionary theory within the framework of the Scriptural creation account.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

This also represents another confusion. It does take time (assuming no miraculous intervention) to produce major changes in an evolving lineage.

But producing major changes over a long time is not what macroevolution is.

That is rather a consequence of macroevolution.

The only macroevolutionary event/process is speciation: dividing a single species into two or more groups which no longer interbreed with each other.

That doesn't require a major change in either new group at all. Major differences between the two groups may develop later---after they have been separated---because they are now accumulating a different set of changes. But it can be a slow buildup of differences.

But macroevolution is deemed in science to be the initial event/process--the one that creates the dividing line between the groups--not the end consequence of becoming more and more different from each other.

Speciation itself doesn't usually happen overnight. It can take many generations for dividing populations to become decisively separate species. But separate species need not be significantly different from each other. Even if it takes an expert with a magnifying glass to tell one species of lily from another, if they have become reproductively isolated, that is macroevolution.

On that basis, macroevolution is certainly compatible with YEC and has been observed to occur many times.

What you and Calminian are referring to as incompatible with YEC is a long historical sequence involving a series of many speciations and long periods of gradual differentiating change (aka phenetic change). That is more properly referred to as common descent or phylogenetic history. Calminian is correct to say YEC allows for macroevolution (if one understands that term properly), but YEC does not allow for an extended phylogenetic history in which continual phenetic change and multiple speciations give rise to significant morphological change and biodiversity over time.

 

[Calminian]

With all due respect, gluadys, I think you misunderstood my point, along similar lines ted did earlier.

 

[miamited]

Hi glaudys,

How long does it take for the macroevolutionary changes that you explain to take? Are there some going on today that we can look at, without the aid of man's intervention?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[gluadys]

Hi glaudys,

How long does it take for the macroevolutionary changes that you explain to take? Are there some going on today that we can look at, without the aid of man's intervention?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

As to how long it takes, it depends on the situation. The proliferation of dozens of new chiclid fish species in the lakes of Africa took quite a short time.

Ring species are examples of how speciation can occur bit by bit as populations become more distant from each other.

The species of mosquito found in the London UK subway system differentiated from its wild above-ground parent since the subway was built--in a matter of a few decades. Today, differentiation has proceeded to the point that different varieties of the underground species are found along different subway lines.

Another speciation which seems to be happening before our eyes is the evolution of the apple codling moth; originally a variant of the hawthorne coddling moth, it has adapted to its new host by changing somewhat its time of reproduction meaning it is now out of phase with its parental species. So even if a moth from a hawthorne lands on an apple tree, it is unlikely to find a female ready for it (or accepting of it) on the apple tree. So the two groups seem likely to go their separate ways.

These are all events occurring in nature without the special conditions of a laboratory. There are a number of others, like a flower in the Andes which has two forms of different colour. When hybrids are produced, they don't do as well as either parent, so it is likely only a matter of time before the two types of plant differ in more than the colour of their petals and can no longer produce hybrids.

You might see what you can find by checking for examples of present-day speciation and incipient speciation.

The important point is that each of these (and every speciation) is defined scientifically as macroevolution. The important feature of macroevolution is raising barriers that prevent the mingling of gene pools. Divergence of character on a large scale is seen as a long-term consequence of this.

Since both groups will continue to experience mutational change and natural selection---but no longer be able to share these with each other---the effect over time will be to increase the differences between them.

 

[gluadys]

With all due respect, gluadys, I think you misunderstood my point, along similar lines ted did earlier.

Perhaps. I took your point to be that if macroevolution (however defined) is proved to occur in the present that is no threat to YEC.

But I am suggesting a different (and more scientific) definition of macroevolution than I think you are using. By that definition, macroevolution certainly occurs in the present.

But if you define macroevolution by different criteria, it may be the case it is not seen in the present.

 

[Greg1234]

Hi glaudys,

How long does it take for the macroevolutionary changes that you explain to take? Are there some going on today that we can look at, without the aid of man's intervention?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Well it turns out that the mechanism responsible for adaptation is intelligent (ex. 01/07/30 - ICBP 2000, Darwin's God: Flax: More Falsifications of Evolution and the Real Warfare Thesis) so it wouldn't take too long to explore the capabilities (a couple months to a year is sufficient).

 

[shernren]

... but YEC and special creation would be unscathed if a macro-type evolution (the increasing of information over time) were observed and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I'm going to ask the same question I keep asking creationists every time I hear the word "information":

Just what do you mean by information?

Is it being defined by some information-theoretic measure? (Most theories - Shannon theory in particular - would consider a random sequence to have more information than an ordered one, because it is harder to transmit.)

Is it being defined by the length of the genome? (Some salamanders and pufferfish have genomes whose length is many multiples of ours.)

Is it being defined by the novelty of features or the number of novel features? (By that definition, just about any mutation good or bad increases information.)

Is it being defined by the number of novel beneficial features? (But that doesn't jive with our usual definitions of information, which tends to be ethically neutral: a birth certificate is information and a death certificate is also information.)

Is it simply not quantifiable? (In which case, how can you ever be convinced that something you can't count in any way can increase or can never increase?)

Let's fix that definition up first of all. Because, really, evolution has precious little to do with the increase of information, at least the way creationists often understand it.

 

[shernren]

Anyway, I'm sure you would agree with me that YECism would be irreparably damaged if it could be shown (to whatever degree of certainty you would choose) that evidence can be favorably interpreted to support a theory in which, say, fish and reptiles had a common ancestor. Not destroyed, because there would still be the presuppositionalist move, but damaged all the same.

 

[gluadys]

Well it turns out that the mechanism responsible for adaptation is intelligent (ex. 01/07/30 - ICBP 2000, Darwin's God: Flax: More Falsifications of Evolution and the Real Warfare Thesis) so it wouldn't take too long to explore the capabilities (a couple months to a year is sufficient).

Cited from link above:

The headline says it all: “Environs Prompt Advantageous Gene Mutations as Plants Grow; Changes Passed to Progeny.” It could also have read: “Lamarck Was Correct, Evolution is False.”​

No, that could not be the headline, for if Lamarck was correct, evolution is still True. After all, Lamarckism is also a theory of evolution. It still proposes species change and common ancestry.

This is a horrendous but all too common example of an anti-evolutionary publication distorting some exciting new discoveries about how evolution happens within a species and really has nothing to do with macroevolution.

 

[duordi]

There is a bigger problem than just a time differential. The Bible creation story and evolution are opposites.
According to the Bible life was created perfect but due to Adams sin “de-evolution” is occurring.

Adams curse for disobeying God is that the plants will “grow thorns”. This means that life will change into something that will hurt mankind. (This is a bad thing.)

Evolution predicts that random chance and survival of the fittest will improve life.

The Bible predicts that random chance and survival of the fittest will turn life into something from a horror movie.

“Variation of the species” will eventually cause our destruction instead of being a way to evolve into Gods.

Proving “variation of the species” exists is only proving the curse predicted by God exists.

The sad thing is that we have thrown out so many of the Bible meanings to eliminate disagreements with evolution that we can’t tell a curse from a blessing anymore.

Remember this:
We are a sinful race and God is our only chance.

“Survival of the fittest” is a curse, a god without mercy, evil, hideous and ruthless.

I pity the individuals who have faith in Evolution for it promises only death.

Duordi

 

[gluadys]

There is a bigger problem than just a time differential. The Bible creation story and evolution are opposites.

Only if you choose to misinterpret both the bible and the theory of evolution.

According to the Bible life was created perfect but due to Adams sin “de-evolution” is occurring.

Let's start here. Scripture says nothing about life being created "perfect" whatever that means. It does say that God found his creation to be "good" and "very good". Perhaps, to you, it's not very good unless it is perfect. But scripture doesn't tell us that God has the same standards as you.

There is no such thing as de-evolution. Some creatures, in their evolution, become more complex. Some creatures, in their evolution, become less complex. Neither is de-evolution. both are evolution (meaning the species changed over time.)

Adams curse for disobeying God is that the plants will “grow thorns”. This means that life will change into something that will hurt mankind. (This is a bad thing.)

You are adding in a personal interpretation of the text. And the text doesn't say plants will grow thorns, but that thorns and thistles will grow in the fields when Adam is trying to cultivate grain and vegetables. It doesn't even say the thorns will hurt Adam; though it does imply that it will make his work harder and sometimes unproductive (which is a different kind of hurt).

This hardly means that life has changed to hurt humans. In fact, plants continue to provide us with all the oxygen we need to breathe, most of our nutrition, fabric for clothing, building material for our homes and furniture and the vast majority of our medicines. Not to mention shade and beauty and calmness.

Evolution predicts that random chance and survival of the fittest will improve life.

No, it doesn't. What it predicts is that via natural selection---which is not random--species will become better adapted to their habitat.

The Bible predicts that random chance and survival of the fittest will turn life into something from a horror movie.

Citation?

“Variation of the species” will eventually cause our destruction instead of being a way to evolve into Gods.

In a dynamic, changing world, as the earth is, variation of the species is essential to survival of the species. Variation is of the species is God's gift to life so that it can continue to live as habitats change. It is the species which cannot change, or change as swiftly as a changing climate or ecology, that become extinct.

Proving “variation of the species” exists is only proving the curse predicted by God exists.

The sad thing is that we have thrown out so many of the Bible meanings to eliminate disagreements with evolution that we can’t tell a curse from a blessing anymore.

I don't think you have made the case that evolution is a curse. In large part because you have misread what evolution is.

Remember this:
We are a sinful race and God is our only chance.

One thing we can agree on.

“Survival of the fittest” is a curse, a god without mercy, evil, hideous and ruthless.

Perhaps you are interpreting "survival of the fittest" as "survival of the bullies". But this is not what "fittest" means. In fact, the more we learn of what makes a species "fit" the more evidence we find that cooperation and working together, even sacrificially, are very important to fitness for survival.

I pity the individuals who have faith in Evolution for it promises only death.

People who understand evolution don't have faith in it. Evolution is a fact of nature and the theory of evolution is an explanation of how this phenomenon occurs. There is no more point to having faith in evolution than in having faith in a plumber's manual.

Evolution is not a theology, not a religion, and makes no promises.

 

[Assyrian]

There is a bigger problem than just a time differential. The Bible creation story and evolution are opposites.
According to the Bible life was created perfect but due to Adams sin “de-evolution” is occurring.

Adams curse for disobeying God is that the plants will “grow thorns”. This means that life will change into something that will hurt mankind. (This is a bad thing.)

Actually it says the ground would produce thistles and thorns for Adam when he farmed it, not that plants would grow thorns. Gen 3:17 cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.

 

[duordi]

Let's start here. Scripture says nothing about life being created "perfect" whatever that means. It does say that God found his creation to be "good" and "very good". Perhaps, to you, it's not very good unless it is perfect. But scripture doesn't tell us that God has the same standards as you.

There was no death.
We did not grow old.
Man and nature lived in harmony.
The animals did not eat each other, or people.
No disease.
No genetic malfunction
No starvation.
God himself was walking around in the Garden.

This is my definition of perfect, what’s yours?

There is no such thing as de-evolution. Some creatures, in their evolution, become more complex. Some creatures, in their evolution, become less complex. Neither is de-evolution. both are evolution (meaning the species changed over time.)

Evolution (Noun) : A process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state.

What would you call going from a higher more complex or better state to a lower simpler or worse state?
Anti-Evolution, Un-Evolution, De-Evolution?

You are adding in a personal interpretation of the text. And the text doesn't say plants will grow thorns, but that thorns and thistles will grow in the fields when Adam is trying to cultivate grain and vegetables. It doesn't even say the thorns will hurt Adam; though it does imply that it will make his work harder and sometimes unproductive (which is a different kind of hurt).

This hardly means that life has changed to hurt humans. In fact, plants continue to provide us with all the oxygen we need to breathe, most of our nutrition, fabric for clothing, building material for our homes and furniture and the vast majority of our medicines. Not to mention shade and beauty and calmness.

Genesis 3
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

This is not an “everything is improving” theme.


Are you really going to try to make the point that the plants had thorns before Adam sinned?

You may consider the Bible non-literal but when you say a curse is a blessing you have something upside down.


This is not just a minor interpretation difference.
You are changing the meaning of the Bible to make it the opposite of what was intended literal or non-literal.


This is not a question of how long it took but which way it is going.

Evolution predicts that random chance and survival of the fittest will improve life.

No, it doesn't. What it predicts is that via natural selection---which is not random--species will become better adapted to their habitat.

Better adapted to their habitat means the stronger will eat the weaker.
This is not good but a curse.

No animal larger than a single cell will survive in a survival of the fittest contest. A single celled animal will change to quickly and we will lose the war.

This is the future we have if God does not intervene.

By your though process we really don’t need God at all, just time and Chance.

The Bible predicts that random chance and survival of the fittest will turn life into something from a horror movie.

Citation?

Gen 3
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

[/quote]

Welcome to the land of the living dead.
The gate-way to hell. A path the majority will take.
We all have a sickness called old age.
What part will go first the body or the mind?

In a dynamic, changing world, as the earth is, variation of the species is essential to survival of the species. Variation is of the species is God's gift to life so that it can continue to live as habitats change. It is the species which cannot change, or change as swiftly as a changing climate or ecology, that become extinct.

It is the species that is kind gentle and tolerant which will be extinct.
To survive we must be the opposite.
Do you see where evolution takes us?

Every change will take us farther from the Garden of Eden.
There is nothing good about the degeneration of life called evolution.

I don't think you have made the case that evolution is a curse. In large part because you have misread what evolution is.

I will not be able to make the case in your judgement because of the strength of your faith in evolution. Your view of the direction things are going is so different from what the Bible indicates that you can’t accept any other possibility.

It has taken a long time to get where you are. If you do change your thinking it will likley take a long time.

I will wait.

Perhaps you are interpreting "survival of the fittest" as "survival of the bullies". But this is not what "fittest" means. In fact, the more we learn of what makes a species "fit" the more evidence we find that cooperation and working together, even sacrificially, are very important to fitness for survival.

You are wrong. Everything was made and can be made again by God. Earth will end well because God will intervene. When the elect enter heaven it will not be because evolution makes things better but because God will prevent the curse of evolution from reaching its conclusion.

People who understand evolution don't have faith in it. Evolution is a fact of nature and the theory of evolution is an explanation of how this phenomenon occurs. There is no more point to having faith in evolution than in having faith in a plumber's manual.

If you believe evolution causes improvement without scientific demonstration you do so by faith and because you choose to believe it.

Evolution is not a theology, not a religion, and makes no promises.

Evolution defines death and killing as morally correct and necessary (theology). (This is evil and a lie)

Evolutions followers believe without proof and rejects all other beliefs. (Religion). (Read the first commandment)

Evolution promises your decedents will benefit from your death and suffering. (Promise) (This is the lie that satan told eve. Eat this and you will improve. Did she?)

Consider how evolution has changed your perspective on the purpose and direction of life.
Christians will always be in the minority for “narrow is the road to salvation and few will find it.”



Consider that if you follow the masses you are doomed.
Just a thought.


duordi

 

[duordi]

Are you saying that the thistles and thorns are not plants?

Duordi