Observable evidence for evolution?

[ReesePiece23]

OCD like grip
This is because of it's connection to sin and redemption.

The grip is not so much over how something like a tree or a dog came to be but over how sin came to be and the answer for sin. I would say most if not all of us who believe in creation (and we have different views on how exactly that happened) believe you cannot separate sin from creation.

For me to deny creation, would be me denying God. That is how strong that grip is.

Well, at the risk of contradicting myself throughout this post, God created all of the prerequisite entities with such precision and dexterity that it seems almost not Him to just sort of 'block in' life forms so simplistically.

That's what I'm struggling with. God created nature itself - and nature as we know, is the most perfect example of perfection you'll ever see here on earth. It's all complexly woven but all in perfect tune. And I personally feel as if some aspects of evolution are just an ode to His brilliance. Like the build up verses to an epic chorus.

Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm just too impossibly human. I'm my warped mind creation and evolution are symbiotic.

 

[PaulCyp1]

This ridiculous farce demonstrates nothing but the ignorance of the person asking the questions.
born again Christian biologist

 

[coffee4u]

Well, at the risk of contradicting myself throughout this post, God created all of the prerequisite entities with such precision and dexterity that it seems almost not Him to just sort of 'block in' life forms so simplistically.

By block simplistically do you mean suddenly appear?
Like Genesis 1:3
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

I don't see that precision, dexterity and design cannot go hand in hand with God instantly doing something. God isn't a man that has to labour at his art.
Most miracles were instantaneous. Water became wine, the blind could see, stilling of the storm.
Mark 4
39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

That's what I'm struggling with. God created nature itself - and nature as we know, is the most perfect example of perfection you'll ever see here on earth. It's all complexly woven but all in perfect tune.

It may appear perfect but we are told it is groaning.
Romans 8
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

I see the earth as groaning and corrupted from the fall.
That what God called "very good" when he created is in no way a match for what we now see. As beautiful as it is I think the world is a mere shadow of its original glory.
God says this world will be destroyed by fire and a new earth will be in its place. I believe this new earth will closely resemble the garden of Eden.
2 Peter 3:10–13
"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

We are given hints of what it will be like.
Isaiah 11:6–9
"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play by the cobra's hole, and the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper's den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea."
It mirrors creation. It also fits together.
Creation in near perfection-fall and corruption-Jesus redeems us-New heaven and new earth back to how it originally was but non corruptible.

According to scripture death is linked to sin.
Romans 6:23
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
And that is linked to Adam
Romans 5
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

If long ages of evolution was the start of things where does man's spirit and sin come into it? If death is simply a natural by product of life why did God curse them with death?

19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.
Some will say it was only spiritual, but that curse including pain in childbirth and working the soil sounds very physical to me.

And I personally feel as if some aspects of evolution are just an ode to His brilliance. Like the build up verses to an epic chorus.

I can understand where you might feel that, but I don't believe it lines up with scripture.
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm just too impossibly human. I'm my warped mind creation and evolution are symbiotic.

But something has to be real though right? I mean we are here and we are real, so we came to be here somehow. I don't see another choice apart from special creation or evolution. (there are a few alien cults who believe aliens seeded the planet with life but then that begets the question of how and where did the aliens come from.)

To me creation fits with scripture. People will say that is our interpretation but what else do those verses mean if not what they are clearly saying. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.
May as well argue over Exodus 20:15 "Do not steal" and say it needs interpreting. If we can't read the Bible with confidence that what it clearly says it what it means then how are we going to understand deeper spiritual matters?
John 3:12
I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

I see no hint of evolution in scripture and I believe there would be if God had used it.
People who believe in evolution do not get the idea of evolution from the Bible, they get it from science. Then they say that is just our interpretation of scripture. So I say okay if this is just our interpretation show me your interpretation of scripture for an evolutionary standpoint. I am still waiting.

The fact that God came down and died for us and rose again is also a hard concept to wrap the mind around too, but we do. Obviously non Christians don't but anyone who says they are a Christian believes that.

Sorry I made that very long.

 

[GenemZ]

OK.. break time. Hypothetically, it took a half a million years for the type of stomach humans (and many animals) have to develop as we now know it. A stomach utilizing digestive juices and enzymes in the process of assimilation. Not to mention all the complexities of the digestive tract to absorb what had been digested...

The human stomach has a protective coating lining it. Its to keep the stomach from digesting of itself.

Its amazing how evolution was a prophet. For it had to be foreseeing the need for that protective coating being present first before developing the needed digestive fluid and enzymes.

For if it did not foresee the need to protect the stomach lining? Before the digested nutrients could be provided to produce this protective coating? The creature with an unevolved stomach would have been self destructive by always digesting itself.

Therefore... The protective coating's presence had to precede the digestive juices....

We must assume? The stomach with its new protective coating had to sit there maybe a million years waiting for the digestive juices to finally appear. Materialize out from a mindless process that is dependent upon happening by chance. For no intelligent designer is allowed in the game they play..

Evolution is a process that allegedly brilliant men take great pride in knowing about, and see their inferiors not being able to grasp..

Digest that for a while, please.

 

[d taylor]

Evolution is another LIE from the devil and a direct challenge to the Infallible and Perfect Word of God.

Evolution is playing of of what happened in Genesis 6 where all flesh was corrupted. I believe that is where the dinosaurs came from, if they even existed.

So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

 

[The Barbarian]

Just the same, the evolutionist will keep on rejecting Christianity

It's really hard to understand how creationists still believe that kind of garbage. Easy to debunk:
BioLogos - God's Word. God's World.

Most Christians have no problem whatever with the fact of evolution which is observable every day.

Even honest YE creationists admit that there is "very good evidence" for common descent. Would you like to see that?

 

[The Barbarian]

Its amazing how evolution was a prophet. For it had to be foreseeing the need for that protective coating being present first before developing the needed digestive fluid and enzymes.

Or as digestive fluids became stronger, selective pressure for more resistant linings increased. One of those.

So many misconceptions about evolution are as simple and easy to dispel as this one.

 

[ReesePiece23]

By block simplistically do you mean suddenly appear?
Like Genesis 1:3
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

I don't see that precision, dexterity and design cannot go hand in hand with God instantly doing something. God isn't a man that has to labour at his art.
Most miracles were instantaneous. Water became wine, the blind could see, stilling of the storm.
Mark 4
39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.



It may appear perfect but we are told it is groaning.
Romans 8
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

I see the earth as groaning and corrupted from the fall.
That what God called "very good" when he created is in no way a match for what we now see. As beautiful as it is I think the world is a mere shadow of its original glory.
God says this world will be destroyed by fire and a new earth will be in its place. I believe this new earth will closely resemble the garden of Eden.
2 Peter 3:10–13
"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

We are given hints of what it will be like.
Isaiah 11:6–9
"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play by the cobra's hole, and the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper's den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea."
It mirrors creation. It also fits together.
Creation in near perfection-fall and corruption-Jesus redeems us-New heaven and new earth back to how it originally was but non corruptible.

According to scripture death is linked to sin.
Romans 6:23
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
And that is linked to Adam
Romans 5
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

If long ages of evolution was the start of things where does man's spirit and sin come into it? If death is simply a natural by product of life why did God curse them with death?

19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.
Some will say it was only spiritual, but that curse including pain in childbirth and working the soil sounds very physical to me.



I can understand where you might feel that, but I don't believe it lines up with scripture.
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.



But something has to be real though right? I mean we are here and we are real, so we came to be here somehow. I don't see another choice apart from special creation or evolution. (there are a few alien cults who believe aliens seeded the planet with life but then that begets the question of how and where did the aliens come from.)

To me creation fits with scripture. People will say that is our interpretation but what else do those verses mean if not what they are clearly saying. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.
May as well argue over Exodus 20:15 "Do not steal" and say it needs interpreting. If we can't read the Bible with confidence that what it clearly says it what it means then how are we going to understand deeper spiritual matters?
John 3:12
I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

I see no hint of evolution in scripture and I believe there would be if God had used it.
People who believe in evolution do not get the idea of evolution from the Bible, they get it from science. Then they say that is just our interpretation of scripture. So I say okay if this is just our interpretation show me your interpretation of scripture for an evolutionary standpoint. I am still waiting.

The fact that God came down and died for us and rose again is also a hard concept to wrap the mind around too, but we do. Obviously non Christians don't but anyone who says they are a Christian believes that.

Sorry I made that very long.

Yeah, I think all of that is fair. And I'll forgive a long post for a subject this important.

And for me, one of the MOST important parts to your post was: "I don't see that precision, dexterity and design cannot go hand in hand with God instantly doing something. God isn't a man that has to labour at his art." - Because I happen to agree. Maybe in a kind of cryptic way it's what I've been thinking this entire time, but couldn't word it.

I don't know what else to say; I thank you for taking the time.

See, we're not all looking to 'win' an argument. These threads don't have to be painful, they CAN be invaluable experiences. Ultimately, the goal is to suture up my faith a little tighter each day. I don't need to appear intellectual to do that, I just need to be willing to listen.

 

[chad kincham]

But are you aware that Gould has acknowledged an abundance of transitional fossils above a species level?

Notice how Gould explicitly notes "gradualistic accounts of evolution". He isn't referring to evolution as a whole, he isn't referring to punctuated equilibrium evolution, he isn't referring to common descent etc.

Indeed, he is not actually saying that evidence of intermediates is absent (in a broad sense), as you seem to be suggesting. But rather he is explicitly referring to an absence of intermediates at and below a species level. Which is fair to say. I'm sure any paleontologist would agree.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.


I would recommend you read some of Goulds works sometime, and see what he actually has to say about the fossil succession, rather than what random creation websites suggest. In truth, Gould acknowledges and advocates and teaches about many transitional forms in books that he has written. So it really isn't honest to suggest that he believed in an overall absence of evidence for the fossil succession. Rather, he more correctly just challenges gradualism and evidence for gradualism, while simultaneously he accepts and advocates punctuated evolution and advocates for evidence in favor of this alternative mode of evolution.

He is the author of punctuated equilibrium, which is a theory refuted by empirical evidence from wildlife biologists, that isolated populations lose genetic information, which is the opposite of what’s needed for the PE hypothesis to explain away the dearth of major transitional forms.

 

[The Barbarian]

He is the author of punctuated equilibrium, which is a theory refuted by empirical evidence from wildlife biologists, that isolated populations lose genetic information,

It's a frequently-measured fact, called "founder effect." But they don't "lose" genetic information, they have less genetic information because they have fewer individuals. Over time, genetic information will increase, if the population becomes established.

which is the opposite of what’s needed for the PE hypothesis to explain away the dearth of major transitional forms.

There are many, many transitional forms. Even honest YE creationists admit this.

 

[GenemZ]

The Hebrew of Genesis 1:1-2 says absolutely nothing about any second Creation. This is complete rubbish. Evolution is thoroughly satanic

May God quote you?

 

[GenemZ]

So you did know that Gould said this, or you didn't know?

I am not even sure if you understand my position.

 

[d taylor]

The Hebrew of Genesis 1:1-2 says absolutely nothing about any second Creation. This is complete rubbish. Evolution is thoroughly satanic

Evolution fits a lie like a well tailored suit fits a person.

 

[chad kincham]

It's a frequently-measured fact, called "founder effect." But they don't "lose" genetic information, they have less genetic information because they have fewer individuals. Over time, genetic information will increase, if the population becomes established.



There are many, many transitional forms. Even honest YE creationists admit this.

But then it’s not an isolated population, so once again, the PE theory of Gould, is disproven by actual science by wildlife biology - it requires isolated populations.

 

[coffee4u]

Yeah, I think all of that is fair. And I'll forgive a long post for a subject this important.

And for me, one of the MOST important parts to your post was: "I don't see that precision, dexterity and design cannot go hand in hand with God instantly doing something. God isn't a man that has to labour at his art." - Because I happen to agree. Maybe in a kind of cryptic way it's what I've been thinking this entire time, but couldn't word it.

I don't know what else to say; I thank you for taking the time.

See, we're not all looking to 'win' an argument. These threads don't have to be painful, they CAN be invaluable experiences. Ultimately, the goal is to suture up my faith a little tighter each day. I don't need to appear intellectual to do that, I just need to be willing to listen.

Thank you for the kind reply, it's nice to have a civil conversation on here.

I know plenty don't agree with me and I don't mind people having a different belief and saying "I believe X", but being told X is proven and true as if it's as obvious as my own hand with the implication that I am an idiot gets quite annoying.

I tend to think the human race doesn't know nearly as much as it thinks it knows, especially about the creation of the earth.

 

[loveofourlord]

He is the author of punctuated equilibrium, which is a theory refuted by empirical evidence from wildlife biologists, that isolated populations lose genetic information, which is the opposite of what’s needed for the PE hypothesis to explain away the dearth of major transitional forms.

....what does genetic information even mean? Are you talking about diversity of genes? Or just genetic information vanishes, and evolution comes about by new information or information that was there becoming more important.

a simple example of PE is antibiotic resistance. you have a new pressure show up, a new antibiotic. Resistance/immunity is either already within the population, OR there is partial immunity that helps some survive, due to the pressure of the antibiotic there is a much faster evolution away from the problem. And you have a evolution of a new trait that would have died off or taken much longer to evolve happen in a shorter period of time. There is a loss of genetic information in the diversity kind, because all the genes that other bacteria that were unique to them were lost. But evolution still happens so new genes, new alleles appear over time.

 

[ReesePiece23]

Thank you for the kind reply, it's nice to have a civil conversation on here.

I know plenty don't agree with me and I don't mind people having a different belief and saying "I believe X", but being told X is proven and true as if it's as obvious as my own hand with the implication that I am an idiot gets quite annoying.

I tend to think the human race doesn't know nearly as much as it thinks it knows, especially about the creation of the earth.

You're welcome. I've actually been making more of an effort to listen in recent weeks, because these forums seem to be playing out like a John Wayne movie lately. Sure, it's fun sometimes but this is as close to a church as I'm going to get for a while (UK is STILL in lockdown) and I've still got a faith that needs watering. Plus, I've publicly voiced my concerns about the future of these forums - I really don't think that the current climate can continue for much longer. So I'm gradually trying to change it by questioning with an open mind, whilst also pitching my current view and initiating a sound discussion.

Anyway. I don't think humans do know as much as they'd like to (about anything, really). And I think that should just be appreciated. Dogs can't count to ten, spiders can't write poetry, and humans can't comprehend "where it all began" - and that's okay. In the end, wherever we end up with these debates, *I* can personally take solace in not knowing because I trust Him 100%. (If I've had a few beers though, you might get a few pretentious theories; I like to try and sound edgy and 'out there' when I've had a drink. I'll be honest.)

I'll never call someone an idiot for having an opinion and delivering it with thought and eloquence - whatever that opinion might be. But I might if someone snaps at me with egotistical bluster and excessive exclamation points. Loud dialogue tends to get my back up pretty quickly - and as it is, one or two of the members in this thread are really pushing their luck quite heavily.

But I DO like these sorts of talks, as these 'science x God' subjects are the sticky wickets on my walk. But I've got to reach an educated conclusion. Blind faith will NOT do it. I wish it did, but God deserves the very best worship from me. To get there, it needs to be a consistent drip feed.

 

[Job 33:6]

He is the author of punctuated equilibrium, which is a theory refuted by empirical evidence from wildlife biologists, that isolated populations lose genetic information, which is the opposite of what’s needed for the PE hypothesis to explain away the dearth of major transitional forms.

Ok, so you're incapable of answering my question. That's all you had to say.

The question is:

Are you aware that Gould has acknowledged an abundance of transitional fossils above a species level?

Notice how Gould explicitly notes "gradualistic accounts of evolution". He isn't referring to evolution as a whole, he isn't referring to punctuated equilibrium evolution, he isn't referring to common descent etc.

Indeed, he is not actually saying that evidence of intermediates is absent (in a broad sense), as you seem to be suggesting. But rather he is explicitly referring to an absence of intermediates at and below a species level, while simultaneously acknowledging an abundance of intermediates above a species level and otherwise. Which is fair to say. I'm sure any paleontologist would agree

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.


I would recommend you read some of Goulds works sometime, and see what he actually has to say about the fossil succession, rather than what random creation websites suggest. In truth, Gould acknowledges and advocates and teaches about many transitional forms in books that he has written. So it really isn't honest to suggest that he believed in an overall absence of evidence for the fossil succession. Rather, he more correctly just challenges gradualism and evidence for gradualism, while simultaneously he accepts and advocates punctuated evolution and advocates for evidence in favor of this alternative mode of evolution.

 

[d taylor]

and which Bible tells you this?

Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that God created a universe/outer space. Where the sun, moon, stars, are located thousand and millions of miles away. Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that God created planets. Only heaven, earth, the sun, moon and stars (host of heaven) is stated as being Gods creation. The sun, moon and stars are located above the stationary earth in the raqia (dome) between two bodies of water that the raqia (dome) separated and is still separating, the oceans and a body of water above the raqia (dome).

Try reading Genesis 1 and when you do, show me in Genesis 1 where God creates planets also show me where in the Bible it states God created a universe.

Now do not show me where in the Bible it says God created heaven and earth, because that is not the same as sciences created universe (a lie).

Since this is not directly concerning evolution i will not reply back again to you about this.

 

[In-Christ-Alone]

Try reading Genesis 1 and when you do, show me in Genesis 1 where God creates planets also show me where in the Bible it states God created a universe.

Now do not show me where in the Bible it says God created heaven and earth, because that is not the same as sciences created universe (a lie).

Since this is not directly concerning evolution i will not reply back again to you about this.

firstly, Genesis 1:1 has the Hebrew "shâmayim" in the plural, "heavens", and the "earth", which includes all things seen and unseen. The term "universe" means just that, God Creating everything that it out there! Not just "universe", but the plural "universes", regardless of the numbers, God Created them ALL!

Are you denying that the God of the Bible Created ALL things? Read Colossians 1:16, "For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through Him and for Him". Where the "τὰ πάντα" means "in an absolute sense, all things collectively, the totality of created things, the universe of things" (J H Thayer Greek lexicon).