Theistic Evolution Being Compatible With Christianity

[YinandYang]

Let me begin by saying that I am a believer in Catholic theology, and thus believe in the infallable teachings of the Magesterium of the Catholic Church, which are based upon the two sources of the original deposit of divine public revelation, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

That being said, the Catholic Church's teaching on the origins of human life is that both Creationism (a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis) and Theistic Evolution (a belief in both God and Evolution) are possible truths. Thus, individual Catholics are allowed to hold either view, so long as their belief falls within the boundaries of official Catholic teachings with regards to original sin being transmitted to all of humanity from our original parents, Adam and Eve, that every individual's soul is created directly and immediately by God and not through the transformation of matter etc.

I, myself, have extensively pondered the question of whether or not Creationism or Theistic Evolution is more lkely to be correct with regards to explaining the origins of human life. For much of my Christian life I tended to play it safe and be more in favor of Creationism, in order for my religious views to not be overwhelmed and abandoned by new scientific evidence. However, after thinking about the matter in greater detail, I have finally decided to personally support Theistic Evolution.

The reason for my personal opinion having changed on the mater is actually quite simple. I have come to the conclusion that Evolution is actually not contrary to Catholicism, and thus can be a view held by Christians without contradicting our faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (so long as one, obviously, holds onto the view of Theistic Evolution and not Atheistic Evolution).

Let me add that I am someone who puts my Catholic faith above everything, even scientific evidence, especially if it seems that there is a conflict with the Fullness of Truth found within the Catholic Church.

Also, I do not believe that true science and the Catholic faith can ever be in disagreement with each other.

In the words of Saint Thomas Aquinas, "truth can never contradict truth".

I also do not feel that science should ever be viewed as being on the same infallable authoritative level as Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the infallable teachings of the Magesterium of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church teaches us that we need to have both Faith and Reason, but that Faith always come first, something which I am in full agreement with.

That being said, the main reason why I have decided to finally throw my support behind Theistic Evolution is due to the following. I have always fully supported the notion of Microevolution. We can see evidence of Microevolution in the different skin colorations found within the human race today. Thus if we truly believe that Adam and Eve are the original ancestors of all of humanity, we must accept the notion of Microevolution being correct. Also, we can see countless other examples of Microevolution in nature.

Macroevolution has always been the key point of contention between certain Christians and the scientific community.

However Microevolution, given enough time, would have to result in Macroevolution taking place. There really doesn't seem to be any scientific explanation as to why Microevolution would ever stop before it reached a level of Macroevolution. This has lead to my acceptance of Macroevolution being the best possible scientific explanation as to the origins of human life.

I realize that there are many fellow Christians, especially those found within the realm of conservative fundamentalist Protestantism, who object to Theistic Evolution being compatible with Christianity. This is actually the main reason why I have started this thread. I wish to ask those who are against Evolution (and support Creationism) to put forth their arguments and evidence (both theological and scientific) so that I can extensively review and study them in order to make sure that I am not contradicting my Christian faith by being a proponent of Theistic Evolution.

I would also request the assistance of those who support Theistic Evolution to add to the discussion at hand their arguments and evidence (both theological and scientific) which they feel support their beliefs.

I would ask that everyone act according to the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ to treat others as you would wish to be treated.

Let me also add a few comments which I feel are relevant to the discussion at hand.

First let us begin by looking at some statements from the greatest theologian who has ever graced us with his insight and wisdom, Saint Augustine:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
– De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [408​

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.
– De Genesi ad literam, 2:9

Whether or not one supports Creationims does not affect one's salvation in the least, whether from a Catholic or Protestant perspective. Thus, if Creationism is actually correct, God will simply correct us, when we die and go to heaven, by explaining why Theistic Evolution is incorrect. However, we will not be sent to hell due to our own individual support of either Creationism or Theistic Evolution.

Also, I do not feel that believing in Theistic Evolution is an attack on the legitamacy and infallability of Sacred Scripture, when looked at from the Fullness of Truth of the Catholic faith. Supporting Evolution does lead one to havng to admit to a figurative interpretation of the book of Genesis being correct, but we all know that the entirety of Sacred Scripture is not meant to be literal. For example, there is much in the way of symbolism with regards to the book of Revelation.

Also, the Old Testament Itself contains matters which are imperfect and provisional. Thus Sacred Scripture is only infallable in matters pertaining to our own salvation, that is to say in matters pertaining to faith and morals. The Bible is not infallable in matters of science and history.

Let me quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Old Testament

121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

122 Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately SO oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men."93 "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,94 The books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God's saving love: these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way."95

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. the Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).

92 Cf. DV 14.
93 DV 15.
94 DV 15.
95 DV 15.

So we can see that believing in Theistic Evolution actually does not affect the infallability of Sacred Scripture in anyway. The possibility of both literal and figurative interpretations being correct with regards to Sacred Scripture supports, in general, the necessity of the infallable teachings of the Magesterium of the Catholic Church.

Also, the fact that the book of Genesis mentions creation taking place over the course of six days, with God having rested on the seventh day, does not, necessarily, contradict the idea of Evolution being correct.

Let us take a look at another relevant section of Sacred Scripture:

2 Peter 3:8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day.

The greek word used in the verse above for day is hemera,the hebrew word being yowm. The same hebrew word, yowm, is used for each of the days mentioned in the book of Genesis pertaining to creation. Thus we can see that God views time from a different perspective then we human beings do, as His creation. This shows us the possibility of a figurative interpretation of the book of Genesis being a plausible possibility.

Also, I feel that by supporting evolution, we as Christians can remove yet another barrier from private Christian schools being allowed to flourish in our culture today. We would be able to educate more and more children and young adults on Christian theology and truth, all the while teaching them the latest in scientific evidence and belief.

Of course this last point can never be the primary driving force behind such an acceptance of proposed scientific truth if that truth contradicts the One who is truth Itself, our Lord Jesus Christ, or His infallable teachings which come to us from the Magesterium of the Catholic Church.

However, I have come to an understanding that there does seem to be adequate explanation as to how both Theistic Evolution and Christianity can be compatible and true.

That being said, I do wish to examine this notion in greater detail, and therefore am asking assistance from my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ in order to do so. I realize that there have been many threads on this issue in the past. My hope here is to be able to put forth my own thoughts on the questions and evidence proposed by others and then get more feedback on said thoughts in order to further my own theological and scientific understanding of this important issue.

Thank you, in advance, for your evidence, comments, and assistance.

May God bless you and Mary keep you in her prayers always.

YinandYang

 

[Dark_Lite]

Creationism is a valid theological opinion within the Church.

Unfortunately, it's not a valid opinion in reality.

 

[granpa]

YinandYang:

If you have a specific question I will try to offer you my advice.

 

[Jpark]

I think it's best to keep it simple.

1. It's clear that evolution happens in the world. Whether micro or macro, the evidence for it is there.

2. Scripture indicates that God initiates all natural phenomena.

Job 37:13 "Whether for correction, or for His world,
Or for lovingkindness, He causes it to happen.

3. Gen. 1:26-27 (apparently) does not allow for evolution in humans. Gen. 1:2, Col. 1:16, Ps. 33:6, and Job 33:4 do not allow for evolution to have involvement in creation. Gen. 1:30 (apparently) allows for evolution in animals after the fall of man.

Conclusion:

Evolution is partially correct. It was initiated by God after the fall of man and was not involved in creation. Humans do not share a common ancestor with apes.

 

[Papias]

I can give you short, hopefully clear answers, and then suggest you discuss this with other Christians, with whom you can discuss this as much as you’d like. There are many theistic evolution answers to these questions, just as there are creationist answers, depending on the person and denomination. However, I’ll give you an answer that you’ll find to at least be common, if not exclusive to theistic evolution understandings of Christian doctrines.

The Garden: The Garden of Eden is a metaphor for the natural world before humans became fully conscious/able to think – our ancestor’s time as wild animals. It did not happen as a literal, single location “garden”, just as Ezekiel’s army of bones (37) is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

The Fall: The fall of man happened when man evolved enough mental capacity to make rational decisions, and decided to rebel against God. The consequences of alienation from God are the same. Note that a literal reading has the same issue over exactly “when” Adam became rational. Was it sometime during the molding process, or sometime during his existence before the fruit incident, or sometime during the “his eyes were opened” process, or what?

Original Sin: The Rebellion against God, which was only possible when humans evolved to be rational enough to understand that God exists. Obvoiusly, this isn’t possible for an Australopithicene (which was much like a modern chimp). All humans thereafter have the ability, and therefore at least sometimes the action, of rebelling against God. Compare this obvious, deeply powerful fact with the idea that original sin is tasting magical fruit? Which sounds more like a mature and realistic theology?

A Real, Individual Adam (and Eve)
One common TE position (and the one I hold, along with literally millions of others, including whole churches) is that there WAS a literal, first person, Adam. He was a member of a community, and was the first person in the ape to human gradual change. After all, there had to be a first, if there weren't humans 5 million years ago, and there are humans today. Remember that there is variation, and that mutations are in individuals before they spread to the rest of the tribe. So as the whole community gradually evolves from ape to human, whatever arbitrary characteristic is used to define "being human", (such as some level of rationality) one individual will be the first to cross that line. Of course, all humans will be descended from him, just as they are all descended from others as well. This also means that this first rational human will of course be the first to be able to rebel against God, thus bringing Original Sin.
This “Adam” is not to be confused with “Y Chromosome Adam”, just as the first female transitional ape-human to be rational (Eve) is not to be confused with “Mitochondrial Eve”. Those two are scientific terms for individuals that likely lived thousands of years apart and never knew each other.

The Flood: The flood is a metaphor describing God’s sovereignty over humans and the earth, and still shows those same messages either way. It did not happen as a literal flood, just as Ezekiel’s army of bones is a metaphor that never happened as a literal army of zombies.

Jesus: Jesus was a real human who was both God and Man. He often spoke in parables (metaphors) while on earth, just as he did when he, as part of the trinity, inspired Genesis. Because Genesis is the word of the same God who spoke parables 2000 years ago, it should come as no surprise that he starts off the Bible speaking the parables of the creation, fall and flood.

Atonement: The Atonement of Jesus is the same in either a literalist or a modern Christian’s view. Jesus needed to atone for the sin of the fall, which was rebellion against God.

The geneologies in Genesis: These are figurative, like Ezekiel’s army of zombies. They pretty much have to be for a number of reasons – not just the massive evidence of an old earth, but also internal inconsistencies, like growing a handful of people from (coat) Joseph’s time to the unrealistic ~2 million Jews at the Exodus. Plus, other parts of the Bibles show examples of figurative geneologies. For instance, the geneologies in Mt and Lk have to be figurative, because if taken literally they contradict both each other and the geneology given in 1 Cr.

All these are the opinions of many Bible scholars, and theologians like the Pope and many Protestant theologians, not just the opinions of laypeople.

Speaking his holiness the Pope, The Pope has recently affirmed the theistic evolution of microbes to humans, as well as the long times invovled. Here is a quote:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support ........ (Pope Benedict XVI)


The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and a small portion of it is described here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

It's especially important to notice that evolution confirms and expands the core doctrines of Christianity, and "just tolerating" the fact of evolution is missing a powerful say to deepen one's Christian faith.

Papias

 

[swordmaster]

Dear Yinandyang,

To keep this short and simple, let's just cut to where the rubber meets the road.

Evolution (where the meaning of the word is NOT simply "change" but where it means a continual lineage from single celled organisms to elephants) is not even a rue scientific endeavor.

When it comes to brass tacks, the whole argument concerns mutations, which is why evolutionists utilize the term mutation to cover different genetic changes. Every genetic change that evolutionists label as a mutation are not all "mutations." The original use for the term only covered random chance genetic accidents caused by some kind of mutagen, but there are other genetic changes that are mediated by the organism's genetic mechanisms that are NOT random chance happenings. These are what evolutionists try to trick us with in calling "microevolution."

A short haired valley goat with slender build and small hooves wanders from its main herd, and ends up a couple hundred feet higher in elevation, and it takes with it a female. In a matter of a few generations, these "mountain goats" now sport longer and thicker coats, larger hooves, and larger, more stout bodies. These are not due to random chance "mutational" changes, but are directly attributable to environmental cues within the animals genome. These environmental cues have been known about since Mendel, and even though they are known to not be random chance changes, evolutionists weasel their definitions of them into evolutionary terminology in order to give the false theory the feel and taste of reality.

There is no such thing as microevolution - it is adaptation, and evolution (by evolutionists own admissions) is NOT directed by anything, much less by the animal itself. The fact that adaptation results directly from environmental cues, directing the development of the organism in order to increase the survivability rate among its progeny, automatically disqualifies adaptation as having ANYTHING to do with evolutionary theory.

If there is no such thing as "microevolution," then there is nothing for the unsubstantiated theory of "microevolution" to stand on scientifically.

You are correct, facts can never contradict facts, and that's why evolutionary theory is a farce. For more information on the subject, there is an excellent book out called "The Assumptions Behind the Theory of Evolution."

Hope that helps!

Blessings!

 

[Papias]

Swordmaster, what you've described is Larmarkian evolution. Lamarckian evolution was disproven and abandoned over 100 years ago because repeated experiments to test it repeatedly showed Larmarkian evolution to be false.

Pointing out that someone is trying to make money by peddling a book of old, abandoned ideas as false is hardly evidence for Larmarckian evolution, and certainly doesn't help the public view of Christianity's credibility.

Papias

 

[gluadys]

Dear Yinandyang,

To keep this short and simple, let's just cut to where the rubber meets the road.

Evolution (where the meaning of the word is NOT simply "change" but where it means a continual lineage from single celled organisms to elephants) is not even a rue scientific endeavor.

I beg to differ. Especially as the rest of your post does not demonstrate an accurate knowledge of evolution.

When it comes to brass tacks, the whole argument concerns mutations, which is why evolutionists utilize the term mutation to cover different genetic changes. Every genetic change that evolutionists label as a mutation are not all "mutations." The original use for the term only covered random chance genetic accidents caused by some kind of mutagen, but there are other genetic changes that are mediated by the organism's genetic mechanisms that are NOT random chance happenings.

It is certainly true that the definition of "mutation" has changed. But not as you describe. The original meaning referred to a visible change in the phenotype---what breeders of the time called a "sport": a plant or animal with a startling difference from its species, often a deformity. (This is the sort of "mutant" still found in comic books like the X-men.)

When it was understood that phenotype depends on genotype, the idea of "mutation" became genetic. Now it referred only to inheritable changes, not random but non-inheritable changes like a calf with two heads. Around the same time, it was also discovered that natural agents such as radioactivity could produce such inheritable changes.

Moving on, it was later discovered that genes are made of DNA. But DNA contains much more than genes. So today, "mutation" means a change, any change from any cause, including simple miscopying, in a DNA sequence. Most mutations, as currently defined, don't show up visibly, because they occur in non-coding DNA. Even in coding DNA, a lot of mutations don't have visible effects because of redundant coding or similar chemistry.

All mutations, so far as we can tell, happen by chance. Radioactivity can cause a mutation, but there is no way of telling when, where, or what effect, if any, it will have. Miscopying can occur in every cell reproduction, but again their is no way of telling where, or what effect, if any, it will have. Genes can also be rearranged during the crossing of chromosomes in meiosis, and there is no way of telling exactly where crossing-over will occur or what effect, if any, it will have.

Note, however, that when we say all mutations occur by chance, we are taking the perspective of a scientist trying to make predictions. A believer remembers that God is sovereign over chance events and they are not necessarily random in God's perspective any more than the toss of a coin or the roll of dice.

Even so, mutations are only part of the evolutionary process and not the most important part.

A short haired valley goat with slender build and small hooves wanders from its main herd, and ends up a couple hundred feet higher in elevation, and it takes with it a female. In a matter of a few generations, these "mountain goats" now sport longer and thicker coats, larger hooves, and larger, more stout bodies. These are not due to random chance "mutational" changes, but are directly attributable to environmental cues within the animals genome.

As Papias says, this is a Lamarkian description of how evolution happens. And it has been falsified. Evolution is not given direction by environmental cues alone. It does depend on mutational changes.

It would not matter where the mountain goats went; if there was no mutational change that allowed them to grow thicker coats, larger bodies, etc. they wouldn't change in that direction. The possibility of thicker coats, larger bodies and hooves, etc. has to be already in their genetic make-up before they ever move up the mountain. IOW, mutations---some occurring no doubt hundreds of generations earlier---had to occur to make the genetic base variable and plastic. The original population had to be capable of a range in size, stoutness, volume and texture of hair, etc. There had to be different genetic alleles (as for eye colour) for all these traits. These alleles originate when a gene is not copied exactly, but a change (mutation) is made in the DNA sequence, either in the gene itself or in the regulatory region that turns it on or off.

With these alleles already in place due to previous mutations, a population can go up the mountain and in their new environment, there will be a selective, non-random difference in the survival of their young. Smaller, skinner, thinner-haired kids are less likely to grow into adult-hood. Those with a more ample fat layer, thicker hair, larger size are more likely to become parents of the next generation. So, over time, the population will change. But only because mutations had already given the population a base of variability. Not as a direct result of the environment itself.

These environmental cues have been known about since Mendel, and even though they are known to not be random chance changes, evolutionists weasel their definitions of them into evolutionary terminology in order to give the false theory the feel and taste of reality.

In fact, scientists have always insisted that natural selection is NOT random. Mutations (and variations) occur by chance; selection of which mutations/variations will be favoured in a particular ecological niche is determined by the environmental cues. This has been known about since Darwin.

There is no such thing as microevolution - it is adaptation, and evolution (by evolutionists own admissions) is NOT directed by anything, much less by the animal itself.

Adaptation is a result, not a process. The process that produces adaptation is natural selection as outlined above. And natural selection IS directed, by environmental cues. It is certainly not directed by the animal itself. None of us choose our genome. We can only live with its effects.

However, selection is only possible when there is variability--a range of choices to choose from. And it takes mutations to generate variability in a population's gene pool. So both mutations and selection contribute to adaptation.

The fact that adaptation results directly from environmental cues,

But it doesn't. Adaptation is an evolutionary response to environmental cues and is dependent on mutation and selection.

Show me any other mechanism that produces inheritable adaptation.

You are correct, facts can never contradict facts, and that's why evolutionary theory is a farce. For more information on the subject, there is an excellent book out called "The Assumptions Behind the Theory of Evolution."

If the book is scientifically sound it will tell you that the assumptions behind the theory of evolution are these:


1. Variation exists in all populations.
Variation is a reflection of variable genes allowing different individuals to have variable traits. Variable genes and gene expression are due to differences in the underlying DNA sequences in genes and/or regulatory sequences. Mendel's laws cover the distribution of gene variations (alleles) in a population.

2. All species produce more new individuals in each generation than can be sustained by environmental resources.
When a population is small and has abundant resources, it will increase in number until the limit of the resource base is reached. But although the birth rate will not usually go down, once the limit of resources has been reached, the population will stabilize through a balance of births and deaths to what the resource base can sustain. If the resource base shrinks, the death rate will increase until the population is reduced to what the smaller resource base can sustain. (This is why habitat destruction by humans is a major cause of extinction in many species.) Since, in a stable population, the number of new births exceeds the limits of the resource base, it is inevitable that some in every generation will die prematurely i.e. before reproducing themselves, or before completing the reproductive cycle normal for the species. (If the reproductive expectancy of a female is 10 years, but she dies after only 2, that is premature even if she has reproduced in both those years.)

3. In a variable population, some variants may give their possessors a better chance of surviving to and through their reproductive cycle than others. When this is the case, the proportion of the occurrence of this variation in the next generation will be larger than in the current generation. So long as environmental cues continue to favour this variant over others, the proportion of the population inheriting this variant will continue to increase until all, or almost all of the population displays it. When this occurs, the trait is said to be "fixed" in the population and the population is said to have "adapted" to its surroundings. A continuous lineage of a population adapting in this way leads to the accumulation of favored traits which distinguish the population from its ancestors. So species change and adapt over time.

4. Cladistic speciation generates bio-diversity.
Your description of the mountain goats, flawed as it was, is an example of cladistic (branching) speciation. Part of the population remains where it is; part moves to another area. In itself this does not make them separate species. But as the group that moved adapts to its new circumstances, it changes. Changes also occur in the population that stays put. But as each group accumulates different changes, they become more distinct from each other and so, over time, become differentiated as species--even though they both came from the same ancestral population. This is the basis of common descent and the "tree of life".

An interesting thing about all these assumptions is that they are also observable facts.

 

[shernren]

3. Gen. 1:26-27 (apparently) does not allow for evolution in humans. Gen. 1:2, Col. 1:16, Ps. 33:6, and Job 33:4 do not allow for evolution to have involvement in creation. Gen. 1:30 (apparently) allows for evolution in animals after the fall of man.

Your Scriptural conclusions are strange. If God initiates all natural events, and a natural event creates diversity of life (i.e. evolution), then hasn't God initiated and caused the creation of life's diversity?

So your quotations that putatively "do not allow for evolution to have involvement in creation" actually do nothing of the sort. On the other hand, what does Genesis 1:30 have to do with evolution at all, whether for or against?

 

[swordmaster]

I beg to differ. Especially as the rest of your post does not demonstrate an accurate knowledge of evolution.

It is accurate for the short answer that it was intended to be. Most evolutionists will disagree with it because it is the way it is, and they do not like their pet theory being shown for what it is. The facts are the facts, and facts do not contradict other facts.

Swordmaster, what you've described is Larmarkian evolution.

No, what I described is the difference between two entirely different mechanisms of genetic change, one that is based upon random chance accidents and one that is based upon non-random chance genetic change due to environmental cues - which have been verified now for over 30 years.

It always amazes me that evolutionists keep up with the latest and greatest when it comes to supposedly ratifying the theory, yet conveniently never hear the latest discoveries that demonstrate the theory to be trashcan fodder.

 

[Mallon]

swordmaster, can you please cite the valley goat study you mentioned above so we can judge for ourselves whether you're telling the truth?

 

[gluadys]

No, what I described is the difference between two entirely different mechanisms of genetic change, one that is based upon random chance accidents and one that is based upon non-random chance genetic change due to environmental cues - which have been verified now for over 30 years.

By whom, in what study, published in what journal on what date?

I know of studies that verify change through natural selection of pre-existing variation (e.g. Peter and Rosemary Grant's 30-year study of Galapagos finches) due to environmental cues, but not of non-random genetic change due to environmental cues.

Are you sure you are not confusing genetic change with natural selection?

 

[swordmaster]

swordmaster, can you please cite the valley goat study you mentioned above so we can judge for ourselves whether you're telling the truth?

Your kidding, right?

 

[swordmaster]

I know of studies that verify change through natural selection of pre-existing variation (e.g. Peter and Rosemary Grant's 30-year study of Galapagos finches) due to environmental cues, but not of non-random genetic change due to environmental cues.

What is "natural selection" scientifically (barring the mystical aspects often touted by evolutionists)? The presence of pre-existing variational genes is the exact same thing as genetic change due to environmental cues...it is non-random because those changes are mediated by the organism's genome in direct response to those cues.

Here are some ref's...[FONT=&quot]Ralston, A. and Shaw, K.; Environmental Controls Gene Expression: Sex Determination and the Onset of Genetic Disorders; Nature Education, 2008

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Storz, K. F., Sabatino, S. J., Hoffmann, F. G., Gering, E. J., Moriyama, H., Ferrand, N., Monteiro, B., and Nachman, M. W.; The Molecular Basis of High-altitude Adaptation in Deer Mice; Plos Genetics 3(3):e45.doi:10. 1371/journal.pgen.0030045, 2007[/FONT]

 

[shernren]

What is "natural selection" scientifically (barring the mystical aspects often touted by evolutionists)? The presence of pre-existing variational genes is the exact same thing as genetic change due to environmental cues...it is non-random because those changes are mediated by the organism's genome in direct response to those cues.

Here are some ref's...[FONT=&quot]Ralston, A. and Shaw, K.; Environmental Controls Gene Expression: Sex Determination and the Onset of Genetic Disorders; Nature Education, 2008

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Storz, K. F., Sabatino, S. J., Hoffmann, F. G., Gering, E. J., Moriyama, H., Ferrand, N., Monteiro, B., and Nachman, M. W.; The Molecular Basis of High-altitude Adaptation in Deer Mice; Plos Genetics 3(3):e45.doi:10. 1371/journal.pgen.0030045, 2007[/FONT]

Natural selection does this:

Additionally, patterns of DNA sequence variation indicate that functionally distinct α-globin alleles are maintained by natural selection that favors different genotypes in different elevational zones.
​

based on your own source.

But let's start with your theory. You say:

...adaptation results directly from environmental cues, directing the development of the organism in order to increase the survivability rate among its progeny...

Do you stand by this as a scientific statement of biology?

 

[Mallon]

Your kidding, right?

No. Please cite the study you referred to. You didn't just make it up, did you?

 

[gluadys]

What is "natural selection" scientifically (barring the mystical aspects often touted by evolutionists)?

Natural selection is the differential reproductive success of varying phenotypes in a population. It is non-random and environmentally-determined and leads to the adaptation of the population to its environmental cues. There is nothing mystical about it.

The presence of pre-existing variational genes is the exact same thing as genetic change due to environmental cues..

No, it is not, because the pre-existing variational genes did not come about as a response to environmental cues. They occurred randomly with respect to the effect on the organism or its population.

Here are some ref's...[FONT=&quot]Ralston, A. and Shaw, K.; Environmental Controls Gene Expression: Sex Determination and the Onset of Genetic Disorders; Nature Education, 2008

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Storz, K. F., Sabatino, S. J., Hoffmann, F. G., Gering, E. J., Moriyama, H., Ferrand, N., Monteiro, B., and Nachman, M. W.; The Molecular Basis of High-altitude Adaptation in Deer Mice; Plos Genetics 3(3):e45.doi:10. 1371/journal.pgen.0030045, 2007[/FONT]

Thank you for providing references. I have looked up both of them and neither supports your claim.

The Ralston & Shaw paper says specifically:

Thus, there appear to be certain situations in which the environment affects not only the growth and health of an organism, but also the use or deployment of the organism's genes. Does this mean that genes aren't, in fact, everything? The observation that genetically identical organisms often vary greatly in phenotype clearly shows that gene-environment interaction is indeed an important regulator of phenotypic variation, including variation related to a number of diseases.​

Emphasis added.

This says nothing about genes being altered by environmental cues. It is the gene expression which is affected, and it alters the phenotype not the genotype. The genotypes, in fact, are identical.

Note as well, that the phenotypes are not inheritable. In fact, the offspring may have different phenotypes than their parents if they are raised in a different environment, because the gene expression will be altered even though the genes themselves have not changed.

Evolutionary change implies actual, inheritable, genetic change.

The other paper says:

The study revealed that allelic differences in hemoglobin-oxygen affinity are attributable to the independent or joint effects of substitutions in five exterior amino acid residues that line the opening of the heme pocket. Additionally, patterns of DNA sequence variation indicate that functionally distinct a-globin alleles are maintained by natural selection that favors different genotypes in different elevational zones.​

Emphasis added.

Again the variation is pre-existent and nothing is said about the environmental cues producing new alleles. But natural selection favours different existing genotypes in different environments.

 

[Rex Lex]

Creationism is a valid theological opinion within the Church.

Unfortunately, it's not a valid opinion in reality.

It's not? Then why did God tell us both in Genesis one and in the ten commandments that He created the world in six days? Why was the seventh day observance of the Sabbath 24 hrs instead of 24 million yrs?

Hmm, Dark lite, may I ask you why you have an evil name and why you always have a demonic face to your avatar? Just curious.

"...if therefore that light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" Matthew 6:23.

 

[billybtennessee]

I have engaged in several discussions about this subject, but it never seems to change either sides stance, regardless of the views, seems to always be somewhat fruitless. But one point to make, you used the hebrew word yowm, and the scripture in Peters epistle, to basically say that day can mean any length of time. My point would be, not when used with a qualifying term. In Genesis 1, 'evening and morning' are used for that reason. Another qualifying term would be numbers, in the same chapter, 1,2,3,4,5,6. This is also further qualified in Exod. 20:11, 'six days'. God said in six days, heaven, earth, and all within them, were created. Nothing left out. The very same term is used in Joshua, when God told them to march around Jericho 'six days'. The numbers explain the duration. That is clear enough for me personally, and my comment in regards to the hebrew term you mention. When a qualifying term is given with the word, we know what is meant.

As for evolution, there are creation scientist being raised up now, who use sciences own data and methods to give scientific evidence of creation. If it is reason however, we must have, then we do away with faith, my view. I accept the simple statement that God created, in the time given in scripture. Others don't. One scientist, is named Dr. Robert Gentry, one example, there are others. His findings on Polonium 218 radio halos in granite. Check it out. Those findings give evidence that thus far those in his field can not refute his findings, that because of their presence, granite was formed very quickly, not over millions of years, if granite had cooled over that timeframe, the Polonium halos would not exist. This is only one example. These people such as him are coming up with good scientific evidence to present creation, and a young earth.

Scripture is filled with statements that science will not accept. So, each will have to decide which is valid, in the long run, it can not be both. The world-wide flood. Tower of Babel. Parting of the sea. Parting of Jordan. Sun standing still. Axe head that floats. Donkey speaking. Walls of Jericho. Lions den, fiery furnace. Virgin birth. Resurrection from the dead. Raising the dead. Miracles of healing blind, deaf, etc. If we have to have reasonable proof, scientific data, to believe scripture, we got problems, that is just fact.

I know that posters here are christian, but many scientist are atheist, cause they want reasonable proof. God demands faith. We can't please God without it. It is only in this material world, that any atheist will be found. In the eternal, whether eternal heaven or hell, both will know that God exists. Only recognition in this present world, about God, and Jesus Christ, and faith in who they are, and what they did for us, will determine where we will spend the eternal. Hope you find some answers you are looking for, and use them to witness for their Glory, perhaps point others to Him. That is our greater purpose.

 

[granpa]

the use of the words morning and evening only indicate that the 'day' consists of a first part and a last part.

if a day can represent some greater length of time then why on earth would you assume that a morning and an evening cant also.