Where Did Humans Come From?

[JAL]

BTW, there is no "devolution''; that was a one-joke new wave group. There is only evolution. And natural selection is why it tends to improve fitness in a population. (Details available for anyone slept through biology class in high school)

I don't understand your constant dismissive attitude. Are you so full of yourself that you can't take the time to carefully reply to the opinions expressed by others? I wasn't using the term devolution in a technical sense but merely as jargon to express higher optimism in destructive mutations than constructive ones. Your reply merely reasserts your position without contributing anything helpful to the discussion.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, it’s also been about the topic that other poster mentioned earlier, about Quirinius (sp), Herod and Luke’s Gospel, which is supposed to be in error.…

Yeah, there's that one too. But I don't sweat it either!

I guess this is where I offer a shameless plug for the benefits of the fields of Historiography, the Philosophy of History, the Craft of Historical Writing and even Hermeneutics. These can come in handy when you want to assess how the Gospel of Luke doesn't sync with Josephus in regard to some issues like the one involving Quirinius, or as to how historical writings [all historical writings] are constructed and why different historians disagree with one another, whether they do so today or "yesterday."

Oh, I forgot! I need to add from the above that the study of Natural History and Anthropology also come in handy where the collision of Evolutionary science and the book of Genesis is concerned. It's always good to keep this mind, Sis, since it means that no one necessarily has the last, decisive word on either The Word or the World.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't understand your constant dismissive attitude. Are you so full of yourself that you can't take the time to carefully reply to the opinions expressed by others? I wasn't using the term devolution in a technical sense but merely as jargon to express higher optimism in destructive mutations than constructive ones.

Perhaps you should read a little of Darwin's theory to learn why it works the way it does. While the vast majority of mutations don't do much of anything (you have perhaps 100 of them that were not present in either parent) the ratio of favorable to unfavorable mutations depend on how well-fitted a population is in the particular environment. As Darwin pointed out, a well-fitted population in a constant environment will actually be kept from evolving very much by natural selection.

Do you understand why favorable mutations tend to accumulate in a population, while unfavorable ones tend to be lost? Remember, fitness only applies in terms of the environment.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Perhaps you should read a little of Darwin's theory to learn why it works the way it does. While the vast majority of mutations don't do much of anything (you have perhaps 100 of them that were not present in either parent) the ratio of favorable to unfavorable mutations depend on how well-fitted a population is in the particular environment. As Darwin pointed out, a well-fitted population in a constant environment will actually be kept from evolving very much by natural selection.

Do you understand why favorable mutations tend to accumulate in a population, while unfavorable ones tend to be lost? Remember, fitness only applies in terms of the environment.

What about the place of epigenetics, TB? I've wondered how this would play out in the long term evolutionary patterns for various individuals and/or populations.

Like for instance--and I'm asking you since you'd know much more about it than I could ever clearly clarify for myself--how might epigenetics affect some organism like, say, a T. Rex or two living on the savannah millions of years ago? I'm just asking, too, since I'm reflecting upon a reading of the following article:

How does epigenetics influence the course of evolution? | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

 

[JAL]

Perhaps you should read a little of Darwin's theory to learn why it works the way it does. While the vast majority of mutations don't do much of anything (you have perhaps 100 of them that were not present in either parent) the ratio of favorable to unfavorable mutations depend on how well-fitted a population is in the particular environment. As Darwin pointed out, a well-fitted population in a constant environment will actually be kept from evolving very much by natural selection.

Do you understand why favorable mutations tend to accumulate in a population, while unfavorable ones tend to be lost? Remember, fitness only applies in terms of the environment.

Very reasonable reply, but I doubt it's conclusive. God could have designed our DNA to be highly adaptive, in support of micro-evolution.

Also here's a biblical problem. Paul says that even a layman - doesn't take a modern scientist - can infer God's existence from the sheer grandeur of Nature (Romans 1:18-20). How does that inference proceed? Here's a couple of possibilities:

....(A) "Wow. Earth has amazing creatures, ecosystems, and landscapes! Looks like the work of a god hand-crafting all this."

....(B) "Everything looks Darwinian - natural processes at work without any need for God. I guess God exists."

That's not a problem in your view?

 

[FaithT]

Yeah, there's that one too. But I don't sweat it either!

I guess this is where I offer a shameless plug for the benefits of the fields of Historiography, the Philosophy of History, the Craft of Historical Writing and even Hermeneutics. These can come in handy when you want to assess how the Gospel of Luke doesn't sync with Josephus in regard to some issues like the one involving Quirinius, or as to how historical writings [all historical writings] are constructed and why different historians disagree with one another, whether they do so today or "yesterday."

Oh, I forgot! I need to add from the above that the study of Natural History and Anthropology also come in handy where the collision of Evolutionary science and the book of Genesis is concerned. It's always good to keep this mind, Sis, since it means that no one necessarily has the last, decisive word on either The Word or the World.

I started a thread in Christian History about this topic if anyone is interested.

 

[disciple Clint]

But if some things are literal and some are not, how do we know which to take literally?

That is a good thoughtful question. We have the example of the character of God as expressed by Jesus, the N.T. reveals many answers to the questions we have when reading the O.T. We need to remember that the Bible tells us how and why we have been saved and who God is and why that is important to us. It contains several genre of literature understanding that helps us in deciding if we are to take something as literal or as metaphorical. It is also important to remember that God is talking to people at a particular time, so He uses a method of communication that makes His message understandable to people based on who they are and what is familiar to them.

 

[The Barbarian]

What about the place of epigenetics, TB? I've wondered how this would play out in the long term evolutionary patterns for various individuals and/or populations.

Strictly speaking, epigenetic changes last a generation or two and are then lost. However, there do exist heritable epigenetic changes in plants, which can be inherited over many generations. Such epialleles do exist in humans, but apparently become active in utero and contribute to birth defects. It's an axiom that no rule in genetics is universally true, including this one. So who knows? We have seen epigenetic changes in European populations, apparently the result of malnutrition during WWII. But they didn't last. Others might.

Like for instance--and I'm asking you since you'd know much more about it than I could ever clearly clarify for myself--how might epigenetics affect some organism like, say, a T. Rex or two living on the savannah millions of years ago? I'm just asking, too, since I'm reflecting upon a reading of the following article:

How does epigenetics influence the course of evolution? | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Since I retired, genetics has advanced to the point that I need a glossary to read some of the literature. I'm not a geneticist, but it's shocking how much more we know now than when I was in high school.

As to the T. rex, we can perhaps make some inferences from epigenetics in living dinosaurs. Unfortunately, epigenetics in birds has not been studied much. I found this:
Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in birds

Now that you've gotten me curious, I'm going to have to do some looking.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Strictly speaking, epigenetic changes last a generation or two and are then lost. However, there do exist heritable epigenetic changes in plants, which can be inherited over many generations. Such epialleles do exist in humans, but apparently become active in utero and contribute to birth defects. It's an axiom that no rule in genetics is universally true, including this one. So who knows? We have seen epigenetic changes in European populations, apparently the result of malnutrition during WWII. But they didn't last. Others might.



Since I retired, genetics has advanced to the point that I need a glossary to read some of the literature. I'm not a geneticist, but it's shocking how much more we know now than when I was in high school.

As to the T. rex, we can perhaps make some inferences from epigenetics in living dinosaurs. Unfortunately, epigenetics in birds has not been studied much. I found this:
Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in birds

Now that you've gotten me curious, I'm going to have to do some looking.

Alright, thanks, TB! I'll have to do some looking too. I appreciate your comments on this.

 

[The Barbarian]

Very reasonable reply, but I doubt it's conclusive. God could have designed our DNA to be highly adaptive, in support of micro-evolution.

There are IDers who think so:

t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science–that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called “special creationist school.” According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God’s direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world–that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Denton Nature's Destiny

 

[The Barbarian]

Also here's a biblical problem. Paul says that even a layman - doesn't take a modern scientist - can infer God's existence from the sheer grandeur of Nature (Romans 1:18-20).

There are times when I'm in a mood that I can see nature as a scientist and as a believer at the same time. It's quite an emotional experience.

This is Mrs. Barbarian's shot. I was so taken by the heron landing in just the right place and striking a pose, that I never lifted my camera. But this was a moment where the unity of creation became obvious to me.

How does that inference proceed? Here's a couple of possibilities:

....(A) "Wow. Earth has amazing creatures, ecosystems, and landscapes! Looks like the work of a god hand-crafting all this."

....(B) "Everything looks Darwinian - natural processes at work without any need for God. I guess God exists."

.... (C) "Amazing that a Creator could, with just a few basic rules (or maybe just one), produce a world as beautiful and complicated as this one."

I'll go with (C).

That's not a problem in your view?

Nope.

 

[JAL]

.... (C) "Amazing that a Creator could, with just a few basic rules (or maybe just one), produce a world as beautiful and complicated as this one."

I'll go with (C).
Nope.

First, I don't see how C is a viable option for a layman existing, say, 5000 years ago. They were all Darwinians back then? And starting with the assumption of a few Darwinian rules (rules that do not require a creator), they were supposed to infer a Creator?

Secondly, choice A was the more natural inference - the one probably 99% or 100% of the people would make. In your view, that was faulty reasoning and thus PAUL IS WRONG. Nature has failed to do what Paul said (Romans 1:18-20), that is, to LEGITIMATELY imply God in the minds of these people. These people were either foolish enough to infer God illegitimately, that is, on the basis of faulty, creationistic reasoning or, if they were a rare wise person (a Darwinian), they rejected Him altogether. The problem is that's the opposite of what Paul concludes. Paul concludes it is the fool who REJECTS this Creator (such as a Darwinian). To summarize: in Paul's view, the (atheistic) Darwinian is a fool, and your view doesn't thoroughly explain/justify that indictment in a convincing manner.

Thirdly this isn't even a layman's work - it doesn't take an adult to infer a creator. Even in my younger years, I remember shuddering in fear during powerful lightning storms rife with deafening peals of thunder. It literally put the fear of God in me, at least for that moment. I'm pretty sure this effect of Nature is all part of what Paul is referring to, and it was anything BUT a Darwinian inference.

Thanks for your response but I'm not buying it. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[JAL]

There are IDers who think so:

t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science–that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called “special creationist school.” According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God’s direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world–that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.
In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Denton Nature's Destiny

This logic seems grossly non-sequitur, or highly contrived, or at least faulty premised. Not sure what I'm missing here. He starts with "special creation" and then equates it with "suspension of natural law" understood to mean artifacts CONTRARY to Nature and its laws. How absurd. Why cannot God (specially) create artifacts CONSISTENT with Nature and its laws, for the very sake of fostering species that naturally endure?

 

[The Barbarian]

First, I don't see how C is a viable option for a layman existing, say, 5000 years ago. They were all Darwinians back then?

Perhaps that's why God didnj't make acceptance of the way He created things, a condition of salvation.

And starting with the assumption of a few Darwinian rules (rules that do not require a creator)

IDers disagree with you on that.

they were supposed to infer a Creator?

It seems that the knowledge doesn't depend on that.

As St. Paul points out, even gentiles know in their hearts without the law. (A) might work for someone who God gave that knowledge. But Paul's statement:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Is more compelling when one learns more about creation. The growing evidence for abiogenesis, for example, is confirmation that the Earth did bring forth living things. The evidence for common descent again confirms the power of a Creator who could use nature to do His will.

(A) was enough for the Sumerians and Akkadians to assume created gods made us and our world a bit at a time, like tinkering inventors. God's revelation to Abraham was that He is entirely different than those little mythical godlings prancing around, making a tree here and a rabbit there. (A) was insufficient, hence inspiration.

God is the omnipotent Creator of all things. While we should not deny anything that's true and holy in other religions, many of them don't quite get it right about creation.

And now (C) is another confirmation of the fact that God is an omnipotent creator.

 

[The Barbarian]

This logic seems grossly non-sequitur, or highly contrived, or at least faulty premised. Not sure what I'm missing here. He starts with "special creation" and then equates it with "suspension of natural law" understood to mean artifacts CONTRARY to Nature and its laws. How absurd.

This is the thinking of the guys who suppose that God is a "designer." I figure they're selling God short, but the fact is, if you assume a designer, you have closed the door on special creationism.

IDers have one thing right; teleology. There's an intelligence behind the universe, that brought it into existence. And all natural things have been brought forth by the nature that He created. They just think He had to figure it all out. And He has no need of that.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why cannot God (specially) create artifacts CONSISTENT with Nature and its laws, for the very sake of fostering species that naturally endure?

Why wouldn't God fake evidence? Since I believe God is trustworthy, I can dismiss that idea out of hand. And of course, God being the ominpotent Creator, He has no need to tinker with creation to make it work. He doesn't do miracles because He has to; He does them to teach us things.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

First, I don't see how C is a viable option for a layman existing, say, 5000 years ago. They were all Darwinians back then? And starting with the assumption of a few Darwinian rules (rules that do not require a creator), they were supposed to infer a Creator?

Secondly, choice A was the more natural inference - the one probably 99% or 100% of the people would make. In your view, that was faulty reasoning and thus PAUL IS WRONG. Nature has failed to do what Paul said (Romans 1:18-20), that is, to LEGITIMATELY imply God in the minds of these people. These people were either foolish enough to infer God illegitimately, that is, on the basis of faulty, creationistic reasoning or, if they were a rare wise person (a Darwinian), they rejected Him altogether. The problem is that's the opposite of what Paul concludes. Paul concludes it is the fool who REJECTS this Creator (such as a Darwinian). To summarize: in Paul's view, the (atheistic) Darwinian is a fool, and your view doesn't thoroughly explain/justify that indictment in a convincing manner.

Thirdly this isn't even a layman's work - it doesn't take an adult to infer a creator. Even in my younger years, I remember shuddering in fear during powerful lightning storms rife with deafening peals of thunder. It literally put the fear of God in me, at least for that moment. I'm pretty sure this effect of Nature is all part of what Paul is referring to, and it was anything BUT a Darwinian inference.

Thanks for your response but I'm not buying it. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

You're right to say that it's probably best to just agree to disagree here; even so where epistemological debates are at play in all of this when setting Modern Science against the Scriptures.

This way, no one ends up essentially talking past each other when we converse with another brother who hails from a different Christian tradition.

And even better, we don't have to bash each other in "the Name of Christ" over things that none of us can fully discern or define anyway...

 

[JAL]

This is the thinking of the guys who suppose that God is a "designer." I figure they're selling God short, but the fact is, if you assume a designer, you have closed the door on special creationism.

Huh? I don't understand why those 2 terms are held to be mutually exclusive. I tend to use them somewhat interchangeably. From a purely rational standpoint, I believe in intelligent design. From a biblical standpoint, I lean to special creation - creation by an intelligent designer named Yahweh. How are these mutually exclusive?

 

[JAL]

Why wouldn't God fake evidence? Since I believe God is trustworthy, I can dismiss that idea out of hand.

How is that faking evidence? Adaptability does not necessarily imply a god-less Darwinian evolution - it equally implies the wisdom of a skilled Creator.

And of course, God being the ominpotent Creator, He has no need to tinker with creation to make it work. He doesn't do miracles because He has to; He does them to teach us things.

That's not the biblical God, as previously discussed. That's a view beset with about 15 areas of incoherence unresolved by even the greatest theological minds for the last 2000 years.

 

[The Barbarian]

Huh? I don't understand why those 2 terms are held to be mutually exclusive.

Design is what limited creatures do. God creates. Doesn't matter if you confuse the two.

From a purely rational standpoint, I believe in intelligent design. From a biblical standpoint, I lean to special creation

As you see, the real God is a lot wiser and more powerful than either of those beliefs would have Him be.