Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[SLP]

Why? Programming.

 

[SLP]

That would be the point; Darwinian processes are already acknowledged to be inadequate in accounting for the 'origin of species'

You and your unsupported fantasies.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In fact, the fossil record and DNA evidence clearly shows evolution adding things to organisms. For more on this I recommend Evolution by Donald Prothero (fossil record focus), The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins (a little more theoretical, some DNA), and Some Assembly Required by Neil Shubin (DNA evidence).

That's the issue, we overwhelmingly see mutations degrade functional genes- yet the fossil record shows change that would require great volumes of new functional genetic information- i.e. whatever causes this, it's not by the sort of mutations we can actually empirically, scientifically identify taking place.

As Richard Dawkins noted in The Selfish Gene, it is the gene that "wants" to propagate - hence features like the peacock's feathers are retained, even though they make the creature more visible to predators, because it helps the creature obtain a mate and thus propagate the gene.

agreed, and the exact same would apply if, for the sake of argument, God had given the peacock it's feathers- i.e. natural selection is not the sole property of Darwinism, it applies regardless. The tricky question as always, is not the survival of the fittest, but the arrival of the fittest.

Also a removal of a trait is not necessarily bad. When whales evolved, they lost land locomotion, but that was all for the purpose of accommodating to their environment at the time.

You said you taught evolution, so I'm sure you already know all this.

^ yes, that is an important point of agreement, removing information can certainly be an advantage- and that's what we observe in birds losing flight, fish losing site etc- the problem is that this does nothing to explain the gain of those functions.

As an analogy, I can take any new car off the lot, and easily make it faster through destruction of features- throwing out the spare tire or the back seats..
And clearly unguided entropy can achieve the same, if the exhaust rusts and falls off my car, it would
accelerate faster.

But not only does this not account for the origin of new features, it demonstrates the exact opposite process- the destruction of them.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Here's the leading evolutionary theory on evolution of whales:

So what explains the gain of the function of moving on land instead of in sea? Well, we don't really know, it's still being researched. But there are theories. It may have been to escape predators or to lay eggs in a safer place. Perhaps there were new food sources they were trying to access. If anything's certain, the land was an unexplored ecosystem, so there was much opportunity.

The transitionary fossil Tiktaalik is the perfect example of something between a fish and a land animal, it's often called the walking fish. What we know is that it happened, even if we're not positive why yet.

Sure. If a feature is not good for the species at the specific time, it's got to be destroyed.

Agreed- to paraphrase David Raup, paleontologist and curator at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History,
we can certainly see that evolution has occurred, if defined by change over time- but that does not tell us how the change occurred.

 

[Bradskii]

Agreed- to paraphrase David Raup, paleontologist and curator at the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History,
we can certainly see that evolution has occurred, if defined by change over time- but that does not tell us how the change occurred.

Whut? That would be a nonsensical statement from someone from a museum of natural history to make. It's not conceivable that Raup wouldn't know how changes occur. Paraphrased? No way. I want to see the original quote that you 'paraphrased'.

 

[Astrid]

In fact, the fossil record and DNA evidence clearly shows evolution adding things to organisms. For more on this I recommend Evolution by Donald Prothero (fossil record focus), The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins (a little more theoretical, some DNA), and Some Assembly Required by Neil Shubin (DNA evidence).

But basically, an X-ray, cosmic ray, chemical reaction, etc., can modify a base pair in the DNA strand to create a mutation, which can lead to the creation of a new protein or enzyme. However, evolution further proposes (supported by much evidence we can see today) that spontaneous mutations often occur during reproduction. If the mutation is helpful, it is retained in the species (since it helps the specimen survive until propagation); otherwise, it is rooted out (since the specimen dies before propagating). Benign but unhelpful mutations remain untouched, which is why men have nipples (they are unhelpful but benign and so are untouched).

As Richard Dawkins noted in The Selfish Gene, it is the gene that "wants" to propagate - hence features like the peacock's feathers are retained, even though they make the creature more visible to predators, because it helps the creature obtain a mate and thus propagate the gene. Thus, the DNA of a theoretical creature with "maximum" survivability, intelligence, strength, etc., but also with infertility, will never survive.

Also a removal of a trait is not necessarily bad. When whales evolved, they lost land locomotion, but that was all for the purpose of accommodating to their environment at the time.

You said you taught evolution, so I'm sure you already know all this.

My heavenly days! He DID!?

 

[Astrid]

Who are you referring to by "he"? Dawkins?

The who " taught evolution"

 

[Bradskii]

Yes he said he taught it for 30 years. By pointing out these basic facts about evolution I hope I don't appear arrogant.

I think you misread the comment he made. When Guy said 'taught Darwinian evolution' he meant 'I was taught Darwinian evolution'.

 

[AV1611VET]

The who "taught evolution"

We Won't Get Fooled Again though.

 

[SelfSim]

That's the issue, we overwhelmingly see mutations degrade functional genes- yet the fossil record shows change that would require great volumes of new functional genetic information- i.e. whatever causes this, it's not by the sort of mutations we can actually empirically, scientifically identify taking place.

Not so.
It very much depends on which genes are involved in the mutation. There are examples of very rapid (and significant) gene mutations which have led to entirely new species .. which may explain an absence of transitional species in the fossil record.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, God did create the universe just for us...

It really doesn't seem to have any other purpose. Rocks don't appreciate it.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, those are just arguments used to appeal to those whose understanding of theology is poorly informed.

The real reason is that the theory of evolution conflicts with a literal reading of the Book of Genesis.

More simply, it is a theory that intentionally doesn't include God.
So it is considered hostile.

 

[Tinker Grey]

More simply, it is a theory that intentionally doesn't include God.
So it is considered hostile.

Just like gravity!

 

[AV1611VET]

Just like gravity!

Gravity is a law (fact), not a theory.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Whut? That would be a nonsensical statement from someone from a museum of natural history to make. It's not conceivable that Raup wouldn't know how changes occur. Paraphrased? No way. I want to see the original quote that you 'paraphrased'.

I used to live near the Chicago Field museum and visited many times when I was younger, it was home to 'Sue the TRex' among other world class fossil exhibits. Really one of the world's greatest natural history museums if you are not familiar with it. So I was very interested in the contrast between what my high school teacher had regurgitated from textbooks.. and what one of the worlds' leading paleontologists had to say on the issue.

I was paraphrasing from memory but here is the verbatim quote:

"This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change too place, and that is really the question."

This was from a paper entitled 'Conflicts between Darwin & Paleontology' I would highly recommend reading the whole thing if there is any confusion about the context of this statement.

some more quotes from Raup.

“In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.”

“Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time.”

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It really doesn't seem to have any other purpose. Rocks don't appreciate it.

Rocks don't know when they're well off.

I read somewhere (in a best-selling work of historical fiction) that its purpose is to give an ego boost to a supernatural control freak...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It doesn't have an end, there is no perfect Species. But the gene is all that needs to survive, and whatever ensures that that can be done will carry on. There's no one sentient being over it, but even Darwin made the comparison. It is not dissimilar to artificial evolution which does have a purpose.

I take your point, but what gene ensures it's own survival?

Not to be pedantic, but can a gene ever ensure survival?

 

[Bradskii]

I used to live near the Chicago Field museum and visited many times when I was younger, it was home to 'Sue the TRex' among other world class fossil exhibits. Really one of the world's greatest natural history museums if you are not familiar with it. So I was very interested in the contrast between what my high school teacher had regurgitated from textbooks.. and what one of the worlds' leading paleontologists had to say on the issue.

I was paraphrasing from memory but here is the verbatim quote:

"This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change too place, and that is really the question."

This was from a paper entitled 'Conflicts between Darwin & Paleontology' I would highly recommend reading the whole thing if there is any confusion about the context of this statement.

some more quotes from Raup.

“In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.”

“Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time.”

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”

Whoa...let's back the truck up a little here. The quotes you've provided are from some web page by a guy named Art Battson who is some sort of classroom renovator for a city college in Santa Barbara. Only a couple are by Raup himself. Here's the page: Introduction

Here's the actual quote by Raup re transitionals:

'Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded ... ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information ... (Raup, 1979).

And his comments about transitional fossils are on point and are no cause for concern.

Here's a quote by Battson off his facebook page: Log into Facebook

'...Darwin. Admittedly, he was one of the greatest science fiction writers of all time, but his imaginative tales heavily influenced one of the most notorious white supremacists of all time. Think "Mein Kampf" (My Struggle) or Darwin's "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'.

So you're getting your info some some unqualified nonentity who happens to have an internet connection, thinks that Darwin's theory caused the holocaust and spends his leisure time quote-mining from genuine scientists. Really?

 

[SkyWriting]

Rocks don't know when they're well off.

I read somewhere (in a best-selling work of historical fiction) that its purpose is to give an ego boost to a supernatural control freak...

If you think God is a control freak, can you illustrate your belief with examples?

People can choose to be grateful or not, in any circumstance.

 

[SkyWriting]

Just like gravity!

I think Gravity is one of the stronger arguments for a God. It's obvious everywhere with almost no understanding of it.