Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[cougtpt1]

1.) The universe and the earth is very old.
2.) Life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex life.
3.) All life shares common ancestors. Universal common descent.
4.) Genetic mutation and natural selection account for the diversity of life.
5.) Life originated via natural processes.

In my experiences most TEs are very smart yet set in the research of Darwinists. Other very well documented scientists (some not Christians) have found very compelling research of Young Earth. Young Earth does not allow enough time for the evolutionist Natural Selection to happen. But it does work with all biblical scripture regarding creation. The other thing that puzzles me about Evolution science is the whole mutation of DNA making speciation. I have read some amazing mathmatical studies of chance. with the coplexity of DNA and the number of cells and protiens the number of mutation to happen for a change in species is astrnomical. If this can only happen once per generation then we are talking about Quadrillions of years to make speciation through evolution. I wish I could find the link to that study it was amazingly interesting. Keep up the debates I love it.

 

[shernren]

Good heavens. QuantumFlux, after all the wonderful discussions we've had before I'd expect something better than another useless and hopelessly misguided 2nd Law argument.

1. Even AiG admits that the argument is fundamentally unsound.
2. Can you define "entropy"?
3. Most tantalizingly, the 2nd law doesn't even hold properly on microscopic scales of time and mass: http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/598-1.html

And for a good laugh:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28308

 

[notto]

1.) The universe and the earth is very old.
2.) Life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex life.
3.) All life shares common ancestors. Universal common descent.
4.) Genetic mutation and natural selection account for the diversity of life.
5.) Life originated via natural processes.


In my experiences most TEs are very smart yet set in the research of Darwinists. Other very well documented scientists (some not Christians) have found very compelling research of Young Earth. Young Earth does not allow enough time for the evolutionist Natural Selection to happen. But it does work with all biblical scripture regarding creation. The other thing that puzzles me about Evolution science is the whole mutation of DNA making speciation. I have read some amazing mathmatical studies of chance. with the coplexity of DNA and the number of cells and protiens the number of mutation to happen for a change in species is astrnomical. If this can only happen once per generation then we are talking about Quadrillions of years to make speciation through evolution. I wish I could find the link to that study it was amazingly interesting. Keep up the debates I love it.

You do realize that we have observed speciation happening, right?

 

[daughterofzion]

I believe God created the earth according to Gensis. One thing I dont hear considered often is that "adam and eve" were sinless while they lived in the garden, they did not age or have an age like they did after they were thrown out. How do we know how long they were in there? Also compare Gen 1 and 2 , God talks about 2 different creations of man. I believe evolution and God go hand in hand.

p.s. The word evolutions scares a lot of christians because immediately they think of the bing bang theory. Evolution has many theories not just that one.

 

[notto]

Macroevolution has not been observed or proven. Therefore it is not a proven scientific theory.

Macroevolution (speciation) and all of the mechanisms proposed to cause it have been observed. Now, as far as a mechanism that causes gravity, that is another thing all together.

A mechanism that causes gravity has never been observed. Is it therefore not a proven scientific theory?

That's right, it's not. Gravity, much like evolution is both a fact and a theory.

The fact of evolution is that life in the past is much different than life today.
The fact of gravity is that bodies are attracted to each other.

The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution by explaining the evidence with observed mechanisms.

The theory of gravity??? Still looking for those mechanisms.

You need to understand the way scientific theories work and are discussed. Your statement really doesn't make much sense when applied to the actual theories of evolution and gravity. Theories are not proven, only supported or falsified. Evolution is the best unfalsified theory we have that explains the facts that we know - life was much different than life in the past, all life on this planet appears to be related through common ancestry, and natural selection plus mutation causes speciation.

 

[gluadys]

How narrow sited the evolutionists have become. Animals and people came from somewhere, correct?

Well people are animals and yes they came from somewhere.

How did they form in the beginning if photosynthesis did not exist?

Animals have existed, as far as we can tell, for about 700 million years. (People for about 2-3 million years if defined as any species in the genus Homo ). Photosynthetic organisms have existed for about 3700 million years. So photosynthesis has a 3000 million (aka 3 billion) year headstart on animal life.

You say there was always some form of photosynthesis, but that violates the evolutionary theory as well because according to it, it had to evolve over thousands of years.

No, photosynthesis is not a life-form; it is a chemical reaction. As a straight chemical reaction it is actually fairly simple. Carbon dioxide and water react in the presence of light (which supplies the energy for the reaction) to form sugar (or starch) and oxygen. The sugar or starch is used by the organism as its own source of energy and the oxygen is released into the atmosphere.

The complicated part of photosynthesis is capturing the light energy. This is the function of pigments such as chlorophyll. However, although this process is more complicated, it is still physics and chemistry, not biology per se.

It is possible that photosynthesis occurred even before anything we recognize as life occurred. That question is being researched, although there is no definitive conclusion yet. It is probable that photosynthesis was occurring in the very earliest stages of life--before life became cellular.

The first single celled organism did not have any form of photosynthesis. nor did its predecessors for many thousands of years.

Well we don't know that. It is possible that the first unicellular species was photosynthetic. It is certain that photosynthesis occurred very early in the history of life on earth.

Here are a couple of articles you might like to read--not exactly on photosynthesis, though it gets a mention--but on current research into the beginning of life.

http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/roadmap/g3.html

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.100301.135212

And before that single celled organism? Nothing.

No, not nothing. Proto-cellular life. RNA organisms. Hyper-cycles.

You can say chemical reactions but the ones you speak of that would actually violate the 2nd law would be an astronomical coincidence.

Here is an article on the chemistry of photosynthesis. Please point out where it violates the 2nd law of thermodyamics.

http://rcw.raiuniversity.edu/biotechnology/BTechbiotech/bioenergetics/lecture-notes/lecture-16.pdf

I thought Charles Darwin wrote a book on your statement of faith. That is what a theory is.

No, a theory is not a statement of faith. It is an explanation that ties facts together to make sense of their relationships to each other, and is then tested against observations to check whether or not it is accurate.

so how did photosynthesis evolve? It would have had to have existed before anything else in order to create something out of nothing, but that is contrary to the evolutionary theory.

1. Photosynthesis could not exist before light.
2. Photosynthesis does not create something out of nothing. It transforms two chemicals (CO2 and H20) into two different chemcals (CH20 and O2).
3. It is not contrary to evolutionary theory. (Your claim that it does indicates that you do not know what evolutionary theory does state. Don't you think it would be good to know that before developing an opinion about it?)
4. What do you have against creation out of nothing? That is a fundamental Christian belief. Don't you believe that God created the universe out of nothing?

They are evolutionary propaganda disguised as science.

Handwaving.

Macroevolution has not been observed or proven.

Actually, it has been observed. See next post.

 

[gluadys]

Oh this should be good. Lets see them.
[/size][/color][/font]

Ok

General
1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.
2. M Turelli, The causes of Haldane's rule. Science 282: 889-891, Oct.30, 1998. Haldane's rule describes a phase every population goes thru during speciation: production of inviable and sterile hybrids. Haldane's rule states "When in the F1 [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogemetic; XY, XO, or ZW] sex."Two leading explanations are fast-male and dominance. Both get supported. X-linked incompatibilities would affect heterozygous gender more because only one gene."
3. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
4. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.
5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
8. Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
9. Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Chromosome numbers in various species
http://www.kean.edu/~breid/chrom2.htm

Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.
33. V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained. Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998. Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies. Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
34. B Wuethrich, Speciation: Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999. Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1
3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals. "When wind borne pollen carrying nontolerant genes crosses the border [between prairie and tailings] and fertilizes the gametes of tolerant females, the resultant offspring show a range of tolerances. The movement of genes from the pasture to the mine would, therefore, tend to dilute the tolerance level of seedlings. Only fully tolerant individuals survive to reproduce, however. This selective mortality, which eliminates variants, counteracts the dilution and molds a toatally tolerant population. The pasture and mine populations evolve distinctive adaptations because selective factors are dominant over the homogenizing influence of foreign genes."
7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Speciation in microorganisms
1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.
2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
9. Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 20:75-84.

New Genus
1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

Invertebrate not insect
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
2. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event with a polychaete worm. . Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

Speciation in the Fossil Record
1. Paleontological documentation of speciation in cenozoic molluscs from Turkana basin. Williamson, PG, Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of "gradual" evolution in an extremely fine fossil record.
2. A trilobite odyssey. Niles Eldredge and Michelle J. Eldredge. Natural History 81:53-59, 1972. A discussion of "gradual" evolution of trilobites in one small area and then migration and replacement over a wide area. Is lay discussion of punctuated equilibria, and does not overthrow Darwinian gradual change of form. Describes transitionals

The references tell you where you can find the full articles in journals such as Science, Nature, Evolution, American Naturalist, Natural History, etc. and the year in which the article was published. Many of the articles are available in the on-line archives of the journal. Most are available in university libraries.

Have fun checking them out.


Or, for a shorter list go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[john crawford]

The references tell you where you can find the full articles in journals such as Science, Nature, Evolution, American Naturalist, Natural History, etc. and the year in which the article was published. Many of the articles are available in the on-line archives of the journal. Most are available in university libraries.

Have fun checking them out.

Or, for a shorter list go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Since there are no references to observed speciation in human beings in either your post or website link, it is safe to assume that all theories and theologies concerning human origins and ancestry are equally religious in concept, and no theory of human evolution is necessary to explain something that is not scientifically observable, testable or demonstrable in the first place.

 

[gluadys]

Since there are no references to observed speciation in human beings in either your post or website link, it is safe to assume that all theories and theologies concerning human origins and ancestry are equally religious in concept, and no theory of human evolution is necessary to explain something that is not scientifically observable, testable or demonstrable in the first place.

Not at all. The last speciation among humans is estimated to have occurred over 150,000 years ago. Therefore, no one living today observed it. However, there is observable, testable, demonstrable evidence consistent with the theory that such a speciation did occur.

 

[notto]

Since there are no references to observed speciation in human beings in either your post or website link, it is safe to assume that all theories and theologies concerning human origins and ancestry are equally religious in concept, and no theory of human evolution is necessary to explain something that is not scientifically observable, testable or demonstrable in the first place.

Do you consider all theories that fall into this category of phenomena (not directly observable, testable, or demontratable) as religoius?

 

[S Walch]

I hope everyone here's read Michael Behe's Darwins Black box ?

 

[The Lady Kate]

I hope everyone here's read Michael Behe's Darwins Black box ?

Why read something that's already been refuted?

 

[S Walch]

..You're the first person I've ever heard saying that, TLK.

You'r going to have to explain that one.

 

[Dannager]

I hope everyone here's read Michael Behe's Darwins Black box ?

According to Michael Behe, his definition of science includes calling astrology a valid scientific theory. I don't think he's the sort you want to be identifying with on this subject.

 

[S Walch]

Michael Behe's an Agnostic, but that doesn't mean his book Darwins Black Box Isn't full of his biochemistry goodness

 

[Dannager]

I haven't read Black Box, but I am cogently aware of the fact that Michael Behe doesn't accept the definition of science that the scientific community as a whole accepts. Any science that he conducts is suspect, as he will label things as being "scientific" that are not, in fact, scientific.

 

[S Walch]

Very much like the Evolution theroy, IMO.

Oh yeah, some evolutionists are Satan worshippers, you might not want to identify with them either.

 

[artybloke]

Oh yeah, some evolutionists are Satan worshippers, you might not want to identify with them either.

And you have proof of this you can share with the rest of us, do you? Or is this just another lie picked up from creationist websites?

 

[S Walch]

http://www.exposingsatanism.org/cos.htm

note: A lot of satanists do worship satan.

"...They believe the evolution theory and feel that one creates their own destiny..."

Also, if you don't believe that satan worshippers believe in evolution, may I ask why?

 

[artybloke]

I'm sorry, I thought you were making an accusation about evolutionary scientists, not just the general public.

A lot of Satanists probably believe in heliocentrism too, I shouldn't wonder. And germ theory, and capitalism, and that there is a planet called Mars. What has that got to do with anything; or are you saying we shouldn't believe there's a planet called Mars because satanists believe there is too?

I doubt you'd find one evolutionary biologist who'd be a satanist. You'd find quite a few evolutionary scientists who were Christian, however (such as Kenneth Miller.)

And evolution theory doesn't have anything to say about creating or not creating your own destiny. Stop conflating metaphysics and biology.

Do you actually have a real scientific argument against evolution, or are you so desperate that you have to resort to character assassination?