Why should christians trust evolutionists?

[Greg1234]

changes in state can't really be likened to evolution,

But Darwinian evolution is the changing of germ cells, no?

so a person sleeping can't change into a person awake, running, jumping, playing? A person doesn't age? Yes? No?

Yep, eyes closed can change into "eyes open." Legs bent changed into Legs extended.

 

[Keachian]

But Darwinian evolution is the changing of germ cells, no?

Not really from my understanding of evolution, probably more accurately evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency in a population.

Yep, eyes closed can change into "eyes open." Legs bent changed into Legs extended.

but it's still the same object in both of the states and I think this is missing your original point in that cars and planes are in fact different and distinct objects and trying to apply that to the idea that animals are different and distinct is in some ways confusing. Where your analogy breaks down I think can be likened to this:

My sister and I are different and distinct people, we both have a car each, while I and my sister share attributes: colour of our eyes, hair, shape of face, etc. because we are both physically descendant from our parents, our cars although they may share the same engine, the same tyres etc. do not necessarily have that because they share the same heritage, they possibly have the same tyres because we got them from the same shop, or we both prefer that brand of tyre.

 

[Greg1234]

Not really from my understanding of evolution, probably more accurately evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency in a population.

So mutations have no part to play?

but it's still the same object in both of the states and I think this is

But that's what we're talking about- one type of germ cells turning into other types of germ cells

missing your original point in that cars and planes are in fact different and distinct objects and trying to apply that to the idea that animals are different and distinct is in some ways confusing. Where your analogy breaks down I think can be likened to this:

Ah, but what is descent but change? Isn't the changed germ cell descending from the previous form?

 

[albrecht]

So a car in 1st gear can't change into a car in 2nd, 3rd and 4th gear? New car to old broken down car? Yes? No?

How is this related to anything?

 

[gluadys]

So mutations have no part to play?

Mutations generate variations. Then evolution can begin. Rather like putting gas in the gas tank. A full tank doesn't mean the car will move. You still need an engine for that. But an empty tank means the engine can't move the car. A full tank, or even a partially full tank, means the engine can begin to move the car. No variation in a population means evolutionary change is not possible. But the presence of variation means evolution can get started.

But that's what we're talking about- one type of germ cells turning into other types of germ cells

No, we are not talking about one type of germ cell turning into other types. We are not talking about germ cells at all. We are talking about genes. We are talking about one already existing type of gene becoming more frequent in a population as compared to other already existing types of genes at the same locus on the chromosome. Remember two different types of genes can be in the same germ cell. So it is not a matter of the cell changing.

 

[Greg1234]

How is this related to anything?

Change.

 

[Greg1234]

Mutations generate variations.

Exactly. So the gears mutate (change). Then the ones in 1st gear will be "naturally selected" on an incline.

No, we are not talking about one type of germ cell turning into other types. We are not talking about germ cells at all. We are talking about genes.

Well we're not talking about cars but gears.

 

[Keachian]

Well we're not talking about cars but gears.

Well then here's the problem with that analogy then, there is a clear way to move from one gear to another, heck I could even move from 1st to 5th or vice versa, ie we can move from one state to another state and there is no fundamentally necessary transition from one to the other. ie. the relationship between the gears and moving one to another is the full set of pairs that can exist rather than some subset of the pairs.

So we have our set of gears:
{1..5, R, N}

the relationship and changes we can make are as follows

(1,1),(1,2),(1,3),(1,4),(1,5),(1,N),(1,R),(2,1),(2,2),(2,3),(2,4),(2,5),(2,N),(2,R),(3,1),(3,2),(3,3),(3,4),(3,5),(3,N),(3,R),(4,1),(4,2),(4,3),(4,4),(4,5),(4,N),(4,R),(5,1),(5,2),(5,3),(5,4),(5,5),(5,N),(5,R),(N,1),(N,2),(N,3),(N,4),(N,5),(N,N),(N,R),(R,1),(R,2),(R,3),(R,4),(R,5),(R,N),(R,R)

Notice that we have transitions one way and not the other, in contrast evolution must be thought of sequential changes that can't always be reversed as the reversal process generally concerns interactions between two divergent groups before they are sexually divergent.

 

[gluadys]

Well then here's the problem with that analogy then, there is a clear way to move from one gear to another, heck I could even move from 1st to 5th or vice versa, ie we can move from one state to another state and there is no fundamentally necessary transition from one to the other. ie. the relationship between the gears and moving one to another is the full set of pairs that can exist rather than some subset of the pairs.

So we have our set of gears:
{1..5, R, N}

the relationship and changes we can make are as follows

(1,1),(1,2),(1,3),(1,4),(1,5),(1,N),(1,R),(2,1),(2,2),(2,3),(2,4),(2,5),(2,N),(2,R),(3,1),(3,2),(3,3),(3,4),(3,5),(3,N),(3,R),(4,1),(4,2),(4,3),(4,4),(4,5),(4,N),(4,R),(5,1),(5,2),(5,3),(5,4),(5,5),(5,N),(5,R),(N,1),(N,2),(N,3),(N,4),(N,5),(N,N),(N,R),(R,1),(R,2),(R,3),(R,4),(R,5),(R,N),(R,R)

Notice that we have transitions one way and not the other, in contrast evolution must be thought of sequential changes that can't always be reversed as the reversal process generally concerns interactions between two divergent groups before they are sexually divergent.

The other basic problem with the analogy is that Greg is referring to changes in gear settings that occur in a single car, whereas evolution is about changes in the frequency of alleles in a population of many different organisms.

It would make more sense if one was speaking of different types of gears in different cars 3-speed, 4-speed 5-speed etc. Do we find that over time one of these sets is used more often than the others? Is there a way to transform one of these into the others? Has there been a change in the one most commonly used in vehicles over the last 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?

Are there particular varieties of vehicles in which one of the less commonly used sets are nearly always found? e.g. bicycles which may have up to 10 speeds?

 

[Greg1234]

Well then here's the problem with that analogy then, there is a clear way to move from one gear to another,

Well the gears could actually move in any direction it can be forced in. But then we would consider it broken in some cases, or it could simply be beneficial in circumstances where being gearless is advantageous.

 

[Keachian]

Well the gears could actually move in any direction it can be forced in. But then we would consider it broken in some cases, or it could simply be beneficial in circumstances where being gearless is advantageous.

Wait, you realise that you keep on changing your analogy, I don't understand what you're trying to say here

 

[albrecht]

Change.

How is this related to anything?

 

[Assyrian]

It doesn't say that? You must have a different Bible than every one I have ever read.

Genesis 1:11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”

Genesis 1:24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 8:15 Then God said to Noah, 16 “Come out of the ark, you and your wife and your sons and their wives. 17 Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you—the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground—so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number on it.”

​

The very first passage I quoted demonstrates the model which the other verses follow. In the first passage it says that plants shall produce seed according to their kind and fruits will produce seed according to their kind for the furtherance of each different type of fruit or grain or vegetable or other plant. With each following passage about animals, whether it be marine life, avian, or land animal, why do you think the Bible would go to the length to mention that each were "after their own kind" if it was not to infer that fish will produce more fish, birds will produce more birds, cattle will produce more cattle, etc, etc...

So, maybe the Bible doesn't say exactly that wording I had, it certainly supports that thinking.

In Christ, GB

The problem is, this is a misreading of verses 10 and 11 that has to be forced into the other verses, even though there is nothing in these verses to support it and it isn't the meaning of the Hebrew word kind. There is a simple and consistent use of 'according to their kind' in Genesis 1 and it does fit the meaning of the Hebrew 'kind', but you need to look at how the phrase is used in the other verses as well.

The Hebrew phrase would have been easily understood by the original listeners hearers, but to us, the construction is unfamiliar outside of biblical references anyway. We don't us it in ordinary conversation. This makes the more complex verses like 10 and 11 a difficult place for us to start. It is much better to take a simpler phrase where it is used and look at how it is being used there. Lets look at what God said in verse 24, see if it makes sense in that simple phrase without adding any ideas into it, and then we can see if it is being used the same way in all the other verses in Genesis 1 that use according to their kind.

Genesis 1:24 And God said,
“Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds,"

'Kind', as I am sure you realise, means a variety or type of animals or plant. God's command was for the earth to produce living creatures according to their different varieties. In other words, it means God is commanding the earth to produce all the different types of animals.
Look at the next verse we see this repeated only it say that this was God creating them
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds,
Again very simply, God made all the different varieties of animals.
If you look though all the occurrences of 'according to their kind' we see the same pattern of a main verb create or make, a subject: plants, fish or land animals, which were to be made in all their varieties, 'according to their kinds'

Genesis 1:20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds,
and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”

Genesis 1:24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:
the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Notice how the main verb 'created' or 'made' continues to govern 'according to their kind' where it come up in the phrases that follow.

Genesis 1:21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds,
and (God created...) every winged bird according to its kind.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds:
(Let the land produce...) the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”
And it was so.
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds,
(God made...) the livestock according to their kinds,
and (God made...) all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Now look at verse 11 and 12 and see what verbs are being used. The problem is, I think you are connecting it to the wrong verbs. You take the verbs in the subclauses:

Genesis 1:11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

You home in on the sub clauses and think Genesis is saying trees were 'to bear fruit... according to their kind'. Yet most of the other times we have seen according to their kind being used, there are no subclauses, and when there are, they are about how the animals move not how they reproduce 21 ...that moves about in it, according to their kinds...
25 and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. According to their kind doesn't mean how the animals move any more than it means how they reproduce. What we have are subclauses describing the different organisms God is creating, but according to their kind always goes back to the main verb and says God created all the different varieties. Genesis 1:21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds. 25 God made...all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

If the other verses that talk about 'according to their kind' either don't have subclauses with subordinate verbs or the subordinate verbs are not talking about reproduction, if 'according to their kind' refers back to the main verb in all the other verses, shouldn't we see if verses 10 and 11 work the same way? So instead of caught up in subclauses in verse 10 and 11, see if 'according to their kind' links back to the main verb.

Genesis 1:11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

The sub clauses are simply a description of the different plants, 'according to their kind' tells us the land produced all the different varieties and types of plants, the same as it tells us God created all the different varieties of fish in verse 21 and all the different kinds of animals in verse 25.
Not only does this give us a consistent use of 'according to their kind' throughout the chapter, it is also consistent with the meaning of the Hebrew, the word kind means variety or sort, not reproduce.

In fact, in the 1:20 and the 8:15 passages it has God saying "increase" "multiply" and "fill". An animal could not increase in number if it was diverging so greatly as to become vastly different from it's ancestor. Likewise, a kind of animal could not fill the earth if it was not perpetuating descendants similar to that kind.

God certainly wanted the different species to reproduce and fill the earth, that does not mean the phrase 'according to their kind' means 'reproduce the same variety'. We see 'according to their kind' used in Lev 11 and Deut 14 the lists of kosher and non kosher animals. It has nothing to do how the animals reproduce, it is talking about what food the Israelites could put on their dinner plates. The word kind simply means the different varieties or sorts of animals. That is how it is used consistently throughout the bible. That is how it is used in Genesis too.