Thinking About Evolution

[Believer1993]

Wanna have some fun? Ask them how "Nebraska man" panned out.

I don't think Nebraska Man is overly relevant to the issue. It was misidentified when first discovered and failed to garner widespread scientific support. The issue was resolved within a decade.

I think that is a lot like saying, look at the Arian Controversy, thus Jesus can't be God. Just because there are issues doesn't necessarily mean anything for the system as a whole.

And just as a side note, I'm not trying to defend evolution in this post so much as state the arguments that I find convincing, as well as trying to show where arguments against evolution have come up short.

 

[Believer1993]

That is just because we see mutations from generation to generation in a given species why should we assume that that means that the species can change into another species?

Well I think that speciation has been well documented.

just because dogs evolve into different kinds of dogs doesn't mean that they can evolve into cats

Well no one's saying that.

hey interpret one peice of bone burried depper than another to mean that one evolved from another for no good reason

That's not entirely true, they would say a bone buried in a deeper layer of rock would be older, but it would require more evidence to establish any kind of evolutionary relationship. For instance, dinosaurs are buried deeper than humans, but no one says that humans evolved from dinosaurs.

We and chimps have like 98% of our DNA in common and they interpret that to mean that we our related for no good reason.

There's more to it than that, physiology has something to do with it as well. Ken Miller also has a good presentation describing the genetic evidence that chimps and humans are related.

Lastly, I haven't read Plantinga, but in light of this whole conversation it seems that I should put him on my reading list.

 

[sastark]

Robert,

It seems that thus far, the arguments you have raised in favor of evolution have been:

The Fossil Record
The Genetic Evidence
The age of the earth
And vestigial organ

In addition to these things, you have stated that the question of the origin of life has no bearing on evolution.

The Fossil Record is far from conclusive when it comes to supporting the theory of evolution. Evolution (the gradual rise of higher life forms from lower over a period of thousands of millennia) is unable to account for many phenomena in the fossil record, not the least of which is the Cambrian Explosion.

The Genetic Evidence strongly favors inference to a Designer, not random mutation. There is a deep connection between sequences of nucleotide bases in DNA which code for protein and sequences of alphabetic characters written on a page that convey meaning. E. J. Ambrose (former University of London cell biologist) said, "There is a message if the order of bases in DNA can be translated by the cell into some vital activity necessary for survival or reproduction." Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell, which you fail to interact with, is excellent on this point.

The age of the earth used by evolutionists is based on principles of uniformitarianism--that those process which we now observe have always been at work at the same rate we now observe them. However, this is an assumption and not proven. Further, William Dembski, who accepts a very old earth/universe, has done the math to show that given the age of the universe currently claimed by evolutionists, there is simply not enough time for the "beneficial" mutations necessary to move from single-cell organism to advanced forms of life (such as Man) to occur. Evolution doesn't even work in a very old (13.2 billion years or whatever the latest number is) universe. It doesn't add up.

Finally, vestigial organs are a joke.

I recommend, in addition to Signature in the Cell, that you read "The Design of Life" by Dembski and Wells. It is a very basic introduction, but it covers all the issues you have raised.

You have also stated that origin of life has no bearing on evolution, but you are very wrong. The origin of life is the very question evolution seeks to answer. How non-living molecules "evolved" into a living cell has always been a central question of evolution, and they have, thus far, been incapable of answering this. The famed Miller-Urey experiment was an abject failure. The atmospheric conditions supposed in the experiment did not and do not at all resemble what even evolutionists believe our "early" atmosphere looked like. Further, even if they were able to produce proteins: so what? Proteins are not cells, they are the building blocks of cells, which must be arranged much like bricks in order to form a building. How do you move from a pile of bricks to a building? By an Intelligent agent arranging them properly. Not through random reshuffling of the bricks.

But, what you have failed to do is demonstrate how evolution can be true if God's Word is true. It is clear in Scripture that God created all things in the space of six days, that He created animals after their "kinds", and that he created man out of the dust of the ground, not from any lower form of life. If evolution or the (improper) interpretation of the world around us contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture, then evolution or that interpretation of the world is wrong. God's Word is sure and authoritative in every area of life and it clearly speaks to the issue of creation and the origin of life.

So you are forced to choose: Either God is trustworthy and natural man's interpretation of the world is not, or fallen man whose reason is debilitated due to sin, who is unable to properly interpret the facts with which he is confronted, has stumbled upon the truth of the universe and God is, in fact, a liar.

Which will it be?

 

[gordo]

So you are forced to choose: Either God is trustworthy and natural man's interpretation of the world is not, or fallen man whose reason is debilitated due to sin, who is unable to properly interpret the facts with which he is confronted, has stumbled upon the truth of the universe and God is, in fact, a liar.

So one must have a 100% literal view of the first parts of Genesis or God is a liar???

I'm not defending evolution at all, but never once have I viewed creation in a literal 6 day sense.

 

[sastark]

So one must have a 100% literal view of the first parts of Genesis or God is a liar???

I'm not defending evolution at all, but never once have I viewed creation in a literal 6 day sense.

I really don't want to have this thread get sidetracked on this issue, but: Did God speak to the issue of the age of the earth/length of creation? If so, what did He say? Young earth and old earth cannot both be true. The Westminster Confession clearly states that God created all things in "the space of six days." (WCF 4.1). This is the view supported by Scripture. If God has said this, and man says something else, ultimately, either man is lying or God is.

 

[gordo]

Fair enough. We will leave it at that for now as to not sidetrack the thread.

 

[crimsonleaf]

1. Where did the stuff come from that supposedly started life?

2. Why can't we similarly start life in controlled lab experiments?

3. Is matter eternal? Does that make sense?

4. How can, say, a horse type animal's cells and DNA start spontaneously figuring out that if it elongates the neck, better food will be available? Why would anything stay as a horse-like animal if it were advantageous to eat treetops? In short why do we still have amoebas? If it was supposedly to their advantage to become two celled, then 50 celled, then lung breathing, etc.

5. Would not wings also be advantageous to the horse type animal? How about the ability for fly for humans? Why is there no evidence that any such thing is occurring? Doesn't hair help us all keep warm? Why aren't all creatures covered with hair/feathers by now? Humans have little hair on their bodies to keep them warm. Why did we lose our hair?

6. Where are the missing links?

7. Why do I see no evidence in the natural world of systems organizing themselves?

1. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
2. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
3. Doesn't have anything to do with evolution.
4. It didn't just spontaneously happen. Some horses would have longer necks naturally, much like some people have larger hands, smaller feet, etc. Since they could eat leaves higher in the trees they would pass on their genes. This would happen until long neck 'horses' which could eat tree tops aka giraffes finally evolved. There was no figuring out, it just happened. The reason we still have simpler life forms would be because it must be advantageous. Here's an example. If you go to the store and there is only one check out line the line becomes very long. If a second one opens and everyone goes to the second one it is no longer advantageous. There was a point when it was advantageous to stay in the first line. Evolution would work the same way. If it was advantageous for one species to begin going multi-celled there would be a point when it was no longer advantageous.
5. Feathers supposedly evolved in dinosaurs, which then evolved into birds. Since mammals are not in this evolutionary line feathers would have to evolve separately in mammals.
6. From what I can tell there have been quite a few. I found stuff on the evolution of manatees and there were quite a few 'missing links'.
7. Again doesn't deal with evolution.

These are responses I've read/heard to your questions. Hopefully you can use the responses to sharpen your critiques.

---------- Post added at 06:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------

which area you are interested in

I'm interested in the fossil record and genetics the most.

I think there's a confusion between natural selection (or survival of the fittest) and evolution, which is common. The question of horses raised here is one of natural selection - those with mutated genes and the resultant longer necks would have access to foods that their shorter bretheren wouldn't and higher numbers of the taller horses would survive, perpetuating the mutated gene and assimilating it into the genome.

Evolution has more to do with the origins of life and development of species. Question 1 is a good starting point, as without the answer Evolution is dead in the water. Evolution is about change and must therefore have had something to change from. Start there and your argument will take one of only two possible directions.

When you've decided on your direction then ask a further question: To move from a simple to a complex organism requires a great deal of additional genetic information - can you name one example of where DNA has developed additional information on its own? Dawkins can't, and has been seen failing all over the net.

Also chart the instances of mutation forming genuine improvement. Generally speaking, mutation results in catastrophic failure, with disease and birth defects abounding.

Perhaps you should look at the evolution of sex, both from a "how" and a "why" perspective. Actually, scratch the "why" question, because it falls outside of the true study of evolution. "Why" questions a purpose, and there is no purpose in evolution, just results. So, how did separate sexes develop? How did self-replicating, genetically pure single cells develop from the simple perfection of self-generation to the complex and arguably disadvantageous process of requiring two sexes with perfectly matching sex organs? And what do you think THEIR missing links or transitional stages would have looked liked and how would they have reproduced with incomplete working parts?

Then look at irreducible complexity. Start with a bicycle and remove as many parts as you can until any further removal causes failure. That's the point of irreducible complexity. Darwin's Black box is about cellular construction and origins and contains many examples of IC within every single cell in life.

Really, there's so much to question. As an ex-theistic evolutionist I'd urge you to read some of the stuff recommended above, then go back to question 1. Investigate the processes required for those initial chemicals (which sprung out of nowhere) to form into anything we could call life. I'll be interested in your discoveries, because a Nobel prize lies at the end of them.

 

[rookie]

Wow.....so much here, and being at work, I would love to add more comments to this one. Robert, from my perspective, it seems you are trying in every way to prove evolution. The first thing you MUST do is define evolution. There are 6 definitions of it.
1. Stellar evolution - evolution of the stars
2. Chemical evolution - how chemicals have all evolved from previous ones
3. Cosmic Evolution - Creation of time, space matter
4. Organic Evolution - How life began
5. Macro Evolution - From one species to another (from a whale to a horse as an example)
6. Micro Evolution - From a German Shepherd to a Golden Lab (both dogs)

The first 5, are lies and absolutely no documented true evidence stand for them. The last one, we see all the time. And when it comes to Vestigial organs. Are we talking the 2 little bones that are sticking out of whales, or the ones that snakes also have? Snakes have them to hold on to each other when mating, and whales? They help support the new born since a whales doesn't just weight 6lbs.

And as far as the day age theory (6 long periods of time). Since Yom (the Hebrew for day) is accompanied by numbers (first day, second day, third day....) it always means 24 hr periods. If they are not accompanied by a number....it can have varying definitions. (In my dad's day, could be a span of a few years).

So before the debate carries on longer here, some definitions should be made a little more precise. I have much, much more that could be added, but I am at work at the moment....

 

[Believer1993]

it seems you are trying in every way to prove evolution

I'm just trying to clarify things and respond to objections. If a Muslim had an inaccurate view of Jesus we would respond to it and say that's not what we believe. Or, if a Muslim raised an objection we could point to where it has already been answered. I'm just doing the same with evolution.

The definition of evolution that I'm struggling with is "The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation."

And I would be careful about using the word "species", since speciation has been documented.

 

[MW]

Evolution doesn't even work in a very old (13.2 billion years or whatever the latest number is) universe.

That's the main issue from a scientific standpoint. It is presented as a working hypothesis. It must be pointed out that it doesn't actually work.

 

[Nate]

DNA is made up of proteins which must be arranged intelligibly to be of use

???

---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------

I was just saying that evolution is defined as "The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation," has nothing to do with the origins of matter/life/etc.

Perhaps you are getting tripped up by the fuzzy definitions of evolutionists. Christian creationists do not reject the idea of changes in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations, whether caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. Observational science teaches us that these changes do occur. However, the descent of men and creatures from a common ancestor is not the same thing. Please check out these resources from Answers in Genesis. Careful definition of terms is in order.

I am a tried and true literal 6 day 24 hour believer, but I have to say that organizations like Answers in Genesis and the Creation Institute do at least as poor of a job with their definitions of evolution as many secular scientists do. In fact, Robert is totally correct in his definition of evolution... biological evolution is simply defined as a heritable changes in a population spread over generations. Just because AIG and CI don't want to accept this definition, it does not mean that this is not the working definition of evolution for the vast majority of practicing biologists.

 

[Dearly Bought]

DNA is made up of proteins which must be arranged intelligibly to be of use

???

---------- Post added at 09

I was just saying that evolution is defined as "The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation," has nothing to do with the origins of matter/life/etc.

:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------

Perhaps you are getting tripped up by the fuzzy definitions of evolutionists. Christian creationists do not reject the idea of changes in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations, whether caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. Observational science teaches us that these changes do occur. However, the descent of men and creatures from a common ancestor is not the same thing. Please check out these resources from Answers in Genesis. Careful definition of terms is in order.

I am a tried and true literal 6 day 24 hour believer, but I have to say that organizations like Answers in Genesis and the Creation Institute do at least as poor of a job with their definitions of evolution as many secular scientists do. In fact, Robert is totally correct in his definition of evolution... biological evolution is simply defined as a heritable changes in a population spread over generations. Just because AIG and CI don't want to accept this definition, it does not mean that this is not the working definition of evolution for the vast majority of practicing biologists.

Nate, I am utterly confused. Do you reject the concept of changes in the genetic composition of a population over generations?

 

[Nate]

Evolution has more to do with the origins of life and development of species.

Maybe this is true for the relatively few numbers of faculty members of the Evolutionary Sciences branch of Biology Departments and the few odd molecular biologists asking this question. For the majority of practicing biologists, evolution definitely has more to do with heritable changes in a population spread over time.

When you've decided on your direction then ask a further question: To move from a simple to a complex organism requires a great deal of additional genetic information - can you name one example of where DNA has developed additional information on its own? Dawkins can't, and has been seen failing all over the net.

Dawkins is rather bad at arguing his position. Again, I am a 6/24 believer, but I can show you how this happens not-so-infrequently. In the case of humans, we have varying levels of copy number of each gene. That means that some of us have more information than others. This happens from segments of DNA duplicating during cell division or DNA repair processes.

Also chart the instances of mutation forming genuine improvement. Generally speaking, mutation results in catastrophic failure, with disease and birth defects abounding.

This is a pillar of evolutionary biology. It is unclear to me why we creationists keep ramming this point home. I guess we agree with it, so it does not hurt to state it, but it does make us look bad when we think we are pulling one over the evolutionists by telling them something that they don't already promote.

Then look at irreducible complexity. Start with a bicycle and remove as many parts as you can until any further removal causes failure. That's the point of irreducible complexity. Darwin's Black box is about cellular construction and origins and contains many examples of IC within every single cell in life.

I couldn't agree more.

---------- Post added at 09:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ----------

Nate, I am utterly confused. Do you reject the concept of changes in the genetic composition of a population over generations?

Sorry about that Bryan. I see how I was not clear. I accept the position. My argument is that AIG and CI type organizations refuse to call change in heritable information over time "evolution". The majority of practicing biologists do define this process as "evolution". So do textbooks. Although, I agree with you that textbooks and some (many?) scientists have other definitions for evolution.

 

[Dearly Bought]

Nate, I am utterly confused. Do you reject the concept of changes in the genetic composition of a population over generations?

Sorry about that Bryan. I see how I was not clear. I accept the position. My argument is that AIG and CI type organizations refuse to call change in heritable information over time "evolution". The majority of practicing biologists do define this process as "evolution". So do textbooks. Although, I agree with you that textbooks and some (many?) scientists have other definitions for evolution.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I don't think there is much to criticize regarding AiG or other Creation Science organizations on this point. Answers in Genesis readily acknowledges there are various definitions of the term evolution. They try to point out that secular scientists often pull a tricky bait-and-switch, moving from a general genetic principle of "descent with modification" to a common ancestry of all creatures while using the same term. The link which I posted above deals with this problem of terminology. In my experience, they generally are very careful to point out that we agree with evolution in one sense but not the other.

 

[Nate]

Nate, I am utterly confused. Do you reject the concept of changes in the genetic composition of a population over generations?

Sorry about that Bryan. I see how I was not clear. I accept the position. My argument is that AIG and CI type organizations refuse to call change in heritable information over time "evolution". The majority of practicing biologists do define this process as "evolution". So do textbooks. Although, I agree with you that textbooks and some (many?) scientists have other definitions for evolution.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I don't think there is much to criticize regarding AiG or other Creation Science organizations on this point. Answers in Genesis readily acknowledges there are various definitions of the term evolution. They try to point out that secular scientists often pull a tricky bait-and-switch, moving from a general genetic principle of "descent with modification" to a common ancestry of all creatures while using the same term. The link which I posted above deals with this problem of terminology. In my experience, they generally are very careful to point out that we agree with evolution in one sense but not the other.

OK. I have a generally positive view of AiG and I agree that they do spend some time grappling with definitions (I am familiar with the link you shared). However, I see them (perhaps unconsciously) pulling the same bait-and-switch routine, often stating that "evolution" was most certainly not proven by a particular experiment, when all the scientists were trying to say was that they observed a change in genomic information in a population over time.

 

[Tim]

Well, the problem with this thread is that we have had 45 posts and I still don't think we have properly defined what might be meant by evolution.

I think we need to go further than to define evolution as mere change. Try this:

Evolution as increase in complexity, sometimes called macro-evolution

This position holds that evolution includes increases in complexity brought about by random changes in genetics, that is sufficient to bring about a change from one kind into another, more complex kind. An example of this would be to hold that man has animal ancestors and ultimately simple life forms (like amoeba) in distant history.

Speciation as decrease in complexity, sometimes called micro-evolution

The common example of this is grandfather dog, who has genetics for long fur and short fur. He has medium fur, but his grandchildren have either short fur or long fur. The grandchildren that have short fur have lost the long fur genes. Their complexity has decreased because they no longer carry the information for long fur. This is a change indeed, but the information content decreases, rather than increases, as with the former example.

When 6/24 Biblical creationists talk about "evolution", they are almost always referring to the former example.

---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 PM ----------

So, my question for our brother Robert (from the original post) is which of the two above do you struggle with?

 

[Nate]

Brother Tim, why do you dismiss the very precise definition that Robert gave in post #21? i.e., change in genetic composition rather than increases or decreases in complexity. Why dismiss mere change when a good many evolutionists use this definition?

 

[Tim]

Hi Nate, I don't think that definition is precise enough. That is why I brought in the aspect of complexity. Complexity is crucial to the issue because the direction of complexity is one way to separate views that are compatible with scripture from those that are not. As I said above, I don't believe it is sufficient to define evolution as mere change; the sort of change needs to be explained.

My comments follow what Bryan posted above regarding the bait-and-switch often employed by secular scientists: a finding of local speciation (loss of genetic information in a local habitat due to natural selection) that is said to be an example of evolution (a term that is then used in a way that includes common ancestry of all creatures = increase in genetic information from simple to complex).

Do you see my point?

 

[Nate]

Yes, I see your point, but I don't think I agree with it. Maybe you can help my misunderstandings.

1. My first understanding of your point is that simple change in genetic composition is not commonly defined by secular scientists as evolution, or is not precise enough to convey what they think evolution is. I am arguing that this definition of evolution is precise enough as it is used very often in the fields of cell biology, animal biology, and even evolutionary biology. The field of cell biology is far more expansive probably than all other biological fields combined, and I argue that this definition of evolution is the most commonly used definition in this field. Most scientists are not concerned with speciation, or increases in complexity, but are actually concerned with changes in plasmid frequencies, mutational frequencies, allele frequencies, single nucleotide polymorphisms, and copy number variations in populations of organisms over time. These changes are defined as evolution, and as far as I can tell, this definition is universally accepted by secular scientists. In fact, this is one of two definitions of evolution stated in black and white in the Campbell Biology textbook (most commonly used college biology text) that I teach from. Speciation and complexity never enter the conversation in the vast majority of these cases.

2. My second understanding of your point is that local speciation always results from a loss of genetic information, but never a gain of genetic information. Like the AiG folk who argue that gain of genetic information has never been demonstrated (it has), I have never seen demonstrable evidence of loss of genetic information driving speciation. This is a point on which I can be educated as this it is often made by AiG and CI, and therefore the evidence must be present.

3. I agree completely with you that the bait and switch method is often employed... use the definition in #1 above, then smoothly transition into a discussion on how birds descended from dinos. Although, my interactions with actual evolutionary biologists are interesting... the second definition of evolution in the Campbell biology text is a "descent with modification" one that quickly blurs into "molecules to man". The admittedly few evolutionary biologists with which I have interacted detest this definition. They insist that changes within populations over time is the only accurate definition. However, it is readily evident from scientific publications and textbooks that this is not the majority opinion. I am unclear as to what the prevailing thought is on complexity. My capstone in college was evolutionary biology, and one point that was driven home was that evolution is not synonymous with complexity. This is a theme that prevails in the research environment which I currently inhabit too. Evolution does not necessitate increased complexity.

I guess my take-home argument is be careful with limiting your definition of evolution to the two that you proposed as the majority of biologists will use the change in information definition that Robert proposed at least as much as your first definition.

 

[KingofBashan]

Recently I've been looking at the scientific evidence for evolution, and I must say it is rather convincing. However, I don't think I can reconcile evolution with the account in Genesis. It is easy to say well then it's settled evolution is wrong, but that seems dishonest. If God created the world why would he create the world the way it would appear if evolution is correct? On top of that, many of the Christian sources I've come across seem to lack the critical thinking they utilize when dealing with theology when it comes to evolution. I simply don't know what to do, or where to go from here. Some help would be appreciated.

Are you familiar with creationscience.com and answersingenesis.org? These may prove helpful as you try to reconcile science with revealed truth.

 

[Bern]

It should be clear by now that often people are talking past each other when it comes to this topic. I think there is also a common misconception that just because an objection to evolutionary thought doesn't sound complicated or "educated", that it cannot be valid. All data only has meaning when it is interpreted. If you approach the data from a worldview that presupposes evolutionary ideas, then you'll likely come to a wrong conclusion. Something we must also remember is that man is not morally neutral. He is corrupt and will not approach the topic of creation rationally and without bias, no matter how much he claims neutrality. The choice one has to make as a believer is this: do I follow an idea that is incompatible with the bible or not? If you believe the bible is true, then all data must be interpreted accordingly.

 

[rookie]

it seems you are trying in every way to prove evolution

I'm just trying to clarify things and respond to objections. If a Muslim had an inaccurate view of Jesus we would respond to it and say that's not what we believe. Or, if a Muslim raised an objection we could point to where it has already been answered. I'm just doing the same with evolution.

The definition of evolution that I'm struggling with is "The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation."

And I would be careful about using the word "species", since speciation has been documented.

Fine, use the word "kind". And every animal shall bring forth from its own kind......

 

[Tim]

I guess my take-home argument is be careful with limiting your definition of evolution to the two that you proposed as the majority of biologists will use the change in information definition that Robert proposed at least as much as your first definition.

Nate, I am not so much concerned with how evolution is defined in the secular lab or classroom. I am concerned that we on the PB are able to define our terms sufficiently so that we may reject anti-Biblical thinking and accept only those models that are consistent with the Bible.

I am happy to concede the point:

Most scientists are not concerned with speciation, or increases in complexity, but are actually concerned with changes in plasmid frequencies, mutational frequencies, allele frequencies, single nucleotide polymorphisms, and copy number variations in populations of organisms over time.

but the problem is that most scientists do believe that man ultimately evolved from simpler life forms, even if their research is centered around a smaller, specialized topic. This is where it is important that we mention increases or decreases in complexity (perhaps increases or decreases in information would work as well) so that we may distinguish what needs to be distinguished.

As Bern mentioned above, I admit that there has been a bit of "talking past one another" (not just you and me), so I appreciate the opportunity to pursue this point. Please let me know how close we are in our thinking at this moment.

 

[Nate]

I guess my take-home argument is be careful with limiting your definition of evolution to the two that you proposed as the majority of biologists will use the change in information definition that Robert proposed at least as much as your first definition.

Nate, I am not so much concerned with how evolution is defined in the secular lab or classroom. I am concerned that we on the PB are able to define our terms sufficiently so that we may reject anti-Biblical thinking and accept only those models that are consistent with the Bible.

I am happy to concede the point:

Most scientists are not concerned with speciation, or increases in complexity, but are actually concerned with changes in plasmid frequencies, mutational frequencies, allele frequencies, single nucleotide polymorphisms, and copy number variations in populations of organisms over time.

but the problem is that most scientists do believe that man ultimately evolved from simpler life forms, even if their research is centered around a smaller, specialized topic. This is where it is important that we mention increases or decreases in complexity (perhaps increases or decreases in information would work as well) so that we may distinguish what needs to be distinguished.

As Bern mentioned above, I admit that there has been a bit of "talking past one another" (not just you and me), so I appreciate the opportunity to pursue this point. Please let me know how close we are in our thinking at this moment.

Bern is right - I will make more of an effort to not talk past others.
Tim, I think we are on virtually the same page with our understanding of the biological mechanisms and phenomena our great Creator has established that contribute to the diversity of life. You bring up an important point that we need to sufficiently define our terms so that we may reject anti-biblical thinking. I also concede your point that most scientists do believe that man ultimately evolved from simpler life forms, and that this belief is incorporated into their definition of evolution. So, I agree with you that increases and decreases in complexity need to be part of our working definition of evolution. My issue is that it would be dishonest if we limit our definition to complexity and refuse to include change in genetic information. By including both, we will be better able to accept models that are consistent with the Bible and also reject anti-biblical thinking.
I believe our thinking diverges with respect to gains and losses of information. I see gains of genetic information that are able to drive diversity in populations. I have not come across examples of gains of information driving speciation, but gains of genetic information do occur. Perhaps this is not an important point in the conversation, so I will let it go.
Thanks for the interaction Tim, and I look forward to any additional comments you might have.

 

[rookie]

Ok, we don't have to use the word species. We can use the word "Kind". And each brought forth from its own kind.....

 

[Tim]

Bern is right - I will make more of an effort to not talk past others.
Tim, I think we are on virtually the same page with our understanding of the biological mechanisms and phenomena our great Creator has established that contribute to the diversity of life. You bring up an important point that we need to sufficiently define our terms so that we may reject anti-biblical thinking. I also concede your point that most scientists do believe that man ultimately evolved from simpler life forms, and that this belief is incorporated into their definition of evolution. So, I agree with you that increases and decreases in complexity need to be part of our working definition of evolution. My issue is that it would be dishonest if we limit our definition to complexity and refuse to include change in genetic information. By including both, we will be better able to accept models that are consistent with the Bible and also reject anti-biblical thinking.
I believe our thinking diverges with respect to gains and losses of information. I see gains of genetic information that are able to drive diversity in populations. I have not come across examples of gains of information driving speciation, but gains of genetic information do occur. Perhaps this is not an important point in the conversation, so I will let it go.
Thanks for the interaction Tim, and I look forward to any additional comments you might have.

Thanks, Nate. This interaction has been useful. I don't have the time to go into much more depth about information/genetics, but there is this book that might be useful in a future dialogue.

Amazon.com: In the Beginning Was Information (9783893972555): Werner Gitt, Jaap Kies: Books

 

[jwright82]

Well I think that speciation has been well documented.

Read the book In Search of Deep Time By Henry Glee, an evolutionist. He affirms that we can never know if two different fossils are related and he admits (along with Dawkins in his new book "proving" evolution The Greatest Show on Earth) that evolution is exactly a theoretical interpretation of the facts. Again interpretation always brings with it the possibility of saying why should I look at things that way?

Well no one's saying that.

Ah one of my most favorate statements to trip up an evolutionist, not that I am accusing you of being one. But the idea of adaptive mutation and speciation in theory are saying exactly that. That it is possible over a long period of time that a species of dog can through adaptive mutation evolve into what we call a species of cat. If you place any limits on adaptive mutaion, the most debated part of evolutionary theory BTW, it uterlly destroys the idea of macroevolution. So when the dust settles on the whole adaptive mutation debate they may end up with a theory that limits how far animals can mutate to adapt and that will destroy the whole notion of macroevolution and common ancestry.

That's not entirely true, they would say a bone buried in a deeper layer of rock would be older, but it would require more evidence to establish any kind of evolutionary relationship. For instance, dinosaurs are buried deeper than humans, but no one says that humans evolved from dinosaurs.

But the point is just because something is deeper than something doesn't mean that it is neccessarally older. As well common ancestry cannot be proved by either genetics or the fossil record unless you interpret the facts from evolutionary perspective, and that is my point. It begs the question of why should I interpret things that way? Only if naturalism is essential to science and true, which it is not.

There's more to it than that, physiology has something to do with it as well. Ken Miller also has a good presentation describing the genetic evidence that chimps and humans are related.

I think I am aware of that. As I understand it chimps and us share certian genetic anomalies that are passed from one generation to another but it is just assumed that the only way to explain it is to interpret it through an evolutionary lens. Also structle similaraties are just that similaraties not proof that we are related unless interpreted through the lens of evolution.

Lastly, I haven't read Plantinga, but in light of this whole conversation it seems that I should put him on my reading list.

I don't recomend him on everything but on this is pretty sound, although he sees no problem between beleiving in common ancestry (which I would not agree with). He is very good in epistemology as well. Doctrine of God not so good.

 

[sastark]

Quote Originally Posted by sastark View Post

DNA is made up of proteins which must be arranged intelligibly to be of use
???

Thanks for catching that, Nate. I've edited my original post to make my point clearer and more accurate (my original wording, which you quote was not correct).

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Robert (Believer1993), in your posts you noted the concept of "vestigial organs" as providing "pretty convincing" arguments for the validity of evolution. Contra that view, I'd like to bring to your attention the work, "Vestigial Organs" Are Fully Functional, by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D and George Howe, Ph.D (Creation Research Society Books, MO.1993) ISBN: 0940384094. I see copies are still available: link. I believe it will hold up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. I quote briefly from the Introduction:

. . . Until very recently, vestigial organs were interpreted to be strong evidence favoring macroevolution. The vestigial organ argument was considered one of the strongest supporting data of evolution for well over a century. But of the approximately 180 vestigial organs compiled by researchers around the year 1900, it is now almost unanimously agreed that most of them have at least one function in the body. After examining the few organs still generally believed to be vestigial, it can be concluded that each of these also has one or more functions . . .

Since medical research has all but closed the door to consideration of organs in the human body as "functionless," some macroevolutionists still assert that there are useless organs in the bodies of such animals as whales, pythons, and horses. Although our primary emphasis here concerns human organs, we shall discuss several supposed vestiges in various animals and one in plants . . .

Extensive reading and discussion with colleagues has led us to conclude that every organ labeled "useless" is not functionless. Ignorance alone has prevented scientists from understanding these organs. We feel confident that future research will eliminate the few remaining structures from the "vestigial" category.

In the present work we center primarily on the history of science because most of the conclusions herein are generally accepted by the authorities in the various medical and biological specialties, no matter what philosophy of origins they hold. Our task was to review the literature and to tie together various sectors of vestigial organ research. We have relied heavily upon work reported in medical or scientific journals and on the conclusions made by the researchers themselves.

The amount of literature is enormous; we have unearthed dozens of articles and six books on the pineal gland alone. In our extensive study, however, we were not able to locate a single book or monograph published in English this century covering all the vestigial organs, although numerous reviews have been produced on specific organs. It is our hope that this book will fill a void in the current origins literature . . . (pp. x, xi)​

I hope this is helpful. Welcome to PB!

 

[Believer1993]

First I want to thank everyone for their posts, this has been pretty helpful.

Now for those of you that want to use the word kind, what does that mean? A specific answer would be good since I find the term vague and not very helpful.