Evolution & Creation CAN coexist!

[Racoon]

By no means am I an expert in either field.

I've read the Bible and I've read about Evolution.

I simply cannot SEE what the Creation Fundamentalists have against Evolutionary process! :eek2:

Couldn't GOD 'create' evolution???

That's what it seems like to me.

It's hard (if not impossible) to argue the scientific evidence behind Evolution.

And Evolution still hasn't proven How we all got here conclusively.

 

I think the hang up Creation honks have is that they refuse to believe (through some distorted sense of Pride) that we "came from monkeys".

Did we?? All I know is that we are almost Genetically similar to "primates". I don't think thats so bad.

 

The root of the problem is clearly Psychological, not Physiological.

Religion is a Belief system, not a Scientific system.

At least Evolution IS answering questions and trying to Prove stuff.

Christians haven't "proved" Anything. ( except that many tend to be closed to open possibilities!) They don't Have to Prove anything! Its all right there in the Bible; Belief. Seems like the lazy way; No need to find out the workings of the Universe.

History is a great teacher here, because the Church Swore that everything revolved around Earth, And all heresy could be punished by a terrible death! :eek: We know thats simply Absurd now! Seems Creationists want to abandon those "roots" of their beliefs. ( which to me, nullifies most of their arguement. )

I'm also Not saying they are entiely wrong.

Granted, Science hasn't proven Definitively How we got here either!

I believe in God, but I cannot say it is "This Way" because No One really Knows!

 

This mind is Buddha.

[TRoutMac]

By no means am I an expert in either field.

I've read the Bible and I've read about Evolution.

I simply cannot SEE what the Creation Fundamentalists have against Evolutionary process! Couldn't GOD 'create' evolution???

 

Well, first of all, you may not be aware that there are really two categories of evolution: Micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is generally change within a species, but as we've seen in other threads, the definition of "species" isn't all that cut-and-dried. The best way to understand micro-evolution is to look at breeds of dogs. All dog breeds originated from one dog "species" which carried a particular genome, or set of genetic information. Out of that original dog genome we get all breeds of dogs from chihuahuas all the way up to great danes. That's a lot of variety… different sizes, different colors, but all "dogs". Now, these breeds are created through a process of "artificial selection" or selective breeding. Micro-evolution can produce similar changes to any animal, but the mechanism is "natural selection" and is unguided, undirected. Nobody, not even creationists, dispute change over time represented by the term "micro-evolution". And it is this form of evolution which is so well-supported by genetics and science in general.

 

On the other hand, macro-evolution is when, for simplicity's sake, a dog becomes a fish. That is, change over time produces entirely new animals with different structures and functions. Macro-evolution actually has some deep, deep flaws from a scientific standpoint and it is this form of evolution which Christians like myself refuse to accept.

 

Your question is "Couldn't God have used evolution to create?" The answer is "Yes, He could have." And if by "evolution" you mean "micro-evolution", you can say the He actually did. That's undeniable. But if by "evolution" you mean "macro-evolution", the answer from a scientific standpoint is "absolutely not". The evidence simply does not support it.

 

Evolutionists generally admit that there isn't any hard evidence for macro-evolution. But they assume that since we have micro-evolution, that macro-evolution simply "must be true". Macro, they say, is just an accumulation of micro. Well, there are serious problems with this logic, but this post is long enough for now. I'll explain further if you wish.

[Boerseun]

Haha - a dog turn into a fish. Imagine...:eek2:

 

Actually, that's not so absurd at all.

 

If you dissect a whale or a dolphin, an orca or a manatee, you'll find a skeleton designed for use on land. You'll find fingers in the flippers (the outside skin, of course, fused together to cover the fact). Heck, you'll even find a hip bone. Now why would that be?

 

Even the mere fact that they've got lungs, points towards a land-dwelling ancestry. Now - if macro-evolution is a fallacy, as has been shouted around these forums for a while now, then what we would've had was land-dwelling mounds of blubber. But wait - we do have land-dwelling mounds of blubber, you say. Yes - a walrus is a good example of what the whales might have gone through, being the intermediary step between 100% land-dwelling and 100% ocean-going. So, how does it start, you ask? Well, look at the polar bear. Obviously and visibly a bear. But look closer. It's toes are webbed, it's nostrils can close, and its hair is modified hollow tubes for thermal insulation.

Why did the polar bear do this? Simple. Fish was a source of protein that accidentally mutated 'bears', who, by a failure of DNA replication grew webbed toes, could exploit, whilst their brother bears could not. So, they can move to arctic areas where fish is the only food. Then, they become geographically isolated from the rest of the bears by exploiting their niche. And then, over millions of years (some people have a problem with the time-scales involved, although the fossil record bears this out), they have changed and adapted further to suit the environmental demands.

 

It could very well be said that faced with these examples, a bear is where it started, the walrus represents a couple 'o million years into the process, and a whale is the end product. Therefore, a dog can quite conceivable change into a 'fish'.

 

This is not to say that whales won't ever become land-lubbers. A few million years down the line, they might find a benefit in exploiting some imaginable resource on the beaches, and then become land-dwelling again. The process in reverse, so to speak. Neither a whale nor a bear (or a human, for that matter) represents the end result. There are no end-results. We are all in the middle zone of a change in one direction or another. The time-scales involved, however, won't make this readily apparent. A species like a shark, being around for millions of years, might create the impression that there is an end to the process. But the process will only slow down for as long as the environment doesn't require any new changes, and the species is succesfull in its particular niche.

 

If macro-evolution didn't happen, and Creationism is the way to go, then animal life wasn't created in one sitting. Once again, the fossil record bears this out. The oldest remains from the homo genus only dates to a couple of million years ago. The oldest homo sapiens, only about 100,000 years. The first sharks, a few hundreds of million years. Dinosaurs came and went. And this isn't localised. This evidence, as stated in the fossil record, is a global phenomenon. The deeper into the rock you dig (the older strata), the simpler the life-forms became. If macro-evolution is impossible, then they are clearly not our ancestors. Which means simply that Creation is an ongoing process, which would mean that God's (or the ID-'aliens' or 'intelligence') has a tiny lab somewhere in the middle of nowhere (we haven't found it yet) with a few branch offices in the ocean trenches, in the savannahs, in the Amazon, in the Arctic, and they've been a' crankin' out a few new species every few years or so, for the last 3.5-odd billion years or so.

 

Or maybe God just created the Fossil Record as a test of faith. You never know. These are just some of the ludicrous implications if macro-evolution is not the case.

 

ID'ers will tell you that there's a controversy amongst scientists regarding macro-evolution. This is not the case. The only 'controversy' is a well-managed campaign by ID'ers to promote their view. And artificial controversy will exist for as long as ID'ers have funds backing them up. See the court ruling in the States regarding this matter earlier this week.

 

I rest my case.

 

For the defence,

 

Boerseun.

[lindagarrette]

Why there is a controversy in the first place is beyond my comprehension. The natural explanation is so simple and clear, why bring in a third party unless there is an ulterior motive, the motive being to promote a religion and that religion is Christianity. Christianity requires creationism. It has to have the Adam and Eve story so Jesus can be resurected and save everyone from "original sin." Otherwise, the whole thing falls apart and Christians can't accept that or the basis for their belief would be destroyed. No other religion I know of has such a commitment to creationism. Well, maybe some ancient Hindu myths claim the world is carried on the back of a giant turtle, but at least it's not worshiped.

[TRoutMac]

ID'ers will tell you that there's a controversy amongst scientists regarding macro-evolution. This is not the case. The only 'controversy' is a well-managed campaign by ID'ers to promote their view. And artificial controversy will exist for as long as ID'ers have funds backing them up. See the court ruling in the States regarding this matter earlier this week.

 

I rest my case.

 

And as usual, your "case" is all too easy to topple. If you read the following article by well-known evolutionists Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,,1559743,00.html) you will see that these two gents see so much controversy among scientists about macro-evolution that they use such controversy to justify shutting any alternative theory, like ID, out of the classroom.

 

The article is about whether to teach I.D. in science classes, which they claim would be "disastrous". They start off by saying that it's normally a valuable educational technique to teach "both sides" of a given controversy. In the words of Coyne and Dawkins, "What is wrong with the apparently sweet reasonableness of "it is only fair to teach both sides"? The answer is simple. This is not a scientific controversy at all. And it is a time-wasting distraction because evolutionary science, perhaps more than any other major science, is bountifully endowed with genuine controversy."

 

Note that in within the space of two consecutive sentences, they claim there's no scientific controversy at all, and then they claim that evolution is "bountifully endowed with genuine controversy." The balance of the article is to summarize all the controversies about evolutionary theory. And then later, as if that's not enough contradiction for one article, they state quite dogmatically that "evolution is a fact."

 

Your conclusions about whales and walrusses are entertaining, but it's mere speculation… not science. You're interpreting the evidence according to your naturalist presuppositions. As I've pointed out to you before, common design explains homology in mammals better than common ancestry does. We have no tangible, rock-solid evidence of macro-evolution. Only an assumption that micro-evolution adds up to macro-evolution, and assumptions that homology in different animals has to mean common ancenstry when it clearly can also be interpreted as common design.

[TRoutMac]

The natural explanation is so simple and clear, why bring in a third party unless there is an ulterior motive, the motive being to promote a religion and that religion is Christianity.

 

I asked you this question in another forum, and oddly enough, you never answered it. So, I'll ask it again because you are so certain that the natural explanation is "so simple and clear":

 

The philosophy of methodological naturalism or materialism states that science must in all cases restrict its explanations of natural phenomena to causes which are themselves natural. My question, which no one at Hypography has been able to answer, is this:

 

If you have "Natural Phenomenon A" and you explain it with "Natural Cause A", doesn't "Natural Cause A" have to be a natural phenomenon itself? And if so, haven't you really explained "Natural Phenomenon A" by reference to "Natural Phenomenon B"? And if so, don't you now have to find "Natural Phenomenon C" in order to explain "B"?

 

Do you see that this gets you absolutely nowhere? Do you see that in this "box" you have sentenced yourself to never answering the basic question you set out to ask?

 

Well, maybe some ancient Hindu myths claim the world is carried on the back of a giant turtle, but at least it's not worshiped.

 

And the above question illustrates why methodological naturalism is actually the present-day manifestation of the same hindu myth. The hindu myth provides a natural explanation, (a turtle) for a natural phenomenon (the Earth). A turtle is a natural phenomenon ALSO, so now the turtle has to be explained with yet another natural phenomenon, and so on. You may as well say, "It's turtles all the way down!!"

[Boerseun]

Hey, TRout! Awesome link! Thanks! Now do yourself a favour, and read it again.

 

As far as your failure to understand what he meant with 'real controversy' existing in science, well, real controversy does indeed exist in the form of competing hypotheses. And what we do then is to go back to the lab, test for both sides, and see which one comes out the winner. ID is not testable. See the bit in the article about your 'Intelligent Designer' being even more complex than a 'irreducibly complex' flagellum, for instance. If we inspect and probe a flagellum, it pales in comparison with the required complexity of any 'Designer' capable of building it. Therefore, a real scientist will throw the petri dish with the bacterium out the window, and demand a slice of your 'Designer' for inspection. It will be so much more complex, and interesting. As he said, you can't have it both ways. If ID is science, it must be testable. If it is not testable, it is simply a blind belief in some supernatural being. So take it back to church, where it belongs.

 

As far as 'rock-solid' evidence goes for macro-evolution, that's actually a fine pick of words. We have evidence for it. And it is rock-solid. Matter of fact, it's rocks! Haha. Go look up the fossil record.

 

Saying that it was 'easy to topple' was a bit early, dontcha think?

 

Do yourself a favour, and go and read the article again. This time, a bit slower, and *concentrate*.

[T0M]

... we are almost Genetically similar to "primates". .

 

We are almost genetically the SAME to "primates".

We are almost genetically the SAME to every animal on earth.

And we are soooooooo similar to every living thing (like a flower).

 

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution? Can't you see it? It's the same thing: Evolution. Go read. There's only a difference in dimentions. Micro = small, macro = big. Small or big changes. So, changes.

 

We evolved from monkeys, monkeys evolved from other species, which evolved from a rat-alike animal, which evolved from other species, which evolved from an unicelular evolving son of a bit... of dust. That's it.

 

I believe in God, for it's the only thing that can be saving religious liers of being exterminated the way they deserve and the way themselves did with so many right human beings, like Jesus (yeah Jesus lied too, but for a good reason), or all those burned, or Lennon.

 

So in the name of all these guys who were just like you and me, and also in the name of that evolving little son of a bit of dust:

 

!HCRUHC UOY KCUF

[Racoon]

Hey Guys...

This thread was to ponder a potential that Perhaps God Did "create" evolutionary process. :eek2: :eek_

 

Boersy, You present a Logic that is Very well thought out! :eek:

TroutMac has a point as well.

 

The question being: Couldn't a Creator "Make" an Evolutionary Process???

It would prove both points. Yes there IS evolution, And It was created by an entity we still cannot contemplate. ( as much as we'd like to think we can )

Rather than a World Literally created in 6 days? (which doesn't make literal sense in a time continueum )

 

Evolution is hard to dispute,with todays knowledge, But Creationism has its own possibilities because we are still trying to figure out exactly how the hell Earth ended up going around our Sun, and explaining exactly why we are! In the middle of a practically Infinitely large Universe with so much Unknown...

 

Is there a God? and if so, Why and How did he/she/it create??

Is it beyond mere Human's Mortal ability to "really" understand???

[lindagarrette]

Hey Guys...

This thread was to ponder a potential that Perhaps God Did "create" evolutionary process. :eek2: :eek_

 

Boersy, You present a Logic that is Very well thought out! :eek:

TroutMac has a point as well.

 

The question being: Couldn't a Creator "Make" an Evolutionary Process???

Evolution is a complete explanation. There's no reason to introduce a new element (creator) unless it's to satisfy some non-scientific need.

[T0M]

Evolution is a complete explanation. There's no reason to introduce anew element (creator) unless it's to satisfy some other need.

 

I disagree, and by the way I had forgotten to say it: yes, I can't say no to the possibility of a "creator" creating evolution.

There are a lot of people who believe in God and still believe in Evolution. So that would be exactly what they believe in: a "creator" who created evolution.

I would stop thinking of God as a fellow just like us to begin understanding some of these concepts, linda.

 

T0M

[TRoutMac]

We are almost genetically the SAME to "primates".

We are almost genetically the SAME to every animal on earth.

And we are soooooooo similar to every living thing (like a flower).

 

These points in no way make evolution necessary. A common designer is an equally acceptible explanation for the fact that virtually all living organisms share the same DNA information storage and processing systems.

 

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution? Can't you see it? It's the same thing: Evolution. Go read. There's only a difference in dimentions. Micro = small, macro = big. Small or big changes. So, changes.

 

Sorry, Tom, but it's not quite that simple. I think the best way to distinguish micro-evolution from macro-evolution is that within micro-evolution, no additional genetic information is required to produce the changes. There's no increase in complexity. The genome in question may be re-organized to produce different colors, different sizes, etc. but the overall structure and function of the organism remains the same. Again, consider dogs.

 

Macro-evolution, however, requires additional information to be added into the genome. For example, if dogs were to evolve wings, then they'd need additional information in their genome to "describe" how the wings are built and how they function. There is no such information in the canine genome. Adding wings to a dog is an increase in complexity, is it not?

 

Okay, so that's just a silly hypothetical… let's look at "real life" now. Is a human being more complex than a single-celled organism? Obviously, yes. Correspondingly, the human genome is more complex. More information to describe the additional structures and functions of such a complex organism. That cannot result from accumulated micro-evolution because micro-evolution doesn't infuse information for new structures into the genome. It has to work with the information content already present in the genome.

 

So, okay… you might say that, well, God added the new information along the way where necessary. Well, okay, but that admits a distinction between micro and macro. If there were no distinction, you wouldn't have to account for the new information. In the abstract I suppose that's still possible, though. But number 1, that's not what Darwinian evolution says and number 2, that'll still draw the fire of naturalists… they'll still say you're "copping out" by invoking God at any stage.

 

Macro-evolution has an additional challenge as well, because Darwin says this happened via "natural selection". Natural selection preserves the fittest of organisms while allowing the ill-equipped to become extinct. Now, I accept natural selection, because I think it's obvious that it plays a major role in micro-evolution. But the funny thing is that, in reality, evolutionists must reject natural selection in order to accept macro-evolution. What do I mean by this?

 

If natural selection works the way Darwin said it works, by eliminating those organisms that are not able to adapt, who are weak, or otherwise poorly equipped, then macro-evolution is impossible. That is, new features and new functions cannot develop gradually because the partially-formed stages would be useless and would make it more difficult for an organism to compete in its environment. In other words, the new features and functions that macro-evolution would promise can only benefit the organism if they are present in their entirety, fully functional and ready-to-use. Natural selection wouldn't tolerate any gradual development of new structures, features and functions. The intermediate stages would be selected out by natural selection and the evolutionary process would die with it.

[Racoon]

Evolutional "theory" has provided us with many valuable insights.,

But by no means explains everything.

 

How the Hell did Little ol' planet Earth get to where we are?, rotating around a Sun, one of many Varieties of stars, In a "Universe" that is so Vast it defies Human comprehension...??? and subsequently end up having the ability to discuss said phenomenon.

 

Big Bang theory?? perhaps. Everything packed into "absolute ball of mass".... Exploding into what we now call universe..

Where did that absolute ball of mass Come from??

As far as someone saying we are genetically similar to all living things...

I disagree.

We are Very closely related Genetically to primates.

We are not very genetically related to Alligators. or Cypress tree, or Dung beetle.!

 

As far as I know, and that ain't too far :eek2: , We could be a Hybrid of Aliens and Monkeys! ( that would explain our sudden emergence relative to timeline, And genetic similarity to apes. :eek: We could be an experiment in a petrie dish...

Earth could be a Genesis planet...

Maybe we did evolve like the Scientists say.

Maybe we were created by God, to evole in the manner we are proving.

 

I guess I am just trying to see Value in both ideas. And am trying to see how Evolutionary process got "started" ???

[T0M]

I'll try to be as brief as I am able in each comment not to make it too heavy to read.

 

... within micro-evolution, no additional genetic information is required to produce the changes. There's no increase in complexity. The genome in question may be re-organized to produce different colors, different sizes, etc. but the overall structure and function of the organism remains the same. Again, consider dogs.

Don't forget that DNA is just the arrengement of a 4 "digits" code. There ain't no need to add anything, ever, it just rearranges the code. "It may be re-organized to produce different colors, sizes"... yes, but therefore shapes too right? Thus anything. "The overall structure and function of the organism" of a dog and ours remain the same. We're mamals... we're animals... we're life. We are matter, we are energy. Me, I found myself (as human being) very similar to a stone, which is matter and energy also. So, dogs ? We are almost just the same (we can say that with an at least 98% of similarity, right?).

 

Is a human being more complex than a single-celled organism? Obviously, yes.

Of course, but the difference are just decimals of the whole.

 

... God added the new information along the way where necessary.

Even though one can't say that's not possible, I see no need. Evolution would be the only thing God would have needed to "add".

 

If natural selection works the way Darwin said it works, by eliminating those organisms that are not able to adapt, who are weak, or otherwise poorly equipped, then macro-evolution is impossible.

Well, individuals of each specie look for the best individuals to procreate. Specially females (for those species where there are). Like human beings: where females look for the most succesful males, and males look for the most attractive females, those who make them want to procreate the most.

So it's not only the "strength" of the individual's adaptability itself what makes it continue its specie, but also the interpretation of it by the other individual with which it will reproduce.

 

Natural selection wouldn't tolerate any gradual development of new structures, features and functions. The intermediate stages would be selected out by natural selection and the evolutionary process would die with it.

Well I thought that too once. But in terms of maths, 1.1 is always closer to 2 than 1. And still, who says we (or any other specie) are fully evolved? We are always at intermediate stages. Touch right up your *** and feel how your tail is still dissapearing...

 

We could be a Hybrid of Aliens and Monkeys! ( that would explain our sudden emergence relative to timeline, And genetic similarity to apes. We could be an experiment in a petrie dish...

Earth could be a Genesis planet...

Yeah, all of that, and everything could be just your dream too... or mine. If we just knew an alien we could start analyzing that.

 

T0M

[TRoutMac]

Evolutional "theory" has provided us with many valuable insights.

 

I wonder which valuable insights you are referring to here? I think if you mean micro-evolution, perhaps I would agree with you. But all macro-evolution has provided us is mythology, plain and simple.

 

I guess I am just trying to see Value in both ideas. And am trying to see how Evolutionary process got "started" ???

 

From the context here, I'm guessing you're talking about "particles to people" evolution (macro-evolution) and you're wondering how that process "got started". Well, that presumes there is such a process. Rather than ask how that process got started, I suggest you consider very carefully the question of whether that process even exists.

 

I'm curious… what conclusions do you draw from my explanations earlier? Do those problems not bother you, make you wonder how it is they can push such malarkey on our children in public schools?

 

Macro-evolution suffers from profound, intensely embarassing logical fallacies… and yet many of us persist in believing it. To heck with the facts.

[TRoutMac]

Don't forget that DNA is just the arrengement of a 4 "digits" code. There ain't no need to add anything, ever, it just rearranges the code.

 

Again, not quite. More complex creatures require a greater quantity of information. What you are saying might be true if every organism had a DNA strand with the same number of nucleotide base pairs, but with a different sequence. But that's not the case. Simple one-celled organisms carry a less complex genome. For example, E. coli has just one chromosome… a chromosome is a single strand of DNA. A human has 46 chromosomes. A petunia has 14 chromosomes. A mosquito has 6 chromosomes. A chicken has 78. In other words, while every different organism uses DNA and the digital code you mentioned, the information is organized differently in each organism. They don't all share the same DNA strand just with a different base pair sequence.

 

Of course, but the difference are just decimals of the whole.

 

Sorry, but no. I've already explained why.

 

Even though one can't say that's not possible, I see no need. Evolution would be the only thing God would have needed to "add".

 

Two things: First of all, there's every reason to believe that macro-evolution is a myth. No evidence to support it. Secondly, I see no need for macro-evolution. The God described in the Bible certainly wouldn't need evolution. Again, in the abstract, it's possible that he could have employed it if He saw the need, but the evidence points in the other direction.

 

Well I thought that too once. But in terms of maths, 1.1 is always closer to 2 than 1. And still, who says we (or any other specie) are fully evolved? We are always at intermediate stages. Touch right up your *** and feel how your tail is still dissapearing...

 

Look, Tom, I'm really not tryin' to be a jerk here. But that doesn't explain away the problem… you're just regurgitating the same talking points they crammed down our throats in high school and college. How does a partially formed feature or structure benefit the intermediate stage of an organism when it cannot serve its function? How does this organism compete with a partially formed and non-functional limb, for example?

[T0M]

A human has 46 chromosomes. A petunia has 14 chromosomes. A mosquito has 6 chromosomes. A chicken has 78.

Again, and still, we all have chromosomes! Don't you find that to be a huge similarity?

 

... there's every reason to believe that macro-evolution is a myth. No evidence to support it.

"There's every reason to believe that" God "is a myth. No evidence to support it" too.

Hundreds and thousands of years ago, there were discutions between men, like you and me, about things and facts and Gods and stuff which today we call "Mythology". So those who supported the theories of those Gods, are today "proven" to have been wrong.

But what were those Gods ? Were they something ? I have my theory about that and I've opened a new thread about that here:

Who was God ?

 

How does a partially formed feature or structure benefit the intermediate stage of an organism when it cannot serve its function? How does this organism compete with a partially formed and non-functional limb, for example?

Well there are theories, I particularily like one, and support it; and I have one of my own.

This first theory says that big mutations do a great job in evolution. This way you won't have the need of a partially formed and non-functional limb. If this mutation results to be usefull, it can naturally continue. Nevertheless you can see in nature, a lot of partially formed and non-functional limbs everywhere. I would say in every living creature. But this is relative, for every single limb even those partially formed will perform a function even not being intended to be performed.

 

Now my theory: all living cells, therefore all living creatures, we are to store information, memory. I think we transmit to our next generation, a summary (an extremely low-in-detail version) of our memory. But not only of the genetic code, but also of the facts, of everything. This way I can explain those feelings of past lives, and stuff like that. Some dreams too.

But this memory goes way beyond our 5 "understandable" senses, for they are way less important and accurate than the ones I believe we transmit there. Like i.e. the tiny variance in performance of a tiny change in a well-formed and functional limb, making it partially formed and non-functional, but still different. That, will be transmitted in this "summarized" memory and then "evaluated" to be increased or decreased in this next individual.

 

T0M