Do you believe in biological evolution?

[ScottA]

Do you believe in biological evolution? That Mankind is actually a species of ape? That all species come from fundamental forms that have evolved? (bacteria->fish->mammal...) That God directed somehow evolution?
If you believe in evolution, how do you concile this scientific theory with the biblical story of creation?

Or do you believe in the genesis creation? That God has created all the universe immediately?
If you believe in creation, what do you think of the scientific discoveries?

Your question would make for a good pole.

As for me, no, I do not believe in biological evolution. Some limited adaptation, yes, but not evolution. Adaptation proves adaptation--not evolution.

 

[Chihuahua]

LOL
Stephen Meyers says it did.

So, one guy who is a Chemist says so. Okay!
Although he has nothing to do with biology and evolution, I could be really curious in what he said. I think people in middle school would have a better grasp of evolution if true.

The Cambrian explosian is a big problem for evolutionists.
It does not reflect what they believe...that animals evolved slowly.

There's a sudden appearance of animals and plants that did not exist prior to this explosion.

No, it was an issue for Darwin whose observations and postulations led him to conclude that evolution is a slow process.
That is factually correct.
As more was learned, what was also found is that following massive extinction events evolution becomes a rapid process. Life quickly adapts to fill the niches in the environment created by extinction.

 

[ScottA]

As a Christian, I accept that God is the source of all things. My very existence is through Him. God did not "make" me. God gives me existence. God does not exist because who gives Him existence? He is existence. "I am" - Jesus got in a bit of trouble for that. All that can be imagined is known to God and He gave existence to what could be referred to as forms. God knows what a unicorn is, but they do not exist. Before Adam, He knew us and gave existence to us.

I believe that Genesis provides two different accounts in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. The narrative, even the name of God is different. This is similar to the Gospels. Why not one Gospel? What the ancient world went after was meaning, not concrete facts. Genesis is true, but that is like asking if a painting is true. You can have a cold security camera video in high resolution. A photo by Anselm Adams. A portrait that captures what the artist perceives. Which is true?

In a short form, the Soviets erased God and meaning and focused on materialism. We see to this day in the folly of the opposite, denying science that provides cures.

When you turn the bible into a science book you do nothing for science or faith. Science tells us how to do something. Faith tells us why we do something. God wants us to know Him and He can be found in faith and science.

Our DNA has these 3 codes, I guess, that produce an amino acid for a protein chain. Looking at the graph below, many are redundant. You get Leucine if you have TTA, TTG, CTT, CTC, CTA, or CTG. What is interesting is that the closer organisms are phenotypically (look alike), the closer they are genetically. There is no reason for this if God just popped in life randomly. Different codes produce the same result and the more distant the organism, the more the codes vary even if they code for the same protein.



View attachment 75132

Chihuahua,

What is missing in every understanding of evolution, is the understanding of Time.

Without time, there is no evolution. With God, there is no time, except as a part of this created world, the substance of which He has defined from the beginning as "image" made manifest in form by the power of light and energy (matter). And still, what all this is, is "image"--illusion.

In God--if we are in God--time does not exist, nor does evolution. The question then becomes, do we go by God's rule or understanding, or that of this world?

 

[Chihuahua]

Chihuahua,

What is missing in every understanding of evolution, is the understanding of Time.

Without time, there is no evolution. With God, there is no time, except as a part of this created world, the substance of which He has defined from the beginning as "image" made manifest in form by the power of light and energy (matter). And still, what all this is, is "image"--illusion.

In God--if we are in God--time does not exist, nor does evolution. The question then becomes, do we go by God's rule or understanding, or that of this world?

I am pretty sure time exists and so does evolution which is a not at issue with God not bound in time.

 

[ScottA]

I am pretty sure time exists and so does evolution which is a not dichotomy with God not bound in time.

I have stated the terms correctly.

In the world time is indeed an undeniable force, but we are not to be of the world.

 

[Chihuahua]

I have stated the terms correctly.

In the world time is indeed an undeniable force, but we are not to be of the world.

Right, time exists and within time is evolution. God is not bound by time. So no issues with evolution there

 

[GodsGrace]

So, one guy who is a Chemist says so. Okay!

One GUY?
ONE guy?

You should get up to speed on what's going on in science re evolution, the cell, biogenetics, etc.

Although he has nothing to do with biology and evolution, I could be really curious in what he said. I think people in middle school would have a better grasp of evolution if true.

This is too funny.
I will not reply to it.

IF you're REALLY curious about what he said,,,I'll be more than happy to post some videos since I'm not a scientist and could not repeat very well what he states.

No, it was an issue for Darwin whose observations and postulations led him to conclude that evolution is a slow process.

Unfortunately, time would have been no problem BEFORE it was discovered that the universe had a beginning.

AFTER it was discovered that the universe had a beginning....
guess what....
the time was not sufficient.

Darwin stated that unless a connection could be made among species and their evolution...then his hypothesis might be incorrect.

The Cambrian explosian demonstrates that Darwin was incorrect.

To say nothing of the cell, or the eye.

That is factually correct.
As more was learned, what was also found is that following massive extinction events evolution becomes a rapid process. Life quickly adapts to fill the niches in the environment created by extinction.

Could you post something authoratative on this?
Never heard of this theory.

 

[Chihuahua]

One GUY?
ONE guy?

Yes, he reference one guy who is a Chemist.

You should get up to speed on what's going on in science re evolution, the cell, biogenetics, etc.

Okay? Not seeing much to contradict current theories.

This is too funny.
I will not reply to it.

Because you do not have anything. He has nothing to do with biology or evolution.

IF you're REALLY curious about what he said,,,I'll be more than happy to post some videos since I'm not a scientist and could not repeat very well what he states.

I would just like to see a statement, because I cannot imagine anyone with a college education advocating such. There are various reasons for rapid evolution due to global circumstances. The end of the dinosaurs and the rise of mammals is one. There was an early massive extinction event with bacteria and the generation of oxygen which was toxic.

Unfortunately, time would have been no problem BEFORE it was discovered that the universe had a beginning.

AFTER it was discovered that the universe had a beginning....
guess what....
the time was not sufficient.

Not sure how this relates to anything.

Darwin stated that unless a connection could be made among species and their evolution...then his hypothesis might be incorrect.

The Cambrian explosian demonstrates that Darwin was incorrect.

Science has a way of revising ideas as more is learned. That is why we don't have a shaman blow smoke on us when we get sick.
Evolution is generally a slow process because nature had a balance to it. We can see this demonstrated in the introductive of non-native species that become an invasive species. Rapid change can occur if the environment changes. Rabbits in Australia is well known. Deer are now a problem in the US with a lack of predators and it is the same with hogs. That is not evolution, but we see again and again rapid changes due to circumstances. Evolution reacts to environmental facts. If things stay the same, there is no pressure for change. Mutations within a population fade away if you have a large genetic pool.

To say nothing of the cell, or the eye.

What about it?

Could you post something authoratative on this?
Never heard of this theory.

Simple search with google AI:
Evolution and environmental niches are deeply linked: an ecological niche is an organism's role/address (food, habitat, etc.), and evolution shapes species to fit these niches through adaptation, like Galapagos finches with specialized beaks, while organisms also actively modify their environments (niche construction), influencing their own and others' evolutionary paths, creating a dynamic feedback loop between life and its surroundings.

Key Concepts

• Ecological Niche: More than just a habitat, it's the full set of resources and conditions (biotic and abiotic) a species needs to survive and reproduce, including food, temperature, shelter, predators, and competitors.
• Evolutionary Niche: The sum of selective pressures acting on a population, driving evolutionary changes.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, he reference one guy who is a Chemist.



Okay? Not seeing much to contradict current theories.


Because you do not have anything. He has nothing to do with biology or evolution.


I would just like to see a statement, because I cannot imagine anyone with a college education advocating such. There are various reasons for rapid evolution due to global circumstances. The end of the dinosaurs and the rise of mammals is one. There was an early massive extinction event with bacteria and the generation of oxygen which was toxic.

Not sure how this relates to anything.



Science has a way of revising ideas as more is learned. That is why we don't have a shaman blow smoke on us when we get sick.
Evolution is generally a slow process because nature had a balance to it. We can see this demonstrated in the introductive of non-native species that become an invasive species. Rapid change can occur if the environment changes. Rabbits in Australia is well known. Deer are now a problem in the US with a lack of predators and it is the same with hogs. That is not evolution, but we see again and again rapid changes due to circumstances. Evolution reacts to environmental facts. If things stay the same, there is no pressure for change. Mutations within a population fade away if you have a large genetic pool.


What about it?


Simple search with google AI:
Evolution and environmental niches are deeply linked: an ecological niche is an organism's role/address (food, habitat, etc.), and evolution shapes species to fit these niches through adaptation, like Galapagos finches with specialized beaks, while organisms also actively modify their environments (niche construction), influencing their own and others' evolutionary paths, creating a dynamic feedback loop between life and its surroundings.

Key Concepts

• Ecological Niche: More than just a habitat, it's the full set of resources and conditions (biotic and abiotic) a species needs to survive and reproduce, including food, temperature, shelter, predators, and competitors.
• Evolutionary Niche: The sum of selective pressures acting on a population, driving evolutionary changes.

If you don't know by now...AI will reply based on how you pose the question.

So I don't use AI except in very particular cases.


I'm posting the following for those that may be interested....
Stephen Meyer is not a chemist, BTW.

Darwin is dead in the water.

 

[Wrangler]

No reputable scientist thinks the world is 6000 years old.

I am pointing out their credentials are irrelevant to speak on evolution.

Not following closely but this is moving the goal posts.

 

[GodsGrace]

Case answered, you do not have the qualifications required to critique their work :)
Next topic, the Gal 2:7-9 Gospels teachings in ALL the early Bibles, which of the early Bible do you prefer ?

rvmb
Dare I say that NO ONE on this Forum has the credentials to critique the work of
Meyer, Tour, and any number of "those".

Especially someone who feels they're as qualified as they are - and even moreso.

You might have seen it already,,,
but you would enjoy the link I posed just above...(post 89)
It's Meyers, Lenox and Beher....about 1.5 hours.
I've watched it at least 3 times.
It's fascinating.

Beher speaks about the mousetrap...
which I've always likened to the eye.
(same idea - and also as with the cell).

 

[Chihuahua]

If you don't know by now...AI will reply based on how you pose the question.

Evolution Environmental Niche was the search.

You can also just crack open a high school biology book.

Ecological niche - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So I don't use AI except in very particular cases.

Go buy a high school textbook.

I'm posting the following for those that may be interested....
Stephen Meyer is not a chemist, BTW.

Yes. he is. What he is not is a biologist.

Darwin is dead in the water.

And yet biologists continue to persist in the theories he introduced.

 

[Chihuahua]

Not following closely but this is moving the goal posts.

You find outliers in any field. In this case, his field doesn't even relate. You don't have a geologist do open heart surgery or get medical advice from a philosopher.

 

[GodsGrace]

Evolution Environmental Niche was the search.

You can also just crack open a high school biology book.

Ecological niche - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Go buy a high school textbook.



Yes. he is. What he is not is a biologist.


And yet biologists continue to persist in the theories he introduce.

Guess it's difficult to accept that there might be a creator...
an agent...a designer.

 

[Chihuahua]

rvmb
Dare I say that NO ONE on this Forum has the credentials to critique the work of
Meyer, Tour, and any number of "those".

Actually, anyone with a high school education does. One is a chemist and the other is a philosopher. Having a doctorate in an unrelated field means jack when it comes to something outside your field. Even if both were biologists that does not mean they can't be scrutinized. You are using a logically fallacy of appeal to authority. Let's get Gordon Ramsey's take on this, he is rich and successful.

*I* have more credentials than either of them. They are not biologists.

Especially someone who feels they're as qualified as they are - and even moreso.

There opinions are not related to their fields of study and competence.

 

[Chihuahua]

Guess it's difficult to accept that there might be a creator...
an agent...a designer.

Evolution does not necessitate the absence of a creator. Some of us think God is powerful enough to make a universe and to bring about life without dropping animals from the sky.

 

[Wrangler]

Evolution is a fact

I used to say things like that - before I got educated. Are you humble enough to realize this thread is about beliefs, not facts?

 

[Chihuahua]

I used to say things like that - before I got educated. Are you humble enough to realize this thread is about beliefs, not facts?

You were educated into thinking that God created the world by popping random animals into it over a matter of six days despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. By "educated" and I have read those books, nothing involves facts, just stupid things like there is too little dust on the moon for it to have been around for billions of years.

 

[rvmb]

rvmb
Dare I say that NO ONE on this Forum has the credentials to critique the work of
Meyer, Tour, and any number of "those".

Especially someone who feels they're as qualified as they are - and even moreso.

You might have seen it already,,,
but you would enjoy the link I posed just above...(post 89)
It's Meyers, Lenox and Beher....about 1.5 hours.
I've watched it at least 3 times.
It's fascinating.

Beher speaks about the mousetrap...
which I've always likened to the eye.
(same idea - and also as with the cell).

"Credentials" I smiled when Chichi thought he did then like others here have, I decided mute was the best option for him :)
John Lennox, James Tour, Stephen Meyers - fantastic to listen to unless your Chi
Time allowing, I'll try & watch your video

 

[ScottA]

Right, time exists and within time is evolution. God is not bound by time. So no issues with evolution there

You are missing the point. God not being bound by time is not what is going on. What is going on is His purpose, not the result or side effect of His creating time. Ask yourself, as He created the world for His own purpose--what purpose would evolution be?

Regardless, no, time does not exist, only the illusion of time exists.