Dinosaur with feathers and scales?

[River Jordan]

Uppsala,

I'm more than willing to admit that I've behaved poorly at times in our discussions. So like you, I'm willing to give it another shot. With that in mind, back to the issues at hand...

Well that is definitelyt not what I asked for. "Sequences that were not in the parent population and that confer a selective advantage" does not show that anything "evolved", and since "evolution" is the word you chose to use here then I expect you to demonstrate that it actually is evolution, rather than adaption.

In the spirit of trying to understand what you're saying and helping you understand where I'm coming from, I'll say that to me, the above doesn't make sense. I don't understand the difference between a population adapting and one evolving, since the primary mechanism by which populations adapt is evolution. IOW, in the examples I posted populations adapted to new environments by evolving new genetic sequences that resulted in new traits.

So maybe you can help me out by explaining what, to you, is the difference between a population adapting, and one evolving.

And since the cell of, say, an amoeba is genetically different than the cell of a human being then you need to do what I asked you to do in the comment you quoted - to show how distorting something in a cell doesn't destroy the functional sequence that was put there in place in order to ensure survival. You might argue that it is conceptually possible, but where is the scientific evidence that it actually occurs? Or are we going to take things by faith?

Again, I don't really understand what you're saying here. I don't get what you mean by "distorting something in a cell". What is the difference between evolving novel genetic sequences and "distorting something in a cell"? For example, one of the research papers I linked to describes how a population of yeast, after being subjected to a nutrient-poor environment, evolved new genes that resulted in more efficient metabolism. The new genes were "chimeric genes", where parts of different genes were copied and then combined to make the new genes. The original genes remained unchanged.

IOW, it's the "My mom went to the dairy store" and "My mom went to the dairy store on Monday" example in real life. Just as "on Monday" is new information that was generated by copying and rearranging letters that were in the original sentence, the chimeric genes are new genetic sequences that were generated by copying and rearranging nucleotides that were in the original population's genome. In both cases nothing was destroyed.

So is that "distorting something in a cell"? If so, is every genetic change "distorting something in a cell"?

If you want to settle it then just point out how distorting genetic sequences can cause transitions that cross all available phylogenetic classifications.

What do you mean by "all available phylogenetic classifications"? I'm reading that as you saying "You have to show the evolution of new species, genera, families, orders, phyla, and kingdoms". Is that what you're asking?

What I think would be "pretty straightforward" is you showing me how evolutionists make their claims *WITHOUT* the use of taxonomic classifications. Here's your opportunity River, explain it to me.

Again this doesn't make sense to me. "How evolutionists make their claims WITHOUT the use of taxonomic classifications"? What claims are you talking about?

You do realize that what we are discussing is evolution and what evolutionists are claiming, don't you?

Actually, I thought this discussion was about the creationist argument that "evolution can't generate new genetic information". What claim by scientists do you think we're discussing?

I am not saying that the definition of new information is dependant on taxonomy, I am saying that what is meant by new information in the context of this discussion is such information that supports the claims made by evolutionists! Why else would we be having this discussion?

Ok, now I'm really confused. If "new genetic information" isn't dependent on taxonomy, why is it even relevant to the creationist argument that "evolution can't generate new genetic information"? I mean, if you creationists are making that argument and saying that the definition of "new genetic information" is not dependent on taxonomy, then we should be able to evaluate that creationist argument without any mention at all of taxonomy, right? IOW, whether any of the examples I provided qualify as evolutionary mechanisms producing "new genetic information" can be answered independent of taxonomic classification.

Of course if you're arguing that maybe evolution can generate new genetic information, but it can't generate the type or amount required for universal common ancestry, then that's a completely different question than the original. It is possible that we could conclude "evolution can generate new genetic information, but it hasn't been demonstrated that it can generate the type or amount required under common ancestry" (not saying that's the case). If that were the result, then the creationist argument "evolution can't generate new genetic information" is still false.

The point of contention in this discussion is something more along the lines of sending you one email containing information that isn't distored, and then following up with another email. THAT would be an example of new information since the original information remains intact.

So again, according to your own criteria, the evolution of new genetic information is an observed fact. In the chimeric genes example, the original genetic sequences that were copied and rearranged remained intact.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Uppsala,

I'm more than willing to admit that I've behaved poorly at times in our discussions. So like you, I'm willing to give it another shot. With that in mind, back to the issues at hand...

Glad to hear that River.

I will also do my best to treat you with mutual respect (even though doing something like that is obviously much more challenging than simply resorting to a defensive position.)

But let's do our best...

In the spirit of trying to understand what you're saying and helping you understand where I'm coming from, I'll say that to me, the above doesn't make sense. I don't understand the difference between a population adapting and one evolving, since the primary mechanism by which populations adapt is evolution. IOW, in the examples I posted populations adapted to new environments by evolving new genetic sequences that resulted in new traits.

So maybe you can help me out by explaining what, to you, is the difference between a population adapting, and one evolving.

Well from my perspective, in order to claim that something has evolved, rather than adaped, there would have to be clear, "reasonably" undeniable evidence that the changes involved were the result of random mutations, rather than inherant design, and that these changes had the power to produce new anatomical features and body plans that no longer allowed them to be classified within the taxonomic classifications to which they belong. To simply assume that "transitions" at the very base of the taxonomic tree, which involves classifications constructed by human beings in order to keep track of how they think life should be organized, are sufficient to assume that they should be extrapolated all the way up to the top of the tree, is hardly anything worthy of being called science. It just goes too far into the realm of philosophy and belief... as far as I can see.

Again, I don't really understand what you're saying here. I don't get what you mean by "distorting something in a cell". What is the difference between evolving novel genetic sequences and "distorting something in a cell"? For example, one of the research papers I linked to describes how a population of yeast, after being subjected to a nutrient-poor environment, evolved new genes that resulted in more efficient metabolism. The new genes were "chimeric genes", where parts of different genes were copied and then combined to make the new genes. The original genes remained unchanged.

IOW, it's the "My mom went to the dairy store" and "My mom went to the dairy store on Monday" example in real life. Just as "on Monday" is new information that was generated by copying and rearranging letters that were in the original sentence, the chimeric genes are new genetic sequences that were generated by copying and rearranging nucleotides that were in the original population's genome. In both cases nothing was destroyed.

So is that "distorting something in a cell"? If so, is every genetic change "distorting something in a cell"?

If that is the case, then surely all organisms whould have the original information contained in every other organism they are presumed to have decended from. But as far as I know, every cell in an organism has the genetic information to reconstruct that organism, and only that organism. So without being able to show a cell from one organism that is identical to a cell of an organism that belongs to a totally different, but related, taxonomic classification, then how does that support the claims made by evolutionists?

What do you mean by "all available phylogenetic classifications"? I'm reading that as you saying "You have to show the evolution of new species, genera, families, orders, phyla, and kingdoms". Is that what you're asking?

Yes, that is exactly what I am asking.

Again this doesn't make sense to me. "How evolutionists make their claims WITHOUT the use of taxonomic classifications"? What claims are you talking about?

Well let's just ignore classifications for the sake of this discussion.

How does a genetic change in an elephant show that it is related to a banana?

Ok, now I'm really confused. If "new genetic information" isn't dependent on taxonomy, why is it even relevant to the creationist argument that "evolution can't generate new genetic information"? I mean, if you creationists are making that argument and saying that the definition of "new genetic information" is not dependent on taxonomy, then we should be able to evaluate that creationist argument without any mention at all of taxonomy, right.

Fair enough.. let's look at it from another angle then.

What, according to you, is the difference between organisms "evolving", which of course is the point of contention in these discussions, and organisms simply changing, or adapting, which practically no one on the entire earth is disputing?

We could of course, as I suggested earlier on, remove taxonomy from the discussion altogether, but without it I don't see where it leaves us... other than to agree that all living organisms change.

However, observational science teaches us that some groups of animals do not breed with others. And without taking that into consideration, how can we assume common descent?

 

[aspen]

Ok - like I have said in the past, I am not a scientist so bear with me. Is it possible that God is the driving force behind evolution? A comparison might be humans creating new vegetables through breeding / genetic manipulation. It seems to me that Creationists can always say that species cannot be changed because everything is made out of the same material so a tiger will always be a tiger because of its DNA sequencing, but what if it mates with a lion? It's offspring is a Liger. What about grizzly bears and polar bears mating in the lower article and creating a new bear? Evolutionist can always say that every living thing is related to one another and conclude that everything is simply a variation of life and must have come from a common ancestor for the same reason - all living things have DNA sequencing in common. So what if God is driving evolution - what if He is choosing the necessary mutations and conditions for the mutations to occur in order to make humans out of primates?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Ok - like I have said in the past, I am not a scientist so bear with me. Is it possible that God is the driving force behind evolution? A comparison might be humans creating new vegetables through breeding / genetic manipulation. It seems to me that Creationists can always say that species cannot be changed because everything is made out of the same material so a tiger will always be a tiger because of its DNA sequencing, but what if it mates with a lion? It's offspring is a Liger. What about grizzly bears and polar bears mating in the lower article and creating a new bear? Evolutionist can always say that every living thing is related to one another and conclude that everything is simply a variation of life and must have come from a common ancestor for the same reason - all living things have DNA sequencing in common. So what if God is driving evolution - what if He is choosing the necessary mutations and conditions for the mutations to occur in order to make humans out of primates?

In fact, Catholic teaching requires that divine propulsion be the force behind evolution if evolution be true. Since those who push for evolution largely are attempting to scrub from material history all traces of intelligent design, it's not even remotely possible to find common ground with these people so hostile to God. The purpose of the theory of evolution is to kill God, and those who push evolution won't be thwarted. What hath Christ to do with Belial? What hath any Christian to do with evolutionists?

 

[aspen]

I do not think scientists choose their profession in order to disprove God. This idea superimposes Christian concerns onto the field of science - it is like hating a football team because of the colors they wear. The issue is simply not important to a scientist.

 

[River Jordan]

Well from my perspective, in order to claim that something has evolved, rather than adaped, there would have to be clear, "reasonably" undeniable evidence that the changes involved were the result of random mutations, rather than inherant design,

How do you propose we tell the difference?

and that these changes had the power to produce new anatomical features and body plans that no longer allowed them to be classified within the taxonomic classifications to which they belong.

I think this may be one of the problems in our discussion. See, when you and Wormwood post the creationist argument "evolution can't add new genetic information", to me that has absolutely nothing to do with new anatomical features, body plans, or taxonomy. But to you guys, it seems that's what the whole argument is about! IOW, it's what I described earlier...

Of course if you're arguing that maybe evolution can generate new genetic information, but it can't generate the type or amount required for universal common ancestry, then that's a completely different question than the original. It is possible that we could conclude "evolution can generate new genetic information, but it hasn't been demonstrated that it can generate the type or amount required under common ancestry" (not saying that's the case). If that were the result, then the creationist argument "evolution can't generate new genetic information" is still false.

Does that make sense? The reason we've been talking past each other is because we're thinking about this question in two entirely different ways. I'm thinking I need to specifically address the "new genetic information" part, whereas you're thinking about universal common ancestry. That's why I've been posting examples of what I feel are the evolution of new genetic information, and you've been saying they don't address your argument. So let's clear this up so we don't continue to talk past each other.

My perspective is that you can have the evolution of new genetic information without crossing any taxonomic lines or evolving any new body parts. Under that framework, the examples I gave are the evolution of new genetic information because they involve the evolution of functional genetic sequences that weren't there before. The sequences are "new" because they previously didn't exist, and they are "genetic information" because they are functional sequences.

Your perspective seems to be that it isn't "new genetic information" unless a new anatomical feature, body plan, or taxonomic group was produced. If that's accurate, then as I described above, to me that's an entirely different question than I thought you were asking.

So, would you agree that under my framework (new genetic information = functional genetic sequences that weren't there before), the evolution of new genetic information is an observed fact? If we can agree to that, then we can begin addressing the framework you're operating under (if how I described it is accurate).

To simply assume that "transitions" at the very base of the taxonomic tree, which involves classifications constructed by human beings in order to keep track of how they think life should be organized, are sufficient to assume that they should be extrapolated all the way up to the top of the tree, is hardly anything worthy of being called science. It just goes too far into the realm of philosophy and belief... as far as I can see.

And I totally agree with that. If the entire basis for evolutionary common descent was what you describe, then that would be poor science indeed! However, the basis for universal common ancestry is much, much more comprehensive than that.

If that is the case, then surely all organisms whould have the original information contained in every other organism they are presumed to have decended from. But as far as I know, every cell in an organism has the genetic information to reconstruct that organism, and only that organism. So without being able to show a cell from one organism that is identical to a cell of an organism that belongs to a totally different, but related, taxonomic classification, then how does that support the claims made by evolutionists?

I'm assuming by "claims made by evolutionists" you're talking about universal common ancestry (UCA). If that's wrong, let me know.

First of all, all life on earth does utilize the same genetics for fundamental cellular functions. It's one of the important evidences for UCA. But to your question about why different organisms have different genomes, you have to think about it chronologically. If, as the evidence indicates, the first almost 2 billion years of life on earth were bacteria, then all that was on earth genetically was bacterial genomes (which is mostly the genes necessary for cellular functions). There were no sequences for wings, eyes, or anything else bacteria didn't have. But as life on earth began to diversify from that starting point, different populations evolved different genetics that produced different traits. But the sequences for the fundamental cellular functions remain the same. IOW, it's something like a starting population that has "My mom went to the dairy store", and those words are for fundamental cellular processes. And over time, as different populations diverge from that starting point, each is free to evolve its own variation on the original theme...

My mom went to the dairy store​

/ \​

My mom went to the dairy store on Monday My mom went to the dairy store yesterday​

Now, the "on Monday" population has its own unique sequence, as does the "yesterday" population, and now that each is separate they are free to continue to evolve their own variations, independent from the others (and the original "My mom went to the dairy store" population can still exist alongside the other two populations). And maybe over time one of the populations end up deleting part of the original sequence.

So you see how you can have 3 populations with different and unique genetic sequences even though they all share a common ancestry. Please don't take this too literally; I'm just using this to demonstrate a concept in response to your question.

Yes, that is exactly what I am asking.

I hope you can appreciate that just as it's unreasonable to expect geologists to recreate and personally witness glacial erosion of a U-valley, it's unreasonable to expect biologists to recreate and personally witness the evolution of new large taxonomic categories.

How does a genetic change in an elephant show that it is related to a banana?

It doesn't. No one has argued that since we see a population of elephants evolve a new genetic sequence, that means they're related to bananas. This touches on the different ways you and I have been perceiving this question. The evidence for their relatedness is much more comprehensive than that.

What, according to you, is the difference between organisms "evolving", which of course is the point of contention in these discussions, and organisms simply changing, or adapting, which practically no one on the entire earth is disputing?

I'm glad you asked. First, we need to understand that the scientific definition of "evolution" is "a change in allele frequencies in population over time". Second, we need to understand that evolving new traits is one way in which populations adapt. So for example we have two populations that live in an area that experiences a drought and food becomes scarce. The first population migrates to a new area where food is more plentiful. The second population evolves a new metabolic trait that allows them to eat a type of food they couldn't eat before.

Both populations have adapted to the changing conditions, but only the second population adapted via evolution.

We could of course, as I suggested earlier on, remove taxonomy from the discussion altogether, but without it I don't see where it leaves us... other than to agree that all living organisms change.

However, observational science teaches us that some groups of animals do not breed with others. And without taking that into consideration, how can we assume common descent?

We don't merely assume UCA. We look at all the available data and if it turns out to point in that direction, then that's where we go. So am I reading this correctly in that you are asking me to go over the supporting evidence for UCA?

I do not think scientists choose their profession in order to disprove God. This idea superimposes Christian concerns onto the field of science - it is like hating a football team because of the colors they wear. The issue is simply not important to a scientist.

It's a cartoonish paranoid conspiracy theory, invoked to explain away the fact that the world's scientists have been "evolutionists" for over 150 years.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

How do you propose we tell the difference?

It's obviously a faith issue that neither evolutionists can prove, nor creationists disprove.

See, when you and Wormwood post the creationist argument "evolution can't add new genetic information", to me that has absolutely nothing to do with new anatomical features, body plans, or taxonomy. But to you guys, it seems that's what the whole argument is about! IOW, it's what I described earlier...

Sure, obviosly I can admit to that, but even creationists that use the argument admit that whether or not mutations produce new information is, "dependent on what you mean by ‘new’ and ‘information’." (Creation.com)

Obviously creationists see this in a much wider perspective than "beneficial changes". What I think evolutionists need to demonstate is that a random change caused by a mutation would have the ability to create the kind of features that I described. Otherwise all we are left with is a long, drawn out discussion about definitions that doesn't really prove anything either way.

If the entire basis for evolutionary common descent was what you describe, then that would be poor science indeed! However, the basis for universal common ancestry is much, much more comprehensive than that.

I realize that, but then again I am not coming from the position that common descent is unscientific, or disproven, solely based on lack of evidence of transitions between these higher taxonomic classifications. I just don't deem it impossible that the model being used by scientists gives them enough flexiblity to interpret everything they observe from an evolutionary perspective rather than that of special creation.

First of all, all life on earth does utilize the same genetics for fundamental cellular functions. It's one of the important evidences for UCA. But to your question about why different organisms have different genomes, you have to think about it chronologically. If, as the evidence indicates, the first almost 2 billion years of life on earth were bacteria, then all that was on earth genetically was bacterial genomes (which is mostly the genes necessary for cellular functions). There were no sequences for wings, eyes, or anything else bacteria didn't have. But as life on earth began to diversify from that starting point, different populations evolved different genetics that produced different traits. But the sequences for the fundamental cellular functions remain the same. IOW, it's something like a starting population that has "My mom went to the dairy store", and those words are for fundamental cellular processes. And over time, as different populations diverge from that starting point, each is free to evolve its own variation on the original theme...

My mom went to the dairy store
/ \
My mom went to the dairy store on Monday My mom went to the dairy store yesterday

Now, the "on Monday" population has its own unique sequence, as does the "yesterday" population, and now that each is separate they are free to continue to evolve their own variations, independent from the others (and the original "My mom went to the dairy store" population can still exist alongside the other two populations). And maybe over time one of the populations end up deleting part of the original sequence.
So you see how you can have 3 populations with different and unique genetic sequences even though they all share a common ancestry. Please don't take this too literally; I'm just using this to demonstrate a concept in response to your question.

And this is pretty much what I am talking about. As you said, it is a "concept" - a concept that presupposes evolution and an old earth/universe, and that then considers all counter-evidence to be anomalies, that can be explained away.

That, I think, is what convinces so many people that there are "mountains" of evidence for evolution. Anything that challenges the theory is encapsultated in an explanation and then assimilated into the theory, and there is absolutely nothing that determines where the theory should continue to assimilate or be rejected.

The taunting challenge for creationist of course is to either provide an out-of-place fossil and claim the Nobel prize, or to simply shut up. All the while we are finding countless examples of out-of-place fossils, because not only are living fossils out of place, there are others, such as the fossil of a mammal with a dinosaur in its belly, and others like that, that do nothing more than demand a new explanation.

First, we need to understand that the scientific definition of "evolution" is "a change in allele frequencies in population over time". Second, we need to understand that evolving new traits is one way in which populations adapt. So for example we have two populations that live in an area that experiences a drought and food becomes scarce. The first population migrates to a new area where food is more plentiful. The second population evolves a new metabolic trait that allows them to eat a type of food they couldn't eat before.

Both populations have adapted to the changing conditions, but only the second population adapted via evolution.

Fair enough. But that only deals with the biological definition of evolution, not the general theory of evolution where the "contention" lies, which is why I used that word. But perhaps, just as you pointed out, that is why we have been talking past each other.

We look at all the available data and if it turns out to point in that direction, then that's where we go. So am I reading this correctly in that you are asking me to go over the supporting evidence for UCA?

I think that for you to go though all the supporting evidence for UCA would be a waste of your time. What I think you would need to do is to go through the evidence that supports UCA and that cannot be explained by special creation.

 

[River Jordan]

It's obviously a faith issue that neither evolutionists can prove, nor creationists disprove.

Well, if we can't tell the difference between changes that are the result of random mutation and those that are from inherent design, then would you agree we should go with the conclusion that seems most warranted by our observations?

Sure, obviosly I can admit to that, but even creationists that use the argument admit that whether or not mutations produce new information is, "dependent on what you mean by ‘new’ and ‘information’." (Creation.com)

Which is why I spent so much effort trying to understand what you guys meant by those terms.

Obviously creationists see this in a much wider perspective than "beneficial changes". What I think evolutionists need to demonstate is that a random change caused by a mutation would have the ability to create the kind of features that I described. Otherwise all we are left with is a long, drawn out discussion about definitions that doesn't really prove anything either way.

And scientists have demonstrated that the sorts of mutations we do see in real time are sufficient to account for all sorts of biological features. And not only do they produce some extremely detailed scenarios, in many cases they test them as well.

I realize that, but then again I am not coming from the position that common descent is unscientific, or disproven, solely based on lack of evidence of transitions between these higher taxonomic classifications. I just don't deem it impossible that the model being used by scientists gives them enough flexiblity to interpret everything they observe from an evolutionary perspective rather than that of special creation.

In order to do that, we'd have to first know what sorts of things we would only find under special creation and not under UCA (and vice versa), correct?

And this is pretty much what I am talking about. As you said, it is a "concept" - a concept that presupposes evolution and an old earth/universe, and that then considers all counter-evidence to be anomalies, that can be explained away.

However, as I pointed out, although it is a concept, it's one that's been demonstrated both in the lab and in the wild. We know for a fact that a population can give rise to different populations with unique genetic sequences. In fact, that's what many of those experiments are about...testing to see if the concept holds true. So there is no presupposition going on.

Would you agree that that's good science?

That, I think, is what convinces so many people that there are "mountains" of evidence for evolution. Anything that challenges the theory is encapsultated in an explanation and then assimilated into the theory, and there is absolutely nothing that determines where the theory should continue to assimilate or be rejected.

What sort of things are out there that you think should cause the scientific community to reject evolutionary theory?

The taunting challenge for creationist of course is to either provide an out-of-place fossil and claim the Nobel prize, or to simply shut up. All the while we are finding countless examples of out-of-place fossils, because not only are living fossils out of place, there are others, such as the fossil of a mammal with a dinosaur in its belly, and others like that, that do nothing more than demand a new explanation.

First, I don't think it's unreasonable to request an actual write-up of their evidence from those claiming to be able to disprove evolutionary theory. Would you agree with that? Finally, in order for me to comment on specific finds, I need more information (e.g., the actual paper describing it).

I think that for you to go though all the supporting evidence for UCA would be a waste of your time. What I think you would need to do is to go through the evidence that supports UCA and that cannot be explained by special creation.

So in order to do that, I'd need to know what sort of things would only be found under UCA, and not under special creation (and vice versa). Do you have any ideas on what those things might be?

 

[Wormwood]

I do not think scientists choose their profession in order to disprove God. This idea superimposes Christian concerns onto the field of science - it is like hating a football team because of the colors they wear. The issue is simply not important to a scientist.

I do not think the issues are related at all. They have more to do with presuppositions than anything science discovers to confirm or deny Scripture. The reality is there is a 10164 probablility of a functional protein forming by chance. That is essentially much worse odds then finding a single proton, neutron, or electron particle among all the particles in the observable uinverse. Think about how staggering this statistic is. Yet naturalists will claim that "science" can be only natural and to think that life was created rather than forming by chance is faith-based and not scientific! Imagine a crime scene investigator coming to a murder scene and claiming that it is only real "science" if a natural cause is found for the death rather than an intelligent agent. It would be considered pure foolishness. Yet, somehow, this concept has cemented itself in discussions on evolution and origins. To even talk about God is considered anti-science or irrelevant to science. This is the problem....not science or what is being discovered.

It is a simple fact that the idea that new genetic information is produced as a means of creating new forms of life is ridiculously improbable. What is required is the development of new, functional proteins which are made of amino acid combinations that are incredible complex and specific. Amino acid chains cannot just be formed willy, nilly. Many are hundreds of bases that have to be assembled in a very precise manner so that the chain can fold into a functional protein. Why is it the ONLY way to understand the diverse life forms around us especially when the probabilty of blind change and mutation forming such proteins is completely illogical? Because "science" has validated it? No, because the word "science" has been repackaged to mean something it never meant before.

In any event, all the odds are stacked against such assessments, and yet they are claimed as the only real scientific way to evalutate things. The issue here is not really what we are learning, but how science is being redefined in recent years. First, science is being defined as "doing experiments" in a lab. If you arent doing labwork, you arent a real scientist. Yet, some of the greatest scientific discoveries were not the result of doing labwork. The discovery of the structure of DNA was not done by men in a lab, but by men who were evaluating and putting together the pieces of other scientists. The same could be said of hundreds of discoveries...yet now people claim science can only be done in a lab and if you arent in the lab doing the work, your assements are invalid. Second, science is being redefined as that which is void of, or entirely separated from theological reflection. Somehow faith is being viewed as weird mythology that interferes or clouds scientific reasoning. However, the greatest scientific minds of history such as Boyle, Kepler, Newton and others knew of no such logical inconsistancy. How we can stand on their shoulders and yet deny everything they affirmed as "real science" is unbelievable to me.

So, the problem here is not between faith and science...but how science is being redefined to be ancillary or even oppositional to faith. The issue is not about "proving" or "disproving God" in what scientists are finding. The issue is about "what is science" and how we define what it means to think scientifically. Clearly, faith in God, creation and design is NOT opposed to scientific reasoning or discovery..and that is what is being perpetuated today. Thats the rub.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Well, if we can't tell the difference between changes that are the result of random mutation and those that are from inherent design, then would you agree we should go with the conclusion that seems most warranted by our observations?

Sure.

And scientists have demonstrated that the sorts of mutations we do see in real time are sufficient to account for all sorts of biological features. And not only do they produce some extremely detailed scenarios, in many cases they test them as well.

Words like "all sorts of biological features" and "extremely detailed scenarios" means absolutely nothing unless you can demonstrate that their extrapolation is enough to do what evolutionists claim that they can do. Extrapolating restistance to antibiotics doesn't do that, fluctuations in size doesn't do it, and neither does changing color, form, or shape do it. You need to demonstrate where completely new anatomical features such as eyes, noses, fins, legs and tails, lungs and so on can be produced by random mutations. The problem is not that we cannot observe random mutations that can provide a benefit to an organism, the problem is that we would need to observe a tremendous amount of such mutations that are all orchestrated in such a way as to create a complex organ.

In order to do that, we'd have to first know what sorts of things we would only find under special creation and not under UCA (and vice versa), correct?

Exactly. And in my opinion that is the problem we are facing today. Although we cannot always determine the truth of matters on higher levels simply by staring into microscopes, I think the general public is being deceived into believing that we can.

However, as I pointed out, although it is a concept, it's one that's been demonstrated both in the lab and in the wild. We know for a fact that a population can give rise to different populations with unique genetic sequences. In fact, that's what many of those experiments are about...testing to see if the concept holds true. So there is no presupposition going on.

Would you agree that that's good science?

I would, but that is not where the contention lies. Remember, it isn't the visible tree we disagree about, it is the invisible roots and how much we can conclude about them from the things we see. A population having a unique genetic sequence is hardly anything that determines whether or not any possible deviation from the original can be produced. Scientists have been trying to accelerate this process for decades and yet all they come up with are variations of the same kind of organism.

What sort of things are out there that you think should cause the scientific community to reject evolutionary theory?

I'm not trying to target the scientific community.

Unless someone can put something under the microscope that disproves evolution, then how is anything going to motivate anyone to reject a theory that so many people want to believe in? I don't think anything like that is going to happen, and neither do I believe God wants it to happen, because truth about origins is a largely a faith issue.

However, sensing your objection, there is nothing about such issues that dictates that we cannot appeal to science in order to discuss them.

First, I don't think it's unreasonable to request an actual write-up of their evidence from those claiming to be able to disprove evolutionary theory. Would you agree with that? Finally, in order for me to comment on specific finds, I need more information (e.g., the actual paper describing it).

I doubt that anyone can disprove evolutionary theory. It is way too hard to falsify, and it is also way too easy to somehow assimilate any and every observed phenomenon in nature into the theory itself, rather than causing anyone to reject it. The example I mentioned about the dinosaur in the mammal's belly is just one of many examples of this. It didn't put the slightest scratch on the theory itself, but rather the challenge, according to the article published in National Geographic was to "rethink the Mesozoic". That is all they need to do. Rethink.

 

[River Jordan]

Sure.

So when we study mutations, they seem to occur with no direction or intent, and are completely random and unpredictable. Given that, would you agree that it's reasonable for scientists to conclude that mutations are random?

Words like "all sorts of biological features" and "extremely detailed scenarios" means absolutely nothing unless you can demonstrate that their extrapolation is enough to do what evolutionists claim that they can do. Extrapolating restistance to antibiotics doesn't do that, fluctuations in size doesn't do it, and neither does changing color, form, or shape do it.

I agree. As I said before, if scientists were all like "Well, we've seen bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance, therefore evolution is entirely capable of producing arms and hands", that would be very poor science. Fortunately, scientists don't do anything like that, so we can drop this silly scenario.

You need to demonstrate where completely new anatomical features such as eyes, noses, fins, legs and tails, lungs and so on can be produced by random mutations. The problem is not that we cannot observe random mutations that can provide a benefit to an organism, the problem is that we would need to observe a tremendous amount of such mutations that are all orchestrated in such a way as to create a complex organ.

I agree. Now, naturally exploring the specific detailed evolutionary scenarios for specific features is an extremely technical and specialized field of study (especially since we're talking about molecular genetics), and as such requires a fair bit of specialized technical expertise. Your average non-scientist off the street isn't likely to be able to read about and understand a lot of what is involved.

Basically what I'm saying to you UD is, if you truly want to go down this path and get into the details, you're going to have to do some work. And depending on just how detailed you want to get, you may have to do quite a bit of work. Is that ok?

Exactly. And in my opinion that is the problem we are facing today. Although we cannot always determine the truth of matters on higher levels simply by staring into microscopes, I think the general public is being deceived into believing that we can.

I'm not sure what you mean there, so could you explain further?

I would, but that is not where the contention lies. Remember, it isn't the visible tree we disagree about, it is the invisible roots and how much we can conclude about them from the things we see. A population having a unique genetic sequence is hardly anything that determines whether or not any possible deviation from the original can be produced. Scientists have been trying to accelerate this process for decades and yet all they come up with are variations of the same kind of organism.

I hope you appreciate the contrast between "trying for decades" and "has been evolving for billions of years".

I'm not trying to target the scientific community.

I realize you're not, but when it comes to the creationist sources you rely on, do you agree that it's reasonable for the scientific community to expect them to back up their claims of being able to disprove evolutionary theory with an actual paper?

Unless someone can put something under the microscope that disproves evolution, then how is anything going to motivate anyone to reject a theory that so many people want to believe in? I don't think anything like that is going to happen, and neither do I believe God wants it to happen, because truth about origins is a largely a faith issue.

However, sensing your objection, there is nothing about such issues that dictates that we cannot appeal to science in order to discuss them.

Are you saying that the reason creationists haven't backed up their claims (about being able to disprove evolutionary theory) is because they aren't really motivated to do so, and/or because God doesn't want that to happen?

I doubt that anyone can disprove evolutionary theory. It is way too hard to falsify, and it is also way too easy to somehow assimilate any and every observed phenomenon in nature into the theory itself, rather than causing anyone to reject it. The example I mentioned about the dinosaur in the mammal's belly is just one of many examples of this. It didn't put the slightest scratch on the theory itself, but rather the challenge, according to the article published in National Geographic was to "rethink the Mesozoic". That is all they need to do. Rethink.

Some of the creationist organizations I've seen don't seem to think it's too hard to falsify, nor do many of the members of that forum you referred me to.

I do agree however that it would be difficult to falsify evolutionary theory. Other than the "pre-Cambrian rabbit", it's going to take quite a lot of substantial evidence to do it, just like any other long-standing, well-supported scientific theory. I mean, one doesn't overturn a well-evidenced theory that's served as the primary framework for so many sciences for over a century with a single silver bullet.

As far as the mammal in the dino belly, as I said before, I'd have to read what you're talking about before I could comment further.

 

[thomasleonard]

Yes, as proved scientifically dinosaurs had feathers like we would now call them "birdlike".
And it has been proven that birds are related to dinosaurs, they are part of the dinosaur family.
It isn't a lot to take in really, they make logical sense to have feathers just like we have hair except over time we are losing hair due to us always wearing clothing instead of venturing naked. Which makes sense as we don't rely on body hair to keep us warm.
The story of the dinosaurs in the beginnings of the world is an amazing discovery.
We should all keep them close to our hearts, even though most where predators, it's the same as us as we are also predators.
We all kill animals to eat food, and some prefer vegetables to eat. The cycle of life is glorious in its own nature.
But the dinosaurs weren't getting no where, which is why I believe god ended them to bring about another creation far more beautiful and complex and likewise to him.
But yes we all need to accept this truth, its undeniable towards the evidence they have found.
God bless scientists. There intention is good. Science never disproves god but always reinforces him.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

So when we study mutations, they seem to occur with no direction or intent, and are completely random and unpredictable. Given that, would you agree that it's reasonable for scientists to conclude that mutations are random?

Yes, of course.

I agree. As I said before, if scientists were all like "Well, we've seen bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance, therefore evolution is entirely capable of producing arms and hands", that would be very poor science. Fortunately, scientists don't do anything like that, so we can drop this silly scenario

If that was the scenario I was trying to support then sure, you would have a valid point - it would be silly. But unless you can show me where I suggested such a scenario then all we are left with is a silly strawman.

I am well aware that scientists are not stupid enough to place all their bets on one card. But that fact alone is not enough to assume that they are not basing their conclusions on one particular model while filtering out another, which I think you will have a hard time demonstrating that they don't.

I agree. Now, naturally exploring the specific detailed evolutionary scenarios for specific features is an extremely technical and specialized field of study (especially since we're talking about molecular genetics), and as such requires a fair bit of specialized technical expertise. Your average non-scientist off the street isn't likely to be able to read about and understand a lot of what is involved.
Basically what I'm saying to you UD is, if you truly want to go down this path and get into the details, you're going to have to do some work. And depending on just how detailed you want to get, you may have to do quite a bit of work. Is that ok?

No, I don't really think that's OK. What you seem to be claiming here is that the evidence for evolution is burried in extremely technical details that only scientists would be able to understand. But if that was the case then there would be no scientists on the entire planet that reject evolution, something we know is not true, but also, I don't understand why the arguments used in support of evolution are so complicated that they cannot be broken down in such a way that a non-scientists could accept them. Why would they be?

So the idea that it would it be too difficult for non-scientists to understand is a little too convenient for me to accept. And as I pointed out, the contention in this discussion is not whether or not biological evolution occurs today, whether or not biological evolution proves common descent.

I'm not sure what you mean there, so could you explain further?

What I mean is that many people are prone to buy into the arguments you just made - that only by becoming a scientist and gazing at microscopic details does one have the key to understanding whether or not things on a higher level are true.
And so we are left with the assumption is that since I am not an expert in science, I am not fit to deem whether or not some organisms evolved incredibly advanced organs, such as a brain that is self-conscious, while, during the same amount of time other organism hardly develop anything at all. I challenge proponents of evolution to provide solid evidence that supports such claims, but all I seem to get is arguments about bacteria changing into bacteria, or implications that since I'm not a scientist, I am too thick to understand the matter.

I hope you appreciate the contrast between "trying for decades" and "has been evolving for billions of years".

I do, but "trying for decades" has been observed, whereas "has been evolving for billions of years" has not.

I realize you're not, but when it comes to the creationist sources you rely on, do you agree that it's reasonable for the scientific community to expect them to back up their claims of being able to disprove evolutionary theory with an actual paper?

I do not "rely on creationist sources" any more that you rely on evolutionist sources.

Are you saying that the reason creationists haven't backed up their claims (about being able to disprove evolutionary theory) is because they aren't really motivated to do so, and/or because God doesn't want that to happen?

What I actually said was that the "truth about origins is a largely a faith issue", not that "creationists haven't backed up their claims".

I see this matter in the same way as I do the gospel itself. We lay out the truth for people to either to accept or reject. We reason with them to the best of our ability, but in the end it is up to them to decide what "truth" they are willing to adopt. If someone loves the world, then they will listen to what the world has to say. If they love God then they will do the opposite. For example, we cannot prove to anyone that God exists. But we can appeal to the testimony that God has given and hope that people respond to that.

 

[River Jordan]

Yes, of course.

That's good. We both agree the scientific conclusion that mutations are random and undirected is reasonable.

If that was the scenario I was trying to support then sure, you would have a valid point - it would be silly. But unless you can show me where I suggested such a scenario then all we are left with is a silly strawman.

That's good. As long as we both agree that "we've seen bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance, therefore evolution is entirely capable of producing arms and hands" is a straw man of the actual science of evolutionary biology, we can proceed.

No, I don't really think that's OK. What you seem to be claiming here is that the evidence for evolution is burried in extremely technical details that only scientists would be able to understand. But if that was the case then there would be no scientists on the entire planet that reject evolution, something we know is not true, but also, I don't understand why the arguments used in support of evolution are so complicated that they cannot be broken down in such a way that a non-scientists could accept them. Why would they be?

So the idea that it would it be too difficult for non-scientists to understand is a little too convenient for me to accept. And as I pointed out, the contention in this discussion is not whether or not biological evolution occurs today, whether or not biological evolution proves common descent.

Well, to be honest I'm not here to teach a 3 month course in molecular genetics, another one in population genetics, and another in evolutionary biology. And I'm not saying the material is too technical for you to understand at all; I'm saying that in order to understand some of it you need to familiarize yourself with some fundamental terms and concepts in those fields. If you're not willing to do any work at all towards that end, then I'm not sure this can be a worthwhile endeavor. You basically seem to be saying "Explain to me the science of evolutionary biology, and I don't want to have to do any work on my end".

If I post this paper: Building Divergent Body Plans with Similar Genetic Pathways, will you read it, understand it, and discuss it?

What I mean is that many people are prone to buy into the arguments you just made - that only by becoming a scientist and gazing at microscopic details does one have the key to understanding whether or not things on a higher level are true.

Another way to put that is, in order to properly evaluate the validity of the conclusions of evolutionary biology, one needs a decent understanding of the science of evolutionary biology. I guess I don't understand why that's so unreasonable to you.

And so we are left with the assumption is that since I am not an expert in science, I am not fit to deem whether or not some organisms evolved incredibly advanced organs, such as a brain that is self-conscious, while, during the same amount of time other organism hardly develop anything at all.

Yeah, pretty much. I don't know much of anything about car engines, so when I come across two people arguing about one type of engine over another, I'm not qualified to properly evaluate either argument, am I?

I challenge proponents of evolution to provide solid evidence that supports such claims, but all I seem to get is arguments about bacteria changing into bacteria, or implications that since I'm not a scientist, I am too thick to understand the matter.

Ok then, we'll start. But as I said, I'm not here to conduct a 3 month course in evolutionary biology. If some of the concepts or terms are outside your knowledge, then you're either going to have to take the time to learn them or our discussion will just be me talking to someone who's not at all willing to put any effort into understanding the subject.

So first of all, I see three different issues we've been dancing around the last few days. They are...

1) Whether evolutionary mechanisms are able to add new genetic information to a genome.

2) Whether evolutionary mechanisms are able to produce the type of genetic information necessary for things like arms and hands.

3) Whether the data supports universal common ancestry.

AFAICT, #1 has been answered. Evolutionary mechanisms do indeed generate new functional genetic sequences that weren't there previously. That leads us to #2, whether these mechanisms can produce complex structures like arms and hands.

First of all, it's important to note that evolution generally doesn't generate things like that out of nowhere, all at once. Rather, evolution utilizes existing parts and modifies them for new uses. Fins become limbs and hands, arms become wings, jaw bones become the inner ear, air bladders become lungs, and so on. On a genetic level, existing genes can be copied and the new copies modified for new purposes; viral sequences can co-opted and used for new functions; disabled and/or non-functional sequences can be modified to produce new functions.

So the take-away message here is that we're not looking for "a population without arms suddenly evolved arms". Rather we're operating under "a population with fins modified those fins, whereby they were stronger fins, then longer, then stronger still, then longer still, until eventually they were primitive limbs capable of supporting the organism on land".

With that in mind, we then look to see if there's any evidence out there that would support such a scenario. One of the first things we do is look at existing organisms and see if their anatomies are consistent with a common origin. So we study the group with limbs (tetrapods) and we immediately notice that they all have the same pattern of bones...one bone (upper limb), two bones (lower limb), little bones (wrist), and digits. We see this exact same pattern in all tetrapods...birds, bats, humans, horses, lizards, whales....all of them. And even in those with different numbers of digits (e.g., some birds and all horses) they all start off in the embryonic stage with 5 digits! So, our first broad look at the issue reveals a consistent pattern that is entirely consistent with common ancestry of tetrapods, and the evolution of tetrapod limbs.

Now, keep in mind that I'm in no way saying "all tetrapods have the same basic anatomy, therefore they share a common evolutionary ancestry". There's a whooooooooooole lot more data to go over. I'm just noting that our very first, broad scale survey of the data is what we would expect under the evolutionary framework.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

That's good. We both agree the scientific conclusion that mutations are random and undirected is reasonable.


Sounds good to me... so far.

As long as we both agree that "we've seen bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance, therefore evolution is entirely capable of producing arms and hands" is a straw man of the actual science of evolutionary biology, we can proceed.

Yes.

Well, to be honest I'm not here to teach a 3 month course in molecular genetics, another one in population genetics, and another in evolutionary biology. And I'm not saying the material is too technical for you to understand at all; I'm saying that in order to understand some of it you need to familiarize yourself with some fundamental terms and concepts in those fields. If you're not willing to do any work at all towards that end, then I'm not sure this can be a worthwhile endeavor. You basically seem to be saying "Explain to me the science of evolutionary biology, and I don't want to have to do any work on my end"

If I post this paper: Building Divergent Body Plans with Similar Genetic Pathways, will you read it, understand it, and discuss it?

Oh I get it... I'm supposed to get back to you in three months, otherwise I haven't done my homework and therefore I am disqualified from the discussion.
Well firstly, you provided a link to an abstract, not a paper. And even the abstract doesn't really say much to someone who is is not well-versed in the technical details of what is being discussed, which alone I guess is enough to make you high-five other proponents of evolution, however...
Secondly, you haven't given the slightest clue as to why this matter cannot be broken down to a level that can be understood by someone who has not well-versed genetics.

If, for example, it has to deal with similarities between the genetic sequences of organisms belonging to diffent taxonomic classifications, then that shouldn't be too hard for you simplify and describe, should it? And if it has to do with something other than that then why don't you just say so? Why pretend that it is somehow hidden in the details? If primeval, and even fairly advanced organisms have hardly changed after million of years whereas others have undergone incredible changes that render them practically unrecongnizalbe from their predecessors, then what evidence have you seen under the microscope that proves that this has actually happened? Just break it down for me... if possible.

Thirdly, if a paper such as this doesn't even settle this debate between scientists, which it obviously doesn't, then why should I, as a non-scientist, even bother with it?

Sure, you can accuse me of being intellectually lazy and having religious, rather than "scientific" motives all you want, but you cannot deny the obvious.

Unless you can provide a scientific argument that both you and I can understand and agree on, then all it boils down to is that you consider your own understanding of science to be superior to my understanding of truth (something you cannot "scientifically" support), OR that your scientists are bigger and better than mine (something else you cannot "scientifically" support).

Another way to put that is, in order to properly evaluate the validity of the conclusions of evolutionary biology, one needs a decent understanding of the science of evolutionary biology. I guess I don't understand why that's so unreasonable to you.

OK, so what is the "decent" understanding of evolutionary biology that you think I lack? I understand that there are conclusions drawn from biology that are used to support the theory, such as similarities in genetic sequences, homologies, and so on. But you still haven't provided anything that cannot be equally explained by the existence of a designer creating families of animals and vegetation that can be explored and fathomed by mankind.

I don't know much of anything about car engines, so when I come across two people arguing about one type of engine over another, I'm not qualified to properly evaluate either argument, am I?

No, of course not, but I hardly consider that to be an appropriate analogy.

I have as little problem in putting my trust in the fact that scientists who have studied genetics know what they are talking about as far as observable genetics is concerned, as as I do in handing my car keys over to a mechanic. But what I do have a problem with is allowing either of them to determine what I should base my beliefs on concering things that go beyond their field of expertise.

AFAICT, #1 has been answered.

Since we don't really agree on what the "question" is, we also don't see eye to eye on what the "answer" is, so it seems pointless to discuss that particular point any further.

First of all, it's important to note that evolution generally doesn't generate things like that out of nowhere, all at once. Rather, evolution utilizes existing parts and modifies them for new uses. Fins become limbs and hands, arms become wings, jaw bones become the inner ear, air bladders become lungs, and so on. On a genetic level, existing genes can be copied and the new copies modified for new purposes; viral sequences can co-opted and used for new functions; disabled and/or non-functional sequences can be modified to produce new functions.
So the take-away message here is that we're not looking for "a population without arms suddenly evolved arms". Rather we're operating under "a population with fins modified those fins, whereby they were stronger fins, then longer, then stronger still, then longer still, until eventually they were primitive limbs capable of supporting the organism on land".
With that in mind, we then look to see if there's any evidence out there that would support such a scenario. One of the first things we do is look at existing organisms and see if their anatomies are consistent with a common origin. So we study the group with limbs (tetrapods) and we immediately notice that they all have the same pattern of bones...one bone (upper limb), two bones (lower limb), little bones (wrist), and digits. We see this exact same pattern in all tetrapods...birds, bats, humans, horses, lizards, whales....all of them. And even in those with different numbers of digits (e.g., some birds and all horses) they all start off in the embryonic stage with 5 digits! So, our first broad look at the issue reveals a consistent pattern that is entirely consistent with common ancestry of tetrapods, and the evolution of tetrapod limbs.

Now, keep in mind that I'm in no way saying "all tetrapods have the same basic anatomy, therefore they share a common evolutionary ancestry". There's a whooooooooooole lot more data to go over. I'm just noting that our very first, broad scale survey of the data is what we would expect under the evolutionary framework.

River, sister, I realize what the beliefs are, just as I realize that from an evolutionary perspective there is supporting evidence for such beliefs. You point out patterns of bones, using the word "patterns" as though it should somehow be considered evidence for evolution and yet against design. What on earth do you base that argument on? Design implies the existence of patterns!

If you could point out any animal with fewer digits than 5 that actually would require an extra digit, or fewer digits, in order to adapt to its environment then you would have a point. Otherwise from my point of view, each and every animal has exactly the number of digits it requires in order to get by wherever God designed them to live.

 

[aspen]

global warming is going to speed up the process of evolution

 

[River Jordan]

Uppsala,

you still haven't provided anything that cannot be equally explained by the existence of a designer creating families of animals and vegetation that can be explored and fathomed by mankind

Otherwise from my point of view, each and every animal has exactly the number of digits it requires in order to get by wherever God designed them to live

If that's going to be your response to whatever data I post, then we can stop now. You seem to be thinking I'm trying to demonstrate "God didn't do it", whereas I think I'm trying to demonstrate the evidence for common ancestry. I obviously have no interest in trying to show "God didn't do it", nor is such a thing possible...and not just for evolution, but for everything.

Was that gravity that caused the ball to fall to the ground, or did God do it?

Was it erosion that formed that valley, or did God do it?

Is it chlorophyll that makes plants look green, or does God do it?

Did tetrapod limbs evolve, or did God do it?

Since God can do absolutely anything and everything, it's impossible to answer any of those questions. No matter what data you collect, someone can always claim "That's just how God made it look". That's the whole point behind the analogy of Last Thursdayism.

And I think this is the true root of our problem here. You're approaching this thinking that we're talking about God and His creation, and that by defending evolutionary biology, I'm trying to disprove God's creating. Thus you state very clearly that unless I can demonstrate that God didn't create whatever data I present, I haven't done anything. Of course the problem is, I'm not trying to do anything like that at all. I was just trying to explain some of the science behind biology.

Unless we resolve this issue, nothing else either one of us post on this subject will matter.

 

[Wormwood]

River,

I haven't been following the discussion much but I would say that when your assertions are in direct contradiction with the Biblical narrative, then it is more than just observing something "God did." Scripture clearly states that God created animals according to "kinds." Darwinian evolution is a naturalistic way of explaining all life by means of common ancestry through random mutations and blind chance (or perhaps from your perspective, God directed mutations). Now I would argue that while it is possible to explain an old earth through the narratives of the creation account, it simply is not possible to argue for a common ancestry and that man descended from apes. This view impacts not only the creation account but the entire concept of the Imago Dei as well as the nature of the atonement. The reason animal sacrifices could never cover human sin is because man was created distinct and separate from animals.

So, in all fairness, it is one thing to make a biological observation and be indifferent on whether it be described as a natural phenomenon or "God did it." It is quite another to make assertions about origins that are in stark contrast to the Scriptures and claim you are only making an observation with no necessary theological consequences. This is simply theologically myopic among other things. You are going beyond scientific observation to making naturalistic extrapolations based on very little real evidence that undermines the very foundation of the Bible. At such a point you have to determine to which you will adhere and whether or not you will accept Scripture as authoritative or view it as a merely and ancient, human produced, flawed series of documents. Given the little evidence at hand, I personally see no reason to throw the Bible under the bus on this issue. As I have argued, and I think both biology and mathematics substantiate, common origins is not the only option. In fact, I would claim its not a very good assessment of the data at all. It is not only science that is leading you to these assertions on origins, but assumptions taught by those who have determined that legitimate science can be based in nothing other than secular naturalism.

 

[River Jordan]

I would say that when your assertions are in direct contradiction with the Biblical narrative, then it is more than just observing something "God did."

That's only applicable if one takes the extreme stance that one's particular interpretation is infallible and perfect, and therefore nothing can possibly contradict it. A more humble and open mind however takes a different approach.

Scripture clearly states that God created animals according to "kinds." Darwinian evolution is a naturalistic way of explaining all life by means of common ancestry through random mutations and blind chance (or perhaps from your perspective, God directed mutations).

Scripture clearly states that God creates mountains and wind (Amos 4:13). Plate tectonics is a naturalistic way of explaining the formation of mountains and temperature gradients is a naturalistic way of explaining wind. Does that therefore mean all Christians must object to plate tectonics and temperature gradients?

Now I would argue that while it is possible to explain an old earth through the narratives of the creation account, it simply is not possible to argue for a common ancestry and that man descended from apes.

Well you may claim that, but reality very clearly contradicts that claim. Tens of millions of Christians all over the world demonstrate that it's possible for the Bible and science to agree.

This view impacts not only the creation account but the entire concept of the Imago Dei as well as the nature of the atonement. The reason animal sacrifices could never cover human sin is because man was created distinct and separate from animals.

Do you think "in the image of God" refers to our physical bodies? If so, that raises some interesting questions (e.g., does God have reproductive organs). And do you think it is our physical attributes that differentiate us from other organisms? If so, what attributes?

So, in all fairness, it is one thing to make a biological observation and be indifferent on whether it be described as a natural phenomenon or "God did it." It is quite another to make assertions about origins that are in stark contrast to the Scriptures and claim you are only making an observation with no necessary theological consequences. This is simply theologically myopic among other things.

Again, that only applies to those who go into the issue thinking themselves infallible.

You are going beyond scientific observation to making naturalistic extrapolations based on very little real evidence that undermines the very foundation of the Bible. At such a point you have to determine to which you will adhere and whether or not you will accept Scripture as authoritative or view it as a merely and ancient, human produced, flawed series of documents. Given the little evidence at hand, I personally see no reason to throw the Bible under the bus on this issue. As I have argued, and I think both biology and mathematics substantiate, common origins is not the only option.

Except not everyone operates in such an extreme black/white, all or none manner. And it's this sort of "you have to choose between science and Christianity" mindset that's greatly harming our faith and our Great Commission. What's really sad is that it doesn't have to be that way.

Also, given your other posts on the science, I'd have to say that your opinions on it are about as noteworthy as my opinions on Greek literature. We both know a few terms and vague concepts, but definitely not enough to be qualified to speak as an authority.

In fact, I would claim its not a very good assessment of the data at all. It is not only science that is leading you to these assertions on origins, but assumptions taught by those who have determined that legitimate science can be based in nothing other than secular naturalism.

Once again you confuse methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Even though I've tried to correct you on this numerous times, you keep making this same error over and over and over. I guess I just have to conclude that this error is such a fundamental part of your thinking on this issue, that if you were to correct it you'd have to re-tool your entire framework. You don't seem to be willing to do that, so the error persists.

 

[Wormwood]

That's only applicable if one takes the extreme stance that one's particular interpretation is infallible and perfect, and therefore nothing can possibly contradict it. A more humble and open mind however takes a different approach.

Or, maybe it seems that way if one takes a particularly liberal approach that suggests that any and every interpretation is valid. If you are thinking that I believe only one particular interpretation is valid and that mine is infallible, you are seriously mistaken. However, there are exegetical limits. Suppose someone wanted to believe that the Bible taught Jesus was not really a man but only a spirit and that his death on the cross didn't have anything to do with the plans and purposes of God. If we challenge and claim such an interpretation is not only wrong, but contrary to the core teaching of the Scriptures, are we claiming infallibility and that only one interpretation is valid? Of course not. I can believe you are wrong and your view is seriously heretical to orthodox interpretations of Scripture throughout history without asserting my own exegetical infallibility. You seem to have the "all or nothing" view here that anyone who disagrees with you is narrow minded and lacks humility. Very convenient I suppose, but not very convincing.

Scripture clearly states that God creates mountains and wind (Amos 4:13). Plate tectonics is a naturalistic way of explaining the formation of mountains and temperature gradients is a naturalistic way of explaining wind. Does that therefore mean all Christians must object to plate tectonics and temperature gradients?

Again, you are confusing the observation of what has been created and its our observations of it with a particular theory on how something was made that is quite oppositional to the narrative account. Not even a poetic reading of Genesis would lead to such a conclusion that you have embraced.

Well you may claim that, but reality very clearly contradicts that claim. Tens of millions of Christians all over the world demonstrate that it's possible for the Bible and science to agree.

I never claimed they couldn't agree. Lets not confuse philosophical naturalism with science.

Do you think "in the image of God" refers to our physical bodies? If so, that raises some interesting questions (e.g., does God have reproductive organs). And do you think it is our physical attributes that differentiate us from other organisms? If so, what attributes?

The difference is that God's breath exists in man. We are spiritual people who perceive God, morality, purpose, etc. The point here is that our distinction is not that were are more highly evolved or are fortunate enough to have developed opposable thumbs and a larger frontal lobe through the random scrambling of DNA codes, but that we are distinctly created from other life forms.

Again, that only applies to those who go into the issue thinking themselves infallible.

Again, people can think you are wrong without viewing themselves as inerrant.

Except not everyone operates in such an extreme black/white, all or none manner.

Your logic is baffling. Either everyone accepts your view as potentially valid or they are a black/white egomaniac. Why is it that your disagreement with me is not equally "extreme" and arrogant? Quite a double-standard you have here.

Once again you confuse methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Even though I've tried to correct you on this numerous times, you keep making this same error over and over and over.

Yes, well I think you are quite mistaken that the theory of Darwinian evolution is rooted purely in methodologies and observations. Quite the contrary.