The Evolution Conflict

[Bandit]

I feel the same exact way Faithful. I am all for knowledge until...well you know. it kind of gives me a headache too, from nodding.

Here is one of my takes, because i dont trust the estimates some of them give us in dates either. You know the 18 billion one? I was thinking more like 18 zillion gazillion trillion.

In my belief, the common ancestor everyone is looking for is DIRT.
We understand How & when & why all flesh goes back to to dust & along the way it (evolves) into worms & maggots & finally DIRT.

Now, when we can figure out how, when & why the common ancestor, DIRT, can be turned into many different living flesh species, we will no longer be humans.

I am a pretty dumb scientist, but that is my theory on it, plain & simple.

oh yah, & a little bit of water mixed with that DIRT, cause the flesh body sure does get hot these days in the summertime, so drink lots of water to keep the body functioning well...& dont forget the animals & pets that God gave to us, they need twice as much water in the summer.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Bandit

I feel the same exact way Faithful. I am all for knowledge until...well you know. it kind of gives me a headache too, from nodding.

Here is one of my takes, because i dont trust the estimates some of them give us in dates either. You know the 18 billion one? I was thinking more like 18 zillion gazillion trillion.

In my belief, the common ancestor everyone is looking for is DIRT.
We understand How & when & why all flesh goes back to to dust & along the way it (evolves) into worms & maggots & finally DIRT.

Now, when we can figure out how, when & why the common ancestor, DIRT, can be turned into many different living flesh species, we will no longer be humans.

I am a pretty dumb scientist, but that is my theory on it, plain & simple.

oh yah, & a little bit of water mixed with that DIRT, cause the flesh body sure does get hot these days in the summertime, so drink lots of water to keep the body functioning well...& dont forget the animals & pets that God gave to us, they need twice as much water in the summer.

Hiya Bandit, interesting that we both went to the "common ground" of clay/dirt/dust for our recent posts.

lunamoth

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Dear Friends,

Really there is little that can be said in a thread like this that will do anything more than stir up passions. I've read so many endless threads on this it makes my head spin, too, Faithfulservant. Nevertheless, I am compelled to say that the study of evolution, speciation and abiogenesis has never been about disproving the Bible or negating God. It is not about belittling our origins by implying that we emerged from some mucky swamp, and it is not denigrating our ancestors by saying that our Aunts were ameobas and our Grandparents were gorillas.


lunamoth

i find it very harmful to suggest our forefathers were gorillas, but if others want to believe in that for there own offspring, I dont find it degenerating

& like the others Luna, i feel it is something that you should research, because like you say, if you believe in it & it is your passion.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hiya Bandit, interesting that we both went to the "common ground" of clay/dirt/dust for our recent posts.

lunamoth

well yah, that is common sense, because we are not all of the same flesh, rather different kinds of flesh, but we are of the same dirt. (i think)

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Bandit

i find it very harmful to suggest our forefathers were gorillas, but if others want to believe in that for there own offspring, I dont find it degenerating

& like the others Luna, i feel it is something that you should research, because like you say, if you believe in it & it is your passion.

OK Bandit--that was poorly written sentence. Science does not say that your Aunt was an ameoba or that you Grandparents were gorillas. In fact, the only people I've heard say such things are literal-factual Bible believers.

peace,
lunamoth

[Bandit]

i am evolved out on this, so do have fun with it guys & girls, & i mean that.

bye bye monkeys

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

IIm not a scientist.. but wouldnt it be necessary for different dating methods to show the same results in order to prove that the methods were correct?

No. Different dating methods are used for different materials and time frames. C14 and K-Ar dating can't be used on the same materials or the same time frame, by their very chemical limitations. I'm happy to give a dating methods run-down if anybody is interested, but it's kind of boring information, really. Furthermore, we don't generally test things and then explain away problems that arise. Generally, we can foresee dating problems ahead of time on deposits or objects that have obviously been tampered with (either naturally or not), or that have had other problems that will affect the capacity to date them. There are deposits and objects that are impossible to date- either materials for which we have no suitable method yet, or that fall in between time frames of possible dating methods, or that have other interference with the integrity of the original material. Also, dating a deposit and an object in a deposit will not always yield the same dates- the biggest reason being that objects are moved around after their original deposition all the time. This happens frequently in areas of geologic movement and also where rodents are a big issue.

lol this thread gives me one of those "thinking" headaches.. This is not a subject where I am in any way comfortable. I have to say that anytime someone brings up a subject that tries to disprove the bible or God as creator I try to learn.. so Im not a blind person trying to lead other blind people.. I hate giving answers like "I dont know why that is I just trust God" Even though I do trust God people want to know the why's and hows of it.

I applaud your efforts, because I do think that it is a great thing to have faith as well as being informed, rather than choosing to avoid the issues. And I know this stuff is especially difficult, because a lot of specialized knowledge is involved in the complex debates about dating, genetics, and evolution.

I would like to add that Eve was formed from one of Adams ribs...Women still have the extra rib..but doesnt that also show that the female evolved from male? If evolved is even the right word.

Actually, men and women do not have different numbers of ribs. I've taught comparative anatomy as part of the biological anthro. courses I teach, and men and women have the same numbers of ribs.

This makes perfect sense and actually forms a nice parallel between the mechanisms of genetics and evolution and the Bible. Even if Eve was literally made from one of Adam's ribs, none of her children would inherit the trait. Offspring can only inherit the traits that are coded in the DNA of sex cells- sperm and egg. Eve would have still had the normal trait (same number of ribs) as Adam, and thus all her children, male and female, would have the same number of ribs as Adam.

For more information, see http://www.msu.edu/~rootbern/evolution/darwinsrib.html

The link may be mildly offensive to some Christians, as it is written by a professor who was shocked to find that lots of people still believe men and women have different numbers of ribs because of the Genesis story. Don't feel bad though- you're in good company- I generally have at least two or three students in every lab class of 30 who firmly believe men and women have different numbers of ribs until they count them.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

OK Bandit--that was poorly written sentence. Science does not say that your Aunt was an ameoba or that you Grandparents were gorillas. In fact, the only people I've heard say such things are literal-factual Bible believers.

peace,
lunamoth

it is not poorly written, it is written that way all over the science books Luna, but i guess i can sophisticate the drum roll to maybe, possible, could be... if that it was you need.

yes i am a literal factual bible believer & evolution presents many conflicts & you know it does.

[Faithfulservant]

see you learn something new everyday.. :P it was something I heard as a child and never learned differently till now. Thanks

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Bandit,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Bandit

currently understood, is not exactly the same way it was taught to us in school.

currently understood by whom?

i will grant that highschool evolutionary theory is, to say the least, hardly the same as college level study of the various disciplines involved in aspects of evolution.

nevertheless, as beings that seek after, hopefully, as much truth as we can grasp, would it not seem to be wise to seek out other sources of information, even ones that challenge your view, to make sure that you are understanding and then disagreeing with, what is being presented? without this knowledge, what you disagree with may not actually be part of the theory.

for instance. in the discussion of evolution, one nearly always finds some poster that asks something along the lines of "how did the first molecule get here?" or "how did life start?" which have nothing to do with evolution. properly, those question belong to the field of study called Abiogenesis.

Evolution starts with the a priori assumption that "life exists". it doesn't care how life got here, since that is not the question it is trying to answer. the question it is really trying to address is the cause of the diversification of life on the planet, not how said life came to be.

big difference there & it is no wonder why the Christians refused to uphold it then.

there is no reason for a Christian not to accept evolution that i am aware of. evolution does not say anything, one way or the other, concerning the nature of God or if God exists or anything like that. the only way that i can think that a theist, of any flavor, could have a religous objection is if they also feel that God is continually creating new species on the earth.

if this is their belief, then there isn't much use in discussing evolution, i'd submit.

one little girl gets her test score wrong because one scientist & one teacher tells her Aunt Lucy came from a tadpole & that is the answer she was made to put down even when she did not believe it & those people are still alive as we speak.

so... a little girl is given a biology test and the scientist told her that the correct answer is that apes and reptiles are the same and they are her common ancestor? if this is what folks are being taught, no wonder you don't believe it!

i'm not aware of a single text book or reputable scientist that believes that evolution works as has been described here.

if you have access to the text which teaches that humans come from tadpoles, i would sure love to see it... you could excerpt just a bit from it... i am sure it would be good reading

i am not against the theory of it Vajradhara,

not to belabor a point, Bandit, however, what you have described is not evolutionary theory as anyone that i know understands it. we are using something called the Modern Synthesis, have you heard of it? basically, it is described thusly:

"The major tenets of the evolutionary synthesis, then, were that populations contain genetic variation that arises by random (ie. not adaptively directed) mutation and recombination; that populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by random genetic drift, gene flow, and especially natural selection; that most adaptive genetic variants have individually slight phenotypic effects so that phenotypic changes are gradual (although some alleles with discrete effects may be advantageous, as in certain color polymorphisms); that diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth)."
- Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates, 1986; p.12

more information can be found here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

I am sorry there, but if you wish to believe that Aunt Lucy was an ape as a common ancestor, that is up to you as well, but that answer is also not going down very well with Christians even to this day & is not an obligated fact or answer as far as I can see.

despite your assertion, there are thousands of Christian scientists that accept evolution. of course, you may say that they are not True Christians if they accept evolution. that is, of course, your right to say.

i'm not sure what you mean when you say ".... as far as i can see." facts are the universes data and theories are structures of ideas to explain facts. the facts do not go away when scientsts debate rival theories. when Einstein overturned Newtonian Gravity, apples did not suspend themselves in mid air pending the outcome.

i know this is your specialty & a belief,

it is neither. i'm autodidatic with regards to evolution and it requires no belief on my part, per se. well, no more belief than i have regarding the revolutions of the earth and the sun rising as a consequence.

so I am not going to try to hinder your efforts on this & i think you should search it out for yourself.

i am not sure i understand your meaning here... i've spent a fair amount of time learning about it so that i could understand it and then decide if i accepted it or not. based on the evidence thus far presented, i am compelled to accept it until such time as new evidence is presented which falsifies it.

many great claimed christians also destroyed bibles & murdered thousands of people which is not very Christ-Like. IMO

ah... yes... the "no real Christian" fallacy. perhaps this article will be of some interest:

Paul Rothrock and Ray Grizzle

Dept. of Environmental Science

Taylor University

Upland, IN 46989-1001

During one week this summer, severe thunderstorms boomed through our county every evening. Weather bulletins reported 3/4" hail. The local papers pictured property damage - fallen limbs and broken glass - and called the damage an "act of God." These crashing storms were followed by mornings bright and benign. These too were an act of God along with the ensuing flush of new growth in our pastures and fields of corn. Psalm 104 unequivocally says that all of these and more are the works of God's hand. He brings forth food from the earth, gives breath to each living creature, and, when he takes his breath away, returns them to dust.

In these observations is an important point. Some acts of God have yielded much of their mystery to human investigation. By studying the atmosphere, we can predict rain. We can compute the movements of the earth and sun. We have discovered the chemical pathways that cause corn to grow and that maintain the life of animal cells. As Christians, we realize that naturalistic explanations do not negate the fact that God is at work in his creation. Instead, scientific explanations potentially complement those derived by revelation. Each kind of explanation has its own purpose and focus. Each is arrived at through different avenues. Each is a necessary part of fully understanding the world in which we presently live.

Science generally seeks to understand how things work and under what conditions an activity will take place. Religion, on the other hand, seeks to answer even more difficult, ultimate questions related to our place and purpose as humans. Why are we here? Who made us? And how should we live? So, as an initial response to the question, "Can a Christian believe in evolution?" we suggest that evolutionary explanations answer specific questions from a naturalistic perspective. These answers should be viewed as complementing, not competing with, those derived from the Bible.

Of course, a debate over creation versus evolution cannot be solely answered on the basis of the different roles played by scientific investigation and religious revelation. We need to ask at least two additional questions: (1) "Is there adequate scientific evidence for evolution?" and (2) "What limitations does God's inerrant verbal revelation, the Bible, place on science?"

Regarding scientific evidence, our experiences in plant taxonomy and invertebrate zoology have led us to broadly agree with the vast majority of scientists. They see descent with modification as a clear pattern in the diversity of living things. Populations and species are remarkably dynamic in their behavior and genetic program. Many families of organisms are bewilderingly rich in species and, at times, the individual species seem less different than two popular cola drinks.

Conversely, we sense a profound misunderstanding of the natural world in much Christian writing. Popular publications expend an inordinate amount of time inadequately characterizing the fossil record. They fail, e.g., to carefully evaluate the fascinating transitional forms between reptiles and mammals. They disregard how incremental changes within the horse family, seen in a well-preserved fossil record, ultimately result in a very large difference between early and late equid species.

Even without a fossil record, a powerful case for descent with modification can be made by examining the pattern of characters exhibited by the many millions of presently living forms. Careful comparisons of structure allow taxonomists to classify organisms into genera, families, and other categories based on their degree of structural and genetic similarity. To use a familiar but remarkable example, we classify whales as mammals, not fish. Why? Whales have lungs instead of gills. They also possess complex mammalian structures such as hair, mammary glands, a four-chambered heart, a placenta, and a sophisticated brain. Even the bone structure of the flukes and skull as well as the protein chemistry and DNA are mammal-like. Connections with land mammals are confirmed by remnant hind-limb bones and pelvis.

In short, we believe that data from the study of nature indicate that successive episodes of speciation have led, over time, to very great changes in the forms of organisms. This conclusion harmonizes with the overall scientific picture of the natural world from astronomy, geology, and physics.

But what does the Bible teach about evolution? What limitations does the Bible demand from Christians in our interaction with science? To answer this we offer four observations derived from Genesis 1.

In interpreting Genesis, people often focus on how long it took God to create and whether he performed miracles or used natural processes to complete his creation. However, these questions divert attention from the central message of this portion of God's Word. The question people across the ages have needed to be answered is: "Who is God?" We learn that God is eternally existing. Unlike the pagan gods, he is neither a heavenly object, an animal, nor a human. This one, true God made all these things.

• God is portrayed as creating by speaking. The creation "hears" and obeys God. He molds order out of chaos. This has not changed, since God's Word continues moment by moment. It is what sustains all things (Heb. 1:3) and is an expression of his faithfulness and love to the creation.
• The creation was good in God's sight. It had no darkness or moral falleness. These only entered the creation through humankind's rebellion.
• In creating humans in his image, God ordained a special relationship with humans even though, as revealed in Genesis 2, we are made from humble earthen matter.

Within these points lie the limitations for the Christian in interpreting evolutionary science. There must be a Creator, and something does not come from nothing. Because there is a Creator, the processes of nature - the regularities observed by scientists - reflect nature's obedience to God's commands and are not accidental. For the Christian, nature exhibits God's wisdom and is fulfilling his divine purposes. And finally, humans, as God's image-bearers, potentially can know their Creator. In part we can know him through studying the mysteries of nature, whether thunderstorms or biological processes.

But for scientists and non-scientists alike, this earthly wisdom is never enough. Our sinful nature gets in the way. The greater part of knowing God is by faith in a most unfathomable mystery - God's gift to us of his only Son.

Suggested reading: R. T. Wright, Biology Through the Eyes of Faith (San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1989), 298 pages.

For more information, request a copy of ASA's booklet, Teaching Science in a Climate of Controversy, for teachers and others, on how to deal with the creation-evolution controversy.

American Scientific Affiliation

P.O. Box 668

Ipswich, MA 01938-0668

(978) 356-5656

carol@asa3.org

[Bandit]

i dont know what else to say there Vajradhara & I am not ignoring you. I just jumped in for brief to raise the flag because honestly the topic is quite boring for me.
bUt i think i am pretty aware of what you are trying to say already about all this & i am aware every time they pop a new theory out at us.
I happen to care about how life as we know it got started & would like to see it maintain what it is & what it was supposed to be. But I am not going to try & outsmart the creator & giver of life.
if He wants us to know HOW, then we will know.

enjoy your studies there, but i dont really have any more to add that would not already have been rebutted a billion times already.

and a big Namaste hug to you too

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, everybody!

It is nice to see this discussion carried further! My thanks to path of one, Lunamoth and Vajradhara for providing a much better and comprehensive overview! My thanks as well to FaithfulServant and Bandit for being real troopers!

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Despite my suspicions that I've known (and dated) Neanderthal's,

It took me a while to get your joke , I thought you meant dating as in establishing age! But yes, I have met a few people in my time that make me wonder...

I highly doubt the idea that any meaningful contribution of Neaderthal "bloodline" would be found in different human populations today. I'm going to intentionally avoid saying races because the idea that there are different human races is debatable and contentious these days. The idea that there is any basis for saying that there are different human races is obsolete. If you think species is problematic, just try to define race.

Well, I must backpedal just a bit. I did read recently that new genetic evidence does suggest that the traditionally held race classes exhibit distinctive patterns of DNA sequences, but to me this simply means that the different phenotypes that characterize the traditional races (skin, eye color, etc) is reflected in the genotype. However, to my understanding this does not mean there is much significance to keeping the distinction of race.

Political correctness is not my strong point, so perhaps I was out of line in using the term "race." My point being that certain populations of humans exhibit certain genetic distinctions that make them stand out from other populations.

Please correct me because it's very possible my info is out of date, but the existence of the "mitochondrial Eve" suggests that any Neanderthal DNA making it to present day Homo Sapiens would be found in all of us.

I have heard of this "mitochondrial Eve," but I am not familiar enough to be conversant. If I remember correctly, the premise is that human genetic development can be shown to stem from a common source. I also seem to recall that source being so far in the distant past as to be relatively meaningless by the time we get to the last Ice Age and the time of Cro-Magnon, Neandertal and Homo-Floresiensis. Is it not "Lucy" that is thought to represent this Eve, with a date something like 3.5 million years in the past? Since the time of Lucy, the branch(es) of Homo that have gone on to become modern humans have diverged, and in some instances appear to have come back together, and still continue to do so. It makes for a rather interesting looking family tree...

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Bandit!

Originally Posted by Bandit

Yet when i see the charts, I still hear the distant drum beat of Aunt Lucy being a tadpole trying to be proven, even today, AND taught & these things lead to other imaginations, & this is why it is a conflict for many Christians.

I think Vaj and others have made excellent points regarding this, in that evolutionary theory is not a replacement for God. It is a method of explanation humans use to explain how animals adapt and change over time. There are a few misinformed people, (unfortunately some in positions of respect such as school teachers), that beat the drum of evolution like a religious dogma or doctrine, to be accepted without question. In the field, I have learned, biologists constantly question, themselves and their colleagues, and this I think is a good thing. Evolutionary theory is not "cut and dried," there is room for greater understanding. But that understanding is not rightfully a replacement for God or religious understanding. And when it is properly presented, it makes no attempt to do so. Evolution is a human attempt to understand the "how," religion is the attempt to explain "why and by whom."

Maybe God does not want us to know how old the earth is & how & when & what & how much goop there is in us. Because if we knew all that, then we would be God.?.
& maybe he does not want us trying to create new species?

Your comment reminded me of a couple of things:
Genesis 3:4-5, "and said the serpent to the woman, Not surely you shall die. for knows God that in the day you eat of it, then shall be opened your eyes and you shall be as God, knowing good and evil."
and Genesis 11:6-7, "and said Jehovah, See, the people (is) one and the lip (is) one to all them and this they are beginning to do: and now not will be restrained from them all which they have imagined to do. Come, let Us go and mix up there their language so that not they can understand one language their neighbor's." -Interlinear

On the one hand, something about the opening of the eyes was deemed by God a challenge to His authority. On the other, the box was opened and the damage was done. Whether or not it was intended at the time of Adam's creation, humanity was given the "gift" of knowledge. We have used (and abused) this gift for at least 5 thousand years now. Do we deny our gift now, only in this matter of evolution, and keep it in all other matters of inquiry? Or do we embrace it as a part of us, and moderate its use so as not to abuse it? Or do we distance ourselves from all knowledge (and everything that comes from knowledge)? I do not have the answer, but I feel like a wholesale separation from knowledge and all it has created would put us right back in a cave. Maybe this would be a good thing, as nature is concerned, but for humanity I think it would be disasterous. Besides, it is hard to fight bullets with spears.

it is all estimates & maybe & possibly & could be & suggests & what if, & what if we are not as smart as we think we are with our big thick glasses we look through.

I think this is a good thing, it keeps the reseachers and scholars humble. To question and suggest is one thing, to know and demand is quite another.

just one question on the chimp studies. did not they come to learn that the dna is like way less than the original studies of 98%?

When you are talking about some 3 billion or so base pairs, one percent is a huge figure. All humans living are separated by less than half of one percent. Humans share well in excess of 90% of our genes with mice. We even share half of our genes with bananas. Go figure!

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, FaithfulServant!

Im not a scientist.. but wouldnt it be necessary for different dating methods to show the same results in order to prove that the methods were correct?

Thank you for your post!

I have read of certain inconsistencies in dating methods. What I have come away with in the matter is that when we are aware of the inconsistency, that is taken into account. When we don't, well that is something that helps keep the whole science in flux. If I may be so bold, the 6 days of creation are also "inconsistent." As humans, limited in our lifespan and ability to understand, we cannot say with any certainty how long a "day" is to an eternal God. According to Genesis, this planet was created before the sun and moon were. Was this globe created elsewhere in the universe and moved here into our present orbit around our sun? I don't know.

What I take away from all of this is that the human ability to reason and understand is limited. We use what we have available to make an educated guess. We "believe" something is how-many millions of years old, when we have no real way of knowing. We can establish a relative timeline, but that timeline is not certain. A million may not actually be a million, but it is very old, much older than we can realistically account for.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Long time no hear from, thank you very much for your contributions here!

the only way that i can think that a theist, of any flavor, could have a religous objection is if they also feel that God is continually creating new species on the earth.

if this is their belief, then there isn't much use in discussing evolution, i'd submit.

I'm not fully certain I understand what it is you mean here. Allowing that you have no "belief" in "God" per se, at least in the typical Christian sense of the terms, I still do not follow.

If evolution can be shown to be the way things change over time (the "how"), why would that preclude "God" from still creating new species (the "why and by whom")?

I do wish to say that I am impressed with your understanding of the Christian faith, when I am so ignorant of Buddhism. Still, if things are as they are meant to be, in accord with whatever cosmic source that stands behind it all, why would that creation or (re-)generation cease once and if we could say we finally understand it? It seems to me the source (the well-spring) from which all comes would still be in action and in evidence, even to a theist.