Does Evolution threaten the idea of God as a Creator?

[OnlyOne]

How does evolution as we understand it from Darwin through the modern ideas of geneticists and biochemists threaten the idea that God created all things, including man? Can anyone tell me where in the bible the description and details are given of how God composed material and made man, beast, plant, etc, etc. Jesus used parables to teach principles of His gospel. The Bible is full of metaphor, symbolism, and ideas to introduce doctrine, and to teach man how to pray with faith to learn the meanings behind these symbols, images, etc. The creation, as taught in Genesis shouldn't be read any different than the rest of the bible. It describes what happened in terms of symbolism and ideas, there doesn't seem to be details about the intricacies of creation.

[Sleepy]

I will check the website and will follow the link accordingly tomorrow as it is late, but I am aware of most developments up to recent date with magazine subscriptions and reading around the topic.

Gould was talking about why there would be periods of seeming stablity in the fossil record, followed by a shorter period of time of rapid change

Can't you see why someone in my position as a theist finds that contrary to the suggestions of micro to macro evolutionary processes? Short periods of time with rapid change aren't exactly favourable to the evolutionary model.

[micatala]

We need to keep in mind that 'sudden' in this context is still many thousands of years. There is nothing contradictory about 'sudden' in this sense and the evolutionary model.

An analogy might be watching a turtle who does not move for several hours on end and then 'suddenly' saunters across the road in a liesurely 3 or 4 minutes.

It is also worth keeping in mind that our evidence from the past is in the form of 'snapshots of fossils,' rather than a continous movie of what happened. If you were taking snapshots every 10 minutes of our turtle friend, you could easily miss his transition across the road. Still, he is now on the other side. What reasonable explanation would there be for his change in position?

In evolution, we can and have observed what some term 'microevolutionary change' within our lifetime. We have snapshots from the past showing the 'turtle crossed the road.' WHile we may not have seen the whole transition, we know the motion is possible, we have seen the results of the motion in the form of two snapshots of the turtle on opposite sides of the road, and we have no objective reason to assume the motion has set limits which would not allow the crossing.

[MagusYanam]

In those periods of 'sudden' evolutionary change, I think one might find that there is a drastic change in the environmental boundary conditions for life. For example, geological activity caused in part the composition of the atmosphere to go overnight from being one dominated by sulphur and other inorganic compounds to one dominated by carbon compounds almost overnight (in geological terms). That would change the boundary conditions for almost all living beings; to survive, they would need to adapt more quickly to their surroundings.

Another example would be the KT boundary, when a massive natural disaster (most likely an asteroid collision) caused a drastic climate change which wiped out the great reptiles and left the more temperature-indifferent mammals in their place as the dominant order of living things.

[Sleepy]

This is why I find contradiction in evolutionary evidence, and also find it fascinating to see the contraditions which are overlooked.

The fossil record suggest sudden changes not slow gradual processes suggested by evidence for natural selection.

We need to keep in mind that 'sudden' in this context is still many thousands of years. There is nothing contradictory about 'sudden' in this sense and the evolutionary model.

May I quickly remind you that stasis is more along the line of a million years according to the average Chronospecies (a fossil lineage judged to have characteristics that change so little as to remain in a single species)

I see comments such as this

In evolution, we can and have observed what some term 'microevolutionary change' within our lifetime. We have snapshots from the past showing the 'turtle crossed the road.' WHile we may not have seen the whole transition, we know the motion is possible, we have seen the results of the motion in the form of two snapshots of the turtle on opposite sides of the road, and we have no objective reason to assume the motion has set limits which would not allow the crossing.

The evidence for natural selection such as 1mm changes in finch beaks and discredited theories such as the peppered moths is equally inconsistent with the fossil record. The evidence is thus for small micro changes which are supposed over time to become species changes? I think not and hence I am unconvinced. Micro evolution of the observable kind in nature now is 100,000 times smaller than a chronospecies proves nothing of the species change that is supposed to have occured.

You cannot point to stasis for a million years in the fossil record then point to small changes happening over 30 years that prove things gradually change.

This is why punctuated equilibrium and neutral evolution are present in neo-darwinian theory as the evidence did not support slow gradual processes but statis processes. However this has left the evidence for change severely lacking as there is no evidence for the jumps suggested.

The genetic evidence is no less favourable and supports the stasis model. Genetics is now discovering how robust and resistant to change some genes are, for example in a recent paper found in nature. I include a short brief I wrote in response,

The paper makes an interesting read. I'll try and give my first impressions

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0604883103v1 for the PDF link

Resist change

Firstly such systems seem protective against change of the organism as they resist change in the organisms structure and function, by variation in expression of remaining duplicate genes. If so they are more indicative of design rather than a system of progressive change. To quote the paper (emphasis added)...

"Duplicate genes and paralogous gene families long have been perceived as genomic sources of genetics robustness. The assumption is that a functional overlap of these genes acts to compensate against mutations. Yet, this very fact also renders redundancy evolutionarily instable... Nevertheless, numerous examples of paralogs retaining their functional overlap for extended evolutionary periods suggest that, at least for a fraction of gene pairs, redundancies are conserved throughout evolution despite their predicted instability... In particular, we suggest the existence of regulatory designs that exploit redundancy to achieve functionalities such as control of noise in gene expression
or extreme flexibility in gene regulation. In this respect, we suggest that compensation for gene loss is merely a side effect of sophisticated design principles using functional redundancy,"

Multiple beneficial mutation

"...do RBCs (responsive backup circuits) represent a ‘‘genomewide’’ phenomenon or a collection of rare incidents? It is unfortunate that at this point no conclusive answer can be provided to that question, mainly because of the very limited number of studies that have specifically probed for cross-regulation among redundant protein pairs."

Secondly by my simplistic deduction from above (bear in mind my limited genetic knowledge from medicine). If such systems are widespread, mutations resulting in significant change would have to functionally alter or eliminate 'redundant' genes in addition to replication of the new controlling genes to result in an unresisted change in expression. If the backup circuits are widespread this would be a significant barrier for evolution as it would have to account not only for beneficial change being unresisted and selected but also how the backup systems also evolved.

Selection

As a development from my second point, the paper suggests these findings are at least currently incompatible with evolutionary ideas and against evolutionary predictions. The non functioning backup can only be subjected to environmental selection if it becomes functional (when the main controlling gene becomes defective). This however is not consistent with beneficial enhancement of an organism. The backup copy is functional although often not as good as the original control gene, which indicates that duplication may not be a mechanism involved. Assuming by some strange twist of natural selection this organism did supersede its predecessor because of some extreme environmental event rendering the redundant gene more beneficial, it would result in selection of an organism with no backup system as the dysfunctional main gene would continue to be present in the genetic code and this would seem not be sustainable as genetic advantage in future generations.

I am a theist not an atheist so I look far more critically at the evidence than someone who is looking for only natural causes for the world. Just as you look far more critically at anything said by a theist because if you are an atheist. I am in the fortunate position that I do not deny that this evidence may some day be found, but from my perspective the atheist is in no such position as natural causes for the universe must have happened, there is no other choice and as such the bias provides a philosophical position for minimal evidence to support the position of evolution. Hence I understand why you believe it, it doesn't take much to convince you.

It will take far more evidence to convince someone in evolution that does not take the assumption evolution must have happened as a matter of logic from naturalist assumptions rather than hard tested and fully evalutated evidence. It is very unwise to discount those who do not believe in evolution from having an opinion on the evidence. They come from different background assumptions and as such provide a bias, but a different bias on the same science findings. This is a good thing.

I do note that there is some evidence to support the theory but that evidence is lacking in sufficiency, let me elaborate. Putting in small examples such as the jawbone changes are hardly sufficent considering the vast oceans of species that should also have evolved to fit into the evolutionary model. Saying things like A handful of to my eyes dubious examples of a global process that happened over billions of years can hardly be called evidence.

This is where we differ, on the one side the lack of evidence is not viewed as lack but rather evidence not yet found, this is because other possibilities cannot fit into a naturalistic model and as such far more effort should by rationalisation be put into finding the evidence that by assumption must be there. On the non-naturalistic side I can equally view that lack of evidence as suggesting other possibilities. It does not mean I believe in miracles but rather means that I take lack of evidence with more scepticism.

Conclusion

Let me turn the tables round and ask why I should listen to a theory that uses current day examples of change to illustrate how a fish became a human over billions of years but in the same breath uses evidence from rocks to tell me change happened in fits and starts with gaps of millions of years in between? I should believe life began out of chemical arrangements that have never been shown to work and even with our greatest intelligence we have never been able to replicate to remotely anything resembling life. I am shown computer programs of selection that assume the outcome before the systems are run in order to bring chaos out of order. I am given evidence from genetics that change is resisted whilst told that change constantly occurs. I do not however deny change occurs, it would be foolish not to. I do not see the evidence of how that change occured has the power it claims to have, how could have made the same type of eye in 40 different cases independantly if the change is random according to Dawkins in 'The Ancestors Tale', I have read the book and the essence of the argument is that it just did despite Dawkins arguing that it could have evolved better than it did (if it happened 40 times why didn't it?).

Many will just jump to the old, you are ignorant and a theist you dont know what you are talking about platform. But let me first warn you, such a platform is the fastest way to alienation in the face of lack of evidence.

I am sure you can see my scepticism is well founded.

[MagusYanam]

I don't see what is contradictory about 'sudden' changes in different life-forms in the fossil record. The laws of natural selection have often demanded adaptation to rapid changes in environmental conditions.

More intriguing to me is how you are demanding that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Like all models, the Darwinian model of the history of life is not without its flaws. These flaws are consistently challenged and put to observational study by the scientific community, which has refined the Darwinian model over the past century. As the website you provided shows, these flaws are still being challenged and corrected. And it still shows that the refined Darwinian model remains the best model, explaining the history of life while fitting the vast majority of the available evidence.

[Sleepy]

I don't see what is contradictory about 'sudden' changes in different life-forms in the fossil record. The laws of natural selection have often demanded adaptation to rapid changes in environmental conditions.

The evidence for these sudden changes is where precisely? The evidence sited for natural selection such as the finch beaks does not exactly say sudden change. But like I said you will not see a sudden change if you assume it has to have happened because there is no better explanation, 'there must be evidence despite there not being any yet. The reason i know you believe this and have naturalistic assumptions?

Darwinian model remains the best model, explaining the history of life while fitting the vast majority of the available evidence.

To quote your linked site which I consider quite the same as all the usual 'evidence' presented which is dripping with assumptions and lack of the 'evidence'

Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

Evidence for sudden changes?

Finch beak microevolution extrapolated to macroevolution

This is what the site says

Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.

There is not a single piece of evidence presented beyond the microevolutionary model. Nothing. However the sites own definition of scientific evidence specifically requires.

Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data.

This should be ringing alarm bells right now, further...

Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

Not only does the site contradict its own definition of scientific evidence when making deductions from micro to macro evolution, it goes as far as to call its own extrapolated evidence from micro to macro evolution as unscientific conjecture. Which is precisely what it is.

So... The 'engine' of biological evolution which is natural selection is unproven when describing macroevolution and explanations are described as unscientific conjecture by the scientists own definitions of science.

Genetics on the site

Once the genetic material was elucidated, it was obvious that for macroevolution to proceed vast amounts of change was necessary in the genetic material. If the general observation of geneticists was that of genomic stasis and recalcitrance to significant genetic change, it would be weighty evidence against the probability of macroevolution. For instance, it is possible that whenever we introduce mutations into an organism's genome, the DNA could back-mutate to its former state. However, the opposite is the case—the genome is incredibly plastic, and genetic change is heritable and essentially irreversible

You will see from my previous post that scientists are finding that actually there are significant numbers of genetic systems that resist change. These systems are an increasing area of research. Evidence cited such as old deletions in bacteral DNA followed by reculture to see if a system re-evolves are flawed. They take no consideration to delete the RNA within the cell and as such no consideration of reverse transcription is taken into account. I note this specifically because this data has been used on these forums as proof.

The genetic changes cited in every single one of the papers is of of a microevolutionary change with no major changes to species of the organism, something which supports microevolution but not macroevolution. What is fascinating is that when illustration and 'hard evidence' is refered to for macroevolution, the fossil record is brought in to save this. The paper sites that mutations have been measured at a specific rate. Hardly supporting the fossil evidence but lets run with it.

The background mutation rate in humans (and most other mammals) has been measured at ~1-5 x 10-8 base substitutions per site per generation (Mohrenweiser 1994, pp. 128-129)

But what the website fails to realise is that the measurements are estimates taken from the genetic diversity present and extrapolated back to the difference between chimpanzees and humans. The paper is called

Impact of the molecular spectrum of mutational lesions on estimates of germinal gene-mutation rates.

But the site uses this as evidence for a mutation rate. However it assumes the timeline for this rate on the basis of the time difference from when supposedly chimps and humans diverted on the fossil record.

In essence no such measurement has taken place but the timeline is assumed from a theory that is just that a theory and extrapolated as scientific evidence for an event which again according to the definition of scientific evidence on the site is unscientific conjecture.

They report slow steady changes in genetics with mutations at a steady rate and relate that back to when species evolved. However the fossil record does not record slow steady change but in your own works... sudden appearance and stasis

This however leads you straight back to your assumptions. It must have happened because nature is all there is. There has to be another explanation. This is the best model we have right now. All philosophy not science.

Without macroevolution in sudden leaps science has no ability to match the fossil record but no evidence is afforded for such a phenomenon.

Can you not see that contraditions in sites such as the one you linked, lack of evidence in crucial areas of the theory which was demoted to a model by yourself do not convince me to believe the theory on the basis of science. I am well aware of and am willing to change should the evidence be convincing, which it isn't. I am a doctor and wouldn't prescribe a drug because of such evidence let alone assume it generates the patient im treating.

There are multiple errors on the site which assume evolution before interpretation of the evidence is given. Here is just a simple one.

Rates of evolution

However, evolutionary rates in laboratory organisms can be much more rapid than rates inferred from the fossil record, so it is still possible that speciation may be observed in common lab organisms

This paper is cited, Gingerich, P. D. (1983) "Rates of evolution: Effects of time and temporal scaling." Science 222: 159-161.

After wading through extrapolated times from; mutations assuming change in species over time (hardly empirical as it assumes the outcome and not exactly stasis in the fossils), extrapolated data from gaps between species in fossil records (hardly empirical), microevolution estimates to macroevolution scales (as we have seen unscientific and relies on non static fossil evidence) and historic field data (not elaborated on in the paper but hardly empirical). The paper does admit at the end.

If the process of evolution is so dynamic on a generational scale of time, why does it appear virtually stationary on longer scales of time? If you have read this far, then you are ready for a thought experiment that helps to clarify

The paper after all the science has to resort to a thought experiment rather than empiracal testable scientific evidence as defined by the site. Hence this is unscientific conjecture.

Long enough post for now. Being that most evolutionists have naturalistic philosophies which lead them to take bad evidence and unscientific conjecture as proof it is hardly surprising that you wouldn't actually look at the post anyway but post the same poor look at that or you dont know what you are talking about comments usually given. But know this, evolution will die as a theory as I see it because the contradictions will self destruct it from within. The only reason it is still here is because it is the best explanation that naturalists have to support their assumptions.

[Grumpy]

Sleepy



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeo ... #specimens

No transitional species???

You cannot be serious!!!

Grumpy [/list]

[Cathar1950]

That is a fallen angel Grumpy. You can tell by its tail.
Don't you watch sci-fi?

[micatala]

There is not a single piece of evidence presented beyond the microevolutionary model. Nothing.

Yes there is.

The very fact there is an incredible amount of change over time in the fossil record shows conclusively that the species alive today were by and large not present 50 million years ago, and those present 50 million years ago were by and large not present 150 million years ago etc.

It is irrefutable that change happened.

What other explanation would you offer other than beings reproducing in the usual way we see today, and the micro-evolutionary processes we see today leading to changes in the characteristics of the populations of speices?

Also, I should point out we have gotten a bit off topic. The thread is not asking us to debate whether evolution occurred, or how fast, or whether it proceeded gradually or in fits and starts, or whether some species change gradually while others changed suddenly.



The topic is whether the idea of evolution is incompatible with the idea of a creator God.

[QED]

The topic is whether the idea of evolution is incompatible with the idea of a creator God.

A timely reminder indeed! I hope Sleepy will continue to challenge evolution as a valid force for apparent design in any of the numerous other topics dedicated to that subject.

What I would like to ask Sleepy here is why, if for one moment we assume that natural selection is sufficient to account for all apparent design, God could not have chosen this method to populate the universe with living things?

The two key components to this method would be the logic of things being made to a plan (a recipe or blueprint held as some sort of readable code which is not always transcribed 100% faithfully) and a system (i.e. chemistry) having sufficient complexity and stability to support an instance of this logic using atomic structures.

As far as I know neither the source of the logic not the source of the atomic structure is known to science. Given that attempts to "run" the method in other (man made) systems do result in the successful generation of apparent and novel design, then it would only seem logical for the theist to accept that God introduced these key components for this sort of purpose.

If Genetic Algorithms failed to generate novel apparent design then I might too share in the incredulity of others who feel that natural selection could not account for the apparent design seen in nature. But the logic of the process is proven and at the same time no proofs exist that limit the process to any particular level of complexity that might be achieved.