ChristianForums.net

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses

[__ Science __ ] Some Thoughts On The Religion Of Evolution.

Moseme

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2020
Messages
133
Gender
Male
Well, that's a good question. Let's look at it. Could there possibly be enough useful mutations in the time we have, to produce new species, genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms, and domains?

The first question is, "how many useful mutations can occur in one generation?" To know that, we need three numbers.
1. How big is the population?
2. How many mutations occur per individual in that population?
3. How many of them are potentially useful?

Now, this is complicated by issues like epistasis and environmental changes, but let's assume those are neutral for now. We can go back and add that to the model in a bit if you like. Generally, those things tend to favor evolutionary change, but not always. We have a good number of identified favorable mutations in humans, but what percentage of all mutations do you think are favorable? Give me a number, we'll try to match it up to the data, and then we can go on.

What do you think?
I think you shouldnt forget to factor in all of the harmful mutations that can destroy the population as well.

Also we have accepted that the definition for micro-evolution is a change in the allele frequency in populations. So your example of hybrid plants is actually an example of micro-evolution since the offspring remains a breeding part of the population.


Now about the gap theory. I wouldn't say its a scientific theory. Just a theory back by scientific evidence. And I'm not one of those people who get upset if someone doesnt believe in my particular theory of creation. Most of my christian friends believe in young earth. Also I will be the first to tell a person they are wrong if they try to pass a theory off as doctrine.
 

Moseme

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2020
Messages
133
Gender
Male
No, I never said that.
I don't believe in macroevolution right now.
But it might be proven to be true someday.
I just hate to limit God and like to keep the possibility open.
Ok I misunderstood you. And I will admit that as far as we can know right now. Evolution is possible. Its just that the bible amd scientific evidence says that its not very probable.
 

Barbarian

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Messages
27,754
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Well, that's a good question. Let's look at it. Could there possibly be enough useful mutations in the time we have, to produce new species, genera, families, orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms, and domains?

The first question is, "how many useful mutations can occur in one generation?" To know that, we need three numbers.
1. How big is the population?
2. How many mutations occur per individual in that population?
3. How many of them are potentially useful?

Now, this is complicated by issues like epistasis and environmental changes, but let's assume those are neutral for now. We can go back and add that to the model in a bit if you like. Generally, those things tend to favor evolutionary change, but not always. We have a good number of identified favorable mutations in humans, but what percentage of all mutations do you think are favorable? Give me a number, we'll try to match it up to the data, and then we can go on.

What do you think?

I think you shouldnt forget to factor in all of the harmful mutations that can destroy the population as well.
That's in the model. The vast majority of mutations don't do much of anything. A few are harmful, and natural selection tends to remove them. A very few are useful and natural selection tends to retain them. What percentage of mutations do you think are useful?

Also we have accepted that the definition for micro-evolution is a change in the allele frequency in populations.
No, that's wrong. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

As you learned, the definition for microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is evolution that produces new taxa.

So your example of hybrid plants is actually an example of micro-evolution since the offspring remains a breeding part of the population.

No, they were reproductively isolated as a result of the hybridization. That's why it's macroevolution. If they could still interbreed with the other two species, then it would be microevolution.

Remember, macroevolution produces new species. And a species is a population of interbreeding organisms. Since the hybrids couldn't interbreed with the original species, that hybridization was macroevolutionary change.

But let's get back to you question about whether or not there was enough time for common descent. What do you think is the percentage of favorable mutations?

Getting the right order of magnitude would be sufficiently accurate for this model. What do you think? If you don't have any idea, I'll put in some numbers for you.

Now about the gap theory. I wouldn't say its a scientific theory.

It's a religious belief. There is no evidence supporting it, but as such, it doesn't need evidence.
 

Barbarian

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Messages
27,754
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
I never said Paul was for gap theory or YE. But he was for creationism, same with Moses.
He believed in creation, as do evolutionists like Darwin. But not creationism, which is a modern revision of scripture.
So leaving the development of his most important creation in the chaotic hands of random indiscriminate mutations is something that God would NEVER do. Can you believe a God of order trusting chaos with his most important creation?
God disagrees with you:
Ecclesiastes 9:11 I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.

This apparent contradiction is an illusion caused by our incomplete realization that all things are possible for God:

"The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow; but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the plan of divine providence conceives to happen from contingency. "
St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae
And the bible does say that God created life from nothing.
No, it does not. It says that previously-created matter brought forth living things, according to His will.
There is no evidence for macro-evolution
Even creationists who have studied the issue agree that there is. Would you like me to show you, again?
Evolution is a well supported and very successful scientific theory. It is not in crisis or on the verge of collapse. And the lesson we should draw from history is that this does not mean that the theory is true.


Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

you keep confusing micro-evolution and it's evidence with macro-evolution.
As you learned, "evolution" is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. "microevolution" is evolution within a species, and "macroevolution" is evolution that produces new species.

Macroevolution Definition

Macroevolution refers to the concept of large-scale evolution that occurs at the level of species and above.

Macroevolution can be used to describe the differences between two closely related but distinct species, such as the Asian Elephant and the African Elephant, which cannot mate due to the barriers imposed by reproductive isolation. This is the process of speciation, which can be driven by a number of different mechanisms. Additionally, macroevolution can describe differences between that organisms belonging to larger clades of organisms, for example the different taxonomic groups within the primates.

The term macroevolution can also be used to explain the shared common ancestry between all living organisms, a concept known as Universal Common Descent. This describes the derivation of all existent and extinct life forms from a single origin, and includes evolutionary milestones such as the origins of plants, mammals, reptiles, birds, fish, non-avian dinosaurs and more.

The term ‘macroevolution’ is often used in contrast to the within-species genetic changes that relate to microevolution, although the two concepts are fundamentally the same, albeit on different time scales; each of the evolutionary mechanisms—mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—that alter the gene pool of a population through microevolution, will accumulate over a long time period, resulting ultimately in macroevolution. In the case of Universal Common Decent, microevolution has been driving the macroevolution of living organisms for 3.8 billion years (that’s 3,800,000,000 years!).

 

wondering

Supporter
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
16,391
Gender
Female
Ok I misunderstood you. And I will admit that as far as we can know right now. Evolution is possible. Its just that the bible amd scientific evidence says that its not very probable.
I agree.
 

Barbarian

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Messages
27,754
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Evolution is directly observed. Remember, evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.
Macroevolution is also occasionally oberved. Remember, macroevolution is the evolution of new species.

Usually, people confuse these with a consequence of evolution, common descent.

Most creationist organizations admit a small amount of common descent, because a literal Ark is nonsense without new species, genera, and families evolving after the flood.

But they suppose there's some kind of barrier to stop any further evolution. The issue is that they have been completely unable to demonstrate this supposed barrier, or even to offer a testable hypothesis about what it might be.
 

Barbarian

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2003
Messages
27,754
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
But let's get back to you question about whether or not there was enough time for common descent. What do you think is the percentage of favorable mutations?

Let's suppose only one mutation in a million is useful. And let's put that in the model.

The first question is, "how many useful mutations can occur in one generation?" To know that, we need three numbers.
1. How big is the population?
2. How many mutations occur per individual in that population?
3. How many of them are potentially useful?

Let's assume a population of a million organisms. A very reasonable assumption, but if you object, I'll see if I can get some data on that.

Every human has dozens of mutations that didn't occur in either parent.

Usually, it's around a sixty. But let's just say a dozen to be conservative.

So about 12 million mutation per generation. But if only one in a million is actually useful, then 12 per generation.

Humans have about 30,000 functional genes. So if every single gene had to appear de novo, (actually, that's not the case; we share thousands of genes with chimpanzees, our closest genetic relative) it would take about 2,500 generations to evolve them all.

The best evidence we have is a bit less than 30 years, which has been constant for a very long time.

It was probably shorter in earlier human species. I can show you the evidence for that, if you like, but let's use 30 years.

So we come up with an answer of about 75,000 years to evolve modern humans from a non-human ancestor, assuming that every single gene had to be mutated from the original (which we know to be false; many of he alleles are identical).

So plenty of time to evolve humans. We'd get answers like that from every other organism.
 
Top