[__ Science __ ] Are Humans “Messing with Evolution”?

[AIG.com]

A new study looked at so-called “rapid evolution” and how humans are the driving force behind much of the current change we’re seeing in nature.

Continue reading...

 

[Barbarian]

Changing environments are the driving force in evolution. So the more we mess with it, the more we see change in populations. As Darwin predicted.

 

[Edward]

What about our spiritual evolution?

 

[Mosheli]

I read the AIG article the other day after being directed to the site to read someone elses article in the journal.

I agree with the articles main point that there is no new species/genes being created or evolved as such. (Though only new in the sense of creation/evolved or macro-evolution. Because they can effects dysgenics or mutation? But all within short and long term parameters and variety of created kinds. There is what they call micro-evolution, and the science of epi-genetics.)

But I do think humans are much effecting the natural world, and alot seems to be being done on purpose as if they are purposely trying to create an artificial environment and conquering nature and making all animals and human tame/"civilised". Eg they seem to be fluoridating not only humans but also nature/animals (eg 1080 has fluoride in it).
And humans are certainly having alot of effect. I shudder when I see how many animals are being slaughtered for excessively meat eating humans. The fluoridation effects animals especially like the birds that eat bread which has over 50 percent fluoridated water in it. The pollution. The deforestation. The noise. The ships barging through Arctic ice sheets (and them playing videos of it on twitter etc as if it is some great good thing). The climate change. Even the excessive lawn mowing etc killing small insects.
I remember a post some months ago about concern that the bees are declining. Another shocking post about Amercian(?) scientists bragging they are going to try wipe out the mosquitos which mad me very mad and think they are insane.

I think maybe there were less species/varieties in Noah's Ark than present amount of species/varieties and that there was "evoution" of the kinds to greater variety since the Flood. Though maybe 7 of each could include the varieties.

 

[Prycejosh1987]

That is the thing evolution is a human theory. Its a human theory because its based on practical understanding and human logic, the word and power of faith is not evolution. Science is not faith, and faith is not science but faith and science can agree on things that make sense. If the world was millions of years old, we would be way more advanced. Look at clothes, styles, music, technology, and buildings, etc. How quickly the knowledge of these things came. We cannot possibly mess with evolution, but we can mess with faith and Godly interpretation of creation. Through sin, and listening to the devil and going against Gods will. Evolution wouldnt be able to be tampered with if we were part of a evolved process. This all proves creation is true and evolution is not.

 

[Barbarian]

I agree with the articles main point that there is no new species/genes being created or evolved as such.

In fact, AIG admits that new species or even new genera or families can arise from older species. They correctly point out that nowhere in the Bible is this denied. They just don't want to call it "evolution."

 

[Barbarian]

What about our spiritual evolution?

We have no spiritual genes. So there could be no spiritual evolution in the sense that there is biological evolution. However, "evolution" merely means "change", so our efforts to approach spiritual perfection could be so described.

 

[Mosheli]

In fact, AIG admits that new species or even new genera or families can arise from older species. They correctly point out that nowhere in the Bible is this denied. They just don't want to call it "evolution."

God may have created a possible range/span/spectrum of infinite variety/diversity within which there may be some changes of genes/species. But there is no historical proof of natural (macro-) evolution of one kind into another (excluding GM/GE). There are missing links between different kinds. Cross-fertility and viability are blocked by different Order.

"present-day type insects, modern corals" Triassic period.
"fossil leaves indistinguishable from present-day flowering plants" Cretaceous period.
Homo Erectus “post-cranial skeleton essentially indistinguishable from modern man”.
Progressive Neanderthals “look more like modern man” and are “almost indistinguishable from modern man” and “more advanced than later forms”.
Classical Neanderthal “post-cranial skeleton completely modern in its anatomy”.

 

[Edward]

We have no spiritual genes. So there could be no spiritual evolution in the sense that there is biological evolution. However, "evolution" merely means "change", so our efforts to approach spiritual perfection could be so described.

Maybe you don't have spiritual genes but I do, when I was born again I was given a new spirit and a new heart and all things (except the flesh) have become new. What you are saying is totally anti-gospel because that's what it is all about for us. We are charged with overcoming our biological flesh with our spirit so that the spirit is dominant and leads, and that my friend is spiritual evolution. So you have made a totally incorrect statement.

No spiritual genes?! That's laughable. Every man has been given the measure of faith and that's the God gene! That's what the scientist's are looking for but can't find. It's the same gene within you that keeps kicking you in the side with the thought, I am not complete or fulfilled, there is something more and better....Is it at home depot? Or the club? No it's not and you're old enough to know that.

I guess it's like they say, Education has nothing to do with Intelligence!

Now don't be offended, but I know you were a teacher so I can't help ribbing you a little bit, lol.

 

[Barbarian]

Genes are physical things. A soul is not a physical thing.

 

[Edward]

Genes are physical things. A soul is not a physical thing.

Maybe it's not a physical thing, but it's still in you and still affects you. That makes it real

Our souls are to receive new physical bodies when we go to heaven. They'll be different and more suited to being manifest in the spiritual realm than our flesh body's.

 

[Barbarian]

God may have created a possible range/span/spectrum of infinite variety/diversity within which there may be some changes of genes/species. But there is no historical proof of natural (macro-) evolution of one kind into another (excluding GM/GE).

[/QUOTE]
It's been repeatedly observed. Even AIG admits new species, genera, and sometimes families. They just say that's "not real evolution." But they obviously don't know what the definition of biological evolution is.

There are missing links between different kinds. Cross-fertility and viability are blocked by different Order.

Even knowledgeable YE creationsts point out that there are numerous transitionals: Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinodermsand chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation —
of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species leveland 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.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms"present-day type insects,

modern corals" Triassic period.

Name me one species of coral alive today that is found in Triassic sediment. What do you have?

"fossil leaves indistinguishable from present-day flowering plants" Cretaceous period.

Show me one species of flowering plant alive today that is found in Cretaceous sediments.

Homo Erectus “post-cranial skeleton essentially indistinguishable from modern man”.

It's very close. But of course the skull of H. erectus (you don't capitalize the species name) is extremely different:

They are clearly related, but they sure don't look identical. But there are also differences in the post cranial skeleton. Would you like to learn about those?

Progressive Neanderthals “look more like modern man” and are “almost indistinguishable from modern man” and “more advanced than later forms”.

Early Neanderthals were not "progressive"; they lack many of the adaptations of later Neandthals. The reason that primitive Neanderthals look more like we do, is precisely because they hadn't evolved very much from our common ancestor. Would you like to learn about some of those adaptations?

Classical Neanderthal “post-cranial skeleton completely modern in its anatomy”.

No, that's just wrong. For example, Neanderthals didn't use projectile weapons. It seems that the clavicle and scapula of the shoulder were very robust and while this made them stronger and more durable than humans, it seems to have also made throwing difficult. They had much stronger bones and their leg bones were markedly bowed, unlike modern humans.

 

[Edward]

I actually do believe in evolution. Thing is, I also believe in creation. We were created just like scripture says in Genesis. It was then that evoution started and we have been evolving ever since. Animals too. The micro system and the macro system also.

Evolution doesn't mean we came from apes. It means man evolved and adapted himself to different climates of the world and so forth. After the tower of babel incident and everybody spoke different languages so they all wandered off to themselves. Into different nations where they continued to speak their own language and their skins were changed over time as a response to the different climate that they moved too.

Plants can evolve too. If you pay attention in Genesis, you see that the Lord did not creat all the plants and stuff like he did man. He said, let the earth bring forth...different stuff.

As for a 6000 year old earth vs 13.5 billion year old earth? That's an easy one. Do you have some Binoculars? Look through them out your window at whatever...you see that? That is God's perspective, Ok?! Now. Turn the Binoculars around so you are looking at the wrong lenses...That's our perspective.

So creation did take 6 24 hour days. But the time space and matter have been expanding ever since, so it's really been only a little over 6000 years! But it seems like to us that it's been 14 Billion years! It's too late now Brother! You have taken the red pill and there's no looking back.