[_ Old Earth _] Can evolution and creation both be true?

[Sparkey]

Bryce, I'm just starting to become friends (I hope) with your friend The Barbarian, so I hope that you don't mind my butting in but I'm eavesdropping on your conversation and would like to welcome you back to the forum.

Oh! And I'll not give the obligatory "back to topic" comment either.

To me? It is okay to break rules for good purpose. What else is freedom in Christ for? The forum section is called Christianity and Science right? Welcome back. I am interested in your thoughts though and I do love Science (but I'm only a "B" class player -not yet a "self professed expert").


I do know how to secretly poke friends in the ribs though - and since you are a friend of Barbarian I'm thinking you'll understand this too? Looking forward to hearing from ya, I should have put this into a PM but I'm trying to be a welcoming Christian Scientist here so, "GET OFF MY BACK about it," I scream. The "Sparrow" has turned into a LOON and flies off muttering through his/her beak, "Birds have NOT descended from Dinosaurs. It's inconceivable! @.@ >... :crazy

~Sparrow

Okay, I lied. No apology. I will B.o.T. --> it's because we really do love Science. I remember an article recently read and have searched for it. It wasn't on a Creationist site (or I would be able to find it easily) and was talking about the "TREE" analogy were all life came from a single common ancestor. The article said that this may be incorrect. It cited information being gleaned from the Human Genome Project and said that Science is beginning to "see" that there were perhaps more than one single common ancestor. The analogy of a TREE needed to become a little more "fuzzy" and maybe there were three or more "most common ancestors".

Sorry that I can't vague that description up more for you guys and make the challenge harder but I'm really interested in finding and reading and bring that article back here for others to read too. Hoping to enlist your help and praying for our combined success here.

Godspeed Barbarian! Blessings to you, Jason and also you Bryce. <g'night John-boy, g'night Mary Ellen>

~Sparrow

 

[Bryce]

No worries Sparrow, nice to meet you

Glad to know somebodys been keeping this active, look forward to talking on the forum.

Cheers!

 

[Barbarian]

It's about lateral gene transfer, particularly among prokaryotes. For them, sharing of genes among unlike taxa is very common, particularly among bacteria. So picture a tree, some branches well-behaved and bushlike, and other branches with the occasional twig that's diverged, and then grafted back onto an adjacent branch.

Even among plants and animals, lateral gene transfer is extremely rare, but can happen, mostly by viruses that pick up a bit of DNA between species, and become introns. Does it mess up DNA phylogenies? No, at least not for eukaryotes. For prokaryotes, it's a bit less certain.

However, since they all come from the same root, there isn't much of a problem, unless you want to unsnarl the phylogeny of bacteria. Good luck on that, (and one of my degrees is in bacteriology).

 

[Sparkey]

It's about lateral gene transfer, particularly among prokaryotes. For them, sharing of genes among unlike taxa is very common, particularly among bacteria. So picture a tree, some branches well-behaved and bushlike, and other branches with the occasional twig that's diverged, and then grafted back onto an adjacent branch.

Even among plants and animals, lateral gene transfer is extremely rare, but can happen, mostly by viruses that pick up a bit of DNA between species, and become introns. Does it mess up DNA phylogenies? No, at least not for eukaryotes. For prokaryotes, it's a bit less certain.

However, since they all come from the same root, there isn't much of a problem, unless you want to unsnarl the phylogeny of bacteria. Good luck on that, (and one of my degrees is in bacteriology).

Pardon my correcting you but what you describe is not what I read and not what they said.
I can see that I'll have to be the goy who fetches here. It's okay, I'll be able to make a more diligent search someday or you could stumble into it on your own maybe.

~Sparrow

 

[Barbarian]

I think you meant this:

The discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 – whose pioneers believed it would provide proof of Darwin's tree – opened up new vistas for evolutionary biology.

But current research is finding a far more complex scenario than Darwin could have imagined – particularly in relation to bacteria and single-celled organisms.

These simple life forms represent most of Earth's biomass and diversity – not to mention the first two-thirds of the planet's history.

Many of their species swap genes back and forth, or engage in gene duplication, recombination, gene loss or gene transfers from multiple sources.

Dr John Dupré, a philosopher of biology at Exeter University, said: "If there is a tree of life it's a small irregular structure growing out of the web of life."

More fundamentally recent research suggests the evolution of animals and plants isn't exactly tree-like either.

Dr Dupré said: "There are problems even in that little corner." Having uprooted the tree of unicellular life biologists are now taking their axes to the remaining branches.

Dr Bapteste said: "If you don't have a tree of life what does it mean for evolutionary biology. At first it's very scary – but in the past couple of years people have begun to free their minds."

Both he and co-researcher Dr Ford Doolittle stressed that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean the theory of evolution is wrong just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312 ... tists.html

It's about lateral gene transfer. It is not the consensus, although most scientists would accept that it applies to the prokaryotes. Keep in mind, the evidence is that eukaryotes are basically endosymbiotes, each cell composed of a number of formerly independent organisms.

But as I look at the phylogenies of plants and animals, there's no evidence here for a web of life; the clustered hierarchies of taxa remain, and are even reinforced by DNA and other molecular data. If someone can think of an exception, I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

[Sparkey]

I think you meant this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312 ... tists.html

It's about lateral gene transfer. It is not the consensus, although most scientists would accept that it applies to the prokaryotes. Keep in mind, the evidence is that eukaryotes are basically endosymbiotes, each cell composed of a number of formerly independent organisms.

But as I look at the phylogenies of plants and animals, there's no evidence here for a web of life; the clustered hierarchies of taxa remain, and are even reinforced by DNA and other molecular data. If someone can think of an exception, I'd be interested in seeing it.

No, the article I mentioned was from a source that I would describe as "pure science" not one that I would call an internet entertainment news media group. Thanks though. The article that I had in mind was about the Human Genome Project not about how "Darwin got it wrong". The two articles have a couple similarities but I've never read the one your quoted before.

Your source also had links to articles (on the same page you linked to):

• [list:388dm320]
• You are what you listen to, says new study of music lovers
• Why a broken heart really does hurt[/*:m:388dm320]
• Chocolate-flavoured milk speeds up recovery as well as expensive sports drinks [/*:m:388dm320]
• Zombies would most likely wipe out humanity if they really existed, claim scientists[/*:m:388dm320]
• Six-year-old boy finds meteorite in his garden[/*:m:388dm320]

[/*:m:388dm320][/list:u:388dm320]

The article about Zombies and the claims of scientists might rightly be said to carry the same weight as the one you cited? Who knows?

~Sparrow

 

[Barbarian]

However, the "Darwin got it wrong" story was about lateral gene transfer. The source I gave you got it right. But that's not all Darwin got wrong. He was, like almost all biologists of his time, unaware of genes. Like most of his fellows, he thought inheritance was humoral, like mixing paint, rather than like sorting beads as it actually is.

This is why The New Synthesis, incorporating Darwinian theory and genetics, was the first major revision of evolutionary theory.

There is much to the argument. For example, it has been known a long time, that parts of the eukaryotic cell, such as mitochondria, are essentially endosymbiotic bacteria. They have their own, bacterial DNA, and reproduce independently of the cell itself. Some of the genes of these bacteria have found their way into the nucleus over time, and perhaps some have gone the other way.

 

[Sparkey]

Can you understand why I think what I'm hearing is "the same old story" even still? Science changes their story constantly. Not like that's a bad thing all together. A century ago the story was so wrong that even grade school children know better today. Two decades it was so wrong that even undergrads know better today. Still, we say, "Most Scientists claim," or "Most Scientists believe..." Is it possible that "Science" isn't getting things more right but only becoming more sophisticated in their presentation? It think this is at least possible. Can you deny that possibility? Would you as one who associates himself with scientists dare deny the possibility? Hmmmm?

When it comes to these types of discussions the Apostle Peter says that the major flaw is the assumption that all things continue in the same manner or in the same way today as they have from ages past. Did God actually change the nature of the plant and animal kingdoms after man's departure from the Garden of Eden? Could there have been yet other changes since then? Can one search the book of Job and find even more indicators?

I believe that God is not a liar. I'm trying to discover a clear-eyed vision for today and tomorrow. I'm sure you will agree that the Bible is our best source for this.

~Sparrowhawke

Quoting Barbarians most recently cited source: Scientists say, “A zombie outbreak is likely to lead to the collapse of civilisation [sic], unless it is dealt with quickly,â€Â

 

[Barbarian]

Can you understand why I think what I'm hearing is "the same old story" even still? Science changes their story constantly.

Yeah, it must seem like cheating to creationists. Whenever the evidence shows need to modify a theory, the theory is modified.

Is it possible that "Science" isn't getting things more right but only becoming more sophisticated in their presentation? It think this is at least possible. Can you deny that possibility? Would you as one who associates himself with scientists dare deny the possibility? Hmmmm?

Well, let's test that idea. Show us an example.

When it comes to these types of discussions the Apostle Peter says that the major flaw is the assumption that all things continue in the same manner or in the same way today as they have from ages past. Did God actually change the nature of the plant and animal kingdoms after man's departure from the Garden of Eden?

We can only go with the evidence, which indicates not. In the absence of any evidence or scriptural support, we can only conclude that He did not. The Bible is about God and man, and our relationship. It won't work as a science text.

 

[Sparkey]

By the way, you are again wrong when you label me.
I am not a "creationist" because there is no "other creationist" who agrees with me.
I am only me. My main premise is: "God is not a liar."

It is the same for you, I imagine because it would be wrong for me to label you then argue with you about thing you have never said. For instance if I were to start arguing with you about "your position" that my dad or ancestor was a monkey you would only shrug your shoulders and dismiss me.

In much the say way I would appreciate you allowing me to be me.

Now in reply to your request about showing or giving examples I would first commend you for following the spirit of scientists and asking for a test instead of simply trying to answer off the cuff. You asked for one example, how about 6? Take your pick of the following:

• Black Holes[/*:m:1xhtsnig]
• Dark Energy or Dark Matter[/*:m:1xhtsnig]
• Photons themselves[/*:m:1xhtsnig]
• Higher Math Theory[/*:m:1xhtsnig]
• The Number Gogol[/*:m:1xhtsnig]
• Quantum Mechanics[/*:m:1xhtsnig]

Of course one subject might be better than another but all will do well for my purpose here.

~Sparrow

 

[Barbarian]

By the way, you are again wrong when you label me.

I did? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out I didn't.

I am not a "creationist" because there is no "other creationist" who agrees with me.
I am only me. My main premise is: "God is not a liar."

Then you could be an evolutionist, for all I know.

Now in reply to your request about showing or giving examples I would first commend you for following the spirit of scientists and asking for a test instead of simply trying to answer off the cuff. You asked for one example, how about 6? Take your pick of the following:

*

Black Holes
* Dark Energy or Dark Matter
* Photons themselves
* Higher Math Theory
* The Number Gogol
* Quantum Mechanics

Well, let's just start with the first one. When a scientist (Roman Catholic Priest, BTW) first proposed black holes, they were just a hypothesis, based on existing knowledge. Then, as physicists took a look at it, the numbers seemed to indicate that they could indeed exist.

Now we have observational evidence indicating that they are more than a mere possibility. There is almost certainly one at the center of our galaxy, for example. This is a matter of evidence accumulating, not increasing sophistication. Indeed, the concept has had to change as the evidence showed them to be in various ways different than first conceived to be.

Of course one subject might be better than another but all will do well for my purpose here.

If you'd like another example, I'll give it a try for you.

 

[Sparkey]

Can you understand why I think what I'm hearing is "the same old story" even still? Science changes their story constantly.

Yeah, it must seem like cheating to creationists.

SURE does sound like you're speaking to me there. You quoted me then replied. Hey, I checked too. You WERE speaking to me. Golly, you're wrong again. I'm getting tired here. This is folly.

By the way, you are again wrong when you label me.

I did? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out I didn't.

[quote:1tyy433l]I am not a "creationist" because there is no "other creationist" who agrees with me.
I am only me. My main premise is: "God is not a liar."

Then you could be an evolutionist, for all I know.
[/quote:1tyy433l]

I could be an evolutionist with my main premise being: "God is not a liar"? Okay. I don't agree. If you can not understand why then I can not understand why I should teach you.

Let me now say that you win. So, go ahead now and declare your victory over me. I am defeated because I fainted while trying to deal with your stubbornness. You've practiced it more than me. The "victory" that you may claim is false though and not based on the truth but only based on the fact I am too weak to continue. Feel better?

 

[Barbarian]

SURE does sound like you're speaking to me there.

I said it must seem like cheating to creationists. I don't remember saying you were one.

You quoted me then replied. Hey, I checked too. You WERE speaking to me.

But not of you, um?

This is folly.

You note that I suggest you could be an evolutionist; how is that consistent with me supposing you to be a creationist?

I could be an evolutionist with my main premise being: "God is not a liar"?

I prefer "God is truth."

Let me now say that you win. So, go ahead now and declare your victory over me.

Perhaps it would be easier to teach and learn, if it was not a contest for you.

I am defeated because I fainted while trying to deal with your stubbornness. You've practiced it more than me. The "victory" that you may claim is false though and not based on the truth but only based on the fact I am too weak to continue. Feel better?

I hope you go away with just a little more wisdom about God and His creation. Then we both won.