[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionism and Evolution; some essential differences

[Barbarian]

So, going for the derail since the OP is not about YE creationism? Try to stay on topic.....

Evolutionism is a part of YE creationism. As you learned, it's all the misconceptions people have about evolution.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is a form of the religious belief of creationism[1] which holds that the universe, Earth, and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of God less than 10,000 years ago.[2] Its primary adherents are Christians who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the creation narrative in the Bible's Book of Genesis and believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days.[3][4] In contrast to YEC, old Earth creationism is the belief in a metaphorical interpretation of the Book of Genesis and the scientifically-determined estimated ages of the Earth and Universe.[5] wiki

Since you apparently don't know what you are talking about this article might be beneficial.....
And since you don't seem to have a grasp on what evolutionism means, here is a very short primer.....

Evolutionism was a common 19th century belief that organisms inherently improve themselves through progressive inherited change over time, and increase in complexity through evolution.[1][2] The belief went on to include cultural evolution and social evolution.[1] In the 1970s the term Neo-Evolutionism was used to describe the idea "that human beings sought to preserve a familiar style of life unless change was forced on them by factors that were beyond their control".[3]

The term is sometimes also colloquially used to refer to acceptance of the modern evolutionary synthesis, a scientific theory that describes how biological evolution occurs. In addition, the term is used in a broader sense to cover a world-view on a wide variety of topics, including chemical evolution as an alternative term for abiogenesis or for nucleosynthesis of chemical elements, galaxy formation and evolution, stellar evolution, spiritual evolution, technological evolution and universal evolution, which seeks to explain every aspect of the world in which we live.[4][5]

Since the overwhelming majority of scientists accept the modern evolutionary synthesis as the best explanation of current data,[6] the term is seldom used in the scientific community; to say someone is a scientist implies acceptance of evolutionary views,[7] unless specifically noted otherwise. In the creation-evolution controversy, creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis "evolutionists" and the theory itself as "evolutionism." Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion.[8][9] wiki

Anything outside of that is just your made up 'opinion'.

 

[calvin]

Hello calvin here.
Hmm yes well as I see it Jesus is a creationist.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Kjv

Mar 13:19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. Kjv (colour emphasis added)

If He was an evolutionist I would expect to be reading things like
'but from the beginning of the evolution of man they were male and female...
therefore despite evolutionary change a man should leave the nest and settle in with his wife'.
Reads silly doesn't it, so the best alternative is to believe God's word as He has given it to us.

 

[Barbarian]

Hmm yes well as I see it Jesus is a creationist.

But not a young Earth creationist. Look at this:

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Kjv

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. [3] And God said: Be light made. And light was made. [4] And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. [5] And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

There we are, in the beginning, and no male, no female. So if we can trust God, then the creation story is not a literal history.

The issue between YE creationists and the rest of Christianity is not whether or not God created all things; it's how He did it.

If He was an evolutionist I would expect to be reading things like
'but from the beginning of the evolution of man they were male and female...
therefore despite evolutionary change a man should leave the nest and settle in with his wife'.

If you believed in the creationist idea of "evolutionism", yes. If on the other hand, you knew what evolution actually is, you wouldn't expect God to be discussing it in scripture any more than you'd expect him to speak of plate tectonics. For a Christian, the Bible is about God and man and our relationship, not a science text.

Reads silly doesn't it,

Yep. "Evolutionism" is, as you learned, a straw man, mere misconceptions about what God's creation actually is and does.

so the best alternative is to believe God's word as He has given it to us.

If everyone did that, there wouldn't be any YE creationism.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolutionism

was a common 19th century belief that organisms inherently improve themselves through progressive inherited change over time, and increase in complexity through evolution.

Yep. Evolution isn't like that. That's what I was showing you. Organisms don't "inherently improve themselves." Organisms don't evolve; populations do. God back and look at the OP. The creationist notion of "evolutionism" is not remotely similar to evolutionary theory or to observed evolution. Further, as Darwin pointed out, evolution doesn't predict that an increase in complexity must happen with evolution. Indeed, it can reduce complexity.

The term is sometimes also colloquially used to refer to acceptance of the modern evolutionary synthesis, a scientific theory that describes how biological evolution occurs.

Colloquial usage is informal and not precise. It may or may not be accurate in the formal sense. Notice that the premises of "evolutionism" are directly opposed to evolutionary theory. I understand that people who were napping in science class may not realize that. But now you know better.

creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis "evolutionists" and the theory itself as "evolutionism."

Which is what I've been telling you. You've made my point for me.

 

[civilwarbuff]

When you learn what you are talking about and no longer contradict yourself, please come back and join the conversation.
BTW, population is a collection of individuals. A population cannot evolve until individuals evolve.....you should know that.

 

[Barbarian]

When you learn what you are talking about

I just showed you your errors. Instead of getting resentful, learn from it. Simply doubling down on your misconceptions won't help you. Try to find some facts that support your beliefs, and find a way to put a rational argument together.

BTW, population is a collection of individuals.

Yes, and populations evolve, not individuals.

A population cannot evolve until individuals evolve.....

Individuals don't evolve. You're pretty much stuck with the genes you have.
Simply put, evolution is change. It is change in groups of living things over time, a process that connects all forms of life to one another. Charles Darwin called evolution “descent with modification” from a common ancestor.


The evolution of living things has been occurring for billions of years and is responsible for the dazzling diversity of life on Earth. That is a fact. Details of the mechanisms of evolutionary change, such as mutation and natural selection, are still being studied and explained.


Individuals Don’t Evolve, But Populations Do.


Evolution refers to changes in groups—populations—of living things over time. Individual members of a population grow and develop, but they don’t evolve.
https://naturalhistory.si.edu/exhibits/darwin/evolution.html

Your children, however, will be somewhat different genetically than either of their parents. That's what evolution does. Would you consider reading a simple primer on the subject to understand what the conversation is about?

It's accessible, even if you did sleep through science class. Worth a try; you'd at least then know what it is you think you don't like about science.

you should know that.

I teach science. And this is one of the best simplifications of evolution and evolutionary theory that I've seen. What have you got to lose, but your misconceptions?

 

[civilwarbuff]

When you learn what you are talking about and no longer contradict yourself, please come back and join the conversation.
BTW, population is a collection of individuals. A population cannot evolve until individuals evolve.....you should know that.

Please re-read......

 

[Barbarian]

I understand what you're trying to say. You thought organisms evolve. As you now see, they don't. You are born with the genes you keep your whole life. Populations evolve, not organisms.

 

[civilwarbuff]

You can't even quote correctly, can you? I distinctly said 'a population cannot evolve until individuals evolve'.
Misrepresentation of what a member says is reportable......no more reminders.

 

[Barbarian]

You can't even quote correctly, can you? I distinctly said 'a population cannot evolve until individuals evolve'.
Misrepresentation of what a member says is reportable......no more reminders.

I didn't quote you at all. And I'm pointing out that you're wrong. Individuals don't evolve. I understand that your ideology requires that they do. But they don't. Populations evolve, not organisms.

Do you understand that evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time? And individual organism, aside from the relatively rare case (in eukaryotes) of lateral gene transfer, never changes alleles.

It just doesn't happen. I understand that you're frustrated. If you learn nothing else about biology, you should understand. Populations evolve, but individual organisms do not.

Why is this so? Because organisms (other than bacteria and their related organisms) don't change their genomes over time. They die with the same alleles they had at birth. No evolution in an individual. Do you understand why, now?

On the other hand, as Darwin pointed out, every organism is slightly different than either parent, not only because of recombination due to sexual reproduction, but because of mutation in sperm and eggs. So each generation, the allele frequencies of the population will be slightly different or (in the case of environmental change) markedly different.

 

[calvin]

Hello calvin here
As I see it and I might be wrong.
A population might be able to evolve, but only if the individual organisms change. Looked at one way, an individual might change, but if it is an isolated event it will not amount to anything. On the other hand if many individuals made the same change then that change might stay.....(safety in numbers)
Talk about drawing a long bow..:yes
I can understand the idea that a group of organisms when subjected to environmental changes will change to accommodate the new conditions.
There is another possibility other than evolution though that might be verified when we know a lot more about things than we do at present.
Perhaps the Lord created organisms with a built in variability such that they can switch to suit a certain amount of environmental change.
By way of example; I dabble a bit with Amateur Radio and because radio propagation varies from band to band over the course of a day and over the course of the seasons, I have a multi-band transceiver which enables me to operate on which ever band is best making communication possible.

Did we (mankind) think up something that never occurred to God when He was doing His creation? No I don't believe so.
Just something to think about.

 

[Barbarian]

Hello calvin here
As I see it and I might be wrong.
A population might be able to evolve, but only if the individual organisms change.

Every new organism is slightly different than either of its parents. But after egg and sperm join, the genome is determined and will not change. But I see what you're saying. Each generation, the new individuals affect the allele frequency in the population. Individuals don't evolve, but their variation causes the population to evolve.

Looked at one way, an individual might change, but if it is an isolated event it will not amount to anything. On the other hand if many individuals made the same change then that change might stay.....(safety in numbers)

Interestingly, that was a strong objection to Darwin's theory, and he really had no good answer for it. If inheritance is in the blood (as everyone at the time assumed it was) then a new characteristic would be swamped by all the others like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint.

Only after Mendel's work in genetics was rediscovered, did the answer appear. It's not like mixing paint; it's like sorting beads. And so a useful new allele can rapidly spread through a population by natural selection. An example is the rapid evolution of resistance to myxovirus in rabbit populations in Australia.

Talk about drawing a long bow..:yes

The idea is false, but given the assumptions, it's reasonable enough. It just turned out that inheritance wasn't the way people supposed. Does that mean that it's possible that a form of life could appear that would not evolve in Darwinian manner? Yes, it does, and I would suppose that it did from time to time early on before our kind (nucleic acid-mediated inheritance) pretty much grabbed all the high-energy stuff for ourselves.

Being able to evolve in a non-random way to fit the environment, such organisms would have quickly overcome any other form of life.

I can understand the idea that a group of organisms when subjected to environmental changes will change to accommodate the new conditions.
There is another possibility other than evolution though that might be verified when we know a lot more about things than we do at present.
Perhaps the Lord created organisms with a built in variability such that they can switch to suit a certain amount of environmental change.

Darwin called it "descent with modification." We call it "evolution." The interesting thing is, God made it to be extremely flexible, so that over time, it could make change after change, each generation building on the changes of the previous one.

By way of example; I dabble a bit with Amateur Radio and because radio propagation varies from band to band over the course of a day and over the course of the seasons, I have a multi-band transceiver which enables me to operate on which ever band is best making communication possible.

Suppose that you had a number of antennas. (in biology, we pluralize "antennae"; do radio people do that?) Suppose that they could be rotated, and you had a computer program that would rotate them in a coordinated manner to optimize reception for changing conditions.

If there was "normal" situation and conditions fluctuated around that, then the "allele frequency" of the your antenna configuration would fluctuate around a mean, in what biologists call "stasis." But suppose people are building structures around you, and some of them change the way radio waves get to your set. Then, over time, the computer will re-optimize, perhaps in new ways that you didn't see before, and eventually (if the building ceases) to find a new stasis.

Evolution works like that.

Did we (mankind) think up something that never occurred to God when He was doing His creation? No I don't believe so.

We didn't invent evolution; we discovered it. Engineers are now copying His method to solve problems that are too difficult for design. God, as usual knew best.

Just something to think about.

That was very perceptive. There's a lot more to see in that. Thanks for the insight.

 

[calvin]

Hello calvin here.
I just found this article
https://www.sciencealert.com/this-1...-trapped-in-amber-is-the-best-we-ve-ever-seen
Well regardless of the actual age, what seems to be interesting is that it was a bird not a winged feathered reptilasaurus.
If the 100,000,000 age estimate is correct, then that means birds have been birds for a very very long time.
The other thing of interest to me is the fact that it seems to have been smashed about either before or after entombment in the amber.

 

[Cygnus]

Hello calvin here
As I see it and I might be wrong.
A population might be able to evolve, but only if the individual organisms change. Looked at one way, an individual might change, but if it is an isolated event it will not amount to anything. On the other hand if many individuals made the same change then that change might stay.....(safety in numbers)
Talk about drawing a long bow..:yes
I can understand the idea that a group of organisms when subjected to environmental changes will change to accommodate the new conditions.
There is another possibility other than evolution though that might be verified when we know a lot more about things than we do at present.
Perhaps the Lord created organisms with a built in variability such that they can switch to suit a certain amount of environmental change.
By way of example; I dabble a bit with Amateur Radio and because radio propagation varies from band to band over the course of a day and over the course of the seasons, I have a multi-band transceiver which enables me to operate on which ever band is best making communication possible.

Did we (mankind) think up something that never occurred to God when He was doing His creation? No I don't believe so.
Just something to think about.

Calvin, don't be duped into the simple....coloring book...version of evolutionism. Sure the environment selects certain traits. We can see that in Darwns finches...but it's not real evolution. It's simply the environment selecting already established genes that allow for larger beaks.
The real issue is...and the issue that EVERY believer in evolutionism runs from is presenting a second, third, fourth, etc mutation that continues to change a trait in an animals progeny.
EVERY believer in evolutionism here simply breaks out the coloring book and assumes it can happen. Never, and I repeat....NEVER...will one who believes in evolutionism tell you how a trait can be added to until something such as a new system is realized (dolphins echo-location system) or how a bunch of so-called beneficial mutations have the ability to effect the DNA again and again responsible for a particular trait or developing trait.

You'll see the Evo's here claim they have....but when asked to support the claim...you'll here crickets, ad-homs, or the topic is quickly changed.

So, for the evos, there is variation in the gene pool. This accounts for what is considered as micro-evolution.....when we speak of macro-evolutionism, it's a whole different story. There is not one evolution present who can delve deep, throw away the coloring book and really explain how evolutionism works.

 

[Cygnus]

Darwin called it "descent with modification." We call it "evolution." The interesting thing is, God made it to be extremely flexible, so that over time, it could make change after change, each generation building on the changes of the previous one.

See what I mean? The coloring book version...throw in a little God...and who can challenge it?
Yes, genetics is flexible. But, Barbarian mentioned change after change...ASSUMING...it can actually happen. What he forgets is that the mutations are RANDOM. Secondly very, very, very few would be considered as beneficial.....and if a second beneficial mutation happens along Barbarian simply assume it will effect the same DNA responsible for the "evolving" trait....while forgetting the rest of the billion plus base pairs in an organism.
Perhaps Barbarian wants to tell us God is directly causing the mutations to occur in the precise location of the DNA and it's really not random a all.

 

[Barbarian]

Well regardless of the actual age, what seems to be interesting is that it was a bird not a winged feathered reptilasaurus.
If the 100,000,000 age estimate is correct, then that means birds have been birds for a very very long time.

Yep. They have been around a very long time.

The other thing of interest to me is the fact that it seems to have been smashed about either before or after entombment in the amber.

To become fossilized, it needs burial and pressure. So yeah, it would likely be flattened.

 

[Barbarian]

See what I mean? The coloring book version...throw in a little God...and who can challenge it?

You're still trying to graft religion to science. Won't work. And it keeps you going the wrong way, if you want to understand any of this.

Yes, genetics is flexible. But, Barbarian mentioned change after change...ASSUMING...it can actually happen.

It's directly observed to happen. So not a problem.

What he forgets is that the mutations are RANDOM.

What you forget is that natural selection is not random. So only the useful mutations tend to persist, and form a new "normal" for the next generation and set of mutations.

Secondly very, very, very few would be considered as beneficial.....and if a second beneficial mutation happens along Barbarian simply assume it will effect the same DNA responsible for the "evolving" trait....

I don't think you understand how it works. If enough favorable mutations could happen in a colony of bacteria to evolve a new enzyme system in a matter of week, and enough to produce a new digestive organ in a colony of lizards in a matter of decades, then it seems a little pointless to deny that a lot more could happen in a few million years.

Perhaps Barbarian wants to tell us God is directly causing the mutations to occur in the precise location of the DNA and it's really not random a all.

As you see, the evidence shows that random mutation plus natural selection is adequate to evolve new taxa.

So there's no point in arguing that it can't happen. It observably does.

 

[calvin]

calvin here,
thing is though, a lizard already has a digestive system that if capable of coping with a different diet, yes it can change over several generations and actually acquire a taste for veggies.
If the lizards could not not digest the veggies in the first place, they would simply starve to death and there would be no more lizards left to eat their peas.
I don't think natural selection can be stretched too far.
If an organism suddenly found itself in an environment where eye sight is needed to avoid some predator, it would finish up as the main course and die out before it could change from a blind organism to a sighted organism. Besides, how would a blind organism even know that it was missing all the latest movies because it is blind?
Me thinks at the very minimum, that organism would need to be created with eyes right from the start; maybe with room for improvement, but it needs eyes and also the signal processing capabilities in the brain to make sense of the light thus detected.
Same problem with ears. Even if an organism was sensitive to vibration, there is nothing to suggest that there is anything of value in those vibrations that would 'drive' the development of organs to exploit those vibrations.
A certain vibration maybe could be associated with the approach of a predator but the deaf organism will be eaten before it can pass on the warning so, no genetic info or change.
This is definitely the problem; there can only be slight change within an already created and viable organism.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm very intrigued by the evolution of sensory organs. I know that people say that the human eye is poorly designed, pointing to less than perfect evolutionary processes, but I don't know all that much about it. I find it very interesting that senses could develop at all, though.

Hmm yes well as I see it Jesus is a creationist.
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Kjv

If you're going to define Creationism as believing that a divine being set off the Big Bang and was somehow involved in the beginning of life, every theist is a Creationist.

I think that could count as evidence against the idea that it's historical fact that Adam existed before Eve, though. We wouldn't have been made male and female from the beginning of (our) creation if one gender showed up first.