[_ Old Earth _] Is evolutionism compatible with the Bible?

[Barbarian]

The only misconception about evolutionism is that it is believed by some misguided to be true.

Yes, many YE creationists believe in "evolutionism." As you know, it has nothing whatever to do with evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

Homology doesn't even come close to demonstrating evolutionism.

Homology is evidence for evolution. However, the YE creationist doctrine of evolutionism cannot explain homology.

 

[OzSpen]

It's a feathered dinosaur. It has a dinosaur skull, teeth, ribs, sternum, hips, tail, and legs. It just happens to have feathers, but then many other dinosaurs had feathers.

The big deal is that unlike most other feathered dinosaurs, Archie could fly. (we know this because it had assymetrical flight feathers). Few other dinosaurs could fly.

Nationl Geographic is not as confident as you are. See: Archaeopteryx’s Evolutionary Humiliation Continues

 

[OzSpen]

It is, by anyone's classification, a dinosaur.

Here's skeletons of Archaeopteryx and a bird.

Notice that Archie has hands, hips, ribs, sternum, tail and teeth of a dinosaur.
But it has feathers, and could fly.

Here's a conventional dinosaur skeleton for comparison:

As you see, Archaeoptyrex is far more like a dinosaur than like a bird. Why this should be so, is a complete mystery to Cygnus and his doctrine of "evolutionism." But evolutionary theory predicted this.

There's a lot of graphic license in those drawings. Imagination!

 

[OzSpen]

Here's one reason why:
The "evolutionism" of YE creationism:

Real evolution:

Your new doctrine of "evolutionism" is pretty much the sum of all misconceptions people have about evolution.

Even your doctrine of evolution is an invention when compared with the first 2 chapters of Genesis. There's not a hint of evolution in the creation of anything in those chapters.

If there is evolution in Gen 1-2, please show it to us.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Homology is evidence for evolution. However, the YE creationist doctrine of evolutionism cannot explain homology.

Of course they can. I'm just guessing but I'll bet it has to do with a single designer for everything.

 

[Zackuth]

There are questions I have about evolution that perhaps someone can explain.

First, I have heard evolutionists comment that many species of sharks have not evolved for over 65 million years--why? Are sharks not subject to evolution anymore? Many species have to keep moving or drown, yet there are sharks that have the ability to stop moving and breath just fine. Why haven't the rest of the sharks, all of which have a common ancestor and therefore a common genetic structure, made this change. It would certainly make them a better predator which is what evolution I supposed to do, make the species better.

The termite cannot digest the wood it eats, there is bacteria in its gut that does it. How did this symbiotic relationship evolve? How did the bacteria set itself up in an animal that did not eat wood and make it an animal that eats wood?

I have heard the woodpecker was once a bird that wanted to eat a particular bug that lives inside trees and it evolved to what the woodpecker is now. This seems unlikely. The woodpecker hitting a tree has been clocked at 200 miles an hour. The time it would take for the changes needed for a bird to be able to do this would either, A--lead to the death of the species waiting for the changes to occur or B--the species would give up on getting the bug and eat something else.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Homology is evidence for evolution. However, the YE creationist doctrine of evolutionism cannot explain homology.

Of course they can.

Nope. The creationist "evolutionism" doctrine says "common designer." But homology won't work with that. You see, there is no design reason why the fins of some fish, the legs of horses, the wings of bats, the diggers of moles,and the arms of humans should be made of the same elements. Common ancestry would, but not a "common designer." Common ancestry explains why human feet, knees, hips and lower backs are suboptimal; they are modified forms of structures evolved for quadrupeds.

I'm just guessing but I'll bet it has to do with a single designer for everything.

The other problem is the wings of insects and mammals, the eyes of octopi and humans, and so on. These do the same things, but are analogous, but not homologous, while the wings of bats and arms of humans are homologous but do different things.

This pretty much rules out "common designer." It's very consistent with a common creator, who made living things capable of almost unlimited variation to adapt to different environments.

 

[Barbarian]

There are questions I have about evolution that perhaps someone can explain.

First, I have heard evolutionists comment that many species of sharks have not evolved for over 65 million years--why?

That's a great question. Darwin's discovery of natural selection as the engine of evolutionary change is the answer. You see, a population tends to evolve in response to natural selection to make it more fit for a particular environment. As Darwin wrote, that would mean that a well-fitted population in a relatively unchanging environment would evolve very little or not at all. Many sharks are in that situation.

Are sharks not subject to evolution anymore?

Of course, and some have evolved very recently. But others are so well-fitted in a niche that has not changed much for tens of millions of years that there was no selective pressure for them to change. In such circumstances, natural selection actually prevents evolution. This is one of the reasons that punctuated equilibrium has been well-received by scientists. It fits the evidence showing that a new species tends to evolve fairly rapidly until it becomes well-fitted, followed by a longer period of stasis, as long as there isn't much change in the environment.

Many species have to keep moving or drown, yet there are sharks that have the ability to stop moving and breath just fine. Why haven't the rest of the sharks, all of which have a common ancestor and therefore a common genetic structure, made this change.

Not necessary for survival. And likely, some of the steps required in the process would reduce fitness for that particular species.

The termite cannot digest the wood it eats, there is bacteria in its gut that does it. How did this symbiotic relationship evolve?

It's a fascinating story. It has to do with the evolution of termites from wood roaches. There are transitional forms between wood roaches and termites, and the paedomorphisis (retention of juvenile characteristics in adults) of modern termites. The gut flora actually precedes termites, being present in wood roaches of the genus Cryptocercus. If you'd like to learn more about this, open a new thread and I'll drop in and we can talk about it.

How did the bacteria set itself up in an animal that did not eat wood and make it an animal that eats wood?

There are wood-eating cockroaches that don't have this flora, but they can't depend exclusively on wood. Cryptocercus species are much more effective at exploiting this resource.

I have heard the woodpecker was once a bird that wanted to eat a particular bug that lives inside trees and it evolved to what the woodpecker is now. This seems unlikely. The woodpecker hitting a tree has been clocked at 200 miles an hour. The time it would take for the changes needed for a bird to be able to do this would either, A--lead to the death of the species waiting for the changes to occur or B--the species would give up on getting the bug and eat something else.

The key here is that there are all sorts of piciformes (group that includes excavating woodpeckers) most of these don't excavate, or do so only in soft or rotting wood. No woodpecker has all the adaptations we see in the group, but the more primitive ones have them developed to a lesser degree. That is also a very fascinating story, with all sorts of intermediate forms between soft wood excavating species and hard wood excavators. If you'd like to start a thread on woodpeckers, we can go over that one. It is also quite fascinating.

You do great questions. Keep up the good work. It's refreshing to see an inquiring mind like yours.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Barbarian observes:
Homology is evidence for evolution. However, the YE creationist doctrine of evolutionism cannot explain homology.



Nope. The creationist "evolutionism" doctrine says "common designer." But homology won't work with that. You see, there is no design reason why the fins of some fish, the legs of horses, the wings of bats, the diggers of moles,and the arms of humans should be made of the same elements. Common ancestry would, but not a "common designer." Common ancestry explains why human feet, knees, hips and lower backs are suboptimal; they are modified forms of structures evolved for quadrupeds.



The other problem is the wings of insects and mammals, the eyes of octopi and humans, and so on. These do the same things, but are analogous, but not homologous, while the wings of bats and arms of humans are homologous but do different things.

This pretty much rules out "common designer." It's very consistent with a common creator, who made living things capable of almost unlimited variation to adapt to different environments.

Everyone who believes in God believe in creationism of some kind. And God isn't limited to just one way of designing. It not a matter of common designer but of common design. I don't see any reason God can't accomplish his design any way He chooses.

 

[Barbarian]

Even your doctrine of evolution

Theory. A theory in science, is a well tested idea or group of ideas that have been confirmed by evidence.

is an invention when compared with the first 2 chapters of Genesis.

All theories are man-made discoveries. But of course, Genesis has nothing that rules out evolution. It just doesn't discuss the mechanisms of creation.

There's not a hint of evolution in the creation of anything in those chapters.

There's not a hint of DNA or protons, or many other things therein. There isn't supposed to be. It's about God and man and our relationship, not the nuts and bolts of science.

 

[Barbarian]

Everyone who believes in God believe in creationism of some kind.

In general "creationism" has come to mean "person who rejects the way God created species." But you have a point.

And God isn't limited to just one way of designing.

There's no sign that He had to design at all. In fact, engineers have found that evolutionary processes work much more efficiently than design, if the problems are very complex. Turns out, God knew better than we did.

He used evolution, because it works better.

 

[calvin]

Homology is evidence for evolution. However, the YE creationist doctrine of evolutionism cannot explain homology.

Did you miss it Barbarian?
Since all life was created after its kind, there is no need to explain homology.
Not if one accepts the Bible as God's unerring word.
You see after the LORD God created each thing He declared that it was good.
That doesn't imply absolute perfection, rather what was created is capable of meeting its intended purpose.
If a particular body part functions as intended (and it does), and its intended function is different from the corresponding body part of a different kind, what we see is exactly what one should expect from the creator of all things. There is no mystery to explain, only perhaps if one tries to fit things into an evolutionary mould.

 

[Papa Zoom]

In general "creationism" has come to mean "person who rejects the way God created species." But you have a point.
There's no sign that He had to design at all. In fact, engineers have found that evolutionary processes work much more efficiently than design, if the problems are very complex. Turns out, God knew better than we did.

He used evolution, because it works better.

Well I'll bet I can find some engineers that disagree. Seems to me Michael Behe and Stephen Meyers would have something to say about your position.

Take any basic computer program and randomly mess with the 0's and 1's. You'll get nonsense every time. What we see in nature is intricate design. And we mimic it.

 

[Barbarian]

It is, by anyone's classification, a dinosaur.

Here's skeletons of Archaeopteryx and a bird.

Notice that Archie has hands, hips, ribs, sternum, tail and teeth of a dinosaur.
But it has feathers, and could fly.

Here's a conventional dinosaur skeleton for comparison:

As you see, Archaeoptyrex is far more like a dinosaur than like a bird. Why this should be so, is a complete mystery to Cygnus and his doctrine of "evolutionism." But evolutionary theory predicted this.

There's a lot of graphic license in those drawings. Imagination!

The skeletal structures of these three organisms are very well-known. As you see, Archy is transitional between dinosaurs and birds, but is more like a dinosaur than like a bird. There are more birdlike transitionals in the record now. Would you like to discuss those?

 

[Papa Zoom]

I'll bet we're all gonna be surprised how God did it. Lots of dork slapping gonna be happening!

 

[Barbarian]

Well I'll bet I can find some engineers that disagree. Seems to me Michael Behe and Stephen Meyers would have something to say about your position.

Behe now describes himself as an evolutionist. He fully agrees that natural selection drives evolution. His argument is that there are some things than could not evolve by natural selection, that would require God to step in an make an adjustment. This strikes me as selling God short, and so far, no one has found such a thing. Since it has been demonstrated that irreducibly complex structures can evolve, not many scientists accept Behe's belief.

Take any basic computer program and randomly mess with the 0's and 1's. You'll get nonsense every time.

Yes. If evolution was random, it wouldn't produce much. Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. There is random variation in populations, but it is natural selection that makes evolution work.

What we see in nature is intricate design. And we mimic it.

So far, whenever we understand the cause of "design", it turns out to be a natural process. So far.

 

[Barbarian]

I'll bet we're all gonna be surprised how God did it.

One thing about scientific theories; when we find one that works and lasts, it tends to be elegant, simple and complete with very little complexity. And it's beautiful.

God seems to prefer simplicity and elegance.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Behe now describes himself as an evolutionist. He fully agrees that natural selection drives evolution. His argument is that there are some things than could not evolve by natural selection, that would require God to step in an make an adjustment. This strikes me as selling God short, and so far, no one has found such a thing. Since it has been demonstrated that irreducibly complex structures can evolve, not many scientists accept Behe's belief.

Yes. If evolution was random, it wouldn't produce much. Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. There is random variation in populations, but it is natural selection that makes evolution work.

So far, whenever we understand the cause of "design", it turns out to be a natural process. So far.

I know that Behe believes in common descent but I've never heard him refer to himself as an evolutionist.

Seems to me Darwinism is a theory in trouble

You didn't mention Meyers.

 

[Barbarian]

Did you miss it Barbarian?
Since all life was created after its kind, there is no need to explain homology.

Homology just tells us how God created each kind. There's no need to invent special creation of individual species apart from His use of natural selection. Not if one accepts the Bible as God's unerring word. You see after the LORD God created each thing He declared that it was good. That doesn't imply absolute perfection, rather what was created is capable of meeting its intended purpose.

So our bodies are suboptimal, but that's O.K. They work well enough. Evolution is sufficient and more effective than design. God uses the same structures other organism use, modified by evolution.

If a particular body part functions as intended (and it does), and its intended function is different from the corresponding body part of a different kind, what we see is exactly what one should expect if God used evolution to do it. There is no mystery to explain, only perhaps if one tries to fit things into an creationist mold.[/QUOTE]