A Perspective on Evolution

[Truth4All]

"Atheist Central" - Ray Comfort's Blog

From Richard Gunther
Posted: 10 Mar 2009 03:38 PM PDT

A correspondent referred us to the February 2009 National Geographic. On inspection I find that this issue presents no evidence for evolution, despite its well-illustrated article about Darwin. In the article we are told that Darwin found the fossils of giant sloths and giant armadillos. He knew of much smaller, living relatives, and postulated that the giants had evolved into the smaller relatives. From this base he leapt off into fanciful assumptions unsupported by any good science.

Modern genetics has shown that within the gene pool of every creature is a range of possible variations, which express themselves when the environment alters. Darwin knew nothing about genes. He imagined that variability within a species was almost infinite. Modern science has discovered the barrier, an absolute barrier, beyond which a species can never go. Darwin was wrong.


Darwin made the same mistake when he observed finches on the Galapagos Islands. Environment and natural selection allowed the finches to adapt and change slightly, but they remain finches, and can all interbreed. Different beak shapes is not evolution in the Darwinian sense.


Fossils of extinct creatures are not evidence of evolution. They are evidence of extinction. When a series of intermediate forms is found, showing how one distinct species has changed into another, then Darwin might be considered correct, but no transitional series have ever been found. The problem is, there is no known mechanism whereby information in the DNA can increase in complexity. All DNA loses information, gradually. It never increases, which is what it would need to do to cause a species to evolve upwards. God said, in Genesis, that everything He made would produce "after its kind" and that is precisely what life continues to do. Variation is not evolution. It is a selection process from already present genes. If there are no new genes to choose from, a species remains stable and is conserved indefinitely.

 

[EconGrad]

Whether evolution is an accurate theory or an inaccurate one isn't relevant to the Christian faith I have received.

I think the focus on this sort of thing is counterproductive. We quarrel with atheists/scientists over science instead of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Whether evolution is accurate or not, everyone needs to hear the Gospel. Christ held the sins of the entire world upon a cross so that his sheep could be given forgiveness, holiness and reconciliation with God.

 

[Truth4All]

EconGrad,

While I can't argue with your assertion that we need more preaching of the Gospel, I do disagree on your view that discussions on evolution are counterproductive. Science is an ally of the bible, not its nemesis. When people come to the realization that evolution has very little supporting evidence they will no doubt begin to seek other explanations. THAT is when the gospel starts making sense to a lot of people.

 

[NightShadow]

I agree with Econgrad and I agree with you Truth4all that science is an ally of the Bible. However alot of times I feel that we make science an enemy, because it might find something different from the Bible. This is not to say it found something wrong, but maybe a different interpretation that divides us. That to me is counter productive.

 

[EconGrad]

I've yet to see a discussion of evolution where creationists didn't come out looking like enemies of reason and science.

Science was created by Christians in the Middle Ages.

I certainly appreciate the benefits of natural theology that come from science and faith interacting. It keeps us away from the "God of the Gaps" nonsense that used to be so common.

 

[Truth4All]

NightShadow,

I can appreciate your perspective. But don't you think the search for truth, no matter what topic you happen to be studying, is aways a noble endeavor? Imagine if Galileo had said to himself "you know, I think the church is all wrong about the nature of our solar system, but I don't want to upset people so I'll just keep my mouth shut". What a terrible waste that would have been! Sometimes the truth hurts (it cost Galileo his life!) but in the end, truth in any form always seems to benefit mankind in the end.

 

[NightShadow]

I concur with the statement that search for truth is a noble endeavor. Wasn't Galileo proven to be right even though the Church said otherwise? I never said the truth should never be seek out. Because the truth is what we all should be looking for. Galileo is a good example of what I posted before.

"we make science an enemy, because it might find something different from the Bible. This is not to say it found something wrong, but maybe a different interpretation that divides us."

Like you said; it costed him his life. The Church labled his science heresy and put him to death, but today we know he is right.


<><
NS

 

[Truth4All]

"we make science an enemy, because it might find something different from the Bible. This is not to say it found something wrong, but maybe a different interpretation that divides us."

Like you said; it costed him his life. The Church labled his science heresy and put him to death, but today we know he is right.

NS

Oh okay. Maybe we're on the same page then. I thought you were implying that we shouldn't talk about stuff that might cause people to disagree. How boring would that be? <g>

 

[NightShadow]

Oh okay. Maybe we're on the same page then. I thought you were implying that we shouldn't talk about stuff that might cause people to disagree. How boring would that be? <g>

LOL!
No no. I was kinda confused with your post at first trying to figure out where that came from. Heathly debate is good. Where we can exchange ideas in a civil matter. This is how we learn. Its when we start digging trenches I have problems with because none of us is going to agree 100% of the time. Even though we will disagree we should never divided because the enemy will drive a wedge in to it.

<><
NS

 

[Truth4All]

I thought I had all bases covered on the poll question but someone actually voted for "Other". What did I miss? Elvis? The spaghetti monster? Perhaps an option for existentialists called "Man does not exist"?

 

[NightShadow]

I was thinking maybe not in one day but in seven days. I have heard that mention before.

 

[Truth4All]

I was thinking maybe not in one day but in seven days. I have heard that mention before.

Yep. I probably should have added Allah and Buddha as well.

 

[Abing]

wow. and God's 1 day is a million days lol

 

[lifetime]

I voted for "other" because I believe evolution and creation are compatible and that both happened and are happening. As time goes by we evolve and everything that is new is a new creation of God. They exist together. In the beginning God created everything but in such a way that over time the Earth evolved into the conditions that would be right for humans. Alot of the Bible stories I believe are, like Jesus's parables, figurative.

There doesn't have to be a contradiction between evolution and creation. We don't have to argue between science and faith. They co-exist, albeit in different realms or different dimensions but nevertheless both are. They just have different qualities. One is about time and space, the other eternity.

 

[DJB2034]

Truth4All, your name is deceptive.

May I prelude my post by mentioning that the church of England recently released an official apology to Charles Darwin (a little late, but still a nice gesture) for condemning his ideas ages ago? This, in light of the overwhelming amount of evidence for it.

Truth4All, you are a good example of what is so detrimental to science education today. You know a little bit about evolution... Matter of fact, you know more than most. But you obviously know nothing of any substance. In cases like you, knowing a little is more dangerous than knowing nothing because you are capable of misrepresenting the facts in a way that sounds intelligent so that others who know less will believe you.

There are a lot of mistakes in your post, but before I go talking about them, I will request that you present me with a link or journal or something that supports your claim, "Modern science has discovered the barrier, an absolute barrier, beyond which a species can never go."

Now for the problems....

"Modern genetics has shown that within the gene pool of every creature is a range of possible variations, which express themselves when the environment alters. Darwin knew nothing about genes."

Apparently, neither do you. By "within the gene pool of every creature," I will assume that you mean "within the gene pool of every species." You say that within this gene pool, there is a range of possible variations which express themselves when the environment alters. Oh really? How do they "express themselves?" When an environment alters (and the environment is ALWAYS altering, especially since new viruses and diseases are constantly mutating), the organisms who have traits which help them survive live on, then procreate, passing on their genes and their mate's genes to their offspring. Consequently, the offspring now have the genes which determine these traits, and also have their own new genetic code, rendering them a challenge to the plethora of microscopic predators. This process continues until only organisms with the traits fit to the environment are left, procreating. The beak size of Darwin's finches was a response to the necessity of these finches to have harder beaks to crack open the tough seeds that were their food. Finches with softer beaks struggled to eat and died young or had weak offspring. As a result, they died off and were no longer a part of the gene pool. Over a few centuries, only the finches with genes dictating hard beaks were left.

This is how species evolve. It is a known process, understood by science, and is fully capable of being taught and understood, if only SOME PEOPLE would stop thumping their bibles and listen to some legitimate inquiry into the truth of the natural world for once. The Bible is true... but not in the sense that my science textbook is true. Genesis is a great book... But it is absolutely not a historical account of anything that ever happened at any point in history. It is highly metaphorical/symbolic and its message about lost innocence is deep. But the Bible is not a science book. Let's remember that.

"Environment and natural selection allowed the finches to adapt and change slightly, but they remain finches, and can all interbreed."

Yes, obviously. They will not all of a sudden turn into a giraffe. I don't understand how this comment in any way supports your idea that evolution is mistaken.

"The problem is, there is no known mechanism whereby information in the DNA can increase in complexity."

What are you talking about? Seriously, information in the DNA cannot increase in complexity? What does that even mean?

"It never increases, which is what it would need to do to cause a species to evolve upwards."

If I had a buzzer, I would buzz it right now. I need to correct you. Evolution is not progress. It is not "getting better." Darwin himself explicitly stated that "evolution is not progress." All it is is change in response to the environment. There is no "upward" movement (figuratively).

"Variation is not evolution. It is a selection process from already present genes. If there are no new genes to choose from, a species remains stable and is conserved indefinitely."

Nor did anyone say variation was evolution. Matter of fact, those are two completely different ideas. I think you meant that variation is not evidence for evolution (even though it is, in combination with the other evidences). Anyways, you display a vast ignorance of biology here. But I would expect that because if you did know anything about biology, you would understand evolution and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But look: there are ALWAYS new genes. Each generation of a species is a new gene pool, waiting to combine with the others and create a new one for the next generation, and so forth. As a matter of fact, the very reason that sex even exists as the mechanism for procreation is that the combination of two organisms' DNA creates new DNA in their offspring: this presents a challenge for viruses and bacteria that would otherwise quickly adapt and just attack the species with one set of DNA being passed down generation to generation. Asexual species are basically cloning themselves. There are very few species like this.

I would suggest that you take an evolution class at your local community college or just understand more about it and why creationists and Intelligent Design advocates are completely mistaken in pretty much everything they say. Evolution challenges certain beliefs, but it is a well-known fact in the scientific community and it would be wise of you to listen up.

 

[Truth4All]

Truth4All, your name is deceptive.

DJB2034,

How have I deceived you? By posting a blog entry that supports my opinion? You and I both approach the subject of evolution from a perspective of faith. That is to say we both "believe" that our own opinion is the correct one (otherwise we wouldn't believe it). Let me remind you that neither my nor your salvation rests on belief or disbelief in the theory of evolution. We can certainly disagree on the validity of the evidence that supposedly supports it but there's really no need to be disagreeable as we talk about it.

 

[cephas316]

Exodus 20: 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

If the 6 days of creation and one day of rest were long periods and not 24 hour periods then the pattern for us to follow would be meaningless. An unbiased reading of the above verse implies that the 7th day was a single day of 24 hours called the Sabbath; likewise the other 6 were also normal days as we know them. We must be careful of reading something INTO the text instead of allowing the text to mean what it says!

Please see the following article for further clarification:

http://creation.com/how-long-were-the-days-of-genesis-1

 

[DJB2034]

I did not say that you were insincere, I'm sure you honestly believe that evolution is false. But that of course does not make your uneducated opinion the truth, hence the deception in your name.

And yes, I know that my salvation does not lie in my accepting or rejecting evolution. However, my intellectual growth does, and since I want to understand our world more fully, it makes sense to learn about what the big guys are trying to tell us rather than shut them out before they can even speak. Yes, it's fully possible that our current understanding of evolution is flawed. Matter of fact, in all probability it is. However, creationism is the devil to scientific, rational thought because there is nothing scientific about it. It is a religious belief based on a literal interpretation of Genesis; a conclusion that was presupposed. There is no scientific evidence for it whatsoever.

Evolution, on the other hand, is a grand, unifying theory that makes sense of all of biology as well as practically every other scientific discipline. It remains untouched, and continues to shed light on our ancient history and bring forth new revelations.

I'm sure you are a great guy and a great Christian. But your understanding of evolution is deeply flawed and I hope that you either become educated or leave the science to the scientists.

 

[Truth4All]

DJ said:

But your understanding of evolution is deeply flawed and I hope that you either become educated or leave the science to the scientists.

Perhaps it is. I see you're a relatively young individual who is most likely a junior in college, so maybe you can help educate an old, unworldly schlep like me <g>. What do you believe is THE most compelling piece of evidence that suggests that evolution actually occurred? I'm talking macro-evolution, not micro-evolution. Please don't copy and paste a bunch of quotes from other people or narratives from a book. Just tell me in your own words what it is and why you believe the evidence is compelling. Thanks.

 

[DJB2034]

I didn't mean any disrespect... well, maybe I did a little. I just doubt that you understand evolution enough to reliably discredit it. Also, I know that creationists and Intelligent Design advocates like to circulate lies and half truths in order to convince their readers that evolution is false, so God must have created each individual species separately. I also assumed that you had reached the conclusions which you proposed as facts in your first post by reiterating arguments made by these people, who I assume you have read and whose opinions you probably respect.

All that Intelligent Design or creationism is about is manipulating the facts, manipulating the logic, manipulating the science in order to make it fit their presupposed conclusion, rather than let the evidence lead them. They start right off the bat and say "the world was made in six days. God created Adam and Eve as the first people. Then a flood wiped out humanity and now we are now descendants of Noah, who was a descendant of Adam. That is the truth." Then, in order to maintain this as truth in the face of scientific evidence which contradicts it (evolution), their next task becomes clear: discredit evolution. And that is what they are doing, and are actually convincing a lot of people, not only that evolution is false, but also that science is a threat to Christianity, which is a terrible perception for people to have. It is the opposite of what belongs in schools, or anywhere that people respect their intelligence. Creationism is a political movement; not an intellectual or scientific one. And it is rotting peoples' minds.

Now before I meet your challenge, I just want to point out that the only difference between macroevolution and microevolution is the amount of time over which a species is evolving (and species are constantly evolving). Evolution is not a step-by-step process whereby one species morphs into another... It is more like a tree, with multiple branches coming off one prior branch, and other ones getting cut off. One species becomes two when its members become unable to mate with certain kinds of their own. The two then evolve differently, and once they can no longer create offspring with each other that are fertile, they are considered two separate species and evolve differently. This happens with bacterial life, plant life, and animal life. Anything that is biological or that is living is subject to descent with modification, including us. Thus, evolution is an all-encompassing fundamental aspect of nature, and macroevolution is simply a measure of how drastically a species in its present form has changed from its roots.

You asked me to present you with the most compelling evidence for macroevolution. The most compelling evidence to me is philosophical: If species evolve (and they do... you said so yourself) and if each organism that ever existed and that will ever exist is a result of the genes of its predecessor or predecessors... Then the logical conclusion is that over time, species will continue to pass on these genes, which vary slightly, until the organisms with genes that are beneficial to them are the ones that live, and pass on these genes. And because of speciation (the creation of a new species by its inability to mate with certain kinds of its own), new species will come into existence.... These will then over time continue to adapt and change, in response to their environment, and eventually a species will be undistinguishable from where it branched off. That's philosophical. I would also mention the legged whales, the neanderthals and homo erectus, the intermediate fossils of reptiles (dinosaurs) to birds, as well as reptiles to mammals, but I'm not here to give you a century's worth of knowledge in one post. Ultimately, there are things about evolution that I don't know, and it is up to you to seek them out, unbiased. I can't help you if you are just uninterested. But if you are, here are 29 evidence for evolution presented by mainstream scientists: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I will warn you, it's not a light read, but you might want to skim it over or something, I dunno. It's up to you.

And, just because you said you didn't want me to... Here is a quote I pulled:

"The theory of universal gravitation is also independent of the specific explanatory mechanism for gravity, and in fact Newton never gave a mechanism for gravity. Why does the force between two masses follow the inverse square law and not another law (perhaps an inverse cube law)? It took nearly 300 years before any plausible mechanisms for gravity were proposed (by quantum field theorists). None of these proposed mechanisms currently have any experimental support. Additionally, theories of gravity are strictly dependent upon the concept of mass, and there currently is no empirically supported mechanism for giving mass to matter. Charles Darwin is considered such a great scientific mind because, unlike Newton and Einstein who proposed only descriptive theories, Darwin proposed both a descriptive theory and a plausible mechanism. That mechanism is, of course, heritable variation with natural selection."