Contemporary Evolutionary Theory: Incompatible with Theism?

[Kurieuo]

I open this new thread with the best intentions to get to the heart of an issue.

There are several respected members here on the board who support "evolution" (however one might understand "evolution").
First and foremost, these are brothers and sisters in Christ and I do not question their salvation.

BUT, it seems to me what they would support as "evolution" is in fact diametrically opposed to what their secular counterparts would support.
Such that there is a major conflict at a foundational philosophical level between Theistic Evolution and Naturalistic Evolution.
To put a different way -- one side says "evolution is guided" whereas the other side believes "evolution is unguided."
Meanwhile each believe that what they believe in is "evolution".

Before responding please watch a 10 minute piece by Alvin Plantinga (from 13m45s to about 22m10s).
http://youtu.be/rbjp9PrtPS8?t=13m45s

Many scientists and a modern education promote Darwinian evolution and contemporary forms of evolution as being unguided.
Indeed, while many dislike on both sides may dislike Dawkins, he is nonetheless qualified to speak.
AND, that evolution is entirely unguided is what Richard Dawkins seeks out to reveal in his book the The Blind Watchmaker.

So a question I have to Theistic Evolutionists (I have NeoX and PaulS in mind) is, do you seriously believe you support evolution in the same sense that Dawkin's and many secular scientists would support it?
And a follow-on question is, where do you draw the line and why?

[neo-x]

Thanks for opening the thread K.

If I may, I'd say Plantinga draws the same false fence, Dawkins draws...I think there is a third category in between the two sides. People like me who are theists and yet don't hold that evolution was necessarily guided. That holding to an unguided evolution theory is not anti-christian belief, its is only against a creationist belief. And that is why, in the past, I have been open of my assertion that the genesis story is simply a story.

And I don't think evolution is guided. To further explain, God may know the outcome of such random process but that doesn't make the process guided.

To be more frank there is nothing I disagree on evolution science (as that is quite solid), with Dawkins or any other secular scientists, for which we have proof of. Infact I agree with them, evolution is not guided. My disagreement with these individuals stems when they use unguided evolution to justify the lack of existence of God, which while is against the common held beliefs of a creationist or a theist in general, doesn't necessarily warrant such a claim (and that is also why I don't agree with Plantinga premise).

This doesn't have to be unguided = atheist, guided = theist.

I don't think all that which exists could exist on its own. I do think God is needed to produce matter and energy or the laws which might be needed to execute such chain of events. I just don't think he has to be so actively participating (or guiding) in the forming of this universe or life on this planet. It is not necessarily needed. Once he made the laws of physics, Gravity and other forces can function on their own, creating universes on their own. And so is evolution. If the laws are established evolution can and will happen, life out of a soup as you would say.

When Christians usually use the words guided evolution, that means, as Plantinga also says, God is actively introducing mutations and shaping evolution where He wants it to go. I disagree with it. There are so many outcomes of evolution and genetics which is against the nature of God, that I can't think how God can actively introduce such and such mutations, anomalies etc. It doesn't make any sense.

On the other hand, unguided evolution doesn't prove there is no God. It only goes against the traditional belief of Christianity and other theistic religions, which show God making mankind special. That religions so much rely on creation stories and some even make it, like in Christianity, about one's salvation, that one could say that holding to an unguided evolution theory, you are holding to just an anti-christian or unchristian belief, as both Dawkins or Plantinga would say.

I would also say that creation stories and evolution don't go together. There was a time when I thought it did but the more I studied the more conflicts I found in between both ideas.

Please let me know if you want me to elaborate further. Thanks.

[Silvertusk]

I would disagree with Neo here. I would say that the outcome is assured but God may use evolution to enforce free will in the universe. The random aspect of evolution is whether mutations have any beneficial benefit to the organism or not, not whether the actual mutations themselves are random. This is a philosophical position, not a scientific one.

[neo-x]

Hi Silver, i don't see how free will has any effect in mutations? can you please share why you think its important to what I wrote?

[Silvertusk]

This is something I have stressed before and it is born out by something C.S Lewis said in his "Problem of pain" book. For instance God does not allow the laws of physics to change everytime someone does a bad thing in order to prevent that thing from happening (excluding miracles of course) - as this will infringe on people's freewill. Therefore there are set physical laws established by God so that we have boundaries to make choices against. One of the offshoots of these physical laws could well be that evolution occurs - given the correct material. So I do not have a problem with evolution being true - if It is true. What I would say that it would certainly not be random. Mutations, whether there are beneficial or not for organisms is random but the mutations themselves might not be and science itself does not cover that. That, like I said is a philosophical statement.

[neo-x]

This is something I have stressed before and it is born out by something C.S Lewis said in his "Problem of pain" book. For instance God does not allow the laws of physics to change everytime someone does a bad thing in order to prevent that thing from happening (excluding miracles of course) - as this will infringe on people's freewill. Therefore there are set physical laws established by God so that we have boundaries to make choices against. One of the offshoots of these physical laws could well be that evolution occurs - given the correct material. So I do not have a problem with evolution being true - if It is true. What I would say that it would certainly not be random. Mutations, whether there are beneficial or not for organisms is random but the mutations themselves might not be and science itself does not cover that. That, like I said is a philosophical statement.

Thank you for clarifying bro. I don't agree with it but we can move forward.

[PaulSacramento]

I have no problem with the view that God has endowed life with the ability to evolve so that it can adapt and survive.
It doesn't matter what CAUSES the evolution, it just matters that it does happen and I believe that God is the why.

[DonkeyJaw]

Can you believe in evolution and also believe in Christ?

Judging by Christ's words in Mark and Luke and I think Matthew, I would say you can believe whatever you want but Christ confirmed the "Creation" and "Foundation" of the world at the time of Adam, Eve and Abel. Also, Exodus reiterates that God made the world in 6 days (literal days).

I don't have the answers to the sun being made after light and all of that but I assure you, Richard Dawkins doesn't have a clue. The Glory of God replacing the light of the sun and moon in Revelation 21 is one indicator that the sun is not necessary for light, especially if God was walking in the Garden with Adam. I don't think we understand what the Creation (that now groans since the fall) was like-especially before precipitation. Then again, I believe the Genesis account that was penned by Moses who wrote of Jesus, later confirmed by Jesus.

I would guess that people that believe in evolution that profess to be Christian may also say the flood never happened and the other miracles in the Bible can naturally be explained?

Evolution was the way to explain the world without God and to remove accountability and the necessity for a Savior. I don't care what people talk themselves into these days to agree with "Science" (the new priesthood from the middle ages) but to say God let man evolve is to call Him a liar and that we are neither Created nor made in the image of God.

Just my opinion.

[abelcainsbrother]

I actually think atheists like Richard Dawkins did us Christians a favor if we ever took the time to actually examine the evidence for evolution because if you did you'd realize how the evidence they put out as evidence for evolution does not in noway show scientifically that life evolves.I believe despite this evolution has effected Christians to the point that they have conceded defeat jand allowed evolution too much credit.Christians seem to be afraid of evolution for some reason.

Biut the fact is that despite how evolution has effected our society it is not as proven as they make it out to be.Christians have been fighting evolution with the wrong creation theory but the Gap theory has always been there,but got overlooked by more popular creation theories.The evidence in the earth already proves it true and the only way evolution could defeat it,is to actually show us life evolves instead of using reproduction and adaptation as evidence and they cannot do it,so the Gap theory wins.

We Christians need to understand evolution in order to understand its weaknesses and then we need to attack it,instead of cowering in fear that it is true,it is not and God has given us an answer in his word.I reject both naturalistic evolution and theistic evolution until they can actually show scientifically that life evolves.I'd reject evolution even if I was not a creationist because of a lack of scientific evidence,but I just so happen to know about and understand the biblical gap theory and that the evidence in this earth already proves that a former world full of life perished until God created this world in Genesis 1.

And until science can prove life evolves there is no reason for me to believe the life that lived in the former world evolved into the life in this world.The Gap theory defeated evolution in debates in the 1980's and it still does today far more than any of the other creation theories.Even young earthers are starting to become effected by evolution and it needs to stop.

[PaulSacramento]

I actually think atheists like Richard Dawkins did us Christians a favor if we ever took the time to actually examine the evidence for evolution because if you did you'd realize how the evidence they put out as evidence for evolution does not in noway show scientifically that life evolves.I believe despite this evolution has effected Christians to the point that they have conceded defeat jand allowed evolution too much credit.Christians seem to be afraid of evolution for some reason.

Biut the fact is that despite how evolution has effected our society it is not as proven as they make it out to be.Christians have been fighting evolution with the wrong creation theory but the Gap theory has always been there,but got overlooked by more popular creation theories.The evidence in the earth already proves it true and the only way evolution could defeat it,is to actually show us life evolves instead of using reproduction and adaptation as evidence and they cannot do it,so the Gap theory wins.

We Christians need to understand evolution in order to understand its weaknesses and then we need to attack it,instead of cowering in fear that it is true,it is not and God has given us an answer in his word.I reject both naturalistic evolution and theistic evolution until they can actually show scientifically that life evolves.I'd reject evolution even if I was not a creationist because of a lack of scientific evidence,but I just so happen to know about and understand the biblical gap theory and that the evidence in this earth already proves that a former world full of life perished until God created this world in Genesis 1.

And until science can prove life evolves there is no reason for me to believe the life that lived in the former world evolved into the life in this world.The Gap theory defeated evolution in debates in the 1980's and it still does today far more than any of the other creation theories.Even young earthers are starting to become effected by evolution and it needs to stop.

You really need to stop with this silliness, honestly now.
You quite clearly know very little about evolution so just stop.
Sheesh.

[PaulSacramento]

Evolution is simply change over time and it has been documented and proven over and over.
The biggest issue with evolution from a theistic view is the degree of "independence" that it may have.
IF evolution is strictly by natural selection and is a result of purely random chance then, according to some, it puts in question God's involvement in creation.
It doesn't BUT some seem to believe that it does.
As we know there are MANY Christians that are able to reconcile evolution with belief in God creating the universe.
It seems to me that people that tend to be against evolution are so because they believe it undermines what the bible says ( it doesn't) and God's sovereignty over creation ( it doesn't) BUT what they really seem to be against is the Darwinian view that evolution is without purpose and based solely on chance.

[PaulSacramento]

http://biologos.org/blog/from-the-archi ... oevolution

In our last two BioLogos podcasts, we looked at the question of transitional fossils and the genetic evidence for evolution. In our final installment of this three part series, we move on to the question of speciation and macroevolution. A common challenge to evolutionary theory is that while life does indeed change over time (what is known as microevolution), no one has ever seen one species evolve into another species (macroevolution). For example, no one has seen a dog evolve into something other than a dog. Because speciation has never been observed, and because science is based on observation, evolution cannot be considered scientific.
In fact, examples of speciation have been observed by scientists. We must also remember that we are able to observe just a tiny window of the long history of life on Earth, and the fact that any speciation has been noted at all is impressive indeed.
Transcript
It’s pretty clear to most of us that life can change over time. For those who aren’t convinced, just take a quick trip to your local animal shelter. Each of the dog breeds there, from the Great Dane to the Chihuahua, descended from a single ancestral population. As you probably already know, that ancestral group was a wolf-like species. -How did these drastic changes take place? Well, basically, genetic variation within that original population was acted upon by selective forces. Now, just to be clear, the selection at work here wasn’t natural. It was the result of breeding done over hundreds of years. But the basic principle is the same. Genetic variation plus some sort of selection results in genetic change. This is evolution.
For the most part we are ok with accepting this. Yet many people still have a problem with the Theory of Evolution. Those suspicious of evolutionary Theory generally split evolution into two categories. Instead of arguing that evolution is completely impossible, they will say something like, “I know microevolution is real, but I just can’t accept macroevolution.”
Kent Hovind, an especially outspoken opponent of evolutionary theory, often makes this argument in his presentations:
“Maybe you’re talking about macroevolution. That’s where an animal changes into a different kind of animal. Nobody’s ever seen that. Nobody’s seen a dog produce a non-dog. I mean you may get a big dog or a little dog, I understand, but you’re going to get a dog, okay?” (source)
But what does this mean? What is the difference between micro and macroevolution anyway, and why is one of them ok while the other is condemned?
Well, like many terms used in the evolution debate, the definitions tend to differ depending on who you talk to. This can make rational discussion difficult. Most opponents of evolution, like Kent Hovind, say that macroevolution refers to one “type” or “kind” of organism evolving into another “kind”. Microevolution, they might say, is evolution within a “kind”. Evolution of one dog breed into another, they would say, is microevolution. Evolution of a “dog into a non-dog”, as Hovind puts it, would be “macroevolution.”’
One big problem with this argument is that “kind” is not clearly defined. It is a subjective term referring to organisms that seem similar to each other. Now, this is a definition that can easily be manipulated. And it doesn’t work very well when asking scientific questions. Because there is disagreement about what they actually mean, the terms micro and macroevolution aren’t often used in scientific literature. But when biologists do refer to “macroevolution”, most define it as “evolution above the species level”.
(Sources: http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib200a/l ... lution.pdf, http://www.nescent.org/media/NABT/, http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... tion.shtml, http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleo ... ution.html)
In other words, at the smallest scale, macroevolution is the development of a new species. This definition is more useful because you can objectively determine whether two organisms are members the same species, but “kind” has no specific definition.
So what does “species” mean anyway? How is it different from “kind?” Well, the term species can be hard to define. Life is complex, and categorizing it into clear groups can be tricky. The currently accepted definition of species comes from what we call the “biological species concept.” Basically, the biological species concept says that a species is made of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature.
So, two populations that cannot mate to produce successful offspring are by definition separate species. Now, this definition doesn’t always work. For example, when you have a species that reproduces asexually, finding the boundaries between species can be a little tricky. But in most cases it does a pretty good job. It’s a good way to objectively determine where one species stops and another one begins.
The Biological Species Concept is especially useful when you have two species that look and act very similar. Eastern and Western Meadowlarks are a good example of this. They look almost exactly the same. But they cannot interbreed successfully. Therefore, they are separate species. This definition also helps when we study evolution. Where can we draw the line between microevolution and macroevolution? Well, it’s never easy, but having a working definition of this thing called a species helps out a lot. When enough genetic changes accumulate in a population, eventually it loses the ability to mate with others of its species. Then, by definition, it becomes a new species. In other words, macroevolution has occurred.
As we just discussed, many critics claim that macroevolution can never happen—one species can never cross over to become another one. This statement might sound valid, but a little bit of investigation shows that it is not well supported by evidence. For one thing, the only difference between micro and macroevolution is scope. When enough micro changes accumulate, a population will eventually lose its ability to interbreed with other members of its species. At this point, we say that macroevolution has occurred.
The same processes—random mutation and natural selection—cause both micro and macro evolution. There are no invisible boundaries that prevent organisms from evolving into new species. It just takes time. Usually, the amount time required for macroevolution to occur is significant—on the order of thousands or millions of years. That’s why you don’t normally see brand new forms of life appear every time you step out your front door. And that’s also why some people think that speciation never happens at all.
But sometimes macroevolution doesn’t take that much time. In fact, the evolution of new species sometimes happens so quickly that we can actually see it take place! Let’s look at a few recent examples.
Biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant had been studying finches since 1973. They lived on an island called Daphne Major in the Galapagos. It was here that they conducted their studies. When they first began their studies, only two species of Finch lived on Daphne Major: the medium ground finch and the cactus finch. But, in 1981, Peter and Rosemary noticed that an odd new finch had immigrated to the island. It was a hybrid, a mix between a cactus finch and a medium ground finch. It didn’t quite fit in with the other birds. The odd misfit had an extra large beak, an unusual hybrid genome, and a new kind of song. But somehow he was still able to find a mate. The female was also a bit of a misfit and had some hybrid chromosomes of her own. So their offspring were very different from the other birds on the island.
Rosemary and Peter continued to carefully watch the odd hybrid line. They wondered if the birds would become isolated from the other finch species on the island or if they would eventually re-assimilate. After four finch generations, a drought killed off many of the birds on Daphne Major. In fact, almost the entire hybrid line was exterminated. Only a brother and sister pair remained. The two family members mated with each other, producing offspring that were even more unique than their parent line. From that point on, as far as biologists Peter and Rosemary could tell, the odd population of finches mated only with each other. They were never seen to breed with the cactus finches or the medium ground finches on the island. The finches with the strange song had become a brand new species.
(Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/48/20141.full)
Another example of speciation, or macroevolution, also took place on an island—this time, on the beautiful Portuguese island of Madeira. According to history books, the Island of Madeira was colonized by the Portuguese about 600 years ago. The colonizers brought with them a few unassuming European House Mice, which they accidentally left on the island. It’s also possible that a group of Portuguese House Mice was dropped off later on.
Recently, Britton-Davidian, an evolutionary biologist at University Montpellier 2 in France, decided to collect samples of the Madeira mice and see how those original populations had changed over time. What she found was surprising. Rather than just one or two species of mouse, she found several. In only a few hundred years, the original populations of Mice had separated into six genetically unique species. The first mouse populations had 40 chromosomes altogether. But the new ones were quite different. Each new variety had its own unique combination of chromosomes, which ranged in number from 22 to 30.
What seems to have happened is that, over time, the mice spread out across the island and split into separate groups. Madeira is a rugged volcanic island with crags and cliffs. So it makes sense that this would have been easy to do. There were many isolated corners for the mice to occupy. Over time, random mutations occurred—some chromosomes became fused together.
Now, In order to reproduce successfully, both parents must have the same number of chromosomes. So when a population develops a chromosome fusion, suddenly that group cannot mate with the other members of its species. It becomes a brand new species. That’s exactly what happened on Madeira. And because of this phenomenon, 6 new species evolved from just 1 or 2 in an extremely short amount of time.
(Sources: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 345.x/full, http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articl ... mice.shtml, http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v99/n ... 1021a.html)
Another fascinating example of macroevolution was recently observed by researchers at Pennsylvania State University. This time, two species combined to make a single new one. In 1997, researchers at Penn State noticed a fruit maggot infestation on some recently introduced Asian Honeysuckle bushes. They decided to investigate the Honeysuckle fly population and determine how it was related to the other flies nearby. When they examined the honeysuckle fly’s genes, the researchers discovered something interesting. The fly appeared to be a hybrid of two native species—the blueberry fly and the snowberry fly.
But the honeysuckle fly’s genetic material was not an exact balance between that of the two parent species. The ratios of DNA varied from fly to fly. This showed the researchers that the honeysuckle flies had been breeding amongst themselves for many generations—probably at least 100. Also, they found that the Honeysuckle Flies were very unlikely to breed with any other species. They bred only on their host Honeysuckle plants. So they weren’t likely to mix with flies that lived on a different host.
According to Dr. Dietmar Schwarz, post-doctoral researcher in entomology, as far as the researchers can tell, “The new species is already reproductively isolated. They seem to be in a niche on the brushy honeysuckle where the parent species cannot compete."
(Source: http://www.psiee.psu.edu/news/2005_news ... nsects.asp)
While this kind of speciation—two species hybridizing to create a new one—seems odd, it is a significant mechanism of macroevolution. And it’s especially common in plants. In fact, a new species of weed recently arose this way in Great Britain. In 1991, Richard Abbot, a plant evolutionary biologist from St. Andrews University, noticed an unusual weed growing next to a car park in York. He discovered that the species, an unassuming scruffy weed, was a natural hybrid between the common groundsel and the Oxford ragwort, a plant that was introduced to Britain only 300 years ago. The York Groundsel lives in a different niche, or microenvironment, than either of its parent species. It is able to breed and reproduce, but only with other York Groundsel plants. It cannot successfully reproduce with any other species, including either of its parent plants. Thus, by definition, the York Groundsel is its own new species.
(Sources: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/plan ... lution.pdf, http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v69/n ... 2147a.html)
So, as we have seen, macroevolution is an established process. Usually it takes thousands of years to occur, but sometimes we get lucky and catch it in the act. When Kent Hovind said that, “no one has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog” he was technically quite correct. But this statement infers that macroevolution means a drastic and obvious change from one type of organism into another. Those who think this way believe that macroevolution is something like two dogs breeding to suddenly produce a cat, or two guinea pigs mating to produce a mouse.
But this is not how evolution works at all. Over millions of years, a dog-like animal may indeed evolve into a something that looks completely unlike a dog. However, this is not something that we would expect to be able to observe. It just takes too much time. To put the scale of evolution into perspective, consider this. If the average lifespan of a United Stated citizen, 78 years, were a single minute, then single-celled life has been around for nearly 100 years. On this scale, all we get to see is one minute. And even in that time frame we sometimes see new species forming. God’s time is not our time and we tend to forget this. What we do expect to observe is a very slow step-by-step accumulation of tiny genetic changes that eventually result in speciation. And indeed, as we discussed today, this is exactly the sort of evidence revealed in nature.
So, macroevolution is not a “myth” by any means. It is supported by a vast amount of evidence. That evidence includes the fossil record and genetics, as discussed in previous BioLogos podcasts, and, when we get lucky, direct observation of speciation. God, being who God is, could conceivably have created species out of thin air in a single instant. But what if instead if God created and sustained the process by which new species are created? Does that make him less powerful or less "god-like"? Is it somehow more God’s process if it happened in an instant, than it is if it happened over a long period of time? Presumably even if it happened in an instant, it would still happen by some sort of process—only faster.
God’s time is not our time, and perhaps it’s a good idea for all of us to simply stand back in amazement while God does God’s work in God’s time through God’s process.

[DonkeyJaw]

Evolution is simply change over time and it has been documented and proven over and over.
The biggest issue with evolution from a theistic view is the degree of "independence" that it may have.
IF evolution is strictly by natural selection and is a result of purely random chance then, according to some, it puts in question God's involvement in creation.
It doesn't BUT some seem to believe that it does.
As we know there are MANY Christians that are able to reconcile evolution with belief in God creating the universe.
It seems to me that people that tend to be against evolution are so because they believe it undermines what the bible says ( it doesn't) and God's sovereignty over creation ( it doesn't) BUT what they really seem to be against is the Darwinian view that evolution is without purpose and based solely on chance.

I would say that it does undermine what the Bible says. Jesus spoke of the Creation, Adam and Eve and the flood of Noah. To say we are not Created in the image of God but rather (whether by chance or "directed chance" or whatever people say) macro evolution, is to call Jesus Christ either a liar, uneducated, misinformed or just plain wrong.

I don't know how old "In the beginning" was when the Spirit of God was upon the waters before He formed the earth but to say we evolved from a different species (any macro that is not "after its own kind") is to put man's foolishness above the wisdom and Word of God. Can't have your cake and eat it, too. I know modern people would love that but it simply isn't so. Believe God or believe man-or at least say what it really means in that Christ either didn't say what He did, was misinformed or lied. I can't reconcile it any other way.

If someone can explain to me how to believe the Bible and reconcile that with macro evolution, I would love to hear it.

[PaulSacramento]

Evolution is simply change over time and it has been documented and proven over and over.
The biggest issue with evolution from a theistic view is the degree of "independence" that it may have.
IF evolution is strictly by natural selection and is a result of purely random chance then, according to some, it puts in question God's involvement in creation.
It doesn't BUT some seem to believe that it does.
As we know there are MANY Christians that are able to reconcile evolution with belief in God creating the universe.
It seems to me that people that tend to be against evolution are so because they believe it undermines what the bible says ( it doesn't) and God's sovereignty over creation ( it doesn't) BUT what they really seem to be against is the Darwinian view that evolution is without purpose and based solely on chance.

I would say that it does undermine what the Bible says. Jesus spoke of the Creation, Adam and Eve and the flood of Noah. To say we are not Created in the image of God but rather (whether by chance or "directed chance" or whatever people say) macro evolution, is to call Jesus Christ either a liar, uneducated, misinformed or just plain wrong.

I don't know how old "In the beginning" was when the Spirit of God was upon the waters before He formed the earth but to say we evolved from a different species (any macro that is not "after its own kind") is to put man's foolishness above the wisdom and Word of God. Can't have your cake and eat it, too. I know modern people would love that but it simply isn't so. Believe God or believe man-or at least say what it really means in that Christ either didn't say what He did, was misinformed or lied. I can't reconcile it any other way.

If someone can explain to me how to believe the Bible and reconcile that with macro evolution, I would love to hear it.

what does "created in the image of God" mean to you?

Personally, to believe that God would NOT have given life the ability to evolve and adapt seems like an insult to God.

[abelcainsbrother]

Paul what is micro-evolution?If micro revolution is variations in reproduction then how is it evidence life evolves?Animal breeders were aware of variations in reproduction long before Charles Darwin as dogs were bred from wolves long before evolution and yet you are accepting it as evidence life evolves.It is not life evolving at all.Nobody denies there is variation in reproduction what we want is scientific evidence life evolves and there is none because evolution happens over such long periods of time that it cannot be observed,yet you and others are believing that life evolves by faith,instead of God created kinds to produce after their kind which is all that we observe and actually see,nobody has ever seen or witnessed one kind of life evolve into another kind and it cannot even be demonstrated in science that it happens,people just believe them overlooking the evidence does not show life evolving.It is faith-based science.