Evidence for theistic evolution

[Kurieuo]

Thanks Neo,

I think you misunderstood the purpose of some questions.

The purpose being whether belief in common ancestry necessitates a natural evolution, or if God intervening could also be compatible with common ancestry.
Both scenarios, regardless of which is right, can be supportive of a belief in common ancestry I believe.

A relevant point though...

From One human designer I'd expect similar designs for the sake of efficiency the designer should use templates. But efficiency is a very human construct, and my contention is that God doesn't need to be efficient to save time. I used to program code and I do graphics now and we pull a lot of stuff from templates we have already created instead of making things again. But it makes no sense to me as to why God needs to do that? Is he on a deadline? Is he on a budget? because I am when I do that. Its not only a matter of reusing templates its there so we can save time, meet deadlines, save our selves some trouble.

You are correct of course, still that was like a quick "soundbite argument" to make people pause to consider.
There are many other reasons why I think such a scenario makes sense, some mentioned in my response to Morny.
And then there are reasons why I feel such is necessary over and above Naturalistic scenario.
But I've tried to choose to avoid that debate so far.

[Kurieuo]

That is really interesting stuff K, and it is a line of thought I have not explored before.

Can I ask a question and I hope it's not a stupid one but my mind is lingering on it, when did God stop creating new creatures, was that on the seventh day or did the creation process continue again after?

Well, new life is created every day via procreation and the like that I see God sustains (since I see God sustains everything in existence).
It may even be modified, perhaps through our own engineering, or adaptations (like resistances being built up) and the like.

But, creativity-wise, I see God stopped intervening after humanity.
Unless I'm mistaken, that's what I read from both science and Scripture.

May I ask what about your question was making your mind linger?

I just wondered if there was any dating evidence that shows us new animals coming into being in the fossil record that can be proved to be after humans had been created, if there has been then this puts this line of thinking into some question.
Do you see what I am trying to say?

Can anyone enlighten us on this question?

Sure, I see now. You're tying in my theory back to Scripture.
God still could have created in such a fashion if Scripture is wrong.
But, certainly if any new species arrived after humanity, then it's like a silver bullet to the Genesis creation.

[Danieltwotwenty]

That is really interesting stuff K, and it is a line of thought I have not explored before.

Can I ask a question and I hope it's not a stupid one but my mind is lingering on it, when did God stop creating new creatures, was that on the seventh day or did the creation process continue again after?

Well, new life is created every day via procreation and the like that I see God sustains (since I see God sustains everything in existence).
It may even be modified, perhaps through our own engineering, or adaptations (like resistances being built up) and the like.

But, creativity-wise, I see God stopped intervening after humanity.
Unless I'm mistaken, that's what I read from both science and Scripture.

May I ask what about your question was making your mind linger?

I just wondered if there was any dating evidence that shows us new animals coming into being in the fossil record that can be proved to be after humans had been created, if there has been then this puts this line of thinking into some question.
Do you see what I am trying to say?

Can anyone enlighten us on this question?

Sure, I see now. You're tying in my theory back to Scripture.

God still could have created in such a fashion if Scripture is wrong.
But, certainly if any new species arrived after humanity, then it's like a silver bullet to the Genesis creation.

Definitely he could have, I am really interested if anyone has an answer to this, if the answer is that there are no new unique animals discovered since humanity arrived on the scene this could also be some small evidence towards progressive creationism also, possibly?

[Kurieuo]

Definitely he could have, I am really interested if anyone has an answer to this, if the answer is that there are no new unique animals discovered since humanity arrived on the scene this could also be some small evidence towards progressive creationism also, possibly?

Woah, now you're scaring me.
Did you just say evidence for progressive creation...
Who believes that?

[Danieltwotwenty]

Definitely he could have, I am really interested if anyone has an answer to this, if the answer is that there are no new unique animals discovered since humanity arrived on the scene this could also be some small evidence towards progressive creationism also, possibly?

Woah, now you're scaring me.
Did you just say evidence for progressive creation...
Who believes that?

I am open to the possibility that I am wrong and I will try to evaluate the evidence as objectively as I can. Plus it's good exercise for the mind having to question and follow the rabbit trails.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Hey K, I have another question about kinds of animals which depending on how you view a kind as described in scripture may open up a new and interesting dialogue.

So when God made the animals according to their kind, what is the definition of kind and what examples would you consider a kinds of animals?

Cheers bro

[Kurieuo]

Hey K, I have another question about kinds of animals which depending on how you view a kind as described in scripture may open up a new and interesting dialogue.

So when God made the animals according to their kind, what is the definition of kind and what examples would you consider a kinds of animals?

Cheers bro

I've never really thought on it before.

But, as luck would have it I read an RTB article which presents some Scripture for "kind".
Going by that, I suppose it is akin to species, even as broad as genus. Other interesting stuff is said there.

I no longer really follow RTB that closely, but if you're considering other things to do with PC then obviously that'd be a good source to explore questions.
Of course always happy to share my own opinion. Do keep in mind, as much as they have their science, their mission is clearly Christian.
It was actually RTB that made me take seriously ERVs. They didn't try to smooth it over at the time. Left is as an open question. I respect that.

Also, I'm sure you've seen it before... but they have a creation timeline.
And overall picture of what we generally know from science with the days as they see in creation.

[Morny]

Evolutionary trees or cladograms could equally describe God's order of creation, what pre-existing life God drew from when bringing about something brand new.
God could also make use of multiple parts of "previous lifeforms" in creating new life.

You have lots of interesting ideas in your post ... too many for me to address in my limited time. I'm highlighting this part of your post, because I think what you're saying here is consistent with my point, i.e., I don't have scientific evidence against what I've quoted from your post.

And I'm trying to limit myself to evolution's simplest idea, viz., common descent. So hopefully, my next reply to RickD clarifies some details.

[Morny]

Which also fits into a creation model. Mammals have similar traits, so they would be grouped together. The tree groups life forms with similar traits together, because they're similar. And they could very well be similar because in general, all mammals have similar traits because they were created that way for a purpose.

The way life is grouped in the tree just shows that similar life is similar, right?

Blue whales, hog-nosed bats, and us are wildly non-similar, yet group together on those tree diagrams, because of having mammary glands and hair follicles. But throughout the entire nested hierarchy, traits have a non-trivial relationship. For example, given any animal with mammary glands, we can predict other traits ("inherited" from increasingly larger groupings in the nested hierarchy): amniote, bony vertebrae, bilateral symmetry, eukaryotic cells.

Unlike the entire set of car designs, which have multiple valid nested hierarchies, we don't see identifying biological traits destroying the clear pattern of their groupings in the hierarchy. For example, no amphibian has hair follicles.

A common ancestor, variation, and bifurcating descent predict the nested hierarchy. So actually seeing that one nested hierarchy from biological traits supports (but of course doesn't prove) the hypothesis of common descent.

[RickD]

She wrote:
Blue whales, hog-nosed bats, and us are wildly non-similar, yet group together on those tree diagrams, because of having mammary glands and hair follicles. But throughout the entire nested hierarchy, traits have a non-trivial relationship. For example, given any animal with mammary glands, we can predict other traits ("inherited" from increasingly larger groupings in the nested hierarchy): amniote, bony vertebrae, bilateral symmetry, eukaryotic cells

Mammals are grouped together because mammals have similar traits. That doesn't necessitate that they're similar because they evolved that way. They are grouped together because they are similar. You can say if all life evolved from one single celled type of life, then similar life would be grouped together.

Similar life being grouped together also fits the creation model where life was designed and created specially. And then lifeforms that were created with similar traits, are then grouped together.

She wrote:
Unlike the entire set of car designs, which have multiple valid nested hierarchies, we don't see identifying biological traits destroying the clear pattern of their groupings in the hierarchy. For example, no amphibian has hair follicles.

And again, that doesn't necessitate evolution.

She wrote:
A common ancestor, variation, and bifurcating descent predict the nested hierarchy. So actually seeing that one nested hierarchy from biological traits supports (but of course doesn't prove) the hypothesis of common descent.

Thank you for finally admitting what is extremely obvious, and what some of us have been trying to get across for quite a while now.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Hey K, I have another question about kinds of animals which depending on how you view a kind as described in scripture may open up a new and interesting dialogue.

So when God made the animals according to their kind, what is the definition of kind and what examples would you consider a kinds of animals?

Cheers bro

I've never really thought on it before.

But, as luck would have it I read an RTB article which presents some Scripture for "kind".
Going by that, I suppose it is akin to species, even as broad as genus. Other interesting stuff is said there.

I no longer really follow RTB that closely, but if you're considering other things to do with PC then obviously that'd be a good source to explore questions.
Of course always happy to share my own opinion. Do keep in mind, as much as they have their science, their mission is clearly Christian.
It was actually RTB that made me take seriously ERVs. They didn't try to smooth it over at the time. Left is as an open question. I respect that.

Also, I'm sure you've seen it before... but they have a creation timeline.
And overall picture of what we generally know from science with the days as they see in creation.

I was wondering, if "Kind" refers to species and possibly genus, how do you feel about ring species?

For example http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02

My question is if these Salamander can change to a point where they are no longer the exact same species but yet still of the same genus, isn't it possible that Homo Sapians as a species could do the same in the genus of Homo, or would you say that Homo Sapians are exempt from the natural laws of nature? If we also extend that thought from genus to family then why couldn't Hominidae and Homo Sapians have a common ancestor? If we can accept speciation in the genus, then why not the family, it is not a huge leap of logic is it?

I hope that all makes sense, I am not a biologist, just a layman, so I hope I have used terms correctly.

Thanks for the links, I am reading through the "kinds" one.

Many blessings.

[Danieltwotwenty]

If ACB you are really interested in studying the evidence for Evolutionary Theory, Neo created this thread a long time ago, it is a resource for the evidence, take your time to digest all the information there as there is a lot of papers cited, anyhow if you are actually interested here it is.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 8744&hilit
Edit by moderator-ACB, if you want to discuss anything in the thread that Dan linked, please start a separate thread. The link Dan posted is supposed to be a resource link.

Thanks

[Morny]

Mammals are grouped together because mammals have similar traits.

Building the nested hierarchy from a panoply of traits determines the groups and distinguishing traits. Mammary glands and hair follicles distinguish the commonly understood group named "mammals".

The distinction is important, because for example, the old term "lizards" did not include snakes, which we now know from the nested hierarchy (and other evidence) should include snakes. The group known by the old term "lizards" had no distinguishing traits in the sense I've been describing.

They are grouped together because they are similar.

Specifying how a 30 meter blue whale and a 1/10 ounce hog-nosed bat are "similar" is important. See above.

You can say if all life evolved from one single celled type of life, then similar life would be grouped together.

Again, specifying what "similar" means is important. Eukaryotic? Prokaryotic? Other?

Similar life being grouped together also fits the creation model where life was designed and created specially. And then lifeforms that were created with similar traits, are then grouped together.

Maybe. Let's pursue the idea. Please define what you mean by "similar", let's say for primates, i.e., what set of traits distinguishes primates from other mammals?

She wrote:
Unlike the entire set of car designs, which have multiple valid nested hierarchies, we don't see identifying biological traits destroying the clear pattern of their groupings in the hierarchy. For example, no amphibian has hair follicles.

And again, that doesn't necessitate evolution.

Do I really need to say that nothing in science can "necessitate" or prove evolution, even in theory? The nested hierarchy based on biological traits supports (is consistent with) (gives confidence in) (corroborates) the hypothesis of common descent. Hypothetico-deduction.

She wrote:
A common ancestor, variation, and bifurcating descent predict the nested hierarchy. So actually seeing that one nested hierarchy from biological traits supports (but of course doesn't prove) the hypothesis of common descent.

Thank you for finally admitting what is extremely obvious, and what some of us have been trying to get across for quite a while now.

"Finally admitting"?! Huh? In any event, so you do agree that the nested hierarchy supports the hypothesis of common descent?

[Kurieuo]

Hey K, I have another question about kinds of animals which depending on how you view a kind as described in scripture may open up a new and interesting dialogue.

So when God made the animals according to their kind, what is the definition of kind and what examples would you consider a kinds of animals?

Cheers bro

I've never really thought on it before.

But, as luck would have it I read an RTB article which presents some Scripture for "kind".
Going by that, I suppose it is akin to species, even as broad as genus. Other interesting stuff is said there.

I no longer really follow RTB that closely, but if you're considering other things to do with PC then obviously that'd be a good source to explore questions.
Of course always happy to share my own opinion. Do keep in mind, as much as they have their science, their mission is clearly Christian.
It was actually RTB that made me take seriously ERVs. They didn't try to smooth it over at the time. Left is as an open question. I respect that.

Also, I'm sure you've seen it before... but they have a creation timeline.
And overall picture of what we generally know from science with the days as they see in creation.

I was wondering, if "Kind" refers to species and possibly genus, how do you feel about ring species?

For example http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02

You know, it is quite difficult to categorise species.
Do we go by how they look visually?
Should we determine species by whether they can reproduce?
Or in our modern day should we look at the DNA which contains information about a life form?

Personally, I think DNA is a very good method.
Rather than determining a species by its cover, you get to read the actual biological information.
Seems to me less superficial and less prone to subjective opinion.

For example, consider butterflies. Many had been lumped together visually as the same species.
But, when looking at the DNA they were quite different. Thus, many considered the same species were now split into multiple species.
http://news.yahoo.com/butterfly-species ... 03861.html

Likewise, consider the spiders at your same site: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41
The spiders there look quite visually different, but can interbreed so are considered the same species.

"Ring species" may present a problem for speciation -- in that there is actual disagreement about whether they all be considered the same species or as separate species.
Does the fact A can breed with B but not C, while A and C can breed but not B and C mean they all be considered the same species?

I think it is here we're actually seeing all sorts of flavors to life, and the confusion is coming because we're trying to create constructs and boxes around everything.
Seems to be human nature. Makes us feel comfortable have boxes to categorise things into.
Though it does have benefit in being able to communicate about such things.
Gives us a language to use and understand.

On that same spider link, it is important to keep in mind their reminder: "There are lots of other places where the boundary of a species is blurred. It's not so surprising that these blurry places exist — after all, the idea of a species is something that we humans invented for our own convenience!"

If science can't settle upon how "ring species" and how species should be defined (not to mention how we should define species), then I'm not sure "kinds" could be settled either.
A thought that came to me here, is God may have mixed a bit of A with B that was incompatible with C, and mixed enough of B with C that made C incompatible with A.
Like a painter mixes their paints to great creative effect, maybe that is suggestive of God just mixing our biology together.
Just providing a different take to it all, and it helps to understand why we can run into much difficulty categorising life.

I see no reason why ring species couldn't be classified under "kind"?
Genesis actually seems quite clear about the "kinds" it intended on each day.
For example, seed bearing plants after their kind on day 3; winged birds after its kind on day 5; cattle, creeping things, beasts of the field (i.e., meat eaters ) after their kind on day 6.

Obviously its not given an exact run down, that's not the purpose of Genesis.
However, there is enough detail to understand what is intended by "kind" I suppose.

My question is if these Gecko's can change to a point where they are no longer the same species but yet the same genus, isn't it possible that Homo Sapians in the genus of Homo could also do the same, or would you say that Homo Sapians are exempt from the natural laws of nature?

I'm not sure I fully understand your question.
You'll need to unpack it into separate questions.

Homo sapiens are not exempt from the natural laws of nature.
Why would they be? What do you mean by this?

If we also extend that thought from genus to family then why couldn't Hominidae and Homo Sapians have a common ancestor? If we can accept speciation in the genus, then why not the family, it is not a huge leap of logic is it?

What I said earlier about God taking an existing life, and then adding to and working with that to bring about something new I came to the conclusion would be "common ancestry."
Only God is the one doing the mixing and bringing about a new life form that also has genetically new information and the like.

There is no reason why God couldn't have done the same with us modern humans.
In fact, psuedogenes and HERVs would highly suggest that such is the case.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Interesting thanks K.

I think it has cleared up some of what I was thinking, I don't have anything further to add, I think we just interpret the evidence differently and I think I understand your view more now.

I do still wonder if there has been any new unique animals that have come onto the scene after modern humans have been known to exist for, it would indeed provide some very useful information.