RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[Kurieuo]

E.g. being born of a virgin is creative, dividing the sea is creative, getting 1600 geckos from small variations here and there from the same DNA, isn't. IOW, from the scriptures atleast, that's not how God rolls.

And yet, we don't just have an abundant variety of geckos, but many different other forms of life in abundance.

To introduce Scripture into the equation, if when geckos are had they're created so abundantly, seems to fit in with other narratives like when God's gives, He gives abundantly. Whether we're talking God's covenant with Abraham, Israel being freed from Egypt (what they took with them), the promised land which wasn't just a wasteland, or Paul talking of our giving and God's (2 Cor 9:7-8), or eternal life, it seems when God gives He loves to do so cheerfully and abundantly.

That said, I'd be very doubtful whether God created all known gecko species we see, birds, cats, dogs -- and indeed, many are within range of a natural variation, cross-breeding and even witnessed (e.g., like wolf and coyotes crossing, and other hybrids). It is not necessary to believe if God punctuated many diverse species, He created ex nihilo absolutely all variations and combinations of species; only merely punctuated certain "original" forms. That is what I believe anyhow.

[neo-x]

Crochet, I'd really think you need to see this video, if it helps you understand the pov from this side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2casXWiFOE

[neo-x]

E.g. being born of a virgin is creative, dividing the sea is creative, getting 1600 geckos from small variations here and there from the same DNA, isn't. IOW, from the scriptures atleast, that's not how God rolls.

And yet, we don't just have an abundant variety of geckos, but many different other forms of life in abundance.

To introduce Scripture into the equation, if when geckos are had they're created so abundantly, seems to fit in with other narratives like when God's gives, He gives abundantly. Whether we're talking God's covenant with Abraham, Israel being freed from Egypt (what they took with them), the promised land which wasn't just a wasteland, or Paul talking of our giving and God's (2 Cor 9:7-8), or eternal life, it seems when God gives He loves to do so cheerfully and abundantly.

That said, I'd be very doubtful whether God created all known gecko species we see, birds, cats, dogs -- and indeed, many are within range of a natural variation, cross-breeding and even witnessed (e.g., like wolf and coyotes crossing, and other hybrids). It is not necessary to believe if God punctuated many diverse species, He created ex nihilo absolutely all variations and combinations of species; only merely punctuated certain "original" forms. That is what I believe anyhow.

In one respect I can't disagree with that because there is nothing to disagree on if that is indeed how things happened. However, if I have an option to push into mystery or think of an empirical way which more than adequately answers the same question. I'd go with the latter.

Do you think that if God hadn't punctuated the original forms the original forms themselves couldn't have formed? Is that your belief?

[neo-x]

Also, watch this video, it shows in a layman view what we now know in science and the evidence for evolution that we have, by J. Coyne.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqxCoibTtaI

Edit: And why some of the things being claimed here, like "speciation is a myth" and the like are absolute nonsense.

[hughfarey]

I think we evolutionists have at least helped crochet, if not quite abelcainsbrother, to see that any interpretation of the bible necessarily includes the development of many different species from any original 'kind', although I think they still have difficulty in imagining that the frog and salamander kind could be genealogically related, so they think God must have created the frog kind and the salamander kind separately. Is that correct?

I'm just wondering, hypothetically to those who don't believe God created various species, what would species look like if God did punctuate life on Earth: similar or dissimilar? Is there any reason why there wouldn't be similar characteristics and morphologies between species?

How can a scientist examining frogs and salamanders today distinguish between their being separately created, or descended from a common ancestor? That's a very interesting question. Is there anything about their obvious similarities that would convince someone wholly unfamiliar with the past that they were more likely to have a common ancestor than to have been separately created? After all, a designer might well have used exactly the same design for elements common to both, so any similarities between them, even at the DNA level, would not be unexpected even in separately created organisms.

I think there are two lines of evidence that help me to opt for a common ancestry. The first is those examples of extremely poor design, which defy an intelligence behind independent creation, but fit common descent rather well. Two often cited examples are the laryngeal nerves and the vas deferens tubes, but is spectacularly demonstrated in the distortions of the segments or arthropods to produce the complications of insect heads. Most organisms have some clumsy designs that make better sense as being slowly derived from an ancestor who was a different shape than as being independently created.

The other evidence of common descent is in all that DNA in every organism which does nothing at all. All organisms have huge lengths of DNA which has no expression, and yet an examination of it enables us to assemble a family tree identical to that which can be derived from the DNA which is expressed. In other words, the putative independent creator not only used similar designs to produce similar functions, which is not very surprising, but also embedded within each organism an elaborate pretence of common descent, of no practical use, which to me smacks of deceitfulness. It is an exact equivalent of the idea that God planted 'fossils' in rocks simply to give an illusion of age in order to test our faith in the literal accuracy of Genesis. Which I don't accept.

I'm not phased by the multiplicity of geckos either way. Both a spontaneously creative God and an evolutionary God are clearly fond of geckos - even more so of beetles - and the world as it is turns out to suit such diversity well. However, loosely connected to this contemplation of the creative imagination of God is also the problem not of the multiplicity of current forms, but the vastly greater multiplicity of extinct forms, all of which make perfect sense as stages in an evolutionary process, but seem disgracefully wasteful from the viewpoint of independent creation.

[Kurieuo]

@Neo, I'll respond more later, and after I watch the video.

@Hugh, regarding your last paragraph, a question I have. Do you think that the stages in an evolutionary process, which I understand as species transitioning into others throughout Earth's history, that the environment at the time of these evolving new forms of life was quite suitable to such?

[RickD]

hugh wrote:
I'm not phased by the multiplicity of geckos either way. Both a spontaneously creative God and an evolutionary God are clearly fond of geckos - even more so of beetles - and the world as it is turns out to suit such diversity well. However, loosely connected to this contemplation of the creative imagination of God is also the problem not of the multiplicity of current forms, but the vastly greater multiplicity of extinct forms, all of which make perfect sense as stages in an evolutionary process, but seem disgracefully wasteful from the viewpoint of independent creation.

Seems like somebody doesn't understand progressive creationism.

[Kurieuo]

E.g. being born of a virgin is creative, dividing the sea is creative, getting 1600 geckos from small variations here and there from the same DNA, isn't. IOW, from the scriptures atleast, that's not how God rolls.

And yet, we don't just have an abundant variety of geckos, but many different other forms of life in abundance.

To introduce Scripture into the equation, if when geckos are had they're created so abundantly, seems to fit in with other narratives like when God's gives, He gives abundantly. Whether we're talking God's covenant with Abraham, Israel being freed from Egypt (what they took with them), the promised land which wasn't just a wasteland, or Paul talking of our giving and God's (2 Cor 9:7-8), or eternal life, it seems when God gives He loves to do so cheerfully and abundantly.

That said, I'd be very doubtful whether God created all known gecko species we see, birds, cats, dogs -- and indeed, many are within range of a natural variation, cross-breeding and even witnessed (e.g., like wolf and coyotes crossing, and other hybrids). It is not necessary to believe if God punctuated many diverse species, He created ex nihilo absolutely all variations and combinations of species; only merely punctuated certain "original" forms. That is what I believe anyhow.

In one respect I can't disagree with that because there is nothing to disagree on if that is indeed how things happened. However, if I have an option to push into mystery or think of an empirical way which more than adequately answers the same question. I'd go with the latter.

Do you think that if God hadn't punctuated the original forms the original forms themselves couldn't have formed? Is that your belief?

Without cross-breeding, without a pre-existing life form or forms, without initial biological information to work with, there is nothing really to mutate and therefore nothing for natural selection to select.

While many say it ought to be ejected from evolutionary science, the fact of the matter is Evolution needs something to work with or it just can't work. Some believe earth was seeded from space (panspermia). Some believe in a chemical origins of life and genetic information just built up and became more and more complex and eventually we had more complex forms life each with their own encyclopedias full of biological information. DNA, RNA, proteins, chickens or eggs. No one really knows or has a remotely working scientific theory. Such is the state of our extant knowledge regarding first life.

So then, biological evolution works once it has life to work with. Mutational changes can happen best when there is a lot of biological code to work with. The puzzle is, which remains unresolved, how did it all get there to the point that biological evolution could take over?

Believing that God punctuated life forms, seems a lot more logical to me than panspermia (which more and more scientists seem to believe in). Chemical origin of life scenarios seem to have unsolvable problems. So then, without any prior commitment to physicalism, and given I see other strong reasons to believe that God exists (and further still believe in Christ and what the Apostles' taught of Him in John 1), it doesn't seem like much for me to believe God "punctuated" life throughout Earth's history. Such a belief seems quite natural to me.

PS. I watched the video, perhaps it was for crochet? Jerry Coyne seems awfully passionate, like his friend Dawkins, but the point of some of his creationist jibes were somewhat lost on me. I don't feel much threatened by evolution or anything said. But, it did feel like he had gripes and some caricature of creationists, what they must believe in, that he was continually poking holes into. He often dabbled into philosophy of religion and theology to take some jabs. He should really just keep to his evolutionary science, let people make sense for themselves what this/that means (which is more to do with philosophy and one's worldview). Present his science, leave it at that.

[hughfarey]

Hugh, regarding your last paragraph, a question I have. Do you think that the stages in an evolutionary process, which I understand as species transitioning into others throughout Earth's history, that the environment at the time of these evolving new forms of life was quite suitable to such?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, by I think so. There have always been a variety of potentially habitable environments, but they have not always been available to living things, and have an irritating tendency to change, sometimes faster than successive generations of living things can keep up with. Evolution has been the process both of spreading, to exploit all possible habitats, and adapting to change in existing habitats, where necessary. Often biological features of an environment are as significant as the physical ones, leading to spiralling evolution between, for example, predator and prey, or organisms competing for the same resources.

Seems like somebody doesn't understand progressive creationism.

Or progressive extinctionism. Make a bunch of stuff, wipe it all out, replace it with another bunch, much the same but a bit different, wipe it out, replace, wipe it out, finally come up with what we've got today, then no need to wipe it out this time as the pinnacle of creation, man, will do it for you. Is that it? Crummy kind of God to do that, I reckon, so maybe I've got it wrong....

[Audacity]

I'm just wondering, hypothetically to those who don't believe God created various species, what would species look like if God did punctuate life on Earth: similar or dissimilar? Is there any reason why there wouldn't be similar characteristics and morphologies between species?

I assume you're talking about god plunking down various forms of organisms without any consideration as to what any of the others "look" like. I have absolutely no idea. None at all; although, it is an interesting question. In fact, it gives rise to the question of why he would bother making so many similar species. According to the Reptile Database there are more than 1,650 species of geckos in the world. Why? Why did god feel the world needed such an enormous, certainly excessive, variety? Wouldn't two or three geckos have been enough? The evolutionary forces of natural selection, which has no regard for such variety seems to be a far more sensible explanation than god plunking. I can't imagine god thinking, "Okay, just five more gecko species and then that's it . . . . . . what the heck, while I'm at it I may as well make a hundred more. . . . . or maybe two hundred. "

Well, I wouldn't say "plunking down" without "any consideration as to what any others 'look' like"... given, the person creating, if creation be true, would know what they created; they wouldn't necessarily be able to ignore previous morphological structures and the like since they know them intimately. Rather, if God created many different lifeforms, it seems to me that morphological similarities, bone structures, that there is no reason why lifeforms wouldn't look similar and possess shared characteristics.

I'm not speaking to the why of similarities, but the fact that there's so many organisms that have just enough variations among them to be sister species.

As to the diversity of similar species like geckos, well I'd think interbreeding can account for some diversity on the tips (e.g., wolf and coyote) -- although as you note there are limits.

Don't know what you mean by "diversity on the tips," but if I understand you, these would be instances of evolution, which I fully agree with. But the creationist point of view is that each of the 1,650 species of geckos in the world was separately created and put on earth by god as-is.

So then, not all we see, would be as the original "pure-blooded" seeded forms of life. All hypothetically of course, since I know you don't believe in any creation -- but if God created I also see no reason why God couldn't created numerous similar species with slightly different features, skins and like. Do you?

Of course not, but the contention that most (all?) species were put on earth as-is is a fact because the Bible says so, which one must take on faith rather than unbiased evidence, is insufficient reason. Particularly in light of a fully rational and workable mechanism, one which many creationist admit to---something has to explain the plethora of species we now have in comparison to the number of animals and such that were aboard the ark.

Also, no need to stop at geckos, there's also butterflies, all the hundreds of varieties of fish, birds and like. In fact, such beauty and diversity when watching nature shows often leaves me in awe at God's design (which is how I see it). All such might not be "pure blood" i.e., created original species, yet if God did create, then you just move the question to whether there is any reason why God shouldn't or couldn't create variations of geckos, fish, birds, etc? Must there only be one or limited diversity within similar species if creation were true?

Not at all. However, the contention that they were created essentially as-is by a god, a notion based on ancient religious writings, does not convince. The incredible number of species now on earth ("Eight million seven hundred thousand, give or take 1.3 million"), which is the issue here, is so excessive as to raise the question "WHY." Why would god find it necessary to put this many on earth? Why was it necessary to make Nephrurus amyae



when he had already made Nephrurus wheeleri?

[Audacity]

hugh wrote:
I'm not phased by the multiplicity of geckos either way. Both a spontaneously creative God and an evolutionary God are clearly fond of geckos - even more so of beetles - and the world as it is turns out to suit such diversity well. However, loosely connected to this contemplation of the creative imagination of God is also the problem not of the multiplicity of current forms, but the vastly greater multiplicity of extinct forms, all of which make perfect sense as stages in an evolutionary process, but seem disgracefully wasteful from the viewpoint of independent creation.

Seems like somebody doesn't understand progressive creationism.

Curious as to what evidence you have that supports progressive creationism. Care to share?

[RickD]

hugh wrote:
I'm not phased by the multiplicity of geckos either way. Both a spontaneously creative God and an evolutionary God are clearly fond of geckos - even more so of beetles - and the world as it is turns out to suit such diversity well. However, loosely connected to this contemplation of the creative imagination of God is also the problem not of the multiplicity of current forms, but the vastly greater multiplicity of extinct forms, all of which make perfect sense as stages in an evolutionary process, but seem disgracefully wasteful from the viewpoint of independent creation.

Seems like somebody doesn't understand progressive creationism.

Curious as to what evidence you have that supports progressive creationism. Care to share?

No. Check the home site, or reasons.org, if you really are interested.

[Kurieuo]

Hugh, regarding your last paragraph, a question I have. Do you think that the stages in an evolutionary process, which I understand as species transitioning into others throughout Earth's history, that the environment at the time of these evolving new forms of life was quite suitable to such?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, by I think so. There have always been a variety of potentially habitable environments, but they have not always been available to living things, and have an irritating tendency to change, sometimes faster than successive generations of living things can keep up with. Evolution has been the process both of spreading, to exploit all possible habitats, and adapting to change in existing habitats, where necessary. Often biological features of an environment are as significant as the physical ones, leading to spiralling evolution between, for example, predator and prey, or organisms competing for the same resources.

I really don't see the issue with extinction, not any more than the problem of evil which I'm sure you have your own solution for dealing with, right?

Such simply boils down a "why didn't God create like this" type of argument. Why did God, if he created lifeforms, create 1000s of slight variations of geckos? Why did God not create a really diverse number creatures like ones with their hair parting when they raise their tails like Moses parted the sea with his staff, or perhaps virgin births in some geckos (oh, that one doesn't work as just looked it up and some are in fact asexual and female can fertile their own eggs [sorry, I'm not a gecko nerd... yet])? Why if God created, didn't he create everything in 6 days, a God who uses millions of years is a weak God (do such not realise what they are saying of God if it is true...)? Why didn't God create everything instantaneously? Why did God, give us males a prostate in what is a really poor place to put it since if it enlarges it causes us all sorts of discomfort? Why is there seemingly junk DNA? Why are our eyes designed to stupidly see things upside-down creating an inefficiently where our brains need to correct this? Why did God design the female mantis to try devour the male after mating? Why are some animals made to devour each other to survive? Why is there pain and suffering in the world? Why did God allow Adam and Eve to sin?

Why, why, why... I can respond, respond, respond, with my own theological responses, not every "why" I think needs dignifying since some aren't worth dignifying. But, to those more challenging "whys", normally one answer isn't going to satisfy everyone, however, if we see good reason for belief in God then we should investigate different responses and try to resolve such for ourselves. Not because we're trying to justify God's existence, because we already have good reason for believing such. BUT, so we can have better understanding, talk more coherently about such, be able to give a response to those who might approach questions of God's existence from such angles, etc.

Most I think can however be done away with with two lines of thought, which are quite inline with Theistic religions:

1. God purposefully created this world to be temporary, as a prelude to what is eternal.
2. The purpose of our world is anthropic focused, leading up to human existence -- meaning and purpose of it all centres around us humans (oh, the arrogance right? I'll just say many do talk of an anthropic principle in the universe, however politically incorrect such might seem).

So then, how would I respond to animal extinction? Did God want lions to lay down with lambs immediately so? On the other hand, we humans have many natural and organic resources we can tap into today. It is great that very large dinosaurs roamed the earth amongst very large flora, we now have fossil fuels for us to use which we too also sadly abuse in our God-given free will. It seems a little strange to me that we have such massive life forms early on -- evolution need not have worked that way (it in fact seems more logical to have smaller work up to larger as things evolve. Why large and shrink down to smaller? But, this thought of how I think evolution would work, like your thought of how you think God would work, are weak and subjective arguments.)

Then we have more simple life had during Earth's very early volcanic past; more complex life couldn't survive such until Earth's atmosphere was more developed. Then once it is developed, we see more complex life. It seems illogical to me for God to create life at times when they clearly won't survive. More logical that God matches creatures to a time and place as Earth matures where it can survive for a significant period of time. If God did create, this is what I think we ought to expect. AND, as Earth evolves, suitable habitats and the Earth's overall environment changes, such environments may no longer lend themselves well to such creatures and so as emotional as it might make you feel, and as sad as it might seem, such creatures become extinct. Yet, it is all part of the order God intended for our temporal world. In fact, I think extinction is more an issue for pure evolutionary scenarios (which I understand Hugh that unlike Neo-X you're not a "purist" given your Theistic Evolution) IF the rate of extinction is many times higher than the rate of evolution (and by what we apparently see today, all life will one day eventually go extinct).

In any case, I find "why didn't God [insert how you would do things if you were God]" challenges are quite weak. Limited by the person's ability to understand outside of their "what God is or would be like" box. They don't understand, so their God didn't do things that way, therefore God didn't do it or doesn't exist. Creationists too, for their part, do the same thing against evolution. Note, these are weak arguments and quite easily prone to a strawman fallacy. Because God must have done things in the manner I think God ought to have, if I see things don't align with that picture, then God doesn't exist. Never mind other reasons for believing God exists (moral, cosmological, necessary/contingency, consciousness, free will, etc), God doesn't exist because in this one very specific instance (e.g., female mantis' devouring the male) God wouldn't do such a thing. These are quite shallow arguments, and really, quite laughable if one has strong and positive arguments for God (which I'm sure you're aware of and find some more convincing than others). And, once one comes to the logical conclusion God exists, separate from discussion of how life came to be, the leap is quite natural to assume God created life. It's even quite an obvious conclusion to draw, so much so, that it needs explaining away to a great many people how obvious creation isn't.

In any case, my question back to you was trying to highlight that there were different epochs and environments throughout Earth's history. We have different environments at different times, different epochs during Earth's history. That fact that only simple life was supportable in Earth's early stages fits with its volcanic nature. Volcanoes helped to create Earth's atmosphere allowing more complex forms of life to be able to survive. God punctuates life at different times according to their environments, and you're right that as Earth's environment changed over time, new life suited to such made its way there. Almost with seeming ease, too easily for a pure evolutionary scenario if you ask me (weak subjective opinion).

Whether evolution was the vehicle used or creation was that vehicle, evolution in any case needs existing life to act upon. Biological evolution, is logically sound when used as a tool of speciation, logically works when life is already present -- e.g., two species, one being naturally selected over the other according to mutations that happen in already existing biological information. The more life, the more complicated it is, the better. So for many to claim that all life is explainable by evolution, is really overstating what follows from such. The conclusion doesn't follow that because evolution works well at diversifying species, that it was the cause of initial species of life. Rather natural selection requires initial life form/s in order to act, and mutations require genetic code (as we understand matters today since Darwin wasn't aware of such in his time) to act upon and mutate. The mechanisms must be quite different therefore for early life, compared to mechanisms like natural selection and mutations that may act upon life that is already established.

[crochet1949]

This thread is very interesting reading.

[Audacity]

Whether evolution was the vehicle used or creation was that vehicle, evolution in any case needs existing life to act upon. Biological evolution, is logically sound when used as a tool of speciation, logically works when life is already present -- e.g., two species, one being naturally selected over the other according to mutations that happen in already existing biological information. The more life, the more complicated it is, the better. So for many to claim that all life is explainable by evolution, is really overstating what follows from such. The conclusion doesn't follow that because evolution works well at diversifying species, that it was the cause of initial species of life.

And no knowledgeable evolutionist would say such a thing. They recognize that evolution and its supporting theories only apply to the diversification of life, and not its origin.

Rather natural selection requires initial life form/s in order to act, and mutations require genetic code (as we understand matters today since Darwin wasn't aware of such in his time) to act upon and mutate.

Correct.

The mechanisms must be quite different therefore for early life, compared to mechanisms like natural selection and mutations that may act upon life that is already established.

Yup, and evolutionist aren't concerned with the origination of life. Whether it was abiogenesis, the hand of god, or panspermia, it makes no difference.