Evolving from Simple to Complex?

[hughfarey]

This isn't proof for evolution. Here is a very old post...

Yes, I suppose it must be. It starts well, but soon becomes no more than a litany of creationist 'facts' which are, of course, wholly disputed by evolutionists.

Modern genetics has proven Darwin totally wrong.

Obviously not.

Yet evolutionists look at these micro - adaptation changes (whether natural or artificial) and say something silly like "Presto - proof of Evolution!"

Most creationists are happy to concede that your "micro - adaptation" is a form of evolution, and readily accept it.

They forget the foxes are still foxes, and that many types of foxes with different colorings already exist.

No, of course they don't.

But note also the surprise many expressed how fast the depth of change happened - in "only" 10 generations. That actually fits the young earth interpretation that a single pair of 'wolf-hounds' could have gotten off the ark and 1000's of years later you can have extreme variation developing from that pair.... based on survivability in the environments and human intervention.

This is a bit of "have your cake and eat it". If a diversification from a couple of thousand "kinds" into todays millions of species can happen in only a few thousand years, that's what I'd call evolution, as the definition of "kinds" would include animals so different as to be far more different than just different species.

By the way, Mutations also do not help evolutionists. They are always a loss of information, such as in this case.

That, of course, is often demonstrated to be either completely incorrect, or to be a fairly drastic reversal of the usual meaning of the word "loss".

A good book recently published on how the mutation rate is higher than previously thought and makes Darwinian evolution impossible is "Genetic Entropy" by Dr. John Sanford, the inventor of the Gene Gun.

It does no such thing. It fails to recognise the various controls that cells put on errors of replication.

[Kurieuo]

Hugh, earlier in this thread, I gave a definition of Theistic Evolution:

To clarify on Theistic Evolution, it actually doesn't believe God created new organisms from pre-existing "stuff" except God doing so very indirectly. Similar to the "big bang" and how all stars and planets unfolded (God didn't directly create Earth in the sky, the moon or our Sun), Theistic Evolution has it that God planted the initial seed of life (perhaps even set in motion in the very beginning of the cosmos for life to naturally unfold). This "seed" had the potential to unfold according to natural laws and evolve into all lifeforms which have roamed Earth. There is no direct input from God throughout time, other than His simple sustaining of the universe and all laws within, and divine planning in the very beginning. If there is any divine guidance, such isn't direct intervention, but rather based upon God's foreknowledge of how each particle bouncing around and ripple would happen, He put in motion the one universe where all conditions would be met to have what we now see.

It's not my intention to put words into your mouth as to what you believe, but the above is how I've come to view Theistic Evolution given my many exchanges over the years. Yet, I'm also aware Theistic Evolution can means different things to different people and/or come in different degrees.

I've picked up on you see God guiding the process, being present throughout it all. So this would remove my own scientific objections based upon the grounds I see impassable naturalistic difficulties (similar to the origin of life), specifically with accumulation of biological information, how it is structured, protein roles and functions, which is to me quite mind-boggling.

Yet, if God is guiding such a process well any arrangement of say amino acids is possible. God's "guiding" throughout is perhaps better understood as Theistic Evolution. Whereas some Christians today who might describe themselves as Theistic Evolutionists (simply because they carry a God belief), are more in fact Natural Evolutionists every much as an Atheist, this view might be better be described as Deistic Evolution.

My question, is how involved do you believe God was as a direct mechanism in the evolutionary process (if you even believe God was intimately involved)?

For example, let me use the example of Jesus turning water into wine. Given that it wasn't the jar of water miraculously disappearing to be replaced with a jar of wine that popped into existence, then some modification of the pre-existing water is required. Water contains atoms of H and O. Wine contains organic molecules with other atoms (C, N,...) so creation of matter appears to be required which was added.

With how you'd define your own beliefs, do you think God's working alongside natural evolutionary processes in a similar intimate manner (as changing water into wine)? Just wanting to better know what exactly you believe here.

[Stu]

Hugh doesn't believe Jesus performed miracles.

[hughfarey]

Yes, fair enough, Kurieou. I guess the trouble with any of these quasi-philosophical labels, even YEC and Day-Age, is that there is no hierarchy up which one can climb to find a definitive definition, so they all disagree with each other to some extent. If we have to label people, it might be better to attach them to particular gurus, such as Hugh Ross or Ken Ham (or Richard Dawkins) than clump them together into vague descriptions. I do not know many 'Theistic Evolution' sites. Of those I do know, Biologos seems to reflect my ideas most closely, but I dare say if I get to know the ideas of Deborah Haarsma (Current President) more thoroughly, I may dissent in detail from them too.

So, if what I say differs from somebody else's idea of what a Theistic Evolutionist is, then never mind. Where I think I differ from your definition above is in the current, immediate behaviour of God. I would put more emphasis on the words underlined below, and see the whole sentence as being a bit self-contradictory...

"Theistic Evolution has it that God planted the initial seed of life (perhaps even set in motion in the very beginning of the cosmos for life to naturally unfold). This "seed" had the potential to unfold according to natural laws and evolve into all lifeforms which have roamed Earth. There is no direct input from God throughout time, other than His simple sustaining of the universe and all laws within, and divine planning in the very beginning. If there is any divine guidance, such isn't direct intervention, but rather based upon God's foreknowledge of how each particle bouncing around and ripple would happen, He put in motion the one universe where all conditions would be met to have what we now see."

I think that the "simple sustaining" bit is "direct input" and isn't at all simple, and constitutes a major part of what it is to be God. A contrary view which I dare say is held by a few Theistic Evolutionists, but which mostly constitutes a straw horse for others to shoot down, is that everything necessary for the unfolding of the universe was set off 15 billion years ago, since when God has been sunbathing in heaven waiting for it all to end.

What I don't go for is a sort of half-and-half idea, where God sets it all up and lets it go, but can't resist tweaking it here and there as it unwinds. This suggests that either he didn't really know what was going to happen and has to step in to correct unpleasant surprises, or that he keeps changing his mind and twiddles the knobs to achieve a different outcome, or some other version of events that inevitably implies a lack of Perfection, which is, as we know, one of God's characteristics.

As for the New Testament miracles, I'm afraid I don't take many of them at face value. Turning water into wine was child's play compared to turning a couple of fish into twelve baskets of leftovers. Maybe if I was there I could come up with an explanation, but I wasn't, so I won't. A Miracle is defined by the mind of the observer, not by Physics, I think.

[RickD]

hughfarey wrote:
As for the New Testament miracles, I'm afraid I don't take many of them at face value. Turning water into wine was child's play compared to turning a couple of fish into twelve baskets of leftovers. Maybe if I was there I could come up with an explanation, but I wasn't, so I won't. A Miracle is defined by the mind of the observer, not by Physics, I think.

The obvious question I would have for you, is do you believe in the virgin birth of Christ, and his resurrection, which are both New Testament miracles?

[hughfarey]

The obvious question I would have for you, is do you believe in the virgin birth of Christ, and his resurrection, which are both New Testament miracles?

Yes, I thought you might. The answer, as I wriggled away with just now, is that I don't know. In several circumstances we have an undisputed before - a dead body in a tomb - and an undisputed after - men being put to death for the preaching the message of the resurrected Christ - but not, at least to me, a clear description of the middle. I think it foolish to deny that something occurred, but will not be drawn as to what without further evidence. The same applies to some extent to the other miracles. If the Feeding of the Five Thousand happened, then what, exactly, went on? I just don't know, and neither, I venture to add, did those who later reported it. Miracles, as I said, depend more on the observer than on Physics anyway.

[Stu]

The obvious question I would have for you, is do you believe in the virgin birth of Christ, and his resurrection, which are both New Testament miracles?

Yes, I thought you might. The answer, as I wriggled away with just now, is that I don't know. In several circumstances we have an undisputed before - a dead body in a tomb - and an undisputed after - men being put to death for the preaching the message of the resurrected Christ - but not, at least to me, a clear description of the middle. I think it foolish to deny that something occurred, but will not be drawn as to what without further evidence. The same applies to some extent to the other miracles. If the Feeding of the Five Thousand happened, then what, exactly, went on? I just don't know, and neither, I venture to add, did those who later reported it. Miracles, as I said, depend more on the observer than on Physics anyway.

No offence, but what kind of nonsense is this...
You don't have to understand the intricacies of how something (Miracles) happened to believe it took place.

You and other evolutionists don't understand how sex (male and female) was introduced into the evolutionary tree, but you believe it nonetheless. Seems you have more faith in evolution than you do in the Bible. You place more faith in science than God.

[Philip]

Hugh: Yes, I thought you might. The answer, as I wriggled away with just now, is that I don't know. In several circumstances we have an undisputed before - a dead body in a tomb - and an undisputed after - men being put to death for the preaching the message of the resurrected Christ - but not, at least to me, a clear description of the middle. I think it foolish to deny that something occurred, but will not be drawn as to what without further evidence. The same applies to some extent to the other miracles. If the Feeding of the Five Thousand happened, then what, exactly, went on? I just don't know, and neither, I venture to add, did those who later reported it. Miracles, as I said, depend more on the observer than on Physics anyway.

If one does not believe in THE Jesus - the One resurrected after a physical death - then that tells me they don't believe the Gospel, of which the entire basis for substitutionary atonement for sin, is predicated upon the fact that the Jesus died for us. And one who does not believe the Gospel isn't a Christian. They might be a cultural "Christian," even might consider themselves a Christian. But they aren't a Christian as defined by the Bible. You don't believe what Scripture plainly teaches about Jesus - really, why even claim to be a Christian???!!!

Romans 10: 8-10: "8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, IF you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord AND BELIEVE in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

Scripture plainly says that one HAS to and BELIEVE AND CONFESS the above to God to be saved. To not believe these key things - that Jesus was God Incarnate, that He was physically killed and subsequently resurrected - is to not have any reason to consider oneself a Christian. And that may well have nothing to do with the Shroud (although it very well might), but it means that what Scripture says about Jesus is a historical fact and that belief and confession of these things are requirements (of the heart and mind) for God's forgiveness and acquirement of His free, unmerited, unearnable gift of eternal life.

HUGELY important question: So, Hugh, if you don't believe those things, why do you call yourself a Christian? What is your basis for doing so?

Hugh: "I think it foolish to deny that something occurred, but will not be drawn as to what without further evidence."

Hugh, merely admitting that "SOMETHING occurred" is not meeting the criteria of faith as per the specific wordings of Scripture. If you think irrefutable evidence is necessary, or that some great degree of intellect is - then you are sadly mistaken. Most who insist the need for such things have set the evidence bar higher than God will provide - because it's not a mere matter of intellect. One must first be open to the truth so they can receive what CAN be known about it, as God WILL provide it (and yet He knows what level of knowledge one TRULY needs, sufficient for to develop true faith. But the evidence and understandings will be given per how God sees fit - not necessarily how YOU see fit.

[RickD]

The obvious question I would have for you, is do you believe in the virgin birth of Christ, and his resurrection, which are both New Testament miracles?

Yes, I thought you might. The answer, as I wriggled away with just now, is that I don't know. In several circumstances we have an undisputed before - a dead body in a tomb - and an undisputed after - men being put to death for the preaching the message of the resurrected Christ - but not, at least to me, a clear description of the middle. I think it foolish to deny that something occurred, but will not be drawn as to what without further evidence. The same applies to some extent to the other miracles. If the Feeding of the Five Thousand happened, then what, exactly, went on? I just don't know, and neither, I venture to add, did those who later reported it. Miracles, as I said, depend more on the observer than on Physics anyway.

Feeding of the fish, and water to wine aside, I'm curious as to how you think that not believing in Christ's resurrection, and Christ being conceived by the Holy Spirit and Mary being a virgin, affects the gospel. If those never happened, does that change the gospel in your mind?

[Byblos]

The obvious question I would have for you, is do you believe in the virgin birth of Christ, and his resurrection, which are both New Testament miracles?

Yes, I thought you might. The answer, as I wriggled away with just now, is that I don't know. In several circumstances we have an undisputed before - a dead body in a tomb - and an undisputed after - men being put to death for the preaching the message of the resurrected Christ - but not, at least to me, a clear description of the middle. I think it foolish to deny that something occurred, but will not be drawn as to what without further evidence. The same applies to some extent to the other miracles. If the Feeding of the Five Thousand happened, then what, exactly, went on? I just don't know, and neither, I venture to add, did those who later reported it. Miracles, as I said, depend more on the observer than on Physics anyway.

Feeding of the fish, and water to wine aside, I'm curious as to how you think that not believing in Christ's resurrection, and Christ being conceived by the Holy Spirit and Mary being a virgin, affects the gospel. If those never happened, does that change the gospel in your mind?

One absolutely cannot deny the resurrection and still claim to be Christian. The entire Gospel hinges on that one single fact and no other.

But I'm still not sure hugh is denying the resurrection. It seems to me he is stating lack of knowledge as to the actual process which, by definition as a miracle, would preclude us from ever understanding it. That's not to say all miracles are inexplicable in scientific terms, they may very well be. Their timing, rather than the process itself is the miraculous part (I'm thinking of the miracles in Exodus as an example). But I will let hugh explain further what he means.

[abelcainsbrother]

Remember variation amongst a population is normal and has been observed while evolution is not and has never been observed.

Charles Darwin knew about normal variation but his problem was assuming that given enough time one kind of life could eventually evolve into a new and totally different creature with natural selection working on it. Yet here we are 150 years later and the only evidence evolutionists have to show life evolves is to give evidence that documents normal variation and expects you to believe it is reasonable to assume that given enough time based on how we have documented normal variation given enough time one kind of life can evolve into a new and totally new and different kind of creature as their tree of life shows.

yet it has never been observed or demonstrated that life evolves. If all you have is normal variation and you are claiming this is evolution such as hugh did earlier then we are right back to where Charles Darwin was 150 years ago and have made no progress to show life evolves. It is believed by faith just as much as instant creation that has not been demonstrated. Basically they all require faith and cannot be proven no mater which you accept.We should just trust God over man though.

Based on this though we can say that just like the bible teaches us God created kinds to produce after its kind. This is what the evidence consistently shows over and over and it is evolutionists proving it.The evidence does not show kinds can go outside of kinds like the evolution tree of life shows.

[Kurieuo]

So, if what I say differs from somebody else's idea of what a Theistic Evolutionist is, then never mind. Where I think I differ from your definition above is in the current, immediate behaviour of God. I would put more emphasis on the words underlined below, and see the whole sentence as being a bit self-contradictory...

"Theistic Evolution has it that God planted the initial seed of life (perhaps even set in motion in the very beginning of the cosmos for life to naturally unfold). This "seed" had the potential to unfold according to natural laws and evolve into all lifeforms which have roamed Earth. There is no direct input from God throughout time, other than His simple sustaining of the universe and all laws within, and divine planning in the very beginning. If there is any divine guidance, such isn't direct intervention, but rather based upon God's foreknowledge of how each particle bouncing around and ripple would happen, He put in motion the one universe where all conditions would be met to have what we now see."

I think that the "simple sustaining" bit is "direct input" and isn't at all simple, and constitutes a major part of what it is to be God. A contrary view which I dare say is held by a few Theistic Evolutionists, but which mostly constitutes a straw horse for others to shoot down, is that everything necessary for the unfolding of the universe was set off 15 billion years ago, since when God has been sunbathing in heaven waiting for it all to end.

What I don't go for is a sort of half-and-half idea, where God sets it all up and lets it go, but can't resist tweaking it here and there as it unwinds. This suggests that either he didn't really know what was going to happen and has to step in to correct unpleasant surprises, or that he keeps changing his mind and twiddles the knobs to achieve a different outcome, or some other version of events that inevitably implies a lack of Perfection, which is, as we know, one of God's characteristics.

Indeed, your comment I bold above is a valid point, and extends the issue back to an ontology of the universe and nature itself. An ontology that, as I have in the past described in varying ways on this board, is based upon the very One who sustains, calculates and actions all the near infinite number of "natural" events happening every second of each day to create a consistent and stable world for us to live within (thus, we as Christians, call "natural"). Everything is running on God, nothing continues existing or moves except that God is directly and immediately involved in such.

This is a very important, crucially important point, to understand regarding a Christian ontology of reality. With such an ontological view of the world, it is impossible for God to not be direct and immediate in absolutely every event on the most fundamental levels. The question then, isn't whether something unfolds "naturally" (as in left alone to run by itself), because a "natural" devoid of divine superintendence and indeed supervenience doesn't for us actually exist, nor do I believe such possibly can.

Rather, the question then becomes whether 1) God works in a predictable manner, according to the rules of the world with which we're familiar that he controls at every point, in some logically predictable way that we can break down and understand like E = MC². OR, 2) Whether God on some fundamental perhaps quantum level of reality, say wiggles strings that He constantly sustains in existence this way or that, in order to bring about new constructions of the necessary particles or like (for example, to add the substance necessary to transform water into wine, given such indeed happened).

You seem to opt for (1) above, but I wonder, given God's immediate and close working in our world, whether (2) would actually be off the table to you. Especially given the apparent "randomness" of quantum events. The one thing I do not believe myself, is that God performs "magic", it's rather our limited knowledge of who God is, limited knowledge of how God runs the world, limited ability to comprehend God's power, which limits our ability to understand what happened.

[Mazzy]

Fascinating living in the UK, and waking up to find all these interesting posts accumulating overnight!

Dogs. Yes, it took dozens of generations to make them look and behave like dogs rather than wolves, so I'm not very surprised that you can't produce a domestic dog from a wolf just by treating it like a dog. Although they are the same species and readily interbreed, they are certainly different varieties. However, I don't really follow Philip's suggestion that by now they should have evolved into different species, as if speciation were an inevitable result of variation, or as if there have been some sort of speciation attempts which have failed. Neither of these is true. Of course it could take more time - ten thousand generations might be the sort of thing - but unless there was some pressure to derive different species, then there is no reason why they should have diverged so far. I have no doubt whatever that if there was a determined breeding program to produce legless aquatic dogs, or winged flying dogs, it could be achieved, those animals being so different that they could be classified as different new families, let alone species, but to my knowledge that has never been attempted.

Well one example may be that dog breeders have been trying to breed larger and larger dogs. However, I don't see any dog being able to be bred to be as large as an elephant.

I suggest God created a breeding pair or several that were either alike or had some variation, but were what we call wolves.

That's OK, and fits in with a spontaneous creationist belief. Presumably at more or less the same time he also created a breeding pair of some sort of cat. And probably, while we're on the subject of carnivores, another pair of ancestral bears. Would that be correct? The sudden appearance, in an appropriate habitat, of a pair of mature animals, with all their behavioural traits (the kind usually learned from their parents) complete, and sufficient diversity of DNA to produce the variety of descendants we see today. I can accept that as a coherent belief, although it is not one I hold myself. It is not unlike the sudden appearance in the USA of a pair of breeding hamsters in the 1940s, from which all modern pet and laboratory hamsters may derive.

Given that scenario - the spontaneous creation of breeding pairs - I wonder what timespan you see this happening over? Wolves, after all, mostly eat deer of various kinds, so presumably the deer had been created some time before, so as to have diversified enough to provide food for the wolves. And so on. At some point, I suppose, there was also the spontaneous creation of a breeding pair of Tyrannosaurus rex, and before that, the prey species they ate.

Is all this more or less how you see things happening, or am I being fanciful? I don't want to misrepresent anyone, but I do want to discover exactly what a spontaneous creationist really thinks.

You wonder about many things hughfarey. It would take a while to come up with a list of the first life forms that God created ever just for the creatures you mention above. However, I will clarify that spontaneous refers to almost instantly just like a particle of matter is instantaneously created by colliding photons in a Hadron Collider. You are already a theist, and should agree God can do anything. Getting your mind around God being able to make matter and arrange that matter just as it needs to be, shouldn't be a big deal to God. This should be even easier to accept if you believe Jesus did those miracles, eg feed the crowd out of a few fishes and loaves.

I wonder many things as well about evolution such as what food sources were around for those 'primitive cells', how researchers make entire life stories from a few bones, believe chemical reactions can eventually become a complex factory of reproduction. Fortunately, just like evolutionists, creationists shouldn't feel the need to offer an answer to every question, nor offer more substantiation for their beliefs than evolutionists are able to. If the inability to formulate a substantiated answer to every question equates to a nonviable paradigm, then we may say the theory of evolution is still evolving.

[Mazzy]

Re: Dogs and interbreeding, the question before a Progressive Creationist, Day-Age (and even YECs who believe "kinds" of animals were taken on the ark), isn't just declaring an interbreeding hypothesis. Or, perhaps it is, if one believes God initially created many different "breeds" of dog who can create unique offspring together.

A main question I see for a PC person like myself (or any non-evolutionary person really) to investigate re: dogs (and this is like a "first step" to what Hugh is perhaps wanting to know in regards to going as far back as Miacids) would be:

• Did God seed a number of initial dog "breeds" which then interbred, or did God create just one Canis lupus (which both 'grey wolves' and 'domesticated dogs' fall under) that then evolved other traits over time to provide our present-day wolves and wide variety of domesticated dogs.

Now this is about to get a whole lot interesting, because I'm also Traducian (believing that like biology gets transmitted from parents to offspring to certain degrees, so too an inheritance of our spiritual or soul-ish nature). And, it would seem to me, like the soul can be affected by physical ailments, that the soul can also affect the physical, change brain chemistry, we can stop our natural inclination to do something, etc. (this is something secular scientists largely reject, it is believed the physical can only influence consciousness and not vice-versa in what is philosophically known as epiphenominalism).

I'm just stating my beliefs here upfront, ok? Whether or not one agrees, I'm about to introduce something likely relevant to such. Which is, I stumbled across a documentary which seemed like something made for really odd "dog lovers". It was a PBS Nova documentary called "Dogs Decoded". In it, they have people try to raise wolves and foxes as domesticated animals.

The experiment has been running for more than a good 50 years. Wolves, they struggled to tame and had to release after several months. Foxes, there were approximately 1% on fox farms who didn't appear aggressive, which they took and raised domestically. By the third generation, in addition to loosing their aggression, foxes became as tame as domesticated dogs and even craved human companionship -- they'd adapted to have a new-found co-dependency upon humans. Then by I think 8th or 9th generation, something surprising happened, which was physical attributes started changing like floppier ears, shorter tails, and different coloured fur coats.

The video can be found here (I've fast-forwarded to the interesting bit fore-mentioned):
https://youtu.be/HHtN3sprvo8?t=26m20s

I'm still yet to confirm the authenticity of actual study, I remain skeptical as this documentary seemed to try justify a lot of seemingly odd claims that dog owner "freaks" would make. Nonetheless, if true, then such is quite fascinating on so many levels.

Study appears legitimate, of foxes domesticated by humans eventually changing in their appearance to have more "domestic dog"-like features:

• https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu ... stication/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_D ... ed_Red_Fox

Even at species level an organism has capacity for great variety. Dogs and mankind are just 2 examples. There is no need to doubt that.

When to comes to the evolutionary tree of life, anything above 'family' and sometimes genus, is a vague accumulation of confusion. Just like miacis, there are creatures named on the back of relatively nothing at all, a single bone, a few, some scattered non co-located bones clued together that could belong to a variety of non related creatures.

[Mazzy]

The obvious question I would have for you, is do you believe in the virgin birth of Christ, and his resurrection, which are both New Testament miracles?

Yes, I thought you might. The answer, as I wriggled away with just now, is that I don't know. In several circumstances we have an undisputed before - a dead body in a tomb - and an undisputed after - men being put to death for the preaching the message of the resurrected Christ - but not, at least to me, a clear description of the middle. I think it foolish to deny that something occurred, but will not be drawn as to what without further evidence. The same applies to some extent to the other miracles. If the Feeding of the Five Thousand happened, then what, exactly, went on? I just don't know, and neither, I venture to add, did those who later reported it. Miracles, as I said, depend more on the observer than on Physics anyway.

I think to be a Christian one may have many beliefs about the stories in the OT and writers interpretation of what they saw as Jesus miracles. The one belief all Christians must have is that Jesus died and rose from the dead. One cannot be a Christian if they are on the fence with this teaching.