Evolving from Simple to Complex?

[Kurieuo]

It says as much about a 'creator god' as the god of the gaps argument says about a creator god.

Yes, "God of the gaps". The irony is, it's kind of what many scientific articles and studies discussing evolution do anyway. I think it makes their explanations more easy to swallow, where they're otherwise scratching their heads and have no evidence as to how something they're trying to explain naturally happened. There seems to be somewhat of an governing Aristotelian telos that pervades thought amongst evolutionary scientists.

What do I mean? Let me quote a few passages, but examples as I'm sure we're all aware, are rife whether in articles, journals, scientists talking or nature documentaries on evolution:

• It was really shocking to find these genes are only read for a pulse of a few hours in our entire lifetime. … They are found on chromosome 19, known to be an unstable part of our genome. Think of it as a bubbling cauldron of DNA, with individual bits of DNA being added and taken away, occasionally forming whole new genes. At the dawn of placental mammals, 70 million years ago, these genes emerged and were grabbed by evolution to perform a new task, acting to control what cells do in the earliest stages of development. (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 114347.htm)

• A small number of lineage-specific tandem gene duplications have occurred, and these raise questions concerning how evolutionarily young homeobox genes are recruited to new regulatory roles. For example, divergent tandem duplicates of the Hox3 gene have been recruited for extra-embryonic membrane specification and patterning in dipteran and lepidopteran insects, a large expansion of the Rhox homeobox gene family is deployed in reproductive tissues of mouse, and duplicates of TALE class genes are expressed in early development of molluscs. (http://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articl ... 016-0267-0)

• We’ve known for decades that evolution needs to tinker with genetic elements so they can accumulate mutations while minimising disruption to the fitness of a species. … As a result, they become less harmful and gradually start escaping the repressive force. Eventually, some of them take on an important function and became indispensable pieces of human genes. To put it another way, the balanced forces buy the time needed for mutations to make beneficial changes, rather than disruptive ones, to a species. And this is why evolution proceeds in such small steps – it only works if the two forces remain balanced by complementary mutations, which takes time. Eventually, important new molecular functions can emerge from randomness. (http://www.realclearscience.com/article ... 10151.html)

You know, I've been accused of believing in a "tinkering God", and while I'm not phased and don't see it as such, it seems any real "tinkering" can only ever have intelligence; or "recruiting" genes to serve some purpose, such as the "extra-embryonic membrane specification and patterning"; or "adding" and "taking" away from individual bits of DNA (my position of "Progressive Creation" to a 'T') to form new genes for some new task in a new species.

So "God of the gaps"? I don't believe it takes much of a leap to connect the dots, really... provided one comes to the table philosophically neutral. The other crazy option is to continue using language with infinitive verbs to explain evolutionary science, but then oddly conclude "and so natural evolution perfectly explains [...]."

From simple to complex is a fact, not only in recent biological evolutionary processes (and yes, they are considered recent in the grand scheme of things) ...

One fact that just isn't true, or scientifically supported today. My opening post I believe showed that with strong evidence contradicting such a fact. Hugh himself doesn't appear to dismiss either, even if he is still comfortable with evolution as neatly explaining such findings.

[Mazzy]

In any case, an important take away I saw is that lifeforms may not necessarily start off "simple". While they might seem that way at a surface-level phenotypically, we see upon deeper inspection that earlier apparently "simple" lifeforms are actually not simple at all, but more complex than worms and flies (the genomes of which lost some intricacy) and as complex as us modern humans.

I think the discussion above is the point of the matter "simple" lifeforms are actually not simple at all. Bacteria was meant to be the first forms of life. As I said in my earlier post, bacteria are not simple at all. They are complex with machinery that could not come together via chemical reactions, not matter how much time passed. Bacteria are still here today in diversity.

"Bacteria have long been considered simple relatives of eukaryotes," Wolfe and colleagues wrote. "Obviously, this misperception must be modified." For example, protein acetylation historically had been considered mostly a eukaryotic phenomenon. But recent research indicates that acetylation also has a broad impact on bacterial physiology.

"There is a whole process going on that we have been blind to," Wolfe said.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... F79.f03t01

Bacteria must have been created fully formed, in the sea. Scientists have never found one of the so called 'primitive living cells'.

[Mazzy]

You know, I've been accused of believing in a "tinkering God", and while I'm not phased and don't see it as such, it seems any real "tinkering" can only ever have intelligence; or "recruiting" genes to serve some purpose, such as the "extra-embryonic membrane specification and patterning"; or "adding" and "taking" away from individual bits of DNA (my position of "Progressive Creation" to a 'T') to form new genes for some new task in a new species.

Before I joined this forum I didn't give myself a creationist descriptor. I knew I wasn't a YEC as I accept plate tectonics as evidence for an old earth. I looked for what description mostly described my view. I have just looked up 'progressive creationism' on Wiki. I must say I like what I read. I will give your creationist stance more thought.

[hughfarey]

All very true, and moving the discussion. The simple/complex thing, like the 99% thing, is the sort of generalisation that evolutionists do not now, nor ever have, played along with unless the terms are well defined. An insect is more complex than an amoeba. The fact that is has a shorter length of DNA does not make it less complex. Both evolutionists and proponents of special creation have to explain the apparent contradiction, and I do not think that an ID explanation is more satisfactory than an evolutionary one. While the ways of God are indeed mysterious, it is not prima facie intelligent to need 50 times more DNA to make a jellyfish than a human.

On the other hand, as I mentioned before, and as Mazzy says above, the true complexity of living organisms is not so much in the arrangement and interaction of their cells as in the mechanism of the cells themselves. In other words most of the real 'complexity' of life had evolved before the arrival of any multicellular organisms. Which is why we share so much of our DNA with bananas. Sure, the progenitors of the cell were much simpler than the cell, but much of the subsequent history of life is little more than tinkering. (Kurieou perspicaciously observes that this is a personification of an impersonal process. But this is such a common linguistic characteristic that it surely doesn't imply that scientists cannot tell the difference, any more than when they try to coax their recalcitrant car, printer or coffee-maker into behaving properly. It might be worth worrying that we also use specifically human personification to refer to God, because in that case we often do inadvertently confuse his wisdom and power with ours, thinking that his anger, jealousy, compassion or love directly compare with our own emotions.)

Several people have hovered over a dichotomy between evolution and purpose. Mazzy says that belief in evolution denies the possibility that "God planned to ultimately create mankind", and agrees with thatkidakayoungguy in saying: "I figure God intentionally made man." I don't think the dichotomy exists. For me, the entire progress of the universe is a product of the 'purpose' of God, and as such, man is as much an inevitable consequence of it as if Adam and Eve were individually created ex nihilo in 4004BC.

And finally, the evolutionary story has changed very little since it was first formulated, in the sense that things Darwin claimed were true have since been found false. Instead, the theory has expanded and become more detailed with better and more extensive observation and experiment, such that the more we discover, the better the anomalies observed by Darwin fit the theory, and nothing seems to contradict it. Haldane's pre-Cambrian rabbit would be as devastating a blow today as when he suggested it 120 years ago, but it hasn't been found yet.

[Kurieuo]

You know, I've been accused of believing in a "tinkering God", and while I'm not phased and don't see it as such, it seems any real "tinkering" can only ever have intelligence; or "recruiting" genes to serve some purpose, such as the "extra-embryonic membrane specification and patterning"; or "adding" and "taking" away from individual bits of DNA (my position of "Progressive Creation" to a 'T') to form new genes for some new task in a new species.

Before I joined this forum I didn't give myself a creationist descriptor. I knew I wasn't a YEC as I accept plate tectonics as evidence for an old earth. I looked for what description mostly described my view. I have just looked up 'progressive creationism' on Wiki. I must say I like what I read. I will give your creationist stance more thought.

If you adhere to a Day-Age interpretation, and understand that, then that would by default place you under the category of Progressive Creation. Yet, if we might strip Scripture back from Progressive Creation, then in relation to life it would simply mean one believes explosions of life were had due to a creative act at different periods (progressively) throughout time.

Wikipedia, while I don't accept all it offers on its Progressive Creation page (which includes strawmen such as Progressive Creation necessarily rejecting macroevolution [however one defines such], and also its "isms" which appears to me pejorative just like "Evolutionist" might be to someone who believes in evolution), what it is correct on so-far-as PCs would believe:

• ... creation occurred in rapid bursts in which all "kinds" of plants and animals appear in stages lasting millions of years. The bursts are followed by periods of stasis or equilibrium... These bursts represent instances of God creating new types of organisms by divine intervention. As viewed from the archaeological record, progressive creationism holds that "species do not gradually appear by the steady transformation of its ancestors; [but] appear all at once and "fully formed."

Some have wrongly conceived of my Progressive Creation position as God tinkering with creation. BUT, that's not how I see it at all. It's not that God necessarily all the way through on each day over hundreds of millions of years "tinkered" with this species and that species. Rather life when it is created, was created fully formed and burst onto the scene. Then it is left alone to be and work according to all the laws of nature until God's next creative act.

A misunderstanding often had of Progressive Creation, is the belief that God simply creates life brand new from nothing each and every time. Yet, this isn't what I believe, nor if you read Rich's article on pseudogenes is it what he believes. Rather, many believe God utilises previous forms of life when creating something new. So genetic code within previous lifeforms that comprise biological frameworks and structures, might include naturally developed immunities and the like, such are copied and passed onto a new creation. What we would not expect in Progressive Creation is to see harmful or deleterious mutations passed on in new creations.

What of Scripture though? Day-Age is one synthesis between Scripture and what is seen as evidence from science that conforms to a Progressive Creation model. What you will not find in Scripture, is a detailed accounting of God's methods of creation and how He chose to create. Nonetheless, ideas of God creating something brand new from something which previously existed are to found. For example, when Adam was created, what did God create him from? Answer: the earth. When Eve was created, who was she created from? Answer: from Adam's ribs or side. It seems to me rather poetic that God would link like together in such a manner. For example, man is to be married to a woman who completes him and together they start a family. As for being created from the earth, from dust we're created and to dust we shall return. (Ecclesiastes 3:20)

In any case, I went into some detail also elsewhere some time ago, you might be interested to read: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 15#p168162

[hughfarey]

If I understand it correctly, Day-Age Creationism still agrees with the order in which things were created in the bible, placing fruit-trees on the earth 'ages' before there were fish in the sea. Is that right? While Progressive Creationism allows for organisms to appear on earth in the order illustrated by the fossils in stratigraphic column. Is that correct? If so, I think that's quite a profound difference.

On the other hand, I think Progressive Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists are much closer together in terms of scientific evidence, although with different philosophies. It seems that we both believe that new species appear in the fossil record either next to similar species, but separated by geography or behaviour, or shortly after the extinction of similar species. Either there are two species where there was previously only one, or one species is replaced by another. We differ, as I understand it, in the mechanism by which these new species arise. I think minute changes in their DNA as they reproduce are responsible, but I'm not quite clear what Progressive Creationists believe. If the new species are not created literally from nothing, then what? Now I'm guessing here, so please put me straight. If Adam was created from earth and Eve from a rib of Adam, does the same apply to, say, wasps? or polar bears? or mushrooms? It would be good to know.

[Philip]

K: Some have wrongly conceived of my Progressive Creation position as God tinkering with creation. BUT, that's not how I see it at all. It's not that God necessarily all the way through on each day over hundreds of millions of years "tinkered" with this species and that species. Rather life when it is created, was created fully formed and burst onto the scene. Then it is left alone to be and work according to all the laws of nature until God's next creative act.

I've tried to flesh out the idea above, as for God, ALL of what He does in the physical realm began in His mind, was always known, all had specific purposes, and will turn out precisely as He desires it to. Nothing is not under His sovereign control - and this is true despite that we have been given free will. See my thoughts here in a new thread: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=41765

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Several people have hovered over a dichotomy between evolution and purpose. Mazzy says that belief in evolution denies the possibility that "God planned to ultimately create mankind", and agrees with thatkidakayoungguy in saying: "I figure God intentionally made man." I don't think the dichotomy exists. For me, the entire progress of the universe is a product of the 'purpose' of God, and as such, man is as much an inevitable consequence of it as if Adam and Eve were individually created ex nihilo in 4004BC.

I don't deny that either, my personal opinion is that God made man separately from but similar to animals at the right time. Evolution has happened and is so now, even in people to an extent. All special creation and evolutionary progress is part of the "purpose" of God.

[DBowling]

If I understand it correctly, Day-Age Creationism still agrees with the order in which things were created in the bible, placing fruit-trees on the earth 'ages' before there were fish in the sea. Is that right? While Progressive Creationism allows for organisms to appear on earth in the order illustrated by the fossils in stratigraphic column. Is that correct? If so, I think that's quite a profound difference.

I disagree that there is a profound difference between the sequence of events demonstrated in the fossil record and the sequence of events laid out in Genesis 1. (Navigating Genesis - Hugh Ross)
So I consider myself both a Day-Age Creationist and a Progressive Creationist.

I think a decent argument can be made for the principle of 'common descent'. But I think both Scripture and the fossil record show evidence of 'creative spurts' as opposed to the gradual steady process that Darwinian processes in and of themselves alone would produce.
(Darwin's Doubt - Stephen Meyer)

So while I'm open to the principle of 'common descent', I reject the premise that gradual random mutation and natural selection alone can even come close to producing what we find in the fossil record.
I think the fossil record clearly and unambiguously gives evidence of 'creative acts' (life, Cambrian explosion, etc) and thus points to an intelligent Creator.
Romans 1:20

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

If I understand it correctly, Day-Age Creationism still agrees with the order in which things were created in the bible, placing fruit-trees on the earth 'ages' before there were fish in the sea. Is that right? While Progressive Creationism allows for organisms to appear on earth in the order illustrated by the fossils in stratigraphic column. Is that correct? If so, I think that's quite a profound difference.

I disagree that there is a profound difference between the sequence of events demonstrated in the fossil record and the sequence of events laid out in Genesis 1. (Navigating Genesis - Hugh Ross)
So I consider myself both a Day-Age Creationist and a Progressive Creationist.

I think a decent argument can be made for the principle of 'common descent'. But I think both Scripture and the fossil record show evidence of 'creative spurts' as opposed to the gradual steady process that Darwinian processes in and of themselves alone would produce.
(Darwin's Doubt - Stephen Meyer)

So while I'm open to the principle of 'common descent', I reject the premise that gradual random mutation and natural selection alone can even come close to producing what we find in the fossil record.
I think the fossil record clearly and unambiguously gives evidence of 'creative acts' (life, Cambrian explosion, etc) and thus points to an intelligent Creator.
Romans 1:20

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

What do you think about punctuated equilibrium?

[Mazzy]

If I understand it correctly, Day-Age Creationism still agrees with the order in which things were created in the bible, placing fruit-trees on the earth 'ages' before there were fish in the sea. Is that right? While Progressive Creationism allows for organisms to appear on earth in the order illustrated by the fossils in stratigraphic column. Is that correct? If so, I think that's quite a profound difference.

On the other hand, I think Progressive Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists are much closer together in terms of scientific evidence, although with different philosophies. It seems that we both believe that new species appear in the fossil record either next to similar species, but separated by geography or behaviour, or shortly after the extinction of similar species. Either there are two species where there was previously only one, or one species is replaced by another. We differ, as I understand it, in the mechanism by which these new species arise. I think minute changes in their DNA as they reproduce are responsible, but I'm not quite clear what Progressive Creationists believe. If the new species are not created literally from nothing, then what? Now I'm guessing here, so please put me straight. If Adam was created from earth and Eve from a rib of Adam, does the same apply to, say, wasps? or polar bears? or mushrooms? It would be good to know.

This has helped, in pointing out the differences between Progressive and Day Age. I'll need to read these posts more carefully.

On species......I think researchers are unclear about what constitutes a 'new' species from the former. From what I've read it appears to be an arbitrary distinction. For example ring species in birds are no more different physically or genetically than human races are between themselves, with mankind being the one species.

I believe God follows the laws of physics. We don't know them all. I think God created out of his energy and possibly rearranging the elements that constitute 'earth'. Given the Old Testament was given to a people that did not have our scientific language, that's the best the language of the day could do.

I am cooking this morning for a special morning tea at church. Catch you all later.

[hughfarey]

I disagree that there is a profound difference between the sequence of events demonstrated in the fossil record and the sequence of events laid out in Genesis 1. (Navigating Genesis - Hugh Ross)

I hope you'll forgive me for not buying a book simply to inquire into your beliefs. As I understand it, in Genesis fruit-trees were created on Day 3 and fish on Day 5, while the fossil records suggest that fish arrived about 500 million years ago and fruit-trees about 300 million years ago. If Hugh Ross disagrees, would you be kind enough to summarise why?

What do you think about punctuated equilibrium?

I've never understood why this was as much of a scientific controversy as it actually became. I think it was more to do with personalities than facts. Evolution means change, and there must be some 'pressure' on an existing form for any change to be necessary. Where the environment stays constant, there may be very little pressure to change, so species can remain as they are for tens of millions of years. The more different a 'new' environment is, the more pressure there is to adapt to it, and the more quickly a new species evolves. Thus a particular fossil may remain unchanged though many layers of sedimentary rock, and then, perhaps as a result of some tectonic or plutonic event, and the sea becomes murkier, or more saline, or something similar, the fossil is seen to change quite quickly into a different form. Of course, this change is not instantaneous, although it may appear so geologically; in fact it takes thousands of years. In other cases, the pressure to change may be more gradual, as a population slowly gets bigger and bigger, more and more crowded, or expands slowly into a slightly different environment, and then we see an elegant, gradual, series of changes.

[DBowling]

I disagree that there is a profound difference between the sequence of events demonstrated in the fossil record and the sequence of events laid out in Genesis 1. (Navigating Genesis - Hugh Ross)

I hope you'll forgive me for not buying a book simply to inquire into your beliefs. As I understand it, in Genesis fruit-trees were created on Day 3 and fish on Day 5, while the fossil records suggest that fish arrived about 500 million years ago and fruit-trees about 300 million years ago. If Hugh Ross disagrees, would you be kind enough to summarise why?

No problem... I'll try to find some typing time tomorrow...

[Kurieuo]

If I understand it correctly, Day-Age Creationism still agrees with the order in which things were created in the bible, placing fruit-trees on the earth 'ages' before there were fish in the sea. Is that right?

For Day-Age interpretation, your best bet is going to an authoritative source for such. Reasons to Believe is the one Christian organisation out there who has done the most to lead and influence Christendom with a Day-Age interpretation through speaking at events, writing books, doing podcasts, speaking at universities, in churches, producing materials and even in education.

For RTB's Day-Age PC model, I'd also recommend this article: Summary of Reasons To Believe's Testable Creation Model

For an order of "ages" within a Progressive Creation account based upon a Biblical Day-Age interpretation and what they see science points to, RTB mapped out the following timeline (they now seem to allow mankind coming onto the scene 100-150k years ago, although a decade ago they said the maximum threshold was 50k with 60k making Fuz Rana uncomfortable):

Reasons to Believe Creation Timeline - http://www.reasons.org/files/articles/creation_timeline_chart_color_201107.pdf

rtb-genesis1-creation-days.jpg (137.8 KiB) Viewed 4942 times

While Progressive Creationism allows for organisms to appear on earth in the order illustrated by the fossils in stratigraphic column. Is that correct? If so, I think that's quite a profound difference.

Yes, I'd say that's correct. It is a profound difference, especially considering many think Day-Age and Progressive Creation are synonymous. With Progressive Creation one can either follow the science, or follow Scripture, or try to weave both together like RTB do.

On the other hand, I think Progressive Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists are much closer together in terms of scientific evidence, although with different philosophies. It seems that we both believe that new species appear in the fossil record either next to similar species, but separated by geography or behaviour, or shortly after the extinction of similar species. Either there are two species where there was previously only one, or one species is replaced by another. We differ, as I understand it, in the mechanism by which these new species arise.

Christian organisations like BioLogos (who advocate Theistic Evolution) and Reasons to Believe (who advocate Progressive Creation) generally get along and respect each other's opinions. YEC organisations like Answers in Genesis detest both. Perhaps such is because neither TE or PC try to deny obvious scientific facts but make concerted efforts to truly dialogue (or "compromise" if you're YEC ) with science.

As to conclusions, different philosophies/theological beliefs perhaps. Those who adhere to Theistic Evolution do seem more willing to grant Scripture isn't entirely accurate, giving up on Biblical literalism so-far-as historical claims are concerned. Yet, then Progressive Creationists while they are predominantly Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis Creation (such as "Day-Age"), somes PCs might likewise loosen up on Scripture and even say Scripture is irrelevant. Then it'd just become a matter about how the science in interpreted. I guess it does come down to which traditions, beliefs, philosophies, etc one is more affected by.

I think minute changes in their DNA as they reproduce are responsible, but I'm not quite clear what Progressive Creationists believe. If the new species are not created literally from nothing, then what? Now I'm guessing here, so please put me straight. If Adam was created from earth and Eve from a rib of Adam, does the same apply to, say, wasps? or polar bears? or mushrooms? It would be good to know.

Again, Progressive Creationists are a mix. Some will accept new species arise both naturally and mixed in with God's new creative acts. For example, God creates "kinds" of animals and allows their offspring to branch off via evolutionary mechanisms (normally branded "microevolution") into their own groups. Some might embrace this to the extent, however it be defined, of macroevolution (I admit this is an ambiguous term -- it is one used in science and by creationists, so I think it wrong to call it creationist invention like some Atheists say when debating online).

It's just that natural mechanisms would be rejected as the be-all and end-all mechanism. Especially so-far-as quite different species are concerned (e.g., classes, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, etc), biological information, protein functions and structures. However, I see no reason once God plants a new "families of species", why any Progressive Creationist would reject that natural laws won't function to evolve new types of such (e.g., Geckos which Audacity pointed out in the past number in the 1000s).

The distinguishing feature is, for me, that God injects and creates new types of life in the world. Instead of one event where God plants ONE initial seed that then evolved into all life forms, rather multiple life forms were directly planted over time e.g., bacteria, fungi, algae, animals, plants, etc.

As for creating Eve from Adam's side, whether the exact same applies to wasps, bears, mushrooms... my point was God does create lifeforms even in Genesis from "previous stuff" in the world NOT that God created all species in the same manner. God is a direct mechanism for new life being created, yet what was in the dust of the earth that Adam was moulded from before God breathed life into him? Such is anyone's guess. And here, I'm bringing my Progressive Creation account back to Scripture (since Scripture to me is also important to my Christian beliefs). I'd assume such contained amino acids, which form the building blocks of life -- science has demonstrated these can form from minerals (without needing to be zapped like in the Miller experiment)! Yet, given God is directly involved, he is the intelligence behind the design, the proteins and their functions, and the like when creating new lifeforms.

[RickD]

K,

That's a very good description of progressive creationism.