Post by happycheeze on Apr 11, 2011 21:33:27 GMT -5
Hi everyone. My creationist friend made a post about evolution and I asked her to give me what her interpretation of it is.
I hope you'll forgive me for the GIANT thread
So naturally I'm going through to point out some misconceptions and what not. I was wondering if some of you fellow science people could look it over. And if you're not too heavy on science, let me know how it is, is it confusing? does it make sense? blah blah
Some of it I didn't really get to yet because I've had tests and crap to study for.
My response is in BOLD
"Welcome to the thread Gregg. The evaluation I was referring to in my remarks above is that of
Hi Kelly, thanks for the invitation. I hope you'll forgive me for the length of this response. It might sound like a lecture, but I want to make sure I clarify some things and clear up misconceptions.
You started off with “macroevolution which goes along with the idea that life, this planet, and the universe happened by chance starting with a big bang billions of years ago.” This isn't macroevolution. The Big Bang only describes the beginning and development of the universe. It doesn't talk about life or how it changes through time.
“Then over that span of time the first and simplest of organisms, which came into existence by the perfect combination of elements”
This is abiogenesis, which is an explanation for how life arose from non-life. In the 1950's there were several experiments to replicate early earth conditions (Miller and Urey). What they discovered was amino acids (the building blocks in DNA which is in all life) formed. Although this experiment didn't make fully living cells pop out and start going about their business (which, ridiculously, some people demand as the only evidence that would convince them), it at least shows that the predicted early Earth conditions can produce these building blocks. And that is phenomenal.
To step back, you bundled macroevolution as the big bang and abiogenesis. Which is wrong, as we'll see in a minute, just what macroevolution is.
Okay now we're at evolution.
“grew and adapted to its environment until it evolved into all the creatures now known to man.”
Adaptation is one of the main mechanisms of evolution. If an organism has genes that help it survive in its environment, that that better increases its chances of reproducing and passing on those favorable traits.
The environment shapes the organism. This is natural selection. People are often quick to just write this off as “random chance” and simply dismiss it. But this isn't the case. Genetic variation is random. But the selection isn't.
There is a form of evolution that I do believe in, known as microevolution,
which does comply in part to the concept of "survival of the fittest" (natural selection).
This Idea is that creatures can adapt, evolve, or change to their environments to a limit. Staying within their species, small adaptations can be made.
I'm confused as to why you say there is a limit to the adaptation they undergo. And what is the extent of that limit?
Microevolution is the change in allele (expressed genes) frequencies in a population over generation. It can take place take in relatively small periods of time.
The Peppered Moth is a good example of adaptation and how it relates to microevolution.
The moths with the black color were better suited to their environment, and thus survived and pass on those good genes (The genes that help it survive in that environment, ie. Black color) on to their offspring. The ones that didn't have the black color genes (white moths), stood out to predators and were made easy prey. They weren't able to reproduce and pass on their genes.
The moth species chanted to blend in better with its environment, but it did not cease to be a moth.
What does ceasing to be a moth have to do with this? This example is just about microevolution. Even if speciation did occur, it would still be a moth. Just a different species of moth.
Macroevolution usually takes much more time and deals with speciation. Speciation is when 1 species splits into 2 or more species. But now we need to define what a species is.
A species is a group of populations whose members have the potential to interbeed in nature and produce viable, fertile offspring. But they cannot do this with differing groups (ie. Different species).
For example, lets take my favorite animal, the cuttlefish. Lets say I have an aquarium, and I have 2 different species. A male Metasepia pfefferi (the flamboyent cuttlefish) and a female Sepia latimanus (Broadclub cuttlefish). Lets say my boss comes around and he wants more cuttlefish and wants them to mate. As I said just before, two differing species cannot interbreed with each other.
But lets they did come together and mate and their sex cells did work with the other and they have offspring. Well their offspring will be sterile hybrids, which wouldn't be viable offspring. So even if they did manage to bear young, that's not going to help them. In fact, that hurts them because its a genetic dead end.
Genesis 1:24-27 reads, "and God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.' And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, 'Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'
Let the land produce living creatures? Sounds an awful lot like natural selection. The bible doesn't exactly define what a “kind” is. Is it a species? Genus? Phylum?
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
This excerpt leads me to believe that mankind was made in the image of God, not an ape,
This is one of the biggest misconceptions out there. To understand why, we need to know what common ancestry is. If you've ever seen those diagrams labeled as the tree of life.
plus all the other animals were created according to their own kind. A great resource with some compelling scientific evidence for creation is Bob Dutko's CD series "Top Ten Proofs Evolution is Scientifically Impossible", "Top Ten Proofs Theistic Evolution is not Biblical", and "Top Ten Proofs for a Young Earth."
As for the supposition that the Bible is all metaphorical. I would concede that much of it is. Jesus spoke in parables, which were like allegories for godly principles. However a huge part of the Bible is a historical record of Jewish history, such as accounts of kings, battles, exiles, genealogies, nations who's existence is also documented by sources other than of the Bible.
There are many different ways of making the argument that the Bible is true, literal, and inspired by God. I could speak from experience, sharing how the Word has powerfully influenced my life. As I devote more time to learning it, I am filled daily with peace, purpose, and understanding. It is remarkable to me how something written thousands of years ago has provided specific direction for my life exactly when it was needed most.
However I can't base my beliefs solely on my experience, because feelings can be deceiving. Exactly. Feelings, especially strong feelings create bias. Which everyone has to varying degrees, depending on the subject. Double blind trials are conducted in clinical studies to eliminate bias on both part of the person administering the drug to be tested, (meaning they don't know what they're administering), and on part of the patient (they don't know specifically what they are taking, be it the actual medicine or a control). Bias perspectives create skewed (inaccurate) results.
Similarly, I could give scientific evidence and logical reasoning that the Bible is true, yet even science and logic are not infallible.
[/b]I don't think anyone is arguing they are perfect. Science is a methodology of understanding the natural world. What we know changes based on the empirical data available.[/b]
It may seem like I am begging the question to prove the Bible with the Bible, but the God of the Bible is the ultimate source of truth. Although there are other forms of proof, the most reliable way I know of is with God's word.
you've already concluded that God is the answer. You're starting out with a conclusion, than looking for evidence, rather than forming a conclusion based on available evidence.
(The Word of God is God. Through Him all things were made.)
John 1:1-3
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
(All scripture is inspired by God and is reliable instruction for us.)
Is it really reliable when it gets known things wrong? Such as saying that Pi = 3 (2 Chonicles 4:2 Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. ), Hares chewing their cud (Leviticus:11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud), and bats being birds (Leviticus 11:13 lists abominations of fowl, 11:19 includes bats)
2 Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
(Jesus tells a parable about a seed sower, then he explains what it means. Both the story and the explanation cannot be metaphorical. The Bible is pretty clear about what is metaphorical and what is not. I encourage you to read the whole passage."
Matthew 13:1-23
"...Listen then to what the parable of the sower means:..."
(Many leaders would test Jesus' with religious questions. Jesus would sometimes reply by saying, "Haven’t you read". It was like he was saying, 'Do you really need to ask? Don't you believe what God has already told you through the scripture?' Since Jesus took the word literally, so will I. The writers of the New Testament often referred back to stories in the Old Testament as historical fact. If the disciples had not believed Jesus' words were literal truth, would they have devoted their lives through persecution and even to death in order to share it?)
Matthew 19:4
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,'"
I wish I could share with you all the verses saying that the Bible is from God, His word is true, and there are no errors in it even though God used imperfect men to write it down. However, I realize this response is already quite lengthy, so I will try to wrap up. For more verse references on the infallibility of the Bible, check out this website: www.facebook.com/l/c0525/www.gospelway.com/bible/bible_inspiration.php
The website you linked gives an all or nothing approach. This kind of thinking is dangerous.
For those of you who made it through this post THANK YOU for reading!!! I hope you find it encouraging or informative. I really do appreciate discussing this topic with you all. It is one of my Favorites
"
I hope you'll forgive me for the GIANT thread
So naturally I'm going through to point out some misconceptions and what not. I was wondering if some of you fellow science people could look it over. And if you're not too heavy on science, let me know how it is, is it confusing? does it make sense? blah blah
Some of it I didn't really get to yet because I've had tests and crap to study for.
My response is in BOLD
"Welcome to the thread Gregg. The evaluation I was referring to in my remarks above is that of
Hi Kelly, thanks for the invitation. I hope you'll forgive me for the length of this response. It might sound like a lecture, but I want to make sure I clarify some things and clear up misconceptions.
You started off with “macroevolution which goes along with the idea that life, this planet, and the universe happened by chance starting with a big bang billions of years ago.” This isn't macroevolution. The Big Bang only describes the beginning and development of the universe. It doesn't talk about life or how it changes through time.
“Then over that span of time the first and simplest of organisms, which came into existence by the perfect combination of elements”
This is abiogenesis, which is an explanation for how life arose from non-life. In the 1950's there were several experiments to replicate early earth conditions (Miller and Urey). What they discovered was amino acids (the building blocks in DNA which is in all life) formed. Although this experiment didn't make fully living cells pop out and start going about their business (which, ridiculously, some people demand as the only evidence that would convince them), it at least shows that the predicted early Earth conditions can produce these building blocks. And that is phenomenal.
To step back, you bundled macroevolution as the big bang and abiogenesis. Which is wrong, as we'll see in a minute, just what macroevolution is.
Okay now we're at evolution.
“grew and adapted to its environment until it evolved into all the creatures now known to man.”
Adaptation is one of the main mechanisms of evolution. If an organism has genes that help it survive in its environment, that that better increases its chances of reproducing and passing on those favorable traits.
The environment shapes the organism. This is natural selection. People are often quick to just write this off as “random chance” and simply dismiss it. But this isn't the case. Genetic variation is random. But the selection isn't.
There is a form of evolution that I do believe in, known as microevolution,
which does comply in part to the concept of "survival of the fittest" (natural selection).
This Idea is that creatures can adapt, evolve, or change to their environments to a limit. Staying within their species, small adaptations can be made.
I'm confused as to why you say there is a limit to the adaptation they undergo. And what is the extent of that limit?
Microevolution is the change in allele (expressed genes) frequencies in a population over generation. It can take place take in relatively small periods of time.
The Peppered Moth is a good example of adaptation and how it relates to microevolution.
The moths with the black color were better suited to their environment, and thus survived and pass on those good genes (The genes that help it survive in that environment, ie. Black color) on to their offspring. The ones that didn't have the black color genes (white moths), stood out to predators and were made easy prey. They weren't able to reproduce and pass on their genes.
The moth species chanted to blend in better with its environment, but it did not cease to be a moth.
What does ceasing to be a moth have to do with this? This example is just about microevolution. Even if speciation did occur, it would still be a moth. Just a different species of moth.
Macroevolution usually takes much more time and deals with speciation. Speciation is when 1 species splits into 2 or more species. But now we need to define what a species is.
A species is a group of populations whose members have the potential to interbeed in nature and produce viable, fertile offspring. But they cannot do this with differing groups (ie. Different species).
For example, lets take my favorite animal, the cuttlefish. Lets say I have an aquarium, and I have 2 different species. A male Metasepia pfefferi (the flamboyent cuttlefish) and a female Sepia latimanus (Broadclub cuttlefish). Lets say my boss comes around and he wants more cuttlefish and wants them to mate. As I said just before, two differing species cannot interbreed with each other.
But lets they did come together and mate and their sex cells did work with the other and they have offspring. Well their offspring will be sterile hybrids, which wouldn't be viable offspring. So even if they did manage to bear young, that's not going to help them. In fact, that hurts them because its a genetic dead end.
Genesis 1:24-27 reads, "and God said, 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.' And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, 'Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'
Let the land produce living creatures? Sounds an awful lot like natural selection. The bible doesn't exactly define what a “kind” is. Is it a species? Genus? Phylum?
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
This excerpt leads me to believe that mankind was made in the image of God, not an ape,
This is one of the biggest misconceptions out there. To understand why, we need to know what common ancestry is. If you've ever seen those diagrams labeled as the tree of life.
plus all the other animals were created according to their own kind. A great resource with some compelling scientific evidence for creation is Bob Dutko's CD series "Top Ten Proofs Evolution is Scientifically Impossible", "Top Ten Proofs Theistic Evolution is not Biblical", and "Top Ten Proofs for a Young Earth."
As for the supposition that the Bible is all metaphorical. I would concede that much of it is. Jesus spoke in parables, which were like allegories for godly principles. However a huge part of the Bible is a historical record of Jewish history, such as accounts of kings, battles, exiles, genealogies, nations who's existence is also documented by sources other than of the Bible.
There are many different ways of making the argument that the Bible is true, literal, and inspired by God. I could speak from experience, sharing how the Word has powerfully influenced my life. As I devote more time to learning it, I am filled daily with peace, purpose, and understanding. It is remarkable to me how something written thousands of years ago has provided specific direction for my life exactly when it was needed most.
However I can't base my beliefs solely on my experience, because feelings can be deceiving. Exactly. Feelings, especially strong feelings create bias. Which everyone has to varying degrees, depending on the subject. Double blind trials are conducted in clinical studies to eliminate bias on both part of the person administering the drug to be tested, (meaning they don't know what they're administering), and on part of the patient (they don't know specifically what they are taking, be it the actual medicine or a control). Bias perspectives create skewed (inaccurate) results.
Similarly, I could give scientific evidence and logical reasoning that the Bible is true, yet even science and logic are not infallible.
[/b]I don't think anyone is arguing they are perfect. Science is a methodology of understanding the natural world. What we know changes based on the empirical data available.[/b]
It may seem like I am begging the question to prove the Bible with the Bible, but the God of the Bible is the ultimate source of truth. Although there are other forms of proof, the most reliable way I know of is with God's word.
you've already concluded that God is the answer. You're starting out with a conclusion, than looking for evidence, rather than forming a conclusion based on available evidence.
(The Word of God is God. Through Him all things were made.)
John 1:1-3
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
(All scripture is inspired by God and is reliable instruction for us.)
Is it really reliable when it gets known things wrong? Such as saying that Pi = 3 (2 Chonicles 4:2 Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. ), Hares chewing their cud (Leviticus:11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud), and bats being birds (Leviticus 11:13 lists abominations of fowl, 11:19 includes bats)
2 Timothy 3:16
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
(Jesus tells a parable about a seed sower, then he explains what it means. Both the story and the explanation cannot be metaphorical. The Bible is pretty clear about what is metaphorical and what is not. I encourage you to read the whole passage."
Matthew 13:1-23
"...Listen then to what the parable of the sower means:..."
(Many leaders would test Jesus' with religious questions. Jesus would sometimes reply by saying, "Haven’t you read". It was like he was saying, 'Do you really need to ask? Don't you believe what God has already told you through the scripture?' Since Jesus took the word literally, so will I. The writers of the New Testament often referred back to stories in the Old Testament as historical fact. If the disciples had not believed Jesus' words were literal truth, would they have devoted their lives through persecution and even to death in order to share it?)
Matthew 19:4
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,'"
I wish I could share with you all the verses saying that the Bible is from God, His word is true, and there are no errors in it even though God used imperfect men to write it down. However, I realize this response is already quite lengthy, so I will try to wrap up. For more verse references on the infallibility of the Bible, check out this website: www.facebook.com/l/c0525/www.gospelway.com/bible/bible_inspiration.php
The website you linked gives an all or nothing approach. This kind of thinking is dangerous.
For those of you who made it through this post THANK YOU for reading!!! I hope you find it encouraging or informative. I really do appreciate discussing this topic with you all. It is one of my Favorites
"
