Do the doctrines of evolutionism protect the Bible?

Regarding the Nylon Bug -

In order for 'molecules to man' evolution to work, you have to have an information gaining process. That is to say - a cell must increase in specified complexity (information). For example, if you have the word 'superman' and you re-arrange (mutate) it to say 'sldnsesl', you have not increased the information, you have changed the sequence. The resulting string does not represent anything specific - it is a decrease in information.

Evolutionists claim that the nylon bug is an increase in genetic information and therefore an example of evolution. They say that the bacterium generates novel (new) genes in oder to metabolize the nylon. This must be a new gene because nylon was only invented several decades ago.

However, it does not show that any new information arises. Let me explain. The changed genes that allow the bacteria the appearant novel ability to consume nylon is actually not on the bateria's DNA main genomic structure. The change is actually in one of the bacterium's plasmids (the main DNA of the bacteria remains unchanged). Furthermore, the plasmids on which we see this appearantly novel ability is most likely designed to adapt the bacteria to new food sources. The evidence of this is that these plasmids are not activated by the bacterium unless it is under considerable strain or pressure. This suggests that it is the function of these plasmids to adapt the bacterium to new environments. Also, it is important to note that the way, the plasmid does this with the nylon eating is by a frame shift which removes the information telling the bacteria what not to eat. It is the equivalent to putting a blind fold on, and plugging your nose as someone puts food in front of you to eat. Your indicators telling you if it is real food or not have been disabled, so you consume away. This is certainly a decrease in specified complexity, and a loss of information. In this case, the loss of information is beneficial to the bacterium. It is a very common misconception that creationists (I refer to those who do not believe in evolution) believe that all mutations and all losses of information are harmful to an organism.

Information is specified complexity. Something can be complex, but if it specifies nothing it isn't information. For example, a bag of sand is complex, but it specifies nothing. No where in nature we we ever see information gaining mutation. Mutation is either neutral to information or a loss of information. As in the case of the nylon bacteria, loosing the ability to distinguish properly it's normal diet, while still a loss of information, is beneficial. The point here is, that this is exactly the opposite directional change for 'molecules to man' evolution. In order for 'molecules to man' we have to gain information, not loose it.

So how then do we explain the many varieties of animals on the earth today? How could Adam and Eve possibly have contained so many 'alleles' or so much genetic information as to give rise to the diversity we see today?

Well there must be a Biblical answer to that question. The Bible says that God created man and saw that His creation was 'good'. Why would God call something full of mutations, vestigial genes, and 'junk dna' good? Man was in fact created genetically perfect without any flaws. Mutation and natural selection have since 'made a mess' out of our genes.

Think about this - who would Adam's son's marry? They would have to marry their sisters! Wouldn't this cause severe problems? No. But why? The reason that we see severe problems when close relations have children is because close relations have the same genetic defects (mutations). There is no outside source of DNA to override a bad gene. Most severe problems are caused when the gene from the father and the gene from the mother are both defective. Chances are that someone outside your family will not have the same genetic flaws, and the good gene proviced by one of the parents will override the bad or defective gene. The closer to Adam you get, the fewer mutations you have at all. Adam and Eve were created without any mutations or defects. It wasn't until the days of Moses that laws about close relations marrying came to be.

But that still doesn't explain the diversity we see today. For example - we have black people white people and everything in between. How did Adam and Eve have genes for all the skin color we see today?

Well, we all pretty much have the same skin color - a black or white person is that way because of the ammount of melanin in the skin. Was adam & eve black or white? Well - they were probably neither. Their melanin producing cells operated properly without an overproduction or underproduction. They were probably a medium shade. With mutations in either the regulatory genes, or the melanin producing genes themselves eventually there was a loss of the information for the correct operation and expression. There began to be distinc groups born as 'black' or 'white'. We were probably originally designed to have a wide degree of possible change depending on our environment. Losses in this information has most likely lead to the distinct people groups we see today. Really - when you look at it from the Biblical perspective - there is only 1 race - Adam's race. The distinctions of people groups we see today are a result of isolated breeding. That's powerful evidence against racism, if you ask me.

 

I was reading recently another article that said something almost opposite of that - how the redshifts were part of strong evidence supporting Humphrey's cosmology. I will try to find that and post the relevant portions here.

 

Here are some articles on Red Shift I have found -

Hubble Trouble


Also see this Article on Red Shifts

From that 2nd link:

 

As it pertains to animals and variety -

The Bible says that God created animals (and plants) to reproduce 'after it's own kind'. Insted of fish to amphibians, then amphibians to reptiles as evolutonists claim, the Biblical model of Kinds would say that reptiles produce reptiles... fish produce fish... etc etc etc.

But what about all the 'so called' transitional fossils? Well, for one thing, I don't see any transitional fossils. Evolutionists claim that animals gained informaion by mutation. They say that genes duplicated, and one set stayed the same as the other set was free to mutate. If this were true, we would see billions of clear transitions. We would see a blue shark, for example... then we would see a blue shark with back legs... then we would see a blue shark with front legs... then we would see a blue shark with lungs and gills. Then we would see blue sharks on land.... on and on. Why would we see this type of fossil record? Because the evolutionist model relies on the animal keeping it's existing genes while gaining new operational ones. Besides the fact that legs and lungs are multi-part systems that could not possibly have mutationally develped all parts of the multi-part system at the same time, we don't see blue sharks with legs... the blue sharks with lungs. All the so-called transitions that we see go from one creature to a very different creature in giant leaps. There are no gradual point by point transitions until you get to transitions within kinds (such as equine evolution - transforming from one horse type to another - or K9 evolution... speciating wolves, dogs, coyotees, etc between each other). This suggests that they are, in fact, not transitional at all, but that God created a continuum of DISCREET animals for a continuum of environments. That is to say - within a 'kind' we have varieties for every environment.

So what did happen? What creationist predictions can we see that are supported by the fossil record?

This website describes this very well, and in a very understandable mannor.

 

Are you stating that the definition of specified complexity is information? I have been under the impression it referred to more, that is, it referred to complexity that could not be achieved one step at a time through naturalistic evolution but would require an advance planning of several steps at once to achieve the observed result.

It is the same amount of information, but it does not carry the same amount of meaning. But that's just a quibble.

The ability to digest something its ancestors could not digest should qualify as having learned something new in anybody's book! This had better be good!

So some bacteria are prepared to make evolution go faster when they are stressed. And this is part of an argument against evolution?

Check again. It is an increase in the ability to crack the nylon molecule and use it for energy.

The information amount in a frame shift is the same. The information meaning has increased. Suddenly the microbe can handle nylon where before it could not. This is not being made more stupid, this is being made more smart.

Let me go over with you how TOE predicts information can increase in living organisms.

Postulate a population of living organisms with genome G. G contains the information needed to seed the next generation.

Modify G with a few mutations, randomly generated. Nobody can tell in advance what a given mutation will do (except God of course) so its not a specification, it is a random process at this point. We have, then, a degredation of information so far.

BUT - now we let the organisms with the several varieties of G live out their lives and lo, some of the genetic alterations turn out to harm them. Guess what - on the average those harmed individuals reproduce with more difficulty, that is less, and this tends to take away from the popululatino those "bad" genes.

ON THE OTHER HAND, those few that actually help them - maybe making it possible to eat nylon, maybe making it possible to live in an environment laced with penicillin - become more frequent with time.

This amplification of some and suppression of other genes becomes (gasp) information. It becomes the specification as to which genes were helpful and which genes were not. This specification arises naturally and qualifies completely as new information.

What a wonderful world the Creator has made, that can have such wonders within it!

 

Yet amazingly the main genome of the bacteria still remains unchanged. The bacteria has not become more than it was before. When deactivated the plasmid goes back to it's original state.

The random benefit of the mutation doesn't actually increase the information of the genome after all. It never did. The bacteria were able to adapt to it's environment without changing the essence of what it was. The bacteria is still a bacteria. It continues to be a bacteria, with it's primary genetic structure intact and unchanged.

I feel that perhaps I didn't do a very good job in explaining information. Information is defined as 'specified complexity'. In the example, 'superman' and 'sidledja' do not contain the same specified complexity. While sidledja is complex and it 'specifies' nothing. If you have a book, that book has information. If you duplicate the book, you don't have twice as much information - you have twice the quantity of the same information.

The information you are referring to is the Shannon model of information. This Link goes into the difference of information theory between the Shannon model, and the creationist model that I was referring to. Here is a snippet:

This concept of information is incomplete. That Link goes on to speak more about the 'complete picture of information'. Shannon's theories scratch the surface, but are incomplete. His theory talks about information as a purely statistical processes.

Dr. Werner Gitt concludes his remarks with the follwoing:

"The Bible has long made it clear that the creation of the original groups of fully operational living creatures, programmed to transmit their information to their descendants, was the deliberate act of the mind and the will of the Creator, the great Logos Jesus Christ.

We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation."

 

Gup20

First let me say Hello and Welcome. You seem to have thrown yourself immediately into one of the contentious areas of the BB. There are some other topics around here that also stir the passions, but I usually stay out of those. I don't know if you have been lurking for a while or not. We may argue a good bit, but we all remain brothers. Enjoy. BTW, it is customary for new members to go introduce themselves up in the Welcome forum. I don't know if you have and you don't have to, but it is a way to get to know a few people and to let others know about you.

I am going to skip the Dr. Humphreys stuff for the moment. I have some objections, but they require a bit of thought given the complexity of relativity.

"They say that the bacterium generates novel (new) genes in oder to metabolize the nylon. This must be a new gene because nylon was only invented several decades ago...Also, it is important to note that the way, the plasmid does this with the nylon eating is by a frame shift which removes the information telling the bacteria what not to eat. It is the equivalent to putting a blind fold on, and plugging your nose as someone puts food in front of you to eat. Your indicators telling you if it is real food or not have been disabled, so you consume away."

Now something does not add up here. First you say, correctly, that the bacterium acquired the ability to metabolize nylon. Then you say, incorrectly, that it was only a change in which it quit not ingesting nylon. Now these two statements contradict one another.

"The change is actually in one of the bacterium's plasmids (the main DNA of the bacteria remains unchanged). Furthermore, the plasmids on which we see this appearantly novel ability is most likely designed to adapt the bacteria to new food sources."

First, it does not matter if it was nuclear DNA or not. Its genome was changed. Second, here you admit the ability of the bacterium to adapt. That sounds like evolution to me.

"Also, it is important to note that the way, the plasmid does this with the nylon eating is by a frame shift which removes the information telling the bacteria what not to eat."

So every mutation, by your definition, is a loss of information. You have tried to define evolution away. Fortunately, this does not work. So let's look at what happened. A frame shift mutation. Simply put, a section of the DNA was copied to a different place. A new gene was created, a new trait was acquired. Now, this new gene contains "information" that was not there before. The "information" codes for a new and useful protein. So it meets your definition of "specified complexity." YOu can try and define this away as something else, but the fact of the matter is that a mutation has lead to a new gene and a new trait. You can call it whatever you wish, but the bacterium has evolved. If you try and create definitons that make this something else, you undermine your own cause because you are showing that real evolution does not follow the strawman you have created for it.

"No where in nature we we ever see information gaining mutation."

Then what do you make of these?

Franceschini G, et al. (1980) "A-IMilano apoprotein. Decreased high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with significant lipoprotein modifications and without clinical atherosclerosis in an Italian family." J Clin Invest. 66, 892-900 The abstract can be read at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7430351&dopt=Abstract

Francis, J. E., and P. E. Hansche, 1972. Directed evolution of metabolic pathways in microbial populations. I. Modification of the acid phosphatase pH optimum in Saccharaomyces cervisiae. Genetics 70: 59-73.

Hall, B. G. and T. Zuzel, 1980. Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 77(6): 3529-33.

Boraas, M. E., 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 64: 1102.

Lin, E. C. C., and T. T. Wu, 1984. Functional divergence of the L-Fucose system in Escherichia coli. In R. P. Mortlock (ed.), Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution (pp. 135-164) Plenum, New York.

Hartley, B. S., 1984. Experimental evolution of ribitol dehydrogenase. In R. P. Mortlock (ed.), Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution (pp. 23-54) Plenum, New York.

[snip discussion of genetic diversity]

You failed to answer the key part. Where did all these functional genes come from? Because of the bottleneck in your scenario, there would only be a small number of variations. You insist that no new "information" can come about. Yet you also seem to take the position that "kinds" are defined somewhere around the family level in taxonomy. There would not be ANY of the diversity necessary for all the various traits in all the various species to come about without not only evolution, but lots of evolution and at a pace that would make even someone like Gould spin his head around a few times. The animals could have been as perfect genetically as you wish, but you still are only starting with four alleles of a given gene in the pair.

But it gets much worse. You said "Why would God call something full of mutations, vestigial genes, and 'junk dna' good?" Let's look at some of this "junk DNA." I think (This is from memory, I may be off a bit.) that about 5% of the human DNA is jung in the form of what are called endogenous retroviral long term repeats. This is where a virus has inserted a section of its DNA into the genome. Now you have said man would not have been created with this junk. That means that all of these LTRs have been inserted in a very short period of time. Now, if this were the case, you would expect there to be wide differences between human beings in which LTRs they had. In fact, what we see is very little difference if any difference between humans, quite contrary to the predictions of a young earth. It gets even worse. Humans share several LTRs with the other apes. This fits common descent perfectly. You would be forced to hypothesize that not only were a human and an example of all the ape "kinds" infected with the same virus and also that the virus inserted the exact same sequence of DNA into all of these animals and also that the insertion was at the exact same place in the genome of all these animals and also that these insertions was passed through breeding to ALL members of each "kind" and humans and also that this was repeated for each sequence.

You have further tried to explain away the differences we see in humans. You ignore that these differences are specific adaptations to certain conditions. It is not just the amount of pigment in the skin. It is not that in the past the pigmentation genes "operated properly without an overproduction or underproduction." The different levels of pigmentation are adaptations to specific conditions not examples off problems. Did the original gene somehow code for the perfect amount of skin pigmentation and loss of information somehow allows for both more and less pigmentation? What about adaptations to temperature? People in hot regions have tall, lean bodies that provide more surface area to shed heat. People in colder climates have shorter, stockier bodies that provide less surface area and more insulation to retain heat. They have noses adapted to warm the incoming air. These are all adaptations, examples of evolution. If you define it away, you are just calling evolution something else. You have no evidence to support your assertion that all this can be done by loss of "information" from some perfect state. A rose by any other name...

 

"Well, for one thing, I don't see any transitional fossils."

Just because you are not well versed in paleontology does not mean that transitional fossils do not exist. BUt we'll get back to that.

"Evolutionists claim that animals gained informaion by mutation. They say that genes duplicated, and one set stayed the same as the other set was free to mutate."

Well, I gave you a list of several examples of new traits through mutation above. The second statement is one of the ways to get new genes. It is possible to simply mutate the existing genes. That many genes for widely varying fuctions have very similar structure is cause to suppose that many new traits do come from what you said, though. One copy maintains the function while the other is free to mutate and possibly come up with an improved or new function.

Did you know that the genome seems evolved to, well, evolve? As it turns out, the different combinations or three "letters" that code for the various amino acids have a curious property. Mistakes in one of the three letters is very like to substitute a similar amino acid, or even the same one in cases, to the one specified by the original code. This means the single point mutations, instead of disabling a gene, will instead lead to a similar but slightly different function. In this way, small changes give the organism new traits which can be acted upon by natural selection to choose the best adaptations to the environment.

"If this were true, we would see billions of clear transitions. We would see a blue shark, for example... then we would see a blue shark with back legs..." [snip the rest]

You give a nice strawman here but one that is not what we actually see in the fossil record. Since you have fish growing legs, let's talk about what we do see in getting fish onto land. Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are two of the key transitionals. We start with lobe finned fish. Then we see lobe finned fish that have varying degrees of transformation in their lobes. The bones begin to look like little legs. Even by the time you get to Acanthostega you have a creature that is undeniably a fish. It still has the tail and several other fish traits. But is also has legs. Complete with the three long bones, a weak pelvis, and eight little fingers / toes on each leg. Now, the physiology of this creature tells us it would not have been able to support itself on land, so any trips out of the water would have been short indeed. But even short trips where your predators cannot go is a distinct advantage. The environemt of these creatures show that they lived in shallow, murky water. So the legs conferred an advantage to scurrying around on the bottom where the water helped support the creature. Ichthyostega is more amphibian like. Anyhow, as you go through the transition to amphibians, you see a gradual change. Legs grow. Creatures that can support themselves on land but which still maintain fish like traits such as a lateral line. Different combinations of gills and lungs. The problem with your strawman is that it supposes that changes happen in discrete steps in a particular direction and in isolation. None of this is what we actually see. Each of these creatures had to be adapted to the actual environment in which it lived. Else it would have been selected against. Some fish was not born one day with legs and decided that they might be useful on the surface. The systems change together. And in a way that makes the individual better adapted to where it lives. Look again at the fishes to amphibians. Acanthostega lived in shallow murky water. Where legs an advantage to getting around in such a locale? Do you see fish today who live in murky water who have the ability to breathe a little air if needed? Do you not think this would have been likely with Acanthostega too? Once you have legs and the ability to breathe some air, do you think there is an advantage to being able to go on the land where you have no predators? Do you think that a "fish" that could get around slightly better on land or that could breath air slightly more efficiently would have an advantage that would get selected for?

"All the so-called transitions that we see go from one creature to a very different creature in giant leaps. There are no gradual point by point transitions until you get to transitions within kinds"

Not true as I have shown you in a general way. Feel free to Google if you want more information. Or ask. But you see this over and over. The reptile to mammal transition is very long and shows a wide variety of features changing together. Birds are a great example. You start off with the theropod dinosaurs. Some evolve into small, fast hunters like velociraptor. There are changes going on. The bones show that some of these creatures were likely warm blooded. This fits in with the active lifestyle implied by the bones. If you think about some of the large theropods, like T. rex, you will be able to picture in your mind their short, stubby arms. Well, as some grew smaller, their arms lengthened and began to be used to seize prey according to the function from their bones. The amazing thing is this. The motion that you get from the bones that would be used to seize prey is exactly the same motion that birds use in the upstroke of flying. As the creatures bodies adapted to be able to better seize prey they were developing the same traits that would be useful later in flight. Another example of evolution later making use of something that was developed for a different purpose. Not an obvious direction. Another curious coincidence, as the bones begin to show warm blooded characteristics, you begin to see some theropods covered in warm, downy feathers. Feathers were not devolped with flight as a goal, there were developed to conserve heat in concert with other traits needed for warm bloodedness. Again, in contrast to your strawman. You begin to get to creatures such as Caudipteryx and Sinosauropteryx, creatures who are obviously still dinosaurs but who are now covered with long feathers, including tail feathers. Now, these feathers are symetrical and would not be useful for flight at all. But, they would look very much like a bird if you saw one. Then you get to Microraptor. This is a small dinosaur who has a new trick. He has assymetrical feathers on both his front arms and rear legs. Now, his skelton tells us he was not capable of powered flight, but there is only one reason to have flight feathers. He was capable of gliding flight. Then look at Archaeopteryx. Here is a creature capable of powered flight. With feet for grasping on limbs to land. But also a creature who has dozens on individual traits that are outside the range of any bird but that are within the common range of the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved. This is why it is considered such a fine example of a transitional.

I also happen to like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and Dorudon.

"First, I assume that in the original creation, organisms were created for a variety of different environments. Since there is a continuum of environments, we should also expect to see a continuum of organisms. However, since there were only a finite number of different kinds of organisms at the creation, this continuum should be composed of a finite set of discrete organisms. So we should expect to find reptiles and amphibians, each adapted for a different environment. Since there are environments in between, we should also expect to find organisms having some characteristics of reptiles and some characteristics of amphibians. Thus we should expect to find sequences of organisms A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H where A is a reptile and H is an amphibian, and the characteristics of the organisms gradually become more amphibian-like and less reptile-like. However, there will not be any links between A and B, or between B and C, et cetera, because these are a finite set of discrete organisms."

Your source starts off with an assuption which he has not supported. Indeed, he makes the prediction that creatures between reptiles and amphibians will be found not on any factual basis. Instead, it is a tacit admission that such fossils exist showing transitions which he must deny.

Now, there is a way to demonstrate his error. According to him, ALL "kinds" were alive at one time. A logical prediction of this is that all "kinds" should be found together, at least in the lowest levels of the fossil record before extinction had a chance to work. But this is not what we see at all. Each layer of the fossil record contains only a narrow slice of life. You will never find a whale in Cambrian deposits nor an ape with dinosaur remains. This is an important prediction that recently created "kinds" fails completely.

There is another mistake. You said "There are no gradual point by point transitions until you get to transitions within kinds."

In reality, We find the opposite. Gould said in one of his books something to the effect that we have very few transitional series at the species level but abundant transitional series and higher levels. This is the whole basis for puncuated equilibrium and is direct evidence opposite from what you claim.

YOur source also said "Furthermore, we should not expect living creatures to have a clear hierarchical relationship." But he apparently has not heard of the twin nested heirarchy. That we can construct very similar trees using physiology to the ones we construct using genetic evidence contradicts what he claims and is powerful evidence for common descent.

[snip information of demonstrating kinds]

Well, since he and I agree that it should be possible to draw those clear cut lines between "kinds," why has nobody yet been able to quantitatively show us what the kinds are and to show the big genetic differences between the kinds? Maybe because it cannot be done?

 

Speaking to the thread TOPIC - does evolutionary doctrine protect the Bible.

I would conclude that, no, evolutionary doctrine does not protect the Bible. Moreover it weakens the Bible and promotes a humanistic worldview.

Genesis is the foundation of the Bible. Without it, the 'story' or focus of the Bible does not make sense. Genesis is like the foundation upon which the rest of the Bible is built. Take away genesis and Christianity becomes a fluffy religous practice with no basis in the 'real world', and no authority either. If Geneis is not literal, and we evolved to this point by naturalistic processes, that means that the story of creation is not literal. If Genesis is some sort of poetic verse representing some mythical fabel, then how can we trust that Man has fallen? This would also have to be figurative rather than literal. If that is the case that would seem to indicate that there is no literal heaven or hell. This can lead one to believe that there is no real need for a savior. The Reason Jesus came to die for us is because of what Adam gave up at the fall.

Look at Romans Chapter 5.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only [so], but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come

Why are we here? Why were we created? We were created to glorify God and be Stewards over his creation. We were created to rule and reign with Christ and have dominion over the earth.

Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Our purpose here seems clear. One could even say this is the very commissioning of Science. We are to subdue the earth and rule it as Stewards for God.

However, Adam gave up the right for dominion of this world to Satan when he partook of the apple and disobeyed God (disobeying God is the only true 'sin'). Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

We all inherit the sin of Adam as we are all offspring and genetic heirs of Adam. All except for Jesus - he was born of a virgin. He was literally the only one who could attone and 'win back' for us our place in creation.

Jhn 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

Jhn 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

Satan is the prince of this world because Adam gave him the right to be so. This is why we need a 'Savior' in Jesus Christ to redeem us from the curse of the law (disobedience to God) which is death.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

If you undermine the authority of Genesis, you undermine the need for a savior. Genesis sets up the 'legal' reasoning to the universe for death and salvation. If this is not true, then there is no need for Christ to die on the cross for us... no need for redemption. This is a HUMANISTIC view - that we are not responsible to (legally bound by the laws of the universe and God) to God. Humanism says that we evolved and are not the result of God's direct influence, therefore we do not have to be accountable to Him or His Word.

How do I know it's humanism? How do I know that humanism is the enemy of christianity - moreover the enemy of mankind?

Because it is the first weapon fashioned by Satan to decieve and corrupt man. It was the very mechanism that the Devil used to take Man's rightful place in creation away from him.

Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Satan comes and the first thing he does is question God's command - "hath God said?" He plants a seed of doubt in our minds - 'is this really God's word?' 'Is Genesis really literal?'

The next thing Satan does is directly contradict God and his commandments with a lie - "ye shall surely not die". Once we allow ourselves to quetion the word of God, contradiction to God's Word is not far behind.

Finally, Satan lures man with power "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Here is a question - was this statement a lie? No! This was not a direct lie. Satan ommitted the fact that Man would usher death and corruption into creation, and that he would give away his dominion, but man did in fact begin to know the difference between right and wrong. What is Humanism but an extension of that promise? For us to 'be as gods' and 'know right from wrong'. For us to 'determine our own destiny' abcent the Word of God. We are accountabel to ourselves instead of being accountable to God. It was Humanism that decieved man in the Garden of Eden. It is humanism that is the root of Evolution.

How many christians believe in some form of evolution? You have the full blown ToE... you have Theistic Evolution and you have Progressive Creationism. Theistic Evolution and Progressive Creation are basically the same... the thought is that God made the Big Bang happen and everything happened naturalisticly since then.

Now answer this - How many who proclaim to be humanists believe in Evolution? 100%! As a matter of fact, Darwin was a humanist. One of the biggest holidays and celebrations on the Humanist calendar is the Darwin Day celebration. Darwin wanted to attempt to explain the world in a natrualistic way.

So then - to the question - does the evolutionary doctrine hurt the church? Take a look at ANY other humanistic view that has infected the church. Look at homosexuality, for example. The Bible clearly indicates homosexuality is wrong. Genesis gives us a very clear model of 'marriage' being between Adam and Eve. God ordains and creates the institution of Marriage - yet we see some denominations ordaining homosexual priests and ministers with the blessing of 'the church'. How does this happen? It starts with a question - it leads to a lie and a contradiction of scripture - and ultimately Humanism reigns supreme as man decides for himself what is right or wrong.

The same is true with Genesis, and creation. If God's Word is not strictly adhered to, it leads to the crumbling of the foundation of truth. It opens the door to humanistic influence (instead of Godly influence). It undermines the whole of scripture. Humanism is, and has always been, the greatest threat to humanity.

Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

When we do what 'seems right in our own eyes' the end result is always death.

So - if man's ways are death, what do we have then? We have the Word of God. If we always adhere to a literal interpretation of the Word of God, we argue not from the opinion of fallible man, but from the authority of scripture. If the scripture is indeed authoritative and true (as a christian would by faith believe is the case) then arguing what the Word says is to argue truth. Evolutionary thought has flip-flopped on so many issues over the last 150 years. Theories come and go - revisions are constant. God never changes. He and his Word are one. Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. God's word never changes. If we argue literal creation as is written in the Word, then we argue TRUTH. If we argue truth, then we cannot be embarrased as the truth will always reign in the end.

It must always fit with the Word of God. It must always line up with 'truth'. If it doesn't then we must dismiss it, no matter how compelling it may seem.

Consider this - by definition Evolution is exclusionary to the supernatural. By definition the process of evolution is naturalistic. How then, can evolution be considered a fair judge between supernatural creation and naturalistic evolution? If by definition it is exclusionary to the supernatural, then the only logical conclusion to the evolutionary paradigm will also be exclusionary to the supernatural. As such, the validity of special creation (because it is a supernatural event) cannot be decided on the basis of evolutionary thought, as the evolutionary paradigm is not objective to a supernatural conclusion. By definition the possibility is excluded.

 

Another thing, I think you need to do some work to even establish the link between informational theory and genetics. I do not see how the two are connected. We keep going over examples of ne traits and genes that you say adds nothing in the sense of informational theory. It is to a "So what" stage now. If you can get new adaptations, new traits, and all without conforming to whatever application of information theory you are trying to make, why is it relevent?

 

BTW, you can read up closer to the top of the thread to see my statements related to the subject line of the thread.

 

I am just going to repost the same reply I made to a similar reference to Humphreys' claims about a month back. The jist is that he shows that he does not understand relativity, not unusual since I do not believe he has any formal training in the matter, and that no experts in relativity support his claims.

I think it is also very telling that he is going to great lengths to fit the obviously ancient universe into his young earth philosophy. With enough knowledge of astronomy, the ancient age of the universe can no longer be denied. Occam's razor would tell us that we should just accept this rather than twist the pretzel until it breals trying to fit it into something else. Of course the more you learn about geology the more likely you are to understand the great age of the earth and the more you learn about biology the more likely you are to see the truth about evolution.

----------------------------------------------

Regarding Humphreys' claims, I am just going to quote few things rather than put it in my own words. I ahte to, but it is the easiest way here.

from

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main

A Christian sourse, BTW.

That is enough. Too much. Read the full story at the above link.

 

Gup20

First let me say Hello and Welcome. You seem to have thrown yourself immediately into one of the contentious areas of the BB. There are some other topics around here that also stir the passions, but I usually stay out of those. I don't know if you have been lurking for a while or not. We may argue a good bit, but we all remain brothers. Enjoy. BTW, it is customary for new members to go introduce themselves up in the Welcome forum...

Thank you for the welcome, and no, I have not been lurking. I was invited to come here by our mutual friend, Bob, who saw me posting on a secular Creation VS Evolution forum. To tell you the truth, I would MUCH rather argue creation VS evolution with believers as the basis if YEC (young earth creationism) is the Bible - which is most usually scoffed at by secularists.

First, it does not matter if it was nuclear DNA or not. Its genome was changed. Second, here you admit the ability of the bacterium to adapt. That sounds like evolution to me.

I will address the 2nd first - to me, Adaptation does not mean evolution took place. It is, however, strong evidence that the bacterium has some seriously wonderful design. It was designed for a wide range of environments as well as with the ability to adapt to new situations.

Would you agree that God designed the bacteria? Do you think that God created Bacteria discreetly as he did Adam?

Again - newness is not the measure of information - that only applies to statistical information. Biological information is far more complex.

Secondly, (to address your 1st point) I would argue that nuclear DNA is what is most important. In the evolutionary transition from amphibian to reptile, changes in nuclear DNA are required - therefore I would say that for any creature to increase in information from a lower to a higher life form, changes in nuclear DNA would be necessary.

This would seem to be strong evidence that creatures are free to vary within 'kind', but not outside of it.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Here we see God creating creatures and commanding them to reproduce after their own kind. If God says he creates every living creature in the sea after it's own kind, and then says he creates everything that creapeth on the earth after it's own kind - clearly these are two separate kinds that do not flow or overlap into each other. How can we presume that a sea creature would reproduce after it's kind to give birth to a land animal?

what do you make of these

While I don't have time to go through each of those examples... it will have to suffice for now that the answers are generally the same. I will deal with the first one - the apoprotein.

Again, this makes the assumption that beneficial mutations go against the creationist model or idea of information. This is not the case. Beneficial mutations do happen, however it is a loss of specified complexity. In this case an ammino acid is replaced with a cysteine residue for a protein that removes cholesterol from arteries. The mutated gene doesn't do it's intended function very well anymore, but one effect of the mutation is that it now acts as an antioxident (because of the cysteine) which is good for keeping the arteries from hardening. Up to 70% of the original cholesterol fighting capability of the gene is hindered, but the reaming 30% still try to perform their function. One part that is left is the targeting information - so the gene is able to perform it's function as an antioxidant rather that it's intended functionality. In other words, specificity of the antioxidant activity does not lie with the mutation itself, but with the protein structure, which already existed, in which the mutation occurred. You can read the AiG description (which I have borrowed from) here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0221.asp

It sums up nicely: Now in gaining an anti-oxidant activity, the protein has lost a lot of activity for making HDLs. So the mutant protein has sacrificed specificity. Since antioxidant activity is not a very specific activity (a great variety of simple chemicals will act as antioxidants), it would seem that the result of this mutation has been a net loss of specificity, or, in other words, information. This is exactly as we would expect with a random change.

So again we can see that this is the wrong directional change needed by evolution. It is a loss in information (specified complexity). Perhaps a new ability is gained, but at a cost. This goes to demonstrate the concept that I was trying to convey earlier. Adam had all the human genes in perfect condition (unmutated) and mutation has lessened the information level in the human genome since then. Therefore inbreeding would not have been, nor caused, a problem for the first few thousand years.

You failed to answer the key part. Where did all these functional genes come from? Because of the bottleneck in your scenario, there would only be a small number of variations.

Well, in the example of skin 'color' and melanin... All that would be required is a loss in the genes for adaptation to solar environments. If some information is lost, for example, in the genes that make the skin color dynamic, what would result? Well - you would still have the genes for skin color and creating melanin - they would still function. Without a control signal to say 'how much' they would have to plug in 'something'. It's like a manual override in electronics. If a spectrum device with a range goes out of order, the device defaults to a binary solution at the two extremes. For example - if you have one of those lights that you can gradually increase or decrease the brightness of - and it malfunctions, the result is often a 'full on' or 'full off' bipole. So then, the offspring, in the absence of the genes for dynamic operation, would be polarized. From there, we can work with Mendel and Punnet's prediction formulas for which traits will be inherited and expressed.

This is hypothetical of course, as no one to my knowledge has run DNA mapping/testing on Adam. However, theoretically it should be possible.

The animals could have been as perfect genetically as you wish, but you still are only starting with four alleles of a given gene in the pair.

Ah, but again, this uses the unifomitarian concept that we can interpret the past by what we observe in the present (the thought that things are now as they have always been). It may very well be that, as I have indicated, there were many functions which were not polar, but dynamic and mutation and 'micro-evolution' (sometimes called speciation by creationists) is acceptable within the creationist paradigm.

Let's look at some of this "junk DNA." I think (This is from memory, I may be off a bit.) that about 5% of the human DNA is jung in the form of what are called endogenous retroviral long term repeats.

A few decades ago researchers noted that the human genome served as a template for the synthesis of proteins. Researchers soon determined that only a small fraction of it (less than 3%) appeared to perform this role, leading them to suspect that the other 97% (non-coding DNA) was a useless evolutionary leftover. Hence, Junk DNA was coined.

However, over the years more and more stretches of non-coding DNA have been found to be functional.

I get the following from TJ18(1) 2004:

The same applies to psudogenes - of which we have found many to have function. It would seem that this 'junk' is not junk after all.

You ignore that these differences are specific adaptations to certain conditions.

On the contrary, the YEC view is dependent on good ol' natural selection to arrive at the diversity and variety we have today. Obviously changes occur - we disagree over the direction of the change, but we agree that changes occur. There are many aspects of Evolution that YEC agree with, however, the main beef is that #1 life arose by naturalistic ways and #2 that that information is gained by mutation. We blieve the Bible is true... that God created the animals discreetly and they diversified and speciated through isolation of specific traits.

For example - in people - the greatest divesification/isolation/natual selecive event in our history is the Tower of Babel were genes and people groups were isolated by language.

 

UTEOTW: Just because you are not well versed in paleontology does not mean that transitional fossils do not exist. BUt we'll get back to that.

While I wouldn't say I am well versed in paleontology, I would admit that I have taken a long hard look at evolutionary tree of organisms. I would have to say that there is nothing about that demonstrates conclusively that it is not a continuum of discreet creatures, or that it is definately a map of transsitions. In fact, for one to assume that they are an evolutionary ancestor-decendent tree, one would have to discount the creation of distinct creatures in Genesis 1. It says quite clearly that God created sea creatures and then the next day created land animals. It says they were created 'from the dust of the earth'. It doesn't say God took a whale and fashioned a cow.

It is overwhelming clear also that God is talking about literal 1 revolution of the earth days in Genesis 1. If they were indeed literal days, I don't see any room in the scripture (assuming the scripture is true) for evolution to occur as millions of years just aren't there.

Also - I am curious - How do you reconcile Noah's flood? If you believe evolution, do you believe in Noah's flood? If you DON'T believe the floody happened how can you believe anything the Bible says?

UTEOTW: Instead, it is a tacit admission that such fossils exist showing transitions which he must deny

I don't see why he must deny it. He isn't saying that a sea creature turned into a land creature - he is saying that sea creatures have a continuum of species and land creatures have a contnuum of species for the wide range of environments each could face. As long as he doesn't make the leap into assumption that sea creatures turned into land creatures he's doing ok as far as the Bible is concerned.

Since sea creatures and land creatures appeared on this planet within 24 hours of each other, I would say that this is probably not an unrealistic prediction.

UTEOTW: But he apparently has not heard of the twin nested heirarchy. That we can construct very similar trees using physiology to the ones we construct using genetic evidence contradicts what he claims and is powerful evidence for common descent.

All of which have gaps. I would like to see how you justify millions of years within the Bible's time framework, and I would also like to know what mutation rates you think could account for evolution over 6000-10000 years.

UTEOTW: Well, since he and I agree that it should be possible to draw those clear cut lines between "kinds," why has nobody yet been able to quantitatively show us what the kinds are and to show the big genetic differences between the kinds? Maybe because it cannot be done?

Patience, my friend. The work progresses slowly.

See the following info on 'Kinds'

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1254.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1332.asp

Those explain the Kinds system as we understand it. The Last one, is an article on Dawin's Galapagos Island Finches. It describes very well the YEC view on speciation.

Another VERY EXCELLENT link to understanding kinds is Biblical Kinds Contrasted with Species

The creationist scientist, Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), the founder of the science of taxonomy, tried to determine the created kinds. He defined a ‘species’ as a group of organisms that could interbreed among themselves, but not with another group, akin to the Genesis concept.

Here is some good info from that last link:

I hope this helps to see the YEC perspective of Kinds a little more clearly. Like I said... the work moves slowly, but more is coming out all the time to define it further.

 

If you can get new adaptations, new traits, and all without conforming to whatever application of information theory you are trying to make, why is it relevent?

The point here is that the information level is decreased from creation till now. In order for these 'new' traits to arise, information must be sacrificed. Eventually, if all these new traits keep ariseing there will be nothing left - the animal will go extinct and exhaust the finite level of information it was given at creation. In fact, that is what we see very often with the extinction of thousands of species all the time. This is the opposite that must happen in order for evolution to go from molecules to man.