Do the doctrines of evolutionism protect the Bible?

"Another smoke screen UTEOTW? "obviously" I am not quoting the evolutionist Asimov on all his evolutionist beliefs! It serves my purpose to simply highlight what he says about entropy and its impact on biological systems."

It is not a smoke screen to point out that if you were to include the 5 or 6 sentences to either side of your quote, it would have a completely different meaning that what you have given us. This is a dishonest misquoting of a reputable person. You are telling us that he said something which he really did not say. Now, the actual words you have given us may be accurate, but by deliberately leaving out the following sentences you have changed the meaning of what the author said. You are trying to give us a false impression of what he thinks about entropy and evolution.

"Now THERE is a substantive comment if ever there was one!"

Yes it is. It is very good evidence that you have not actually read your reference since you reference a journal that does not exist. If you had read the article, you would not have made that mistake. Instead, you accept what someone else has to say about it without checking to see if they are correct. And given the horrible track record of YECers quoting scientist accurately, this is one you should have checked out.

"Interesting "Story". But I can "show" my example in real life. Can you?"

Well, yes. But you would not accept the evidence. Go read up on some of the strategies that animals that live in deep ocean water have developed to deal with low light living.

But you did not answer the question. What specifically would prevent any of the possibilities I mentioned from occuring? The chemistry is not different to give a beneficial mutation as opposed to a harmful one or a neutral one. So why are the beneficial ones impossible. Tell us, in technical terms, what prevents it.

 

Gina

Beneficial mutations...

I do not know if you found the others I had posted before, but they were all links to abstracts without other information. Since you are non-technical, that might not be the best way. So let me give you a few more, different than the others.

There is a mutation found in a particular ethnic group in Africa. From the pattern in which the mutation has spread, it is believed to have happened about 1000 years ago. There is a substitution in a single nucleotide of the gene that makes hemoglobin, the oxygen carrying molecule in the blood, that changes which amino acid is inserted at that spot. The new form is known as hemoglobin C. People with this gene ara about 14 times less likely to die from malaria. Before anyone asks, this is a different mutation than the one that causes sickle cell anemia. Here is an abstract. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11001883&dopt=Abstract

There is a gene, CKR5, in which a mutant version appears in some people of European ancestry. This mutated gene makes it more difficult or impossible for HIV to infect the persons cells, depending on which type of mutation the individual has.

Here is another abstract to a mutation in a plant that offers increased disease resistance. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14576290&dopt=Abstract

 

I hope that helps with the beneficial mutations. I listed just a few, and maybe you can find the others I listed, but even a few are enough to show that there is nothing preventing beneficial mutations from happening.

But Paul brought up another interesting, and related, topic when he mentioned vestigal parts a few posts ago. Evolution tends to reuse or change existing parts rather than invent from scratch. (Though plenty has been invented from scratch!) Think of birds. They did not sprout wings from nothing and have their existing arms waste away over the eons. No, over time, the arms of the theropod dinosaurs was changed into functioning wings. And not with flight in "mind." It was hunting. The larger theropods, think T. rex, had small arms that do not appear to have been useful for much. But the smaller ones have bone structure that indicates that they were used for grasping prey. And as it turns out, the motion they used for grasping prey, according to the form of the bones, is exactly the same motion used for the powered upstroke of flight. The bone structures, such as the fused clavicle, and muscle structure that was later used in flight, was originally selected for based on a better ability to hunt. Only later was it coopted for flight.

I say all that as an introduction. We can look at the human body and see examples of where function is shared across species. I have been wanting to do this same post looking at how genes are reused for vastly different purposes, but I have not gotten around to it. Physical stuff is easier to see, anyway.

First, the familar. We are all familar with animals puffing up their fur. Cats can do it to make themselves look bigger when frightened. Sometimes you will see animals do it in the cold to puff up the fur for greater warmth. Now look at you own arm the next time you are cold and feel goose bumps coming up. Or when something frightens you with the same reaction. We have hardly any body hair. Raising the hair on end will not keep us warmer nor will it make us look bigger. Yet we retain this function from our harrier past.

Can you wiggle your ears? Why? It has no benefit. At least to us. Our distant ancestors could turn their hears to help them hear better. Watch a dog or cat. (Not that I am saying they are our ancestors!) Some of us have not lost this ability.

Most of us are sitting on our bottoms. These muscles are huge (I think they may be the largest in the body.) and are essential to upright walking like ours. The other apes have the same muscle, but it is much smaller. This is why when you see a chimp ambling around on two legs they have that funny look where their knees are sharply bent with the thigh bones much closer to horizontal than in a human. Humans have devoloped this into a large muscle for walking but it is the same muscle as in the other apes. For that matter, look at the whole subject of upright walking. Our bodies have many problems because the bodies of our ancestors were on all fours. When moved upright, problems insue. Look at how many people have lower back troubles.

While talking about four legged ancestors... There is a muscle, the subclavius, that goes from the first rib to the collarbone. In other animals this muscle is used in moving the front legs for walking. Humans have not completely lost this relic. Some people maintain both of these on each arm, some only one, and some people none. They serve us no purpose.

Another muscle we no longer use is the plantaris muscle. This is used by other primates to grasp with their feet. We have no use for it and it has shrunk to the size of a nerve fiber.

There is a similar muscle in the lower arm called the palmaris. It is used by primates for hanging and climbing. In humans it has no function and is often taken by surgeons in need of a muscle elsewhere for reconstructive surgery.

I have many others, but I think that gets the point across.

 

It’s really sad to know that a Church would elect an evolutionist as it’s Sunday School director. Looks like another Church that’s compromised God’s Word in order not to offend or run off its members.

This is where your logic and your philosophies fail. Science has NEVER shown a virgin birth in humans. Science has NEVER shown a bodily resurrection in humans. Maybe you should re-qualify your statement to say ‘true science’ and God’s Word are not in conflict.

You deal with scripture in such away, that bearing in mind that God Himself says what is written in scripture, but since God is speaking, its not fitting for you to wanting to turn His word into the direction you wish to go. The problem you have and many, many other Churches is that you don’t let God speak to you through His Word, you rather tell God what He means.

The sad thing that’s running ramped in our churches today and from reading your posts, YOUR church as well, is that when one takes the perfect Word of God and man’s fallible opinion and they try to make them both agree, something’s must give. Which one do you think will get modified? Sadly, it’s usually the Bible. It’s grievous to the Holy Spirit by using man’s fallible theories to judge the infallible Word of God.

I like the quote Martin Luther used in his day concerning the creation account. If you cannot understand how this could’ve been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit of being more learned that you are.

[ May 24, 2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: john6:63 ]

 

So, john6:63, what is your response to the things I posted in the post just above yours? Why do we have these body parts that are not explained by current function but that are explained by common descent where our ancestors would have made use of these features? Just to take one small example.

 

Your examples look like the classic attempt by evolutionist to use the homology theory to prove evolution as fact.

If some of these vestigial organs can be proven to exist, then its not evolution it supports, if anything its evolution in reverse. The burden of proof is on you, the evolutionist to demonstrate that the new development of new and useful organs is occurring today. Your examples are nothing more than documenting that once useful organs are now useless, show me an example of a process that exists that can form new structures called nascent organs. Evidence for the development of new organs or those in the process of evolving, would be a good start in proving evolution.

 

I gave oyu three beneficial new traits above. You do not seem to have concerned yourself with that. But, I can give you some examples of the development of other new traits later. It will take some time.

In the mean time, you have avoided the main point of the later post. Why do we have all these leftover parts that would have been useful to our ancestors but that are not useful to us. They show our connection to the other life on this planet, yet you simply dismiss them because they do not fit your view. Why would we have these functions if they are not evidence of our past?

 

OK How about flying squirrels as examples of creatures on the way towards evolving wings?

 

And here's an example of a fish taking ordinary fins that are designed for steering in water and using them as legs. Imagine that - seeing a stage in the evolution of legs before our very eyes!
http://www.ired.com/news/lieberman/020915.htm

 

One nice series of a structure devoloping from nothing is the feather. Sinosauropteryx is the oldest dinosaur found with feathers. The feathers of Sinosauropteryx are very fine and downy. This seems to be the first stage in the evolution of feathers. Protarchaeopteryx is another small dinosaur. It was also covered in feathers similar to Sinosauropteryx, but Protarchaeopteryx had spread of larger fethers on it tail. These feathers were symettrical and therefore not involved for flight. Caudipteryx is another small dinosaur. This time we add symetrical feathers to the forarms in addition to the fan of feathers on the tail. Then we move on to Microraptor. This animal has asymmetrical feathers, those meant for flight, coving both its arms and its legs. It did not have the skeleton for powered flight, but it does have the needed ingredients to be a four winged glider. Then we move on to Confuciusornis which is the oldest dinosaur (or bird if you prefer) with fully devoloped flight feathers and the ability for powered flight. If you go back and look up additional information of these creatures, you will be able to see all the other bodily changes that were happening in concert with the developement of feathers that eventually led to powered flight. But I focused on the feathers since you wanter to see something new develope. If you look into the subject you will also find that they now know which genes regulate the development of feathers.

 

OK How about flying squirrels as examples of creatures on the way towards evolving wings? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Got any evidence of any transitional fossils of these squirrels evolving to the point of flying?

LOL…Imagine this, the very legs I use to walk on and arms I use to work with, I can use to propel and guide me through the water…wow, evolution right before our eyes…

 

You didn’t show that the dinosaurs before the Sinosauropteryx didn’t have feathers? You told me you were going to show a structure developing from nothing and you start with a dinosaur that already had feathers.

 

john6:63

I do not think you get the impact of Paul's fish example. If you look in the fossil record, you can see the fins of lobe finned fish evolving into arms and legs. Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are the best examples of this process in action. If you want another set of transitionals, I can go through the whole fish to amphibians thing. I chose not to do that above because it largely involves that evolution of body parts with one function into parts with a different function. Since this is modification of existing structures and not the development of a nascent structure, I went with the feathers instead. Now, here today, Paul has shown you a fish doing much the same thing today. It can breath air well enough to survive a few days and can use its fins to get around on land a bit. Most species of fish with which we are familar can do neither. You might be able to use your arms and legs to swim for a while but I doubt you can go under water for a few days and use your lungs to remove oxygen from the water for you.

 

You said "You didn’t show that the dinosaurs before the Sinosauropteryx didn’t have feathers? You told me you were going to show a structure developing from nothing and you start with a dinosaur that already had feathers."

But I already said "Sinosauropteryx is the oldest dinosaur found with feathers."

Would you like to show that all dinosaurs before Sinosauropteryx also had feathers or do you accept that there was a first dinosaur with feathers?

One of the reasons that you should look at the other changes going on with this group of dinosaurs at the same time that feathers developed is because it makes things make more sense. Before this time, dinosaurs were cold blooded. But at the time you see feathers develope, you also see evidence for warm bloodedness in the bones of that group. The fine structure of the bones becomes more like a warmblooded animal and the body style changes to a more active lifestyle. Taken together, feathers were an adaptation for heat conservation. Not only do we not have evidence for feathers before this, the cold blooded animals that came before would have had no need for feathers.

 

If by walking the article Paul posted means the sort of walking that a tetrapod uses, then the ‘walking fish’ doesn’t walk; it slithers on its belly using its fins as anchor points. Since by trade I’m not a scientist, I took the liberty of looking in the Encyclopedia Britannica, researching a type of fish as this the ‘walking catfish’:

IMO, I don’t see that these ‘walking catfish’ or any fish that ‘seem’ to be ‘walking’ to the average Joe, as modern examples of fish in transition. To me, from what I’ve learned thus far, they seem to be in stasis, perfectly adapted to their environment and going nowhere. (Meaning, when their habitat dries up they relocate themselves to a new habitat capable of sustaining them.) They are a good example of the limits of microevolution. They have developed to the limits of their genetic variability and apparently cannot develop further unless major mutations are supplied at the right time, in the right sequence, in the right environmental circumstances, to increase their store of genetic information, heck even Dawkins admits this in his The blind watchmaker book:

And I'm sure these 'walking fish' can survive out of water for any considerable amount of time either, eventually they'll die.

 

Can these "walking fish" survive longer outside the water than a normal fish? Seems like an advantage. Go look closely at the examples I gave you of Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. They good examples of transitions caught in action. If you take them, and the fossils to either side, you can see quite a number of transitions occurring.

You accidentally quoted too much in your Dawkins quote. You let it slip that new mutations can add additional variety to a population and allow it to continue evolving. The rate of selection when you are talking about selective breeding is much faster than natural selection, so of course it can only go so far before the variety runs out. Even with the rapid evolution of punctuated equilibrium, the changes still take place over hundreds of thousands of years, plenty of time for mutations to add diversity to select upon. I think you misread Dawkins if you think that quote shows that he is admitting that change is limited to microevolution. Whoever gave you that quote is twisting his meaning in the way it is quoted. Have you read The Blind Watchmaker yourselv to see what Dawkins has too say on the matter in full?

Do you now accept the feathers I gave you as a good example of a nascent structure developing?

 

No, b/c you’re example of the Sinosauropteryx wasn’t the first dinosaur with feathers as you pointed out. According to evolutionary ‘dating’ the Sinosauropteryx dates to 135 – 121 million years, while the Archaeopteryx, a more bird like creature w/ feathers ‘date’ to 150 million years.

Moreover, the Sinosauropteryx is often used to promote that dinosaurs evolved into birds. But what I’ve recently discovered is that a study at the University of NC, showed that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, and suggested that it is almost impossible for the species to be closely related. In addition, Oregon State University studied the fossil outline of the Sinosauropteryx and determined that, its bellowslike lungs couldn’t have evolved into the high-performance lungs of modern birds.

So to my conclusion, I have to consider the lack of transitional forms between feathers and scales. How much more complicated feathers are than scales and for scales to have evolved into feathers means that a significant amount of genetic information or specific chemical complexity has to exist in the bird’s DNA, which is not present in that of the reptile. Your Sinosauropteryx example had downy feathers that lacked the hooks needed to make flight feathers.

So my advice to you is to stop reading science fiction and get back to the Bible and reacquaint yourself the Word of God.