Does teaching evolution harm Christianity?

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by JWI:
Here is an excellent article that has caused quite a stir in science. It deals with the very subject at hand.

I know you evolutionists will enjoy this article.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

Basically, the whole thing in nutshell says "We don't think evolution works, so there". They use fancier words, but no experimental evidence or scientific rationale beyond saying "it doesn't seem right to us . . . "

 

[UTEOTW]

" I apologize if I misread you... but this understanding came from reading your posts.

I have not been able to find a resource independent of you on the net that confirms or contradicts the amount of sharing between humans and other species."

I have the misfortune of being both long winded and having difficulty in expressing my thoughts. Sometimes it bites you.

One resource was previously given.

"Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences," Welkin E. Johnson and John M. Coffin, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 96, Issue 18, 10254-10260, August 31, 1999.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254

Let me see if I can locate some others.

"Evolutionary implications of primate endogenous retroviruses," Shih A, Coutavas EE, Rush MG, Virology. 1991 Jun;182(2):495-502.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1708932&dopt=Citation

Sverdlov, Retroviruses and primate evolution, BioEssays, Volume 22, Issue 2 , Pages 161 - 171

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/69502244/ABSTRACT

Here is one that discusses human specific inserts, those not shared with other apes.

Medstrand, Mager, Human-Specific Integrations of the HERV-K Endogenous Retrovirus Family, Journal of Virology, December 1998, p. 9782-9787, Vol. 72, No. 12

http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/72/12/9782

"This is the first report of endogenous retroviral integrations that are specific to humans..."

Liao, D., Pavelitz, T., & Weiner, A.M. (1998). Characterization of a novel class of interspersed LTR elements in primate genomes: structure, genomic distribution, and evolution. JMolEvol, 46, 649-660.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9608047&dopt=Abstract

It's a start.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"First, implicit in your question is the idea that creationists believe that God created all of the 'species' that would ever exist. That is a very old and unfounded accusation- I am surprised that someone who has interacted in this debate very much would even suggest it. Most creationists I know of agree that animals change and speciate over time. "

Yes, but the usual charge about the Cambrian from YEers is that all existing phyla, usually phrased as something like "body plans", came into existance in a relatively short period of time and they equate this to being the same as a sudden creation.

If we are talking about basic body plans... my understanding is that evolutionists hold a similar idea though we differ greatly on what a short period of time is, what time periods overlapped, as well as the mechanisms that resulted in subsequent adaptation and speciation.

Now you bring in your statement that "[m]ost creationists I know of agree that animals change and speciate over time."

The problem is just as Mercury asked. There are no mammals in the Cambrian. No insects. No birds. No amphibians. No angiosperms. No reptiles. No gymnosperms. And only the most primitive of fish.

Again, a dating of the data based on the presupposition that evolution is fact.

If you are willing to accept that all of these groups are just change and speciation from the forms that are found in the Cambrian, then our positions are much closer than either of us thought.

No. I would assert that what you distinguish as the Cambrian did indeed include the earliest created mammals.

So the diversification that we see in the Cambrian is nothing like the rapid creation which you advocate.

Yes. And unlike what evolutionists' argue, there is actually a sufficiently powerful mechanism for animals to speciate based upon inherited information that progressively lessens in range within the period of time that I advocate.

Animals can adapt and environmental forces can act on information and abilities that already exist in dramatic fashion. The addition of genetic information and biological complexity are an entirely different matter.

" The question is a) how did those species come into existence "

Through speciation, just like today.

Thank you. If it is "just like today" then we actually do agree since the speciation that occurs today is the result of traits within the existing genome. IOW's, it is not the result of the accummulation of new information but rather redirection.

The possibility exists that the reason that we have not seen new phyla arise in the meantime is because speciation events since then have not had sufficient time to diverge into what would be recognized as distinct phyla.

Or, the original created genome of the various kinds allowed for an explosion of speciation that has been followed by an extended period of "fixing" as the relative strength and scope of genomes has progressively diminished.

"b) how did we get from the Cambrian animals to today's animals?"

Again, speciation.

Agreed. But I have a working mechanism if those animals contained the information necessary to give rise to all of their descendent living today. You don't.

Would you like for someone to step through a selection of transitionals from the primitive fish of the cambrian to maybe the mammals of today?

No. I am too old for fairy tales. If I want someone to make something up for me... it will at least be entertaining rather than affront to God's revelation in the scriptures.

"It stands to reason that very complex, pristine creatures suddenly exposed to a radical shift in environment would adapt wildly in many different directions. An explosion so to speak."

Just as long as you understand the degree of change that would be required to get from the Cambrian fauna to the modern fauna.

Absolutely. You and I see the course of nature headed in opposite directions.

I, from common observation and from scripture, assert that things deteriorate and become progressively more corrupt over time. Creation at the moment of man's initial sin was incredible and beyond our imagination in its function and perfection. Corruption followed that sin such that " the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" Romans 8 but it will be "delivered from the bondage of corruption".

The genome of any given species is not becoming stronger but rather persistently weaker. Even with the "survival of the fittest", the fittest are not inherently as fit as their ancestors. Further, not only the fit but purchance the unfit also reproduce. When an animal passes on copies of genetic information to its descendants, those copies will become progressively more corrupt with weakened organization.

You propose contrary to scripture and common observation that nature's history has been one of becoming continually better and more complex.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:


Here is one that discusses human specific inserts, those not shared with other apes.

Medstrand, Mager, Human-Specific Integrations of the HERV-K Endogenous Retrovirus Family, Journal of Virology, December 1998, p. 9782-9787, Vol. 72, No. 12

http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/full/72/12/9782

I am not too proud to admit that much of this is written too technical for me to grasp... but the first few sentences under "Introduction" on this one caught my attention. It states that HERVs may have function.

That's that second place I have seen that argument made... the other was by a creationist arguing against the assertion you have made here.

The statement begs the question: If ERV's can be randomly inserted but are somehow only retained in areas where they have helped the species survive in some way... then wouldn't we expect many similarly constructed surviving species to share common insert locations.

IOW's, perhaps these inserts are shared because they act as filters. Either the survivors survived because of the insert or its original form or else only the survivors of a catastrophic infection had a specifically favorable sequence in a single location for assimilating the virus. These inserts represent the survival through a common plague by animals similar enough to have been infected with the same viruses.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Couple of NIH articles that mitigate against the level of confidence you place in RVI's."

I must say that we are now at the point where most of the jargon is going over my head.

But trying to read in context, it seems that they start by saying what I have been saying all along. "Retroviruses have the ability to integrate into the genome of their host, in many cases with little apparent sequence or site specificity."

They then seem to be saying that they were looking for what effects the integrations of the viral DNA had on the chromosomes. They give some characteristics of different regions that they looked at and they talk a bit about how the DNA is transcribed into RNA at different rates in different places. They said that they expected them to be transcribed more often in areas with a lot of Alu sequences which makes sense since Alu elements can easily mutate into the stop codons of exons.

I fail to see where they say anything that would lead one to believe that they found that the viruses tend to each target a specific spot in the genome in the host.

The more specific point is that it seems that points of retention are far more select than points of insertion.

BTW, I noticed something about the experiment you cited but failed to mention it earlier. The retroviruses were inserted into turkey cells if I understand you correctly.

I think that is a significantly deficient experiement to establish random retention as a rule. If these turkeys were released back into the population then their descendents were recorded for years to see which if any ERV's were sustained by the population... then we would have a little more to discuss (though not necessarily favorable to what you are trying to prove).

Further, there is no way to know if this experiment or the retroviruses tested approximate the conditions in the past or present where insertions are made and assimilated into a population. The turkey isn't even half baked.

 

[JWI]

Scott

Excellent arguments.

On reading these various articles, I have seen it said that anywhere from 75 to 98% (varies by article)of all known animal and plant types suddenly exploded in the Cambrian period.

I won't argue on the percentage.

I have seen it said that most animals we see today were alive and in relatively the same form in the Cambrian period.

Both Creationists and Evolutionists say there have been mass extinctions. Extinction is something that has been observed many times.

However, where Evolutionists and Creationists disagree is that Evolutionists claim that there are ups and downs in the number of various forms alive at one time. Evolution has periods of fast transition where many new forms come into being.

But this is not the fossil record. The fossil record shows that many various types lived in the past. There are fewer today.

This argues for creation. If a vast variety of animals was created by God, and then many species go extinct, then we would see less and less forms through time.

And this is what we see. We hear of endangered species everyday in the news. We see no new forms coming into being.

And this agrees with what you were saying about sin and it's affect on the world. Not only are copies becoming more corrupt, but species are dying off and not being replaced.

Evolution often compares itself to a tree with branches. One type transforms into two or more types. These as well branch off into other types.

If this we so, we should observe a far greater variety of animals alive NOW than we see in the past.

The exact opposite is what we observe.

We have less variety today than the ancient past.

This agrees with creation and contradicts evolution. And it is observable.

 

[UTEOTW]

"I am not too proud to admit that much of this is written too technical for me to grasp... but the first few sentences under "Introduction" on this one caught my attention. It states that HERVs may have function."

That is true. I even cited an example of that very thing on the last page.

It should not be too hard to imagine why. These sequences already code for something useful to the virus. Why should it be too surprising that they might code for something useful in the host occasionally. Think back to the article we have dicsussed previously. When the inserts happen in areas in which there are a lot of Alu sequences, they are expressed more often. Alu sequences easily mutate into exon stop codons. Such conditions would make it possible for the host to occasionally make use of the insert.

The first source that I gave you also points out that most sequences are not useful. "Because, for any given provirus, it is highly unlikely that there will be selection for or against any specific sequence, it is safe to assume that the rate of accumulation of mutations approximates the rate of their occurrence, with appropriate corrections for reversion."

 

[UTEOTW]

"
On reading these various articles, I have seen it said that anywhere from 75 to 98% (varies by article)of all known animal and plant types suddenly exploded in the Cambrian period."

They mean phyla and we have discussed this before. I have linked you to two indepth articles on the subject. There was also an explanation of the last page.

Yes, but the usual charge about the Cambrian from YEers is that all existing phyla, usually phrased as something like "body plans", came into existance in a relatively short period of time and they equate this to being the same as a sudden creation.
...
The problem is just as Mercury asked. There are no mammals in the Cambrian. No insects. No birds. No amphibians. No angiosperms. No reptiles. No gymnosperms. And only the most primitive of fish.
...
One problem when dealing with the Cambrian is the matter of definitions. And phyla is a big one.

Today, the differences in the phyla are huge. But just like any other taxonomic classification, the intial difference was a simple speciation event. Allow me an example.

The bilateral animals are divided into two great phylum. One of the defining characteristics is whether the nerve trunk is dorsal or ventral. The differences today between the two phyla are enormous. But at the time, it would have been as simple a matter as a speciation event where one species began to move with what had been its top side previously now facing down.

A biologists of the day would have not have classified them as separate phyla. He likely would have put them in the same genus. And those are the kinds of differences we see when we talk about the number of phyla that appear in the cambrian or just before. The differences then were often nothing more than the differences between species or genera or families today. It is only now that their descendents have diverged so far. There are even examples of organisms intermediate between phyla from this period.

And we have modern examples of just this sort of thing happening. There is a catfish in the Nile, Synodontis nigriventris, which does just this. As do brine shrimp. The possibility exists that the reason that we have not seen new phyla arise in the meantime is because speciation events since then have not had sufficient time to diverge into what would be recognized as distinct phyla.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by JWI:
Scott

Excellent arguments.

Thank you.

Both Creationists and Evolutionists say there have been mass extinctions. Extinction is something that has been observed many times.

Yes but as you allude to later, only the creationist system proposes a system that could supply enough species to account for the steady losses we observe.

The most critical element here is the one evolutionists seem most insistent on avoiding. Extinctions result in a net loss of information... IOW's, not only does evolution have to depend on ridiculously improbable events that add sufficient information for a macro level change... it has to have occurred with when the normal state is a fairly rapid depletion of the existing information for natural selection to act upon.

There is no proposed mechanism that I have heard of from evolution that can even come close to supplying even enough novel information to replace what is being steadily lost.

Evolution has periods of fast transition where many new forms come into being.

But this is not the fossil record.

I am not entirely sure this is shown by the fossil record. So I have to tentatively disagree with you.

The fossil record shows that many various types lived in the past. There are fewer today.

Now this is in the fossil record without dispute.

This argues for creation. If a vast variety of animals was created by God, and then many species go extinct, then we would see less and less forms through time.

I don't want to be disagreeable but I have come to believe that God did not create a vast variety of animals but rather animals vastly variable. IOW's, with far more powerful and information rich genomes than their descendents today.

I believe that two causes for explosive speciation due to radical environmental shifts are recorded in the Bible. First is the fall which brought corruption to organisms that had a cycle of life, ie. they were capable of reproduction and ate plants, and then later the flood which I believe was very likely to have reconstructed the ecology of the whole world in one very brief time span.

If global warming, cooling, or some other envirowhacko doomsday scenario de jeur can result in all sorts of biological shifts... then imagine what a flood coupled with worldwide seismic activity would do.

I believe God created animals that were highly adaptable and perfect... who knows, they might have even been able to change forms at Adam's command in the Garden. They were unlike anything we know. The only glimpse we have of them is the promise we have of receiving a glorified body... a body of real substance, apparently having biological function (Jesus ate and breathed and was flesh and blood), but one that doesn't die.

From those "kinds", speciation occurred due to environmental forces.

And this is what we see. We hear of endangered species everyday in the news. We see no new forms coming into being.

That is true. Evolutionists characteristically discard uniformitarianism at this point (something they use as proof of deception or weakness when creationists do it) in order to maintain the theory.

And this agrees with what you were saying about sin and it's affect on the world. Not only are copies becoming more corrupt, but species are dying off and not being replaced.

You stated it better than I did.

I would add that the "corruption" is also a prime cause for speciation. Animals react to environmental pressures but when they do they lose overall fitness out of the genome. Much like a pendulum. Each time it swings one way, it loses the ability to swing back as far in the other direction. Tilt the clock in an effort to regain variability and what happens? The pendulum hits one limit, loses momentum and stops. Even if successful in shifting the center point, the net result is a shorter arc.

Species do change over time. But they seldom change outside the limits for their given species and never change outside the limits for their given kind without catastrophic results.

Evolution often compares itself to a tree with branches. One type transforms into two or more types. These as well branch off into other types.

In a way I agree... but see a forest instead of a single tree.

If this we so, we should observe a far greater variety of animals alive NOW than we see in the past.

I actually think we should see something very much like a group of 10' to 20' trees... under 18' of water. Singular at the bottom, expanding into widely into branches in the middle... with only a few of the top branches sticking out at various places with the branches that connect them hidden under the water.

Some branches and all branches extending from them are completely under water... like most species of dinosaurs.

We have less variety today than the ancient past.

This agrees with creation and contradicts evolution. And it is observable.

Evolution can accommodate the evidence. It doesn't quite contradict the theory... but it doesn't fit it so well as creation.

[ December 02, 2005, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[UTEOTW]

"They mean phyla and we have discussed this before. I have linked you to two indepth articles on the subject. There was also an explanation of the last page."

Here are the two previous articles for your reading pleasure. I repeat the links because there is evidence that both sides seem to be reading each others links the last few days.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000969.html
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/down_with_phyla.html

 

[UTEOTW]

" Yes but as you allude to later, only the creationist system proposes a system that could supply enough species to account for the steady losses we observe."

Nope.

There are processes like duplication. Like alternative splicing. Transposons. Point mutations. Even the example we saw where a retroviral insert mutated into something useful on the previous page.

Here is a thread which discusses some of these examples.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/104.html

Some of the material was also covered in this thread.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3200.html

Which contains a pair of posts detailing how two particular genes bear the indications of having been produced through these mechanisms.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3200/2.html#000018
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3200/2.html#000019

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
" Yes but as you allude to later, only the creationist system proposes a system that could supply enough species to account for the steady losses we observe."

Nope.

There are processes like duplication. Like alternative splicing. Transposons. Point mutations. Even the example we saw where a retroviral insert mutated into something useful on the previous page.

UTE, You probably need to re-read the post.

These things you point to are not creating new species under any strict definition of the word. At best, they are modifying old species. We aren't seeing new snail darters or Tasmanian wolves evolving to replace the ones that are lost. We know that many species are going extinct but not that any genuinely new species are arising, ie with novel biological systems or combinations of systems.

 

[JWI]

Not to change the subject, but Scott had mentioned anomolies in the Geologic column a few posts back and said evolutionists ignore this.

And someone said that was a serious charge.

It is not quite true that evolutionists have ignored this evidence that contradicts evolution. But they have had to construct complex theories to try to explain it away.

Here is a page with some notable examples.

http://www.rae.org/revev2.html

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by JWI:
I have seen it said that most animals we see today were alive and in relatively the same form in the Cambrian period.

I have no doubt you've seen that. Keep in mind that an observation of a web site is not at the same level as an observation of the fossil record itself. What you've observed is people who are either mistaken or being deliberately deceptive.

Jonathan Wells is a main promoter of the idea that the Cambrian explosion is a problem for evolution. One of his questions that he encourages students to ask their biology teachers is, "Why don't textbooks discuss the 'Cambrian explosion', in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?" In response, the National Centre for Science Education pointed out, "Wells is wrong: fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all are post-Cambrian -- aren't these 'major groups'? We would recognize very few of the Cambrian organisms as 'modern'; they are in fact at the roots of the tree of life, showing the earliest appearances of some key features of groups of animals -- but not all features and not all groups."

Where it gets interesting for your claim is that Wells responded. He pointed out that fish were found in the Cambrian (this is debatable, depending on how you define fish), then went on to say, "The 'major groups' to which my question refers are the animal phyla. Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are sub-groups (classes) of a single phylum." [source]

So, even a main promoter of this supposed problem states that the "major animal groups" he's talking about are phyla. Those who think he is claiming that modern animals existed back then have misunderstood him (though it is interesting that he choses to word his comments about the Cambrian in a way that facilitates this misunderstanding).

Are you willing to accept that modern amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are all part of one "major group" of animals that first appeared in the Cambrian (the phylum Chordata, animals with a nerve cord or spinal cord)? If so, then you accept common descent, at least for the most common animals. If not, then why point to the Cambrian as evidence for your position?

[ December 03, 2005, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Mercury ]

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Yes but as you allude to later, only the creationist system proposes a system that could supply enough species to account for the steady losses we observe.

The theory is that mutations and natural selection working on the mutations are, in fact, enough. Where do you get the idea they are not enough? Seems to me you just say that without any justification.

I don't want to be disagreeable but I have come to believe that God did not create a vast variety of animals but rather animals vastly variable. IOW's, with far more powerful and information rich genomes than their descendents today.

That's a common creationist point of view these days. Common enough to drive a research program, such as finding tissues from ancient egyptian cats and/or cattle and analyzing their genes for evidence of such increased variation potential.

I confidently predict no such "super potent" genomes will be found.

I believe that two causes for explosive speciation due to radical environmental shifts are recorded in the Bible. First is the fall which brought corruption to organisms that had a cycle of life, ie. they were capable of reproduction and ate plants, and then later the flood which I believe was very likely to have reconstructed the ecology of the whole world in one very brief time span.

I've got a question for you about this "rapid speciation" following the flood. How many generations would it take for one proto-cat kind to split into two cat kinds following the flood, in your view?

If global warming, cooling, or some other envirowhacko doomsday scenario de jeur can result in all sorts of biological shifts... then imagine what a flood coupled with worldwide seismic activity would do.

It would leave a world-wide flood layer that isn't there. It would leave a world wide shift between one set animals contemporary with man and another, derived from post flood hyperspeciation, following the flood. That kind of division isn't there.

The best interpreation of the flood narratives and the geological record is to allow the "world" that is flooded to be the KNOWN world . . .


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I believe God created animals that were highly adaptable and perfect... who knows, they might have even been able to change forms at Adam's command in the Garden. They were unlike anything we know.

Oh - I get it - you're not being serious, this is a spoof, right?

From those "kinds", speciation occurred due to environmental forces.

OK again, I ask you, in your view, how many generations does it take for one species to firmly establish itself as two species?

And this is what we see. We hear of endangered species everyday in the news. We see no new forms coming into being.

That is true. Evolutionists characteristically discard uniformitarianism at this point (something they use as proof of deception or weakness when creationists do it) in order to maintain the theory.</font>

(sigh) what's this comment about uniformitarianism - you think scientists don't acknowledge past disasters? Of course, scientists acknowledge disasters for which there is evidence. They keep on wanting to make the theories fit the evidence. Kind of funny they are, that way . . .

I would add that the "corruption" is also a prime cause for speciation. Animals react to environmental pressures but when they do they lose overall fitness out of the genome. Much like a pendulum. Each time it swings one way, it loses the ability to swing back as far in the other direction. Tilt the clock in an effort to regain variability and what happens? The pendulum hits one limit, loses momentum and stops. Even if successful in shifting the center point, the net result is a shorter arc.

Totally wrong, depends on the false view that there was more information in individual animals in the past than there is at present. Ignores proven methods of adding information. Ignores the geological record of the development of life

Species do change over time. But they seldom change outside the limits for their given species and never change outside the limits for their given kind without catastrophic results.

How do you know? Have you been observing animals for a million years to see what happens?

If you allow for the preserved fossil record of millions of years to speak, then they changing from one kind to another has been observed.

 

[av1611jim]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
We disagree on what the authors were saying.

Ha!

That's what 20 pages of this thread have been about!!!

God; the AUTHOR of the Bible SAID He spoke the world into existence in a MATURE form and called it good.

YOU (evilutionists)sp, say He didn't. You say it took Him billions of years to do.


We obviously "disagree what the AUTHOR is saying".

 

[blackbird]

Dear Posters! We have now exceeded our 20 page limit on forum topics here at the Baptist Board. The thread will be closed---but feel free to continue with the renewed topic on a fresh thread.

Blackbird, Moderator