Some of the Genetic Evidence for the Evolution of Man

[OldRegular]

Remark by UTEOTW:
You never came to a point on the thermo stuff so it is difficult to have any comments. You seem like you might be headed in some direction where an equivocation of thermodynamic and informational entropy is made. You should be cautioned that they do use the same terminology amd that the concepts of entropy in each have some similar ideas and relationships, but only thermodynamic entropy is applicable to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

You disagree wtih Tribus who states: “It is certain that the conceptual connection between information and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is now firmly established.” Myron Tribus and Edward C. McIrvine. Energy and Information, Scientific American, vol 224 [September 1971], page 52; as quoted in The Modern Creation Trilogy, page 134, Volume 2.

Evolution requires an increase in order. The spontaneous increase to order from disorder violates the Second Law whether it is stated from the viewpoint of Classical Thermodynamics, Statistical Thermodynamics, or Information Theory.

What I don't understand is why Christians spend so much effort trying to refute the revelation of God. Go back to coal research UTEOTW.

 

[OldRegular]

By the way UTEOTW I ignore the implications of your following remark:

Please do not get caught up in the web of quote mining. It is one of the most despicable of the tactics of the young earth leaders. Generally, the quotes are taken out of context and the meaning changes completely when the context is returned. That makes the selective quoting the same thing as lying. Quote mining is a tactic straight from the bowels of Hell, devised and orchestrated by Satan himself, used to discredit Christians.

You will notice that I did not say that those who tout the evolutionist theory to undermine Scripture use a tactic straight from the bowels of Hell, devised and orchestrated by Satan himself.

I have posted on another thread the following remarks by leading evolutionists [from The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John. D. Morris] show the absurdity of theistic evolution.

Nobel prize winning biologist Jacques Monod writes:

“Natural selection is the blindest most cruel way of evolving new species. .... I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.”

Evolutionist A. J. Mattell is even more perceptive:

“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”

You rejected the implication of these remarks, perhaps because they hit too close home.

 

[JGrubbs]

It's one thing to see "Christians" debating the age of the earth, but to see a "Christian" trying to prove that we came from monkeys??

Satan surely has infiltrated even the churches with his lies of evolution!!

 

[Magnetic Poles]

As I understand it, no evolutionist claims that humans evolved from monkeys. Rather, the idea is that monkeys, apes, humans and other primates have a common ancestor. No evolutionist that I have ever heard, postulates that human beings are descendants of any modern monkey or ape. For a person who believes in unique creation of each species, to make such a mistatement of an opposing view makes it appear that one has no idea what one is talking about.

 

[Travelsong]

Common descent. That's the theory of evolution. I have no problem with it, and for those who think I must be under the control of Satan or any other such nonsense: oogah boogah!

 

[UTEOTW]

You failed to answer whether you thought it was wrong or not to change the meaning of quotes by taking them out of context. I guess the question hits too close to home. Perhaps you realize that they were taken out of context and you face a dilemma. To defend them you know you would defending dishonesty. To repudiate them you would lose whatever point you were trying to make. So instead, you remain silent. Didn't someone say something once about evil triumphing when good men remain silent?

You also failed to provide any context for your quotes. Again, implicit evidence that you even know that they are dishonest quotes.

"You disagree wtih Tribus who states: 'It is certain that the conceptual connection between information and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is now firmly established.' Myron Tribus and Edward C. McIrvine. Energy and Information, Scientific American, vol 224 [September 1971], page 52; as quoted in The Modern Creation Trilogy, page 134, Volume 2.

Evolution requires an increase in order. The spontaneous increase to order from disorder violates the Second Law whether it is stated from the viewpoint of Classical Thermodynamics, Statistical Thermodynamics, or Information Theory."

Go back and read my words more closely. You will see that I echo this statement with almost the same words. They do share terminology and concepts. They are similar. But only thermodynamic entropy is thermodynamic entropy. Any other kind of entropy is not thermodynamic entropy. Furthermore, thermodynamic entropy is a very specific concept or order and disorder that is unrelated to what you think of as order in a macro sense. To try and confuse the two is a fallacy of equivocation.

Futhermore, I will repeat that the second law ONLY requires that the overall entropy increase. Local decreases are perfectly acceptable and can even be favored. If you put a glass of water in your freezer, its entropy will decrease until ice is formed. But, because no process is 100% efficient, more heat will be released into your kitchen than is removed from the glass of water. There was a local and thermodynamically favored local decrease in entropy while the overall entropy increased.

And there still is no particular step that you can point to as violating the second law. Is the mutation? Is it one of the selection mechanisms? Is it reproduction? Which one? What violates the laws of thermo? Tell me what section in my thermo book to which I should turn to see the problem you assert.

"What I don't understand is why Christians spend so much effort trying to refute the revelation of God."

I have no interest in doing any such thing. But I do have an interest in refuting false information that some use to try and justify their particular interpretation of parts of the revelation. I don't think that you are a bad person or deliberately trying to be dishonest or unintelligent or anything else along those lines. I have no problem with those who are certain of a young earth based solely on their faith and their interpretation of that part of scripture. But I do think that there is a relatively small group of YE leaders who do not hold to very high standards of honesty. I think that they easily delude those who are just looking to hear what they want to hear and are not very interested in taking a full look at things. And I think that they do great harm through their tactics.

You are predisposed to YE and when come across all those juicy quotes, from someone who claims to be a Christian and who you think you can trust, I can easily understand why you accept them at face value. You do not take the time to consider that it is unlikely that those sources would say the things attributed to them and mean them as presented. A fellow CHristian who shares your opinion on the matter gave you the data and you trusted them. I am sorry to say that you just cannot always do that.

And don't take my opinion, either. If I say something, by all means go look it up. I am as much an amateur at this as you are. I have read both sides. A lot. I would encourage you to do the same. Even if you maintain your same opinion, if you become familar with both sides you can at least eliminate some of the most blantantly wrong YE logic.

"I have posted on another thread the following remarks by leading evolutionists [from The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John. D. Morris] show the absurdity of theistic evolution."

I am perfectly aware that there are vocally anti-Christian folks who would like to use such issues to defeat Christianity. I, personally, do not share their opinion. Their opinion is also another example of a fallacious appeal to authority considering that they do not have the standing to speak on religious subjects. But, such opinions have no bearing on whether the science is well done or not. It cannot be judged by whatever philosophies some folks may attempt to justify any more than CHristianity should be judged by some of the far out ideas that some people justify through twisting of the Bible.

"It's one thing to see "Christians" debating the age of the earth, but to see a "Christian" trying to prove that we came from monkeys??

Satan surely has infiltrated even the churches with his lies of evolution!!"

I am still waiting for someone to demonstrate that the evidence shows evolution to be a "lie." It is just not possible to do so. Evolution is a falsifiable science but no one has yet shown the potential falsifications to be true.

Besides, it is fairly incontrovertible that we share an ancestor with the monkeys.

 

[npc]

You're very patient, UTEOTW.

To any creationists who have read this far, may I ask what criteria you use when deciding whether a source is credible or not?

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by npc:
You're very patient, UTEOTW.

To any creationists who have read this far, may I ask what criteria you use when deciding whether a source is credible or not?

I use Scripture:

Hebrews 11:1-3
1. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2. For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Now the question for the evolutionist is: are you going to believe God or are you going to believe chance? Chance which is contrary to natural Law. If you are an athiest the answer is obvious, if you are a Christian you will have to choose.

 

[npc]

I use Scripture

Yet you post from Creationist websites, too, which is what I am asking about.

Are you going to believe God or are you going to believe chance?

Strawman plus false dichotomy.

 

[OldRegular]

UTEOTW and all other evolutionists

1. When did your ancestors evolve to the point where they were said to be made in the image of God?

2. If evolution were true how did the end result come to a knowledge of God?

3. If macro-evolution is the result of micro-evolution does that mean if You were the first truly human your Mom and Dad were less than human and could have no knowledge of God?

4. Is the human concept of God the result of development of evolutionary thought or the result of Revelation?

5. What happened to all the near humans in the evolutionary ladder at death? Did they just return to dust like the animals?

6. Did the first humans hunt and eat their near human relatives?

7. Don't you think it strange that a human man and human woman evolved at the same time and place in this millian year long journey? It is my understanding that evolutionists claim the jump from near human to human occurred only once, particularly since all human DNA is apparently human DNA.

8. Back to the question of when the first human sprang from the near human: Assuming these first humans to spring from near humans and somehow came into the knowledge of God did these first humans after a long evolutionary process rebell against God or did later generations rebell against God?

9. If evolution is true why are there not other creatures similar to man, as intelligent as man, running around?

10. If micro-evolution resulted in mankind why are there not creatures one micro-step down the evolutionary scale from man?

11. When the first sure enuff human sprang forth from the sure enuff near human why wasn't he killed as a freak?

If the above is correct isn't Evolutionist A. J. Mattell correct when he states:

“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”


The truth is that evolution is a fairy tale embraced by gullible mankind who want to reject God just as described by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:20-25:

20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

[npc]

Interesting questions. I hope you will see fit to answer mine. Please remember that I am speaking only for myself.

1. I don't know. Scientific evidence suggests 30,000 years ago. Fundamentalists claim the Bible says far less than that, but the Bible is a confusing book. Since the actual events in the creation story doesn't seem that important to God's message, I will accept evolution as a biology student.
2. I'm not sure what your question means, but--
3. The first part of the second question requires a definition of "human". To the second part: depends on whether God chooses to reveal Himself to them.
4. Revelation
5. Since the Bible seems to indicate God was not that interested in them, I would speculate dust.
6. There's evidence that Neanderthals were hunted by Sapiens.
7. This question doesn't make sense to me, and suggests a misunderstanding of the concept. Just what do you think their ancestors looked like?
8. I'd guess they were the same that rebelled, but I could be swayed on this stance easily.
9. There used to be Neanderthals, but apparently we drove them to extinction by competing for the same niche.
10. Because we competed for the resources better, in a nutshell. That you would even ask this again suggests you don't have a firm grasp on the concept of evolution.

Also, I believe it is not acceptable to use Scripture in an attempt to insult and belittle others for personal satisfaction, and the part you chose (especially for bolding) makes me think that you intend to do exactly that. If you continue to do so I'm afraid I must stop participating in this discussion on moral grounds.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by npc:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I use Scripture

Yet you post from Creationist websites, too, which is what I am asking about.

Are you going to believe God or are you going to believe chance?

Strawman plus false dichotomy. </font>[/QUOTE]Some people quote from evolutionist websites. You asked what criteria I used when deciding whether a source is credible or not? My answer was and still is the Bible.

Evolution whether atheistic, theistic, punctuated equilibrium, or whatever is a false idealogy [not science] that some people have unfortunately embraced. To me it is that simple.

 

[npc]

Some people quote from evolutionist websites. You asked what criteria I used when deciding whether a source is credible or not? My answer was and still is the Bible.

I have quoted or linked to evolutionist websites, and before using a source I ask myself who the writer is, what his qualifications are, and (most importantly) what he bases his arguments on. You still haven't answered me.

Evolution whether atheistic, theistic, punctuated equilibrium, or whatever is a false idealogy [not science] that some people have unfortunately embraced. To me it is that simple. [/QB]

It's really "simple"? In the past 2 weeks of my basic biology course I found out about things like introns, enhancers, and F-plasmids. All these things make sense from an evolutionary view, and none from a creationist. If biology truly is so simple to you then I need to find a field where I'm not overshadowed so strongly by Mr. Random Internet Stranger.

In either case you've fallen upon argumentum ad naseum with that paragraph.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Now the question for the evolutionist is: are you going to believe God or are you going to believe chance? Chance which is contrary to natural Law. If you are an athiest the answer is obvious, if you are a Christian you will have to choose.

My question for you is, why do you place chance outside of God's control?

Casting lots is by definition undirected, as were Urim and Thummim, and yet God used these methods to allow his people to discern his will. The merging of DNA during conception is also undirected, as far as we can tell, yet the psalmist claims that he is fearfully and wonderfully made by God (Psalm 139:13–16). The weather is also a product of impersonal forces, yet God can still use it for his own purposes, whether by bringing about famines, rains or whirlwinds.

In the Bible, it seems that not only can God work through what seems random to humans, but often he specifically chooses random processes to bring about his purposes.

 

[Mercury]

Answering OldRegular's list of questions. All IMO, of course, and when it comes to science, it's not a greatly informed opinion:

1. When did your ancestors evolve to the point where they were said to be made in the image of God?
I don't know. Maybe when God did something to distinguish them, or maybe it's as nebulous as pinning down when a child becomes accountable for their actions.

2. If evolution were true how did the end result come to a knowledge of God?
However God chose to reveal himself to them.

3. If macro-evolution is the result of micro-evolution does that mean if You were the first truly human your Mom and Dad were less than human and could have no knowledge of God?
It depends if the last step was drastic or not. Evidence seems to point to it not being drastic. So, it would be like asking whether the mother of the first poodle was also a poodle. It begs the question of how one determined the "first poodle" in the first place.

Today we determine which species are human based mainly on their behaviour, and this is something that would be more of a cultural force than a genetic force. Even if you gained an extra beneficial mutation that your parents didn't have, you'd still all be living in the same culture, and so all have a similar claim to being human. Scientists could come around later and say that mutation is the dividing line, but most such dividing lines (unless they're something drastic like [polyploidy] in plants) are somewhat arbitrary.

4. Is the human concept of God the result of development of evolutionary thought or the result of Revelation?
It's the result of humans apprehending what God has revealed. Some of God's attributes are revealed through creation (Romans 1:20); some we only glimpse through special revelation.

5. What happened to all the near humans in the evolutionary ladder at death? Did they just return to dust like the animals?
I don't know what happens to animals when they die, although I suspect they just return to dust. Rather than speculate too much, I'm confident that God will do what is just.

6. Did the first humans hunt and eat their near human relatives?
I don't know. During human history, some humans have eaten other humans, so I wouldn't rule something like that out.

7. Don't you think it strange that a human man and human woman evolved at the same time and place in this millian year long journey? It is my understanding that evolutionists claim the jump from near human to human occurred only once, particularly since all human DNA is apparently human DNA.
How do you think the first male and female poodle came to be? (Hint: the point at which they were called poodles was arbitrary, and there were never just one or two of them.)

8. Back to the question of when the first human sprang from the near human: Assuming these first humans to spring from near humans and somehow came into the knowledge of God did these first humans after a long evolutionary process rebell against God or did later generations rebell against God?
I think Romans 1:21-32 gives a good overview of what happened.

9. If evolution is true why are there not other creatures similar to man, as intelligent as man, running around?
Species are populations that interbreed, and differences within a population are eventually spread throughout the population or weeded out. (This may be overgeneralizing -- others here know far more about this than I do.) The other similar creatures would have either competed with humans and, apparently, been unsuccessful; or they interbred to the point where there was no difference; or they adapted to fill a different niche other than the one occupied by humans, and this niche no longer favoured the characterists that led to higher intelligence.

10. If micro-evolution resulted in mankind why are there not creatures one micro-step down the evolutionary scale from man?
Same answer as #9.

11. When the first sure enuff human sprang forth from the sure enuff near human why wasn't he killed as a freak?
Because he was probably indistinguishable from his parents (aside from normal parent-child differences).

Originally posted by OldRegular:
If the above is correct isn't Evolutionist A. J. Mattell correct when he states:

“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”

No, he's not correct. He seems to have forgotten that we need a Saviour not just because of what Adam did, but because of what I do and what you do. If a person thinks that removing Adam removes our need for a Saviour, then they don't understand salvation, what Jesus did for them, and how they personally are the guilty one (not just their distant ancestor).

 

[npc]

Oh, reading Mercury's response I see I missed a question when replying earlier.

11. When the first sure enuff human sprang forth from the sure enuff near human why wasn't he killed as a freak?

Because, biologically, there was no "first sure enuff human"--just many descendants following a trend towards biological humanity as we know it.
I highy suggest you read up more on evolution if you would like to be taken more seriously by those you argue with.

 

[Deacon]

Originally posted by npc:
[SNIP]...I believe it is not acceptable to use Scripture in an attempt to insult and belittle others for personal satisfaction, and the part you chose (especially for bolding) makes me think that you intend to do exactly that. If you continue to do so I'm afraid I must stop participating in this discussion on moral grounds.

Don't let the young-earth creationists get under your skin. They often denigrate those of us that they see as heritics. Teaching is a slow process and hopefully many will eventually open their eyes and interact with the evidence.

It's been that way since Galelio (in the 1600's).
It's amusing that many of the arguments used here are the very same ones used back then.

Rob

 

[UTEOTW]

"1. When did your ancestors evolve to the point where they were said to be made in the image of God?"

Day and time? I don't know. There seems to have been a change maybe 30 - 40,000 years ago where humans began doing abstract things, like art, that indicates a developed self-awareness. I think this is a clear sign that by that point God had given them souls and made them in His image. But there are many possibilities of how He accomplished this. God could have separated out a couple of individuals, kind of like Genesis 2, or an indeterminate number perhaps a given generation, kind of like Genesis 1, and given them souls. It could have been a more gradual process. In the end, God decided when man had developed physically and mentally to the point where He could give them souls and us them to fulfill His will and He was able to decide how to make it happen.

"2. If evolution were true how did the end result come to a knowledge of God?"

Why does the methods of God revealing Himself to man differ depending on what method God used to create?

"3. If macro-evolution is the result of micro-evolution does that mean if You were the first truly human your Mom and Dad were less than human and could have no knowledge of God?"

See answer one.

"4. Is the human concept of God the result of development of evolutionary thought or the result of Revelation?"

Revelation.

"5. What happened to all the near humans in the evolutionary ladder at death? Did they just return to dust like the animals?"

Yes. Those without a soul would have simply returned to dust.

"6. Did the first humans hunt and eat their near human relatives?"

Cannibalism has been a part of human society, even rather recently. They may have or not but I do not see the relevance of the question.

"7. Don't you think it strange that a human man and human woman evolved at the same time and place in this millian year long journey? It is my understanding that evolutionists claim the jump from near human to human occurred only once, particularly since all human DNA is apparently human DNA."

I think you show a misunderstanding of how things work. Evolution is something that happens to populations not individuals. Let's give an anology. Go back to when humans domesticated wolves and began turning them into dogs. Now some humans selectively bred certain pairs of dogs because of traits they wanted to preserve so the animal could serve some function. Let's take hunting dogs for example, spaniels specifically. NOw do you think that one day some general mutt of a dog gave birth to a fully formed spaniel? Or do you think that gradually some group of dogs became more and more spaniel like with no clear point at which you could call the first spaniel?

"8. Back to the question of when the first human sprang from the near human: Assuming these first humans to spring from near humans and somehow came into the knowledge of God did these first humans after a long evolutionary process rebell against God or did later generations rebell against God?"

Again, it depends on how God handled things. There is the possibility that God separated two humans, a male and female, from the others and gave them souls. Let's call these two Adam and Eve, they sound like good names. Now they could have been given free will and might have chosen to disobey God, let's say by doing something that God specifically forbid them. On the other hand, the account of the fall could be a symbolic story about how we all as humans do things which go against the will of God and are in need of His Grace because we are unable to live a worthy life on our own.

"9. If evolution is true why are there not other creatures similar to man, as intelligent as man, running around?"

Why would you expect this? Of course there are other fairly intelligent creatures out there. Dolphins and crows and other apes have been observed to use tools. A number of creatures have what is described as culture. There are some fairly smart animals out there, but God arranged for man to be something special.

"10. If micro-evolution resulted in mankind why are there not creatures one micro-step down the evolutionary scale from man?"

First, I think this again reflects a misunderstanding. Evolution is something that happens to populations and the population of creatures a "micro-step down the evolutionary scale from man" became man. Second, we DID share the earth with some very closely related creature until very recently. I believe that Homo erectus died out about 50,000 years ago. The Neanderthals about 20,000 years ago, maybe 30,000. And Homo florensis as recently as 12,000 years ago, maybe less. So until very recently there were at least four different groups on earth at the same time. Tantalizingly, the discovery of H. florensis opens the slight possibility that there might have been other small populations of human-like creatures living until recently and perhaps even that some could persist in some isolated spot. Now wouldn't that be interesting!

"11. When the first sure enuff human sprang forth from the sure enuff near human why wasn't he killed as a freak?"

There are no hopeful monsters. The first human would have been no different from his parents that you were from yours.

"If the above is correct isn't Evolutionist A. J. Mattell correct when he states:

'Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.'"

No, the things implied by your questions are not correct. And no, Mattell is not correct either. I have no use for someone willing to twist things because he has an axe to grind. Furthermore, do you agree with him that without a literal Adam that we are not sinners? Do you think that you need God's grace because of what Adam did or because of what you have done? I know that I have done enough things to be unworthy of salvation regardless of what Adam might have done.

 

[UTEOTW]

So, a question.

Do you think that every YE source out there is completely accurate in what they have to say on geology and astronomy and biology and paleontology?** If not, then on what basis do you judge which one are presenting accurate facts for a young earth and which are presenting inaccurate material?

**The first question is obviously a leading question. SInce various YE organization have disagreements on a wide variety of subjects, they cannot obviously be correct. So the question reduces to determining how to figure out which ones are right and which are not.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Mercury:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by OldRegular:
Now the question for the evolutionist is: are you going to believe God or are you going to believe chance? Chance which is contrary to natural Law. If you are an athiest the answer is obvious, if you are a Christian you will have to choose.

My question for you is, why do you place chance outside of God's control? </font>[/QUOTE]Simple, if chance were under God's control it would not be chance.