Does evolution contradict the idea of theistic creation?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
In your opinion are creation and evolution mutually exclusive?

What do we mean by Evolution ?


1.) Organisms CHANGE when they go to new environments - evidenced.

IE. Brown rabbits living generation after generation in white snow will give rise to more white rabbits. This is not disputed.

2.) A Thesis of Common Descent - some evidence

Living things appear on earth in a sequence of simpler life to more complex life.
This occurred in a sequence of steps from single celled organisms up to human beings.

I think there is some arguable evidence for a thesis of common descent.

3.) A Blind Watchmaker Thesis - The processes that gave rise to living things are totally naturalistic processes - a blind, unintentional, purposeless, goalless, (random mutation + natural selection ) unguided, no purposes in mind, no room for God or any intelligence, purely material and physical processes.

I think only the third concept (a Blind Watchmaker thesis) contradicts theistic creation.
The first and second definitions of Evolution would not be a problem to my Christian faith necessarily.

I don't think the second definition "a Common Descent" would be a show stopper to theistic belief in creation.

Not understanding that there was a FIRST man and a FIRST woman would be a problem to New Testament teaching for me. If there is a gradual slipping into mankind, how could there be a FIRST man and a FIRST couple ?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think you should follow along a little better. No that is not what I've said, and I'm not going
to repeat myself.

But didn't you just say that there is no segment of DNA, coding for the "base type", that is protected from mutations? Micro-evolution can be valid if and only if this is true.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think you should follow along a little better. No that is not what I've said, and I'm not going to repeat myself.

As probably the vaguest poster on this forum, refusing to answer questions asking for clarification and telling others to 'follow along a little better' is nothing more than question dodging.
If you spoke more clearly and explicitly, then you could reasonably demand that people reread your prior posts.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
But didn't you just say that there is no segment of DNA, coding for the "base type", that is protected from mutations? Micro-evolution can be valid if and only if this is true.

That is correct and I also said that major changes would and could end the lives of
anything that had them due to the shear number of things that could go wrong. I've been
clear that within each life/kind that there could be small changes, but you'd keep what type
of lifeform it was. That if enough modifications did occur it would and could die off if the
modifications hit a key area for any life form harmfully!

From the simplest creature ever unto the variety we see today there would have to be
so many changes that would have had to occur that instead of life you have killed it all
off. Within creation all of the DNA was established, there was no need for a helpful
mutation at the right time to build upon a series of other mutations that was needed so
that a heart could be built or modified, not to mention all of the other mutations that
helped support the heart and made it useful.

Even within creation life's DNA even though it is established when it gets tweaked a little
here and there its life is still in danger with modifications to its DNA. With creation all of
life's start and stops within it would already be there, all of the proper pressures, and a
countless list other things would all be in place. This is the only reason I think evolution
is possible! Creation does away with the need for an uncountable number of useful
modifications all taking place in just the right time to make something that wasn't around
before useful that WOULD NEVER NEED TO HAPPEN.

I can see small changes in each life now, you cannot show me proof of moving on from
a simple life form into what the variety we see today. EVEN IF ALL the dating methods are
spot on, that does not mean one life turned into another. What we call earlier lives could
just be life fossilized at one time while it was alive and while others were not.

With nothing guiding the whole process and starting from scratch so that we see the very
results we see around us today, you have to have a lot of faith, you don't have anything
else. At least with the way I see it it is on full display without having to make claims about
fossils that may or may not mean what people think. It is just as likely when someone
strings all the dots together to say this creature came from that one, they are wrong.

Originally posted by sonship
[b]Infantile misrepresentation is not an argument.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

So you start your response with one. Got it.
Must be weak in substance to follow if you have to start with an insult.

[quote]
me: This demonstrates that there use to be some animals around which apparently are no longer around ...[text shortened]... e.
Or you are adding your comment after the word "time" ?

I stop here on this submission.[/b]

Despite appearances the quotes to which you claim to respond in your post are not all from me. It is unclear who you are talking to at times but it is not always me. I will respond, however, to just one passage in your post as follows:

When you show Wolf to Walrus or Dog to Porcupine or Zebra to Gazelle I think that would shut my mouth.

I do not see why you would want evidence that a walrus does or could or might descend directly from a wolf, or a porcupine from a dog. If it ever did happen that a walrus emerged from a wolf, then the theory of evolution by natural selection would be falsified. Indeed, it would be miraculous - having no scientific explanation that I can imagine - and you could cite it as evidence for Creationism or even for Occasionalism.

These creatures / species all share common ancestors but their ancestral tree is a one way track. You and I share common ancestors but we will not cross breed anytime soon. Why would we?

Your repeated and intentional misrepresentation of this concept of common ancestry is what I referred to as infantile argument. Nobody is impressed let alone persuaded.

Full ancestral trees are available which link together all of the species you list, but in a logical order with correct ancestry, not miraculous cross breedding of dogs and porcupines. A comprehensive and effective description is available in a book which is not terribly expensive and, though it is a long book, because we have a lot of ancestors, you will probably find what you want by sampling its contents at random.

a comprehensive look at evolution, ranging from the latest developments in the field to his own provocative views. Loosely based on the form of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, Dawkins's Tale takes us modern humans back through four billion years of life on our planet. As the pilgrimage progresses, we join with other organisms at the forty "rendezvous points" where we find a common ancestor. The band of pilgrims swells into a vast crowd as we join first with other primates, then with other mammals, and so on back to the first primordial organism.

Dawkins's brilliant, inventive approach allows us to view the connections between ourselves and all other life in a bracingly novel way. It also lets him shed bright new light on the most compelling aspects of evolutionary history and theory: sexual selection, speciation, convergent evolution, extinction, genetics, plate tectonics, geographical dispersal, and more. The Ancestor's Tale is at once a far-reaching survey of the latest, best thinking on biology and a fascinating history of life on Earth.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17977.The_Ancestor_s_Tale

Notice, in passing, that evolution entails much more than simplistic random mutations in a vacuum. " sexual selection, speciation, convergent evolution, extinction, genetics, plate tectonics, geographical dispersal, and more." The theory of natural selection, though it seems simple, is rich and elegant and does not, as I said to your annoyance, reduce down to the infantile misrepresentations on which you and others rely. If you wish to debate the theory it is reasonable to expect you to read enough about it so as to know what you are talking about.

It probably can be done even more comprehensively but how much evidence would it take to get you to keep your side of this bargain?

Originally posted by finnegan

I do not see why you would want evidence that a walrus does or could or might descend directly from a wolf, or a porcupine from a dog.

Bad examples. My point was that a poodle and a wolf are too close. Now I know classification is an issue. But I think a wolf and a poodle share too much of the K9 characteristics to impress me, though obviously they look quite different.

I chose two clearly different species of animals. And if my layman's terminology is not precise enough, you should know what I mean by walrus and wold - clearly different species.

At this point usually, the rational is that it takes too much time. So we could not observe the transition.

If it ever did happen that a walrus emerged from a wolf, then the theory of evolution by natural selection would be falsified. Indeed, it would be miraculous - having no scientific explanation that I can imagine - and you could cite it as evidence for Creationism or even for Occasionalism.

The example I used was poor. A proposal has been made for a bovine creature evolving into a whale, ie. going back into the sea. So the predecessor is seen as a cattle and the successor down the evolutionary track is seen as a whale in the ocean.

I am skeptical of this.

These creatures / species all share common ancestors but their ancestral tree is a one way track. You and I share common ancestors but we will not cross breed anytime soon. Why would we?

I am not sure a "tree" is depicted. Something more like a stretch of grass some see.
The paleontologist from China in one video I posted said the fossil record they observe tends to turn the "tree" upside down.

Your repeated and intentional misrepresentation of this concept of common ancestry is what I referred to as infantile argument. Nobody is impressed let alone persuaded.

Am I right that evolution proposes fish to more complicated amphibian to more complex reptile to more complex mammal is the progression ? If that is the theory of progress through descent then any "infantile" concept is what I have received from general public education.

Let me ask you about "convergent evolution". What is your belief about this.

A human eye evolved.
An octopus eye also evolved.

The human and the octopus are on two different "branches" of body plan or phylum ( I think is the word). I mean the emergence of organs similar in function and shape across different species.

If they are homologous it means the two different occurrences of the organ arose from common descent. If they are described as analogous the similarities mean Evolution did the same thing on two independent evolutionary paths.

In the second case, it is hard for me to imagine the probability of evolution producing a similar result on an independent different branch of development. Why not rather suspect that something entirely different would evolve. But to turn out an eye in both a human and an octopus by mutation and natural selection ?

In the first case of the plan being preserved so that the two branches carry with each the plan of an eye, I cannot see that as the result of a process with no goal.

Now if that also seems "infantile" to everybody here, it will just have to appear "infantile." What do you think, analogous or homologous explanation of human and octopus eyes ?

Originally posted by sonship
Am I right that evolution proposes fish to more complicated amphibian to more complex reptile to more complex mammal is the progression ? If that is the theory of progress through descent then any "infantile" concept is what I have received from general public education.

A basic public education necessarily leaves much to be desired. In the course of my education there were several times when the teacher told us 'actually what we taught you last year was an over simplification and was really all wrong'. Those that dropped out a year earlier, left school with the wrong idea.

One could probably argue that multi-cellular life forms are more complex than single cellular ones, and that sex adds a level of complexity not found in asexual life forms. But other than that there really is no progression of complexity.

Most of the rest of your post consists of 'I don't believe this' but no real explanation for why you don't believe it, nor a very clear explanation of what it is you don't believe. Certainly it seems to mostly be two things:
1. It doesn't fit well with your religious beliefs.
2. You lack the education to understand it.
Nether of which constitutes a solid argument against the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by sonship

I do not see why you would want evidence that a walrus does or could or might descend directly from a wolf, or a porcupine from a dog.

Bad examples. My point was that a poodle and a wolf are too close. Now I know classification is an issue. But I think a wolf and a poodle share too much of the K9 characteristics to impress me, though obvio ...[text shortened]... nfantile." What do you think, analogous or homologous explanation of human and octopus eyes ?

Convergent evolution is well established and has plenty of far more colourful examples. I am not so convinced that evolution always travels from lesser to greater complexity. There are examples either way. As I said above there are many aspects of natural selection to take into account including " sexual selection, speciation, convergent evolution, extinction, genetics, plate tectonics, geographical dispersal, and more."

Are you asking us to reproduce an introductory guide to natural selection for you, perhaps with illustrations, supported by academic resources for every claim? If we did you would no more read our contributions than you seem prepared to read any of the many, easily available introductions and guides that are out there in the market.

You have a simplistic idea in your head. If you want to set up your stall as an opponent of evolution, you need to read some better introductions to the subject. I have recommended one (The Ancestor's Tale) that is ideal for someone like yourself who really needs to have the ancestral tree laid out for you step by step by step, showing all the branches back to the roots. You will not look at the sources I recommend. Why would I waste time trying to reproduce them in this forum?

You sit there pushing out one skeptical distraction after another and presumably anticipate a never ending patient rebuttal of every claim you make, then pronounce that your own uncritical, blind conformity to the Creationist creed is not available for questioning. Plenty of Christians decline to accept that fundamentalist line of argument; why would you think it might work with atheists?

But sadly for you you have no interesting arguments to make, because you have been too idle to even research the elements of this topic. You are only demonstrating your ignorance and it is time you got embarrassed and cleared off.

Originally posted by finnegan

Dawkins's brilliant, inventive approach allows us to view the connections between ourselves and all other life in a bracingly novel way. It also lets him shed bright new light on the most compelling aspects of evolutionary history and theory: sexual selection, speciation, convergent evolution, extinction, genetics, plate tectonics, geographical dispersal, and more. The Ancestor's Tale is at once a far-reaching survey of the latest, best thinking on biology and a fascinating history of life on Earth.

Dawkins defines Biology as the study of living things which have an appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Is it " infantile" to say to Dr. Dawkins that they appear to have been designed for a purpose because they were in fact designed for a purpose? Would that be an "infantile" idea ?

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is correct and I also said that major changes would and could end the lives of
anything that had them due to the shear number of things that could go wrong. I've been
clear that within each life/kind that there could be small changes, but you'd keep what type
of lifeform it was. That if enough modifications did occur it would and could die off if th ...[text shortened]... someone
strings all the dots together to say this creature came from that one, they are wrong.

So what is the mechanism, in terms of DNA, that prevents small changes in it from accumulating over time to become large changes?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So what is the mechanism, in terms of DNA, that prevents small changes in it from accumulating over time to become large changes?

As I told you earlier, within creation each life was started and the DNA was set it was
established, it was written, it was coded just for that lifeform.

The fact that they were all coded avoided the need for countless modifications that
would have been required to go from the very simplest life to the variety we see today.

The reason this is so important that the vast majority of modification there are more are
bad and unhealthy one over healthy and improvements. Since the beginning of each
lifeform has an established code written it will not vary from it to much, because varying
from it will normally lead to some weakening or unhealthy alteration they will be rule not
the the exception. That is the mechanism, the more the alterations are tweaked within the
living system in areas that are required the greater the odds that the life will end.

If there are rules with all of the code in each system to remain true to its core that would
be beyond my ability, or yours to grasp such a thing. It seems likely since we tend to get
dogs from dogs over time and each creature tends to mate with its own kinds. Following
its code while life is starting is a remarkable thing the little I've read about it is fascinating.

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I told you earlier, within creation each life was started and the DNA was set it was
established, it was written, it was coded just for that lifeform.

The fact that they were all coded avoided the need for countless modifications that
would have been required to go from the very simplest life to the variety we see today.

The reason this is so imp ...[text shortened]... code while life is starting is a remarkable thing the little I've read about it is fascinating.

It would not at all be "beyond my ability" to grasp the notion that some segments of DNA might be immune to mutations. Indeed we can quite easily check whether this occurs and it doesn't - as far as I know mutations can occur anywhere in the genome. But if it is not the immunity of certain segments of DNA that is the mechanism that prevents "micro-evolution" from becoming just regular ol' evolution, then what is? How does DNA "know" that it ought not change beyond the "base type"? You can't just sweep this question under the rug since it is the only thing separating "micro-evolution," which you apparently accept, from evolution.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It would not at all be "beyond my ability" to grasp the notion that some segments of DNA might be immune to mutations. Indeed we can quite easily check whether this occurs and it doesn't - as far as I know mutations can occur anywhere in the genome. But if it is not the immunity of certain segments of DNA that is the mechanism that prevents "micro-evolu ...[text shortened]... it is the only thing separating "micro-evolution," which you apparently accept, from evolution.

I agree as far as we know, but as far as we know isn't my concern with respect to changes
in how we are constructed. What I've been telling you is that we were according to the
creation story put together and life started as fully functional beings. Tweaking that means
you run the risk of not allowing blood to clot as it should, your auto immune system to act
as it should, the list goes on and on.

There are small changes now and many of them give us things that diminish life at many
levels, but major system changes require that there are things being altered as they are
being used and this done without any regard to will this work or not...there will be no 'will
this' because its all random through whatever mutation happens.

I get the true believers of evolution think this is all no big deal due to natural selection, but
that is all faith on their part.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree as far as we know, but as far as we know isn't my concern with respect to changes
in how we are constructed. What I've been telling you is that we were according to the
creation story put together and life started as fully functional beings. Tweaking that means
you run the risk of not allowing blood to clot as it should, your auto immune system t ...[text shortened]... on think this is all no big deal due to natural selection, but
that is all faith on their part.

How does DNA "know" that it ought not change beyond the "base type"?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree as far as we know, but as far as we know isn't my concern with respect to changes
in how we are constructed. What I've been telling you is that we were according to the
creation story put together and life started as fully functional beings. Tweaking that means
you run the risk of not allowing blood to clot as it should, your auto immune system t ...[text shortened]... on think this is all no big deal due to natural selection, but
that is all faith on their part.

but major system changes require that there are things being altered as they are
being used and this done without any regard to will this work or not.

What will not work will not survive.