In a recent thread, a discussion arose concerning whether the biblical account of creation was compatible with evolution. There was some interest in creating a separate thread so I have volunteered to do that here.

My perspective is that evolution is like any worldview in that it attempts to answer the question of the origin of man, amongst other things. To me, the heart of the argument in favor of evolution hinges upon the plausibility of macroevolution. Is macroevolution an observed and documented phenomenon in nature? Macroevolution is basically saying that mankind has evolved from an ape-like species. There are only theories concerning this and not actual observed cases where an ape has evolved into a human. Much of the support for macroevolution stems from microevolution, which observes variations within species and how species can adapt to changing environments. But to make the case for macroevolution by using microevolution as supporting evidence is flawed because all microevolution proves is that there are built-in biological variances within a species.

It is an implausible to leap to observe a change within a species and assume that one kind of species can mutate to another kind of species... just because you can breed different kinds of dogs and see variations in the offspring doesn't mean that you can make a cat from a dog. This kind of evolution is a complete mythology in my opinion. Thus, the theory of evolution in my mind has failed to adequately answer the question of man's origin. I reject the theory of evolution in favor of the biblical account of creation which sets forth a straight-forward answer to the question of man's origin: "...then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."

There was, in the dark recesses of time, an ape-like creature who had a genetic anomaly. He was also a rapist and screwed anything that he could hold still long enough. He was finally caught and killed, cremated, so his genes never can be found, the one person who started mankind.

Therefore, we are an anomylous, rape creation. If you don't believe it, just be female and walk at night in most cities and you will see the defect along with the progress. It might rape you though.

That was a tongue-in-cheek-knee-jerk, not an argument to the OP.

In a recent thread, a discussion arose concerning whether the biblical account of creation was compatible with evolution. There was some interest in creating a separate thread so I have volunteered to do that here.

My perspective is that evolution is like any worldview in that it attempts to answer the question of the origin of man, amongst other things. To me, the heart of the argument in favor of evolution hinges upon the plausibility of macroevolution. Is macroevolution an observed and documented phenomenon in nature? Macroevolution is basically saying that mankind has evolved from an ape-like species. There are only theories concerning this and not actual observed cases where an ape has evolved into a human. Much of the support for macroevolution stems from microevolution, which observes variations within species and how species can adapt to changing environments. But to make the case for macroevolution by using microevolution as supporting evidence is flawed because all microevolution proves is that there are built-in biological variances within a species.

It is an implausible to leap to observe a change within a species and assume that one kind of species can mutate to another kind of species...just because you can breed different kinds of dogs and see variations in the offspring doesn't mean that you can make a cat from a dog. This kind of evolution is a complete mythology in my opinion. Thus, the theory of evolution in my mind has failed to adequately answer the question of man's origin. I reject the theory of evolution in favor of the biblical account of creation which sets forth a straight-forward answer to the question of man's origin: "...then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."

Evolution means to change from one thing to another. You believe that God could change some dirt into a man. Do you believe that God could do the same in increments according to the evolutionary model?

Lets go beyond man, all living things trees, fish, bushes, birds and all animals would have had to develop from that first cell. Now there is a large leap.

jakester:

I'm a creationist. I believe God made all creation, whether it was in 7-days, or 7-millennia doesn't seem important to me. I also believe that there was an “original” Adam and Eve; and that their story is told in Genesis. Whether the Genesis is allegorical doesn't bother me either.

In my opinion evolutionist are working with a broken theory, and if not, it still doesn't explain first cause – that which is the root cause of all things but is not created.

For me any theory that maintains the dignity of man, separates humanity from lower forms and views God as the first Cause, I can entertain. Currently, Darwinism doesn't do this. In fact Darwinism does the opposite; it dehumanizes mankind, places man in the same category as animals ruled by instinct, and denies God's as first cause.

JoeT

I must agree with Jor and De Maria asked an interesting question,"You believe that God could change some dirt into a man. Do you believe that God could do the same in increments according to the evolutionary model?"
AND...
Fr Chuck's post dives home an important point.
I personally do believe in some form of evolution, but not Darwin's.
I believe that God created all things visible and invisable and the I question hiw it did that.
I think he did it over a period of billions of years.
I interpret the first 2 days of creation mentioned in the bible to be gays in God's time which is eternal, so those "days' could be billions of our years.
Thus the creation account in the bible is compatible for me.
So I do believe.
Peace and kindness.
Fred

Finally a consensus except for Fred who still holds onto the evolution stuff. Sorry Fred, but there is no where using the bible that you can explain evolution.
I think that the evolutionists are flinging all sorts of feces against the wall and watching to see what sticks. People will believe anything they are told unless they have been given the truth using the word of God. Society, starting with Darwin and continuing to today find it far easier to believe in some big bang theory or that a couple of apes had sex and man, a genetic impossibility, can from them than to believe the inspired word of God. But that can be translated into many of the topics that have been discussed lately here.

Evolution means to change from one thing to another. You believe that God could change some dirt into a man. Do you believe that God could do the same in increments according to the evolutionary model?

Hello De Maria -

Yes, I understand what evolutions means. Yes, God can do anything he wants and the fact that he made man from dirt is proof that he is able to bring about one thing from another thing. But De Maria, I don't believe that is the issue being addressed in the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is not trying to answer the question of whether God is able to make man from dirt; it is attempting to answer the question of where man came from. You have to see this distinction or else you'll never see at least in principle how different the evolutionary theory really is from the biblical creation account.

Evolution is saying that man did not come from the dirt as the bible claims he did (by an act of God) but by means of an evolutionary process where man did not originate as man but as an ape-like creature. In the biblical account, you see man created and then having the intellectual capacity to interact with God and name creatures that God had made and ultimately reason well enough to disobey God. Evolution would say that man didn't come to be the way man is today (a fully intelligent, resourceful, rational, and capable being) until billions of years later, after having gone through several evolutionary stages, developing from an ape-like creature to modern man. Well, again, you see no evidence of that in the creation account. The account didn't say that God made an ape-like creature that he began to work on and shape into another creature, over a span of time. It's a complete myth because you cannot make the case for this from the biblical text—you can only make a case for this based upon human imagination.

I cannot see why there is any conflict between evolution and the creation account in Genesis. I honestly don't see any conflict here, unless one is committed to Biblical literalism across the board. Why suppose that the Bible is, or ought to be, the standard against which we measure the claims of science? The Bible says that the earth does not move, and yet I have no problem believing that the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun. I have no problem with astronomy. Do you? Because it isn't compatible with a literal interpretation of, e.g. Ps.104.5. (See also, Ps.93.1, 96.10, I Chronicles 16.30.) Galileo got in some trouble over this once upon a time. If a literal understanding of the Bible isn't the standard of scientific truth regarding the heliocentric model of the solar system, why should a literal understanding of the Bible be taken to be the standard regarding evolutionary biology? This strikes me as cherry-picking: If evolution is out, then so is astronomy. If if that's the case, then we're going to have to go back to Ptolemy--which is a real problem since then we are going to have a very difficult time explaining all those satellites in orbit.

My aim, then, isn't to defend evolution but to register real doubts about the use to which people often put the Bible in their rejection of evolution.

I think the original proposition presented here shows a conflict of thought between faith and evolution (or science). It presupposes that science should and can preempt faith. Many of us give sway to the mantra, “science shows evolution and therefore faith in God is wrong.” Science is little more than an analytical tool; if you please, a discipline of the intellect.

As I've written before, to be “scientific” or to approach a field of study “scientifically” has an indistinct meaning. Today, however we assign an explicit meaning few of the users can define; many of the tenets of which are arguable. The word science has Latin roots with the simple meaning of “methodical”. Today we assign the meaning of “scientific” to orderly, regular, systematic processes to obtain knowledge of intuitively empirical phenomenon, on which a hypothesis can be formed, an aphoristic postulate can made with derived perditions that receive objective rigor in systematically testing, and finally objectively analyzed for axiomatic attestation. The hypothesis is said to be proven only when an objective truth can be known and experimental results constantly and repeatedly match the predictions.

In the formulation of the meaning of “scientific,” the word “objective”, in a very general sense, is understood to mean a tangible knowledge. More specifically, when used in the definition of “science” or “scientific”, the meaning of “objective” becomes the intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book; or intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book or of; or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

The true “scientific” method is an intellectual process supposedly dealing with objective reasoning. This presupposes that subjective human reasoning can be eliminated from the process, which of course it cannot do.

On the other hand, Catholics hold 'faith' in God to be those truths revealed by God in Scripture and in the Tradition of the Church (objective faith based on known attested revelations of God). Faith can also be those things we hold true that are beyond our understanding, but within our natural light of reason (subjective faith). This latter type of faith requires a supernatural strengthening of natural light. "Quid est enim fides nisi credere quod non vides?" (What is faith but belief without seeing?). In either event, “to believe” is intellectual reasoning containing some element of faith. In the understanding of our faith “objective” is understood to mean an “absolute truth” as well as a tangible knowledge.

Science cannot prove faith to be wrong, it's impossible. The failure in the scientific approach is the failure to fully quantify the unknowable. Clearly, to presuppose that those things of faith can be scientifically studied is not only silly but could be dangerously foolish to the disposition of one's soul. How can we scientifically measure and test, and come to know an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God? How will the created measure the creator to ascertain Truth; especially when the creator is all of absolute Truth? At the same time, do not misconstrue my statements to mean that a scientific fact (truth) not borne out by faith is untrue. In fact, any truth, scientific or otherwise, is a revelation of God.

JoeT

In fact, any truth, scientific or otherwise, is a revelation of God.

JoeT

Excellent! This is exactly what St. Augustine says in book three of his De Trinitate. You're in very good company, JoeT.

I agree with both Akoue and Joe T.
My belief is in God and SOME SORT of evolution planned and created by God.
Yes, that means I'm a believer in Intelligent Design.
I believe that God is the creator of all things seen and unseen and much of how He did it is a mystery.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Is macroevolution an observed and documented phenomenon in nature? Macroevolution is basically saying that mankind has evolved from an ape-like species.

Macroevolution has never been observed in nature. The theory is based upon a multitude of assumptions and has never been proven in accordance with the requirements of the scientific method. Micro-evolution (change within a species) has been proven, but not macroevolution.

I used to be an evolutionist, and when I found that the evidence could not support evolution, in an effort to avoid turning away from evolution entirely, I became a theistic evolutionist - a belief that God used evolution as his means of creation. I found that to be the hardest position of all to defend, and very quickly followed where both the Biblical and scientific evidence clearly pointed - the Biblical account of creation. As either a man of science or a Christian, I can find no other position which is so easily defensible in the light of the facts.

Tj3,
So you believe as Cred would say.
I believe in both creation by God and some form of evolution via Intelligent Design.
I respect your belief for you.
Do you respect my belief for me?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3,
So you believe as Cred would say.

No I don't believe as Cred says. I believe what the Bible says.


I believe in both creation by God and some form of evolution via Intelligent Design.
I respect your belief for you.
Do you respect my belief for me?

I don't know what the term "respect my belief for me" means. That does not seem to make grammatical sense. Please explain what you mean by this phrase.

I definitely believe in micro-evolution, and I don't believe in macroevolution although sometimes it is hard to deny the similarties between apes and humans back in the day. What do you think that Adam and Eve looked like? Do you think they looked like cave men? And TJ3 all Fred is asking is if you can respect his beliefs as he respects yours? Which hopefully you can

And TJ3 all Fred is asking is if you can respect his beliefs as he respects yours? Which hopefully you can

Very Good, NY. And all this wisdom out of the mouth of a babe!

JoeT

Tj3,
NewYork123 understood what I said and answered your question for me quite well.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I definitely believe in micro-evolution, and I don't believe in macroevolution although sometimes it is hard to deny the similarties between apes and humans back in the day. What do you think that Adam and Eve looked like?

I have stated many times on here that micr-evolution is clearly proven. It is not hard to tell the difference. Tall, short, black, white, fat thin, I have never yet mistaken a person for an animal.


Do you think they looked like cave men? And TJ3 all Fred is asking is if you can respect his beliefs as he respects yours? Which hopefully you can

I do not have to respect the beliefs of others. I do respect his right to hold those beliefs, but that does not mean that I must respect beliefs that I disagree with.

It is case that respect for the person is not dependent upon whether we agree or not.

Tj3,
NewYork123 understood what I said and answered your question for me quite well.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

And I just answered.

I sense some hostility TJ3 lol.. But what do you think about macro-evolution? How do you explain how similar humans and apes look?

I sense some hostility TJ3 lol.

Your senses are wrong.


But what do you think about macro-evolution? How do you explain how similar humans and apes look?

How do you explain how similar all Chrysler products look? The same designer.

Tj3.
But such a comparison doe not work for the Chrysler products you mentioned are all transportation vehicles.
But there is a vast difference between a wild jungle dwelling ape and a human person who has self awareness and is much more civilized with a different life style and environment.
Though I am glad that you mentioned that they have the same designer.
O believe the God in His efforts of creation all that is seen and unseen did indeed design all of it to be what it came to be.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Does this mean that apes and humans have the same designer (they look a lot alike), but that squid and fungi have a different designer (they don't look anything like apes and humans)? How many designers are there? Must be a bunch of them.

Tj3.
But such a comparison doe not work for the Chrysler products you mentioned are all transportation vehicles.
But there is a vast difference between a wild jungle dwelling ape and a human person who has self awareness and is much more civilized with a different life style and environment.

Then that argues against the claim that one is similar enough to have evolved from one to the other.

The similarities are in the construction - DNA, etc. but the differences are such that we never mistake one for the other, and we have not seen any case where one species transitions to another.

Akoue,
Good question and I THINK Tom answered it well.
But I still believe the in some form of evolution (not Darwin's) that God used in his designing of the universe.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue,
Good question and I THINK Tom answered it well.


No, not really, because the claim made by evolutionary biologists isn't that humans descend from apes but that humans and modern apes descend from a common ancestor.

Of course, gross anatomical similarities aren't enough to settle things either way. We have to look at DNA. But notice how much DNA modern humans share with apes. This is at least prima facie evidence for a shared genetic ancestry. The more DNA shared by morphologically distinct species, there more reason to suspect common ancestry as we look farther back.

I would be happy to discuss this question is in the biology section.

No, not really, because the claim made by evolutionary biologists isn't that humans descend from apes but that humans and modern apes descend from a common ancestor.

Doesn't matter. There is no proof of that either.


The more DNA shared by morphologically distinct species, there more reason to suspect common ancestry as we look farther back.

Then if I saw two car models made by Dodge, the closer they were, the more likely that they evolved from each other. In fact the "DNA" (internal design) of every automobile on earth is extremely similar but not one single one evolved into another car.

Not one single case have yet been shown where two animals of similar DNA transitioned from one species to another. Until that is proven, at best, evolution is a theory based upon a large number of unproven assumptions.

Then if I saw two car models made by Dodge, the closer they were, the more likely that they evolved from each other. In fact the "DNA" (internal design) of every automobile on earth is extremely similar but not one single one evolved into another car.

You're using an artefact model to talk about biology. The artefact model has no application to the matters under consideration. (Unless you want to beg the question against the evolutionists and assume an artificer.)


Not one single case have yet been shown where two animals of similar DNA transitioned from one species to another. Until that is proven, at best, evolution is a theory based upon a large number of unproven assumptions.

Do you mean to say that it's an empirically unconfirmed hypothesis? That's what it sounds like you mean.

Akoue,
Right you are.
I should not have considered the age thing but rather the common ancestor.
I believe that Adam and Eve were the first human species with a soul.
I do find it amazing that all life on this planet has some similar DNA.
I wonder IF life on other planets will have some DNA similar to life here.
Of the hundreds of planets so far discovered only a few are not Jupiter size and larger, but none earth size have yet to be discovered.
Within a few years new detection instruments will be operational which probably will be able to find near earth sized planets and some MAY have water and an atmosphere.
That may upset some folks who believe this planet is the only place where God created life, but since God is the author of life and created a very vast universe full of stars and planets I'm sure that there is more life out there somewhere.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I would be happy to discuss this question is in the biology section.

That would be great! Unfortunately, I don't know that many of the people who frequent this forum are willing to venture over there. Would you be willing to lend your expertise to this thread?

Akoue,
Right you are.
I should not have considered the age thing but rather the common ancestor.
I believe that Adam and Eve were the first human species with a soul.
I do find it amazing that all life on this planet has some similar DNA.
I wonder IF life on other planets will have some DNA similar to life here.
Of the hundreds of planets so far discovered only a few are not Jupiter size and larger, but none earth size have yet to be discovered.
Within a few years new detection instruments will be operational which probably will be able to find near earth sized planets and some MAY have water and an atmosphere.
That may upset some folks who believe this planet is the only place where God created life, but since God is the author of life and created a very vast universe full of stars and planets I'm sure that there is more life out there somewhere.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

It's an exciting prospect, isn't it Fred?

Akoue,
Yes it is,
AND I do hope that Asking will join us on this thread on this subject.
It would be very interesting to have a biology expert participate here for all here to see and work with.
I hope he/she sees your invitation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Thanks for the invitation. My understanding is that secular people who talk about evolution in the Christian section are considered a species of troll. I am not interested in trolling... Plus, I think that a discussion of evolution belongs in the science section.

All the same, I would want to see a definition of macroevolution and of species that everyone more or less agrees to. Otherwise, I don't think it's possible to have a fruitful discussion of whether macroevolution has occurred, let alone whether that is compatible with special creation.

To a biologist, macroevolution is evolutionary change at or above the level of species. So it means a new species.

The problem with this rough definition is that species themselves do not fit neatly into compartments. This is not a problem for evolution as a biological principle; but it does make it hard to have the particular discussion you are having.

In discussing this topic it's important to understand the deeper roots of difference between modern biology's view of individuals and species and the one embraced historically over the past 2000 years or so. Most ordinary people tend to view a species as having a perfect "type" or ideal. This can be described as "Platonic" after the philosopher Plato. The Christian idea of special creation refers to perfect types as well. When we speak of "the fox" we are referring to an abstract fox ideal. In this view, all real foxes are somehow imperfect versions of that ideal fox--the one originally created by God, conceived in His mind.

Modern biology does not recognize perfect types, certainly not as species. Instead, a species is a group, or population, of individuals, each one unique. Every individual, no matter how "imperfect," is a legitimate member of a species. By definition, none is more representative than any other, though some may be closer to average in a limited number of ways--blood groups, tooth length, or ear size. "Average" leg length is not ideal though. It's just a statistical average. And the average mostly has no effect on what happens to individuals in real life--who gets eaten and who survives to have offspring.

Typically, a biologist is talking about a species in a given moment in time, so it's a kind of cross section through time. In contrast, evolutionary biologists tend to think of species as occurring over long spans of time. So a species is a population that lives in a certain area and interbreeds with others in that population, but it's also all the ancestors of that population that look and behave approximately like the current population. Many species, or at least things that appear to be species, are many millions of years old while most seem to last only a few hundred thousand years, or even less, either going to extinct or changing into something clearly "different."

In biology, there is no universally accepted definition of species. This is because the edges of species are usually a bit blurry. There are often sub populations within species that seem on the verge of forming a separate group. Or there are several "sister" species that mostly live separately, but sometimes interbreed, or "hybridize." This is all totally contrary to the idea of separately created, well defined species, as most people understand the term. And thus the facts of how species really behave is at odds with special creation.

And yet the word "species" is useful.

We know a lion when we see one and we know it's different from a tiger. In a study of stone age jungle dwellers who were asked to name the different species of birds in the jungle, they named all the same birds as a biologist would except for one (the biologists saw two similar species where they saw one). So we all have a sense of what it means to be a species. And yet, when biologists look closer, it gets mushy. Lions and tigers can interbreed. Does that mean they are not separate species? More obscure plants and animals do this in the wild all the time, so that species are exchanging genes with one another. Even widely different species of bacteria exchange genes with one another on a massive scale through gene carrying "plasmids." What does it mean to be a species of bacterium?

Enough background for now.

So to talk about this problem in a reasonably sophisticated way, we need to agree on terms--specifically what would constitute "macroevolution" and what would not. Also, I would ask that people accept the biological understanding of what a species is, rather than the traditional Platonic ideal. Because if we are not talking in the same language, there's only limited communication.

asking,

Thank you so much for that. I hope no one will accuse you of trolling: I certainly found your post extremely helpful. We do, as you describe, seem to run up against a sort of sorites problem: classes have vague boundaries, and an awful lot turns on the taxonomic shemes we deploy in sorting them out. And I'd like to second your call for greater terminological rigor, since without it it's particularly difficult to see how we can get anywhere in the present discussion.

And I, too, would rather have this discussion in the biology section. Oh well.

You're using an artefact model to talk about biology. The artefact model has no application to the matters under consideration. (Unless you want to beg the question against the evolutionists and assume an artificer.)

I am using an analogy to demonstrate that the assumption that you have made is not valid, and indeed has never been substantiated by evidence. You may feel that it is right according to your own reasoning, but that in and of itself does not validate the assumption.

The point is that just because there are similarities, we cannot assume that one evolved from the other. We need to have evidence which bridges that gap. If you have such evidence, please, bring it forward and let's have a look.

Keep in mind the example that I provided previously - HIV. The DNA of this virus changes at an incredible rate, and yet despite the astronomical number of changes that take place in a week, not to mention the nearly 30 years that the virus has been known, we have yet to see the HIV become something other than an HIV. With that in mind, we need to be careful about exapolating beyond known data to suggest species change for which no evidence exists.

I still believe the in some form of evolution (not Darwin's) that God used in his designing of the universe.


Fred,
What do you mean when you say God's form of evolution? Are you saying a form of evolution that is not driven by natural selection or genetic drift? I hope it's obvious that modern evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond what Darwin postulated, so biologists don't particularly limit themselves to "Darwin's" evolution either.

In particular, in anything I say here, I am not talking about Darwin's understanding, but a more modern view that incorporates genetics, cladistics, and a more thorough understanding of how populations of organisms work.

Anyway, I'm curious to know how you envision evolution happening by God's will (rather than through selection or drift).

asking,
I'm glad to see you here.
I believe that what modern science has discovered is was and is an evolution of God's design.
I can not prove that scientifically but I believe that at present science can not prove that God does not exist.
I also believe that in the future more and more scientists will believe that indeed there is a supreme being as many already do.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,
What do you mean when you say God's form of evolution? Are you saying a form of evolution that is not driven by natural selection or genetic drift? I hope it's obvious that modern evolutionary biology has advanced far beyond what Darwin postulated, so biologists don't particularly limit themselves to "Darwin's" evolution either.

In particular, in anything I say here, I am not talking about Darwin's understanding, but a more modern view that incorporates genetics, cladistics, and a more thorough understanding of how populations of organisms work.

Anyway, I'm curious to know how you envision evolution happening by God's will (rather than through selection or drift).

So, basically you are asking has man changed in his appearance over the last 3 or 4 thousand years?

So, basically you are asking has man changed in his appearance over the last 3 or 4 thousand years?

No! I was not asking that. I don't see how you got that from what I said.

450donn,
I always try to keep in mind that what mankind does, or says is WITHIN the will of God.
That within is man's God given gift of free will.
So our discussion here concerning God's creation and evolution is within God's will.
Actually I think He is interested in what is being said in discussion on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

asking,
I'm glad to see you here.
I believe that what modern science has discovered is was and is an evolution of God's design.
I can not prove that scientifically but I believe that at present science can not prove that God does not exist.
I also believe that in the future more and more scientists will believe that indeed there is a supreme being as many already do.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Thanks, Fred. So you are saying that you feel God created each species and then let evolution happen to let life change, in the same way it's understood by biologists today?

Science cannot disprove God and is not intended to do so. Science is just a way of posing questions about the natural world and then answering those questions. It has nothing to say about God. It would make me feel more comfortable here if you would not make statements about science proving or disproving God. I don't want anyone here to think that is what I advocate or intend. I also feel uncomfortable with your statement about the religious preferences of future scientists. I am happy to discuss evolution so that people here can better understand what it says. I also responded to New York in a way that I hope you will approve of.

Asking,
Yes I approve of everything you have said here in explanation of modern evolution.
It is VERY interesting.
When I was a cattle rancher there were and still are people who interbreed various breeds of species for various reasons.
Now, is that natural selection? Yes and no I think since man is a natural being.
But without man's effort, interbreeding could and did take place. Thus a form of evolution did.
Is that is what is called "drift"?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Asking,
Then please explain to me exactly what you are trying to say here when you said
"In particular, in anything I say here, I am not talking about Darwin's understanding, but a more modern view that incorporates genetics, cladistics, and a more thorough understanding of how populations of organisms work."
As that to my mind is what you were saying.

Yes, please, and what are cladistics?
Fred

Cladistics is a taxonomic system that classifies groups of organisms according to the order of their divergence from genetically ancestral species.

Asking,
Yes I approve of everything you have said here in explanation of modern evolution.
It is VERY interesting.
When I was a cattle rancher there were and still are people who interbreed various breeds of species for various reasons.
Now, is that natural selection? Yes and no I think since man is a natural being.
But without man's effort, interbreeding could and did take place. Thus a form of evolution did.
Is that is what is called "drift"?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Your experience with artificial selection, cattle ranching, is very relevant to what I am talking about. And I agree that artificial selection can be said to be "natural" in the sense that humans are natural beings. But not everyone would agree with that. I see where you are going with that, too, but won't follow. :)

Genetic drift is what happens when genetic change occurs without there being any adaptation in the form of natural selection. In one kind of genetic drift, for example, a population of animals could be greatly reduced by some disaster such as a hurricane, so that only a few animals are left. When their population expands again, so that there are 100,000 of them instead of 10, the genetic diversity is gone. Many of the genes that the bigger original population carried is gone. This is called a "bottleneck." A classic example is the northern elephant seal. Also, cheetahs and Florida cougars have very low genetic diversity because they have been through a bottleneck (very small population size).

In another kind of drift, a few rare genes that might carry resistance to a parasite (for example) disappear just because the individuals that carry that gene happen to not reproduce for reasons unrelated to the gene. So it's not selection. The gene just winks out of the population. Genetic drift is changes in gene frequency in a population (not an individual) that are due to events unrelated to how adaptive the gene is.

I hope this makes sense.

PS. Glad you approve. :)

But, is that really evolution in the true sense? I do not have the answer to that question.

Cladistics is a taxonomic system that classifies groups of organisms according to the order of their divergence from genetically ancestral species.

Yes. What Akoue said.

I'm going to expand on this:
Historically, species were classified into species, genera, families, and so on according to how similar they appeared. The different species of oak trees all went together into the genus "Quercus" which means "cork" because wine corks come from oak bark. The cats, lions, and tigers all went together, too. This kind of lumping is called "taxonomy." Most of the time this system seemed to work, but sometimes a group of organisms seemed to share one set of characteristics, but not another. It wasn't clear how they should be classified.

For comparison, if you went to a big family reunion, where almost everyone had red hair, you might think that someone with black hair was an in-law, not a blood relative. But it could turn out you were wrong, since not everyone in a family is exactly alike. And it might turn out that some of the people with red hair were not actually relatives, but friends or in laws.

Biologists have the same problem classifying organisms. If two animals both have similar horns, does that mean they are closely related? Or are they only distantly related, but this lineage of animals just has a tendency to have similarly twisted horns sometimes?

Nowadays, biologists try to classify organisms by how they are related, just like a real family tree, an approach called "cladistics." So instead of just looking at similar traits, they try to infer how different species are actually related--who descended from whom. By combining information from anatomy, embryology, and genetics it's been possible to construct a family tree for all of life with remarkable accuracy. DNA taken from modern animals and plants nearly always confirms the relatedness or family tree constructed from anatomical traits. This confirmation gives biologists confidence that they have classified extinct animals correctly.

So a DNA analysis might suggest that an animal first split off from a relative 5 million years ago. But the fossil record shows that the animal first appears 4.8 million years ago. These two numbers, which are 200,000 years apart, might seem way off, but they are actually pretty close. It's perfectly possible that the animal did first appear 5 million years ago, but the oldest fossil so far found is only 4.8 million years old. If the fossil was 10 million years old, that would contradict the DNA evidence and present a classification problem. But most of the time, these numbers are in approximate agreement, tending to confirm not only that two species split apart but also when they split.

Thanks, Fred. So you are saying that you feel God created each species and then let evolution happen to let life change, in the same way it's understood by biologists today?

If God created all species, why would evolution even be necessary?


Science cannot disprove God and is not intended to do so. Science is just a way of posing questions about the natural world and then answering those questions. It has nothing to say about God.

This is where I disagree. God created all nature and science is a study of what God created.

When I was a cattle rancher there were and still are people who interbreed various breeds of species for various reasons.
Now, is that natural selection? Yes and no I think since man is a natural being.
But without man's effort, interbreeding could and did take place. Thus a form of evolution did.

That is micro-evolution. That is well proven and as you have shown, we have considerable evidence of it.

Since it is so easy to show micro-evolution, it is interesting that no one has ever shown an example of macro-evolution.

no one has ever shown an example of macro-evolution.

The evolution of the horse is an example of macroevolution--that is, evolution at the species level.

So a DNA analysis might suggest that an animal first split off from a relative 5 million years ago.

There are many assumptions here, one of which is what Akoue and I already discussed and that is the unproven belief that similarity in DNA proves that one evolved from the other. It doesn't.


But the fossil record shows that the animal first appears 4.8 million years ago. These two numbers, which are 200,000 years apart, might seem way off, but they are actually pretty close.

It is interesting that you raise the fossil record, because right from Darwein himself, through to today, we have scientists who will tell you that the fossil record is one of the biggest problems for the theory of evolution.

The evolution of the horse is an example of macroevolution--that is, evolution at the species level.

Show me the evidence of a transition between a horse and something which was not a horse.

You can just Google horse evolution.
For example:

North American Horse Encyclopedia (http://www.critters-2-go.com/prehistoric/prehistoric_horses.htm)


Equus
The oldest species of "true" horse, Equus stenonis, was discovered in Italy, and is believed to have evolved from Plesippus-like animals at the end of the Tertiary or beginning of the Quaternary periods. Equus stenonis proliferated into two branches, one lighter in body mass and one heavier.
Equus stenonis crossed into North America, where similar forms known as Equus scotti are common; some types (Equus scotti var. giganteus) exceeded the modern horse in size. However, all the horses in North America ultimately became extinct, approximately 11,000 years ago, perhaps due to climate change or some pandemic. It has also been suggested that humans hunted horses to extinction, as the appearance of humans in the Americas occurred at about the same time as the extinction of most large mammals in the Americas. However, there are no known kill sites of Pleistocene horses in North America, and so this scenario remains unsupported.
Recent studies by a team of geneticists headed by C. Vila indicate that the horse line split from the zebra/donkey line between 4 and 2 million years ago. Equus ferus, ancestor species to Equus caballus, appeared 630,000 to 320,000 years bp. Equus caballus was formed from several subspecies of Equus ferus by selective breeding widely over Eurasia for an extended time. The details of this process are currently a target of research by archaeologists and geneticists.

OR

Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years (http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm)

You can just google horse evolution.
For example:

North American Horse Encyclopedia (http://www.critters-2-go.com/prehistoric/prehistoric_horses.htm)


OR

Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years (http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm)

But you are talking ALL horses. And much of what is in here regarding even the transitions that they claim are assumptions, not proof, indeed not even any evidence of such a transition having occurred.

Where is the PROOF of a transition to or from something which is NOT a horse?

Evolution of the dog.

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Dog (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/image_pop/l_015_02.html)

Tom, I've already learned not to waste time trying to present evidence to you because you simply reject all evidence. I can only tell other people what is generally known in the field of biology

And you're doing a great job. Your posts have been much appreciated in some quarters.

Tom, I've already learned not to waste time trying to present evidence to you because you simply reject all evidence. I can only tell other people what is generally known in the field of biology

I have asked for evidence of a transition between a horse (pr any animal) and something not a horse (or not whatever animal you choose). You have not yet presented any evidence. I'd be more than happy to look at it is you can find any. But don't accuse others of not looking at something that you have not posted.

If you are saying that I am discerning about what I accept as evidence, somethi8ng that actually meets the criteria of scientific evidence, you are right. That is because I am a researcher with a scientific background and education, and I do not just accept something because someone tells me that is what I must believe even if it is full of unvalidated assumptions.

Evolution of the dog.

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Dog (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/image_pop/l_015_02.html)

Same comments as before regarding the horse.

There are many assumptions here, one of which is what Akoue and I already discussed and that is the unproven belief that similarity in DNA proves that one evolved from the other. It doesn't.



It is interesting that you raise the fossil record, because right from Darwein himself, through to today, we have scientists who will tell you that the fossil record is one of the biggest problems for the theory of evolution.

Both of these statements are inaccurate and misleading in several ways.

Both of these statements are inaccurate and misleading in several ways.

Ah, an accusation without validation. Like evolution without evidence.:D

Same comments as before regarding the horse.

So wolves aren't part of the genetic ancestry of modern dogs? That's what you mean to say?

Thanks very much for the explanations.
Peace and kindness.
Fred

Fred,
You are very welcome.
Just Asking

Same comments as before regarding the horse.

You don't believe different breeds of dogs are related to one another or descended from wolves?

Do you believe that chihuahuas were specially created?

You don't believe different breeds of dogs are related to one another or descended from wolves?

Do you believe that chihuahuas were specially created?

They are all varieties of dogs. I said many times that micro-evolution is well-established - I have seen no one argue against micro-evolution, ever. Micro-evolution is not proof of macro-evolution.

They are all varieties of dogs. I said many times that micro-evolution is well-established.

Just to be clear: So you believe that wolves are a variety of dog? Same species? If so, please justify that claim. If not, do you deny that dogs are descended from wolves?

Akoue,
Very Good question.
Of course I believe that some dogs descended from wolves.
The same for from Foxes.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Just to be clear: So you believe that wolves are a variety of dog? Same species? If so, please justify that claim.

-------------------------------
"Canidae (IPA: /ˈkænədiː/, ′kanə′dē) is the biological family of the dogs; a member of this family is called a canid. They include wolves, foxes, coyotes, and jackals."
(Source: Canidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae))
-------------------------------

In addition, around here there are laws against people keeping wolf and domestic dog cross-breeds.

-------------------------------
Canidae (IPA: /?kæn?di?/, ?kan??d?) is the biological family of the dogs; a member of this family is called a canid. They include wolves, foxes, coyotes, and jackals.
(Source: Canidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae))
-------------------------------

In addition, around here there are laws against people keeping wolf and domestic dog cross-breeds.

Yes, that's nice. I was asking about species, not family.

Yes, that's nice. I was asking about species, not family.

I said that they were varieties of dog and they are. They can interbreed with other types of dogs and produce viable offspring. They are dogs. I know of no credible biologist who would deny this fact.

Not all dog breeds can interbreed with other dog breeds.

If you subscribe to the biological species concept (which says that a species is a population of mutually interbreeding individuals that cannot successfully breed with other such populations), then humans have successfully bred new species in the form of certain dog breeds. Certainly, by their looks alone, most dogs would be recognized as different species if they were found in the wild or the fossil record. If you don't accept the biological species concept, Tj3, then you need to bring your own definition (BOD) of species to the table and adhere to it. What do you think a species is?

Not all dog breeds can interbreed with other dog breeds.

A St. Bernard would have trouble physically breeding with a chihuahua - there may be humans who have the same physical problems. That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the fact that a wolf is a dog and recognized as such and can interbreed with other dogs.

Do you deny that fact despite the fact that this is widely known and recognized amongst biologists?

Asking,
Good post.
Good questions,
Fred

A St. Bernard would have trouble physically breeding with a chihuahua - there may be humans who have the same physical problems. That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the fact that a wolf is a dog and recognized as such and can interbreed with other dogs.

Do you deny that fact despite the fact that this is widely known and recognized amongst biologists?

A wolf can interbreed with a dog. It can also interbreed with a coyote. Are you saying that a wolf and a coyote and a dog are all the same species? I would not accept that as a "fact." Even the southern red wolf, which is a population descended from a hybrid cross between coyotes and wolves, is protected under the endangered species act.

I was myself referring to beagles and Irish setters, which can barely interbreed, but not for physical reasons. This is what I'm discussing. These two breeds of dogs are "reproductively isolated." By the usual definition, that makes them separate species. They were bred by humans and so it would be accurate to say that we have witnessed the creation of new species.

Science Netlinks: Science Updates (http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.cfm?DocID=222)


That said, he's found that there are certain combinations of dogs that don't cross-breed easily: for example, beagles and Irish setters.

Acland:
These were dogs with family lines, where they routinely produce big litters, and yet when we tried to breed these fertile beagles to fertile setters, we got no pups at all, despite many attempts to do so, and then eventually, we were able to produce one litter with two pups in it.

A wolf can interbreed with a dog. It can also interbreed with a coyote. Are you saying that a wolf and a coyote and a dog are all the same species?

They are all dogs.


I would not accept that as a "fact."

Well then you are out of step with the overwhelming majority of dog experts and biologists.

It is odd that when you speak of evolution, you suggest that whatever you believe that the majority of biologists believe to be true must be held to be true by others, with or without evidence, but when it comes to this, which disagrees with your position, you reject the standard position held by biologists.

a wolf is a dog and recognized as such .

Do you deny that fact despite the fact that this is widely known and recognized amongst biologists?

Interesting. Could you provide references to some of those biologists who claim that wolves and dogs are the same species? (Not genus, but species.) That would be helpful. Thanks.

They are all dogs.



Well then you are out of step with the overwhelming majority of dog experts and biologists.


This is interesting too, since I spoke with a biologist (who is also a dog expert and professor at a veterinary college) and have been told that what you say is not true. So some references would be really helpful.

Interesting. Could you provide references to some of those biologists who claim that wolves and dogs are the same species? (Not genus, but species.) That would be helpful. Thanks.

I already provided a reference. If you want more, do a search on internet. You might find it an interesting study.

BTW, I said that they were all dogs. Please do not misrepresent what I said.

I already provided a reference. If you want more, do a search on internet. You might find it an interesting study.

BTW, I said that they were all dogs. Please do not misrepresent what I said.

Internet, huh? No peer-reviewed articles or books? Just whatever some guy decided to throw up on a website. That's disappointing.

This is interesting too, since I spoke with a biologist (who is also a dog expert and professor at a veterinary college) and have been told that what you say is not true. So some references would be really helpful.

Since you have mis-stated what I said on here, perhaps you also mis-quoted me or mis-stated the question when you asked. It is not useful for you to say that you spoke to someone when all we hear is your interpretation of the answer to an unknown question.

In any case, I provided one reference - I encourage others to do their own research also, and I think that it would be useful for you to do a search and see how many references there are to wolves being dogs.

BTW, I said that they were all dogs. Please do not misrepresent what I said.

I'd have to understand it in order to misrepresent it. You said that they (wolves and dogs) are all dogs. The conversation is about species level (macro-)evolution--asking has been very clear about this. I understood you to be making the claim that wolves and dogs are dogs, where that means that they are the same species. If I've misunderstood please clarify your position.

Duplicate

You said that they (wolves and dogs) are all dogs.

Exactly.

Are we agreed on this point? Or do you disagree with the biologists?

If we cannot agree on this point which is so universally accepted and proven within science, then I don't know how we can go further. I am a man of science as well as being a Christian, and if we cannot agree to accept such a basic point, then I would suggest that we are at a dead end.

Internet, huh? No peer-reviewed articles or books? Just whatever some guy decided to throw up on a website. That's disappointing.

It is disappointing that you did not read the full article. Had you done so, you would have seen plenty of references at the bottom.

But once again, you tell us that you are a professor, so I would think that you would be well acquainted with doing research, and I would expect that such pointers would get you going if you are really interested in finding out the facts on a topic. I know that is how it is with me.

Internet and libraries are great places for research.

Yes I would like to see such references that foxes and wolves are the same species as dogs, not genus, but species.
I googled it and found opinions but no facts on that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3,
We are talking about species here now.
As has been asked before, what is YOUR definition of a species.
Thanks,
Fred

Tj3,
We are talking about species here now.
As has been asked before, what is YOUR definition of a species.
Thanks,
Fred

So we are agreed that a wolf is a dog. In fact, if you Google, you will find that the DNA match between domestic dog and a wolf is, for all practical purposes, identical. The reference in scripture is to "kind" which does not necessarily align with the artificial designations introduced by men for reason in addition to simply being able to reproduced and produced viable offspring, which is and has been the generally accepted definition.The fact that wolf and domestic dog have always been the same is not affected by men drawing up these artificial division. They did not suddenly lose the ability to reproduced, nor did their DNA change. They remained dogs, as they are today.

So, when wolves were domesticated, and bred to have the more aggressive aspects of their nature diminished, and subsequently other aspects of animal nature enhanced, such as obedience or control of other animal stocks, etc. the animals remained dogs. They did not evolve into something which was not a dog.

Tj3, I slept through most of this discussion. I go to bed early. :)

But I think I see where the confusion is coming from. You wrote that dogs, wolves, and coyotes are "canids," members of the dog family. That is true. But a family is a higher level of classification than species. It goes: species, genus, tribe, family (and up). The Canidae are grouped into three tribes.

Wikipedia is sufficiently reliable on material like this that I feel comfortable citing it here. A taxonomist might quibble about some of this, but I'm sure in essence it's correct.

Canidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae#Species_and_taxonomy)

So, to sum up, no biologist would say that a wolf and a coyote and a dog are all the same species. They are called "dogs" informally in the same way that lions are called "cats." Nobody actually thinks an African lion is the same species as a house cat.

So, wolves, coyotes, and dogs are separate species. And, and as I mentioned last night, individual breeds of dogs are so different that they would certainly be considered separate species if we hadn't made them ourselves on purpose.

AND some of them are now reproductively isolated (e.g. beagles, setters)--a biological watershed for speciation. Once two populations cannot interbreed, they are set to evolve separately and become distinct species. These breeds have already been evolving separately for some time. Even if the selection they experience is strongly influenced by humans, that doesn't alter that the two breeds are now genetically separated. Were these breeds anything but domesticated animals, biologists would say they had speciated. It's only custom that keeps us from saying that, not biology.

So, to sum up, no biologist would say that a wolf and a coyote and a dog are all the same species.

What I said is that they are all varieties of dogs. It avoid mis-understandings to ensure that what you are arguing against is what was actually said.

Do we now agree?

AND some of them are now reproductively isolated (e.g. beagles, setters)--a biological watershed for speciation.

I did not know this. Fascinating!

Thank you so much for overcoming the frustration you must feel in order to contribute to discussions such as this one. You perform a real service here.

Yj3,
Don't try that twisting words. I did NOT say that nor infer it.
I did NOT agree that a wolf is a dog.
They ARE different species.
The DNA are not identical. They are different is several respects.
The same with the Foxes and Jackals.
They are not dogs.
According to your DNA estimate then Apes and humans are the same species for they have much of the same DNA.
Now once more, to clear this up...
As has been asked before, what is YOUR definition of a species?
Please answer the question and quit dodging it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

What I said is that they are all varieties of dogs. It avoid mis-understandings to ensure that what you are arguing against is what was actually said.

Do we now agree?

The reason it's hard to agree with you is that you are inconsistent in the terminology you use. Here, you call the various Canids "varieties". You have also used the terms "species", "family", and "kinds".


The reference in scripture is to "kind" which does not necessarily align with the artificial designations introduced by men for reason in addition to simply being able to reproduced and produced viable offspring, which is and has been the generally accepted definition.

So if the genetic ability to produce viable offspring is the litmus test, then beagles and setters must be different "kinds", right?

Yj3,
Don't try that twisting words. I did NOT say that nor infer it.
I did NOT agree that a wolf is a dog.

So you disagree with the biologists on this point.



According to your DNA estimate then Apes and humans are the same species for they have much of the same DNA.

Please provide evidence of breeding between apes and humans which produced viable offspring or where biologists have said that apes are just another variety of human.


As has been asked before, what is YOUR definition of a species?
Please answer the question and quit dodging it.

Quite badgering with false accusations and read my previous messages. I answered.

So if the genetic ability to produce viable offspring is the litmus test, then beagles and setters must be different "kinds", right?

Don't base your beliefs on urban legends. Here is a veterinary ophthalmologist and geneticist who crossbred setters and beagles.

"We used beagles to crossbreed with the setters. Beagles have great personalities, are very fertile, and easily adapt to life in a colony. The gene turns up several generations later." As Acland approached the dog from the side, there was no reaction. Only when he was directly in front of the dog did it raise its head and move its snout to sniff. "The dog with retinal atrophy follows the same course as people with retinitis pigmentosa," Acland explained, referring to the most common cause of inherited human blindness, which currently affects perhaps a hundred thousand Americans. "First, there is loss of night vision, then loss of peripheral perception - that's called tunnel vision."
(Source: jeromegroopman dot com | Dog Genes (http://www.jeromegroopman.com/articles/dog-genes.html) )

Please provide evidence of breeding between apes and humans which produced viable offspring or where biologists have said that apes are just another variety of human.

As far as I know there has only been one person to even try because of the ethics involved but I don't know where anyone has said it is impossible. Have you tried and been unsuccessful? Here is the article on the one man who has actually tried.

The forgotten scandal of the Soviet ape-man - life - 20 August 2008 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926701.000-the-forgotten-scandal-of-the-soviet-apeman.html)

As far as I know there has only been one person to even try because of the ethics involved but I don't know where anyone has said it is impossible. Have you tried and been unsuccessful? Here is the article on the one man who has actually tried.

The forgotten scandal of the Soviet ape-man - life - 20 August 2008 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926701.000-the-forgotten-scandal-of-the-soviet-apeman.html)

The results as stated in the article were, and I quote "...hen no ape-man materialised the fuss died down and his research was forgotten."

So because one guy tried a few times and failed you think something is impossible. I have known human couples to try for months to get pregnant with no success and you want to claim impossibility with a few tries.
Tell me which gene of the 2% that is different that specifically prevents humans and chimps from producing offspring? If you can't you can't even begin to say it's impossible.

Coyotes and wolfs interbreed and have 4% difference in dna... So I don't see where you have any scientific basis for your argument of course having no scientific basis has never stopped you before so I don't see why it surprise me.

michealb,
Those are points very well made.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

What I said is that they are all varieties of dogs. It avoid mis-understandings to ensure that what you are arguing against is what was actually said.

Do we now agree?

Not at all sure. What do you mean by "they"? That is, what exactly "are all varieties of dogs"?

Not at all sure. What do you mean by "they"? That is, what exactly "are all varieties of dogs"??

Once again, read the messages - I already explained that.

So because one guy tried a few times and failed you think something is impossible.

You are welcome to speak for yourself. You do a lousy job of speaking for others. I never even commented on whether it was possible or not - this goes back to a comment by Fred, not me.

Don't base your beliefs on urban legends. Here is a veterinary ophthalmologist and geneticist who crossbred setters and beagles.

"We used beagles to crossbreed with the setters. Beagles have great personalities, are very fertile, and easily adapt to life in a colony. The gene turns up several generations later." As Acland approached the dog . . .

Acland is the same guy I cited, who said they barely got any pups when they crossed these two breeds. This experiment is probably the reason he was trying to cross them. But he clearly stated that although each breed normally has large litters, they got either no pups or only a few when they tried to crossed them. I don't see how you can cite the same guy to refute him. :) He doesn't contradict himself, in any case.

asking,

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

To clarify what is considered true by biologists: Dogs are descended from wolves, but not from coyotes. Nonetheless, coyotes can interbreed with wolves--although they rarely do where there are healthy populations of both. Wolves are more likely to eat coyotes than mate with them. But sometimes--perhaps if a wolf or coyote cannot find another mate--they mate.

Humans are descended from a long lineage of apes. We are not descended from modern gorillas or chimpanzees, but we are descended from the same ancestor as chimps, bonobos, and gorillas. Other apes are like extremely distant cousins. Sort of like Cheney and Obama.

I also wanted to mention another cool fact about coyotes and wolves, which I read a few years ago. Wolves used to live all over the United States and coyotes lived mainly in the southwest and into Mexico.

Because wolves were hunted nearly to extinction in the contiguous U.S. a large new habitat opened up to coyotes and they began spreading north and east. Wolves, as you know, are pack animals and larger than coyotes. Coyotes tend to hunt small game--rabbits, mice, grasshoppers--and to be solitary. In the desert, they do not hunt in packs. However, as coyotes moved into the Northeast, taking over former wolf habitat, they changed. Gradually, coyotes of New England (where they didn't use to live at all) have become larger than southwestern coyotes AND they now hunt in packs, the better to bring down big game like deer and moose.

In other words, coyotes that took over wolf habitat became more wolf like. If you look at their DNA or details of skull structure, the coyotes are still clearly descended from coyotes, which are a different species--Canis latrans--from the wolf--Canis lupus. And yet New England coyotes are acting like wolves and beginning to look like them. They do have some wolf genes. One theory is that wolves whose packs were destroyed (by humans) mated with coyotes. But the coyote populations that act like wolves are fundamentally coyote in nature.

asking,

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Whew! I was dying for a smoke.

Acland is the same guy I cited, who said they barely got any pups when they crossed these two breeds. This experiment is probably the reason he was trying to cross them. But he clearly stated that although each breed normally has large litters, they got either no pups or only a few when they tried to crossed them. I don't see how you can cite the same guy to refute him. :) He doesn't contradict himself, in any case.

I see. You saw one line in an undated article and you assumed that this meant that there was a problem in mating ALL beagles and setters. A bit of a stretch, don't you think? Perhaps you'd like to meet owners of beagle/setter crosses along with, in some cases, pictures of the dogs themselves. Some of these pages include other breeds, but on each page you will find reference to beagle/setter crosses. Do you own search, they are very easy to find.

Beagle/setter Mix "Joey-RIP" - Care2 Members who are owned by this Pet (http://www.care2.com/c2c/people/tag/pets/Beagle/setter%20mix%20%22Joey-RIP%22)

Angel Ridge (http://www.angelridgeanimalrescue.org/guardian_angels/guardian_angels.html)

DOG needs a Home (http://www.cdncc.com/Canada/Vancouver/1904.html)

MySpace.com - Joey and Andy - 20 - Female - Kansas City KCMO!, MISSOURI - www.myspace.com/lauraconroy (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=8850707)

Yahoo! 360° - The Wide Weird World of BiggFred - Bubbles (http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-WgBhFW43aaMW_2W1QjLSObtQZ6z3AHCv?p=68)

http://www.gundogchat.com/showpost.php?p=1858&postcount=12

Stan on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/classicvatch/2135687619/)

Adopt a Beagle: Taz: Petfinder (http://www.petfinder.com/petnote/displaypet.cgi?petid=1185037)

Whew! I was dying for a smoke.

I'll meet you out back in five.

Not one line in an undated article, but an interview with Acland.

Science Netlinks: Science Updates (http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.cfm?DocID=222)

This is a transcript from a radio interview sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.


Are there some dogs that don't mix? I'm Bob Hirshon and this is Science Update.

Perhaps hoping to cross-breed a Chihuahua and a pit bull, Mary Beckman of Idaho Falls, Idaho recently called the Why Is It line.

Beckman:
Species are partly defined by the ability to interbreed. With all the dog breeds in the world, are there any two dog breeds that could be considered different species?

We asked Gregory Acland, of Cornell University's Center for Canine Genetics and Reproduction. He says you're right to use the term "partly."

Acland:
But that rule, even if it was true, isn't a rule that divides species anyway, because there are many species of birds for example, or fish, or lots of organisms, that if you put them in captivity and give them the opportunity to do, they will breed. So that you could cross wolves with dogs. You can certainly cross wolves with coyotes.

That said, he's found that there are certain combinations of dogs that don't cross-breed easily: for example, beagles and Irish setters.

Acland:
These were dogs with family lines, where they routinely produce big litters, and yet when we tried to breed these fertile beagles to fertile setters, we got no pups at all, despite many attempts to do so, and then eventually, we were able to produce one litter with two pups in it.

He says subtle genetic incompatibilities between these breeds may get in the way.

If you've got a science question, then doggone it, call us at 1-800-WHY-ISIT. If we use it on the show, you'll get a free Science Update mug. I'm Bob Hirshon for AAAS, the Science Society.

Not one line in an undated article, but an interview with Acland.

Science Netlinks: Science Updates (http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.cfm?DocID=222)

This is a transcript from a radio interview sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

It remains a line in an undated article. I see nothing that says that they do not breed:

"That said, he's found that there are certain combinations of dogs that don't cross-breed easily: for example, beagles and Irish setters."

Now as any good scientist would know, if you find anecdotal evidence from one source, there could be many possible reasons for it which may make a generalization inappropriate. Indeed until wider evidence is available, a generalization is wrong.

But in any case, you point is still lost because Setters and Beagles DO breed, whether it is proven that the litters are smaller or the same as other cross-breeds.

I see nothing that says that do not breed:



They do not breed easily.

Acland stated:

when we tried to breed these fertile beagles to fertile setters, we got no pups at all, despite many attempts to do so, and then eventually, we were able to produce one litter with two pups in it.

"many attempts" from a Cornell geneticist, for me, trumps Youtube. For you, maybe not.

\"many attempts" from a Cornell geneticist, for me, trumps Youtube. For you, maybe not.

Can't trust those Ivy-leaguers. They actually think the earth orbits the sun!

They do not breed easily.

Anecdotal evidence from a single source. But again, the fact that they DO breed makes your point moot. They still breed. They produce viable offspring. You have proven my point.


"many attempts" from a Cornell geneticist, for me, trumps Youtube. For you, maybe not.

Once again, you might want to read more carefully. Where did I mention "youtube"?

Tj3,
PLEASE answer the question.
What is YOUR definition of what a species is?
The answer to that may clear up this situation.
How many times will you need to be asked?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue,
Thanks for posting the transcript of that interview.
The ability to interbreed or not is PARTY in the definition of a species.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3,
PLEASE answer the question.
What is YOUR definition of what a species is?
The answer to that may clear up this situation.
How many times will you need to be asked?

How many times must you be answered?

Go to post 89.

Here's what I found at Wikepedia, under "species":


biologists define species as populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity.

Here's what Tj3 said at post #90 (#89 is by Fred):


simply being able to reproduced and produced viable offspring, which is and has been the generally accepted definition

So, Tj3, would you care to clarify or amend your answer?

Tj3,
Post 89 was where I asked you the question.
Post 90 is where you answered it.
I'm sorry but I did not see that till now.
Thanks for your personal answer of what you think a species is.
However it is NOT what professional geneticists consider to be a species.
Now I understand why you stand as you do on the subject.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

So, Tj3, would you care to clarify or amend your answer?

No. There are variant definitions and what you have posted is not complete with respect to the way in which biologists classify animals. But the classifications of convenience do not change the realities in nature. There are a number of reasons animals have been classed on they have in modern times, but as I stated before, just because you find a sub-classification between different types of dogs did not stop them from reproducing and producing viable offspring. That is why I suspect God chose the word "kind" in scripture. Dogs are dogs are dogs despite what artificial divisions man may add for convenience.

Tj3,
Post 89 was where I asked you the question.
Post 90 is where you answered it.

It comes up numbered differently on mine, but at least you finally found the answer.


However it is NOT what professional geneticists consider to be a species.

See my response to Akoue on the same topic.

This may be of interest. It is the abstract from a June 2008 paper from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.

It suggests that there is a continuum between races (or subspecies) and species. It also says that species regularly hybridize. Hybridization is already recognized as commonplace among plants. This paper extends that view to insects and vertebrates (animals with backbones, like ourselves). I have only read the abstract, not the rest of the paper (yet).


Hybridization, ecological races and the nature
of species: empirical evidence for the ease of speciation
James Mallet*
Galton Laborator y, University College London, 4 Stephenson Way, London NW1 2HE, UK

Species are generally viewed by evolutionists as 'real' distinct entities in nature, making speciation appear difficult. Charles Darwin had originally promoted a very different uniformitarian view that biological species were continuous with 'varieties' below the level of species and became distinguishable from them only when divergent natural selection led to gaps in the distribution of morphology. This Darwinian view on species came under immediate attack, and the consensus among evolutionary biologists today appears to side more with the ideas of Ernst Mayr and Theodosius Dobzhansky, who argued 70 years ago that Darwin was wrong about species.

Here, I show how recent genetic studies of supposedly well-behaved animals, such as insects and vertebrates, including our own species, have supported the existence of the Darwinian continuum between varieties and species. Below the level of species, there are well-defined ecological races, while above the level of species, hybridization still occurs, and may often lead to introgression and, sometimes, hybrid speciation. This continuum is evident, not only across vast geographical regions, but also locally in sympatry. The existence of this continuum provides good evidence for gradual evolution of species from ecological races and biotypes, to hybridizing species and, ultimately, to species that no longer cross. Continuity between varieties and species not only provides an excellent argument against creationism, but also gives insight into the process of speciation. The lack of a hiatus between species and ecological races suggests that speciation may occur, perhaps frequently, in sympatry, and the abundant intermediate stages suggest that it is happening all around us. Speciation is easy!

Edit: "Sympatry" just means living side by side.

This may be of interest. It is the abstract from a June 2008 paper from the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.

It suggests that there is a continuum between races (or subspecies) and species. It also says that species regularly hybridize. Hybridization is already recognized as commonplace among plants. This paper extends that view to insects and vertebrates (animals with backbones, like ourselves). I have only read the abstract, not the rest of the paper (yet).

Of course it is important to note that hybridization occurs where cross-breeding is already possible, thus we are talking about micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. As for transitions to something completely different, the abstract uses the word "may" and does not indicate that they have ever seen it happen.

asking,
Thanks much for that.
It is and eye opener about species.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The question of whether species are real entities in nature has been around for a long time. And it relates to what I said earlier about ideal types. It's extremely hard to resist the idea of species being real natural entities because we feel we know what a species is, as Tom argues strenuously.

The argument is essentially, "I may not be able to define the word species, but I know one when I see one." This argument is compelling in part because we are raised to think in terms of ideal types. It is part of our culture. In my opinion, one of Darwin's greatest accomplishments was breaking free of that and seeing all life as being made up of individuals instead of types, or "kinds." He experienced a crisis while trying to classify marine snails, alternately splitting some groups, then putting them back together, then splitting them up. It made him doubt the very idea of species.

I would say that if we haven't figured out how to define a species by now, we aren't going to--at least not in a way that is ever going to completely satisfy the longing for ideal types. Species are only approximate classifications--groups of unique individuals, many of whom can be sub classified into mosaics of ecological races. And two species may be so closely related that they can separate and come back together and then separate again. Biologists suspect humans may have done that with our ape ancestors 5-6 million years ago.

Nearly the same thing has happened with the word gene. It used to be thought that there was a gene for every trait and a trait for every gene. But it turns out that a stretch of DNA may code for several different proteins, each of which may be cut and spliced and folded differently, and of course, each resulting protein may do different things depending on context, what kind of cell it's in and when.

Biology is surprisingly abstract. It would be so much easier if everything could be neatly classified--as things are at the hardware store I visited yesterday, all the different washers neatly labeled and tucked into little drawers, the screws separate from the nuts and bolts.

The argument is essentially, "I may not be able to define the word species, but I know one when I see one."

Please define your own arguments rather than attempting (not very well) to define mine.

Thank you all. This has been a very interesting reading.
I really can't understand how one can believe in micro- but not macro evolution.
Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period. Is it not?
In my opinion, all by the will of God.

asking,
Opps.
I see you have upset Tom Smith
I don't think you were talking just about him.
Years ago I felt that I knew one when I saw one and I'm sure many people did and still do.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Please define your own arguments rather than attempting (not very well) to define mine.

I wasn't specifically describing your argument, but the general argument for species. But I do think that's consistent with what you have said so far.

CompsavvyImnot wrote:

I really can't understand how one can believe in micro- but not macro evolution.
Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period. Is it not?

That is what most biologists think. (There is some argument for the existence of evolutionary jumps or "saltations," probably based on changes in the regulation of genes that influence embryological development.) But, yes, it's pretty clear that lots of microevolution adds up to macroevolution, and a lot faster than previously thought.

The argument is essentially, "I may not be able to define the word species, but I know one when I see one." This argument is compelling in part because we are raised to think in terms of ideal types. It is part of our culture. In my opinion, one of Darwin's greatest accomplishments was breaking free of that and seeing all life as being made up of individuals instead of types, or "kinds." He experienced a crisis while trying to classify marine snails, alternately splitting some groups, then putting them back together, then splitting them up. It made him doubt the very idea of species.

Biology is surprisingly abstract. It would be so much easier if everything could be neatly classified--as things are at the hardware store I visited yesterday, all the different washers neatly labeled and tucked into little drawers, the screws separate from the nuts and bolts.

This is, I think, a very trenchant diagnosis of some of the misapprehensions we've seen circulating. People do tend to revert to a kind of Platonism about natural kinds.

Fred,
Do you remember the optical illusion where a drawing looks like a piece of pie and then like a pie with a piece cut out?

That's how species are for me, flipping back and forth between ideal types (how I grew up thinking about them) and constellations of unique individuals (how I know I should think about them).
asking

Tj3...
Can you answer my last question?

I wasn't specifically describing your argument, but the general argument for species. But I do think that's consistent with what you have said so far.

Then once again, it appears that you have not been reading my posts.

Tj3...
Can you answer my last question?

Is this the questions you mean?

"Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time. Is it not?"

I did not realize that it was aimed at me. The answer is that this is an assumption made by many people, but in reality, it is only an unproven assumption. Micro-evolution is solidly proven. It would be no problem to produce all sorts of soldly documented examples. So if macro-evolution were merely an extension of micro-evolution, we might see fewer examples, but surely a few solidly documented examples would be possible, but there are none. Even darwin said that the fossil record was the weakest link in his theory. HIV is an excellent example - the number of DNA mutations even in a single person in a day is incredible, and when you add up the changes over the years in the tens of millions of those who suffer from it, the number of times that each possible mutation occurs is astronomical. Yet HIV remains HIV. Variation within the species, but it does not become something different.

Every time, for years, that I asked for proof when people say that it is proven, the same answers come forward, and almost always we get into definition of the word species. I would agree that if one defines the word in different ways, you can create a situation where the definition may allow for macro-evolution, but biologically, has the animal become a different animal? In every case, the answer is no. Talk to an accountant - if a company changes the rules by which it does it's accounting, it can appear to make a profit when in fact it lost money. Finagling the method does not change the reality.

Variation within the species, but it does not become something different.The question, really, is, "How large does a variation have to be in order to call it a difference?".

The question, really, is, "How large does a variation have to be in order to call it a difference?".

I answered that already. Post 89 (or apparently shows up as 90 on some computers) I believe.

But in any case, if one wants to provide evolution - i.e. single celled animals evolving into humans and other animals, surely we should be able to find something abundantly clear that would not require debate over how many strands of DNA are different. We have many such clear and specific examples of micro-evolution - if macro-evolution has been proven (as some on here explicitly stated), proof must exist.

Is this the questions you mean?

"Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time. Is it not?"

I did not realize that it was aimed at me. The answer is that this is an assumption made by many people, but in reality, it is only an unproven assumption. Micro-evolution is solidly proven. It would be no problem to produce all sorts of soldly documented examples. So if macro-evolution were merely an extension of micro-evolution, we might see fewer examples, but surely a few solidly documented examples would be possible, but there are none. Even darwin said that the fossil record was the weakest link in his theory. HIV is an excellent example - the number of DNA mutations even in a single person in a day is incredible, and when you add up the changes over the years in the tens of millions of those who suffer from it, the number of times that each possible mutation occurs is astronomical. Yet HIV remains HIV. Variation within the species, but it does not become something different.

Every time, for years, that I asked for proof when people say that it is proven, the same answers come forward, and almost always we get into definition of the word species. I would agree that if one defines the word in different ways, you can create a situation where the definition may allow for macro-evolution, but biologically, has the animal become a different animal? In every case, the answer is no. Talk to an accountant - if a company changes the rules by which it does it's accounting, it can appear to make a profit when in fact it lost money. Finagling the method does not change the reality.

But now it looks like the idea is just to reject any taxonomic scheme that doesn't comport with your initial assumptions regarding macro-evolution. By this method, you could claim that a human-ape hybrid is not a new species--just jigger the taxonomy and everything still works the way you want it to. If this is a mischaracterization of your view, I don't see how.

But now it looks like the idea is just to reject any taxanomic scheme that doesn't comport with your initial assumptions regarding macro-evolution. By this method, you could claim that a human-ape hybrid is not a new species--just jigger the taxonomy and everything still works the way you want it to. If this is a mischaracterization of your view, I don't see how.

It is a mis-characterization.

Changing names does not change biological reality. Hitler had the Jews defined as a different species. Did they suddenly change biologically because of a racially bigoted meglomaniac change their classification? No one in their right mind would say that they did. Man can apply classes for many different reasons and there is nothing wrong with that, but that will not stop a wolf from being dog (something which is widely recognized both within and outside of the scientific community).

Let me give you an example. In one debate that I had on this topic, one person showed me proof that science had just proven evolution. He found by an article by a scientist who put forward a proposed new definition for a species which would be much more narrowly defined than before, and in so doping he could now identify a number of specific proven examples of species change. Before he made that definition change, he could not prove it, and afterward he could. Did something change biologically? No. Were those organisms suddenly more evolved? No. it was a naming game. I don't care to play games with words - I want to deal with what is really happening in biology.

compsavvyimnot,
Yes.
I agree with you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

asking,
I thought so.
Fred

Interesting thought... I had my 8 yr old confront me with this issue... my children go to a christian school and my son asked me one day.. we were watching Discovery channel one evening and they have an episode on about how the earth was create. My 8 yr old of course, was baffled by this because he has always been taught that God make everything.

My husband and I discussed this between ourselves. My thinking is that possibly when God made man, it was in the form of a monkey or such... thus leading to man evolving from a monkey...

Just a thought... but an interesting discussion and point brought up by my son.

interesting thought..... i had my 8 yr old confront me with this issue... my children go to a christian school and my son asked me one day.. we were watching Discovery channel one evening and they have an episode on about how the earth was create. My 8 yr old of course, was baffled by this because he has always been taught that God make everything.

my husband and i discussed this between ourselves. My thinking is that possibly when God made man, it was in the form of a monkey or such.... thus leading to man evolving from a monkey......

just a thought..... but an interesting discussion and point brought up by my son.

I used to believe in evolution, and when that did not hold up, I transitioned to what you describe, theistic evolution. I found that, as a person with a background in science, as well as my faith in Christ, theistic evolution is the least defensible position of all.

There are not a lot of good books for children on the topic of creation that I am aware of, but here is one that I would highly recommend:

Dinosaurs By Design: Duane Gish, Earl Snellenberger, Bonita Snellenberger: Amazon.ca: Books (http://www.amazon.ca/dp/0890511659?tag=onlinechristr-20&camp=8641&creative=330649&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0890511659&adid=17JG8FS5Q59SX8EP4KD6&)

This is another one worth considering:

http://www.amazon.ca/dp/0890511128?tag=onlinechristr-20&camp=8641&creative=330649&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0890511128&adid=1CQ2RB4W7G5JC1R3RJMX&

Str8stack71,
If you read all the posts on this here I think it will be of great help to you as it was for me.
The evolutionary belief is not that man came from a monkey but is more related to an ape.
The apes evolved into intermediate species which eventually became man.
I believe that God gave Man a soul and self awareness, determination and recognition.
That is what make man so much different than other animals.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

This is another one worth considering:

Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record: Duane T. Gish: Amazon.ca: Books (http://www.amazon.ca/dp/0890511128?tag=onlinechristr-20&camp=8641&creative=330649&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0890511128&adid=1CQ2RB4W7G5JC1R3RJMX&)

The very first Amazon review of this book by Duane Gish is an excellent rebuttal to Gish's book and was written by someone who says he is a born again Christian.

I would like to know what young earth creationists like you (Tom) think the fossil record does show or say.

Also, I am curious to know why you (Tom) think that theistic evolution is the least defensible position?

Of course, I am interested in what others have to say as well.

We have many such clear and specific examples of micro-evolution - if macro-evolution has been proven (as some on here explicitly stated), proof must exist.
The distinction between micro- and macro-evolution is not as clear and unambiguous as you seem to think, nor is the distinction between organisms that are "different kinds" and populations that are "the same kind", but with variation between individuals. Your argument against macro-evolution depends on these distinctions being sharp and clear, but in actuality they are fuzzy, more like a probability distribution than a bright line.

Living things form a vast continuum of organisms of every type, size, function, and degree of complexity. The distinctions that we draw and impose upon that restless, ever-changing sea, are the constructions of our logical mind, not properties inherent in nature. I'm not saying that these distinctions aren't "real", just that we humans created them to help us understand the diversity and complexity of life.

I would like to know what young earth creationists like you (Tom) think the fossil record does show or say.

That is a whole topic all on its own as I am sure that you know, because of the number of potential aspects to the fossil record (i.e. dating, layers and their placement, rate of fossilization, etc.). I am also not in a good position to put together a lengthy response on something like that right now because I am doing some project planning this afternoon also, and can only take out a few minutes from time to time until I am done this planning. But I have looked at this over the years and have found little to bring comfort to evolutionists. Darwin agrees BTW - have you read his book?


Also, I am curious to know why you (Tom) think that theistic evolution is the least defensible position?

As stated above, I do not have time today to put together a detailed summary, but as I have stated previously, I have many concerns with respect to evolution from a scientific perspective, and when you look at theistic evolution, most of those concerns remain (the evidence does not change). In addition to those remaining concerns, theistic evolution now adds in additional problems such as the clear contradictions between scripture and evolution. Not just the timeframe and sequence but some important concerns with respect to the gospel.

This may not concern you because if I remember correctly, you are not a Christian, but they are important for Christians because I believe what God said in His word, so how can I, as a professing Christian say that what God said in His word is wrong because of some assumptions that have been made by some scientists who hold to a specific hypothesis of creation? Do you see what I am saying - from what I have see, the science behind evolution is weak, and in theistic evolution, it is combined with a weak theological explanation.

I was an evolutionist for many years, but a theistic evolutionist for only a brief period due to the difficulties in defending the position even to myself. I am a person who follows truth wherever it leads and if the facts won't support it, then I cannot.

Living things form a vast continuum of organisms of every type, size, function, and degree of complexity. The distinctions that we draw and impose upon that restless, ever-changing sea, are the constructions of our logical mind, not properties inherent in nature. I'm not saying that these distinctions aren't "real", just that we humans created them to help us understand the diversity and complexity of life.

Then that should make it easier to find proof of one species turning into something completely different.

Tom,
I was busy most of today too and I totally understand. I am happy to wait until you have some time to explain in more detail about what the fossil record says (as opposed to what you think it does not say). I want to know why you think it's there and why it takes the form it takes. I will just listen.

I think what you are saying about theistic evolution is that it necessarily compromises your belief and the support for evolution seems flawed to you, so therefore, it makes more sense to stay with what you know is true, rather than compromise for the sake of what appears to you to be a tenuous idea.
Is that right?
asking

I think what you are saying about theistic evolution is that it necessarily compromises your belief and the support for evolution seems flawed to you, so therefore, it makes more sense to stay with what you know is true, rather than compromise for the sake of what appears to you to be a tenuous idea.
Is that right?
asking

Pretty close. I might not have worded it that way, but I think you have the general idea.

I think I might want to agree with STR8stack71's 8 year old.:p
Because Macro evolution takes such an amount of time,we as mere humans with a life span may never get our hands on "proof". After all, there has never been any discoverys that have lead to any proof of Adam and Eve. It's based on our faith. Adam nor Eve kept a log for us to follow, the bible is purely based on our faith to believe that the accounts of God was passed on centuries later.
Why can't it all fit together?
God's "days" may not have been the same 24 hours that we as man appointed. Can any one say that men have found all accounts of life form in all era of the earth life?
It is proven that micro evolution exists, amazing as that is, why can't macro evolution have existed too, and may happen again in our far future?
Tj3, you keep speaking about "proof"... but as Christians we can't "proof" to a non believer that God exist. Is it that impossible to have faith in the Lord that he when willed can make wonders happen? Even wonders such as macro evolution.

Then that should make it easier to find proof of one species turning into something completely different.
My point was that the concept of "species", as well as the type and degree of differences required to qualify an organism as "completely different" are both in the eye of the (human) beholder.

Also, the idea of "proof" is not one that has much currency outside the field of mathematics. Physical and biological scientists almost always frame their conclusions as probability statements, not categorical certainties.

I believe what God said in His word, so how can I, as a professing Christian say that what God said in His word is wrong
This is what it really comes down to, isn't it? You believe that the Bible is "God's Word", and that a particular interpretation of it is the only correct one, and therefore anything that appears to be inconsistent with that interpretation must be rejected out of hand.

And yet, we have right here on this thread professing Christians like Fred and compsavvyimnot who interpret the Bible in such a way that they can accept macro-evolution. Go figure!

Also, the idea of "proof" is not one that has much currency outside the field of mathematics. Physical and biological scientists almost always frame their conclusions as probability statements, not categorical certainties.

There were those on this thread who claimed that macro-evolution was "proven". That is why I am asking for the proof.

I would disagree that proof has no basis in science,

This is what it really comes down to, isn't it? You believe that the Bible is "God's Word", and that a particular interpretation of it is the only correct one, and therefore anything that appears to be inconsistent with that interpretation must be rejected out of hand.

I note how you took that out of context ignoring what I said about science. I also note that you ignored the fact that this was to do with theistic evolution which by definition says that God created evolution.


And yet, we have right here on this thread professing Christians like Fred and compsavvyimnot who interpret the Bible in such a way that they can accept macro-evolution. Go figure!

People can believe whatever they wish. That does not make it true.

Fred also claims that macro-evolution has been proven. Where is that proof?

People can believe whatever they wish. That does not make it true.
So their interpretation of the Bible is wrong, and yours is right. Yours is "what God said", and theirs is a misconstruction at best, or a deception of the Evil One, at worst. It doesn't get much simpler than that, I guess.

I have always been nonplussed by folks like you who manage to be SO SURE. So sure that you have correctly understood "what God said" to you, and so sure that He would say exactly the same thing to everybody else as well, if only they would listen and interpret properly.

I have always been nonplussed by folks like you who manage to be SO SURE. So sure that you have correctly understood "what God said" to you, and so sure that He would say exactly the same thing to everybody else as well, if only they would listen and interpret properly.

Isn't this the essence of faith?

Tj3,
You said, "Fred also claims that macro-evolution has been proven"
Once again I ask you to quit twisting what I say.
I never said that macro-evolution has been proven.
I agreed that there is so much micro-evolution shown in nature that that may indicate macro exists.
Please quit trying to put words in my mouth or twisting what I say.
That has been a bad habit of your for years and often pointed out to you by many.
So PLEASE stop it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Isn't this the essence of faith?

Boy, I sure hope not. I like to think that faith can live harmoniously alongside doubt, humility, intellectual rigor, and, at times, deference. I'm not an astronomer, but I believe them when they tell me that the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun. The Bible says otherwise (I cited several passages in an earlier post, but Ps.104.5 sticks out in my mind). I see no reason why a person of faith cannot defer to the biologists in the same way. I'm repeating myself, I know, but I just don't see the faith-science conflict here. Perhaps astronomy and physics can teach us that we had misinterpreted Ps.104.5; perhaps biology can teach us that we had misinterpreted the creation story. To me this looks like progress.

So their interpretation of the Bible is wrong, and yours is right.

I am not interpreting it. There are very specific statements made in scripture regarding creation. Either they occurred or they did not. I accept what scripture says. If anyone feels that it is subject to interpretation, let them bring forward their private interpretation of it and we can certainly look at it and discuss.

Tj3,
You said, "Fred also claims that macro-evolution has been proven"
Once again I ask you to quit twisting what I say.
I never said that macro-evolution has been proven.
I agreed that there is so much micro-evolution shown in nature that that may indicate macro exists.

Well Fred, you have said it a number of times, but if you are now backing off that statement that is fine. No need to get nasty or abusive, and there is nothing wrong with changing your mind. I am quite willing to accept this as your current position.

I am glad to see that you agree that evolution between species has not yet been proven. We agree on that point and I am glad to see that our positions are coming closer. I would still disagree that the clear indiaction of micro-evolution necessarily would be suggestive of macro-evolution without additional evidence to indicate such a process.

Tj3,
What you ask for has been discussed here and on other boards several times.
I have previously given my interpretation of what Genesis says about creation just as you have.
Lets not start that all over again or the thread will be shut down.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I see no reason why a person of faith cannot defer to the biologists in the same way. I'm repeating myself, I know, but I just don't see the faith-science conflict here. Perhaps astronomy and physics can teach us that we had misinterpreted Ps.104.5; perhaps biology can teach us that we had misinterpreted the creation story. To me this looks like progress.

I do not see any conflict between science and my faith in God. I also do not see any need to "defer" to scientists to tell interpret scripture. I find that science and the Bible are quite compatible with science being the study of God's creation. I am constantly amazed at the findings that support what scripture says, and am constantly amazed at the majesty and complexity and beauty of what God has created. I see science and scripture weaving together in support of each other.

Tj3,
What you ask for has been discussed here and on other boards several times.
I have previously given my interpretation of what Genesis says about creation just as you have.
Lets not start that all over again or the thread will be shut down.


Agreed. So please drop the personal comments and let's discuss respectfully. That is all that I ask.

Boy, I sure hope not. I like to think that faith can live harmoniously alongside doubt, humility, intellectual rigor, and, at times, deference. I'm not an astronomer, but I believe them when they tell me that the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun. The Bible says otherwise (I cited several passages in an earlier post, but Ps.104.5 sticks out in my mind). I see no reason why a person of faith cannot defer to the biologists in the same way. I'm repeating myself, I know, but I just don't see the faith-science conflict here. Perhaps astronomy and physics can teach us that we had misinterpreted Ps.104.5; perhaps biology can teach us that we had misinterpreted the creation story. To me this looks like progress.

Apologies for being unclear. I was not saying that a literal interpretation of the Bible was the essence of faith. I meant a measure of surity and belief in the absence of certain knowledge.

And I agree that most of us take a lot on faith--not least the disposition of the planets. Tom and I appeal to difference kinds of authority in our beliefs. For me, it would be paranoid not to believe that Earth rotates and orbits the Sun. Too much of what happens in modern life depends on it, and too many people would have to be bought off to cover up a different reality. But the fact remains that I don't feel up to demonstrating that it's so.

Does Tom feel it would be paranoid not to believe the literal word of God?

Agreed. So please drop the personal comments and let's discuss respectfully. That is all that I ask.You have tried this track several times. In Fred's defence he has not been "nasty" nor "abusive" in any way. I'm not sure what prompts you to yell "abuse!" every so often but it should cease.

I am constantly amazed at the findings that support what scripture says,

Even the findings that refute the Biblical assertion that the earth doesn't move?

Apologies for being unclear.

Nope, you weren't being unclear. I was shamelessly using you in order to make a broader point. Sorry about that.


. For me, it would be paranoid not to believe that Earth rotates and orbits the Sun.

Not paranoid. Try psychotic.

Tj3,
Yes, definitely, let's discuss things respectfully as long as you quit twisting what I say or trying to put words in my mouth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Even the findings that refute the Biblical assertion that the earth doesn't move?

Akoue - can you reference the places in the bible where it contends that the earth doesn't move? I am sincerely interested in that because I do not remember reading that before.

Thanks.

jakester
He has already done so.
I hope he does again because I failed to make note of all of those places in Scrioture.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue - can you reference the places in the bible where it contends that the earth doesn't move? I am sincerely interested in that because I do not remember reading that before.

Thanks.

Sure thing. Ps.104.5. (See also, Ps.93.1, 96.10, I Chronicles 16.30.) I say a little bit about this at post #9 (my first on this thread, in case the numbering is different--as it appears it sometimes is).

Akoue.
Thanks much.
How about this for bible literalists...
2 Cron. 9: 23. And all the kings in the world consulted Solomon to hear the wisdom which God had implanted in his heart,
24. And everyone would bring a present with him: objects of silver and of gold, robes, armor, spices, horses and mules; and this went on year after year.
Do we suppose that the kings on the American Continents consulted Solomon?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I don't know who all saw my other post called "feeling horrible about my doubts" (I know that Fred and Jakester did). But, we just started a new semester today and I'm in a class called physiological psychology/biology and it go figures at the end of class today she says "be prepared to talk about evolution on wednesday!" Haha just when I thought I was done with the biology classes! Go figure!

But now I have some pretty interesting stuff to bring to the table thanks to everyone here! :)

Hello De Maria -

Yes, I understand what evolutions means. Yes, God can do anything he wants and the fact that he made man from dirt is proof that he is able to bring about one thing from another thing. But De Maria, I don't believe that is the issue being addressed in the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is not trying to answer the question of whether God is able to make man from dirt; it is attempting to answer the question of where man came from. You have to see this distinction or else you'll never see at least in principle how different the evolutionary theory really is from the biblical creation account.

Evolution is saying that man did not come from the dirt as the bible claims he did (by an act of God) but by means of an evolutionary process where man did not originate as man but as an ape-like creature. In the biblical account, you see man created and then having the intellectual capacity to interact with God and name creatures that God had made and ultimately reason well enough to disobey God. Evolution would say that man didn't come to be the way man is today (a fully intelligent, resourceful, rational, and capable being) until billions of years later, after having gone through several evolutionary stages, developing from an ape-like creature to modern man. Well, again, you see no evidence of that in the creation account. The account didn't say that God made an ape-like creature that he began to work on and shape into another creature, over a span of time. It's a complete myth because you cannot make the case for this from the biblical text—you can only make a case for this based upon human imagination.

As Catholics we don't believe that every part of the Bible is literal. Some of it is allegory.
And as Catholics, we are permitted to believe either Creationism or Evolution. We don't believe that they are opposed to each other.

Nor do we believe that the Bible is a step by step description of life on earth. Obviously, no mention is made of modern inventions.

In fact, by the very fact it is a small book, it must contain only highlights. It must be a summary of important events. Even the major characters are only mentioned briefly, summarizing the most important parts of their lives.

So, the fact that the Bible does not mention every detail of how God created the world, is not in itself an argument against evolution.

De Maria.
Very good points.
Fred

I am not interpreting it.

Of course you are. You interpret it as a literal statement of fact, they interpret it as an allegory.

ordinaryguy,
Right you are.
Peace and kmkindness,
Fred

Tj3,
Yes, definitely, let's discuss things respectfully as long as you quit twisting what I say or trying to put words in my mouth.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,

I thought that you said that you were not going to carry on like this. Kindly stop the false accusations and discuss the issue respectfully.

Of course you are. You interpret it as a literal statement of fact, they interpret it as an allegory.

I do not interpret it. I let it speak for itself.

The question, really, is, "How large does a variation have to be in order to call it a difference?".


With regards to the wolf dog example, exactly what NEW GENETIC INFORMATION makes a Chiuhuahua different than a wolf?

Sure there are obvious phenotypic differences in size, color, amount of fur, but they have the similar / same physiology [ cardiac pulmonary gastrointestinal etc.]

To use the automotive analogy:
Most rely on internal combustion engine for power [whether gas or diesal ] but the "evolution" to say a steam or turbine or purely electric power is what makes THE DIFFERENCE. And this difference that we observe, we know is by DESIGN [ thank you engineers] although we also know the market selective factors have caused this "evolution."



Does the house dog have an extra sense, or another chamber in its heart or an extra hemoglobin that the wolf does not have? If so, can these be traced to specific genes or chromosomes?

Because macroevolution rests on mutations being selected to add NEW GENETIC INFORMATION. For example, how did invertebrates "evolve" into vertebrates, or reptiles to mammals? How did the first cell become multicellular? Develop tissues? organ systems?

These cannot be observed or tested - requirements for science.

We can see the evidence as facts, but the interpretation of these facts is where we differ.





G&P

I do not interpret it. I let it speak for itself.

So ink and wood-pulp talk to you?

I do not interpret it. I let it speak for itself.
Well, that's different. Any book speaks for itself, or should. It's quite another thing to say a book is so factual and so complete that it supercedes all other knowledge.

I do not interpret it. I let it speak for itself.

When Ps.104.5 speaks for itself to you, does it say that the earth doesn't move?

Tj3,
It is obvious to everyone here that I am not making false accusations.
Several time in the last few days you have accused me of saying something I never said.
I am asking you again to PLEASE stop that.
If you do stop there will be no need for me to any more point out your doing so.
Thanks,
Fred

With regards to the wolf dog example, exactly what NEW GENETIC INFORMATION makes a Chiuhuahua different than a wolf?

Sure there are obvious phenotypic differences in size, color, amount of fur, but they have the similar / same physiology [ cardiac pulmonary gastrointestinal etc.]

...Does the house dog have an extra sense, or another chamber in its heart or an extra hemoglobin that the wolf does not have? If so, can these be traced to specific genes or chromosomes?

Dogs and wolves have similar physiologies. In fact, all mammals are pretty much as you have described here. They all have similar circulation and pulmonary function, the same set of senses. A sheep brain is physiologically similar to a human brain, though smaller and with less cortex. Now, an alligator has a very different sort of heart, or a turtle. So your standards for what makes a different species are unusually high. You are not talking species, but whole phyla.

So you don't consider macroevolution to have occurred unless an alligator evolves into a dog, say, within your life time?

asking.
That is a great question to ask.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

So ink and wood-pulp talk to you?

No, the Word of God does.

No, the Word of God does.

Cool. What does it say about Ps.104.5?

When Ps.104.5 speaks for itself to you, does it say that the earth doesn't move?

Ps 104:5
5 You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
NKJV

No. This says nothing about whether it orbits the sun. That is where God placed it. No one can move it from where God placed it.

Tj3,
It is obvious to everyone here that I am not making false accusations.

Fred - you do not speak for the world. Why do you carry on so much?


Several time in the last few days you have accused me of saying something I never said.

Fred, you have said it many time. If you no longer hold to that, that is fine. I accept your current comments as your current beliefs. Why can you not move on? Why must you feel it necessary to harass others?

I am asking you again to PLEASE stop that. This thread has generally been going well - why do you want to get it shut down?

Ps 104:5
5 You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
NKJV

No. This says nothing about whether it orbits the sun. That is where God placed it. No one can move it from where God placed it.

And at what point in spacetime did God place it, from which it doesn't move? Because on its face it says that the earth doesn't move (as do the other passages I cited). "It should not be moved forever"--not even by gravitational forces?

So you don't consider macroevolution to have occurred unless an alligator evolves into a dog, say, within your life time??

Who said anything about a lifetime? That question only arises when macro-evolution is consider an extension of micro-evolution. Micro-evolution can be seen in very short timeframes, whereas macro-evolution has never been seen. But if they are the same, then it raises the question of why we have no evidence of macro-evolution occurring in our lifetime. But the fact is that there is no proof of macro-evolution in any timeframe.

And at what point in spacetime did God place it, from which it doesn't move? Because on its face it says that the earth doesn't move (as do the other passages I cited). "It should not be moved forever"--not even by gravitational forces?

If you wish to question God's word with your own private understanding/interpretation, perhaps you'd like to answer the questions that God raised with others who felt that qualified to question Him:

Job 38:1-7
38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said:

2 "Who is this who darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?
3 Now prepare yourself like a man;
I will question you, and you shall answer Me.

4 "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
5 Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6 To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
7 When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
NKJV

I accept what God says in His word at face value.

In any case, this does seem to be off topic - I suggest a separate thread might be appropriate.

If you wish to question God's word with your own private understanding/interpretation, perhaps you'd like to answer the questions that God raised with others who felt that qualified to question Him:


I'm not asking God, I'm asking YOU. The verse says that the earth doesn't move--isn't moved, even by gravitational forces. Call this P. The heliocentric model of the solar system holds that the earth does move. Call this not-P.

P and not-P. That's a contradiction. So I take you to hold that the earth doesn't move, since this is what Scripture says. That's fine, if you do; I just wanted to know.

I'm not asking God, I'm asking YOU. The verse says that the earth doesn't move--isn't moved, even by gravitational forces. Call this P. The heliocentric model of the solar system holds that the earth does move. Call this not-P.

P and not-P. That's a contradiction. So I take you to hold that the earth doesn't move, since this is what Scripture says. That's fine, if you do; I just wanted to know.

You can ask me, but I was not there when he placed the earth on it's foundations either. I just accept what he says in His word. I trust His word. It has never failed me yet. I just read what it says, and what it says in true and in perfect alignment with science.

God placed it where it is. He established where it is and how it is held in place. No one shall move it from where God placed it - do you know anyone who has or can?

Maybe this will help you understand. Just because something is on solid unmoveable foundations does not mean that it's foundation does not move. For example, your house - it has a foundation - it is placed solidly in the ground, and yet the foundation rotates on the earth which revolves around the sun. that does not make the foundation any less solid, or any less unmovable. Though the foundation of your house may be subjected to earthquakes, scientists who have studied the models of the solar system say that the orbit of the earth is perfect for maintaining life. If it were to move either way, we would either freeze or cook. The foundations are established and they have not moved.

To be honest, I don't understand why you have problems with this. It seems abundantly clear. If you see these foundations move, I expect that we will see it on the new if there is time before we all die.

God placed it where it is. He established where it is and how it is held in place. No one shall move it from where God placed it - do you know anyone who has or can?

You can ask me, but I was not there when he placed the earth on it's foundations either. I just accept what he says in His word. I trust His word. It has never failed me yet.

The verse doesn't say that it won't be moved by "anyone" (that's your insertion); it says it won't be moved. Period. So apparently gravity doesn't move it either. At least, that's what Scripture says, here and in the other verses I have cited.

As I said, it's totally fine with me for you to believe that the earth doesn't move. I just wanted to know. Now we can go back to evolution. As I recall, asking asked you Sunday what you make of the fossil record. Maybe we can get back on track with that.

The verse doesn't say that it won't be moved by "anyone" (that's your insertion); it says it won't be moved. Period. So apparently gravity doesn't move it either. At least, that's what Scripture says, here and in the other verses I have cited.

As I said, it's totally fine with me for you to believe that the earth doesn't move. I just wanted to know.

Again, it appears to me that you are just being argumentative. As I said, if that foundation that God established ever moves, I am sure that if there is time before we all die, there will be a news bulletin. If you know anyone big and powerful enough to move earth off its foundation, please do let us know.

It appears to me that it takes less faith to simply accept what God's word says (it has never failed yet), than to believe that it is not true. If you believe that the foundation is not solid, then please provide us with some evidence to that effect - what exactly do you think will move the earth?

maybe this will help you understand. Just because something is on solid unmoveable foundations does not mean that it's foundation does not move. For example, your house - it has a foundation - it is placed solidly in the ground, and yet the foundation rotates on the earth which revolves around the sun. that does not make the foundation any less solid, or any less unmovable. Though the foundation of your house may be subjected to earthquakes, scientists who have studied the models of the solar system say that the orbit of the earth is perfect for maintaining life. If it were to move either way, we would either freeze or cook. the foundations are established and they have not moved.


You could have just posted this edit as a new post. In any event, the verse doesn't say that the foundation doesn't move but that the earth doesn't move.

As I recall, asking asked you Sunday what you make of the fossil record. Maybe we can get back on track with that.

I have thought about how to answer this a great deal - the problem is that entire volumes of books have been written answering this question and you expect me to provide an answer to a very general question in a short message. As about the fossil record in generalities is like asking someone to describe what you think about the findings regarding astro-physics and astronomy.

The fossil record is simply the remains of animals and plants which have fossilized. It is not clear exactly what you are getting at, so rather than asking me a question which is far too broad, why don't you kick off the discussion by telling us your views of the fossil record, specially the area that you are interested in discussing. BTW, just a reminder, we have been through this process before so as a pre-emptive comment and reminder so we don't go down the wrong path, I do not play 20 questions, so please take this opportunity to kick off the discussion on the fossil record by presenting your views.

Again, it appears to me that you are just being argumentative. what exactly do you think will move the earth?

Am I being argumentative if I answer your question? Gravity moves the earth (I've said it about a dozen times). Apparently you disagree. Which, as I've also said repeatedly, if fine by me. It just puts your relation to modern science in a rather different light, which helps me better to understand where you're coming from in your denial of evolution. Now, as I've also already suggested, let's return to asking's question of you regarding the fossil record.

Tom,
I think Akoue's point is very relevant. The question of the infallibility of the Bible (and the infallibility of its major interpreters) is central to this discussion.

Galileo's statement that the Earth moved was considered heretical in his time because it contradicted the Bible. I don't see how the Church's interpretation of the passages cited by Akoue can be considered less legitimate than a 20th century American's. If the Vatican said it didn't move, I assume they knew how to read the Bible. (Only recently has the Church itself formally recanted on this issue.)

The Catholic church thought that the passage,


He set the earth on its foundations,
So that it should never be moved.

Meant the earth did not move and the Church was prepared to argue the point.

How can a man set himself above both the Vatican in interpreting the Bible and all of modern biology in interpreting the fossil record? It seems you are saying the Bible is infallible in one respect but not in another and to defend that you deny it says something that it does say repeatedly and clearly.

Am I being argumentative if I answer your question? Gravity moves the earth (I've said it about a dozen times).

Gravity keeps the earth in its place.


Now, as I've also already suggested, let's return to asking's question of you regarding the fossil record.

Why don't you read my post before constantly repeating the same question?

Tom,
I think Akoue's point is very relevant. The question of the infallibility of the Bible (and the infallibility of its major interpreters) is central to this discussion.

Galileo's statement that the Earth moved was considered heretical in his time because it contradicted the Bible.

No, it was that Galileo did not consider the earth the center of the universe. As for it contradicting the Bible, no it was because it contradicted the teachings of one denomination.

This, in any case, has zero to do with the topic at hand. The Bible is accurate when taken at face value, without man's private interpretation.

Why don't you read my post before constantly repeating the same question?

Come one, you know how the site works. You posted yours while I was writing mine, so I hadn't seen it yet. (And I just knew you would do this!)

Come one, you know how the site works. You posted yours while I was writing mine, so I hadn't seen it yet. (And I just knew you would do this!)

Perhaps a little patience would help. Give one a chance to post and for you to see if one has posted an answer. I am not here at your beck and call to answer questions at the crack of your whip. And I see somehow, your lack of patience in waiting for my answer has now become somehow my fault.:confused:

No, it was that Galileo did not consider the earth the center of the universe. As for it contradicting the Bible, no it was because it contradicted the teachings of one denomination.

This, in any case, has zero to do with the topic at hand. The Bible is accurate when taken at face value, without man's private interpretation.

The topic of the thread concerns the compatibility of evolution and the Bible. The compatibility of the Bible and other scientific domains is quite relevant--and the OP has registered his own interest in the present question.

So gravity keeps the earth "in its place" as you say. The earth stays in place. It neither rotates on its axis nor orbits the sun. This is your view. We've got it.

So gravity keeps the earth "in its place" as you say. The earth stays in place. It neither rotates on its axis nor orbits the sun. This is your view. We've got it.

Do you take joy in mis-representing me? Why do you think that anyone should even engage in discussion with you with you refuse to interact in a respectful manner?

Perhaps a little patience would help. Give one a chance to post and for you to see if one has posted an answer. I am not here at your beck and call to answer questions at the crack of your whip. And I see somehow, your lack of patience in waiting for my answer has now become somehow my fault.:confused:

That's right. Because I was replying to your *previous* post.

That's right. Because I was replying to your *previous* post.

Again, perhaps a little patience would help avoid this issue, so just exercise patience after you ask questions and allow time for others to reply.

Also keep in mind that no one is required to answer your questions. Engaging in a respectful exchange (i.e. not mis-representing others) will help encourage response.

Galileo's statement that the Earth moved was considered heretical in his time because it contradicted the Bible.

Just being a stickler for detail (without commenting on the discussion here); Galileo was seen as a heretic because he denied that God was the cause of creation. Not because he supported a heliocentric universe.

JoeT

I have thought about how to answer this a great deal - the problem is that entire volumes of books have been written answering this question and you expect me to provide an answer to a very general question in a short message. As about the fossil record in generalities is like asking someone to describe what you think about the findings regarding astro-physics and astronomy.

The fossil record is simply the remains of animals and plants which have fossilized.

I have posted at length elsewhere explaining the overall pattern in the fossil record and how it tells in actual pictures (like a children's book) the history of the evolution of life on earth, from the simplest bacteria and the first photosynthetic microbes, to the first animals and terrestrial plants. It is an amazingly complete record and it's in order. You say it does not suggest macroevolution and that hundreds of thousands of biologists are all mistaken in believing this.

So then, tell us what you think the patterns in the fossil record do suggest. Why is it there? Why did God lay it down precisely as He did? Why are there no fossil sharks 2 billion years ago, but yet they appear in rocks that are 400 million years old? Why are there no palm trees in 600 million year old rocks, but there are in 360 million year old rocks? Why do modern birds have hips that look like those of reptiles that lived 70 million years ago? Explain the pattern of increasing complexity and diversity in the fossil record in a way that is consistent with what the Bible says.

I have posted at length elsewhere explaining the overall pattern in the fossil record and how it tells in actual pictures (like a children's book) the history of the evolution of life on earth, from the simplest bacteria and the first photosynthetic microbes, to the first animals and terrestrial plants. It is an amazingly complete record and it's in order. You say it does not suggest macroevolution and that hundreds of thousands of biologists are all mistaken in believing this.

Large numbers of scientists disagree. I might add that the fossil record is not as clear as you would like to present it. The layers are often turned upside down to what you describe, and often animals that should be ancient, according to evolution, are mixed in with animals that should be recent according to evolution. I have see myself trees in Joggins, NS (a world heritage site) where trees are fossilized and, single trees can be seen growing up through what would be, accordingly to evolutionists, millions or perhaps even hundreds of millions of years.

Just being a stickler for detail (without commenting on the discussion here); Galileo was seen as a heretic because he denied that God was the cause of creation. Not because he supported a heliocentric universe.

JoeT

Are you certain? The Encyclopedia Britannica says that the Church claimed he was enjoined from discussing Copernicanism in 1616 and used that against him.

Britannica says that on June 21, 1633, Galileo was found of guilty of "having held and taught" the Copernican doctrine and was ordered to recant, which he did.

Are you certain? The Encyclopedia Britannica says that the Church claimed he was enjoined from discussing Copernicanism in 1616 and used that against him.

Britannica says that on June 21, 1633, Galileo was found of guilty of "having held and taught" the Copernican doctrine and was ordered to recant, which he did.

Turns out the whole thing was really complicated. It wasn't the "holding" that was the problem so much as the "teaching". There is some evidence that he was instructed to delay teaching it because it was so radical and there was concern that the dissemination should proceed slowly. He went ahead anyway. The most recent comprehensive work by Ernan McMullin shows that the situation was handled badly on all sides.

Yes. It sounds like Galileo was rather provoking. He was also writing in Italian instead of Latin (right?), which made everything he wrote so much more accessible. Annoying guy.

Joe, maybe you were thinking of Bruno?

Science says the earth moves.
It rotates and obits the sun.
I believe that.
I also believe that the author of those passages believed that it did not move and did so because of his personal observation.
A;so if the earth sit still on a foundation where is it?
I've never seen a view from any satalite or spce station that shows a foundation of any sort including the giant turtle some folks once believed the world sat on.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred, thanks for reminding us of the giant tortoise. I had forgotten about that.

Like Copernicus before him, Galileo's advocacy of heliocentrism got him into trouble, as we all know, due to a perceived conflict between it and the Bible. The Biblical verses that, taken on their face, affirm a stationary earth are:

Ps.93.1: "The world will surely stand in place, never to be moved."
Ps.96.10: "The world will surely stand fast, never to be moved."
Ps.104.5: "You fixed the earth on its foundation, never to be moved."
I Chronicles 16.30: "he has made the world firm, not to be moved."

Now, read metaphorically or allegorically, these passages present no obvious problem to anyone who accepts heliocentrism. Read literally, they do present a problem, since each clearly affirms that the earth does not move. This clearly does not comport with either the earth's rotation nor its orbit of the sun. There can be no question, though, that accommodating heliocentrism requires some hermeneutic finessing of Scripture, and this, again, means that a supine literalism forces a choice upon the reader: Either accept the prima facie meaning of the passages and reject heliocentrism or accept heliocentrism and interpret these passages non-literally. This much is clear.

As anyone who has been following this thread knows, I have brought this up not to change the subject away from evolution, but rather to attempt to get a clearer view of the conflict many claim to find between the Bible and modern evolutionary theory. If, as many are inclined to do, we are to adopt a non-literal reading of the passages cited above in order to accommodate heliocentrism, I can see no good reason not to adopt a non-literal reading of Gen.1-2 in order to accommodate the findings of evolutionary theory. If, on the other hand, we are to adhere to a literal interpretation of Gen.1-2, and so reject evolution as it is now understood, then we are obliged to adhere to a literal interpretation of the above passages and so reject heliocentrism. To do otherwise is to be inconsistent in our reading of Scripture. In other words, I have sought to offer a deflationary alternative to the perceived conflict between Scripture and science.

Since the earth is in fact moved (it isn't a self-mover), we have good reason to suppose that the above passages are best read non-literally. And this seems to me to provide us reasonable grounds for supposing that other passages of Scripture that are perceived by some to conflict with science ought also to be read non-literally. The notion that we are to adhere to a supine literalism, according to which the words of the Bible "speak for themselves" (a phrase which is itself little more than a rhetorical flourish) obliges the rejection of celestial mechanics.

In like fashion, a supine literalism obliges one to reject evolutionary biology, not on the merits, but just in virtue of its failure to reflect the surface meaning of Gen.1-2. This is to say, then, that the rejection of evolution carries with it the rejection of heliocentrism, which is rather more, I suspect, than many evolution opponents bargained for.

We do not typically feel that we need to await a complete scientific description of the physical universe in order to accept the findings of astronomy; neither should we feel the need to await a complete biological description of all life in order to accept the findings of evolutionary biology. Scientific theories are all, by their nature, provisional descriptions of physical phenomena. The absence of completeness is not evidence of falsehood. Were we to impose completeness as a demand on the acceptance of the findings of science, we would be left in a perpetual cognitive limbo, and this would imperil the viability of applied sciences such as engineering and medicine. I can see no plausible grounds for adopting such a stance.

As I see it, then, the burden of proof rests not with the proponents of evolution, but with those who claim to find a conflict between evolution and Gen.1-2. It is for them to provide a compelling case for a supinely literal interpretation of Gen.1-2, taking into account the high price they pay for their literalism in the form of the rejection of heliocentrism. I am aware that others will not accede to my assessment of the burden of proof, and I am fine with that. So long as we are all clear about the options that are available to those who would adduce Scripture as grounds for rejecting the findings of evolutionary biologists.

It is important to keep in mind that as soon as one reads the passages I cited above in such a way as to accommodate heliocentrism one has already abandoned a supine literalism that claims to take the words of the Bible at face value.

I would really feel better getting up in the morning if I knew there was a giant tortoise down there. I have never liked this whole business of whirling around at 700 mph (more like a 1000 at the equator) and also hurtling through space, never knowing when we are going to slip our alleged mooring and launch into space (say 'goodbye' to Pluto) or plunge into the Sun.

I would really feel better getting up in the morning if I knew there was a giant tortoise down there. I have never liked this whole business of whirling around at 700 mph (more like a 1000 at the equator) and also hurtling through space, never knowing when we are going to slip our alleged mooring and launch into space (say 'goodbye' to Pluto) or plunge into the Sun.

I'm with you. And tortoises are such comforting creatures. They have such an even measure about them.

I would really feel better getting up in the morning if I knew there was a giant tortoise down there. I have never liked this whole business of whirling around at 700 mph (more like a 1000 at the equator) and also hurtling through space, never knowing when we are going to slip our alleged mooring and launch into space (say 'goodbye' to Pluto) or plunge into the Sun.

That is why it is good to know God and know that He has established a our place in space and holds us in a fixed orbit.

Are you certain? The Encyclopedia Britannica says that the Church claimed he was enjoined from discussing Copernicanism in 1616 and used that against him.

Britannica says that on June 21, 1633, Galileo was found of guilty of "having held and taught" the Copernican doctrine and was ordered to recant, which he did.

It's a long story not normally told - it's just easier to blame it on his Copernicus theories (not only easier, the Protestants love the propaganda), if I have the time, I'll tell it tonight. I need resources I don't have here.

JoeT

P.S. But now I see where Akoue has done it. I'll see if I can find a few blanks to fill in.

I do not interpret it. I let it speak for itself.

This is a transparent attempt to escape your personal responsibility for interpreting it as you do. Ink on paper does not speak or convey meaning unless it is read and interpreted by a human being. You have chosen a literal interpretation, others choose a metaphorical or allegorical one. In either case, it is a personal choice, and yours is no more binding on them than theirs is on you.

Akoue
You are right. It is either or.
To compound the problem is the fact that there are many verses in the bible which taken literally do not make sense such as kings of the whole world coming to Solomon for advice which includes the American continents or all of the people of Judea going John the Baptizer.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I have posted at length elsewhere explaining the overall pattern in the fossil record and how it tells in actual pictures (like a children's book) the history of the evolution of life on earth, from the simplest bacteria and the first photosynthetic microbes, to the first animals and terrestrial plants. It is an amazingly complete record and it's in order. You say it does not suggest macroevolution and that hundreds of thousands of biologists are all mistaken in believing this.

So then, tell us what you think the patterns in the fossil record do suggest. Why is it there? Why did God lay it down precisely as He did? Why are there no fossil sharks 2 billion years ago, but yet they appear in rocks that are 400 million years old? Why are there no palm trees in 600 million year old rocks, but there are in 360 million year old rocks? Why do modern birds have hips that look like those of reptiles that lived 70 million years ago? Explain the pattern of increasing complexity and diversity in the fossil record in a way that is consistent with what the Bible says.

Again, where in the fossil or the genetic record does it prove that gene mutaion, not to mention no one can prove the selective factors involved, led to NEW GENETIC INFORMATION that led from reptiles to birds, or to a back bone or to a complex circulatory system?

Macro evoultion, diversity relies on NEW INFORMATION, where is the proof.

You can look at the fossil record and the similarities betwenn living creatures but it is FAITH/ BELIEF that humanity had a common ancestor with apes, a common ancestor with mammals, a common ancestor with bacteria.

Does homology really equal proof of evolution?

A plane has seats, a movie theater has seats, did they have a common ancestor?

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

I don't read the bible to find out where fish came from or if black holes exist, the bible tells is we are created, not a product of impossible chance. We are so important that the being that created us, loves us enough to send His only son to die and resurrect for us.:)



G&P

I don't read the bible to find out where fish came from ...


So do you want to explain the existence and pattern of the fossil record?
I'm interested to hear how you account for it. Tom hasn't had time to answer this question yet.
Just Asking

inthebox,
I like to believe that some of those huge meat eating dinosaurs did evolve into the much smaller birds that now live on insects, seeds and berries.
Since the fossil record does show some of the later dinosaurs with wings and feathers, it is easy to believe.
Peace and kindness.
Fred

asking,
Apparently inthebox does not or can not.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The fossil record indicates a biological "big bang" during the Cambrian period. How does evolution take into acoount that?

This is more consistent with , creation.

Again the fossil record, with the above and lack of "missing links" and a lack of transitional forms is more a problem with Darwin's account than it is for creation or ID.

The fossil record is also a diversion from the real question of how NEW GENETIC INFORMATION, that enhances survival and or reproduction, comes about to lead to major, macro if you will, development like the eye or flight or organ systems or art or backbones or warm blood.

We do know for a fact that mutations has led to thousands of human disease. Is this the means by which we came from single celled organisms?

In addition, the fossil record is looking at limited evidence in a backward or retrospective view. Nothing can be proved for certain because no scientist was there to observe and measure development. So that approach takes as much faith as it does to believe in creation.
--------------------------------------------

What purpose or meaning is there for us being here by pure [ near impossible ] odds? In this scenario how is humanity any more special than any other species? If you think god is made up by culture or imagination, the question remains.

On the other hand, creation believes God created us with meaning and purpose. A God that elevates us beyond animals and plants.




G&P

This is a transparent attempt to escape your personal responsibility for interpreting it as you do. Ink on paper does not speak or convey meaning unless it is read and interpreted by a human being.

Really? Then I guess that you don't believe anything that you read - PERIOD!

The Bible specifically disallows manmade interpretations, and whether you believe it or not, it is possible to read something and read what it actually says.

So do you want to explain the existence and pattern of the fossil record?
I'm interested to hear how you account for it. Tom hasn't had time to answer this question yet.
Just Asking

I already responded to your post - the fossil record is not what you claim it to be.

Once again you have not read what I posted.

inthebox,
I like to believe that some of those huge meat eating dinosaurs did evolve into the much smaller birds that now live on insects, seeds and berries.
Since the fossil record does show some of the later dinosaurs with wings and feathers, it is easy to believe.
Peace and kindness.
Fred

Fred, since you bring up the topic once again, where is the evidence for a transition from one species to another?

Fred, since you bring up the topic once again, where is the evidence for a transition from one species to another?

Right here.

From New Scientist:

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations -- the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

Right here.

from New Scientist:

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations -- the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

So, if I took this to its logical conclusion, are you suggesting that humans who are lactose intolerant are another species because they cannot use a common human food source?

Just because something is a characteristic, even a defining characteristic, does not mean that a variant to that characteristic makes that a different species. A defining characteristic of chickens is 2 legs. Periodically chickens are born with 4 legs ( http://www.hemmy.net/images/animals/4leggedchicken02.jpg ). Are they a different species? No, no one would ever make such a claim. They are called mutants - which is what these bacteria are also called (read in your excerpt from New Scientist above ("... citrate-using mutants")

Back to your point - if you read the actual paper upon which this article is based, you would find that the bacteria that acquired this chjaracteristic was still E-coli. Indeed, this characteristic, though not common in E-Coli, is not unheard of within E-Coli. Let me quote from his paper:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The inability to use citrate as an energy source under oxic conditions has long been a defining characteristic of E. coli as a species (35, 36). Nevertheless, E. coli is not wholly indifferent to citrate. It uses a ferric dicitrate transport system for iron acquisition, although citrate does not enter the cell in this process (37, 38). It also has a complete tricarboxylic acid cycle, and can thus metabolize citrate internally during aerobic growth on other substrates (39). E. coli is able to ferment citrate under anoxic conditions if a cosubstrate is available for reducing power (40). The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions (41–43). Indeed, atypical E. coli that grow aerobically on citrate (Cit) have been isolated from agricultural and clinical settings, and were found to harbor plasmids, presumably acquired from other species, that encode citrate transporters (44, 45)."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice try, but no cigar.

inthebox,
I find no difficulty in believing in creation and some form of evolution.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Yes. It sounds like Galileo was rather provoking. He was also writing in Italian instead of Latin (right?), which made everything he wrote so much more accessible. Annoying guy.

Joe, maybe you were thinking of Bruno?

As requested, the Galileo debacle:

Galileo published Discourse on Floating Bodies in 1612 along with a book on sunspots in 1613. The first claim that the Copernican theory was heretical was raised by the Grand Duchess Christina at a banquet citing scripture. The Duchess, t he wife of the Grand Duke Cosimo de Medici, a tutor of Galileo's later circulated a letter saying scripture should not be taken so laterally. The conversation was picked-up by a Dominican priest Tommaso Caccini who, from the pulpit, suggested that the Copernican theory should be declared it heretical. In his denunciation Father Caccini pointed to Joshua commanding the sun to stand still at Ajalon. A Copernican theory wouldn't have permitted the motion of the celestial bodies to stop, thus it was heretical; so much for astronomical acumen of Dominican priests. In any event Father Caccini complained to the Roman Inquisition stating that mathematicians along with Galileo should be banished from Christendom. The complaint against Galileo included that he engaged in private interpretation of Scripture. The charges were summarily dismissed by the Inquisition in February 1615. Cardinal Bellarmine wrote in the summary that the Copernican theory was yet to be proven and until such time should not be applied to interpretation of Scripture.

Case closed? Not exactly. In December that same year Galileo unwisely decided to visit friends in Rome. And, like most men with a new toy (the telescope) and a bright idea (the Copernican theory) went about town troubling the aristocracy with the idea that their secure position in the center of the cosmos had just been usurped with one on an insignificant rock. Consequently the Pope, Paul V called for a formal decision on Copernican theory in February of 1616. Don't forget, at this time there was still little separation from the natural sciences and theology. So a committee of eleven theologians and one natural scientist, a mathematician, pronounced that the Copernican theory was nonsense, after all everyone knew that mankind and his planet was the center of the universe.

Cardinal Bllarmine, a renowned Catholic apologist knew that if the Copernican theory was later to be found correct, it would put the Church in an untenable position of defending a position that is contrary to nature – the Church has held, from Christ, through Peter, that what is true in nature is, in some way, a revelation of nature's creator, God. As a result of the verdict, Galileo's book was put on the index of Forbidden Books. Cardinal Bellarmine convinced the Congregation of the Index of Forbidden Books to stop circulation until a new preface was written stating that the theory was not proven. Later a document appeared stating that Galileo was enjoined from teaching the theory in any way. Since it was dated February 1616 it is presumed to be to be the back-up if he failed to follow through with re-writing the preface of his book.

As any good Catholic Galieo submitted himself to censure. In an audience with Pope Paul V Galileo was assured support “discouraged and disappointed, but not defeated”, he went to Venice, his home, where he lived and worked freely until 1624.

Publishing his book The Assayer Galileo advocated the atomic theory for the composition of matter. Wisely he avoided the mentioning the Copernican theory. Even still, he was attacked by overzealous critics who saw this theory as an attack on transubstantiation. In 1624, Pope Urban VIII, successor to Paul V stated “that the Church had never declared the works of Copernicus to be heretical and would not do so, “but added “a proof of its truth would ever be forthcoming.” Encouraged, Galileo wrote Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems in 1632 to provide that proof. Looking for an imprimatur, the book was given to the Inquisitor. Father Riccardi said that the Dialogue focused on “the mathematical examination of the Copernican position on the earth's motion, with the aim of proving that, if we remove divine revelation and sacred doctrine, the appearances could be saved with this supposition…so that one would never be admitting the absolute truth of this opinion, but only its hypothetical truth without the benefit of scripture.” Again, bull headedly Galileo continued to insist that his theory was an absolute.

The Dialogue was published by coincidence at the worst possible time, the Thirty years War was raging in Bavaria and the Protestants had succeeded in expelling Jesuits and winning several battles. This forced Pope Urban VIII to prove his orthodoxy and turned on Galileo because of Jesuit denouncement of the Dialogue. This is when the “back-up” document was “found.” In any event Galileo was deposed twice in front of the Inquisition and the charge of disobeying the mystery back-up was dropped, however he was censured for being “vehemently suspected of heresy”. For teaching the heliocentric theories, the Dialogue was banned by the Index for more than 200-years. Galileo was required to make a public abjuration and was placed under house arrest. Petro Redondi said that “this heresy was inquisitorial – that is, disciplinary, not theological or doctrinal – both according to the words of the manuals of criminal heresiology”. In short, Galileo was found guilty of disobedience not heresy. (Source: Warren H. Carroll, The Cleaving of Christendom, 2000.)

Now you know why I said it was a complicated story.


JoeT

Sorry TJ3 but this shows that evolution can add a benefit to the dna code. It completely changes the direction of a species, I'd say it could be even considered a new species.
Regardless your never going to get the proof your asking for because evolution doesn't work that way. It would be the same as me calling all Christians liars because god had never personally appeared to me.
How it works is..
Say you have duck and that duck gives birth to another duck and then that duck gives birth to another duck. So you have a duck from a duck from a duck from a duck and so on until you look back a few thousand years and you go you know what ducks use to look different but the scale of change in our life time; since the change isn't intelligently directed is minimal.
So you will never get the proof you ask for because if you did get it, it would disprove evolution.

I already responded to your post - the fossil record is not what you claim it to be.

Once again you have not read what I posted.

I must have missed where you said what the fossil record is. Can you give me a link or just summarize in sentence or two? To my knowledge, I have read all your posts in this thread attentively.

I'm not asking what you think it's not, but what you think it is. I'm very interested to know what you think.

Thanks,

Sorry TJ3 but this shows that evolution can add a benefit to the dna code.

Benefits are rare at best. But the key point is that there is no species change. No one is denying change within a species.


It completely changes the direction of a species, I'd say it could be even considered a new species.

Even the author of the experiment / paper does not make such a claim. He is very clear about that throughout his paper. Your claim is therefore limited to your opinion and perhaps your own personal definition of what constitutes a species. You'd be hard pressed to find any credible biologist who would share your conclusion that this is a new species.

I must have missed where you said what the fossil record is. Can you give me a link or just summarize in sentence or two? To my knowledge, I have read all your posts in this thread attentively.

I'm not asking what you think it's not, but what you think it is. I'm very interested to know what you think.

Thanks,

I responded to your message in post #213.

As requested, the Galileo debacle:



Now you know why I said it was a complicated story.


JoeT

Joe, Thanks for taking the time to write this up for me. This is interesting and informative. The Britannica's version was similar but shorter, and of course I summarized even more. I did know about the "found" document, which apparently some people think was written after the fact. Galileo said it was news to him.

The conviction --on disobedience-- is definitely different from what I read and sounds a bit like a technicality. Is this important? I mean weren't they really after him about the heliocentrism and his slightly snotty attitude? What I read was that although he'd had the backing up the second pope, Galileo's presentation --with two sides arguing -- made the church's side of the argument look foolish and the Church was basically forced to take offense. It sounds like the whole thing was very political. But it WAS about heliocentrism, which was considered heretical, wasn't it?

It reminds me of the Scopes trial, where Scopes's conviction was overturned because the judge sentenced him instead of leaving it to the jury--a technical error. As a result, the ACLU never got to challenge the decision. They had hoped to take it to a higher court.

Large numbers of scientists disagree. I might add that the fossil record is not as clear as you would like to present it. The layers are often turned upside down to what you describe, and often animals that should be ancient, according to evolution, are mixed in with animals that should be recent according to evolution. I have see myself trees in Joggins, NS (a world heritage site) where trees are fossilized and, single trees can be seen growing up through what would be, accordingly to evolutionists, millions or perhaps even hundreds of millions of years.

Tom, you must have misunderstood me. Here it says why you think science's understanding of the fossil record might be incorrect in some details.

This does not say what your own interpretation of the record is. Do you not have one? It's fine if you don't. I just assumed you did, since I didn't notice that you said you didn't.

Tom, you must have misunderstood me. Here it says why you think science's understanding of the fossil record might be incorrect in some details.

No, I am not arguing with science. I simply corrected your description of what has been actually physically found in the record.


This does not say what your own interpretation of the record is. Do you not have one? It's fine if you don't. I just assumed you did, since I didn't notice that you said you didn't.

This is where it gets almost impossible. If you have done any studying of the fossil record, you'll know that asking for a person to interpret the fossil record is like asking a doctor how you cure disease. The answer is varied depending upon which aspect you are looking at.

Joe, Thanks for taking the time to write this up for me. This is interesting and informative. The Britannica's version was similar but shorter, and of course I summarized even more. I did know about the "found" document, which apparently some people think was written after the fact. Galileo said it was news to him.

The conviction --on disobedience-- is definitely different from what I read and sounds a bit like a technicality. Is this important? I mean weren't they really after him about the heliocentrism and his slightly snotty attitude? What I read was that although he'd had the backing up the second pope, Galileo's presentation --with two sides arguing -- made the church's side of the argument look foolish and the Church was basically forced to take offense. It sounds like the whole thing was very political. But it WAS about heliocentrism, which was considered heretical, wasn't it??

It reminds me of the Scopes trial, where Scopes's conviction was overturned because the judge sentenced him instead of leaving it to the jury--a technical error. As a result, the ACLU never got to challenge the decision. They had hoped to take it to a higher court.

What wasn't reflected in my synopsis was that the Dominicans and the Jesuits were battling for ideological edge, there had been nearly 100-years of war with the Protestants, spies and heretics were seen under every bush and around every tree. Many scholars trace the origins of the “age of enlightenment” a.k.a. the age of rationalism to the early 1600's primarily to Descartes' Discourse on the Method: " Cogito ergo sum" ( roughly, I think, therefore I am). The Roman Church justly felt it was under attack, both literally, figuratively and dogmatically. This was just one silly little play on a world stage of deadly serious ideas and events– some of which, rationalism, still plague us to this day. No, this was more about politics than heliocentrism – the Catholic response merely focused on the wrong sinner.

Well, being from Tennessee, the ACLU can go hang itself if for no other reason than their arrogant and condescending attempt to make us look like a bunch of hillbilly boobs. Just in case you need to know, I've got a pair of Sunday go-to-meeting shoes that I wear every Sunday; I only go barefooted during the week. So's we'uns be's sophisticated too - at least on Sundays.

JoeT

I’m almost certain someone has already posted this among the 11 pages of responses, but the bible was in my opinion intended to be interpreted metaphorically, and not to be read literally.

In the case of Evolution, The real question is “what is the value of one of god’s days is?” Could a day from god’s perspective be equivalent to gazillions of years in the eyes of man? If so that would make sense for me.

That is the only way I can honestly bridge the gap between evolution and biblical scripture.

If you have done any studying of the fossil record, you'll know that asking for a person to interpret the fossil record is like asking a doctor how you cure disease. the answer is varied depending upon which aspect you are looking at.

I'm just asking why you think it's there and what, in the most general terms, it means.

This is more like asking a guy at a party what he does for a living. He says something like, "I'm a doctor; I try to help people who are sick or injured." He doesn't have to tell you how he does that for each disease.

JoeT777
Thanks much for that.
It ia very interesting.
I wonder how much that eventually lead the Catholic Church to build the very first space observatory.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I’m almost certain someone has already posted this among the 11 pages of responses, but the bible was in my opinion intended to be interpreted metaphorically, and not to be read literally.

That is the only way I can honestly bridge the gap between evolution and biblical scripture.

You may be thinking of me. I don't think there's any gap in need of being bridged.

scaredypants
That a day in God's time could be billions of years is believed by a great many people including me.
The bible even says that a day in God's time is a thousand years and that was written thousands of years ago when a billion of anything was not a popular belief.
Peace and kindness,
Fred