[NewYork123]

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

[Tj3]

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.

[arcura]

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

[Akoue]

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]

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.

[arcura]

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]

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.

[asking]

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

[Tj3]

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.

[Akoue]

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.

[arcura]

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

[Akoue]

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]

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?

[arcura]

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

[asking]

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.

[Akoue]

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.

[Tj3]

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.

[asking]

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).

[arcura]

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

[450donn]

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?