Creation vs. Evolution

[Diver Dennis]

I think any heritable genetic changes are described as evolution. A change in the thickness of the shell is different that adapting by finding better hiding places.

 

[wreckchick]

I was reading it as the trigger to recognize a new threat and respond by thickening the shell was an innate response and that the difference was in the existing individual mussels being able to respond to the new crab in a similar way as other previous threats. I would be surprised to learn that the genetics were in place to recognize an invasive species vs. a more general threat like "crabs" and they already have the "crab" response as is evidenced in the article but are adapting to the new crab under a more general umbrella that is pre-existing.

R

 

[wreckchick]

The article describes an "inducible thickening" which to my mind says it is occurring in living mussels as a response to the new threat. I agree that a shift to a genetically induced "thicker shell" is an evolutionary shift.

R

 

[Diver Dennis]

I see, you are saying that they already have the ability to thicken their shells but are not using it until there is a threat?

 

[SeaYoda]

Ok, so let's assume the "apparent age" hypothesis is true. The universe is about 7000 years old and was created with things buried in it that made it appear to modern day scientists and much, much older than it actually is. Adam, Eve, Garden of Eden begat, begat, begat.... now we're in the modern day. Now, at the time of creation, did God know that Adam and Eve would eventually create a population of people that had the technology to date and test the earth to come up with these false dates?

Yes. Not that it is mentioned as a specific but in general. This passage talks about a misinterpretation of the creation. It's not the same as evolution, but shows that God allows the misinterpreting of facts.

Rom 1:16-25
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
NKJV

Also, if you believe in micro-evolution, but discount macro-evolution due to insufficient time scale, do you believe that macro-evolution is a theoretical possibility given enough time to notice the effect?
R

If there is no God as described in the Bible, the theory of evolution fits the facts as we know them now. If more facts are discovered they may be pro evolution or con. I'm open to the facts as they come to support or destroy the theory. I'm open to the fact that there may be other theories that could fit. I just can't rule out the creation theory as easily as other's do and still be honest with the scientific method.

 

[wreckchick]

Apparent age will never fit into an evolutionist belief system because it assumes the age of the earth is short - that doesn't allow for macro-evolution and constrains the idea that the world was created.

What I was asking is whether or not the IDEA of evolution, moving forward is inconceivable. I understand that you don't believe enough time has elapsed but is there a point in the far-flung future where you think one could look back and see that evolution had occured?

22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man —

I'm assuming this is where the scientists are referred to as misinterpreting the Creation.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse

This passage, however, seems to say that what is there is what God intended us to see and know and there was no deception.

Of course, I'm not at all a Biblical scholar and might have screwed up the interpretation.

R

 

[SeaYoda]

What I was asking is whether or not the IDEA of evolution, moving forward is inconceivable. I understand that you don't believe enough time has elapsed but is there a point in the far-flung future where you think one could look back and see that evolution had occured?

Not changes in "kind". If you look at the fossil record we don't have "missing links" in a tree of change. I could believe the punctuated equilibrium theory more than the gradual change theory. For absolute proof of the punctuated equilibrium theory, we would need to see some large rapid changes. At that point the answer would be that evolution was possible. With the fossil record we have, I don't see the jumps - just the differences. I have to make a decision as to whether the jumps were evolution or if God made things in "kind" with full genetic diversity bounded by His rules.

I'm assuming this is where the scientists are referred to as misinterpreting the Creation.

I was thinking more:

21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

and

24 Therefore God also gave them up ...25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator...

Again this is talking about idol worshipers not scientists but I think it shows that when it comes to creation, God allows us the choice to misinterpret. That's where faith takes over and that's an aggravation if you want hands on evidence.

This passage, however, seems to say that what is there is what God intended us to see and know and there was no deception.

His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,...

It's talking about the unseen (faith) attributes of God being seen in the creation, not the things of creation being seen. I think the focus is on being able to understand God better by what he made, not an understanding of what was made and how.

Of course, I'm not at all a Biblical scholar and might have screwed up the interpretation.

You and me both - I've been working on this for 30 some years and don't claim to have all the answers .

 

[wreckchick]

Actually the puntuated equilibrium theory is better documented than the lay person has access to. I don't have all the research at my fingertips but there is a related theory that through evolutionary change when there is environmental change occurs a species or type of species goes through a "trial phase" where it experiments with a whole host of different adaptations to see what works and what doesn't and the fittest set of adaptations become the new paradigm while the others die off.

In the early days of hominids there was an intense blossoming of speciation that led to many of the fossil remains now being discovered in Africa with overlapping dates. The best adapted turned out to be Homo sapiens (us) and while we survived as a species the other more ill-equiped died out. We also took over the ecological niche taken by Homo neanderthalensis in Europe and pushed that species out of existence. The crossover species (missing link) is actually Homo heidelburgensis and it's a Homo erectus/Homo neanderthalensis type hybrid that existed prior to the documented Neanderthals in France in a geographic area that shows a physical shift in conjuction with a geographic shift.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#archaics

The research moves so fast in Anthropology that I'm out of the loop five years after college, but that link gives some basics on the timeline including the branching I described in the graph at the bottom.

On a somewhat side note, there is some evidence to suggest that monkeys are going through one of these cycles now as their habitats come under extreme ecological pressure they are being forced to adapt to rapidly changing environments. One of the markers is hybridization since it takes a number of generations to seperate fully past the ability to interbreed. I give you the Guenons as an example of this type of branching: http://www.nhbs.com/title.php?tefno=121768 and http://www.nyu.edu/projects/difiore/mpconference/abstracts/mpdetwiler.html

Cool stuff, eh?

R

 

[wreckchick]

I didn't really address your post. From what you're saying you believe that minor changes are possible but that full-on morphing from one thing to another isn't probably going to happen. I understand where you're coming from (I think) and I only present to you that mice don't turn into manatees. The branching is a slow process and does take a LONG time to occur, millions of years. Of course, I also believe we've had millions (or billions) of years to let it all happen so the theory works for me in my perceived timeline of the universe and planet.

Since theologians can't even agree on what religious texts mean, I think it would be pointless to engage in interpretational debate about Biblical passages. I doubt we'll ever be able to agree on the intended message of a given passage. I'll respectfully agree to disagree on the issue of Creation vs. Evolution based on the Bible.

I think that the most telling arguement for evolution is something you already said which is that all scientific evidence points to evolution and there just isn't any that makes a case for creation. I don't think I've been quick to discount it as an option, I just have not one shred of proof to hang a hat on. If such a thing does appear I will respectfully reconsider my stance, but I just can't see how it could have happened as written without ANY small inconsistency that we can look to for the alternative explanation.

R

 

[Thalassamania]

Biscuit, thanks for the anthro stuf (It's 30 years since I had an antro class and its fun to catch up a little).

The point of the thickening response is that it takes energy away from other activities that contribute to raising fitness to turn it on, so there is an optimizing problem.