Evidence for theistic evolution

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4484
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 201 times
Been liked: 155 times

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

#16

Post by abelcainsbrother » Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:05 pm

Danieltwotwenty wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Is a natural evolving required to have a common ancestor?

For example, if God made Eve from Adam's side, then is Adam Eve's ancestor?
Or would Eve needed to have specifically evolved from Adam's physical substance...

Just wondering what you all might think, Atheists included, hypothetically speaking.
I think the Adam and Eve story is just using poetic language to describe how when a man and woman come together that they are complete. I don't read it literally as what happened.
I see it from many different angles first I believe God created Adam and Eve like it says but it is also a picture of salvation that God had on his mind from the beginning.This also proves or is evidence that our God is the true God over all over god's.Let me explain.

You see our God is a blood covenant God always has been in the OT and NT now in the new testament we know salvation through Jesus is a blood covenant,so in the beginning when God created man in his image,he was designing marriage between a man and a woman to be a blood covenant and it is a blood Covenant when they become one - think virgins,this is a picture of Jesus the bridegroom and the bride- church by blood covenant.
God had salvation on his mind.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

Danieltwotwenty
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:01 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Aussie Land
Has liked: 37 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

#17

Post by Danieltwotwenty » Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:51 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
Danieltwotwenty wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Is a natural evolving required to have a common ancestor?

For example, if God made Eve from Adam's side, then is Adam Eve's ancestor?
Or would Eve needed to have specifically evolved from Adam's physical substance...

Just wondering what you all might think, Atheists included, hypothetically speaking.
I think the Adam and Eve story is just using poetic language to describe how when a man and woman come together that they are complete. I don't read it literally as what happened.
That wasn't my question.

Please clear your mind of any sort of argument being made.
I just want your take (and Proinsias' or others) on what "common ancestry" entails.

Let me put the question another way.
If God takes some homo sapien and uses that -- its biological code and the like -- when forming modern humans...
and then God takes that same homo sapien and uses that when forming chimpanzees...

Do we humans share the same ancestor with chimps,
or does common ancestry necessitate that human and chimps naturally evolved?
I am sorry K, I am not a biologist so I don't really understand the question, but I think that all life requires an ancestor and that the evidence points to life all having a common ancestor. If life didn't have common ancestors then the fossil record would be different or if life just had a common designer then the fossil record would be different also, why would we see small incremental changes over time from one animal to the next. If God just made special one off creations we would see new vastly different types of creatures in the fossil record popping out of nowhere, wouldn't we? But that is not what we find, we make predictions based on the theory and find fossils in the right locations that prove the prediction correct.
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9659
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 590 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

#18

Post by Kurieuo » Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:22 pm

Danieltwotwenty wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Danieltwotwenty wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Is a natural evolving required to have a common ancestor?

For example, if God made Eve from Adam's side, then is Adam Eve's ancestor?
Or would Eve needed to have specifically evolved from Adam's physical substance...

Just wondering what you all might think, Atheists included, hypothetically speaking.
I think the Adam and Eve story is just using poetic language to describe how when a man and woman come together that they are complete. I don't read it literally as what happened.
That wasn't my question.

Please clear your mind of any sort of argument being made.
I just want your take (and Proinsias' or others) on what "common ancestry" entails.

Let me put the question another way.
If God takes some homo sapien and uses that -- its biological code and the like -- when forming modern humans...
and then God takes that same homo sapien and uses that when forming chimpanzees...

Do we humans share the same ancestor with chimps,
or does common ancestry necessitate that human and chimps naturally evolved?
I am sorry K, I am not a biologist so I don't really understand the question, but I think that all life requires an ancestor and that the evidence points to life all having a common ancestor. If life didn't have common ancestors then the fossil record would be different or if life just had a common designer then the fossil record would be different also, why would we see small incremental changes over time from one animal to the next. If God just made special one off creations we would see new vastly different types of creatures in the fossil record popping out of nowhere, wouldn't we? But that is not what we find, we make predictions based on the theory and find fossils in the right locations that prove the prediction correct.
One designer, I think you'd expect similar designs... and an efficient designer re-use of designs.
And, there is such diversity, symbiosis and the like -- how much diversity should there be?

Have you also not read about Eldredge and Gould? There are known gaps according to them and others who share their thoughts.
If true, than Darwinian evolution is inadequate to account as the sole ToE. Something like a punctuated evolution also has to be true too.

Anyway, turning back to my own questions.
If I think about them, shared biological information (common ancestry?) doesn't solely support a natural evolutionary scenario.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

Danieltwotwenty
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:01 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Aussie Land
Has liked: 37 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

#19

Post by Danieltwotwenty » Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:33 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
Danieltwotwenty wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Danieltwotwenty wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Is a natural evolving required to have a common ancestor?

For example, if God made Eve from Adam's side, then is Adam Eve's ancestor?
Or would Eve needed to have specifically evolved from Adam's physical substance...

Just wondering what you all might think, Atheists included, hypothetically speaking.
I think the Adam and Eve story is just using poetic language to describe how when a man and woman come together that they are complete. I don't read it literally as what happened.
That wasn't my question.

Please clear your mind of any sort of argument being made.
I just want your take (and Proinsias' or others) on what "common ancestry" entails.

Let me put the question another way.
If God takes some homo sapien and uses that -- its biological code and the like -- when forming modern humans...
and then God takes that same homo sapien and uses that when forming chimpanzees...

Do we humans share the same ancestor with chimps,
or does common ancestry necessitate that human and chimps naturally evolved?
I am sorry K, I am not a biologist so I don't really understand the question, but I think that all life requires an ancestor and that the evidence points to life all having a common ancestor. If life didn't have common ancestors then the fossil record would be different or if life just had a common designer then the fossil record would be different also, why would we see small incremental changes over time from one animal to the next. If God just made special one off creations we would see new vastly different types of creatures in the fossil record popping out of nowhere, wouldn't we? But that is not what we find, we make predictions based on the theory and find fossils in the right locations that prove the prediction correct.
One designer, I think you'd expect similar designs... and an efficient designer re-use of designs.
And, there is such diversity, symbiosis and the like -- how much diversity should there be?

Have you also not read about Eldredge and Gould? There are known gaps according to them and others who share their thoughts.
If true, than Darwinian evolution is inadequate to account as the sole ToE. Something like a punctuated evolution also has to be true too.

Anyway, turning back to my own questions.
If I think about them, shared biological information (common ancestry?) doesn't solely support a natural evolutionary scenario.
Oh I totally agree, I think it could support a common designer, i personally don't think the evidence points to that but meh, I never mean't to say that any other creation theory is not valid, I just feel that TE makes the most sense to me in light of the evidence. I know there are gaps in the fossil record, but as far as I am aware, we are slowly filling them. Like I said I am not a biologist or any other type of professional in any particular field, I just read what I read an evaluate the evidence based on what I know and since it doesn't conflict with my beliefs about God/Jesus, I really don't care that much if it is right or wrong, it's just what I believe, period.
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.

dfnj
Recognized Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

#20

Post by dfnj » Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:48 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:I would like to understand why Christians should accept it as I do not see evolution in the bible and do not see enough scientific evidence to even believe life evolves and I have looked however realize my perspective can be wrong so I would like to know why Christians should accept it.
We do not see any mention of abortion in the Bible and that does not make it moral.

Obviously, Christians can ignore all science. Did you know the Earth is the center of the Universe? As a devout Christian the more interesting question is why does any Christian even care about evolution or evidence for it at all. Assume for a moment evolution is sound science with plenty of supporting evidence. As a devout Christian is your faith in God degraded by such evidence? Does the teaching of evolution in school or other people believing in evolution really matter? Your faith in God must be very weak if all it takes is some fossils and some carbon dating evidence to cause you to be so alarmed. An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake fossil and carbon dating evidence.

I have a theory the Universe was actually created by female God. Life is full of suffering. And since women make men suffer, ergo, God is a women. Just because the evidence exists doesn't mean anything. Our faith in God does not require evidence. Or at least my faith in God does not require evidence. I could care less about evolution. My faith in God must be stronger than yours.

How strong can anyone's faith in God be? I think the strongest faith anyone can have in God is the belief that when we die God will use his infinite powers of love and forgiveness to let each and every person pass through the gates of heaven regardless of our earthly sins. I think most people conclude living a moral life now is more important than the afterlife anyway since it seems more relevant. I think after we die we will be too busy looking into the face of God, mesmerized and enamored, that we will not have any time to have any concious thoughts or even care to do so which by definition is eternal bliss. So which one are you going to choose: Evolution matters, God is a woman, faith in God, and/or eternal bliss?
Last edited by dfnj on Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9659
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 590 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

#21

Post by Kurieuo » Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:52 pm

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Oh I totally agree, I think it could support a common designer, i personally don't think the evidence points to that but meh, I never mean't to say that any other creation theory is not valid, I just feel that TE makes the most sense to me in light of the evidence. I know there are gaps in the fossil record, but as far as I am aware, we are slowly filling them. Like I said I am not a biologist or any other type of professional in any particular field, I just read what I read an evaluate the evidence based on what I know and since it doesn't conflict with my beliefs about God/Jesus, I really don't care that much if it is right or wrong, it's just what I believe, period.
Ok, fair enough.

I do wonder whether by "common ancestry" many do believe that necessitates a natural evolving from an ancestor.
Interestingly, if it does, then it can't be used as evidence for evolution because it kind of becomes a circular tautology.

So I expect that by "common ancestry" most just means a shared biology of sorts.
At least, that to me seems the most logically coherent view.

And so evidence for "common ancestry" is just as much evidence for evolution, as it is evidence for God making use of previously biological templates.
Many, although not all Progressive Creationists, believe God created in such a fashion: brand new from pre-existing matter.
The parallel is there with Adam and Eve, although you take this in a non-literal way which doesn't much concern me.

It actually makes the best sense to me also, so I suppose it could be a matter of what we feel most comfortable with.
Perhaps a sense of familiarity. I don't know why such a method of creation would appear so odd to others.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

Morny
Valued Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:05 pm
Christian: No
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 8 times

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

#22

Post by Morny » Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:55 pm

Kurieuo wrote:I do wonder whether by "common ancestry" many do believe that necessitates a natural evolving from an ancestor.
Interestingly, if it does, then it can't be used as evidence for evolution because it kind of becomes a circular tautology.

So I expect that by "common ancestry" most just means a shared biology of sorts.
At least, that to me seems the most logically coherent view.

And so evidence for "common ancestry" is just as much evidence for evolution, as it is evidence for God making use of previously biological templates.
If scientists just saw shared biological templates (I'm trying to use your terminology) among living species, then I don't see a flaw in your reasoning, i.e., preferring common descent to any of the various creationist models would be a matter of faith, not science.

But the evidence supporting common descent includes one more absolutely crucial point, viz., those species share biological "templates" according to one objective nested hierarchy, or much more loosely speaking, "the tree of life".

For example, having mammary glands predicts having other traits: 4-chambered heart, 3 ossicles in each ear, hair follicles. And those traits do not appear in reptiles, fish, or (thankfully) maple trees.

Grouping living species according to many thousands of such traits consistently gives the same "tree of life". Such amazing consistency is powerful evidence supporting the hypothesis of a common ancestor that recursively split into separate species (bifurcating descent). Once a branch of the tree in the distant past produces a new trait, e.g., 4-chambered heart, that trait can pass down to all the descendants on down to present day animal species.

As I've said before, God can do whatever she wants, but as far as biological traits go, she seems adamant about following the pattern that common descent predicts.

A simple tree example:http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/l ... hies.shtml

A "more information than you wanted" tree example: http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/data/tol

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 19908
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino
Has liked: 173 times
Been liked: 961 times

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

#23

Post by RickD » Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:12 pm

She wrote:
For example, having mammary glands predicts having other traits: 4-chambered heart, 3 ossicles in each ear, hair follicles. And those traits do not appear in reptiles, fish, or (thankfully) maple trees.
Which also fits into a creation model. Mammals have similar traits, so they would be grouped together. The tree groups life forms with similar traits together, because they're similar. And they could very well be similar because in general, all mammals have similar traits because they were created that way for a purpose.

The way life is grouped in the tree just shows that similar life is similar, right?
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Proinsias
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:09 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Scotland
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

#24

Post by Proinsias » Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:48 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote:Consider the theory of evolution as a reasonable explanation for the variety of life the problem first is that the theory of evolution has always been about life evolving.I don't think anybody denies the variety of life as we can see it but this is just the different kinds of life reproducing the same kind of life.Dogs are a great example of variety of life and variations of reproduction but dogs produce dogs with no evidence of them evolving into some other kind of life.It is the same with Darwin's finches they are still finches and no signs of evolving. I'm looking for evidence life evolves and haven't found any.Dogs were bread from wolves long before Darwin so animal breeders were already aware of variations in reproduction and they can even breed for specific traits but your still going to have a dog and I do not understand how this became evidence for the theory life evolves.
What to you convinces you life evolves,what have I overlooked?
I suspect you've not overlooked much. I find Darwin's account of generational change and variety alongside the selective pressures of the environment reasonable, the examples of dog breeding you mentioned illustrates this nicely; if we select for particular characteristics over several generations we can see inheritance in action in the variety of dog breeds out there, we see that small differences can be capitalized upon and exaggerated. Mendel's pea experiments gives us a more formal method for predicting the ratios in which certain traits will appear from a breeding pair. We can observe a few generations of pea plants then trace dominant and recessive characteristics, or find those which contrast or compliment each other. The account of both Darwin and Mendel, in attempting to explain small differences in the form of finch beaks or flower colour in peas from parent to offspring, requires a mechanism.

The mechanism Francis & Crick stumbled upon was DNA. Beyond giving us a physical mechanism with which to explain the inheritance models already given to us by Mendel it united the life sciences in a common language. Beyond tracing a line from parent to offspring it quickly became obvious that huge swathes of life were operating on largely similar DNA, the general logic being that if parent and offspring can be said to be related by simply looking at the DNA then almost all life as we know it can be said to be related on the basis of it's DNA too.
Kurieuo wrote:Proinsias, I'd be interested to know your views as to what the theory of evolution encompasses for you.

That is, are you more in line with a gradualism like Darwinian evolution, or something like punctuated equilibrium after Eldredge and Gould?

What mechanisms do you see as evidenced and/or necessary for life to have diversified as it has?
Erm, I'll have a bit of both.

Once we get to the point of persisting replicating cells I don't have too much difficultly in imagining organelles and multi-cellular organisms on the cards and then the sky's the limit just depending on how you stack 'em, sexual reproduction opens up more opportunity for novel combinations. I find the time scales a little tough to deal with, the pace of evolution as the current theory stands is rather tedious but it does seem to have been ticking along for quite a while. I do warm to the idea of sporadic major genetic/chromosomal upheaval creating viable monsters which then slowly adjust to their, new?, environment through more traditional Darwinian evolution but until we see it in lab, or a massive radioactive asteroid smashes into the earth's crust, it's just a pet theory.
Kurieuo wrote:Is a natural evolving required to have a common ancestor?

For example, if God made Eve from Adam's side, then is Adam Eve's ancestor?
Or would Eve needed to have specifically evolved from Adam's physical substance...

Just wondering what you all might think, Atheists included, hypothetically speaking.
I'm fine with using the term ancestor in this sort of case but the etymology of ancestry is not something I've looked into. Dolly the Sheep immediately springs to mind as a similar example, the problem with Dolly is that she had three mothers, one to provide the egg, one the nucleus and another to her carry to term. My head hurts.

abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4484
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory
Has liked: 201 times
Been liked: 155 times

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

#25

Post by abelcainsbrother » Tue Feb 03, 2015 6:31 pm

dfnj wrote:
abelcainsbrother wrote:I would like to understand why Christians should accept it as I do not see evolution in the bible and do not see enough scientific evidence to even believe life evolves and I have looked however realize my perspective can be wrong so I would like to know why Christians should accept it.
We do not see any mention of abortion in the Bible and that does not make it moral.

Obviously, Christians can ignore all science. Did you know the Earth is the center of the Universe? As a devout Christian the more interesting question is why does any Christian even care about evolution or evidence for it at all. Assume for a moment evolution is sound science with plenty of supporting evidence. As a devout Christian is your faith in God degraded by such evidence? Does the teaching of evolution in school or other people believing in evolution really matter? Your faith in God must be very weak if all it takes is some fossils and some carbon dating evidence to cause you to be so alarmed. An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake fossil and carbon dating evidence
.
I have a theory the Universe was actually created by female God. Life is full of suffering. And since women make men suffer, ergo, God is a women. Just because the evidence exists doesn't mean anything. Our faith in God does not require evidence. Or at least my faith in God does not require evidence. I could care less about evolution. My faith in God must be stronger than yours.
How strong can anyone's faith in God be? I think the strongest faith anyone can have in God is the belief that when we die God will use his infinite powers of love and forgiveness to let each and every person pass through the gates of heaven regardless of our earthly sins. I think most people conclude living a moral life now is more important than the afterlife anyway since it seems more relevant. I think after we die we will be too busy looking into the face of God, mesmerized and enamored, that we will not have any time to have any concious thoughts or even care to do so which by definition is eternal bliss. So which one are you going to choose: Evolution matters, God is a woman, faith in God, and/or eternal bliss?[/quoI'm wrong
You may not need evidence for your faith but faith is not blind our bible tells us.You know God loves everybody and wants to reach lost people and there are a lot of lost people that believe evolution science makes the bible wrong and yet if evolution is not true they are decieved and so it is up to us to shed light on the truth and to show how little evidence there really is for evolution.Even Christians who have accepted evolution cannot take the bible as literal and yet you don't seem to care if they are deceived,while I do.

Now I reject evolution but I am trying to give those who accept it a chance to correct me if I'm wrong about this and so far I don't see evidence and good reasons to change my mind about it.All I see is them preaching evolution is true to them.
You know people will go to hell if they reject Jesus because they believed evolution was true and I want to try to reach them with the truth.I know not everybody can be reached but we should try and let God do the rest.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9659
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 590 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

#26

Post by Kurieuo » Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:04 pm

Thanks Morny, I appreciate your direct responses to my questions.
Morny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:I do wonder whether by "common ancestry" many do believe that necessitates a natural evolving from an ancestor.
Interestingly, if it does, then it can't be used as evidence for evolution because it kind of becomes a circular tautology.

So I expect that by "common ancestry" most just means a shared biology of sorts.
At least, that to me seems the most logically coherent view.

And so evidence for "common ancestry" is just as much evidence for evolution, as it is evidence for God making use of previously biological templates.

If scientists just saw shared biological templates (I'm trying to use your terminology) among living species, then I don't see a flaw in your reasoning, i.e., preferring common descent to any of the various creationist models would be a matter of faith, not science.

But the evidence supporting common descent includes one more absolutely crucial point, viz., those species share biological "templates" according to one objective nested hierarchy, or much more loosely speaking, "the tree of life".

For example, having mammary glands predicts having other traits: 4-chambered heart, 3 ossicles in each ear, hair follicles. And those traits do not appear in reptiles, fish, or (thankfully) maple trees.

Grouping living species according to many thousands of such traits consistently gives the same "tree of life". Such amazing consistency is powerful evidence supporting the hypothesis of a common ancestor that recursively split into separate species (bifurcating descent). Once a branch of the tree in the distant past produces a new trait, e.g., 4-chambered heart, that trait can pass down to all the descendants on down to present day animal species.

As I've said before, God can do whatever she wants, but as far as biological traits go, she seems adamant about following the pattern that common descent predicts.

A simple tree example:http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/l ... hies.shtml

A "more information than you wanted" tree example: http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/data/tol
As I'm understanding you, you're saying what we have is not just shared "biological templates" if-you-will.
Rather lifeforms look to have pattern of actually being tied into each other, rather than two lifeforms simply making use of the same biological code.

To be of my own beliefs, it is not that God created a "biological template" that stands on its own --
that God then took this template and built two new life forms from it.

Rather, it would be more that the ancestor of two species is the "biological template" if you will.
So God takes something pre-existing, adds to it and moulds some brand new life.

So whereas Naturalists believe all the mechanisms to be natural,
I'd say a driving mechanism for new biological information and function is intervention.
Something new being created from what already existed plus God's added input and tweaking.


Previously, my view was that God created every new "species" (however we define such) in essentially ex nihilo fashion.
I found endogenous retroviruses to be quite powerful evidence for common descent, such that it had me searching for answers.
Over the years as new knowledge became available, transposable elements (which ERVs are) do not randomly insert themselves but appear to attach to hotspots in the genome. Further, they actually appear to serve a purpose to protect. Therefore it seems to be that while apparently "random" it seems purposeful design is more suggestive.

That said, when first presented to me, ERVs challenged my previously held beliefs on how God created.
Then, I read an article by Rich Deem discussing pseudogenes. His words challenged me further.
Challenged me because he didn't see God's method of creation as God just creating brand new from nothing previous.
Rich Deem wrote:Evolutionists' assumptions about God
Does the presence of pseudogenes eliminate the possibility that God created life? To come to this conclusion, there are some assumptions that are implicit in the evolutionists' argument. The first assumption is that God would only create new creatures by producing an entirely new copy of DNA. In other words, DNA would be expected to be completely redesigned from any previously existing organism. Is this the way God works? We know from science that the Sun is a second generation star - formed from the remains of a supernova. For this reason, the Solar System is highly metal enriched, which is required for the existence of life on earth.11 Therefore, God does reuse material when designing "new" structures. When Jesus made wine at the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee (John 2:1-11), He did not begin with nothing or air, but began with water. Part of the water was changed into alcohol, but greater than 80% of the original water was unchanged. When God brings a person to salvation, He does not change the genetics or physical makeup of the individual. The person remains in the same body - often a body that has been ravaged by the effects of a lifetime of sinful behavior.

A good analogy in the design of a genetic code is the design of computer programs. I do a significant amount of computer programming as part of my job. When I write programs, I always reuse sections of code in the new programs. I do not begin by writing an entire program from scratch. This would be silly, and highly inefficient. The computer program consists of the GUI (graphical user interface) and the code that performs the actual computations. This is analogous to biological organisms. The GUI is the phenotype (the way the organism looks) and the code that performs the computations is the biochemical pathways. If one Designer created all biological organisms, we would expect to see similar genetic code for both phenotype and biochemical pathways. This is a good argument in favor of monotheism as opposed to polytheism.

A creationary model for genetic similarity
The Bible says that God created humans from the dust of the earth.12 This statement suggests that humans were designed from preexisting material. I propose that part of this "dust" consists of the genetic code of previously existing organisms. If you were going to create a new species of primate, you would begin with primate DNA. This DNA would be altered to form the unique characteristics of the new species. I believe that this is the method that God used to create new species of life on earth. How does this differ from evolution driven through natural selection and how can you distinguish the two methods? Naturalistic evolution could, in theory, produce some of the changes in structures that would account for some of the phenotypic differences observed between the old and new species. However, evolution is unable to account for the design of new structures. Even more of a problem are the ravages of mutation on the genomes of organisms.13 Mutation, the mechanism by which evolutionary change is proposed to occur, most often has no effect upon the fitness of an organism. In humans, these "neutral" mutations occur at a rate of 2.6 mutations per person per generation. However, deleterious mutations occur at a rate of 1.6 mutations per person per generation. Although these deleterious mutations are usually recessive (not expressed unless there are two copies), they will accumulate in the gene pool over time. Decreases in population size leads to the expression of these deleterious mutations through inbreeding, which seriously affects the fitness of the species. In fact, this is the mechanism by which species go extinct. Because of the small amount of genetic variation among humans, evolutionists have proposed that the human species went through a population bottleneck in the recent past. However, such a bottleneck would lead to expression of deleterious mutations, which would further drive down the population numbers, leading to extinction. I believe that God created humans by editing primate DNA - adding new features and removing the deleterious mutations of this DNA template. If evolution were the mechanism by which species arose, deleterious mutations would continue to accumulate as new species evolved. This mechanism would lead to ever increasingly defective DNA through the biological history of the earth. How does this creationary model relate to pseudogenes? Since pseudogenes are not deleterious, I believe that God left them in the genome as part of the filler DNA required to maintain chromosome structure and function.
You know in my older creation beliefs, I assumed God just created new life from "nothing or air" (so I think Rich unfairly limits such an idea to just those who accept evolution).
The rest of the article though -- the way Rich described God actually creating -- is something I had to think on for a while. I suppose it felt suspect.
Why did God do it that way? Like I suppose how YECs don't understand why God took millions of years, rather than 6 days.

And then it just started making so much sense.
There is a certain romantic view to God tying all life together.
For example, creating man from dust and taking a part of the man and forming the woman from it.
It also evidences a much more personal God, delighting in His creation. As the ultimate Artist shouldn't we expect such?
And then, well there are evidences in the physical world that I believe a strong suggestive of an intelligent mechanism being required to got from A to B. (but I won't mention them here, at least not for now, because I'm just wanting to impart greater insight into these creation beliefs.)

SO, getting back to my original question.
Is this common descent?
I think it is so.

Evolutionary trees or cladograms could equally describe God's order of creation, what pre-existing life God drew from when bringing about something brand new.
God could also make use of multiple parts of "previous lifeforms" in creating new life. You know, traits often associated with "convergent" evolution (however unlikely such might have been).
So scientists get all confused along certain branches because they're looking for 1:1 relationships rather than many to one.
Kind of like Dolly the Sheep huh? Which you said had three mothers. Which one is she descended from? Well actually many.

Now my brain is starting to hurt too. I never thought it that far through before -- many to one.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

Danieltwotwenty
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:01 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Aussie Land
Has liked: 37 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

#27

Post by Danieltwotwenty » Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:29 pm

That is really interesting stuff K, and it is a line of thought I have not explored before.

Can I ask a question and I hope it's not a stupid one but my mind is lingering on it, when did God stop creating new creatures, was that on the seventh day or did the creation process continue again after?
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9659
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 590 times
Been liked: 611 times

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

#28

Post by Kurieuo » Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:38 pm

Danieltwotwenty wrote:That is really interesting stuff K, and it is a line of thought I have not explored before.

Can I ask a question and I hope it's not a stupid one but my mind is lingering on it, when did God stop creating new creatures, was that on the seventh day or did the creation process continue again after?
Well, new life is created every day via procreation and the like that I see God sustains (since I see God sustains everything in existence).
It may even be modified, perhaps through our own engineering, or adaptations (like resistances being built up) and the like.

But, creativity-wise, I see God stopped intervening after humanity.
Unless I'm mistaken, that's what I read from both science and Scripture.

May I ask what about your question was making your mind linger?
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3559
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 226 times
Been liked: 104 times
Contact:

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

#29

Post by neo-x » Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:41 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
Danieltwotwenty wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Is a natural evolving required to have a common ancestor?

For example, if God made Eve from Adam's side, then is Adam Eve's ancestor?
Or would Eve needed to have specifically evolved from Adam's physical substance...

Just wondering what you all might think, Atheists included, hypothetically speaking.
I think the Adam and Eve story is just using poetic language to describe how when a man and woman come together that they are complete. I don't read it literally as what happened.
That wasn't my question.

Please clear your mind of any sort of argument being made.
I just want your take (and Proinsias' or others) on what "common ancestry" entails.

Let me put the question another way.
If God takes some homo sapien and uses that -- its biological code and the like -- when forming modern humans...
and then God takes that same homo sapien and uses that when forming chimpanzees...

Do we humans share the same ancestor with chimps,
or does common ancestry necessitate that human and chimps naturally evolved?
I know you asked Daniel but i just wanted to address this. We share a common ancestor, which was neither human nor chimp.
One designer, I think you'd expect similar designs... and an efficient designer re-use of designs.
And, there is such diversity, symbiosis and the like -- how much diversity should there be?

Have you also not read about Eldredge and Gould? There are known gaps according to them and others who share their thoughts.
If true, than Darwinian evolution is inadequate to account as the sole ToE. Something like a punctuated evolution also has to be true too.

Anyway, turning back to my own questions.
If I think about them, shared biological information (common ancestry?) doesn't solely support a natural evolutionary scenario.
From One human designer I'd expect similar designs for the sake of efficiency the designer should use templates. But efficiency is a very human construct, and my contention is that God doesn't need to be efficient to save time. I used to program code and I do graphics now and we pull a lot of stuff from templates we have already created instead of making things again. But it makes no sense to me as to why God needs to do that? Is he on a deadline? Is he on a budget? because I am when I do that. Its not only a matter of reusing templates its there so we can save time, meet deadlines, save our selves some trouble.
If God takes some homo sapien and uses that -- its biological code and the like -- when forming modern humans...
and then God takes that same homo sapien and uses that when forming chimpanzees...
The thing is anything is possible in a "scenario" with God involved in it so thinking about these scenarios is really not fruitful. I mean the term "God COULD have" is very vague, abstract and meaningless construct. The question is, did God actually do things like that?

Consider this, your child has half of his/her chromosomes from you, half from his mother. Can I say he has your genes? yes in a very superficial way that can be said. Why? because he doesn't have your genes per se. Because your genes are also, like your child, came from your father and mother. So your child actually has a mixture of genes given to you by your parents. But wait, your father got his share from his parents and your mother got her genes from her parents. So really you have your paternal grandparents and your maternal grandparents genes in you. And your child has all that from your side plus he also has the same 4 grandparents genes from here mother side as well since his mother also has parents who in turn have grandparents both maternal and paternal. So now technically your child's genes are a mixture of genes from at least 8 individuals...but wait the 8 grandparents we are talking about also had parents and then in turn grandparents, so basically your child has the genes which are mixture of more people you can count on your fingers, to begin with that is.

So your child gene is something which has come to it through common ancestry. Would you agree? And if you do then I suggest you go back more, to a point where if I compare your child's genes to your great grandfather, you will see similar dna, similar genes. Not because its designed and used the same way in you and your child but because its being transferred from one individual to another through reproduction.

I then would say that pick up human and chimp dna, and you have 96% similar genes, infact there are places where if you remove the labels and put the human dna chart and chimp together you will not find any difference and will not be able to tell which is human and which is not.

It actually makes sense because the populations speciated at a point where they still retain 90+ percent of the dna which is the same, which in turn tells us that both humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor population since both chimps and humans genes are not made up their own, its a mixture of genes from their ancestors, their parent populations, just like your child.

The thing to note here is, no one has their own dna. Everyone is getting it from parents populations

how do we know its true? because we see it happening everyday. dna being transferred. The mechanism is true, observable, verifiable, testable.

That is why I said, if you accept inches then why not miles? But putting hyperbole aside. The mechanism proves common ancestory, there is no warrant to claim similar designs, common designer because we already have a working model which does more than that. It shows how how genes come to us and how just trace that back and you get to point where your dna is 96% same with chimp and further back 50% the same in a banana. So instead of saying God could have done that, we can choose to see that there is a better solution which does not leave things in vague terms like similar blueprints, but what we can actually map.

Showing again that life evolved through common ancestry. Just like your child has a common ancestory. All things alive on this planet have a common ancestory. To the first dna molecule.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

Danieltwotwenty
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:01 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Aussie Land
Has liked: 37 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Evidence for theistic evolution

#30

Post by Danieltwotwenty » Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:47 pm

Kurieuo wrote:
Danieltwotwenty wrote:That is really interesting stuff K, and it is a line of thought I have not explored before.

Can I ask a question and I hope it's not a stupid one but my mind is lingering on it, when did God stop creating new creatures, was that on the seventh day or did the creation process continue again after?
Well, new life is created every day via procreation and the like that I see God sustains (since I see God sustains everything in existence).
It may even be modified, perhaps through our own engineering, or adaptations (like resistances being built up) and the like.

But, creativity-wise, I see God stopped intervening after humanity.
Unless I'm mistaken, that's what I read from both science and Scripture.

May I ask what about your question was making your mind linger?
I just wondered if there was any dating evidence that shows us new animals coming into being in the fossil record that can be proved to be after humans had been created, if there has been then this puts this line of thinking into some question.
Do you see what I am trying to say?

Can anyone enlighten us on this question?
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.

Post Reply