Evolution

[Avesther]

Which aspects?

Evolution is happening today on microscopic, small, medium, large and grand scales. Resistant strains of bacteria and how HIV\Aids works to how species are being displaced or endangered due to changes in their environment such as deforestation, wildfires or the introduction of new predictors or prey. Mankind is evolving as well. No, we are not gaining a third arm but as a species, are we the really the same beast as we were 50, 100, 1000, 3000, 5000 years ago?

In Banff National Park, a person inadvertently introduced tropic fish into the ecosystem. They managed to survive and flourish in the high sulfur content hot springs which is not their natural habitat. I am sure God created the fish and God created the mechanisms to allow the fish to evolve to their new habitat.

We humans have evolved over the centuries. Take a look at how we communicate today compared to 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago. Long gone are the days of eloquent writing, proper grammar and spelling. Even as I write this, I rely on spell checker to nab words that I have either never learned to spell or have long since forgotten to spell. Either way, in this day and age of Googling everything, to think this does not have an impact on how we use our brains and our children use their brains and what gets sent down the reproduction line to our grand and great grand children is a foolish thought. All aspects of human life has changed and evolved throughout history. Some of it was us making changes and a good part of it was done naturally. Our family unit and it's function within society has evolved. As we became less reliant on family farms our family sizes shrunk. As we invented technology, even our body's changed. Think of the average American who drives to the gym compared to the average African who has to run 10 miles every day to get the newspaper and drop off and receive mail and go to school or to get to the next farm.

Compare again the bodies of the Inuit to those who live in Florida. While both human, each subset of people have evolved habits and diets and means and ways to survive their surroundings which would not necessarily work else where. You would not live as long as the Inuit do living as an Inuit does in Florida. And vise versa.

We are a product of many things, including our environment. Some of that which we are a product of is by choice, some of it is not. Some of it is by necessity and some of it is by our experience. I know from personal experience, as a Canadian, used to cooler temperatures and not doing very well in the hotter temperatures, having spend time in Las Vegas, Phoenix and Yuma, I adapted (or evolved) to the change in temperature. I'm sure if I had to move to Phoenix that my body would evolve to living in a climate so radically different then mine where Winter temperatures are still warmer then my summer temperatures.

 

[Wolfeman]

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny


You are talking about adaptation. Not evolution.

 

[Avesther]

ev·o·lu·tion (v-lshn, v-)
n.
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny


You are talking about adaptation. Not evolution.

Not really. Darwinism is defined as the theory of evolution by natural selection of those species best adapted to survive the struggle for existence.

I think in this case, adapting and evolution are pretty much interchangeable.


Besides, nothing really fits the "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form" except for birth, going from 2 cells, through embryo to fetus.

 

[Patriot]

Evolution is happening today on microscopic, small, medium, large and grand scales.

Okay, but all the examples you give are of adaptation, not evolution. Give me examples of evolution.

Resistant strains of bacteria and how HIV\Aids works to how species are being displaced or endangered due to changes in their environment such as deforestation, wildfires or the introduction of new predictors or prey.

Actually, species becoming endangered is an example of not being able to adapt. . .
Resistant bacteria already existed, it is just becoming more dominant as we kill off the non-resistant strains.

Mankind is evolving as well. No, we are not gaining a third arm but as a species, are we the really the same beast as we were 50, 100, 1000, 3000, 5000 years ago?

"Beast" isn't quite the word I would use. But yes, I believe we are the same being. What has changed? All your examples describe temporary changes to adapt to an environment.

In Banff National Park, a person inadvertently introduced tropic fish into the ecosystem. They managed to survive and flourish in the high sulfur content hot springs which is not their natural habitat. I am sure God created the fish and God created the mechanisms to allow the fish to evolve to their new habitat.

That isn't evolution. Obviously, the fish already had to have the ability to survive in the sulfuric water or it would have died when it was introduced. Over time it may have become more resistant to the negative effects, but the ability had to be there in the first place.

We humans have evolved over the centuries. Take a look at how we communicate today compared to 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago. Long gone are the days of eloquent writing, proper grammar and spelling. Even as I write this, I rely on spell checker to nab words that I have either never learned to spell or have long since forgotten to spell.

Communication methods evolving and humans evolving are two different things.

Either way, in this day and age of Googling everything, to think this does not have an impact on how we use our brains and our children use their brains and what gets sent down the reproduction line to our grand and great grand children is a foolish thought.

Okay, indulge my foolishness for a minute then. The human brain is the same size it was 50 years ago. My knowledge that I gain before I have children is not passed on through the genetic code - it must be taught to the child. Why would this have any impact on brain size/capacity/function? A person with brain trauma who has a child does not produce a child with brain trauma. Your genetic code is what you were dealt when you were born, what you do during your life (with the exception of your choice of spouse) is not going to effect your offspring.

All aspects of human life has changed and evolved throughout history. Some of it was us making changes and a good part of it was done naturally. Our family unit and it's function within society has evolved. As we became less reliant on family farms our family sizes shrunk.

This has no bearing on evolution within organisms or species.

As we invented technology, even our body's changed. Think of the average American who drives to the gym compared to the average African who has to run 10 miles every day to get the newspaper and drop off and receive mail and go to school or to get to the next farm.

This is just physiological changes. If I start running every day for the next 10 years my body will change. This is not an example of evolution.

Compare again the bodies of the Inuit to those who live in Florida. While both human, each subset of people have evolved habits and diets and means and ways to survive their surroundings which would not necessarily work else where. You would not live as long as the Inuit do living as an Inuit does in Florida. And vise versa.

There is such a thing as resistances that are built up from birth. Resistances to bacteria and food types. This is an example of differing resistances, not evolution.

We are a product of many things, including our environment. Some of that which we are a product of is by choice, some of it is not. Some of it is by necessity and some of it is by our experience. I know from personal experience, as a Canadian, used to cooler temperatures and not doing very well in the hotter temperatures, having spend time in Las Vegas, Phoenix and Yuma, I adapted (or evolved) to the change in temperature. I'm sure if I had to move to Phoenix that my body would evolve to living in a climate so radically different then mine where Winter temperatures are still warmer then my summer temperatures.

But what impact does this have on a species? Your body is not changing in such a way that the change is permanent. The limited ability to change (adapt) to certain circumstances, not the change itself, is being passed on to future generations as it has for thousands of years.

 

[Avesther]

There are many parts within the Theory of Evolution and Darwinism that I outright reject (takes God out of the picture) and others parts that make sense and is compatible with God.

How is it that you feel you need me to explain something I have quite plainly in black and white stated in a previous post that I have rejected? Or did you simply assume out of hand that I believed in evolution? And if that was the case, what in my over 9,000 posts and 10 years of belonging to this community has even ever given rise to that perception?

Thinking evolution is merely the concept of growing an extra thumb is a narrow minded view of reality. And thinking in such terms actually takes away from the greater discussion. Adaptation and evolution are not so separate and distinct as you might think it is. Positive adaptations become the norm and negative ones drop by the way side. Our evolution is defined by our adapting to our environment, not some random factor that takes God out of the equation.

Just in case you missed it, let me reiterate:

There are many parts within the Theory of Evolution and Darwinism that I outright reject (takes God out of the picture) and others parts that make sense and is compatible with God.

Now, in my mind, I have given you all the answers to every question you asked, and quite well to. I have given thorough examples of guided evolution based on necessity, not based on randomness. My position explains how a God can create long hair and short hair dogs and why you will not find Chihuahua's naturally in Greenland. All though you can find them if a family brought one to Greenland as a pet. I have explained why you can let loose a herd of horses on Greenland a hundred years ago and today, that herd has grown and evolved (adapted) to living there.

And yes, even communication is part of evolution. Even the staunchest non-creationist evolutionist must explain how we came about our means of communications using evolutionary science. I simply expanded it to show how it is guided based on necessity. And in all honesty, if you don't think how we communicate does not have an affect on how the brain develops in future generations, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Patriot]

How is it that you feel you need me to explain something I have quite plainly in black and white stated in a previous post that I have rejected?

I asked you to explain a statement you made. Then I countered your explanation. If you don't want to explain your statements that is your business, but I personally think people should be able to back up the statements they make.

Or did you simply assume out of hand that I believed in evolution? And if that was the case, what in my over 9,000 posts and 10 years of belonging to this community has even ever given rise to that perception?

Relax. Your post count and length of tenure have nothing to do with this conversation. I asked you to clarify a statement you made.

Thinking evolution is merely the concept of growing an extra thumb is a narrow minded view of reality. And thinking in such terms actually takes away from the greater discussion.

Well I happen to be a very narrow-minded fellow. And I'm okay with that. But I also do not relegate evolution to simply growing an extra thumb.

Adaptation and evolution are not so separate and distinct as you might think it is. Positive adaptations become the norm and negative ones drop by the way side. Our evolution is defined by our adapting to our environment, not some random factor that takes God out of the equation.

I disagree.

Now, in my mind, I have given you all the answers to every question you asked, and quite well to.

Actually, you ignored my entire last post except to take offense to the fact that I disagreed with you. But you are under no obligation to answer any questions I might pose.

I have given thorough examples of guided evolution based on necessity, not based on randomness.

Again, I must disagree. You pointed out temporary adaptations that have no impact on "evolution" of a particular species.

My position explains how a God can create long hair and short hair dogs and why you will not find Chihuahua's naturally in Greenland. All though you can find them if a family brought one to Greenland as a pet. I have explained why you can let loose a herd of horses on Greenland a hundred years ago and today, that herd has grown and evolved (adapted) to living there.

Did I miss something? I don't recall a post mentioning Greenland or Chihuahua's. Perhaps I didn't track far enough back in this thread?

And yes, even communication is part of evolution. Even the staunchest non-creationist evolutionist must explain how we came about our means of communications using evolutionary science. I simply expanded it to show how it is guided based on necessity.

I disagree.

And in all honesty, if you don't think how we communicate does not have an affect on how the brain develops in future generations, you are sadly mistaken.

Then I remain sadly mistaken (in your eyes). The brain develops based on it's environment (and the genetic code). Remove the communication medium in question and the brain will go back to the way it developed before. Not really evolution, more of a response to stimuli.

 

[Avesther]

Lets start at the beginning then:

What is your definition of Evolution?

And how would you go about explaining variations within a kind?


At least that way, we can see if we are talking about the same thing.

 

[Cool_Hand_Luke]

Why Christianity is diametrically opposed to Darwinian Evolution.

Darwinian Evolution is dependent upon survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest requires the death of something. The Bible says that death was first introduced in the Garden after Adam rebelled and ate from the tree of knowledge. Thus we have two opposing viewpoints about the issue of death. Darwinian Evolution insists that death is the natural response to survival of the fittest. The stronger animals kill the weaker animals, the death of something. The Bible states that death came through Adam’s sin. Both cannot be true. In logic, the Law of Excluded Middle demands that one of these diametrically opposed viewpoints is true and the other is false.

In logic, the law of excluded middle is the third of the so-called three classic laws of thought. It states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is. The earliest known formulation of the principle is in the book “On Interpretation” by Aristotle, where he says that of two contradictory propositions (i.e. where one proposition is the negation of the other) one must be true, and the other false.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Rom 5:17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.

This is why a Christian cannot believe in Darwinian Evolution. A Christian is saved by Jesus (the Christ/Messiah) dying on the cross for their sins, because sin brings forth death and separation from God. If death from Adam’s sin did not occur in Genesis around 6 thousand years ago, then the whole purpose for Jesus’ coming was for not.

1Co 15:17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!

The issue of death is a deal breaker for the Christian who believes in Darwinian Evolution. You cannot believe the Bible and Darwinian Evolution. To do so is to deny the very purpose for which Jesus came.

1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.
1Jn 2:23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

 

[Patriot]

Lets start at the beginning then:

What is your definition of Evolution?

And how would you go about explaining variations within a kind?


At least that way, we can see if we are talking about the same thing.

I find it best to go to the people who believe in such a thing to get the proper definition.

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

From Here

As for variations in a kind, I believe that there is the ability to adapt based upon breeding and/or external conditions. I do not believe that there is evidence of animals "evolving" from one kind to another.

In one sense, I believe in a limited form of evolution (within a kind).

 

[Skibabinz]

I suppose my last post came off a bit worse than I would have liked. Personally, I've came to the conclusion after praying, worrying, praying some more and just finally realizing that even if I believe the Earth is billions of years old, and we evolved from a common ancestor as primates, that I can still be a God fearing, Bible believing Christian like anyone. So I guess I'll take a moment to sort of lay out my stance on the subject, and if anyone agrees or disagrees, either is fine with me. What is most important to me is that we remain brothers and sisters in Christ, and lets face it, siblings tend to argue.

So here is my stance:
> I do believe in evolution, but I think we have evolved to the point God wanted us to be at.
> I believe Adam and Eve were literal people. I believe that they were among the first, if not the first humans God blessed with a soul as we know it today. I believe that human sin began with Adam and Eve, probably by doing something that God didn't want them to.
> I believe that given the evidence presented to us, no matter what conclusion one comes to, as long as we maintain that God created us, Jesus is his son and our Lord and Savior, then that is that.
> I also believe the death that didn't happen until Adam's first sin is not a physical death, but a spiritual death. I believe this lines up with being a "Born again Christian", as we rise up from the sinful death to be born anew in the eyes of God.

So yea, that's my position. I have absolutely no issue with any other Christians beliefs, because I feel that despite how we interpret God's word, we are still brothers and sisters in Christ, and that is the most important thing of all.

God bless guys.

 

[Durruck]

I do believe in evolution, but I think we have evolved to the point God wanted us to be at.
> I believe Adam and Eve were literal people. I believe that they were among the first, if not the first humans God blessed with a soul as we know it today. I believe that human sin began with Adam and Eve, probably by doing something that God didn't want them to.

I'm confused. Are you using evolved to mean changes within a species, or changing from one species to the next? That is, was Adam created as the Bible says, or do you believe that Adam was Cro-Magnon 1?

 

[Skibabinz]

I'm confused. Are you using evolved to mean changes within a species, or changing from one species to the next? That is, was Adam created as the Bible says, or do you believe that Adam was Cro-Magnon 1?

Both in a way. I'm referring to enough changes in a species to where say on "year 100,000" the future generations genetic code had changed enough to where they wouldn't have been able to produce offspring with a member of the group their ancestors came from in "year 1". As far as Adam goes, I believe he was among, if not the first human to be given a soul as we know it today, kind of like a graduation from beast to man. I also believe that Eve was his wife/girlfriend/companion, what have you, and due to them doing something, be it eating the forbidden fruit or what, due to temptation from satan, mankind became the sinners we are.

 

[Durruck]

As far as Adam goes, I believe he was among, if not the first human to be given a soul as we know it today, kind of like a graduation from beast to man.

Okay, that brings up another question. How does that fit in with the Creation accounts? Or do you follow a less literal interpretation?

So God created man in His own image;
He created him in the image of God;
He created them male and female. (Gen 1:27, HCSB)

Then the LORD God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being. (Gen 2:7, HCSB)

I won't even delve into the yom/day discussion - I want to stick with the very moment of when "man" was first "man"

 

[Skibabinz]

Okay, that brings up another question. How does that fit in with the Creation accounts? Or do you follow a less literal interpretation?



I won't even delve into the yom/day discussion - I want to stick with the very moment of when "man" was first "man"

Less literal.

 

[Patriot]

Which begs the question, at what point does the narrative change from allegorical to literal? Or do you believe all of Pentateuch to be allegorical?

 

[Skibabinz]

Which begs the question, at what point does the narrative change from allegorical to literal? Or do you believe all of Pentateuch to be allegorical?

I don't see a real "point" in which this is taken literal, and that is taken allegorical. I see it as how you interpret it, and really I don't see how my view is any different than say what a Baptist Preacher might think of a Catholic Priests view, or a Presbyterian might think of a Mormon. What I feel is important is that we fully accept that God is our heavenly father who loves us so much that he sent his only son, Jesus, to die for our sins, and that by Jesus' blood we are set free. As Jesus said himself, "I am the way, the truth, and the life", and I hold that more firmly than anything. Everything else is up to interpretation.

 

[Patriot]

I don't see a real "point" in which this is taken literal, and that is taken allegorical.

I don't understand. It has to be one or the other, doesn't it?

 

[Wolfeman]

I believe the issue is where do you draw the line between literal and allegorical.

The events laid out in Genesis have been argued to be 6 literal days and (to me) seem to show no signs of being allegorical. You claim Genesis to not be literal so that it fits the evolution model better. We are just wondering how you used the text and the Bible to come to that conclusion.

If I just decided what is and isn't literal based upon my heart and feelings then what is to stop me from reading John 14:6 and deciding he's just being allegorical. That I can come to the Father by good works, baptism, repentance or just really wanting to.

There is a lot of allegorical, signs and types in the Bible. But we need to be ready to give an answer to why we hold to a certain viewpoint. If you truly believe the Bible describes evolution in an allegorical way, we would like to know why so we can better understand the Bible as well. If you don't know why you believe the way you do, but it just seems right, we urge you to study and ask questions so you can better understand your Bible. If you have merely bowed to the pressure of the world to not appear like some "uneducated backwoods christian" with 6 toes.... I urge you to grow in your faith because no man puts a light under a basket.

Evolution is a side point to Christian Faith and Belief. Individual belief on the issue does not determine whether you go to Heaven or Hell when you die. It is something we can agree to disagree on. It does however shape other areas of our belief and when taken to it's conclusion in a maturing Christian, it affects a great many other areas of our Christian walk and relationship to Him.

 

[Patriot]

with 6 toes

Oddly enough, 6 toes (or 12 if you count both feet) does run on my mother's side of the family. It appears that she did not get the gene or pass it on to any of her children. So perhaps I'm not that far removed from being the backwoods uneducated Christian. . .

 

[Wolfeman]

I used that description because I've actually seen it used as an insult towards Christians once. Didn't mean to describe you personally...