Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[ArtieE]

You might not think there is evidence for an Intelligent Creator...but the evidence is not there for macro-evolution either. So as far as I can see, you have a belief system just like I have.

Suppose all evolutionists started to believe in some Intelligent Creator and dropped evolution. Then what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course I was personally designed and created by a god. The chances of me existing by chance are basically zero. The Odds Of You Being Alive Are Incredibly Small

Excellent example that an inability to understand odds is not evidence for magic.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Of course I was personally designed and created by a god. The chances of me existing by chance are basically zero. The Odds Of You Being Alive Are Incredibly Small

Just think, some other cad could be enjoying, or not, my wonderful life - hahahahahahahahahaha - I got here first!

 

[metis]

You aren't looking for evidence that species change.

You need evidence that species change gradually.

The evolutionary process ain't "pretty", with some species evolving more rapidly, so more slowly, some going extinct.

With my anthro students, I used the expression "mosaic evolution", which I borrowed from a biologist, and it works this way: "a species is made up of many different groups, each evolving in their own way, only some of which may form new species".

To put it another way, if one is looking for consistency, "evolution" is not that area.

 

[metis]

Seriously.....do you really believe this stuff?

Paleontology is not my area, and I can assume it's not yours either, but one thing I don't do is to use my religious beliefs as a set of blinders to what should be obvious, namely the life forms evolve, usually in unpredictable ways. And since no one has shown that there's a supposed magical wall that stops the evolutionary process at some point, then denying the process of "speciation" that has been well established, which is not a mark of knowledge on this process.

As you know, I grew up in a Christian denomination who taught such ignorance and dishonesty on the subject, but it became very clear to me after a while that I was being sold the equivalence of "snake oil". I truly hope some day that you also open your eyes to what you are being fed by people who twist things and lie while collecting your money. In essence, you're paying them to be dishonest and to mislead you and others.

Life forms evolve-- period-- end of story.

 

[metis]

BTW, there was a book out roughly 40 years ago that I read that was loaned to me by a fellow educator who also was a deacon in a Southern Baptist church but who refused to "tow the company line". The book was written by another Baptist, who was also a pastor and had a t.v. ministry, and the book reflected a survey of Baptist pastors dealing with evolution that showed that most actually do accept the basic ToE but cannot come our and tell their congregations that because of fear of losing their jobs. I keep thinking that the title of the book was "Revolt of the Faithful", but I'm not sure that this is it.

Because this, I have had two sets of neighbors that were JW's whereas one of them used to give me anti-evolutionary material from the Watchtower Society, and they were largely packed with all sorts of misinformation on the subject and, I hate to say this, out-and-out lies. Stuff that even a first semester biology student in college should easily see through. Unfortunately, all that material I had collected over the years was destroyed during the Flood-- in my basement.

IMO, it is important for people to do the research before blindly believing in what they're being fed, and that applies both to us in science but also those in religion. It's easy to blame the perpetrators for being dishonest, but each of us need to take responsibility for what we are being told, and sometimes sold. In science, any dishonest conspiracy tends to be exposed sooner or later, but that is usually not true in the arena of religion. With the latter, being honest can get you fired.

 

[metis]

I don't believe in evolution and never really did. Species change is an observed fact, however.

But "species change" is "evolution".

But again, I'm not talking about species change so much as its cause and the effect of that cause on how we view religion and science.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I am the world's worst salesman. I couldn't give a bucket of water to a burning man if I threw in a wet blanket and first aid kit.

LOL! I can relate.

 

[cladking]

The evolutionary process ain't "pretty", with some species evolving more rapidly, so more slowly, some going extinct.

With my anthro students, I used the expression "mosaic evolution", which I borrowed from a biologist, and it works this way: "a species is made up of many different groups, each evolving in their own way, only some of which may form new species".

To put it another way, if one is looking for consistency, "evolution" is not that area.

"Mosaic evolution" is a superb way to describe the reality except that it omits the fact that real change, significant change, occurs in very brief periods. Your view does an excellent job of showing how genes within a species become diverse and improve the odds of survival from any given event but it's simply missing the big picture; that actual change, new species, arise from population bottlenecks. This is critically important to understand because we act on our beliefs and our belief in "natural selection" is wrong. There is no survival of the fittest and the reality does in no way excludes the concept of a Creator. It is different behavior that allows a few individuals to survive a near extinction event and breed a new species directly.

If you randomly kill off most of a member of a species then the few survivors simply will breed the exact same species. If you kill off all the sick and lame the survivors breed the same species. If you kill off most of the slower, dumber, and weaker individuals the survivors breed almost exactly the same species. To get a different species you have to kill off almost all the individuals which exhibit some specific behavior. Imagine being able to select all the beavers in the world that didn't get in water for let's say four days! The new species that came from these would be absolutely different and probably wouldn't even look like beavers. The genes that expressed themselves by not being in water would be very different than the normal beavers which are all dead.

This is the role of consciousness. It is consciousness which drove some beavers to avoid water. It is consciousness which keeps every individual beaver everywhere alive and building dams. It is consciousness which selects a mate and helps hone their hunting skills. It is consciousness that provides the will and necessity to engage in every single behavior that isn't dictated by lower brain functions.

Any "theory" of evolution that doesn't recognize individuals and consciousness is poppycock. Behavior underlies change in species, not fitness.

 

[metis]

"Mosaic evolution" is a superb way to describe the reality except that it omits the fact that real change, significant change, occurs in very brief periods.

The latter part is not true as evolutionary rates are not anything close to being a constant. Whereas humans have evolved significantly over the last several million years, this is not true of the shark, which has changed relatively little.

but it's simply missing the big picture; that actual change, new species, arise from population bottlenecks.

Population bottlenecks tend to speed up that process if that population survives, largely because smaller gene pools tend to evolve faster than larger ones due to the fact that so many mutations are carried as recessive genes.

There is no survival of the fittest and the reality does in no way excludes the concept of a Creator.

There absolutely is "survival of the fittest" at stake as long as the species survives, and this has been observed over and over again. Those that are better adapted to the environment have an advantage over those that are not.

It is consciousness that provides the will and necessity to engage in every single behavior that isn't dictated by lower brain functions.

There is no evidence of "consciousness" existing other than in life forms. However, I certainly not going so far as to say that it can't exist.

Any "theory" of evolution that doesn't recognize individuals and consciousness is poppycock. Behavior underlies change in species, not fitness.

Both behavior and fitness relate, and this has been well-established through the research. OTOH, some sort of "cosmic consciousness" has not been established as existing. Essentially, it is a religious belief that's especially found more in the eastern religions.

 

[ArtieE]

"Mosaic evolution" is a superb way to describe the reality except that it omits the fact that real change, significant change, occurs in very brief periods. Your view does an excellent job of showing how genes within a species become diverse and improve the odds of survival from any given event but it's simply missing the big picture; that actual change, new species, arise from population bottlenecks.

Macroevolution: Examples from the Primate World | Learn Science at Scitable
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[cladking]

IMO, it is important for people to do the research before blindly believing in what they're being fed, and that applies both to us in science but also those in religion. It's easy to blame the perpetrators for being dishonest, but each of us need to take responsibility for what we are being told, and sometimes sold. In science, any dishonest conspiracy tends to be exposed sooner or later, but that is usually not true in the arena of religion. With the latter, being honest can get you fired.

I'm actually in close agreement with you except I see the problem as everyone, all of us, accepting belief and seeing only what supports those beliefs.

In recent years I've discovered this hasn't always been true. Humans haven't always operated on belief preferentially to reality. We once had a language that was an animal language like Beaver that excluded all belief. Ancient Language didn't even have the word "belief" or any of its numerous synonyms. This language was able to express a huge amount of knowledge but it became increasingly complex because it was metaphysical and included all human knowledge. The human brain was incapable of manipulating it when it became too complex and it failed marking the death of ancient science and homo sapiens. The failure of this digital three dimensional language is remembered as the story of the Tower of Babel.

A new analog language was born of it as well as a new species; homo omnisciencis. But this language lacks the natural logic that allows observational science. A new science had to be invented.

Like all change the birth of homo omnisciencis was quite sudden. It began about 3200 BC when some slower people couldn't keep up with new science so a simpler pidgin form of the language was used. It was quite similar to modern language (think PIE). by 2000 BC there weren't enough Ancient Language speakers left to operate the state so the official language all over became modern language. Science still occurred in Ancient Language for some centuries but there was no communication possible except demonstration so even science became "marginalized", or at least irrelevant to most of the population. There was another dark ages after the last "Nephilim" died. The Bible is a compilation of ancient holy books many of which were attempts to translate ancient science. This is why you can see truth all through the Bible.

I believe the species (homo omniscierncis) is fast approaching another speciation event (similar to the last) and the rapidity of this one will be orders of magnitude greater. There is no certainty that we can succeed at it. But if we don't understand where we've been and what we are our chances are poor.

 

[cladking]

The latter part is not true as evolutionary rates are not anything close to being a constant. Whereas humans have evolved significantly over the last several million years, this is not true of the shark, which has changed relatively little.

I'd say this observation supports my belief. Sharks haven't "evolved" because they have encountered no bottleneck. (mebbe because there are more than dolphins for food )

Population bottlenecks tend to speed up that process if that population survives, largely because smaller gene pools tend to evolve faster than larger ones due to the fact that so many mutations are carried as recessive genes.

This is more interpretation of evidence. You could be right but my theory is not contradicted by that evidence.

There absolutely is "survival of the fittest" at stake as long as the species survives, and this has been observed over and over again. Those that are better adapted to the environment have an advantage over those that are not.

We see one rabbit becoming a meal and another escaping. We simply assume the fitter one got away but the reality is every single individual is "fit". If they become unfit they are dinner.

There is no evidence of "consciousness" existing other than in life forms. However, I certainly not going so far as to say that it can't exist.

What? Plants? Yes, plants apparently have a low level of consciousness. Indeed, I'm not convinced it's very low level since even a bacterium can have behavior.

OTOH, some sort of "cosmic consciousness" has not been established as existing. Essentially, it is a religious belief that's especially found more in the eastern religions.

There's nothing "cosmic" about consciousness. It occurs in the brain/ body of all individuals. In all animals other than homo omnisciencis it is formatted by the wiring of the individual and expressed as language.

This is only hard to see because of the nature of analog language and tradition that says animals are soulless beasts that were created to be food for us.

 

[cladking]

There absolutely is "survival of the fittest" at stake as long as the species survives, and this has been observed over and over again. Those that are better adapted to the environment have an advantage over those that are not.

No. I believe the reality is that when one rabbit survives and another lives it never has to do with "fitness". One of the rabbits was in the wrong place at the wrong time and this is a function of behavior which was caused by consciousness and not fitness.

No experiment has shown that even one rabbit has become a meal because it is "unfit". Much less that this underlies change in species.

 

[cladking]

"For if the trumpet sounds an indistinct call, who will get ready for battle? 9 In the same way, unless you with the tongue use speech that is easily understood, how will anyone know what is being said? You will, in fact, be speaking into the air. 10 It may be that there are many kinds of speech in the world, and yet no kind is without meaning. 11 For if I do not understand the sense of the speech, I will be a foreigner to the one speaking, and the one speaking will be a foreigner to me. "

Funny thing is I didn't even notice how appropriate it is to this discussion. On several levels it is very apt.

10. There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning.

I never seem to speak one others understand. Of course what I say is very difficult to believe because it essentially overturns what everyone has believed. It is language, modern analog language, which is confused and leads to belief.

7. "Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech."

Confusion has reigned supreme for 4000 years but no one even notices it.

 

[gnostic]

I'm actually in close agreement with you except I see the problem as everyone, all of us, accepting belief and seeing only what supports those beliefs.

In recent years I've discovered this hasn't always been true. Humans haven't always operated on belief preferentially to reality. We once had a language that was an animal language like Beaver that excluded all belief. Ancient Language didn't even have the word "belief" or any of its numerous synonyms. This language was able to express a huge amount of knowledge but it became increasingly complex because it was metaphysical and included all human knowledge. The human brain was incapable of manipulating it when it became too complex and it failed marking the death of ancient science and homo sapiens. The failure of this digital three dimensional language is remembered as the story of the Tower of Babel.

A new analog language was born of it as well as a new species; homo omnisciencis. But this language lacks the natural logic that allows observational science. A new science had to be invented.

Like all change the birth of homo omnisciencis was quite sudden. It began about 3200 BC when some slower people couldn't keep up with new science so a simpler pidgin form of the language was used. It was quite similar to modern language (think PIE). by 2000 BC there weren't enough Ancient Language speakers left to operate the state so the official language all over became modern language. Science still occurred in Ancient Language for some centuries but there was no communication possible except demonstration so even science became "marginalized", or at least irrelevant to most of the population. There was another dark ages after the last "Nephilim" died. The Bible is a compilation of ancient holy books many of which were attempts to translate ancient science. This is why you can see truth all through the Bible.

I believe the species (homo omniscierncis) is fast approaching another speciation event (similar to the last) and the rapidity of this one will be orders of magnitude greater. There is no certainty that we can succeed at it. But if we don't understand where we've been and what we are our chances are poor.

Wow!

What an interesting, and yet baseless fantasy.

Do you have any evidence for all these make-believe claims?

 

[cladking]

But "species change" is "evolution".

No, not really. The problem is language. No matter what I say you'll believe in "natural selection" but as soon as I use the word "evolution" you conjure up everything you know about "evolution". I'm merely using different terms so anyone can build a new taxonomy using my phrase for a file name.

Every time I use the word "ramp" related to pyramids everyone thinks of superstitious bumpkins sweating and heaving to drag stones up them. So I don't use the word "ramp" because I don't believe in "ramps".

The fact that species change does not affect the ToE. These two things are separate concepts. Everything that is known about the ToE would fit comfortably inside "species change" but there is a great deal more room to include things like "consciousness" and other concepts that are not understood. We know virtually nothing yet the ToE has all the answers.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

All human behavior is based in belief. People with all the answers do things that are very harmful to individuals and groups and even to the species. If we recognized that we haven't any answers our behavior would be more well measured and consequences considered. Maybe we wouldn't exterminate peoples if we could better communicate and didn't consider them sub-human.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Mosaic evolution" is a superb way to describe the reality except that it omits the fact that real change, significant change, occurs in very brief periods. Your view does an excellent job of showing how genes within a species become diverse and improve the odds of survival from any given event but it's simply missing the big picture; that actual change, new species, arise from population bottlenecks. This is critically important to understand because we act on our beliefs and our belief in "natural selection" is wrong. There is no survival of the fittest and the reality does in no way excludes the concept of a Creator. It is different behavior that allows a few individuals to survive a near extinction event and breed a new species directly.

If you randomly kill off most of a member of a species then the few survivors simply will breed the exact same species. If you kill off all the sick and lame the survivors breed the same species. If you kill off most of the slower, dumber, and weaker individuals the survivors breed almost exactly the same species. To get a different species you have to kill off almost all the individuals which exhibit some specific behavior. Imagine being able to select all the beavers in the world that didn't get in water for let's say four days! The new species that came from these would be absolutely different and probably wouldn't even look like beavers. The genes that expressed themselves by not being in water would be very different than the normal beavers which are all dead.

This is the role of consciousness. It is consciousness which drove some beavers to avoid water. It is consciousness which keeps every individual beaver everywhere alive and building dams. It is consciousness which selects a mate and helps hone their hunting skills. It is consciousness that provides the will and necessity to engage in every single behavior that isn't dictated by lower brain functions.

Any "theory" of evolution that doesn't recognize individuals and consciousness is poppycock. Behavior underlies change in species, not fitness.

Once again, where is your evidence that change occurs in very brief periods? It would help if you defined your terms. What do you mean by "brief" If you are referring to events of rapid evolution, such as the Cambrian explosion you need to remember that that event was millions of years long. It was geologically rapid. I would not claim that millions of years are biologically rapid.

By the way, why use the phrase "If you randomly kill off most of a species"? It appears that you are referring to punctuated equilibrium, and though that is the way that evolution advanced in many cases it does not result in changes so large that one cannot recognize the transitions.

If you could do more than merely wave your hands you might find people agreeing with you. Right now it appears that you are merely confused.

 

[sayak83]

I'm actually in close agreement with you except I see the problem as everyone, all of us, accepting belief and seeing only what supports those beliefs.

In recent years I've discovered this hasn't always been true. Humans haven't always operated on belief preferentially to reality. We once had a language that was an animal language like Beaver that excluded all belief. Ancient Language didn't even have the word "belief" or any of its numerous synonyms. This language was able to express a huge amount of knowledge but it became increasingly complex because it was metaphysical and included all human knowledge. The human brain was incapable of manipulating it when it became too complex and it failed marking the death of ancient science and homo sapiens. The failure of this digital three dimensional language is remembered as the story of the Tower of Babel.

A new analog language was born of it as well as a new species; homo omnisciencis. But this language lacks the natural logic that allows observational science. A new science had to be invented.

Like all change the birth of homo omnisciencis was quite sudden. It began about 3200 BC when some slower people couldn't keep up with new science so a simpler pidgin form of the language was used. It was quite similar to modern language (think PIE). by 2000 BC there weren't enough Ancient Language speakers left to operate the state so the official language all over became modern language. Science still occurred in Ancient Language for some centuries but there was no communication possible except demonstration so even science became "marginalized", or at least irrelevant to most of the population. There was another dark ages after the last "Nephilim" died. The Bible is a compilation of ancient holy books many of which were attempts to translate ancient science. This is why you can see truth all through the Bible.

I believe the species (homo omniscierncis) is fast approaching another speciation event (similar to the last) and the rapidity of this one will be orders of magnitude greater. There is no certainty that we can succeed at it. But if we don't understand where we've been and what we are our chances are poor.

Nonsense.

 

[cladking]

Wow!

What an interesting, and yet baseless fantasy.

Do you have any evidence for all these make-believe claims?

Actually I have the world's best evidence for them. I have a theory that explains human history and pre-history as well as many many other things. It was derived from coming to understand Ancient Language by means of solving terms through context. The fact that it makes accurate prediction will probably someday be seen as proof that it is correct. At the current time the proof that it's right was identified in mid-October 2015 but the powers that be refuse to pursue the data. There will be much more evidence to support it as time goes by in all probability.

Solution of Ancient Language would have occurred long ago except that it is science based and required a search engine to accomplish. I'm actually a little surprised someone didn't beat me to it but I had it mostly solved by 2007. I'm also somewhat surprised that no scientists are interested but I attribute this principally to specialization and an understanding of metaphysics based in math and experiment rather than definitions and axioms.

Linguists' eyes glaze over when you suggest a metaphysical language. Across the board it seems to fly in the face of all human knowledge even though it actually ties all knowledge together and explains history. It ties religion to science and evolution to religion.

 

[cladking]

It would help if you defined your terms.

Most change in life occurs over moments. Change in species can occur as quickly but generally requires a small percentage of the life expectancy of the parent species. This might be hours or days and is not often much over a few decades.

Our last one played out over 1200 years but it was a most unusual speciation event. Essentially we merely changed from being digital to analog. Perhaps this won't be seen as being speciation at all but then the term is just a word and taxonomy so has no status in reality. We changed. We didn't change as a result of a mutation as homo sapiens had arisen. There was a sort of bottleneck.