• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Some thoughts about evolution vs creation debates

Jim

Nets of Wonder
It looks to me like from the time of Darwin, sometimes people have tried to use evolution theories to discredit Christianity or some Christian beliefs. More recently some people who felt targeted by that started thinking that it was happening in public schools, and they have responded by trying to have evolution theory removed from the curriculum and/or have creation theory added, and by trying to discredit evolution theory. The debates here may or may not have some roots in that.

As I understand it, the creationism that’s being debated here includes thinking that one of the creation stories in the Bible is an actual physical description of how the universe, including the earth and all living creatures, were first created less than 10,000 years ago. I don’t claim to know if that’s true or not, but however that may be, I disagree with trying to have evolution theory removed from the curriculum or having creation theory added to it, and I disagree with trying to discredit evolution theory. Even if evolution theory is being used in public education to try to discredit some religious beliefs, I disagree with those ways of responding to that.

The arguments that I’ve seen here for thinking that all life on earth has a common ancestor look very weak to me, and it looks to me like many researchers, possibly most of them, have abandoned that idea in practice.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Respectfully, and I can't know this for a fact that my way is correct, but I interpret stories and scriptures as containing an element of metaphor. I'm willing to believe the Adam and Eve story is 50-99% metaphor. And if you were to ask me if I do the same to Hinduism, I do.... for example, I like that Krishna is depicted as being blue, because it helps me to look at pictures and determine who is being depicted, but I tend to think it's metaphor and that he may not have actually been blue.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
the creationism that’s being debated here includes thinking that one of the creation stories in the Bible is an actual physical description of how the universe, including the earth and all living creatures, were first created less than 10,000 years ago. I don’t claim to know if that’s true or not,

I do: It's demonstrably false.

Even if evolution theory is being used in public education to try to discredit some religious beliefs, I disagree with those ways of responding to that.

The fact is that in science classes, religions shouldn't even come up. They are completely irrelevant.
If some student during a science class lifts his finger and says / asks "my pastor says the world and everything in it was created by God 6000 years ago", then the only correct answer from the teacher would be "well, your pastor is wrong", period.

Other then such, it shouldn't come up. It's irrelevant.
If someone's religious beliefs is incompatible with science (which is to say: the evidence of reality), then that is a problem of the religious beliefs - not of the science.

The arguments that I’ve seen here for thinking that all life on earth has a common ancestor look very weak to me

Again, if multiple independent lines of evidence all converging on the same answer is "not enough" for you to realise that your non-scientific beliefs to the contrary are incorrect, then that is your issue.

If you think the science is incorrect, then you are free to demonstrate it incorrect on scientific terms. "I already believe something else", is not a proper or valid rebutal of the accumulated scientific knowledge of 200-300 years worth of scientific inquiry.

Once more: if your beliefs do not match the evidence of reality, then it's not reality that is incorrect

, and it looks to me like many researchers, possibly most of them, have abandoned that idea in practice.

Then you are one blind person.

No, the science of evolution stands tall as never before.
No, "researchers" aren't "abandoning" evolution theory and common ancestry of species by any means.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
It looks to me like from the time of Darwin, sometimes people have tried to use evolution theories to discredit Christianity or some Christian beliefs.

I get quite the opposite impression: Evolution has consistently, from the very beginning, been a valued target for quite preposterous, entitled Christian fundamentalism that, frankly, should have been curtailed from the get-go by Christians above all.

To be fair, up until the 19th century or so it would be in practice impossible to tell the fundamentalists from the reasonable adherents. It might even be impossible to make such a distinction at all.

It cheapens and corrupts Christianity (and other creeds) that they engage in such theatrics and waste their own dignitity in so doing.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
It looks to me like from the time of Darwin, sometimes people have tried to use evolution theories to discredit Christianity or some Christian beliefs. More recently some people who felt targeted by that started thinking that it was happening in public schools, and they have responded by trying to have evolution theory removed from the curriculum and/or have creation theory added, and by trying to discredit evolution theory. The debates here may or may not have some roots in that.

As I understand it, the creationism that’s being debated here includes thinking that one of the creation stories in the Bible is an actual physical description of how the universe, including the earth and all living creatures, were first created less than 10,000 years ago. I don’t claim to know if that’s true or not, but however that may be, I disagree with trying to have evolution theory removed from the curriculum or having creation theory added to it, and I disagree with trying to discredit evolution theory. Even if evolution theory is being used in public education to try to discredit some religious beliefs, I disagree with those ways of responding to that.

The arguments that I’ve seen here for thinking that all life on earth has a common ancestor look very weak to me, and it looks to me like many researchers, possibly most of them, have abandoned that idea in practice.

Evolution is simply significant enough gene pool changes within a species changing over the course of many generations resulting in organisms having genetic traits different enough from their distant ancestors; so that there'd be no possible sexual reproduction occurring between somebody who were to have distant ancestral genetic traits with anybody living in the current population.

As I've noted elsewhere in some other discussions about Christianity, Jesus's family tree has a time span of 77 generations listed between his generation and Adam whom the Bible claims was the "first man". Reference: (Luke 3:23-38) and Eve whom the Bible claims as the mother of all the living. (Genesis 3:20)

However, the Australian aborigines have evidently been in Australia for over a thousand consecutive generations. Reference: Aboriginal Australians - Wikipedia

There have been hundreds of generations of Native Americans between the time their common ancestry migrated from Asia until the time of Christ.
Reference: Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia

Of course, the Bible is wrong; in fact, there were people prior to the 76th generation before Christ that allegedly was spawned by Adam and Eve.

Adam as being the first man and perpetrator of original sin is an important premise of Christianity. If Adam wasn't the first man, then there isn't actually any "origin sin". Jesus supposedly died on the Cross to save humankind from "original sin". If there isn't any "original sin" from which to be saved, then Jesus Christ's death on the Cross is pretty pointless and meaningless. Evidently, there were many generations of people prior to the 76th generation before Christ whom the Bible claims was spawned by Adam. So then, Adam, Eve and original sin are mythological. There is neither any "first man" nor "original sin" throughout human evolution. Thus, Jesus Christ having died on the cross to save mankind from "original sin" is not reality but is rather mythological.

The fossil record isn't the only evidence in support of evolution. There is other collaborating evidence, such as overwhelming genetic evidence of common ancestry between humans and other great ape species.

Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry:

Chromosome 2 in humans

Main article: Chromosome 2 (human)

Further information: Chimpanzee Genome Project § Genes of the Chromosome 2 fusion site

Figure 1b: Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere
Evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is found in the number of chromosomes in humans as compared to all other members of Hominidae. All hominidae have 24 pairs of chromosomes, except humans, who have only 23 pairs. Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

The evidence for this includes:
The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the common chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.

Chromosome 2 thus presents strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to J. W. Ijdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2

chromosome_fusion2.png


Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent

Endogenous retroviruses (or ERVs) are remnant sequences in the genome left from ancient viral infections in an organism. The retroviruses (or virogenes) are always passed on to the next generation of that organism that received the infection. This leaves the virogene left in the genome. Because this event is rare and random, finding identical chromosomal positions of a virogene in two different species suggests common ancestry. Cats (Felidae) present a notable instance of virogene sequences demonstrating common descent. The standard phylogenetic tree for Felidae have smaller cats (Felis chaus, Felis silvestris, Felis nigripes, and Felis catus) diverging from larger cats such as the subfamily Pantherinae and other carnivores. The fact that small cats have an ERV where the larger cats do not suggests that the gene was inserted into the ancestor of the small cats after the larger cats had diverged. Another example of this is with humans and chimps. Humans contain numerous ERVs that comprise a considerable percentage of the genome. Sources vary, but 1% to 8% has been proposed. Humans and chimps share seven different occurrences of virogenes, while all primates share similar retroviruses congruent with phylogeny.


retrovirus.gif



The first individual of the genus Homo-species formed from a couple of Australopithecus hetero zygotes, each of whom had the same type of chromosome rearrangements formed by fusion of the whole long arms of two acrocentric chromosomes, mated together and reproduced viable and fertile offspring with 46 chromosomes.

This first generation of Homo habilis then incestuously bred with each other and reproduced the next subsequent generation of Homo habilis.

References:
  1. J. Tjio and A. Levan. 1956. The chromosome number of Man. Hereditas, 42( 1-2): 1-6.
  2. W. Ijdo et al.1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusión. PNAS, 88: 9051-9056.
  3. Meyer et al. 2012 A high-coverage genome sequence from an archaic Denisovan individual. Science, 338:222-226.; K. H. Miga. 2016. Chromosome-specific Centromere sequences provide an estímate of the Ancestral Chromosome 2 Fusion event in Hominin Genome.Journ. of Heredity. 1-8. Doi:10.1093/jhered/esw039.


There's plenty of evidence humans share common ancestry with other great apes.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.. ERVs are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome! There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The chances that a virus was inserted at the exact same location is 1 in 3,000,000,000. Humans and chimps share 7 instances of viruses inserted at perfectly matched location. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs.
 
Last edited:

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Human genetic diversity is too great for there to have ever been a human population size that consisted of much less than ca. 10,000 individuals. Pairwise Sequentially Markovian Coalescent (PSMC) analysis confirms a population bottleneck in humans that consisted of no fewer than probably ca. 10,000 individuals. (Li, Heng and Durbin, Richard ) "Inference of Human Population History from Individual Whole-Genome Sequences" Nature International Weekly Journal of Science 28 July 2001 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v47...10231.html

If there were the most severe population bottlenecking such as one breeding pair that is portrayed in the case of the Biblical Adam and Eve, then there would be a maximum of 4 alleles passed on by Adam and Eve to their children. Furthermore, the subsequent inbreeding would cause some loss of alleles due to genetic drifting. There would not have been genetic diversity in the small group of Adam, Eve and their children who would've had to commit incest among each other for the procreation of their inbred children. A lack of genetic diversity would have persisted for thousands of generations until genetic mutations could cause the genetic diversity of today's population. Based on the number of different alleles there are for the number of genes within the current population and the known rate of mutations per nucleotide sites in humans, geneticists can calculate the minimum number of people needed to create the current amount of genetic diversity. Numerous genetic studies suggest that there were several thousands of people more than two people during the most severe population bottleneck which ever occurred in human history.

DNA segments (Alu repeats ) insert themselves at various chromosomal locations. There are various forms of Alu sequences and several thousand families of Alu. One well-studied family of Alu is called Ya5, which has been inserted into human chromosomes at 57 mapped locations. If we were to have descended from a single pair of ancestors such as Adam and Eve, then we all would have each of the 57 elements inserted at the same location points of our chromosomes. "However, the human population consists of groups of people who share some insertion points but not others. The multiple shared categories make it clear that although a human population bottleneck occurred, it was definitely never as small as two. In fact, this line of evidence also indicates that there were at least several thousand people when the population was at its smallest". ( Venema, Dennis and Falk, Darrel ) " Does genetics Point to a Single Primal Couple?" 5 April 2001 http://biologos.org/blog/does-genetics-p...mal-couple
Coalescent theory analysis of single nucleotide polymorphism and linkage disequilibrium indicates the mean effective population size for hominid lineage is 100,000 individuals over the course of the last 30 million years. "The effective population size estimated from linkage disequilibrium is a minimum of ca, 10,000 followed by an expansion in the last 20,000 years." ( Tenesa, Albert, Navarro, Paul, Hayes, Ben J., Duffy, David L., Clarke, Geraldine, Goodard, Mike E. and Visscher, Peter M. ) " Recent Human Effective Population Size Estimated from Linkage Disequilibrium" Genome Research 17 April 2007 Ancestral Population Genomics: The Coalescent Hidden Markov Model Approach

Indeed, there is ample genetic evidence that the Biblical Adam and Eve never actually existed.
 
Last edited:

Jim

Nets of Wonder
The fossil record isn't the only evidence in support of evolution. There is other collaborating evidence, such as overwhelming genetic evidence of common ancestry between humans and other great ape species. ...
Chromosome 2 thus presents strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. ...
There's plenty of evidence humans share common ancestry with other great apes. ...
ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution. ...
Thank you.

I’m not arguing against evolution theory in general, or any part of it. I don’t doubt that it’s very useful for some purposes. I don’t think that the validity or value of any of it depends on believing that all life on earth has a common ancestor. In fact, I think that trying to defend that idea against creationism might have impeded its progress and limited its usefulness.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It looks to me like from the time of Darwin, sometimes people have tried to use evolution theories to discredit Christianity or some Christian beliefs. More recently some people who felt targeted by that started thinking that it was happening in public schools, and they have responded by trying to have evolution theory removed from the curriculum and/or have creation theory added, and by trying to discredit evolution theory. The debates here may or may not have some roots in that.

As I understand it, the creationism that’s being debated here includes thinking that one of the creation stories in the Bible is an actual physical description of how the universe, including the earth and all living creatures, were first created less than 10,000 years ago. I don’t claim to know if that’s true or not, but however that may be, I disagree with trying to have evolution theory removed from the curriculum or having creation theory added to it, and I disagree with trying to discredit evolution theory. Even if evolution theory is being used in public education to try to discredit some religious beliefs, I disagree with those ways of responding to that.

The arguments that I’ve seen here for thinking that all life on earth has a common ancestor look very weak to me, and it looks to me like many researchers, possibly most of them, have abandoned that idea in practice.
I have not seen any atheists use evolution to attempt to prove that God does not exist. I have only seen it used to refute a literal translation of Genesis. Refuting Genesis is not debunking God. Now some creationists do feel that way, but there are many possible versions of God. Just because one person's favorite version has been debunked does not mean that all versions have been debunked.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
The arguments that I’ve seen here for thinking that all life on earth has a common ancestor look very weak to me, and it looks to me like many researchers, possibly most of them, have abandoned that idea in practice.

I was a little unclear as to what you meant by this, but I think that what you meant is probably what I find that Salvador has stated?
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Respectfully, and I can't know this for a fact that my way is correct, but I interpret stories and scriptures as containing an element of metaphor. I'm willing to believe the Adam and Eve story is 50-99% metaphor. And if you were to ask me if I do the same to Hinduism, I do.... for example, I like that Krishna is depicted as being blue, because it helps me to look at pictures and determine who is being depicted, but I tend to think it's metaphor and that he may not have actually been blue.
I don’t think of either one of the creation stories in the Bible as an actual physical description of what happened. I think it’s better for my purposes not to think of any Bible stories that way.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
I have not seen any atheists use evolution to attempt to prove that God does not exist. I have only seen it used to refute a literal translation of Genesis. Refuting Genesis is not debunking God. Now some creationists do feel that way, but there are many possible versions of God. Just because one person's favorite version has been debunked does not mean that all versions have been debunked.

God-did-it hypothesis is unverifiable; Evolution is proven as being correct theory.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
There's plenty of evidence humans share common ancestry with other great apes.

...as well as with all other species.
What you posted is, off course, just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, it's more like a single snowflake on the iceberg. Which you know off course.

I just felt like explicitly pointing it out once again, because plenty of people here don't realise it at all.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.. ERVs are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome! There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The chances that a virus was inserted at the exact same location is 1 in 3,000,000,000. Humans and chimps share 7 instances of viruses inserted at perfectly matched location. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs.


Indeed. Whenever creationists start citing ridiculous and flawed "probabilities" to "prove" that evolution never occured, I like to throw the above in their face while simultanously dismantling their own argument from probability.

Not that it matters off course because 2 posts later, they're back repeating their same nonsense claims.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Thank you.

I’m not arguing against evolution theory in general, or any part of it. I don’t doubt that it’s very useful for some purposes. I don’t think that the validity or value of any of it depends on believing that all life on earth has a common ancestor. In fact, I think that trying to defend that idea against creationism might have impeded its progress and limited its usefulness.

Sorry, but if anything at all had no relevancy or impact AT ALL concerning the "progress" or "usefulness" of evolutionary biology, then it most certaintly is the internet forum / street preacher "debates" about evolution <> creationism that happened at any point.


By the same token, no "progress" or "usefullness" as affected in embryology by the silly idea of "stork theory".
Or how flat-earth-ism has not affected ANY scientific field or model AT ALL.

These "debates" aren't actually held in academic circles. Professional scientists have better things to do then to try and educate dense superstitious minds.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, there is something to the notion that certain humans have attempted to use biological evolution to discredit or attack Christianity. The dogmatic tone that some layman "science" types adopt is not just counter to the very nature of the science they claim to support but unnecessarily aggressive and uncompromising. That's not to say there aren't similar problems from the other perspectives on this issue, but I suppose it especially bothers me coming from the biological evolution side.

It would go a long way if folks could start recognizing the difference between mythos and logos. The sciences deal with logos while religions and philosophies deal with mythos. They represent different ways of knowing and types of knowledge that have different (though complementary) purposes. The so-called conflict between the logos of biological evolution and the mythos of creation stories evaporates the moment we start framing it in that context.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
It looks to me like from the time of Darwin, sometimes people have tried to use evolution theories to discredit Christianity or some Christian beliefs.
Historically, it was more the other way around, with Darwin being portrayed as a buffoon and anyone who accepted the ToE portrayed as being anti-God atheists. And we still see some of that even today, including some here at RF.

I don’t claim to know if that’s true or not, but however that may be, I disagree with trying to have evolution theory removed from the curriculum or having creation theory added to it, and I disagree with trying to discredit evolution theory.
"Creation theory" is not a scientific theory and, as a matter of fact, it's not even considered to be a scientific hypothesis because a hypothesis has to have some supporting objectively-derived evidence that it could be true,

Even if evolution theory is being used in public education to try to discredit some religious beliefs, I disagree with those ways of responding to that.
I taught it publicly for roughly 30 years, and I never once stated nor implied that accepting the ToE was in any way an attack on religion.

The arguments that I’ve seen here for thinking that all life on earth has a common ancestor look very weak to me,
That's because it's only a scientific hypothesis, thus not a scientific theory nor an axiom of science.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
The arguments that I’ve seen here for thinking that all life on earth has a common ancestor look very weak to me, and it looks to me like many researchers, possibly most of them, have abandoned that idea in practice.
I was a little unclear as to what you meant by this, but I think that what you meant is probably what I find that Salvador has stated?
Salvador has stated that researchers have abandoned the idea that all life on earth has a common ancestor? I looked again at his posts and I’m not seeing that.

To clarify, I said in practice. They’re still being careful not to say that openly and explicitly in their reports of their research.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Salvador has stated that researchers have abandoned the idea that all life on earth has a common ancestor? I looked again at his posts and I’m not seeing that.
Nor is it true. The scientific community is generally very cautious when it comes to such matters because egg can sometimes be a bugger to get off our face.
 
Top