Some thoughts about evolution vs creation debates

[Nimos]

The scientific theory is stronger than ever. It has already ruled out the god described in the Christian scriptures. Even if the theory were falsified tomorrow, the mountains of evidence formerly supporting the theory don't go away. It needs re-explaining in the light of the falsifying finding.

Also it seems like a lot of creationists think that if evolution theory for whatever reason is demonstrated to be wrong, then that will be good for creationism. But it still doesn't proof it, that is why they need to provide evidence for it regardless. So very little is gained from attacking evolution.

 

[sealchan]

i think science still pretty much for common ancestry. Unless you have some studies showing evidence of life having started independently more than once on this planet.

do you have some links?

do you agree, at least, that we and gorilla share a common ancestor?

ciao

- viole

I don't see common ancestry as anti-thetical to the idea that no single organism lived in isolation. At any point in time all life evolved out of a population of organisms capable of reproducing with each other. If you go back far enough genetic material probably grows up out of pre-cellular environments in which it makes less sense to say that this organism is uniquely defined by this strand of DNA. Now there was probably only one extended community of multiple organisms in multiple populations all living in some sort of ecological environment and so that extended community was able to propagate new forms out across the whole space of the environment more rapidly the closer to the cellular and beyond that the molecular reaction cycle level.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that all concurrent organisms in any set of organisms had not a common single ancestor but a common ancestral community from which all those organisms descended? Otherwise you return to the problem of explaining how genetic diversity propagates from a single organism's DNA.

 

[sealchan]

Thank you.

No cell or organism every lived alone...otherwise you have the problem of how diversity arises from a single individual. I don't see how evolution could ever support that position inspite of the fact they speak of last common universal ancestor. I think that is conflated to mean "single, individual organism" when it clearly cannot mean that.

I would say, perhaps, single population of organisms and say "last common universal ancestors".

That's like saying, for a sexually reproducing species, that all members of a set descended from ONLY a single organism. Not physically possible.

 

[viole]

I don't see common ancestry as anti-thetical to the idea that no single organism lived in isolation. If you go back far enough genetic material probably grows up out of pre-cellular environments in which it makes less sense to say that this organism is uniquely defined by this strand of DNA.

Any enumerable group of concurrent organisms can be assumed to have a last common ancestor (universal to that set of organisms) which can be represented by a range of genetic material present within a population of that ancestor's species with all the diverging materials within that population having been lost in the interrim.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that all concurrent organisms in any set of organisms had not a common single ancestor but a common ancestral community from which all those organisms descended? Otherwise you return to the problem of explaining how genetic diversity propagates from a single organism's DNA.

i don’t know. I thought there were no problems to explain genetic diversity from any arbitrary initial point. I think the TOE covers that.

but in my experience, we do not need to go that far, when we deal with theological relevance. I am just interested in finding out whether believers accept that we and pigs, or rats, share a common ancestor. Which is a vastly easier question, given our obvious common “mammality”, lol. Trying first with with the obvious “primality” between us and gorillas and such.

If they do, then common ancestry is just a technical issue, with no theological relevance. If they don’t, then the problem is elsewhere.

ciao

- viole

 

[sealchan]

i don’t know. I thought there were no problems to explain genetic diversity from any arbitrary initial point. I think the TOE covers that.

but in my experience, we do not need to go that far, when we deal with theological relevance. I am just interested in finding out whether believers accept that we and pigs, or rats, share a common ancestor. Which is a vastly easier question, given our obvious common “mammality”, lol.

If they do, then common ancestry is just a technical issue, with no theological relevance. If they don’t, then the problem is elsewhere.

ciao

- viole

I see. To say there was a single common ancestor in that context, then, is meant primarily to argue against the independent development of species themselves.

I can see the utility in the context of arguing against the demonstrably false views of creationists.

 

[viole]

I see. To say there was a single common ancestor in that context, then, is meant primarily to argue against the independent development of species themselves.

I can see the utility in the context of arguing against the demonstrably false views of creationists.

yes, because the real case is not common ancestry, in general. It is about us and gorillas, for instance. So, it stops much earlier.

ciao

- viole

 

[Jim]

i think science still pretty much for common ancestry.

The most popular way of thinking now might be what some call a “primordial soup,” some pool of water with a variety of pre-life or early life forms trading genes back and forth. Some kinds and combinations of genes thrived more than others and were passed around. Somehow the genes started being passed around a lot less, and most new combinations were only by reproduction. I don’t see any researchers saying that there was ever a single organism that was the ancestor of all life on earth.

do you agree, at least, that we and gorilla share a common ancestor?

I haven’t done the research that I would want to do, to agree or disagree.

 

[Jim]

No cell or organism every lived alone...otherwise you have the problem of how diversity arises from a single individual. I don't see how evolution could ever support that position inspite of the fact they speak of last common universal ancestor. I think that is conflated to mean "single, individual organism" when it clearly cannot mean that.

I would say, perhaps, single population of organisms and say "last common universal ancestors".

That's like saying, for a sexually reproducing species, that all members of a set descended from ONLY a single organism. Not physically possible.

Thank you.

 

[Jim]

To say there was a single common ancestor in that context, then, is meant primarily to argue against the independent development of species themselves.

Exactly.

 

[exchemist]

I don't see common ancestry as anti-thetical to the idea that no single organism lived in isolation. At any point in time all life evolved out of a population of organisms capable of reproducing with each other. If you go back far enough genetic material probably grows up out of pre-cellular environments in which it makes less sense to say that this organism is uniquely defined by this strand of DNA. Now there was probably only one extended community of multiple organisms in multiple populations all living in some sort of ecological environment and so that extended community was able to propagate new forms out across the whole space of the environment more rapidly the closer to the cellular and beyond that the molecular reaction cycle level.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that all concurrent organisms in any set of organisms had not a common single ancestor but a common ancestral community from which all those organisms descended? Otherwise you return to the problem of explaining how genetic diversity propagates from a single organism's DNA.

That's what everyone has always meant by a common ancestor.

One speaks of "the whale" and "the hippopotamus" having a common ancestor, in the sense that these species had a common ancestor species. It is obvious that nobody is talking about individual organisms.

On the question of common ancestry of all life, the point surely is that the biochemistry of all life, at the level of the cell, is so similar that it suggests a common origin, while there is no evidence pointing to two or more separate origins.

So, while we don't know for sure, just as we generally don't in much of science, the evidence is consistent with a single origin of life biochemistry and so, applying Ockham's Razor as we do, that is the current hypothesis.

Like several other posters, I would be interested to see what Jim's reasons are for thinking this hypothesis "weak". It seems to me rather strong. I am certainly unaware of any movement in science away from this hypothesis and, as a chemist, would be fascinated to read the evidence for this, if there is any.

 

[halbhh]

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.

There are popular new mainstream hypotheses about how life started on Earth, but none of them to my knowledge are suggesting that ultimately there wasn't a beginning moment of first life form (self-replicating structure) somewhere, somewhen. A beginning somewhere and somehow, no matter where or how, then always implies a common descent is very possible, plausible (even though there could even be more than one instant of beginning(!)). They are only discussing various possibilities about how life started or arrived onto Earth.

Example:

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-lab-credence-life-earth-asteroids.html
Despite a lot of effort, scientists still do not know how life started on planet Earth. They also do not know if it sprang out of existing ingredients or if those ingredients came from somewhere else, via asteroid or comet. There are two current leading theories. The first suggests that life began in a hot spring on land or in a deep-sea thermal vent, because the right mix of ingredients were there to allow it to happen. The other main theory suggests that the basic ingredients for life arrived on a comet or asteroid and things took off from there. In this new effort, the researchers have found some evidence that supports the latter theory.
(phys.org is a mainstream science news summary site of very high quality)

But if your instinct is that Genesis chapter 1 fits evolution without any problem, that's a correct guess. It is though very much a problem for some of the various competing theories believers have have invented (certain views, but not others) using select bits from Genesis (while adding assumptions nowhere in the text). My attitude is that is somewhat like the silly Flat Earth ideas. People can invent theories using scripture as a starting point if they add some ideas without realizing the ideas are nowhere in the text, and isolate verses out and away from the total sense of meaning that full reading without prejudice would give. If they alienate the verses from the flavor of the full text.

 

[Jim]

It is obvious that nobody is talking about individual organisms.

Now that you mention it, yes it is obvious.

 

[exchemist]

Now that you mention it, yes it is obvious.

But tell me more about where you get the idea that the evidence for a common origin of life is weak or under challenge. Have you read of some work finding evidence for separating existing life into two or more groups, with different primaeval origins?

 

[ChristineM]

I’m not arguing against evolution theory. I’m not even disagreeing with any of it, apart from the idea of a universal common ancestor. Actually, I’m not even disagreeing with that. I’m not actually sure that it isn’t true. I’ll revise what I said. For many years now, researchers in evolution have allowed for other possibilities in their research. That might have always been true, but I haven’t looked all the way back to the beginnings of the research.

I realised that. I was adding to it.

Of course they have allowed for other possibilities, that's science. As yet though, those possibilities have only confirmed the theory.

And as i said, DNA cannot lie

 

[Jim]

But tell me more about where you get the idea that the evidence for a common origin of life is weak or under challenge. Have you read of some work finding evidence for separating existing life into two or more groups, with different primaeval origins?

All the reasons that I’ve seen for thinking that all life on earth has a common ancestry in one original species, look to me like they can be explained by lateral gene transfer and parallel evolution.

I discussed one example of researchers rejecting the idea of a single original species here:

Histories of life: tree, web and ring models

 

[Subduction Zone]

All the reasons that I’ve seen for thinking that all life on earth has a common ancestry in one original species, look to me like they can be explained by lateral gene transfer and parallel evolution.

I discussed one example of researchers rejecting the idea of a single original species here:

Histories of life: tree, web and ring models

Lateral gene transfer only occurs at the lowest of levels. And it still largely relies upon a common ancestor. As to "parallel evolution" at best you are using a term that you do not understand.

 

[exchemist]

I realised that. I was adding to it.

Of course they have allowed for other possibilities, that's science. As yet though, those possibilities have only confirmed the theory.

And as i said, DNA cannot lie

Quite. It does not even have to lie or tell the truth. The mere fact that all known organisms have this highly complex molecule is the evidence. Just as all organisms use ADP<-> ATP as the energy transmission means within the cell. And so on.

But some viruses don't have DNA. And then there are viroids, which have just short chains of RNA. Hence in part the idea that life may have been based on RNA at some early stage, before DNA came along and swept away the RNA system by out-competing with it.

But even then there would to have had to have been a stage before RNA.......and so the procession of Russian dolls extends back in time......

 

[Jim]

As to "parallel evolution" at best you are using a term that you do not understand.

Maybe so. What I mean is that there there might be constraints in the nature of matter and energy that have resulted in the same genes appearing in different life forms, even if they did not originate at the same time in the same pool.

 

[nPeace]

I think this is the issue, evolution theory is not about discredit religion, I wont claim that at some cases it is not being used for it. But if you purely look at it as being a scientific field, then there is not really much to do. The theory is correct and have to be taught, if that collide with creationism then that is to bad. Not meant from a point of view that only one of them are allowed, but that one of them provide evidence and the other doesn't, and as long as it can't do that, then it should not be treated as a scientific theory and taught to people.

I think Richard Dawkins put it fairly well, when he explained why he didn't thought that it was a good idea to debate creationist. As it would be like a Geologist debating a flat earth believer. One of them have evidence and facts to back up their claim, the other have nothing, but wishful thinking. But the moment you have a debate you sort of acknowledge the other side as if its a matter of choosing between which of them are true. Which is not the case.


I have a little assignment for you, that I hope you will try now that you say that the common ancestor evidence are weak. So what I would like you to do is watch the follow ~11 minute long video. Which almost look only at the evidence found in whales, so keep in mind that it hardly touches any of the thousands of other studies.

Now when you have watched it. I would like you to find evidence for creationism and post them here, you don't have to agree with them, just what you consider to be good evidence for it, in your eyes.

One thing I would like you to keep in mind:

- The evidence have to point towards creationism, so nothing that aim or tries to point out flaws in evolution, but solely evidence for creationism. Just as evolution can provide evidence without ever mentioning that creationism is wrong, like in the video above.

@Jim I do agree with what you said, in part.

I believe]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.

Apparently there are two reasons for this strong push-back, not only from Christians, but persons who see Darwinism for what it really is - an ideology, rather than a scientific truth.

I know, evolution believers hate to hear that, and some get "extremely hotly annoyed", as though someone just wrung their dog's neck, but it just begs the question - if universal common descent is true (which scientist don't even agree, it is), why would defenders of it be so "hell bent" on silencing, or ridiculing those who say otherwise?
The reason seems obvious to many.

Spoiler: NOTE

It’s important to understand that the intelligent design theory was not developed by religionists. This modern version was proposed some 30 years ago by scientists who could not reconcile the complexities of the cell with evolutionary explanations. Then, as more scientific discoveries were made that favored the intelligent design theory, it was expanded to include not only the evidence from biology, but from cosmology and physics as well.

Christianity has taken many beatings, for years, particularly for a little over a century now, but it's supporters don't blow a fuse. They just carry on with their worship... unfazed.

The second reason is in the Bible. It describes a spiritual warfare, that will be ongoing, until, the great day of God, the almighty.
So all that is occurring, is an intensification of the battle. Those who see the need to uphold scripture, and try do what they have been doing before Charles Darwin was even born, just got more passionate about it.
They know it's in scripture, that the Lord Jesus Christ came with that purpose in mind - to minister the truth about his father. So even if some have been a bit lukewarm, before, this theory got them on their toes.
It's as apostle Paul said... For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things. For we are overturning reasonings and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are bringing every thought into captivity to make it obedient to the Christ; (2 Corinthians 10:4, 5)

It appears some - on both sides - feel they have a duty to present what they believe will benefit others... and by extension, society.

@Nimos, I could put together a video showing how ALL the evidence supports creation, from "Cosmic Evolution" to "Biological Evolution". The thing is, I don't have the time, but what I can do, is give you some that have been put together (not necessarily into one documentation).
I may not be able to find many that don't mention evolution veeeeeeeery briefly, but for the most part, they just mention the evidence.
You can always play the three monkeys, when you hear evolution mentioned.

Spoiler

I'll need a little time though. Is that okay?

 

[Nimos]

I'll need a little time though. Is that okay?

Yeah sure, would appreciate that. Already watch a lot of these videos so go nuts