Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[Guest theElect777]

3 minutes ago, Marathoner said:

I didn't reply to this comment earlier because it veers off topic, @theElect777. The Grand Canyon and Noah's Flood have nothing to do with scientific objections to evolution. Do you have any scientific objections to the process of biological evolution? If so, what are they?

And what is your background relative to where you could provide answers to any such question pertaining to Biological Evolution?

Edited July 29, 2020 by theElect777

[Marathoner]

3 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

If we go the route of Biological Evolution then we are discussing man first being a primate before completely evolving into our current state.   Do you believe we were chimps at one point in time, and since Science believes we are nowhere complete in our evolution, where does that take us?   And how does being a chimp to hominid to something more advance than our current state relate to Biblical resource?

I can clear something up right away: humans are not chimpanzees, and chimpanzees are not human. This is a common misconception I find repeated often.

[Guest theElect777]

Something else, when I took elective Science classes, we were handed a Book based upon Darwin's Theories.   In the beginning monologue, it stated: Darwin's Idealism are not proven theories.   Then it presented a picture of his "tree" and in BOLD lettering made the claim that Darwin's work however is an example of how we should conduct our own work.

 

Which always led to a very easy question for me.   Why believe in something when the monologue itself clarifies this is not a Fact?

[one.opinion]

8 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

Do you believe we were chimps at one point in time

No, but the scientific disciplines of paleontology, anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, and genetics all suggest that chimps and humans shared a common ancestor.

9 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

since Science believes we are nowhere complete in our evolution, where does that take us?

I believe the Bible teaches that humanity is the apex of God's creation of biological things. Are we still evolving? In some small ways, absolutely. But we need to consider the large scale. Scientific evidence suggests that humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor somewhere around 5-7 million years ago. We have recorded history that goes back only about 5500 years. This suggests that even if Jesus Christ does not return for another 5,000,000 years or so (a period about 1000X longer than recorded human history), that humans at that time would still be rather similar to humans we see today. I think virtually all Christians would agree that he is coming back much sooner!

18 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

And how does being a chimp to hominid to something more advance than our current state relate to Biblical resource?

I think this is moot conjecture with the Lord Jesus returning long before humanity is ever "something else".

17 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

We are talking a series of inherited genetics.   But what are the missing links that must evolve for us to reach the next phase?

If you are referring to missing links between the oldest human predecessors and modern humans, there are quite a large number of these. I don't have the anthropology training that @Marathoner does, so he may want to add to this, but a good virtual collection of these missing links are located at https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils

[one.opinion]

14 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

Something else, when I took elective Science classes, we were handed a Book based upon Darwin's Theories.   In the beginning monologue, it stated: Darwin's Idealism are not proven theories.   Then it presented a picture of his "tree" and in BOLD lettering made the claim that Darwin's work however is an example of how we should conduct our own work.

 

Which always led to a very easy question for me.   Why believe in something when the monologue itself clarifies this is not a Fact?

I would really need to see the text as published (and with context), rather than your recollection of it, to address this fully. But my initial response is really that Darwin's hypotheses (they really were hypotheses at the time, that led to the development of more established theories) were the best hypotheses at the time and have been modified and refined for about 150 years now. As new discoveries are made, existing hypotheses and theories are often modified - thus scientists tend to hesitate from stating even a theory as "fact".

Another good example of this is Newtonian physics. No modern physicist would argue that Newton's concepts were useless, and no modern physicist would argue that Newton's concepts fully match modern observations.

[Wesley L]

On 7/28/2020 at 4:55 PM, one.opinion said:

Hello All,

My recent discussion activity here has been primarily focused on theology - frankly, because I believe it is more important than science. Don't get me wrong, as a Biology Professor, I believe science is extremely important, but I believe it pales in comparison to the importance of our spiritual lives right now and for eternity.

There have been several discussions recently that have suggested that a discussion on science would be a good idea. I'm going to call out a few people here that I believe could be interested in such a discussion - @David1701 @theElect777 @Tristan @The Barbarian @Deadworm @teddyv

Here is a capture of a comment on another thread.

1. Genetic diversity in the modern human population

Ann Gauger of the Discovery Institute wrote about the genetic variability issue in a blog post recently.

https://anngauger.blog/2019/11/25/not-a-simple-question/

AJ Roberts of Reasons to Believe had a similar post, as well.

https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/theorems-theology/read/theorems-theology/2020/01/16/mosaic-eve-mother-of-all-(part-1)

The bottom line is this. The best modeling we have available for the age of a single ancestral pair is about 500,000 years ago. Obviously, this isn't consistent with a view of Genesis that holds to a single pair (Adam and Eve) as sole progenitors of humanity about 6,000-10,000 years ago. Some faithful Christians in science prefer a view of an Adam and Eve at a much more distant time in the past, and others suggest the possibility of Adam and Eve as a single, specially-created pair in that 6-10 kya timeframe, but amid other biological humans.

2. Radiometric dating

Some types of radiometric dating (like 14C) can be checked with other dating methods like ice cores, lake varves, and others. 

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF6-18Davidson.pdf

Other isotopes with much longer half-lives that are used for things like dating rock samples (potassium/argon, rubidium/strontium, etc) can be verified against one another. Remember that ICR spend about $2 million on the RATE project and arrived at the conclusion that radioactive decay rates must have been orders of magnitude in the past, but without evidence to support this hypothesis. (https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm)

 

Two questions:

1. How did these models came with a conclusion of 500.000 years? Are these models accurate? Are there assumptions made in the calculation data? What does it take into account?
2. Does 14C radiometric dating work on stones I dig up in my backyard? Does radiometric dating work on the bones of my deceased grandfather?

• Isn't there an inaccuracy in radiometric dating because you have to make assumptions about radiation at the time of death of the fossil that you are trying to date?

For example. I see a candle burning in a room. What do I need to know when this candle was lit?

• the lenght of the candle when it was lit
• the speed how fast the candle burn. (for example higher oxigen will cause the candle to burn faster and temperature will affect the speed as well)

IF the animal died millions of years ago. Meaning, we can only guess what circumstances they died in to make this calculation work. And secondly, could environmental changes affect the speed of radioactive decay?
I love science, because it can correctly proof many things in the natural world. But I get a bit sceptic when assumptions become stated as science.

Edited July 29, 2020 by Wesley L

[one.opinion]

18 hours ago, Wesley L said:

1. How did these models came with a conclusion of 500.000 years? Are these models accurate? Are there assumptions made in the calculation data? What does it take into account?

The main assumption is that the rate of mutation we can observe in the human genome today has been uniform over long periods of time, like those 500,000 years. This gets into computational biology, which is certainly not my main area of expertise, but based on the observed variation in the human genome today and the rate of mutation that would yield that diversity, it is possible to extrapolate how long ago it was conceivable that the human population consisted of only two people. I have seen several people report the results of this work and the minimum age of a single breeding pair is consistently estimated around that 500,000 year old mark. Again, based on the starting data, that is the minimum. So organizations like the Discovery Institute and Reasons to Believe frequently guess that Adam and Eve must have been on the planet roughly half a million years ago. The fact that multiple people in multiple organizations have done this, and would have every reason to place the date as close to modern as possible, and come with the same rough figures shows that the models are consistent and lends weight to their accuracy.

Dr. Joshua Swamidass is a tenured computational biologist at Washington University in St. Louis. He recently wrote a book called "The Genealogical Adam and Eve" that explains that it is possible that a de novo creation of Adam and Eve could have occurred in the YEC time frame of 6,000-10,000 years ago IF we accept that other biological humans were also present on earth at the same time of Adam and Eve. He argues that it is possible, after expulsion from the Garden, that Adam and Eve could have merged gene pools with these other humans and by the time of Christ, could have been genealogical ancestors of everyone on the planet.

18 hours ago, Wesley L said:

2. Does 14C radiometric dating work on stones I dig up in my backyard? Does radiometric dating work on the bones of my deceased grandfather?

Carbon dating is usually used for organic samples since the half-life of the 14C isotope is much shorter than other radioisotopes used for dating rock samples. Carbon dating loses usefulness past about 50,000 years. So hypothetically, this could be done on an ancestor, provided you were extremely careful to avoid any contamination. You can read more about carbon dating here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

Rock samples require isotopes with much longer half-lives. Several pairs are available. The accuracy of dating with one isotope can be supported by using another isotope. You can read more about other types of radiometric dating here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Edited July 30, 2020 by one.opinion
fixed a weird break in the text

[Marathoner]

Since there's no avoiding a wall of text --- it's necessary in order to maintain consistency --- here we go.  

Let's review our biological/physiological details with a brief foray into genetics. This will not turn into a lecture!

With the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome completed in 2010, our closest extinct genetic contemporary were the organisms we refer to as Neanderthals (99.7% match); this also includes an extinct lineage referred to as the Denisovans. Our closest extant genetic contemporaries are members of the genus Pan: the chimpanzee and bonobo (98.8% match). Forensic analysis indicates that genus Homo (us) and Pan share a common ancestry approximately 8 million years before the present era.

Recent discoveries shed more light upon this ancestor... the divergence of our respective evolutionary lineages (species) cannot be understood in a linear fashion. The ancestors of humans and chimpanzees more than likely cohabited and continued to admix for some time. It wasn't a concrete event by any means. The evidence of our common ancestry is genetic; as far as I know fossilized remains of this creature have yet to be discovered. It's needful to point something out: the ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was neither human nor chimpanzee. Which leads me to the next stop...

What is a primate? An order of mammals with 300 known species. What do primates share in common? Fingernails; greater cranial capacity in relation to body weight than other terrestrial mammals; a unique cranial fissure called the Calcarine sulcus; specialized nerve endings in the hands and feet which increase tactile sensitivity; and my personal observation, the propensity to utilize objects in their immediate environment as self-propelled missiles. That's a fancy way of stating primates love to throw things! @one.opinion will know precisely what is meant by that. Biologically speaking, we are primates because we share the above in common with other primates. 

What is a simian? Also called anthropoids, simians are an infraorder of primates consisting of two orders: Platyrrhini (New World Monkeys) and Catarrhini (Old World Monkeys). Humans and apes are therefore simian Catarrhine primates by virtue of traits shared in common with all simians and Catarrhines in particular. 

What is an ape? Apes are tailless members the superfamily Hominoidea who share the following in common (not exhaustive since I'm not typing a lecture here): wider degree of shoulder joint articulation than other simians; identical pattern of dentition (teeth); terrestrial orientation in all but members of Ponginae (orangutans); sophisticated social units/cultural expression; advanced material culture (tool-making); semi-erect posture necessitating knuckle-walking, arms longer than the legs. In all but the latter two criteria humans are considered apes. This brings us closer to the end of our biological composition.

Fully erect posture and compulsory bipedalism; we're the only extant primate of our kind. All simians are capable of achieving an erect posture for limited periods of time to include brief spurts of bipedalism; however, the physiology of apes makes this a costly venture and so they aren't capable of standing or walking in this manner for long. Not so with us humans. We're compulsory bipeds as seen in our infancy: we work at standing upright on our own without the guidance of our parents. Ah, but the help of mom and dad can speed that process along.  

The fossil record reveals that other lineages of fully erect, bipedal apes existed on this Earth long before our lineage emerged in space and time. These creatures, referred to as australopiths, share many anatomical features in common with us: the pelvis (wide and short)... feet (nearly identical to ours with notable differences with regard to the big toe)... curvature of the spinal column ("S" shape)... identical teeth... and the orientation of the foramen magnum which is the opening in the skull through which the spinal cord enters the cranial cavity.  These creatures disappeared almost two million years before people like us appear in the fossil record. 

Things start looking remarkable with the emergence of Homo Erectus in Africa approximately 2 million years ago during the Pleistocene epoch. Fossilized remains of this lineage have been found with the hyoid bone intact; the hyoid is a skeletal structure which supports our elaborate throat/larynx permitting us to speak. It is therefore reasonable to assert that Homo Erectus was capable of speech due to the inclusion of the hyoid in their physiology; the large cranial capacity of Erectus, virtually on par with our own, lends further credence to this assertion. The fossil record suggests that Homo Erectus met with extinction 250,000 years before the present era, offering a relatively brief window in space and time when people like us might have encountered them.

Forensic genetic evidence accompanied by the fossil record attests of our close relationship with the extinct lineage known as Neanderthals. Humans and Neanderthals overlapped in certain areas of the globe; Asia Minor in particular. Evidence of cultural exchange can be seen in similarities between Pleistocene toolsets: humans were innovators who were capable of quantum leaps in their material culture (in the span of one generation) whereas the Neanderthals made changes much more slowly, over the course of thousands of years. Substantive changes in Neanderthal toolsets coincide with evidence of Neanderthal tool-making traditions surfacing in human material culture. In other words, humans adopted some Neanderthal designs, improved them, and returned this innovation to Neanderthals.

Last but not least, forensic genetic analysis indicates some degree of admixture between humans (us) and Neanderthals. People of European origin possess trace amounts of genetic code which was unique to the Neanderthal lineage. It's commonly accepted that the last surviving Neanderthals, living in caves at Gibraltar, met with extinction approximately 35,000 years before the present era. 

It's just us, made in the image of God. What could all of this possibly mean? The answer to that question isn't something Science can answer. I've offered a crash-course into our biological nature and explained how science views the nuts and bolts of life: we're primates because we share certain traits in common with others primates... apes because we share key traits in common with apes... but as for our humanity we're unique. When we appeared hundreds of thousands of years ago, there was no one else like us in this world. 


 

Edited July 30, 2020 by Marathoner

[one.opinion]

35 minutes ago, Marathoner said:

the propensity to utilize objects in their immediate environment as self-propelled missiles. That's a fancy way of stating primates love to throw things! @one.opinion will know precisely what is meant by that.

Lol - I do!

[Marathoner]

I'll add to what I wrote above by venturing into "nuts and bolts" issues which make us humans unique in space and time from an evolutionary perspective. Where to begin?

How about our skulls: we're the only ones with elaborately fissured craniums. Our closest genetic relative, the Neanderthals, lacked them. The evolutionary value of our weird skull is seen during the process of childbirth. Our fissured and flexible cranium makes our successful emergence from a decidedly narrow birth canal possible. Yes, as infants our heads are too large for the birth canal making the process of childbirth a traumatic and possibly fatal affair for mother and child. Personally I see this as physical evidence of God's curse upon Eve (Genesis 3:16). 

Chins. Yes, chins! Something else our closest evolutionary relative lacked.

Tool-making gone wild to a degree which permits us to overcome physical limitations and geographical barriers. A very long time ago (50,000-60,000 years before the present) humans made boats and sailed across open ocean to reach the continent of Australia. Humans harnessed the power of animals by enslaving them and subsequently putting them to work plowing fields... turning grain mills... and eventually using them as a mode of transportation. The list goes on...

Elaborate martial tool culture (weapons). The weapons we fashion ensure our dominance over all forms of life in this on this planet. 11,000 years ago a culture of people called the Clovis arrived on the continent of North America and hunted truly gigantic animals known as the megafauna. They fashioned unique tools which enabled them to inflict numerous bleeding wounds on gigantic beasts like the Mammoth.

Most importantly of all, we seek the Lord.