"Evolution is a chance process"

[Guest sinner2saint]

S2S, thanks!

Did you know that Charles Darwin said this:

"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." - Charles Darwin

good post, SW.

Hmmm...... that's interesting.

Sounds like Darwin didn't even believe his own theory could be true.

[Spiritual Warrior]

"...What is science? The method by which man tries to hide his ignorance."

- Charles Spurgeon

[truseek]

How would you be defining "microevolution" there, and what limits are these, and what causes these limits?

I would define microevolution as a change within a species. Micrevolution, for instance, being the positioning of a blowhole changing, or an animal changing color for whatever reason. Speciation, or ring species, being another example of this happening. Perhaps species isn't the word I am looking for, I forget how the whole kingdom phylum, class, etc goes. A frog doesn't turn into a giraffe, or any sort of intermediate frograffe .Macroevolution being common ancestry, all life coming from a single organism.

What causes these limits? The genetic code must operate within certain limitations, as I think the drosophila(sp) experiments demonstrated. I cannot give you a more satisfactory answer on that at the moment, as I do not have my materials with me. Later this evening I will post with what I have concluded insofar as the Bible supporting an Old Earth and thusly, God having not created the Earth/Universe in six literal days, but in six stages, hopefully that will help clarify further.

In Christ

Truseek

[Steff]

I'm like you Truseek I don't believe the earth was created in six days, at least not in six days by our standard. I do however believe there was divine influence.

[truseek]

Alrighty, here we go, Creation, how'd it happen? No in six days, but in six, somewhat overlapping stages.

Stages 1-2:

The "Big Bang", the beginning of the space-time universe. The Creator brought light from darkness in a single hugely condensed burst of energy, electron orbits decayed and energy started to be converted into matter. During this stage the solar and galactic systems took shape forming the Milky Way, and igniting the sun. The Creator formed the Earth and our solar system from the shapeless nebula in space. (Gen. 1:1-5)

Stages 2-3:

The Earth is now steeped in volcanic activity, the ensuing steam begins to condense. As the planet cools, water accumulatesd to form a sea covering the Earth. At this time, toxic gases from the volcanic activity likely dominate the atmosphere. The Creator also forms an expanse (Gen 1:6-8) or air space (troposphere), creating an oxygen rich atmosphere. This causes the sky to turn from opaque to translucent. This expanse naturally results in an atmosphere with temperature and pressure differentials producing violent electrical storms and the ozone is formed. The first single celled plant life could have been introduced into the ecosystem of the seas at this time. "Contrary to scientific opinion held until recently, fossil data have demonstrated that the first simple plant life appeared immediately after liquid water and not billions of years later." (Gerald Schroeder, The Science of God, 1997)

Stages 3-4:

Genesis tells us that the sea was gathered together in one place, creating dry land (1:9-10). One explanation of "where" the water was placed is connected to the origin of the moon. Some scientists have speculated that the moon was once part of the Earth. Isaac Asimov said "This is an attractive though, , since the moon makes up only a little over 1% of the Earth-moon mass and is small enough for its width to lie within the stretch of the pacific. If the moon were made up of the outer layers of the Earth, it would account for the moon's having no iron core, and being much less dense than the Earth, and for the Pacific floor being free of continental granite."(Asimov, Asimov's Guide to Science, 1972)

After dry land was formed, the first terrestrial plates were created (Gen 1:11-13). during this time, various kinds of plant life and trees were phased into the ecosystem. Plants are the Earths primary source of food and energy, via photosynthesis, which most likely started at this time. As photosynthesis continues, water would decompose, producing free oxygen and a greenhouse-like effect. Consequently, a large cloud layer likely formes, and a stable water cycle (condesation and evaporation) was established.

Plant life requires the ecosystem to have the neccessary microorganisms and insects for a proper balance. Insects and other organisms are neccessary for aeration, fertilization, pollination, etc. Furthermore, the ecosystem would at this point have needed a food chain to maintain its balance. The introduction of newly created entities would have shifted the ecosystem out of balance; therefore fine tuning was neccessary, including the right amount of time to lead to a period of stabilization. Once the ecosystem reached this point of equilibrium, the next phase of creation would take place.

Stages 4-5

Once the volcanic activity subsided and as the Earth cooled, carbon dioxide levels would have decreased along with the cloud coverage. Accordingly, the newly stabilized atmosphere (insofar as pressure and temperature) and the consumption of carbon dioxide by the plants would have played a key role in clearing up the sky. As a result, the sun could be seen by day and the moon and stars by night (Gen 1:14-19)

The Cambrian explosion most likely took place during these latter stages of creation. The Creator brought forth an influx of aquatic life as well as small animal life, toward the end of stage five, He likely introduced the "great creatures of the sea," including the reptiles, the greatest of which is the dinosaur. (Schroeder, Science of God). After the ecosystem balanced that enormouys explosion of life, the first true birds were likely created as the atmosphere and ecosystem reached a stable temperature. (Gen 1:20-23). The stabilization of the atmosphere was critical, as birds are warm blooded and need to maintain body heat to counteract temperature fluctuation.

Stages 5-6:

Near the end of stage 5, the Creator brought forth land animals, mammals. (Gen 1:24-27) Now pay attention, this is the good part

There are two subclasses of mammals, prototheria and theria. The prototheria lay large yolky eggs and include only the duck-billed platypus and the spiny anteater. Although warmblooded, they possess a somewhat variable body temperature. The theria consis of infra-classes known as metatheria and eutheria. The metatheria are mammals that have an abdominal pouch into which the newly born young, in an immature state, move to complete devolopment (kangaroos, koalas, etc) The eutheria are mammals whose embryos are retained in a uterus within the mother's body and nourished by a placenta. With these, the young are fully protected during embryonic development and kept at a constant temperature.

The increasing level of embryonic complexity with the mammals gives some insight into the order of creation leading up to humanity. Although primates (including humans) are classified as eutheria animals, they are further distinguishable by opposable thumbs and big toes (manual dexterity) and opposing eyes (binocular vision). The order of primates which contains humanity is known as homo, macroevolutionists place humans and their supposed ancestors into a group called homonids. I do not make that distinction. I would classify humans in a place of their own, as simply homo sapiens.

Homo sapiens were created distinctly human, hence sapien. Sapien is from a Latin word which conveys intelligence, discernment, and wisdom. It has to do with having the proper intellect to make judments in a right manner, that is, to make ethical descisions.

I think it important to not here that not even all macroevolutionists believe that homo erectus and homo habilus were common ancestors. "What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of homonids...none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on Earth: none become brainier or more erect as they approach present day." (Stephen J Gould)

*****************************************************************

In Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record, Duane Gish writes:

If Australopithecus, homo habilus, and homo erectus existed contemporaneously, how could one have been ancestral to another? And how could any of these creatures be ancestral to man, when man's artifacts are found at a lower stratigraphic level, distinctly underneath, and thus earlier in time to those supposed ancestors of man? If the facts are correct as Leaky has reported them, then obviosly none of these creatures could have been ancestral to man, and that leaves man's ancestral tree bare.

Perhaps you are wondering why man is found at a lower stratigraphic level, since we have asserted that although these creatures were not ancestral to him, other mammals were created first. There are two responses to this inquiry. Firstm if these fossil remains belonged to apes, and apes and humans existed together at some given point in time, there is no reason an ape couldn't have died in the same location that was formerly inhabited by humans. Second, the macroevolutionary assertion that these fossils are ancestral to humans is by no means certain, they could be humans themselves. For example, Jack Cuozzo has documented with recent high-tech X-rays of Neanderthan skulls that they are not ape-like but human-like. In speaking of the famous Le Moustier fossil, he asserts that "it is not ape-like at all...the lower jaw...is 30mm (over an inch) out of socket (TM fossa). This allowed the upper jaw to be pushed forward 30mm, presenting a very ape-like appearance. This would be a dislocated jaw in any local surgeons office. How can a dislocated jaw be passed off as proof of evolution?" (Buried Alive: The Startling Truth About Neanderthal Man [Green Forest, Ariz: Master, 1998] 166.)

*****************************************************************

Accordingly, toward the end of stage six, once the ecosystem fully adjusted with the addition of mammals prior to homo sapiens, the Creator formed two humans and breathed life into them. They were made not only as living sould with bodies, but with spiritual, moral, and rational faculties. I believe that there is no scientific or biblical reason not to seriously consider this view of creation.

In Christ

Truseek

[Bread_of_Life]

trueseek

If Australopithecus, homo habilus, and homo erectus existed contemporaneously, how could one have been ancestral to another?

http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/hominid.htm#Transitionals

Firstly, Australopithecus is not a single species, but rather a group of species, as you can see from the Homonid Timeline reproduced on the page above courtesy of Johanson and Edgar (1986).

You will also be able to see from this the branching of the evolutionary tree - and indeed that some Australopithecine species were contemporaneous to homo-erectus, and some to Homo Habilis (although Habilis and Erectus were not, to our knowledge, contemporaneous).

You will also notice that only some Australopithecine species are claimed to be ancestors of modern humans, and erectus and habilis are not claimed to be so at all, and were not at the time of Gish going to print. In other words, they are not our direct ancestors. What they are though, is significant evidence of a rather bushy evolutionary tree in which humans exist. Whilst they are not, in the strict sense of the word "transitionals", as they are not lineal to us - they are certainly intermediates - in between modern and the past. They are also evidence of the evolution of humans - even if they are not directly lineal but rather an offshoot.

And how could any of these creatures be ancestral to man, when man's artifacts are found at a lower stratigraphic level, distinctly underneath, and thus earlier in time to those supposed ancestors of man?

Artifacts of man are not reported chronologically lower in the fossil record.

For example, Jack Cuozzo has documented with recent high-tech X-rays of Neanderthan skulls that they are not ape-like but human-like.

So he should have, Neanderthal is a very close relation to man indeed - very close cousins, lineages split only a few hundred thousand years ago. I would expect Homo-neanderthalis therefore should bear closer resemblence to humans than apes - although certainly neanderthalis was not human.

I think it important to not here that not even all macroevolutionists believe that homo erectus and homo habilus were common ancestors.

in fact, I don't know a single one who does think that homo erectus was an ancestor of humans.

[Spiritual Warrior]

Most theologians throughout church history agree that in using the phrase "the evening and the morning were the first day," the Scriptures are speaking of a literal 24-hour day, rather than a period of years.

In The Answers Book, Ken Ham writes: "To understand the meaning of 'day' in Genesis 1, we need to determine how the Hebrew word for "day," yom, is used in the context of Scripture...A number, and the phrase 'evening and morning,' are used for each of the six days of creation (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31). Outside Genesis 1 yom is used with a number 410 times, and each time it means an ordinary day--why would genesis 1 be the exception? Outside Genesis 1,yom is used with the word 'evening' or 'morning' 23 times. 'Evening' and 'morning appear in association, but without yom, 38 times. All 61 times refers to an ordinary day--why would Genesis 1 be the exception? In Genesis 1:5, yom occurs in context with the word 'night' is used with yom 53 times--and each time it means an ordinary day. Why would Genesis 1 be the exception? Even the usage of the word 'light' with yom in this passage determines the meaning as an ordinary day".

As a professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, Dr. James Barr stated, "So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the idea that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours which we now experience; (b) the figures contained in the Genesis geneologies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story; © Noah's Flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."

[truseek]

Most theologians throughout church history agree that in using the phrase "the evening and the morning were the first day," the Scriptures are speaking of a literal 24-hour day, rather than a period of years.

This is not true, many have but I woyld not go so far as to say most. also, I think that this position needs to be roconsidered when one takes into account recent scientific findings. It is no surprise that many theologians took it literally until recently. Many statements in scripture have been misunderstood for centuries at a time. Most of these are also not crucial to the underlying message. The underlying message and main point of scripture has always been understood.

You have sources which support your view, I have sources which support mine. To quote Voltaire: "A witty saying proves nothing." It all comes down to looking at actual evidence, and doing the research for yourself, rather than listening to men whose names appear on the covers of large books.

Without getting into a debate over hermaneutics or the age of the Earth, suffice it to say that the day-age interpretation of Genesis 1 is not impossible or even improbable. I think that in light of fairly recent scientific disccovery, the literal-day interpretation must be re-evaluated

In Christ

Truseek

[Spiritual Warrior]

I think that this position needs to be roconsidered when one takes into account recent scientific findings.

Such as?

[truseek]

I think that this position needs to be roconsidered when one takes into account recent scientific findings.

Such as?

Fossil finds, radiometric dating, etc.

In Christ

Truseek