Religions, Evolution and related Sciences

[Tbitty]

Except God said he did it in 6 literal days

This is where a great debate can be had: the relativity of time.
It is my understanding that a "day" could be the 24 hours modern humans think of, or it could be a thousand years. Time does not have the same meaning to God as is defined by humans.

 

[tarbe]

Read the end of the book you reference

It supports what I am saying....if you are mindful to follow the basic rules of hermeneutics.

 

[Tubby’s Canteen]

The last few pages of posts remind me of a book I read in high school revolving around the Scopes Monkey trial but for the life of me I cannot remember the name of it.

 

[rookhawk]

The last few pages of posts remind me of a book I read in high school revolving around the Scopes Monkey trial but for the life of me I cannot remember the name of it.

Inherit the Wind

 

[WAB]

In just our lifetimes we have seen evolution result in new species. There is a mosquito in the London tube system that has evolved and is unique. It can breed without a blood feed, something that its common ancestor cannot do.

That occurred in less than one human lifetime.

That’s a far cry from the evolution of sentient beings from primordial mud and would certainly not violate the laws of science.

Leaving entropy out of it, in recorded history how many species have gone extinct and how many distinct species have come
Into being? Evolution is not happening because it can’t. Mutation, adaptive traits sure, new distinct species, not so much.

 

[Alistair]

That’s a far cry from the evolution of sentient beings from primordial mud and would certainly not violate the laws of science.

Leaving entropy out of it, in recorded history how many species have gone extinct and how many distinct species have come
Into being? Evolution is not happening because it can’t. Mutation, adaptive traits sure, new distinct species, not so much.

That's a loaded question, because

a. Distinct 'Species' are a human construct not a scientific definition (mostly).
b. All species are a spectrum.

For example.

You take a plant from Europe, dump it in America.

It now lives in a different ecological niche. It's pollinated by different insects. It sees different weather. It's competing with different plants. Its roots capture nitrogen through entirely different symbiotic relationships with different organisms. Over time, genetic drift happens to the population and it begins to exhibit different physical characteristics.

At what point do we decide it's an entirely new species?

The usual distinction is when it can no longer interbreed and create viable offspring.

If we do adopt that definition, it's definitely happened numerous times in recorded history.

One that is relevant to my industry: S. cerevisiae and S. pastorianus. Lager yeast and ale yeast. Not able to interbreed, genetically distinct, genetic drift studies put the split around the year 1300, which is consistent with the first recorded production of bottom fermenting lager beers.

The culprit; hybridization leading to a genetically distinct hybrid that was a. unable to breed with the species of either parent, b. self sustaining. A lot easier to do that with a species that reproduces asexually of course.

This happens all the time. It's not uncommon. It's actually more common now than would be 'normal', because humans are really good at inadvertently putting species in ecological niches they weren't adapted to, and applying novel selective pressures. Rats in Australia, Tomatoes in Europe, speciation in bacteria due to human selective mechanisms such as antibiotics, etc, etc.

Here's a link to a reference dump of a load of examples:

Some More Observed Speciation Events

So to answer your original question: Lots of species have gone extinct. Lots of new species have evolved. Both have happened many times in recorded history. We think more have gone extinct than have evolved leading to a reduction in genetic diversity, but considering we've only characterized a tiny fraction of all species that exist anyway... who really knows.

 

[fourfive8]

“…adaptive traits…”. Huh? That is 180 degrees counter to known scientific reality. Like saying giraffes grow longer necks so they can reach food higher up in trees.

 

[Red Leg]

That’s a far cry from the evolution of sentient beings from primordial mud and would certainly not violate the laws of science.

Leaving entropy out of it, in recorded history how many species have gone extinct and how many distinct species have come
Into being? Evolution is not happening because it can’t. Mutation, adaptive traits sure, new distinct species, not so much.

Regrettably we typically do not have the span of observation to detect new species - even let's say since the enlightenment. However the fossil record is replete with species that preceded others. After all, the dinosaurs of the Mesozoic walked the planet for nearly 200 million years before the first mammals appeared. None of those early mammals lived in conjunction with T-Rex and none exist today, but were replaced by thousands of other different ones over the ensuing 220 million years. The period of human scientific observation of species development has occurred only during the last 300 years - less than the blink of an eye.

However, there are a few examples that seem to be more than mere adaptation.

The "Coywolf" is North American adaption, that numerous researchers believe now deserves listing as a sperate species (Canis Oriens). Their DNA contains elements of coyotes, eastern grey wolves, and domestic canines. However, they seem to be breeding true, are larger than coyotes, and hunt in packs. Unlike wolves, they are also very comfortable navigating human habitation.

And before we say, that is merely crossbreeding, I would point out that sort of development is the nature of evolution. It is why DNA / genetic research has become such a powerful tool in understanding the the development of new species and their origins (evolution).

Florida Green Anoles are another possibility. With an invasion of brown anoles over the last decades through much of their range, the green has become arboreal with larger more adhesive pads for living in trees.

There is an Italian lizard that was introduced to a new island in the 70's which has developed a larger head, stronger bite, and different digestive structure to manage a more herbivorous diet. Is it the still the same species - a new subspecies - or new lizard entirely fitting a vacant environmental niche?

In plant life, their are a host of examples where new varieties have evolved that clearly are no longer the original and reproduce true in the new form.

But I think the most common example that is happening at a disturbingly fast pace are antibiotic-resistant Bacteria. They rapidly evolve new mechanisms to survive antibiotics, often creating entirely new proteins to fight them, and pass that immunity to succeeding generations. At some point these are no longer the same germs.

 

[Boyd Brooks]

If evolution doesn’t happen, why aren’t all planets and animals on every continent? They were all connected as Pangea, 200 to 220 million years ago.

 

[WAB]

I will fall back on science and leave it there, honestly test the THEORY of evolution with the three laws of thermodynamics and the zeroth law. Scientifically, evolution cannot happen. An external influence is required. To be clear, these laws are the foundation of all known science. They have never been proven to be broken.

 

[Russ16]

If evolution doesn’t happen, why aren’t all planets and animals on every continent? They were all connected as Pangea, 200 to 220 million years ago.

More importantly if you don’t believe in Pangea as someone who doesn’t believe in evolution probably doesn’t.

Then how did the various animals get from the ark to the various continents. Either there were surviving species on each continent after the flood. Which isn’t mentioned in the bible. Or there was one ability of some to cross a land bridge or similar and then they evolved to the local environment from there.

Also did the ark contain every plant species as well? There had to have evolved or adapted.

Make no mistake I believe in the bible. I believe a flood happened and that Noah did act of the orders of God to build a boat and save animals.

But I believe it was tool used by God in his plan. One tool of many that he used n yeh development of mankind and the earth and its inhabitants.

 

[Red Leg]

I will fall back on science and leave it there, honestly test the THEORY of evolution with the three laws of thermodynamics and the zeroth law. Scientifically, evolution cannot happen. An external influence is required. To be clear, these laws are the foundation of all known science. They have never been proven to be broken.

I am reaching back to college days and a bit of later reading, but it has been my understanding that Second Law, often cited by creationists, is only really applicable in closed systems. For instance, the classic examples of water forming into ice - a more ordered state, or a seed turning into a tree do not violate the the second law because they exist in an open system and gain energy in it. The Earth, and like the tree, everything on it operates in a such an open system receiving massive, constant energy input from the Sun, which fuels the increase in biological order (local decrease in entropy) while increasing the total entropy of the solar system. That would seem to both resolve the Second Law and address the entropy question.

I do not think that the first law applies at all. The First Law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. Evolution does not violate this, as living organisms, whether evolving or not, do not create energy; they consume and transform energy from their environment (food, sunlight).

I fail to see how either the Third Law or Zeroth offers any conflict at all.

But what I really fail to see, except perhaps for the strict biblical constructionists, is how evolution ever became a threat to the belief of God the creator. Again, from my personal perspective, the humanly incalculable variations of the continuing evolution of life over millions of years on this planet is a far far greater example of an omniscient exercise of creation than the simple magic of an instantly created world and everything in it.

 

[Brent in Az]

It is said that 66 million years ago a large meteor slammed into the sea bed off the Yucatan peninsula. An event that caused the ice age and the extinction of the dinosaurs and 75% of all earth species.
I believe in the scriptures and have no answers to those timelines and the theory of evolution.
I try not to think on those things. 66 million years is a long time compared to the 6 -10 thousand year timeline of creation, which is a grain of sand in comparison.

 

[Alistair]

I will fall back on science and leave it there, honestly test the THEORY of evolution with the three laws of thermodynamics and the zeroth law. Scientifically, evolution cannot happen. An external influence is required. To be clear, these laws are the foundation of all known science. They have never been proven to be broken.

Yeah, you said that in the last post. based on science, I disagree.

Here's the 4 laws: https://www.britannica.com/science/laws-of-thermodynamics

The zeroth, first and third are irrelevant to the discussion.

The Second law specifically references an isolated (or closed) system. Earth isn't one, it gets energy from the Sun.

Local increases in order can in an open system be balanced out by the increase in disorder of the wider isolated system (the universe). If indeed the universe IS an isolated system, which is a topic of some debate.

Further context on that topic: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-009-0195-3

This resource is more succinct: http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

Edit: i see @Redleg beat me to it.

 

[WAB]

Yeah, you said that in the last post. based on science, I disagree.

Here's the 4 laws: https://www.britannica.com/science/laws-of-thermodynamics

The zeroth, first and third are irrelevant to the discussion.

The Second law specifically references an isolated (or closed) system. Earth isn't one, it gets energy from the Sun.

Local increases in order can in an open system be balanced out by the increase in disorder of the wider isolated system (the universe). If indeed the universe IS an isolated system, which is a topic of some debate.

Further context on that topic: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-009-0195-3

This resource is more succinct: http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I absolutely believe the second law applies. If you take it back to the ridiculous assertion that life
Evolved from primordial ooze, there is no way that you can claim independence from the second law of thermodynamics in that system. The laws are
Much broader in application than you imply. All science is built on their foundation.

 

[Alistair]

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I absolutely believe the second law applies. If you take it back to the ridiculous assertion that life
Evolved from primordial ooze, there is no way that you can claim independence from the second law of thermodynamics in that system. The laws are
Much broader in application than you imply. All science is built on their foundation.

We will have to agree to disagree yes. I encourage you to read one of the links I shared, the last one is the simplest read. I find it compelling.

 

[WAB]

I am reaching back to college days and a bit of later reading, but it has been my understanding that Second Law, often cited by creationists, is only really applicable in closed systems. For instance, the classic examples of water forming into ice - a more ordered state, or a seed turning into a tree do not violate the the second law because they exist in an open system and gain energy in it. The Earth, and like the tree, everything on it operates in a such an open system receiving massive, constant energy input from the Sun, which fuels the increase in biological order (local decrease in entropy) while increasing the total entropy of the solar system. That would seem to both resolve the Second Law and address the entropy question.

I do not think that the first law applies at all. The First Law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. Evolution does not violate this, as living organisms, whether evolving or not, do not create energy; they consume and transform energy from their environment (food, sunlight).

I fail to see how either the Third Law or Zeroth offers any conflict at all.

But what I really fail to see, except perhaps for the strict biblical constructionists, is how evolution ever became a threat to the belief of God the creator. Again, from my personal perspective, the humanly incalculable variations of the continuing evolution of life over millions of years on this planet is a far far greater example of an omniscient exercise of creation than the simple magic of an instantly created world and everything in it.

I don’t disagree with you, I don’t see the conflict. If you believe in creation, you have to believe in creator who could be the architect of evolution. My career was built on applied thermodynamics, in fact, two of my profs were Nobel laureates. The argument on the restrictions to the second law are generally made by those opposing creationists, not physical scientists. I will leave it at that and suggest that we dive into it over dinner and a drink the next time we have the chance.

 

[Killingtime]

Don't forget that amazingly fast growing olive tree.

That said, there was indeed a catastrophic event within the memory of modern man. It is prevalent in the mythology of all the major civilizations of Mesopotamia and in Eastern Asia. A number of modern scientists seem to be coalescing around the Younger Dryes event - likely an impact, which occurred approximately 12,900 years ago. In virtually all the cultural histories, it is described as a flood.

This of course did not "wipe out" all mankind but for eight people, but it does seem to have been catastrophic enough to have reset the clock on the development of human civilization. For instance, the Clovis Culture, which seems to have extended across most of North America at its height (identical highly refined stone tools), seems to have vanished completely and was gradually replaced by a host of localized hunter gatherer ones using tribal specific tool designs.

Such an event likely would have also had a very destructive effect on much of the then existing fauna (much of it mega-fauna) of that period.

Hey red leg I’m assuming you have read and/or listened to Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson’s thoughts on the younger dryers event? Especially Carlsons theory on how much America has changed since that period with america losing over 70% of mega fauna.(short faced bears and Irish elk would have been so cool to hunt).

If you haven’t listened to those two I think you would enjoy them.

 

[Red Leg]

Hey red leg I’m assuming you have read and/or listened to Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson’s thoughts on the younger dryers event? Especially Carlsons theory on how much America has changed since that period with america losing over 70% of mega fauna.(short faced bears and Irish elk would have been so cool to hunt).

If you haven’t listened to those two I think you would enjoy them.

I have. I generally agree that the world changed dramatically after the Younger Dreyas. I am somewhat skeptical about a lost much advanced civilization prior to the event, but have no argument that mankind took a step back for several millennia following some event 10-12 thousand years ago. As I noted above, I think the sudden disappearance of the continent-wide Clovis culture and the mega fauna they hunted is pretty powerful evidence as is the Younger Dreyas Boundary of charred material that appears in many excavations across North America.

 

[Killingtime]

I have. I generally agree that the world changed dramatically after the Younger Dreyas. I am somewhat skeptical about a lost much advanced civilization prior to the event, but have no argument that mankind took a step back for several millennia following some event 10-12 thousand years ago. As I noted above, I think the sudden disappearance of the continent-wide Clovis culture and the mega fauna they hunted is pretty powerful evidence as is the Younger Dreyas Boundary of charred material that appears in many excavations across North America.

I am skeptical as well of an advanced society before us. I acknowledge the pyramids and gobekli tepe as being advanced in a way but an advanced society beyond us seems unlikely. The Clovis sites are really cool and how we have sharks teeth in Montana lets you know the earth has drastically changed. I have megladon teeth pulled up from the phosphate mines in the middle of Florida that family got for me while working. There’s a guy my brother used to work with that has found literal dozens of meg teeth out there from 5-almost 7 inches tall. The ocean is a good bit away from there.