Gaps in Evolution

[blortog]

how does evolution contradict the bible? I could see how one could say that human evolution contradicts the bible (as in man came from monkey thing) But it doesn’t say that creatures can’t over generations change into different creatures due to environmental conditions.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’ve struggled with evolution and my faith for years. I personally think there’s a wealth of evidence in favor of it. I teach evolution theories in my sixth grade class as per our state standards. I try to do it respectfully and carefully.

If the Catholic Church is open to evolution, how could they reconcile that with the Fall in the Garden? Let’s say that Adam and Eve are allegorical or not to be taken literally, at some point one man and one woman had to turn their backs on God and sin against Him to create original sin? At some point there had to be a couple that did something in this arena to create the Fall. And their offspring would have to be the inheritors of the Fall.

But evolution negates this theory to me. Humans evolved in many different places, primarily out of Africa, and they didn’t have the power of speech for thousands of years. Homo Habilis was developing tools but was basically incapable of speech alongside Homo Erectus using fire and trying to communicate with grunts and lacking speech as well. Homo Sapiens were the first to speak and they lived alongside Neanderthals.

Christianity is based on the state of original sin. When and with whom did this original sin take place is what I wonder in the whole evolution approach to Christianity? How does one reconcile the sin of Adam and Eve, the deliberate disobedience to God that led to the need for a saviour? If men and women all didn’t descend from one couple (as evolution suggests), how do proponents of evolution who happen to be Catholic explain this?

I don’t say this in a challenging or antagonistic way, I truly am open and curious to hear people’s opinions on this…

 

[xixxvmcm85]

1. A theory can be unscientific if it can be made to fit to any scenario. That means, if you cannot refute evolution because it can be made to fit somehow every time, then it’s not really scientifically valid. This is my weakest point, but I thought I’d mention it anyway.

What do you mean by “made to fit to any scenario”? Are you talking about certain people’s tendency to use evolution to explain non-biological phenomena? I agree that such is foolish, but this isn’t the fault of biology. There are lots of crackpots that use a legitimate scientific theory to try to explain something which the theory is not equipped to explain. “Social Darwinism” is not evolutionary biology (it’s not even science), and there’s much of Evolutionary Psychology that I’m skeptical of.

1. The concept of Regulation in organisms. This is when the egg becomes damaged during the creation process of an organism. Take a water flea for example. A normal water flea would use the entire size of the egg to become a full individual. If the egg were ‘strangled’, so to speak, in the middle of the egg, then the organism would still grow up to be a complete individual, albeit only half as large. Even though nothing we know of dictates the movement of the first cells, they can still create an organism in special circumstances. The individual, however, will also just be half as large, but alive and mentally able for the most part. We cannot explain this phenomenon as far as I know.

Again, I’m having trouble understanding exactly what you’re asking here. A clarification may be in order. It seems to me you’re asking why the cell fate of an early ovum in an animal is so plastic as to allow for the maturation of an adult even when half of the ovum’s cells are removed. Though this has little to nothing to do with evolution, we do know that the cell fate of animals is rather indeterminate for a few weeks, and even longer in Deuterostome animals (such as ourselves). This is precisely why we see identical twins arise.

1. Coming back to the refuting of the evolutionary theory. We are not yet able to fully grasp evolution and all it’s principles. Many have suggested that there are ‘laws’ that we have not discovered that determine regulation and everything else. However, this is making the theory irrefutable, and thus an invalid theory.

This is not making the theory irrefutable. There are still means by which evolution can be falsified. We now have algorithms to mathematically p(name removed by moderator)oint the rate and acceleration of natural selection. We have formulas which can p(name removed by moderator)oint which Hardy Weinberg factor is causing the natural selection in the first place. If any of these are violated then that would indeed falsify at least that facet of evolution.

That there is still mystery to other micro-phenomena not yet explained by the current theory doesn’t mean we scrap the current theory. One very important facet of the scientific method is that new, competing theories should be able to explain more pheonomena than the current theory.

1. Sorry, if this one sounds a little mushy. I’m translating from german. Not always easy with hard words.

Anyway, this is the concept of different appendages with the same DNA. For example, the human arm and leg. The DNA contained in these two body parts is identical, as well as the proteins, muscle cells, tissue cells, etc. This has to be done during creation from the zygote, but at the precision in which the cells are capable to do that is a fact science cannot explain. Science, in its atheism, must claim that it is a physiochemical process, but has been unable to do so.

This is absolutely false. Hox genes explain for the appendages and mechanisms of epigenetics (such as methylation) explain the activation of particular segments of DNA at the exclusion of others. We know the effect of such genes and effects by observing how mutations to such affect the phenotype of an individual. I remember as an undergrad studying the xyelid “sawflies”. These creatures have a mutation in the HOCb5 segment. The result: They had legs for antenna!

1. This is another theoretical approach:

Evolutionary science assumes that we will be able to solve:

1. The three-dimensional structure of all proteins

1. To the enzymatic and other properties of proteins.

1. The entire metabolism of an organism.

1. The nature and effect of all organisms and their position information during creation (how the cells know where to form and when)

1. The structure and placement of cells, tissue, and organs and the form of the organism as a whole; finally, the instincts of an animal as well.

Science cannot even begin to make basic assumptions that regulate all of these traits. If we assume, that all points could be explained with the physical laws today, then they would probably be wrong. However, if they stated, that the workings are based on known and unknown workings of nature, then it would be, once again, irrefutable.

I’m assuming the author was a little more specific to these than you were, for as you have it so written we do indeed know the three dimensional design of many proteins, we know how enzymes work, we’re even able to extract human proteins, put them in a bacterium, allow them to reproduce the protein, then reextract them and bottle them as medicine (eg. the hormone insulin in humans).

Even if I were to humor the idea that we know absolutely nothing about the aforementioned things, this is nothing more than a thinly shrouded appeal to collective incredulity. We are indeed laying great inroads to understanding these so merely asserting that “We cannot explain these yet ergo evolution is false” is logically fallacious. This, in my opinion, is the most damaging of fallacies to science for it completely stifles inquiry. “We don’t know, we can’t ever know, so no point in trying”

 

[abukamoon]

how does evolution contradict the bible? I could see how one could say that human evolution contradicts the bible (as in man came from monkey thing) But it doesn’t say that creatures can’t over generations change into different creatures due to environmental conditions.

Bible: with sin came death
Evolution: various "evolved’ organisms had been dying for millions of years prior to the first man.

Bible: man was created from the dust of the earth
Evolution: man evolved from some ape-like creature

Bible: after sin, man degenerated both physically and mentally
Evolution: man continues to evolve and become more intelligent

Bible: the first man communicated with God
Evolution: the first man was little more than an ape, unable to speak or write

Bible: and the first man named all the animals
Evolution: most animals were extinct before the first man

This is just the tip of the iceberg/

 

[buffalo]

Saltations.

One other point about cell workings. The complex folding process has to be exact.

The Language of DNA.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Saltations.

One other point about cell workings. The complex folding process has to be exact.

The Language of DNA.

Three sentences, only one of which is actually complete.

I have no clue what you’re talking about here buffalo.

 

[Eleve]

Bible: with sin came death
Evolution: various "evolved’ organisms had been dying for millions of years prior to the first man.

Are you talking about Romans 6:23? It seems pretty apparent to me from the context (for example, the second half of the sentence) that Paul is talking about human sin and death. After all, animals can’t earn death as wages by sinning, and they aren’t eligible for “eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Bible: man was created from the dust of the earth
Evolution: man evolved from some ape-like creature

Evolution says that man evolved, by a long line of descent, from a small noncellular organism that formed out of primitive chemicals on the Earth’s surface, such as dust. Plus, all humans, including those alive today, are composed of chemicals that were synthesized from other chemicals that came out of the Earth’s surface. Being formed from dust doesn’t mean that the process was quick and direct. Anyway, I don’t think the Church teaches that this passage needs to be interpreted strictly literally.

Bible: after sin, man degenerated both physically and mentally
Evolution: man continues to evolve and become more intelligent

Evolution doesn’t mean that we become better; it means that we adapt to our environment, which could have very well gone downhill. And there’s nothing I know of in evolutionary biology that says that humans are getting smarter. It’s certainly not central to evolutionary theory, at least.

Bible: the first man communicated with God
Evolution: the first man was little more than an ape, unable to speak or write

Evolution doesn’t make that claim. Biology has no way of knowing who the first man was, how he acted, or who he communicated with, so in this case evolution can’t contradict the Bible.

Bible: and the first man named all the animals
Evolution: most animals were extinct before the first man

In no way does Genesis say that all animals that ever lived were brought before Adam. The passage clearly says that those animals that were born after Adam was alive were brought to him to be named.

By the way, everything you’ve posted here is about human evolution, not a refutation of blortog’s statement that the Bible “doesn’t say that creatures can’t over generations change into different creatures due to environmental conditions.”

This is just the tip of the iceberg/

Feel free to delve deeper, then, but from here it looks as if the iceberg is dwindling in a boiling ocean.

 

[SoulBeaver]

Hey guys, the OP wants to chime back in too.

Okay, so a lot of my points have either been validated or falsified. That’s good, I see were I stood with my arguments; I have much left to learn. So thanks for all the replies!

Alright, to clarify a few things I’ve specified. The first point was from the book, “Evolutionsbiologie” by Douglas J. Futuyma. I’ll try to directly translate the argument so you know what I wanted to say:

Karl Popper (1968) once said a theorie is unscientific if it cannot be potentially refuted. Some say, evolutionary biology is so flexible that it can be used to explain every imaginable observation. In this sense evolution would be irrefutable and therefore not a valid scientific theorie.

---

I hope that clarified my first argument a bit.

About the concept of regulation: xixxvmcm85 explained it quite nicely and coherently, thanks for that! Anyway, yes, I don’t think it has too much to do with evolution directly, but I wanted to include the information as it stands that we do not understand this process. We may now, from what I’m reading, so the point can slip away as well.

Finally, about the multitple assumptions I made on what science will be able to solve. It wasn’t really the, “what do the structures look like, and how do we use them.” It was more the how and why. But I’ll admit that it was a silly point in hindsight.

What’s more, I wasn’t presenting the information as a falsification of the evolutionary theorie. As stated in my OP, I believe in evolution, but I thought these were interesting problems that may have not been subject to refuting so quickly. Shows how much I know, eh? ^^

---

Then I have another question. From what I know, evolution is less about survival from other species, but rather an internal conflict among the same species for food and mates.

So the biggest challenge will, of course, be a source of food which also applies to us humans, and I believe that when people say we are to stop evolving because we have no other predators is a severe fallacy. While it is a point, I believe, from what I know, that our survival depends on how we support ourselves in our population.

Continuing on, there is also a critical density of population at which point the food to population ratio will tip. We will not get enough food for the people. Hypothetically speaking, that, if we do not get enough of that new technology and new food sources on our hands in time, then we will soon run out of food, right?

So then we can assume that the critical density for that point was in the past- because we had dwindling resources but produced anyway without knowing where the critical point was- and now we face intermittent hunger.

Next is, from what I’ve heard, evolution less about gradual change, but sudden change at the hand of these calamities. Feel free to prove me wrong, as far as I know it’s a valid theory inside evolution (gradual and sudden).

Where am I going with this again… oh yes, evolution. Then, therefore, it is probable that we, as a race, undergo relatively large changes, right? So basically, evolution, or?

I’m a little hesitant to go further because I’m not sure how flame happy the forum gets xD I think I’ll leave it at that, and see what there’s to say about it.

 

[Eleve]

Yes, Homo sapiens is subject to evolution just like every other species.

Karl Popper (1968) once said a theorie is unscientific if it cannot be potentially refuted. Some say, evolutionary biology is so flexible that it can be used to explain every imaginable observation. In this sense evolution would be irrefutable and therefore not a valid scientific theorie.

These people are wrong. There’s not much more to it; they are simply incorrect in saying that evolution is unfalsifiable.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, Homo sapiens is subject to evolution just like every other species.

These people are wrong. There’s not much more to it; they are simply incorrect in saying that evolution is unfalsifiable.

Yes, Talk Origins admits it has been partly falsifed. This was addressed in the “has science falsified macroeveolution” thread.

 

[Eleve]

Link me.

 

[tomarin]

How do people who are opposed on religious grounds to evolution by natural selection explain the existence of human ancestors (or at least what paleontologists consider human ancestors) such as Australopithecus afarensis (bka Lucy) that we know about through the fossil record?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Alright, to clarify a few things I’ve specified. The first point was from the book, “Evolutionsbiologie” by Douglas J. Futuyma. I’ll try to directly translate the argument so you know what I wanted to say:

Thanks for the title and author. Dr. Futuyma is a rather distinguished biologist in academic circles. If I’m not mistaken, he’s still a professor of evolutionary biology at UM Ann Arbor. There’s a good chance that either you, I, or both of us misunderstood what he was saying

Karl Popper (1968) once said a theorie is unscientific if it cannot be potentially refuted. Some say, evolutionary biology is so flexible that it can be used to explain every imaginable observation. In this sense evolution would be irrefutable and therefore not a valid scientific theorie.

This is still a bit vague. Could you offer us a bit more of his quote in context? What does he mean by “every imaginable observation”? As I stated in my previous post, this is the reason why I’m skeptical of quite a bit of evolutionary psychology. Granted, there are some hypotheses which are testable (and indeed have been tested), whereas others seem to immediately assume evolution is the culprit for a particular behavior simply because it “makes sense”. It’s almost circular in its reasoning; it goes something like this:

“Behavior X is rather widespread in human populations. It’s conceivable that behavior X would increase Darwinian Fitness of an individual by Y and Z. Behavior X is an evolutionary trait.”

Now I’m no evolutionary psychologist; I’m not even an evolutionary biologist, just a mere molecular biologist, however I notice there’s a few things missing with these assumptions:

1. No evidence has been provided that behavior X is even genetic.
2. This argument is a bit of a confirmation bias. It’s only due to it being widespread and conceivably beneficial to survival and reproduction that it’s even being argued!
3. There’s no way to test this hypothesis in a human population.

It’s still science as data can be offered to correlate the behavior and effect leading one to believe that evolution is at play, but its a bit far from empirical. Again, I’m not certain if this is what Dr. Futuyma had in mind.

What’s more, I wasn’t presenting the information as a falsification of the evolutionary theorie. As stated in my OP, I believe in evolution, but I thought these were interesting problems that may have not been subject to refuting so quickly. Shows how much I know, eh? ^^

We’re all learning. Thanks for having the stones to put yourself on the line like that .

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Then I have another question. From what I know, evolution is less about survival from other species, but rather an internal conflict among the same species for food and mates.

Essentially, yes. One must not forget that the key to evolution is reproduction. Considering that the biological species concept is that a species is any group of actual or potentially interbreeding populations, it is correct to consider natural selection working within species.

So the biggest challenge will, of course, be a source of food which also applies to us humans, and I believe that when people say we are to stop evolving because we have no other predators is a severe fallacy. While it is a point, I believe, from what I know, that our survival depends on how we support ourselves in our population.

Predation or not, we haven’t stopped evolving. Darwin’s observations still hold true, if not more so today. Natural resources are still finite, populations reproduce more than is supportable by the habitat, populations contain phenotypically diverse individuals all with differing Darwinian fitness, and especially for humans: population is no longer static. We are growing almost exponentially. The natural consequence is as true as ever: We evolve!

Continuing on, there is also a critical density of population at which point the food to population ratio will tip. We will not get enough food for the people. Hypothetically speaking, that, if we do not get enough of that new technology and new food sources on our hands in time, then we will soon run out of food, right?

Particular segments of humans will run out of food. Considering the level of resource inequality in the world, us middle-class, 1st worlders have little to worry about. Can’t say the same for our brother in Mumbai or Jakarta. There’s been speculation on the cladogenetic consequences of this inequality (i.e. the possibility of species splitting). I haven’t read any academic journals concerning this, and considering the dramatically large amount of time speculated, I’m remaining skeptical on this: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm

So then we can assume that the critical density for that point was in the past- because we had dwindling resources but produced anyway without knowing where the critical point was- and now we face intermittent hunger.

I haven’t the slightest clue. This would be a good question for an evolutionary biologist, possibly a sociologist. I don’t know where any such “critical point” would be, I have no data, so I cannot directly answer your question. What I can tell you (in a hypothetical manner) is that this could only spell gloom and doom for part of the human family. We could theoretically see a dramatic drop in the human population (and subsequently a bottleneck in the various human gene pools) due to mass starvation. I do believe however that Global Climate Change would be a much more likely culprit than overpopulation.

Next is, from what I’ve heard, evolution less about gradual change, but sudden change at the hand of these calamities. Feel free to prove me wrong, as far as I know it’s a valid theory inside evolution (gradual and sudden).

Not necessarily. Evolution can take on either rate. There was once a rather large debate within biology over “Punctuated Equilibrium” (sudden change in the fossil record) and “Gradualism”. Most biologists today understand that these two paradigms are not mutually exclusive. We’ve since learned that things such as the bottleneck, founder effect, and populations in peripheral isolates are great at coaxing rapid, sudden, and often extremely diversifying change. With a suddenly smaller population, new (migrated to) environment, or drastic cut-off from the larger gene pool, natural selection has a much larger variety of options which naturally gives rise to sudden “punctuated equilibrium” like changes in populations. In most cases of punctuated equilibrium, we have found that a natural disaster, or founder effect was usually at play.

Where am I going with this again… oh yes, evolution. Then, therefore, it is probable that we, as a race, undergo relatively large changes, right? So basically, evolution, or?

Again, it completely depends. I would consider the Amish community a founder effect. Due to the relatively small gene pool within their actually interbreeding population, we have seen some rather large (average) changes not so exhibited in the larger American population. Polydactyly and hemophilia are much much more common in the Amish community than in any other. The phenotypic frequency of each dramatically changing in a relatively quick time.

I don’t think we can speak about “the Human Race” considering the evolution we currently witness. Just like any other species, the differing populations live in different environments, and are subject to differing selective forces. We should consider the frequency changes in particular populations and compare them to others.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Yes, Talk Origins admits it has been partly falsifed. This was addressed in the “has science falsified macroeveolution” thread.

And your overreaching conclusion was also addressed and “falsified”.

Specific details of who is related to whom have been falsified yet macroevolution in general has not. As more evidence comes to light we get a better idea of where the specific “branches” of the “evolutionary family tree” belong. That in no way means the theory of common descent has been compromised.

If we were to use the human genealogy analogy, what you’re telling us is that because we might have misappropriated your ancestor in specifically where on the family three they belonged, genealogy cannot be trusted. Just because we later on find public records which imply that your “grandmother” was actually your great-grandmother doesn’t mean we’ve now determined you’re not related to the woman at all.

I believe this was the link you were speaking of:
talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#falsifying

 

[buffalo]

And your overreaching conclusion was also addressed and “falsified”.

Specific details of who is related to whom have been falsified yet macroevolution in general has not. As more evidence comes to light we get a better idea of where the specific “branches” of the “evolutionary family tree” belong. That in no way means the theory of common descent has been compromised.

If we were to use the human genealogy analogy, what you’re telling us is that because we might have misappropriated your ancestor in specifically where on the family three they belonged, genealogy cannot be trusted. Just because we later on find public records which imply that your “grandmother” was actually your great-grandmother doesn’t mean we’ve now determined you’re not related to the woman at all.

I believe this was the link you were speaking of:
talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#falsifying

“Moreover, science has to an extent falsified the initial conception of macroevolution.”

Perhaps you should petition them to remove the above sentence.

 

[Eleve]

The sentence is fine. Note the key words “initial conception.” Science has done the same with gravity.

 

[buffalo]

The sentence is fine. Note the key words “initial conception.” Science has done the same with gravity.

Aaahhh! They caught a break. So is it a hypothesis or a theory?

 

[Nayrb]

“Moreover, science has to an extent falsified the initial conception of macroevolution.”

Perhaps you should petition them to remove the above sentence.

Instead I’ll petition you to read things that you post in their entirety.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

“Moreover, science has to an extent falsified the initial conception of macroevolution.”

Perhaps you should petition them to remove the above sentence.

Perhaps you should read in its entirety that which you post as evidence for your position