Ignorance and evolution

[jmcrae]

Why?

Because we never see this happening now (no dog ever gave birth to something that is not actually a dog, even though we actively mess with their genetic lines to deliberately create new kinds of dogs all the time - if it could happen, then it would have happened by now to a dog. Or a rose, or an orchid. But so far, nada.

What do you think of this passage from the Bible?

I think it supports my prejudices. It shows that God directly creates a distinct body for each distinct thing, as it is being created (and also that each thing is being created purposefully), rather than just creating one single celled organism at the beginning of time, and then letting chance take over and see what evolves.

 

[steveandersen]

Because we never see this happening now (no dog ever gave birth to something that is not actually a dog, even though we actively mess with their genetic lines to deliberately create new kinds of dogs all the time - if it could happen, then it would have happened by now to a dog. Or a rose, or an orchid. But so far, nada.

Domestication is an example of unnatural selection

Of course there have been many observed instances of speciation both in the lab and in the field.

This is not news, it happens

Dog and rose breeders aren’t trying to create species… but there are over 100 species of roses

And the domestic dog is a subspecies of the wolf… speciation takes a long time in complex mammals and the two lines are only separated by 100,000 years. The inter fertility of dogs and wolves is evidence that they are transitional species.

Evolution would never suggest speciation of a complex vertebrate in a few millennium so in your dog example you are blaming evolution for not doing what it never claimed could happen.

I think it supports my prejudices. It shows that God directly creates a distinct body for each distinct thing, as it is being created (and also that each thing is being created purposefully),

Ah, but how does He go about doing that?

rather than just creating one single celled organism at the beginning of time, and then letting chance take over and see what evolves.

Evolution involves some deterministic elements.

But I often see people on these forums complain about “chance” what is wrong with chance? Think about the improbabilities of your conception.

 

[jmcrae]

Ah, but how does He go about doing that?

According to the passage, He does so as He has determined, each individually, and each, differently from all the others.

 

[steveandersen]

According to the passage, He does so as He has determined, each individually, and each, differently from all the others.

Sounds like evolution to me.

Each species has a unique evolutionary path.

 

[jmcrae]

Sounds like evolution to me.

Each species has a unique evolutionary path.

To each his own.

 

[Camron]

Cameron,

All these theories about what the numbers could mean are very interesting but they could also just be exactly what they appear to be, nothing more, nothing less.

Then why was the Book of Genesis written with the days as follows:

Day One, a second day, a third day, a fourth day, a fifth day, the sixth day, the seventh day.

This doesn’t seem to be a straight-forward reading, When the Bible is written with these kinds of patterns it usually means that God is trying to tell us something about His creation. Many things within the Old Testament do seem to have hidden meaning leading toward the New Testament.

We’re not dealing with a book written as apocalyptic literature, where everything is symbolic.

Perhaps so. I’m not sure if the Book of Genesis has apocalyptic intentions or symbolism. But I do see a book inspiried of God which seems to have taken previous writings from the Babylonians, purged these Babylonian writings of their pagan elements, and left us with a Book which has been purified for us to lead us toward Christ.

The book of Genesis is written as history. Genesis tells us that Jacob had 12 sons. Is that literally true or is it just symbolic?

I think it’s both. I do believe that Jacob had 12 sons. But I also believe that perhaps his 12 sons fore-shadowed the 12 apostles for example.

Were Abraham and Sarah as old as we are told? We take these numbers literally, why not the seven days of Gen 1?

When the ages come into question for Abraham and Sarah, I take them literally. It does not seem impossible to me for God to have sustained the earliest humans for longer life-spans than we currently experience.

I do find it kind of ironic that most who believe that God created within a literal 24 hour period also believe that people lived much longer as the Bible says. On the other hand I’ve also found that most who believe that God used “longer periods” to create this world also believe that people lived much shorter lives back then.

The pattern seems to be either/or as follows:

24 Hour Days + Longer Life-Spans

or

Longer Days + Shorter Life-Spans

Me personally I think that the days of Genesis are longer and that the specific people chosen of God also had longer life-spans; I read it as Longer Days + Longer Life-Spans and I think this is a more consistent reading.

I also think that the “Chosen of God” did live longer lives that the “common people” back in the Old Testament. That’s my opinion.

I’m not a literalist. I realize the Bible contains metaphors, poetry, apocalyptic literature and even novels (book-length fables such as Tobit and Job.). However it also contains history. (This is not to say that the Bible is a history book, that is not its intent. However, when it gives us history, we can believe it is accurate.)

I agree with this to some part.

It is clear that the Gen 12 on is intended to be read as history. What is it about 1 through 11 that differentiates that portion from the rest?

I think one of the best reasons that differentiate it is the fact that it strongly parallels Babylonian literature but is framed in a distinctly Jewish style. It retains the creation account of the Babylonians while purging the creation story of the Babylonian deities.

In other words, Genesis appears to be peeling out against the pagans of its time and says, "No, the sun, moon, and stars are not ‘gods’. The sun, moon, and stars are ‘creations’ created by the Supreme God who created all things. Do not worship created things. Worship God."

If there was a good textual reason for thinking it different, I wouldn’t have a problem with taking it symbolically but I just don’t see anything that justifies making that distinction.

I think the geological records combined with the similarities to the Babylonian literature strongly indicate that some elements of Genesis are poetic or allegorical, but mixed with real historical elements.

Do you believe that there was a universal flood? If not, then why are functionally identical flood stories found all over the world?

Gary

I’m not closed to the idea of a universal flood. But I will admit that if it was universal, then this was a miraculous catastrophe that simply defies any scientific analysis. I don’t think we could find ‘evidence’ of it in the fossil record for example. Only the ancient memories of the people who lived after this time would bring it to recollection. That, and the the Bible.

 

[garysibio]

Camron,

Then why was the Book of Genesis written with the days as follows:

Day One, a second day, a third day, a fourth day, a fifth day, the sixth day, the seventh day.

This doesn’t seem to be a straight-forward reading, When the Bible is written with these kinds of patterns it usually means that God is trying to tell us something about His creation. Many things within the Old Testament do seem to have hidden meaning leading toward the New Testament. <<

You lost me here. I have no idea what your point is. Please elaborate.

Perhaps so. I’m not sure if the Book of Genesis has apocalyptic intentions or symbolism. But I do see a book inspiried of God which seems to have taken previous writings from the Babylonians, purged these Babylonian writings of their pagan elements, and left us with a Book which has been purified for us to lead us toward Christ. <<

Actually, it’s just the opposite. (I did a paper on this when I was in college.) If you notice, in Enuma Elish the ship in which the people and animals took refuge is more advanced technologically that the ark which was, essentially, a box bobbing around on the water. Also, in the Babylonian version, the people lived much longer - 36,000 years vs 900 or so. The anthropologists that study folklore will tell you that, as tales develop the details will become more exaggerated. This means that the Babylonian story must have come from the biblical account. (Actually, accounts of a worldwide flood with a handful of people surviving in a boat which also carries animal life are found all over the world.)

I think it’s both. I do believe that Jacob had 12 sons. But I also believe that perhaps his 12 sons fore-shadowed the 12 apostles for example. <<

Foreshadowing something is different than merely being symbolic.

When the ages come into question for Abraham and Sarah, I take them literally. It does not seem impossible to me for God to have sustained the earliest humans for longer life-spans than we currently experience. <<

Why not? When God created Adam and Eve He created them perfect. After they sinned the creation began to decay (see Rom 8:21). As the decay proceeded, lifespans would decrease. (This has somewhat been ameliorated by modern medicine but still applies in general.)

Gary

 

[Camron]

Camron,

You lost me here. I have no idea what your point is. Please elaborate.

It seem to me that if these days were literal chonological days then we might read the Bible something like this…

Day One, Day Two, Day Three, Day Four, Day Five, Day Six, Day Seven…

or

a first day, a second day, a third day, a fourth day, a fifth day, a sixth day, a seventh day…

or

the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day, the seventh day…

But, instead of this, when we read this Biblical text literally from the Hebrew, it uses a combination of these different ways of saying a day.

The first day has a **cardinal number *(i.e. one, two, three … ), יום אחד (yôm echad) Day One. The others have **ordinal numbers **(second, third, fourth … ). Also, days 2–5 **lack a definite article **(ה, ha, ‘the’) while days 6–7 have a definite article.

So a literal translation of Creation Week would be:

Day One, a second day, a third day, a fourth day, a fifth day, the sixth day, the seventh day.

If this observation is correct then it seems to me that we may be in danger of misinterpreting the significance of the Biblical text if we read it in a simple and literal chronological order.

This is why I said earlier I’ve sometimes even wondered if the days should even be through of as chronological at all. For example, King David is called the “firstborn” even though he is the “eighth son” of Jesse. Maybe the days of Genesis are actually ranked by Biblical numbers according to “importance” instead of having a literal “chronological” significance.

 

[Camron]

Regarding Enuma Elish <<

You bring up some interesting points. But I’m fairly sure that the Enuma Elish story came before the writing of the Book of Genesis. I’m fairly sure that Pope Benedict XVI agrees with this opinion as well…see these excerpts from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)

This faith now had to find its own contours, and it had to do so precisely vis-a-vis the seemingly victorious religion of Babylon, which was displayed in splendid liturgies, like that of the New Year, in which the re-creation of the world was celebrated and brought to its fulfillment. **It had to find its contours vis-a-vis the great Babylonian creation account of Enuma Elish, which depicted the origin of the world in its own fashion. **There it is said that the world was produced out of a struggle between opposing powers and that it assumed its form when Marduk, the god of light, appeared and split in two the body of the primordial dragon. From this sundered body heaven and earth came to be. Thus the “firmament” and the earth were produced from the sundered body of the dead dragon, but from its blood Marduk fashioned human beings. It is a foreboding picture of the world and of humankind that we encounter here: The world is a dragon’s body, and human beings have dragon’s blood in them. At the very origin of the world lurks something sinister, and in the deepest part of humankind there lies something rebellious, demonic, and evil. In this view of things only a dictator, the king of Babylon, who is the representative of Marduk, can repress the demonic and restore the world to order.

Such views were not simply fairy tales. They expressed the discomfiting realities that human beings experienced in the world and among themselves. For often enough it looks as if the world is a dragon’s lair and human blood is dragon’s blood. But despite all oppressive experiences the scriptural account says that it was not so. The whole tale of these sinister powers melts away in a few words: “The earth was without form and void.” (Gen 1:2) Behind these Hebrew words lie the dragon and the demonic powers that are spoken of elsewhere. Now it is the void that alone remains and that stands as the sole power over against God.

And in the face of any fear of these demonic forces we are told that God alone, who is the eternal Reason that is eternal love, created the world, and that it rests in his hands. Only with this in mind can we appreciate the dramatic confrontation implicit in this biblical text, in which all these confused myths were rejected and the world was given its origin in God’s Reason and in his Word. This could be shown almost word for word in the present text – as, for example, when the sun and the moon are referred to as lamps that God has hung in the sky for the measurement of time. To the people of that age it must have seemed a terrible sacrilege to designate the “great gods” sun and moon as lamps for measuring time. Here we see the audacity and the temperateness of the faith that, in confronting the pagan myths, made the light of truth appear by showing that the world was not a demonic contest but that it arose from God’s Reason and reposes on God’s Word.

Hence this creation account may be seen as the decisive “enlightenment” of history and as a breakthrough out of the fears that had oppressed humankind. It placed the world in the context of reason and recognized the world’s reasonableness and freedom. But it may also be seen as the true enlightenment from the fact that it put human reason firmly on the primordial basis of God’s creating Reason, in order to establish it in truth and in love, without which an “enlightenment” would be exorbitant and ultimately foolish.

To this something further must be added. I just said how, gradually, in confronting its pagan environment and its own heart, the people of Israel experienced what “creation” was. Implicit here is the fact that the classic creation account is not the only creation text of sacred Scripture. Immediately after it there follows another one, composed earlier and containing other imagery. In the Psalms there are still others, and there the movement to clarify the faith concerning creation is carried further: In its confrontation with Hellenistic civilization, Wisdom literature reworks the theme without sticking to the old images such as the seven days. Thus we can see how the Bible itself constantly readapts its images to a continually developing way of thinking, how it changes time and again in order to bear witness, time and again, to the one thing that has come to it, in truth, from God’s Word, which is the message of his creating act. In the Bible itself the images are free and they correct themselves ongoingly. In this way they show, by means of a gradual and interactive process, that they are only images, which reveal something deeper and greater.

 

[Camron]

When the ages come into question for Abraham and Sarah, I take them literally. It does not seem impossible to me for God to have sustained the earliest humans for longer life-spans than we currently experience. <<

I’m not sure if I understand the question.

I’m saying that I personally think that the long lives of Abraham and Sarah are literally true. In other words, I think, altogether, Abraham lived a hundred and seventy-five years. I also think that Sarah lived to be a hundred and twenty-seven years old.

Much like all the accounts of a flood around the world, I also think that the many ancient accounts of a ‘golden age’ of humanity (where human beings lived much longer lives) is probably based on truth and reflects an ancient knowledge that was passed along to all cultures.

I also think, however, that this ancient knowledge was later distorted by the cultures that carried them as they spanned further and further from the “chosen people of God”.

I think we’re in some agreement here.

Probably where we are in disagreement is my belief that the long lives of the ancient holy patriarchs of God (from Adam to Noah) are what enabled the “chosen people” to surpass the “worldly humans” around them over the roughly 40,000 years since the emergence of ‘modern humans’.

I think that the further that humanity went from God the less they benefitted from His grace and most likely quickly dwindled in number when compared to the direct lines from Adam to Noah. There may have been many ‘humans’ during this time that only lived anywhere from 40 to 70 years. Maybe some lived to the multiples of hundreds of years. But comparing an average life-span of dozens of years to an average life-span of hundreds of years quickly leads one to suspect that, if this is true, the ancient holy patriarchs had some intrinsic advantage over their peers.

 

[Deconi]

I have encoutered this chronological confusion of the days of creation through studies, Cam. Does it include “moving” the Sun towards an earlier day?

Since it was created on the fourth day, and ‘life’ already existed in animals and plant life (according to Scriptures) How else would ‘life’ sustain itself for lengthy periods without it’s natural sustenance?

 

[buffalo]

Then why was the Book of Genesis written with the days as follows:

Day One, a second day, a third day, a fourth day, a fifth day, the sixth day, the seventh day.

This doesn’t seem to be a straight-forward reading, When the Bible is written with these kinds of patterns it usually means that God is trying to tell us something about His creation. Many things within the Old Testament do seem to have hidden meaning leading toward the New Testament.

Perhaps so. I’m not sure if the Book of Genesis has apocalyptic intentions or symbolism. But I do see a book inspiried of God which seems to have taken previous writings from the Babylonians, purged these Babylonian writings of their pagan elements, and left us with a Book which has been purified for us to lead us toward Christ.

I think it’s both. I do believe that Jacob had 12 sons. But I also believe that perhaps his 12 sons fore-shadowed the 12 apostles for example.

When the ages come into question for Abraham and Sarah, I take them literally. It does not seem impossible to me for God to have sustained the earliest humans for longer life-spans than we currently experience.

I do find it kind of ironic that most who believe that God created within a literal 24 hour period also believe that people lived much longer as the Bible says. On the other hand I’ve also found that most who believe that God used “longer periods” to create this world also believe that people lived much shorter lives back then.

The pattern seems to be either/or as follows:

24 Hour Days + Longer Life-Spans

or

Longer Days + Shorter Life-Spans
Me personally I think that the days of Genesis are longer and that the specific people chosen of God also had longer life-spans; I read it as Longer Days + Longer Life-Spans and I think this is a more consistent reading.

I also think that the “Chosen of God” did live longer lives that the “common people” back in the Old Testament. That’s my opinion.

I agree with this to some part.

I think one of the best reasons that differentiate it is the fact that it strongly parallels Babylonian literature but is framed in a distinctly Jewish style. It retains the creation account of the Babylonians while purging the creation story of the Babylonian deities.

In other words, Genesis appears to be peeling out against the pagans of its time and says, "No, the sun, moon, and stars are not ‘gods’. The sun, moon, and stars are ‘creations’ created by the Supreme God who created all things. Do not worship created things. Worship God."

I think the geological records combined with the similarities to the Babylonian literature strongly indicate that some elements of Genesis are poetic or allegorical, but mixed with real historical elements.

I’m not closed to the idea of a universal flood. But I will admit that if it was universal, then this was a miraculous catastrophe that simply defies any scientific analysis. I don’t think we could find ‘evidence’ of it in the fossil record for example. Only the ancient memories of the people who lived after this time would bring it to recollection. That, and the the Bible.

Worth reading - The “Toledoths” of Genesis

Written on Tablets
Another important fact needs to be emphasised in connection with the use of the Toledoth formula. The second time that it occurs, in Genesis (5:1), we read: “This is the book of the origins of Adam.” Here the Hebrew word sepher, translated “book,” means “written narrative,” or as F. Delitzsch has translated it, “finished writing.”(30) The Septuagint actually goes so far as to render the first Toledoth (Genesis 2:4) as: “This is the book of the origins of the heavens and the earth.” Regarding this fact, Wiseman has pointed out:

“We must realise that the ‘books’ of antiquity were tablets, and that the earliest records of Genesis claim to have been written down, and not as is often imagined passed on to Moses by word of mouth.”(31) Moreover, a careful examination of the name of the person stated at the end of the various phrases, “These are the generations of…” makes it clear that the Toledoth refers to the owner or writer of the tablet, rather than to the history of the person named. Thus for instance: “These are the generations of Noah” does not necessarily mean: “This is the history about Noah,” but rather the history written or possessed by Noah. To put this into a modern perspective, the Toledoth, or colophon is really like a kind of signature from a contemporary of the events recorded. In the case of Noah’s document, the Toledoth would convert to something like: “This is Noah signing off.”

more…

 

[Camron]

I have encoutered this chronological confusion of the days of creation through studies, Cam. Does it include “moving” the Sun towards an earlier day?

Since it was created on the fourth day, and ‘life’ already existed in animals and plant life (according to Scriptures) How else would ‘life’ sustain itself for lengthy periods without it’s natural sustenance?

I personally don’t think the “light” is referring to the sun. I think it’s referring to The Son.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.

I’m not sure but I think the light that first appeared was the light of Christ Himself, the Son of God Himself beginning and entering into His own Father’s creation and causing the Big Bang to happen.

If you look at the beginning of the Gospel according to John I think you will notice a similarity between it and the beginning of the Book of Genesis…

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

God seeing that the light was good and separating the light from the darkness in the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament seems to parallel the light shining in the darkness but the darkness not understanding the light in the Gospel according to John within the New Testament.

Please note that I’m not saying that Jesus is a “creation”. I believe that Jesus is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, True God and True Man. I would even go so far as to say that God is the only person who was fully human.

When I say that I think that Jesus was beginning and entering into His own Father’s creation, I saying that I think that this “light” was the “demarcation” of when the Eternal Son of God entered into creation, an infinite being entering into a finite state resulting in the creation of the universe itself.

According to Colossians 1:15-17, the supremacy of Christ over the created order of things is recorded as follows…

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

It is in this sense that I personally think that God the Father imprinted a latent image of His Son within His creation so that, with the fullness of time, the Father’s creation would, with the conception of God the Holy Spirit, bring forth the Virgin Birth of His own Son within His own creation.

As Hebrews 1:3 states, the Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word.

I would even guess that the Incarnation of Christ occured in stages through the Father’s creation as follows…

Christ from Eternity creating/entering the Finite universe taking a spiritual form similar to (but above) the angels (ie., the Angel of the Lord, a Theophany of God) prior to His physical incarnation.

Christ from Theophany creating/entering the Finite body of the Virgin in a form similar to (but above) the humans (ie., the Messiah, the Christ) prior to His physical death.

Christ from Death and Resurrection re-creating/re-entering the Infinite Heavens in a Glorified body that is still True God and True Man so that others who die in His Name will likewise be brought into the Beatific Vision of God’s Holy Family.

I could be wrong but that’s how I see it. I think focusing on the sun’s creation on the fourth day in the Book of Genesis and insisting that this light must somehow be retracing the sun’s light back to the first day of Genesis may be falling backward into the errors of the Babylonians who conceived the sun as a god unto itself.

 

[Camron]

Worth reading - The “Toledoths” of Genesis

Written on Tablets
Another important fact needs to be emphasised in connection with the use of the Toledoth formula. The second time that it occurs, in Genesis (5:1), we read: “This is the book of the origins of Adam.” Here the Hebrew word sepher, translated “book,” means “written narrative,” or as F. Delitzsch has translated it, “finished writing.”(30) The Septuagint actually goes so far as to render the first Toledoth (Genesis 2:4) as: “This is the book of the origins of the heavens and the earth.” Regarding this fact, Wiseman has pointed out:

“We must realise that the ‘books’ of antiquity were tablets, and that the earliest records of Genesis claim to have been written down, and not as is often imagined passed on to Moses by word of mouth.”(31) Moreover, a careful examination of the name of the person stated at the end of the various phrases, “These are the generations of…” makes it clear that the Toledoth refers to the owner or writer of the tablet, rather than to the history of the person named. Thus for instance: “These are the generations of Noah” does not necessarily mean: “This is the history about Noah,” but rather the history written or possessed by Noah. To put this into a modern perspective, the Toledoth, or colophon is really like a kind of signature from a contemporary of the events recorded. In the case of Noah’s document, the Toledoth would convert to something like: “This is Noah signing off.”

more…

Hmmm…I never read anything like that before. That’s very interesting. So is it suggesting that the ancient patriarchs may not have lived for hundreds of years but rather hundreds of years may have passed between the time of the people named in Genesis?

If so, I would admit that I would have a hard time accepting that. But I think it’s a potentially valid suggestion as to why the Bible was written with these long “life-spans” in them from Adam to Noah. It’s defintely something that I will look into further as a potnetial answer to these questions.

 

[Camron]

Because we never see this happening now (no dog ever gave birth to something that is not actually a dog, even though we actively mess with their genetic lines to deliberately create new kinds of dogs all the time - if it could happen, then it would have happened by now to a dog. Or a rose, or an orchid. But so far, nada.

I think that, in specific cases, convergent evolution could potentially create two distinct species which are not directly related and yet interbreedable between the two species. I also think that there could be certain quantum leaps in evolution because of these convergent forces.

I will note that this is not an idea that is, to my knowledge, accepted among many evolutionary biologists. But, to be fair, I think this is a possible outcome of convergent evolution. It could happen.

I think it supports my prejudices. It shows that God directly creates a distinct body for each distinct thing, as it is being created (and also that each thing is being created purposefully), rather than just creating one single celled organism at the beginning of time, and then letting chance take over and see what evolves.

I would use a passage like this to refute Dawkin’s contention that there is essentially no difference between humanity and other animals. I don’t think it’s as effective when trying to assert that we had no common ancestor with other animals though.

If Paul were speaking of the past and our origins, *because he is laying good roots of theology in this Biblical passage *, I think he would have somehow linked up this Biblical passage with another Biblical quote from the Old Testament that specifically refers to a creation event done by God in reference to **humanity and other animals **. As is, he seems to be demeaning people who ask this question to begin with and not offering anything that connects it with the origin of species.

The answer originates with the question, *“But someone may ask, ‘How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?’” *

In this context, he seems to be saying that a human body will be raised with a human body– not the body of another animal (as some who espouse *reincarnation * believe). That’s how I read it anyway.

 

[anthony022071]

You’ve been misled. We still have this species in existence, and they still reproduce just fine, like other self-perpetuating populations.

But they aren’t self-perpetuating. They are bred and cared for by scientists. They would die off if they were left to sustain themselves in the wild.

You mean speciation can occur without new information?

Not the kind of speciation that would be relevant to the theory of common descent.

And we are still primates. You find that amazing?
It’s one of the predictions of common descent.

A primate is an omnivorous mammal. Common descent didn’t predict that humans are primates. That’s a classification,not a prediction.

So do Zea maize and ginko trees.

No relevance to the theory of common descent.

Some species have become dependent on humans.

Ans so they are irrelevant to the theory of common descent.

But, of course, this doesn’t mean that they aren’t species.

And yet they still reproduce and breed true. Hmm… is it possible there’s something you’re missing here…

No,I’m not. They aren’t a self-sustaining population.

Barbarian observes:
The author of that paper is dead, but O. gigas lives on. Imagine that.

The O. gigas are kept going by being bred and cared for by scientists. No relevance to the question of whether humans evolved from other species.

And corn is “helped” along. But of course that polyploid rodent in South America had to go it alone.

They are still just polynoid rodents.

So we know it works. Moreover, there are quite a number of polyploid wild plants that do just fine without human intervention.

They are still just polynoid plants.

You’re running out of excuses.

You’re running out of irrelevant examples.

Other than demonstrate the fact of speciation. BTW, even most YE creationists admit the fact of speciation. They can hardly do otherwise, since it’s directly observed:

I admit the fact of speciation also. But where are the examples of absolute speciation?

You mean the Dobzhansky-Muller model? You’ve been misled on that:

**The Dobzhansky-Muller model proposes that hybrid incompatibilities are caused by the interaction between genes that have functionally diverged in the respective hybridizing species. **

It explains why two divergent species can’t hybridize. It doesn’t mean that they are hybrids.

Don’t be silly. Dobzhanski came up with his model after observing the hybridization of fruit flies.

Barbarian observes:
Those flies would be surprised to learn that. They are still there, still reproducing, many generations later.

Of course,they are laboratory flies. And the hybrids are constitutionally weak,malformed,and sterile.

And yet, the flies live on, completely disregarding your interpretation of genetics. Cheeky little miscreants. BTW, since Dobzhansky wrote that, molecular biology has made it clear that most mutations don’t do much of anything.

They result in speciation,remember?

But of course, such mutations were not visible until we could examine DNA in detail.

This is one of the hazards of trying to cite papers over a half-century old, as current knowledge.

Then why did you cite the examples of O. gigas and Dobzanski’s fruit flies in the first place? You should know how silly it is to use examples like that to argue for a theory which attempts to explain the history of all life forms.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian on O. gigas:
You’ve been misled. We still have this species in existence, and they still reproduce just fine, like other self-perpetuating populations.

But they aren’t self-perpetuating. They are bred and cared for by scientists.

And flower fanciers. The species is doing fine.

They would die off if they were left to sustain themselves in the wild.

Maybe. However, we have an example of a species of rodents that occured by polyploidy, and they do just fine.

Barbarian chuckles:
You mean speciation can occur without new information?

Not the kind of speciation that would be relevant to the theory of common descent.

Show me.

Barbarian on the claim that new species of flies are still flies:
And we are still primates. You find that amazing?
It’s one of the predictions of common descent.

A primate is an omnivorous mammal. Common descent didn’t predict that humans are primates.

Yep. It does. for a host of reasons. Anatomical, genetic, fossil, etc.

Barbarian on species that depend on humans:
So do Zea maize and ginko trees.

No relevance to the theory of common descent.

But it does throw your “but they can’t survive in the wild” argument in the dumpster.

Barbarian observes:
The author of that paper is dead, but O. gigas lives on. Imagine that.

The O. gigas are kept going by being bred and cared for by scientists.

And those who like primroses.

No relevance to the question of whether humans evolved from other species.

It merely demonstrates that the evolution of new species is a fact.

Barbarian observes:
And corn is “helped” along. But of course that polyploid rodent in South America had to go it alone.

They are still just polynoid rodents.

Polyploid. And they evolved from diploid rodents. Just another part of common descent.

So we know it works. Moreover, there are quite a number of polyploid wild plants that do just fine without human intervention.

They are still just polynoid plants.

You’re running out of irrelevant examples.

I think you’re going to have to do better than simple denial to get out of this one.

Barbarian observes:
Other than demonstrate the fact of speciation. BTW, even most YE creationists admit the fact of speciation. They can hardly do otherwise, since it’s directly observed:

I admit the fact of speciation also. But where are the examples of absolute speciation?

Sorry, inventing imaginary forms of speciation isn’t going to help either.

The Dobzhansky-Muller model proposes that hybrid incompatibilities are caused by the interaction between genes that have functionally diverged in the respective hybridizing species.

Barbarian chuckles:
It explains why two divergent species can’t hybridize. It doesn’t mean that they are hybrids.

Don’t be silly. Dobzhanski came up with his model after observing the hybridization of fruit flies.

You still don’t get it. The speciation wasn’t caused by hybridization. He was writing about the reason why the two species couldn’t form viable hybrids.

Barbarian observes:
Those flies would be surprised to learn that. They are still there, still reproducing, many generations later.

Of course,they are laboratory flies.

Nope. They are living in the Orinoco basin, with no help from humans at all. Did you even read the research?

And the hybrids are constitutionally weak,malformed,and sterile.

Barbarian observes:
And yet, the flies live on, completely disregarding your interpretation of genetics. Cheeky little miscreants. BTW, since Dobzhansky wrote that, molecular biology has made it clear that most mutations don’t do much of anything.

They result in speciation,remember?

Usually not. Most of the time, they do nothing detectable. You and I almost certainly have several.

Barbarian observes:
But of course, such mutations were not visible until we could examine DNA in detail.

This is one of the hazards of trying to cite papers over a half-century old, as current knowledge.

Then why did you cite the examples of O. gigas and Dobzanski’s fruit flies in the first place?

These new species are still in existance, the flies in the wild, doing their thing with no human help.

You should know how silly it is to use examples

Some creationists look on examples the way a vampire regards a crucifix.

But science works on evidence. If you want to play basketball, don’t complain if they expect you to dribble.

 

[garysibio]

It seem to me that if these days were literal chonological days then we might read the Bible something like this…

Day One, Day Two, Day Three, Day Four, Day Five, Day Six, Day Seven…

or

a first day, a second day, a third day, a fourth day, a fifth day, a sixth day, a seventh day…

or

the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day, the seventh day…

But, instead of this, when we read this Biblical text literally from the Hebrew, it uses a combination of these different ways of saying a day.

The first day has a **cardinal number *(i.e. one, two, three … ), יום אחד (yôm echad) Day One. The others have **ordinal numbers **(second, third, fourth … ). Also, days 2–5 **lack a definite article **(ה, ha, ‘the’) while days 6–7 have a definite article.

So a literal translation of Creation Week would be:

Day One, a second day, a third day, a fourth day, a fifth day, the sixth day, the seventh day.

If this observation is correct then it seems to me that we may be in danger of misinterpreting the significance of the Biblical text if we read it in a simple and literal chronological order.

This is why I said earlier I’ve sometimes even wondered if the days should even be through of as chronological at all. For example, King David is called the “firstborn” even though he is the “eighth son” of Jesse. Maybe the days of Genesis are actually ranked by Biblical numbers according to “importance” instead of having a literal “chronological” significance.

I just don’t see why it makes a difference. In each case the phrase “evening and morning” is used. That pretty much means we’re dealing with 24-hour days here. I think you’re really digging here in an attempt to get something into the text that just isn’t there (gaps between the days of creation). How long of a gap could there have been between the third day when plants were created and the fourth day when the sun was created?

Gary

 

[garysibio]

You bring up some interesting points. But I’m fairly sure that the Enuma Elish story came before the writing of the Book of Genesis. I’m fairly sure that Pope Benedict XVI agrees with this opinion as well…see these excerpts from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)

You’re comparing apples and oranges here. When the stories were written down is irrelevant. The written text of Enuma Elish does pre-date Moses’ authorship of Genesis but think about it. The Babylonians were already a sedentary culture with cities. The Jews were in the process of moving from slavery in Egypt to a nomadic existence. Since writing at this time consisted of using a stylus to make marks in a clay tablet, we would not expect to see these things carried around by a nomadic people. Even today in Africa nomadic tribes have almost no possessions.

The account of Noah was being passed around orally when the Babylonians were writing theirs down but Noah is still the original.

Gary

 

[Camron]

I just don’t see why it makes a difference. In each case the phrase “evening and morning” is used. That pretty much means we’re dealing with 24-hour days here.

Actually, the seventh day does not have the "evening and morning” phrase, and this day is referred to as “the seventh day” just as the “the sixth day” is.

Again, the Church Fathers were not in agreement on this. Neither were other non-Christians, such as some Jewish philosophers from this era, in complete agreement with this part either.

Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact “that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same “day” as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).

For example, St. Augustine also noted the “evenings and mornings” as such…

For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!

The City of God 11:6 (A.D. 419).​

He also said later…

We see that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting [of the sun] and no morning but by the rising of the sun, but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day.

And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness and called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was and yet must unhesitatingly believe it"

The City of God 11:7 (A.D. 419).​

I think you’re really digging here in an attempt to get something into the text that just isn’t there (gaps between the days of creation). How long of a gap could there have been between the third day when plants were created and the fourth day when the sun was created?

Gary

Even if these Biblical passages were speaking of a literal order of creation, it is not outside the scope of God’s providence to sustain the plant life without sunlight, so I’m not sure why this is brought up. For example, if God could use a special creation to make plant life spring up then He could also use some other means to sustain this same plant life without sunlight too.

If you’re arguing for literal 24 hours, then you can maintain that opinion. The fossil record does not match this account though. I also think there is sufficient evidence within the Biblical text itself that these are most likely not literal 24 hour day.