Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

[Buzzard3]

My understanding is, while a sequence of transitional fossils provides evidence of evolution, it tells us nothing about the process responsible for that evolution. There is no way to verify that the Darwinian recipe of mutations and natural selection was responsible for an evolutionary sequence of fossils - God could well have used such a method to evolve life, or God could have used a different method - I expect we will never know.

While neo-Darwinist theory provides the best available scientific explanation for the history of life on earth, that doesn’t mean it’s the truth. I don’t know how God caused life to evolve, but I suspect it was a supernatural process, in which case, science has no chance at all of discovering what that process was. When confronted with the power of God Almighty, the “best scientific explanation” for his works means nothing.

The Bible is about God’s relationship with man, so the history of the world before man was created is not important and is therefore presented in Genesis in a non-literal manner - so it’s possible to fit billions of years of non-human evolution into those verses. After man comes on the scene, the history becomes more literal. However, it’s possible that pre-Abrahamic history is presented less literally than post-Abrahamic history, so the date of Adam creation is a matter of controversy. Post-Abrahamic history seems less ambiguous - for example, Matt 1:17 is very specific about the number of generations from Abraham to Jesus.

Some scholars claim it is possible to pin-point the year of Adam’s creation - Orthodox Jews, for example, believe it was 5780 years ago; and the Catholic Church came up with a similar date. Personally, I think Adam was created (ie, he did not evolve from a pre-existing creature), somewhere between 5,000-10,000 years ago … but what would I know?

 

[Buzzard3]

God created the entire universe out of NOTHING, so I should think creating Adam from inanimate matter would be a piece of cake.

And it should be remembered that man is the only earthly creature made in the image of God, hence it makes sense that God should create him directly and not from a lower animal. Then there is the fact that God placed Adam in a garden that was separate from the rest of creation, suggesting there was something very different about Adam, compared to the life-forms that came before him.

 

[Buzzard3]

So, what is their specific criticism of Kimura’s Neutral Theory, which was only added to the current theory of evolution in the 1950s?

I remember my teacher discussing Kimura’s Neutral Theory with us in Grade 2. After some debate, it was collectively decided that Kimura was conflating conjecture and science, as Darwinist often do.

A wise man once said …
“It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.”
Dr. Colin Patterson, from a letter to Luther Sunderland, 1979.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

for there is no way of putting them to the test.”

Except we have, many times, and have observed adaptation and speciation. Why so many posters continue to deny this despite the evidence clearly given time after time is beyond me.

 

[rossum]

My understanding is, while a sequence of transitional fossils provides evidence of evolution, it tells us nothing about the process responsible for that evolution. There is no way to verify that the Darwinian recipe of mutations and natural selection was responsible for an evolutionary sequence of fossils - God could well have used such a method to evolve life, or God could have used a different method - I expect we will never know.

Science works on evidence, not proof. Do you have evidence that the Christian God created animals in the way you say, and that it was not Vishnu who did the creating?

Occam’s Razor means that science will not unnecessarily multiply causes; there are far too many gods in different religions to waste time on all of them.

While neo-Darwinist theory provides the best available scientific explanation for the history of life on earth, that doesn’t mean it’s the truth.

Agreed. Scientific theories are approaches to the truth. Newton’s Theory of Gravity was an approach. Einstein’s Theory of Gravity was closer. The Theory of Quantum Gravity will be closer still, once it has been formulated.

I don’t know how God caused life to evolve, but I suspect it was a supernatural process, in which case, science has no chance at all of discovering what that process was.

Evolution happens in a situation of imperfect replication within a resource constraint. It is how evolution works and how computer genetic algorithms work. The imperfect replication generates variation and the resource constraint makes for competition for that resource. All God had to do was to ensure that both were present.

for example, Matt 1:17 is very specific about the number of generations from Abraham to Jesus.

And Matt 1:1 gives a very different list: “This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham”. Jesus was Abraham’s grandson, the Bible says so.

 

[rossum]

I remember my teacher discussing Kimura’s Neutral Theory with us in Grade 2.

So, you will accept a second grade refutation of Christianity given by a Muslim teacher in a school in Saudi Arabia? I am sure you can do better than that.

A wise man once said …
“It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.”
Dr. Colin Patterson, from a letter to Luther Sunderland, 1979.

Ah… the memories. Creationism has no scientific evidence, it only has belief. In order to substitute for their lack of evidence, creationists have been picking out parts of scientific writings to try to give the appearance that they have evidence. The Patterson letter is a classic of the genre. See Patterson Misquoted for a longer treatment.

Those of us who have been discussing creationism, especially the YEC variety, have seen these quotes for a long time. They are about as effective as me quoting the Bible: “There is no God”. Take something out of context and interpret the life out of it to make it say what you want it to say.

From my perspective as a Buddhist the creation story in Genesis is just such a “made up story” written by a late Bronze Age people to try to explain the world around them. The Bible is not a science text. Science texts change as new things are discovered; the Bible does not. Astronomy texts changed after the discovery of the planet Neptune; the Bible did not.

Trying to base your science on a fixed unchanging text is a great scientific error. The Catholic Church learned the error of that with Galileo. Some Christians still have to learn that lesson. In matters of the material world you should look to the material world that God made.

 

[buffalo]

Except we have, many times, and have observed adaptation and speciation.

No one denies adaptation or speciation (lineage splitting)

 

[PickyPicky]

No one denies adaptation or speciation (lineage splitting)

Well, that seems to be that, then. We can accept the theory of the evolution of species. Perhaps now we might move on to some other topic.

 

[buffalo]

Well, that seems to be that, then. We can accept the theory of the evolution of species. Perhaps now we might move on to some other topic.

Yes, we call organisms that can no longer reproduce with each other another name. (lineage splitting)

 

[PickyPicky]

Yes, we call organisms that can no longer reproduce with each other another name. (lineage splitting)

Yes indeed. And of course we couldn’t get from a common ancestor to all the millions of species today without lineage splitting. Excellent.

 

[buffalo]

Yes indeed. And of course we couldn’t get from a common ancestor to all the millions of species today without lineage splitting. Excellent.

Nope, not from a universal common ancestor. From different archetypes, yes.

 

[PickyPicky]

Nope, not from a universal common ancestor. From different archetypes, yes

How many of those would there have been? And how long ago?

 

[rossum]

Nope, not from a universal common ancestor. From different archetypes, yes.

And your evidence for the existence of these archetypes is? What are the criteria to decide what is an archetype and what is merely an early non-archetype? Where is your evidenced list of these archetypes?

For example, is there a single marsupial archetype or are there separate archetypes within the marsupials for kangaroos, wombats, koalas etc? Naturally you will have supporting evidence for what you tell us. Otherwise all you have is personal opinion, and that does not get you very far in science.

 

[Buzzard3]

Except we have, many times, and have observed adaptation and speciation. Why so many posters continue to deny this despite the evidence clearly given time after time is beyond me

I wasn’t referring to empirical Darwinist theory; I was referring to Darwinian theories regarding the history of life on earth. For example, how do you test the theory that Fossil B evolved from Fossil A via the Darwinian process of mutation and natural selection?

 

[Buzzard3]

Welcome to CARM.

Thank you.

Your sources are lying to you. Research the Ediacaran biota for better information on Precambrian life. You might want to have a look at Kimberella for example.

Wishful thinking. The primitive and not-very-diverse Ediacaran biota cannot account for the Cambrian explosion, when literally hundreds of different kinds of animals suddenly appear without any hint of evolutionary ancestors. Even for an Ediacaran organism to evolve to a relatively simple Cambrian organism like a trilobite, there needs to be thousands of intermediate forms - but there is no evidence of them.

When Darwinists are confronted with the massive gap between Ediacaran and Cambrian biota, they stick their heads in the sand and pretend it isn’t a problem, retreating to their artifact hypothesis (a euphemism for evidence that is hoped for but doesn’t actually exist). Such an approach is a sure-fire recipe for junk science.

According to Chinese paleontologists who studied fossil deposits in Chengyiang in southern China, 136 different kinds of animals appear suddenly in the Cambrian strata:

“A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors. Even though conditions for the preservation of ancestral forms, whether soft-bodied or microscopic, are ideal (even sponge embryos are found in similar strata), the precursors are nowhere to be found. Paleontologist J. Y. Chen said in the film Icons of Evolution, “Darwinism is maybe only telling part of the story for evolution. Darwin’s tree is a reverse cone shape. Very unexpectedly, our research is convincing us that major phyla is starting down below at the beginning of the Cambrian. The base is wide and gradually narrows. This is almost turned a different way.” His colleague Zhou Qui Gin, a senior research fellow at the site, says (translated), “I do not believe that animals developed gradually from the bottom up. I think the animals suddenly appeared. Among the Chengyiang animals we have found 136 different kinds of animals. And they represent diversity in the level of phyla and classes. So they sudden appearance makes them very special … If all the animal and plant types appeared abruptly at the Cambrian, then evolution is debunked right there. Zhou, Barrett and Hilton cannot therefore make a case for Darwinism in the Cretaceous. Perhaps with different glasses on, paleontologists will find the same ‘reverse cone’ in the Jehol strata. Earlier epochs were much richer in species diversity. By comparison, our world is impoverished. This is devolution, not evolution. "
“Chinese Fossil Bed Astounds Paleontologists”, evolutionnews org

 

[Buzzard3]

Two points. First, it is not a fact, but a lie from an unreliable source. Second, Darwinism was replaced by the Modern Synthesis in the first quarter of the 20th century, which included Mendel’s work on genetics. Since then Kimura’s neutral theory and the avalanche of new information from DNA sequencing have been incorporated into modern evolutionary theory.

Yes, I know … but when it comes to the subject of origins, it’s still “Darwinism” to me.

As a rule-of-thumb, a source criticising “Darwinism” is not criticising modern evolutionary theory, but is criticising a strawman version of a nineteenth century theory that has since been greatly modified. Scientific theories are not static; they change as new information is discovered.

The modern synthesis is very useful for explaining the dynamics of genetic variations, but when it comes to explaining the history of life on earth, Darwinism is found wanting.

"As can be noted from the listed principles, current evolutionary theory is predominantly oriented towards a genetic explanation of variation, and, except for some minor semantic modifications, this has not changed over the past seven or eight decades. Whatever lip service is paid to taking into account other factors than those traditionally accepted, we find that the theory, as presented in extant writings, concentrates on a limited set of evolutionary explananda, excluding the majority of those mentioned among the explanatory goals above. The theory performs well with regard to the issues it concentrates on, providing testable and abundantly confirmed predictions on the dynamics of genetic variation in evolving populations, on the gradual variation and adaptation of phenotypic traits, and on certain genetic features of speciation. If the explanation would stop here, no controversy would exist. But it has become habitual in evolutionary biology to take population genetics as the privileged type of explanation of all evolutionary phenomena, thereby negating the fact that, on the one hand, not all of its predictions can be confirmed under all circumstances, and, on the other hand, a wealth of evolutionary phenomena remains excluded. For instance,
the theory largely avoids the question of how the complex organizations of organismal structure, physiology, development or behavior — whose variation it describes — actually arise in evolution.”

Gerd Muller, Austrian evolutionary theorist, “Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary."
evolutionnews org

 

[rossum]

The primitive and not-very-diverse Ediacaran biota cannot account for the Cambrian explosion, when literally hundreds of different kinds of animals suddenly appear without any hint of evolutionary ancestors.

Sudden appearance in the Cambrian has two explanation. The first applies to more than just the Cambrian: migration. Think of the first appearance of humans in America. One day there were zero humans in America, the next day there were humans in America because a few had crossed from Asia. Humans appeared gradually in Africa; they appeared suddenly over the rest of the planet. Unless you are digging in exactly the right area and the fossils have survived, then fossil species are going to appear suddenly because of migration. Since all Cambrian species are marine, then most or all will have migrated from elsewhere to the fossil sites.

The second explanation is specific to the Cambrian: the evolution of hard shells. A soft squishy body will not fossilise well since if it decays or is eaten by a predator there is nothing left to fossilise. With a hard shell, then there will be at least the shell left after decay or predation. Hard shells fossilise well.

Depending on where you place the boundaries, the Cambrian explosion lasted between 5 million and 15 million years. That is a long time for ‘sudden’ in the way you seem to mean it. Our evolution from our LCA with chimps took about 5 million years. Was that ‘sudden’?

All these points apply to the Chengyiang fossil beds which you mention.

 

[rossum]

Gerd Muller, Austrian evolutionary theorist

Professor Müller has some interesting ideas. However, you should not read too much into those ideas. In effect he is saying that the existing theory of evolution is incomplete. To a scientist that is commonplace; all scientific theories are incomplete. We know that our current theory of gravity – Einstein’s General Relativity – is incomplete. Evolution is no exception to the rule.

Some of Professor Müller’s ideas will prove fruitful while others will likely be dead ends. That is the nature of scientific research.

Rather than use a secondary site you would do better to look at Professor Müller’s site: About the EES.

 

[Buzzard3]

Creationism has no scientific evidence,

Exhibit A:. The Cambrian explosion.

Creationism isn’t science. Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence for Creation without even getting scientific.

In order to substitute for their lack of evidence, creationists have been picking out parts of scientific writings to try to give the appearance that they have evidence. The Patterson letter is a classic of the genre. See Patterson Misquoted for a longer treatment.

Those of us who have been discussing creationism, especially the YEC variety, have seen these quotes for a long time. They are about as effective as me quoting the Bible: “There is no God”. Take something out of context and interpret the life out of it to make it say what you want it to say.

You’re barking up the wrong tree. For starters, I’m not a YEC. Secondly, my Patterson quote is a general rule of science - theories that can’t be tested are just stories and don’t qualify as science. Fossils are evidence of evolution but they tell us nothing about how evolution occured.

 

[Buzzard3]

Trying to base your science on a fixed unchanging text is a great scientific error.

With respect to the pre-human history of life on earth, I don’t base it on any bibllcal text.