With enough time . . . evolution

[Maranatha]

I frequently hear the phrase “with enough time, evolution is bound to happen” which implies that evolution works with many mutations over a long and constant period of time. In the past, if someone objected to constant gradual evolution they were cast as scientific neanderthals. An implicit way of postulating this “gradualist” theory is to present scientific evidence for the age of the earth in order to prove there’s been enough time for intermediate evolutionary steps between a simple species and a more complex one

Having “enough” time has nothing to do with evolution from one species to another. Geologically speaking, science shows evolution from one species to two or more is actually rapid compared to the time each species spends in a stable state. One theory to account for this is punctuated equilibrium.

There appears to be much empirical evidence to support evolution but if you want to believe you need to recognize, according to the scientific evidence, that it occurs rapidly. The problem with rapid evolution is the idea that major evolution improvements can come randomly during a short period of time.

 

[Namesake]

The problem with rapid evolution is the idea that major evolution improvements can come randomly during a short period of time.

Good post, but one glaring problem is your statement that evolution occurs randomly. It doesn’t.

Another kindof problem is that punctuated evolution isn’t much in vogue. Gould tried really hard but as brilliant as he was the idea really didn’t quite catch on.

 

[edwest2]

Evolution certainly does occur randomly. Genes spit out all sorts of mutations, “nature,” which is blind and unintelligent, “selects” one. By this thinking, man just happened to accidentally get selected.

This is the opposite of what the Catholic Church teaches. Man was created and willed by God to be man.

Peace,
Ed

 

[VociMike]

Evolution certainly does occur randomly. Genes spit out all sorts of mutations, “nature,” which is blind and unintelligent, “selects” one. By this thinking, man just happened to accidentally get selected.

This is the opposite of what the Catholic Church teaches. Man was created and willed by God to be man.

Of course there is no “random” or “blind” or “accidentally” with respect to omnipotent, omniscient God. God certainly could have set the initial conditions of the Big Bang to result, through evolution, in exactly the pattern of hairs on your head today.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I frequently hear the phrase “with enough time, evolution is bound to happen” which implies that evolution works with many mutations over a long and constant period of time.

I hear it a lot too. Mostly from creationists. Hardly ever from scientists. I think I know why.

In the past, if someone objected to constant gradual evolution they were cast as scientific neanderthals.

Must have been a long time ago. Thomas Huxley (known as “Darwin’s Bulldog” for his defense of evolutionary theory) was a saltationist, and disagreed with Darwin on that issue. You’ve been led down the garden path on that one.

An implicit way of postulating this “gradualist” theory is to present scientific evidence for the age of the earth in order to prove there’s been enough time for intermediate evolutionary steps between a simple species and a more complex one

Ironically, Darwin objected to Kelvin’s theory that the Earth was only a few million years old, noting that there wouldn’t be enough time for evolution in such a case. Later, when radioactivity was discovered, and the source of the heat in the Earth was made clear, Kelvin grudgingly admitted Darwin had been right.

Having “enough” time has nothing to do with evolution from one species to another.

True. Sometimes, it can happen in one generation.

Geologically speaking, science shows evolution from one species to two or more is actually rapid compared to the time each species spends in a stable state. One theory to account for this is punctuated equilibrium.

The fossil record shows this. And Darwin’s theory explains why. It’s called “stablizing selection.” If a well-adapted population lives in a relatively unchanging envirionment, natural selection will prevent evolution.

There appears to be much empirical evidence to support evolution but if you want to believe you need to recognize, according to the scientific evidence, that it occurs rapidly.

Often it does. But as Gould noted, there are cases of slow, gradual evolution as well. Depends on the conditions.

The problem with rapid evolution is the idea that major evolution improvements can come randomly during a short period of time.

Keep in mind, we’re talking about time scales in hundreds of thousands to a few million years. To put it in perspective, polar bears evolved from brown bears in about 100,000 years.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Evolution certainly does occur randomly.

Darwin showed that it didn’t. Take large marine animals. Sharks, icthyosaurs, dolphins, and mososaurs all evolved separately, but ended up with the same adaptations (albeit derived from different structures) in each case. Not random at all.

 

[Neithan]

Evolution is Creation in slow motion.

 

[edwest2]

Darwin showed that it didn’t. Take large marine animals. Sharks, icthyosaurs, dolphins, and mososaurs all evolved separately, but ended up with the same adaptations (albeit derived from different structures) in each case. Not random at all.

“ended up” with the same adaptations?

Even Father Coyne believes God could not have been certain that man would be the end result of an evolutionary process. And then there are scientists who say: “You are the product of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have you in mind.” No, God as used here, is just a word to sell a product – a theory.

Peace,
Ed

 

[VociMike]

Even Father Coyne believes God could not have been certain that man would be the end result of an evolutionary process.

Allow me to say, that’s an absurd statement for Father Coyne to make. This is God we’re talking about, right?

 

[Maranatha]

I hear it a lot too. Mostly from creationists. Hardly ever from scientists. I think I know why.

Must have been a long time ago. Thomas Huxley (known as “Darwin’s Bulldog” for his defense of evolutionary theory) was a saltationist, and disagreed with Darwin on that issue. You’ve been led down the garden path on that one.

While I’ve never heard the constant gradual evolution theory being pushed by a Dr. of Evolutionary Biology, I’m sure creationists don’t push the theory as valid.

What I’ve constantly heard from non-scientists that push evolution, especially evolution that was not planned or directed, was the time aspect being great enough for uncounted specie changes so that life could develop from the simplest organism to the most complex seen today.

Ironically, Darwin objected to Kelvin’s theory that the Earth was only a few million years old, noting that there wouldn’t be enough time for evolution in such a case. Later, when radioactivity was discovered, and the source of the heat in the Earth was made clear, Kelvin grudgingly admitted Darwin had been right.

"The sudden appearance and lack of substantial gradual change of most species in the geologic record—from their initial appearance until their extinction—has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin (1859:301, 1871:119-120) who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation. When presenting his ideas against the prevailing influence of catastrophism put forward by Georges Cuvier which envisaged species being supernaturally created at intervals, Darwin needed to forcefully stress the gradual nature of evolution in accordance with the gradualism promoted by his friend Charles Lyell. He privately expressed concern, noting in the margin of his 1844 Essay “Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false.” Confessions of a Darwinist by Niles Eldredge (emphasis mine)

True. Sometimes, it can happen in one generation.

This is refreshing to hear but it does make the theory harder to rationally accept.

The fossil record shows this. And Darwin’s theory explains why. It’s called “stablizing selection.” If a well-adapted population lives in a relatively unchanging envirionment, natural selection will prevent evolution.

Often it does. But as Gould noted, there are cases of slow, gradual evolution as well. Depends on the conditions.

Keep in mind, we’re talking about time scales in hundreds of thousands to a few million years. To put it in perspective, polar bears evolved from brown bears in about 100,000 years.

The time scales between geological ages are measured in those terms. Specie change evidence, as built upon fossil records, document change occurring within the geological age.

cheers

 

[ricmat]

Allow me to say, that’s an absurd statement for Father Coyne to make. This is God we’re talking about, right?

Here’s what Cardinal Schoenborn says about Coyne in “Chance or Purpose”:

“It is not only unnecessary, however, but contrary to reason , to view this grandiose path of life up to man as being an exclusively random process. When an astronomer, who is also a priest and theologian, even has the presumption to say that God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution, then nonsense has taken over completely.” The footnote associated with this paragraph reads “For example, Fr. George V. Coyne, S.J. in Der Spiegel…”

 

[The_Barbarian]

“ended up” with the same adaptations?

Yep. The early species of these lines were not nearly as evolved toward the adaptations seen in more evolved species. They all converged on the same solutions, to the same problems. Because the process is not random.

Even Father Coyne believes God could not have been certain that man would be the end result of an evolutionary process.

That’s a philosophical/religious idea. Not part of science. I’ve heard traditionalist priests say the same thing regarding the Fall. I’m not convinced.

And then there are scientists who say: “You are the product of a cold, uncaring universe that did not have you in mind.”

Our bodies are. Just as my daughter’s bookshelf can be said to have been produced, even though it was by using cold, uncaring tools. However, our souls are given to each of us immediately by God.

No, God as used here, is just a word to sell a product – a theory.

I would encourage you to not do that. Science should stand on evidence.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Here’s what Cardinal Schoenborn says about Coyne in “Chance or Purpose”:

"It is not only unnecessary, however, but contrary to reason , to view this grandiose path of life up to man as being an exclusively random process.

Good show. It appears that the good Cardinal has now completely accepted Darwinism. (As you know, Darwin’s great discovery was that it wasn’t random)

 

[VociMike]

Good show. It appears that the good Cardinal has now completely accepted Darwinism. (As you know, Darwin’s great discovery was that it wasn’t random)

I think we must also continue to point out that there is no such thing as random to God.

 

[edwest2]

Yep. The early species of these lines were not nearly as evolved toward the adaptations seen in more evolved species. They all converged on the same solutions, to the same problems. Because the process is not random.

That’s a philosophical/religious idea. Not part of science. I’ve heard traditionalist priests say the same thing regarding the Fall. I’m not convinced.

Our bodies are. Just as my daughter’s bookshelf can be said to have been produced, even though it was by using cold, uncaring tools. However, our souls are given to each of us immediately by God.

I would encourage you to not do that. Science should stand on evidence.

 

[edwest2]

Yep. The early species of these lines were not nearly as evolved toward the adaptations seen in more evolved species. They all converged on the same solutions, to the same problems. Because the process is not random.

That’s a philosophical/religious idea. Not part of science. I’ve heard traditionalist priests say the same thing regarding the Fall. I’m not convinced.

Our bodies are. Just as my daughter’s bookshelf can be said to have been produced, even though it was by using cold, uncaring tools. However, our souls are given to each of us immediately by God.

I would encourage you to not do that. Science should stand on evidence.

“Our bodies are” what? No. God willed each one of us into existence, not some unintelligent, irrational process.

Peace,
Ed

 

[VociMike]

“Our bodies are” what? No. God willed each one of us into existence, not some unintelligent, irrational process.

The dust used in Genesis was unintelligent, irrational. Does that invalidate the Genesis account?

 

[edwest2]

God is a direct causal agent. Without him, nothing happens. The universe was created out of nothing by God. Pope Benedict calls Creation an Intelligent Project.

Peace,
Ed

 

[VociMike]

God is a direct causal agent. Without him, nothing happens. The universe was created out of nothing by God. Pope Benedict calls Creation an Intelligent Project.

No disputing that. But how does that relate to the discussion?

 

[hecd2]

While I’ve never heard the constant gradual evolution theory being pushed by a Dr. of Evolutionary Biology, I’m sure creationists don’t push the theory as valid.

Then you obviously don’t read the works of many distinguished evolutionary biologists. Leaving aside the fact that almost every evolutionary biologist on earth will say that evolution is generally a gradual process, have you heard of Motoo Kimura?

What I’ve constantly heard from non-scientists that push evolution, especially evolution that was not planned or directed, was the time aspect being great enough for uncounted specie changes so that life could develop from the simplest organism to the most complex seen today.

Not just from non-scientists, but from evolutionary biologists. There have been countless speciations in the history of life on earth, which stretches back about 3.5 billion years.

This [the fact that speciation can occur in a single generation] is refreshing to hear but it does make the theory harder to rationally accept.

Really? Why?

Keep in mind, we’re talking about time scales in hundreds of thousands to a few million years. To put it in perspective, polar bears evolved from brown bears in about 100,000 years.

The time scales between geological ages are measured in those terms. Specie change evidence, as built upon fossil records, document change occurring within the geological age.

There are changes both within and across geological ages. Geological ages are typically a few million years long. We can see change in the fossil record on scales all the way from a few thousand years up to changes spanning eons - tens of millions of years.

Alec
evolutionpages.com