Why do Christians have a problem with Evolution?

Originally posted by Shane
Hello Melatonin

To correct this, I understand ToE.

Hi Shane, hope you're well

Some of the things you state suggest otherwise.

It's how many things suddenly appearing all at once and in a relatively short period of time I have problems with.

The last so called evolutionary changes occured only some 14000 years ago. What we find today in the Animal and Plant World have basically been here from this point on. And just prior to this, distinctly different Animals and Plant life dissappeared.

The major time when things appear "suddenly" is during the cambrian explosion. Even this has an explanation - only certain species are readily fossilised; fossilation itself is rare, we will never find a perfect progression for every species on earth. What we do have is a very compelling evolution of almost all major forms of life.

Evolution occurs at different speeds, depending on selection pressure and the species itself.

Yet we have Wooly Mammoths found frozen in the Tundra still eating their last meal. Gone in an instant. And then we find all this new life within a few short days, so to speak in an evolution unit of measure, popping up out of the blue. You would think if things can change that fast, why do we not see it occuring in the Animal and Plant World today.

What is it that popped out of the blue during the ice-age? We do see evolution occuring today - we have lab and field examples of speciation (i.e. new species such as the nylon digesting bug).

It is we have nothing to inspect from the time prior and leading up to the last extinction, to the new and improved everything. And this lack of evidence is extended to the Man as well. That was the point being made, or at least it was supposed to be.

We have a good 'family tree' for human evolution. We are not depending on australapithicus>homo sapien. Take a look for yourself...

www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...




[edit on 11-4-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
we have lab and field examples of speciation (i.e. new species such as the nylon digesting bug).

This is not a new species. It's a different race within a species. The bug is still P. aeruginosa.

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by melatonin
we have lab and field examples of speciation (i.e. new species such as the nylon digesting bug).

This is not a new species. It's a different race within a species. The bug is still P. aeruginosa.

Yep, I stand corrected, a subspecies? - but it is evidence of the evolution of new information within the genome? (possibly refuting another claim of anti-evo's and a real-world example of adami and schnieder's models). There so many refutations it's hard to remember where they apply, haha.

But the rest of my post still stands, yes? There is evidence of speciation in plants and animals?

I should have stuck to fruit-flies, lucky you're around to correct my occassional mistakes

OT edit: Mattison, what do you feel about the recent paper in science? It seems to refute some of Behe's ideas about IC.


[edit on 11-4-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin


OT edit: Mattison, what do you feel about the recent paper in science? It seems to refute some of Behe's ideas about IC.

Hi melatonin,

I realize you asked Matt but just thought I'd give you some links on that. I don't have journal/nature access so haven't read the paper/article but caught these replies a couple days ago.

The lamest attempt yet to answer the challenge IC poses for NDE By: M. Behe

[url=http://www.discovery.org/.viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3408&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage]Here's[/url ] a page with a list of related (IC) links [first six links are all related to the article/paper in question.]

Appears to be yet another critic knocking down his/her straw man version of IC... *shrug*

Hope all is well.
Regards,
-Rren

(edit) not sure why my second link ("here's") isn't showing properly in my post (looks fine when i preview it)... that link can be found at the bottom of the first ('lamest') link from Behe that I posted.



[edit on 11-4-2006 by Rren]

Hi Rren,

Hope you're well too. I have a pile of marking staring at me, which is putting me on a downer at the moment, haha.

Yep, I read Behe's critique and a supporting analysis by Ian Musgrave on pandas thumb (well worth a read). With my little understanding of these issues it's hard to see which is correct.

But what I do know is that the Behe & Snokes paper focuses on a very similar system (DPG?), they claim it is IC. Behe stated in his dover testimony that...

There are none that use that phrase, but as I indicated in my direct testimony, that I regard my paper with Professor David Snoke as to be arguing for the irreducible complexity of things such as complex protein binding sites.

www.talkorigins.org...

Bridgham et al. have assessed a complex binding site and showed it to not be IC. Therefore, has this idea of IC been refuted (i.e. its application to binding sites)? Seems like it to me.

The problem seems to be Behe moving goalposts, which definition of IC applies, what is IC, to what systems does it apply? So, now he states in his critique...

I certainly would not classify their system as IC. The IC systems I discussed in Darwin’s Black Box contain multiple, active protein factors. Their “system”, on the other hand, consists of just a single protein and its ligand.”

So I guess the system in the Behe & Snokes article is not really IC? If it's a strawman in the Bridgham system, it was a strawman of his own making.

If we could predict IC independently of incredulity, then we could falsify the whole idea - is this why we have such an amorphous concept?

Edit: do you want the Bridgham et al and commentary articles in science? I'll send you a YSI link of it, if you want.

[edit on 11-4-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Yep, I stand corrected, a subspecies? - but it is evidence of the evolution of new information within the genome? (possibly refuting another claim of anti-evo's and a real-world example of adami and schnieder's models). There so many refutations it's hard to remember where they apply, haha.

I think the issue of genomic info is misunderstood. The point isn't about a change in information, it's about origins of information. Additionally, given that the nylonase abililty results from a frameshift, and subsequent point mutations, of extrachromosomal DNA that appears to be maintained for purposes of adaptation, and that Pseudomonads in general have a paticular penchant for adapting to xenobiotics, combined with that fact that these bugs can adapt to this source of C/N in like 500 generations, I would say that this actually represents a problem for the concept of RM + NS. It would appear that this ability results from some sort of directed mutation, as opposed to an entirely random process.

There's no such thing as random-directed mutation... it's oxymoronic.

But the rest of my post still stands, yes? There is evidence of speciation in plants and animals?

Yes, according to certain definitions of speciation.

I should have stuck to fruit-flies, lucky you're around to correct my occassional mistakes

Yes... well, I'm limiting my posting here at ATS. I am pretty much only responding when I know the conversation will be fruitful.... too many trolls in disguise. ( Hi Prot... I mean Produkt. )

OT edit: Mattison, what do you feel about the recent paper in science? It seems to refute some of Behe's ideas about IC.

Haven't read it yet... I've got like 350 DNA sequences to edit, and an abstract to submit... pretty busy right now lab wise. It's on the top of my list of things to read...
will probably need a good chunk of time to read it though... get back to me in like 3 weeks.

Hi Rren!

That's cool mattison. It is good to have an expert here correcting us laypeople

Hope your work goes well. I have three experiments on the go myself at the moment - although I am trying to have a week off this week. Well....if you don't include marking, collecting stimuli, data analysis, thesis writing etc etc, but I am at home, haha.

[edit on 11-4-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Hope your work goes well. I have three experiments on the go myself at the moment - although I am trying to have a week off this week. Well....if you don't include marking, collecting stimuli, data analysis, thesis writing etc etc, but I am at home, haha.

Not sure why you classify yourself as a 'lay' person?

Likewise, with respect to your work... I know what you mean about time off... I work from home quite a bit when I have analysis/writing to do... I get a lot done, but somehow I feel guilty... like I'm cheating or something... Sometimes time off is nothing but stressful for me... I know all I'm doing is making myself further behind... behind what I can't exactly say... but that's the feeling.

Did you ever tell me where your post doc was going to be? I know you said you were sorting it out.

Originally posted by mattison0922

Not sure why you classify yourself as a 'lay' person?

Well I am really for biology, I don't even have a high school qualification for it (I was chem-physics orientated) - the biopsychology, neuroscience, no problem. But genetics and mol. biol, most definitely layperson but I am willing to learn and be corrected.

I do know a bit about ToE though (but not perfect, as you can see, haha - I have a passing interest in this and climate change, and a love for science). Now psych, cog neuro, neuropsych, social neuro - that's where I can state a degree of expertise.

Did you ever tell me where your post doc was going to be? I know you said you were sorting it out.

Same place and research supervisor as my PhD - a grade 5* psychology department in the UK (not ox/bridge though).

[edit on 11-4-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Hi Rren,

Hope you're well too. I have a pile of marking staring at me, which is putting me on a downer at the moment, haha.

Very well thanks. Just picked up a new contract (framing hospital remodel), taxes and coaching my son's little league team.... busy busy busy.

Yep, I read Behe's critique and a supporting analysis by Ian Musgrave on pandas thumb (well worth a read). With my little understanding of these issues it's hard to see which is correct.

As a ID suporter I stay away from PT... that place will make an ID advocate feel like dirt in no time lol. I'm with you on the "hard to see which is correct" comment though... believe it or not I'm still unconvinced re: testing IC and what if any conclusions can be (properly) drawn re: ID... more on the ID side of the fence, but I'm still up there.

But what I do know is that the Behe & Snokes paper focuses on a very similar system (DPG?), they claim it is IC. Behe stated in his dover testimony that...

Behe (and the other IDthefuture links) goes into that in some detail, probably not a good idea to argue against a paper I haven't read and probably wouldn't understand if I did... guess I need to go ahead and subscibe to Nature. There's always ID/ND/ToE relevant issues covered there and I'm usually at a loss not having access.

The problem seems to be Behe moving goalposts, which definition of IC applies, what is IC, to what systems does it apply? So, now he states in his critique...

If i read the Behe reply properly the goalposts haven't moved; they (Bridgham et al) were on the wrong field... not too mix metaphors too much lol.

If we could predict IC independently of incredulity, then we could falsify the whole idea - is this why we have such an amorphous concept?

Still to early IMO to say one way or the other. What was it 50 or 60 years after Darwin published the 'Origin' before we had an actual evolution programme in place? I'd agree that ID theorists need to quit worring about writing books and start doing lab work... of course I say that not really knowing how much work/funding is needed before they get some work done. *shrug*

Edit: do you want the Bridgham et al and commentary articles in science? I'll send you a YSI link of it, if you want.

[edit on 11-4-2006 by melatonin]

Absolutely, thanks. Can send it u2u or post here (somebody else may be interested also.)

Regards,
-Rren

Yep, but Behe states that the system assessed was not IC, when in fact he has previously stated that complex binding systems are, and his paper with snokes assesses a system of similar complexity, which again he has stated is IC. The Bridgham article addresses the issue raised in Behe & Snokes (2004) and finds it wanting (i.e. such systems are evolvable). So, why does Behe move the goalposts and focus on what he has stated in DBB, when it is the B & S paper they are addressing (i.e. the proposal that complex binding sites are IC)?

Anyway, here's the articles. If you ever see any other you fancy reading, just U2U me and I'll see what I can do (our uni has access to many but not all)...


Bridgham et al., 2006

hxxp://s44.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=30EQ83JD08U7F2VKDDA8DAXFTD

Adami commentary 2006

hxxp://s44.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=381QM4QXRBABX28ICXVM21U09M


Copy and paste in browser and replace 'hxxp' with 'http' (as they cancel the file if you link direct from a forum).

Mods - sorry the links are lengthy, but it is the only way to make them work.

[edit on 11-4-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin



Bridgham et al., 2006

hxxp://s44.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=30EQ83JD08U7F2VKDDA8DAXFTD

Adami commentary 2006

hxxp://s44.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=381QM4QXRBABX28ICXVM21U09M

Got them Dl'ed melatonin, thanks again. Just a quick glance at the paper looks like its gonna be another one of those tough reads (read the Matzke 'paper' on the flagellum for weeks.) Looks like the Adami .pdf will be helpful though.

Maybe in a couple of weeks we could start a thread on this. I imagine the ID community and the critics will have more stuff on the web by then too... usually helps me to understand a paper when I can read the subsequent back-and-forth arguments that always pop-up after a controvercial paper is published....

Anywho, gotta head out the door but will start reading them tonight... this will be my last week of (mostly) free-time before things get real crazy around here. Guess I'll go online tonight and finally cough up the dough for that Nature subscription while I'm at it.

Talk to you soon,
-Rren

Originally posted by NephraTari

Originally posted by sambo5us

Can this not go both ways? Can't evolutionists be refusing to accept creation because they have been taught to believe evolution since a young age?

No because most people are not taught evolution since a young age.. evolutionists are not fanatical the way creationists are. I was taught creation from a young age so there goes your theory.

Maybe the public schools taught creation back when you went to them but all most every single high school teaches evolution. Every high school in my area does at least.

Well, to say the least, the post obtained response.

I will give this a final attempt.

I have no difficulties in comprehending the Concept of Evolution. What Science has offered to support this Theory is overwelming. I actually believe that the Evloutionary Chain presented accurately decribes events and progressions from the first single cell life form to the complex forms of life that arose thoughout Earth's Vairous Periods.

But these changes and the events to cause these changes ceased during the last Ice Age. Fantastic and Rapid alterations occured to most all life on earth after this.

This is where Evolution falls, and implies, there is a missing link for this. You (Melatonin) also have utilize this and suggested a missing indicator, and explained it away nicely, if I may add. Sound Theory, but where's the proof?

My Observation leads me to believe something other than "Known Evolution" occured. You have not offered anything to indicate what it was. Science has not either, so your not alone. Its just all some missing link.

So I'll note this again. The Genesis Recreation Story does offer something. whether it's true or not, you can answer that for yourself in certain in the not to distant future.

But I never was implying the Theory of Evolution is False. It speaks for itself. And this from a Christian none the less.

I was offering a response to the question, "Why do Christian have a problem with evolution?" Why do they? They do not know what the bible says. Paul speaks of dinosaurs. The Church itself seats Paul aside Christ as an important Founder, but disregards his teachings.

So I hope this conveys the message I had originally intended to express.

Have a good evening Melatonin

Ciao

P.S. And Look! No Giant Land Sloths to Three Toe Tree Sloth Leaps.

Originally posted by Shane
But these changes and the events to cause these changes ceased during the last Ice Age. Fantastic and Rapid alterations occured to most all life on earth after this.

This is where Evolution falls, and implies, there is a missing link for this. You (Melatonin) also have utilize this and suggested a missing indicator, and explained it away nicely, if I may add. Sound Theory, but where's the proof?

My Observation leads me to believe something other than "Known Evolution" occured. You have not offered anything to indicate what it was. Science has not either, so your not alone. Its just all some missing link.

I just have difficulty finding exactly what the issue is with the ice-age? What species have suddenly appeared? I know a lot of species became extinct during/following this period. Environmental change is an important variable in evolution, so we expect extinction and change in species during such periods.

But I never was implying the Theory of Evolution is False. It speaks for itself. And this from a Christian none the less.

I was offering a response to the question, "Why do Christian have a problem with evolution?" Why do they? They do not know what the bible says. Paul speaks of dinosaurs. The Church itself seats Paul aside Christ as an important Founder, but disregards his teachings.

Well there is no reason why christians can not accept ToE; in fact, many do, seeing it as the method god used.

Have a good evening Melatonin

P.S. And Look! No Giant Land Sloths to Three Toe Tree Sloth Leaps.

Just a quick note though - Ungulate (horses etc) evolution suggests the odd-toed ungulates went from 5 to 3 (4/3) to 1 toe. There was no progression from 3 to 2 to 1, I think. Even modern horses occassional show a regression to 3 toes in some genetic conditions.

Anway, have a good day yourself

[edit on 12-4-2006 by melatonin]

Well I am pleased to see, you discuss things Melatonin. Unlike some

I am still not certain you are understanding what I have suggested, but I see this has come a long way from your first response.

That's a strange thing, 5 to 3 to 1 Hoof? I did not know "Horses" progressed in this manner. Actually, I did now know a "Horse" was indentifed as a Horse or Horse Type Creature, until the Three Toe Form was found. I had believed, this was their first inclusion as a Unique and Distinct Spieces.

Or, are you suggesting that Horses evolved from 5 toed creatures, to become a tri-hoofed indentifiable speices? Just asking.

But look, you never learn new anything unless exposed to new ideas and unless you are willing to listen to other points of views. Discusson allows this, and I hope this may continue.

Have a good day Melatonin and thanks.

Ciao


[edit on 12-4-2006 by Shane]

[edit on 12-4-2006 by Shane]

Originally posted by Shane
I am still not certain you are understanding what I have suggested, but I see this has come a long way from your first response.

Yep, I do have a problem understanding it. I can't see the issue you have problems with, I'm sure that all species that survived the ice-age do have ancestors that they descended from.

That's a strange thing, 5 to 3 to 1 Hoof? I did not know "Horses" progressed in this manner. Actually, I did now know a "Horse" was indentifed as a Horse or Horse Type Creature, until the Three Toe Form was found. I had believed, this was their first inclusion as a Unique and Distinct Spieces.

Or, are you suggesting that Horses evolved from 5 toed creatures, to become a tri-hoofed indentifiable speices? Just asking.

Not directly, I was talking about odd-toed ungulates, which includes horses.

I think the process was that some early 3 toed horses used the outer two toes less and less until they became redundant, producing one-toed horses (there was no step to 2 toes). And occassionally we see this in foals with a genetic abnormality (i.e. they are born with 3 toes).

The proposed ancestor (perissodactyl) of all modern odd-toed ungulates, actually had four toes on the front legs and three on the back legs - I think modern tapirs have a similar arrangement and is the closest living relative to their ancestor (the earliest 'horse' had the same arrangement). There are ancient 5-toed ungulates though, and they are suggested to be ancestoral to perissodactyl (e.g. Phenacodus).

It is complicated and hard to summarise (which is why I hoped someone more capable would explain evolution of odd-toed ungulates, haha)

Here's talk origins explanantion for just horse evolution...

www.talkorigins.org...

So, if we summarise it was 5 (ancient ungulate) to 4/3 (first equids/odd-toed ungulates) to 3 (mesohippus et al) to 1 (modern equid). Rather than 5>4>3>2>1 toe progression. But again, it's fairly simplified but horse evolution is quite well explained by ToE, there was no "Jumps two evolutionary steps to become a Sinlge toe creature".

But look, you never learn new anything unless exposed to new ideas and unless you are willing to listen to other points of views. Discusson allows this, and I hope this may continue.

Have a good day Melatonin and thanks.

Ciao

Most definitely. I believe most things are possible, just some are more possible than others. I'm learning new stuff all the time and is one of the reasons I take part in such discussions.

Cheers

[edit on 12-4-2006 by melatonin]

Well thanks for the explaination Melatonin

The Link is useful in respects to many questions one would have.

It still doesn't address what I have meant here, but such is life. I think you have done an excellent job attempting to figure out what I have had difficulties with, but then, it's been a difficult matter every since Darwin stole the Origins from a French associate who sailed with him. Nothing but contention for the masses ever since.

I know I will get an answer in the not so distant future, so I'll just practice some patience, and await a response to clarify this for me. I may take this up with Enoch, when the chance arises.

It's been a pleasure, and insightful to say the least.

Visit the Verichip Post again. I left a question for you.

Have a Good Morning

Ciao

Proton,

You've got to understand that there is a spiritual side to life, just as there is a physical side. It's not allways something that you can see with your eyes or touch with your hands. But that doesn't make it any less factual.

Have you ever taken the time to read your comments before you post them? Your comments seem like they could be hurtful to others.

Troy

This is pretty awesome. This is my longest-running thread ever. It is wierd to see how far it has drifted from the original topic, but that is to be expected. I have tried to find the source of the start of the drift, but there is too much to wade through. Anyway, thanks to everyone for contributing to the thread and for earning me many many points. 'Cause that's what it's all about baby!