another evolution thread...

by anakolouthos 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  anakolouthos

  I've been scanning thru Geronimo's recent thread on evolution, & have really enjoyed reading all the fascinating responses. I was going to post in there, but was worried it might get buried. Many may not know me here, as i've barely posted, but in a nutshell, i'm still in the org (somewhat trapped at the moment) but consider myself a Christian with somewhat leftish leanings. :-) I'm kinda writing on the spur of the moment here, so please be kind if i make any bonehead statements. I don't want to polarize everyone, i just want to discuss a few things & hopefully get some answers. Anyways, to the matter at hand... evolution has always fascinated me, but my knowledge of it is limited to regular readings of Discover magazine & a bit of research on the internet. I understand that evolution (microevolution, at least) occurs currently & is observable, for example with viruses & bacteria adapting to treatments, with birds developing beak adaptations to compete for food, etc. You can't really argue about that. Some might say that that is not actually evolution, since a new species wasn't created, but might these kinds of slight changes over many years form a new species?

  But on the other hand, it seems a very great stretch to believe that nonlife spawned life, in any form whatsoever. I have no problem accepting some adaptations over time, as the case for these seem pretty solid, but i can't wrap my head around the idea that from inanimate matter came life. It just doesn't seem logical. That is but one thing that solidifies my faith in God. I don't see any reason why He couldn't use evolution as part of his creative process, though.

  A question that's nagged me about evolutionary theory ("theory" being used in the scientific sense of the word) for a long time: How are the two sexes explained? Wouldn't it have been far simpler, assuming that the simplest, most effective adaptation usually wins out, (let me know if this is a bad assumption) for all animals to reproduce asexually? I realize that sexual reproduction has a lot of evolutionary advanteges, what with the genetic diversity & such, but what is the evolutionary explanation for sexual reproduction coming about in the first place? There's a crapload of extremely complex biological processes that go on when a couple of critters make a baby critter... it just seems like it would be safer & simpler for the critter to just split in half, amoeba-style. Is it completely foolish to think that a complex multicellular organism could reproduce asexually? This may have been a very ignorant question, but i have never seen it answered, so please humor me. :-)

  To confuse the issue even more, i refer you to this article: http://www.fredoneverything.net/EvolutionMonster.shtml I loved the way this guy thinks... i stumbled upon this a couple years ago & really enjoyed it. If anyone would like to address some of the questions that he presents, i'd love to hear that too. Here's a thought-provoking snippet from the article, & my other big question: "Or consider caterpillars. A caterpillar has no obvious resemblance to a butterfly. The disparity in engineering is huge. The caterpillar has no legs, properly speaking, certainly no wings, no proboscis. How did a species that did not undergo metamorphosis evolve into one that did? Pupating looks like something you do well or not at all: If you don?t turn into something practical at the end, you don?t get another chance." How in the world can we explain a process like this with evolutionary theory?

  I leave you with another quote from that article: ?Whatever you most ardently believe, remember that there is another side. Try, however hard it may be, to put yourself in the shoes of those whose views you most dislike. Force yourself to make a reasoned argument for their position. Do that, think long and hard, and conclude as you will. You can do no better, and you may be surprised.? I have sincerely been trying to apply this ideal in my life ever since i stumbled out of the mental fog of the WTS. It's nice to finally be able to think, although it does feel a bit strange at first. :-)

  Thanks for reading, & again, i apologize for any ignorant statements i may have made. Please educate me, all you knowledgeable folk.

  Love & peace to all,
  anakolouthos
• 

  Joe Grundy

  Personally, I found Bill Bryson's book 'A Short History of Nearly Everything' particularly interesting, because it explains current scientific thinking in a (relatively) easy to follow way.

  He makes one point which I found especially thought provoking. It addresses the issue 'how could all this have happened just by chance?'. His point is simple but cogent. We don't (and can't ever) know how many unsuccessful attempts there were before the process that led to us being here finally succeeded.
• 

  skeptic2

  But on the other hand, it seems a very great stretch to believe that nonlife spawned life, in any form whatsoever. I have no problem accepting some adaptations over time, as the case for these seem pretty solid, but i can't wrap my head around the idea that from inanimate matter came life. It just doesn't seem logical. That is but one thing that solidifies my faith in God.

  Life from non-life has nothing to do with evolution, but I'll comment anyway.

  I never get this logic.

  Molecules interacting in interesting ways over billions of years is apparently 'a very great stretch', but that the whole universe is created by a supreme omnipresent being for which we have no evidence is not an infinite times more of a stretch?

  Why do you treat one idea so differently to the other?

  You must believe that non-God spawned God? Is that not far more fantastical than interactions between molecules?
• 

  skeptic2

  Or consider caterpillars. A caterpillar has no obvious resemblance to a butterfly. The disparity in engineering is huge. The caterpillar has no legs, properly speaking, certainly no wings, no proboscis. How did a species that did not undergo metamorphosis evolve into one that did?

  Please see: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB311.html
• 

  TD

  Hi anakolouqoV

  I don't really have anything earthshaking to add except a few observations. Strictly speaking, macroevolution is any change in a breeding population at or above the level of species. IOW speciation events are macroevolution. Much direct and indirect evidences exists that these events do actually occur.

  You observed:

  Some might say that that is not actually evolution, since a new species wasn't created...

  I've heard this before too. Almost without exception, those that argue against evolutionary theory either redefine the term "macorevolution" or they redefine the term "species." I noticed, for example that the recent Awake! attempts to argue that the Galapagos finches aren't really separate species because they can interbreed. (You will probably also notice however that at no point do they clearly define their own creationist term, "Kind.")

  The reality is new species were created. This line of thought attempts to muddy the water by exploiting the fact that what does and does not constitute a species is often simply a matter of behavior at first.

  Lions and Tigers can be bred to produce "Ligers" or "Tygons." (Lion/Tiger and Tiger/Lion respectively) Other pairings include Leopard/Lion, Lynx/Bobcat, Puma/Leopard, Polar Bear/Brown Bear, Polar Bear/Kodiak Bear, Forest/Savannah African Elephants, Blue/Black Wildebeast, Eland/Kudu, Masai/Rothschild's Giraffe, Harp/Hooded Seal --the list goes on and on.

  Every one of these pairings represent two species whose ancestery crosses or actually merges at some point in the past. But as the process continues, they continue to diverge and this shows up in sterilty of the offspring, and eventually complete inability to produce a viable zygote. (infertility) The Cheetah, for example has diverged to the point of complete infertility with other members of family Felidae

  A Llama/Camel cross (By artificial insemination) produces the "Cama" --a creature with the short ears and long tail of the camel, no hump and the Llama's cloven hoves. Yet the Camel and Llama are not only entirely different species, they belong to different genera as well.

  Sheep have 54 chromosomes and Goats have 60. Crosses between sheep and goats will develop to the point of birth, but they are usually stillborn, although there have been documented exceptions where live offspring were produced. The resultant creature, which has long, goat-like legs and a heavy sheep-like body has 57 chromosomes

  Although a cross between the Bison and Domestic Cattle will produce healthy, fertile offspring, crossing the Water Buffalo with Domestic Cattle will produce a living Zygote, (Which means the Sperm and Egg did manage to successfully combine) but the Zygote dies when it splits beyond eight cells.

  Are sheep, cattle and goats one kind or three kinds? To me, neither answer is really attractive from the standpoint of creationism. If the answer is "One kind", why do they each have distinctly different genetic karyotypes respectively? If the answer is "Three kinds", then why can some combinations still interbreed? This to me is suggests that the idea of Genesis "Kinds" is a human invention.
• 

  skeptic2

  This short video makes my point very well, about the inanity of the alternative to evolution:

  http://youtube.com/watch?v=iVFEbUXKVTw
• 

  lovelylil

  TD,

  Species means animals that are the same "kind" or family of animal. They are grouped into populations of animals that can reproduce because they are the same "kind" or "species" of animal. Humans are Homo Sapiens we cannot reproduce with a dog or anything other than our species.

  Interestingly In the bible, it uses the word "kind" and says that animals reproduces according to their "kind" which is what science today says also. Birds no matter what type can only reproduce with other animals of their kind. A bird cannot reproduce with a mouse for instance. But within the bird family - there are many species or kinds of birds. But, they are still birds.

  You mentioned the mixing of lions and tigers, well they are also a similar "kind" or "species" of animal. Same with the bears, same family, same kind thus same species of animal. IF they are the same type of family of animal they can reproduce with others of same family of animals or species. When someone tries to Mix two "kinds" of animals the results are not good even if it progresses to a pregnancy or birth. Lilly
• 

  Kudra

  GREAT REPLY, TD!!!
• 

  AlanF

  Very good questions you've raised, anakolouthos.

  I think that the first thing you need to keep in mind is that biology is a relatively young science, historically speaking. It's only a little more than half a century since the existence of DNA was discovered. Only in the last 15-20 years have geneticists begun mapping complete genetic codes. This very recent science is making discoveries about biology at an amazing pace. So one can hardly expect science to have all the answers.

  This has historical precedent. Physics made great advancements in the 17th century with the discoveries and theories of Isaac Newton and others. But it was another 250 years before Einstein and other scientists made huge advances in understanding, with relativity and quantum mechanics. When these later scientists changed physics, they didn't invalidate Newton's and many others' theories, but expanded upon them and showed that the earlier ones were subsets of the newer theories, and had been limited by observation techniques and theoretical understandings.

  You need to keep in mind that evolution has several aspects. One is the historical aspect, based on paleontology and geology, which shows that life has evolved greatly over time. Another is also the theoretical aspect, which is concerned with why and how life has evolved. The former is what scientists often call "the fact of evolution" while the latter is generally subsumed under the term "theory of evolution".

  The fact of evolution is so solidly confirmed that, as Stephen Jay Gould once said, one would have to be perverse not to accept it. It's as solidly established as anything in science can be. We know that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old, that life was on it by 3.5 billion years ago, that the first macroscopic life appeared some 600 million years ago, that the blossoming of life sometimes called the Cambrian explosion occurred between about 540 and 510 million years ago, that 90% of life on earth was killed in the great Permian extinction of some 240 million years ago, and that the age of dinosaurs ended and the age of mammals began about 65 million years ago.

  The best large-scale scientific theory of why and how evolution occurred is an extensive set of modifications of Darwin's theory of natural selection. A great deal has yet to be done on these ideas, and certainly even more on the genetics of what happens. The science of ultimate origins is barely in its infancy, both in biology and cosmology.

  Now, I suppose that some sort of creative force might have directed the evolution of life during earth's long history, but given the actual history of life, this raises a number of huge questions that are not amenable to solution without direct revelation from this creative force. And the Bible demonstrably doesn't cut it. I hope you see my point.

  An interesting conundrum for strict creationists is the origin of God, as pointed out by Carl Sagan more than 20 years ago. They claim that "life comes only from life" -- except for God, who has "always been" and is "outside time". But if God has always been, then why not the overall universe? I'm not talking about just our local universe, but the entire macroscopic universe of which our local, observable one might be just a miniscule part. In such a macroscopic universe, infinite in extent and time, all things are possible. Speculation? Sure. But so is God.

  No one knows the origin of sexual reproduction. The best one can say at present is that, once it got going, it had the potential to produce far more variations far more rapidly than asexual reproduction. Even strict biblical creationists acknowledge this, since they can observe the evolution of viruses and bacteria, and they even claim that massively quick evolution must have occurred immediately after Noah's Flood. No one knows the limits over the long haul of this evolution, so distinguishing between micro and macro evolution is mere semantics.

  The website you gave a link to argues essentially what all other creationists do, that is, invoke "the argument from ignorance": "We don't understand how this thing happens, so it must have been by a miracle." Imagine the confusion of a 1st century skeptic examing the workings of a modern computer system -- he would conclude that a god was doing it.

  The only way to learn more about evolution is by actually getting down and doing it. There are plenty of resources. The best online resource, IMO, is www.talkorigins.org. You can find excellent popular treatments such as Richard Dawkins' books. You can get hold of introductory college texts, or even take a course or two. My daughter recently completed Evolution 101 and was amazed at what science really says and the real world holds, as opposed to what the JW training she received as child taught her.

  AlanF
• 

  TD

  Hi lovelylil

  I understand and appreciate your position because I actually used to share it. Without trying to sound too argumentative, I have to disagree on several points:

  Species means animals that are the same "kind" or family of animal.

  "Family" is actually two steps up the taxonomic ladder from "Species." The California Sea Lion, for example is Class:Mammalia, Order:Carnivora, Family:Otariidae, Genus: Zalophus,Species: californianus

  Family Otariidae includes 7 Genera and 14 Species of Fur Seals and Sea Lions, so it can be seen that "Family" is a much broader classification than "Species."

  The term "Kind" (As it is used in the Bible, and as you appear to be using it) does not correspond to any of these categories and herein lies the problem: "Family" is too broad a term to be interchangable with "Kind" and conversely "Species" is too narrow. (I gave examples that illustrate this point.)

  If the term is going to be used in these type of discussions, we can't simply ride on the coat-tails of science, we must supply our own, provable, clear and unambiguous definition of "Kind."

  They are grouped into populations of animals that can reproduce because they are the same "kind" or "species" of animal.

  By "Can reproduce" I assume you mean Ability to reproduce. The problem here is there is no clear cut-off point where this ends. Fertility gradually tapers off as species become more and more dissimilar. Genetic incompatibilty begins to manifest itself with sterility of the resultant offspring and progresses to a point where no zygote is produced.

  Interestingly In the bible, it uses the word "kind" and says that animals reproduces according to their "kind" which is what science today says also.

  Yes, the Bible uses the term very much in the context of reproduction. Creatures reproduce according to their kind. This only begs the type of question that I've previously raised: (i.e. Are Sheep, Cattle and Goats (Family Bovidae) one kind or three kinds?)

  You mentioned the mixing of lions and tigers, well they are also a similar "kind" or "species" of animal. Same with the bears, same family, same kind thus same species of animal. IF they are the same type of family of animal they can reproduce with others of same family of animals or species.

  ???

  You are using the word "Kind" as a synonym for both "Family" and "Species" almost in the same sentence and the result appears to be a declaration of equality between the terms "same" and "similar."

  .....well they [Lions and Tigers] are also a similar "kind" or "species" of animal.

  Same with the bears, same family, same kind thus same species of animal.

  Do you consider "Same" and "Similar" to be equal in this discussion? Are the Cheetah (Felidae Acinonyx jubatus) and Jaguar (Felidae Panthera onca) one "Kind" or two "Kinds"?