Evidence for evolution, Installment 6: The bible requires it

by seattleniceguy 23 Replies latest jw friends

  • seattleniceguy
    seattleniceguy

    Happy Sunday, everyone! It's time again for an evolution article. This week we will be breaking from our normal tack of examining scientific evidence, and instead consider the issue from a different perspective. We will be looking at whether or not the bible really supports it.

    For those who do not believe in the bible, this article will be of only academic interest. However, for those that do believe in the bible, I think this article should provide interesting food for thought. As we shall see, if the bible is literally true, then evolution must also be true.

    Specifically, it is the account of the flood which weighs strongly in favor of evolution. Let's note some important facts about the biblical flood:

    • The flood was earthwide, the highest mountains being covered by water (Genesis 7:19).
    • Every land animal ("from man to beast, to moving animal to flying creature of the heavens") not inside the ark perished (Genesis 7:22, 23).
    • Bible chronology places the time of this mass extinction at about 4300 years ago. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/noahs_flood.asp)

    These facts have a very important implication. They mean that, if the flood account is true, then all land-based animal life has come to exist in its present variety in the 4300 years since the time of the flood.

    Let's examine some facts about the current diversity of life. How many species exist in the world currently? Scientists have named and catalogued over 1.5 million species so far, but they believe that this number represents only a tiny fraction of the total number yet undiscovered (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/FelixNisimov.shtml). The true number of animal species could be as high as 20 to 100 million.

    The web site earthtrends.wri.org gives the following numbers for named land animal species earthwide:

    Mammals: 4,629
    Birds: 10,000
    Reptiles: 8,173
    Amphibians: 5,699

    Additionally, there are about 800,000 insect species (http://www.canadianbiodiversity.mcgill.ca/english/species/) worldwide. Note that these are the named and catalogued species. If you do any research in this area, you will find that the following quote is standard (source: the above cited site):

    There are currently between 1.5 to 1.8 million named species in the world, about half of which are insects. The largest group of insects is the beetles (the order Coleoptera), with 300 000 species. In contrast, there are only 4 500 species of mammals.

    These numbers are just for the known and named species. No one knows how many species are still to be discovered. Estimates for the total number of species on the planet range from three million to 100 million, though most generally accepted estimates are between five and 20 million.

    So there are a lot of animals species on the earth. It is important to understand what a species is. It is not like a dog breed, where you can selectively breed for a few generations and get a new species. In science, the exact definition of species can be kind of tricky because of the diversity of life, but for the forms of life that humans are most familiar with in our day-to-day experience, we can define a species as a group of organisms that is reproductively isolated from other groups. That is to say, "if two creatures can produce viable offspring, they are the same species" (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Species).

    It's important to grasp this definition before we proceed. Dogs and cats are different species because you cannot breed a dog and a cat and get viable offspring (or any offspring at all, for that matter, in this case). They are reproductively isolated. However, a beagle and Labrador retriever, say, are the same species because they can produce viable offspring together.

    Now, when you consider the number of animal species in the world today, it is clear that there are literally millions more species than could ever have fit into Noah's ark. Just to prove this, let's consider the case of mammals alone. Genesis says that, depending on whether the animal was "clean" or "unclean," either two or seven were taken on board. We'll be conservative and pretend that all mammals were clean, even though we know that is not true. We'll also avoid the entire debate about how many animals could physically fit on the the boat. Clearly it is a small number, much smaller than the current number of animal species. Food and water for a year had to be carried, which would arguably have taken up more space than the animals themselves.

    Let's imagine that Noah and family manage to round up 1000 different mammal species. That would be at least 2000 individual animals. Each of these animals needs to eat and drink every day. Each one will be producing waste in large quantities, which will need to be shoveled. If we imagine Noah and his family working at the breakneck speed of 10 minutes per animal pair, we are talking about a total of 10,000 minutes, or 166 hours, per day. Each human passenger would be required to work 21 hours per day just to keep up with feeding and cleaning the mammals.

    I don't think it's necessary to pursue this line of reasoning much further. It should be clear that the number of species on the boat would have been dramatically lower - due to many constraints - than the number alive on earth today.

    And that's where it gets interesting. Because if we say that the small number of species that came off the ark is responsible for the millions of animals species that exist today, than we are forced to acknowledge evolutionary processes. In fact, since we are saying that a few thousands animals (at most) speciated into the millions we have today in the space of only 4300 years, we are not only relying on evolution, but we are relying on hyper-speed evolution. Therefore, if we accept that the story of the flood is true, than we must accept that evolution is true.

    Lest anyone misunderstand me, I do not believe in the bible, and I find the story of the flood amusingly full of holes. But when I was a Witness, I was seriously concerned with the reality of the flood, and during that time I realized this irony: the flood story cannot be true unless evolution is true too.

    So in the end, both science and the bible support evolution. What more could you ask for?

    SNG

    Previous articles:
    Retroviral sequences: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/86797/1.ashx
    Cytochrome c: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/87238/1.ashx
    What evolution is not: The role of randomness: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/87711/1.ashx
    Mitochondrial DNA, part 1: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/87781/1.ashx
    Mitochondrias DNA, part 2: Neandertals: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/88271/1.ashx
    Atavisms and Vitamin C: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/88649/1.ashx
    Isolated Species: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/89867/1.ashx

  • tetrapod.sapien
    tetrapod.sapien

    he he he, nice, i like it. "finally! proof that science does support the bible!" just not in the way that xians would like it supported. again, enjoyed your installment. cheerio.

  • Daunt
    Daunt

    "since we are saying that a few thousands animals (at most) speciated into the millions we have today in the space of only 4300 years, we are not only relying on evolution, but we are relying on hyper-speed evolution." HA I love it. They're more of an evolutionist than ME! I'm jealous. All joking aside it was a nice article. Filled with more common sense than straight facts but still gives more truth than your other articles. Thumbs up. Sheesh I should be saving these could start a book.

  • stillajwexelder
    stillajwexelder

    This is just brilliant SNG - I enjoy your postings as much as I enjoy Blondie, Alan F and Farkel- they really are a good read. Thankyou so much. BTW how many specis of insect do you think Noah and family carried into the ark and also which of Noahs sons were assigned the task of going to the Artic Circle to collect two polar bears?

  • tetrapod.sapien
    tetrapod.sapien

    : which of Noahs sons were assigned the task of going to the Artic Circle to collect two polar bears?

    totally. or how did ecologically symbiotic relationships make the pilgrimage, from where the ark came to rest in Turkey, to where they are now?

  • seattleniceguy
    seattleniceguy

    Thanks all for your comments. Glad you like the series so much stillajwexelder! Your comment about insects was interesting, because for some reason, I think that creationists are more willing to accept insect evolution that human evolution. As if insect evolution were somehow less compelling than, say, mammal evolution. I suppose it's the propensity to think that animals that are more similar to us are more important. ( <-- sorry if that paragraph doesn't make a lot of sense - I was mostly just musing out loud.)

    SNG

  • jaffacake
    jaffacake

    I've enjoyed this series of posts. Who says that Christians don't believe in evolution? Who says that Christians believe the Old Testament to be literal? Once again, some confuse Christianity with JWs.

    I do recognise however that a minority of Christians do take the Bible literally and do not believe in evolution. Please don't paint us all with the same brush.

    Looking forward to installment 7.

  • Qcmbr
    Qcmbr

    ..but isn't that the christian point - evolution is directed by God as opposed to being random mutations in genes. The important bit about creation is the spirit - ie genesis 1 talks of a spiritual creation - our life here on earth is a mortal life and in the end there is a reuniting of the spirit and the body in the resurection to make a living soul. So even if the process used by God is evolutionary the point is that for life to exist it requires a spirit - not just a simple set of genetic materials. Now what strikes me is the speed at which species adapt - take a man up a high mountain and keep him their and within a few generations his children will be born with greater lung capacities. Seems to me that we are built to rapidly adapt far better than random mutations which is the core of evolution. Even with current timescales of evolutionists there doesn't seem enough time for positive random mutations to actually take hold - given my limited knowledge of actual genetics. Now if animals are actually designed to rapidly alter - not by random mutations but by actually bringing recessive genes to the fore then we can see how rapid species division can occur without relying on some mutation system (that also has to add material every now and then as well as just recombine it.)

    Now we have a system that makes sense to me - evolution is satisfied, creationists are satisfied, the facts start to square in terms of time frames (creation potentially allows millenia )

    Now the only problem is the ark story itself.

    Maybe the flood was not world wide but to Noah it seemed so - therefore that's what was recorded.

  • jaffacake
    jaffacake

    I've always believed the story was based on some localised flood, which appeared to affect the then known world. The story was perhaps like a parable, with the mesage more important than accuracy. Isn't that the case with much of the Old Testament. From being about 9 year old I knew enough about the world to know the Bible couldn't be taken literally. Like the devil being a fallen angel and such catholic nonsense, just my opinion.

    For some to abandon a literal understanding of the whole Bible is too big a step to take. Where would such thinking stop? That's a good question which can move us out of our comfort zone.

  • seattleniceguy
    seattleniceguy

    jaffacake,

    I do recognise however that a minority of Christians do take the Bible literally and do not believe in evolution. Please don't paint us all with the same brush.

    I realize that many Christians accept evolution and take the Bible with a grain of salt, and I greatly respect them. My post was addressing a literal reading of the Bible. That is, if you accept the flood account as the Bible portrays it, then evolution must be true.

    Q,

    I don't think the Bible supports the idea of a localized flood. It says the highest mountains were covered to a height of 15 cubits. If you can describe a way for this to be true, and still have the flood be local, tell me.

    SNG

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit