An analogy for evolution

[Vinnie]

And I am done with you. Good day.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

I would have joined in sooner but i have had a forced silence.

@St.Roymond

And lest someone object that a sandcastle is all the same material

it is not the organs that matter but the cells themselves
composition of sand
And the specialisation of cells
And there are about 200 different cell tpyes in a human
How many cell types in a human

So the analogy fails.

RIchard

PS Is that enough references?

[EDC1]

ah, but what do you mean by ‘believing the text is true’? Literally true in all parts, or a mixture of literal truth, historical truth, metaphorical truth, poetic truth etc etc?

Thankfully many Christians consider it the latter.

[St.Roymond]

@Vinnie

That Adam and Eve are real and a global life ending flood occurred are very viable Biblical interpretations. They are the default and historical interpretations

For a long period in the third through fourth century they were taken allegorically more than not. It’s hard to discern without really digging because allegory can be treated literally in order to start mining the meaning. A shift came in the fifth century – and interestingly it correlates with the church becoming accustomed to political power and parallels a loss of the attempt to “make the Old Testament Christian” which I think was due to suddenly starting to use the OT to justify the wielding of political power.

@Roy

And I pointed out that everyone thinks the Bible is data, but believers who reject evolution think the Bible is more than just data.

I think it would be more clear to say “a different kind of data”.

[EDC1]

As someone who accepts evolution but who has little grasp on how it actually works (essentially no background in biology - physics and maths were my forte), could you recommend an introductory book that spells out the basics?

‘one of the reason the characterization of evolution as random is wrong is because many of the ways in which variation is introduced in to genome are a product of evolution themselves. They are selected because they enhance the survival adaptability of the species.’

Perhaps random is the wrong descriptor, but I dont really have a problem with the idea of randomness. In the end nothing is random to God, even if it is to humans. But if you take the case of Darwin’s moths. One type became dominant simply because of local environmental conditions caused by humans. But that human causation was not intentional to making one type of moth more common than hitherto, It was just the consequence of making one type of moth more obvious to its predators, and thus that population dramatically reduced. If a erupting volcano had had a similar effect on a particular population of a species, would that not be essentially a random effect of nature?

I just dont see God involved directly in evolution or indeed in nature in general. I suspect He does not micro-manage his creation. Just in the same way if an asteroid is moving through space-time, He is not directing its path, but rather it will move as described by the ‘laws’ of physics. I tend to view evolution similarly.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

@Roy

And I pointed out that everyone thinks the Bible is data, but believers who reject evolution think the Bible is more than just data.

I think it would be more clear to say “a different kind of data”.

We seem to be playing around with definitions and linguistics.

To call Scrippture data is probaby as good a definition as any. it is material to be processed and understood. however, many treat it as facts, which is further on from data, it is accepting Scriptural self interpretation or comentary. Furthermore, Scripture is not one type of writing so to accept it all on a singular basis would seem to be falacious. The hiccup being the accusation of “picking and choosing” that rears its ugly head every time someone disagrees or has a different viewpoint.
All or nothing is never a good principle, especially when dealing with a complex writing such as Scripture.

Just saying… I am not dictating

Richard

[Vinnie]

@St.Roymond

For a long period in the third through fourth century they were taken allegorically more than not. It’s hard to discern without really digging because allegory can be treated literally in order to start mining the meaning. A shift came in the fifth century – and interestingly it correlates with the church becoming accustomed to political power and parallels a loss of the attempt to “make the Old Testament Christian” which I think was due to suddenly starting to use the OT to justify the wielding of political power.

I think it’s interesting because I don’t think anyone really comments on the question directly in that time period do they? We are just going based off of references teaching other things or them using allegorical interpretations. My understanding is that literal and allegorical interpretations are not mutually exclusive to most of the church during that time period either. One could go beyond the literal but that does not mean one necessarily disagree with it.

Irenaeus in late second century seems to view A&E as historical but even this might not be certain since he also thinks they represent humanity. We probably have a tendency to overgeneralize certain time periods and it s difficult not to project our beliefs back onto them.

I do think that Jews at the time of Jesus did consider most of these figures in the OT real. I mean Josephus traces their history to Adam and literature in 2nd temple Judaism seems to treats them that way. Whether specific gentiles in the 2nd-4th century did is difficult to determine.

Vinnie

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@EDC1

As someone who accepts evolution but who has little grasp on how it actually works (essentially no background in biology - physics and maths were my forte), could you recommend an introductory book that spells out the basics?

But I am a physicist not a biologist. Nor have I ever taught biology. I haven’t even had a biology class in college. The last biology I had was AP biology in high school. There are biologists here who would be better to ask such as @glipsnort I have found Wikipedia to be good on scientific questions so there is the Wikipedia article.

I can tell some of the Dawkins books I thought were worth reading because some are actual science rather than his amateurish forays in to theology. Climbing Mount Improbable and Ancestors Tale are worth reading. I didn’t much care for “The Selfish Gene”

@mitchellmckain

one of the reason the characterization of evolution as random is wrong is because many of the ways in which variation is introduced in to genome are a product of evolution themselves. They are selected because they enhance the survival adaptability of the species.

Some of my views on evolution come from a personal study at a university library on mutagenesis. That is where I discovered that E-coli bacteria will prevent repairs on their own DNA in order to keep the changes by UV radiation as a source variation. That is an example which surprised me the most. But I already knew about the many different ways in which mammals introduce variation in their DNA in addition to the mixing of parent DNA by sexual reproduction.

[Roy (Roy (Listener twice correct))]

@EDC1

As someone who accepts evolution but who has little grasp on how it actually works (essentially no background in biology - physics and maths were my forte), could you recommend an introductory book that spells out the basics?

I recommend Mayr’s ‘What evolution is’ and Jones’s ‘Almost like a whale’ for the basics, even though they’re a bit out of date now.

[rsewell (All Truth is God's Truth)]

@EDC1

As someone who accepts evolution but who has little grasp on how it actually works (essentially no background in biology - physics and maths were my forte), could you recommend an introductory book that spells out the basics?

Sean B. Carroll books The Making of the Fittest, The Serengeti Rules, and Endless Forms Most Beautiful are all excellent.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@knor

If a terrestrial creature moves to utilizing aquatic environments, getting food or escaping predators by swimming, we can crudely predict what kind of features will be beneficial for the creature. If we have some kind of grasp of what kind of competitors and predators are likely to be present in the ecosystem, and what kind of food sources are available, we could make quite good predictions of how the appearance of an average individual in the population would change.

We could also make some predictions about what kind of speciation is likely, based on what kind of resources are available. For example, small crustaceans and large fish are two resources that provide opportunities for different kinds of creatures.

Other lineages of aquatic or semi-aquatic mammals offer an interesting contrast. Seals are different from otters which are different from dugongs. They all seem to have taken slightly different evolutionary trajectories. Only one of the lineages landed on highly specialized echolocation like the cetaceans did.

Anyway, just some food for thought.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@mitchellmckain

I think it is interesting that psychology is not one of those you have listed.

Ewww, ick! Biologists don’t recognize those sciences. (removing tongue from cheek)

@mitchellmckain

Our arguments look more like justifications for conclusions we have already chosen. And then there are the experiments showing many of our choices are made before we are consciously aware of them. This doesn’t exclude free will since it can just make those choices less conscious – less deliberative than we assumed. On the other hand, free will itself doesn’t work out so rationally as a time-ordered teleological process.

I guess I’m not as concerned about free will as some people. I subscribe to what I call the Roller Coaster Philosophy. If we are going along on rails without any free will to change our course, it’s still a fun ride so why not enjoy it? The illusion of free will, if that is all we have, is good enough for me.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Vinnie

Correct, which is what I said. The Bible is only considered valid data to some people on the question of human origins because they think it is inspired. Otherwise they would not read a mythological narrative and think it answers scientific questions.

From the view of an academic historian or theologian I think it would be accurate to call the Bible data. The data here would be what people believed through history, what they reported of their own society and culture, and how these beliefs were approached by subsequent generations.
From a scientific point of view, it isn’t data because it is not objective and not empirically verifiable (i.e. nullius in verba). As the old scientific quip goes, the plural of anecdote is not data. As with many things in life, context is important.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Vinnie

I do think that Jews at the time of Jesus did consider most of these figures in the OT real.

And?

So was a flat earth.

You are happy to overide the obvious menaing of Genesis 1 to accomodate science, but not Genesis 3 because that is theology. (despite its obvious scientiic/reality contradictions)

The H word comes to mind.

Richard

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

You are happy to overide the obvious menaing of Genesis 1 to accomodate science, but not Genesis 3 because that is theology. (despite its obvious scientiic/reality contradictions)

They are accommodating the observable evidence. It’s the same reason we think the Earth moves about the Sun despite the protestations of some theologians in the 17th century.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@EDC1

Perhaps random is the wrong descriptor, but I dont really have a problem with the idea of randomness. In the end nothing is random to God, even if it is to humans. But if you take the case of Darwin’s moths.

In the theory of evolution, mutations are random with respect to fitness. This means needing a specific beneficial mutation in a given environment does not increase the rate at which the mutation occurs. However, natural selection is not random, and it is natural selection that is responsible for adaptation.

So to use yet another analogy, when we strike a rock and bust it up into little pieces the distribution of pebble sizes is somewhat random. If we pass them through a sieve only the pebbles below a certain size make it through resulting in two piles with a non-random distribution of sizes.

@EDC1

But if you take the case of Darwin’s moths. One type became dominant simply because of local environmental conditions caused by humans. But that human causation was not intentional to making one type of moth more common than hitherto, It was just the consequence of making one type of moth more obvious to its predators, and thus that population dramatically reduced. If a erupting volcano had had a similar effect on a particular population of a species, would that not be essentially a random effect of nature?

I don’t know if Darwin ever knew of those moths, but that’s a story for another day.

It’s interesting that you talk of a volcanic eruption. It turns out that one volcanic eruption is the cause for one very interesting example of natural selection in action. It just happened to involve mice instead of moths. This is the Pinacate lava field:

When this eruption occurred the surrounding desert was full of light brown pocket mice. Mutations in this population of mice resulted in a dark coloration, and it would have been strongly selected against if not for the presence of the black basalt supplied by the volcanic eruption. On the lava field the predominate coloration is black while in the surrounding desert the predominate coloration is light brown, each matching the substrate of each environment. The two populations freely interbreed, but natural selection keeps the predominate colors in place.

You can read the scientific paper here:

The genetic basis of adaptive melanism in pocket mice

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@EDC1

As someone who accepts evolution but who has little grasp on how it actually works (essentially no background in biology - physics and maths were my forte), could you recommend an introductory book that spells out the basics?

I forgot to address this part of your quote in my first post.

The “Understanding Evolution” website is a decent primer for learning about the basics of evolutionary theory. I would suggest starting at their “Evolution 101” page:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/

The box on the right hand side has quite a few good links to click on, as well as the hyperlinked pages at the bottom.

[St.Roymond]

@T_aquaticus

@knor

We could also make some predictions about what kind of speciation is likely, based on what kind of resources are available. For example, small crustaceans and large fish are two resources that provide opportunities for different kinds of creatures.

Other lineages of aquatic or semi-aquatic mammals offer an interesting contrast. Seals are different from otters which are different from dugongs. They all seem to have taken slightly different evolutionary trajectories.

This kind of knowledge is being used in science fiction to fashion evolutionarily likely alien species for different planets. I have to say that the aliens fashioned this way are far more believable!

[Vinnie]

@RichardG

And?

So was a flat earth.

You are happy to overide the obvious menaing of Genesis 1 to accomodate science, but not Genesis 3 because that is theology. (despite its obvious scientiic/reality contradictions)

The H word comes to mind.

I don’t know what the H word is. BS? That’s is my only guess based on context. I have never said I take Adam and Eve to be literal. I also thought they were myth but recently arguments to the contrary have brought me back to a position of uncertainty. Yes, opinion change can go in both ways for honest, objective truth seekers.

Let me break it down for you:

Paul is a Pharisee that seemingly hates Christians. He is dragging these heretical jews out of their home, watching them be stoned and persecuting the church. Jesus appears to him and specially points him as an apostle to the gentiles and the Holy Spirit moves over him very shortly after and he writes a significant portion of our inspired sacred scripture that has essentially shaped and led the entire Church we believe Jesus left behind the last 2,000 years. I do not doubt this man had a very real encounter with Jesus nor that he was commissioned by God.

That Paul exists in a time when I would say its far more plausible to think most Jews accepted a literal Adam and Eve (intertestamental literature seems to show this and Josephus etc), Christians are certainly going to consider that relevant when they try to understand how best to take his arguments about Adam and Jesus today. Paul is not some random ancient guy who believed in a flat earth. He is a specially chosen apostle appointed by God to shape our church in ways that are difficult for us to overstate. He is so important and his views are so pervasive many skeptics often label him the founder of Christianity. If God choosing a murderer to spread the Gospel the world and write a third to a half of our New Testament doesn’t make what he writes important to you, that is your business.

I take all of Genesis 1-3 as myth that rearranges ANE furniture. But why do some of us try to maintain a belief in Adam and Eve?

• The argument of Paul
• the reality of sin and the fallen nature of the world
• Other statements in our inspired Scripture (e.g. genealogies).

You may disagree with all of them but that is your business. This is not special pleading or whatever you think H means. It is assessing the Biblical data and trying to make the most sense of the situation based on all the relevant information and that includes science. It also includes Paul distinguishing between the authority of his own teachings and that of Jesus.

That the earliest Christians (who were Jews) understood their figures to be real means when they write our inspired and sacred scripture that is normative for nChristians, we should understand their references as being to actual persons and history. that doesn’t necessitate their views were correct but to just dismiss that as irrelevant is silly. Not everyone feels as free to just make up their own religion. We approach the Bible with a hermeneutic of trust until we shouldn’t.

@T_aquaticus

They are accommodating the observable evidence. It’s the same reason we think the Earth moves about the Sun despite the protestations of some theologians in the 17th century.

To adhere to to Biblical accommodation does not require one to reject a literal Adam and Eve (monogenism) or Adams and Eves (polygenism). Science should cause us to modify the traditional understanding of the garden story but wholesale rejection, while possible, simply does not follow.

@T_aquaticus

From the view of an academic historian or theologian I think it would be accurate to call the Bible data. The data here would be what people believed through history, what they reported of their own society and culture, and how these beliefs were approached by subsequent generations.

Seems elitist. Just the academics? What about from the viewpoint of the typical Christian who accepts the Bible as inspired by God and true in all it affirms and teaches? I mean “God created the earth in 6 days” is pretty much a fact to those types of believers and thus classifies as data to them on the age of the earth. As the bumper sticker reads: God said it . . .

@T_aquaticus

From a scientific point of view, it isn’t data because it is not objective and not empirically verifiable (i.e. nullius in verba). As the old scientific quip goes, the plural of anecdote is not data. As with many things in life, context is important.

Which is why I said specifically: " It’s just not data you like or agree with. The Bible is data to a lot of people." You want scientific data. But for the typical Christian, God’s word, when properly understood, is an actual authority on the world. When they want to know how the world came to be, in their eyes, the Bible is a valid source of information for this just as science would be. If both are interpreted correct, they should not contradict. If they do, either science or Biblical interpretation is wrong. That is how the thinking goes. For the believer it is just easier to reject evolution. For a person trained in science it is usually the opposite.

Your data for origins is just science. Many Christians also have to consider inspired scripture. Some make the decision that scripture accommodates pre-scientific ideas. Many do not. Even for some in the former camp, there are still vexing issues such as how to understand A&E in light of Paul’s arguments and the gospel story as a whole where God liberates all of creation (whatever that means).

Vinnie

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Vinnie

Let me break it down for you:

Do not try and teach me basic Christianity, thank you. (That is an insult)

@Vinnie

the reality of sin and the fallen nature of the world

And that is your prejudice.

It just isn’t so, not to the extent or detrement that is claimed.

@Vinnie

Other statements in our inspired Scripture

And that is your second assumption and personal belef.

Scripture is what it is. It is not what you want or need it to be.
It was neither written, nor vetted by God. it was witten by “inspired” and “believing” people, who put their beleifs down on paper, in their own words and withi their own understanding.

You cannot have an Original Sin without an original sinner. If Adam was not real, nieither is Original Sin!. There is no such thing as an allegorical or symbolic sin.

SIn is not transmitted. it is not a disease, nor is it a Slaver (enslvaing) Whether Paul viewed it as such or not. As a Pharisee he would not have belived in chance either, but God as total controler beyond reproach or access. Jews do not beleive in petition as being of use or notice to God. Just look at the thousands banging their heads agains the Wailing Walll.

Richard