A lancet (or something like it) evolved from a sea squirt? This is “logic”? Have a look at a sea squirt and then have a look at a lancet - then explain how one could have evolved into the other (sea squirts aren’t even mobile – they’re anchored to rocks!). I can’t even begin to imagine how that might have happened (I’m too busy laughing!). And where is the fossil evidence of this amusing fantasy?
And where is the fossil evidence of the transition from an invertebrate “lancet” to a vertebrate fish?
Furthermore, if such fossil sequences exist, how do you confirm biological evolution is responsible for them? The answer is, you can’t – there is no way to test any explanation for the fossil record. An hypothesis that can’t be tested doesn’t even qualify as science – so all you’ve got is a pseudo-scientific “evolution done it” story.
I would be interested in what you think. By the way, thanks for the reference. I had not heard of him, and he sounds like a really nice and brilliant man (whether he believes in common descent or not)).
Well, here’s the website, though I wonder if I misunderstood him a bit on my first read–see what you think.https://bechly.at/anti-darwinism
halfway down the page is where I thought his affirmation that all organisms have parents (except the original single-celled living thing) meant he affirmed common descent. He does say that such a thing would not threaten his faith (good for him).
Let me know if you can’t open it. I had trouble with it at first, for some reason, tonight. Thanks.
Take this, please, as a discussion among Christian brothers. It is ok if I am wrong. Thanks again for the reference. I am still learning.
What Bechly thinks about common descent is irrelevant to the fact that he claims there are no evolutionary transitionals that lead to insects. This is not evidence of evolution. but of something else - namely, some kind of creation that makes novel creatures appear of nowhere.
I came across Bechly on evolutionnews.org - it’s my favourite anti-Darwin site, but thankfully it’s not YEC. You might find it interesting; they have some very impressive scientists on their books.
Sorry, I gave you the wrong link (before I edited it) - the correct one is evolutionnews.org
And I forgot to mention that Bechly thinks the fossil record is “saturated”, meaning we have enough samples now to know what the fossil record says and what it will always say in a general sense.
Edgar, there is no need for your hostility, but I will address some of your concerns.
I never made that claim. As I stated previously, these groups are both among the invertebrate chordates. Phylum chordata contains 3 subphyla - the vertebrates, the lancelets, and the tunicates (sea squirts). All members of Phylum Chordata share several critical features in embryonic stages.
Notochord - a rod-like structure for body stability.
Dorsal nerve cord
Pharyngeal gill slits
Post-anal tail
Vertebrates have more-developed notochord (backbone) and nerve cord (spinal cord), but it is easy to imagine how the vertebrates we see today developed from a chordate like a lancelet. Yes, the adult sea squirts don’t resemble vertebrates, but the juveniles are motile and do exhibit those common characteristics I listed. You could see this for yourself with a simple Google search, provided you can stop laughing long enough to make a serious attempt at learning.
Here is a short layman article regarding what scientists believe about the earliest vertebrates - here
If you have evidence for a competing hypothesis regarding the appearance of vertebrates 400-500 million years ago, I’d be interested to read about it.
The fossil ages can be tested. The genome sequencing similarities in modern organisms can also be tested. It is correct to state that there is not enough evidence to reveal every detail, but it is incorrect to state that there is no testable evidence.
I think this makes a pretty good case for de novo creation of the now extinct Giant Terrestrial Shrimp…
But humans evolved from the Great Ape branch of the Primates of the Animal Kingdom. And if they didn’t, then God is sure making it pretty difficult to defend his participation in Evolution, evidence for which is everywhere on Earth.
What “hostiity”? I merely laughed at an evolutionary claim that I foundly absurdly far-fetched?
I never said you did - that bizarre claim came from the Wiki article you recommended:
“Fish may have evolved from an animal similar to a coral-like sea squirt … The first ancestors of fish, or animals that were probably closely related to fish, were Pikaia, Haikouichthys and Myllokunmingia.[8][4] These three genera all appeared around 530 Ma. Pikaia had a primitive notochord, a structure that could have developed into a vertebral column later.”
More to the point, sea squirts don’t resemble their supposed evolutionary offspring (however distant) - an invertebrate like a lancet - either. Sea squirt to lancet, eh? I’m afraid I lack the vivid imagination it takes to swallow that one.
I will make an honest attempt to stop laughing - but it won’t be easy.
I admit that the fossil evidence for reptile-jaw to mammal inner-ear bones is, on the face of it, more compelling than I stated a few posts back, so you may a point.
I said there is no way to test - that is to say, confirm - that biological evolution is responsible for the geological evidence. The geological evidence is evidence for Darwinism, but doesn’t confirm it (another poster has already pointed out this fact).
Such evidence confirms no more than this - the history of life on life on earth is one of change - generally with increased functional complexity - that took place over billions of years. As to what caused those changes, there is no way to confirm any proposed theory.
Btw, I fail to see what extant genomes can confirm about what happened millions-billions of years ago. Sounds like another case of evo-wild-extrapolation to me.
If the Great Flood wiped out all the life on Australia…then the Marsupials that live there now all descend from animals that fled the Ark some 3k+ years ago… which didn’t include a single placental… other than the placental bats that could fly to Australia after if moved into the middle of the ocean.
(Eventually placental rats made it via floating storm debris, then humans, and dingos.)
You will find that marsupial moles, carnivores and omnivores evolved from a single population into three very different life styles and physical forms.
For Creationism to be true, Evolution would have to work even faster than Old Earth Evolutionists (or Old Earth Creationists) could possibly imagine !!!
I liked his profile on his website…seemed like a nice man with a young family. We need more people like that. Thank you.
I wonder how he could say fossils were saturated.
Regarding genetic evidence, as Francis Collins remarked on his last podcast, genetics is way more detailed and convincing than even fossils for common descent and extrapolations. Here is a Biologos article with a very brief overview. What is the Genetic Evidence for Human Evolution? - BioLogos
Genetic evidence does seem to argue against de novo changes of the kind he is referencing.
I’m going to have to suggest that the primary reason you find it so far-fetched is that you are completely unfamiliar with these organisms. The subphylum you keep referring to is “lancelet”, not “lancet”. And even though the adult form of the tunicates (sea squirts) is often sessile, the juvenile forms are motile and bear significant resemblance to other animals. In addition to the 4 main characteristics they share with vertebrates, they also have a closed circulatory system with a well-developed heart, similar to the vertebrates. The Larvacea class of tunicates keeps these characteristics (including motility) into adulthood.
I showed you evidence that could be tested, in response to your claim. Confirmation is in the form of “based on the evidence, this is most-likely what happened”, rather than “this is exactly what happened and here are all of the genetic mutations involved and all of the transitional species that prove it”. It seems that your level of confirmation is the latter. I agree that would be ideal, but that level of evidence is indeed missing. Does that mean the former type of confirmation is invalid? Obviously not. If you disagree, then provide a hypothesis that matches the evidence better.
Yes, extrapolation is involved. Extrapolation is also involved with genetic testing for paternity cases. We can compare genomic sequences and observe varying degrees of relatedness. Just as we can study individual genomes to establish paternity, similarity in genomes can also tell us which groups of organisms are closely related.
Your skepticism just might be alleviated if you made efforts to understand more of what you are skeptical about.
When arthropods climbed out of the wet onto dry land, they exploited new niches. They exploited plant life and became symbiotic with some of them.
But after the arthropods arrived, then came amphibeans and reptiles. I don’t think we should expect the transitionals to have survived that kind of environmental pressure.
Crustaceans are a perfect fit… and they survived.
Insects area a perfect fit … and they survived.
There is really no way of knowing how well something BETWEEN these two perfectly fitting creatures might have done … or not done…
Does evolutionary theory provide any useful scientific benefit?
Yes. It is called theoretical biology. …and see above.
Does Christianity provide any useful scientific benefit?
No.
Does evolutionary theory provide any way for us to deal with our self destructive habits of sin?
No.
Does Christianity provide any way for us to deal with our self destructive habits of sin?
For many many people in the world, yes.
So evolutionary theory for science and Christianity for sin.
Is there any other answer for science?
No. There is no other explanation for the evidence unless you believe in the evil creator of the Gnostics who might have filled everything he created with lies.
Is there any other answer to sin?
Yes. People find many answers to this in many different religions and other methods such as philosophy and psychology. Though perhaps this is just because God is not the exclusive property of Christianity and He can work through many different things to accomplish His purpose.
Evolutionary theory is playing a critical role in understanding the emergence of potentially more virulent SARS-CoV-2 strains, as one very cogent example. Since this thread was left off in April of 2019, I thought that might be worth mentioning.
Yeah I had thought to add that evolutionary theory also has many practical technological benefits like this but forgot to do so. In this it is like most other theoretical sciences, where the advantages are so far reaching it is hard to list them all.
The most visible applications that will come from the theory is in human medicine, and we are finally getting to the point where we have the tools to actually get there. The publication of the human genome papers in 2001 was a milestone event, but 20 years later a single person can sequence a human genome with good coverage in just a few days. Applying the theory of evolution to population and genetic data is going to open up a lot research and hopefully a lot of answers.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
622
Evolution re-emerged inevitably after two hundred and fifty years of science a hundred and sixty ago. It is perichoretic with all life sciences - including psychology and sociology-anthropology - and philosophy since. Take away evolution from the life sciences and we’re in the Divine Republic of Gilead. Early Victorian England with satellite phones.
Thanks again for the reference. I am still learning.