And there’s also plenty of junk translation (protein), because we have looked at plenty of expression of proteins whose absence is lethal.
The ENCODE project was mostly hype. We knew many years ago that there was massive intergenic transcription from excellent work that looked at small regions of the genome, like this:
Interesting. Despite that, you can see that a book impressively dismantles “mutation dogma.”
Do you see a contradiction there?
Here’s a shorthand for evaluation: if people are writing books that fail to inspire them or anyone else to do field or lab work to test an actual hypothesis, the books are highly unlikely to be revolutionary.
Dogma is overthrown by evidence, not typically by books from people who used to be empiricists, but have stopped generating data themselves.
I agree with your forecast. It’s the obvious path into the future of genetics.
But I don’t quite understand why the non-genetic items are so crucial to you? Even before these processes were discovered, biologists understood that suites of genes could and would support embryonic and fetal responses at the non-genetic level.
There will always be the wall between genetic adaptiveness, and non-genetic adaptiveness allowed for by various genetic configurations.
I don’t see anything in these observations that would over-throw the name “Neo-Darwinism”.
Newtonian physics was “overthrown” by Einstein’s theory of relativity. But Newtonian Physics is still valid for lots of industries and professions. Newtonian Physics occupies a rather large section of Universal Order under the umbrella of the General Theory.
Much the same could be said for New-Darwinism. It will occupy a very large section of genetic science, no matter what else is discovered.
Hello Mr. Brooks,
Now that is a great question; …“why the non genetic items are so crucial to you?” The answer is; that is science. If what I learned in Biology classes where I learned Neo Darwinism cannot nearly explain reality, then that becomes of tremendous interest. Everyone on this site, I presume, has a really inquisitive mind and this subject matter is and always will produce such inquiry. Another example… non biology. How about cosmology? I’m fascinated by Big Bang cosmology. I’m hardly an expert but read all I can fathom on the subject. I sometimes wonder, on these fantastically interesting subjects why anyone would not be glued to the unfolding dramas. Well, I am not a scientist…just a wana be. I’m a lawyer. And I study as I’d prepare for a trial; in my mind accumulating evidences and especially the Big Picture; I accumulate witness in my mind and try to find the presentation from both sides of an argument. I try to find the evidence that gets me to a standard of proof, preponderance, or clear and convincing or beyond any reasonable doubt.
For me, so much of life itself is a diligent search for the truth. Michael Faraday is one of my favorites in the history of science. He had a pure heart about science and was was a scientist because he believed God made everything so there had to be rational and discoverable answers. So I think, to try to answer your very savvy question; … maybe that is the reason. I know this; I can’t stop thinking…not only science but about anything that makes me “wonder” and usually the answers leave me “in wonder.” Life is a wonder.
Again…for me, so much of life itself is a diligent search for the truth.
Hello Mr. Kirk Thank you for your insights.
You have a good point and I’ve considered your thoughts myself; how should I be writing on a subject I am not an expert on? Well, maybe I know just enough to be dangerous, as the joke goes. I might be undervaluing how much I have been engaged in the general subject matter. I’m in the middle of two books on point now and one lengthy paper (Shapiro’s which I referenced in earlier posts). The subject of “stasis” is of immense interest to me. There’s an amazing book by Carl Werner, “Living Fossils” which is on point on that issue. I reference the book Evolution 2.0 because his approach is a challenge to all who are “into” coding issues and whether his comparison in the world of “codes” is correct; I think his challenge is such as you reference, it seems to me. What I write on, what I post on, in a few forums on BioLogos are usually posed as questions to see if I’m thinking correctly. For instance, I’ve studied quite a bit about viruses. Now, when the subject of HERV arises, I perk up. Maybe I can ask questions that will help me learn a new facet of virus behavior and how the virus itself can be used by the biological system as a beneficial provirus instead of how we normally thing of deleterious actions produced by the virus. So as I work with minutia I’m constantly referencing the “big picture” and that is why I derive conclusions; some tentative I throw out to see what very well read folks like you think about them. Some I’m more convinced by, but always I try to be open to a new understanding and always open to being corrected if my facts are wrong or conclusions are incorrect. Yet another example of my 'exploration" as a student of “everything”…Biblical Archaeologist Joel Kramer’s 16 part video series online… like being in Israel with him. Well, after watching those videos on those various dig sites, I’m not an expert but I can lay out basics with some “authority” yet not a pro. Now if someone said, Well, the whole thing about the Valley of Elah and David and Goliath are just a myth made up centuries after the fact, I’d take issue and ask if it is not true that the fortified city locations were not just as described in First Samuel and even minutely down to the 'stream" running at the base of the mountain…that is there are plenty of details that would lend credence to the basic elements that can be verified. That is… underlying facts. Whether the event itself is fabrication we go elsewhere for evidences, but the statements of geography are accurate. If written centuries later, then the creative writer was most cautious to create an accurate background to fabricate his “historical” novel. I only give you a few examples to explain that anyone who reads and studies a lot on a subject over years can have a pretty good grasp of the subject matter even though if he is being honest will admit he is no “expert” but such candidness should not lead one to believe he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Yes… I love science too. But I don’t talk about all those other parts of science on Biologos pages.
I focus on Evolution issues.
On pages where evolution triggers so much anxiety to some groups of evangelicals, getting wedged into disputes over what part of life is Evolutionary vs. some other category of science - seems like a poor use of BioLogos!
Sometimes you sound more like a Creationist provocateur than a pro-science enthusiast.
Of the observations that the theory of evolution is supposed to explain (limited mainly to biology), are there any you feel are lacking or worth discussing?
It is also worth mentioning that even scientists fall into the trap of personal incredulity. Just because you think that something is impossible does not mean it really is. Yes, DNA and biology are very complicated as is the actual biology of living organisms. The trap is in thinking that something so complex can come from the interaction of simple sequences.
We could use an analogy to help us look at this subject. If you look at things like calculators and then computers we see a lot of change over time as technologies improve. However, if you look at a screwdriver from 100 years ago it is nearly the same as a screwdriver found today. Some tools change and others don’t change because they still work perfectly fine for the task. The same applies to some lineages.
Stasis occurs when a lineage is well adapted to their environment. Any changes tend to reduce fitness so they are selected against. They are on a fitness peak. Any changes cause them to move down from that peak so those changes are selected against. However, there are other fitness peaks out there, but they are separated by valleys of lower fitness that the species can not cross.
This is what led Gould and Eldridge to think about stasis and punctuated equilibrium. They realized that environmental pressures were different at the edges of a species range (the geographic area in which the species is found). This would produce stronger selection pressures, and also different selective pressures. Combine this with lower population sizes and you have a faster rate of evolution at the edges of a species range, and evolution of traits that wouldn’t evolve in the interior of the species range. If this resulted in higher fitness, then the newly evolved small populations could replace the larger population in a short amount of time.
Hey George, you are insightful and you may just have my number. I’ve been called a provocateur many times in my academic and professional life. Really, the old “philosopher” pops out a lot. I’m definitely a Christian apologist. But just where is the line for “bara” creation and “derivative” … “let the earth bring forth” where the Process is discoverable, If the Big Bang is out of nothing without process (to side step evolution a moment) then no process is discoverable…but if God USED a method then in theory that process can be discovered by science.
Now, let’s get to some of my questions to discern if they are mere provocation; My first question was whether anyone on BioLogos had heard of any plant or animal that could show a stasis sequence demonstrating incremental changes taking the “thing”…plant or animal from one species to another distinctly different thing I thought not or I’d have probably heard of it. That question moved to a more specific question about 'stasis"…surely a very serious issue in evolution theory as that is precisely the essence of Stephen Jay Gould’s punctuated equilibrium… where the fossil record reflects rapid development followed by long geologic history of stasis…which is seemingly contrary to the “gradualism” envisioned by Darwin. That conflict produced quite a debate in the 80s and 90s…really till present. So my question was an outgrowth of that debate. I’m fascinated by the whole stasis phenomenon. One of my favorite books is “Living Fossils” which expands what is even a greater array of stasis than most would have assumed. I can regurgitate a hundred of his examples (photo comparisons; fossil and current living creature), but I’d really recommend the book…not as a debate point but for true edification.
Well, also arose, quite by happenstance, I mentioned Laetoli footprints and someone told me what creature made those and I asked the poster if he thought A. Africanus was an obligate biped because that issue, raised a lot of other question unsubstantiated by our knowledge of A. Africanus… On yet another forum site I got into a discussion on the historic nature of the Exodus around 1400 BC as verified by the Tell el Armana Letters.
So my questioning is one where I’m inquiring about issues “on point” …things I want to be informed about; things I really want to see if I am speaking on a solid foundation; or really wanting to inform if I think … well, that answer was not what I think is the truth…sooooo, I try to nicely correct.
I have a bunch of grad degrees so maybe I’m just trying to exercise them a bit cause I sure spent a lot of time and energy getting them … hopefully not for naught. What I appreciate is that on BioLogos there are a lot of really smart and well educated folks who try to answer my questions. They do exemplify the “Logos” description of this site.
Hello T Aq;
So are you a “Gould and Eldridge” proponent? I just watched a youtube lecture from a molecular biologist from Stanford. I think it is “youtube molecular genetics II Stanford” and the hour and twenty min. or so video comes up. He explains the great differences between the two camps leaving the issue in limbo by saying that the paleontologist does not operate in the same realm as the molecular biologist. He did not try to assimilate the two concepts of evolution change. He simply laid out the degree of disagreement. As least you tried to explain how to fit them together… Do you think the two are compatible? If so, then I’m not really thinking,… like the Stanford Professor Robert Sapolsky, that all in the neo Darwinian camp are similarly convinced. What I do like about discussions that lay out the internal conflicts that epitomize any discipline, is that in the very dispute is exposed the issues evoked by such intellectual honesty. When we see a debate not glossed over we really can learn by contrast. Now if Sapolsky had argued that the two camps vigorously disagree but there is a way to overlap and see them in fact complimenting one another, then that’s fine. By example in the theological realm, I’ve debated long and hard, with ardent Calvinists v. Free Will advocates. But we … advocates from one of those two camps… don’t mince words and pretend there is no real difference.
I may not understand the last sentence of your quote…do you mean "The trap is in thinking that something so complex can NOT come from the interaction of simple sequences’ I can buy the incremental interaction concept. Not an intuitive conclusion by far but not illogical. One would expect solid proofs. As a 15/16 year old evolutionist I was easily convinced but had seen early on some red flags that gave me pause. I definitely wanted to be "scientific’ and so accepted the logic given in our biology text book… the recapitulation theory; vestigial organs left from evolutionary history and six or seven others. None of those seemed dispositive alone, but cumulatively it seemed compelling. Already on the horizon was the exploding world of genetics. Your point in a previous post is that the genetics alone is the silver bullet. Which I am trying to understand; ERVs … 98 percent similarity assertion…Exon/Intron proofs… all that.
To go to your first question in the quote above; my early teen questions were in fact intuition questions. How, I wondered, given random mutation could we be studying a dazzling array of molecular interaction that defied an easy read? I wondered at the sophistication of DNA to split and copy and code and translate and fold into an "in order’ amino acid sequence and then that molecule (the folding was amazing to me) gets sent to some place where it is needed. Everywhere I looked in biology it seemed like some “mini miracle” at work but…remember, this all just came about by random mutation. We had been taught that Lamarckism was a reputed idea and the new “accepted” method was mutation. OK; I was accepting of that but it seemed to make matters harder to envision. “Mini-miracles” seemed to pop up… even photosynthesis seemed such a miracle and maybe not so “mini”. The surprising part was the “micro” nature of it all. How is this going on in miniature? Something was amazing about that too.
The big question was what appeared to me to be systems of completion. I looked around at all the animals and everything seemed to be a whole and complete. Where were samples of on going evolution? Why didn’t humans in some mountain region have sprouting wings? Now my answer to that question was that maybe “evolution” by way of random mutation had a built in terminus…once the organism is 'complete" then mutation is resisted. But wasn’t there a predecessor “x” from which daughter “y” and “z” came that itself was a complete entity? Hum…my theory didn’t seem to be valid. (Low and behold, I just read the same argument in Doug Axe’s book.)
Then the issue of stasis transfixed me. If random mutation was a reality along with time and natural selection, then why was there not mutation in every form of life and as a corollary to that; why weren’t there MANY extant examples of transition as living demonstrations of such development. I knew there were differences in species but reasoned that variation intra-species was not what would be a necessary remnant of “inter-species” development I was not understanding why, in the abundant world of life, why we only saw inter- species disconnect and not actual examples of continuous connection.
Then the fossil record…Cambrian with the many new body forms…with no record in the pre-Cambrian of their development. Lots of questions about fossils.
The arguments in my biology text book that were the standard arguments seemed over time to be not very compelling at all. Each fell with new facts.
So, the argument began to rest more and more on genetic arguments which BioLogos focuses on … which is why I not only wanted to read and learn but wanted to ask the questions myself and hopefully begin to understand what was becoming a more and more complex argument…made complex because genetics is complex.
Origins, (from inorganic mix to RNA/or whatever) was also an issue but didn’t Miller prove that amino acids could be created in a test tube…so…poof…life? Yeah, real simple. So often, I have felt “misled” by the professionals, speaking with absolute certainty, and then find, wait; maybe not so. So now, years later, I question everything. Why couldn’t the evolution writers just have said; Hey, here is the experiment of Miller but admittedly the origin of life is amazingly complex…not only must there be 20 amino acids (left handed) working in a long sequence but folded just so to give a 3 D architecture and THAT is a protein. And in giving evidences for evolution say, … but also the fossil record is incomplete and has gaps that bring into question the nature of the evolution claim etc.
So I (and thousands of other evolutionists) have had to search out valid arguments and counter arguments, realizing that the whole is not laid out “argument v. counter argument”. I have an amazing youtube video where an acclaimed astro physicist lamented a particular fine tuning discovery that unfortunately, he said, the creationists would be able to use. I am astonished at such a motive. Where is real dispassionate science. It doesn’t MATTER that some “side” gets “points” for this or that. What matters is the truth.
These long posts contain numerous errors, and it is hard to know where you get your information or why you became confused about so many things. Your inquisitiveness is fantastic, but you have been (it seems) repeatedly misled and/or you have internalized inaccurate versions of accounts of evolution, genetics and molecular biology. The paragraph quoted above seems representative. You simply cannot have heard from a “professional” anything like the summary of Miller-Urey that you provide, and most especially I am deeply skeptical that any professional scientist ever presented any account of OOL with “absolute certainty.” I am familiar with this literature, and these descriptions are inaccurate to put it gently.[quote=“senatorthomas, post:91, topic:36182”]
Why couldn’t the evolution writers just have said; Hey, here is the experiment of Miller but admittedly the origin of life is amazingly complex…
[/quote]
They did. They still do. I have never seen a single account by a scientist with even middling credibility that does not do this.
Perhaps you have indeed been let down by writers who misled you. It’s hard to tell. What I know is that professional scientists have never made most of the claims that you cite. And so I think you may have not chosen your sources wisely.
Have you read a Single Article on Ring Species?
Can you paraphrase Myers’ definition for Speciation?
If a population of 4 legged reptiles gradually becomes a population of no-legged snakes, is that Evolution?
If large populations in stable environments evolve more slowly than populations that have been decimated by sudden changes in the environment… doesn’t that sound like punctuated equilibrium to you?
If there are no traces of Philistines in the Southern Levant until the Sea People, and no indication of Philistine independence until about 1130 BCE, how can Biblicists argue for an Exodus happening before 1130 BCE?
And how can Abraham cavort with the Philistines 700 years before they even arrive?
Bonus Question: If the Tribe of Simeon descends from the 2nd son of Jacob, and is one of the Ten Tribes of the Northern Kingdom, how did it participate as one of the Ten Tribes if it dwelled south of Judah?
Darwin also proposed punctuated equilibrium:
Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, – both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]
While Darwin favored gradualism, the theory accommodates both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Both are result of the same evolutionary mechanisms.[quote=“senatorthomas, post:89, topic:36182”]
One of my favorite books is “Living Fossils” which expands what is even a greater array of stasis than most would have assumed. I can regurgitate a hundred of his examples (photo comparisons; fossil and current living creature), but I’d really recommend the book…not as a debate point but for true edification.
[/quote]
I have found that in many instances the amount of stasis has been played up quite a bit. For example, the coelacanth is an oft cited example. People pretend as if coelacanth refers to a single species. It doesn’t. There are nearly 100 known fossil examples of coelacanths, and they are all different from one another. On top of that, the two modern coelacanth species are different from all known fossil species. Yes, the modern species share a lot of features and there have been relatively few changes, but they are still different and are placed in their own genus.[quote=“senatorthomas, post:89, topic:36182”]
Well, also arose, quite by happenstance, I mentioned Laetoli footprints and someone told me what creature made those and I asked the poster if he thought A. Africanus was an obligate biped because that issue, raised a lot of other question unsubstantiated by our knowledge of A. Africanus… On yet another forum site I got into a discussion on the historic nature of the Exodus around 1400 BC as verified by the Tell el Armana Letters.
[/quote]
Australopithecines had adaptations for bipedalism and tree climbing, so they probably did both.
I am not sure what the controversy is that you are speaking of, but if I were to guess I would think that it would deal more with morphology vs. population genetics. Paleontologists judge fossils on what they look like. Molecular biologists deal with living populations and how the interbreed and evolve at the DNA level. Connecting the two is not the easiest. For example, two individuals can look very different from one another but still interbreed and be part of the same population. Two other individuals can look nearly the same but be separate species with respect to interbreeding. Molecular biologists also look at DNA sequences that have nothing to do with morphology in order to determine time since common ancestry, mutation rates, evolutionary rates, and so forth. Being that fossils don’t have DNA, with the exception of very recent ones, it is hard to merge the two.
Where the two can overlap is by figuring out what DNA differences between genomes are responsible for the physical differences between species. It might be possible to line up mutations with the appearance of evolving morphology in the fossil record. One example that comes to mind is a mutation in the human gene MYH that is involved in muscle formation in the jaw. There is a frameshift mutation in the human gene, and the timing of that mutation lines up with the reduction in the size of the jaw in hominid transitional fossils. There is probably some controversy surrounding this paper, but the hypothesis is that the reduction in muscle allowed cranial bones to shrink in size and expand being that a weaker muscle needs less bone as an anchor. This allowed for expansion of the brain.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6981/abs/nature02358.html?foxtrotcallback=true
Yes, thanks for the correction.[quote=“senatorthomas, post:91, topic:36182”]
To go to your first question in the quote above; my early teen questions were in fact intuition questions. How, I wondered, given random mutation could we be studying a dazzling array of molecular interaction that defied an easy read? I wondered at the sophistication of DNA to split and copy and code and translate and fold into an "in order’ amino acid sequence and then that molecule (the folding was amazing to me) gets sent to some place where it is needed.
[/quote]
The key is selection. Random mutations are going to make random changes, but it is the selection step which is important. You can think of selection like a ratchet. Each time a beneficial mutation occurs the ratchet tightens down a click and moves the nut one rotation tighter. If a detrimental mutation occurs and pushes the ratchet the other way the ratchet spins freely and the nut it is attached to doesn’t move because deleterious mutations are removed from the population by selection. This allows more and more beneficial mutations to build up over time while eliminating deleterious mutations.
The interesting aspect of all of this is the disconnect between DNA sequence and selection. What natural selection “sees” is function, it doesn’t see DNA sequence. If there is a super complex interaction that produces a beneficial function, then it is selected for. If there is a super simple interaction that produces a beneficial function, then it is selected for. Overall, natural selection is blind to what is happening at the molecular level. All it sees is the ability of the organism to reproduce.
You might also be interested in genetic algorithms. These are used for engineering things like circuits or other physical structures. They use the same process, random changes followed by selection. This process often produces complex designs that even the humans running the experiments don’t understand.
Dr. Adrian Thompson has exploited this device, in conjunction with the principles of evolution, to produce a prototype voice-recognition circuit that can distinguish between and respond to spoken commands using only 37 logic gates - a task that would have been considered impossible for any human engineer. He generated random bit strings of 0s and 1s and used them as configurations for the FPGA, selecting the fittest individuals from each generation, reproducing and randomly mutating them, swapping sections of their code and passing them on to another round of selection. His goal was to evolve a device that could at first discriminate between tones of different frequencies (1 and 10 kilohertz), then distinguish between the spoken words “go” and “stop”.
This aim was achieved within 3000 generations, but the success was even greater than had been anticipated. The evolved system uses far fewer cells than anything a human engineer could have designed, and it does not even need the most critical component of human-built systems - a clock. How does it work? Thompson has no idea, though he has traced the input signal through a complex arrangement of feedback loops within the evolved circuit. In fact, out of the 37 logic gates the final product uses, five of them are not even connected to the rest of the circuit in any way - yet if their power supply is removed, the circuit stops working. It seems that evolution has exploited some subtle electromagnetic effect of these cells to come up with its solution, yet the exact workings of the complex and intricate evolved structure remain a mystery (Davidson 1997).
If you went back to the Cambrian you would also say that they looked complete. That seems to be a human bias.[quote=“senatorthomas, post:91, topic:36182”]
Then the issue of stasis transfixed me. If random mutation was a reality along with time and natural selection, then why was there not mutation in every form of life and as a corollary to that; why weren’t there MANY extant examples of transition as living demonstrations of such development.
[/quote]
Every species is an example of a transition between its ancestors and its descendants. All populations are evolving. As to stasis, if mutations don’t confer a beneficial change then there is nothing to select for. As mentioned earlier, species can hit a local peak on the landscape of fitness which doesn’t allow them to change much. In order to get to other peaks in the fitness landscape they would have to accumulate a lot of deleterious mutations to get to the valley below before they can climb another peak. Selection will not allow that to happen in some instances where the species remain in a relatively stable environment or niche. [quote=“senatorthomas, post:91, topic:36182”]
Then the fossil record…Cambrian with the many new body forms…with no record in the pre-Cambrian of their development. Lots of questions about fossils.
[/quote]
The question I always ask is how one figures out that a fossil has no ancestors. We have only looked at a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the fossil record. On top of that, only a tiny fraction of species were probably preserved, and only a tiny fraction of those fossils survive to the modern day in places where we can easily access them. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as the old saying goes.
The argument at the time was that abiogenesis was impossible because biomolecules could not arise on their own. Miller disproved that single criticism. No one thinks that the abiotic production of amino acids proves abiogenesis, it is only one step in the process.[quote=“senatorthomas, post:91, topic:36182”]
but also the fossil record is incomplete and has gaps that bring into question the nature of the evolution claim etc.
[/quote]
The fossil record is incomplete because the geologic record is incomplete, as is our search for fossils.
" For my part, following out Lyell’s metaphor, I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear. "–Charles Darwin, “Origin of Species”
Darwin wrote an entire chapter dealing with the fossil record and how the geologic record is incomplete. You may want to give it a read. The incompleteness of the fossil record hasn’t been a problem for the theory of evolution since its inception.[quote=“senatorthomas, post:91, topic:36182”]
I have an amazing youtube video where an acclaimed astro physicist lamented a particular fine tuning discovery that unfortunately, he said, the creationists would be able to use. I am astonished at such a motive. Where is real dispassionate science. It doesn’t MATTER that some “side” gets “points” for this or that. What matters is the truth.
[/quote]
Scientists are people, too. The science itself is dispassionate, but it is argued over by very passionate scientists. If you ever attend a scientific conference you will see just how passionate (and stubborn, obstinate, pigheaded) scientists can be. If you have a fragile ego then the sciences may not be for you. The ethos in the sciences is that you beat the tar out of theories, and if they pass that test then they are probably good theories.
What the scientist is talking about in your post is the regret that creationists will misrepresent the science, which is a valid worry. Creationists are known for using quote mines and distorting what scientists say.
Hello George. Thank you for commenting. As to this question; well years ago I studied salamanders. So looked em up…and I think they qualify. Interesting that you ask about such because that’s one of the “stasis” phenomenon … earliest fossil of salamander is 157,000,000 million years old. Isn’t it amazing you are declaring that a NEW creature (species?) is demonstrated if we study the adaptations and trait variation of a particular animal. So the one I looked at is an example of NOT changing…except in trait, or variation within a species Even if a student decides to give it a new species category; guess what. … look at the one hundred fifty seven old fossil … same then as now, So, your very example (ringed species) in trying to demonstrate change from x to y… low and behold is a perfect example of NOT changing and remaining after those millions of years an example contradicting your beliefs.
Hi again, David.
It is a tremendous misconception that “stasis” is a major problem for the theory of evolution. Young Earth Creationists use examples of salamanders, crocodilians, and horseshoe crabs to claim “Look!! These things are supposed to be millions of years old and should have changed by now!!” Assume for a few minutes that evolutionary theory is true, and mentally run through the following scenario: Organism X is well-suited for a particular environment and this environment remains remarkably consistent for millions of years so that organism X is subject to very little pressure to change. What would you predict would happen to organism X in those millions of years?
Excuse me; I failed to get all your quote. On the last question first, Jacob’s “blessings” to the sons specifically tell what will happen to Simeon (Genesis 49) and we are told that Simeon is placed within the confines of Judea and will, Jacob says, be mixed within Israel and Judea. Look at the prophecy and read it yourself. Moses did not mention Simeon in his benediction. Simeon by the time of the combined kingdom is very small apparently. Life in and around Beersheba was not the best way to live. Levi is also assimilated. Much migration would have taken place so that there is a mix of all the tribes and even many from Israel came south to avoid the Assyrian siege. . I suspect that had we lived at the time, we would have been able to trace our ancestors to Simeon on one side and another tribe on the other side…same as we speak today. But over time the distinct clan would not have been separately identifiable. For instance; I am Cherokee on my mother’s side. My great-great grand mother was Cherokee. But the upper South Carolina remnants of the Cherokee nation is no more. But I still see myself as part Cherokee.
There are two articles that speak to your question on the Philistines in Associates for Biblical Research written by Bryant Wood. The Sea People (Minoan…Cyprus) were contemporaries with Abraham. Their presence later became very strong beginning about 1200 BC. Archaeology has clarified this issue with substantial amounts of information from various dig sites confirming the early connection with Minoans and southern Levant coast. More on this later.
Well, let’s review it again if I failed to be clear.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
