One aspect that we may consider regarding the inter-connections in Nature, can be related to the growing use by scientists of computer models and simulations. Perhaps the most complicated system that science can consider is that of planet earth - it is fascinating to consider how so many ‘parts’ of this planet are interdependent - I feel the next great advance in the Natural Sciences will take place when we have accumulated enough hard data, insights, mathematical skills, and computing power, that would enable us to begin to model the dynamics of the entire planet. Only then will science be able to provide answers that we can take within the context of theology and philosophy.
Evolution moves forward by accumulating random mutations in populations. If the species survive those mutations stay in the genome and additional random mutations add to the genome. Very simple process - forward only and never reversible.
I am not sure about that. the genetic changes for language could have been in the hominid genome a long time before a group of hominids started communicating with each other in different tones and sounds. I see language starting in small family groups and spreading to tribes over time.
Tim,
Let me correct what I said as I was incorrect to say it was a bacterium. The last common ancestor of a human and a banana was an organism that was neither plant nor animal. It was a single cell Eukaryotas type organism that lived billions of years ago.
How does the phrase “never reversible” add anything to your discussion?
In a purely random process … sometimes random things get randomly undone.
You really never know … because it is changes in the environment that validate any of the changes.
And in a God-Guided process - - you certainly can’t say what God has in mind.
George Brooks
Because organisms have to live with their genome as it exists now. The environment will change and whether an organism will survive or not is dependent on its present genome and other factors. You can’t reverse the past. Present genome is what an organism has.
It is a doubly random process in that you don’t what the random mutations will be and what impact they will have, if any. And the environmental conditions are changing.
It doesn’t seem to be guided at all.
-
Your comment “you can’t reverse the past” is certainly true enough. But a reversal in the environment can make past favorable genetic changes UN-favorable. And a gene pool might revert to a prior balance.
-
Randomnesss is random - - you can’t insist that change can’t be undone.
-
Theistic Evolution - - by definition - - is god-guided evolution.
True
Yes I can. New mutations are very unlikely to reverse the changes done previously.
Yes, TE by definition. But Evolution (without the T in front of it) makes not such claim - Evolution neither affirms nor denies god-guided (or any type of guided) evolution.
Ah… so you finally came out of your trance. I agree completely. Mutations ARE very unlikely to reverse prior changes.
And I agree with you about Evolution not making such a claim. But Theistic Evolution INSISTS on it … even if it is only about Primates generally, or Humans specifically.
George
1 Like
Okay I see your point. Darwin didn’t know about DNA or genes either, so obviously he was working with something else.
I feel like I was beginning to grasp the theory when I was conversing with a theistic evolutionists via email.
Evolution, as Darwin understood it (even though that particular word was never used in his book), was “descent with modification”… Correct? Every time an organism is born it’s a slightly “altered” version of it’s parents, right? Not identical but similar… And overtime those “small changes” add up to big changes?
And no I’m not sure what the difference between dominant and recessive alleles are. My EC email friend explained to me that there was a point in time that hominids had neither blue eyes or red hair (and coincidentally both traits, the red hair, and blue eye trait resulted in the same genetic variation).
As far as bacteria go I guess I don’t know what genetic changes it went through it’s history… I guess all we could really do is put it under chemical analysis and subject it to rigorous mathematical analysis to get a clearer picture of it’s progression, seeing how we wouldn’t have fossils for something so tiny.
-Tim
really, on what scientific facts does TE base this on?
Patrick, there are those with far greater expertise than I in these matters.
My intent was merely to clarify terminology. Usually those who don’t accept Theistic Evolution
on this list are attempting to refute the EVOLUTION portion.
If you hope to refute the THEISTIC portion, what are you doing on this list?
Sincerely,
George
I too refute any words put in front of Evolution like TE, and any words put after Evolution like EC. Evolution is evolution.
I agree partway with you and George.
Evolution is simply Evolution. It’s just as much a step of faith to put the word “Theistic” in front of that word as it is to put the word “Naturalistic” in front of it. Both are beliefs that people came too.
There was an interesting dialogue between Charles Darwin (agnostic naturalist) and his colleague, who was a botanist, Asa Gray (devout Christian), who was a great supporter of Darwin. They both saw the same observations … The difference was in how their worldview shaped their observations as far as purpose.
-Tim
@Patrick, then I would conclude you don’t really belong on a BioLogos forum.
The point of the forum is to process disputes between Christians who don’t believe in Evolution and
Christian Scientists who do.
If you don’t think God has anything to do with Evolution, that would be a very different list, wouldn’t it?
George
Tim,
I agree with you. We both can look at a sunset and be in awe of its beauty. We both can love life and live with meaning and purpose. And we can completely disagree on who started (or didn’t start), who guides (or doesn’t) guide the universe and life.
I disagree with you here about what the real purpose of Biologos is. And why I am here.
To me the real purpose of Biologos is to impact, in as gentle manner as possible, those Christians who have been indoctrinated that you can’t be a good Christian and accept the knowledge that science has provided about the Universe and evolution of humans. Most Catholics (Cultural and practicing) would see Biologos as very supportive of Catholicism. Biologos can be of most help to those young Christians who have been indoctrinated into the Ken Ham viewpoint. i.e. bibical literalism. They need the most help that Biologos can provide.
As for why I am here. I care passionately about science education to our children, particularly in the US and specifically in central NJ. For the US to progress in my lifetime and my children’s (and grandchildren’s) lifetime, we have to do a better job of educating everyone in science and reasoning. Biologos does this well. And so does NCSE, RDFSR, and FFRF, which I am active in as well. So I am not here to convert anyone, just to help out setting the record straight that dinosaurs and people didn’t coexist, a global flood didn’t happen in the past 5000 years, two people didn’t start the human race. Finally, I want to give testament that you can living a moral and ethical life with purpose and meaning without any supernatural beliefs whatsoever.
Yes, in other words, evolution cannot go back to the drawing board. It’s contingent on what’s already there.
So you reject the idea that BioLogos is attempting to teach evolution is compatible with devout Christian belief?
Or you accept that “evolution is compatible with devout Christian belief” - - but you reject the idea that Theistic
Evolution can be a part of devout Christianity?
Sincerely,
George Brooks
I really can’t say whether what Biologos teaches regarding evolution is compatible with devout Christian belief because it is hard to define devout Christian belief. Catholics have no problem with evolution. It seems like only the Ken Ham wing of Christianity has an anti-evolution view of what Christians are suppose to believe.
Evolution is a fact. So it is up to the devout Christians to decide if evolution conforms with their beliefs or not and what to do about it. Do I reject the idea that Theistic Evolution can be a part of devout Christianity? Well most Catholics seem to have no problem with TE.