I admit I was not aware that this was predicted in advance. I thought that the data was found first and then a mathematical model was constructed to explain the data. I am curious as to how a mathematical model can get it so close based on what must be statistical analysis which is most useful with neutral changes when many of the areas where humans are more “gorilla-like” are regions of function- such as hearing and immune system. I also would like to see the study.
How do you know it wasn’t just one family, though? If someone got to examine all those Cambrian species at the time, they certainly wouldn’t suggest phylum-level divisions for the most part. As I recall they were mostly a lot of variants on worms, to put it crudely.
I’ll agree in advance that a single family is too narrow a category. But we’re only calling them phylum-level from the benefit of a half-billion years of hindsight. Or if you want to come at definitions another way, phylum-level only seems massive because of all the other levels that subsequently evolved.
I am very very interested in your ideas and this event. I plan to contact you privately about it but it does look like our models are in overall agreement about what happened. I don’t think it is theologically necessary for Adam to be mixed into everyone’s genealogy but I also think that there is probably no group of humans today of any great size that does not at least have a trace of his genetic legacy. Not that this matter, what matters is how we are related to the One who Paul calls the Second Man, Christ.
I will let you be the judge…
Why start there? By that time, there was already significant diversity that had built up over many millions of years.
Great. You’re right — there have been five mass extinctions, and they’re non-trivial. So let’s say that every time that happens, you lose 99% (an order of magnitude worse than you said) of all species. That means instead of 24 generations, you need 57. So a new family every 9.5M years instead of every 22.6M years. Still a looong ways from 1500 years…
Granted, there are many minor extinctions not counted in here. But I maintain that it’s nowhere close to a linear function.
I’m confused. Are you reconciling RTB with atheistic views?
…because I thought you were reconciling RTB with BioLogos.
1 Like
Thanks, Mark, for the link. I now know more exactly how and where our two lines of thought diverge. You have strived hard to maintain an orthodox theology, which, I must admit, is the best starting point for instructing newcomers to the Christian Faith, including one’s children. But in my case, when I started high school and was attracted to a career in science, I began to form a world view that threatened to make my orthodox faith irrelevant, just as it had done for so many of my colleagues later in life. When I learned more about evolution, and how it provided the best explanation (while still not perfect) of how humankind appeared on this planet, I realized that the belief that a perfect God made the first human perfect (or at least sinless) could NOT be the full truth. We learn from evolution that humans sprang from a line of primates that like all sentient life, behaved amorally–i.e. instinctively and largely selfishly. Being unaware of God or of His Purpose, animals (including our primate ancestors) behaved in ways we now consider evil. But, without a conscience, they could not Sin.
When God gave Homo sapiens a conscience (rather suddenly if the GLF is factual), there was the opportunity for Homo sapiens to rise above instinct and act morally, thus striving to become His Image Bearers. But doing so often proved to be difficult, and whenever we refuse His Gift, we sin.
I would like to reprint some passages from your Thesis 4 to illustrate how close some of your views (portions italicized) are to mine:
……………
I say the same thing Paul says about the relationship between sin, death, and the law. Before he knew the law, he had life and sin was dead. But once the commandment came, sin came to life (it entered his world) and he died. What I am suggesting is that the condition Paul describes is just what it was like for those men who lived before Adam. They were alive apart from the law. They were acting out of God’s will, but there was no law and hence no accountability.
Once Adam, as the stand-in for all mankind, broke the law [refused God’s Gift] then sin came to life and Adam died (as the Bible defines death). If any of them had been perfect, they would not have died, but none of them were. All of them needed the protection afforded by Adam as the stand-in for all of mankind, even as we need the protection afforded by Christ as our stand-in. _
Sin sprang to life. What was once dead had existence in the world. That is what is meant by sin “entering” the world. There is no need for theologians to concoct another method of entry of sin into the world besides the one Paul describes two chapters later. Sin was dead [i.e. nonexistent] before Adam’s failure [refusing the Gift]. After that, it was alive and Adam was dead. Sin entered, became alive, in the world.
The deeds were old [evil arising from animal instinct] The guilt was new. The shame was new. The separation from God due to willful disobedience and a stained conscience was new.
Mankind [prior to the GLF] was already doing things God disapproved of, but they were doing so in a state of innocence, like children.
………….
You may well consider that the ‘adjustments’ I have made to your views push them over the cliff into heresy. They may only be useful as a means of keeping young folks from becoming so beguiled by the theory of evolution that they are close to throwing Baby Faith out with the bathwater.
Wishing you a blessed Christmas and a healthful happy New Year.
Al Leo
I am really not seeing this the same way as you. Compared to the Cambrian Explosion (and yes it is the logical place to start, who knows how or if the earlier stuff is even related to most of the Cambrian stuff?) we don’t have exponentially more families than now, at least comparing ocean animals to ocean animals. We have LESS diversity if you go up from the family level. Basically pick any time not immediately after a mass extinction. There are lots of families of creatures- I think the numbers are comparable to now, not orders of magnitude less than now as it would be with an exponential function.
Besides mass extinctions, there are a lot of routine extinction events. In some ages new families exceeds extinctions, since the advent of Man I would say we have seen the opposite. We notice many families have gone extinct, so far as we know they have not been replaced by new ones- we are actually going down in the number of families.
But more than that, you are subtly changing the terminology in this discussion [quote=“AMWolfe, post:147, topic:37468”]
So a new family every 9.5M years instead of every 22.6M years
[/quote]
No sir, that is not a new family every 9.5 million years, that is a new SPLIT in most or all existing families every 9.5 million years. So if their were 5 million families in this view at the start of the 9.5 million years then there are 10 million at the end of it. So five million new families in 9.5 million years. And they did not all happen at year one like a clock either. They should be spread out and that is about one new family every two years. So you are actually worse off using your model than my model. Where are they?
I am really trying to be as clear as a can. Accurately describing the world just has a lot of things to consider.
So far neither it seems.
The best place to reach me is on the Peaceful Science discourse forum:
Feel free to put a post up there with your question.
Though, if you do not need genealogical descent from Adam, there is already a lot of options available. I’d point you to Denis Alexander, Derek Fischer, and Kidner. These are often called “recent Adam representative models.”
1 Like
I’m seeing a lot of variations on arthropods and spiny worms so far!
I appreciate that. Hey, I probably shouldn’t have jumped in — I hadn’t thoroughly read the conversation and I seem to have misunderstood what you’re arguing for. (In fact I’m still pretty sure I don’t understand your position… and that’s okay.) I don’t have the time to dig back through and do this conversation justice, and anyway, others more qualified than I have offered other helpful critiques.
So I’ll leave you for now with a merry Christmas to you and your family, as we all celebrate the incarnation of our Lord Jesus. God is with us!
Amen. Merry Christmas to you as well.
1 Like
But why would you use such an extreme example to represent the much less dramatic cases of (so-called) macro-evolution that fills the coffers of Evolutionary libraries to the brim?
You are mocking evolution plain and simple.
There have been multiple instances where a branch of the Evolutionary Tree independently evolved from terrestrial modes of movement to aviary modes.
And there have been multiple instances where a branch of the mammalian evolutionary tree independently evolved from terrestrial life to aquatic life.
But there is virtually no case where an insect has evolved into a mammal, let alone an aquatic one.
However, insects have evolved into aquatic insects. And there is a couple of noteworthy examples, I’m thinking specifically of the larval stage of dragonflies.
But… of course, the insect is still an insect.
So… to toss out a scenario where a butterfly (insect) becomes a whale (mammal), you are either highly un-informed about the nature of life on Earth … or you are mocking your audience.
Please do something about either immediately.
1 Like
If you are not diligent in inserting the name of the person to whom you are addressing your questions, they might not see the message for weeks.
Put a “@” down, then type a few letters… like @mar… a small list will pop up for you to complete your choice. You can still edit your posting above and insert your reference to Dennis.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.