The fossil record fits best with progressive creation


I have never come across any exegesis that explains how Genesis 2:7 allows Adams to have biological parents.

(Haywood Clark) #183

No, you’ve merely claimed it without having looked at the fossil evidence. You haven’t started anything.

Because evolution is an iterative process that is almost entirely limited to building new functions by duplication and modification.

You’ve thought so little about evolution that you don’t even realize that with an omnipotent designer, anything can be replaced, but with evolution, there are severe limits.

And “DNA is limited and fixed by uncrossable boundaries” is particularly silly coming from someone who won’t even look at the DNA evidence.

How can there be gracious dialog when you put so little effort into an up-front understanding of that which you find so theologically threatening?

(Haywood Clark) #184

Have you looked?


??? I have absolutely no desire to discuss the atheist fantasy of natural abiogenesis.
I’ll pose my question in another way: How would a creationist biologist - who rejects the theory that life on earth began as a microbe - not be fully competant in the field of applied biology?
There are professors of biology who reject microbe-man evolution and believe in a literal ‘six days’ creation. This suggests accepting macroevolution as a fact (or theory) is completely irrelevant to applied science.

(Haywood Clark) #187

Edgar, the “theory that life began as a microbe” would be a theory of abiogenesis (about which there are no theories, just hypotheses), not evolution. Another (IMO better) abiogenesis hypothesis is “life began as a proton gradient.”

So why are you discussing something you claim you have no desire to discuss?

To address your initial question, immunology is basically a microcosm of evolution. Show me a creationist clinical immunologist. Your claim, your evidentiary burden. Also, the line between basic and applied is not nearly as bright as you wish it to be, but understanding that would require examining the evidence.


Like all the evo’ apologetics I’ve read, this article says nothing specific about the wording of Genesis 2:7 - it doesn’t even mention verse 7. Rather, it skirts around it and focuses on other biblical verses that supposedly imply that Adam wasn’t alone when created.
And what is the nonsense about the “cities” that Cain encountered? That’s not what the Scripture says. These sort of articles strike me as not only erroneouus, but very amateurish.

(Haywood Clark) #189

Edgar, you claimed that you’ve never come across such interpretations. I simply provided them. You’re welcome.

My point is that these viewpoints exist, but you didn’t know about them. Again, you’re welcome. By amateurish, do you mean like not knowing that some interpret scripture in ways you don’t?


How is immunology dependant on the “information” that life on earth evolved from a microbe?


Are you saying the creationist professors of biology I mentioned could not be competant immunologists?

And how on earth did they manage to become professors of biology if the macroevolution they reject has a practical use in applied science. If they rejected any such use they’d be rightly laughed off the planet.
The suspect that if no one had ever heard of Darwin’s “tree of life” concept, applied science would be none the poorer.


Abiogenesis concerns itself with the formation of a microbe from inanimate matter. I said nothing at all about such a process. Rather, I mentioned the evolution of microbes into different forms of life. But you knew that and played dumb anyway, just to be difficult. Your spiteful animus towards opposers of evolution is all too obvious.

(Haywood Clark) #193

You haven’t mentioned any. And since there’s no mechanistic difference between macro- and microevolution, if they denied those mechanisms, they would have a lot of trouble doing immunology.

But you haven’t named any. You’re avoiding evidence again.

(Haywood Clark) #194

I don’t think you really know what the word “microbe” means, and you may want to acquaint yourself with metabolic abiogenesis hypotheses.

So I’m not playing dumb. I even referred to the latter, but you seemed to have missed it in your rush to an evidence-free judgment.


How is immunology dependant on the “information” that humans and chimps share a common ancestor or that life on earth evolved from a microbe?

(A.M. Wolfe) #196

Hi Haywood,

I’ve been holding Edgar’s feet to the fire as much as anyone else here, but let me just say that Todd D.S., on this page, is a creationist. Not a clinical immunologist, no, but he works in microbiome stuff (yes, that’s the technical term :slight_smile: ), he has his PhD in a biology-related field, and this is his life’s work. I asked him about it once. As I recall, he takes a sort of pragmatic approach that evolution describes what we see happening from the evidence but that God must just have produced the world with the appearance of age. As I see it, he compartmentalizes his work and faith and gets along fine like that. (Please don’t out him in any professional sphere; I didn’t ask his permission to talk about him here.)



I think this is the only alternative view to an old earth for those who are willing to come to terms with the geological and cosmological evidence. My best friend who is YEC holds to it, recognizing that the evidence for an old earth is overwhelming.


Domesticated sheep need humans to survive, but let’s not forget that they were artificially selected from wild stock to get where they are today. Today’s livestock were bred to be slow, fat, tame, and stupid (along with other characteristics).

That said, even being wild is no guarantee of survival, as many animals have become extinct or on the brink of extinction. As a matter of fact, the megafauna on every continent died off as soon as humans arrived on the scene.

(George Brooks) #199


I’m not sure you have been following the discussion on Genealogical Adam?

Starting with your last thought: In the @Swamidass scenario, Adam (and Eve) are both acknowledged as made by miraculous Special Creation. Boom! Done! It’s another Miracle that should be seen as part of the miracles that are already standard milestones for New Testament witnessing.

As to your objections that Genesis 1:27 refers to Adam, rather than Humanity, I think the Rabbis are pretty confident in their interpretation:

In fact, if you go to an online Bible system, say:

Not a single translation/edition regularly offered to users agrees with your position, Edgar.
I produce the various versions below; all of them translate “adam” as “mankind” or “humanity” …
not as “the man”, or as a single individual named “Adam”!

Ooops… with one exception: Young’s translation (as spotted by a fellow reader, @Marshall !):
And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them.

Translations for Gen 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

So God created human beings[fn] in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

So God created man in his own image; he created him in the image of God; he created them male and female.

Y creó Dios al hombre a su imagen, a imagen de Dios lo creó; varón y hembra los creó.

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And God created Man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.

et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam ad imaginem Dei creavit illum masculum et feminam creavit eos

וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמֹ֔ו בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹתֹ֑ו זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם׃

καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς


"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. "–Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory”

Gould has already addressed this misrepresentation of his work.

(A.M. Wolfe) #201

You keep saying this, but you haven’t convinced anybody here yet. This is because punctuated equilibrium actually makes sense from within evolutionary theory: Once something is stable enough to survive, it tends to stay that way, all things being equal.

You can always say, fairly, that progressive creation fits the data — presuming a God who chooses to create each new form specially in such a way that it really looks like he used pre-existing creatures to do it.

This is my word of the day. Thank you, Edgar. This was new to me. :slight_smile:

I demonstrated the evolution of feathers to you, Edgar. Feathers started by looking one way in the earliest rocks, and by the later rocks, they looked different. I discussed the evolution of marsupial diversity with you. @Chris_Falter beautifully illustrated the evolution of tetrapods just prior to the appearance of amphibians. We shared with you what we have “learned.”

The unfolding of life’s diverse forms over a billion-plus years is a matter of factual record, and furthermore (as Chris showed) it makes testable predictions as to what we can expect to find — predictions that are borne out. This proves evolution’s usefulness.

This is always possible, but there are certain bits of DNA code that look for all the world as though they have come from viral infections that got embedded in the viral host’s DNA. There are also things that look like non-functioning (broken, as it were) versions of genes that have particular functions in related creatures.

With evidence like this, from what I’ve seen, we have two options:

[1] believe the experts, that the DNA in question is derived from viruses, or from broken (pseudo-) genes, or is otherwise “junk DNA,” or
[2] as a faith commitment, believe that the purpose of these particular DNA sequences is simply not yet known.

I’m no biologist but it seems to me that it’s possible (i.e., marginally consistent with the data) to run with [2], so long as it’s clear that this is a faith commitment that is not what the science leads us to conclude.

My $0.02. Thanks for your interactions. It’s refreshing to have a sparring partner on here who’s as willing to learn as you are, disagree though we may. It’s clear you’re in a different category from the folks who come on here just to get their fill of “evolutionist gotchas.”

(Haywood Clark) #202

Hi AM,

I’m in no way denying the existence of people like Todd DS or Todd Wood. I am addressing Edgar’s claim that:

The fact that there are some that compartmentalize and do not reject evolutionary theory in their work, but reject it in their faith, argues strongly against his claim, not for it.

I challenged Edgar to name a creationist clinical immunologist for 3 reasons:

  1. The basic mechanism of producing an immune response IS evolution that creates new information.
  2. Compartmentalizing is therefore much harder, as the cognitive dissonance is far greater.
  3. Even laypeople understand the importance of the application of immunology to human medicine.