None of this depends on humans accepting the evolutionary “tree of life”. New species will arise regardless of stories about life on earth evolving from a microbe. Bacteria mutate and change (“evolve”) but remain bacteria, so what is your point?
God could have used a contiguous process of biological evolution to create life or a process of progressive creation. The fossil record - with all its tell-tale gaps - suggests the latter, not the former. There are so many gaps that Gould described the fossil record as an “embarrassment” to Darwin’s theory of gradualism. Evolutionists try and cover up the gaps with Band-Aids like Punctuated Equilibrium, or try to hide them in the “trade secret of paleontology” cupboard, hoping no one will notice them. In contrast, progressive creation wholeheartedly embraces the evidence - ie,all those gaps - not to mention the stasis (which Gould said brought him “terrible distress”) and the sudden appearance of fully-formed life-forms.
This is an interesting point. If the flood was global, the earth would have been reduced to a state very much like it was in Genesis 1:2 - ie, lifeless and covered in water - with the exception of the life on the ark, of course. Then there is the command to Noah and Co. to “multiply and fill the earth” after the flood subsided. This is exactly the same command given to Adam and Eve. So this raises the possibility of some kind of post-flood re-creation.
Evolution predicts both gaps and transitional forms.
Progressive creation predicts gaps.
In the Book of Nature that God has given us, we find both gaps and transitional forms.
Which one has more predictive / explanatory power?
As @T_aquaticus pointed out, whales are sea life, and then show various evidences of having evolved from land mammals. There are various transitional forms that have telltale bone configurations intermediate between whales and terrestrial mammals; plus, of course, whales (and dolphins) are mammals, not fish — air-breathing, warm-blooded, milk-giving, etc.
Aside from this, in prehistoric times there were various families of sea-dwelling reptiles: ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs, and plesiosaurs. These also show every sign of having descended from land-dwelling reptiles, and also every sign of being perfectly adapted to sea life.
The truth is that transitions from sea to land, land to sea, land to air, air to land, these transitions happened many times (the above creatures are just a handful of many examples that could be trotted out), and they don’t match up neatly with the categories of Genesis. I used to try to make this work, and I couldn’t. Concordism fails on this point, my friend.
@Edgar you persist in your quote mining. You said you were going to check the original source, for which I provided a link, but I guess you didn’t. So here is one part you keep leaving out.
Now is your idol Gould (based on the number of times you have quoted him) correct when he says we should keep Darwinism?
Deep down, evolutionists would prefer no gaps at all. Gould called them an “uncomfortable paradox”.
Progressive creation has no need of “transitional forms” - creatures, even entire nested hierarchies of creatures, are separate creations, so there is no need to link together as the evolution model demands. And any creature at all in the fossil record can be accommodated by the PC model.
Don’t blame me for what Gould said. Tell me this, why did Gould describe “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record” as the “trade secret of paleontology”? While you’re at it, tell me why Gould said stasis in the fossil record brought him “terrible distress”.
I am using the opinion of a world-renowned expert (the late S. J. Gould) to point out the irrefutable fact that there a lot of gaps in the fossil record. The fact that evolutionists have come with various theories to explain these gaps and have abandoned Darwin’s gradualism model is completely irrelevant - THE GAPS REMAIN, regardless. I am simply using the fact that there are many gaps in the fossil record as evidence of progressive creation.
Good point. I’d never considered that, but will add it to my argument. Thanks.
How do you know what evolutionists would prefer? Perhaps you mean “some evolutionists, so far as I can discern”?
Gaps are a natural result of the rarity of the fossilization process, and a natural result of the fact that paleontologists have not dug up every rock on the planet — sampling is extremely spotty.
I’m glad you admit this. So why, then, does the fossil record show a clear progression through the ages, with each new form showing clear signs of adapting from previously existing forms? Is there any explanation for why God would create such perfect evidence that fits with evolutionary theory, other than, “Who can know the mind of God?”
Yes, and for evolutionist the focus on these gaps has been conveniently distracted by genetics. The commonality of genetics shared with species is reported to have filled in the doubt about transitional fossils - i assume thats fair?
However, the fossil record gaps remain there in the background.
Gould is a kind of hero to me - he seems to be one of the few evolutionist scientists who was willing to describe the fossils as it really is. It seems to me that until he came along, the public were for many decades led to believe the fossil record supported Darwin’s gradualism model. Gould came along and exposed all the gaps as “the trade secret of paleontology”. After that, the scientific community couldn’t support the illusion anymore - Gould let the cat out the bag and so there was no going back to Darwin’s gradualism model.
No, and you still don’t get it - I’m not taking about evidence for anything. I want you to provide an example of how the “information” that all life on earth evolved from a microbe is practically useful in applied science.
The less gaps, the better the evidence looks for a contiguous process of biological evidence. If the gaps were rare, there would have been no need to come up with the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.
This is like asking, Why did God make the sky blue?
I don’t question the order of God’s creation as revealed by the fossil record - I simply accept it.
I’m uncomfortable saying this, because I like to believe the best in my conversation partners, but it is starting to look like you don’t really want to learn. May I ask what you have read about gaps other than a few mined Gould quotes?
I honestly believe that if you looked at the evidence for transitional forms, you would be surprised at how few real gaps there are.
I’m not a biologist, just someone who loves natural history avocationally, but when I look at all the transitional forms, I’m truly amazed, filled with wonder and worship. There are not that many true, glaring gaps.
I’m certainly no expert, but it seems to me that the genetic commonalities can be explained by the possibility that the Creator used the same molecular building blocks to create very different creatures.
More importantly, the genetics “mistakes” that are evident in chimps and humans for example can possibly be explained by the fact that Original Sin affected all of creation (as Scripture points out) - hence the primates, who are genetically very similar to humans - carry very similar genetic flaws caused by the Fall to humans. Apparently, even creatures like dogs and dolphins have genetics flaws similar to humans, albeit to a lesser degree than the primates do - which also makes sense in terms of the Fall having a genetic effect on all creatures.
Exactly. Not amount of evolutionary theorising can make them disappear. Evolutionists in general hate it when creationists quote scientists who speak of these gaps - crying foul and making the often specious accusation of “quote-mining”. It’s as if a raw nerve has been touched.
Sweet bugger all, to be honest. But I’m aware that other scientists seem to say the same thing.
After reading what Gould and Eldredge had to say on the matter, you could have fooled me. Why on earth would Gould describe the fossil record as an “embarrassment” to Darwin’s model if the gaps weren’t very substantial? Why did he describe the gaps as “the trade secret of paleontology” is the gaps didn’t present a big problem for evolutionary theory? Why did he describe the gaps as an “uncomfortable paradox” if the gaps were insignificant as you think they are?
I suspect some of what evolutionists claim is wishful thinking and not actually factual. I suspect they downplay the gaps as much as possible because they’re still a sore point, despite all the excuses.
I actually have no theological objection to the evolution of non-human creatures - only human evolution. If that’s how God did it, then yep, it’s pretty amazing. But consider this: It’s a far more reflective of God’s power and glory to create new creatures from nothing that modify a pre-existing creature.
Some seem to think so. But there was an interesting exchange between Newton and Leibniz where Leibniz made precisely the opposite claim, and I tend to agree:
Sir Isaac Newton , and his Followers, have also a very odd Opinion concerning the Work of God. According to their Doctrine, God Almighty wants to wind up his Watch from Time to Time: Otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient Foresight to make it a perpetual Motion. Nay, the Machine of God’s making, is so imperfect, according to these Gentlemen, that he is obliged to clean it now and then by an extraordinary Concourse, and even to mend it, as a Clockmaker mends his Work; who must consequently be so much the more unskilful a Workman, as he is often obliged to mend his Work and to set it Right. According to My Opinion, the same Force and Vigour remains always in the World, and only passes from one part of Matter to another, agreeably to the Laws of Nature, and the beautiful pre-established Order.
You keep quoting the same things, which others have put in the larger context of Gould’s life’s work as an evolutionary scientist. This is why you get accused of quote-mining and of not wanting to learn.
Just for a fun exercise to break out of this circle of quoting Gould over and over again, I might suggest you just Google “evolution transition” plus the name of something that you suppose has a gap preceding it in the fossil record. Share what you find here; we’d all love to learn with you.
In the interest of transparency, I’ll say that I do know of one recalcitrant gap: bat’s wings. They’ve got a lot of transitions for most of the other branches of mammals, but bats seem to appear pretty much fully formed in the fossil record. It’s very clear that a bat’s wing is different from a bird’s wing. It’s very clear that the bat’s wing is analogous to other mammals’ hands, which is where they get the scientific name chiroptera. Furthermore, molecular evidence puts them as a sister group to carnivores and perissodactyls (horses, rhinos, tapirs). But the actual fossil evidence is missing.