When should you introduce your child to evolution?

@johnZ,

I wish to thank you for the information. It is good to hear from you, John. God bless and have a Merry Christmas.

1 Like

Johnā€¦ please. Even your objections about what I might say are incorrect.

On these very pages ā€¦ I have said myself ā€¦ that if the Earth were only 6000 years oldā€¦ or less than 10,000 or even 50,000 years (!!!) ā€¦ it would not be enough time for any significant Evolution. So your objection to the DICTIONARY is completely your own personal bias ā€¦ and has nothing to do with the problem at hand.

The PRIME issue here on these boards is not really about evolution ā€¦ itā€™s about the age of the Earth. ANY creature using chromosomes to produce offspring, given enough time, experiences significant evolution. Because chromosomes are vulnerable to change.Sometimes rapid evolution; sometimes slow. ( Interestingly, those creatures who had chromosomes more impervious to change probably went extinct very early on ā€¦ because their offspring - - and their offspringā€™s offspring - - just couldnā€™t change quickly enough to adapt to the constantly changing conditions on the Earth! )

We donā€™t need any biologists to tell us how old the Earth is - - we have Geologists and Physicists ā€¦ they were the first ones to discover how truly ancient the Earth and even the Universe is. Theyā€™ve guarded the truth all these generations.

If you were right about how young the Earth is, there would be no real point in discussing Evolution.

George

@gbrooks9,

I hope my statement to you on Unitarian Church did not insult you. That was not my intention. Please let me know how you feel about it. Merry Christmas friend George!

1 Like

Whatever process God used to create mankind one thing remains, that thing is that there had to be a process. What that process was is something people will debate until the end of time. Personally I donā€™t subscribe to ā€œmacroā€ evolution as I havenā€™t seen enough evidence of such. I have too many questions, questions such as ā€œhow does a reproductive system evolve without a reproductive system to keep the species alive in the first place?ā€ Last I heard macro evolution takes millions of years, did a creature stay alive long enough to evolve a reproductive system? Or did another creature just happen to evolve along side it, identical but more complete than the previous that is dead?

Edit: Of course this would also require a complimentary partner of the same species evolving identically but of a different sex, Not likely as I see it.

Individuals donā€™'t evolve. Evolution acts on populations over time. Your doubting the validity of the evolutionary model isnā€™t very relevant if you donā€™t even understand the very basics of how it is proposed to work. We have some blog series on this topic if youā€™re interested. Evolution as a Scientific Theory - Article - BioLogos

1 Like

Although you are right that it is a group, not an individual that supposedly evolves, yet Jeffreyā€™s point has relevance. How does a reproductive system evolve without the system being fully functional to keep the new species alive. There is no benefit to selection if the system doesnā€™t work. For selection to work, the entire system must function, including producing progeny with the same functional system. So when a new reproductive system evolves (theoretically) the old one must survive long enough for the new one to develop. A two faceted system, or a dual systemā€¦ but this is difficult to select for, especially when the sexual reproduction system is more complicated, requires two, not just one entity, and when a group can reproduce in two ways, why would it not select the simpler way, all else being equal? and there is validity also to the double whammy of requiring simultaneous and complementary individuals at the same time, regardless of population dynamics. With asexual reproduction, it only takes one different cell/organism to multiply to create a new strain, but for sexual reproduction, this is quite a bit more complicated. And to be blunt Christy, you should have been able to decipher this issue, without assuming a lack of understanding rather than a lack of grammar.

1 Like

@johnZ

I am struggling to assess whether you are just trolling ā€¦ or, if not, how you can so vigorously hold so many errors in understanding evolutionary science/natural selection.

The DUAL gender approach to reproduction (shared by plants as well as animals) has persisted for millions of years because it IS capable of producing an array of mutations per generation. Life forms that did not do this were prone to dying out completely in the face of changes in their ecosystem.

In short, asexual reproduction sometimes cannot produce ENOUGH mutations per genertion to keep up with a changing Earth over the eons.

George

First of all, I am not trolling. Second, your judgement that I hold so many errors, is ridiculous. Your presumptions about the adhoc just-so stories of evolution producing something, completely evades the issue. Of course, the dual gender reproduction is common; that is not the issue. The point is, if it evolved, how did it develop? You have not answered that basic question, but merely evaded it. The contention is that it would be difficult or impossible (so highly improbable) to happen. We are not talking about its advantages once it is here.

We know that smaller asexual organisms generally have shorter lifespans, more numerous reproduction mechanism, and that a mutation does not have to be common to another organism of same species in order to propogate. Thus compatible mutations have a higher potential for being retained rather than lost in an asexual system, provided the mutation does not destroy the organism. So your statement that asexual reproduction cannot produce enough mutations is rather absurd. It is not the reproduction that produces the mutations; the reproduction only reproduces the mutations, and only allows them to survive. In an asexual situation only one cell needs the right mutation, and it has the potential to develop a new strain which could survive for centuries or eons. With sexual reproduction, the same type of mutation would fail to survive merely because a partner with a similar mutation would not be found, and so the significant mutation would be lost. Only if it was a recessive trait, might it survive, but this would not be the type of mutation that was instrumental in developing sexual reproduction systems from an asexual organism.

Mutations do not have some innate need to keep up with a changing earth, and so there is no definition of ā€œenough mutationsā€. A significant number of organisms have remained relatively constant in characteristics since the assumed Cambrian explosion. While mutations allowed more strains to develop, that did not preclude existing organisms from finding new niches with similar characteristics on the same globe. All they had to do was move to a new location.

Furthermore, from time to time, I do wonder whether you yourself are the troll, since you seem to throw red herrings into the fray so often.

Although I agree with this, this completely contradicts your earlier assertion that evolution is nothing more than a change in allele frequency in a population.

@johnZ

The only definition that applies is: Does the population survive?! If the population cannot generate enough mutations in each generation ā€¦ it will collapse during the periodical cycles of high-change in the ecosystem in which they live.

Frankly, John, some people will just never understand the biology and mathematics of Evolution. Just like some people will just never understand the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics. I donā€™t think there is anything anyone can say to you, or to DCS, that will make enough sense to you. And since Iā€™m on a very tight budget of 3 posts a day ā€¦ I just cannot adopt you as my personal educational project. Maybe someone else can help you more than I can?

I take a very high view of the issue of natural selection ā€¦ so high, in fact, that Iā€™m really only interested in discussing the Geology and Physics of the age of the Earth.

Please donā€™t be offended by my stance on exchanging posts with you. I care about your personal development on the issue of Evolution - - but I also know my limitations.

Have a wonderful weekend.

George Brooks

In your oversimplifications, George, which makes me wonder about your trolling, you create new definitions all the time. Such generalizations are made by the unwise, because they make you vulnerable to self-refuting statements.

If a population has sufficient variability or mobility it will not collapse during ecosystem changes, regardless of whether it has sustained recent mutations. If it is a susceptible and narrowly adaptive organism (ie. can only survive in a narrow temperature range, and only reproduce in a narrow moisture range), then it must be mobile, in order to survive. Most organisms are mobile, including even trees, and weeds. Mutations are not required for survival, as long as some conducive environment can be found within the dormancy period.

If the climate on earth approached that of Mars or Venus, you might have a point.

@johnZ ā€¦ you just donā€™t know enough about the Science of evolution. We donā€™t have to become a Martian desert for tremendous extinctions to occur.

Below is the story of the Terror Birdsā€¦ giant, meat eating birds that ran on two legsā€¦ and hunted mammals relentlessly. They lived in South America ā€¦ and it was paradise for the Terror Birds ā€¦ but not for much of anything elseā€¦ UNTIL ā€¦

ā€œFrom 27 million years to 2.5 million years ago, there was an increase in the phorusrhacid [i.e. the Terror Bird] population size in South America, suggesting that, in that time frame, the various species flourished as predators in the savannah environment. However, as the Isthmus of Panama emerged, 2.5 million years ago, [i.e., the Panama land bridge joined South America to North America] - - carnivorous dogs and cats from North America were able to cross into South America, causing an increase in competition. As the population of [Terror Birds] gradually decreased, this suggests that competition with other predators was a major influence on [their] extinction.ā€

In other words ā€¦ the arrival of these advanced predators from North America was too sudden for the Terror Birds to adjust to. There was not enough ā€œvariationā€ in their populationā€¦ and so they were rushed out the door of Extinction.

Evolutionists point out that if there had been an EARLY and MINOR presence of North American predators in the ecosystem of the Terror Birds ā€¦ they would have been better able to keep pace with the evolving improvements in these predators ā€¦ and just might have survived all the way to the time when humans entered into South America.

And that would have been a DISASTER!!!

Humans evolved in Africa - - because Terror Birds were on South America ! A slightly different scenario would have put new and improved versions of the Terror Birds into North America ā€¦ and perhaps moving across the Siberian land-bridge during periods of good climate. Once unleashed into Asiaā€¦ and eventually the rest of the world ā€¦ a new-and-improved Terror Bird that survived the predators of North America might have wiped out all traces of savannah-running Primates.

George

If only dogs and cats were predator competitors, then they would also have made good prey for these supposed birds. Furthermore, if they didnā€™t make good prey, then it is unlikely that any predaceous primates would have become prey for them to a great extent. Especially modern primates, and especially humans, who terrorize all land predators.

So ā€¦ you donā€™t think there were Terror Birds? You donā€™t even believe bones in the earth mean ANY thing?

Below is an image of a Terror Bird feeding on something around the size of a large deer ā€¦ The point of my post was to explain that the speed with which a species can use normal mutation rates to survive new circumstances is LIMITED. And if a new predator or competitor suddenly arrives on the scene (in this case because South and North America were suddenly JOINED via Panama) ā€¦ SOME SPECIES WILL PERISH.

Ask yourself this, John, what if Elephants were MEAT EATERS? What if tigers were the SIZE of ELEPHANTS?

1 Like

You didnā€™t read very carefully, I said that an individual would HAVE TO have evolved the entire (reproductive) system. How did the species reproduce before there was time for a reproduction system to have evolved? Am I to believe that cells just randomly and simultaneously divided into what ultimately became an extremely complex, but perfectly functioning, both male and female reproduction system? Male and female reproductive systems that just happened to be perfectly matched to each other within a species? That requires far more faith than it takes to believe in God. And belief in God will prove itself true soon to those who pursue it, as opposed to ridiculous fantasies about macro evolution.

Jeffery,

There seems to be plenty of information and evidence on the development of TWO-GENDER reproduction. Worms are examples of both members of a mating pair are DOUBLE-gendered.

Vertebrates like fish only have differences internally.

Dinosaurs and other reptiles, as well as birds, have no specialized external anatomy.

It is when we reach into the millions of years of evolution in mammals that we start seeing lots of specialized external sexual apparatus.

But you know what, Jeffery, we all have our personal views of what is AMAZINGā€¦ or TOO AMAZING.

You think sexual dimorphism is TOO amazing to consider a realistic evolutionary development. I think six day creation is WAY MORE ā€œtoo amazingā€. If we canā€™t agree on the age of the universe, there is NOTHING to agree upon.

George

1 Like

If you honestly want to know how TEs address that question, you can check out the links Dennis provided here: How did sexual reproduction originate and evolve?

You make it sound like belief in God and acceptance of macroevolution as a model are mutually exclusive. Thatā€™s not really true. You realize you are on BioLogos, not an athiest website, right? Many people here are pursuing God and donā€™t have an issue with accepting miracles on faith.

2 Likes

Wowā€¦ I should have written that! Thatā€™s my favorite point to make ā€¦ and yet I got distracted by the drama of Jefferyā€™s objection ā€¦

Thanks for keeping us ā€œon trackā€, @Christy !!

This topic was automatically closed 4 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

I donā€™t introduce students to evolution in my school until 9th grade biology. By then they are able to handle the varying levels (scientific, historic, and philosophical) of why Darwin is so important. In 9th grade students can start to dig into the deeper issues relevant to science/faith discussions.