Can You Believe Both the Bible and Evolution?
-
Darwin hypothesized that change progresses gradually. Darwin himself stated, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral.[1]
Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex.[2]
Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."[3]
And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."[4]
1.Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box," 1996.
2."Unlocking the Mystery of Life," documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.
3.Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," 1986, p. 250.
4.Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155. -
here are a few...Originally posted by kaister:If the creator can be proven with evidence other than a book, it would stand against criticisms. However, it has yet to do so.
Can you share some of these archeological findings? I'm interested.
The Discovery of the Hittites
The Hittites played a prominent role in Old Testament history. They interacted with biblical figures as early as Abraham and as late as Solomon. They are mentioned in Genesis 15:20 as people who inhabited the land of Canaan. 1 Kings 10:29 records that they purchased chariots and horses from King Solomon. The most prominent Hittite is Uriah the husband of Bathsheba. The Hittites were a powerful force in the Middle East from 1750 B.C. until 1200 B.C. Prior to the late 19th century, nothing was known of the Hittites outside the Bible, and many critics alleged that they were an invention of the biblical authors.
In 1876 a dramatic discovery changed this perception. A British scholar named A. H. Sayce found inscriptions carved on rocks in Turkey. He suspected that they might be evidence of the Hittite nation. Ten years later, more clay tablets were found in Turkey at a place called Boghaz-koy. German cuneiform expert Hugo Winckler investigated the tablets and began his own expedition at the site in 1906.
Winckler's excavations uncovered five temples, a fortified citadel and several massive sculptures. In one storeroom he found over ten thousand clay tablets. One of the documents proved to be a record of a treaty between Ramesses II and the Hittite king. Other tablets showed that Boghaz-koy was the capital of the Hittite kingdom. Its original name was Hattusha and the city covered an area of 300 acres. The Hittite nation had been discovered!
Less than a decade after Winckler's find, Czech scholar Bedrich Hronzny proved the Hittite language is an early relative of the Indo-European languages of Greek, Latin, French, German, and English. The Hittite language now has a central place in the study of the history of the Indo-European languages.
The discovery also confirmed other biblical facts. Five temples were found containing many tablets with details of the rites and ceremonies that priests performed. These ceremonies described rites for purification from sin and purification of a new temple. The instructions proved to be very elaborate and lengthy. Critics once criticized the laws and instructions found in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as too complicated for the time it was written (1400 B.C.). The Boghaz-koy texts along with others from Egyptian sites and a site along the Euphrates called Emar have proven that the ceremonies described in the Jewish Pentateuch are consistent with the ceremonies of the cultures of this time period.
The Hittite Empire made treaties with civilizations they conquered. Two dozen of these have been translated and provide a better understanding of treaties in the Old Testament. The discovery of the Hittite Empire at Boghaz-koy has significantly advanced our understanding of the patriarchal period. Dr. Fred Wright summarizes the importance of this find in regard to biblical historicity:
Now the Bible picture of this people fits in perfectly with what we know of the Hittite nation from the monuments. As an empire they never conquered the land of Canaan itself, although the Hittite local tribes did settle there at an early date. Nothing discovered by the excavators has in any way discredited the Biblical account. Scripture accuracy has once more been proved by the archaeologist.{4}
The discovery of the Hittites has proven to be one of the great archaeological finds of all time. It has helped to confirm the biblical narrative and had a great impact on Middle East archaeological study. Because of it, we have come to a greater understanding of the history of our language, as well as the religious, social, and political practices of the ancient Middle East.
4. Fred Wright, Highlights of Archaeology in the Bible Lands, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1955), 94-95.
4. Garstang, John. The Foundations of Bible History; Joshua, Judges. London: Constable, 1931. -
here is another...Originally posted by kaister:If the creator can be proven with evidence other than a book, it would stand against criticisms. However, it has yet to do so.
Can you share some of these archeological findings? I'm interested.
Sodom and Gomorrah
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has long been viewed as a legend. Critics assume that it was created to communicate moral principles. However, throughout the Bible this story is treated as a historical event. The Old Testament prophets refer to the destruction of Sodom on several occasions (Deut. 29:23, Isa. 13:19, Jer. 49:18 ), and these cities play a key role in the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles (Matt. 10:15, 2 Pet. 2:6 and Jude 1:7). What has archaeology found to establish the existence of these cities?
Archaeologists have searched the Dead Sea region for many years in search of Sodom and Gomorrah. Genesis 14:3 gives their location as the Valley of Siddim known as the Salt Sea, another name for the Dead Sea. On the east side six wadies, or river valleys, flow into the Dead Sea. Along five of these wadies, ancient cities were discovered. The northern most is named Bab edh-Drha. In 1924, renowned archaeologist Dr. William Albright excavated at this site, searching for Sodom and Gomorrah. He discovered it to be a heavily fortified city. Although he connected this city with one of the biblical "Cities of the Plains," he could not find conclusive evidence to justify this assumption.
More digging was done in 1965, 1967, and 1973. The archaeologists discovered a 23-inch thick wall around the city, along with numerous houses and a large temple. Outside the city were huge grave sites where thousands of skeletons were unearthed. This revealed that the city had been well populated during the early Bronze Age, about the time Abraham would have lived.
Most intriguing was evidence that a massive fire had destroyed the city. It lay buried under a coating of ash several feet thick. A cemetery one kilometer outside the city contained charred remains of roofs, posts, and bricks turned red from heat.
Dr. Bryant Wood, in describing these charnel houses, stated that a fire began on the roofs of these buildings. Eventually the burning roof collapsed into the interior and spread inside the building. This was the case in every house they excavated. Such a massive fiery destruction would match the biblical account that the city was destroyed by fire that rained down from heaven. Wood states, "The evidence would suggest that this site of Bab edh-Drha is the biblical city of Sodom."
Five cities of the plain are mentioned in Genesis 14: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zoar, and Zeboiim. Remnants of these other four cities are also found along the Dead Sea. Following a southward path from Bab edh-Drha there is the city called Numeria. Continuing south is the city called es-Safi. Further south are the ancient cities of Feifa and Khanazir. Studies at these cities revealed that they had been abandoned at the same time about 2450–2350 B.C. Many archaeologists believe if Bab ed-Drha is Sodom, Numeria is Gomorrah, and es-Safi is Zoar.
What fascinated the archaeologists is that these cities were covered in the same ash as Bab ed-Drha. Numeria, believed to be Gomorrah, had seven feet of ash in some places. In every one of the destroyed cities ash deposits made the soil a spongy charcoal, making it impossible to rebuild. According to the Bible, four of the five cities were destroyed, leaving Lot to flee to Zoar. Zoar was not destroyed by fire, but was abandoned during this period.
Although archaeologists are still disputing these findings, this is one discovery we will be hearing more about in years to come. -
The Walls of JerichoOriginally posted by kaister:If the creator can be proven with evidence other than a book, it would stand against criticisms. However, it has yet to do so.
Can you share some of these archeological findings? I'm interested.
According to the Bible, the conquest of Jericho occurred in approximately 1440 B.C. The miraculous nature of the conquest has caused some scholars to dismiss the story as folklore. Does archaeology support the biblical account? Over the past century four prominent archaeologists have excavated the site: Carl Watzinger from 1907-1909, John Garstang in the 1930's, Kathleen Kenyon from 1952-1958, and currently Bryant Wood. The result of their work has been remarkable.
First, they discovered that Jericho had an impressive system of fortifications. Surrounding the city was a retaining wall fifteen feet high. At its top was an eight-foot brick wall strengthened from behind by an earthen rampart. Domestic structures were found behind this first wall. Another brick wall enclosed the rest of the city. The domestic structures found between the two walls is consistent with Joshua's description of Rahab's quarters (Josh. 2:15). Archeologists also found that in one part of the city, large piles of bricks were found at the base of both the inner and outer walls, indicating a sudden collapse of the fortifications. Scholars feel that an earthquake, which may also explain the damming of the Jordan in the biblical account, caused this collapse. The collapsed bricks formed a ramp by which an invader might easily enter the city (Josh. 6:20).
Of this amazing discovery Garstang states, "As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely, the attackers would be able to clamber up and over the ruins of the city."This is remarkable because when attacked city walls fall inward, not outward.
A thick layer of soot indicates that the city was destroyed by fire as described in Joshua 6:24. Kenyon describes it this way. "The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire and every room was filled with fallen bricks."Archaeologists also discovered large amounts of grain at the site. This is again consistent with the biblical account that the city was captured quickly. If it had fallen as a result of a siege, the grain would have been used up. According to Joshua 6:17, the Israelites were forbidden to plunder the city, but had to destroy it totally.
Although the archaeologists agreed Jericho was violently destroyed, they disagreed on the date of the conquest. Garstang held to the biblical date of 1400 B.C. while Watzinger and Kenyon believed the destruction occurred in 1550 B.C. In other words, if the later date is accurate, Joshua arrived at a previously destroyed Jericho. This earlier date would pose a serious challenge to the historicity of the Old Testament.
Dr. Bryant Wood, who is currently excavating the site, found that Kenyon's early date was based on faulty assumptions about pottery found at the site. His later date is also based on the discovery of Egyptian amulets in the tombs northwest of Jericho. Inscribed under these amulets were the names of Egyptian Pharaohs dating from 1500-1386 B.C., showing that the cemetery was in use up to the end of the late Bronze Age (1550-1400 B.C.). Finally, a piece of charcoal found in the debris was carbon-14 dated to be 1410 B.C. The evidence leads Wood to this conclusion. "The pottery, stratigraphic considerations, scarab data and a carbon-14 date all point to a destruction of the city around the end of the Late Bronze Age, about 1400 BCE."
Thus, current archeological evidence supports the Bible's account of when and how Jericho fell.
- Bryant Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?" Biblical Archaeological Review, March/April, 1990, 57. -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kaister:
If the creator can be proven with evidence other than a book, it would stand against criticisms. However, it has yet to do so.
Can you share some of these archeological findings? I'm interested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House of David
One of the most beloved characters in the Bible is King David. Scripture says that he was a man after God's own heart. He is revered as the greatest of all Israelite kings and the messianic covenant is established through his lineage. Despite his key role in Israel's history, until recently no evidence outside the Bible attested to his existence. For this reason critics questioned the existence of a King David.
In the summer of 1993, an archaeologist made what has been labeled as a phenomenal and stunning discovery. Dr. Avraham Biran and his team were excavating a site labeled Tell Dan, located in northern Galilee at the foot of Mt. Hermon. Evidence indicates that this is the site of the Old Testament land of Dan.
The team had discovered an impressive royal plaza. As they were clearing the debris, they discovered in the ruins the remains of a black basalt stele, or stone slab, containing Aramaic inscriptions. The stele contained thirteen lines of writing but none of the sentences were complete. Some of the lines contained only three letters while the widest contained fourteen. The letters that remained were clearly engraved and easy to read. Two of the lines included the phrases "The King of Israel" and "House of David."
This is the first reference to King David found outside of the Bible. This discovery has caused many critics to reconsider their view of the historicity of the Davidic kingdom. Pottery found in the vicinity, along with the construction and style of writing, lead Dr. Biran to argue that the stele was erected in the first quarter of the ninth century B.C., about a century after the death of King David.
The translation team discovered that the inscription told of warfare between the Israelites and the Arameans, which the Bible refers to during this period. In this find, a ruler of the Arameans probably Hazael is victorious over Israel and Judah. The stele was erected to celebrate the defeat of the two kings. In 1994 two more pieces were found with inscriptions which refer to Jehoram, the son of Ahab, ruler over Israel, and Ahaziah, who was the ruler over the "House of David" or Judah. These names and facts correspond to the account given in chapters 8 and 9 of 2 Kings. Dr. Hershel Shanks of Biblical Archaeological Review states, "The stele brings to life the biblical text in a very dramatic way. It also gives us more confidence in the historical reality of the biblical text."
The find has confirmed a number of facts. First, the use of the term "House of David" implies that there was a Davidic dynasty that ruled Israel. We can conclude, then, that a historic King David existed. Second, the kingdoms of Judah and Israel were prominent political entities as the Bible describes. Critics long viewed the two nations as simply insignificant states.
Dr. Bryant Wood summarizes the importance of this find this way. "In our day, most scholars, archaeologist and biblical scholars would take a very critical view of the historical accuracy of many of the accounts in the Bible. . . . Many scholars have said there never was a David or a Solomon, and now we have a stele that actually mentions David."
Although many archeologists remain skeptical of the biblical record, the evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible continues to build. -
all information on the archaeology information taken from an article written by Patrick Zukeran who is an associate speaker for Probe Ministries. He has a BA in Religion from Point Loma Nazarene University and a Master of Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary, and is a doctoral student at Southern Evangelical Seminary.
-
If structural resemblance is the only criterion then we have a good resemblance with many other creatures as well. The wing of a bat, fin of a whale and arm of a man are bone and similar to each other yet these are totally different from each other and cannot be grouped together.Originally posted by kaister:"In other words, what are the fittest? Why, those that survive, of course. And what survives? Why, naturally, the fittest. The problem is that circular reasoning doesn't point to any independent criteria that can evaluate whether the theory is true."
Take the above passage for example. It was based solely on the author's point of view, not supported and has shown lacking in understanding of evolution. Fittest is defined by the environment. Eg, a giraffe can survive well in the grass plains given its long neck and legs, allowing it to take full advantage of the environment it lives in. It had common ancestors as deers and cattles. Over time, prehistoric deers or cattles with longer necks are able to feed more on higher tree branches, giving them an reproductive advantage over the same species. This soon emerge as a new species, different from the original. Place the giraffe in a tropical forest and you'll find the opposite happening. The same phenomenon has been observed in Finches on the Galapagos, perfectly testable and repeatable.
Similarly, as dissection of the frogÂ’s body is taught to medical students the human beings have system for system, muscle for muscle nerve for nevre and vessel for vessel a resemblance with the frog. But can they be grouped together?
But are we similar to other creatures in features such as locomotive reproductive, respiratory, endocrine genito-urinary, cardiac and central nervous systems? But this does not mean that man and other creatures can be grouped together with a common ancestor.
The Encyclopedia Britanica has criticised the idea of having a common ancestor on the basis of structural resemblance. It says, “In the absence of a fossil record, structural and other adaptations have been projected back as an ancestral condition from living descendent species; but this is a very risky procedure that dismisses morphological transformation and adaptation and assumes stasis without complementary confirmation.”
You cite the whale as an example of its decendence from mammals, but todate there is no fossil record to show the gradual evolution of the whale from a mammal as so suggested based on darwins theory of natural selection.
If the argument about the giraffe is to be followed, then we would not have deer and cattle today as they would have been the infrior product and based on natural selection, would have become extinct... ? -
There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.Originally posted by kaister:Heard of single stranded RNA viruses (SARS)? Heard of prions that comprises of only proteins but capable of replication (Mad-Cow's disease)? These are but a few examples that fills the gap you've stated. Simple organism that could have been how the primitive lifeforms started. Take a look at Miller's famous experiment:
In the early 1950s Stanley L. Miller, working in the laboratory of Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago, did the first experiment designed to clarify the chemical reactions that occurred on the primitive earth. In the flask at the bottom, he created an "ocean" of water, which he heated, forcing water vapor to circulate through the apparatus. The flask at the top contained an "atmosphere" consisting of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2) and the circulating water vapor.
Next he exposed the gases to a continuous electrical discharge (lightning), causing the gases to interact. Water-soluble products of those reactions then passed through a condenser and dissolved in the mock ocean. The experiment yielded many amino acids and enabled Miller to explain how they had formed.
Btw, mathematical impossibility it might be but note that evolution is not by chance as you propose. It is due to shaping by the existing environment and evolution merely selects the right combination of DNA. Poles apart from chance.
The problem here of your definition of the reproduction of amino acids under lab experiments still does not show how these were able to be selected to form the more complex structures which are so vital for the survival of any species. Let alone the homosapien.
Also you say evolution works by merely selecting the right combination of DNA. Hmmm.. what are the probabilities that the right DNA were at the right place at the right time in the right combination and at the right interaction sequences to be chosen for something to evolve? Let alone form life out of the primodial soup... -
Darwin's guess about how life started was only an natural extension of his theory. In essence, evolution is more concerned about evolution of species and not about life, although it heavily suggests that.Originally posted by breytonhartge:Actually this statement is not true, darwin did postulate about life, and this has been taught in all the schools at all levels.
Darwins origins of species... as you have described above is only but one of his assumptions.
Darwinian evolution is named for the theory of Charles Darwin (1809-1882). Darwin was not the first person to propose the theory of evolution; many ancient Greek philosophers suggested the idea of life developing out of non-life. But Darwin brought evolution to the forefront of the modern scientific community. From his observations, Darwin assumed that all life -- man, monkey, fish, dinosaurs, birds, flowers, trees, et al. -- descended from a common ancestor.
Darwin theorized that at one time no life on this planet existed. Out of this non-life came about all life. Once life started, it evolved through naturalistic stages from the earliest single celled organisms through modification or mutation. Darwin rejected the idea of a Creator of life; he believed only in a series of fortunate adaptations prescribed by nature and need for survival.
Darwinian evolution is built around some major assumptions:
Darwin assumed that life is in a constant state of flux, ever changing, ever evolving. According to Darwinian evolution, genectic mutations are necessary for survival of any life form. One organism will change over time and become a different species. While most scientists agree that life does adapt to fit different climates and terrain, the hypothesis of one genus evolving into another has not been proven. Another assumption of Darwinian evolution is the idea of animals and plants reproducing geometrically. This theory means that a pair of animals will have far more offspring than is necessary to replace themselves. A fish or turtle, for example, may lay millions of eggs in their lifetimes. If each laid egg produced a full-grown adult, the population of that species would increase exponentially and overpopulate the land. In order to keep the number of a species under control a checks and balance system must be in place. This premise of checks and balances led to Darwin's next assumption. The number of individuals in a species remain relatively constant. Darwin observed that, generally, a species did not dramatically multiply or die out. Since large numbers of a speciesÂ’ offspring failed to reach maturity, the cause must be a competition for food and reproduction. This theory is called survival of the fittest or natural selection. However, as Darwin noted, the environment changes continuously so the definition of what is "fittest" changes with time. Finally, Darwin hypothesized that change progresses gradually. Darwin himself stated, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Darwinian evolution is built around these assumptions. Although some scientists argue that DarwinÂ’s observations do not result in a solid theory, Darwinian evolution is still promoted as a viable alternative to Creation. But certain aspects of DarwinÂ’s theory actually points to, not away from a Creator.
I shall not touch about the rest of your post cos' they only talked about the assumptions of evolution. -
Dear Kaister, I think you have got it the other way around. Actually his theory was the extension to how life started. His theory is that which "supposedly" puts forward the mechanism by which life "could" have started and evolved.Originally posted by kaister:Darwin's guess about how life started was only an natural extension of his theory. In essence, evolution is more concerned about evolution of species and not about life, although it heavily suggests that.
I shall not touch about the rest of your post cos' they only talked about the assumptions of evolution.
The whole debate of evolution vs creationism is this: the evolutionists claim that life began with nothing, then evolved into something simple and then into something complex, through the process of natural selection. The creationists on the other hand say that there was intelligent design right from the beginning. Hence the existence of irreducible complexities as they were already though of. You cannot divorce natural selection from its theoretical beginnings. They either stand as one or they must fall as one. (Natural selection here would also encompass the whole gamut from how life started to how it became complex... eg. two different RNA strands produce two different kinds of proteins, one better, one weaker... natural selection based on darwinian theory would suggest that the stronger more viable protein strand be chosen and so on and so forth.)
But even if we take your ideal of evolution as that of the evolution of a species... it still holds no water see my post vis the giraffe and the cattle and deer. You view of evolution also cannot explain irreducible complexities which have now been shown to exist. See my posts on the fish and the wood pecker. -
Paragraph 1: Yes, again a misconception that evolution takes place one organ at a time. It takes place simultaneously. How? Here's an example. Bats. In order to gain flight, they have to simultaneously produce lighter bone structure and wings. You can argue that if any of the parts are taken out, the system will not work.Originally posted by breytonhartge:Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral.[1]
Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex.[2]
Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."[3]
And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."[4]
1.Michael Behe, "Darwin's Black Box," 1996.
2."Unlocking the Mystery of Life," documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.
3.Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," 1986, p. 250.
4.Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155.
However, bats emerged from tree-climbing ancestors. Mutations can occur on a population level, giving some with membrane-linked bone structure the slight edge over bats that don't have such adaptations. These bats could then glide, or jump further, as we can see in some gliding squirrels today. Some other mutations may occur, giving others lighter bone structure. Individuals with these mutations will be able to gain access to more food, hereby giving more off-springs. With time, their genes will be more presented in the gene pool, resulting in an overall genotype and morphological change.
Paragraph 2: An inanimate object cannot be compared to a living being. They don't have genes. Also, irreducible complexity would mean that every organism would have just the right number of structures enough for their survival. However, that is not true with vestigial structures such as rudimentary hind limbs in whales.
Paragraph 3: E. Coli is not the simpliest organism on earth. I've already pointed out some simple organisms such as single-strand RNA virus and prions (this is not even an organism, just a protein), which are capable of reproducing themselves. Not only do they give us a good idea of how life could have started but they also give a good picture of how your examples of irreductible systems are actually reductiable.
Paragraph 4: The eye is always used as a tool for attack on evolution. However, it is not as entirely impossible. The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 years. 550 million years is more than sufficient for the evolution of the eye. -
The archaeological evidence that you've stated may only prove the historical aspects of the bible and at best only parts of it. It had failed to prove any bit of Genesis.
-
Obviously you did not study biology. Almost all living organisms can be grouped into kingdoms, phylum, class, family, and genus. If you rearrange them, you would notice that they resemble an inverted tree, good evidence of a common ancestor among each kingdom.Originally posted by breytonhartge:If structural resemblance is the only criterion then we have a good resemblance with many other creatures as well. The wing of a bat, fin of a whale and arm of a man are bone and similar to each other yet these are totally different from each other and cannot be grouped together.
Similarly, as dissection of the frogÂ’s body is taught to medical students the human beings have system for system, muscle for muscle nerve for nevre and vessel for vessel a resemblance with the frog. But can they be grouped together?
But are we similar to other creatures in features such as locomotive reproductive, respiratory, endocrine genito-urinary, cardiac and central nervous systems? But this does not mean that man and other creatures can be grouped together with a common ancestor.
The Encyclopedia Britanica has criticised the idea of having a common ancestor on the basis of structural resemblance. It says, “In the absence of a fossil record, structural and other adaptations have been projected back as an ancestral condition from living descendent species; but this is a very risky procedure that dismisses morphological transformation and adaptation and assumes stasis without complementary confirmation.”
You cite the whale as an example of its decendence from mammals, but todate there is no fossil record to show the gradual evolution of the whale from a mammal as so suggested based on darwins theory of natural selection.
If the argument about the giraffe is to be followed, then we would not have deer and cattle today as they would have been the infrior product and based on natural selection, would have become extinct... ?
Yes, the fundamentals by which men and animals (mammals to be exact) are almost the same. That's why we can experiment drugs on mouse and almost safely infer the pharmacokinetics from those experiments. Why? Because we are closely related to mouse. Scary thought? We are only different in 2% of our DNA from chimpanzees. As you can see... small changes to DNA can result in drastic changes in appearance.
There is fossil evidence for whales:
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/
From your talk about the deer and cattle, I see you don't really understand evolution? Who is to decide which individuals are inferior? According to evolution, it's the environment. Are humans inferior to flies? Can humans survive on a pile of rubbish?
Similarly deers and cattles have advantages in their environment that allows them to remain the way they are. Can a giraffe run very fast in a temperate forest? No, but a deer can. That's why we get 2 species from a common ancestor when we place them in difference environments. -
Yes what you've said is true. There's some debate about how the conditions of primitive earth is like.Originally posted by breytonhartge:There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.
The problem here of your definition of the reproduction of amino acids under lab experiments still does not show how these were able to be selected to form the more complex structures which are so vital for the survival of any species. Let alone the homosapien.
Also you say evolution works by merely selecting the right combination of DNA. Hmmm.. what are the probabilities that the right DNA were at the right place at the right time in the right combination and at the right interaction sequences to be chosen for something to evolve? Let alone form life out of the primodial soup...
This is because we humans were not there to witness what happened. No evidence, everything else is up to debate. The very same criticism can be drawn to creationism. Did anyone witness creationism? No? Therefore it is up for debate too.
If amino acids can be created from simple molecules, under no human intervention, why is homo sapiens not possible? After all, it's not supposed to be a great leap. There were multiple steps, each creating a species suitable for the environment which they are in. Besides, humans only existed for a few million years. Age of the earth is a 4.5 billion years old.
Again, your last paragraphs assumes that evolution is a sudden process. Look around you. Even humans look different. Some with small eyes, some with sharp noses. What's the difference? Minor differences in DNA. DNA is hugely diversed even among the same species.Let's say a catatrophe occurs and selectively kills all people taller than 1.7m, we would have instantly a human population of under 1.7m. Just a over-simplified example to show you how it works. DNa differences are always there. It is not by chance that it occurs. -
You reply too fast. See my other posts before this.Originally posted by breytonhartge:Dear Kaister, I think you have got it the other way around. Actually his theory was the extension to how life started. His theory is that which "supposedly" puts forward the mechanism by which life "could" have started and evolved.
The whole debate of evolution vs creationism is this: the evolutionists claim that life began with nothing, then evolved into something simple and then into something complex, through the process of natural selection. The creationists on the other hand say that there was intelligent design right from the beginning. Hence the existence of irreducible complexities as they were already though of. You cannot divorce natural selection from its theoretical beginnings. They either stand as one or they must fall as one. (Natural selection here would also encompass the whole gamut from how life started to how it became complex... eg. two different RNA strands produce two different kinds of proteins, one better, one weaker... natural selection based on darwinian theory would suggest that the stronger more viable protein strand be chosen and so on and so forth.)
But even if we take your ideal of evolution as that of the evolution of a species... it still holds no water see my post vis the giraffe and the cattle and deer. You view of evolution also cannot explain irreducible complexities which have now been shown to exist. See my posts on the fish and the wood pecker.
We can forget about whether evolution implicates the beginnings of life, it does not contribute to our discussions either way.
Your post of giraffe and the cattle shows how ignorant/little of evolution you know. Sorry for the use of words but anyone with foundamental knowledge of evolution can explain that to you. Even my nephew who just started on biology can explain the mechanism of why deers and cattles still exist. I sincerely hope for your sake that you know what you're talking about. For more information on why they still exist, please refer to my previous post (the one above).
Archer fish and wood peckers are only examples of complex systems. Your articles can be summarised like this: These creatures are complex, therefore evolution cannot be part of it.
It might be true that they are complex, however, lack of understanding of their phylogeny doesn't mean that they do not derive from evolution. Please do understand that there are millions of animal species out there, if people wanted to challenge us on every single species, there'll be no end. There are only so many scientifists and archaeologists out there, they couldn't be tending to every detail there could they? -
For your info, I really have no idea about the evolution of the archerfish but the woodpecker is a classic example of how christian articles misled the general public.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html
Note that although the website is anti-creationism, it however presents facts and evidence. Do have a read. -
Sorry but I had to quote myself cos' I don't see you replying on the issue of credibility of the articles you've posted.Originally posted by kaister:Here's an example with reference to the paragraphs above.
Paragraph 1: stating the foundations of evolution by using reference to add to the validity of the article. Not much to discuss.
Paragraph 2: I've already raised the issue of how fittest is defined, not as how the author preferred. Note also lack of reference when writing that paragraph about circular argument on evolution/fittest, as evident from the author's lacking on evolutionary knowledge.
Paragraph 3: Selection does not change species? See below.
Paragraph 4: Trying to give an example to prove a point. Ok.
Paragraph 5: Again, no reference/support and it's an untruth. The Author got this from somewhere in his head and conveniently left out any support. Mutation is the source of new genetic material but selection is the process where 1 species can spilt into 2. See the finches for example. One species with same beak length can become 2 sub-species when placed on different islands with different food sources. With time, they will become 2 distinct species.
Evolution is based on adaptation. Apparantly the author lacked that knowledge and claimed that evolution created nothing out of something. Look at whales. They have rudimentary hind-limbs which they do not use at all. It is a sign of adaptation and strong evidence of how whales descended from mammals.
Paragraph 6: Again, a good reference that only states how evolution works by having an organism leaving more off-springs. It does not support any of the views stated above.
Given the limitations of time, I can only give you this vivid example. There're plenty of such untruths sandwiched in between references that does not aid in the author's arguments throughout the articles I've read so far.
Just trying to set things straight
-
Not bad, kaister, you got a bio background?Originally posted by kaister:Sorry but I had to quote myself cos' I don't see you replying on the issue of credibility of the articles you've posted. -
Para one: Your example of bats is a bad one, because the fossil record does not show that they evolved from four limbed tree climbing anscestors.Originally posted by kaister:Paragraph 1: Yes, again a misconception that evolution takes place one organ at a time. It takes place simultaneously. How? Here's an example. Bats. In order to gain flight, they have to simultaneously produce lighter bone structure and wings. You can argue that if any of the parts are taken out, the system will not work.
However, bats emerged from tree-climbing ancestors. Mutations can occur on a population level, giving some with membrane-linked bone structure the slight edge over bats that don't have such adaptations. These bats could then glide, or jump further, as we can see in some gliding squirrels today. Some other mutations may occur, giving others lighter bone structure. Individuals with these mutations will be able to gain access to more food, hereby giving more off-springs. With time, their genes will be more presented in the gene pool, resulting in an overall genotype and morphological change.
In Bioscience, May 1992, we find this quote:
"Unfortunately, the fossils available only complicate matters. They do not represent transitional morphology between quadrupedal (four-footed) animals and flying bats, and they represent animals nearly as specialized as their modern relatives" (Thewessin p. 340).
And in Bats: A Natural History, John Hill says almost the same thing:
"...all fossil bats, even the oldest, are clearly fully-developed bats and so they shed little light on the transition from their terrestrial ancestor" (Hill p. 33).
The oldest known skeleton, supposedly 60 million years old (Wilson p. 79), is a fully-formed bat which apparently could echo-locate (UCMP Berkeley).
When you ask an evolutionist to show you the ancestor of a bat, he will, in all likelihood (as does the ZooBooks volume on "Bats"), show you a mythical creature with elongated limbs connected by stretched skin gliding from branch to branch like a modern flying squirrel. It will have paws on all four limbs, and may be seen perching on a branch with skin folds hanging down (Wood and Rink, p. 6). What the evolutionist will not show you is any kind of transition between paws used for standing and running, and hand-wings used for flying. He won't show you because there is no fossil of such a creature, and he can't imagine what one would look like. He also can't explain how "survival of the fittest" would produce it. At some point elongating front toes would interfere with quadrupedal (four-footed) movement long before they could become the ribs of functional wings. And why and how upside-down? Birds perch very well right-side up. How does "survival of the fittest" turn an animal upside down, with all the physiological changes necessary for maintaining that position? Try swallowing while hanging upside-down. And what happens to your blood after a while? Yet bats eat, sleep, and mate upside down, and many also give birth in that position. -
An irreducible complexity does not mean that every organism would have just the right number of structures enough for their survival. But it does mean that the mechanisms for an organisms survival would have to be there already and that it could not have evolved in the piece meal manner that evolution prescribes.Originally posted by kaister:Paragraph 2: An inanimate object cannot be compared to a living being. They don't have genes. Also, irreducible complexity would mean that every organism would have just the right number of structures enough for their survival. However, that is not true with vestigial structures such as rudimentary hind limbs in whales.
Actually I was never comparing an inanimate object to a living being. This was given as an example of what is an irreducible complexity.
This talk about rudimentary hind lims in whales as vistigial structures does not anyway negate irreducible complexities, it simply suggests that whales at sometime or another were land bound mammals. But like I pointed out before, the fossil record does not show this. -
A single strand RNA virus is still an irriducible complexity. Just what is the structure of RNA, since you say I obviously did not study biology?Originally posted by kaister:Paragraph 3: E. Coli is not the simpliest organism on earth. I've already pointed out some simple organisms such as single-strand RNA virus and prions (this is not even an organism, just a protein), which are capable of reproducing themselves. Not only do they give us a good idea of how life could have started but they also give a good picture of how your examples of irreductible systems are actually reductiable. -
MIchael Behe presents several examples of irreducibly complex systems to prove his point, here is another one: the cilium. Cilia are hair-like structures, which are used by animals and plants to move fluid over various surfaces (for example, cilia in your respiratory tree sweep mucous towards the throat and thus promote elimination of contaminants) and by single-celled organisms to move through water. Cilia are like "oars" which contain their own mechanism for bending. That mechanism involves tiny rod-like structures called microtubules that are arranged in a ring. Adjacent microtubules are connected to each other by two types of "bridges"-a flexible linker bridge and an arm that can "walk" up the neighboring microtubule. The cilia bends by activating the "walker" arms, and the sliding motion that this tends to generate is converted to a bending motion by the flexible linker bridges.Originally posted by kaister:Paragraph 4: The eye is always used as a tool for attack on evolution. However, it is not as entirely impossible. The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 years. 550 million years is more than sufficient for the evolution of the eye.
Thus, the cilium has several essential components: stiff microtubules, linker bridges, and the "motors" in the form of walker arms. While my description is greatly simplified (Behe notes that over 200 separate proteins have been identified in this particular system), these 3 components form the basic system, and show what is required for functionality. For without one of these components, the system simply will not function. We can't evolve a cilium by starting with microtubules alone, because the microtubules will be fixed and rigid-not much good for moving around. Adding the flexible linker bridges to the system will not do any good either-there is still no motor and the cilia still will not bend. If we have microtubules and the walker arms (the motors) but no flexible linker arms, the microtubules will keep on sliding past each other till they float away from each other and are lost.
This is only one of many biochemical systems that Behe discusses in his book, Darwin's Black Box. Other examples of irreducible complexity include the light-sensing system in animal eyes, the transport system within the cell, the bacterial flagellum, and the blood clotting system. All consist of a very complex system of interacting parts which cannot be simplified while maintaining functionality.
Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems. To imagine that a chance set of mutations would produce all 200 proteins required for cilia function in a single generation stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point. And yet, producing one or a few of these proteins at a time, in standard Darwinian fashion, would convey no survival advantage because those few proteins would have no function-indeed, they would constitute a waste of energy for the cell to even produce. Darwin recognized this as a potent threat to his theory of evolution-the issue that could completely disprove his idea. So the question must be raised: Has Darwin's theory of evolution "absolutely broken down?" According to Michael Behe, the answer is a resounding "yes." This same argument can be applied to the supposed evolution of the eye. -
The most documented Biblical event is the world-wide flood described in Genesis 6-9. A number of Babylonian documents have been discovered which describe the same flood.Originally posted by kaister:The archaeological evidence that you've stated may only prove the historical aspects of the bible and at best only parts of it. It had failed to prove any bit of Genesis.
Ancient tablet listing the Sumerian kings
[More information]
The Sumerian King List (pictured here), for example, lists kings who reigned for long periods of time. Then a great flood came. Following the flood, Sumerian kings ruled for much shorter periods of time. This is the same pattern found in the Bible. Men had long life spans before the flood and shorter life spans after the flood. The 11th tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic speaks of an ark, animals taken on the ark, birds sent out during the course of the flood, the ark landing on a mountain, and a sacrifice offered after the ark landed.
The Story of Adapa tells of a test for immortality involving food, similar to the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
Sumerian tablets record the confusion of language as we have in the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9). There was a golden age when all mankind spoke the same language. Speech was then confused by the god Enki, lord of wisdom. The Babylonians had a similar account in which the gods destroyed a temple tower and "scattered them abroad and made strange their speech."
Other examples of extra-Biblical confirmation of Biblical events:
Campaign into Israel by Pharaoh Shishak (1 Kings 14:25-26), recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt.
Revolt of Moab against Israel (2 Kings 1:1; 3:4-27), recorded on the Mesha Inscription.
Fall of Samaria (2 Kings 17:3-6, 24; 18:9-11) to Sargon II, king of Assyria, as recorded on his palace walls.
Defeat of Ashdod by Sargon II (Isaiah 20:1), as recorded on his palace walls.
Campaign of the Assyrian king Sennacherib against Judah (2 Kings 18:13-16), as recorded on the Taylor Prism.
Siege of Lachish by Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:14, 17), as recorded on the Lachish reliefs.
Assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons (2 Kings 19:37), as recorded in the annals of his son Esarhaddon.
Fall of Nineveh as predicted by the prophets Nahum and Zephaniah (2:13-15), recorded on the Tablet of Nabopolasar.
Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:10-14), as recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles.
Captivity of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in Babylon (2 Kings 24:15-16), as recorded on the Babylonian Ration Records.
Fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:30-31), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.
Freeing of captives in Babylon by Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1-4; 6:3-4), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.
The existence of Jesus Christ as recorded by Josephus, Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, and Lucian.
Forcing Jews to leave Rome during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54) (Acts 18:2), as recorded by Suetonius.
MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SUMERIAN KING LIST (photo shown above) -- There are more than 16 fragments and one nearly complete copy of the Sumerian King List found at different places at different times. The first fragment was discovered in the temple library at Nippur, Iraq, at the turn of the century and was published in 1906. The most complete copy, the Weld-Blundell prism, was purchased on the antiquities market shortly after World War I and is now in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, England. For a thorough discussion of the Sumerian King List and its Biblical implications, see "The Antediluvian Patriarchs and the Sumerian King List," by Raul Lopez, in the CEN Technical Journal 12 (3) 1998, pp. 347-57. -
kaister, I don't think I want to waste anymore time debating this issue, as can be seen from our exchanges, I can refute things you post and you can find things to refute things that I post.
Ultimately it boils down to the individual, what you want to choose to believe. I just present one side of the coin for consideration, the side that I believe to be true. No matter how much evidence you provide me about evolution, I will always find evidence to refute it.
I believe in creationism. I believe in intelligent design. As do many believers.
Thank you for providing interesting insights. Shalom! -
Kaister, have been thinking about what was posted by you on both the woodpecker and the eye... one thing still does not make sense to me is that there are still too many variables that have to just right so that these structures could have evolved as they did and when you talk about gene selection etc... mutations could have conferred an advantageous gene, but then what would happen if at the same time another mutation deleted a gene which was also necessary in the simultaneous evolution of the structure which you claim is possible? how then? too many ifs and buts.