Evolution

[EagleAye]

True, but that's a long way from the position of most Christians.

Is it unreasonable to reconcile the idea that the Christian God created life, gave it the capacity to evolve, and then stepped back to see what happens?

And the Christian God may have stepped back, but occasionally "twiddled" the experiment occasionally. Proto-Humans had the brain capacity of modern Humans for quite some time, yet did little with it.

''The earliest Homo sapiens probably had the cognitive capability to invent Sputnik,'' said Dr. Sally McBrearty, an anthropologist at the University of Connecticut. ''But they didn't yet have the history of invention or a need for those things.''

Early Humanity had the powerful brain of modern humans but demonstrated little sense of self-awareness. Art hadn't emerged yet. They had the physical capacity to be modern humans but stagnated for quite some time, and for some unknowable reason (God?), we exploded very suddenly.

The foremost proponent of the traditional theory that human creativity appeared suddenly and mainly in Europe is Dr. Richard G. Klein, a Stanford archaeologist. He describes his reasoning in a new book, ''The Dawn of Creativity,'' written with Blake Edgar and being published next month by John Wiley.

''Arguably, the 'dawn' was the most significant prehistoric event that archaeologists will ever detect,'' the authors write. ''Before it, human anatomical and behavioral change proceeded very slowly, more or less hand in hand. Afterward, the human form remained remarkably stable, while behavioral change accelerated dramatically. In the space of less than 40,000 years, ever more closely packed cultural 'revolutions' have taken humanity from the status of a relatively rare large mammal to something more like a geologic force.''

In that view, 40,000 years ago was the turning point in human creativity, when modern Homo sapiens arrived in Europe and left the first unambiguous artifacts of abstract and symbolic thought. They were making more advanced tools, burying their dead with ceremony and expressing a new kind of self-awareness with beads and pendants for body ornamentation and in finely wrought figurines of the female form. As time passed, they projected on cave walls something of their lives and minds in splendid paintings of deer, horses and wild bulls.

When Humans Became Human - New York Times

So the Christian God wouldn't need to create every last detail from whole cloth. Just start the process and change a few details here and there. Isn't this reconcilable with the Christian God?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Is it unreasonable to reconcile the idea that the Christian God created life, gave it the capacity to evolve, and then stepped back to see what happens?

And the Christian God may have stepped back, but occasionally "twiddled" the experiment occasionally. Proto-Humans had the brain capacity of modern Humans for quite some time, yet did little with it.



Early Humanity had the powerful brain of modern humans but demonstrated little sense of self-awareness. Art hadn't emerged yet. They had the physical capacity to be modern humans but stagnated for quite some time, and for some unknowable reason (God?), we exploded very suddenly.


When Humans Became Human - New York Times

So the Christian God wouldn't need to create every last detail from whole cloth. Just start the process and change a few details here and there. Isn't this reconcilable with the Christian God?

It is certainly reconcilable with the idea of god.

Isn't the Christian god supposed to be involved in the lives of all of his children? Doesn't he answer prayers? Isn't the Christian god supposed to be a personal god?

A Christian god who just set the world up and allowed it to develop, perhaps coming down now and again to make major changes such as the events described in your NYT article but otherwise maintaining a hands off approach seems to me to be at odds with the one that Christians pray to regularly.

 

[EagleAye]

It is certainly reconcilable with the idea of god.

Isn't the Christian god supposed to be involved in the lives of all of his children? Doesn't he answer prayers? Isn't the Christian god supposed to be a personal god?

A Christian god who just set the world up and allowed it to develop, perhaps coming down now and again to make major changes such as the events described in your NYT article but otherwise maintaining a hands off approach seems to me to be at odds with the one that Christians pray to regularly.

Well, I'm just saying it could be the way to reconcile it. I'm just speculating. There's lots of different versions of the Christian God. Some say he's the fire and brimstone type, some say he's loving and personal, some say he'll forgive anything if you give all the sordid details to a guy in a closet, some say you get magic powers if you pick up snakes, and many others. So there's lots of ways to view and worship the Christian God. I'm offering a possibility that a professional scientist might see him and still reconcile it with his profession.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Well, I'm just saying it could be the way to reconcile it. I'm just speculating. There's lots of different versions of the Christian God. Some say he's the fire and brimstone type, some say he's loving and personal, some say he'll forgive anything if you give all the sordid details to a guy in a closet, some say you get magic powers if you pick up snakes, and many others. So there's lots of ways to view and worship the Christian God. I'm offering a possibility that a professional scientist might see him and still reconcile it with his profession.

Christianity does have a lot of different versions, doesn't it?

It's like it has evolved and speciated over the years (as an analogy, that is.)

and yet, we have people claiming that Romney is not a Christian as his view of the Christian god is a little different from their own.

 

[Thunder]

if the mutations that led to our evolution were all accidental, can anyone point to any such mutations that we are undergoing now?

 

[EagleAye]

Christianity does have a lot of different versions, doesn't it?

It's like it has evolved and speciated over the years (as an analogy, that is.)

and yet, we have people claiming that Romney is not a Christian as his view of the Christian god is a little different from their own.

If Falwell were still around he could tell us what percentage Christian Romney is...and that would clarify everything. :roll:

 

[EagleAye]

if the mutations that led to our evolution were all accidental, can anyone point to any such mutations that we are undergoing now?

I just recently watched an episode of Mutant Planet. In this they covered the Snow Monkeys of Japan (Macaques that originally evolved in the tropics). Only in the past 50 years, the monkeys learned to stave off the cold by swimming in the hot springs. Only in the past few years, they've learned to dive to the bottom to get grains of wheat. A unique behavior among monkeys. Evolution in progress.

Click the "monkey see, monkey do" clip to see part of the program I'm talking about.
Mutant Planet: Japan : Videos : Science Channel

 

[iguanaman]

if the mutations that led to our evolution were all accidental, can anyone point to any such mutations that we are undergoing now?

What do you mean? Are you wondering why chimpanzees look so much like humans or why they are not turning into humans while you watch?

First you need to find a way to live a million years.

 

[Thunder]

What do you mean? Are you wondering why chimpanzees look so much like humans or why they are not turning into humans while you watch?

First you need to find a way to live a million years.

err....no.

Im wondering what mutations human beings are undergoing now...or have undergone over the last 30,000 years or so.

 

[Hatuey]

err....no.

Im wondering what mutations human beings are undergoing now...or have undergone over the last 30,000 years or so.

Are Humans Still Evolving? : Discovery News

They found that the average age at which women on the island had their first child fell from 26 years to 22 years of age over the time period. But what makes the finding unique -- an example of microevolution -- is the relationship between younger childbirth and family trees. The trend closely follows genetic ties, and it increased over time, suggesting the trait was passed down and favored by natural selection.

NEWS: Pets Vital to Human Evolution

But how can scientists rule out social and cultural factors that affect when a woman first gives birth?

Since the small island has a rather egalitarian history, social standing has been less of an issue. In addition, if cultural factors and better nutrition caused the spike in younger mothers, it would be traceable through all women suddenly, not through family lineages over time.

Natural selection, as suggested by a researcher not involved in the study, may have even acted on a group of genes, not just one gene, responsible for sexual maturity, according to a New York Times article.

 

[grip]

Humans are part of a chain of biological life that's been evolving or adapting to environmental changes since the first amoeba. That doesn't mean we might not start to devolve as part of our environmental changing. Adapting doesn't necessarily equate into continually advancing the intellect into superior levels. It might be lowering our IQ to stop our species from destroying our environment with artificial manipulation for our needs. Who knows?

 

[PrometheusBound]

There are a few theories about universes being before our current universe. Expanding and contracting universe theory is a part of Cosmology.

My theory is that the underlying universe is still there and we are just its surface. The Singularity is an impossible concentration of matter, but some PhD guru preaches this fantastic explanation and all his cult go "Wow, cool." The original state was active, a reverse Black Hole erupting all this matter and energy from a shell universe.

Another thing that makes postmodern physics just another superstition: What (or Who) activated the Big Bang? An inert and stable Singularity can't change its state without an outside force. Since, according to the myth, the Singularity contained everything there was and would be, it would have stayed the way it was.

 

[jpevans]

Knowlege also evolved, based on the knowlege already available. eace

Is it unreasonable to reconcile the idea that the Christian God created life, gave it the capacity to evolve, and then stepped back to see what happens?

And the Christian God may have stepped back, but occasionally "twiddled" the experiment occasionally. Proto-Humans had the brain capacity of modern Humans for quite some time, yet did little with it.



Early Humanity had the powerful brain of modern humans but demonstrated little sense of self-awareness. Art hadn't emerged yet. They had the physical capacity to be modern humans but stagnated for quite some time, and for some unknowable reason (God?), we exploded very suddenly.


When Humans Became Human - New York Times

So the Christian God wouldn't need to create every last detail from whole cloth. Just start the process and change a few details here and there. Isn't this reconcilable with the Christian God?

 

[Dittohead not!]

err....no.

Im wondering what mutations human beings are undergoing now...or have undergone over the last 30,000 years or so.

The pale skin that was touted as a sign of racial superiority a century ago is actually an adaptation to living in northern latitudes where there is less sunlight.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Is it unreasonable to reconcile the idea that the Christian God created life, gave it the capacity to evolve, and then stepped back to see what happens?

And the Christian God may have stepped back, but occasionally "twiddled" the experiment occasionally. Proto-Humans had the brain capacity of modern Humans for quite some time, yet did little with it.



Early Humanity had the powerful brain of modern humans but demonstrated little sense of self-awareness. Art hadn't emerged yet. They had the physical capacity to be modern humans but stagnated for quite some time, and for some unknowable reason (God?), we exploded very suddenly.


When Humans Became Human - New York Times

The brain is not the mind. Second, a very few members of the species created all the technology. Giving the rest of the species credit for it is like saying that New Yorkers won the Super Bowl and if you're from New York, you're a better football player than somebody from New England.

 

[Removable Mind]

If something is YET to be proved wrong...then it MUST be right.

Fortunately for the world, that's not how science works.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Humans are part of a chain of biological life that's been evolving or adapting to environmental changes since the first amoeba. That doesn't mean we might not start to devolve as part of our environmental changing. Adapting doesn't necessarily equate into continually advancing the intellect into superior levels. It might be lowering our IQ to stop our species from destroying our environment with artificial manipulation for our needs. Who knows?

The balance of nature is not in Man's favor, so this hostile environment should be destroyed. It gets in our way and should be replaced by artificial compatibility. The natural, untampered with design works best only for cockroaches.

 

[EagleAye]

The brain is not the mind. Second, a very few members of the species created all the technology. Giving the rest of the species credit for it is like saying that New Yorkers won the Super Bowl and if you're from New York, you're a better football player than somebody from New England.

In any species of animal, there are individuals with more of something. Wolverines, for instance, are very aggressive animals. But some individuals are even more aggressive than the rest. This fact doesn't mean that all the rest of wolverines are pacifists. They are still generally aggressive as a species. The same goes for Humans. Just because some individuals are geniuses, doesn't mean ALL the rest have only animal intelligence. Humans, as a species, are still extraordinarily intelligent, even if some are smarter than others.

 

[upsideguy]

Consider the Deist position. Deists believe that God created the universe and the laws it operates on, then steps back and lets it run without God's interference. In this way, you can believe in the existence of God, but also believe he had no hand in the process of evolution.

First off, I did not question how one could believe in God and not believe in evolution; I questioned how one could call themselves a Christian and not believe that God had a active hand in either evolution (intelligent design) or creation. Deists are not Christian, so you did not adequately address my post. Again, to have man come to where he is and Christian doctrine to exist (and be the truth, which a Christian would believe), God HAD to have had an active hand in the creation of man and thus it would be impossible for evolution to have been random and to have played out exactly like Darwin would have to believe. Evidence in this is largely seen in the mathematics of evolution.... the statistical probabilities of it playing out as it has are defy all laws of probability.

http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W1201.pdf

So, to be clear, I am not a new earth creationist. I believe that evolution as we know it is the substantial truth of what happened. I do believe, however, in God's very active hand in making evolution happen.

 

[marduc]

if the mutations that led to our evolution were all accidental, can anyone point to any such mutations that we are undergoing now?

Skin pigmentation was already mentioned, but there are numerous others, lactose tolerance is another - and this one was very recent in evolutionary time.. the last few thousand years.

Sickle cell trait - and its associated resistance to malaria is another, and is a prime example of how even a mutation that can have both a positive and a negative impact could be selected for. Without 1 inherited gene for sickle cell trait, then there is a very high likelihood of not surviving to child bearing age in malaria stricken areas (children are susceptible to high mortality from Malaria). If you get 2 genes, then you have sickle cell disease and also might not survive, however there is a VERY strong selection process in place here for maintaining this gene in the population within malarial plagued regions.

Another example that comes to mind is resistance to AIDS as a result of a certain genetic mutation - in areas of Africa with a high prevelence of AIDS this could be very heavily selected for, and would be a great example of a mutation and a selection process that we are undergoing right now.

There is also a genetic mutation link to resistance to Bubonic plague (I have seen mention that it is the same mutation that provides resistance to AIDS). There has been a correlation established with the prevalence of a certain mutation in European populations that corresponds to plague survival.

These were just ones off from the top of my head, granted we have removed some of the "Natural" selection processes due to our ability to manipulate the environment to suit us, but we have not conquered all - not even close

 

[Thunder]

Skin pigmentation was already mentioned, but there are numerous others, lactose tolerance is another - and this one was very recent in evolutionary time.. the last few thousand years.

Sickle cell trait - and its associated resistance to malaria is another, and is a prime example of how even a mutation that can have both a positive and a negative impact could be selected for. Without 1 inherited gene for sickle cell trait, then there is a very high likelihood of not surviving to child bearing age in malaria stricken areas (children are susceptible to high mortality from Malaria). If you get 2 genes, then you have sickle cell disease and also might not survive, however there is a VERY strong selection process in place here for maintaining this gene in the population within malarial plagued regions.

Another example that comes to mind is resistance to AIDS as a result of a certain genetic mutation - in areas of Africa with a high prevelence of AIDS this could be very heavily selected for, and would be a great example of a mutation and a selection process that we are undergoing right now.

There is also a genetic mutation link to resistance to Bubonic plague (I have seen mention that it is the same mutation that provides resistance to AIDS). There has been a correlation established with the prevalence of a certain mutation in European populations that corresponds to plague survival....

awesome!!!!! thank you.

 

[marduc]

awesome!!!!! thank you.

yw. I do disagree with your usage of the term "accidental" however, its not an accident, but moreso it is just random. But it is a minor quibble, its like saying winning the lottery was "accidental" it just does not quite fit. Its not so much an accident, but rather you coming up with the right combination for a random event (Even in this case, with millions of people playing the lottery it is inevitable someone wins despite the extreme odds, same thing with a population measured in millions, or in the case of humans, billions).

Even here with regards to evolution, the term random only describes one specific part of the process though, mutations are random, but then they are selected for, which negates the randomness.

I use an analogy of rolling dice here frequently. If you toss say 20 dice, having them come up as all 6's within 25 tosses is an astronomical long-shot (6^20/25, or ~1:146,000,000,000,000); however if you roll the dice and then select the 6's and then re-roll the rest, then coming up with all 6's in 25 rolls is almost assured - at the least it is a very very safe bet (I just did it with 14 rolls.. here try it yourself roll 20 dice, count the sixes, roll the number of dice that did not come up as a six, rinse and repeat: RANDOM.ORG - Dice Roller).

So in a nutshell, even though the underlying mechanism that starts the ball (dice?) rolling is random, the process is absolutely not random at all. Just like the dice rolling experiment above.

 

[MoSurveyor]

if the mutations that led to our evolution were all accidental, can anyone point to any such mutations that we are undergoing now?

marduc covered quite a few but I have a couple of comments as well. There is a gene for amylase production that's twinned and in some populations has twinned twice. Amylase is in saliva and helps our body break down starches (especially in grains) to get more nutrition from them. This is something that's come about since the Agricultural Revolution, starting ~10k years ago, along with the lactose tolerance (production of lactase) previously mentioned.


Europeans carry a whole slew of immunity to disease. In fact, exported diseases were a significant factor in European empire building.

Guns Germs, & Steel: Home | PBS

 

[marduc]

marduc covered quite a few but I have a couple of comments as well. There is a gene for amylase production that's twinned and in some populations has twinned twice. Amylase is in saliva and helps our body break down starches (especially in grains) to get the more nutrition from them. This is something that's come about since the Agricultural Revolution, starting ~10k years ago, along with the lactose tolerance (production of lactase) previously mentioned.


Europeans carry a whole slew of immunity to disease. In fact, exported diseases were a significant factor in European empire building.

Guns Germs, & Steel: Home | PBS

At risk of opening a can of worms (hint: leave it alone, delving any deeper into this is a topic for another thread), I also recently read an overview of a study that provided a link to a genetic trait that when expressed in males has a tendency to produce homosexuality; however that same gene in females encourages fecundity. If this is true, here is another example to add to list, and another - like sickle cell - that although not an ideal situation, one that would be selected for within a population.

 

[MoSurveyor]

At risk of opening a can of worms (hint: leave it alone, delving any deeper into this is a topic for another thread), I also recently read an overview of a study that provided a link to a genetic trait that when expressed in males has a tendency to produce homosexuality; however that same gene in females encourages fecundity. If this is true, here is another example to add to list, and another - like sickle cell - that although not an ideal situation, one that would be selected for within a population.

No need to go down the gay rights rabbit hole.

That's an interesting gene, I wonder what it's other alleles are? This one would tend to promote multiple (female) partners, I would think, as some males would be removed from the reproductive population, in effect skewing the 1:1 ratio.