January 12, 2009
-
” Isn’t That Evolution?.. God designed animals to be able to undergo genetic mutations which would enable them to adapt to a wide range of environmental challenges while minimizing risk. “
It is important to recognize that biologists use several distinct definitions for evolution that are often blurred together as if they are synonymous. Evolution is sometimes defined as “change in the genetic makeup (or gene frequency) of a population over time.” This has been observed; both creationists and evolutionists recognize this as important in building models to help us understand what likely happened in the past. A second definition of evolution involves the idea that all life descended from a common ancestor over millions of years through naturalistic processes. This has not been observed. In fact, it is in direct opposition to the testimony God (the eyewitness to creation) gives us in the Bible. The idea that all life has a common ancestor requires the assumption that the Bible’s history is false, and the assumption that changes which do occur could produce the variety of life we see today from a single-celled ancestor.
With regard to the first definition of evolution, creationists and evolutionists differ in the pattern of genetic changes they should expect to see. The creation model predicts that degenerative changes can occur because mankind sinned and brought death into the world. It also predicts that adaptive changes could occur because God cares for His creation and intends for the earth to be inhabited. Both types of changes have been observed. The fact that some foxes are adapted to live in the arctic while others are adapted to live in the desert fits perfectly with this biblical teaching. While evolutionists accept that these types of changes occur, their model requires that most genetic changes add information to the genome. This pattern has not been observed. Without this pattern they cannot account for the many organs and complex biochemical pathways that exist in animals today. Scientific observations show that there is an overall pattern of decay seen in the genome which is the opposite of what the evolutionary model would predict.
Another difference is the source of the genetic change. Evolutionists assume that random mutations and natural selection can account for the genetic changes that are seen. Since the underlying mechanism is naturalistic, changes were expected to be very slow. Contrary to their expectations, rapid adaptation has been observed, and evolutionists have had to adjust their thinking to accept this. Furthermore, detailed studies of the pattern in genetic differences within related animals don’t make sense if mutations are assumed to always be essentially random events. Something else is clearly going on here. It appears that God has placed some incredible programming into the genomes of the animals he created, and viruses may play some role in this.
Evidence of Horizontal Gene Transfer… Since viruses carry genetic material (DNA or RNA), they are the most logical agents to suspect in transferring genes. While horizontal gene transfer would not change the identity of an animal (i.e., it would still belong to the same kind), it could rapidly provide a source of genetic variability that allows for rapid adaptation. If this is the case, then viruses were created “good” (as in Genesis 1) with a support role much like bacteria are known to have.
For the complete article go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/why-did-god-make-viruses
In my heart I trust the Lord knew the fall would happen and the virus is both an expression of grace to allow for some adaptation and use as a tool to carry out the pronounced sentence on creation that rejected their creator by sin . Through sin came disease and death !
What would this world look like if people would have remained in the will of God and did obey from love that they had for Him and for each other . Living in a world of no sickness or death is a promise to the believer when they pass from this fallen world and travel to the Father through Christ by Faith .
Barry
Comments (22)
Great stuff bro!
WOW!
I have just gotten to know CMI recently within the last year, seem like you are well acquainted with their materials and AIG materials as well…
Over the years, as you have probably noticed, I gotten away from the more science slanted apologetics to more philosophical grounds and the area of countercult…
Last week, during orientation for the incoming Master’s Seminary guys, one guy stood out and made me think of you…this one student is going to work for Answers In Genesis as he just finished his PHD in science…I talked to him and I realize that my area of science apologetics need to be strengthened…ah, iron sharpening iron!
God bless you BARRY!
“rapid adaptation has been observed”
You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you? There is a Genetics for Dummies.
Here’s a guy that knows what he’s talking about, having studied and written textbooks on related subjects, Kenneth Miller, Christian and Cell Biologist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
@lalalandsucks4ever - So what is your PHD in ?
or should I ask what grade are you in ?
@Barrygw -
My authority on the matter doesn’t matter. I’m telling you that Francis Collins (head of the human genome project) and Kenneth Miller, who both have PhDs, believe that all the primates are descendants of a common ancestor. I could name a lot of PhDs that believe we evolved from a common ancestor.
So as you put it “You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you? ” or you would not have shame in telling of your level in school , right ?
I recently graduated from high school. I’ll ask you then: what do you mean by “rapid changes have been observed”?
please include the reply to @lalalandsucks4ever if you want me to get your message.
Since you seem to be obsessed with credentials, I am a senior in college with majors in Evolution and Entomology, minors in Religious Studies, History of Science and Paleontology. It’s no PhD, but I think it’s sufficient to chime in on the subject of evolution, neh?
Now, while large-scale evolution has not been directly observed, it’s important to note that nobody expects it to be. If we could observe land mammals evolving into whales in our lifetime, it would invalidate the theory of evolution.
Also note that direct observation is not the only way to study something. Forensic science is an excellent example. A house is missing its valuables. The assumption is that it has been robbed. The lock has been broken on the front door. There are fingerprints on the safe that don’t belong to any of the tenants. Police would be able to solve this crime, even though nobody directly observed it. The same goes for evolution. Nobody directly observed it happening, but we look at the “forensic evidence” – the fossil record, comparative genetics, homologous traits, biodiversity, etc etc – and can infer common ancestry. If we do this enough times with enough specimens, the theory grows stronger.
Everything in this post that you stated as pro-creation theory was first theorized to fit evolutionary model. Genetic changes being both adaptive and deleterious, gene transfer, etc.
Now I’d like to ask, what is YOUR PhD in?
There’s this stuff called DNA you may have heard of. We can compare the DNA and morphology of living species and verify that they are related to one another, as well as observe new species splitting off into two distinct species much the way foxes, coyotes, wolves, dogs, dingoes etc are all a part of the same family of species. This is indirect observation, just like the bible would be if we assumed it to be infallible, since you did not observe the act of creation. In fact your bible has but one of thousands of creation mythologies, and isn’t even very detailed, it basically just says “ummm… god made everything.”
If there is a god and that god made life, evolution was definitely involved.
My props are going to
@GodlessLiberal.
@GodlessLiberal -
you go you! I was going to say all that but why repeat you? lol
@Barrygw -
Appeal to authority fallacy. The credentials of a person does not affect his/her argument’s validity.
//Since the underlying mechanism is naturalistic, changes were expected to be very slow.//
“Slow”… or “gradual”? There is a subtle difference. Also, can you show me where changes were required to be very slow?
Bravo!! You must have hit a nerve! Keep up the good work!
@QuantumStorm – Human growth is very “slow”, yet there have been innumerable generations of humans. Slow is kinda relative.
The fact that some foxes are adapted to live in the arctic while others are adapted to live in the desert fits perfectly with this biblical teaching.
I’m sorry, where in the Bible does it say that God actively alters any organism, much less specifically a fox, to be adapted to its environment? More to the point, what did the fox do to deserve that hand-of-God treatment while something that has a degenerate mutation must have obviously sinned, by what you said?
Scientific observations show that there is an overall pattern of decay seen in the genome which is the opposite of what the evolutionary model would predict.
Which “scientific observations” are these? There is not one thing referenced that lends support to this claim. You’ve basically said “scientific observation says X, but the models that science uses to predict say Y.” So if the evolutionary science and predictions are so wrong, where are these failures? You make it sound rampant in the research, so it should be easy to find. Yet, that is, of course, a sign of ignorance since the science overwhelmingly supports the predictive power of evolutionary models. As much as I love the video, I dare not throw out the Dover trial presentation which I hope we all have seen by now. Evolution theory is very predictive.
Contrary to their expectations, rapid adaptation has been observed, and evolutionists have had to adjust their thinking to accept this
Again, where? What expectations? The speed of adaptation depends on many factors. The randomness doesn’t imply anything ontological. It merely means there are factors that are not necessarily, nor directly, causally involved with the event that still are contributing to the event. Inductively, we can make predictions or inferences from the body of evidence we have, while being ignorant of all the factors involved, and still make an accurate extrapolation. That is how statistics works. Based on the event, there are varying speeds of adaptation, but nothing is concrete. It might be that things happen rapidly, but if that is improbable, then we wouldn’t expect to see it normally happen that rapidly. Outliers are not the trend. Yet, you claim evolution theory has had to adjust to accept these contrary facts? What has changed? What in the science has changed? You don’t state even -one- thing to support this claim.
This entire blog was worthless and nothing but a Jesus laden rhetorical steaming pile of crap, making claims about evolution, science and the facts without qualifying a single term nor substantiating a single claim. If you’re going to talk science–a discipline of technical rigor and precision–you might want to at least do it respect and discipline your argumentation to be a bit more rigorous and precise. I am confident you can do better. So do better.
@GodlessLiberal -
Wow. Nice analogy.
Some very interesting thoughts in the post. Viruses have always been a bit of a source of confusion when considering the goodness of creation, but I like the possibility you suggest. It’s an interesting one.
@GodsGirl62 -
At first I thought so too, but gene transfer in this manner can only benefit species or individuals in the long run, which creation theory doesn’t allow for. What benefit can horizontal gene transfer give us in six thousand years?
@GodlessLiberal -
Hmm… I need to read more and think about that. With bacteria, though, it benefits them immediately.
Wow , where were you in January ?
I must tell you I’m sorry not to give you the answers you should have but it has been a very busy weekend for me . Between being called in for my patients and giving comfort to friends who lost their mother and attending meetings and teaching at my church I guess I’ll have to go back to work on Monday to be able to pace myself .
I will read your comments and visit your sites before I will answer you each or all together . I take it most of you are from the old world view I once had but now I am free of it with the help of my friend Holy Spirit who pointed me to the truth .
Many blessings to each !
Barry