Evidence for Evolution

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Re the article and IRex's comment - yes, common ancestry is certainly one interpretation that can be made from the data, and I'm sure many intelligent scientists will make that leap.

A good ten years ago, when the theory was still rather new, you could have said it was a bit of a leap. Now it's actually more of a confirmation of what scientist have learned of the bird-dinosaur link so far.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

A good ten years ago, when the theory was still rather new, you could have said it was a bit of a leap. Now it's actually more of a confirmation of what scientist have learned of the bird-dinosaur link so far.

Only ten years? The dino-bird theory itself must be almost a century old. Convincing evidence supporting the theory must have existed for at least 50 years.

[Earniel]

Maybe, but a good ten years back I distinctly remember seeing documentaries and at least one palentology exhibition where they treated the 'birds are dinosaurs' theory still as tentative. Only afterwards I've noticed the theory seemed to have become more commonly accepted.

Hm, it might be interesting looking into this. Making an excavation of old palentological theories. A century may be too long, though, I think. The term dinosaur was only coined 160 years ago.

But on checking the famous archaeopteryx-fossil was discovered in 1861, so the basis for the theory has in any case indeed been long present.

On briefly skimming the wikipedia article on it (gotta run, will read more attentively later) it looks like the theory was indeed put forward more than a century ago, but then largely forgotten, ignored or concidered incorrect until later which probably led to my faulty conclusion. Still, most of the fossils finds of bird-like dinosaurs that confirm the link are relatively recent.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

That is SO AWESOME.

I completely agree . Genesis and Revelation predict so, SO many things that are now wholly validated and shown by modern science and events that I'm just driven batty.

The description of evolution in Genesis is one of many, many amazing descriptions in Revelation and Genesis of things that man shouldn't have been able to know, that came to pass and are coming to pass, and are flawlessly described in those books. Revelation and Genesis make me bubble .

From there I think we need to move on to the Theology Thread . . .

I'm interested in chatting about a few more of those events! The ones in Revelation are pretty grim, but many of them are literally coming true. And a lot of the ones in Genesis have also been already proven by modern science.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The description of evolution in Genesis is one of many, many amazing descriptions in Revelation and Genesis of things that man shouldn't have been able to know, and yet flawlessly described.

Yes, it would have been really cool if it wasn't for the fact that the descriptions are fuzzy enough to be applied to whatever seems to fit them after they happen. A "prediction" should be able to actually predict something before it happens . God's words "Let the land produce living creatures" sure fits with the theory of evolution but it doesn't predict it. God's statement wouldn't fall if the theory of evolution was false

[Rían]

I think that the Bible's main purpose is not to give scientific information, which after all is only a small (and not the most important, by any means!) part of life - it's to give information on the heart

Originally Posted by Eärniel

A good ten years ago, when the theory was still rather new, you could have said it was a bit of a leap. Now it's actually more of a confirmation of what scientist have learned of the bird-dinosaur link so far.

I meant that the whole idea of common ancestry is the leap - this aspect of evolutionary biology is a historical science, like archaeology, and common ancestry is one interpretation of the data.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Yes, it would have been really cool if it wasn't for the fact that the descriptions are fuzzy enough to be applied to whatever seems to fit them after they happen.

Compare this passage to Norse mythology, which says that the gods produced humans fully formed out of tree trunks. To connect that myth with the Theory of Evolution, one would have to take it all as symbolic. The Genesis account of animal creation, by contrast, has an immediately recognizable connection to the Theory of Evolution. The connection between science and Genesis here is impressive. My agnostic mythology professor suggested that maybe I was drunk when I told him that this passage existed. He wasn't serious about that (honest!! ), but he was clearly shocked.

One could take the Norse passage as completely symbolic and probably come up with evolution, but that's nowhere near Genesis in direct, literal description of what took place. When you read that passage from Genesis, you can see immediately how it connects. You don't have to stretch it or push it about, as you clearly also agree, for you say that it "sure fits."

Originally Posted by Jonathan

A "prediction" should be able to actually predict something before it happens .

If one is trying to prove a theory about the ocean, one might make predictions about what one will find in the ocean. Even though those things in the ocean have already existed for millions of years, if you find what you expected to find, you've still made a verified prediction. Predictions don't have to be about future events to be predictions.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

God's words "Let the land produce living creatures" sure fits with the theory of evolution but it doesn't predict it. God's statement wouldn't fall if the theory of evolution was false

We'd still be able to take it on faith until science got back on its feet . It would be an unsupported statement, though, without the Theory of Evolution.

One can take any prediction at all on faith, even if it has been scientifically shown to be inaccurate, so the fact that one can take this passage on faith if one wants to has nothing to do with its predictive quality.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think that the Bible's main purpose is not to give scientific information, which after all is only a small (and not the most important, by any means!) part of life - it's to give information on the heart

Agreed. That's why, IMO, it doesn't bother to give a ton of specifics on many historical, pre-humanity events and scientific facts. That's unnecessary. But the connections between its words and science that have been proven are very cool .

[Jonathan]

You can really give long replies to short posts Lief

My whole point is that the Bible's words "Let the land produce living creatures" neither support nor reject the theory of evolution. From these words, no one can draw the conclusion (predict) that there is such a thing as evolution. The passage would still give an equally good description of the world if the land produced animals that don't evolve.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

24. God said effortlessly, "Let the earth use its inherent power to bring forth living beings composed of elemental earth, water, air, and fire -- including humanity -- according to their kinds: domesticated animals used for riding and food, small animals that go upon the earth, and animals that inhabit places desolate of human habitation." When it was so,

24. God thoughtfully willed that, from the power inherent in the earth, beings which have souls and which move continuously should pass from potentiality into existence, each according to its kind -- herbivorous animals, animals which travel using their whole bodies, and carnivorous animals[40] -- each according to its kind; and it is so forever.


24. God as Judge said, "Let the earth bring forth the creatures that live and move[22] which had been created on the first day and embedded in the earth,[23] each according to its kind -- domesticated animals; those which stay close to the earth:[24] creeping creatures such as ants, beetles, and worms, and small animals such as moles, rats, and lizards; and beasts of the earth -- each according to its kind"[25]; and it was so.

24. God said, "Let the earth bring forth living beings according to their kinds -- domestic animals, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind"; and it has been so ever since.

http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/GenIntro.html

Just for starters. Thank goodness Genesis provides a basis for the 4 elements.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

And here's a creation story that not only involves evolution, but species extinction.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/journals/mon/abudgen.htm

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/GenIntro.html

Just for starters. Thank goodness Genesis provides a basis for the 4 elements.

Those quotes you offered don't come from the Bible.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

And here's a creation story that not only involves evolution, but species extinction.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/journals/mon/abudgen.htm

Would you please cite specific quotations from that text which support your claim about its content?

But whether your claim about that text is true or not, it wouldn't refute my point. If the Buddhists also correctly described scientific fact in their mythologies, that's really cool too . There are a lot of connections between the various religions, a lot of similarities. The question of why that is has been an ongoing debate for a long time.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

My whole point is that the Bible's words "Let the land produce living creatures" neither support nor reject the theory of evolution.

Yeah, and I disagree.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

From these words, no one can draw the conclusion (predict) that there is such a thing as evolution. The passage would still give an equally good description of the world if the land produced animals that don't evolve.

Oh, I agree that there are a whole lot of details to the ToE that aren't described in this passage. But the principle tenent, that the land, or environment, created the different kinds of species, is there. Many of the details of how that happened are left out, I agree. That doesn't keep the connections from being very impressive, though.

Lots of other myths don't portray the animals as created by the land. Genesis doesn't just say that God said poof, and they materialized out of nothing. Neither did they come fully formed out of tree stumps or out of a dragon's mouth. There are lots of myths out there that you'd have to interpret as purely symbolic to make them work, because they bear so little connection to science. The Creation account is very, very accurate to modern theory, though.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Those quotes you offered don't come from the Bible.

Not the Bible? How so?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Not the Bible? How so?

Those quotes do resemble passages from Genesis chapter 1, so I expect they're supposed to have come from there. They are enormously elaborated on, though, by somebody. The quotes include many words and phrases that are not found in the Bible. The reference to the elements is one of those many additions.

If you have a Bible at your house, I'd suggest that you compare the content of Genesis chapter 1 with those quotations. You won't find the four elements in Genesis (or anywhere in the Bible that I know of), and you'll find a lot of other differences too.


Oh, and Jonathan, it's worthwhile to remember that at the time Genesis was written, there was a lot less scientific knowledge, and many people tried to explain scientific phenomenon through religious means. So consequently there were a lot of pretty outlandish myths out there that leaned heavily on the gods. The reference in Genesis to the land as the creative force of the animals is therefore all the more interesting.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Those quotes do resemble passages from Genesis chapter 1, so I expect they're supposed to have come from there. They are enormously elaborated on, though, by somebody. The quotes include many words and phrases that are not found in the Bible. The reference to the elements is one of those many additions.

If you have a Bible at your house, I'd suggest that you compare the content of Genesis chapter 1 with those quotations. You won't find the four elements in Genesis (or anywhere in the Bible that I know of), and you'll find a lot of other differences too.


Oh, and Jonathan, it's worthwhile to remember that at the time Genesis was written, there was a lot less scientific knowledge, and many people tried to explain scientific phenomenon through religious means. So consequently there were a lot of pretty outlandish myths out there that leaned heavily on the gods. The reference in Genesis to the land as the creative force of the animals is therefore all the more interesting.

Is your Bible in Greek, or in Hebrew, Lief?

[Lief Erikson]

It's a translation made by a very large, multi-denominational group of Biblical scholars, and taken from the earliest and most reliable Greek texts available. I don't know whether or not they also used the Hebrew- they may have. The translation is quite close to the other major Bible translations.

What translation do the quotes you quoted come from?

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Lots of other myths don't portray the animals as created by the land. Genesis doesn't just say that God said poof, and they materialized out of nothing. Neither did they come fully formed out of tree stumps or out of a dragon's mouth.

Oh, I'd say Genesis can very well be interpreted as God just said poof. The very next sentence after "let the land produce" is --
1:25 God made (= said "poof" ) the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

This is no less peculiar than animals coming fully formed out of tree stamps or a dragon's mouth. Moreover, the whole making of "the wild animals according to their kinds" doesn't seem to fit well with the theory of evolution. And as for the "coming fully formed" thing, both Adam and Eve were created as adults, weren't they? And also, Genesis never said any thing about the sea-creatures or birds being produced by the land or anything. Here God seems to say poof again

In adittion, according to modern theory birds evolved after land-living animals. It's the other way around in Genesis, with birds arising on the 5th day and land creatures on the 6th. I think this has been discussed in this thread or elsewhere before, but that was long ago.

So in my mind, for the most part the Biblical creation myth isn't much more accurate than other myths when compared to modern science.

Edit - since Sister didn't provide a source for her quotes (the links didn't seem to lead to the correct place), I googled a bit and came up with this link:
http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/GenIbnEzra.html

That's just Genesis rewritten by Abraham Ibn Ezra. Wikipedia says he was a Medieval Jewish writer who was critical of the Bible. So any quotes by him are not to be found in Genesis. Those quotes are his own interpretations.
Thanks Sister but next time, let it be your task to cite and explain your sources

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Oh, I'd say Genesis can very well be interpreted as God just said poof. The very next sentence after "let the land produce" is --
1:25 God made (= said "poof" ) the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

That doesn't make any sense. It's like you're saying here that the first verse is unsaid by the second . God made the wild animals through the land. It's like my saying, "Washington was saved by a hurricane in 1814. God saved Washington using a hurricane in 1814." And then you responding, "Either God saved it or a hurricane did. He can't have used a hurricane." That's nonsense. He can have created the animals through the process of evolution. He can have created the animals through the land. That's no stretch; it's clearly what the author had in mind, for he wrote the two verses one after the other and didn't find them contradictory.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Moreover, the whole making of "the wild animals according to their kinds" doesn't seem to fit well with the theory of evolution.

The land created the animals according to their kinds says that the land created the different kinds of animals according to the kinds God intended to produce. "Kinds" is another word for species in this context.

In the rest of your post, you move beyond this single passage which I consider to be evidence for evolution, and to respond I must also move beyond evolution, so I'm moving to the Theology Thread.

EDIT: By the way, I have now responded to you in the Theology Thread, though it may not look like it, because Entmoot looks to me like it's being a bit goofy. Not that that's a call for attention from the mods . Goofiness adds fun to life.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That doesn't make any sense. It's like you're saying here that the first verse is unsaid by the second

No, I'm not saying that. What I mean is that it is easy to read evolution into the first verse but when you read the next one, evolution doesn't fit in just as well anymore. You see, the second verse implies that the species were created separately and didn't evolve from a common ancestor.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The land created the animals according to their kinds says that the land created the different kinds of animals according to the kinds God intended to produce. "Kinds" is another word for species in this context.

Exactly. The verse doesn't seem to say the land created one primeval kind/species out of which the other kinds evolved, which would be the bio-evolutionary point of view.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

EDIT: By the way, I have now responded to you in the Theology Thread, though it may not look like it, because Entmoot looks to me like it's being a bit goofy.

I saw that monster post! . *Nightmares rise from the black pool as I look in horror at that length . . .*

Before I venture into the Theology thread, can we agree that Genesis can be intepreted in many ways - some ways that support the theory of evolution... and some that don't?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

No, I'm not saying that. What I mean is that it is easy to read evolution into the first verse but when you read the next one, evolution doesn't fit in just as well anymore. You see, the second verse implies that the species were created separately and didn't evolve from a common ancestor.

The fact that it doesn't mention a common ancestor doesn't mean that it says there wasn't one. Besides, the common ancestor came from the sea. The verse we're discussing was discussing the land animals. There isn't any evidence that I know of, which says that all the land animals came from one first land animal.

But even if there was, the lack of specifics in the Genesis verse doesn't mean it isn't saying that those specifics occurred. You can take any history textbook and say that because it didn't mention some detail, it was saying that that detail didn't occur. But that's an absurd way of reading history textbooks. In the same way, it doesn't make sense to judge the Genesis account based on what it doesn't say.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Exactly. The verse doesn't seem to say the land created one primeval kind/species out of which the other kinds evolved, which would be the bio-evolutionary point of view.

I agreed with you that this isn't a detailed account of the Theory of Evolution. It does describe the most essential principles of how the theory works, environment producing the species, but there are a ton of details it doesn't describe. Being a cursory overview doesen't make it an inaccurate or unimpressive scripture. One could say that it could be more impressive, which is true of any documentation, but that doesn't alter the impressiveness that exists.

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I saw that monster post! . *Nightmares rise from the black pool as I look in horror at that length . . .*

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Before I venture into the Theology thread, can we agree that Genesis can be intepreted in many ways - some ways that support the theory of evolution... and some that don't?

Oh, of course. Anyone can interpret anything in any way he or she wants. Some interpretations make a heck of a lot more sense than others though, of course. And I think a literal reading of this scripture is bound to come up with one of the most basic and essential principles of evolution. The land created the animals, however it did it.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The fact that it doesn't mention a common ancestor doesn't mean that it says there wasn't one. Besides, the common ancestor came from the sea. The verse we're discussing was discussing the land animals. There isn't any evidence that I know of, which says that all the land animals came from one first land animal.

But even if there was, the lack of specifics in the Genesis verse doesn't mean it isn't saying that those specifics occurred. You can take any history textbook and say that because it didn't mention some detail, it was saying that that detail didn't occur. But that's an absurd way of reading history textbooks. In the same way, it doesn't make sense to judge the Genesis account based on what it doesn't say.

I agreed with you that this isn't a detailed account of the Theory of Evolution. It does describe the most essential principles of how the theory works, environment producing the species, but there are a ton of details it doesn't describe. Being a cursory overview doesen't make it an inaccurate or unimpressive scripture. One could say that it could be more impressive, which is true of any documentation, but that doesn't alter the impressiveness that exists.



Oh, of course. Anyone can interpret anything in any way he or she wants. Some interpretations make a heck of a lot more sense than others though, of course. And I think a literal reading of this scripture is bound to come up with one of the most basic and essential principles of evolution. The land created the animals, however it did it.

It's just silly to try to fit the Bible with all the new knowledge the scientific community continuously is enriched with, because in the end the Bible is so riddled with contradictory, inaccurate information.

And the most important piece of information posited in the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the environment producing the species, which is an obvious given (you do not expect polar bears to live in the Amazon, you do not expect snakes to fly in the air), but the natural selection of the fittest. That's the end-game, and there's nothing in the Bible remotely close to predicting or describing natural selection.