The Founding Fathers on Creation and Evolution

Wallbuilders ^ | 2008 | David Barton

[Coyoteman]

I'm still wondering how the eye “evolved” or the heart “evolved”.

Try reading some of the scientific literature. For example, a quick search found this:

Evolution of the Heart from Bacteria to Man, by Nanette H. Bishopric

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1047 (1) , 13–29 doi:10.1196/annals.1341.002 (2005)

Abstract: This review provides an overview of the evolutionary path to the mammalian heart from the beginnings of life (about four billion years ago) to the present. Essential tools for cellular homeostasis and for extracting and burning energy are still in use and essentially unchanged since the appearance of the eukaryotes. The primitive coelom, characteristic of early multicellular organisms (800 million years ago), is lined by endoderm and is a passive receptacle for gas exchange, feeding, and sexual reproduction. The cells around this structure express genes homologous to NKX2.5/tinman, and gradual specialization of this "gastroderm" results in the appearance of mesoderm in the phylum Bilateria, which will produce the first primitive cardiac myocytes. Investment of the coelom by these mesodermal cells forms a "gastrovascular" structure. Further evolution of this structure in the bilaterian branches Ecdysoa (Drosophila) and Deuterostoma (amphioxus) culminate in a peristaltic tubular heart, without valves, without blood vessels or blood, but featuring a single layer of contracting mesoderm. The appearance of Chordata and subsequently the vertebrates is accompanied by a rapid structural diversification of this primitive linear heart: looping, unidirectional circulation, an enclosed vasculature, and the conduction system. A later innovation is the parallel circulation to the lungs, followed by the appearance of septa and the four-chambered heart in reptiles, birds, and mammals. With differentiation of the cardiac chambers, regional specialization of the proteins in the cardiac myocyte can be detected in the teleost fish and amphibians. In mammals, growth constraints are placed on the heart, presumably to accommodate the constraints of the body plan and the thoracic cavity, and adult cardiac myocytes lose the ability to re-enter the cell cycle on demand. Mammalian cardiac myocyte innervation betrays the ancient link between the heart, the gut, and reproduction: the vagus nerve controlling heart rate emanates from centers in the central nervous system regulating feeding and affective behavior.

[Coyoteman]

BTW, NEVER, EVER look at how flawed the latest dating methods are ... .

Why don't you tell us about it.

Please start with radiocarbon dating, as that is the one I have studied the most. I am anxious to hear your professional opinions on the "flaws."

[megatherium]

The single cell is not easily understood.

That's true, and the one place where our knowledge is the thinnest is the origin of life, the origin of the first cell. It wouldn't surprise me if ultimately, it were shown that an intelligent designer was at work at the very beginning. (I find arguments based on "fine tuning" of the laws of physics more persuasive.) But there is evidence that the first first eukaryotic cells (cells with nuclei, as opposed to the much simpler bacteria) evolved from bacteria. It's been shown that mitochondria (the parts of the cell that process energy) had their origin in cyanobacteria. So the first eukaryotic cells originated as symbiotic relationships between different kinds of bacteria.

I should clarify my own point of view here, by the way. I am a theistic evolutionist. I believe God created life by creating a universe where evolution can happen.

[Soliton]

Until a competing scientific explanation is offered evolution is settled science.

[Sopater]

Until a competing scientific explanation is offered evolution is settled science.

I presume that you mean a purely naturalistic explanation, regardless of the truth.

[Oztrich Boy]

Posted on the “what you say three times is true” principle?

[allmendream]

If it isn't naturalistic it simply isn't Science, seeings as how the poster was looking for a “competing scientific explanation” then supernatural mumbo jumbo is excluded.

Do you think Science can measure God? Do you think Science can get God to act reproducibly in the laboratory? If yes to either or both then God isn't much of a god. If no, then God will never be part of Science. Why is faith not enough?

[nmh]

You can't be serious that YOU take radiocarbon dating SERIOUSLY?

Well, if only the earth had no climate changes and it was stagnant could a rational person take that seriously.

Radioactive dating techniques ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old, say evolutionists. However, these techniques are based upon several assumptions, including that rates of radioactive decay have always been CONSTANT. Now new research has shown that decay rates can VARY according to the chemical environment of the material being tested.

While the relatively small variation (1.5%) observed so far is unlikely to persuade ‘old-earthers’ to adopt a biblical time-line, the discovery that radioactive dating ‘can no longer be called precisely “clocklike”’ prompted the journal Science to comment, ‘Certainty, it seems, is on the wane.’

Earth and Planetary Science Letters 171, 1999,
pp. 235–328. Science, October 29, 1999, pp. 882–883.

[Sopater]

Kamura’s neutral mutation

According to this theory, most of the genetic variation observed in natural populations are due to an accumulation of "neutral mutations" which do not affect the phenotype of the organism(1). This is a theory that is used to explain genetic variation within a population of organisms. Mutations of this type, although not necessarily destructive by definition, still do nothing to add genetic information required to advance a particular population of an organism to the next "evolutionary" level. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

founder effect

The "Founder Effect" is the loss of genetic variation due to isolating a sub-population from a larger population. In doing so, you remove genetic variation from the smaller sup-population. This limiting of genetic variation has no scientific bearing on advancing an organism to the next "evolutionary" level. Again, if you have evidence to the contrarary, please provide it.

Discovery of ERV’s

ERVs (Endogenous Retroviruses) while offering some compelling evidence to support the belief that various kinds of organisms share a common ancestor, they still offer no scientific support to advance the ToE. They offer no observable evidence that they in any way provide genetic information to propel an organism in a direction that would elevate it to the next evolutionary plane of existance. Their functions, if any, in the host remain an enigma (2).

sequencing of the Genome

Sequencing of the genome also offers no advancement in the ToE. It's evidence that can be used by either Evolutionists, Creationists, or IDers.

When one drinks from the wells of ignorance one apparently drinks DEEP.

Really? How do you explain that giant Evo Koolaid mustache that you are sporting?





(1) Plant Systematics: An Interated Approach, By Gurcharan Singh, (C) Science Publishers, 2004

(2) The discovery of endogenous retroviruses, by Robin A Weiss

[Coyoteman]

You can't be serious that YOU take radiocarbon dating SERIOUSLY?

Yes, I do. I have submitted nearly 600 samples for analysis, studied the field for over 25 years, delivered a number of lectures and written a monograph on the subject. And your qualifications in this field are????

Well, if only the earth had no climate changes and it was stagnant could a rational person take that seriously.

I don't recall that climate change affects radiocarbon dating. Perhaps you could enlighten me???

Radioactive dating techniques ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old, say evolutionists. However, these techniques are based upon several assumptions, including that rates of radioactive decay have always been CONSTANT. Now new research has shown that decay rates can VARY according to the chemical environment of the material being tested.

Take a look at the studies that forced the slight changes in the constant. Now, please explain to me how those methods, using extreme conditions, could apply to the world at large.

While the relatively small variation (1.5%) observed so far is unlikely to persuade ‘old-earthers’ to adopt a biblical time-line, the discovery that radioactive dating ‘can no longer be called precisely “clocklike”’ prompted the journal Science to comment, ‘Certainty, it seems, is on the wane.’

So a change forced in the laboratory of up to 1.5% "proves" a young earth. That's what I like about creation "science" -- it's so creative, and so lacking in science!

Seriously, I am still waiting for your learned comments on radiocarbon dating.

[Sopater]

Do you think Science can measure God? Do you think Science can get God to act reproducibly in the laboratory? If yes to either or both then God isn't much of a god. If no, then God will never be part of Science. Why is faith not enough?

Granted. Do you think Science can measure the ancient past? Do you think that you can get millions of years to act reproducibly in the laboratory? If the answer to either or both of these is no, then the ToE isn't part of science either. Faith will have to be enough.

[allmendream]

“Next “evolutionary” level”? Evolution is not equivalent to advancement. This is your constant refrain and shows just how much you do not understand the theory.

Neutral mutations are “not necessarily destructive”? No, they are absolutely neutral, neither an asset or a detriment; thus neutral. This advances the theory because it shows how selection works on some DNA but not other sections.

ERV’s do support common ancestry. Finally you got something correct. How you think this isn't a Scientific advancement of the theory of evolution through natural selection I do not fathom, it is supporting evidence for the theory of evolution that the remnants of our common ancestry are there in the genome, subject to the neutral mutation rate.

[Coyoteman]

Do you think Science can measure the ancient past?

Sure. What do you think archaeologists, geologists, and a host of other specialists do?

Do you think that you can get millions of years to act reproducibly in the laboratory? If the answer to either or both of these is no, then the ToE isn't part of science either. Faith will have to be enough.

Do you need to reproduce star formation in the laboratory? Does this remove cosmology from science also?

[Sopater]

“Next “evolutionary” level”? Evolution is not equivalent to advancement.

So in your opinion, humans are no more advanced that eukaryotic cells? Boy, it is tough to keep up with you intellectual types...

[allmendream]

Humans are made up of eukaryotic cells. Yes, greater complexity and new structures and features can arise by evolutionary mechanisms, yet there is nothing to say that it MUST be advancement, new features, new structures, etc in order to BE evolution. Indeed some of the most rapid evolution we see is the LOSS of features, such as eyeless cave fish.

Is not a fish that lives in a cave loosing its eyes an evolutionary change? One could certainly argue that its “loss” makes it more fit, as it doesn't waste resources making a useless structure; but it certainly isn't more “advanced”.

Do try to keep up with at least the very basics of a theory you wish to critique.

[dmz]

Count me quite shocked that you, nmh, have chosen to withdraw instead of attempting to defend your thesis. /s But I guess I should be more magnaminous. It takes time to quote mine Behe deeply enough to make it sound like you are actually conversant on the science of carbon dating. I’m sure not, and definitely try to learn what I can from those who are.

[Cpl. Dwayne Hicks]

Lots of stuff to read through. Thanks for the post.

[Sopater]

Indeed some of the most rapid evolution we see is the LOSS of features, such as eyeless cave fish.

Actually, that's all we see.

Do try to keep up with at least the very basics of a theory you wish to critique.

I'm trying, but it's difficult since the basics keep changing.

[Pawtucket Patriot]

I think this “creationist” fallacy thought process is the result of this discussion waning to carbon dating etc. http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm

and here.

http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

[highball]

This whole article is based on multiple false premises.

Not very surprising, unfortunately.