Mule and her foal
Posted on 02/17/2005 3:10:32 PM PST by DannyTN
Timothy G. Standish, biology First published in In Six Days Science and origins testimony #9
Edited by John F. Ashton
Dr. Standish is associate professor of biology at Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan. He holds a B.S. in zoology from Andrews University, an M.S. in biology from Andrews University, and a Ph.D. in biology and public policy from George Mason University (University of Virginia), Charlottesville, Virginia. He teaches genetics at Andrews University and is currently researching the genetics of cricket (Achita domesticus) behavior.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins was a pivotal experience for me. I had recently started my Ph.D. program at George Mason University and eagerly signed up for a class entitled “Problems in Evolutionary Theory.” The Blind Watchmaker was required reading, and with growing enthusiasm I noted glowing endorsements printed on the cover. According to The Economist, this book was “as readable and vigorous a defense of Darwinism as has been published since 1859.” Lee Dembart, writing for the Los Angeles Times, was even more effusive: “Every page rings of truth. It is one of the best science books—of the best of any books—I have ever read.” A book that was “Winner of the Royal Society of Literature’s Heinemann Prize, and the Los Angeles Times Book Award” must contain nothing but undistilled brilliance. I felt smug with confidence as I paid for the book and left the store, brimming with ebullience to start reading.
After wading through all the hyperbole, I was stunned by the ideas put forward by Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker. Rhetoric burnished the arguments with a glittering sheen, briefly giving the impression that pebbles were gems. But once each metaphor was stripped aside, the core ideas did not support the idea that natural selection could account for the origin of life and the meaningful complexity of organisms. Most startling to me was the realization that, one of the book’s core theses, in fact, violated the principle of natural selection.
Dawkins wove two ideas together in supporting Darwinism. The first idea was that, given enough chances, the improbable becomes probable. For example, flipping a coin ten times in a row and getting heads each time is very unlikely; one would only expect it to happen about 1 in 1,024 tries. Most of us would not sit around flipping coins just to see it happen, but if we had a million people flipping coins, we would see it happen many times. This phenomenon is publicized in the newspapers when lottery winners are announced. Winning a million-dollar jackpot is unlikely, but with millions of people purchasing tickets, eventually someone wins.
Dawkins admits that the odds on life starting from a random collection of chemicals is very slim, but given an immense universe and the billions of years it has existed, the improbable becomes probable. In this is echoed the logic of Ernst Haeckel, who wrote in his book The Riddle of the Universe, published in 1900:
Many of the stars, the light of which has taken thousands of years to reach us, are certainly suns like our own mother-sun, and are girt about with planets and moons, just as in our solar system. We are justified in supposing that thousands of these planets are in a similar stage of development to that of our earth … and that from its nitrogenous compounds, protoplasm has been evolved—that wonderful substance which alone, as far as our knowledge goes, is the possessor of organic life.
Haeckel was optimistic about the presence of conditions that could support life on planets other than earth, and it is in this that one of the problems with Dawkins’ argument emerges. While the universe is immense, those places where life as we know it could survive, let alone come into being, seem to be few and far between. So far, only one place has been discovered where conditions for life are present, and we are already living on it. Thus, there is not much cause for optimism that the universe is teeming with planets bathed in a primordial soup from which life might evolve. Dawkins wrote glibly of the immensity of the universe and its age, but failed to provide one example, other than the earth, where the unlikely event of spontaneous generation of life might occur. Even if the universe were teeming with proto-earths, and the spans of time suggested by modern science were available, this is still not a great argument, as if something is impossible—in other words, the odds of it happening are zero—then it will never happen, not even in an infinite amount of time. For example, even if we had our million people flipping coins, each with ten flips in a row, the odds on any one of them flipping and getting 11 heads in ten tries is zero because the odds of getting 11 heads in ten tries with one person is zero. The bottom line is that the odds on life evolving from nonliving precursors is essentially zero. Ironically, this was the stronger of the two ideas, or arguments, presented by Dawkins.
The second argument was presented as an analogy: imagine a monkey typing on a typewriter with 27 keys, all the letters in the English alphabet and the space bar. How long would it take for the monkey to type something that made any sense? Dawkins suggests the sentence spoken by William Shakespeare’s Hamlet who, in describing a cloud, pronounces, “Methinks it is like a weasel.” It is not a long sentence and contains very little meaning, but it works for argument’s sake. How many attempts at typing this sentence would it take a monkey, which would presumably be hitting keys randomly, to type the sentence?
As it turns out, the odds can be easily calculated as the probability of getting each letter or space correct raised to the power of the number of positions at which they have to be correct. In this case, the probability of the monkey typing “m” at the first position of the sentence is 1/27 (we won’t worry about capitalization). The sentence has 28 characters in it, so the probability is (1/27)28 or 1.2 x 10–40. That is about one chance in 12,000 million million million million million million! You would want a lot of monkeys typing very fast for a long time if you ever wanted to see this happen!
To overcome this problem with probability, Dawkins proposed that natural selection could help by fixing each letter in place once it was correct and thus lowering the odds massively. In other words, as a monkey types away, it is not unlikely that at least one of the characters it types will be in the correct position on the first try. If this letter was then kept and the monkey was only allowed to type in the remaining letters until it finally had the correct letter at each position, the odds fall to the point that the average diligent monkey could probably finish the task in an afternoon and still have time to gather bananas and peanuts from admiring observers. Dawkins got his computer to do it in between 40 and 70 tries.
Luckily I had taken biochemistry before reading The Blind Watchmaker. Organisms are made of cells, and those cells are composed of little protein machines that do the work of the cell. Proteins can be thought of as sentences like “Methinks it is like a weasel,” the difference being that proteins are made up of 20 different subunits called amino acids instead of the 27 different characters in our example. The evolution of a functional protein would presumably start out as a random series of amino acids one or two of which would be in the right position to do the function the protein is designed to do. According to Dawkins’ theory, those amino acids in the right location in the protein would be fixed by natural selection, while those that needed to be modified would continue to change until they were correct, and a functional protein was produced in relatively short order. Unfortunately, this ascribes an attribute to natural selection that even its most ardent proponents would question, the ability to select one nonfunctional protein from a pool of millions of other nonfunctional proteins.
Changing even one amino acid in a protein can alter its function dramatically. A famous example of this is the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia in humans. This disease causes a multitude of symptoms, ranging from liver failure to tower skull syndrome. It is caused by the replacement of an amino acid called glutamate, normally at position number six, with another amino acid called valine. This single change causes a massive difference in how the alpha globin subunit of hemoglobin works. The ultimate sad consequence of this seemingly insignificant mutation in the protein causes premature death in thousands of individuals each year. In other proteins, mutations to some, but not all, areas can result in a complete loss of function. This is particularly true if the protein is an enzyme, and the mutation is in its active site.
What Dawkins is suggesting is that a very large group of proteins, none of which is functional, can be acted on by natural selection to select out a few that, while they do not quite do the job yet, with some modification via mutation, can do the job in the future. This suggests that natural selection has some direction or goal in mind, a great heresy to those who believe evolutionary theory.
This idea of natural selection fixing amino acids as it constructs functional proteins is also unsupported by the data. Cells do not churn out large pools of random proteins on which natural selection can then act. If anything, precisely the opposite is true. Cells only produce the proteins they need to make at that time. Making other proteins, even unneeded functional ones, would be a wasteful thing for cells to do, and in many cases, could destroy the ability of the cell to function. Most cells only make about 10% of the proteins they are capable of producing. This is what makes liver cells different from those in the skin or brain. If all proteins were expressed all the time, all cells would be identical.
In reality, the problem of evolving life is much more complex than generation of a single functional protein. In fact, a single protein is just the tip of the iceberg. A living organism must have many functional proteins, all of which work together in a coordinated way. In the course of my research, I frequently physically disrupt cells by grinding them in liquid nitrogen. Sometimes I do this to obtain functional proteins, but more often to get the nucleic acids RNA or DNA. In any case, I have yet to find that the protein or nucleic acid I was working on was not functional after being removed from the cell, and yet, even though all the cell components were present and functional following disruption, I have never observed a single cell start to function again as a living organism, or even part of a living organism. For natural selection to occur, all proteins on which it is to act must be part of a living organism composed of a host of other functional protein machines. In other words, the entire system must exist prior to selection occurring, not just a single protein.
“Problems in Evolutionary Theory” was a class that made me realize the difficulties those who discount the possibility of a Creator have with their own theories. The problems with evolutionary theory were real, and there were no simple convincing resolutions.
Progressing in my studies, I slowly realized that evolution survives as a paradigm only as long as the evidence is picked and chosen and the great pool of data that is accumulating on life is ignored. As the depth and breadth of human knowledge increases, it washes over us a flood of evidence deep and wide, all pointing to the conclusion that life is the result of design. Only a small subset of evidence, chosen carefully, may be used to construct a story of life evolving from nonliving precursors. Science does not work on the basis of picking and choosing data to suit a treasured theory. I chose the path of science which also happens to be the path of faith in the Creator.
I believe God provides evidence of His creative power for all to experience personally in our lives. To know the Creator does not require an advanced degree in science or theology. Each one of us has the opportunity to experience His creative power in re-creating His character within us, step by step, day by day.
This chapter from the book In Six Days, published and graciously provided at no charge to Answers in Genesis by Master Books, a division of New Leaf Press (Green Forest, Arkansas).
Why would Jesus say this?
Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Or is that back again?
Uh, WE are the already defined answer ...
I'm not arguing the point, I'm simply recognizing that our concept of relative time can hardly be applied to God's concept of time.
The original question by NYG was on C14. That's how the discussion on C14 got started.
The C14 results are indeed by 6000 years but there are ways of adjusting that downward. The point is that they show the fossils could not be millions of years old as claimed. It does not validate Creationists claims but it does indicate that evolutionists are way off.
The original question by NYG was on C14. That's how the discussion on C14 got started.
The C14 results are indeed by 6000 years but there are ways of adjusting that downward. The point is that they show the fossils could not be millions of years old as claimed. It does not validate Creationists claims but it does indicate that evolutionists are way off.
I think Alamo-girl answered that for me. (see post 167)
That sort of explains how the Sun was created on Day One!
It also explains how the animals were created after man in Genesis 2.
I appreciate that.
It is my position that God created the length of our day when He set the physics of our solar system in motion. Prior to having set those dynamics He knew what the length of a day we would have. He uses the term day with proper authority and a pre-creation knowledge of the physics He would use that forms a day for man.
God's commentary regarding creating the universe. Notice how often the creation of the universe is tied to the creation of man, which goes against the theory of a long stretch of time between the creation of the universe and the creation of man:
Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.
Isa 64:4 For since the beginning of the world [men] have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, [what] he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him.
Again, more passages speaking about the day Adam was created:
Gen 5:1 This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
Deu 4:32 For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth,
You're kidding us, right?
If you're not, please cite the source for this ridiculous statement.
How does a dating technique that only goes back about 50,000 years show that fossils that have been dated by reliable techniques to millions of years old show that fossils could not be millions of years old?
Since you're a fan, here's some more recent Gould (1994).
Evolution as Fact and Theory. Some highlights:
The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?I hope he helped you there with any confusions you may have.Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.
...
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1940, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as "hopeful monsters." (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium—see essays in section 3 and my explicit essay on Goldschmidt in The Pandas Thumb...)
No one is going to address why we do not see snakes turn into birds and fly away today. You know how you creationists people who aren't creationists but don't accept evolution actually do accept "microevolution?" We see microevolution. That's all we think we should see. There is in fact only one evolution.
You see, most of us don't think evolution has some kind of limit that says, "You can't adapt any further away from the rest of your created kind." That's a creationist distinction. There's just this point called "speciation," before which you can remeld two populations which had been drifting apart but beyond which they really don't re-meld.
Actually, it's not even a precise point. Cross-fertility declines slowly over the generations until it's below replacement levels for attempted crosses. Lions and tigers are still cross-fertile but at low rates. Their hybrids are even less fertile. Horses and donkeys are cross-fertile but their offspring are almost never fertile. (But once in a blue moon, it happens.)
Mule and her foal
It says God made light and divided it from darkness. Apparently God made light before He made the Sun. That's not surprising, given what else we are told in scripture. In Revelations, God lights up the city of God and it has no need for the Sun. Rev 22:5
Did God make the earth and the heavens in six days or one as the Bible says here Gen 2:4?
He made it in 6 as described in Gen 1. Gen 2:4 uses day as a period of time. Gen 2:4 should be understood in light of what has already been told you in Gen 1.
Also, God rested on the seventh day and must be still resting because He hasn't started creating anything since.
How do you know He hasn't created anything since? I think He's been working His butt off trying to keep us from destroying ourselves.
But supposedly the Ancient Hebrew rabbi's taught that the earth would exist for 6,000 years and the 7th 1000 years would be a period of rest. We think it was about 2000 years to the flood, another 2000 years to Christ, and the signs are thick that we are in the last days prior to the 1000 year reign of Christ.
No doubt about it, a literal reading of Adam and Eve makes the Bible wrong again. That is why you must read it as a spiritual metaphor for creation of the Spirit that separates humans from animals and is the image of God in us.
No, it makes modern science wrong about it's conclusion. There is tremendous doubt about reading that non-literally. What's more 2 Peter 3 even warns us that there will be a day when people say "everything continues as it has from the beginning" and thereby forget creation and the flood. That's an uncanny description of uniformitarianism and naturalism and the result has been writing creation and the flood of as metaphors.
"Did you know that Adam and the Hebrew word for ground are the same word? "
I didn't realize they were similar, but a little research and it sound to me like "adam" means man, "Adam" becomes a proper noun in relation ship to the first man, "adamah" means ground. One site said the relationship of adam to adamah is kind of like earth to earthling.
So it is all speculation whether Adam came from ground or ground came from ground or animals came from Adam or animals came from ground or what.
I'm not aware of any Hebrew scholars that have a problem reading this. I don't think Hebrew scholars have any problem reading it as God made man out of the ground and God made the animals out of the ground.
I don't think anyone can understand this passage if taken literally, but that is just a theory.
Nobody can understand the Bible if they limit God to man's knowledge. If you do that, the creation, the flood, miracles, the redemption, judgement, heaven, hell, angels, demons, the afterlife, none of it will appear real. You have to give God a little credit, if you are going to believe scripture.
Because of the excess Carbon 14. If those fossils were millions of years old, the Carbon 14, would have been depleted. The measurement technique has been improved so that it's now reliable to about 90,000 years (but still subject to the assumptions about starting ratios).
If a fossil was 1,000,000 years old, it should have 0.5^175 = 0% of the modern ratio of carbon 14. But instead all fossils have at least 1/1000 of the modern value. Meaning either they can't be that old, or they have been somehow contaminated.
There are those that speculate that all fossils must have been contaminated somehow, but if that's so, it just cast doubts on most of the other radiometric techniques.
The sun wasn't created on Day 1. Light was created. I believe the Sun was created on Day 4.
"It also explains how the animals were created after man in Genesis 2."
No Genesis 2, should be read in light of the chronology presented in Genesis 1. God didn't create the animals as He presented them to Adam. He created the animals, then Adam, then presented the animals to Adam. The verse in Genesis 2 is just emphasising that each animal was made out of the ground after it's own kind. Which seems to be a direct contradiction to common descent among kinds.
I didn't miss it at all. The point remains that you *are* aware of the evidence for macroevolution. The fact that you aren't convinced by it doesn't make it non-existent, however, and makes your claim that there "there is no evidence for macroevolution" a transparent lie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.