Does evolution contradict the idea of theistic creation?

Originally posted by sonship
So full fledged macro evolution is falsifiable ?

Yep. "Full-fledged macro-evolution," i.e. evolution is a perfectly falsifiable theory.

Originally posted by finnegan

Evolutionary change is not a theory, it is an observation. Species can be identified in rock sediments that are no longer alive and that differ markedly from creatures living today.

This demonstrates that there use to be some animals around which apparently are no longer around today.

Genetic evidence helps to map the relationship between species. Farmers breed a range of animals and enthusiasts breed dogs or pigeons (but not often the combination of these).

The dogs stay dogs. The pigeons remain pigeons.

The flu virus changes and mutates repeatedly and we can observe how one strain prospers and others fade.

The viruses do not change to become amoebas.

We know evolution happens, we can map the genealogy and the common ancestors of every living species and many extinct ones. And since we know it happens and can map its progress through time and we can correlate evolution with environmental changes in the history of the planet, then the idea of belief or non belief does not really arise. It is a brute fact.

The fossil record is problematic.
Anyone who yawns at the mentioning of this is not informed or being disingenuous.

What remains is the need for an explanation - it is obviously posssible you idiot since it has obviously happened and obviously continues to happen. Talk to the Dodo about it. Talk to a pigeon fancier about it.

Ever see a non-pigeon give birth to a pigeon ?
We're talking about that kind of Evolution too.

Talk to a health worker dealing with a newly antibiotic resistent strain of an infectious disease about it.

The germ still remains a germ.
We're speaking to that kind of Evolution too.

Give us a biblical account of drug resistent disease or a biblical explanation of the consequences of feeding antibiotics to farm animals.

We don't need to turn to the Bible to try to figure out how come with your evolution the germ still stayed a germ. It didn't become an earthworm.

If you just want to say evolution is change - sure,
We can breed one kind of dog into another kind of dog.

Can't so far, breed the dog into a sheep.
You cannot trumpet the triumph of Evolution theory by conveniently limiting the definition just long enough to argue that we have seen it.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I raised this point in a different thread where it was ignored, but maybe you would like to give it a whirl. Suppose we take the micro-evolution hypothesis and assume it is valid. Then, for each species, there must be a part of their DNA that can change and a part that is immutable, otherwise the DNA cannot "remember" that it should only change "a littl ...[text shortened]... mechanism is this segment of DNA protected from mutations? Can we see this happening in nature?

I believe in micro-evolution and assume it is valid and can be seen for me that is not a
question at all. Where I do start coming up against evolution is the idea that through these
smaller changes that we can through time modify a lifeform into something completely
different as a rose bush into a jelly fish, or a micro-organism into a whale. That requires
more than a few alterations and knowing that bad things can happen in a far larger
number than good I believe the odds are against it. The magic of natural selection not
withstanding, that is a post change filter not a means to direct the next good change. So
since that is true the greater number of alterations that need done the odds on what could
happen would be bad not good, or would or could end life not improve it.

I can see a dog turning into another type of dog, I cannot see it a worm or some
other less complex life turning into a dog over time.

With respect to 'remembering it should change a little' there would never be that type
of mechanism. The mechanism in place in evolution is simply small changes are the only
types it can make. The greater the odds of something going wrong take place when there
are changes in a life form that are taking place in something that is required for life. If a
change in the heart stops the heart from working as it should, odds are nothing good is
going to come, it is just the a matter of greater risks.

The above is my opinion, and it doesn't even address all of the other obstacles and other
road blocks the universe could throw at life.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe in micro-evolution and assume it is valid and can be seen for me that is not a
question at all. Where I do start coming up against evolution is the idea that through these
smaller changes that we can through time modify a lifeform into something completely
different as a rose bush into a jelly fish, or a micro-organism into a whale. That requir ...[text shortened]... even address all of the other obstacles and other
road blocks the universe could throw at life.

Have you considered thinking of an answer to the questions in the post that you are quoting? In case you forgot, my questions were:

By what mechanism is this segment [the segment determining the "base type" e.g. a segment coding for "dog" in dogs] of DNA protected from mutations? Can we see this happening in nature?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yep. "Full-fledged macro-evolution," i.e. evolution is a perfectly falsifiable theory.

My own bolding.

I was listening to another Unbelievable? podcast the other day which featured a debate between ID proponent Michael Behe and ID opponent Keith Fox – both are biochemists. During the discussion Behe talked about the longest running lab experiment to test the effects of Darwinian evolution on E. coli. Professor Richard Lenski has been growing trillions of E. coli over more than a decade and he has produced tens of thousands of generations.
According to Behe, the net effect of natural selection and random mutation on the E. coli has been mostly to break biological systems that were already in place. No new complex systems have been formed by Darwinian evolution in the experiment.

Keith Fox agreed with Behe’s assessment of the experiment, but claimed that it did not prove anything about the limits of Darwinian evolution to produce complex new biological systems (which is a central claim of Darwinists). Behe asked Fox, “If this experiment doesn’t prove anything about Darwinian evolution, then what kind of lab experiment could falsify Darwinian evolution?” Fox’s answer: none.

According to Fox, lab experiments can never replicate the natural selection pressures that E. coli or any other organism face in the natural world. These pressures can not be simulated in a lab. It seems that the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection must be assumed – they cannot be falsified by experimental biology.
What we have here is an unfalsifiable theory. No matter what experiments are run to test Darwinian evolution, the results can never, according to Fox, disprove its ability to generate new biological systems. Aren’t scientific theories supposed to be falsifiable? Am I missing something?

- See more at: http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/02/28/is-darwinian-evolution-falsifiable/#sthash.zouBo0zZ.dpuf

Originally posted by finnegan

It is getting from that beginning point to the ones we see around us that I don't
believe is possible through evolutionary change.

Evolutionary change is not a theory, it is an observation. Species can be identified in rock sediments that are no longer alive and that differ markedly from creatures living today. Genetic evidence helps to m ...[text shortened]... nt disease or a biblical explanation of the consequences of feeding antibiotics to farm animals.

You ASSUME one life changed into another which is not an observation. Rock sediments
are evidence yes, but your conclusions about what we see and why we see it are not
direct observations of one life turning into another.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
In your opinion are creation and evolution mutually exclusive?

Clearly not since evolution is a theory of how species change over time and creation is a somewhat vague term which could refer to the origin of any particular species or the Earth or for that matter the universe.

If your notion of creation is that God started the universe and left it to evolve by itself, with maybe the occasional tweak, then I can't see any contradiction with science. One could argue that having created a universe in which life was overwhelmingly likely to emerge a theory of abiogenesis is compatible with a form of laissez faire creationism. The difficulty for Christians with that form of creation is that it leaves little room for souls.

If, on the other hand, you insist that the world was created 6,000 years ago and that speciation is not possible then there is a fairly obvious contradiction with empirical science. In fact, never mind evolutionary science, Argos and Athens have been continuously inhabited longer than that as have a number of cities in the Middle East, the oldest probably being Aleppo. Of significance to followers of the Abrahamic religions there is evidence of settlement near the Old City of Jerusalem from over 6,000 years ago.

Originally posted by sonship
The dogs stay dogs. The pigeons remain pigeons.

No actually, they don't. Dogs are descended from wolves and clearly did not remain wolves.
Pigeons could be bred to be doves given that size is the main differentiator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbidae

But they are still mammals and birds I hear you cry. Well, yes, if you look for a larger category, you will always find one. But we have to remember that the categories are man made, not actual properties of the life forms. To say a dog stays a dog when you breed it, really just means we choose to still call it a dog. Nothing more. Pointing that out tells us nothing whatsoever about the animal itself or whether it evolved or to what extent it evolved. Nothing whatsoever.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Have you considered thinking of an answer to the questions in the post that you are quoting? In case you forgot, my questions were:

By what mechanism is this segment [the segment determining the "base type" e.g. a segment coding for "dog" in dogs] of DNA protected from mutations? Can we see this happening in nature?

In creation life was started and we go from there, the base type of codes were in place the
second the creature was created. From there it can move the needle a little nothing more.
There doesn't have to be a "memory" to stay true to the types of life, the barriers I
described that hinder massive changes enough would hinder a micro life turning into a
dog over a very long period of time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No actually, they don't. Dogs are descended from wolves and clearly did not remain wolves.
Pigeons could be bred to be doves given that size is the main differentiator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbidae

But they are still mammals and birds I hear you cry. Well, yes, if you look for a larger category, you will always find one. But we have to re ...[text shortened]... about the animal itself or whether it evolved or to what extent it evolved. Nothing whatsoever.

I don't agree that categories like mammal or bird are something arbitrarily imposed on the animal kingdom by biologists. They reflect features of the animal which are consistent between species within the groupings. So a mammal is a mammal because the females suckle their young, which is why the Echidnas and Platypuses are categorized as mammals despite laying eggs. Further genetic evidence has been used to improve the groupings between species. So, although it is undeniable that the categories have been invented by man they do reflect actual properties of the beings they categorize.

Originally posted by KellyJay
In creation life was started and we go from there, the base type of codes were in place the
second the creature was created. From there it can move the needle a little nothing more.
There doesn't have to be a "memory" to stay true to the types of life, the barriers I
described that hinder massive changes enough would hinder a micro life turning into a
dog over a very long period of time.

I see. So if I understand your response correctly, you do think that there is such a segment of DNA - coding for the "base type" - that is immune to mutations. How do you explain that we have, in fact, observed the possibility of mutations occurring anywhere in DNA?

Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't agree that categories like mammal or bird are something arbitrarily imposed on the animal kingdom by biologists.

You will note that I made no such claim.

So, although it is undeniable that the categories have been invented by man they do reflect actual properties of the beings they categorize.
Not so with dogs. We call all dogs, dogs, mostly because we know they are related, not because we looked at any particular characteristics they have. If we found them in the wild, a Chihuahua would not be considered the same species as a Great Dane. My point is that when we breed dogs and they change from their ancestors, the fact that we still call them dogs tells us nothing whatsoever about any underlying changes to the DNA (or lack thereof as was implied), or phenotype changes to their bodies.
It is also of note that when theists throw out that phrase they often completely confuse categories. So they will say 'an ant remains an ant, a bird remains a bird and a dog remains a dog'. Do you see the vast difference in the size of those categories?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbidae

Pigeons and doves constitute the bird family Columbidae, which includes about 310 species.

Whereas the domestic dog is a subspecies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canidae

Originally posted by sonship
My own bolding.


[quote] I was listening to another Unbelievable? podcast the other day which featured a debate between ID proponent Michael Behe and [b] ID opponent Keith Fox – both are biochemists. During the discussion Behe talked about the longest running lab experiment to test the effects of Darwinian evolution on E. coli. Professor Rich ...[text shortened]... w.toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/02/28/is-darwinian-evolution-falsifiable/#sthash.zouBo0zZ.dpuf

What kind of lab experiment could falsify evolution? For instance one could take those E-coli and track their reproduction for a very long time. The theory of evolution in the modern synthesis would predict that: a) mutations occur in their DNA, which is what we observe and that b) over time, the E-coli will adapt to their environment, which is also what we observe, as we find brand new features in those E-coli strands - as opposed to the claim in your copy-paste. If nothing happens to the E-coli and they just keep reproducing with the same DNA even when waiting a very long time then that would be good evidence there is something wrong with the theory of evolution.

Also, the theory of evolution predicts that organisms that lived a long time ago were different from the ones living now - and lo and behold, we find fossils of many different now extinct species. Although the theory of evolution does not predict fossilization of species, if no such evidence of extinct species living a long time ago would be found, it would put into question the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution also predicts that one particular species might, over time, diverge into multiple ones. If this were true, you would expect to find species that, while different, share many different features and properties. Indeed this is exactly what we find - for example chimps and humans are extremely similar in their anatomy and they share about 94% of their DNA.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I see. So if I understand your response correctly, you do think that there is such a segment of DNA - coding for the "base type" - that is immune to mutations. How do you explain that we have, in fact, observed the possibility of mutations occurring anywhere in DNA?

Maybe, but I think rather that altering any life form to much would cause damage beyond
it being able stay alive. That isn't an immune to alteration, just a don't break what is not
broken type of thing.

It must be noted that the probability calculations that sonship and I recently discussed with regards to evolution had been valid, they would show a major problem with evolution essentially falsifying it. Sonship needs to decide between:
1) He knows of a source that has evidence or logical argument that evolution is false.
2) Evolution is not falsifiable.
Pushing both claims at once is self defeating.