Help Me Understand

[John V]

That ignores the clear teaching that death came through Adam. Evolution depends on death.

Really? Where is this 'clear teaching' at exactly?

Because in Genesis 2 16The Lord God gave him this command: “You may eat from any tree in the garden. 17 But you must not eat from the tree that gives knowledge about good and evil. If you eat fruit from that tree, on that day you will certainly die!”

To whom was God Speaking? The world and everything in it, or to Adam and Eve?

We know He was Speaking to Adam and Eve because He addresses them specifically. We also know He is speaking to Adam's decendents as well, because of what Paul said in Romans 5:12 but on the same token we also Eternal life is also possible again in Romans 5 through Christ's sacrifice thus canceling out the 'death' of Genesis 2, or so says Paul when he explains the meaning of "True life and True Death" in Romans 5:18-21.

That said nothing in the bible says everything else on the planet was immortal. that is just the religious (not biblically founded) teaching of men.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned

You answered it yourself there.

[John V]

Um... I am confused now. You just linked an article going over more than 29 pieces of evidence for evolution. Is that supposed to help your point or............

The problem is that their supposed pieces of evidence don't meet their own criteria for scientific evidence.

Read the first one, compare it to their definition of evidence, and see if you can spot any problems.

Shuffle?

[RoadRunner79]

Can all christians that don't believe in evolution explain to me your problems with it. It is just really hard for me to rap my head around someone not believeing in evolution in the 21st century, so it would make it easier if I understood exactly why you don't. And maybe I can help you through your confusions, maybe not.

Thanks!

I have been meaning to respond to your question here, and finally found a moment to do so.  I would start by saying, that I do believe in evolution as in change over time.  A snake with legs does not surprise me, or get me worried. I started out as a theistic evolutionist, and then started to study as questions arose.  As I mentioned to TRS in my introductory posts, I would say that I am skeptical of common descent evolution and think that the arguments against the neo-Darwinian model of devastating (and that it is only held onto, for lack of anything better).  From here on out, I'll shorten common descent evolution to just evolution for simplicity.

First, I see two categories of evidence in regards to evolution, which haven't changed much since Darwin.  There are similarities between creatures, and the appearance and disappearance of creatures in the fossil record.  While the categories of evidence  haven't changed much, we do have more information than Darwin did, and I see some of this as aiding the theory of common descent and some has hurting it.  The discovery and study of DNA has shown us, that the previous assumptions of similarity are at times more than we previously thought.  Sometimes it can be used to correct, and I think that sometimes it hurts the theory.  One of the main assumptions of evolution is that similarities are the result of common descent.  That similar features are the result of similar descent.  This is what I would expect if our understanding of DNA is true.  However when this reasoning doesn't fit the accepted phylogenetic model, then it is said to be convergence and further evidence of evolution (the original assumptions cannot be wrong).  Nature finding a similar method to solve a similar problem.  The reasoning shifts to accommodate the model.  The addition of DNA studies does make this a more convincing argument; however we are also finding that convergence (including at the DNA level) is more common then we thought.  I think that it is reasonable that similar species are more likely to have convergence with a similar starting point, than dis-similar species.  Further and I think that the most convincing evidence for common descent is the presence of retro-virus DNA found along a believed line of evolution.  There is some debate over whether these are really retrovirus's especially when they are found to be functional and necessary.  It is also my understanding that these too, suffer from the problem of convergence.  If this can occur in unrelated species, then I believe that this also weakens the presumption in similar species... again shouldn't similar species be more likely to have a similar retro-virus?

I realize that this could be a fairly long post, so I'm gong to break it up into a couple of posts.   Comments and corrections are welcome; non-constructive criticism will likely be ignored. There will be three posts for anyone who wishes to wait until I'm done.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

[RoadRunner79]

[TheRocketSurgeon]

[robvalue]

That's the problem, really. People often claim to have evidence which harms the theory of evolution, but that doesn't mean they really do. They may in fact either not understand the theory, not understand what kind of evidence would disprove it, or think some alternative hypothesis with incredibly weak evidence can somehow dislodge it completely.

If anyone really does have such evidence, they are keeping it well hidden.

[jenny1972]

[RoadRunner79]

So... on to the second category - the fossil record.

The fossil record shows the appearance and for many the disappearance of creatures and plants throughout geological time.  This begs the question of how these creatures came to be.  The fossil record is still incomplete, and by it's very nature shows us snapshots in time.  I always like when a creature which is believed to be extinct for millennia suddenly shows up. 

Charles Darwin said

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. (The Origin of Species)

And despite a largely expanded fossil record this is still true.  We do see some similarities, in which we can imagine a common lineage, but I am not persuaded by the evidence I have seen.  It is still not a finely graduated chain which is described.  I have also become leery of drawings presented as evidence.  I have found at times, where claims and similarities are greatly exaggerated based on scant fossil evidence.  I do want to know what they are basing their conclusion on what are the similarities and differences, and what fossil they have. This is often lacking at least in the popular articles.

Also, I do believe that the fossil record does show a punctuated equilibrium.  Where creatures suddenly appear fully formed, and remain largely unchanged for their time in the fossil record.  Similarly in events such as the Cambrian explosion we see major changes in a relatively short period of time.

Also just to be up front - I do question some of the assumptions in dating.  We are assuming that the daughter isotope is completely removed during formation of the rock.  Also the dating is not done on the fossils themselves, nor the rock in which they are found (you cannot date sedimentary rock in which most fossils remain).

[Thumpalumpacus]

The process of fossilization means that the vast majority of animals which died weren't fossilized, and those that were have been subject to the vicissitudes of time.

The fossil record does show some instances of rapid speciation. Indeed, we have seen speciation in our recent history, with fish in Mexico. That only means that the process can be sped up by selection pressures, which is after all one of the logical inferences of EbNS. Allopatric speciation also tends to happen quicker due to the isolation of the breeding population.

As for how fossil lineages are tracked, it is usually done by way of comparative study of homologous bones. You're right that the drawings are most often speculative, but they are also based on fossil information. No one regards the drawings as evidence, and you shouldn't either.

As for radiometric dating, I'll have to get home and on my computer. It's a little too complex to handle on my phone without clear references handy.