Where Theistic Evolution Leads

BeliefNet ^ | May 19, 2009 | Where Theistic Evolution Leads

[GodGunsGuts]

Some readers thought I was unfair in a previous entry explaining the difference between my perspective on evolution and that of my fellow Beliefnet blogger Dr. Francis Collins over at Science and the Sacred. Am I really not being fair? Well, let's test that hypothesis by picking out one idea from Dr. Collins's book and from his website BioLogos. It's his treatment of the idea that somehow a moral law in every heart points us to the existence of God.

Because BioLogos -- or theistic evolution, however we may designate the general approach -- surrenders so easily to naturalism, it must be willing to accommodate Darwinism's explanation of where that moral law comes from...

[Religion Moderator]

Do not make this thread "about" individual Freepers. That is also a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[RobbyS]

I hate to use the word “miracle,” except as another word for evidence, or sign that leads beyond present science, or even contradicts it. . What I hate about Evolutionism is that it ignores the lack of unity among the scientific disciplines and turns a scientific theory into a kind of metaphysics, and it is not up to the task. It is one result of the failure of idealism to provide a metaphysic to replace Greek Metaphysics. On the other hand, it does understand that realism is the only basis for scientific work. Without realism we fall into skepticism and pace Dawkins et al. methodical doubt is fruitless unless it is founded on something analogous to realism, which gives us trust in our senses.

[YHAOS]

Thanks for the ping, mom. Enjoy your Memorial Weekend.

[GodGunsGuts]

Ooops, sorry about that. I had no idea this thread was in the Religion forum...and I’m the one who put it here!

[CottShop]

Evolutionists claim that the fossil record establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that reptiles evolved into mammals. Indeed, the reptile-to-mammal transition is so frequently cited as proof of megaevolution that one writer labeled it “the crown jewel of the fossil evidence for Darwinism.” (Johnson, 75.) The purpose of this article is to suggest that the evidence for this alleged transition is much weaker than evolutionists would have one believe. (Conventional dating is assumed arguendo throughout the article.)

Anapsida to Synapsida

The reptile-to-mammal story begins with what are termed “primitive” amniotes, reptiles belonging to the “stem” subclass Anapsida. (Carroll, 199-200.) The distinguishing feature of this group is the absence of openings behind the eye socket in the cheek region. Though the origin of these first reptiles is technically not a part of the reptile-to-mammal transition,it is noteworthy that their alleged descent from amphibians is not documented in the fossil record.

Pelycosauria to Therapsida

Regarding the origin of Therapsida, an order in the subclass Synapsida, conventional wisdom among evolutionists is that they arose from the earlier synapsid order, Pelycosauria. More specifically, it is believed they arose from within the pelycosaurid family, Sphenacodontidae.

The lack of fossil evidence for this alleged transition cannot be excused by trivializing the differences between pelycosaurs and therapsids. According to Carroll, “The therapsids are clearly advanced over the pelycosaurs when they appear in the Upper Permian, particularly in the specializations of the postcranial skeleton” [Emphasis added]. (Carroll, 369.) The two orders have some similarities in cranial structure, but there are also many differences (all the more if one limits the comparison to Haptodus; see, Carroll, 366, 370). And as Romer and Price acknowledge, much of the resemblance in cranial structure might be discounted as due the result of convergent evolution rather than common descent (though they doubt this can account for all of it). (Romer and Price, 193-194.)

Origin of Cynodontia

The fact of the matter is that all six suborders of Therapsida appear virtually simultaneously in the fossil record (in the Upper Permian), already bearing the distinctive features of at least ten infraorders, 42 families, and scores of genera. (Carroll, 362, 397, 623-24.) Thus, there is no known earlier therapsid stock from which cynodonts could have arisen. They are among the earliest therapsids and, according to T. S. Kemp, when they appear they are already “unmistakably at the cynodont level of evolution.”

Cynodontia to Mammalia

Evolutionists acknowledge that they “cannot yet recognize the specific [cynodont] lineage that led to mammals.” (Carroll, 398.) That is why Roger Lewin, summarizing a scientific conference on the matter for the journal Science (1981), wrote: “The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma.” (Lewin, 1492.)

The fossil record does not document the origin of any living orders of mammals: monotremes (Subclass Prototheria; Order Monotremata), marsupials (Subclass Theria; Infraclass Metatheria; Order Marsupialia), or orders of the placentals (Subclass Theria; Infraclass Eutheria; 20 or so orders). Regarding monotremes, Carroll says, “The skull of the platypus and echidnas are highly specialized in a manner divergent from those of all other groups of mammals, fossil or living.” (Carroll, 420.) The phylogeny at Carroll, 415 shows the Order Monotremata ending in question marks in the Lower Cretaceous. (The Lower Cretaceous find is a lower jaw that is described only as a possible monotreme. [Carroll, 421.] The next fossil evidence, some molar teeth and a partial lower jaw, is dated to about 100 million years later! [Carroll, 414, 421, 627.]) It is no wonder Carroll says, “The fossil record of monotremes provides little help in establishing their specific affinities.” (Carroll, 421.)

On and on it goes- The claim that 'the fossil record shows a very clear, 'predicted' line of macroevolutionary events' is just plain false [LINK]

http://www.trueorigin.org/therapsd.asp

[Religion Moderator]

LOL!

[valkyry1]

No problem. Do you mean like in post #82 where FD makes yet another unprovoked and unsubstantiated accusation about the persons education?

//But thank you for confirming you have no higher education//

[Religion Moderator]

To quote myself from my profile page:

If the other guy in the dispute was given a warning, consider yourself warned as well.

All posters: this thread is in the Religion Forum. Do NOT make this thread "about" individual Freepers. That is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want but do NOT make it personal!

[goodusername]

You asked for “a clearly different and unique species that is not identifiable as the original parent organism”. Wolves to chihuahuas seemed to fit the bill. I’m not sure how that point could be lost to you?

If it doesn’t fit the bill, I’d be curious why - considering that they are far more divergent morphologically than apes and humans.

“Sheesh, creationists use the same system of classification as scientists and they’re criticized for it. There’s nothing a creationist can do that’s ever right for an evo.”

I’m rather confused here. I didn’t criticize for using the same classification system - I didn’t bring up traditional taxonomy at all - “kind” is not a taxonomic term.
Creationists usually use “kind” to mean a group with a common ancestor. It’s a word from Genesis.
I was simply pointing out that despite the great degree of difference between wolves and chihuahuas, Creationists typically believe they are related (i.e, are in the same “kind”). You seemed to equate genus with kind, but they don’t really equate at all (at least not from what I’ve seen).

[Religion Moderator]

See post 108.

[Religion Moderator]

Do not use potty language - or references to potty language - on the Religion Forum.

[Nipplemancer]

my apologies. didn’t realize it was religion forum until after i’d posted.

[Nipplemancer]

what is it about the burgess shale that contradicts evolution?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

So for you, Christianity and conservatism comes down to a single, unique point: creationism.

Gotta love single-issue voters...

[count-your-change]

The Burgess Shale is where paleontologists say we see an example of the the Cambrian “explosion” of life.

Evolution theory says different animal and plant species form gradually by natural selection and mutations that are favorable to survival yet all these phyla, Brachiopoda
Eldoniaoida, Arthropoda, Chordata, Ctenophora, Ctenophora,
Annelida, for example, appear suddenly and with no transitional forms and without antecedents contra Darwinian theory.

Attempts have been made to write off this sudden appearance of varity and novelty of life as either nonexistent or of no real importance since it has always been a contradiction of Darwinism.

[count-your-change]

I classify chihuahuas as barking rats, barking rats on amphetamines and with crazy eyes, and that start barking soon as the sun comes up and if I had a wolf I’d send it next door for s small snack, which is what chihuahuas were originally used for.

That would be a morphological change wouldn’t it?

[metmom]

You asked for “a clearly different and unique species that is not identifiable as the original parent organism”. Wolves to chihuahuas seemed to fit the bill.

Only if someone is so desperate that they want to *prove* evolution occurred.

No, wolves to chihuahuas do not fit the bill. They're both dogs and interbreed can freely if physical limitations were not an issue. Varieties of animals do not demonstrate evolution, only variation WITHIN species.

Creationists usually use “kind” to mean a group with a common ancestor. It’s a word from Genesis.

I know what it is and how it's used. It's more like the classification of *family* that taxonomists use.

You seemed to equate genus with kind, but they don’t really equate at all (at least not from what I’ve seen).

It's also interesting that evos focus on what supports them the best. Look at appearance and ignore genetics when it's convenient, or focus on genetics and ignore appearance another time.

Evos claim that the definition of species are organisms that can't interbreed and that is NOT true of any of the members of the dog family. They are all genetically capable of interbreeding even if size is a factor in preventing that. Genetically they are not separate species then.

If evos are going to be able to demonstrate the kind of change that they say happened to result in variety of life we see today, they need to demonstrate more than variation within species. They need to show the kind of change that results in animals that can't interbreed, the kind of change the results in distinct species like the difference between cats and dogs, not just deformed fruit flies or bacteria with different appetites than their ancestors.