# Do you live believe in microevolution?



## Puritanhead (Jun 3, 2007)

Do you _adhere to_ microevolution as opposed to macroevolution? This presupposes you know the difference I guess.

I am inclined to say that I do accept the natural phenomenon of microevolution, or what we sometimes know as genetic drift. Now, I can duct for cover, as people throw rotten produce at me.


----------



## satz (Jun 3, 2007)

If by microevolution you mean that the animals that Adam named have changed to a degree over the ? thousand years since his day and ours, I don't see why it would be unscriptural.


----------



## etexas (Jun 3, 2007)

Of course I believe in microwaves we have one in the kitchen! What a silly question!


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 3, 2007)

Puritanhead said:


> Do you live believe in microevolution as opposed to macroevolution? This presupposes you know the difference I guess.
> 
> I am inclined to say that I do accept the natural phenomenon of microevolution, or what we sometimes know as genetic drift. Now, I can duct for cover, as people throw rotten produce at me.




Yes, I've seen it first hand. It's no different than animal breeding for certain traits. Deer in the Florida Keys are whitetails, but much smaller than mainland whitetails. That's because the littler ones didn't eat as much and survived on the limited forage.

And I knew an old rancher who raised cattle in a wild part of Montana. He didn't do any selection at all, didn't try to save the weak or sick ones. After 10 generations his herd was noticeably different from standard cattle. The were definitely more agile and longer legged to handle the rough terrain.

Nothing mysterious about it. I don't like to call it "microevolution". Instead, it is just selection for traits _within a species_. Either the environment does it or the breeder does it.


----------



## Dagmire (Jun 3, 2007)

Yes, I "believe" in variation within species. Speciation, however, is an enormous fairy-tale.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 3, 2007)

Microevolution is taught in the Bible, Genesis 30:410-42.

-CH


----------



## Puddleglum (Jun 4, 2007)

Yes, I do.
Why are you expecting rotten produce to come your way?


----------



## beej6 (Jun 4, 2007)

It just goes to show that when people aren't careful to define terms, that misunderstandings occur. 

As to the original OP, yes, microevolution is true. Easily observed. 

I'm sure the "evolutionists" though when we say "I don't believe in evolution" think we mean micro-evolution.


----------



## SoldierOfTheRock (Jun 4, 2007)

I find nothing unbiblical or faith challenging by the idea of microevolution. So... I reckon I hold to that as well!


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 4, 2007)

Yep, microevolution is absolutely scientifically proven (i.e. it is observable) and in no way contradicts scripture.

Macroevolution (change from one species to another), is an entirely different matter.


----------



## crhoades (Jun 4, 2007)

I would try and be a precisionist and say that I would disagree with naturalistic micro-evolution. In other words,, evolution is such a loaded term imbibed with a naturalistic worldview that this would force the discussion that Jesus upholds the world with His Word. 

I would also force the conversation that enough microevolution does not lead to macroevolution as some would maintain.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 4, 2007)

crhoades said:


> I would also force the conversation that enough microevolution does not lead to macroevolution as some would maintain.


 Books like _Darwin's Black Box_ and the irreducible complexity theory are nice intellectual broadside against macroevolution and any tenuous attempts to muddle micro- and macro- evolution.


----------



## crhoades (Jun 4, 2007)

Puritanhead said:


> Books like _Darwin's Black Box_ and the irreducible complexity theory are nice intellectual broadside against macroevolution and any tenuous attempts to muddle micro- and macro- evolution.




In college I majored in Chemistry and minored in Biology. Wasn't a Christian until halfway through my schooling but if I had to go through it now my head would probably explode. They were teaching stuff that has been disproven in scientific journals years ago.


----------



## bradofshaw (Jun 4, 2007)

I don't think I live believe in microevolution, but it's possible I do and just don't know it. It's hard to do two verbs at once.


----------



## KMK (Jun 4, 2007)

Puritanhead said:


> Books like _Darwin's Black Box_ and the irreducible complexity theory are nice intellectual broadside against macroevolution and any tenuous attempts to muddle micro- and macro- evolution.



 Has anyone attempted a refutation of Darwin's Black Box?


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 4, 2007)

bradofshaw said:


> I don't think I live believe in microevolution, but it's possible I do and just don't know it. It's hard to do two verbs at once.



 I've raised the same objection in the past. What does "believe in" mean? Maybe "believe that" would be better.


----------



## SRoper (Jun 4, 2007)

Yes, I believe microevolution happens.

Now I'll divert some produce my way just for you, Ryan.

I'm not sure that macroevolution is contrary to scripture, either. As an explanation for the origin of all species there are major problems, yes, but I don't see any problem with speciation in theory.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 4, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Yes, I believe microevolution happens.
> 
> Now I'll divert some produce my way just for you, Ryan.
> 
> I'm not sure that macroevolution is contrary to scripture, either. As an explanation for the origin of all species there are major problems, yes, but I don't see any problem with speciation in theory.



Macroevolution != speciation. You can hold to speciation and still easily reject macroevolution.

CT


----------



## SRoper (Jun 4, 2007)

I understand macroevolution to be evolution above the level of species. Is that not your own understanding?


----------



## Greg (Jun 4, 2007)

Puritanhead said:


> Do you _adhere to_ microevolution as opposed to macroevolution? This presupposes you know the difference I guess.
> 
> I am inclined to say that I do accept the natural phenomenon of microevolution, or what we sometimes know as genetic drift. Now, I can duct for cover, as people throw rotten produce at me.



Variation _within_ a given species, yes. Transition from one species into a completely different one, no.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 4, 2007)

SRoper said:


> I'm not sure that macroevolution is contrary to scripture, either. As an explanation for the origin of all species there are major problems, yes, but I don't see any problem with speciation in theory.


 All microevolution refers to is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population over a period of time, or what some call genetic drift. I hardly see how that gives rises to new species. The irreducible complexity of organisms is a monkeywrench in Darwinian macoevolutionary theory. One enzyme isn't in the right place, and whole organs come to a failure.


----------



## SRoper (Jun 4, 2007)

I don't think Behe claims that irreducible complexity throws a monkey wrench into macroevolution in general. Irreducible complexity is only applied to the development of the specific systems that Behe identifies.

In any case, my point was that I don't see all macroevolution ruled out by scripture. I wasn't considering the scientific evidence.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 5, 2007)

KMK said:


> Has anyone attempted a refutation of Darwin's Black Box?



Hey:

Talk Origins has tried:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

Grace,

-CH


----------



## sotzo (Aug 28, 2007)

> Has anyone attempted a refutation of Darwin's Black Box?



The folks over at the one-stop shop for Internet Atheism (infidels.org) have tons of stuff against Behe: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/behe.html


----------



## Answerman (Aug 28, 2007)

Micro-evolution is variation using existing genetic information from within interbreeding species. So calling it a form of evolution is misleading. The problem is that when mutations occur, the evolving that occurs is going the opposite direction that macro-evolutionary theory is predicting it would go. In other words the term that best describes this process should be devolution. But this would contradict their philosophical beliefs of naturalism.

The best “evidence” that macro-evolutionists have been able to produce is what is called a copy mutation, like a two wing fruit fly in which a mutation causes a copying of the existing genetic information for the two wings giving the mutant four wings. Unfortunately for the poor mutated fruit fly, since the mutation did not have all of the other components copied with the wing information, such as the additional breadth needed to house the muscles, the muscles themselves, a larger capacity heart ect. The fruit fly was essentially crippled and only provided an evolutionary advantage for the predator that was going to consume some additional protein that the extra set of wings provided. There are also mutations that cause a net loss of genetic information, but non-the-less provide an advantage based on a loss of a certain function. Cases of insects that become immune to some pesticides are most often cited cases of this kind of mutation. Then again a net loss is not what the macro-evolutionist needs to prove his case, so he typically doesn’t highlight this fact.

The only reason that it has held so much sway in the world is that people that hate our Lord have taken over the science classes and have censored out all opposing views. We have let the evolutionist frame the questions, define the terms and use misleading language to pump up his case. But a well placed pin in this balloon that they have blown up will pop their so called evidence and ought to cause them to shut their mouths, though this usually doesn’t happen. I remember hearing about a famous evolutionist recommending that other evolutionist not debate creationist since a well informed creationist usually embarrassed the evolutionist and therefore did not help their cause.

I believe the reason that the “theory” of macro-evolution has held sway among many if not most Christians, is that we have either succumbed to peer-pressure or not really looked into the actual evidence with the necessary critical thinking skills needed to spot the glaring leaps of logic needed to believe such non-sense.

Although I am not an evidentialist, I believe that studying these thing can provide you with some very good examples of how philosophical presuppositions can blind people to such obvious contradictions in their believe systems.


----------



## Answerman (Aug 28, 2007)

KMK said:


> Has anyone attempted a refutation of Darwin's Black Box?



Do hypothetical refutations count?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 28, 2007)

Yes, but it's always a loss of information, not a gaining of new information.


----------



## caddy (Aug 28, 2007)

Selective breeding of animals is a process guided by intelligence, and it produces only varations within the species.

If someone asks, "Do you believe in evolution?" the right reply is not "Yes or "No." It is: "Precisely what do you mean by _evolution?"_

Jonathan Well's book _Icons of Evolution_ exposes this as well. 10 Icons of Evolution are exposed. We still show the pictures in our children's textbooks today.

Not only does Behe's book mentioned below expose problems, but I would suggest _Bones of Contention_ by Marvin Lubenow.

Quotes from his Book:

_Evolution is nonobservable. Evolutionists often appeal to the authority of the scientific community regarding the fact of evolution. And there are no repeatable experiments that are able to confirm evolution._

One of my favorites is actually Lubenow quoting Johnson:

_In discussing the lack of objectivity in the interpretation of the human fossils, Johnson refers to Roger Lewin's description of the 1984 Ancestors exhibit, mentioned in chapter 1. Lewin said that the paleonanthropologists were in awe as they held their fossil ancestors in their hands. Lewin described how moving and emotional that experience was. Johnson comments:_

_Lewin is absolutely correct, and I can't think of anything more likely to detract from _
_the objectivity of one's judgment. Descriptions of fossils from people who yearn to _
_cradle their ancestors in their hands ought to be scrutinized as carefully as a letter_
_of recommendation from a job applicant's mother._

Other quotes:

_It is not the frauds that expose the weaknesses of human evolution. It is the legitimate fossils that clearly falsify human evolution._

_The literature produced on Piltdown was enormous. It is said that more than five hundred doctoral dissertations were written on Piltdown. The man most deceived was Sir Arthur Kent, one of the greatest anatomists of the twentieth century. Keith wrote more on Piltdown than anyone else. His famous work, The Antiquity of Man, centered on Piltdown. Keith put his faith in Piltdown. He was 86 years old when Oakley and Weiner called him at his home to break the news that the fossil he had trusted in for forty years was a fraud._

There are story after story in this wonderful book about fossil evidence. I highly recommend this and Johnson's work: _Darwin on Trial._




crhoades said:


> Puritanhead said:
> 
> 
> > Books like _Darwin's Black Box_ and the irreducible complexity theory are nice intellectual broadside against macroevolution and any tenuous attempts to muddle micro- and macro- evolution.
> ...


----------



## caddy (Aug 28, 2007)

Absolutely they do. They tend to fight evidence--or lack of it--with their brand of philosophy. For the life of me, I don't understand why more people can't see it.

_that humans evolved from fish is not impressive, _said Johnson. _What makes the fish story impressive, and credibile, is that scientists think they know how a fish can be changed into a human without miraculous intervention. _







sotzo said:


> > Has anyone attempted a refutation of Darwin's Black Box?
> 
> 
> 
> The folks over at the one-stop shop for Internet Atheism (infidels.org) have tons of stuff against Behe: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/behe.html


----------



## KMK (Aug 28, 2007)

caddy said:


> _In discussing the lack of objectivity in the interpretation of the human fossils, Johnson refers to Roger Lewin's description of the 1984 Ancestors exhibit, mentioned in chapter 1. Lewin said that the paleonanthropologists were in awe as they held their fossil ancestors in their hands. Lewin described how moving and emotional that experience was. Johnson comments:_
> 
> _Lewin is absolutely correct, and I can't think of anything more likely to detract from _
> _the objectivity of one's judgment. Descriptions of fossils from people who yearn to _
> ...



 That is priceless!


----------



## shackleton (Aug 28, 2007)

Were animals created with the ability to hide or defend itself from predation? Or are these the affects of micro-evolution? i.e. a bug that looks like a leaf. Did it evolve that way because all the bugs that did not look like leaves got eaten or was it orginally created this way? Are these the effects of the Fall? Or were animals created to prey on each other and other animals given a brilliant defense mechanism to give them a fighting chance? 
The next logical question, long creation days or literal 24 hour creation days?


----------



## caddy (Aug 28, 2007)

Yes, I believe all animals and bugs were created with these abilities. To what extent the fall changed _things_ is a good question. The basic premise of creation-scientists is that God created basic kinds, or types, which subsequently diversified.

The best example of creationist microevolution involves the descendants of Adam and Eve, who have diversified from a common ancestral pair to create all the diverse races of human species.


----------



## caddy (Aug 28, 2007)

A day is a Day:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?oload=yes&q=Day+%22Yom%22&search=Go

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20020614_123.asp


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-accept-millions


----------



## SRoper (Aug 28, 2007)

LadyFlynt said:


> Yes, but it's always a loss of information, not a gaining of new information.



If you mean loss of information in the earth-sun system as a whole, I agree. If you mean in an organism, I disagree.

I see Behe referenced a lot here. If you read Behe he very clearly believes in macroevolution. He even believes that man as a species has evolved from more ancient primates. His irreducible complexity argument is actually rather modest in its aims.


----------



## Mathetes (Aug 28, 2007)

One of the thing that I find implausible about macroevolution is this:

1. Supposedly, if one goes back far enough, the organisms that "started it all" were single cell (be they bacteria, or what have you)

2. Through incremental changes over numerous generations, you eventually start seeing a diversity of life and species evolve

3. Single-celled organisms reproduce asexually, that is, by splitting cells

4. Obviously, they eventually evolved - so we're told - into creatures that employ a male/female variety of reproduction

So, my sticking points are these:

How did male and female "evolve" compatible reproductive organs independently of each other?

and

How did they reproduce in the meantime?


----------



## caddy (Aug 28, 2007)

...and my answer is: the evolutionsist just don't know *** exactly *** how this was done, only that it "was" done. They have plenty of elaborate theories--all built upon their particular brand of dogmatic philosophy. Rarely do you see an evolutionist saying, "you know, we just don't know the mechanism here...and we could be wrong." Think about that.

Look at Richard Feynman as a prime example of a truly scientific thinker and ask yourself what he would say about the following statement by Carl Sagan. The quoted statement comes from Sagan's book, "The Demon - Haunted World," the same book where he urged us not to be impressed by invocations of authority and to insist on asking whether claims put forward in the same of science are really testable:

I meet many people who are offended by evolution, who passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over aeons from slime. They also tend to be less than assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence. _Evidence has little to do with it_. What they wish to be true, they believe is true. Only 9% of Americans accept the central finding of modern biology that human beings ( and all other species ) have slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession of more ancient beings with no divine intervention needed along the way.

​Sagan here turns his baloney detector around. It's no longer a light to protect us from a snow job. IT's a club to browbeat us into believing, against our better judgment, that humans arose by blind physical and chemical forces over eons from slime. ( This central finding comes, mind you, from a scientific establishment that also insists that it isn't saying anything about God--or that it is neutral on whether He is there or not) The statement has the form of critical thinking--it speaks of people who ignore evidence and believe what they want to believe--but there is no real attempt to reason. Is it really likely that 91% of the public disagrees with Sagan for no reason at all, or Dawkins?





Psalm 11:3 if the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?






Mathetes said:


> So, my sticking points are these:
> 
> How did male and female "evolve" compatible reproductive organs independently of each other?
> 
> ...


----------



## caddy (Aug 28, 2007)

One of the best examples I know of the qualities that make an expert trustworthy comes from the late great physicist Ricahard Feynman, one of the unquestioned heroes of modern science. He states:

a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if your doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated...In summary, the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. SO you have to be careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the laymen when you're talking as a scientist. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is [ more than ] not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists,and I think to laymen.


----------



## SRoper (Aug 29, 2007)

Mathetes said:


> One of the thing that I find implausible about macroevolution is this:
> 
> 1. Supposedly, if one goes back far enough, the organisms that "started it all" were single cell (be they bacteria, or what have you)
> 
> ...



You are talking about common descent, not necessarily macroevolution. In any case your objection could be answered by looking at species that either have both male and female reproductive parts and those species that are able to change their sex.


----------

