Today's study dealt with further problems with evolution, why evolution is still so appealing to some, and the speaker began to move into the second part of the content, which was de diluvium. These are the sections I'll remark on:
I. Problems with Gradual Evolution
II. Avian Origins
III. Why Some Scientists Still Accept Evolution
IIII. Do Evolutionists Have Any Other Arguments?
V. How is the Genesis Flood Important to the Debate?
VI. Was the Flood Really Global?
Once again, I am left incensed with the fact that no one had given me answers to these questions from the Christian perspective earlier, or simply told me that it wasn't very important to have to know. The speaker did go a little into an odd, out of place, section on Polonium radiohalos, which might be more appropriate to next week as the speaker used it as evidence for the flood rather than in direct discussion about evolution.
I. Problems with Gradual Evolution
The speaker noted that several transitions would have been nigh impossible for creatures to make in a gradual way, such that each change and required mutation would have some beneficial selective advantage. Basically, this was the argument of irreducible complexity. This of course, recalled the familiar image of the proposed evolution of the eye. However, putting an oculus aside, there are far more transitions that cannot be neatly portrayed. What of the transition from simple circulation to a full four chambered double circulation? That requires so many changes to the thorax, the development of a pulmonary system and the development of a coordinating system for the four chambers, among other things; and this was supposed to have arisen as coordinated by chance natural selection, one beneficial modification at a time? Animals may look similar and mutable externally, but internally, they are far less flexible.
How would one species transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? From external to internal gestation? Please don't say punctuated equilibrium. The mammalian reproductive system is so complex, involving irritating hormonal feedback cycles, and it is also functionally sensitive to change, as one might ask any couple who wishes for a child but cannot bear one. There is very little room for error in this area, and any errors would necessarily terminate the evolutionary journey of those unfortunate genes.
II. Avian Origins
The widespread popular conception, as it has been promoted, is that birds evolved from dinosaurs. The speaker points out that the lumbering, heavy beasts with dense bone, scales and inefficient lungs would require a miracle to have descendants, however far removed, with lightweight bone, feathers and a most efficient pulmonary system. Another case of external features and similarities being overemphasized while stark differences are blissfully forgotten.
The widespread popular conception, as it has been promoted, is that birds evolved from dinosaurs. The speaker points out that the lumbering, heavy beasts with dense bone, scales and inefficient lungs would require a miracle to have descendants, however far removed, with lightweight bone, feathers and a most efficient pulmonary system. Another case of external features and similarities being overemphasized while stark differences are blissfully forgotten.
III. Why Some Scientists Still Accept Evolution
The speaker delves into some of the backstory of evolution as it rose to prominence in the public consciousness. The modern theory of evolution may look wonderfully polished, and there are plenty who honestly believe it because they have heard no convincing arguments to the contrary. However, the fact remains that it is a theory that allows the niggling conscience to be put to rest, and the anti-theist to remain comfortably lodged in a haze of sketchy connections. For such a reason it was and is still seized upon by proponents who reject the existence of God.
The speaker delves into some of the backstory of evolution as it rose to prominence in the public consciousness. The modern theory of evolution may look wonderfully polished, and there are plenty who honestly believe it because they have heard no convincing arguments to the contrary. However, the fact remains that it is a theory that allows the niggling conscience to be put to rest, and the anti-theist to remain comfortably lodged in a haze of sketchy connections. For such a reason it was and is still seized upon by proponents who reject the existence of God.
IIII. Do Evolutionists Have Any Other Arguments?
Homologous structures are used to show that various features have evolved from the same common origin. This is, once again, a case of highlighted similarities and the glossing of difference. Conversely it would be quite expected that if all kinds were created by the same designer, he would use similar structures and solutions for the same common problems. The speaker also notes that homologous structures are controlled by very different loci on the genes of supposedly related animals. I'm not sure where he obtained that information from. I do wish he would fix that and provide better citations specific to the figures he quotes. The bottom of the page feels rather void of footnotes.
Evolutionists also point out the domestication process as proof of how much modification can occur. The speaker notes that all this modification still occurs within the Genesis kinds, and there are limits to such modification. Minute changes do not amount to a extrapolated speciation. On that note, species are also handily defined by evolutionists to their benefit. The speaker points out that God equipped the original genetic codes with layers of extra information, so that kinds could adapt more resiliently to changes in their environment. However, we do not observe changes such as massively new features like a limb or organ emerging, rather only modification of existing structures.
The speaker also addresses the supposed fusion of the second human chromosome, used to support common ancestry with chimpanzees which have an additional pair of chromosomes compared to Homo sapiens sapiens. Chromosome number does not really say too much though. Many other species which are unrelated to human beings, such as tobacco and potatoes, both have 48 chromosomes. There may be fewer genetic differences between humans and chimps, but the fact remains that while we share most of our DNA in percentage, the vast amount of information contained within DNA implies that those few hundredths amounts to hundreds of thousands of differences.
Homologous structures are used to show that various features have evolved from the same common origin. This is, once again, a case of highlighted similarities and the glossing of difference. Conversely it would be quite expected that if all kinds were created by the same designer, he would use similar structures and solutions for the same common problems. The speaker also notes that homologous structures are controlled by very different loci on the genes of supposedly related animals. I'm not sure where he obtained that information from. I do wish he would fix that and provide better citations specific to the figures he quotes. The bottom of the page feels rather void of footnotes.
Evolutionists also point out the domestication process as proof of how much modification can occur. The speaker notes that all this modification still occurs within the Genesis kinds, and there are limits to such modification. Minute changes do not amount to a extrapolated speciation. On that note, species are also handily defined by evolutionists to their benefit. The speaker points out that God equipped the original genetic codes with layers of extra information, so that kinds could adapt more resiliently to changes in their environment. However, we do not observe changes such as massively new features like a limb or organ emerging, rather only modification of existing structures.
The speaker also addresses the supposed fusion of the second human chromosome, used to support common ancestry with chimpanzees which have an additional pair of chromosomes compared to Homo sapiens sapiens. Chromosome number does not really say too much though. Many other species which are unrelated to human beings, such as tobacco and potatoes, both have 48 chromosomes. There may be fewer genetic differences between humans and chimps, but the fact remains that while we share most of our DNA in percentage, the vast amount of information contained within DNA implies that those few hundredths amounts to hundreds of thousands of differences.
V. How is the Genesis Flood Important to the Debate?
The speaker now moves on to address the flood, which is crucial to our understanding of the age of the earth. If the flood did occur, it is able to explain our fossils and the geological column. Otherwise, such features could only be explained by glacial geological processes. If the flood was literally true, it also reminds us of the uncomfortable truth that God will not tolerate sin forever, and the comforting fact the Bible is true.
The speaker now moves on to address the flood, which is crucial to our understanding of the age of the earth. If the flood did occur, it is able to explain our fossils and the geological column. Otherwise, such features could only be explained by glacial geological processes. If the flood was literally true, it also reminds us of the uncomfortable truth that God will not tolerate sin forever, and the comforting fact the Bible is true.
VI. Was the Flood Really Global?
The speaker provides several succinct points for why this should be the case. First, the Bible says the waters covered all the mountains. Second, why bother with an ark over so many years when a journey to relocate would have sufficed? Third, worldwide flood traditions from Deucalion to Manu. Fossils on mountaintops would also provide auxiliary support for mountain-blanketing waters.
The speaker provides several succinct points for why this should be the case. First, the Bible says the waters covered all the mountains. Second, why bother with an ark over so many years when a journey to relocate would have sufficed? Third, worldwide flood traditions from Deucalion to Manu. Fossils on mountaintops would also provide auxiliary support for mountain-blanketing waters.
No comments:
Post a Comment