Lesson 5
• What do you think of when you hear the word “evolution”?
Scientifically speaking, we can really discuss two different types of evolution: micro-evolution, also known as adaptation of a species, and macro-evolution which would be large-scale, molecules-to-man evolution.
Adaptation, also called “natural selection”, is change in certain traits over time, within a group of organisms, giving that group an advantage in a specific environment. This is observable and testable. No one argues that this is consistently occurring in many species across the globe. For example, a bird with a longer beak can reach insects deeper within the tree bark and is able to eat more. The study of changes within a species of finches helped Darwin formulate his theory of evolution. A desired trait is more likely to be passed on to the next generation than one that is not beneficial to the organism. However, when “natural selection” selects a specific trait to pass on from a parent to its offspring, it is only selecting from traits that already exist. There is no additional information added to the genetic code, or DNA. In natural selection, there is always loss of information. The genetic information becomes more specific and less generalized. The selected trait is better for that exact environment. If the environment changes, a less specific, more generally flexible organism may be better off and produce more offspring. Adaptation is helpful in the short-term but not long term. It is not better for the species to have less available information and fewer genetic options, but may help a specific population have an advantage in a specific environment.
• Do you think natural selection is consistent with creation?
Macro-evolution is the belief that one kind of organism “evolves” into another kind of organism. This has never been observed. There is no indication in the fossil record showing any organisms that are partly one type and partly something else. You can have large dogs, small dogs, curly-haired dogs, straight-haired dogs, but dogs are dogs. They never turn into something else.
You may have heard that some “missing links” have been found. So far, all of the Ape/Human examples have been proven to be hoaxes or fully human or fully ape. The poster child for evolution, the Archeopteryx, which is supposed to be the missing link between birds and reptiles, has been proven to be fully bird. The feathers are fully developed. It has no scales. The bones are hollow, not solid like a reptile's bones.
Michael Behe, in his book, “Darwin's Black Box,” describes what he calls “irreducible complexity,” to refute the idea of organisms evolving from one kind to another1. An irreducibly complex system is something that needs to be complete and fully functional to work and could not have evolved in a stepwise fashion. Most of life falls into this category.
Examples:
The human blood system: Comprised of red and white blood cells, platelets, plasma.
*Red blood cells carry oxygen to all the cells of the body using a special protein, hemoglobin, which binds oxygen just tightly enough to carry it in transport, but loosely enough to release it to the cells that need it. *White blood cells: several types of cells that work together to fight infection. *Platelets: cells that stop up breaks in the blood vessels, forming clots to keep the blood from leaking out.
*Plasma: the liquid that transports nutrients and cells within the circulatory system.
Too many red blood cells is called polycythemia. This causes disease as the abundant blood cells pack together and can't pass through the small vessels, causing blood clots and rupture of the vessels. If there are too few red blood cells, they can't carry enough oxygen to meet the body's needs, leading to anemia and hypoxia.Too many white blood cells is called Leukemia. This crowds out the red blood cells, causing anemia, and platelets, causing hemorrhage; and many of the cells are immature and incapable of performing their duty of fighting infection. Too few white blood cells leads to rampant infection. (AIDS is an attack on the T-cell, a form of white blood cell). Too many platelets cause clotting, which cuts of vital blood flow to the organs, causing heart attacks and strokes. Too few platelets cause risk for bleeding and hemorrhage. We need the right combination of each of these blood cell types, and the subtypes within each type to maintain life. Our blood system is irreducibly complex.
• What other examples of irreducible complexity can you think of? (Behe used flagella, the eye, and the immune system). *What about entire ecosystems?
The Bible states that God created each “kind” of animal “after its kind”. See Genesis chapter 1. Scientists have used many different methods to classify organisms, but they are not consistent, and they frequently change. One thing is interesting: there seems to be a boundary beyond which an organism cannot breed. For example, you can breed many kinds of horses. You can breed a horse with a donkey, and you get a mule. A mule is an example of a hybrid. It is sterile. Scientists are playing around with these boundaries and breeding tigers and lions, and getting tigons and ligers. They can breed these with more tigers or lions, but they cannot breed beyond these boundaries, which is consistent with “kinds” being separated by God. Dogs of any breed are still dogs. Cats are still cats, bears are still bears.
• What other hybrids can you name? How does that fit with what the Bible teaches? • If macro-evolution was the normal process, wouldn't all life be able to interbreed and continuously change?
Scientists have changed bacteria and bio-engineered plants and microbes to have certain traits, but they have not changed kinds and they have not added new information; they just took what was already there and spliced it or selected through reproducing.
Another supposed “proof” of evolution is what scientists call vestigal organs. At one time, > 150 human organs were thought to be vestiges (leftover parts from evolutionary processes). Some of these included:
*Tonsils: now known to be an important part of immune function
*Yolk sack in embryos: makes blood cells until the embryo is able to make its own blood supply inside the bone marrow
*Gill slits in embryos: these are not gills at all. They don't make any of the structures or blood supply for gills. They are actually pouches that become important glands and structures, such as the ear canals, parathyroid gland, thymus gland, tonsils; they only become gills in fish.
• Could this be that the same creator used “tubes” as a blueprint to form both sets of structures instead of “evolving”?
*Tail bone: not leftovers from an evolutionary tail, but an important part of the spine.2
Even though these structures may resemble structures in other life forms, they are obviously not. Humans can't make gills or a tail, because we don't have the right DNA. Just because something looks a certain way on the outside, doesn’t mean they are the same on the inside. If every animal embryo looked the same at a certain stage, this still wouldn't prove evolution, because, as they develop and differentiate, they follow the DNA instructions to become exactly what the blueprint designs for.
Micro-evolution simply does not lead to macro-evolution. This is a bait-and-switch tactic. You can prove adaptation within a species, which the evolution camp uses to prove animals to man evolution, though they are clearly not the same.
Scientists are working hard to try to create new processes, using gene therapy and other techniques, to create new species and show that evolution could happen. Even if they are successful in doing this in a lab, we still could not prove that it happened in the past or that it could or did happen naturally.
Darwin's research showed adaptation within a species. This does not disprove an original designer. It doesn't prove origins, only adaptations. It explains “survival of the fittest” but not the “arrival” of the fittest!
Discussion: How does the evolution/creation debate impact your belief in a creator-God?
• What do you think of when you hear the word “evolution”?
Scientifically speaking, we can really discuss two different types of evolution: micro-evolution, also known as adaptation of a species, and macro-evolution which would be large-scale, molecules-to-man evolution.
Adaptation, also called “natural selection”, is change in certain traits over time, within a group of organisms, giving that group an advantage in a specific environment. This is observable and testable. No one argues that this is consistently occurring in many species across the globe. For example, a bird with a longer beak can reach insects deeper within the tree bark and is able to eat more. The study of changes within a species of finches helped Darwin formulate his theory of evolution. A desired trait is more likely to be passed on to the next generation than one that is not beneficial to the organism. However, when “natural selection” selects a specific trait to pass on from a parent to its offspring, it is only selecting from traits that already exist. There is no additional information added to the genetic code, or DNA. In natural selection, there is always loss of information. The genetic information becomes more specific and less generalized. The selected trait is better for that exact environment. If the environment changes, a less specific, more generally flexible organism may be better off and produce more offspring. Adaptation is helpful in the short-term but not long term. It is not better for the species to have less available information and fewer genetic options, but may help a specific population have an advantage in a specific environment.
• Do you think natural selection is consistent with creation?
Macro-evolution is the belief that one kind of organism “evolves” into another kind of organism. This has never been observed. There is no indication in the fossil record showing any organisms that are partly one type and partly something else. You can have large dogs, small dogs, curly-haired dogs, straight-haired dogs, but dogs are dogs. They never turn into something else.
You may have heard that some “missing links” have been found. So far, all of the Ape/Human examples have been proven to be hoaxes or fully human or fully ape. The poster child for evolution, the Archeopteryx, which is supposed to be the missing link between birds and reptiles, has been proven to be fully bird. The feathers are fully developed. It has no scales. The bones are hollow, not solid like a reptile's bones.
Michael Behe, in his book, “Darwin's Black Box,” describes what he calls “irreducible complexity,” to refute the idea of organisms evolving from one kind to another1. An irreducibly complex system is something that needs to be complete and fully functional to work and could not have evolved in a stepwise fashion. Most of life falls into this category.
Examples:
The human blood system: Comprised of red and white blood cells, platelets, plasma.
*Red blood cells carry oxygen to all the cells of the body using a special protein, hemoglobin, which binds oxygen just tightly enough to carry it in transport, but loosely enough to release it to the cells that need it. *White blood cells: several types of cells that work together to fight infection. *Platelets: cells that stop up breaks in the blood vessels, forming clots to keep the blood from leaking out.
*Plasma: the liquid that transports nutrients and cells within the circulatory system.
Too many red blood cells is called polycythemia. This causes disease as the abundant blood cells pack together and can't pass through the small vessels, causing blood clots and rupture of the vessels. If there are too few red blood cells, they can't carry enough oxygen to meet the body's needs, leading to anemia and hypoxia.Too many white blood cells is called Leukemia. This crowds out the red blood cells, causing anemia, and platelets, causing hemorrhage; and many of the cells are immature and incapable of performing their duty of fighting infection. Too few white blood cells leads to rampant infection. (AIDS is an attack on the T-cell, a form of white blood cell). Too many platelets cause clotting, which cuts of vital blood flow to the organs, causing heart attacks and strokes. Too few platelets cause risk for bleeding and hemorrhage. We need the right combination of each of these blood cell types, and the subtypes within each type to maintain life. Our blood system is irreducibly complex.
• What other examples of irreducible complexity can you think of? (Behe used flagella, the eye, and the immune system). *What about entire ecosystems?
The Bible states that God created each “kind” of animal “after its kind”. See Genesis chapter 1. Scientists have used many different methods to classify organisms, but they are not consistent, and they frequently change. One thing is interesting: there seems to be a boundary beyond which an organism cannot breed. For example, you can breed many kinds of horses. You can breed a horse with a donkey, and you get a mule. A mule is an example of a hybrid. It is sterile. Scientists are playing around with these boundaries and breeding tigers and lions, and getting tigons and ligers. They can breed these with more tigers or lions, but they cannot breed beyond these boundaries, which is consistent with “kinds” being separated by God. Dogs of any breed are still dogs. Cats are still cats, bears are still bears.
• What other hybrids can you name? How does that fit with what the Bible teaches? • If macro-evolution was the normal process, wouldn't all life be able to interbreed and continuously change?
Scientists have changed bacteria and bio-engineered plants and microbes to have certain traits, but they have not changed kinds and they have not added new information; they just took what was already there and spliced it or selected through reproducing.
Another supposed “proof” of evolution is what scientists call vestigal organs. At one time, > 150 human organs were thought to be vestiges (leftover parts from evolutionary processes). Some of these included:
*Tonsils: now known to be an important part of immune function
*Yolk sack in embryos: makes blood cells until the embryo is able to make its own blood supply inside the bone marrow
*Gill slits in embryos: these are not gills at all. They don't make any of the structures or blood supply for gills. They are actually pouches that become important glands and structures, such as the ear canals, parathyroid gland, thymus gland, tonsils; they only become gills in fish.
• Could this be that the same creator used “tubes” as a blueprint to form both sets of structures instead of “evolving”?
*Tail bone: not leftovers from an evolutionary tail, but an important part of the spine.2
Even though these structures may resemble structures in other life forms, they are obviously not. Humans can't make gills or a tail, because we don't have the right DNA. Just because something looks a certain way on the outside, doesn’t mean they are the same on the inside. If every animal embryo looked the same at a certain stage, this still wouldn't prove evolution, because, as they develop and differentiate, they follow the DNA instructions to become exactly what the blueprint designs for.
Micro-evolution simply does not lead to macro-evolution. This is a bait-and-switch tactic. You can prove adaptation within a species, which the evolution camp uses to prove animals to man evolution, though they are clearly not the same.
Scientists are working hard to try to create new processes, using gene therapy and other techniques, to create new species and show that evolution could happen. Even if they are successful in doing this in a lab, we still could not prove that it happened in the past or that it could or did happen naturally.
Darwin's research showed adaptation within a species. This does not disprove an original designer. It doesn't prove origins, only adaptations. It explains “survival of the fittest” but not the “arrival” of the fittest!
Discussion: How does the evolution/creation debate impact your belief in a creator-God?
No comments:
Post a Comment