Associated Press Article on Homeschool Science Texts-CC

[usetoschool]

No. I don't understand this line of reasoning at all. I have heard it many times, but I find it completely unconvincing. Whether I believe in total materialism or whether I believe everything came into being through direct creation by God Almighty or something in between, biology remains the same. Biology is concrete. It is not philosophical. The proteins, cells, organs, etc. all exist and can be learned about no matter what you believe.

 

I have not read the whole thread but this jumped out at me because it is at the heart of why I am frustrated by the whole argument that if you don't teach evolution then you don't teach rigorous science at all. Evolution is just one teeny tiny part of scientific theory. We can learn all kinds of things about chemistry and physics and biology and earth science without ever once needing to even touch on how it got this way or where it came from. What am I missing? As far as I can see a huge percentage of science is function and interaction, not history or source.

[Greta]

Creekland, thank you so much for your clarification, and your apology is most gratefully accepted. I agree with you that there are people on both sides who accept what they are taught on faith, and don't dig deeper. I really don't consider myself to be one of those people, and I thought that is what you were saying. I have actually run the gamut from 100% literal 6-day creationist, to 100% atheistic evolutionist. Now I would consider myself a "theistic evolutionist". I consider the evidence for evolution to be quite compelling, but my heart still tells me that God is behind it all. I also believe that faith and reason can and should co-exist. My priest says that our faith goes beyond reason, but it doesn't conflict with it. That is what I strive for.

 

Thank you again.

[Lovedtodeath]

However, solely due to the science part, I can not believe in macro-evolution unless MAYBE God directed it, but if so, I think we'd have a lot more evidence showing it.

:iagree:

[Greta]

Also, I may owe you and everyone apology because apparently I was unclear. The point I was trying to make is that I believe that creationists over-emphasize the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. I was not trying to say that evolutionists don't recognize a difference. They certainly do, but as the very names demonstrate, this is a difference in quantity, in the amount of evolution taking place. I get the impression that (some) creationists believe they are different types of evolution entirely. But the mechanisms by which they occur are largely the same. I hope that is more clear.

[Lovedtodeath]

While we are all here... could some in the YE camp tell me where to find an accurate history timeline (according to YE, of course)? Thanks.

[LittleIzumi]

My priest says that our faith goes beyond reason, but it doesn't conflict with it.

 

That is beautiful :D

[RegGuheert]

 

While we are all here... could some in the YE camp tell me where to find an accurate history timeline (according to YE, of course)? Thanks.

Here's a cool one. It's circular! (I wonder if that means we will be starting over soon! :D)

[Greta]

we reconstruct the history of life using multiple lines of evidence, including geology, fossils, and living organisms.

 

In other words, we do not have any scientific evidence for macroevolution, so we believe it on faith.

 

:willy_nilly:

[Lovedtodeath]

Here's a cool one. It's circular! (I wonder if that means we will be starting over soon! :D)

I would hope not! (Well, we know of the new heavens and new earth.. but that would need a new timeline, not a circular one!) Thanks for the suggestion.

 

GretaLynne, LOL so true. I don't think the evidence supports macro-evolution or a YE, so there. :tongue_smilie:

Edited March 9, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[RegGuheert]

 

:willy_nilly:

The so-called "reconstruction of history" is simply a just-so story. We all have access to the SAME body of evidence. It is the interpretation of this evidence which differs. Our worldview is a key part in how we interpret scientific evidence.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

The so-called "reconstruction of history" is simply a just-so story. We all have access to the SAME body of evidence. It is the interpretation of this evidence which differs. One's worldview is a key part in how we interpret scientific evidence.

:iagree:

[Erica in PA]

I see. Thanks for clarifying. So if I'm understanding correctly, your objection is with people who self identify as Christian and yet don't take the bible literally as truth on every matter, including as it relates to what is now commonly called scientific knowledge?

 

 

Sort of. It does bother me when those who claim to believe the Bible allow that other kinds of knowledge are more accurate than what the Bible states, in any case. For example, if science weren't claiming that humans evolved from apes, Christians would accept the Bible's teaching that they were the first two people, created directly by God. But people believe instead that science has that part right, *not* the Bible, so they call the part where the Bible says something radically different "figurative". People want to say that it's a matter of interpretation, but in reality, they are saying that parts of the Bible are actually *wrong.* Either God did things the way the Bible says He did, or He didn't. If the Bible has errors about such important things as how the earth and all in it came to be, I have no idea why people should believe anything in it at all. It's all in question, then.

 

Also, if God is capable of creating the world, orchestrating all the events in history, providing salvation through His own son, etc., I would think that He could also manage to produce a book about His plan that was actually true and accurate, in all points. If He couldn't even give a simple, real explanation of how He formed the earth, without making mistakes... that's pretty sad for an omnipotent, omniscient God. Or if a person who wrote it down made mistakes in that area, why trust what they wrote in another area? That is why I can understand much more clearly the viewpoint of someone who rejects the Bible altogether.

[creekland]

Creekland, thank you so much for your clarification, and your apology is most gratefully accepted.

 

No problem - and I'm glad for the chance to clarify. My intent on this board (or anywhere) is never to make enemies as I'm a big "live and let live" person. My IRL friendship circle includes many "different" (from myself) people. We don't all have to agree to get along and enjoy each others company. Yet we can discuss the deepest of topics - mainly because we know none of us condemn each other. I like it that way. I like it on this board when it can stay that way. I avoid threads where it doesn't.

 

So... ANYTIME you see a post of mine that doesn't seem right, PLEASE ask me to retype!

 

I have nothing against those that believe in theistic (or atheistic) evolution. I used to be a theistic evolutionist myself and don't feel badly about that either. :) Nor do I feel badly about being a scientific creationist now. My salvation never changed.

 

I only wish more of the world would "live and let live" on far more things than just this topic!

[RegGuheert]

 

Also, I may owe you and everyone apology because apparently I was unclear. The point I was trying to make is that I believe that creationists over-emphasize the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. I was not trying to say that evolutionists don't recognize a difference. They certainly do, but as the very names demonstrate, this is a difference in quantity, in the amount of evolution taking place. I get the impression that (some) creationists believe they are different types of evolution entirely. But the mechanisms by which they occur are largely the same. I hope that is more clear.

I also agree that the mechanisms found in microevolution are the only ones available. But when I make the extrapolation of the information-losing mechanisms observed in microevolution over long periods of time, I do not conclude there will ever be new structures or functions added to the genome. Instead, I conclude that extinction of all life will eventually occur.

[LittleIzumi]

Sort of. It does bother me when those who claim to believe the Bible allow that other kinds of knowledge are more accurate than what the Bible states, in any case. For example, if science weren't claiming that humans evolved from apes, Christians would accept the Bible's teaching that they were the first two people, created directly by God. But people believe instead that science has that part right, *not* the Bible, so they call the part where the Bible says something radically different "figurative". People want to say that it's a matter of interpretation, but in reality, they are saying that parts of the Bible are actually *wrong.* Either God did things the way the Bible says He did, or He didn't. If the Bible has errors about such important things as how the earth and all in it came to be, I have no idea why people should believe anything in it at all. It's all in question, then.

 

 

So (to go way out on a limb :lol:) what if "mitochondrial Eve" was really Eve, if you believe in Old Earth creationism/theistic evolutionism? The point at which the bodies were finally in the image of God & ready to house our spirits?

Or were you speaking only to the Young Earth literal creationists? :)

[Greta]

I also agree that the mechanisms found in microevolution are the only ones available. But when I make the extrapolation of the information-losing mechanisms observed in microevolution over long periods of time, I do not conclude there will ever be new structures or functions added to the genome. Instead, I conclude that extinction of all life will eventually occur.

 

Well, yes, I suppose if one only looks at the information-losing mechanisms of microevolution and ignores the information-adding mechanisms, that conclusion could be reached. But what would be the purpose in doing that?

[Greta]

We all have access to the SAME body of evidence.

 

My objection was to your denial that the evidence exists at all.

[Greta]

No problem - and I'm glad for the chance to clarify. My intent on this board (or anywhere) is never to make enemies as I'm a big "live and let live" person. My IRL friendship circle includes many "different" (from myself) people. We don't all have to agree to get along and enjoy each others company. Yet we can discuss the deepest of topics - mainly because we know none of us condemn each other. I like it that way. I like it on this board when it can stay that way. I avoid threads where it doesn't.

 

So... ANYTIME you see a post of mine that doesn't seem right, PLEASE ask me to retype!

 

I have nothing against those that believe in theistic (or atheistic) evolution. I used to be a theistic evolutionist myself and don't feel badly about that either. :) Nor do I feel badly about being a scientific creationist now. My salvation never changed.

 

I only wish more of the world would "live and let live" on far more things than just this topic!

 

Beautifully said, and I agree. :001_smile:

[Erica in PA]

So (to go way out on a limb :lol:) what if "mitochondrial Eve" was really Eve, if you believe in Old Earth creationism/theistic evolutionism? The point at which the bodies were finally in the image of God & ready to house our spirits?

Or were you speaking only to the Young Earth literal creationists? :)

 

What in the Bible would give the impression that there were any other people, with or without souls, before Adam and Eve? I also don't see any reason in the context of Genesis to take the 7 days as millions of years. It seems to me that God would have said many years, if many years passed. But he said it took seven days.

 

Imo, it is people's desire to not contradict science (again, holding that as the authority that cannot be disputed), that leads them to interpret Genesis in that way. I do not see how it derives from the actual reading of the text itself.

[RegGuheert]

 

Well, yes, I suppose if one only looks at the information-losing mechanisms of microevolution and ignores the information-adding mechanisms, that conclusion could be reached. But what would be the purpose in doing that?

I'm only looking at the experimental evidence. Are you saying there are experiments out there where mutations have occurred, been selected and the resulting genome has additional information that was not found in the original genome? I don't think such experimental data exists.

[LittleIzumi]

What in the Bible would give the impression that there were any other people, with or without souls, before Adam and Eve? I also don't see any reason in the context of Genesis to take the 7 days as millions of years. It seems to me that God would have said many years, if many years passed. But he said it took seven days.

 

Imo, it is people's desire to not contradict science (again, holding that as the authority that cannot be disputed), that leads them to interpret Genesis in that way. I do not see how it derives from the actual reading of the text itself.

 

This has been addressed in this thread (I believe) and I know in the other thread about this multiple times, and in many other threads :). I'm not going to start it all over again, if that's all right. I was simply answering a question on a specific point on science & the Bible agreeing. I don't want to rehash the entire YE/OE issue again. :001_smile:

[Erica in PA]

Erica, thank you for this. I actually understand better what you're getting at now than I did from your first post on this topic. I'm slow, sometimes it takes restating for it to click. :001_smile: I guess what I was trying to get at, and did not express well, is that I think it diminishes the importance of the Bible when people insist on a literal interpretation (in essence if not in words, holding it up as a science text), because that places the scientific facts about the creation story on the same footing as the spiritual truths concerning the creation story (while I believe that they are not on the same footing, but the latter is far, far more important than the former). As I said before, I believe the point of the story is that the glory for all creation goes to God. And I fear that this message actually gets muddled, not amplified, by insisting on a literal YE interpretation of the story. I hope that makes sense.

 

 

I'm glad GretaLynne. I always know that I can interact with you on topics like this, because you are very gracious and respectful! Thank you!

 

You did make one point that I do not understand. You said, "It diminishes the importance of the Bible when people insist on a literal interpretation (in essence if not in words, holding it up as a science text), because that places the scientific facts about the creation story on the same footing as the spiritual truths concerning the creation story." Why do you think that holding to a literal reading of creation diminishes the importance of the Bible, or the meaning of the creation account? I don't see how it robs the story of its spiritual value, believing that it actually happened the way it says it did. Would you mind elaborating on that?

[Erica in PA]

This has been addressed in this thread (I believe) and I know in the other thread about this multiple times, and in many other threads :). I'm not going to start it all over again, if that's all right. I was simply answering a question on a specific point on science & the Bible agreeing. I don't want to rehash the entire YE/OE issue again. :001_smile:

 

Yes, you're right. I realized I was covering ground that has been covered elsewhere, but I wasn't sure how to answer your post, because I didn't totally see how it related to my previous post. I didn't pick up that you were answering a question. So, not being sure of your point, I tried to answer what I thought you were saying as well as I could. :)

[creekland]

I'm only looking at the experimental evidence. Are you saying there are experiments out there where mutations have occurred, been selected and the resulting genome has additional information that was not found in the original genome? I don't think such experimental data exists.

 

If there is anyone out there that has a link to something that shows this (addition of meaningful DNA information not found in the original, and, of course, no gene splicing, etc) can you please post a link to it? I'd like to see it.

[LittleIzumi]

Yes, you're right. I realized I was covering ground that has been covered elsewhere, but I wasn't sure how to answer your post, because I didn't totally see how it related to my previous post. I didn't pick up that you were answering a question. So, not being sure of your point, I tried to answer what I thought you were saying as well as I could. :)

 

I just think that (besides all the other YE/OE/TE discussion topics) it's not science versus God. They can match, and quite well. I believe all true science will eventually support God and what He has created. However, as a theistic evolutionist I do not see the summary of the creation (with days as periods, as yom is sometimes, although not with numbers elsewhere, I understand that) as contradictory to most modern accepted science, as in the theory I mentioned, while literal 24-hour-period creationists will of course see it differently. I didn't want to rehash the whole YE/OE/TE all over again though. :)

 

Wow, that was a long sentence :lol:

Edited March 9, 2010 by LittleIzumi

[Lovedtodeath]

Old earth creationism is not the same as theistic evolution.

[LittleIzumi]

Old earth creationism is not the same as theistic evolution.

 

Ah, I just looked up again on OE creationism and somehow I had that definition slightly off, sorry. I know the theistic evolution definition well but somehow I had the OE off a bit in my mind. Sorry! I know they believe some things similarly, but there are more differences than I realized. Changed my last post.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Ah, I just looked up again on OE creationism and somehow I had that definition slightly off, sorry. I know the theistic evolution definition well but somehow I had the OE off a bit in my mind. Sorry! I know they believe some things similarly, but there are more differences than I realized. Changed my last post.

Well my beliefs (which are shared by lots of people and languages all over the world) don't fit into any categories that I have seen in books or websites that try to put OE beliefs into a nice little category. ;)

[TravelingChris]

"If the Bible has errors about such important things as how the earth and all in it came to be, I have no idea why people should believe anything in it at all."

 

Because I believe that GOd explained it in a way that people then could understand. They didn't know about continents, about radiation, about people in China, about dinosaurs, etc, etc. I believe that the best explanation I have heard is about the way literature was written back then. Their forms of writing were not ours. The scientific, rational view of the world just didn't exist. It does now and we try to fit our rationalistic views on top of their views. In my view, the writer viewed the creation as a lesson to us about God and morality, not about geology.

 

In another part of the Bible, pi is described as a concrete number. It isn't but that is what people back then thought. DOes that make me think GOd is wrong or didn't know that? No, but He wasn't giving the Hebrews math lessons. He was giving them lessons on how to live moral lives that are pleasing to Him.

 

I, and the other OE people, have a hard time understanding why YEs paint God as a trickster because that is how we see what YE does with the evidence that God left all of us. We say it looks old because it is old and you say it looks old but really is young because God made it look old. For all of us who believe God is omnipotent, we agree that he has the power to make young things look old or old things look young. But we disagree that it is within his nature to do so in order to trick us. However, I strongly believe that one's views on evolution, creation, Big Bang, etc. are not salvation issues.

 

Oh, and I agree with GretaLynn that God was speaking about spiritual death in the Garden of Eden and not physical death. So yes, I do believe the dinosaurs died out before humans.

[Lovedtodeath]

Oh, and I agree with GretaLynn that God was speaking about spiritual death in the Garden of Eden and not physical death. So yes, I do believe the dinosaurs died out before humans.

"The wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life."

That seems to be speaking of literal death there. I am not sure what any of that has to do with dinosaurs though.:confused:

[Greta]

Are you saying there are experiments out there where mutations have occurred, been selected and the resulting genome has additional information that was not found in the original genome?

 

If there is anyone out there that has a link to something that shows this (addition of meaningful DNA information not found in the original, and, of course, no gene splicing, etc) can you please post a link to it? I'd like to see it.

 

There are different ways that mutations can occur. Some delete information. Some add it. New base pairs can be added, which is an obvious addition of information. Base pairs can also be substituted or shuffled around in such that new information is generated.

 

This was just (quickly) taken from TalkOrigins. I'm sure there's much more out there, but here's a start.

 

We have observed the evolution of

 

 

 

• increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)

• increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)

• novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)

• novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

 

 

 

Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:

 

• the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);

• adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);

• the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);

• evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);

• modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);

• evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);

 

[_io]

The point I was trying to make is that I believe that creationists over-emphasize the difference between microevolution and macroevolution. I was not trying to say that evolutionists don't recognize a difference. They certainly do, but as the very names demonstrate, this is a difference in quantity, in the amount of evolution taking place. I get the impression that (some) creationists believe they are different types of evolution entirely. But the mechanisms by which they occur are largely the same. I hope that is more clear.

The difference is between microevolution which has been observed and macroevolution which scientists claim is the same process only over a much longer period of time. However, no one has actually observed these changes; they are supposed to have occurred based on various lines of evidence.

 

A person can insist that these changes, from bacteria to man, are simply the incremental change of microevolution repeated again and again over the course of biological history. However, that person can never directly test his hypothesis. He is looking at incomplete, fractured evidence that can be interpreted in different ways. Right now the Magesterium Scientifica says natural selection/random mutation explains biology from beginning to end. Not everyone agrees.

Edited March 9, 2010 by _io

[justamouse]

"The wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life."

That seems to be speaking of literal death there. I am not sure what any of that has to do with dinosaurs though.:confused:

 

We can physically live forever?

[mommyrooch]

:) I am a Christian that believes the Earth is OLD and that GOD made it and that he may well have used Evolution. Your statement I bolded above seems to indicate that Christians cannot believe in an Old Earth, Creation - as in God made it - and Evolution.

 

You want to know why Evolutionists care what Creationists believe? I care because I believe in both and quite frankly, I'm tired of all the Young Earth, Literal 7-24 hour Day Creationists telling me how I have to teach my children.

 

If nothing else convinces me Creationism is bull, the arrogance of those who believe it will convince me. :)

 

:iagree::hurray: :thumbup:

[Lovedtodeath]

"The wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life."

That seems to be speaking of literal death there. --Romans 6:23

We can physically live forever?

Oh, I am feeling that some will not like this. This is very OT and I just couldn't answer without citing scriptures. This isn't my own ideas.

 

Yes. We could... before sin entered into the picture. (Romans 5:12) And we will again. That is why we need the ransom. (Romans 5:8 "Christ died for us.") Now those who die have a hope of a future resurrection. (John 11:24; 2 Timothy 2:18)

 

God made a perfect man and woman and put them in a paradise on earth. If they had not eaten the fruit, they would still be living in a paradise on earth, as would all of humankind. God does not change his plans and purposes. (Isaiah 45:18; Isaiah 55:10,11) We will live forever in the future when God's Kingdom rules over the earth. (Proverbs 2:21; Psalm 37:11,29; Matthew 5:5; Psalm 115:16; Revelation 5:10; Revelation 20:13; 14)

Edited March 10, 2010 by Lovedtodeath
added quote

[_io]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100306/ap_on_re/us_rel_home_school_evolution

 

The comments as usual are "interesting." What I want to know is why are non-believers or evolutionists so threatened by those who believe in Creationism? What difference does it make if we "crazy religious homeschoolers" want to teach our children that they shouldn't swallow evolution hook, line and sinker? It isn't as if we are teaching their children that, so really, why such passion against creationists? I don't get it.

To address the actual reason for this thread - I think there are a number of reasons depending on the person. Not all evolutionists get upset about it. Some probably don't care what other people believe. But, for those that do:

 

1) A person comes from a secular background, has learned throughout his entire scholastic career that evolution is true, and then hears that there are people who actually disbelieve this thing he has always been taught is incontrovertible fact. Worse, they think it was supernatural. He would no doubt react exactly the same to finding out Christians are making textbooks that teach Paul Bunyan is responsible for creating the Great Lakes so Babe could wet his whistle.

 

2) Evolution is currently the default scientific position. Many people who have no real scientific background or knowledge throw their lot in with the people "in charge." They will hang onto that position with all their might simply because TPTB hold that position. Making fun of the other people reinforces their belief they are in the correct camp.

 

3) Some very educated people with a strong background in science sincerely hold that evolution is the correct viewpoint. It annoys them that people would choose to believe the fairytale rather than what is patently obvious to anyone. Believing this ridiculous idea of creation means they are ridiculous. Ridiculous people deserve ridicule.

 

4) Some people just really dislike Christians.

 

5) Probably a bunch of other reasons as well.

[EthiopianFood]

There are different ways that mutations can occur. Some delete information. Some add it. New base pairs can be added, which is an obvious addition of information. Base pairs can also be substituted or shuffled around in such that new information is generated.

 

This was just (quickly) taken from TalkOrigins. I'm sure there's much more out there, but here's a start.

 

We have observed the evolution of

 

 

• increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
  
• increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
  
• novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
  
• novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
  

 

 

Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:

• the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
  
• adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
  
• the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
  
• evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
  
• modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
  
• evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);
  

 

Do you know if these traits physically changed the organism? I'm not sure how this stuff works, so I'm trying to understand the details.

 

For the record, I'm not a YEist. :)

[Lovedtodeath]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100306/ap_on_re/us_rel_home_school_evolution

 

The comments as usual are "interesting." What I want to know is why are non-believers or evolutionists so threatened by those who believe in Creationism?

 

I think that evolutionists are upset that creationists are omitting something from their children's education.

 

Would you be upset if you found out that a large group of homeschoolers purposely left an aspect of education out entirely (black history for example)?

[_io]

I think that evolutionists are upset that creationists are omitting something from their children's education.

 

Would you be upset if you found out that a large group of homeschoolers purposely left an aspect of education out entirely (black history for example)?

Agreed. Look at how upset people get that homeschooled children are not getting the proper socialization. Even the evolutionist ones. :D

 

People get very bent out of shape about children being mistreated. And I think they feel Christian homeschool children are being hamstrung with a lack of science knowledge. Of course, just as homeschooled children are getting socialized, so Christian homeschooled children are invariably exposed to the concept of evolution (even if just to counter it).

 

ETA: Of course, many Christian homeschooled children are taught evolution as fact. Lots of Christians are fine with evolution, considering it compatible with Bible teaching.

Edited March 10, 2010 by _io

[Lovedtodeath]

Whew, you saved yourself with the edit. LOL

[_io]

Whew, you saved yourself with the edit. LOL

:lol:

[creekland]

We have observed the evolution of

 

 

 

• increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)

• increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)

• novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)

• novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

 

 

 

Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:

 

• the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);

• adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);

• the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);

• evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);

• modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);

• evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);

 

 

 

I don't have time to look these up now, but I might have time tonight when I'm the only one in the house. If anyone looks up links to the actual studies in the meantime, please post them to save me some google time. I'm very interested in seeing if these studies show the new features via an increase in genetic info that isn't from a genetically modified source.

 

Thanks!

[Tracy in Ky]

Tracy -

 

You seem to be honestly interested and that's why I'm responding.

 

I've never understood how people take the Bible as the literal word of God simply due to translation issues. Both of my parents are ministers and to get their MDiv, they had to learn Greek in order to read the New Testament. My mother learned Hebrew as well for the Old Testament, but my father didn't.

 

 

Thank you for your response, Dana.

 

If I have understood you correctly, then your belief is that the Bible cannot be read literally (and therefore cannot be taken as actual history), because it has been translated from languages that are different from your native language?

[RegGuheert]

There are different ways that mutations can occur. Some delete information. Some add it. New base pairs can be added, which is an obvious addition of information. Base pairs can also be substituted or shuffled around in such that new information is generated.

 

This was just (quickly) taken from TalkOrigins. I'm sure there's much more out there, but here's a start.

 

We have observed the evolution of

 

 

 

• increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)

• increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)

• novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)

• novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

 

 

 

Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:

 

• the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);

• adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);

• the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);

• evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);

• modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);

• evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);

 

 

Thanks, Greta! Those look like good examples for discussion! It is exactly these types of experiments that highlight why there is so much controversy over this topic.

If anyone looks up links to the actual studies in the meantime, please post them to save me some google time.

I have only looked into the issue of digesting nylon, but the best article I found also discusses Lenski's long-term evolution work with E. coli. The article is from Answers in Genesis and it is entitled A Creationist Perspective on Beneficial Mutations in Bacteria. As are most detailed discussions of biochemistry, this article is extremely technical. I will attempt to distill the creationist perspective on these two topics, but I encourage everyone to read the material themselves. (In addition, there are over 100 references, so there is a lot of detail that I have not yet gotten through, but hope to, eventually.)

 

- In the case of bacteria developing the ability to digest nylon, it seems that at the time the article was written, only one of the three enzymes used by the mutated cells in the degradation of nylon, EII (NylB), had been fully characterized from the standpoint of the genome before and after mutation. The conclusion is that the point mutations that occurred have reduced the specificity of an already-existing enzyme which allowed "it to hydrolyze a wider range of oligomers that include nylon olignomers." The point is the mutation has only reduced the specificity of existing structures that already existed in the cell. (BTW, this understanding of the mutuation which occurred is different from what was originally reported, but it appears to be the current understanding of the scientific community.)

 

among other things. - In the case of Lenski's experiments, my understanding of the processes is less clear. Apparently there are insertion sequences (IS segments) which have as a primary function within the cell of creating insertion mutations. These mutations cause changes including "the loss of the ribose operon,"

No specific explanation has yet been offered of how IS-mediated disruptions are advantageous, but “antagonistic pleiotropy†has been proposed.11 This pleiotropy suggests that a mutation can be beneficial in one type of environment and deleterious for a different environment. Thus, the cell seems to readily sacrifice a system not essential to a given environment, if it in some way helps adaptation to that environment.

The conclusion of the discussion of the mutations in the E. coli studies is this:

Ultimately, the genetic effect of these mutations is a loss of a function useful for one type of environment as a trade-off for adaptation to a different environment.[/url]The bottom line for both of these cases is that the mutations provided benefits to the organisms by damaging existing systems.

 

There is an interesting discussion at the bottom of the article that proposes the idea that beneficial mutations that occur within prokaryotes such as bacteria may not be beneficial to eukaryotes and likely are harmful in most cases. This is a challenge to the idea that beneficial mutations observed in bacteria can be extrapolated to prokaryotes. This is a new idea to me, but it is interesting to consider regarding the broader subject of macroevolution.

 

I will have a look at some of the other experiments as time permits. I understand that many will not simply accept the creationist interpretation as the gospel in much the same way that I do not accept evolutionist interpretations at face value. Still, it is important that we all understand that there can be multiple interpretations of the same data stemming from our different worldviews. Yes, sometimes distortions do occur on both sides, but I believe differing interpretations can occur even in cases where neither side is guilty of distortion. Merely differing unprovable assumptions can lead to different interpretations.

[Greta]

(BTW, this understanding of the mutuation which occurred is different from what was originally reported, but it appears to be the current understanding of the scientific community.)

 

I disagree (I guess that's no surprise). This is talked about more extensively at TalkOrigins, and even just the plain old Wikipedia page describes it as having "come about from the combination of a gene duplication event with a frame shift mutation.[2] Ohno suggested that many unique new genes have evolved this way."

 

You can also view this: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html But I should warn anyone who follows this link that the tone is decidedly evolutionist and against creationism. The information is backed up extensively with citations, but the tone some may find biased.

 

Unfortunately I will probably not have time to come back to this discussion today, which I apologize for in advance. But I would like to propose a question, to Creekland specifically but also anyone else who wishes to answer. I'm sincerely trying to understand your p.o.v. I don't understand this objection to the possibility of information being added to the genome. It seems very self-evident to me that of the different types of mutations that are possible, several of them add while others subtract.

 

You mentioned before that creationists "need" microevolution to take place to make sense of their worldview, and that there is no disagreement there. What popped into my head when you said that (which may not have been what you were implying) was that in order to account for the tremendous variety within the human species, all of the different races being adapted to their specific environments, the variety in skin tone, body shape, etc., microevolution had obviously occurred among humans since the time of creation. But are you saying that you believe all of this variety to have come about from two individuals having their genome ONLY subtracted from and not added to? That when skin tone darkened, that was a subtracting of information, but when skin tone lightened, that was also a subtracting of information? All the regional varieties that have developed in hair and eye color, in the shape of the cheekbones and nose, overall body shape and size, etc. ALL of this was a subtracting of genetic information from a mere two individuals? If I am misunderstanding you, then could you please explain? Actually if I *am* understanding you, could you please explain? :confused:

 

ETA: Reg, for the record, I'm not a materialist. Really.

[RegGuheert]

You mentioned before that creationists "need" microevolution to take place to make sense of their worldview, and that there is no disagreement there. What popped into my head when you said that (which may not have been what you were implying) was that in order to account for the tremendous variety within the human species, all of the different races being adapted to their specific environments, the variety in skin tone, body shape, etc., microevolution had obviously occurred among humans since the time of creation. But are you saying that you believe all of this variety to have come about from two individuals having their genome ONLY subtracted from and not added to? That when skin tone darkened, that was a subtracting of information, but when skin tone lightened, that was also a subtracting of information? All the regional varieties that have developed in hair and eye color, in the shape of the cheekbones and nose, overall body shape and size, etc. ALL of this was a subtracting of genetic information from a mere two individuals? If I am misunderstanding you, then could you please explain? Actually if I *am* understanding you, could you please explain?

Your understanding of the creationist view is correct. In fact, mutation is NOT required for speciation. Traditional genetics can be used to explain variations between populations originating from a single set of parents. The traits which are coded into the genes of the parents can originally contain a very wide array of variations. As children of the parents move to different environments throughout the world, natural selection may cause some of the variations in traits to die out over time in some of the populations. The result is that the resulting populations will each contain a (different) subset of the original variability that was present.

 

That said, some limited mutation has likely occurred, as can been seen in the studies of the various mitochondrial DNA which has been passed down from "Mitochondrial Eve".

Edited March 10, 2010 by RegGuheert

[creekland]

But I would like to propose a question, to Creekland specifically but also anyone else who wishes to answer. I'm sincerely trying to understand your p.o.v. I don't understand this objection to the possibility of information being added to the genome. It seems very self-evident to me that of the different types of mutations that are possible, several of them add while others subtract.

 

You mentioned before that creationists "need" microevolution to take place to make sense of their worldview, and that there is no disagreement there. What popped into my head when you said that (which may not have been what you were implying) was that in order to account for the tremendous variety within the human species, all of the different races being adapted to their specific environments, the variety in skin tone, body shape, etc., microevolution had obviously occurred among humans since the time of creation. But are you saying that you believe all of this variety to have come about from two individuals having their genome ONLY subtracted from and not added to? That when skin tone darkened, that was a subtracting of information, but when skin tone lightened, that was also a subtracting of information? All the regional varieties that have developed in hair and eye color, in the shape of the cheekbones and nose, overall body shape and size, etc. ALL of this was a subtracting of genetic information from a mere two individuals? If I am misunderstanding you, then could you please explain? Actually if I *am* understanding you, could you please explain? :confused:

 

I was hoping to have more time tonight to come up with the studies on an unbiased source (neither AIG nor Talk Origins), but I've been unsuccessful in my limited time. It's the one day I have off from work and I'm home alone, BUT I needed to get a lot of housework done, etc, so... maybe another day or maybe someone else can look at post links which would make the searching easier.

 

But, to answer your question, yes. To be honest, even evolution believers know/say that variation in type is solely the effect of loss of genetic info. What they don't go on to say (often) is that the ancestor had to have a LOT of genetic info! For instance, both humans and chimps share almost all our DNA, but where it differs, it's from differing losses. Therefore, humans didn't really come from chimps, nor vice versa, they are supposed to have had the same ancestor that each of us lost certain genetic info from.

 

Then, take a subject I know more about - horse color. The original horse had several color genes one of which was bay which is a black coat with modifying genes restricting the black to the points (legs, mane, tail, ear tips). A genetic loss (11 nucleotides specifically) caused that bay horse to become black. Two black horses can not produce a bay - ever - as it would require info they no longer have. Two homozygous bay horses can not produce a black in 99.99999999% of the cases, but sometime in history, genetic info was lost and black horses came into being so it had to have happened. Another genetic loss created a second main coat color - red. Two red horses can never produce a black. Two black horses that have one red gene (each) will produce a red 25% of the time.

 

Then there are other genes and modifiers - some from mutations, but never that I've read about, from a gain in info. I'm sure if one ever came about from a gain it would be trumpeted all over the biological world. Once one of those modifying genes is lost, it's gone. Something new is created, but from a loss in genetic info. All of horse color research and breeding comes from the knowledge that if the info is not there, it will not show up in the offspring. In years of breeding, no new genetic info has ever come about creating something new in color. They are still studying how shades come about in some cases, but still the result is the same. The genetic info has to be in the parents to show up in the offspring. If lost, it's lost.

 

Breeding dogs, birds, horses, pretty much anything does make new looking critters, but from a loss of genetic info and variation (or a gain from another parent - but not a true overall gain). I can introduce a dun gene from another parent, but I can't get it from two that don't have it to start with.

 

This is why I'm very curious to see if nature has ever "added" anything new that turned out to work or be meaningful. (Most mutations are deadly.) Last time I had looked, it hadn't. The cases you have listed might show something plausible, but it's still all with lower level "stuff" and I've yet to see for myself that some sort of intelligent modification didn't happen to encourage it. After all, evolution is supposed to happen without intelligence behind it. :) (Granted theistic evolution would be different - that's why IF evolution happened I'd have to go that way, but I still think we'd see a LOT more evidence of it if it were out there - not just a couple of possibilities.)

 

What I believe is the creator gave us all "types" of critters in the beginning - and natural selection/microevolution/devolution (whatever you want to call it) happened from there. Those created creatures (including mankind) HAD all the variety built in and, over the years, many genes were lost through mutations or cosmic rays or breeding or whatever and we have the varieties we see now - even to the point of different species within types. Extinctions can happen too. All of this can be shown - from Darwin's finches (all losses of info from the original finches) to the breeding shed. There's lots of evidence it goes on. Therefore, it's MUCH more plausible in my mind and what I believe happened.

 

My salvation doesn't rest upon it. Whether it took 6 days 6000 years ago or longer doesn't depend on it. Whether or not the creator was the Christian God doesn't depend on it. I have other reasons why I believe in Christianity as "the" Creator, but I know other science folks who don't believe in Christianity OR macroevolution due to this seen data. In one case, a guy believes life came from outer space via aliens - honestly - not the spark of life via an asteroid, but aliens put the variety of life here and left. In another a lady I know admits she just doesn't know (and doesn't care). Both of them have higher level science degrees. They aren't dumb people simply following a church as evolution adamant people would have people think. I also know people (science people again) that BECAME Christians because they couldn't agree with macroevolution based on the seen data. They figured there must be "a" creator that got things going and went on a spiritual search.

 

Back to housework... then bed so I can be up early!

Edited March 11, 2010 by creekland