If Evolution was proved beyond doubt...

"In such a situation, how would faith stand up to it?"Faith stands up to it quite easily. In fact, if look at science overall, particularly the discoveries in quantum physics such as entanglement, links between consciousness and matter, fundamentals of all things being information (In the beginning was the Word), the Big Bang, etc,....you actually find science confirms the basic biblical view of reality, and incidentally the view of reality found in many spiritual traditions. The old Newtonian paradigm is falling. It's probably incorrect, for example, to claim that the energy of thoughts are different than the energy that forms the core of physical things. It's all more or less energy, and it all interacts. "You reap what you sow" is an old saying that science is beginning to develop a factual basis for demonstrating.So what about evolution and the creation story?Well, first off, to think the theory of common descent which is what people are thinking of disproves the Bible is to assume that the past is static. Personally, I think that is a huge and erroneous assumption, especially in light of modern physics.Vedral and Bukner, for example, have shown that particles can be entangled over segments of time. I "caught it" at first, but maybe one of the more scientifically trained person here can explain how they show that better.But regardless of what science has begun to show, it is an assumption that time flows linearly only, and not "spatially" as well. In other words, common descent is based on the idea that causal events only affect things forward in time.Is that correct though?The principle of entanglement demonstrates information being transferred superluminally, and thus at a different time-flow than the surrounding world.Wave/particle duality demonstrates in double-split experiments that consciousness mysteriously is necessary for matter to take on a definite form, that consciousness somehow is connected to and has a determinative role in the formation of matter.Where am I going?Well, we know when man fell that the Bible says God cursed the earth, and later the Bible suggests perhaps the whole universe, or at least parts of "the heavens themselves" were changed.Hmmm.....So death enters, and all sorts of changes occur, even perhaps changes in physical laws. That's what the Bible suggests or states happened.So God changed the universe as a result of the consciousness of man falling? Did he do that from time forward, or did He do that from the beginning forward?In other words, look at the creation and development of the universe or multi-verse, as a movie with God as the Director and Producer.Maybe instead of changing things as if by magic, poof, from that time forward, maybe the fall of man's consiouscess affected the entire universe backwards and forwards in time, and incidentally the reserruction of man's consciousness might one day do the same.I think if you read the Bible closely and think about God's ways, that it makes sense that God changed the universe by changing it from the foundation forward. God is not limited by time.In that context, it is possible for both special creation and common descent to have occured, and it is possible, imo, for any combination of the 2.Heck, it's completely possible, and I believe we will discover this, that the past is changing and not static even today. That may be a revolutionary concept, but I think because the changes are slow, we are slow to detect it, but will one day see that both the past, present, and future are affected by actions and changes.Certainly, the linear changes are more easily seen, and dominant, but that does not mean that non-linear action is not occuring and changing the time-line gradually and those changes add up over time.

"If a species can change a little bit then there's no reason it can't change more."But is there a range within that ability to change, and that's the issue?My understanding is that natural selection alone and genetic variation is not sufficient for the changes required for macro-evolution. What is required are mutations?The question then is are observed mutations of the type, character and frequency sufficient to explain all of life developing from a single, original organism?

What's to stop it seems like a crazy question on the face of it since the real question is what causes something?First, things are limited by the forces affecting it and the substance of what something is, right?Are there forces affecting a biological system that create an infinite degree of change? By what method?I think conventional thinking on this issue is that breeding and variation alone are not sufficient.Do you agree with that assessment?

You are not answering the question. Most conventional evolutionists, if you will, believe mutations are necessary to produce macro-evolution.Why do they think that, if what you are saying is true, that the process has no limits to it without mutations?Look at it this way, and admittedly this is over-simplified, but I can shuffle a deck of cards, and that process can continue forever and there will be a change every single time, but does that mean the ability for new combinations (variation) is unlimited?No, I can do it forever and without some added new cards, mutations of the old ones, the cards have a finite range of possibilities even though they exist in a process of infinite change.Make sense?

Gaw, the number of combinations in a deck of cards is not unlimited. There is a finite, though very large, number of combinations in a deck of cards.On genetics, I may have a limited amount of knowledge, but I also know that variation without any mutation is not considered sufficient to account for all of life.

From what I have read in on this issue from various sources is that variation without any mutation is not considered sufficient to account for all of life.Processes are limited. The idea they are not limited by definition is absurd.I would also argue that often we see changes within species or groups of related species that change in the fossil record with the changes found within a range, meaning they change one way and then back the other, over a long period of time, and of course, some go extinct exactly because things like extinction do stop the process, and if the process was so unlimited, extinctions would be less likely.So the real crux of the matter goes to whether observable mutations are sufficient to explain the development of all life in adding the "jumps" necessary to break out of the cycle of a range of change due to reproductive variation.

Gaw, you need to follow more closely."The fact that you are using a deck of cards, and saying that you can't add anymore card into the deck over time, is a strawman argument against genetic mutation."No, it's an illustration for an argument why genetic mutation is necessary if evolution is true.The argument was that micro-evolution as a process automatically proves macro-evolution, and my point is that micro-evolution can occur without mutations, and yet micro-evolution without mutations is considered insufficient to lead to full-on macro-evolution.Therefore, the argument that micro-evolution proves macro-evolution is false, and imo, sophomoric. The old "what's to stop it?" is just silly. What's to make it happen is the question since clearly micro-evolution can exist without leading to macro-evolution, and heck, extinctions show this all the time, so the argument is a false one.The real argument is whether observable mutations are sufficient in type, frequency, etc,...to explain the "jumps" necessary for variation to lead to macro-evolution.And as far as my thesis on this thread, the argument is that if the theory of common descent were proven 100%, that would not negate special creation. Non-boolean logic and fact, as shown in quantum mechanics, is more valid than Newtonian paradigms of space-time and matter.This message has been edited by randman, 05-27-2005 04:57 PM

Gaw, I cannot help you if you are not intellectually honest. Reread my posts, think about them, and when you are ready to understand them, maybe post something based on what I said, and I will get back to you.By the way, is the process of a human life unlimited?Or does it have an end?What stops it?What stops variation alone without mutation from developing into unlimited life forms is the fact that there is a limited and finite combination that can stem from variation absent any mutations.I seriously don't think any educated evolutionary biologist disagrees with that assessment. Mutations are considered both real and necessary.

Gaw, from this comment, I assume you are not interested in debate, nor truth, or you are too dumb to follow the argument. Perhaps you should play with yourself?"I can't seem to find anyone (except for you) that initially said that evolution of any kind does not require mutation."I will try one last time, and then that's it. I have learned one thing on boards, and that's when someone is not willing to listen to reason and approach what you say with honesty, they are not worth talking to.The claim was put forth that micro-evolution proves macro-evolution by insisting that the process is unlimited, which is a pretty broad claim.So I broke this down a bit, and showed, as you tacitly admit to in your derogatory post, that mutations are considered necessary for macroevolution.I'd think at this point a light would go on, but I am afraid it probably has to be spelled out for you.Microevolution occurs without mutation all the time. All change is microevolution, by definition.But if just because microevolution occurs, that means macroevolution is automatically proven (if the logic is correct that the one by it's mere existence proves the other), then microevolution occuring without any mutations should also automatically lead to macroevolution without the need for mutations at all, but that's not the case, is it?Mutations, as you tacitly admit to, are necessary.So the real issue is whether there are enough mutations of the type necessary to bulk up variation so to speak to produce, along with natural selection, all of life as we know it.If you cannot follow that, I've got no use for you, man.If you do follow that, then please post responses that acknowledge what I wrote instead of trying to dodge it, and if you cannot do that, once again, I've got no use for you here.

"Well, the first thing you need to establish is the existence of a "cycle of a range of change due to reproductive variation"."Actually, that a separate issue and not necessary to discuss the orignal point. I may have some time to look up examples in the fossil record of species changing within a range, but frankly, I am surprised you claim to not have heard of that.As far as all species, I cannot say, and neither can you, because the fossil record is incomplete, but I suspect even with homo sapiens, you see a measure of this. Cro-Magnon man, for example, was larger than man has been in the past few thousand years, but we are seeing man in the past 100 years grow in size, perhaps due to better nutrition. We saw examples of what I consider "just people" that were smaller in size prior to Cro-Magnon as well. That's one example of the range I am talking about being demonstrated over time.But this is largely a side issue as to whether micro-evolution absent mutations could account for all of life today.

Sorry Gaw, but you don't measure up. You want to debate definitions in a clear attempt to avoid the issue.Bye! Have a nice day!Oh, but I'll add this one definition of microevolution."Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level. "Microevolution - WikipediaSince you could have taken the time to google that yourself and then commented, I see no reason to continue discussions with you.

Jon, you are being absurd."I may have missed it .. but who claims that microevolution absent mutations could account for all of life today? Certainly no biologists do."Uh, duh!! My point exactly. Reread what I wrote.You admit that microevolution absent of mutations cannot account for all of life today, right?Please answer.And yet microevolution does occur without mutations. Heck, if you have a baby without the baby having a mutation, microevolution has occurred, OK?So arguing that just because microevolution occurs, as the other poster did, that is 100% proof of macroevolution is quite absurd.Lemme ask you this to illustrate what I was responding to. What would stop normal reproduction from evolving into anything, period, over time, absent of mutations?What would stop it?Hmm...are mutations necessary or not?The truth is that the fact of microevolution on its own does not prove macroevolution. That's just flat out wrong.If you want to claim microevolution of a certain type that included mutations leads to macroevolution, then fine.But then the crux of the matter is mutations, not by the way the tendency towards a range of change, which I used as something seen in the fossil record, and gave homo sapiens as an example, which is proof enough to illustrate a side point which was made as an illustration itself.But the way this thread has gone is one evidence to me of the near futility to talking with evolutionists. It's like there is veil on the brain, something I have only seen by and large with people in cults (not trying to be mean here or say it's a cult but just my observation). There really was no reason to waste several pages trying to refute a very small observation of mine, which is that if microevolution as an idea automatically proved macroevolution, then all forms of microevolution would do that, and they do not.But there was this blanket refusal to admit the obvious, and instead an attempt to somehow find a way to condemn what could not be condemned, all because a "sacred" argument of evolutionists was denied.Bottom line is I responded to this thread concerning why, imo, proving common descent totally would not disprove special creation.anyone care to return to the thread topic?This message has been edited by randman, 05-27-2005 06:11 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 05-27-2005 07:14 PM

"Well, I don't think that the existence of microevolution proves the existence of macroevolution."That was my point."The evidence we have, including but not limited to the existence of microevolution, establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that macroevolution has happened."Saying it doesn't make it so."Nothing can disprove special creation. That's one reason why creationism isn't a scientific theory."But people argue all the time that special creation and things like YEC have been disproven by scientific research. You cannot have it both ways. Either science can disprove it or not, and if it can, it's science, and if not, we can debate that.Personally, I think of "evolution" in a similar vein. It cannot be proven or disproven, but that doesn't stop some from declaring it is proven beyond even all "reasonable doubt".But let me rephrase the larger point. Th thread title asks if evolution were proven true, and by evolution I assume that means the theory of common descent, then what would be the consequences as far as biblical belief, and I posted here to state that the concept of either/or, and even heck, one time-line, is not valid.

"The point is that the very fact that species change logically tells us that species can change indefinitely."Maybe they can change indefinitely, but that doesn't mean they are capable of infinite change, which was your original point.That's why I used the deck of cards example. If I were to shuffle a deck of cards forever, it is true that the deck order would forever change, but would not have an infinite range of change.The idea that a very long, even forever, length of time equates with infinite range of change is just wrong on the face of it, and an incorrect and illogical leap.Microevolution can occur in a manner, conveivably, that does not lead to macroevolution provided no mutations occur. So the idea that just because species are changing due to reproduction means it is logical they could evolve into just about anything given enough time is illogical. The nature of the change is not such that it is unlimited, absent mutations, and that was my point, and why I consider the old argument that demands "what's stopping it?" to be a serious error in logic and thinking.

jar, read the thread. The point was conceded that mutations were necessary to explain the evolution of all of life.Take away the mutations, and you don't have sufficient enough mechanism to accomplish this.It's not even debatable really.Are you claiming that mutations are not necessary for macroevolution?