Evidence for Evolution

[Heirbyadoption]

Interesting discussion. Ken, while I get the sense you occasionally feel the need to push back against some of the dogmatism here (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), I''ll admit I'm not always sure where you fall on an issue, especially when it gets muddied in back-and-forths with Josh. But based on your experience and what you teach/study, would you be willing to share in brief with us your personal belief/understanding of how the natural world and sentient mankind came into existence, and how you reconcile any differences between that and the extant (JudeoChristian) Scripture/historical records available today, including the "Genesis myth" which tend to be part and parcel with much of professing Christianity? If it's not too much to ask, it might help me consider some of your comments more in context. Thanks.

[Neto]

Simple 'change' is not what most people mean by the term 'evolution'. Sure, there are changes taking place in ecosystems, weather, habitats, etc. But these changes are not permanent, and these changes can be reversed (or accelerated), sometimes by human influence, and sometimes by what appears to be natural processes or cycles. There are, for instance, evidences that some parts of the Brazilian Amazon were once grasslands. Even in my lifetime I have seen the ecosystem change in the area of Oklahoma where I grew up. In my early childhood, the entire area was largely still a prairie ecosystem. But it was actually the tail-end of a sort of degenerative process that started with the suppression of buffalo, the removal of the Plains Indians from the area (or at least depriving them from their former long-standing human influence on what we call the Great Plains, essentially a managed ecosystem). Had the Plains Indians not favored the buffalo, and managed the prairies specifically for their (the buffalo) benefit, it would have been a very different ecosystem which the 'pioneers' encountered as they moved west. But getting back to changes that have been observable in my life time, that death of the managed ecosystem 'discovered' by the first whites - I have witnessed the rapid spread & growth of various types of trees, especially scrub cedar. As more people moved into the area around our home there, they planted more trees, of various species. This attracted more birds, particularly the smaller species, and over the years we saw fewer of the larger species, like hawks, crows, buzzards, etc. (They depend on being able to see small prey, and swoop down to catch them. Thicker brush makes that more difficult.) The Indians systematically burned the prairies, which prevented forest growth, and had various other effects.

But what most people think of when they present arguments against 'evolution' in the sense that it was used as it came into popular usage, is dealing with vast and irreversible changes, like from some aquatic protozoa to higher forms of life, then simple mammals, then farther on from some ancestral primate into separate species like gorillas, chimps, and various humanoid species as well. But I am not up on this whole topic- I just wanted to point out the different meanings of the word, as it is used in various contexts.

[Ken]

Interesting discussion. Ken, while I get the sense you occasionally feel the need to push back against some of the dogmatism here (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), I''ll admit I'm not always sure where you fall on an issue, especially when it gets muddied in back-and-forths with Josh. But based on your experience and what you teach/study, would you be willing to share in brief with us your personal belief/understanding of how the natural world and sentient mankind came into existence, and how you reconcile any differences between that and the extant (JudeoChristian) Scripture/historical records available today, including the "Genesis myth" which tend to be part and parcel with much of professing Christianity? If it's not too much to ask, it might help me consider some of your comments more in context. Thanks.

That is a very long question that I don't have time to properly answer now so I'll just toss out a few things.

First of all, I think Christianity is wrong to be so obsessed with literal interpretations of Bible and especially the Old Testament. The Bible as we know it today did not exist in Biblical times and for much of the history of Christianity was unavailable to ordinary Christians. Plus, which Bible? The Protestant version with 66 books? The Catholic version with 73 books? Or the Orthodox version with 86 books?

The modern Bible is actually a compilation of a variety of different works. Some of it is history, some of it is poetry, some of it is prophecy, some of it is sermons, some of it is law, some of it is letters, some of it is mythology. And it should be read as such. The Old Testament is really the cultural history and beliefs of the Hebrew people. We have their ancient laws which are curiosities for the most part. Few Christians adhere to even a fraction of them. When was the last time there was a stoning in a Christian community? Or someone was put to death for adultery? There is is a lot of history and poetry that can be interesting and inspirational. And if you go back to Genesis there are stories that are origin myths similar to those of every other ancient culture. Does that mean they are lies or untruths? No. They are a record of what the ancient Hebrews believed and therefore valuable to know as they give us insight. Just like the Navajo creation story gives us insight into Navajo beliefs and cultures. As do the Hindu and Muslim creation myths. They are all a record of deeply held beliefs.

The creation story in Genesis gives us a picture of of the beliefs of the Bronze Age Hebrew culture. It is a story that reflects a belief in a flat and unchanging earth which was a world view that most cultures shared until the classical Greeks calculated that the earth was round and Eratosthenes in 240 BC cleverly measured the earth's circumference to an astonishing level of accuracy using simple scientific concepts.

For example, there are actually two creation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 that are inconsistent and contradictory. For example, though the stories describe some of the same events, they order them differently. In Genesis 1, God creates plants, then animals, and then simultaneously creates man and woman. In Genesis 2, God creates a human, plants, then animals, and later he divides the human into female and male.

The order of creation is also consistent with a belief in a flat earth rather than a spherical earth, and flat earth adherents even point to it as evidence of their beliefs. The order of creation makes no sense from a modern perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was “without form and void” (Genesis 1:2). On the second day, a vault—the “firmament” was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed “in” (not “above”) the vault.

So do I think Genesis is a literal historical and modern scientific narrative of the creation of the earth? No. But it is a beautiful story and provides insight into the world view and beliefs of the Bronze Age Hebrews. Likewise I don't think the events as portrayed in Homer's Iliad and Odyssey are literal events. I don't think the Cyclops and Sirens existed. I don't think Poseidon sent storms and sea monsters to prevent Odysseus' journey home. And I don't think Achilles' mother dipped him into the River Styx making him invulnerable except for the ankle that she missed. But just like Genesis, they give us a window into the past and the beliefs of the ancient Greeks and provide a foundation for western culture. We still reference those works in our modern life (Achilles heel). And it is a metaphor for the journey of life and perseverance.

So no, I don't hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis. And I don't think it is fair to judge the writings of pre-modern Bronze Age peoples by modern scientific standards. We know the earth is round, not flat. We know the earth is ancient, not 6,000 years old. We know the earth is constantly changing geologically, physically, and biologically. And not fixed in place as is stated in many Old Testament verses. The theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is just one explanation of the many ways in which the earth and world we live in is constantly changing. The Theory of Plate Tectonics is another. Sedimentation and the Rock Cycle is yet another. All of them are inconsistent with Genesis.

I am frankly puzzled by why so many conservative Christians are so insistent in arguing about evolution when when there are just as many other modern scientific theories that are equally inconsistent with the Old Testament and Genesis. Modern Plate Tectonics, for example. Or for that matter, a heliocentric solar system which got Galileo tried and convicted by the Inquisition. None of that is consistent with Genesis either.

Bottom line? Does any of it really matter when it comes to the fundamental teachings of Christianity? I don't think so. And for that matter, neither do vast numbers of Christians who don't see conflicts between religion and science. Including, for example, the Catholic Church. So it's not like my beliefs are anything fringe. They are solidly in the mainstream. I think that we can agree that Jesus' fundamental teachings about how we are to live our lives and treat or fellow man are equally compelling and relevant regardless of how we interpret Genesis.

[Ken]

Simple 'change' is not what most people mean by the term 'evolution'. Sure, there are changes taking place in ecosystems, weather, habitats, etc. But these changes are not permanent, and these changes can be reversed (or accelerated), sometimes by human influence, and sometimes by what appears to be natural processes or cycles. There are, for instance, evidences that some parts of the Brazilian Amazon were once grasslands. Even in my lifetime I have seen the ecosystem change in the area of Oklahoma where I grew up. In my early childhood, the entire area was largely still a prairie ecosystem. But it was actually the tail-end of a sort of degenerative process that started with the suppression of buffalo, the removal of the Plains Indians from the area (or at least depriving them from their former long-standing human influence on what we call the Great Plains, essentially a managed ecosystem). Had the Plains Indians not favored the buffalo, and managed the prairies specifically for their (the buffalo) benefit, it would have been a very different ecosystem which the 'pioneers' encountered as they moved west. But getting back to changes that have been observable in my life time, that death of the managed ecosystem 'discovered' by the first whites - I have witnessed the rapid spread & growth of various types of trees, especially scrub cedar. As more people moved into the area around our home there, they planted more trees, of various species. This attracted more birds, particularly the smaller species, and over the years we saw fewer of the larger species, like hawks, crows, buzzards, etc. (They depend on being able to see small prey, and swoop down to catch them. Thicker brush makes that more difficult.) The Indians systematically burned the prairies, which prevented forest growth, and had various other effects.

But what most people think of when they present arguments against 'evolution' in the sense that it was used as it came into popular usage, is dealing with vast and irreversible changes, like from some aquatic protozoa to higher forms of life, then simple mammals, then farther on from some ancestral primate into separate species like gorillas, chimps, and various humanoid species as well. But I am not up on this whole topic- I just wanted to point out the different meanings of the word, as it is used in various contexts.

Yes but to focus and concentrate on evolution (however you want to define it) misses the big picture.

We live in a world that is constantly changing. The geosphere is constantly changing. Mountains are rising and falling. Continents are moving and colliding. Erosion is carving out canyons. The sea floor is being created at the mid-ocean ridges and destroyed at subduction zones. The atmosphere is changing and cycling. We go through cycles of high and low CO2. We go through cycles of high and low temperature and see both ice ages and warm periods where much of the continents are shallow seas. All of which is entirely inconsistent with Old Testament narratives of a flat unchanging geocentric earth. Yet I never see conservative Christians arguing that the modern theory of plate tectonics is false.

And yes, the biosphere is constantly changing as well. Habitats and biomes are constantly changing as the earth itself changes. Much of Texas was once a shallow sea which is why one can find endless marine fossils in central Texas. My students found hundreds of them in the stream that carved through the limestone layers behind our high school in Waco. All of them species that no longer exist. In fact over 99% of all species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. Change is always happening. We no longer have dinosaurs or sabre tooth tigers or woolly mammoths or megalodons or trilobites. Yet we find evidence that such species did once exist. Some of my students participated in mammoth excavations back in Waco where there is now a new national monument: https://www.nps.gov/waco/index.htm

Evolution by natural selection is simply the current theory explaining how change occurs at the species level. It is an extraordinarily powerful theory with enormous predictive power and an immense amount of evidence behind it. Do we at present have the science and technology to go full "Jurassic Park" and do things like recreate dinosaurs and watch millions of years of evolution within a science laboratory in real time? No, of course not. Might we in the future? Perhaps. The science of today would absolutely astonish scientists from just 100 years ago. Who knows what another 100 years will bring. But whatever it is, I for one will find it interesting. And if newer and more powerful theories come along that challenge and replace evolution, just like Einstein's theory of relativity challenged Newtonian physics? Then I will be delighted and intrigued. That is what science does. Evolution isn't something I "believe" in. It isn't about belief. But I do recognize it is the current and best explanation for the biological change we observe all around us. If in the future we get to rip out the evolution chapters in our textbooks and replace them with newer and better information? That would frankly be extremely exciting. We have already done that with molecular genetics which is an area of science that looks nothing like what was in textbooks 75 years ago.

But the bottom line is this. If you want to deny evolution then you really need to construct a theory and world view of a static and unchanging world. And then support that world view with scientific evidence. Because evolution is just one theory among many that explain the changing world we see around us. All of which are inconsistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis and the Old Testament. And you are, of course, free to do so. Just don't call it science unless the preponderance of scientific evidence supports that view and it is the best scientific explanation for the world we see around us.

[Ken]

No, there is no evidence of macroevolution, Ken. Can you point to any scientific, repeatable, observable evidence that, for example, lizards turn into chickens?

There is an immense amount of evidence confirming and supporting the theory of evolution by natural selection. Evidence that repeats itself across every class of plants and animals and in every corner of the earth's biosphere. Evidence from fossil records. Evidence from comparative anatomy. Evidence from biogeography. Evidence from molecular genetics. And so forth. Pick any species you want and there will be an enormous amount of overlapping evidence of which species it is most closely related to, which species it is more distantly related to, and in many instances, records of common ancestors.

To say there is no evidence of evolution is as nonsensical as saying there is no evidence of gravity. We have never seen gravity waves and scientists still don't know exactly what gravity is and how the force of gravity works. Because we cannot see gravity directly, all we have are the indirect observable effects of gravity. And we can only measure gravity (or gravitation) indirectly. Just like most of what you are calling "macroevolution"

[Josh]

No, there is no evidence of macroevolution, Ken. Can you point to any scientific, repeatable, observable evidence that, for example, lizards turn into chickens?

There is an immense amount of evidence confirming and supporting the theory of evolution by natural selection.

And zero evidence a lizard can turn into an eagle.

[Ken]

No, there is no evidence of macroevolution, Ken. Can you point to any scientific, repeatable, observable evidence that, for example, lizards turn into chickens?

There is an immense amount of evidence confirming and supporting the theory of evolution by natural selection.

And zero evidence a lizard can turn into an eagle.

There is actually a great deal of evidence that modern birds descended from dinosaurs. There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of scientific papers on the subject, various transitional fossils that have been discovered and documented, and a wealth of popular articles on the topic that discuss the topic from more of a layman's point of view. Only a few biologists reject this consensus and those that do suggest archaic reptile origins rather than dinosaurs.

Will you find a time-lapse video documenting the process month by month and year by year? No, of course not. It is just like gravity. We have a tremendous amount of indirect evidence that gravity exists, but no direct evidence since we can't actually see gravity waves.

I'm sure with your skills you could find plenty of information on the subject if you were actually curious rather than dogmatic.

[AndersonD]

Interesting discussion. Ken, while I get the sense you occasionally feel the need to push back against some of the dogmatism here (which isn't necessarily a bad thing), I''ll admit I'm not always sure where you fall on an issue, especially when it gets muddied in back-and-forths with Josh. But based on your experience and what you teach/study, would you be willing to share in brief with us your personal belief/understanding of how the natural world and sentient mankind came into existence, and how you reconcile any differences between that and the extant (JudeoChristian) Scripture/historical records available today, including the "Genesis myth" which tend to be part and parcel with much of professing Christianity? If it's not too much to ask, it might help me consider some of your comments more in context. Thanks.

I am frankly puzzled by why so many conservative Christians are so insistent in arguing about evolution when when there are just as many other modern scientific theories that are equally inconsistent with the Old Testament and Genesis. Modern Plate Tectonics, for example. Or for that matter, a heliocentric solar system which got Galileo tried and convicted by the Inquisition. None of that is consistent with Genesis either.

Bottom line? Does any of it really matter when it comes to the fundamental teachings of Christianity? I don't think so. And for that matter, neither do vast numbers of Christians who don't see conflicts between religion and science. Including, for example, the Catholic Church. So it's not like my beliefs are anything fringe. They are solidly in the mainstream. I think that we can agree that Jesus' fundamental teachings about how we are to live our lives and treat or fellow man are equally compelling and relevant regardless of how we interpret Genesis.

So it doesn't matter to have an evolutionary world view???? You also reference the "vast numbers" on board with your natural selection view. My agnostic/ atheist colleagues say the identical thing...like because the majority believes in evolution that makes it science! That's crazy reasoning.

Will agree that the Bible isn't a science textbook. However, I guess I need to close my eyes to the inaccuracies of radiometric dating, the presence of carbon 14 in sandstone...

[AndersonD]

I would encourage you Ken to hang up teaching if you cannot present other, well as you see them, myths. My colleagues at work who are atheists are Gen Z and believe they are made of Martian material. I don't think teaching evolution as fact is fair, and at the very least you should be highlighting the problems with many evolutionary assumptions.

Saying "the vast majority" believe something isn't very scientific. Galileo could have said the same, instead he defied the established belief that the earth was the center of the universe.

But I understand it's easier to go with the flow, going against would get you fired from your job.

[AndersonD]

Also, may I ask you Ken when you embraced Darwinian theory? Quite frankly, I don't view Darwin as very intelligent.

And do you believe you descended from fish? Like what we call our hands, those, millions of years ago, were fins.