Scientists made a valuable discovery recently: they cataloged the changes in a bacteria’s DNA as it underwent a major evolutionary shift.
This is substantial for scientific, cultural, and religious/doctrinal reasons.
Scientific: This bacteria made a cross-species leap. In approximately 31,500 generations, a mutation developed that allowed E. coli to metabolize citrate. A distinguishing feature of E. coli from other bacteria is its inability to metabolize citrate. This is akin to a human being suddenly developing the ability to safely metabolize rotten meat without sickness, like a vulture, or a cat developing the ability to learn to speak English. It’s a radical shift in a species due to an extremely unlikely mutation that took tens upon tens of thousands of generations to manifest.
Cultural: From the article:
In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.
Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. “The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events,” he says. “That’s just what creationists say can’t happen.”
Religious/Doctrinal: From LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie’s famous “Seven Deadly Heresies” speech:
Should we accept the famous document of the First Presidency issued in the days of President Joseph F. Smith and entitled “The Origin of Man” as meaning exactly what it says? Is it the doctrine of the gospel that Adam stood next to Christ in power and might and intelligence before the foundations of the world were laid; that Adam was placed on this earth as an immortal being; that there was no death in the world for him or for any form of life until after the Fall; that the fall of Adam brought temporal and spiritual death into the world; that this temporal death passed upon all forms of life, upon man and animal and fish and fowl and plant life; that Christ came to ransom man and all forms of life from the effects of the temporal death brought into the world through the Fall, and in the case of man from a spiritual death also; and that this ransom includes a resurrection for man and for all forms of life? Can you harmonize these things with the evolutionary postulate that death has always existed and that the various forms of life have evolved from preceding forms over astronomically long periods of time? …
My reasoning causes me to conclude that if death has always prevailed in the world, then there was no fall of Adam that brought death to all forms of life; that if Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement; that if there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, and no eternal life; and that if there was no atonement, there is nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. I believe that the Fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself, and that the atonement affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself.
I agree exactly with Elder McConkie’s line of reasoning, but to the opposite conclusion.
Creationists Responses
Creationists have responded in a predictable fashion.
I like Lensky already.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Intelligent Evolutionism
Manoman, my pastor might kill me, but I think I am coming around to this point ov view regarding the evolution of all non-human species.
Species can be intelligently designed and then built using evolution. “What?” – that’s right… as a believer I think it is TOTALLY within the realm of possibilities that when it came time for a left vs. right fork in the road in the evolution of a species, where left was more likely, but Right fit the design that would be favorable to man, that’s the nudge God gives, to the right.
yeah, you’ll say “Where’s the evidence” – but since I believe science proves truth and that the Bible is also truth, then they must jibe – and my understanding of one must include the understanding of the other.. and an open mind is the best way toward that understanding.
The creation of man is muddier to me. I have always held that the so called “Missing Link” was straight out creationism. God made Man and plunked him down in a homo-sapien form, apelike, but not quite, and gave man the gift of sentience. From there it makes sense, given our nature, that we went out and killed every man-like species we encountered that didn’t just die off on their own.
Again, you will think it an outrageous non Ackham’s Razor conclusion.. but again, I consider science and the bible to be fact-based.. so again, the trick is changing my belief system to reflect scientific possibility.
Eventually, it will break down where my understanding fails me.. but until I read in the Bible “God did not use evolution”, I am more than willing to accept it.
NVZ: NINJAS VS ZOMBIES – THE MOVIE – http://www.nvzmovie.com THE OFFICIAL JUSTIN TIMPANE WEBSITE – http://www.timpane.com
Inventing solutions
By holding both true, don’t you find yourself “inventing” solutions to rationalize both truths? God “nudges” to the right or the left…God allowed the animals to evolve but not man so much?
But this logic, God made us with that nature. How can we then be blamed for behaving like God made us?
Justin, if you can take the Bible as a text of the evolution of how man should treat his fellow man and leave the science out of it, I think it would help make your view of life more logical WHILE keeping the morality of it mostly intact.
Just a suggestion. We all have to find our own way.
My $.02 Weed
Inventions and history
1) Inventing Solutions: Sure I do! We all do. Scientists do. We take the known facts (and I consider the Bible to be among the subset of known facts) and the new discoveries, and then come up with a solution that fits both. We don’t come up with a theory that denies the law of gravity or that denies that mass cannot spontaneously change – so our theories incorporate those facts. For me, I use the Bible the same way – although i am willing to adjust my understanding of the Bible through further study and by new discoveries.
2)Our Nature: Yup, again! God gave us sentience – but also the free will to do what we please.. essentially to be Gods of our own lives. We then have the option to choose god – or good – or not. And keep in mind, we still have all those animal instincts too.. part of the gift of bein human is the ability to rise above the instincts and choose a different way.. but we maintain the ability not to as well..
3) Historocity: The problem is this.. I don’t use “religion” as a means to “find my way”. I believe because I think its True. If someone could somehow completely convince me that its all just nice stories and morality tales, I would stop believing. My belief is centered around the idea that god is REAL. If not, then really, I have no time in my life for a big fat lie. – Consider me the other side of the coin from Matt. Matt believes its a lie, and therefore cannot continue to be a part of it. I believe (albeit in a totally different view of God and Christ than Mormons) its the truth, and therefore continue to be a part of it, even when its hard to be.
NVZ: NINJAS VS ZOMBIES – THE MOVIE – http://www.nvzmovie.com THE OFFICIAL JUSTIN TIMPANE WEBSITE – http://www.timpane.com
Close
We don’t come up with a theory that denies the law of gravity because we can infinitely reproduce the law of gravity over and over. It can be experimentally proven over and over again.
The Bible cannot be proved, and parts of it have defied proof. It really is anti-science, because it requires belief without proof.
And if you can merge them and be happy, then more power to you. But realize it’s simply your belief that gives the Bible credibility. Scientifically, it’s just a book.
I’m not saying don’t believe in God, but I’m just saying take the Bible with a grain of salt.
Some Cardinal in the Vatican said during the Renaissance, “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”.
My $.02 Weed
Salt…
…how about a pillar of salt, instead?
<ducks>
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Stick to your guns
Matt, say what you gotta say and don’t look back.
I SAID, DON’T LOOK BACK!
Aw man, now who’s gonna starts posts? 😉
My $.02 Weed
Hello..
Let me be the first to welcome everyone to the new, renamed GRABER.ORG
NVZ: NINJAS VS ZOMBIES – THE MOVIE – http://www.nvzmovie.com THE OFFICIAL JUSTIN TIMPANE WEBSITE – http://www.timpane.com
Flat on my butt…
I’m flat on my butt right now that you made that concession 🙂
I embraced a similar view for years. You know, “Matthewism”. I thought that, well, something similar to Man evolved on its own, and God picked up a few samples at the local flea market, took them home, tweaked their code, built a prototype in the laboratory and then set it loose in the garden once it freaked his wife out one too many times by talking to her when she thought she was alone.
He found that the sole specimen spent way too much time wanking and talking to himself, and figured he needed a friend, so He brought him back to the garage, borrowed a part or two, made a female clone, and then set the two of them free to see how they worked it out.
Finding them startlingly similar to the relationship God had with His wife, He decided to go work on another project and come pay a visit every few thousand years to see how things were working out.
Of course, the day these monkey-prototypes get too big for their britches and figure out how to get around the whole speed-of-light thing, He will probably need to clean out the freezer, burn the remaining cultures in the giant petri dish called “Earth”, and make some room for His next project.
That’s not my view today, but I still think it makes for a neat story!
—
Matthew P. Barnson