Do you believe in evolution or what your holy book says?

[butterfly_warrior]

One of the things I found most amusing in my university studies of geology - they could use various different forms of radioactive isotope (it's not all carbon) decay to date rocks. They could take rocks formed at a known date due to volcanic eruption and they would date at millions or billions of years old. And yet geologists still trusted it to date other rocks!

I've seen pictures of gold chains found in the middle of coal seams.

Like cricket, I have no issues believing the earth is only around 6000 years old. I have no issues believing dinosaurs existed. I have no issues believing that fossils were created suddenly and rapidly in a global, catastrophic flood.

I do have serious issues trusting the dating methods that suggest the earth is billions of years old. I have serious issues believing in evolution.

I won't claim to have all the answers. I'm happy to trust that God knows and one day when we join Him we will also know (or it will become irrelevant!). I would much rather believe the bible is literal fact than be responsible for deciding which bits are fact and which are just poetry - that would be an absolutely enormous responsibility and one I don't feel qualified for!

BW

[Epacris]

As an environmental scientist and ecologist I find the notion of "believing" in evolution kind of strange. Darwin's theory of evolution forms the basis of all our knowledge about biodiversity at genetic, species and ecosystem level. This knowledge is how endangered species, populations and communities are managed. It's not like there is an alternative view, or another way of doing it, this is it!

For example, if you have three isolated populations of an endangered species you need to decide whether those populations are genetically distinct from each other and if they are beyond the point of no return in terms of number of individuals in each population. Once you have researched these two questions you can now make decisions about whether to mix the populations or keep them separate all with the ultimate aim of maintaining maximum genetic and species diversity. All our knowledge about this has come from Darwin's theory of evolution. To me it's not "just some crazy theory", it is a set of incredibly important and practically applied information that helps us as humans manage our impact on species and ecosystems, so we don't create even more chaos and destruction than we already have.

And in terms of artificial selection, you only have to look at the vast array of domestic breeds of animals to see that in action. I head somewhere that pug dogs have less genetic diversity than the critically endangered panda!

[Bumperstump Cummerbund]

Thanks for your view Epacris - its interesting to see it from a scientists point of view!

In regards to using Darwinian Theory as a base for current environmental protocols - humans have had all kinds of theories over the centuries that have proven to be, not only wrong, but actually detrimental. Only a couple of hundred years ago we were still bleeding people to let heat out if they had a fever. Doctors used to do their rounds accompanied by a nurse with a single towel, which the doctor would use to dry his hands after examining each patient, leading to cross contamination, infection, and more often than not, death. And for decades, doctors have been working with the theory of 'give them a pint of blood and they'll be fine', and we're only just starting to learn how harmful THAT one can be!

Scientific theories are based on current human understanding - and as we progress as a race, we learn more about ourselves, and our environment. This often make us look back and go 'Wow, I can't believe we used to believe that - how naive!'

On the other hand, the Bible has never been wrong - the only problem comes when Man tries to put his own interpretation on it. It has a 100% track record, which is more than enough for me

[Nelle]

With evolution, like I said, I think that evolution and adaptation are two different things. I believe, like with breeding pug dogs, that we can lose genetic information to bring out certain traits in species. I believe things have changed through adaptation and mutation. I'm not sure about brand new genetic information that's never existed before evolving into being.

Is that incompatible with what you do Rachel? (*adds curious and not challenging emotion here*)

[Epacris]

Thanks for your kind and warm acknowledgment Berenice.

Yeah sure, we're are always learning and discovering new things but taking your medical example.... Throwing out "On the Origin of Species" for ecologists, would be like throwing out "Gray's Anatomy" for the medical profession.

Nelle, you are one of the kindest and gentlest people I know, you'd have to be a very hard nut to take something you said the wrong way. But I'll have to think about my answer, it's complicated (of course) and I'm not sure where to start. I'll BBL.

[Epacris]

Well you see Nelle, a mutation is brand new genetic information. Every time genes recombine they make little mistakes, mutations, this (as well as the actual recombination itself) is what creates genetic diversity. Within a randomly breeding population individuals will be different from each other. If environmental conditions change in some way (for example there is a new predator or disease or there is a change in the climate) the more variation there is within a population the higher the chance that some individuals will have characteristics that will help them survive in the changed conditions. All individuals that do not have the required characteristic do not successfully breed (or survive) and pass on their genes. A new population that exists in the changed conditions is founded by individuals that had the characteristic that was required for successful survival and reproduction, because they are the ones that passed on their genetic information.

If one species is split into multiple populations they may be experiencing different environmental conditions that drive this adaptation. Over a very long period of time, these different populations can become different species. Before they become different species there are lots of steps along the way and this is what I have experience in working with, distinct populations, subspecies, forms, varieties. Provence is a huge issue in the bush regeneration industry. When you revegetate an area, from where do you get the plant material you need to propagate the plants? How much material do you take to maximise genetic diversity? How can you ever hope to replicate a natural ecosystem (unfortunately, we can't even begin to come close but that's a whole other story ). At least by having an understanding of our ecological impact, we can understand how precious and irreplaceable the biodiversity that we have left is.

Ahhh far out Nelle, I fear I have made absolutely no sense at all.

And I just wanted to reiterate that for me evolution is not a belief, it just is. To me, saying "Do you believe in evolution?" would be like saying to a medical professional "Do you believe in Gray's Anatomy?".

[Bumperstump Cummerbund]

But what if these mutations are just products of an imperfect world? We are not how Jehovah created us - even evolutionary theory agrees with that - so who's to say these different breeds and genetic variety aren't simply accidents, never intended to exist when Jehovah created the world?

I don't wanna come across as argumentative, I'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation - even if its giving me a headache

[Epacris]

Berenice, I dunno I TBH I don't really understand what you're talking about? Sorry. I'm just sharing, with anyone who is reading, my experience as a bushland manager (and teacher) and how endangered species, populations and ecosystems are managed. And I guess I would also like to say that I live and breathe this, I have dedicated my life and career to it. I'm happy to answer any questions, I’m not taking anything as argumentative, just genuinely interested.

[sneakysparkle]

Epacris - glad to have you join the discussion!

Now I'm not a scientist, but I do read.
I know that its not just Christians that dont agree with the theory of evolution - there are many credible scientists who have put their hand up to say they disagree with Darwin's theory.
What about "Icons of Evolution" - a book that debunks a lot of things that Darwin's theory are based on? (and I know there are many more!)
I understand that different people have different opinions on what 'evolution' really means, but if we are talking about Darwinism - it says that all living creatures are modified descendents of a common ancestor that lived long ago, that every new species that has ever appeared can be explained by descent with modification. That hasn't been proven!

[Epacris]

SS - Sure there is an alternative view to evolution out there, and in science even (ETA: I mean on the fringes of science, mainstream science has never accepted any alternative (such as creationism) to evolution), but in my professional experience, as an ecologist there isn't, not even a tiny little hint of it. What we know about conserving biodiversity and managing endangered, species, populations and ecological communities, based on Darwin's theory of evolution, is taken for granted, not even questioned, not for one second, it just is. I'm not making any value judgements about this, I'm just telling you how it is.

ETA: Just to clarify, I'm speaking professionally here. What people believe personally is completely up to them. I probably didn't need to say/clarify that, I just wanted to be crystal clear on that point.

BW - OK, sure.