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

[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.

[butterfly_warrior]

Epacris, it seems to me that evolution on that level is fine. But taking evolution as life spontaneously sprang out of the primordial soup and bacteria single-celled organisms suddenly became far more comples and humans descended from apes is a bit more... Extreme, I guess. The earlier one I would call adaptation - the differences are relatively small. The differences some claim in life evolving from nothing are huge and just implausible to me. I can accept one, I cannot accept the other.

BW

[Epacris]

OK so it's my turn to crack open the please, please understand, I am not trying to be deliberately argumentative, I am genuinely interested in having a conversation, so I can increase the depth of my understanding and compassion and consideration for all.

I'm with Nelle on the worldview - faith is life. What I believe about God and the Bible inpacts the way I live and the way I think about everything. And really, evolutionary science works the same way. If you believe that life evolved and that humans are "high apes", it impacts the way you think about the world and everything else in life.

I am really unsure of what you are saying here. Are you saying that Christianity and science are mutually exclusive, you just can't be both?

Is human life sacred? Is there absolute truth?

Again, I really have no idea what you mean? You don't have to be religious AT ALL to value the sanctity of human life? And truth? And just because you are a Christian, it doesn't mean you a "good" person, likewise, not all atheists are evil?

To return to the evolution thing briefly - development and speciallization within a species is evident. I'm not denying that. However, when these things happen, information is LOST. New information is not created. Diversity was possible within the genetic code of the creature, and due to environmental circumstances, individual animals with certain traits had the advantage over others, and so that trait became dominant, and the other genetic information was lost over time, or preserved in another variety of that species, living in different circumstances. I believe this is sometimes called micro-evolution. Macro-evolution, in which fish become birds, for example, and new genetic information is created, is an entirely different thing, and that is what evolution is based on. I do not believe this ever happened.

I just wanted to say that this is not scientifically correct and not the experience that I have, as a scientist, working with endangered species, populations and ecological communities out in the field. I am not some boffin in a lab mixing brightly coloured liquids together. I am out there in the bush formulating and implementing rehabilitation plans, counting and collecting (with the appropriate licenses of course) making sure these species are preserved for posterity (as dead samples in a herbarium) because they are on the brink of extinction. I hope so much that I don't see it (extinction) in my lifetime, but unfortunately I fear I will.

And anyone who says Richard Dawkins hasn't turned evolution into a religion obviously hasn't read those books of his! I can see fanaticism on both sides of the argument from various people and that's why I'll defend the other side to the hilt.

I totally agree, atheists can be just as fundamental as any fundamentalists from any religion.

It's a fascinating and interesting study, but I just can't believe that we started from goo with NO extra help. That just seems crazy.

Also, I think you are all well aware now that I hold Darwin and his wako theory very close to my heart and soul. How would you feel if I said: "Believing in God (or insert you chosen spiritual being here) just seems crazy." And please know that I am posing this question (how would you feel?) in an effort to evoke some sensitivity and compassion, seeing as this is in the general religion section and not in the Christianity section. I would NEVER actually say that to anyone about what they believe.

And JIC you're worrying about me and how I'm feeling, I'm fine, really, I'm just asking.

[Nelle]

Thanks Rach. I will have to do some more study on mutation, my biology is a bit rusty. It does sound to me that what you're talking about, species passing on genes to ensure survival of future generations - is adaptation.

Sorry if we're confusing. Obviously while the facts are the same, theory about the facts is going to be different based on people's different world views (by Jehovah, Berenice means God, if that was part of the confusion).

[Epacris]

It's OK Nelle, I get it now, BW's explanation is good. You (I mean that somewhat collectively but not in any way accusingly ) can accept the adaptation bit, but you don't accept that adaptation goes so far as the creation of new species. Sure.

[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.