Continuing my chat with a pastor.  Part 4 can be found here.

Me -> “Mutation (although I prefer the term change) and natural selection and what drive adaptation – you have just described evolution in the same breath you denounce it.

Pastor -> “No I haven’t – name a mutation that has led to the growth of a new limb with an entirely different function than any other current limb on an animal? You can’t because according to evolutionists these changes happened so slowly that you can’t see them.”

Limbs (and other structures) do not magically appear from one generation to the next.  What I described was the slow transformation of of a structure from one purpose to another.  In the case of tiktallik his fins were “transforming” into legs.  In other words the species had evolved (change slowly over many generations) to use their fins to prop themselves up in shallow water.  Why this is an advantage I can only guess at, but it could easily be imagined that it allowed them to more easily see their prey on land or to escape predators in the water.  Whatever the reason, we know it happened, and during which time period.

It is also a misnomer to state that all changes happen so slowly that we cannot see them.  We know and can witness the mechanisms (random mutation and natural selection), and we have seen speciation happen in the lab and in the wild (remember the ring species I described?).

Let me try to draw a few analogies.

Have you ever seen a sapling turn into a tree?  We witness trees of all different sizes everyday. If we looked closely we could see they get a little larger with every passing day, so it is rational to conclude that trees grow from small to large.  We believe this, yet no one has ever witnessed a plant grow from a seed to a full mature tree – we have better things to do that watch a plant grow.

Another – we can observe planets moving in the night’s sky and with careful observation and calculation (thanks to Isaac Newton) we can conclude they orbit the sun.  We calculate Neptune’s orbit takes 164.79 years.  No one has ever witnessed a full orbit of Neptune, yet we accept it as fact based our observations.

When we see genetic differences between generations (you are not just a mix between your parents, you have some DNA that is uniquely yours), and understand that process very well, and we share 98% of our DNA with our nearest cousins the great apes, and we can map genetic patterns to migratory events, and we can draw morphological trees which match all of these, and the fossil record concurs, then WHY it it not reasonable to conclude the theory of evolution is true?

Me -> “Take a single population of moths and randomly split them into two groups. Place one group in an environment where black ones will have a better chance of survival. Let random DNA changes in each generation and natural selection take its course. After a number of generations there will populations of white moths and black moths. Perhaps at this point they are still able to breed (and are thus the same species), but given enough change the two populations will no longer be able to breed and will become (by definition) two *species* of moth.”

Pastor -> “And this has happened where?”

This was a contrived example based on your original moth comment using evolutionary principles so I am unable to point to a specific example in this case (although a little research wold probably reveal cases).  For a more concrete real life example see the ring species of salamander I refer to.

Me -> “Wrong. What is important is the rate of change and the time between generations. There are many examples of observed speciation both in the lab and in the wild. can you explain the emergence of the H1N1 flu? Can intelligent design account for its similarities with its parent swine flu?”

Pastor -> “At a cellular level virus mutate by adding to their genetic makeup from their host – that’s fine for virus’s but I haven’t seen a virus change into a tadpole yet. And we’re talking right back at the start when there were no other organisms for them to infect except themselves. It’s one thing to say that a virus mutates into a different strain and then extrapolate that we arrived the same way :) ”

The differences between a virus and a tadpole are large.  Are you expecting a virus to give birth to a tadpole?  This is just a ludicrous as expecting a monkey to give birth to a human.  That’s NOT evolution and if it did happen we would have to throw out almost everything we thought we knew about biology.

As I have described before (and briefly above) once a species splits into two species it’s permanent and the differences will continue to build down each side of the spilt.  Will moths which spilt into separate species still be moths?  Yes – they will forever be “moths”, but the division is a problem with our classification system not nature herself.

We are still bi-laterally symmetrical, warmblooded, vertebrate, mammalian apes and our descendants will always be too.  You cannot escape you parentage, no matter how hard you breed or how much change occurs over the generations.

Me -> “Or how about ring species? There is a species of salamander which circles a valley. The population starts at one end of the valley and goes down either side, each being able to reproduce successfully with it’s neighbour. However, by the time they meet again they cannot breed – they are separate species (by definition). Why? Were they designed that way? How could you tell? Which particular genetic change(s) make them separate species? Why is it impossible for this change to occur naturally? What necessitates an intelligent designer to do this?”

Pastor -> “You’re missing the point. Animals are changing today there’s no doubt about it – anything can devolve and end up different to another population but do you really believe that a salamander can become a man given enough time?”

No, I do not believe that.  I believe in evolution.

Salamanders and humans are separate MODERN species.  No modern species will ever become another modern species.  That’s not the way evolution works and it shows your fundamental misunderstandings of the theory.

What the theory of evolution says is that long ago we once shared a common ancestor with apes, monkeys, lemurs, orangutans, other mammals and warm blooded creatures, and eventually salamanders, reptiles, and birds.  As genetic mutations occurred, shaped by natural selection, and species split differences built up and life diverged into the myriad and splendid array we see before us today.

Pastor -> “Here’s the question – at a cellular level do they have the same DNA as the other salamanders?”

We classify them as “salamanders”, so they obviously share a lot of DNA.  It is exactly the same?  No.  No two individuals will share exactly the same DNA.  No two species will share enough DNA to produce viable offspring (that is the definition of a species after all).

Pastor -> “In one strain certain characteristics have become more prominent than in another which causes them to be considered a new population. And how do we know they can’t reproduce?”

You have to ask?

Pastor -> “Have scientists tried conducting a test tube fertilization (just specualting here) It could be that they DON’T reproduce in the wild because they are different to their local population – scent, mating rituals etc.”

I think you misunderstand the scenario a little.

Think of a single line.  A ruler.  At each centimetre mark there is a salamander.  Each salamander can reproduce with its neighbour  So the salamander at the 2 cm mark can reproduce with the one at the 1 cm mark and the 3 cm mark.  This holds true all the way down the ruler to the 30 cm mark.

Now here is the important part – if you grab the salamander at the 1 cm mark and the 30 cm mark they CANNOT produce viable offspring.  They are, by definition, separate species.

Where did they become separate species?  Why?

This is not a matter of scent, mating rituals, or something else.  They are too genetically different to reproduce successfully.  Even when scientists attempt to do this artificially (without modifying the DNA to suit).

When you the mechanism of DNA mutation the solution is easy.  When you overlay generations of natural selection you have the theory of evolution.

Pastor -> “So why are there different populations of animals in different parts of the world? Same reason there were different populations of humans in different parts of the world – migration.”

I find that a very unsatisfactory answer.

Are you honestly suggesting that all polar bears migrated to the Arctic, that all kangaroos migrated to Australia, that all lemurs migrated to Madagascar, that the Tasmanian devil went to Tasmania, the Kiwi bird went to New Zealand, that ALL indigenous plants and animals of the world somehow magically migrated to their proper locations.  I do not find magic to be a reasonable explanation for anything.

It also does not address why oceanic islands have life that resembles that which could only float or fly from the nearest continent. Or why life on continents which separated due to tectonic movements resembles each other, but does not match (and the degree of similarity lowers as time goes by).

Pastor -> “Obviously a panda and a kangaroo aren’t going to travel together they will stay with their kind and move with them as their food supply changes or pressure is brought to bear by predators or other populations of competing animals.”

Firstly, you have not defined “kind”.  Does that mean species, family, genus?  What?

Also, what do you think the pressures on changing food supplies and predators will have on the populations over time?

Honestly, I am finding this a little frustrating because you are SO close to understanding the theory of evolution properly, yet have few common misunderstandings which are promulgated by those who somehow think it’s proof against God.

Me -> “Can you name one prediction ID makes that would qualify it as science, thereby allow it to be taught in science class?”

Pastor -> “Yes – there was an intelligence directing the evolution :) of animals that goes beyond natural inherent forces at work (because quite frankly they DON’T work).”

That does not really answer the question.  How would you go about determining if there was an intelligent force behind evolution or not?  And do you think the natural forces do not work (because they seem to be)?

Pastor -> “What that intelligence is, is up to science to discover, but just because they haven’t been able to measure it or categorise it yet doesn’t mean it’s not there.”

Agreed.  Being unable to detect something does not mean it is not there, but it doesn’t say it is there either.  The question still is, how DO you measure it and determine it IS there?

Me -> “There are four sequences of the genetic code referred to as U, C, A, and G. Errors occur in the replication of the double helix resulting in duplication, inversion, deletion, and trans-location. So in much the same way we can go from “Margaret Thatcher” to “That Great Charmer” to create an new words and meanings, we can change the DNA sequence to produce entirely new sequences (eg GTCA->GTTCA), which results in new (although very, very similar) organism.”

“In the example above, did I add new information or just rearrange what what there? Have we seen new “letters” of the genetic “alphabet” suddenly appear, or is ALL life based on the the four letters U,C,A, and G. You know what the answer is, don’t you :) ”

Pastor -> “Isn’t God clever :) That doesn’t prove anything because you’re working back from a structure that is already there – it doesn’t mean that’s how it arrived there in the first place.”

Your shifting the goal posts.  You asked how new DNA sequences can arise, which I answered.  Now you are asking where the chemical components came from in the first place.  This is akin to asking how new words can be generated from an alphabet and after being shown simply declaring “yes, but that still does not explain where the alphabet came from!”.

I think I can claim victory here having demonstrated a mechanism for DNA mutations (or as you put it, “the addition of information”).

Me -> “Modern cells are incredibly complex, but we did not evolve from them now did we? We share a *common ancestor* with them. The first proto-cells would not have been anything like what we see today. In fact there is a time when it would have been very difficult to label it life. After billions of years complexity as built to what you call “incredibly complex cells”.

Pastor -> “And you know this how?”

Chemistry.  Self replicating chemical chains are a natural occurrence.  For example, we recently discovered amino acids in comets.  It seems the building blocks of organic life may be common.  While abiogenesis is a field of continuing research, we do have viable mechanisms for the production of the proto-cell.  I highly recommend Youtube’s CDK007 channel for more information on this in easy to digest forms.

Me -> “A modern cell magically transforming or giving birth to another completely different type of organism would *totally* disprove evolution, yet that is exactly what you are proposing here.”

Pastor -> “Huh – you lost me here :) ”

A virus giving birth to a tadpole, or a monkey giving birth to a human would totally disprove descent with modification – evolution.

Me -> “I am happy to call intelligent design science IF you can provide one prediction the hypothesis makes that we can test to verify its accuracy. Until then, don’t claim it IS science and that real science is somehow lacking without your unsubstantiated ideas.”

Pastor -> “I’m not having a go at science – I’m having a go at calling evolution by chance a science or scientifically proven. It isn’t.”

It is.

Pastor -> “Yes you can observe changes in viruses but that doesn’t prove evolution. by chance.”

It does.

Pastor -> “All that that proves is changes happen in viruses or fruit fly populations or salamander populations or whatever you want to test.”

In order words, evolution.

Pastor -> “It’s the gross extrapolation of the data that offends me not the science behind it.”

Is it a gross extrapolation to say we share 98% of our DNA with the great apes?  No.  It’s a verifiable fact.

Pastor -> “It’s the assumptions that people leap to that offend me. Not the experimentation and the honest search for knowledge.”

Then you should honestly be able to tell me how to experimentally determine the existence of your intelligent designer.

Me -> “Is my life in turmoil? Have I changed my position anywhere here or in previous replies? I will let you and the readers decide.”

Pastor -> “But tell me why atheists are so quick to parade around the extremist to try and discredit the existence of God.”

You are making claims about souls, angels, miracles, resurrections, intelligent designers, gods and other things.  I am merely asking you to demonstrate your claims before I can accept them as true.  It’s not my fault you are unable.  Perhaps you should rethink why you believe these things?

Me -> “By definition a scientist cannot prove or disprove the supernatural. Science deals with the natural world, so anything supernatural (if there is such a thing) is beyond its reach.”

Pastor -> “But isn’t this prehistoric thinking?”

No.  Prehistoric and primitive thinking is to accredit everything to some supernatural force.  There was a time when people literally believed a god threw lightning bolts down from the sky.  When we discovered more about the weather system they said “well, that’s the *way* he does it”.  Will you show me the man behind the curtain, or doesn’t he exist?

Pastor -> “Surely scientists have to remain open to forces that are beyond their current understanding in our world or do we already know everything there is to know about the “natural” world?”

Yes, otherwise science would stop.  We do not know everything and research continues.  Science will push forward determining what is real verses what is just a nice idea by stating hypothesis, running experiments, and carefully observing the results.

So how can we test for your intelligent designer, or is it just a nice idea?

Pastor -> “I would posit that the “supernatural” is part of the “natural” world but science doesn’t know how to measure it or categorise it yet.”

If we can measure and categorise it, then by definition it’s part of the natural world.  If that includes a deity, fine.  Where’s the evidence?

Me -> “However, if something “supernatural” can an effect on the natural world we should be able to detect it. Once an hypothesis of the supernatural is backed by experimental data, then it becomes part of the natural order of things. In essence, the supernatural becomes the natural.”

Pastor -> “Unless of course you have convinced yourself before hand that it can’t occur?”

To do so would be irrational and close minded.

Pastor -> “It (prayer) works from time to time but not all the time – I struggle with that but it doesn’t invalidate what happened.”

Me -> “Ahhh, yes it does. I sometimes ask Elvis the Alien to cure me of illness. Sometime he does, sometimes he doesn’t, but it does not invalidate the existence of Elvis.”

Pastor -> “No it doesn’t – because you never have prayed to Elvis the Alien but you’re using mockery here to make a point – not a good debating strategy :) ”

Run the experiment.  Pray to Elvis the alien and see what your success rate is.  If it statistically no difference than praying to Jesus, what would that tell you?

Pastor -> I’m talking about something that has happened instantaneously, it was measurable, it was witnessed by others – it didn’t stop 2 hours later. The pain was gone and didn’t come back.”

I do not necessarily doubt there was some event, or even a cure of some kind happened.  What is in question is he cause.  You attribute it to Jesus, God, an intelligent designer, or some creative force.  OK – where is the evidence for that?

This is why I asked what happens if you do not pray at all, or pray to a different entity?  What happens to the success rate then?

Me -> – “Is it even remotely possible that the character of Jesus was invented by a few people who wanted to capitalise on the Jewish religion and found their own cult? “

Pastor -> “No, why would they – read the stories, everyone of them was killed for their belief except John but even he was boiled alive in oil.”

You are assuming the stories are true.  Oh, and people die for their beliefs all the time.  9/11? Heaven’s Gate?

Me -> “What actually evidence (beyond stories) to you have that Jesus actually existed?”

Pastor -> “Yes we have the gospels but we also have the writings of the historian Josephus (A Roman Jew) who talks about Jesus along with countless other manuscripts and writings from that era.”

Josephus?  Let’s see what he said:

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.”

Josephus wrote after the events about the phenomenon of Christianity.  This is hardly an eye witness account, and reading the text he did not even speak to any eye witnesses.  He probably even did not have access to people who spoke to eye witnesses  Pretty poor don’t you think?

Pastor -> “Disprove the resurrection and you disprove Christianity”

The burden of proof does not work that way.  Try disproving Muhammad flew off on a winged horse and you might see the error in your question.

You are making the claim a man called Jesus rose from the dead – back it up.

Pastor -> “Did Plato exist? Did Aristotle exist? Did Mohammad exist? There is more documented evidence for the existence of Jesus than any of these and I could go on.”

My beliefs are not predicated on the existence of any of these men, or any others.  What is important to me is the idea they left behind.

If we were to discover tomorrow that Edmund Barton never existed and this could not have been the first Prime Minister of Australia it would not bother me in the slightest.  It may be a surprise and we would seriously doubt other things we thought we knew about history, but life would go on.  Some man was the first Prime Minister and ran the country.

Without the resurrection or a god-man, Christianity is sunk.  You MUST believe he existed, or your faith is hollow.

Well, not quite.  You always have your faith.

Pastor -> “If that was the case then there would be writings that lambasted the early church saying that their religion was all made up.”

Imagine that – the entrenched powers calling a rival “false”.  Could never happen.

Pastor -> “Why didn’t the Pharisees say something when Peter got up in public after Jesus’ resurrection and tell the crowds in Jerusalem that Jesus had risen from the grave.”

Who knows?  Does it matter?  Is the story true anyway?

Pastor -> “They could have stopped this dangerous “cult” in its tracks. But they were deathly quiet – why? Because they couldn’t disprove the claims of the disciples.”

Can you disprove the claims of some Muslims that Mohammed flew off on a winged horse, or the Medusa turns you into stone with a glance?

Pastor -> “Have a look at them – you’ll find we’re not talking Nostradamus style prophecy here – they are specific, descriptive and too numerous over too long a period of time to be anything but what they say they are – God speaking about His Son.”

Can you please name three you consider the best?

Pastor -> “I don’t profess to know all the answers – there are things that I’m not sure about and am still asking questions”

I am in the same boat :)  It’s a good chat.  Take you time with the reply if you need to.

Similar Posts: