Bacteria and Evolution

[Josh]

So, a question for those who question naturalistic evolution.

Bacteria have been observed in the lab to evolve through naturalistic means.

Bacteria are able to do so by being favored with the perfect conditions which support their ability to do so: huge population numbers and an insanely speedy rate or reproduction.

Some of the creationist ilk acknowledge this (Hugh Ross, for instance) and argue that the reasons bacteria can evolve naturalisticly are precisely the reasons that larger animals (horses, whales, etc.. which are often pointed to as model examples of evolution) cannot- low population, long gestation/ slow rate or reproduction (not to mention that they are some of the most fragile animals in the world)

But my questions are these: are bacteria truly evolving in a macro sense (from what I've read it appears they do)? If so, are they doing it through naturalistic means or supernatural? If naturalistic, then is this a challenge for the theist? If supernaturally, then is God directly responsible for the myriad of new diseases caused by bacterial evolution?

Let's go one step further (this is all in my brain because I just finished a book about the bubonic plague of late antiquity):

I think most Christians would grant that God created at least the first bacteria (which were, of course, the first living organisms on the planet). Did God purposefully create bacteria that would cause disease, or did such things simply develop over time naturalistically as part of his will?

I expect this seems rather jumbled. It's the best I can make of my questions at this juncture. Any thoughts or responses are welcomed.

[robin]

Maybe this is just above my pay grade, but what is it that bacteria is evolving into? Is it still bacteria when it is through evolving?

[Josh]

Well, I suppose that's the question, given a long enough period of time.

But normally a new species is defined by the inability to breed with another. That's usually the demarkation line that creationists use to differentiate between micro and macro evolution, right?

I believe that bacteria do cross that line*, though they don't "breed" in the traditional sense, of course.

*unless I'm mistaken

[robin]

Well, I suppose that's the question, given a long enough period of time.

But thats the problem, so far as I see it. There never seems to be enough time for the evolutionists the actually observe what they hypothesize. Perhaps thats why the earth has aged billions of years in the last century.

[Josh]

That is the problem, even if you do grant billions of years- is there still enough time for evolution to occur naturalistically?

Still, they have observed it in the petri dish with bacteria.

[robin]

they have observed it in the petri dish with bacteria.

In the end its still bacteria. It is not macro evolution. Is it not a bit disingenuous to claim that this is evidence of the type of evolution that teaches children that we have evolved from apes? Why scientists and evolutionist admit that evolution, on a macro scale, is only a theory that has never been scientifically observed?

[yeshuafreak]

i have been looking at evolution ALOT lately and i have found a few points that convinve me:

• Natural Selection- survival of the fittest is a foolproof law of nature.
  
• Migration
  
• Mutation
  
• Genetic Drift
  

However, using mutations as proof for evolution is ridiculous to me with the current evidence and observations- most mutations are detrimental or neutral, not beneficial to the survival of the creature and its species. Also, animals do not always seek ways to survive, but sometimes put themselves in danger; there are many cases of one animal sacrificing itself for the benefit of the other creature.

That leads me to believe that animals are not concerned solely with their own survival or the survival of their own kind, but of all kinds. They are more worried about the survival of things on a collective, interconnected level.

There are also some things present in the science of Intelligent Design (ID) that are generally undeniable:

• Irreducible Complexity- see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
  
• The distinction between Origin Science and Operation Science- seeA Biblical Point of View on INTELLIGENT DESIGN, Kerby Anderson (p. 98-9)
  
• Specified Complexity- it is evident that certain structures or organisms seem to have a specific purpose for being- whether that purpose was one given by nature randomnly or an intelligent designer.
  

In the best theory of our origins, I would love to see all of the above concepts thoroughly observed and considered.

Shalom:
John

[rbbailey]

I'm one of those who believes that evolution has played a greater part in the diversity of life on the planet than most Christians would.

Put it this way, I'm an ancient earth, old animal, new man theorist. I am perfectly fine with the idea that seven days in genesis is really seven days because I believe in an all-powerful God. But in looking at the character of God, and in looking at science, I have begun to look at the creation story as a true myth. In other words, it did happen. God did speak it all into being. But I also believe that it is a non-scientific book. The Bible cannot be looked at in the same way we look at scientific or historical texts in our modern world.

With that understood, I also began to realize that science isn't a giant test of faith put on earth by God to either fool us or make us look like fools to the world when we choose faith over science in modern, science driven society. In other words, science too was created by God. And if it was created by God, it should have his fingerprints all over it. Faith and science should actually fit quite nicely together. I believe they do.

At this point I realized that science is merely the story of how God does stuff. And this also fits with the character of God that we see in the Bible. God tells us a story. His plan of salvation and a lasting relationship with man is something that develops in the Bible. His life on earth was a story. All of the Bible is a story of the development of the characters of the people who interact with God. Why is it then that we often look at the creation of the universe and all that is in it as a non-story event? POP! It happened in one week!

Not to mention the fact that the Bible, and most modern physics theories support the idea of time being relevant, and that it can slow down and speed up. So to us, what might have been 7 days, or 7 ages, or whatever, could have been ...anything!

Which brings us back to my first statement that I am a believer in an ancient earth -- that the globe itself is very old when Adam was placed on it.

Well, not to get off track, but I told you all that to tell you this: When God did get around to placing the living creatures onto the earth, do you suppose he went and created a Chihuahua? Or do you think he created one or two types of primitive wolf-like dog creatures who, over time, became all of the different dog breeds and wild canine animals we have now.

To me, that's the miracle of evolution. The miracle of creation. The more I learn about the intricate way nature works, the more convinced I am that God did it, and the more amazed I am at how scientifically miraculous it all is.

In example: www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/12/hubble_space_telescope_advent.html

[robin]

That all sounds great, but science still has not demonstrated, observed, or found any physical evidence in the fossil record or elsewhere to support evolution. It is a fine theory, but until real evidence is provided to prove that an ape can give birth to a human I will remain a skeptic. And if you say that it is a gradual process, where is the fossil record to support this view?

Also I have no problem with the idea that two dogs could be the common ancestor of the various dog breeds we have today. In fact I believe that evolutionist would have to be in agreement with me here unless they are willing on saying that some how evolution produced all the various breeds separately, and somehow those breeds were capable of reproducing. Seems rather unlikely. Do you Christian evolutionists believe that humans all have Noah as a common ancestor? If so, why is it that the human race can very so significantly as it does, but dogs can not?

[rbbailey]

Well, don't get me wrong, I don't think evolution produced the human. The Bible specifically says that God himself created humans. And even if it didn't, I would assume that the human creature was a divinely touched being.

The theory of evolution supports evolution in an observable way, as far as that goes. But you are correct, there is no link between man and "ape" only the speculation that there must be a link. I think it's interesting that the missing link theory just jumped over a few family lines this last year when they discovered a new fossil. Science of the big bang, evolution of man, and global warming always seem to be decided by consensus, and they always seem to have that consensus messed up by new discoveries in science.

As far as I know, all canine breeds came from the wolf.

I don't really have an answer for the Noah conspiracy except that DNA science now shows that we all have a common ancestor. They don't talk about it a lot because it supports Biblical ideas.

The flood is a very specifically discussed event in many places other than the Bible, so either Noah was not the only survivor, or he was, and all the stories came from him.

I think the bottom line of my theory is this: God made it. But the God I know isn't so simplistic that He would just snap his fingers -- I believe the old earth, evolution, and the creation of man are all his loving process of creation.

[rbbailey]

Bacteria:

Well, a mutation is not quite the same as evolution. But mutation is part of the process that initiates the survival of the fittest, whether that be in a life form that mutates and survives, or a life form that is a mutation from it's ancestor, and prolongs the survival of that DNA.

This is where I think science falls short. Not in it's ability to, over time, find the answers, but in it's inability to understand the meaning of those answers. To attribute the commonality of carbon life forms and DNA and all that to a single microbial ancestor that first showed life is to miss the point. Yes, it ALL has a common starting point -- the mind of God. And like any other artist, there are many threads, common building blocks that go from one life form to another -- even from one system to another. Why not? If one God created it all why would we expect to see major differences in DNA from an amoeba as compared to a human?

A scientist friend of mine once told me that on the DNA level, we are more closely related to a banana than a chimp. More than showing a common ancestry, DNA may be showing us a common thought process.

[robin]

A scientist friend of mine once told me that on the DNA level, we are more closely related to a banana than a chimp. More than showing a common ancestry, DNA may be showing us a common thought process.

I think this is an excellent point. Its one I have made when evolutionist have asked me to account for commonality of the various life forms.

I think the bottom line of my theory is this: God made it. But the God I know isn't so simplistic that He would just snap his fingers

Is this really a fair representation of what young earth creationist believe? From my studies of the subject, I find that those who support the view of a young earth are very thoughtful in the reasoning, and use science and the bible to support their view.

You are obviously a very thoughtful person, so I imagine that you know that when the subject is debated, science is used to argue both sides. We're not just a bunch of simpletons out here refusing to listen to science. You will find very intelligent people on both sides of the debate.

[rbbailey]

From a faith standpoint, I'm not opposed to the young earth at all.

As I said above, time is relative, especially to God, the one who created it. I've often used the analogy of a master model builder (I used to build models of WWII planes when I was a kid) who puts together a model of an old B-17 bomber. The really good ones are not only put together well, but they have character -- the builder puts bullet holes in them, oil streaks down the fuselage, flaked paint, and mud on the tires -- God very well could have made the earth brand-new old. From the standpoint of believing that God has the power, I can easily accept the idea that the Grand Canyon, or the Bahamas Islands (look up their structure to see what I mean) were simply spoken into existence in a way that made them look "old".

But this also seems to go against my other theory that God didn't then give us inquisitive minds to study science and his creation only to come to the conclusion that God does not exist. In other words, I don't think science is a trick of Satan, or a test of faith by God. I think science and the idea that God created should, and do complement each other.

I think when Christians count back in the Bible and come to the conclusion that we are on an earth that is as little as 10 to 20 thousand years old, I think they are simply counting the wrong thing. They are accurately counting man's history on the earth. Not necessarily the earth's history or even the history of plants and animals. The Bible is about God's history of interaction with humans, we should not make the mistake of thinking that since an account of creation is included, that account is on the same exact time line as the human/God time line.

Back to the idea of relative time. Scientists are now theorizing that time-space is slowing down. Which means that at the beginning, time was going faster than it is now. They are also theorizing that, much like C.S. Lewis said 40 years ago, there are multiple time lines of the same event. In fact, real life scientists think that our choices actually create parallel universes! Every single choice each of us makes creates, or has the potential to create, a new parallel universe where the consequences of our choices are then played out. Lewis described God's interaction with history as a vast time line where he sets the major points, gives input here and there (miracles) and directs the overall direction of his will for humanity, but the intricate details of the time line of human history actually jump back and forth on their own due to our God-given free will!

If you apply this idea to the creation of the world, you could then argue that yes, God did create the heavens and the earth in seven exact days... it's just that the first 2 or 3 days may have lasted for what we now measure as 30 million years! Or one minute. It doesn't matter. If time is relative, it doesn't matter.

And to think, we haven't even got into the idea that, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth -- AND THEN THE EARTH BECAME EMPTY AND VOID!!!" As several translations would put it. How much time passed between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2? Who knows?!

[robin]

If your interested in the debated about Gods relation to time you may want to discuss it further in the following thread.

aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=determinism&action=display&thread=1152

And to think, we haven't even got into the idea that, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth -- AND THEN THE EARTH BECAME EMPTY AND VOID!!!" As several translations would put it. How much time passed between Gen. 1:1 and Gen. 1:2? Who knows?!

Well thats a very unnatural reading to say the least. Why would something God just created "become" empty and void? Would it not make more sense to say that He created it that way, and then filled it? Not even the NIV is willing to endorse that interpretation. And that says volumes!

[rbbailey]

Oh, cool, another thread! Thanks!

Yes, and no, a lot of people believe this is the time before time when Satan was cast out of heaven, or when Frodo had to dispose of the Ring ;D -- it is certainly a debatable interpretation!

www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/the-earth-became-formless-and-void.html

[robin]

Nov 23, 2009 12:24:54 GMT -8 rbbailey said:

Yes, and no, a lot of people believe this is the time before time when Satan was cast out of heaven, or when Frodo had to dispose of the Ring ;D -- it is certainly a debatable interpretation!

www.plaintruth.com/the_plain_truth/the-earth-became-formless-and-void.html

Well this could create all sorts of confusion, but let me just say that I don't believe in the traditional view that Satan an angel of light who rebelled and was cast out of heaven. I simply see Satan as God's creation used for testing humanity.

I think there is another thread on this topic as well. If I can find it I will post the link.

[yeshuafreak]

This is becoming a really good discussion.