Evolution and Genesis

[creekster]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Yet no single 'missing link' has ever been found. Now that is absurd! Which leads me to believe that we are applying the THEORY of evolution incorrectly.

I think we may be on differnt planes here and are failing to meet in the basic terms we are using. What do you mean by a missing link? What is it as you use that term?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Incidentally, there is still no unifying theory of physics which explains relationships between gravity and electromagnetism, etc. But do you doubt the laws of physics, despite lack of a unifying theory?

Biology has a unifying theory which explains everything, yet you view that theory as inconsistent with the evidence or inferior to some unknown future theory?

It is an inferior 'hope' as compared to a law supported by mathematical evidence that can be repoduced in an experiment in a controled setting.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Maybe they are missing because they never existed. You MUST accept the possibility.

The problem is that I don't think they are missing at all. I have tried to explain my thoughts on this, but I feel like we are using the term in different ways.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by creekster

Ok, then how unlikely is it that he did so? It's only unlikely in the context of a literal belief in Genesis. Otherwise, it fits in fine with my view of God and his capacities.

I don't profess a literal belief in Genesis ... and neither does Indy or Tex by the way.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by tooblue

It is an inferior 'hope' as compared to a law supported by mathematical evidence that can be repoduced in an experiment in a controled setting.

Evolution is easily reporduced in a controlled setting. Change a gene, get a different critter. Easy.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I don't profess a literal belief in Genesis ... and neither does Indy or Tex by the way.

I understand, I am just pointing out that short of such a literal belief, there is no theological impedimaent to an acceptance of evolution.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by creekster

Evolution is easily reporduced in a controlled setting. Change a gene, get a different critter. Easy.

Not so fast -that's manipulation, NOT adaptation through natural selection!

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Evolution is easily reporduced in a controlled setting. Change a gene, get a different critter. Easy.

Changing a gene gets you a smaller, larger, fatter, skinnier, different-colored version of the same critter.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Yet no single 'missing link' has ever been found. Now that is absurd! Which leads me to believe that we are applying the THEORY of evolution incorrectly.

I think you're misapplying the notion of "species" - it's an artificial term describing the present-day end result of a long-term differentiation in organisms.

I'm not a scientist, but I don't believe there's a "poof" moment when one species turns into a different species. I think the call for a single "missing link" is perpetuated by people who don't understand or don't believe the process.

Fossilization, and the the discovery of and accurate identification of a fossil, is a very rare and complex process. It's not a process that's going to yield a complete picture of evolution. Scientists are taking bits and pieces in the attempt to put together a big picture.

The bits and pieces that have been found tend to support the principles of natural selection and "theory of evolution."

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Nevertheless, I believe that God used evolution to give us "the light of Christ" or a conscience.

So when D&C talks about the light of Christ infusing our existence, you take this to mean end result of evolution, a gentically based urge that results from adaptive behavior?