 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Marshall Member Joined Feb 7, 2002 1191 posts Location: Langley, BC |
 Evidence of macroevolution |
Posted Jun 5, 2009; 12:23 pm |
|
I'm posting this to expand on a comment in a letter to the editor. I don't think it all would have fit in the letter. 
I think very good positive evidence for macroevolution is found in the ancestry of whales. I did a school presentation on that a while back. (I finally got my Grade 12 Biology credit! It only took me 11 years since high school and a continuing education program! Who can doubt such credentials? ) The pictures below are from that presentation (click for enlargements).
According to common descent, whales and other cetaceans (including porpoises and dolphins) evolved from land mammals. Specifically, they evolved from even-toed ungulates, which include cattle, hippos and camels (and many species now extinct). While the "kind" barrier creationists use is intentionally vague, I doubt many would claim that whales and camels are part of the same kind. Because this is such a big change, I think it makes a good example for macroevolution. If the evidence linking whales and land mammals holds up, it is hard to explain apart from full-blown no-micro-in-front-of-it evolution.
There are many pieces of evidence linking whales to their land ancestors. (I'll use "whales" as a generic term for cetaceans, rather than using that word over and over.) For each of these evidences, please ask yourself how this could be explained if God created whales as a separate kind without any shared ancestry with mammals that walk on land. I think the evidence instead shows that whales and camels share common descent: these modern creatures both descend from a common ancestor in the past that was different from either of them (generally more like a camel than a whale, but it still had toes and not hooves). And, I believe that God made each camel and each whale, just as our Creator also makes each one of us, and natural processes including evolution describe some of what God is doing.
- Whales are mammals: They bear live young, have mammary glands to feed young, breathe air through lungs, and have a spine that moves vertically (up and down) rather than horizontally like fish including sharks. They even have some degree of fur, though sometimes just at juvenile stages. This is why, according to evolution, whales must have evolved from land mammals. It would be preposterous to claim that all these mammalian features just happened to evolve together in a separate lineage of fish as well. (This point can be easily explained by special creation. No argument there.)
- Shared skeleton: The skeletal structure of whales is very close to that of land mammals. There are a few bones missing, and others elongated or reshaped, but it remains a striking contrast from the skeleton of fish. Sharks, for instance, have a "skeleton" composed of cartilage, not bone. In whales, the only prominent body features that aren't based on bones are the dorsal fin (the top fin that is often glimpsed out of the water) and tail fluke. These are the two most prominent body features that they do not share with land mammals.
- Forelimbs to pectoral fins: Building on the previous point, the pectoral fins of whales are based on the same bones used in land mammals for front legs and feet/hands. It is obvious that a whale's pectoral fin has far more bones in it than necessary, and in some species, more of these bones have been fused together. However, the evidence of an ancestor who had a use for all those bones is still there. In the photo below, note the single bone in the upper arm (humerus), double bone below the elbow (radius and ulna), and then bones of the wrist and fingers (carpals, metacarpals, phalanges). All this in a fin! In fish, pectoral fins only contain cartilage -- no bones are necessary, and certainly not all the joints and articulation present in a mammal's forelimb. But, those bones are what was present in the skeleton whales inherited from land mammals, so they are what was shaped into pectoral fins as these creatures adapted to a new environment.
- Hind limbs during development: During gestation, whale embryos develop both hind (h) and forelimb (f) buds. However, while the forelimb buds go on to become pectoral fins, the hind limb buds are reabsorbed into the body. Other neat things happen during development that also tie them to land mammals. For instance, at certain stages whale embryos are covered in fur, but they lose most or all of this fur before birth or shortly after birth (depending on the species). Fur is another mammalian trait.
- Atavistic hind limbs: An atavism is the recurrence of a feature that typically is not present now, but was present in a creature's ancestors. As mentioned, whales start to grow hind limbs, but usually they are reabsorbed into the body before their development gets very far. Sometimes, in rare cases, that doesn't happen. Whales of various species have been caught and sighted with hind limbs. Sometimes they barely stick out of the blubber, and other times they are fairly large. In all cases they are useless or next to useless for the whale -- it could not walk on them. Now, while mutations can slowly change a feature into something else (such as a forelimb into a pectoral fin), no scientist claims that mutations could create a pair of legs in a single generation! And yet, that's what creationists would seem to be faced with, if they don't believe that hind limbs are part of a whale's genetic code, since whales were created distinct from land mammals. The evolutionary explanation only has to have a mutation turn off the suppression of the legs, while the creationist explanation suggests that mutation could create a femur, tibia, tarsus and metatarsal out of whole cloth!
- Muscles to move nonexistent ears: Whales share other traits with their land ancestors that seem rather odd. While whales have lost the external ears present in land mammals, some species still have some of the muscles to move those ears! Of course, since the muscles aren't connected to anything, they are atrophied and quite nonfunctional. But, they're still there.
- Fossil evidence of a migrating nose: One part of the theory that whales descended from land mammals that used to be mocked was the idea that somehow the nose on the pre-whale started migrating up the face and then to the top of the creature to become a blowhole. Most of the derision ended when fossils were found showing some of that progression! In the last few decades, many whale transitional forms have been found. The first one was a big surprise, but then scientists knew where these intermediary species had lived, and by digging more in the same general area more were discovered relatively quickly. The pictures below show two of them, and for each there are the actual bones and also an artist's conception. Pakicetus was the size of a wolf and still has the nostrils at the tip of the snout. Dorudon is more whale-like, but still with obvious hind legs. The snout is now midway up the head. There are also many other whale transitionals that I haven't shown, but that are easy to find if one is interested.
- DNA evidence, pseudogenes, etc.: There's much more that I could go into. Modern analysis of the genomes of various creatures confirms that whales are most closely related to even-toed ungulates like hippos and camels. This isn't just based on whole-genome comparisons, but also on looking at certain DNA sequences present in a wide range of animals, such as the ones for hemoglobin or cytochrome C. Whale hemoglobin just happens to be most similar to hippo hemoglobin, rather than any fish or shark hemoglobin. Whales still have the olfactory genes in their DNA for smelling through the air, though they have been deactivated by mutations. Whales also have new genes that allow them to smell underwater. Why would whales have deactivated genes for smelling through air if they were designed to smell underwater? Not only do they have the genes for an air-based olfactory sense, but they also still have olfactory nerves for this, although they are no longer connected to a sensing organ.
That's an introduction to some of the evidence linking whales and land mammals. Could the creation of whales as a distinct kind from land mammals explain each of these pieces of evidence? Evolution, including common descent, not only explains this evidence, it predicted evidence like this before we had the tools to uncover it!
And, this is one of many transitions. Even the land-to-sea transition happened repeatedly (for instance, manatees share a close common ancestor with elephants, not hippos and camels). I've isolated one specific transition so that the evidence can be looked at in greater detail. |
|
|
|
| bert Member Joined Feb 10, 2009 35 posts |
| |
Posted Jun 5, 2009; 12:56 pm |
|
| I don't know about whales, but if survival-of-the-fittest is the answer, the only thing left would be mosquitos. |
|
|
|
| roadrunning Member Joined May 9, 2008 315 posts |
| thanks |
Posted Jun 6, 2009; 1:43 pm |
|
Thank you Marshall for this informative entry. I appreciated it since the 'working' of the theory of evolution is often neglected in our reasonable conversations about scientific discoveries. We often simply 'dismiss' without understanding.
I remember "back in the day" when I told a children's story in church (1970s) and was called into the pastor's office for a reprimand regarding 'heresy' because I had mentioned the word 'dinosaur' in my talk. Talk about dinosaurs was considered 'off-limit' in this particular MB church because it somehow suggested that I believed in evolution. I was queried about my beliefs and warned not to repeat this mistake again. It is good to see that our conversation has moved a bit since that decade.  |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Jun 6, 2009; 5:21 pm |
|
Good post Marshall. I haven't seen your letter to the editor, I suppose it will be shown in the July issue? Plenty of letters on the topic in the June Issue.
One of the contributors to the Darwin article was Glen Klassen, who attends my current church (Fort Garry EMC in Winnipeg), and often leads the Adult Sunday School Class. He's well qualified to speak on the topic being a microbiology professor at the U of Manitoba, and now a teacher at CMU. So, I naturally appreciated his contribution.
I liked Ryan's (is that our Ryan that posts here from time to time?) as well. His comments with regards to distinguishing ultimate causes (i.e. why we exist) is spot on. I'm not a big fan of Dawkins either. I've read his book "The God Delusion". I respect him as a scientist, but his meddling into religious topics is very amateurish. He is clearly out of his element when it comes to knowledge about Christian theology and religion in general.
I also liked Pierre Gilbert's contribution up until his last comment (i.e. "evolutionism's worst and most destructive assumptions about the meaning and value of human life). I suppose he didn't have enough space to detail that comment. I think evolution is almost certainly true, and we shouldn't evaluate the truthfulness of evolution based on its moral implications. The moral implications need to be sorted out after assessing its truthfulness. Nevertheless, the moral implications, or what evolution says about the character of God would be an interesting discussion. We should get Glen and Pierre on here for an online debate.
Anyway, this issue has been a silent one for a while in the MB Conference. I appreciate that these perspectives were permitted for sharing in the Herald.
BTW, for anyone who is interested, I would recommend Francis Collins' "The Language of God" or Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God". Both give their reasons for believing in evolution and reasons for believing in God. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| Re: thanks |
Posted Jun 6, 2009; 5:33 pm |
|
| roadrunning wrote: | Thank you Marshall for this informative entry. I appreciated it since the 'working' of the theory of evolution is often neglected in our reasonable conversations about scientific discoveries. We often simply 'dismiss' without understanding.
I remember "back in the day" when I told a children's story in church (1970s) and was called into the pastor's office for a reprimand regarding 'heresy' because I had mentioned the word 'dinosaur' in my talk. Talk about dinosaurs was considered 'off-limit' in this particular MB church because it somehow suggested that I believed in evolution. I was queried about my beliefs and warned not to repeat this mistake again. It is good to see that our conversation has moved a bit since that decade. |
Interesting story. It's understandable that Christians will make mistakes along the way with regard to what we believe. I just hope that we aren't the last ones to correct our mistakes. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| Roadrunning's story |
Posted Jun 6, 2009; 10:09 pm |
|
A wonderfully troubling story, Roadrunning. I wonder what they thought about those really big bones people keep digging up?
I've heard 'the Bible Answer Man' on his radio show express the view that dinasours/humanity existed at the same time. |
|
|
|
| thursday Member Joined May 6, 2009 94 posts |
| |
Posted Jun 7, 2009; 2:04 pm |
|
Hello all,
I must say I am greatly pleased to see that a group of Christians can have a conversation like this re: evolution. For too long many in the church have been afraid of this theory. A friend of mine and I were having a conversation the other day in which we both agreed that knowledge of evolutionary theory in general (not limited to biological evolution) is incredibly important for all disciplines. At the same time I was a little bit surprised at the recent poll in the MB Herald. I believe it was 98% those who responded to a question re: evolution simply said: "it's not true" |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Jun 7, 2009; 8:36 pm |
|
| thursday wrote: | Hello all,
I must say I am greatly pleased to see that a group of Christians can have a conversation like this re: evolution. For too long many in the church have been afraid of this theory. A friend of mine and I were having a conversation the other day in which we both agreed that knowledge of evolutionary theory in general (not limited to biological evolution) is incredibly important for all disciplines. At the same time I was a little bit surprised at the recent poll in the MB Herald. I believe it was 98% those who responded to a question re: evolution simply said: "it's not true" |
I'm surprised it is that high (i.e. 98%). It will come down, no doubt about it with time. I think I may have seen the stat posted here, and if it was 98%, I think it was a subset of MB culture, though perhaps a large one, i.e. those who are ethnically Mennonite, with a sharp contrast with Asian Mennonites, if I remember correctly.
One of the big reasons we joined the church we did because it was an open topic (and Glen Klassen was a big influence on my impression of the church). Most people would either fall as evolutionists, or are of the position that it probably doesn't matter that much. The nearest MB church (to where I live) hosted a creationist speaker who blamed the Columbine shootings on atheism, and connected the dots as to why this connected with a rejection of a young earth cosmology. I wish people could see the true spirit of the pseudo-scientists and philosophers who work with Answers in Genesis and the Institute of Creation Research. They are vicious, but it doesn't appear vicious when you agree with their fundamental beliefs about the importance of a young earth (and to be clear I did believe in a young earth up until a few years ago, largely thanks to Marshall). I remember my wife pointing it out to me, when I subscribed to Creation magazine, and I kind of just thought that was nothing compared to the lips of atheists like Dawkins. Now, I see more clearly that the problem was that they were too similar.
I also attended an interesting Adult Sunday School class, led by Cameron McKenzie, OT professor at Providence Theological Seminary. This guy always finds a way to exercise my mind. He made a rather potent point that the creation story isn't the main focus in the Pentateuch. There was ~1400 years between Gen 1 and Gen 11, about 400 years between Gen 12 and Ex 1, about 50 years between Ex 1, and Mt Sinai (I forget which Exodus chapter). Between Mt Sinai in Exodus and the end of Numbers, the timespan is 1 year. Mt Sinai is the epicenter of the Pentateuch. The Creation narrative isn't the main point. Actually, the Creation narrative should probably be interpreted in light of Mt Sinai. AIG and ICR are just wrong when they say that the Creation story is the foundation for the Bible. It's not. The foundation (in the OT at least) is God revealing himself to the Jewish nation at Mt. Sinai. Even outside the Pentateuch, there are constant references back to what God revealed to his people back then. Creation rarely gets mentioned. We should probably cue from the Bible what the Bible thinks is important, rather than assuming the beginning and the end are the most important.
Anyway, I think this idea that Genesis 1-3 is the foundation for the rest of the Bible is the idea that is most needed of correction. I think it's this idea that is the cause of why many Christians (and MBs) are reluctant to change their thinking about creation. They fear that their salvation is at stake or that they are rejecting the Bible's authority. There are other hinderances for sure, but I think it's important to have this conversation so that more people realize what's not at stake with regard to Biblical authority, and what is at stake with regard to our faith being rightfully mocked by non-believers. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Jun 8, 2009; 7:40 am |
|
Thanks for your post Todd,
Now you've got me thinking about foundational OT texts! Gentile Christians must certainly be attracted to God's covenant with Abraham as 'foundational' since we get included in the story but get left out if the Mosaic covenant is viewed as foundational. Although, your OT Sunday School teacher is correct in saying the OT people of God viewed the Masiac covenant as foundational. [pretty cool to have a high powered SS teacher!] I'd say the notion that God is the Creator was a foundational belief of the OT people of God. It was assumed - supported by the Genesis story. |
|
|
|
| bert Member Joined Feb 10, 2009 35 posts |
| |
Posted Jun 8, 2009; 7:59 am |
|
| Ok, I have a question. If the creation account is just a way-over-simplified description of Darwins evolution then what about Eden, Cain&Abel, the flood etc? Are these just stories too? |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Jun 8, 2009; 8:16 am |
|
| westcoast frame of mind wrote: | Thanks for your post Todd,
Now you've got me thinking about foundational OT texts! Gentile Christians must certainly be attracted to God's covenant with Abraham as 'foundational' since we get included in the story but get left out if the Mosaic covenant is viewed as foundational. Although, your OT Sunday School teacher is correct in saying the OT people of God viewed the Masiac covenant as foundational. [pretty cool to have a high powered SS teacher!] I'd say the notion that God is the Creator was a foundational belief of the OT people of God. It was assumed - supported by the Genesis story. |
True enough. The difference between the Genesis creation story, and creation stories from other Mesopotamian religions largely revolves around the concept of one Creator. The Sun (and stars and Moon) finds its way into the creation narrative largely to emphasize that the Sun was not a deity, but a created object by one Creator.
And certainly the Patriarchs are an important part of God's plan of redemption. On the other hand, Abraham doesn't get nearly as much focus as Moses. Perhaps it doesn't seem that way because Genesis is much more interesting reading than Leviticus, and Numbers and the second half of Exodus, or because we tend to remember the beginning and ending of stories better than what happens in the middle. |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Jun 8, 2009; 8:38 am |
|
| bert wrote: | | Ok, I have a question. If the creation account is just a way-over-simplified description of Darwins evolution then what about Eden, Cain&Abel, the flood etc? Are these just stories too? |
The creation account is not a revelation with regards to Darwinian evolution. I don't think evolution is at all implied in the texts. What is implied is an ancient Hebrew/Mesopotamian view of cosmology, one that noone really accepts anymore (though Henry Morris would argue that the skies were once filled with some water canopy, but that is really, really stretching). The texts reflect the then current understanding of cosmology. God often works within people's current understanding of things, rather than correcting every detail they get wrong. What amazes me is how much this is true. For example, were shellfish really an abomination of God? No, not really. But the culture had an understanding that crustaceons were abnormal because there skeletal structure was on the outside of the flesh, and God used that as a symbol of God's holiness. Or, were lepers really cursed by God? Why weren't they allowed in the tabernacle? No, they weren't really cursed, and as awkward it is within our view of these things, it was also a sybmol of God's holiness. Were men better than women, because women who gave birth to a girl, was unclean for a longer period of time than for a boy? I don't think that's God's view of things, but God is working within a Patriarchal society where these things were accepted without much question. Cameron McKenzie highlighted several examples, where God did inspire further inclusion of women in God's redemptive plan. The midwives at the beginning of the book of Exodus were essential to God's redemptive plan, as was Rahab in attaining land in Canaan. The first witnesses of Jesus' resurrection were women. There are plenty of examples like this which ran counter-cultural.
I think Eden, Cain & Abel, and the flood are [very likely] historical myths. Nevertheless, these texts are inspired by God, and reveal essential truths regarding man's relationship with God.
I think there is more historical truth with Abraham, though I don't think it is important that every historical detail is perfectly accounted for. Sometimes I think an movie based on a true story is analagous. There are some key historical facts, but the details are largely embellished to make a point more clearly. |
|
|
|
| westcoast frame of mind Moderator |
| |
Posted Jun 8, 2009; 8:38 am |
|
| Todd wrote: | | On the other hand, Abraham doesn't get nearly as much focus as Moses. Perhaps it doesn't seem that way because Genesis is much more interesting reading than Leviticus, and Numbers and the second half of Exodus, or because we tend to remember the beginning and ending of stories better than what happens in the middle. |
Quick question Todd, r u referring to modern Xtians (ie. MB's) focussing on Moses rather than Abraham?
In the NT, I'd say, Paul focusses on Abraham more than Moses in order to bring gentiles onto equal footing with Jewish Xtians. |
|
|
|
| thursday Member Joined May 6, 2009 94 posts |
| never "just" stories |
Posted Jun 8, 2009; 8:41 am |
|
Thanks Bert for showing your concern:
| Quote: | | Ok, I have a question. If the creation account is just a way-over-simplified description of Darwins evolution then what about Eden, Cain&Abel, the flood etc? Are these just stories too? |
Although I personally have no problem with evolution being reconciled to the Christian faith, it must be done carefully. Many have simply said the two can co-exist and have not reconciled the theory of evolution to the narrative. IMO we must never lose the narrative. These stories are never just stories. However it is also likely that many of the stories did not happen exactly as they were recorded. This is not a heretical comment but is rather recognition that the purpose for recording the stories was not to maintain historical "fact" but rather to remind the people about the God who exists behind the story. It is thus always important to remember that the Jews of old didnt have the same concerns as modern day historians (objectivity, etc). That being said I do also think it is important for many of the events of OT to have happened because it creates a theology where God "breaks in" to human history (the ultimate example is the Christ event).
Anyone else have thoughts on this topic? |
|
|
|
| Todd Moderator Joined Sep 9, 2004 1088 posts Location: Winnipeg |
| |
Posted Jun 8, 2009; 8:45 am |
|
| westcoast frame of mind wrote: | | Todd wrote: | | On the other hand, Abraham doesn't get nearly as much focus as Moses. Perhaps it doesn't seem that way because Genesis is much more interesting reading than Leviticus, and Numbers and the second half of Exodus, or because we tend to remember the beginning and ending of stories better than what happens in the middle. |
Quick question Todd, r u referring to modern Xtians (ie. MB's) focussing on Moses rather than Abraham?
In the NT, I'd say, Paul focusses on Abraham more than Moses in order to bring gentiles onto equal footing with Jewish Xtians. |
I suppose it's good to reflect on these types of questions. I'm defending something I've believed for less than a day now!
Abraham is the patriarch of the Jewish family, and so he becomes more relevant when it comes to Jewish/Gentile distinctions (or lack thereof), which is a large focus of Paul's.
On the other hand, the Passover has significant contribution to the Atonement with Christ. I suppose Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac was a type of foreshadowing of Christ's death, (or perhaps was written as a foreshadow of the Passover). |
|
|
|
|
|
