I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.

The questions taht would raise are,
“Where did each of the two or three seeds come from?”

If it is feasible for one strand of life to develop from nonorganic matter, why not two or three? There’s also the hypothesis that life came to earth on a meteorite. Of course, that only pushes the question “How did life come from nonlife?” up one level (that question is separate from evolution, by the way), but it could possibly explain why there would be two or more different trees of life. I believe common descent is well enough supported to be the default choice, though.

“If there were more than one, why did they all ‘happen’ to use the same ’standard genetic material’ (DNA, RNA, etc.)?”

That’s one of the reasons why it seems like there’s one tree of life.

Without having considered it in depth, I will say that I like the idea much more. But then again, if 2 or 3, why NOT millions? If 2 or 3 are feasible, why not many without the need (environmental or otherwise) for macro-evolution?

If that were the case, we would see life developing from nonlife all over the place. It isn’t happening. Since all known animals fit nicely into a hierarchy, there is no reason to doubt common descent.

We are, of course, moving far away from my area of expertise here. I am no scientist either, and certainly not a biologist.

I’ll have to quit the discussion for now, both because it is irrelevant to the post and because I’m going away on vacation with questionable or non-existent internet connection. aA has published some posts from my old blog here, so it might be that you’ll see a post or two under my name, but I’m not going to be online much the next 2-3 weeks, so I won’t be able to respond.

So, see you all in a week or three!

“I still think that one who denies the macroscopic effects of evolution ought to have very strong evidence, or else they’re not worth my time, but I apologize for calling you stupid.”
- Apology accepted. Thank you, I very much appreciate it.

“I’ll disagree that believing in (macro-)evolution is giving God too little credit. After all, engineering a system to create exactly what you want out of the bewildering array of possibilities is expert craftmanship.”
- Hmm… I should have been more specific. What I meant was more along the lines of, “If God created life, why would He NOT use the same standard genetic material to construct it?” To me, the same evidence used for common descent can be used to point to intelligent design. So I very much agree with your second sentence here.

“And also, I don’t see how common descent (even though it is widely agreed on and strongly supported) is necessary for evolution to have macroscopic effects. I can just as easily imagine two or three different beginning seeds of life that deversified into lots of species over a long period of time. We’re talking about billions of years here.”
- Ok… I can see that. The article seemed to be saying (to me, I could be very wrong as I am not a scientist) that common descent did not address the “hows” and is thus completely separate (or at least “could be”). From the third of the article I read, it did not discuss macroevolution apart from common descent, which they seemed to think proved (as a natural progression) macro-evolution without stating how exactly. As far as multiple seeds of life… I’m not sure what I think about that. I have not considered, nor have I heard anyone else propose, a possibility beyond a single source. The questions taht would raise are,
“Where did each of the two or three seeds come from?”

“If there were more than one, why did they all ‘happen’ to use the same ‘standard genetic material’ (DNA, RNA, etc.)?”

“What happens to the theory of common descent?”

Among others…

Without having considered it in depth, I will say that I like the idea much more. But then again, if 2 or 3, why NOT millions? If 2 or 3 are feasible, why not many without the need (environmental or otherwise) for macro-evolution?

I don’t know. This will keep me thinking for a while, but I certainly like the turn this discussion has made.

Blessings,
Brad

I still think that one who denies the macroscopic effects of evolution ought to have very strong evidence, or else they’re not worth my time, but I apologize for calling you stupid.

I’ll disagree that believing in (macro-)evolution is giving God too little credit. After all, engineering a system to create exactly what you want out of the bewildering array of possibilities is expert craftmanship.

And also, I don’t see how common descent (even though it is widely agreed on and strongly supported) is necessary for evolution to have macroscopic effects. I can just as easily imagine two or three different beginning seeds of life that deversified into lots of species over a long period of time. We’re talking about billions of years here.

Now we are talkin’! In the sense of “believing int he fundamentals” (the 5 points you laid out), yes, I am a fundamentalist. In my experience, “fundamentalist” has carried a heavy cultural connotation to imply judgmental, arrogant, close-minded, bigotrous (sometimes), or hateful. THAT is the definition I deny.

Rather, I like to put the “fun” back into “fundamentalism,” and actually try to hold true to princples like not judging others or being hateful. All sins are equal in the sight of God. What platform do I hold that allows me to judge someone else for their sin when I am not sinless myself? That is a fundamental belief. Sadly, the term has been hijacked, so I often defer to that use rather than try to explain myself every time. Thank you, TA, for pointing that out.

Simen,
Sooo guess what? I read the first third of the article you linked. Not too shabby, and there is a lot to affirm about it. I particularly appreciated the statement in the introduction section that made it very clear that no part of the article or theory of common descent made assumptions of validity for previous related claims. Honestly, I was a little surprised, but very pelasantly.

I continued reading, and found this to be of particular interest:
“Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the “standard genetic code” or a close derivative thereof.”

When I read this, it struck me as a strong assumption that all oprganisms with “standard genetic code” would come from the same gene pool. I have not been able to read (so far, as I said, I’m only 1/3 into it), I have not been able to find anything to contradict this observation. If this is correct, then I am still very not convinced. Working from the perspective of a Christian, I do not give God that little credit as to simply choose to create life using this standard genetic code, adn if this is the assumption for proving macro-evolution, I am STILL not convinced.

Also, if they stated the following:
“None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved.”
… how can we be sure that this is what happened without the understanding of ” how”?

Again, I state this merely to point out that there are assumptions made in science as well as theology. To claim that either is absent of them is just incorrect. As we seemed to agree on earlier, when we make the tool a belief system, we lose sight of what we are trying to use the tool to accomplish (either knowledge of God or knowledge of the physical world).

Now. I have engaged you on your background, in your sphere of knowledge, in a sincere attempt at both understanding your argument and to demonstrate the common respect of listening. I will be happy to continue to do so, and do intend to finish reading the link you posted. Can we at least maintain some level of mutual respect? Because I’m not sure how the following comment on your behalf was NOT implying that I was stupid:

“This, on the other hand, is “What P says is wrong, therefore P is stupid.””

I just want to say that Memetics is a field that was very much like Astronomical Cheesology and for a while I was caught up in it. It was only after a very good conversation discussing the empirical evidence for Memetics that I and the person I was talking with realized we had been duped. Ultimately even Dawkins who inspired the field often expressed that he wished it would go away.

The universe is a wonderful place and what governs the universe governs each of us. That is enough. I think what we experience as consciousness when fully understood will be explained by rules that are less than miraculous and theology will pass away.

have never met, in person, someone who actually believes that abortion and homosexuality are the biggest sins. This is a gross overstatement and vastly politisized.

My apologies, I wasn’t clear on this one. It comes across as they believe this way — based on how I’ve seen some of the major players in the Religious Right acting, voting demographics, and some of the issues that dominate the political landscape. The perception can easily be that those two topics are the “biggest.” I mean, even at looking with the current political climate with the Republican party, the focus is on a pro-life candidate, and much of the surprise is that Rudy is doing so well, given his position on abortion. (I know, you’re trying not to tie politics into this, but the fact that they’re a huge block of voters in a certain party segment was where I was getting my perception from).

Anyway — Simen, I know you requested no more tangents. I wanted to clear up something I poorly phrased, and I’ll leave it at this.

There is no excuse for a lay person (or any person who doesn’t have substantial and extraordinary new evidence) to deny that evolution occurs and has been occurring since the dawn of life, with both macroscopic and microscopic effects.

I have linked before and do so again: Talk.origins’ page on evidence for evolution. I have yet to hear anyone tell me what’s wrong with it. I suggest that if you can’t, you’re not entitled to deny evolution.

As for fundamentalism, the word has evolved to become a label on those who have a tight hold on their fundamental doctrines; this is the sense I use the word, regardless of the origin of the term.

All this is far away from the topic of this post. I suggest any commenters who want to comment further on evolution or the definition of fundamentalism write their own posts for that, and then, if it has relevance to this thread, send a ping/trackback or post a link in the comments.

In case any of you forgot (this is not directed at anyone in particular), the topic of this post was the merits of the quote in the beginning of the post and the NOMA principle in general.

It doesn’t matter which way you linguistically slice it, a fundamentalist is simply someone who believes in the “fundamentals” (set forth by some 20th century document). Heather adds that the fundamentalists believe in YEC, literal Genesis, yada yada… this is part of their interpretation of the “inerrancy” of scripture. No biggy. I have never met, in person, someone who actually believes that abortion and homosexuality are the biggest sins. This is a gross overstatement and vastly politisized. Are many fundamentalists obsessed with sexual issues? Yes. Biggest sin? Come on. Other than the Westboro Baptist people, I think most fundamentalists would agree that blaspheming the HS, murder (again, abortion does fall into this), and all sort of horrible crimes are worse than homosexuality. As for voting Republican, this is only true since the 1980s when Jerry Falwell started preaching about a Christian’s place in America.

As for not listening to any opposing viewpoint, I have a lot of university professors that could fall into that category. Actually, I think most human beings tend to fit here. It is called egoism and fundamentalism does not hold this exclusively.

Unfortunately this will probably turn into a huge tangent off of Simen’s post, and I am sure that we will soon have something on d-C by somebody trying to define fundamentalism (or maybe there already is?)

The fundamentalists I’ve encountered go farther than the list you’ve presented. They also hold to a 6,000 year old earth, Adam/Eve were literal people that abortion and homosexuality are horrible and the biggest sins, vote Republican and honestly? Tend not to really listen to any opposing viewpoint and come across as judgemental. There’s not a lot of flexibility involved.

I skimmed Justin’s article on it, and I think he has a good grasp on the difference.

I’ll let Brad tackle the fundamentalist vs. theologically conservative aspect.