St Augustine on Creation and Evolution
Many Christians assume that the church’s long tradition of faithful biblical exegesis has always treated the biblical creation accounts as straightforward historical accounts of how everything came into being. In fact, things are rather more interesting. One of the most respected early Christian biblical scholars, Augustine of Hippo (354-430AD) interpeted Scripture a thousand years before the “Scientific Revolution” or our modern period and fifteen hundred years before Darwin’s Origin of the Species. He set out to intepret Scripture on its own terms, faithfully and carefully. The important thing was to let Scripture speak for itself.
Augustine wrestled with Genesis 1-2 throughout his career. There are at least four points in his writings where he attempts to develop a detailed, systematic account of how these chapters are to be understood, including his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis which was written between 401 and 415 AD. Augustine discerns the following themes in his reading of Scripture and weaves them together into his account of creation. God brought everything into existence in a single moment of creation. Yet the created order is not static. God endowed it with the capacity to develop. Augustine uses the image of the dormant seed to help his readers grasp this point. God creates seeds, which will grow and develop at the right time. Augustine asks his readers to think of the created order as containing divinely embedded causalities that emerge or evolve at a later stage. Yet Augustine has no time for any notion of random or arbitrary changes within creation. The development of God’s creation is always subject to God’s sovereign providence.
Augustine argues that the first creation account (Genesis 1:1-2:3) cannot be interpreted in isolation but must be set alongside the second creation account (Genesis 2:4-25), as well as every other statement about the creation found in Scripture. For example, Augustine suggests that Psalm 33:6-9 speaks of an instantaneous creation of the world through God’s creative Word, while John 5:17 points to a God who is still active within creation. God created the world in an instant but continues to develop and mold it, even to the present day. This leads Augustine to suggest that the six days of creation are not to be understood chronologically. Rather, they are a way of categorizing God’s work of creation. They provide a framework for the classification of the elements of the created world so that they might be better understood and appreciated.
Certain biblical passages, he insisted, can legitmately be understood in different ways. The important thing is that these interpretations must not be wedded to prevailing scientific theories . Otherwise, the Bible becomes a prisoner of what was once believed to be scientifically true.
In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines our position, we too fall with it.
So what are the implications of this classic Chrisitian interpretation of Genesis? One point is particularly obvious. Augustine’s exegesis of Genesis shows that a “faithful” or “authentic” interpretation of the biblical texts concerning creation does not necessarily demand a six-day period of creation. The opening chapter of Genesis must, Augustine argues, be set in context – initially, in the context of Genesis 2, and subsequently in the context of Scripture as a whole. For Augustine the big question is this: what way of articulating the doctrine of creation makes sense of all the biblical statements on the matter and not simply the first chapter of Genesis? Above all, Augustine stresses the importance of weaving the total witness of Scripture into a coherent doctrine of creation and not limiting this to Scripture’s first few dozen verses.
Augustine does not limit God’s creative action to the primordial act of origination. God is, he insists, still working within the world, directing its continuing development and unfolding its potential. There are two “moments” in the creation: a primary act of origination and a continuing process of providential guidance. Creation is thus not a completed past event. This two-fold focus on the creation allows us to read Genesis in a way that affirms that God created everything from nothing, in an instant. However, it also helps us affirm that the universe has been created with the intended capacity to develop, under God’s sovereign guidance. For Augustine God created a universe that was deliberately designed to develop and evolve. The blueprint for that evolution is not arbitrary but is programmed into the very fabric of creation. God’s providence superintends the continuing unfolding of the created order. Where some might hink of the creation as God’s insertion of new kinds of plants and animals ready-made into an already existing world, Augustine rejects this as inconsistent with the overall witness of Scripture. Rather, God must be thought of as creating in that very first moment the potencies for all the kinds of living things to come later, including humanity.
Augustine’s exegesis of Genesis shows that a “faithful” or “authentic” interpretation of the biblical texts concerning creation does not necessarily demand a six-day period of creation. For Augustine the big question is this: what way of articulating the doctrine of creation makes sense of all the biblical statements on the matter and not simply the first chapter of Genesis?
The image of the “seed” implies that the original creation contained within it the potential for all the living kinds to subsequently emerge. This does not mean that God created the world incomplete or imperfect. This process of development, Augustine declares, is governed by fundamental laws, which reflect the will of their Creator: “God has established fixed laws governing the production of kinds and qualities of beings, and bringing them out of concealment into full view.”
I must emphasize at this point that neither Augustine nor his age believed in the evolution of species. There were no reasons at that time for anyone to believe in this notion. Yet Augustine developed a theological framework that could accommodate this later scientific development, though his theological committments would prevent him from accepting any idea of the development of the universe as a random or lawless process. For this reason Augustine would have opposed the strict Darwinian notion of random variations, insisting that God’s providence is deeply involved throughout, directing a process in manners and ways that lie beyond full human comprehension.
Augustine’s approach to creation is neither liberal nor accommodationist, but is deeply biblical, both in substance and intentions. It needs to be taken into account when Christians reflect on the themes of creation and evolution. Sloganeering and grandstanding will not help us at all here. Examining the long Christian tradition of biblical exegesis will.
Adapted from Augustine of Hippo on Creation and Evolution (Ch9) of The Passionate Intellect (Alister McGrath, 2010). This book is also published in the UK/Australia under the title Mere Theology (2010).
Prof McGrath is currently undertaking research for his latest book project, a new biography of C. S. Lewis, which will be published in 2013, marking the 50th anniversary of his death. He is maintaining a blog, detailing the work carried out to date, and the approach adopted. Further details here.
Related post:
Lee Meadows
on January 3rd, 2011
I appreciate the lead on Dr. McGrath’s description of Augustine’s views. I’ve been looking for something like this, and I just ordered the book you mentioned. It will be useful to me in my work on teaching evolution with sensitivity to religious students in U.S. public schools.
Nathan Jonfield
on September 19th, 2011
The accuracy of time machine has caused the dates in timeline of homo sapiens to be in question.
The website address http://en.wikipedia.org/…line_of_human_evolution shows the evolution of homo sapiens that has its derivation from Eukaryota since 2,100,000,000 years ago from cells with a nucleus.
Refer to the website address http://www.sciencedaily.com/…02/100211111549.htm pertaining to the invention of time machine which accuracy could be up to the maximum of 50,000 years.
There are a few queries to be raised about the accuracy of this time machine:
a)As the time machine has been invented and improved currently, have the scientists tested the time machine on how accuracy that the time machine would be? There might be a possibility that there would be some minor variation in the accuracy in the short time and yet and yet the gap of variation in accuracy through measurement of time through time machine might well be broadened and a number of years later. As the time machine should have been tested, let’s say, within the length of time 100 years, would the gap of variation be increased immensely if the measurement would be extended beyond a million years? Has any biologist tested and ensure that the time machine has been tested with accuracy even they could check that the variation beyond 1000 years would be accurate? However, nobody would live more than 1,000 years in this world so as to see what the result they have got 1,000 years would be accurate. There is a query about the accuracy of time machine.
b)Refer to the time machine in the website, it is mentioned that the accuracy of time machine would be extended up to 50,000 years. There would be a question about the accuracy of time measurement of Eukaryota that would live 2,100,000,000 years ago. Would the time machine be so accurate that could determine the life of Eukaryota to be meant for 2,100,000,000 years? It might be that the fossil that Eukaryota would have been discovered, might live shorter time than 2,100,000,000 years ago.
Nathan Jonfield
on September 19th, 2011
The possibility of missing fossils that could have put the timeline of homo sapiens to be in question.
Let’s assume that the timeline of homo sapiens as laid out in the website, http://en.wikipedia.org/…line_of_human_evolution is accurate despite the accuracy of time machine would be up to 50,000 years.
The website, http://dienekes.blogspot.com/…igin-of-homo.html, gives us the information that there were only a few fossils of the same type of animal that have been dug out by archeologists to be the evidence of the origin of homo sapiens. Indeed, there should be numerous fossils of the similar type of animal that could be found everywhere especially the place where this fossil has been dug out on the condition that the animal that was found in the fossil, did exist once in the past. It is irrational to assume that the animal in the fossil was the only one that could exist in the past and it turns up that this to be the only fossil in this world. Or in other words, if the animal that was in the fossil did exist in the past, there should be more than a thousand or even millions of similar kind of animal fossils to be dug out especially at the place where the fossil was dug out. As there were only a few similar type of animal fossils could be dug out, a query would be raised that where the rest of this similar kind of animals’ fossils could be? The most likeliness would be that many of the animals’ bones might turn up to be dust currently and vanished. If the bones would not be turned up to be dust ultimately, where would all the animals’ bones be?
Let’s use the example as extracted from the website address http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_sap.htm as an illustration. The middle of the picture reflects the skull that has been dug out by archeologists and has thought to be the oldest human race that was located from Ethiopia. Why was it that there were only a few skulls to be dug out at Ethiopia? Does it mean that there were only three oldest human beings to stay at that region? Certainly! The population of the oldest human beings should not be limited to that few instead, it should be many more. Their bones might turn up to be dust currently and could not be located.
From the above illustration, it could come to the conclusion that the absence of skulls does not imply that no human being or no other creature would stay during that period of ancient time since there would be a possibility that their skulls and ribs would have turned up to be dust and be vanished into the ground (except some would have preserved in shape due to their surrounding conditions) so that archeologists could not be able to locate them despite they might once alive during that period then.
As many human skulls would have turned up to be dust and vanished into ground, would there be a possibility that there would be a certain type of creatures that are presumed to live under a certain taxonomic rank, (such as animals from vertebrates, that lived 505,000,000 years ago), and yet would have lived in a period that would be preceded by other category (, such as, under taxonomic rank of kingdom, and that should be 590,000,000 years ago)? As all the bones would have been turned up to be dust and be vanished into ground, no fossil would have been dug out despite they might well live right before the indicated taxonomic rank that it should have existed. If that could be so, the arrangement of animals under different taxonomic ranks could be questionable since many other animals might have survived other than the scope that they have been classified by biologists under a specific class of taxonomic ranks, let’s say, vertebrate, and yet they might once alive in a class of taxonomic rank that could be preceded by this rank, such as, kingdom, and yet their skulls and bones would have been vanished into the ground. As a result, it could not provide the proof that they did survive during that period. If that could be so, the timeline of homo sapiens for each specific class of taxonomic ranks might be classified with more than a type of animal and the whole timeline would be affected accordingly. No doubts this is a little subjective. However, there could be a possibility there.
Nathan Jonfield
on September 19th, 2011
The reliability of evolution as shown in the timeline of all living things is in question.
The following discussion is based on the condition that all the dates in the Timeline of all living things are correct, ignoring the accuracy of time machine might be up to 50,000 years, and that the living things could be classified correctly, ignoring the possibility of the Timeline might not be accurate due to many animals’ skulls and bones might have been vanished in the ground and that might cause the Timeline to be re-structured.
Refer to the website, http://en.wikipedia.org/…ine_of_human_evolution, under the sub-title of Timeline. There are a few queries to be raised pertaining to the evolution theory:
a)The timeline of all the living things in this website does not mention what external factors that had been contributed to the evolution from time to time.
As mentioned in Newton’s principle in the website, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/…ry/newton3laws.html, that every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remains in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. Or in other words, everything should remain the same as it is unless external factor that influences it and to cause it to change. When this theory is applied to evolution, it gives the implication that there should be the external force that would cause the living thing to be evolved from time to time.
However, there is a deficiency in the timeline in the sense that it fails to explain whether there would be any external factors that would influence the living things to evolve from time to time. For instance, it fails to explain the reason why the first living thing would evolve to chordates. What would be the external factors that would have contributed to the evolution? If no external factors would cause the living things to evolve, why should there be any evolution then?
Thus, the evolution theory is questionable from the scientific point of view.
Nathan Jonfield
on September 19th, 2011
Conflict between Charles Darwin’ theory and timeline of all living things have placed query about the reliability of evolution.
The website, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human, under the sub-title, Timeline, mentioned that the sexual reproduction evolves that leads to faster evolution in 1200 Ma. There are a few queries raised pertaining to this description:
a)As the evolution of living things as mentioned in 1200 Ma could speed up, it certainly contradicts Darwin and his contemporaries’ view that evolution as a slow and gradual process as mentioned in the website, http://en.wikipedia.org/…roduction_to_evolution, under the sub-title of ‘Rate of Change’.
b)What would be the external factor that caused the rapid increase in evolution?
The above shows the inconsistency between the timeline of evolution and Charles Darwin’s theory. The reliability of evolution theory is in question.
Nathan Jonfield
on September 19th, 2011
Irregularities of evolution raise query about accuracy of timeline and reliability of evolution theory.
Prior to the analysis of timeline, let’s assume that the dates that are indicated in the timeline are correct despite the current time machine could have its accuracy up to 50,000 years. Besides, let’s assume also that the arrangement of the living things in timeline is in sequential order despite the possibility of the absence of animals’ bones and skulls that might have vanished into dust, would affect directly the arrangement of the order in timeline.
The website, http://en.wikipedia.org/…ine_of_human_evolution, under the sub-title of ‘Timeline’. From the timeline table, it is obvious that it would take 30 Ma (and that is 580 Ma minus 530 Ma) in order for cnidarians to be evolved to flatworms. It would take 10 Ma (that is 550 Ma minus 540 Ma) for flatworms to be evolved to acorn worms. It would take 10 Ma (that is 540 Ma minus 530 Ma) for acorn worms to be evolved to Pikaia, Lancelet as well as concodonts. It would take another 25 Ma (that is 530 Ma – 535 Ma) for this to be evolved into agnatha. The data above shows that the evolution of living things seems to be very slow and it took very long time for low living things to be evolved into less complexity of animals. Yet within 25 Ma (that was between 505 Ma and 480 Ma), the agnatha could evolve into a prehistoric and sophisticated fish, i.e. a placoderm, which head and thorax were covered by articulated armoured plates. As the evolution was quite a sudden with just 25 Ma that an agnatha could evolve into a more sophisticated animal, i.e. a placoderm, the evolution would seem to be rapid. The same that it happened to hylonomus that looks similar to modern lizards. Yet within 44 Ma, the hylonomus could evolve into a much bigger size and more complexity of animal, i.e. phthinosuchus. Despite there were rapid evolution of these living things, nothing is mentioned what would have caused the contribution of rapid evolution. Besides, it certainly contradicts Charles Darwin’s theory that mentions that evolution should be a slow and gradual process. The rapid evolution of these living things has brought out to the doubts of the reliability of the evolution theory.
The word, evolution, is being defined in the Webster Dictionary as a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex or better state. However, the timeline shows that the repenomamus (that lived in 220 Ma) had gone backward and turned up to be in smaller size and less complexity of an animal namely, eomaia scansoria (that lived in 160 Ma). Or in other words, repenomamus did not evolve into higher and more complexity of animals instead, it had turned up to be a lower and less complexity of animal and that was eomaia scansoria. As evolution does not seem to be able to apply to this creature, it gives doubts about the reliability of evolution theory. What external factor would have caused the theory of evolution not be workable upon this creature? Why was it to be so? The negative evolution of this animal gives query to the acceptability of evolution theory and the reliability of timeline since this animal had turned up to move backward instead of evolving.
Refer to the timeline again, it is mentioned that the bipedal australopithecines (a genus of the Hominina subtribe) evolved into savannas of Africa in 3 Ma. It mentions that the loss of hair took place in the period 3-2 Ma on the process of the evolution of human beings. However, it fails to explain why there should be hair loss occur in these animals. Has the hair loss contributed to the privilege of evolution or has it been moving backward? What external factor that would have caused this living thing to have lost loss? If losing hair would not be any advantages to this animals, there would be a doubt in the reliability of evolution since nothing has been contributed to hair evolution.
The above irregularities have placed the reliability of timeline and the evolution theory to be in question.
As the reliability of evolution theory is in question, it is rational for anyone to uphold the theory of creationism since evolution theory is itself questionable.
modsynth
on September 19th, 2011
Hello, Nathan.
I don’t see how hair loss is a problem for evolution. For one thing, it may have survival advantages: “http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1698033/pdf/12952654.pdf”
“Rapid” evolution isn’t really a problem, either. It would be a real problem if features appeared with no precedents. This is what you would expect to find in special creation – something like the immediate appearance of lungs or some kind of unprecedented spine or rib cage – something new, novel, and with no link to another structure. That would be problem for evolution. Instead, the fossil record follows a pattern of gradual changes, though not always at a steady speed. There’s no reason to suspect that evolution would maintain a constant rate of change.
You also mentioned repenomamus and eomaia scansoria, but I don’t get your point. No one’s saying one evolved into the other, right? But even if something did develop simpler than its ancestors, evolution would in no way be challenged. Sometimes a genetic deletion is helpful and selective pressure can push toward simplicity – not just complexity. Evolutionary theory doesn’t demand that things become more complex, regardless of how a dictionary chooses to define it. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13617-evolution-myths-natural-selection-leads-to-ever-greater-complexity.html
I don’t think there are any real problems listed here, but there are many unexplained aspects of evolution and some things that are problematic tand difficult to solve. The existence of such unfinished business does not immediately lend weight to a competing idea – namely creationism. A scientific theory must rise on its own merits, not the perceived problems of a competitor. The problems with special creation are pretty huge. Morphology so strongly implies descent, and ERVs and atavisms really seal the deal, in my view. It appears that creationists have much more to try to explain than the problem of human hair loss and other small, isolated examples.
Thanks.
Nathan Jonfield
on September 19th, 2011
Thanks for your information. I will soon tackle your question. It might take a few days.
modsynth
on September 19th, 2011
Sorry, one of the links was messed up. Here it is:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1698033/pdf/12952654.pdf
I’ll check back later. If you like debating evolution, feel free to stop by my blog sometime. I’m a theistic evolutionist like McGrath and Roger Morris.
Nathan Jonfield
on September 20th, 2011
The following explanations are based upon the assumption that evolution did occur in the past and from then, to determine whether the support of evolution could be justifiable:
Refer to the website address, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13617-evolution-myths-natural-selection-leads-to-ever-greater-complexity.html, pertaining to evolution myths. The following are the extracts:
Based on the above comment, there are a few queries to be raised concerning the acceptability of the phrase, you tend to lose it if you don’t use it:
a) The living things, that do not use certain feature, such as, eyes, guts and etc., do not give the implication that they do not need it. There could be a possibility that they need it and yet unfortunately do not own it and be ended up that they would seek alternative choice of survival technique, such as living in the cave environment to avoid predators to attack, or else they might have to face extinction due to their vulnerable bodies that could expose to danger easily.
Let’s assume that cave fish and tapeworms would have turned up to be without eyes and without guts respectively due to the cause of evolution. What makes the biologists so sure that the living things, such as, cave fish and tapeworms, would not use those things that other living things have and cause them to lose them? There might be a possibility that they would need those features and yet unfortunately they have turned up to be without them and cause them to live miserably in the worse environments, such as, cave. For instance, if a cave fish, that is blind, would swim out of the cave, it would be easily attacked by a large animal. Alternatively, it might have lost its way back to its initial habitat if it were to depart from the cave. In order to survive, the cavefish might have no choice but to live permanently in the cave environments. It is the same logic for a person that is born blind would not travel overseas. Not that he loses it as a result that does not use it, but that he has been born unfortunately to be so. The same is for tapeworms. The additional gut could help tapeworms with additional function such as it could use it for other purpose, such as, to prevent it to pass out from human body, or to use to store food or etc., instead of losing it. This is due to more function and more feature of the living thing, such as, tapeworm, would lead to be more adaptable to the surrounding environment. For starfish that has no brain, it does not imply that it needs no brain to think. There could be the possibility that starfish needs brain to think in order to get better technique to hunt for food or think of way to escape from predators. The reason that starfish is brainless could be due to it turned up to be unfortunate to be without brain despite they need it.
b) The living things, that do not use certain feature, might retain the thing without removing. Have you ever seen roosters and hens that have extra flesh on top of their heads? Despite the additional flesh on top of their heads would serve no purpose on defending them, yet the flesh retains among them. This proves that the concept of ‘you tend to lose it if you do not use it’ could not be applicable in reality. The extra flesh hanging right below our human beings’ left and right ears would serve no purpose and yet retain. Roosters and hens would have their wings retain despite they could no longer be used for flying and yet retain. All these prove that the living things, that do not use a certain feature, might retain them. Thus, it is irrational to use the concept, that you tend to lose it if you would not use it, to support that complexity of animals could evolve to lower animals since many animals would retain their feature despite they might not use them.
c) Evolution theory is questionable why complex animals could evolve into less complex animals. If evolution theory is acceptable in nature, a cave fish should be able to evolve into a more complexity in the sense that it could see in the dark as a bat with eyes that could visualize things in the cave. Instead, the cave fish has been born blind instead of moving forward or having positive evolution. If evolution theory is acceptable in nature, a tapeworm could grow bigger in size with guts to assist it to store more food or to prevent it be passed out from human bodies by its size or etc. If evolution theory is acceptable in nature, a starfish should grow with brain so that it could help it to think of better way in hunting food or to prevent the attack from predators.
From the above analyses, it would come to the conclusion that it is not a justifiable reason to mention that living things could evolve into less complexity due to they tend to lose it if they do not use it.
As there was negative evolution among animals, there is a question about the reliability of evolution theory. As evolution theory is questionable from scientific point of view, it is justifiable for one to uphold creation theory.
Nathan Jonfield
on September 21st, 2011
Refer to the website address, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1698033/pdf/12952654.pdf, pertaining to the advantages of hair loss. However, there are more reasons that the hair loss among human beings could not bring about the advantages of human beings and this brings the query about why there have to be hair loss among animals and in turn, the query about the reliability of evolution:
a)It is mentioned in this website that humans evolved hairlessness to reduce parasite loads, especially ectoparasites that may carry disease. This might seem to be true at a glance. However, this could not be true on our heads since the hair on our heads could keep on growing and this would lead to ultimate parasite loads if it were uncut for more than 30 years. The total mass of the hair that a person would keep for 30 years would be a number of times heavier than the hair that has grown up in apes’ body. The only thing that causes human beings to differ from apes is the hair among the apes has been distributed over their bodies and yet human beings’ hair is concentrated on their heads. When we compare the hair from human beings and apes, human beings could be parasite loads, whether in length or in mass, when the hair was uncut for more than 30 years. Thus, the hair among human beings could not reduce parasite loads. Instead, it might turn up to be the other way round to increase parasite loads on the condition that human beings did not cut their hair for more than 30 years. Thus, the hair loss among human beings and to cause it to grow continuously over the head might increase parasite loads and causes a disadvantage to human beings if their hair were uncut for more than 30 years. The over-concentration of hair growth on heads would not show any advantage in the long run since it would increase parasite loads.
b)It is mentioned in the website address above that hairlessness is made possible in humans owing to their unique abilities to regulate their environment via fire, shelter and clothing. Refer to the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgenic_hair, it shows the distribution of hair among men and women. Despite human beings might put on clothing, yet the hair among human bodies especially those parts that are covered by clothing would not reduce. This gives the implication that our hair might not be able to reduce in spite of our capabilities to regulate environment via fire, shelter and clothing. Or else, men and women should not have hair on those parts that have been covered by clothing.
c)It is also mentioned in this website that hairlessness, then, demands some sort of explanation in evolutionary terms, and especially so as, in humans at least, hairlessness is not without its costs. Humans are more exposed to the sun, may suffer greater heat loss when the ambient temperature is low (Newman 1970; Amaral 1996) and, with the exception of the naked molerats, differ from the other hairless mammals in not having a thick or toughened hide for protection.
d)Many people in this world might have encountered hair loss problem that leads to the ultimate bald heads to annoy them and causes them to have no choice but to seek help from clinic, hair salon and etc. Yet this hair loss problem persists from generation to generation. As hair loss could cause problem among human beings and yet it persists, it places the query about the reliability of evolution. This is due to why there should be hair loss that would result in bald heads among human beings and this could not occur among apes or other animals.
e)Human beings’ hair loss brings about the disadvantage of causing them to turn up to be gray or white at old age and this might be in concern by the old folks. Yet the situation could not change unless dye hair. However, this disadvantage of turning into gray or white hair could not occur among other animals especially apes. Or in other words, there is a disadvantage of hair loss among human beings as a result of gray or white hair in old age and this places the reliability of evolution into question.
f) It is mentioned in this website that Wheeler (1992) acknowledges that naked skin increases the rates of both energy gain and loss during periods of too much or too little heat, respectively. This might mean that naked skin is actually a worse solution when the entire day is taken into account: more heat must be dissipated from daytime exposure and, at night time, more heat is lost (Amaral 1996). 3. There is certainly a disadvantage of hair loss here due to rapid energy gain and loss as a result of hairless condition of our bodies.
Despite of our hair loss, the redundancy of hair in length, such as underneath the armpit and even from the front body onwards up to the legs, remains there without removing away or evolve away, brings a query about the reliability of evolution since what it tends not to be used and yet it still retains instead of vanishing away.
It is also mentioned in the website that humans are not literally hairless, having about the density of hair follicles expected of an ape of our body size (Schwartz & Rosenblum 1981). What distinguishes human body hair is that it is very fine and short, making it, effectively, invisible. we use ‘hairless’ with respect to humans, then, to mean that they lack a dense layer of thick fur. However, this could not be true to the hair that is on our heads that could grow exceedingly and could even cause parasite loads on our head if this has been uncut for 30 or more years. Indeed, the hair on the human beings’ heads is the longest among all animals.
It is also mentioned in this website that hair loss could be meant to promote cooling of the body. However, many men might have exposed half nakedness of their upper bodies and yet could not feel cool on their bodies and seek help from fans or air-conditioning system or breeze or etc. even at the absence of sun especially early in the morning or at night. Some people might even suffer from high fever and need to seek help from doctor despite hairless bodies could cool it down. All these have placed the query whether hairless bodies could really cause their bodies to be in cool.
From the above analyses, there places a query why there should be hair drop and it seems to have adverse effect of evolution and that places the reliability of evolution into question
Nathan Jonfield
on September 21st, 2011
You have mentioned that there is no problem for rapid evolution. Let’s assume that evolution could be accepted in theory. What factors that could contribute to rapid evolution? When you have mentioned that one living thing does evolve into another, did you ever perform experiment that that living thing could evolve to another or your conclusion simply derives from comparing one living thing to another without observing it to occur?
You have also mentioned that repenomamus and eomaia scansoria might not be evolved from one to another. However, when you refer to the arrangement of order in timeline of homo sapiens, it gives us the idea about the link of evolution.
You have mentioned that a genetic deletion might cause the complex animals to push towards simplicity. What would be your reason in supporting this development? Could it be more specific in your explanation that could be provided with reason for any negative evolution in the Timeline of homo sapiens? Have scientists done the experiment among living things that animals could have negative evolution through genetic deletion or it would be just a theory without tested?
Please kindly explain the biblical meaning below and determine whether it could have any relationship with evolution:
Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Nathan Jonfield
on September 21st, 2011
MODSYNTH, Let’s temporarily put those biblical verses aside and discuss as usual. Are there any questions or theory or any principle that would strongly support evolution? If there are, please kindly bring them out for discussion so that I could defend the truth by not using the scriptural verses but nature so that the scripture can be proven true.
Thanks for past valuable information.
modsynth
on September 21st, 2011
In my last post I pointed out that the morphological hierarchy and branching pattern, independently confirmed by ERVs and atavisms, and then corroborated by what we’ve found in the fossil record are serious challenges to any model involving special creationism. My point was that the problems you pointed out are small, answerable, and show that you have some misunderstandings concerning evolution. These observations do not involve any guess work and are available to to studied by comparing anatomy and genomes. After making such observations, such as the anatomical similarities between chimps and humans and then noticing that there are over a dozen similar sequences of apparently inserted viral data found at identical loci in the genomes of chimps and humans. This strongly suggests a shared past and shared ancestry, and would be a very confusing feature to be found if the genomes were designed from scratch.
modsynth
on September 21st, 2011
“What factors that could contribute to rapid evolution?”
Changes in the predator/prey balance, changes in environment which can come very sudden (impact event) or suddenly by geological standards (an ice age or other climate shift). A stable environment should leave things pretty balance, but adding something in the mix can quickly change the settings and then selective pressures become much stronger. This is basic – not a problem.
“did you ever perform experiment that that living thing could evolve to another or your conclusion simply derives from comparing one living thing to another without observing it to occur?”
New features have developed in laboratories among bacteria. New features have been observed and new species have emerged among larger animals within our lifetimes. The demand of repeatability is sometimes met, but consider that it’s never met in a murder case. Would you require a murder to be repeated in front of you before convicting the assailant? If you find footprints, DNA at the scene, the murder weapon in the accused’s possession, means, motive, opportunity and so on, you may say there’s no reasonable doubt. When we see the similarities between camels and llamas, and then see that we can cross breed them, then find a fossil trail leading the Middle Eastern camels and South American llamas back to similar fossils in North America, it seems justified to conclude descent.
“You have mentioned that a genetic deletion might cause the complex animals to push towards simplicity. What would be your reason in supporting this development?”
Well, a deletion would mean less information, so that’s self explanatory. My other statement that natural selection can push toward simplicity can be demonstrated by some insects which appear to have lost their wings and benefitted from it. Creationists and evolutionist agree that this occurs. My point was that natural selection doesn’t always make things more complex, and I was responding to your statement that “The negative evolution of this animal gives query to the acceptability of evolution theory”. The animal in question was repenomamus, and scientists do not believe that it has an surviving ancestors, so no one was even saying that it became more simple, anyway. You mentioned it again, but I think you need to look into that one beyond the images in the wiki article.
Jason Tannery
on September 21st, 2011
modsynth, Thanks for your information. Again it needs a few days to reply.
Jason Tannery
on September 21st, 2011
I will be the one to tackle your question then.
Jason Tannery
on September 22nd, 2011
Nathan Jonefield, I think I should be the most appropriate person to tackle this questions since I suppose we are in the same boat.
Nathan Jonfield
on September 22nd, 2011
Jason Tannery, Theistic evolution usually use Genesis 1 to support their theory and yet ignoring Genesis 2 that mentions the steps how God had created the world in reality especially Genesis 2:21-22.
Try your best to defend the truth of the Bible and I will assist you if you can’t.
Thanks
Nathan Jonfield
on September 23rd, 2011
Modsynth, Certainly! Genetic deletion could cause defect on animals. Many experiments have been carried out in the past in transforming the feature of bacteria to another and even cause certain defect upon mice. However, I have discovered that genetic deletion that has been performed in the past could only cause animals, such as, mice and bacteria, to lose certain feature or even to cause them to have certain defect, such as, changing the emotion of mice or etc. However, the outcome of genetic deletion upon the type of animal would still remain unchanged. Or in other words, when a genetic deletion was performed on mice, the end result still remains as mice instead of new creature. When biologists use general deletion on bacteria, it still produces bacteria after the experiment instead of new creature. Thus, genetic deletion in past experiment does not provide a proof that it could be used to produce a new creature.Jason Tannery, The above information could be useful to you.
zuma
on April 3rd, 2012
There is a shortfall of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory supports that all creatures have its derivation from a single cell in the beginning. However, there would be a number of new cells to be created in the beginning on the condition that the environmental condition at that time could be suitable for the production of new cell. Why should there be only one and only cell to be created when the surrounding condition would seem best for the creation of living thing? If there could be one and only cell to be created at that time, what made it to be so so that there could only be one cell to be formed? If there would be more than a single cell to be created at that time due to the environmental condition, evolutionary theory is in question since how all creatures would have a common ancestor when there might be a number of cells to be created at that time.
zuma
on April 4th, 2012
If evolutionary theory is acceptable, it should be justifiable to consider that the initial cell should be considered as a common ancestor of all living things. If it should not be so, how could the common ancestor be created then? There should not be any justifiable to think that, by nature, the common ancestor could evolve from a more complex creature than a single cell. Besides, how could the more complex creature to be our common creature be formed without going through a single cell with the assumption that evolutionary theory should be true? Does it imply that a more complex creature was created without going through the development of single cell? If a more complex animal could be formed without passing through a single cell, then there should be a supernatural being that causes a more complex creature to be created. If our common ancestor should be evolved from a single cell, it is rational to think that that single cell should be the common ancestor of all living things.
Now questions have to be raised: If more complex creature or a single cell could be created in the beginning as a result of the surrounding environmental factors that could deem to be best for creation of a common ancestor of all living things, there should not be any reason why there should only be one cell or one complex creature to be created at that moment. Instead, there should be many to be created due to the good environmental condition that would deem best for the creation of the living things. As there would be many cells or more complex cells could be created, how could there be any common ancestor for all living things?
Tom Fay
on June 25th, 2012
Thank you. Very good piece.
WhyDoesGodAct?
on June 25th, 2012
Zuma, I am not sure I understand your question.
The origins of life in an evolutionary world (not special creation) would necessarily NOT be multi cellular.
The origin of life may not even be single cellular.
The origin of life may be molecular.
A replicating molecule similar to DNA, RNA, or even pre-RNA.
Miller-Urey experiments, AND in meteors, have shown a bit of that with showing NATURAL origins of genetic nucleotides. (pre-biological, biological chemicals)
I’m not sure if that’s what you are getting at though. (I’m finding your point hard to ascertain)
Perhaps you want to know where all life had to come from 1 cell? or many?
Well, current models for single cell life show that single cell creatures can horizontally TRANSFER DNA from 1 species to another. So in this way, early life has a way of combining, and instead, the tree of life, at the base, isn’t a strict branching tree, rather it is mixing and matching. When life was that simple and small it could happen much more.
However, this isn’t particularly important. Evolution of life, once cellular life has started, is much much more highly confounding enough to traditional notions of what Life Is, that we don’t even need to delve into the hypothetical natural origins of all life. (DNA,RNA, pre-RNA) Evolution in multicellular life itself is problematic enough for a traditional understanding. (ERVs, atavisms, fossil record)