Forum

Out of interest, has anyone here read Andy Weir’s new hard science fiction novel, Project Hail Mary? I picked it up yesterday and read it, and there are quite bit of biological concepts that may be prove interesting for discussion, such as evolutionary concepts and one particular organism’s capabilities. As Weir aims to write plausible science fiction, I wonder how much of it could be considered possible in our universe.

This is a regular enough occurrence that it's arguably worth devoting it's own OP to. YECs routinely misuse scientific terminology like "species," "speciation," "macroevolution," resulting in YECs arguing against things they actually believe in and confusing everyone else in the process. The exchange usually goes something like this: YEC: I accept limited evolution within species "kinds." I accept microevolution but not macroevolution. Scientist/Non-YEC: The evidence for speciation and the origin of new species is indisputable and we have even observed instantaneous speciation in real-time. YEC: Have not. Prove it. Scientist/Non-YEC: Well, an example of speciation is...[a single point mutation that changes the chemical structure of a pheromone so that insects in a population no longer recognize and mate with each other]. YECs: That's not evidence of macroevolution. They haven't changed. They're all still insects! Scientist/Non-YEC: But that's what speciation (macroevolution) is by definition! When organisms in a population stop interbreeding and producing fertile offspring with the rest of the population, then they are a new species by definition. Speciation--which is the most basic form of macroevolution (i.e., evolution at species level or above)--can happen (and often does!) with little to no change in moprhology. YEC: Oh, well I have no problem with that. Scientist/Non-YEC: Then you accept speciation (macroevolution)! ***Moral of the story: For non-YECs: Be aware of this common misunderstanding so you don't waste time arguing in circles. YECs routinely think of macroevolution/speciation in terms of large-scale changes in morphology, while the scientific definition is based on whether or not interbreeding can occur that produces fertile offspring; NOT whether or not morphology has changed. For YECs: "Study to show thyself approved..." You will earn greater respect and be taken more seriously (and also save yourself wasted time arguing in circles!) by demonstrating proper use and understanding of the scientific terminology on a subject.

I'll start:

YECs often claim that the accepted view of the fossil record is not based on facts and reality, but is a construct based on evolutionary assumptions. YECs further like to claim that their 'flood model' interpretation of the fossil record is an equally valid (if not better) interpretation of the same data that scientists interpret according to an 'evolutionary framework'. In short, YECs claim the difference between the two views is merely one of starting assumptions and different interpretations of the same data. Afterall, they say, paleontology and geology---unlike repeatable, observational, experimental science (such as chemistry)---are 'historical sciences' based on past history that no one was present to observe, so how can we really know for sure. To the unwary and those who only have cursory knowledge of the fossil record (which is just about everyone) such rhetoric might sound like it has a ring of truth to it or might even seem reasonable. Unfortunately, it is just rhetoric, misinformation and spin. First, not only is there no recognized experimental vs. historical science dichotomy in modern science, in some ways the so-called 'historical sciences' have an advantage over the more heavily inductive 'experimental sciences' which must generalize findings and can never test every possible case of something to make absolutely sure, because the fossil record--as an unchanging record of the past--is what it is and will always remain so. Second, it is an absolute fallacy that YEC flood geology is just an equally valid interpretation of the same data. It is not. YEC flood geology is a selective choosing and cherry picking of isolated bits of data while ignoring the rest of the data or twisting the facts to fit the theory. ***The proposition I put forward and defend here is that when it comes to the fossil record there are really only two possible interpretations of the data (and YECs don't like either one): it is either the result of evolution or progressive creation (or a combination of the two). There really are no other possibilities. We are limited to these two possibilities not because of any 'evolutionary framework' or a priori assumptions, but because those are the only possibilities that reality allows. The fossil record is not an imaginary fiction or mental construct, but a consistent, unchanging record of the past that is what it is. It is a factual record. This is important to unpack, because anti-evolution rhetoric can confuse people into thinking that the order or sequence of fossils in the record is arranged according to an evolutionary framework that 'assumes' old ages. But the truth is the fossil record has pretty much looked the same way it always has for hundreds of years since the inception of paleontology EVEN BEFORE Darwin's theory of evolution: It is a record of *succession* of different types of life existing on this planet at different times. It is a record of *replacement*. Diverse and very different types of life existed at different times in earth's history. A group of organisms exist for a time then goes extinct and are replaced by a different assemblage of organisms which then goes extinct and are replaced by yet another different group of life forms, and so on and so on and so forth. What's more, the basic pattern of succession is effectively the same worldwide. The order or sequence of different types of life on this planet over time is in fact so reliable that W. Smith (the father of geology) was able to accurately predict the pattern all across England (and eventually the world) using his still recognized *principle of faunal succession* in the 1700s to early 1800s long BEFORE Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859. *Let me say that again because it bears repeating: the succession of life we see in the fossil record is effectively the same wherever we look at it worldwide and this succession or order of appearance and extinctions of different life forms at different times in earth's history was already a well-known and recognized fact BEFORE Darwin's theory of evolution. Heck, before Darwin was even born. This sequence of succession is NOT an evolutionary construct but a known observational fact that predates Darwin. There was also no 'assumption' of long ages, but evidence of long ages that was recognized BEFORE Darwin and before radiometric dating. Put another way, even though radiometric dating *is* reliable for determining 'absolute ages' we don't even need to appeal to it. We can simply use the 'relative' dating principles that Steno established back in the 1600s--a couple centuries before Darwin. Principles that everyone (even YECs) accepts today. By using these principles we can determine the relative ages of different fossil bearing units by their physical relationships to each other. No radiometric dating needed. No assumption of long ages. *The OBSERVED order of fossil succession combined with the physical relationships of rock units, together show that the fossil record is *much* longer than a year (and can't be the product of a one year global flood), and further demonstrates unequivocally the OBSERVATIONAL FACT that all the different types of life on this planet did NOT appear at the same time, but appeared at different times in earth's history in a series of predictable succession-extinctions that are recorded worldwide in the fossil record. Early paleontologists and geologists who predated Darwin (including Christians) recognized that the fossil record showed that there had been numerous successions or turnovers of different types of life that always occurred in the same order. Some of them interpreted these turnovers as a series of separate creation ('progressive creation')-extinction/catastrophe events (with Noah's flood possibly the last one recorded; but even Christians of the time recognized the fossil record wasn't the result of a single Noah's flood catastrophe in the span of a year but represented a much longer period of time and multiple turnovers/successions of life). ***The fossil record still looks the same today as it did back then before Darwin was even around. It is a record of changing life on this planet of different types of life existing and going extinct at different times, and not at the same time, encompassing a period of time much, much longer than a year. As such, there are really only two possible explanations of the observational facts: evolution or progressive creation (or some combo of the two).

As a scientist (who is also a Christian), one of my greatest concerns about young earth creationism and those who hold to strict biblical inerrancy (absolutely no errors of any kind in the Bible) is that I think they are needlessly setting themselves up for a fall by placing so much value on these issues to a level of importance almost equal (or somewhat less) than the gospel itself. You have turned these into all-or-nothing, do-or-die positions. You reason, if the Bible is wrong on one point, then how can it be trusted on anything. Yet, you would not write-off an entire history book as untrustworthy for having a single error. This puts great pressure on you. EVERYTHING MUST be true and accurate. NOT A SINGLE ERROR can exist. But what if one does? It still would not change existing evidence pertaining to the life, death, resurrection, and teachings of Jesus and the early first century church. So, here is my question to you: Hypothetically, IF you found out that the earth truly is billions and not thousands of years old, and that there have been mega floods but no global flood, and that evolution and the Big Bang are true, and humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and/or IF you discovered that there truly are mistakes and errors in the Bible, then how would that affect your Christian faith/beliefs? Would you renounce it?

For my stance between creation and evolution, I'm somewhere in the middle. However, I lean towards creation in the sense there are no proven genetic mechanisms that create new information (i.e., not using existing information). I think this article, while slightly biased (and there some issues in dealing with algorithms) it's fairly accurate to my reasoning. Feel free to critique the article, or ask me to clarify reasoning on my part. https://creation.com/mutations-new-information

I am wondering if decay is actually necessary for us to have a functioning biosphere--and if it is actually necessary for us to have functioning bodies. Imagine, for example, a forest floor covered in leaves that never decay, so that the leaves endlessly pile up. Or if your hair never fell out. What I'm wondering about, though, is more than that. Could there be life as we know it without processes of decay? Would digestion work? Would we even need to eat? Would apples grow on trees? What would be different without processes of decay? Could there be human beings and apples without decay?

For the universe exist, so many things have to be dialed in just right; on top of all of that, we need all of the right conditions and material required to support life and maintain it on consistent bases. The universe and life discussion is not only an argument about molecules to man, but gravitational strength, all of the necessary ingredients in one place at one time, and so on. So everything in the macro world and the subatomic one would have to have all of their ducks lined up. Creation with all of the vastness we see and don’t see is immense in how large some of the things in it are, including space itself, and small it all is when we think about the particles. I stumbled upon an old video which gives us a glimpse of what a God who is all-knowing, all-powerful, is that is also timeless would be looking at and being able to see it at once and everything and their relationship in its place with everything else. We can attempt to do the numbers (funny and well-done video (Varelse1@ watch this)), but a God who can speak all things (old video well done) into existence and never lose track of any of it is far above us. So can we find God by looking at the universe, I like CS Lewis’s “Finding God (Finding Shakespeare) by C.S. Lewis Doodle art (love the artwork along with the discussion)

https://biologos.org/common-questions/why-should-christians-consider-evolutionary-creation Evolution is a challenging subject to consider in light of biblical faith, so it is often easier to ignore or reject it than to engage in meaningful discussion about the topic. Yet considering evolutionary creation has important benefits for Christians both in our relationship with the Creator, and in our relationships with other people—both believers and non-believers.First, Christians should study evolution because, like all the natural sciences, it is the study of God’s creation. Creation itself is a complementary revelation to what God has communicated through Scripture, and through the created order God shows how and when he brought about the life we see today—to his honor and glory. The regular patterns in nature that we call natural laws have their foundation in the regular, faithful governance of God. Thus we believe that God created every species and did it in such a way that we can describe the creation process scientifically. The scientific model of evolution does not replace God as creator any more than the law of gravity replaces God as ruler of the planets.

The genomes of humans and chimpanzees are strikingly similar. In fact, humans and chimpanzees are actually more genetically similar to each other than chimpanzees and orangutans are. The chromosomes of humans and apes also show striking similarities. However, there is a glaring difference that would seem to throw a monkey wrench in the pristine evolutionary picture: Humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs), while all other apes have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs). At first glance this might seem to contradict the theory of evolution. Afterall, if humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor, then wouldn't we expect them to have the same number of chromosomes? But a closer look reveals a different story. It turns out that we used to have 48 chromosomes, too. DNA sequencing confirms that our human chromosome number 2 is actually two chromosomes that have been fused together, which explains why we have one less pair of chromosomes. Chromosomes have distinctive sections that include a central region called a *centromere* and ends called *telomeres*. DNA sequencing not only reveals the exact location where the two chromosomes fused together, it has also confirmed the presence of two sets of centromeres and telomeres in human chromosome number 2. This is definitive proof that human chromosome number 2 truly was made from the fusion of two different chromosomes. It also matches the evolutionary picture perfectly, showing that the ancestor of chimpanzees and humans had 48 chromosomes (24 pairs), but then after chimpanzees and humans diverged there was a chromosome fusion event in the line leading to humans, which reduced our chromosomes to 46 (23 pairs). The evidence for chromosome fusion further strengthens the case for common ancestry. By contrast, the alternative hypothesis that chimpanzees and humans were separately created requires us to believe that an intelligent designer created human chromosome 2 to make it falsely look like it had an earlier history that involved a fusion event that included the creation of an extra centromere with no function as well as two extra telomeres stuck in the middle of the chromosome instead of on the ends. Here's a link to more information along with a video explanation: "This Picture Has Creationists Terrified"

Self explanatory, really...

https://youtu.be/kboUBQnMP8w Interesting talk on the eye.

And we'll try to discuss it.

Lets ask a serious question. We have two theories that attempt to explain our origins. Creation says an intelligent designer created and designed the earth to support life. Evolution says it happened by a series of accidents. Be honest. Which one makes sense? Isn't it obvious that somebody had to have done this?

Lets ask a serious question. We have two theories that attempt to explain our origins. Creation says an intelligent designer created and designed the earth to support life. Evolution says it happened by a series of accidents. Be honest. Which one makes sense? Isn't it obvious that somebody had to have done this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3CB7-Hg1BtegxWzMvEinsd5XgFk2_zkD9VPCE5-95THYq8qCAB3BOb3-A Nice discussion

Natural selection to me has always been an excuse for things that were made by design, and this is one of the reasons: Sharks have camo in that their underside is white, to match with the ocean from below, and their topside is grey, to hide from above. Most fish have this, but how did they come to have it?

Are ERVs (Endogenous Retroviruses) evidence for evolution that humans and chimpanzees are related and have a common ancestor? Consider the facts and you decide. Summary of Facts: 1. Some viruses (we'll call them ERVs) insert their genetic material into the genomes of organisms in random places and this genetic material can be inherited. [Analogy: Imagine an ERV is like a food stain on a random page of a book] 2. In humans, there are >100,000 such places in our genome where genetic material from these ERVs has been randomly inserted. [Analogy: Imagine you get a book that has over 100,000 random stains of different shapes and sizes on different pages] 3. Over 99.9% of these >100,000 ERVs are also found in the chimpanzee genome in the same, corresponding locations. [Analogy: Imagine a friend gets a copy of the book and when you compare you discover that it, too, has >100,000 random stains, and 99.9% of these stains are in the same, corresponding places as your book] What Would You Conclude? (What is the best explanation of the facts?) A. Independent Ancestry: The human and chimpanzees genomes independently acquired >100,000 bits of viral genetic material in the same corresponding locations by luck. [Analogy: The two books independently acquired almost all of these >100,000 stains in the same places by luck] B. Common Ancestry: 99.9% of these >100,000 ERVs are found in the same, corresponding places in the human genome and chimpanzee genome because humans and chimpanzees are related and have a common ancestor that already had 99.9% of these >100,000 ERVs in the places where they're found. [Analogy: The two books have >100,000 food stains nearly all in the same place because they are photocopies of a third book that already had 99.9% of these stains in the locations where they're found]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEf6mKZqJZs&t=1753s I have to admit I feel insulted when someone says I'm not allowed to have an opinion and speak about things I'm not an expert in. If this was not the intent those I'm speaking to mean, I'm sorry but it comes across that way. I want to point out that experts disagree, so to say that we cannot formulate our opinions because there is an expert that says otherwise is about as insulting as it gets. Science is not a cult is it, where the free exchange of ideas is looked down on, or is it?   We believe what we put our faith in that is telling us the truth if we are not concerned with truth, what is the point any lie or error will do. Truth is very exclusive something either is true or not, therefore it does have a dogmatic feel to it. Any belief system we hold we treat this way if we believe in a purely materialistic universe that will be held up to judge all things in the universe. Anything not seen as a material view only will be a threat to that world view, this will be no different for anyone's point of view on what they believe is true or not.   So we debate and argue which is, in my opinion, a great thing as long as we do it in a respectful manner without twisting or ignoring truth when we have to admit our own views are not consistent with the truth in reality. If our views contradict themselves we know we are not standing on good ground if our views do not reflect reality, we know we are not standing on good ground. If we find our views are not in agreement with someone else's view, good, lets put the views to the tests as we sort it all out. If you only want to live in an echo chamber listening to those who agree with you and not allow your opinions about truth to be tested, that is a blind faith dogmatic view that requires to be shielded from skepticism. The bottom line sharp educated people are on both sides of any discussion, defend your own views if you cannot or will not, why believe and question other's points of view?