Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Although it is conclusive that Human evolution from a single celled organism is not true, evolution better known as mutation is. It can be traced historically and in current day. So could we say that perhaps many species today have "evolved" from the form they were 6 thousand years ago at the Biblical start of the human race?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by David Stratton, TRiG, Andrew, Bruce Alderman, hammar Jun 20 '12 at 14:46

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

8  
Wait a second... from where do you assert that "it is conclusive that Human evolution from a single celled organism is not true" ? In what peer-reviewed journal was that published? Because the vast majority of biologists may disagree... –  Marc Gravell Jun 20 '12 at 10:36
5  
Can I clarify: are you looking for a biological / evidence answer for this? 'cos the question flies in the face of what virtually all experts in the relevant fields believe. If you are after a Biblical answer; well, the Bible doesn't say anything on the subject. –  Marc Gravell Jun 20 '12 at 10:51
1  
Yes, we could say that many species have evolved in the last 6 thousand years. The best biological evidence, in fact, indicates they've been evolving much longer than that. –  Bruce Alderman Jun 20 '12 at 14:24

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

The structure and form of life has obviously changed. I don't think you have to be an evolutionist to accept that. Nor do I know any Christians who'll deny it.

If you look in Genesis you will see that men are described to have lived for upto 900 years. Dogs and other animals are bred to produce animals with desirable traits. So the structure of lifeforms changes over time, no doubt about that.

On a secondary note, welcome to the site and please consider reading the FAQ on what makes a good focused question. In its current form the question is too simple. It sounds more like a request to affirm your own beliefs than a query for information.

share|improve this answer
    
@Marc Gravell "there is no scientific reason to believe that life suddenly evolved and diversified after stepping off an ark". I'm not sure I see your point here. Do you mean that a greater amount of time is required? If so, have you heard of the Cambrian explosion? –  Monika Michael Jun 20 '12 at 10:56
    
small logistics point first: I don't see @Marc replies unless I have already been involved in that specific question/answer. However; the Cambrian explosion covered many millions of years (something like 80-million years, IIRC), and was hundreds of millions of years ago. Not 5-something thousand years. That is a huge difference. Evolution is gradual, and doesn't fit in the time between Noah and now, nor is there any evidence-based reason to suggest that it needs to fit in such a tiny tiny window. –  Marc Gravell Jun 20 '12 at 11:09
    
@Marc You miss my point. It may have covered millions of years but it was still very rapid. Origination of distinct and diverse species from primitive phyla in 50 million years is as much a miracle as variation within a species in 5000. –  Monika Michael Jun 20 '12 at 11:30
4  
It (the Cambrian-explosion) is interesting. There is no basis to say it is a "miracle" though, at least not in the religious sense. And while it may be rapid (in evolutionary terms), it is supported (indeed, entirely based-on) the actual evidence that we have available. There is no similar evidence to support a post-Noahidic explosion, other than a literal reading of Genesis. Of course, the Cambrian-explosion is perhaps meaningless in the context of a YEC question... –  Marc Gravell Jun 20 '12 at 11:36
1  
because there is no evidence to support that in the first place, and plenty of evidence to show species evolving gradually over the timescales we expect, in the locations we expect. –  Marc Gravell Jun 20 '12 at 12:10

So could we say that perhaps many species today have "evolved" from the form they were 6 thousand years ago

yeeeesss, evolution, via either natural or artifical selection is ongoing (in evolutionary theory, there is nothing special even about humans; we aren't some magic end-state) . For an artificial example within a species, just look at dog breeding and how rapidly the form can change there. For an interesting example of observed evolution, look at the E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project (which has followed bacteria through 50k generations, IIRC).

In humans, you only need to look at skin colour (although the Bible has a different explanation for that, I believe, and most estimates say that skin colour has been adapting for something like 75,000 years) or lactose intolerance.

If you are looking for a biblical answer, then (and I shudder at this, because it is entirely unscientific): without it, you need to make the ark much, much bigger than even the Bible dares state. However, there is no scientific reason to believe that life suddenly evolved and diversified after stepping off an ark, and every paleontological and biological reason to think the very opposite.

share|improve this answer
4  
@Narnian there are already plenty of criticisms of those books (particularly the latter), including a good number by biologists. Because someone can write something in a book, that doesn't make it automatically worthy (bites tongue). So: the existence of those books demonstrates that a few scientists don't agree; we knew that much already. Sorry, but the vast majority of experts in these fields agree that the massive and ever-increasing amount of evidence in favour of evolution is compelling to the point where it should be declared simply as fact. –  Marc Gravell Jun 20 '12 at 12:02
5  
@Narnian you are right in that anyone can propose a hypothesis, and anyone can critique it. Which is why we look to evidence. Evolution has bucket-loads of physical evidence of different origins and types, of both history/pre-history, and direct observation (a few examples noted above), all saying the same thing. YEC: doesn't; it has a chapter in the book of a primitive, mostly illiterate culture, and that's it. Abiogenesis is a different topic, under lots of research; I don't know the conclusions of that yet, but neither do you (unless you use GoTG). –  Marc Gravell Jun 20 '12 at 12:15
4  
Variation is not evolution. You can't prove variation and then demand that everyone accept everything else based on that. You actually have to prove everything else, unless you are just asking people to have blind faith in evolution. –  Narnian Jun 20 '12 at 12:25
3  
@Narnian sigh... I provide links to observed speciation, you ignore it. Actually, the problem in your example is that you see "dog" as a fixed thing. That is not correct; something dog-like "A", breeds with something dog-like "B", and produces something else dog-like "C"; no single one of them defines "dog", and all 3 are different. Eventually, long after I've run out of letters, hundreds/thousands/more of generations later, you get something that you would not call "dog", and couldn't easily breed with "A". But at each point every child was similar to the 2 parents. –  Marc Gravell Jun 20 '12 at 12:37
5  
@Narnian: Whether evolution is observable or provable is irrelevant to the validity of Marc's claim. It is a fact that "the vast majority of experts" do agree with evolution. You can't fault Marc for that. If you want to accuse 95% of the scientific population of being wrong, you have that right (95% of the "science" experts have been wrong before... on multiple occasions). But this is not a reason to discredit Marc's answer, or to debate the evidence for or against evolution here. –  Flimzy Jun 20 '12 at 17:30

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.