dana: If eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes, why we still have …

Comment on How much of the Human Genome is Functional? by Bob Helm.

dana:

If eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes, why we still have prokaryotes?
If mamals evolved from fish, why still have fish?

Dana, let me say at the outset that I am a committed creationist as is Dr. Sean Pitman. However, I also believe in using good scientific arguments, and your two questions do not imply good scientific thinking. You are essentially asking “How can ancestors live at the same time as their descendants?” Obviously, parents can still be alive during the lifespan of their children. However, perhaps you are asking why, in view of natural selection, ancestors have survived if their descendants were more fit. A Darwinian would respond that the level of fitness depends on what ecological niche you are considering. For example, fish are extremely fit in water, but not on land. On the other hand, most mammals are extremely fit on land, but not very fit in the water. So the Darwinian would argue that fish have survived very nicely in water right up to the present day, but that they gave rise to descendants that evolved certain body parts (e.g. lungs and legs) that enabled them to expand into a new ecological niche, namely land.

Please bear in mind that as a creationist, I do not buy into this. I believe that fish were intelligently designed to live in water, while most mammals were intelligently designed to live on land. However, you will not falsify Darwinism by asking such questions because Darwinism does allow ancestors to live at the same time as their supposed evolutionary descendants, albeit in different ecological niches.

Recent Comments by Bob Helm

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
What is wrong with conceding that many claims of scripture can only be accepted on faith?

I fully realize that 21st century scientists cannot perform X rays of Mary’s womb or insert instruments into her womb to determine exactly what took place when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Of course, I accept the virgin birth on faith! My point was that we now have examples of virgin births occuring as a result of modern scientific technology, and since science has now produced virgin births in mammals, if God is real, we have an analogy for how He could have done the same thing. @Professor Kent:


Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Darwinist is just short for Neo-Darwinist. While the majority of biologists subscribe to Neo-Darwinism, I would contest your statement that Darwinist=biologist. I prefer “Darwinist” to “evolutionist” because the latter is a slippery term. Even creationists believe in micro-evolution.@pauluc:


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Sean Pitman: Sean, it’s interesting and ironic how churches repeatedly try to become more relevant by accepting Darwinism and other forms of liberalism, but in the end, they always die, while churches that maintain their creationist stance and conservative values continue to grow.


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@pauluc: I wondered if you would bring up alchemy. Just because Newton was wrong about alchemy, why try to slur him over it? Even though he was a great physicist, he was human, and he did make mistakes!


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@Pauluc: Actually, there is one extrabiblical reference to Jesus’ Resurrection. In his “Antiquities of the Jews,” we have this from Flavius Josephus: “When the principal men among us had condemned Him [Jesus] to the cross, those who loved Him at first did not forsake Him. For He appeared to them alive again the third day. . .” This so-called “Testimonium Flavianum” has provoked fierce debate, with critics calling it an interpolation. However, it is written in the style of Josephus and appears in all the extant Greek manuscripts of “The Antiquities of the Jews.”