A Question for the Evolutionist (of any stripe)

[John Bauer]

Micro or Macro, or both?

Both.

Microevolution refers to genetic change within a species—how allele frequencies in a population shift over time. These changes are the product of such forces as mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, gene flow, and competition within the species. Macroevolution addresses evolutionary patterns and processes operating above the species level that are involved in the formation of new species and the disappearance of existing ones (speciation and extinction), and the long-term trends that shape biological diversity across geological timescales.

Accepting one brings along the other, as they are analytically distinct but causally linked, microevolution providing the raw material for macroevolution and macroevolution shaping the context for microevolution. Taken together, they constitute the evolution of life with its patterns of descent with modification from a common ancestor found in molecular and fossil records.

 

[John Bauer]

Romans 5:17 (KJV), "For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ."

Who would be the 'one man? And what would his offense be that caused death to spread to all mankind?

That man would be Adam, and his offense was transgressing the commands of God (vv. 14-20). We are regarded as covenant-breakers in Adam because our federal head broke the terms of the covenant.

 

[Carbon]

Both.

Microevolution refers to genetic change within a species—how allele frequencies in a population shift over time. These changes are the product of such forces as mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, gene flow, and competition within the species. Macroevolution addresses evolutionary patterns and processes operating above the species level that are involved in the formation of new species and the disappearance of existing ones (speciation and extinction), and the long-term trends that shape biological diversity across geological timescales.

Accepting one brings along the other, as they are analytically distinct but causally linked, microevolution providing the raw material for macroevolution and macroevolution shaping the context for microevolution. Taken together, they constitute the evolution of life with its patterns of descent with modification from a common ancestor found in molecular and fossil records.

I know what they refer to. I dont understand how you could agree with Macroevolution. I do not see that being in harmony with scripture. Perhaps I'm missing something?

 

[atpollard]

Accepting one brings along the other, as they are analytically distinct but causally linked, microevolution providing the raw material for macroevolution and macroevolution shaping the context for microevolution. Taken together, they constitute the evolution of life with its patterns of descent with modification from a common ancestor found in molecular and fossil records.

The technical details are too hard for me to weigh in on, but isn’t consensus leaning towards “rapid speciation” rather than the older theory of slow, incremental speciation. (I only mention it because it suggests that speciation is a different mechanism from micro evolution adaptation.)

 

[John Bauer]

I know what they refer to. I don't understand how you could agree with macroevolution. I do not see that being in harmony with scripture. Perhaps I'm missing something?

It is possible that you're missing or even misunderstanding something—or maybe I am! Can you describe the incongruence with Scripture, as you see it?

 

[John Bauer]

The technical details are too hard for me to weigh in on, but isn’t consensus leaning towards “rapid speciation” rather than the older theory of slow, incremental speciation. (I only mention it because it suggests that speciation is a different mechanism from micro evolution adaptation.)

You are talking about punctuated equilibrium ("rapid speciation") versus phyletic gradualism ("slow, incremental speciation"). And the answer, surprising to some, is these are not mutually exclusive ideas. In other words, it's not an either/or choice. Both punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism are describing the same thing—just at different scales, as observed by Kenneth R. Miller in his book Finding Darwin's God. The only thing that makes punctuated equilibrium appear novel, he said, is the choice of a timescale with which to present the data. Once you expand the brief ‘punctuation’ interval, stretching it to its actual temporal length, the pattern resolves into the same incremental change Darwin described—long periods of stasis followed by speciation or extinction. "The contrast is an artifact of how the lines are drawn, not of how evolution works."

As Miller shows, Darwin himself explicitly described long periods of stasis punctuated by intervals of modification. The single diagram in Origin was never meant to depict slow, continuous, steady rates. Darwin wrote that "each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification"—a textbook description of stasis and punctuation. The supposed gradualism/punctuation controversy is a rhetorical one; there is no substantive difference. Gould expanded on a pattern that Darwin had briefly described. The whole thing collapses once the missing timescale is restored.

Remember that [Darwin] drew exactly one diagram in the Origin, designed to allow his readers to see how he believed new species were formed over time. Darwin presented this diagram so that his readers would have some idea of how he imagined descent with modification might take place over time. Naturally, he focused on what things might look like when changes were taking place—not on what might happen when they were not. Should we take the branching lineages that Darwin drew as showing his commitment to regular, steady change over time? After presenting the drawing he wrote:

But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.
​

... [I]t turns out that Darwin got it positively and overwhelmingly right the first time.

Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (CliffStreet Books, 2000), pp. 112-115. Emphasis mine. The quote from Darwin is taken from The Origin of Species, 6th ed. (1872; Oxford University Press, 1956), pp. 119-120.

 

[Carbon]

It is possible that you're missing or even misunderstanding something—or maybe I am! Can you describe the incongruence with Scripture, as you see it?

Well if I understand correctly. micro is a change within a species through out many years. Where macro is a change to additional species, or in other words, an Ape to a human.

I believe its very possible for microevolution, but macro? That wouldnt fit into scripture. God creates new species; His creatures do not over a period of time create other creatures.
And I believe evolutionists realize this as there are no links and they come up with something so foolish like punctuated equilibrium.

 

[prism]

That man would be Adam, and his offense was transgressing the commands of God (vv. 14-20). We are regarded as covenant-breakers in Adam because our federal head broke the terms of the covenant.

So, as a Christian who accepts evolution ( #17), would that be an evolved Adam, and if evolved, how did death come about before Adam's transgression? Which Adam/ape did God breathe into and He became a living soul, in the image of God?

 

[prism]

I understand that to be spiritual death.

How and when, as a theistic evolutionist, would you say evolving man took on a spirit, so that he would experience spiritual death?

 

[John Bauer]

Well, if I understand correctly, microevolution is a change within a species throughout many years, whereas macroevolution is a change to additional species—or, in other words, an ape to a human.

There is at least some misunderstanding there.

First, your description represents micro- and macro- as different kinds of evolution, but they're not. They are the same process just at different scales. To differentiate microevolution as "within species" and macroevolution as "between species" sounds like a focus on outcomes, which would be incorrect.

The distinction between them is not taxonomic but temporal and statistical: microevolution refers to changes in allele frequencies within populations, and macroevolution refers to the long-term patterns that emerge when those same processes accumulate across deep time, including speciation and extinction. Both operate by the same mechanisms: Allele-frequency shifts are the engine behind both short-term divergence and long-term lineage splitting.

Second, saying "ape to human" can mislead people into thinking apes and humans are separate categories. They are not. Biologically, humans are apes—we belong to the taxonomic family of Hominidae (great apes), alongside gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans.

So, the real evolutionary story isn't "an ape turned into a human" but rather this: An ancient population of African apes gradually split into different branches; one branch led to chimpanzees and bonobos, another branch led to the human line. That human line—called Hominina—includes genera from Australopithecus to Homo. These hominin forms appeared through small, population-level changes that occur through those microevolutionary mechanisms with which you don't have a problem. Over long periods of time, those ordinary changes add up and isolated populations drift apart enough to form new species. (A clear, observable example is ring species.)

And I believe evolutionists realize this as their are no links, and they come up with something so foolish like punctuated equilibrium.

Well, there actually are links. And I have no idea why punctuated equilibrium should be regarded as foolish.

 

[John Bauer]

So, [since you are] a Christian who accepts evolution, would that be an evolved Adam? And, if evolved, how did death come about before Adam's transgression? Which Adam or ape did God breathe into, which became a living soul in the image of God?

1. It is incoherent to speak of an "evolved Adam" because populations evolve, not individuals.

2. Again, that depends on whether you are asking about physical or spiritual death. It differs, when and how each entered the picture.

3. I don't know how to identify which Adam apart from pointing to the first few chapters of Genesis and saying, "That one."

As a theistic evolutionist, how and when would you say evolving man took on a spirit, so that he would experience spiritual death?

At the earthly dawn of redemptive history, when God initiated a covenant communion with mankind through Adam as our federal head roughly 6,000 years ago.

 

[By the Book]

Although it's accurate to say that spiritual death pertains to those who have fallen in Adam, I don't think that's the focus here. God warned Adam that if he were to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would surely die.

Genesis 2:17 - But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 5:5 - And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Ultimately, Adam did pass away, which means God was truthful, contrary to what some atheists might assert.

 

[John Bauer]

Although it's accurate to say that spiritual death pertains to those who have fallen in Adam, I don't think that's the focus here.

It actually is the focus when the author of the opening post, when asked, specifies that it's spiritual death he is asking about.

God warned Adam that if he were to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would surely die.

And he surely did die that very day, just as God said he would—because Scripture defines human life theologically, not biologically, which is why Jesus can say the one who believes in him will never die, even though virtually every single believer has passed away, or why Paul can say those who are physically alive are dead, or that your body is dead because of sin even though it is physically alive, and so on.

 

[Carbon]

There is at least some misunderstanding there.

First, your description represents micro- and macro- as different kinds of evolution, but they're not. They are the same process just at different scales. To differentiate microevolution as "within species" and macroevolution as "between species" sounds like a focus on outcomes, which would be incorrect.

The distinction between them is not taxonomic but temporal and statistical: microevolution refers to changes in allele frequencies within populations, and macroevolution refers to the long-term patterns that emerge when those same processes accumulate across deep time, including speciation and extinction. Both operate by the same mechanisms: Allele-frequency shifts are the engine behind both short-term divergence and long-term lineage splitting.

Second, saying "ape to human" can mislead people into thinking apes and humans are separate categories. They are not. Biologically, humans are apes—we belong to the taxonomic family of Hominidae (great apes), alongside gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans.

So, the real evolutionary story isn't "an ape turned into a human" but rather this: An ancient population of African apes gradually split into different branches; one branch led to chimpanzees and bonobos, another branch led to the human line. That human line—called Hominina—includes genera from Australopithecus to Homo. These hominin forms appeared through small, population-level changes that occur through those microevolutionary mechanisms with which you don't have a problem. Over long periods of time, those ordinary changes add up and isolated populations drift apart enough to form new species. (A clear, observable example is ring species.)



Well, there actually are links. And I have no idea why punctuated equilibrium should be regarded as foolish.

Considering your post here, look at Romans 5:12.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned—

Now I believe we both agree, all mankind does not include all animals and or plants. So, there was death before the fall with animals and plants. So, how then would you explain this? Did all ages, chimps, baboons, gorillas, etc, not die until after the fall also?

If it is as you say, apes, gorillas, etc, are part of, and therefore mankind.

 

[Carbon]

So, as a Christian who accepts evolution ( #17), would that be an evolved Adam, and if evolved, how did death come about before Adam's transgression? Which Adam/ape did God breathe into and He became a living soul, in the image of God?

Great question!

 

[John Bauer]

Considering your post here, look at Romans 5:12. ...

Now, I believe we both agree that "all mankind" does not include all animals and plants. So, there was death before the fall with animals and plants. How, then, would you explain this?

I'm afraid that's where we will disagree. The death of which Paul is speaking is not applicable to animals and plants, because man alone is in covenant relation to God. Here is how I described it to a Reformed seminary professor at my church who is auditing my view for biblical and confessional orthodoxy:

I contend that apart from a covenant relationship with God there is no such thing as either sin or righteousness, and thus neither condemnation nor salvation. Look at the animal kingdom and observe that no creature other than man is guilty of sin before God or stands in need of salvation, that man alone is guilty of sin and in need of being saved. Why?

Humans are not unique in their capacity for moral agency, but they are definitely unique in their capacity to sin and it is precisely because of that covenant relationship between God and his image-bearers. Indeed, it is the context by which the term itself—sin—is defined (vis-à-vis the promises, stipulations, privileges, and responsibilities of that covenant).

Before Adam and the garden, humans were capable of wrongdoing but not sin, a term which was meaningless until the events of the garden. Once that covenant relationship was established, however, sin became a potential—but not an actuality until Adam disobeyed God. As such, this view preserves Adam’s state of posse non peccare et posse peccare, as per Reformed theology. On this view, Adam and Eve understood right and wrong as moral concepts but, up to this point, had not sinned. They had an awareness of sin intellectually—they knew the will of God—and they knew disobedience was wrong, but they had no existential awareness of sin as sin. This distinction can be seen by way of contrast, wherein it is said that the one who “did not know sin” God made to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:21; emphasis mine). Christ draws out the difference. He knew of sin (intellectually), but he did not know sin (existentially), for he never sinned (Heb 4:15).

In the Genesis narrative, we find that man is constituted as a covenant creature, made in the image of God, such that man’s self-consciousness is a covenant-consciousness. The truth for which he had capacity and possession was interpreted and enlightened for him by God through revelation in the integrity of that covenant relationship. “When Satan tempted Adam and Eve in paradise,” Val Til explained, “he sought to make them believe that man’s self-consciousness was ultimate rather than [analogical] and God-dependent”—as if man’s self-consciousness is the final reference point of any predication, as if creation is not dependent on its sovereign creator at every point and always (cf. Heb 1:3; Col 1:17).

Satan was right—but in a catastrophically bad way!—for when Adam and Eve ate from that tree, they did indeed become their own gods (Gen 3:22), as the covenant relationship was instantly severed. Satan was portraying this as a good thing, but clearly it was not. Now Adam and Eve had an awareness of sin existentially. Whereas they had known of sin, now they knew sin. Now, through one man, sin entered the world, and death through sin (Rom 5:12; cf. 6:23). They were now covenant-breakers or sinners and experienced that severed covenant relationship—the first death—as nakedness and shame. It was on account of that historical covenant-breaking man, the first Adam, that we need to be redeemed by a historical covenant-keeping man, the last Adam (Jesus Christ).

Did all apes—chimps, baboons, gorillas, etc.—not die until after the fall also?

They didn't die either before or after the fall—that is, the death of which Paul is speaking, which is clearly covenantal, judging by the language of the text (e.g., death in Adam vs. eternal life in Christ).

If it is, as you say, that apes, gorillas, etc., are part of and therefore mankind.

I said humans (Homo sapiens) are apes (Hominidae). I did not say apes are human.

Humans are the only extant species of the genus Homo.

 

[Carbon]

I'm afraid that's where we will disagree.

We disagree here?

The death of which Paul is speaking is not applicable to animals and plants,

I agree, so how do we disagree here? I said humans (Homo sapiens) are apes (Hominidae). I did not say apes are human.

I said humans (Homo sapiens) are apes (Hominidae). I did not say apes are human.

Can't have it both ways.

 

[prism]

1. It is incoherent to speak of an "evolved Adam" because populations evolve, not individuals.

You mentioned Adam (# 22). If he wasn't evolved what was he?

3. I don't know how to identify which Adam apart from pointing to the first few chapters of Genesis and saying, "That one."

How about the biblical Adam?
Genesis 1:27 KJV
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 2:7 KJV
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.
I fail to see any type of evolution there, theistic or otherwise

2. Again, that depends on whether you are asking about physical or spiritual death. It differs, when and how each entered the picture.

Theistic evolution or typical evolution cannot explain death, except by borrowing from biblical revelation.

At the earthly dawn of redemptive history, when God initiated a covenant communion with mankind through Adam as our federal head roughly 6,000 years ago.

Was that when the primates became man?

 

[By the Book]

It actually is the focus when the author of the opening post, when asked, specifies that it's spiritual death he is asking about.



And he surely did die that very day, just as God said he would—because Scripture defines human life theologically, not biologically, which is why Jesus can say the one who believes in him will never die, even though virtually every single believer has passed away, or why Paul can say those who are physically alive are dead, or that your body is dead because of sin even though it is physically alive, and so on.

Although it's accurate that we can draw a spiritual connection concerning federal headship, that wasn't the message the author of the Pentateuch intended to communicate. Moreover, the idea of spiritual death was entirely unfamiliar to the children of Israel. It would take thousands of years before this was elaborated on in the Pauline epistles.

 

[John Bauer]

We disagree here?

We seem to? You said there was death before the fall with animals and plants and wondered how I would explain that in light of Romans 5. Your question carries the implication that the death spoken of by Paul is applicable to animals and plants—otherwise, why would it be something that needs to be explained?

Since I don't think it is applicable, it looked to me like we disagree.

(But you subsequently said that you agree with me, which now leaves me to wonder why an explanation would be sought.)

Can't have it both ways.

Agreed, because it's not a logical identity but rather a relation. That makes it a one-way street: All humans are apes, but not all apes are human. In other words (as it relates to your question), the death spoken of by Paul applies to only one genus of ape: mankind. It doesn't apply to plants or other animals, such as "chimpanzees, baboons, gorillas, etc."