Is there a place for modern evolutionary theory (natural selection, change in species over time, etc.) in Judaism?

Perhaps you'd like to consider a few wild theories about some of the events in the early chapters of Sefer Bereishis?

I have thought about someday writing up a speculative essay: "Darwin's theory of the Power of Teshuva":

For example, was the transformation from instaneous gestation to 40-week gestation immediate?

Perhaps just like the Nachash was physically reduced and spiritually reduced following his part in eating the fruit of the prohibited tree, Adam and Chava were physically reduced... however unlike Adam and Chava, the Nachash did not have an ability to do teshuva.

Perhaps during the 130 years prior to giving birth to Sheis Adam and Chava were procreating giving birth to sub-humans who were not part of the original plan for Creation, and thus did not continue to exist?

Perhaps they were of longer and longer gestational periods, and stature?

Since Adam and Chava still remembered what their potential had been, and might have progressed in their teshuva at differing rates, there were times when they were compatible and times not.

But after 130 years "finally" they succeeded in procreating a full human... if you read the text as implying a sense of "finally"?

Thus someone like Darwin might see a progression of growth where a Torah Jew might see a progression of teshuva, and think that Darwin got it pretty close!

And...

...
back-tracking, if all of Nachash-kind had no power of teshuva, perhaps just like the earth was created with pre-emergent trees and other life forms, perhaps there was some of Nachash-kind not yet emerged, and when the forces of decomposition (a meld of several principles) were unleashed onto the world a bit prematurely -- when mortality was released through eating the prohibitted fruit -- the pre-emergent Nashash-a-saurus simply remained in the ground, some to be found by fossils.

But they were worse than dis-inheritted -- they were written out of the original plan for Creation, and there was no need for them to emerge.

Excellent, thought-provoking post, Rob. Thank you. You pose some very intriguing ideas. I think those theories speak to a question I have about evolution and Torah. Is it possible (according to collective Jewish wisdom) that we can read those verses in Genesis that concern creation broadly or symbolically? Just as a word is, ultimately, at best, a symbol of the thought it represents, can those verses in the Torah that posit a discrete mode for the origin of the universe (that it happened in six days, etc.) not be read more metaphorically? For us, a day is 24 hours, but for HaShem, who is above time, a day could be infinite, or no amount of time at all? My question, especially to those well read in Torah, is whether this is a valid take on this issue?

As a scientist, it is very hard for me to see the Earth as younger than 4.5 billion years (Earth years). At this point, it's a consensus among scientists. And much of the same evidence used to support those theories is used to support theories more readily accepted and less controversial in today's culture. In other words, to discredit isotopic evidence for the Earth's age is also to discredit commonly held, repeatadly demonstrated evidence about the atom and matter in general.

quote:

Originally posted by Chaim5739:
Is there a place for modern evolutionary theory (natural selection, change in species over time, etc.) in Judaism?

Chaim,

Actually, I have seen it stated in one of our Midrashic books (Alpha Beta Le'Ben-Sira) that the crow was not originally created by G-d during the six-days of creation, but rather came into existence shortly afterwards, by the result of cross-breeding between a vulture and a pigeon.
So this would imply that there was a slow process of "evolution" in some creatures.

The Negroid race were said to have gotten their black complexion after Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, departed from the ark. (Talmud Sanhedrin). Long before this, during the days of Enosh (when people began to worship the stars and planets), G-d changed the countenance of certain men to resemble that of apes. (Midrash Rabba). This, too, seems to suggest that change has crept in, and it has permanently altered the shapes and forms of things since their inception at the creation.

Sincerely,
David

David,

That's amazing information, I had no idea. I appreciate it. I've always felt that Torah and science were mutually exclusive when it came to evolution, but your insights prove otherwise. It's comforting to know that, really.

quote:

As a scientist, it is very hard for me to see the Earth as younger than 4.5 billion years (Earth years). At this point, it's a consensus among scientists.

About 6 months ago, there was an issue of Scientific American entirely dedicated to the problem of time. Physicists today seem to agree that it is merely a human construct used to separate between cause and effect.

Also, let us not forget the General Relativity Principle. As we know, earth 4.5 million today's years ago was smaller, had a different density, and therefore the time on it was flowing (if it does flow) at a different "pace" that it is today.

quote:

In other words, to discredit isotopic evidence for the Earth's age is also to discredit commonly held, repeatadly demonstrated evidence about the atom and matter in general.

The isotopic analysis assumes that the variety of isotopes "then" was similar to the variety of isotopes "now". Yet it is known that, for example, the meteorite that hit Earth causing extinction of dinosaurs brought with it an inordinate amount of Iridium, which was thre off the balance of minerals in the planet's core.

As scientists are drilling through the ice in Antarctica and taking its probes for tests, they find that the main assumption stated above is not accurate: the chemical composition of the Earth was indeed changing over the years.

quote:

are drilling through the ice in Antarctica and taking its probes for tests, they find that the main assumption stated above is not accurate: the chemical composition of the Earth was indeed changing over the years

Shalom Alex,

As a geologist, I noted a few misconceptions in your post. In my research alone, we date rocks which have billion year old minerals. These are igneous rocks, basalt, and came from the Earth's core. And I have never read any physical chemical research that discredits the scheme of atomic decay. An isotope is an isotope. And the isotopes in the rocks we collect are billions of years old.

My point is that there is a wide variety of billion year old material on this planet.

Radiometric dating of dinosaur bones gives us an age scheme in the realm of millions of years, and relative dating places some forms of life at billions of years old.

Even if we develop more precise dating methods, we are not going to find that the Earth is thousands of years old--that would not even account for the first presence of Homo sapiens.

I am not sure of the nature of argument.

Shalom Alex,

I do not want to get this thread too off topic. Suffice it to say that the geological community, which has seen the development of this planet from every possible angle, at the very least, agrees to an aging scheme in the realm of billions of years. Speaking in terms of "Earth Years"--365 day revolution, on a 24 hour rotation, in the solar system at its present state of development--the Earth is far older than 10,000 years. My question for this post is, as a scientist, as someone who accepts this overwhelming, testable, verified evidence for a billion years old planet, how do I reconcile Torah truth with this detail?

In another thread I referenced two "age of earth" calculations of roughly 15 billion years, slightly different, from two different Torah geniuses.

http://globalyeshiva.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/761107358/m...511086212#4511086212

Perhaps if either of their approaches appeal to you, you can take comfort in that the disparity between the 5700 year and 15B year measures can be reconciled?

Chaim:
I will have to go througjh my material again as I did thorough and in-depth studies on Beresheis inmy youth, but as I recall, your finding on a geological level with regard to the age of this planet, and Torah are NOT in disconcert. The reason being that the world as it described (paraphrased) in Bereishis chapter one is that WHEN the earth was tohu v'bohu (void and astonishingly empty)...His spirit hovered over the waters...etc. Another translation says the world BECAME tohu v'bohu. Either way, the reference leaves PLENTY of room for waht happened to the world BEFORE Chava and Adam. Personally, I think we were the next project after whatever sub-human creatures existed before us that became wiped out, and I think HaSh-m may well have been the One to wipe them out for whatever reason. Most likely sin. I also think there must have been a great episode during the later flood of Noach nbecause I think that may well have been when the Earth was knocked off its original axis degree as the violent waters of the deep burst throughthe crust....but thee are all pure speculations--I wasn't there!

Another reason I lean that direction is because I have yet to see any evidence of evolution, that is species jumping. (Real eveolution, not micro-evolution as we see in people's faces between the 1920's and 1990's). We see a few hybrids and a few birds who can mate to make a non-sterile offspring like the Harlequin Macaw (which I have) but we don't see half-monkey, half-human skeletons, despite the hundreds of dinosaur skeletons we have today. Either evolution happened extremrly rapidly (unlikely) or there was another grouping altogether, as with the dinosaurs.

quote:

hat direction is because I have yet to see any evidence of evolution, that is species jumping. (Real eveolution, not micro-evolution as we see in people's faces between the 1920's and 1990's). We see a few hybrids and a few birds who can mate to make a non-sterile offspring like the Harlequin Macaw (which I have) but we don't see half-monkey, half-human skeletons, despite the hundreds of dinosaur skeletons we have today. Either evolution happened extremrly rapidly (unlikely) or there was another grouping altogether, as with the d

Shalom Yocheved,

Again, supporting evolution might be better suited to another forum. But there are volumes upon volumes of genetic data supporting evolution. For instance, the chimpanzee and the human share more than 99% of the same DNA sequence. And we have found have monkey, half human skeletons: remember Dr. Leaky's Lucy, the skeleton of of an australopithecus (certainly a very monkey-looking creature). There are many examples of the evolution of species from lesser primates to modern Homo-sapiens. Although most of those species are extinct (unsuited for survival), their bones remain and are thoroughly documented. One mistake people make is concentrating on phenotype--the physical manifestation of a species. Looks are often deceving. As opposed to the genotype record (the DNA), it takes a relatively short amount of time for organisms to change appearances (why you and I are lighter-skinned, Ashkenazi Jews, and some Sephardic and Middle-Eastern Jews are darker-skinned).

My attitude right now is that when we study evolution--the process--we are studying a mechanism, a detail of creation. To argue for random mutation, without desing, is another story. But the process of evolution, supported by the fossil record, is just too obvious to disregard.

quote:

I also think there must have been a great episode during the later flood of Noach nbecause I think that may well have been when the Earth was knocked off its original axis degree as the violent waters of the deep burst throughthe crust

Just another wild unsubstantiated observation that can help erode assumptions about constant time...

For a community on board a ship floating in a sea on the periphery of a rotating planet...

The shearing friction / traction between layers of extra deep water could even be that if the ship could stay under the high noon sun and have no perception of time passing by while the earth spins even extra fast underneath and its time passing by quickly.

The deep layers of water without traction connecting the ship to the spinning land of the sea bed or continents would allow for two different time scales by the measure of seeing sunrise and sunset earth rotations.

quote:

r a community on board a ship floating in a sea on the periphery of a rotating planet...

That's a very fascinating premise, Rob. I'm not sure it jibes with my understanding of relativity, but then again, I'm not a physicist. Where is this from?

quote:

Where is this from?

A wild unsubstantiated theory from my own imagination.

While Torah study is in my field, genetics certainly is NOT, so I salute superior knowledge on that account. I do remember reading something about that bone structure, but it was dismissed in another article, (although I don't remember why). You are correct about looks being deceiving--of this I am certain. I have done EXTENSIVE research on macaws, specifically the rare and endangered hyacinth macaw and have a theory that this bird is actually NOT a traditional psittacine, rather a subspecies altogether different than the other (many) macaws. The reason being that the Hyacinthine macaw consumes a diet inthe wild consisting of 75% fats (namely macadamia nuts) and ANY other macaw (or other parrotlet for that matter) would die on a diet that even approached this number. Moreover, these birds have different bahaviour patterns that are highly uncharacteristic of any of the other psittacines. OK long story short, there may be subspecies that I am unfamiliar with that are more genetically similar to homosapiens. For those there would have to be some knid of reconciliation with Torah. Remember that many things are NOT mentioned in Torah and aren't even throroughly expounded upon in the Talmud. Examples: The people Cain was afraid of after he was cursed--who were they ? Where did they come from? We can say, well, Chava had other children, and this is true,k however, I think all rational understanding of that situation would lead one to believe that one would never be afraid of one's own brothers! Also we haven't much understanding of the afterlife. The point being (pardon me, I digress) that many times HaSh-m gave us the important things we were SUPPOSED to be concerned about and all we needed to know in order to serve Him and bring healing to the world. There is much out there we do not know. Faith is accepting those things even when we haven't all the understanding for them, (although that DOES NOT mean we shouldn't search them all out!) Mystery is underrated.

Quote "not micro-evolution as we see in people's faces between the 1920's and 1990's"

I think there is a source in the Talmud for micro evolution. Shabbos 31a as parphrased by Kollel Iyun Hadaf

(f) Reuven: Why do people of Tarmud have round eyes?

(g) Hillel: That is an important question - the answer is, [so sand will not enter,] for they live amidst the sand.

(i) Reuven: Why do Africans have wide feet?

(j) Hillel: That is an important question - the answer is, because they live amidst the swamps (wide legs prevent them from sinking in; alternatively, they do not wear shoes, which impose their shape on feet

Quote "For instance, the chimpanzee and the human share more than 99% of the same DNA sequence."

Wouldn't that still leave Millions of DNA to change?

Quote " it takes a relatively short amount of time for organisms to change appearances (why you and I are lighter-skinned, Ashkenazi Jews, and some Sephardic and Middle-Eastern Jews are darker-skinned)."

This is micro-evolution, which is no proof to macro. So far no macro evolution ever has been detected, even in rapidly generation producing species, like bacteria and fruit flies

I'm not a scientist, but I know that evolution is not universally accepted by all scientist, though the ones that don't agree with it claim to be persecuted form the "establishment." It's a very politically charged issue. There are many books from those that disagree with the theory. The fossil record, they claim, support them, since there is a lot of missing links of supposedly of billions upon billions of creatures that should have connected species.

Now, Chaim, would say, as a scientist, he would say the other scientist are quacks or whatever. Who's correct and who's wrong? Who knows? I guess it boils down to who do you trust. In this day and age, where we so many establishments which are supposed to stand for truth, turn out to have their strong biases (like the media and academia) and thus I have a healthy skepticism of these things.

I have never read that entry, Rav Chaim, thankyou for that. Very interesting.

Chaim Shalom,

I am not a geologist, but as a chemical engineer in one of my previous lives (applied mathematician in this life ), I have a fairly decent background in chemistry; at least deep enough to understand the basics of the chemistry of isotopes. In radioactive dating, we assume that the only parameters that influenced the present ratio of C14 to C12 (or other isotopes) is its decay rate and time. Knowing the ratio of present C14 to C12, we can deduce by measuring this ratio in a billion-year-old rock that this rock is a billion years old. All of this is fine and dandy. However, we are talking about the time earth was forming. This was before it became green. Due to the radioactive processes in the mantle (and there was no crust at the time), its surface was very hot, which led to other fission processes (I doubt there was much fusion though). As iron and other metals were forming, and the fuel wsa being spent, the earth crust began to solidify, and that in turn helped the earth to cool enough for the water to condense into oceans. After that happened, we got the vegetation, the dinosaurs, etc. Since then, radioactive decay became less prominent in the earth crust and atmosphere (solid-phase reactions are much slower), and therefore, I would definitely trust the results of isotope dating of dinosaur bones. The age of the earth at 4.5 billion years has been corroborated by multiple radioisotope dating and astronomical methods. That is why I agree to trust such measurements.

Now. How can 4.5 billion years be equal to 7 days? They are not - and they are. As I mentioned above, Einstein's general relativity theory is what makes it possible.

In addition, the earth, being smaller and weighing less at the time when it was just a cluster of cosmic dust, - much lighter than it is today - could not have been spinning as close to the sun as it is today; so if we count years as the time of a single revolution around sun, things become more palatable.

Regarding evolution, there is no contradiction between Torah and Darwin. There is just a misunderstanding of both.

quote:

In addition, the earth, being smaller and weighing less at the time when it was just a cluster of cosmic dust, - much lighter than it is today - could not have been spinning as close to the sun as it is today; so if we count years as the time of a single revolution around sun, things become more palatable.

So you do agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? I think we're on the same page, though I am sure the administrators don't appreciate science-babble. I'd love to exchange some theories with you via private post though.