Evidence for God from Science

I take it back, "admit" obviously was not the proper word.
So what your saying is embryological change is distinct from the genes themselves. That trait (or physiological difference) is therefore non-existent to the offspring?

Thanks in advance!

Embryological development is a cascade of changes that occur in harmony with each other, directed by the conductor (the genetic code). Occasionally, however, a trumpet player sneezes, a drummer drops his pounder, a violinist breaks a string, or a trombonist has a stroke. Depending on how badly that individual player has failed to read the music determines whether it's just a bad performance or a show-stopper.

The show-stopper miscarries - a very frequent event. The performance with a few missed notes may survive, but be born with a recognizable congenital anomaly. These errors of development have nothing to do with errors in the genetic code.

DB

Just jumping in here...

I recently discussed the issue of blind cave fish with some ID creationists and it was quite interesting to see their responses to the data.

Along those lines, I'm wondering what the ID creationists here think we should expect to find if blind cave fish were "intelligently designed"?

Hi Mr. McGrew,

About blind cave fish - interesting that they not only lose their eyesight due to lack of selection pressure but their pigmentation. No need to have a color that benefits survival or mate-attraction skills if there is not enough light to be seen. Yet the brain space is filled in by something else. Primates are an example of this. Most of them have sacrificed their sense of smell for color vision. Most mammals see in black and white and don't eat colorful plants. Those that do have developed color vision and sacrificed the brain cells of olfaction to use in processing wave lengths of color. The DNA relics of olfaction remain, inactivated, as do the pigmentation genetic relics of cave fish.

DB

Frankly, I would be more impressed with a fish that had no eyes but then grew some...

You're a hard man to impress, Gman!

DB

But Gman brings up an important point. The blind fish represents a loss of structure, not a gain. FInd an example of a novel structure that wasn't there before.

It's easy to point out functions that no longer are used. Harder to find recent events of novel structures. (that aren't locked in the past i.e. we are using information that we have not directly observed. )

YOu would find that most of us have no problem with selection insofar as minor changes. Nor would this contradict with ID. Few people here would insist that species cannot lose a structure.

Hi Zoegirl,

As I think you have pointed out, in a single generation - or three generations, assuming most of us will get to see an average of three generations in our lifetimes - not enough time passes for changes to be obvious. Therefore, you have to look into the past. I'm sure you're aware of the many transitional fossils documented in evolution texts, some of which show clear lines of change over long periods of time. Do you question these?

DB

zoegirl wrote:But Gman brings up an important point. The blind fish represents a loss of structure, not a gain.

Actually, it's much more complicated than that. In one population of blind cave fish, it's actually an increase in gene expression that results in stronger jaws and more sensitive skin (which are beneficial when you're trying to scrounge around for food in the dark). The side effect of this upregulation is a loss of eyesight, which is no biggie in a cave.

But again: What would we expect to see if blind cave fish were "designed"?

David Blacklock wrote:Hi Zoegirl,

As I think you have pointed out, in a single generation - or three generations, assuming most of us will get to see an average of three generations in our lifetimes - not enough time passes for changes to be obvious. Therefore, you have to look into the past. I'm sure you're aware of the many transitional fossils documented in evolution texts, some of which show clear lines of change over long periods of time. Do you question these?

DB

Ok,

As I see it there are distinct questions here.

ONe of design...Gerald's question of "What would we expect to see if it is designed" does beg the question....can structures be lost and still be inferred to have been designed. And as I stated in my earlier post, I doubt you would fidn many here who would demand that sepcies are entirely fixed. Can structures be lost? Yes. Does this negate whether they are designed? No.

(Personally, I have always been one to worry about the question about what would we expect if God designed it. I think we are operating on some finite, limited understanding of "perfect" that is left over from previou generations. Would God have made non-coding DNA? Sure....most here accept that populations can change in minor ways; HOwever, I don't really see this as impeding the understanding its being designed. )

Second, the question of transitional fossils and macroevolution. NO matter how you cut it. Hostorical evolution is always going to be based on crircumstantial evidence. David, I'm pretty sure that you and I have discussed this before with regards to my beliefs. I am progressive creationist and I wouldn't have a problem with expanding this idea in that God conducted the process. Fossils don't give me too much of a heartache. The presence of the fossils to me merely would represent how He did it, nothing more, nothing less. It provides absolutely no evidence for whether God exists.

More and more I am focusing on the philosophy that is falsely derived from evolution, using the limits of naturalism to deny anything supernatural.

Gerald wrote:increase in gene expression that results in stronger jaws and more sensitive skin (which are beneficial when you're trying to scrounge around for food in the dark). The side effect of this upregulation is a loss of eyesight, which is no biggie in a cave.

Hey, do you have a link for this....actually wanting to get some good journal articles and this looks interesting.

But this goes back to defining terms. These aren't really novel structures, are they? Just fine tuning.

Zoegirl wrote:Does this negate whether they are designed? No.

What do you think would falsify "design"?

Zoegirl wrote:

Gerald wrote:increase in gene expression that results in stronger jaws and more sensitive skin (which are beneficial when you're trying to scrounge around for food in the dark). The side effect of this upregulation is a loss of eyesight, which is no biggie in a cave.

Hey, do you have a link for this....actually wanting to get some good journal articles and this looks interesting.

CLICK HERE

Zoegirl wrote:But this goes back to defining terms. These aren't really novel structures, are they? Just fine tuning.

I don't recall anyone asserting that this specific case involved "novel structures".

Thanks for the link

As for the design elements, I will gladly entreat others here who know more about that particular study to elaborate. Godslaguage and Gman will be more accurate than I.

I think we need to be cautious about presuming that it needs to be a *certain* design. However, that need not eliminate the presence of design, studying the level of information involved, etc.

FOr many, the idea of design translates to this muddy idea of some archaic pollyanna idea of perfect. And it seems that all atheists or naturalists feel they need to do is proudly proclaim that "it could have designed it better" as if that tears down the entire premise.

As to the idea of novel structure. Gman brought up the idea that it's a whole lot easier to lose an eye than build an eye. He would be more impressed with an example of a recent addition of an eye, requiring novel structure in the organism. I was simply emphasizing the idea that losing vision is not really showing anything new.

Gerald McGrew wrote:What do you think would falsify "design"?

Better question yet, how do you falsify evolution? I thought science was about asking questions? If a scientist performed that same test using gradual evolutionary standards perhaps it would be even harder to falsify since natural selection requires a much longer time or a greater population base of parts to produce new organisms...

zoegirl wrote:Thanks for the link

No sweat!

zoegirl wrote:Gman brought up the idea that it's a whole lot easier to lose an eye than build an eye.

But as I stated earlier, this specific instance is much more than merely "losing an eye", and actually involves an increase in genetic activity resulting in a more fit population (i.e. more sensitive skin and stout jaws). The loss of eyesight is merely a side effect.

zoegirl wrote:He would be more impressed with an example of a recent addition of an eye, requiring novel structure in the organism. I was simply emphasizing the idea that losing vision is not really showing anything new.

What would you consider "something new"? A new trait? A new ability? A new structure? A new enzyme?

Gman wrote:

Gerald McGrew wrote:What do you think would falsify "design"?

Better question yet, how do you falsify evolution?

Evolution would be very difficult to falsify since we see it happen right before our eyes. That's like asking: What would falsify erosion?

So how 'bout taking a shot at answering the question: What would falsify "design"?