Evidence for God from Science

Ivellious wrote:
First, you have to get past the fact that ALL life on Earth has an incredibly cohesive DNA structure. When you trace the genes, gene expressions, varying allele types, and so on, there is, without any shred of doubt, a pattern to life on Earth today.

A pattern without a pattern maker? Wouldn't this point more to an intelligent Creator, than to random naturalism?

Now, with that in mind, you are essentially saying that, if this simply is just God using similar building blocks, he did a damn good job of giving the appearance of relatedness between species. To me, that reasoning is no better than saying that God just gave the universe an appearance of age, which is faulty at best.

Not sure I disagree with you here. If all life on earth was created by the same Creator, using the same "stuff", wouldn't that make it look like what you are calling "related"?

Second, you have to deal with the fact that there are thousands (and likely millions upon millions that we do not know of) animal and plant species that lived on Earth before us, and are no longer around.

Not sure why I would have a problem with this. OEC/Progressive Creationism explains this.

And following the fossil record, regardless of whether we see every minute transitional form, there is a clear evolution of life, starting simple as can be and gaining in complexity and variety as time wore on.

Again, Progressive creationism explains this too. Millions of years ago, the earth was only ready for basic life. As the earth transformed or "evolved", the earth became suitable for more and more complex life.

And more recently, there are primitive forms of many organisms that live today. These are not interpretations, they are fact.

Again, no disagreement here. Still no need to call it macroevolution. Progressive Creationism explains it better.

The question is, what happened to them? If not natural selection acting on them and causing changes and extinctions, how does their existence fit into your idea? Did God just create millions of types of life and systematically kill them off and replace them with slightly altered versions over and over and over again until we finally reach today's variety of life?

Catastrophism in some cases. And then God created again on a different "day", or long period of time. Each consecutive creative "day" getting to God's creation of man on the 6th "day". I see no problem with this at all.

NO IT CAN'T. Stop ascribing human traits to a man made concept. Evolution is not an "it." It is not a being. But that is exactly what you are treating like. Which is the lie that has been swallowed hook, line and sinker. Nature shows us extinction. Creatures that failed. They didn't evolve. They didn't adapt. They simply died. Gone. Nature is blind and indifferent to anything surviving.
So, evolution can't FAVOR anything. Evolution is not a thing. It is a term and concept humans use to try and understand the changes they see in Nature. If there is any outside 'mind' then you have moved from science to relgion, and then are proposing a God of the gaps in the biggest possible way. Which is why I see TE as the ultimate hypocrisy. So sad that so many don't see it.

I didn't say that so I am not sure why my name showed up on that quote...
I agree that evolution is not a being or anything other than a term used to explain changes over time.
What is at issue here is the primary driving force of evolution and if things are as "purposeless" as some claim.

In terms of evolutionary theory, who cares? Humans can intelligently evaluate what is benefitial. Nature can NOT. There is no mind in nature. Nature doesn't care if the fit survive. There are plenty of cases where fitness is not an actual advantage, but simply an accident.

Nature can't evaluate what is beneficial? then what is the driving force behind evolution?
Pure unadulterated chance? that means that natural selection is pure chance too?

Paul,
Sorry, I was cut and pasting where you had quoted Ive. Fixed.

PaulSacramento wrote:Nature can't evaluate what is beneficial? then what is the driving force behind evolution?
Pure unadulterated chance? that means that natural selection is pure chance too?

No, nature can't 'evaluate.' If it can, then we have a mind.
Yes, Natural Selection is a fallacious term, but we all use it. There is nothing in nature evaluating the fitness.

I would say there isn't a "driving force" behind evolution. You'd at least have to provide a more exact definition of how you are using the term, 'evolution.'
Depending on what definition you use, it's question begging.
-Conditions can arrise in nature where a normally less fit trait may become fit. It isn't as if nature is evaluating what is going on in the environment and 'selecting' advantageous traits.
In terms of macro evolution, I see no guiding force, theisitic or otherwise.

What info? change appears by mutation. Mutation does not always happen from UV radiation. You need a single mutation for the DNA to change and pass it on, if it survives, in the long run all organisms would be carrying that mutation. Those who do not survive will become less and less. Unlike a person or creature, a gene does not have two parents, it only has one. Diversity of "info" are just mutations, carried on because they survived in the organism's DNA.

Neo,
And where did I say that? hint, I didn't.
Neo, you have to start somewhere. Genetic information. The current evolutionary theory is DESCENT with modification. Do you know what the word descent means?
When anyone proposes a whale evolutionary chart, they have a STARTING point. And that has to do with the EXISTING info. Show me how mutation can result in invertebrate to vertebrate. The descent doesn't account for the existance of what it is descending from.

What is genetic information J? please enlighten me on this.

Would you leave intelligent design if you were indeed shown how mutation can result in invertebrate to vertebrate? I am guessing not. The mechanics are simple though you need only one mutation to start collecting bone material in part of a body.

When anyone proposes a whale evolutionary chart, they have a STARTING point. And that has to do with the EXISTING info. Show me how mutation can result in invertebrate to vertebrate. The descent doesn't account for the existance of what it is descending from.

What starting point J? you only know its invertebrate to vertebrate, because of evolution. Because you know earlier life forms were primitive than us. Who told you that, ID? no, evolution. I don't see any valid objection in your statement except that you are confused with semantics. The DNA and genes account for the change, why is that so hard to grasp?

Tell me why things shouldn't have similar DNA patterns? I think the ID movement has shown that it isn't a GOG argument to infer design.

If not God then whom? magical fairy dust?
You can be assured that when they say design, they mean God, period.
Things have similar DNA because that similar is in most cases IDENTICAL, not just vaguely resembling. And that is the result of evolution because that is the only working way DNA is shared and that is proven with Micro-evolution.

If you think I would for once be ashamed to say that similar patterns infer common design then you need couseling. Perhaps you don't understand calling yourself a THEISTIC evolutionists. What does the THEISTIC part refer to? So don't be a hypocrite. All your doing is pushing your God of the gaps back in the time line.

Let me drop the Theistic part for you, which I wasn't even arguing for actually. I never mentioned God, READ CAREFULLY, J.

So now, if you are over with pointing out hypocrisies may be you should now come up with the answer. here is my question again:
How all living things have similar DNA pattern, shared genes. etc? I have still to see one of you explain it without running into a God of the gaps. SHow me a working model, J, spare me the one liners.

Says the THEISTIC evolutionist.

If you are going to accuse me of making an fallacious argument, then prove it. Otherwise step off. I've already said what I was and wasn't arguing for. You were wrong in what you alleged. Why is the burden on me? Get over it.

Being "not my first debate" and all. I am kind of surprised that you would want me to bring evidence and wipe your hands with, that's just design. where's your evidence, please bring it. Lets even say, I am wrong, okay show me a working biological model aside from evolution which you have, otherwise I think you you don't understand evolution or you just do not like where the answer leads.

Evolution can just as easily favor altruistic and "moral" lifestyles as well, and humans are not the only such example of this, not by a long shot

NO IT CAN'T. Stop ascribing human traits to a man made concept. Evolution is not an "it." It is not a being. But that is exactly what you are treating like. Which is the lie that has been swallowed hook, line and sinker. Nature shows us extinction. Creatures that failed. They didn't evolve. They didn't adapt. They simply died. Gone. Nature is blind and indifferent to anything surviving.
So, evolution can't FAVOR anything. Evolution is not a thing. It is a term and concept humans use to try and understand the changes they see in Nature. If there is any outside 'mind' then you have moved from science to relgion, and then are proposing a God of the gaps in the biggest possible way. Which is why I see TE as the ultimate hypocrisy. So sad that so many don't see it.

Again I think you are more stuck in semantics than anything else, evolution doesn't favors anyone, anymore more than a heart seeks God (heart is a pumping blood vessel, duh!). I suggest if you are so down with semantics you should never be using such terminology at all, not to mention the authors of Psalms, you should have the biggest objections on them.

When one says evolution can favor, it only means that any mutation can go either way and more so any social and natural behavior with any kind of lifestyle can be adapted, if it helps the mutation or not, is a separate question.

man made concept

Saying evolution is a man made concept is like saying, gravity is a man made concept.

Neo, if you have some time, look at this and tell me what you think:http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/humanchi ... milarities

Rick, I looked at the link earlier too. but thanks for discussing it.

Rick, the article does not negate what I am saying that there are not "similar" but Identical DNA patterns that exist. Splicing of course means where the mutations have occurred and there is overlapping. But the genes are identical except where the key mutations have occurred (largely). For instance,the difference between chimp and man is 40 million genes among the three billion DNA molecules or genomes. You're worried about the difference? I am saying look at the similarity, how do you explain 2960 million genomes that are the same?

neo-x wrote:Because you know earlier life forms were primitive than us. Who told you that, ID? no, evolution.

I have always wondered... How does anyone know that earlier lifeforms were more primitive? What is the measure used to determine primitive vs. advanced.

Someone should run a thread to discuss this topic since it is one of the principle assertions from evolution. So far from everything I have researched there is no evidence of primitive that can be shown by scientific method.

An eye-opening fossil
Ancient predators had vision sharper than modern insects.
http://www.nature.com/news/an-eye-opening-fossil-1.9586

The only real thing the fossil record can show is that all life is in a constant state of change but is it change driven soley by the evolutionary mechanism or is it an inherent mechanism that is functioning at each replication event that is the prime diversity driver? There are many who argue for new information arising by chance errors that becomes functional but this is an assumption. How does one know that random mutation can provide brand new functions from slight errors?
The truth is that an automated replicating system rich in initial information designed to vary would exhibit every single thing we have ever observed in the fossil record including both of the big bangs of life. A huge variety in the beginning which slowly over time loses information making some variations go extinct.
The key I think is in the body plans. Nearly all the body plans that would every exist on this planet over all of its history show up at the beginning. The cone of life envisioned to start with a single common ancestor and then widen over deep time is not at all what we see in the fossil record. This is the part of the historical evidence that is being shoehorned into the evolutionary theory by argumentation alone and of course we have all heard the assertion that those few million years where the big bangs occured were sufficient to allow all that diversity to happen buuttt, the fact is that 'nothing' in the fossil record shows when a vvariation began, it only shows when one got preserved. If ceolecanth could exist without record for millions upon millions of years then so could every one of the types of creatures that showed up in the fossil record.
All the body plans that showed up in the big bangs could have begun at the same time... and left the record we now observe.

I have always wondered... How does anyone know that earlier lifeforms were more primitive? What is the measure used to determine primitive vs. advanced.

I am using the word primitive as meaning ancient DNA ancestors, not lesser creatures. Ofcourse the comparison would be relative to humans if it were the case of primitive versus advanced. But I was not talking about body parts, rather genes and its mutations, they have certainly increased and advanced. From single to multi-cellular and so on and so forth.

I see the problem with your conclusion about the article. Like J, you also think that having more eyes from an ancient ancestor is somewhat valid proof that we have eyes today. thousand eyes to one eye, makes sense BUT one eye to thousand does not? The fact is mutation can go both ways. there is no need to account for an extra info, if the mutation alone is the info.

There are 20 biological amino acids in the DNA, The 20 amino acids are strung into sequences of typically a few hundred, each sequence a particular protein molecule. There is no theoretical limit to the number of proteins that can be spelled out by different sequences of codons. It is beyond all counting. These 20 bases are indirectly responsible for all biological change, it doesn't have to account for any change from outside. The shuffling of these in endless variation forms genes and that is when it gets mutated that something unexpected happens, that unexpected is not a radiation blast which yells in the microphone "put legs in that creature". That is not how this happens. May be the gene changes with structural length, may be the internal mechanism shuffles pairs so that you get a bone or a muscle.

neo-x wrote:

I have always wondered... How does anyone know that earlier lifeforms were more primitive? What is the measure used to determine primitive vs. advanced.

I am using the word primitive as meaning ancient DNA ancestors, not lesser creatures. Ofcourse the comparison would be relative to humans if it were the case of primitive versus advanced. But I was not talking about body parts, rather genes and its mutations, they have certainly increased and advanced. From single to multi-cellular and so on and so forth.

I see the problem with your conclusion about the article. Like J, you also think that having more eyes from an ancient ancestor is somewhat valid proof that we have eyes today. thousand eyes to one eye, makes sense BUT one eye to thousand does not? The fact is mutation can go both ways. there is no need to account for an extra info, if the mutation alone is the info.

There are 20 biological amino acids in the DNA, The 20 amino acids are strung into sequences of typically a few hundred, each sequence a particular protein molecule. There is no theoretical limit to the number of proteins that can be spelled out by different sequences of codons. It is beyond all counting. These 20 bases are indirectly responsible for all biological change, it doesn't have to account for any change from outside. The shuffling of these in endless variation forms genes and that is when it gets mutated that something unexpected happens, that unexpected is not a radiation blast which yells in the microphone "put legs in that creature". That is not how this happens. May be the gene changes with structural length, may be the internal mechanism shuffles pairs so that you get a bone or a muscle.

Perhaps it is the non-biologist in most of us that is always skeptical of such a process. It seems utterly unfathomable that a simple mechanism of change and adaptability (to say nothing of how such a mechanism arose in the first place) could be responsible for such complexity we see today, even with the seemingly long periods of time. From single celled organisms, at what point did natural selection 'select' for male/female reproduction, for the need for sight, hearing, smell, for the need for a skeletal system, endocrine, muscular, and how did all of this combine into multi-functional stem cells operated by the most sophisticated coded language ever known to mankind (DNA). And all of this in a mere what, 2 to 3 billion years. Maybe it's me because I'm not a biologist but it's just unfathomable. As intelligent beings we cannot even contemplate of any other mechanism capable of such complexity other than one that's intelligently guided.

Would you leave intelligent design if you were indeed shown how mutation can result in invertebrate to vertebrate? I am guessing not. The mechanics are simple though you need only one mutation to start collecting bone material in part of a body.

Neo, I think we all know that going form invert to vert is a little more than the collecting of bone.

AS far as the rest of your post, it all revolves around question begging, conflating and equivocation.

Again I think you are more stuck in semantics than anything else, evolution doesn't favors anyone, anymore more than a heart seeks God (heart is a pumping blood vessel, duh!). I suggest if you are so down with semantics you should never be using such terminology at all, not to mention the authors of Psalms, you should have the biggest objections on them.

What? This is just nonsense.

Would you leave intelligent design if you were indeed shown how mutation can result in invertebrate to vertebrate? I am guessing not. The mechanics are simple though you need only one mutation to start collecting bone material in part of a body

I said that the ID movement shows us that infering a designer isn't GOG. There was a thread in the past where Bart (pretty sure it was Bart) had made the same misconception regarding what ID was arguing. (multiple competing hypothesis) II linked him to a paper and he admitted he was unaware of what ID was actually presenting. I wouldn't surprise me if you didn't actually know what they were arguing as well. Based on your straw men, I'm fairly certian. I actually lean much more heavily towards the issue of function. Nature, since it isn't a thing has no way to account for anything functioning. Cardio-Pulmonary, nervous system, Lymbic, etc. Yet not only do we see individual functioning systems, but functioning in harmony with themselves and an outside environment. Account for the function of anything through evolution. You can't.
So, the issue is even deeper than invert to vert. Why would vertebrates function? Sying there is similar and same genetic material, and then claiming victory, isn't evidence.

What starting point J?

Depends, what you are talking about. Since you are a Theistic Evolutionist, then in one sense we both have the same starting point. You just seem to pretend that you don't. If you are speaking strictly scientifically, then I have the same starting point as anyone else. EVERYONE has the same evidence.

If not God then whom? magical fairy dust?

Again, are you actually addressing the arguments ID presents? No. You are arguing against straw men. Congrats.

Things have similar DNA because that similar is in most cases IDENTICAL, not just vaguely resembling. And that is the result of evolution because that is the only working way DNA is shared and that is proven with Micro-evolution.

Question begging. Equivocation. Conflating. Your Darwinists worldview is built on fallacy.

Let me drop the Theistic part for you, which I wasn't even arguing for actually. I never mentioned God, READ CAREFULLY, J.

You got that right. I'm beginning to wonder where God fits into the picture for the Theistic evolutionists.

How all living things have similar DNA pattern, shared genes. etc? I have still to see one of you explain it without running into a God of the gaps. SHow me a working model, J, spare me the one liners.

Has nothing to do with one liners. The topic is the Theory of Evolution. The theory of evolution isn't validated by the absence of another working model. I am not a scientist. Meyer has presented a multiple competing hypothesis model for ID.

Meyer has presented a multiple competing hypothesis model for ID.

Oh so you follow that model? OK makes perfect sense now.It doesn't surprise me too, you know, you need to at least know enough about evolution to be to critic of it. I actually thought you would know about it, since you seemed pretty confident about your arguing skills on the matter. Turns out I was wrong.

AS far as the rest of your post, it all revolves around question begging, conflating and equivocation.

Pretty convenient for you, isn't it?

So you have no evidence, yet you ask others for evidence? is that it? You avoided my question multiple times. Why is there are 2960 million genomes similar in humans and apes?
How is that intelligent, unless they are related? What is the function of turned off genes? What function does that serve? Feel free to put a one line to this too. I am sure you'd say its question begging, conflating and equivocation.

Neo, I think we all know that going form invert to vert is a little more than the collecting of bone.

If bone material is collected and survives via genetics, over time the creature can use it, thus developing the joint and so and so forth. Some genes caused the muscle others do not, that is why some creatures have it, some do not.

You got that right. I'm beginning to wonder where God fits into the picture for the Theistic evolutionists.

That's poor for sarcasm, you know that?

The theory of evolution isn't validated by the absence of another working model.

Yes, and ID is validated by lack of all evidence and a GOG? Thank you, sell it to someone else.

So you have no evidence, yet you ask others for evidence? is that it? You avoided my question multiple times. Why is there are 2960 million genomes similar in humans and apes?
How is that intelligent, unless they are related? What is the function of turned off genes? What function does that serve? Feel free to put a one line to this too. I am sure you'd say its question begging, conflating and equivocation.

How isn't it intelligent? Is there an argument to say that is a stupid thing for God to do? No.
Give me hard-line proof that we evolved from apes and I'll believe you, we share similar DNA to celery and tomatoes, doesn't mean I'm going to pretend for a moment that we evolved from them.

SB

Oh so you follow that model? OK makes perfect sense now.It doesn't surprise me too, you know, you need to at least know enough about evolution to be to critic of it. I actually thought you would know about it, since you seemed pretty confident about your arguing skills on the matter. Turns out I was wrong.

Notice you completely failed to address the ID multi competing hyposthesis.

Pretty convenient for you, isn't it?

I've debated enough atheist to recognize it yes. Just because you are ignorant of your own fallacious reasoning, doesn't put a burden of proof on me.

So you have no evidence, yet you ask others for evidence? is that it? You avoided my question multiple times. Why is there are 2960 million genomes similar in humans and apes?

Why wouldn't there be similar genomes. Function. Why would function (which naturally infers a designer, BTW) require unique genomes for humans and apes?

How is that intelligent, unless they are related? What is the function of turned off genes? What function does that serve? Feel free to put a one line to this too. I am sure you'd say its question begging, conflating and equivocation.

Seems I remember these same kind of question regarding junk DNA, and we keep finding that more an more so called "junk" is anythign but. And yes, your whole statement is based on question begging, circular reasoning. Your conclusion is in your proposition.

If bone material is collected and survives via genetics, over time the creature can use it, thus developing the joint and so and so forth. Some genes caused the muscle others do not, that is why some creatures have it, some do not.

And there you have it folks. Problem solved.

That's poor for sarcasm, you know that?

Tell me then. You list yourself as a Theistic evolutionists. Where does God fit in?

Yes, and ID is validated by lack of all evidence and a GOG? Thank you, sell it to someone else.

Where did I say that? I said the theory of evolution is not validated by the lack of other competing models. You have some serious issues. You keep talking about one liners. Pot meet kettle.
I see nothing here but a religious committment to naturalism and Darwinist presuppositions.

How isn't it intelligent? Is there an argument to say that is a stupid thing for God to do? No.
Give me hard-line proof that we evolved from apes and I'll believe you, we share similar DNA to celery and tomatoes, doesn't mean I'm going to pretend for a moment that we evolved from them.

You do not realize how silly this sounds. That is why I asked you earlier to study some biology before you form conclusions. Evolution does not say we evolved from apes, nor from banana, but we had a common ancestor with a similar DNA. The genetic lines of humans and apes diverged from that ancestor.

It amuses me actually as to see you outraged on this but still having no answer as to why there is so much similarity. Why don't you try to answer that? I'd appreciate it.

Neo,
I'm actually a little surprised that you don't see what we're saying. There are such similarities because the same Creator created all living things. That's simple logic that you're overlooking. Just one question for you. If man evolved from some "ancestor", whether it was a one celled organism, or whatever, how then do you explain how man was created in the image of God? According to the kind of evolution you're talking about here, modern man wasn't created at all.