Evidence for God from Science

Well, since you used the loss of eyesight, why don't we start with that. Gman even stated that...it would be much more impressive to see a blind fish see.

In which case, the probable answer is that it takes thousands upon thousands of years. We only see variations of traits which then *over time* build on one another to build the structure.

We takes us back to the idea that this is still an extrapolation of *minor* event....a stronger jaws, more sensitve mouthparts. But to use these minor varations to buil;d on large ones still requires us to rely on that addition to the definition that phrase *over time*, an extrapolation from testable repeatable events to ones that require circumstantial evidence from the past. An extrapolation, maybe a very nice one, maybe a logical one, but still one that we must rely on the convenient phrase *over time*.

Can I ask you a question about design? What is it about a house that allows you to know that it was designed? What are the elements of a structure that demand a conclusion of intelligence?

zoegirl wrote:We only see variations of traits which then *over time* build on one another to build the structure.

No, we do see the evolution of new traits. You can even do that in most decent undergrad biology classes.

zoegirl wrote:But to use these minor varations to build on large ones...

Precisely how are you defining "minor variations" and "large ones"?

zoegirl wrote:still requires us to rely on that addition to the definition that phrase *over time*, an extrapolation from testable repeatable events to ones that require circumstantial evidence from the past.

First, of course the evidence for events that happened eons ago is going to be circumstantial. I fail to see how that is problematic though.

Second, just because an event happened in the past, that doesn't preclude it from being testable.

zoegirl wrote: An extrapolation, maybe a very nice one, maybe a logical one, but still one that we must rely on the convenient phrase *over time*.

Why do you use the term "convenient phrase"? Are you asserting that it's some sort of artificial contrivance that scientists constructed to cover their collective arses? I tend to think that when we're talking about the history of the earth and its life, "over time" is a given. I mean, people generally don't complain when geologists speak of glacial erosion taking place over vast expanses of time; they don't complain when geologists speak of tectonic activity taking eons to produce mountain ranges. Yet for some reason, when biologists do the same, you seem to take it as a mere "convenient phrase".

zoegirl wrote:Can I ask you a question about design? What is it about a house that allows you to know that it was designed? What are the elements of a structure that demand a conclusion of intelligence?

I see people design and build houses all the time. I never see houses arising from other houses via natural reproduction.

Gerald McGrew wrote:

zoegirl wrote:We only see variations of traits which then *over time* build on one another to build the structure.

No, we do see the evolution of new traits. You can even do that in most decent undergrad biology classes.

zoegirl wrote:But to use these minor varations to build on large ones...

Precisely how are you defining "minor variations" and "large ones"?

Oy, I fail to see why you are misunderstanding this. You used the blind fish example. LOsing a function is quite easy. YOu bring up the jaw aND SENsitivity. Losing a major function while selecvting for small traits of structure already there is wuite different than observing a significant change in jaw formation or the development of the eye. Gman used the example of gaining a structure such as an eye. This example can never be observed in one's generation. We can see stronger jaws and more sensitive mouthparts, but the new mouthparts or new jaws are in the past. AS such, claiming that such structures were build through minor changes over time becomes a different animal, to use that phrase. It's easy to point to small changes like a variation of color/foraging behavior/mating choice. Harder to see evidence of new structures without having to resort to piecing DNA evidence and fossil evidence.

zoegirl wrote:still requires us to rely on that addition to the definition that phrase *over time*, an extrapolation from testable repeatable events to ones that require circumstantial evidence from the past.

First, of course the evidence for events that happened eons ago is going to be circumstantial. I fail to see how that is problematic though.

Second, just because an event happened in the past, that doesn't preclude it from being testable.

zoegirl wrote: An extrapolation, maybe a very nice one, maybe a logical one, but still one that we must rely on the convenient phrase *over time*.

Why do you use the term "convenient phrase"? Are you asserting that it's some sort of artificial contrivance that scientists constructed to cover their collective arses?

No, not artificial. I'm not negating the hard work, impl;ying that they dont' collect the evidence, nor implying that there isn't logical evidence. Perhaps all I'm saying is that it, like many arguments, are an easy definition. And while many *have* gone through work to draw a conclusion, too many just take this phrase at face value. I, too, get annoyed at arguments and phrases that used and have become a foundation. I just think that *over time* is too easy a phrase and yet it's tossed around.

To give you an example....in the biology text (common intro college text) I use there are three chapters devoted to population genetics, natural selection, microevolution, speciation....but then there is simply this mysterious two to three pages committed to a vague description of *how* this goes from hard repeatable evidence of population genetics to evidence from the past. And I *did* go through the grad classes and it was virtually the same. Lots and lots of population genetics....and only one section of the class devoted to mutations and none of it was addressing the power, just again, these nice convenient statements of how powerful they are. (write more later...gotta go!)

I tend to think that when we're talking about the history of the earth and its life, "over time" is a given. I mean, people generally don't complain when geologists speak of glacial erosion taking place over vast expanses of time; they don't complain when geologists speak of tectonic activity taking eons to produce mountain ranges. Yet for some reason, when biologists do the same, you seem to take it as a mere "convenient phrase".

That's true. However, the mechanisms of erosion and the mechanisms of plate tectonics are rather straighforward (not to mention that a person can observe the basics of erosion and tectonics withing their own lifetime, sea-glass, earthquakes....I mean...come on...that's a pretty easy extrapolation to make...."Gee look at that piece of glass" and it becomes pretty easy to see how powerful erosion can be) Whereas the mechanisms and history and the actual circumstances of evolutionary history are still being worked through.

Not to mention that people do have a pretty tough stumbling block when such poisonous atheists essentially drive home again and again that to even accept some of the tenets of evolution means that you can't accept Christianity. It's pretty tough to debate with Christians and I AM one! I am OEC/progressicve creationist borderline theistic evolutionist and I get hammered on BOTH sides....can't get any rest!!

zoegirl wrote:Can I ask you a question about design? What is it about a house that allows you to know that it was designed? What are the elements of a structure that demand a conclusion of intelligence?

I see people design and build houses all the time. I never see houses arising from other houses via natural reproduction.

Umm, not really answering the question....try to imagine that you have never seen a house. Simply put, what makes something have the qualities of being designed. Just curious...

zoegirl wrote:Oy, I fail to see why you are misunderstanding this.

I suppose, as I'm still not sure what exactly I'm misunderstanding.

zoegirl wrote:Gman used the example of gaining a structure such as an eye. This example can never be observed in one's generation.

Right.

zoegirl wrote:It's easy to point to small changes like a variation of color/foraging behavior/mating choice. Harder to see evidence of new structures without having to resort to piecing DNA evidence and fossil evidence.

I'm not sure why you think looking to DNA and fossils is a "resort", implying that there's something negative about it. Both are excellent means to discern past events.

zoegirl wrote:Perhaps all I'm saying is that it, like many arguments, are an easy definition.

I hardly think trying to figure out events that took place millions of years ago is "easy".

zoegirl wrote:And while many *have* gone through work to draw a conclusion, too many just take this phrase at face value.

Who? Be specific please.

zoegirl wrote:I, too, get annoyed at arguments and phrases that used and have become a foundation. I just think that *over time* is too easy a phrase and yet it's tossed around.

Why? It's accurate, isn't it?

zoegirl wrote:To give you an example....in the biology text (common intro college text) I use there are three chapters devoted to population genetics, natural selection, microevolution, speciation....but then there is simply this mysterious two to three pages committed to a vague description of *how* this goes from hard repeatable evidence of population genetics to evidence from the past.

What book is that?

zoegirl wrote:And I *did* go through the grad classes and it was virtually the same. Lots and lots of population genetics....and only one section of the class devoted to mutations and none of it was addressing the power, just again, these nice convenient statements of how powerful they are.

What classes were those?

zoegirl wrote:However, the mechanisms of erosion and the mechanisms of plate tectonics are rather straighforward (not to mention that a person can observe the basics of erosion and tectonics withing their own lifetime, sea-glass, earthquakes....I mean...come on...that's a pretty easy extrapolation to make...."Gee look at that piece of glass" and it becomes pretty easy to see how powerful erosion can be) Whereas the mechanisms and history and the actual circumstances of evolutionary history are still being worked through.

Funny...my view is that the mechanisms of evolution are very well understood. Specific pathways for the evolution of some systems and structures still need to be worked out, but that's hardly surprising. The day we figure out the evolutionary history for every system and structure that's existed in the 3+ billion year history of life on earth....well, that's when evolutionary biology ends.

And as I said earlier, even in undergrad biology courses you can do experiments and see populations evolve new traits. And in the better programs, you can even do a bit of sequencing and document the specific genetic mechanism behind the change. So why it's such a big deal to conclude that in the past new traits came about via the same general means, I don't know.

I mean, if we saw new traits appearing via completely different means then we would have good reason to be skeptical. But every new trait we've ever documented has come about via evolutionary mechanisms. So why in the world would we conclude that in the past, everything worked dramatically differently?

zoegirl wrote:Not to mention that people do have a pretty tough stumbling block when such poisonous atheists essentially drive home again and again that to even accept some of the tenets of evolution means that you can't accept Christianity. It's pretty tough to debate with Christians and I AM one! I am OEC/progressicve creationist borderline theistic evolutionist and I get hammered on BOTH sides....can't get any rest!!

Actually, my experience has been somewhat opposite. It's the fundamentalist Christians who insist you can't be a Christian and recognize evolutionary biology as valid science.

zoegirl wrote:...try to imagine that you have never seen a house. Simply put, what makes something have the qualities of being designed. Just curious...

Well, now we're getting a little abstract, but ok...I would probably notice that the house is inanimate and shows no signs of once having been a living being. I would probably also notice things like doors, which are obviously for access, and windows, which are obviously for viewing outside and letting in light. I would notice the furniture, appliances, etc. and figure out their obvious functions.

Put it all together, and it wouldn't be too hard to conclude that it was a dwelling constructed by people like me.

Gerald McGrew wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Oy, I fail to see why you are misunderstanding this.

I suppose, as I'm still not sure what exactly I'm misunderstanding.

zoegirl wrote:Gman used the example of gaining a structure such as an eye. This example can never be observed in one's generation.

Right.

zoegirl wrote:It's easy to point to small changes like a variation of color/foraging behavior/mating choice. Harder to see evidence of new structures without having to resort to piecing DNA evidence and fossil evidence.

I'm not sure why you think looking to DNA and fossils is a "resort", implying that there's something negative about it. Both are excellent means to discern past events.

zoegirl wrote:Perhaps all I'm saying is that it, like many arguments, are an easy definition.

I hardly think trying to figure out events that took place millions of years ago is "easy".

sure it "easy" ... it's very vague by itself. I think many people who accept evolution without even studying it blithely accept that *over time* anything can happen. There are lots of descriptions where the popualtion genetics are used for several generations and then you just add the "over time" and that makes it ok.

zoegirl wrote:And while many *have* gone through work to draw a conclusion, too many just take this phrase at face value.

Who? Be specific please.

I think many people who accept evolution without having studied it...general population...

zoegirl wrote:I, too, get annoyed at arguments and phrases that used and have become a foundation. I just think that *over time* is too easy a phrase and yet it's tossed around.

Why? It's accurate, isn't it?

Ah, well, that's essentially what's up for debate, isn't it. You say it is...I say maybe. I definitely say with God.

zoegirl wrote:To give you an example....in the biology text (common intro college text) I use there are three chapters devoted to population genetics, natural selection, microevolution, speciation....but then there is simply this mysterious two to three pages committed to a vague description of *how* this goes from hard repeatable evidence of population genetics to evidence from the past.

What book is that?

campbells Biology, 6th edition. they do a marvelous job, not criticizing it, jsut pointign out the number of pages devoted to the topic of micro to macro (havent yet looked at the new edition, I'm sure they've changed it ).

zoegirl wrote:And I *did* go through the grad classes and it was virtually the same. Lots and lots of population genetics....and only one section of the class devoted to mutations and none of it was addressing the power, just again, these nice convenient statements of how powerful they are.

What classes were those?

Undergrad basic population and evolution class (all of the comparative phys classes-animal, plant, discussed it. the genetics class discussed it...the intro class, the cell class....etc)
Graduate population genetics class (it was ok, not as dynamic)
Graduate Mechanism in evolutionary physiology (really liked)
Graduate evolution seminar (really liked, challenging)
Plant physiology class (essentially stressed evolutionary adaptations )

All focused on what you would traditionally call microevolution. One gets the impression that "why bother discussing how it happens when we all *know* it happens, right?". btw, major secular university, just in case your next question was going to be whether it was Christian or secular

zoegirl wrote:However, the mechanisms of erosion and the mechanisms of plate tectonics are rather straighforward (not to mention that a person can observe the basics of erosion and tectonics withing their own lifetime, sea-glass, earthquakes....I mean...come on...that's a pretty easy extrapolation to make...."Gee look at that piece of glass" and it becomes pretty easy to see how powerful erosion can be) Whereas the mechanisms and history and the actual circumstances of evolutionary history are still being worked through.

Funny...my view is that the mechanisms of evolution are very well understood. Specific pathways for the evolution of some systems and structures still need to be worked out, but that's hardly surprising. The day we figure out the evolutionary history for every system and structure that's existed in the 3+ billion year history of life on earth....well, that's when evolutionary biology ends.

And as I said earlier, even in undergrad biology courses you can do experiments and see populations evolve new traits. And in the better programs, you can even do a bit of sequencing and document the specific genetic mechanism behind the change. So why it's such a big deal to conclude that in the past new traits came about via the same general means, I don't know.

Not doubting the microevolution, not even doubting much of the evidence. I think if you google some of my past posts you would see that I am much more curious and interested in the evidence and, again, borderline theistic evolution. The only frustration I have with the term is that to others, it means a much more random process, more of a deist position. So I hesistate to use that term for myself. At the heart of it, I suppose, is the frustration with the attitudes that come from the philosophy of some of those involved.

I mean, if we saw new traits appearing via completely different means then we would have good reason to be skeptical. But every new trait we've ever documented has come about via evolutionary mechanisms. So why in the world would we conclude that in the past, everything worked dramatically differently?

zoegirl wrote:Not to mention that people do have a pretty tough stumbling block when such poisonous atheists essentially drive home again and again that to even accept some of the tenets of evolution means that you can't accept Christianity. It's pretty tough to debate with Christians and I AM one! I am OEC/progressicve creationist borderline theistic evolutionist and I get hammered on BOTH sides....can't get any rest!!

Actually, my experience has been somewhat opposite. It's the fundamentalist Christians who insist you can't be a Christian and recognize evolutionary biology as valid science.

that why I said, in my post, that I get hammered on both sides!! I went ot my grad classes and received looks that, at the ugliest, were hostile and condescending and, at their best, were puzzled and confused at this white elephant in the room (I received this look the most when they found out later in the class that I was a christian and it was almost comical their look of surprise, like their thougths were "Oh , but....I really liked your questions".

THEN, I would go to teach in my school (private Christian) and get lovely e-mails from (thankfully a small minority) who would ask "you DO teach the literal seven day.....DONT you?" Thankfully have a wonderful administration who appreciates my goal of broadening and challenging the students. I don't compromise on the sovereignty of god, merely the days/age/process possiblities

zoegirl wrote:...try to imagine that you have never seen a house. Simply put, what makes something have the qualities of being designed. Just curious...

Well, now we're getting a little abstract, but ok...I would probably notice that the house is inanimate and shows no signs of once having been a living being. I would probably also notice things like doors, which are obviously for access, and windows, which are obviously for viewing outside and letting in light. I would notice the furniture, appliances, etc. and figure out their obvious functions.

Ok, so would you agree that there are certain elements to somehting we are observing that allows a conclusion to be drawn that something was behind it?

And yes we are getting abstract. but let me return your question to you. What would the house have to look like to make you conclude that it *wasn't* designed?

See, to me mechanisms aren't the issue really. If, on Tuesday, there would be a news item about their ability to create a cell in a lab, it would n't crush my faith.

I know that there is this idea that "God wouldn't have made it this way" . I try know to allow my preconceived notions of "ought to" when it comes to an area where we, as humans, are finite and limited in our perspective.

Put it all together, and it wouldn't be too hard to conclude that it was a dwelling constructed by people like me.

You are still letting the example cloud the essence of the question. Forget that its a house. What are the *elements* in that observed structure that give it qualities of being engineered? The order? The structure? The patterns?

zoegirl wrote:sure it "easy" ... it's very vague by itself. I think many people who accept evolution without even studying it blithely accept that *over time* anything can happen.

Ah, I see our disconect here. I was thinking of scientists, you were thinking of the general public.

Of course the general public thinks about evolution in very general, vague terms...just as they do with quantum physics, chemistry, and all manner of other technical subjects. Not everyone can be an expert in everything.

zoegirl wrote:There are lots of descriptions where the popualtion genetics are used for several generations and then you just add the "over time" and that makes it ok.

How about a specific example?

zoegirl wrote:I think many people who accept evolution without having studied it...general population...

I certainly don't expect most people to take the time to study evolutionary biology.

zoegirl wrote:I, too, get annoyed at arguments and phrases that used and have become a foundation. I just think that *over time* is too easy a phrase and yet it's tossed around.

Gerald McGrew wrote:Why? It's accurate, isn't it?

Ah, well, that's essentially what's up for debate, isn't it. You say it is...I say maybe. I definitely say with God.

That things happen "over time" is up for debate? Among whom?

zoegirl wrote:campbells Biology, 6th edition. they do a marvelous job, not criticizing it, jsut pointign out the number of pages devoted to the topic of micro to macro (havent yet looked at the new edition, I'm sure they've changed it ).

I guess it's hard for me to discuss this without the book in front of me.

zoegirl wrote:Undergrad basic population and evolution class (all of the comparative phys classes-animal, plant, discussed it. the genetics class discussed it...the intro class, the cell class....etc)
Graduate population genetics class (it was ok, not as dynamic)
Graduate Mechanism in evolutionary physiology (really liked)
Graduate evolution seminar (really liked, challenging)
Plant physiology class (essentially stressed evolutionary adaptations )

It looks to me like those classes should be heavily focused on the evolution we've observed. Population genetics...the best way to study how populations evolve is to watch them evolve. If you're looking for something that covers more of past "macro" evolution, perhaps you should take a paleontology course, or something similar?

zoegirl wrote:One gets the impression that "why bother discussing how it happens when we all *know* it happens, right?".

From the standpoint of those courses, yes. We know it happens because....well....we see it happen all the time, right in front of our eyes. I would think that if someone were going to argue, "Oh no, in the past (when we weren't looking) everything came about completely differently", the burden should be on them to support their argument.

zoegirl wrote:btw, major secular university, just in case your next question was going to be whether it was Christian or secular

Nope, wasn't thinking that at all.

zoegirl wrote:Not doubting the microevolution, not even doubting much of the evidence. I think if you google some of my past posts you would see that I am much more curious and interested in the evidence and, again, borderline theistic evolution. The only frustration I have with the term is that to others, it means a much more random process, more of a deist position. So I hesistate to use that term for myself. At the heart of it, I suppose, is the frustration with the attitudes that come from the philosophy of some of those involved.

I certainly understand.

zoegirl wrote:I went ot my grad classes and received looks that, at the ugliest, were hostile and condescending and, at their best, were puzzled and confused at this white elephant in the room (I received this look the most when they found out later in the class that I was a christian and it was almost comical their look of surprise, like their thougths were "Oh , but....I really liked your questions".

It's interesting, because I had the same thing, only from the opposite perspective. I remember in my genetics class being on the receiving end of some very nasty (and racial) comments after I gave a presentation on human/primate shared ancestry as evidenced via nuclear DNA. I suppose there are zealots all over, eh?

zoegirl wrote:THEN, I would go to teach in my school (private Christian) and get lovely e-mails from (thankfully a small minority) who would ask "you DO teach the literal seven day.....DONT you?" Thankfully have a wonderful administration who appreciates my goal of broadening and challenging the students. I don't compromise on the sovereignty of god, merely the days/age/process possiblities

You are a teacher in a private Christian school?

zoegirl wrote:Ok, so would you agree that there are certain elements to somehting we are observing that allows a conclusion to be drawn that something was behind it?

That's far too vague (and loaded) to agree to.

zoegirl wrote:What would the house have to look like to make you conclude that it *wasn't* designed?

I don't think it's a question of what it looks like, but how it behaves. If I saw houses reproducing on their own, and I came across a house I would naturally conclude it came about via natural reproduction.

zoegirl wrote:See, to me mechanisms aren't the issue really. If, on Tuesday, there would be a news item about their ability to create a cell in a lab, it would n't crush my faith.

Funny....to me, the mechanisms are the key issue.

zoegirl wrote:I know that there is this idea that "God wouldn't have made it this way" . I try know to allow my preconceived notions of "ought to" when it comes to an area where we, as humans, are finite and limited in our perspective.

Well, that's interesting because it's something I've always felt relates directly to ID creationism. Their central argument is that "complex" systems and structures couldn't possibly have evolved, so they must have been "intelligently designed". Yet when you look at the examples they give, they're all nice pretty things like wings, eyes, and such. But anyone who's at all familiar with biology will realize that there are all sorts of equally "complex" systems and structures that also happen to be quite nasty and horrible. The biochemical pathways that allow for toxin production, or for pathogens to infect....all are very complex. The biological structures that allow for parasitism, predation, and infestation are all quite complex.

So why aren't ID creationists holding those up as examples of "intelligent design"? It obviously puts them in a very awkward position. If they say they evolved, then they're admitting that evolution can produce complexity. If they say they were designed, then their designer is a cosmic bioterrorist. And if they start to argue something like "those were used for good until the Fall at the Garden of Eden", they've exposed themselves as Christian creationists.

zoegirl wrote:What are the *elements* in that observed structure that give it qualities of being engineered? The order? The structure? The patterns?

As I said earlier, it's the simple fact that it's an inanimate object that I see being built by people every day.

YEah I teach at a private Christian school.

I do think that when we are talking about design and a dseginer we (meaning Christians) need to be careful about assuming that it *should* be designed in some way.

And when I said I wasn't concerned about the mechanisms, I wasn't meaning I wasn't interested in them. I was focusing more on their significance towards my beliefs. No, I actually liked those classes and I do find popualtion genetics and "microevolution" and palenotology pretty darn cool. Wouldn't teach it if I didn't.

Here's, I guess, the breakdown. I've mentioned before that I'm pregressive creationist. To me, there is very strong evidence that popualtions adjust and change to environmental changes. It's absolutely clear. We see this very nicely in experiments that showed changes over several generations.

THere is intriguing evidence of commonalities...chromosome similarities, DNA similarities....

However, mutations are not the friendliest of events to organism. Considering that we have been experimenting on bacteria for, how many generations, hundreds of thoughsands? COnsidering that we've been experimenting on fruit flies for thousands of generations? I mean, come on, with those odds if mutations have such power we should be blown away.

Consider, for example,

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.

Profound change
Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations — the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

Rare mutation?
By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.

That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special — either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.

To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.

Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?

Evidence of evolution
The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ — and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.

Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)

Read our Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions special report.

I mean, 20,000 gneerations? ANd this is in bacteria, one of the simplest organisms. I know they were heralding this as a great discovery but this is supposed to be such a flexible process. I just am not convinced that this can be behind the elaboration of so many organims.

So, yes, to me, there is still a boundary between species and genus and the larger differences. At least with regards to actually observing the said power. And I know you keep saying that we can't, and that really bothers me. It puts evolutionary history solidly in a very interesting model, but I can't get past the skepticism.

But yes, I have leaned towards theistic evolution. Again the mechanisms don't crush my faith. The entire point of the original posting is that it is FAR easier to see deleterious mutations than to see these "rare, "special", "uncommon", and "improbable" mutations. And these deleterious mutations will far more likely destroy a function than these rare mutations will build.

So, yes, to me, there is still a boundary between species and genus and the larger differences. At least with regards to actually observing the said power. And I know you keep saying that we can't, and that really bothers me. It puts evolutionary history solidly in a very interesting model, but I can't get past the skepticism.

I don't see the same boundaries. There are morphological intermediates between every major group in living things. Even in my main interest (marine life), there are instances where even families are very similar to each other and it is not a stretch for them to have diverged by evolutionary means.

Species to species differences on land: is this macro or micro?


Species to species in the ocean: micro or macro?



the differences between cat species are dramatic in this case and the crabs are almost identical. Yet they are considered different species. What kind of change do you expect with macroevolution? Change from a cat to a dog would be dramatic (as in family to family) but if you had the same change in the ocean it would be less dramatic.

My point is that this so called "microevolution" can create things that look identical and things that look very different. If these changes accumulate over time, the two animals would appear to have "macroevolved".

I'll continue if I need to

Hi Zoegirl - great post. Very honest and convincing argument. Why didn't those bacteria change more over that many generations? I don't know - I would guess no selection pressure. Although I, like you, want to see the very best evidence; experiments like that one can easily be interpreted either way.

At the same time, I find the transitional fossils very convincing, maybe more convincing than you do. As convincing as they are though, they don't hold a candle to the evidence in fossil DNA. Have you read one of the recent books on this?

DB

Gerald McGrew wrote:

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"?

But a true scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable.... Then it really isn't science...

Can ID be falsifiable? ID could actually be quite open to falsification. If we use evolution to falsify ID, all a scientist needs to do is take a complex organism like a bacterium without a flagellum or knock the genes out within the bacterium flagellum, then go to a lab and try to grow the bug for a long time to see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If it produces a flagellum, then ID would be proven false on the general grounds that the scientist didn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes would suffice. But let's turn that around, how do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterium flagellum? Can evolution be falsifiable also? 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 a flagellum. Perhaps it never could, scientists don't really know. ID therefore could easily be tested or falsified although it has not been falsified as of yet.

Our website also has an answer here...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... esign.html

The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

1. Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4. SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

zoegirl wrote:I do think that when we are talking about design and a dseginer we (meaning Christians) need to be careful about assuming that it *should* be designed in some way.

But that avoids the issue I described above. Are the really nasty, horrible things that are also complex "designed" or not?

zoegirl wrote:Here's, I guess, the breakdown. I've mentioned before that I'm pregressive creationist. To me, there is very strong evidence that popualtions adjust and change to environmental changes. It's absolutely clear. We see this very nicely in experiments that showed changes over several generations.

THere is intriguing evidence of commonalities...chromosome similarities, DNA similarities....

Ok, let me ask you something. As you say, we see things evolving all the time...new traits, new species etc. Have you ever seen a new trait or species being supernaturally created?

zoegirl wrote:However, mutations are not the friendliest of events to organism. Considering that we have been experimenting on bacteria for, how many generations, hundreds of thoughsands? COnsidering that we've been experimenting on fruit flies for thousands of generations? I mean, come on, with those odds if mutations have such power we should be blown away.

Life has existed on earth for over 3 billion years. We've been closely studying and experimenting for what...50-100 years? Given that the first 2+billion years of life on earth were dedicated solely to prokaryotic evolution, what exactly are you expecting?

zoegirl wrote:Consider, for example...I mean, 20,000 gneerations? ANd this is in bacteria, one of the simplest organisms.

But again, it's the evolution of a new trait via natural means. So why is it such a problem to conclude that in the past, new traits came about via evolution?

zoegirl wrote:I know they were heralding this as a great discovery but this is supposed to be such a flexible process. I just am not convinced that this can be behind the elaboration of so many organims.

I suppose there are people who remain unconvinced of all sorts of things.

zoegirl wrote:So, yes, to me, there is still a boundary between species and genus and the larger differences. At least with regards to actually observing the said power. And I know you keep saying that we can't, and that really bothers me. It puts evolutionary history solidly in a very interesting model, but I can't get past the skepticism.

No, we do see "the power"; it's simply speciation events. There is no singular "evolution of a new family". It's not like Gman's "a fish morphing into a human" straw man. What happens is species A gives rise to species B, which gives rise to species C, which gives rise to species D and E. By the time we get to species P, when we compare it to species A and B, we classify P and its descendants into a new taxanomic category (genus, family, etc.). But it's not like a new genus or family immediately arises. It's merely a series of speciation events.

And since we know speciation events happen...well, it's simply a matter of obvious logic to conclude that's if that happens over 3+ billion years, you're going to end up with a huge amount of diversity.

zoegirl wrote:The entire point of the original posting is that it is FAR easier to see deleterious mutations than to see these "rare, "special", "uncommon", and "improbable" mutations. And these deleterious mutations will far more likely destroy a function than these rare mutations will build.

Beneficial muations aren't at all hard to demonstrate. Very simple undergrad-level experiments demonstrate that.

Gman wrote:ID could actually be quite open to falsification. If we use evolution to falsify ID...

Oh, well since we see evolution take place right in front of our eyes, I guess ID is falsified.

Gman wrote:all a scientist needs to do is take a complex organism like a bacterium without a flagellum or knock the genes out within the bacterium flagellum, then go to a lab and try to grow the bug for a long time to see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum.

How does that falsify ID? All that shows is that a contemporary strain of bacteria didn't regrow a flagellum under certain conditions.

Also, are you saying that God can't produce a flagellum via evolutionary mechanisms?

Gman wrote:If it produces a flagellum, then ID would be proven false on the general grounds that the scientist didn't invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes would suffice.

So "natural causes" are antithetical to ID?

Gman wrote:But let's turn that around, how do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterium flagellum? Can evolution be falsifiable also?

Again, evolution is an observed fact. You might as well ask "can erosion be falsifiable".

Gman wrote:Our website also has an answer here...

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... esign.html

The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

1. Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4. SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

As I asked earlier, can you provide a specific example of those fields using the same "principles" as ID creationists?

Gerald McGrew wrote:Oh, well since we see evolution take place right in front of our eyes, I guess ID is falsified.

Great then we can treat it as science... Also earlier you stated that evolution was difficult to falsify, if so, then it can't really be tested..

Gerald McGrew wrote:How does that falsify ID? All that shows is that a contemporary strain of bacteria didn't regrow a flagellum under certain conditions.

That's right. Evolution failed to regrow a flagellum. However if it could then ID would be false...

Gerald McGrew wrote:Also, are you saying that God can't produce a flagellum via evolutionary mechanisms?

It is possible.. Again, I don't know exactly how God created things. However, to the naturalist it is an absurdity and therefore a conflict.

Gerald McGrew wrote:So "natural causes" are antithetical to ID?

It depends on what you mean by "natural causes".

Gerald McGrew wrote:Again, evolution is an observed fact. You might as well ask "can erosion be falsifiable".

That's funny... I've never heard it call the "Fact of Evolution" only the "Theory of Evolution." Perhaps you should make a phone call to all the scientists of the world to correct their statements...

Gerald McGrew wrote:As I asked earlier, can you provide a specific example of those fields using the same "principles" as ID creationists?

And as I responded to you earlier. I have no clue what you are asking... Be specific..

Oh, well since we see evolution take place right in front of our eyes, I guess ID is falsified.

Show us this evidence for evolution happening at the present, since its happening in the present then the subsequent mechanism that explains complex molecular structures that only appear to be designed should also be included in your explanation.

Following your explanation, you will have successfully falsified ID that NS+RV/RM alone cannot account for such structures.

Please don't point to links, don't bother. Tell us in proximate logic/form how it happens in real-time.

Please, no reference to fossils, no assumptions, no speculations...you get the drift.

This sequence of events doesn't have to be deterministic, for example:

something always has a starting point
to get to a theoretical ending point (one where a clearly independent function is formed) there maybe fluctuations but that fluctuation cannot bypass the starting point else you haven't started from any point, consider that a detrimental effect
all subsequent sequence of events can go from b to d then d to c or a to g then g to f, as long as there is no
each sequence which has dependencies (bottom-up arrangement) should be clearly addressed as follows:

This x property of the y object which functions as z came about via X ? (parent mechanism) which was triggered by Y (child mechanisms) ?. Again, if you say it got selected from previous forms then your not explaining anything, that is all assumption based because your assuming all forms in biology had previous ones (To refresh your memory, you are in fact saying Evolution is happening at the present...). Your explanation should therefore re-enforce how x new feature comes about, whether that is stacked onto an existing form is perfectly fine, but the sequence of events from points a to z must be mapped out, this all should be observed happening without the following:

any guiding information
any intelligent input
etc...
All random mutation and Natural selection, remember your filter right?

Yes, I'm betting your filter will do just fine in filtering out a Bacterial Flagellum, an eye, a brain etc...using no pre-defined/front-loaded information, but information that is built up from Random Mutation and Natural Selection...

This would be classified as cheating: using information in the nucleus or cytoplasm that was there. This would be like stealing a projectors and building your own Cinema. Sorry, you give us an abstract model, but you can't give us an abstract result at the same time.

I may need to fine tune this challenge to you since I typed this fast. (fix it later though)

Gerald McGrew wrote:

zoegirl wrote:I do think that when we are talking about design and a dseginer we (meaning Christians) need to be careful about assuming that it *should* be designed in some way.

But that avoids the issue I described above. Are the really nasty, horrible things that are also complex "designed" or not?

I guess by that you are meaning virulent bacteria and viruses. I would say yes. YOU would find that most here don't necessairly demand that there was no death in creation. In addition, we honestly don't know the physical ramifications of the curse (which, of course, is somehting that I am assuming you don't believe in....but since the implied qquestion is that of God's intent... "Would God have made such nasty, horrible things?", I will answer with that in mind. Whether or not these nasty horrible things were initially made with that virulence, don't know, but that's certainly an intriguing question).

Regardless of their effect, your question (please let me know if I am totally off base with that assunmtion) has more to do with theology than design. Whether or not a God would make something that infects another being is more in line with the classic *God/suffering question* and really has no bearing on it's design.

Can we not observe a gun or tank with the same conclusion as our observations at a corvette or porsche?

gerald wrote:

zoegirl wrote:Here's, I guess, the breakdown. I've mentioned before that I'm pregressive creationist. To me, there is very strong evidence that popualtions adjust and change to environmental changes. It's absolutely clear. We see this very nicely in experiments that showed changes over several generations.

THere is intriguing evidence of commonalities...chromosome similarities, DNA similarities....

Ok, let me ask you something. As you say, we see things evolving all the time...new traits, new species etc. Have you ever seen a new trait or species being supernaturally created?

Well, I think you are stretching my words, but...

Can you definitively say it isn't ? Look, if tomorrow, if ten years from now, we see that those 10 additional years of bacterial growth produces more changes, I'll be happy to adjust my view. However, if that happens, *YOU STILL* can't rule out GOd or the supernatural. By the very rules of science, you can't examine God and therefore can't exclude or completely reject it as a premise. It on'yt means you can't observe/test. But can we make philosophical decisions based on those physical observations, sure.

gerald wrote:

zoegirl wrote:However, mutations are not the friendliest of events to organism. Considering that we have been experimenting on bacteria for, how many generations, hundreds of thoughsands? COnsidering that we've been experimenting on fruit flies for thousands of generations? I mean, come on, with those odds if mutations have such power we should be blown away.

Life has existed on earth for over 3 billion years. We've been closely studying and experimenting for what...50-100 years? Given that the first 2+billion years of life on earth were dedicated solely to prokaryotic evolution, what exactly are you expecting?

Hey, maybe I am too demanding. BUT, maybe the scientific community is too quick to leap to theor conclusions as well. (I suspect, and yes, a generalizaiton here, that phillosophically, they HAVE to leap on these discoveries).

All I'm saying is that I want to see more of these studies. Who are you to say I *should* be convinced by this? This is the only example I have seen of such a long range study of 20,000 generations. And while there are interesting examples of allopolyploidy and autopolyploidy in plants, the selection for mate choice in fruit flies, these are not as long range.

zoegirl wrote:Consider, for example...I mean, 20,000 gneerations? ANd this is in bacteria, one of the simplest organisms.

But again, it's the evolution of a new trait via natural means. So why is it such a problem to conclude that in the past, new traits came about via evolution?

Because I have a problem with making such a large extrapolation based on one example of 20,000.

Here's one scenario. Suppose, for instance, selection is not meant to be creative over those long periods of time, but rather a maintenance? In other words, selection can work up to a point but the creation of new genetic traits through inversion, replication, mutation...is not as powerful as we think?

First, since most people use that typical extrapolation (mutations over time), who would bother?

Secondly, this type of scenario can only be studied by examining this over time.

I really like these studies, would love to see more of them.

gerald wrote:

zoegirl wrote:I know they were heralding this as a great discovery but this is supposed to be such a flexible process. I just am not convinced that this can be behind the elaboration of so many organims.

I suppose there are people who remain unconvinced of all sorts of things.

Ok, I an fully convinced of what the studied showed, that somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 generations of bacteria, some mutations occurred (were they inversions of genes already there? hmm, mnaybe those bacteria originally had that ability).

I am still not convinced of this with regards to 2-3 billion years.

And anyway, who are you to insist I *be* convinced of

gerald wrote:

zoegirl wrote:So, yes, to me, there is still a boundary between species and genus and the larger differences. At least with regards to actually observing the said power. And I know you keep saying that we can't, and that really bothers me. It puts evolutionary history solidly in a very interesting model, but I can't get past the skepticism.

No, we do see "the power"; it's simply speciation events. There is no singular "evolution of a new family". It's not like Gman's "a fish morphing into a human" straw man. What happens is species A gives rise to species B, which gives rise to species C, which gives rise to species D and E. By the time we get to species P, when we compare it to species A and B, we classify P and its descendants into a new taxanomic category (genus, family, etc.). But it's not like a new genus or family immediately arises. It's merely a series of speciation events.

I never said nor used the "fish morphing into a human". ANd I never used the "evolution of the new family". Don't put words or arguments in my mouth.

But I doubt the *accumulation* GIVEN THAT mutations are far more likely to disrupt than create. In that sense I doubt that the mechanisms of evolution have the POWER to generate and accumulate additional mutations to create that A-B-C pathway.


AGAIN, the study showed ONE new trait over 20,000 generations. the desire is to extrapolate this over millions of years. How can we tell?

gerald wrote: And since we know speciation events happen...well, it's simply a matter of obvious logic to conclude that's if that happens over 3+ billion years, you're going to end up with a huge amount of diversity.

Since when does logic mean something is necessarily what happened?

gerald wrote:

zoegirl wrote:The entire point of the original posting is that it is FAR easier to see deleterious mutations than to see these "rare, "special", "uncommon", and "improbable" mutations. And these deleterious mutations will far more likely destroy a function than these rare mutations will build.

Beneficial muations aren't at all hard to demonstrate. Very simple undergrad-level experiments demonstrate that.

I never said they weren't there. But pretty much every book and even that journal article I quoted claims "rare", "improbable", uncommon...etc.

Anyway...sorry for the dealy...long day at school followed by doctors appt followed by.....sleep