Evidence for God from Science

zoegirl wrote:I actually can't sit through the american version of the Office...I'm one of the few people who doesn't like it over here...I feel too much empathy...it's too real! The way they shoot it it's like watching one of my students mess up on stage

Haven't seen the US version but the British version was excruciating Zoe!! I found myself watching through the gaps in the fingers covering my face at times... PAINFUL ....

I've only seen tiny buts of the British version but it was the same (perhaps with more charm with the accents)

zoegirl wrote:I've only seen tiny buts of the British version but it was the same (perhaps with more charm with the accents)

Haha You should get the box set Zoe... P.A.I.N.F.U.L ... But I do understand that some things are better in one's own native accent... I don't think I could watch the US version having already seen the Brit version...

P.S. who's got tiny "Buts"...??

I prefer the british accent....but I have no idea of your question...it is so painful that I don't watch it....but I usually feel so left out of the conversations at school that I succumb every once in awhile....

zoegirl wrote:I prefer the british accent....but I have no idea of your question...it is so painful that I don't watch it....but I usually feel so left out of the conversations at school that I succumb every once in awhile....

Sorry Zoe, but I thought you were saying that the Brits had "tiny buts"... Blame RickD !! You'd hate my accent Zoe, but I know I'd love yours...

whoops!!! Sorry, *really* bad typo!!! I've only seen tiny *bits*....I have no idea of the quality of *ahem* british body parts...

zoegirl wrote:whoops!!! Sorry, *really* bad typo!!! I've only seen tiny *bits*....I have no idea of the quality of *ahem* british body parts...

Nope, just a typo...Unfortunately RickD's penchant for picking up on typos has rubbed off on me somewhat... damn that RickD!

Darwinism? update:

I'd like to know how Darwinian evolution - chance mutations + natural selection - can account for the complexities of life. I'm looking for empirical data, and not just the "theoretically plausible". I'm looking for solid explanations as to how random mutations + natural selection could, not only produce, but build upon the complex information inherent in the a single cell to produce rational beings capable of comprehending that which lies outside the universe. I explicitly do not want to hear the anti-empirical claim that, "given enough time", blah blah blah; I want solid science! If our universe is all that there is, then why is it that I can comprehend things which lie outside of this universe? Why is my brain not constrained by the limitations of this universe, if this is "all that there is"?

Now I know that you Darwinians are out there...We are well into the thread, and we haven't got an answer... I've been on the RD.net in the past, looking for an answer to no avail...Are you willing to give an coherent presentation for Darwinism? Please, give it to us lock, stock and barrel...Darwinian style!!

Danny,

grading exams right now and will provide some ideas of merit (hopefully without typos and on topic).

There have been multiple studies showing the possibilities of genetic variation within a population. Of mutations, there are plenty of examples of mutations, most harmful, plenty neutral, and some beneficial depending on the environment. For instance, the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia is beneficial in those areas with malaria. Cystic fibrosis is another possible mutation that provides some resistance in some environmental areas.

These sorts of examples, however, rarely would lead to speciation in themselves.

Speciation occurs in two main pathways: allopatric speciation and sympatric speciation. In allopatric speciation, two groups of the same species are geographically isolated and thus reproductive isolation occurs automatically. The idea then is that because these two sub-populations cannot interbreed, each group is accumulating different variations and mutations. Conceivably, then, if the two populations were to come together at some point, they would be sufficiently different that they cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring (the hallmark of biological speciation). This can happen several potential ways (perhaps mate choice plays a significant role, perhaps the sperm and eggs cells no longer recognize each other, perhaps the timing of mating is off, or mating behaviors).

For allopatric speication, the best evidence lies on ring species, where a population, around geographic barrier, changes in subtle ways and the two ends of the "ring" around the barrier no longer interbreeds (mind you, this doesn't necessarily mean that they can't, just that they won't). In this instance, the two ends represent the best evidence of reproductive isolation and speciation. Now...the big issue, however, is that these difference are still relatively miniscule in the grand idea of evolution. In the case of salamanders, notice that the differences lie in the coloration and the recognition of the genders.



The other main method is called sympatric, where something happens to one group within the same geographic area that causes that subset to be reproductively isolated, either the genome of the cells has doubled, mating choice, mating behaviors, or some other factor where the two populations cannot interbreed.

Best examples of these cases involve those factors above or plants that have gone polyploid, with several sets of their genomes, that prevents them from pollinating a flower of the previous genome.

//www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=//evolutio ... s%3Disch:1

Anyhoo, just some thoughts to generate more conversation....

Just an fyi.. I've addressed the salamander thing here already..

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... t=0#p70767

zoegirl wrote:Danny,

grading exams right now and will provide some ideas of merit (hopefully without typos and on topic).

There have been multiple studies showing the possibilities of genetic variation within a population. Of mutations, there are plenty of examples of mutations, most harmful, plenty neutral, and some beneficial depending on the environment. For instance, the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia is beneficial in those areas with malaria. Cystic fibrosis is another possible mutation that provides some resistance in some environmental areas.

These sorts of examples, however, rarely would lead to speciation in themselves.

Speciation occurs in two main pathways: allopatric speciation and sympatric speciation. In allopatric speciation, two groups of the same species are geographically isolated and thus reproductive isolation occurs automatically. The idea then is that because these two sub-populations cannot interbreed, each group is accumulating different variations and mutations. Conceivably, then, if the two populations were to come together at some point, they would be sufficiently different that they cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring (the hallmark of biological speciation). This can happen several potential ways (perhaps mate choice plays a significant role, perhaps the sperm and eggs cells no longer recognize each other, perhaps the timing of mating is off, or mating behaviors).

For allopatric speication, the best evidence lies on ring species, where a population, around geographic barrier, changes in subtle ways and the two ends of the "ring" around the barrier no longer interbreeds (mind you, this doesn't necessarily mean that they can't, just that they won't). In this instance, the two ends represent the best evidence of reproductive isolation and speciation. Now...the big issue, however, is that these difference are still relatively miniscule in the grand idea of evolution. In the case of salamanders, notice that the differences lie in the coloration and the recognition of the genders.



The other main method is called sympatric, where something happens to one group within the same geographic area that causes that subset to be reproductively isolated, either the genome of the cells has doubled, mating choice, mating behaviors, or some other factor where the two populations cannot interbreed.

Best examples of these cases involve those factors above or plants that have gone polyploid, with several sets of their genomes, that prevents them from pollinating a flower of the previous genome.

//www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=//evolutio ... s%3Disch:1

Anyhoo, just some thoughts to generate more conversation....

Thanks Zoe! Will be back shortly, but, and as outrageous as it may sound, I have to go and do a bit of work... I know, shocking isn't it...

Gman wrote:Just an fyi.. I've addressed the salamander thing here already..

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... t=0#p70767

Yes, I know, but danny was looking for what evidence they have....I didn't say it was the best evidence

Ultimately we see that there is variation, some mutations, and some potential for reproductive isolation. However, it remains to be seen whether these have the ability to provide the source for the variations needed for larger changes. Unfortunately that remains locked in the past, a past which could very well be documenting the acts of God through the ages.

Zoe,

Just a quick one first of all... Do you believe that 'randomness' could possibly account for any beneficial mutations?

Certainly mutations exist and I think it's possible for beneficial mutations to happen, although I think it would be a rare.

As far as the randomness of it, I don't think it would be random at all, given what we know of God and His sovereignty over creation, although that in itself is a debate.

zoegirl wrote:Certainly mutations exist and I think it's possible for beneficial mutations to happen, although I think it would be a rare.

As far as the randomness of it, I don't think it would be random at all, given what we know of God and His sovereignty over creation, although that in itself is a debate.

I agree, life has surely been directed by an intelligent mind. All evolution we know of, e.g. evolved languages, is driven by intelligent processes.

In Claude Shannon's information theory noise is mathematically identical to entropy. Its damage to a signal is irreversible. Random mutations is just noise, and random noise can never be added to a signal to increase the quality of its information. To even think that random mutations could drive evolution has got to be utterly ridiculous. All evolution that we experience in everyday life is driven by intelligence, not random mutation.