Evidence for God from Science

sandy_mcd wrote:

Felgar wrote:As for me, my rejection of evolution has nothing to do with contradiction to my faith. If 10 years after Darwin published his work it became immediately obvious that species had evolved then it would now be accepted and not questioned, ...

However, I accept evolution because it is accepted by an overwhelming majority of biologists, theistic and atheistic alike. [I can't believe they are all in a big conspiracy.]

There is no conspiricy per se. What there is, I believe, is a population of people that are (and have always been) desperate for an answer which does not force them to face the concept of an Almighty God.

And scientific theory changes more than you'd like to think. Even models that DO predict reality and have substantial experimental support (such as early geo-centric models of the solar system) can still be found completely incorrect. Evolution doesn't even have what those geocentric models had.

I do understand your point. "Most scientists accept evolution, so why shouldn't I" Im just personally not disposed to that sort of trust.

Felgar wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:

Felgar wrote:As for me, my rejection of evolution has nothing to do with contradiction to my faith. If 10 years after Darwin published his work it became immediately obvious that species had evolved then it would now be accepted and not questioned, ...

However, I accept evolution because it is accepted by an overwhelming majority of biologists, theistic and atheistic alike. [I can't believe they are all in a big conspiracy.]

There is no conspiricy per se. What there is, I believe, is a population of people that are (and have always been) desperate for an answer which does not force them to face the concept of an Almighty God.

And scientific theory changes more than you'd like to think. Even models that DO predict reality and have substantial experimental support (such as early geo-centric models of the solar system) can still be found completely incorrect. Evolution doesn't even have what those geocentric models had.

I do understand your point. "Most scientists accept evolution, so why shouldn't I" Im just personally not disposed to that sort of trust.

Sorry to interrupt, but I must point out that you are incorrect in assuming that models of evolutionary theory have no applications. As new experiments give us more and more clues into the workings of evolution we have been able to improve and revamp the theory of evolution.

Using this model we have been able to.
Make major contributions to the pharmaceutical industry
Make major contributions to the biochemical industry
Decipher the genetic code.
Complete genomes for many organisms including humans
Predict species distribution
Help analyse damages caused by intrusive species
Explain recessive disorders
Explain disease outbreaks
Predict patterns of disease and recessive traits.
Explain origins of novel proteins and unique species.

There is a reason that scientists espouse the theory, and it is because it works. The mechanisms for change are real. And the implications of the relationships between species leads to development of not just theories but technologies.

If you delve far enough into any discipline the picture is clouded by complexities. In climatology it is easily seen that the science is complex because predicting the weather is difficult. However the basics of how clouds form and the origin of hurricanes and lightning are not argued.

In Physics the orbit of the planets and the forces of magnetism and gravity seem very basic and predictable. But delve in deeply enough and you have complex problems like surface mechanics, and wave behavior which is equally unpredictable.

The same goes for Biology.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Using this [evolutionary] model we have been able to.
Make major contributions to the pharmaceutical industry
Make major contributions to the biochemical industry
Decipher the genetic code.
Complete genomes for many organisms including humans
Predict species distribution
Help analyse damages caused by intrusive species
Explain recessive disorders
Explain disease outbreaks
Predict patterns of disease and recessive traits.
Explain origins of novel proteins and unique species.

Let's not leave out the prediction that "junk DNA" is expected of evolution, which meant it was largely ignored until recent years when purposes for it were stumbled across and began popping up.

Really, I fail to see how many of the "benefits" (?) you attribute to theory(s) of evolution is not just simply apart of science in general. Are you trying to say if science didn't have "evolution", then everything within biology (and hence the biological benefits you mention) would come to a halt? That is quite a claim, and I do not think one needs to believe in evolution (e.g., the neo-Darwinian kind) to work within biochemistry, understand diseases, and certainly not to "decipher" genetic code which seems more like something better attributable to a purposeful design.

Kurieuo

bad equation...

science=evolution.


Now, the true way of saying this would be somewhere along the lines of:

"Using this [Christian] worldview we have been able to.
Make major contributions to the pharmaceutical industry
Make major contributions to the biochemical industry
Decipher the genetic code.
Complete genomes for many organisms including humans
Predict species distribution
Help analyse damages caused by intrusive species
Explain recessive disorders
Explain disease outbreaks
Predict patterns of disease and recessive traits.
Explain origins of novel proteins and unique species.



You know, since it's kinda only in a Christian worldview that you have all the assumptions required for science to live.

Kurieuo wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Using this [evolutionary] model we have been able to.
Make major contributions to the pharmaceutical industry
Make major contributions to the biochemical industry
Decipher the genetic code.
Complete genomes for many organisms including humans
Predict species distribution
Help analyse damages caused by intrusive species
Explain recessive disorders
Explain disease outbreaks
Predict patterns of disease and recessive traits.
Explain origins of novel proteins and unique species.

Let's not leave out the prediction that "junk DNA" is expected of evolution, which meant it was largely ignored until recent years when purposes for it were stumbled across and began popping up.

Really, I fail to see how many of the "benefits" (?) you attribute to theory(s) of evolution is not just simply apart of science in general. Are you trying to say if science didn't have "evolution", then everything within biology (and hence the biological benefits you mention) would come to a halt? That is quite a claim, and I do not think one needs to believe in evolution (e.g., the neo-Darwinian kind) to work within biochemistry, understand diseases, and certainly not to "decipher" genetic code which seems more like something better attributable to a purposeful design.

Kurieuo

The discovery that Junk DNA may have a vital function was made through comparative DNA analysis. The DNA code of rats, mice and humans showed that the DNA in these regions has gone relatively unchanged showing that there must be a purpose for these genes to have gone unchanged even after millions of years of divergence.

This would only make sense under the framework of evolution.
The more unrelated the organisms the more disparate the genetic code between them is.

Under what other circumstance can this conclusion be reached without knowing the actual purpose of this junk DNA?

In a designed world similar mechanisms may operate similarily but the specifications or even the main components may be completely different.

Take for example automobiles, where most engines use pistons a mazda uses a rotary motor. Yet everything else is similar compared to other cars.

In nature related species do not see such radical design changes.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:bad equation...

science=evolution.


Now, the true way of saying this would be somewhere along the lines of:

"Using this [Christian] worldview we have been able to.
Make major contributions to the pharmaceutical industry

It was the theory of evolution which served as the impetus to investigate the biochemical nature of life. In this journey of discovery the interactions of proteins and other chemicals came to light. That certain functions of life are affected by foreign substances can only be explained by analyzing the structure of proteins affected. The testing of any potential medicines must be done using models similar to humans. Only under the light of evolutionary theory could one have come to the conclusion that rats could be a possible candidate to model the human system. Another example, the ability to create insulin was made possible by gene transplantation into bacteria. This insight was made possible only by understanding the genetic code.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: Make major contributions to the biochemical industry

Experimentation of humans is obviously unethical. But it can be shown that the biochemical pathways of organisms are similar. Biochemical analysis of chimpanzees offer clues as to how they work in a human
being. Only in the paradigm of evolution could this conclusion be made.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: Decipher the genetic code.

Evolution requires a medium to cary heditary information. Thus the race to discover this medium began. Originally thought to be a protein, a series of discoveries climaxes in Watson and Crick's discovery of the double helix.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: Complete genomes for many organisms including humans

In an effort to test the theory of evolution, make money, and create new drugs, Celera began sequencing the genomes of a host of organisms including human beings.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: Predict species distribution

What could explain the behaviour and location of Dodo's?
[urlhttp://www.davidreilly.com/dodo/background.html[/url]
Eventually, mathmatical formulas were devised based on evolutionary theories of predation, density and distribution, accuratly predicting the number of species in a given environment as well as distribution and proportions of of population sizes based on ecological niche.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Help analyse damages caused by intrusive species

The Truth About Invasive Species DISCOVER Vol. 26 No. 05

For the rest of these I'll ask what your counter explanation is.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Explain recessive disorders
Explain disease outbreaks
Predict patterns of disease and recessive traits.
Explain origins of novel proteins and unique species.

You know, since it's kinda only in a Christian worldview that you have all the assumptions required for science to live.

Science only occurs in christian nations?

I think....you're taking things toooooooooooooo.....ooooooooooooooooooo far. LOL.

Science only occurs in christian nations?

Don't make things up. I said science was, and could only have been born, in places with a Christian worldview.

As one can plainly see evolution has become the great I AM for some people. Foundations laid long before Darwin made all those appolications possible, and they woulkd be possible without him or the theory of evolution.

Punk upstarts think they own science now.

Jbuza wrote:As one can plainly see evolution has become the great I AM for some people. Foundations laid long before Darwin made all those appolications possible, and they woulkd be possible without him or the theory of evolution.

Punk upstarts think they own science now.

The great I AM? You claim to have all the answers. Perhaps you are God?

One thing I don't understand is that at one moment you espouse the idea of a scientific forum where all ideas should be considered.

Than the next moment you tear down and dismiss opposing points of view?

Rather than an open sharing of ideas I get the feeling that you only want to destroy ideas which are contrary to your own worldview.

One thing I don't understand is that at one moment you espouse the idea of a scientific forum where all ideas should be considered.

Than the next moment you tear down and dismiss opposing points of view?

Rather than an open sharing of ideas I get the feeling that you only want to destroy ideas which are contrary to your own worldview

It's not that you contradict us...it's that you're wrong. Evolution is not the great instigator of scientific investigation, which you're trying to show.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

One thing I don't understand is that at one moment you espouse the idea of a scientific forum where all ideas should be considered.

Than the next moment you tear down and dismiss opposing points of view?

Rather than an open sharing of ideas I get the feeling that you only want to destroy ideas which are contrary to your own worldview

It's not that you contradict us...it's that you're wrong. Evolution is not the great instigator of scientific investigation, which you're trying to show.

No it's not, but neither is it a mere hypothesis.
It is a theoretical framework from which further investigation can be driven.

Just like the theory of relativity, or the quantum therory.

Don't forget that my post was in response to

Felgar wrote:Even models that DO predict reality and have substantial experimental support (such as early geo-centric models of the solar system) can still be found completely incorrect. Evolution doesn't even have what those geocentric models had.

I never said

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Evolution is not the great instigator of scientific investigation, which you're trying to show.

You are falsly trying to imply that this is my intention.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:It's not that you contradict us...it's that you're wrong. Evolution is not the great instigator of scientific investigation, which you're trying to show.

LOL... I agree. This is what I've been saying too; on scientific merit, with a completely unbiased view, I don't believe that evolution holds up. Why? Because the predictions it makes are not supported by observation. Note that I've pointed how I think most scientists are biased by their unwillingness to accept an Almighty God, whereas I feel I'm unbiased because I don't recognize an irreconcilable difference between the Bible and the Theory of Evolution.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:It is a theoretical framework from which further investigation can be driven.

Just like the theory of relativity, or the quantum therory.

Don't forget that my post was in response to

Felgar wrote:Even models that DO predict reality and have substantial experimental support (such as early geo-centric models of the solar system) can still be found completely incorrect. Evolution doesn't even have what those geocentric models had.

I can agree with that; theoretical frameworks can inspire investigation regardless of whether they are true or not. In fact most of the greatest discoveries of science were completely unexpected, I'd say. Thinking back to Bohr's experiments and such.

When I said "Evolution does not have what those geocentric models had" I was referring specifically to observational and experimental support of the predictaions of the theory. i.e. There is no gradual change of species recorded in the fossil record, and we still haven't spawned those glowing pink frogs.

Also it should be noted that I'm not questioning adaptation here, which I DO consider to fully scientifically supported. I'm questioning adaptation as the origin of species. Most of your examples are examples of how considering adaptation and its implications on life have inspired new investigations; they are unrelated to 'the Theory of Evolution' as an explanation for the origin of species.

Felgar wrote:LOL... I agree. This is what I've been saying too; on scientific merit, with a completely unbiased view, I don't believe that evolution holds up. Why? Because the predictions it makes are not supported by observation. Note that I've pointed how I think most scientists are biased by their unwillingness to accept an Almighty God, whereas I feel I'm unbiased because I don't recognize an irreconcilable difference between the Bible and the Theory of Evolution.

How can you say you "don't recognize an irreconcilable difference between the Bible and the Theory of Evolution" and also say "I don't believe that evolution holds up".

Felgar wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:It is a theoretical framework from which further investigation can be driven.

Just like the theory of relativity, or the quantum therory.

Don't forget that my post was in response to

Felgar wrote:Even models that DO predict reality and have substantial experimental support (such as early geo-centric models of the solar system) can still be found completely incorrect. Evolution doesn't even have what those geocentric models had.

I can agree with that; theoretical frameworks can inspire investigation regardless of whether they are true or not. In fact most of the greatest discoveries of science were completely unexpected, I'd say. Thinking back to Bohr's experiments and such.

When I said "Evolution does not have what those geocentric models had" I was referring specifically to observational and experimental support of the predictaions of the theory. i.e. There is no gradual change of species recorded in the fossil record, and we still haven't spawned those glowing pink frogs.

How does spawning glowing pink frogs validate evolution?
There is change in the fossil record be it gradual or not.

Felgar wrote:Also it should be noted that I'm not questioning adaptation here, which I DO consider to fully scientifically supported. I'm questioning adaptation as the origin of species. Most of your examples are examples of how considering adaptation and its implications on life have inspired new investigations; they are unrelated to 'the Theory of Evolution' as an explanation for the origin of species.

How does adaptation explain how Chimapanzees are more closer to us biochemically than Alligators?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: How does adaptation explain how Chimapanzees are more closer to us biochemically than Alligators?

Explain how Rats are then?

bizzt wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: How does adaptation explain how Chimapanzees are more closer to us biochemically than Alligators?

Explain how Rats are then?

Rats are Mammals.

According to evolution mammals are an offshoot from early reptiles.

They diverged very early on.

It was originally deducted through morphological comparison, before Darwin.

And further suported by phylogenic analysis.

Genetic analysis supports this as well.