Evidence for God from Science

When they taught us evolution in science class last year (this is sophomore-level science classes when I was a freshman in Connecticut), they didn't touch on macroevolution and microevolution at all. They only mentioned them and their differences, but didn't say anything about them being true or not. I think the closest they got was showing us a cartoon from the Simpsons showing "the evolution of Homer", but that was just a joke for us before we started. They just focused on Natural Selection and history of evolutionary thought.

It's interesting that you would bring this up, because what you learned isn't all that uncommon to be taught in high school biology. My professor in the course I listed above has done several studies on what is being taught in high schools around the country. The results are actually surprising: In the liberal state of Minnesota, about 60% of public high school teachers teach evolution only, 20-25% teach neither evolution or creationism (typically out of pressure from parents to not teach evolution), and 15-20% teach creationism and no evolution. Those numbers aren't that far from the rest of the country, though southern states typically skew slightly more toward teaching creationism.

When it's broken down further, only about half of teachers that teach evolution (so about 30% of the total number of teachers) teach macroevolution at all.

Ivellious wrote:If we want to know exactly how things change, perhaps, but discovering how things happened on a broad scale first (i.e mapping the Earth's phylogenetic tree with fossil and DNA evidence) and then clarifying the minute details of mutations and so on seems perfectly rational to me. I guess, to me, I don't see how discovering the exact reason for mutations would do anything to help me put together, say, the tree of primate evolution. At all.

Anyone else see this as question begging?

jlay wrote:

Ivellious wrote:If we want to know exactly how things change, perhaps, but discovering how things happened on a broad scale first (i.e mapping the Earth's phylogenetic tree with fossil and DNA evidence) and then clarifying the minute details of mutations and so on seems perfectly rational to me. I guess, to me, I don't see how discovering the exact reason for mutations would do anything to help me put together, say, the tree of primate evolution. At all.

Anyone else see this as question begging?

This is assuming the tree of primate evolution is really a tree? They are still trying to fit lucy's species as an upright walking ape when most people who have studied austral know it wasnt, but then we know from fruit fly research that mutations dont do this.

As far as what high schools teach, They may not teach macro but in college we are blasted with macro. Most public high school students taking biology classes just want to get through the class without falling asleep so there is no point in brainwashing them with macro, thats what college is there for.

Bippy,
Pretty much what I was seeing. Afterall, the devil is in the details. Yet Ive says that the details will fill themselves in. Of course assuming something to be true, which is what he is trying to show to be true. Circular. Question begging.
Of course the details are everything. On a phylogenetic tree, the details would be the "lines" connecting. Lines drawn on paper are not evidence. They are presumption at best and immagination at worse. They are the details.

This is assuming the tree of primate evolution is really a tree?

Of course the details are everything. On a phylogenetic tree, the details would be the "lines" connecting. Lines drawn on paper are not evidence. They are presumption at best and immagination at worse.

I would say these critiques are fundamentally wrong.You seem to be operating under your own assumption that the "lines" on phylogenetic trees are just some arbitrary connections drawn, and that they themselves are used as evidence for evolution. and that is completely incorrect. Phylogenetic trees are conclusions, not evidence. Scientists don't just hold up phylogenetic trees and say "look! Evidence!." Jlay, you are right, the lines are indeed details. But your statement about them just being conjured up out of imagination and presumption is completely wrong.

As far as what high schools teach, They may not teach macro but in college we are blasted with macro.

If you are so concerned about avoiding this, then perhaps you should/should have avoided attending any major public or private research institution in the world. A Bible school may have been a better choice.

Ivellious the problem with college courses and macroevolution is that they teach it biology classrooms as science when it is more of a faith based teaching. This is indoctrination at it's finest. Macroevolution is religion and you know it.
We did have a discussion here about this in another thread didn't we .

We can't test it, and we have never observed it. If they would have admitted this before we would have spared millions of fruit flies alot of pain and anguish lol

Again as many others have said already, it completely depends on what you define evolution as.
Macro-evolution is about as science based as Buddhism.
Micro-evolution, I suppose can be taught in schools as it is technically provable science, but the term should be redefined as micro-variation because it is essentially just a variation between species of the same kind. For example, a dog will produce a dog. Maybe the dog will be a different colour or will have a different type of skin, but it will still be a dog.

Then you have all your other areas of evolution such as cosmological, stellar and planetary, I don't think that they are usually taught in schools anyway because they can be quite complex but I may be wrong there, so don't quote me on that, I'll happily be corrected there!

SB

This is assuming the tree of primate evolution is really a tree?

Of course the details are everything. On a phylogenetic tree, the details would be the "lines" connecting. Lines drawn on paper are not evidence. They are presumption at best and immagination at worse.

Ivellious wrote: I would say these critiques are fundamentally wrong.You seem to be operating under your own assumption that the "lines" on phylogenetic trees are just some arbitrary connections drawn, and that they themselves are used as evidence for evolution. and that is completely incorrect. Phylogenetic trees are conclusions, not evidence. Scientists don't just hold up phylogenetic trees and say "look! Evidence!." Jlay, you are right, the lines are indeed details. But your statement about them just being conjured up out of imagination and presumption is completely wrong.

Ivellious, rather than just say your wrong and imply that there is actual scientific basis for the connecting lines why not show how such a rationale is reached by scientists?
The position held by most here including myself is that the rationale used by scientists is not actually based on facts but assumption. To infer as a scientist that a part in one specie has similarities to another and this is sufficient to warrant a connection is where we have our problem since we also find similarity in other species that is relegated to being from convergent evolution. This calls into question whether any of those species who are asserted to be connected are not simply just another case of convergent evolution instead. How does one scientifically define when a form arises on its own or is a continuation from an ancestor?
We can see this rationale used here;

Non-homology via homologous genes
...The pax6 gene family is not the only gene with a role to play in eye development, and the particular combination of genes which produce eyes in modern species was assembled by a process of gene duplication, mutation, recombination, and natural selection. Parts of those developmental pathways are homologous across many species, but other aspects were assembled from preexisting combinations of interacting genes active elsewhere in the body which were drawn together independently, perhaps as many as 40 different times over the evolutionary history of life.
http://ncse.com/book/export/html/2190

The eye developed independantly as many as 40 times according to their rationale. So what is the empirical method used to make a determination of convergence vs. continuous? Any of us can draw a conclusion in one form or another but the bottom line for everyone who questions the rationale is by what method is this rationale scientific? If a conclusion is just a best guess then it holds no more power than any other belief system. A guess is an untested or untestable explanation of reality. In this case it is untestable since we cannot empirically test the conclusion without going back in time.
So if you want to back your position you must define how making a determination of relatedness is definable empirically either now or possibly at some point in the future. Unless there is a way to test a conclusion then it is not scientific.

Ivellious the problem with college courses and macroevolution is that they teach it biology classrooms as science when it is more of a faith based teaching. This is indoctrination at it's finest. Macroevolution is religion and you know it.

Well, to be fair, there are plenty of public schools you can go to that don't teach evolution (or not much anyway). If you don't like what the scientific consensus is, then you can avoid it. No one is forcing you to go to a secular school as a biology major.

Again as many others have said already, it completely depends on what you define evolution as.
Macro-evolution is about as science based as Buddhism.

I find it curious that you identify as a theistic evolutionist but reject macroevolution. Care to explain your rejection of evolution in that context? It would be easier to defend my point if you explained your position.

Micro-evolution, I suppose can be taught in schools as it is technically provable science, but the term should be redefined as micro-variation because it is essentially just a variation between species of the same kind.

In scientific/biological definitions, you are wrong. Evolution is, in the strictest sense, the change in allele/gene frequency in a population over time. That is perfectly consistent with how it is taught. Variation is the fact that different species within a population have different features and genetic makeup. Evolution is a process, variation is a description of differences in individuals.

For example, a dog will produce a dog. Maybe the dog will be a different colour or will have a different type of skin, but it will still be a dog.

But what if, over hundreds or thousands of generations, each consecutive set of changes in variation caused the population to look and act more like cats? If their noses shortened, their ears became pointed, their eyes became more adept at night, their joints became more flexible, etc...No, evolution does not suggest that a fly will give birth to a fully formed scorpion, or that a dog will give birth to a donkey. That's absurd. Your example sounds logical, but it's falsely representing the concepts of evolution.

I saw the same example given by a young-Earth creationist on a tv show. Sure, he was able to convince a bunch of people that know nothing about evolution that he was pointing out a real flaw in evolution, but that's not a legitimate criticism of the theory.

Then you have all your other areas of evolution such as cosmological, stellar and planetary, I don't think that they are usually taught in schools anyway because they can be quite complex but I may be wrong there, so don't quote me on that, I'll happily be corrected there!

One more correction: Stellar/solar/cosmological "evolution" has NOTHING to do with the biological Theory of Evolution. Nothing at all. That has a lot more to do with physics and chemistry and the like. Don't get me wrong, they are legitimate areas of study, but they are completely unrelated to what Darwin proposed.

Ivellious, rather than just say your wrong and imply that there is actual scientific basis for the connecting lines why not show how such a rationale is reached by scientists?

I have explained it before. Phylogenetic trees are developed based on a combination of morphological analysis (fossils, studying the physical and behavioral features of living things), and genetic evidence (studying genetic makeups of organisms to find lines of similarity and differences). It would be ridiculous to ask me to present a step-by-step process on how it is done. Read some research papers on the topic (there are literally thousands of them to choose from), or better yet, take a course on evolution from a local university, as opposed to thumping your chest when an undergraduate student doesn't present a dissertation's worth of information on one topic for you.

The position held by most here including myself is that the rationale used by scientists is not actually based on facts but assumption. To infer as a scientist that a part in one specie has similarities to another and this is sufficient to warrant a connection is where we have our problem since we also find similarity in other species that is relegated to being from convergent evolution. This calls into question whether any of those species who are asserted to be connected are not simply just another case of convergent evolution instead. How does one scientifically define when a form arises on its own or is a continuation from an ancestor?
We can see this rationale used here;

Of course there are inferences. No specific phylogenetic tree is set in stone, and they are all open to be revisited as new evidence is presented. But when looking at the evidence available, there are conclusions that can be drawn from it. But let's face it, there is no better explanation to draw from the evidence out there. Sure, I could be like some people and just say "what, evolution has no concrete answer right now? God did it, then." But I choose to avoid that.

Now, about the eye...I'll admit that there is no universally accepted hypothesis about the evolution of the eye. There is no scientific "theory of the evolution of the eye" because there is no consensus (as there is with the Theory of Evolution as a whole).

Also, I think you are possibly reading that statement incorrectly. It says that there is evidence to suggest that parts of the eye show that there is common ancestry involved in the eye...and that over the course of evolutionary history those base parts were modified/improved up to 40 distinct times in different organisms that gave rise to the variation in eye types today. Here is an actual scientific paper about this as well...their conclusion is that there is evidence that the eye has origins in a common ancestor but their current forms have simply been modified over time by various other aspects of the creatures that have them:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... /2819.full

Unless there is a way to test a conclusion then it is not scientific.

Once again, you are essentially saying that anthropology, astronomy, geology, plate tectonics, many aspects of theoretical physics and chemistry, and numerous other fields of science are, in your opinion, BS. These are all fields based entirely on looking at evidence and finding the best explanations possible for them.

But what if, over hundreds or thousands of generations, each consecutive set of changes in variation caused the population to look and act more like cats? If their noses shortened, their ears became pointed, their eyes became more adept at night, their joints became more flexible, etc...No, evolution does not suggest that a fly will give birth to a fully formed scorpion, or that a dog will give birth to a donkey. That's absurd. Your example sounds logical, but it's falsely representing the concepts of evolution.

The problem Ivellious is that this is exactly what they are inferring, that over time a bacteria can change into a horse, through millions of little adaptations (microevolution), but I will keep saying this over and over again, there is no observable or testable evidence of this anywhere.

bippy123 » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:47 am

But what if, over hundreds or thousands of generations, each consecutive set of changes in variation caused the population to look and act more like cats? If their noses shortened, their ears became pointed, their eyes became more adept at night, their joints became more flexible, etc...No, evolution does not suggest that a fly will give birth to a fully formed scorpion, or that a dog will give birth to a donkey. That's absurd. Your example sounds logical, but it's falsely representing the concepts of evolution.


The problem Ivellious is that this is exactly what they are inferring, that over time a bacteria can change into a horse, through millions of little adaptations (microevolution), but I will keep saying this over and over again, there is no observable or testable evidence of this anywhere.

But thats the point bippy, when the horse comes, it doesn't come from bacteria, but an ancestor which is a mammal but not a horse.

Neo gets my point. I was correcting the point made by sam. He seemed to infer that evolution means that one species simply gives birth to another, completely new species, and that's how it works. That notion is completely wrong. I was pointing out that evolution works slowly by accumulating changes.

Ivellious wrote:Neo gets my point. I was correcting the point made by sam. He seemed to infer that evolution means that one species simply gives birth to another, completely new species, and that's how it works. That notion is completely wrong. I was pointing out that evolution works slowly by accumulating changes.

From your point of view, can one animal eventually produce another type of animal? For example then, dog to cat over millions of years...

Also, I will respond to your main post responding to my comments later today, I do not have the time to right now!

But thats the point bippy, when the horse comes, it doesn't come from bacteria, but an ancestor which is a mammal but not a horse.

Argue this point all you like neo, there is no empirical evidence for it.

SB

sam wrote:

From your point of view, can one animal eventually produce another type of animal? For example then, dog to cat over millions of years...

Read this carefully sam.

But what if, over hundreds or thousands of generations, each consecutive set of changes in variation caused the population to look and act more like cats? If their noses shortened, their ears became pointed, their eyes became more adept at night, their joints became more flexible, etc...No, evolution does not suggest that a fly will give birth to a fully formed scorpion, or that a dog will give birth to a donkey. That's absurd. Your example sounds logical, but it's falsely representing the concepts of evolution.

Argue this point all you like neo, there is no empirical evidence for it.

Can you show me empirical evidence for God?

Can you show me empirical evidence for God?

Neo, so what your saying is that macroevolution belongs in a theology class. That's what we were trying to say all along.
There is actually Better empirical proof for God then there is for macroevolution.
Adaptation has also shown to have it's biological limits so the extrapolation of macroevolution from microevolution just doesn't cut it scientifically and they even mentioned this in the 1980 Chicago conference, and when they couldn't do this they had Steven J. Gould propose hopefully monster theory as kbcid talked about to say that evolution magically can speed up and slow down as if it has a will of it's own.

Classic evolution of the gaps theory