Evidence for God from Science

How science define micro and macro evolution:
http://biologos.org/blog/speciation-and-macroevolution

The Biological Species Concept is especially useful when you have two species that look and act very similar. Eastern and Western Meadowlarks are a good example of this. They look almost exactly the same. But they cannot interbreed successfully. Therefore, they are separate species. This definition also helps when we study evolution. Where can we draw the line between microevolution and macroevolution? Well, it’s never easy, but having a working definition of this thing called a species helps out a lot. When enough genetic changes accumulate in a population, eventually it loses the ability to mate with others of its species. Then, by definition, it becomes a new species. In other words, macroevolution has occurred.

As we just discussed, many critics claim that macroevolution can never happen—one species can never cross over to become another one. This statement might sound valid, but a little bit of investigation shows that it is not well supported by evidence. For one thing, the only difference between micro and macroevolution is scope. When enough micro changes accumulate, a population will eventually lose its ability to interbreed with other members of its species. At this point, we say that macroevolution has occurred.

The same processes—random mutation and natural selection—cause both micro and macro evolution. There are no invisible boundaries that prevent organisms from evolving into new species. It just takes time. Usually, the amount time required for macroevolution to occur is significant—on the order of thousands or millions of years. That’s why you don’t normally see brand new forms of life appear every time you step out your front door. And that’s also why some people think that speciation never happens at all.

But sometimes macroevolution doesn’t take that much time. In fact, the evolution of new species sometimes happens so quickly that we can actually see it take place! Let’s look at a few recent examples.

Biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant had been studying finches since 1973. They lived on an island called Daphne Major in the Galapagos. It was here that they conducted their studies. When they first began their studies, only two species of Finch lived on Daphne Major: the medium ground finch and the cactus finch. But, in 1981, Peter and Rosemary noticed that an odd new finch had immigrated to the island. It was a hybrid, a mix between a cactus finch and a medium ground finch. It didn’t quite fit in with the other birds. The odd misfit had an extra large beak, an unusual hybrid genome, and a new kind of song. But somehow he was still able to find a mate. The female was also a bit of a misfit and had some hybrid chromosomes of her own. So their offspring were very different from the other birds on the island.

Rosemary and Peter continued to carefully watch the odd hybrid line. They wondered if the birds would become isolated from the other finch species on the island or if they would eventually re-assimilate. After four finch generations, a drought killed off many of the birds on Daphne Major. In fact, almost the entire hybrid line was exterminated. Only a brother and sister pair remained. The two family members mated with each other, producing offspring that were even more unique than their parent line. From that point on, as far as biologists Peter and Rosemary could tell, the odd population of finches mated only with each other. They were never seen to breed with the cactus finches or the medium ground finches on the island. The finches with the strange song had become a brand new species.

(Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/48/20141.full)

Another example of speciation, or macroevolution, also took place on an island—this time, on the beautiful Portuguese island of Madeira. According to history books, the Island of Madeira was colonized by the Portuguese about 600 years ago. The colonizers brought with them a few unassuming European House Mice, which they accidentally left on the island. It’s also possible that a group of Portuguese House Mice was dropped off later on.

Recently, Britton-Davidian, an evolutionary biologist at University Montpellier 2 in France, decided to collect samples of the Madeira mice and see how those original populations had changed over time. What she found was surprising. Rather than just one or two species of mouse, she found several. In only a few hundred years, the original populations of Mice had separated into six genetically unique species. The first mouse populations had 40 chromosomes altogether. But the new ones were quite different. Each new variety had its own unique combination of chromosomes, which ranged in number from 22 to 30.

What seems to have happened is that, over time, the mice spread out across the island and split into separate groups. Madeira is a rugged volcanic island with crags and cliffs. So it makes sense that this would have been easy to do. There were many isolated corners for the mice to occupy. Over time, random mutations occurred—some chromosomes became fused together.

Now, In order to reproduce successfully, both parents must have the same number of chromosomes. So when a population develops a chromosome fusion, suddenly that group cannot mate with the other members of its species. It becomes a brand new species. That’s exactly what happened on Madeira. And because of this phenomenon, 6 new species evolved from just 1 or 2 in an extremely short amount of time.

Neo, whether or not you want to admit it, this statement is not logical. As I see it, there are at least two possibilities why there is shared dna. The first is macro evolution. All things evolved from a common ancestor. And second, a common designer. A designer used similar materials to create the dna of living things.
Bananas and humans share dna. To me, it is much more logical to believe bananas and humans share a common designer, not a common ancestor.

Rick, someone's own standards are not really the measuring stick for anything, you know verey well of that. What you, me or anyone else thinks is beleiveable is certainly not how evolution is supported. The common designer argument is simply to aviod the problem, it makes the average man feel good and not get into any details. A common designer with common material, if he did that, you are again left without a mechanism. You would again come to evolution for it to become vaiable else you are simply thinking it could be but no real mechansim to make it work.

So please explain, how did the common designer, made all the things, through micro evolution, hand made them, called them into creation what? With any of the methods how did the DNA got divided? I do not know what you believe it to be and I have no idea what people beleiver except that it can't be macro evolution.

Neo, are you telling me that it is 100% testable that humans and chimps have shared dna, or that it's 100% testable that humans and chimps have a common ancestor? It seems to me you are assuming common ancestry from shared dna.

That DNA, mutates and gets to the offspring only through reproduction, nothing else. So chimps and humans only have similar DNA, because they have similar genes and not just similar genes, a sequence of similar genes which goes back from father to grand father to great grand father, so on and so forth. The reason you have that in you DNA, explains where you came from, the same way, we know now that that similar DNA means shared ancestry, and there is no way around it. We and Bnananas and Chimps have same genes, because we shared a common ancestor and we are all carrying that genes in us, sort of a great-great great great great----------great ancestor. You say, it is common DNA material, ofcourse the DNA is common but that is not an issue with me, the issue is, when you say that, you get no viable mechanism to support your claim except evolution, macro evolution, which I said earlier, is micro evolution in the long run.

this is an assumption, Neo. This is not provable.
Neo, I ask you to go to Reasons.org. There is a Biologist there named Fazale Rana. He was an evolutionist. Search through some of his articles and podcasts. If you are truly open and unbiased, then I believe you can learn a lot from him.

I actually read some of his articles, and the reasons site too. Been going there for some time now.

Forget how the tree of life is having problems (they will be sorted out) or not, or how we share 98% of chimps DNA with us or 1% of it. It is irrelvant. Even it is 1%; that came through shared common ancestor, nothing else.

Neo, nobody is rejecting evolution. Some are rejecting the unprovable idea that since some kinds of evolution are true, therefore all kinds of evolution are true.

And that is the point, there are no different kinds of biological evoultion, simply one kind and in the long run it works, just like it works in the short one.

Neo, are you aware that one can still read Genesis and other parts of scripture in a literal context, and believe the text says that the earth was made in six long periods of time, Adam and Eve were literal humans, and there was no "global" flood in Noah's time?

Ofcourse they can, it just ain't true. Not in the complete literal sense of the word, true. The same way you can read Joshua calling the sun and moon to halt. And know that it is the Earth going around the sun and not the other way.

Neo, again, to say, "Evolution is true", is a very broad statement. Of course Evolution is true. And Evolution is not true at the same time. Macro evolution cannot be assumed true just because other kinds of evolution are true. You need to understand that scientists like Dawkins, cannot believe macro evolution is not true. They have to assume macro evolution necessarily comes as a result of micro evolution, because Naturalism is all he can believe in.

I am not following Dawkins non-beleif and I feel bad that you think I am doing so, the same way I'd follow Christ, I find this odd. Anyway, the error lies in your assumption that Macro evolution is something different, it just is a title, nothing else. Evolution works, all of it. There is no difference. The difference is made only popular by us for what we beleive and what we dont.

Tell me of any one way, in which you got your father's genes in you except reproduction? or your son will have your genes (your long range of ancestor genes all mixed up) except reproduction, except you, there is no link why your son should have the same DNA as yours. Unless you have been injected with a virus like in a movie, its impossible in reality.

I found this quite interesting:

Were They Real? The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve
October 1, 2010
By Dr. Fazale Rana


Did Adam and Eve really exist? Did all humanity originate from a single pair? These questions are not peripheral topics for an academic debate; they are central to the Christian faith.

Toward this end, recent advances in molecular genetics are quite provocative. As Hugh Ross and I discuss in Who Was Adam?, numerous studies indicate that humanity originated: (1) recently (around 100,000 years ago, plus or minus 20,000 years or so); (2) at a single location (East Africa)—close to where some Bible scholars think the Garden of Eden was located; and (3) from a small population
of individuals.

Moreover, analysis of mitochondrial DNA (which provides insight into the origin of the maternal lineage) indicates that humanity traces back to a single ancestral sequence that could be interpreted as a single woman. Likewise, characterization of Y-chromosomal DNA (which provides insight into the origin of the
paternal lineage) indicates that all men trace their origin back to a single ancestral sequence that could be interpreted as a single man.

These astounding results harmonize with a traditional reading of the biblical account of human origins, and suggest that Adam and Eve likely existed as real persons who gave rise to all of humanity.

But Did Adam and Eve Exist? Population Size

Others have challenged this interpretation, arguing that the genetic data shows that humanity arose from thousands of individuals, not two.1 The chief basis for this claim comes from estimates of the ancestral population size of humans based on genetic diversity.

It is possible to estimate the effective population size of any ancestral group from genetic diversity of present-day populations if the mutation rate is known. As discussed in Who Was Adam?, a number of these types of studies do indeed indicate that humans stem from a small population, on the
order of a few hundred to a few thousand.2

Skeptics of the traditional reading of the biblical account of human origins uncritically accept these results. They argue that the data indicate humanity experienced a genetic bottleneck, with the population collapsing to a relatively small number of individuals. Consequently humanity arose from the thousands of survivors, not a primeval pair.

Critics also point to other methods to model the size of the ancestral population that do not depend on mutations, but on other types of processes to generate genetic diversity.3 Studies employing these techniques also seem to indicate that humanity arose from population sizes on the order of a few thousand individuals.

What Was the Population Size, Really?

In the face of this challenge, it is important to recognize that population sizes generated by these methods are merely estimates, not hard and fast values. The reason: the mathematical models are highly idealized, generating differing estimates based on a number of factors. As a case in point consider two studies discussed in Who Was Adam? One, reported in 2003 by a Russian and U.S. research team, examined DNA sequence elements called short tandem repeats at 377 locations in the human genome for 1,056 individuals that represented 52 population groups. On the basis of this analysis, they concluded that humanity originated from a single point of origin (apparently Africa), from a small population (~2,000 or less) between 71,000 and 142,000 years ago.4 Although this conclusion was consistent with that of an earlier study of short tandem repeats, the population size estimate from the earlier study was around 500 individuals.5 The reason for the difference (of about 1,500) was due to a varying sample size and number of locations in the human genome that were studied.

Did humanity originate from a single pair? Even though population estimates reveal that humanity originated from several hundred to several thousand individuals based on mathematical models, it could well be the case that these models overestimate the original numbers for the first humans.

And it is important to note that an origin of humanity from a small population is consistent with the existence of a historical Adam and Eve who gave rise to all of humanity. After their creation the biblical text teaches that they procreated––having many sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). Given the limitations of the methods, could it be that the population estimates are reporting on the population structure of humans some time after their creation, when the population would have been small, on the order of a few thousand? Additionally, skeptics who claim that humanity came from thousands of individuals and not two assume that Adam and Eve were genetically identical. Yet, there is no hint of that idea in Scripture. When Eve is created, God takes material from Adam’s side and rebuilds (bānâ in the original Hebrew) it. Part of this process could have involved the introduction of genetic differences into Eve’s genome that made Adam and Eve genetically heterogeneous.

As with the mouflon sheep, if natural selection drove an increase in genetic diversity in humans, then the estimates of the original population sizes of humanity would be artificially high.

We All Like Sheep?

In 2007 a research team reported on the genetic diversity of wild mouflon sheep on one of the islands that are part of the Kerguelen sub-Antarctic archipelago.6 This group of sheep provided researchers with an unprecedented opportunity to study the effects of population dynamics on genetic diversity in small populations.

In 1957 a male and female yearling were placed onto Haute Island (an island in the Kerguelen Archipelago). These two sheep were taken from a captive population in France. By the beginning of the 1970s, the number had grown to 100 individuals and peaked at 700 sheep in 1977. Since that time the population has fluctuated in a cyclical manner between 250 and 700 members. Given that the population began with only two individuals (the founder effect), has experienced cyclical changes in the population size, and was isolated on an island, the researchers expected very low genetic diversity (measured as heterozygosity).

Using mathematical models, the heterozygosity of a population can be computed at any point in time from the heterozygosity of the ancestral population (which was known for the original mouflon pair) and the original population size. What the researchers discovered, however, when they measured this quantity directly for the sheep on Haute Island was that it exceeded the predictions made by the models by up to a factor of 4. In other words, the models underestimated the genetic diversity of the actual population.

The researchers explained this discrepancy by speculating that natural selection drives the increase in genetic diversity, since an increase in genetic variability increases the survivability of the population.

Consequently, if these same models were used to estimate the effective sizes of the ancestral population from the measured genetic diversity at any point in time, they would have overestimated the original population size as much larger than two individuals.

Lastly, the primary reason to think that humanity arose from a single pair does not rest on population estimates, but the fact that the Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA sequences sampled from humans alive today trace back to single ancestral sequences. Again, these can be understood as reflecting an origin from a single man and single woman.

One Lucky Mother, One Lucky Father?

Even though the genetic data traces humanity’s origin back to a single woman and man, evolutionary biologists are quick to assert that mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam were not the first humans. Rather, according to them, many “Eves” and “Adams” existed.7 Accordingly, mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam were the lucky ones whose genetic material just happened to survive. The genetic lines of the other first humans were lost over time.

While this explanation is not out of the realm of possibility, it is highly contrived. It would work if only a few of the first humans reproduced, or were allowed to reproduce. If the data is simply taken at face value, the biblical model is the more parsimonious explanation.

Even though evolutionary biologists offer ways to explain away the implications of the human population genetic data, these explanations—entrenched in naturalism—are not necessarily superior to an interpretation that fully squares with the biblical account. The scientific case for the biblical Adam and Eve stands firm.

ANd the counter to the above:
A Single Primal Couple?

Most Christians who have grappled with the science of genomics (the branch of biology that compares the DNA sequences of different organisms to one another) have done so with the question of common ancestry in mind: do humans share an ancestor with other forms of life, such as chimpanzees?

Here the evidence is very compelling, and reasonably accessible to non-specialists. For example, the human genome has numerous defective genes embedded it, and the vast majority of these defective genes are also present in the chimpanzee genome in the same relative positions with identical mutations. This sort of evidence is easily understood due to its qualitative nature.

A second question, and one that is less frequently explored even by Christians who accept common ancestry, is the issue of human/hominid population sizes during our evolutionary history. Specifically, is the human race descended from one ancestral pair in the recent past? Are we, as C.S. Lewis puts it in his Chronicles of Narnia, the “sons of Adam and daughters of Eve”? Is there genomic evidence to suggest that the human race is genetically derived from a primal pair? Here the evidence is more difficult for non-specialists to appreciate, because it is quantitative in nature.

Genomics can be used as an estimate of population sizes in the past by measuring genetic variation in the present. Genes come in different forms, or alleles: for example, the human ABO blood types are determined by three alleles of one gene. Some genes in human populations exist in hundreds of forms.

The catch, however, is that any individual person can only carry at most two different varieties of any one gene: one from mom, the other from dad. It therefore follows that a large population can pass on a large number of gene forms (alleles), but a population that passes through a population “bottleneck”—where only a small number individuals survive—will fail to pass on most of its genetic variation to future generations.

Attempting to square the Genesis account and common ancestry by positing a literal Adam and Eve who were the progenitors of the entire human race is, biologically speaking, looking for the most extreme population bottleneck a sexually reproducing species can experience: a reduction to one breeding pair.

Is there evidence that such a bottleneck has ever occurred? Dr. Peter Enns has been exploring whether this is even the right question to be asking from a biblical perspective (here, here, here, and here). Here we explore three independent ways of answering the question, this time from a biological point of view.
Method I:

The genetic consequences of a bottleneck required by a literal reading of Genesis 2-3 would be severe: at maximum, four gene-forms (two from each parent) would be passed on by Adam and Eve. Interbreeding in the (necessarily very small) population after the bottleneck would result in the further loss of some alleles due to chance alone. In short, the genetic impact of such an event would leave a stamp on the genome of that species that would persist for tens of thousands of generations as mutations slowly generated genetic diversity.

We can use this information, then, to estimate the minimum number of people that could have existed at any point in time. First we ask how many different alleles there are for a number of genes within the current population. Correcting for the rate at which we know new forms of genes appear (mutation), we can calculate the minimum number of people needed to generate the current amount of diversity. Numerous studies analyzing many different genes all point to a bottleneck. However, these studies are all clear: during the bottleneck, there were several thousand individuals, not two.
Method II:

In earlier posts, we have discussed the fact that DNA segments known as Alu repeats, can insert themselves at various locations the genome. It turns out that the Alu sequence comes in various forms, like different makes of cars—Fords, Toyota, etc. There are several thousand families of Alu.

Consider just one family, which we will call Ya5. Members of this family have been inserted into human chromosomes at 57 mapped locations. If all humans descended from a single pair of individuals, all humans would have each of the 57 elements in pretty much the same locations, since individual members of the family almost never move. However, the human population consists of groups of people who share some insertion points but not others. The multiple shared categories make it clear that although a human population bottleneck occurred, it was definitely never as small as two. In fact, this line of evidence also indicates that there were at least several thousand people when the population was at its smallest.

This method is much different than Method I since it does not depend upon mutation rate, but the answer is similar.
Method III:

A third independent estimate makes use of a concerted research effort called the HapMap project. Humans have 3 billion bits of information in their genomes. (The official term for one bit is a “nucleotide.”) The bits between any two individuals differ at many sites, which is, of course, why we don’t all look the same.

In the HapMap project, one million of these differences have been analyzed by examining something called linkage disequilibrium The technical details are beyond the scope of our discussion, but to give you a feeling for how it works, imagine that you have a gene for blue eyes and a gene for a bent finger, both of which you inherited from your dad. Assume these genes reside in the same “neighborhood” on chromosome 2. Because these genes are close to one another, chances are that if your brother got the blue eye allele from your dad, he would have received the bent finger allele as well. After all they are neighboring genes, both on chromosome 2. Why? Blocks of genes in the same neighborhood on a chromosome are usually inherited together. Alleles that are very close together on chromosomes tend to stay together for many generations before they are “mixed and matched” through a process called recombination.

Now pretend that someone analyzes both your DNA and that of your brother in a double blind experiment. The investigator would, upon examining the results, be able to say, “I’ll bet these two people are related to each other.” And he would be right.

Now picture being able to do this, not for two differences, but for a million differences all at once and not just for two people, but for many people from all over the world. Using this approach, it is possible to tell how many people gave rise to all the prevalent combinations of differences. In short, we can tell if everyone came from just two people at any time in the last 200,000 years. So did we?

No.

This third independent method tells us that everyone alive today is related, but not to a single pair of people. We are related to a population that consisted of several thousand people with their several thousand combinations of these million genetic differences.

Here’s the real point of this. When you have one way of doing a calculation and you get a certain answer, perhaps you are justified in being a little skeptical. Perhaps you made a mathematical mistake, or maybe you made a faulty assumption. However, when you do your calculation using two totally different approaches, using methods with completely different assumptions, and each method gives you the same answer, you become convinced it is correct. Three, of course is just icing on the cake.

So that’s the situation we are in with regard to the human population size in ancient history. There was a bottleneck. There were likely fewer people alive during that time than the number of fans attending a typical NHL hockey game. (We don’t know if they were all together in one village, of course, but the total was small.) However, it was not two people. Our species diverged as a population. The data are absolutely clear about that.

t's called hermanuetics. And quite frankly Neo, you demonstrate yours are bad. There are literary methods to determine such things, and you apparently think we are to ignore them. But this is no surprise coming from someone who diminishes the inspriration of the scripture, and exalts the wisdom of men.

Ah! the old YEC guilt trip. You are undermining scripture. well that scripture aint a science book. Apply some hermanuetics to that!

Puzzled look. It is not 100% testable. It is speculative. And something you have chosen to put your faith in. Despite the fact that you have yet to address the foundational issues of confalting, equivocating, and question begging. It seems like a lot of tap dancing is being done here. The part in bold is a faith statement. The fact that you reduce the bible to allegory while at the same time lifting presumption to fact tells me all I need to know.

Coming from some one who is seriosuly misinformed about bilogical science and how it works, anymore than an athiest would know about the Bible, is a big statement, J. And ofcourse Atheists also think they know the Bible.

Another logical fallacy. And yes, it is absolutely an attack on someone's intelligence. Just in this sentance you have equivocated. I accept every testable and verifiable evidence under the broad banner of evolution. How intelligent is it to continue to prop up your positions with blatant fallacy and then attack other people's intelligence? Answer: Not very.

No you don't, you need a time machine to go back and see it for your self, anything else you just label as "confalting, equivocating, and question begging" which is why it never works for you.

I picture this said with arms crossed, bottom lip out, and stomping foot.

I suppose you have a very active imagination, thinking of me as the hostile arrogant fool who just BELIEVES in evolution. Well yeah, sorry to dissapoint but I write this not with anger, only with mild amazement at your useless misdirections everytime this subject is approached, which I beleive are not intentional, you just got sold onto them bigtime.

Philip Wrote: You mean Rick actually WORKS? When, HOW? I always thought he was like the godandscience webmaster or something, and that one perk of his job is that he gets to post all day long, yet under the guise that he's supposedly insuring the forum section is properly working. I can always tell when he's been taking a bathroom break or desk sleeping (as there's been at least a 15-minute lag between his post times).

Rick Responded: Oh Gawd, you sound like my wife!

No, Rick, I would say YOUR wife sounds very much like MY wife. She just can't understand the importance to me of stimulating discussions related to deeper Christian understandings - nor does she see much how apologetics can shape important viewpoints. But do agree that I need to type less and exercise more (but don't tell her I said that). But I might be one of the few on here that gets your sense of humor - as I'm pretty unbalanced, myself.

As I work out of my house, no one can fire me - except perhaps wifie (Sometimes she thinks maybe I should "Get a REAL job!" !!!)

Neo, I'll get to the rest of your post when I can, but I had to address this:

Neo wrote:
Tell me of any one way, in which you got your father's genes in you except reproduction? or your son will have your genes (your long range of ancestor genes all mixed up) except reproduction, except you, there is no link why your son should have the same DNA as yours. Unless you have been injected with a virus like in a movie, its impossible in reality.

Since you claim the only way I can have the same dna as someone or something else, is through sexual reproduction, and you admit that you share 50% of your dna with a banana, are you telling me you had sex with a banana?

neo-x wrote: Ah! the old YEC guilt trip. You are undermining scripture. well that scripture aint a science book. Apply some hermanuetics to that!

Has nothing to do with YEC. Strawman. What does making the distintion between narrative and parable have to do with YEC? Nothing, and you know it. You've been called out for the same thing by OECers. Just shows that you don't want to address the real challenges. You keep throwing up these type of things, but you are actually the one guilty. I call that hypocrisy.

Coming from some one who is seriosuly misinformed about bilogical science and how it works, anymore than an athiest would know about the Bible, is a big statement, J. And ofcourse Atheists also think they know the Bible.

Now resulting to ad-hominem. Nice.

No you don't, you need a time machine to go back and see it for your self, anything else you just label as "confalting, equivocating, and question begging" which is why it never works for you.

The shakiness of your foundation isn't my fault.

I suppose you have a very active imagination, thinking of me as the hostile arrogant fool who just BELIEVES in evolution. Well yeah, sorry to dissapoint but I write this not with anger, only with mild amazement at your useless misdirections everytime this subject is approached, which I beleive are not intentional, you just got sold onto them bigtime.

Neo, you've mocked me for pointing out those areas where you are conflating, equivocating and question begging. Instead of dealing with them, you resort to attacking Strawmen, and ad-hominems. Are you trying to set a record on logical fallacies? I've yet to see any substance other than bald assertions.

neo-x wrote:

Neo, whether or not you want to admit it, this statement is not logical. As I see it, there are at least two possibilities why there is shared dna. The first is macro evolution. All things evolved from a common ancestor. And second, a common designer. A designer used similar materials to create the dna of living things.
Bananas and humans share dna. To me, it is much more logical to believe bananas and humans share a common designer, not a common ancestor.

Rick, someone's own standards are not really the measuring stick for anything, you know verey well of that. What you, me or anyone else thinks is beleiveable is certainly not how evolution is supported. The common designer argument is simply to aviod the problem, it makes the average man feel good and not get into any details. A common designer with common material, if he did that, you are again left without a mechanism. You would again come to evolution for it to become vaiable else you are simply thinking it could be but no real mechansim to make it work.

So please explain, how did the common designer, made all the things, through micro evolution, hand made them, called them into creation what? With any of the methods how did the DNA got divided? I do not know what you believe it to be and I have no idea what people beleiver except that it can't be macro evolution.

Neo, are you interested in the truth or sticking to Philosophical Naturalism albeit calling yourself Christian?

May I ask you, what was the mechanism for the beginning of our universe? How about the mechanism for life? Don't just throw out a nice sounding story that'd conform the the ideals of Philosophical Naturalism, but rather tell me the scientific evidence where these mechanisms have been verified. If you can't, then it is simply the story of one philosophy against the story of another.

Here is the thing. If God is true and He created life -- and as many Christian believe it was a fiat creation (creation of something new from nothing) -- then why ask for a mechanism? What kind of mechanism are you asking for beyond God Himself? Asking for a mechanism not only commits yourself to a metaphysical Naturalism (this surpasses simply methodological naturalism) and begs the question, but furthermore the burden of proof being asked for re: mechanicism is unreasonable for if God created, then identifying a mechanism that complies with methodological naturalism is not going to be found.

This doesn't mean it is illogical to believe God created, but rather that methodological naturalism has its limits when it comes to epistemology and identifying truth. Interestingly, what we know our universe having a beginning backs up God creating at some point. So surprise here that what we currently know supports a creation model. Given the alternative model was an infinite universe.

Philip wrote:
But I might be one of the few on here that gets your sense of humor - as I'm pretty unbalanced, myself.

Au contraire, mon frere. Everyone here gets my sense of humor. They better GET my sense of humor, or they'll GET a visit from some scary Klowns!

Au contraire, mon frere. Everyone here gets my sense of humor. They better GET my sense of humor, or they'll GET a visit from some scary Klowns!

Ah, yes, coulrophobia seems to be a very common psychiatric malady amongst those on this site - now I know why.

jlay wrote:I've yet to see any substance other than bald assertions.

While I see merits on both sides of the argument, I simply want to know exactly how assertions can become bald and can we put a wig on them or something.

(sorry J, I needed a laugh and it came at your expense.)

PaulSacramento,

As we have been talking about parasitic wasps, and their role in an ecosystem, I found this podcast at Reasons.org to be very timely.
It not only gets into predators roles in ecosystems, but it goes into pretty good details about an experiment with parasitic wasps. It's actually pretty amazing. Here's the podcast:http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science ... -diversity

RickD wrote:PaulSacramento,

As we have been talking about parasitic wasps, and their role in an ecosystem, I found this podcast at Reasons.org to be very timely.
It not only gets into predators roles in ecosystems, but it goes into pretty good details about an experiment with parasitic wasps. It's actually pretty amazing. Here's the podcast:http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science ... -diversity

There is no issue with the existence of ANY predator in the ecosystems, none at all.
The Issue that skeptics raise with parastic wasps ( as an example) is that IF they were designed THAT way ( not to be predators BUT HOW they go about their business) then God is "one cruel bastard" ( I quote one skeptic).

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:PaulSacramento,

As we have been talking about parasitic wasps, and their role in an ecosystem, I found this podcast at Reasons.org to be very timely.
It not only gets into predators roles in ecosystems, but it goes into pretty good details about an experiment with parasitic wasps. It's actually pretty amazing. Here's the podcast:http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science ... -diversity

There is no issue with the existence of ANY predator in the ecosystems, none at all.
The Issue that skeptics raise with parastic wasps ( as an example) is that IF they were designed THAT way ( not to be predators BUT HOW they go about their business) then God is "one cruel bastard" ( I quote one skeptic).

Paul,
are these the same skeptics that say God is not real because if He was real, He wouldn't allow innocent people to die?