Evidence for God from Science

But even these words have a range of meaning based on what you know and who you learned from.

Here's my $0.02 - and let me start by saying that I don't think zoegirl and I differ on the fundamental meaning of evolution. Evolution in the strictest sense is nothing more than changes in alleles in a population over time - the forces that may cause those alleles to change have been described already. This has been termed micro evolution, and because it us demonstrably verifiable and because it doesn't seem to violate any religious scripture seems to be widely, if not universally accepted by creationists. Now, evolution in the big scheme of things is really a matter of micro evolution (usually coupled with mutations of some sort or another) over long periods of time. If you believe the earth is old, then micro-evolution over deep time can and does lead to large changes - the formation of new species, for example. And the field of phylogenetics and paleontology seeks to explain and describe these large scale changes. Now because this notion does violate certain passages of religious texts read literally, many people do not believe macro-evolution is a logical consequence of lots and lots of micro-evolution. So evolution is a process both at small, measurable levels, and if we are to believe the findings of phylogenetics, paleontology and even genetics, comparative physiology and developmental biology evolution is also a phenomenon that has brought about very large scale changes. You're free to accept it or not - I'm just describing what evolution is and is not.

The sickle cell defect in the strickest sense does make a case for macroevolution with some assumed caveats.

Well, I would contend that it is micro-evolution and not macro-evolution. Simply, it is a change in the frequency of one allele in one population. How long that change has been going on is a matter of opinion, but it has not produced a new species as a result of evolution.

Since the defect does have a demonstratable downside, then if you start adding up similar types of defects the host would eventually die out by the weight of the defects downside effects. I have no proof of this but I feel that we are seeing this already in the human population.

Well, I am not sure what you mean. The host is going to die of something at some point. The question is whether they live long enough to pass their genes on to the next generation. And it appears that whether you have sickle cell anemia or whether you are just a carrier that you should live long enough to pass that allele on. There are many genetic diseases that persist in human populations because selection against them is not strong enough (or because they are recessive and it is virtually impossible to eliminate a recessive allele from a population) to eliminate them. Consider diseases like Huntington's or Alzheimers - diseases that have virtually no detectable effects until adulthood, long after they could be passed along to their children. I am unaware of any study of the type you are describing. But here's my opinion (and take it for what it is worth): I see little reason to expect that the frequency of genetic diseases is on the rise. It may, because of environmental effects (like smoking or poor diet or exposure to aluminum) and intervention allowing people to live longer even when burdened by disease, cause a slight increase in the frequency of genetic diseases compared any other point in human history. But I would guess the change is rather small. But it is also worth noting that humans in developed nations are living longer and healthier lives than at any other point in human history.

ARWalace,

"ScienceDaily (Jan. 31, 2007) — In 49 young people who died suddenly and inexplicably at an average age of 14, conventional autopsies found no cause of death. But when Mayo Clinic researchers conducted a sophisticated form of postmortem genetic testing -- known as a molecular autopsy -- they found that more than one-third died due to potentially heritable genetic defects that impair the heart's rhythm center.

The defects were caused by mutations, which can be thought of as spelling errors in the genetic code. The defects produced one of two abnormal heart rhythm conditions: Long QT syndrome (LQTS) and catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT). Both syndromes can declare their presence silently and catastrophically with a sudden death episode as the first symptom. Because they leave no structural or physical clues, the defects can't be detected with conventional autopsy methods -- so families have been left with the additional grief of wondering what caused the premature death."

This goes with my question about defects in the population that may be additive. Unless someone does a study then we just don't have the data to assume that downside defects don't add up. (my thoughts not yours)

Frank,

I think you bring up a valid point with respect to needing more studies.

usually I have to say more .... but....that's it.

AlWallace....with respect to my views on things, just didn't want your ears to bleed.

(purely curiousity driven....what do you do? you say you used to teach...are you in research now? )

Al, you brought a longer lifespan. I found it fascinating in my classes to learn about the effects of selection (or more properly) the lack of seleciton against genes that were not being expressed. I wonder too, if the higher numbers of disease simply refelcts the fact that most of these genes AREN't expressed when the reproductive potential is the highest in humans. In other words, the time that we are most reproductively active also correscponds to the time when those particular genes for those diseases are silent and thus are not selected against. But because we are living longer, we are observing these diseases more and more.

ARWalace,

I do agree that the average age before death did rise quickly for a while, but it seems to be not moving anymore. Without going into aging, we seem to be hitting a wall. Now of course there may be many reasons for this but one is an increase in genetics defects. The study I posted before may indicate that we have hidden defects which are now affecting our longevity. From a scriptural base I know that the creation is saddled with decay. I just wonder as we get closer to the end times just how much of that decay we will see with our own eyes.

This goes with my question about defects in the population that may be additive. Unless someone does a study then we just don't have the data to assume that downside defects don't add up.

Well, you may be right. But I doubt this means the demise of humans.

This study estimates the number of mutations in humans per diploid genome, but doesn't suggest the rate has changed over our history. Then again, maybe it wasn't the question they were asking. Here's a couple other studies: 1, 2, 3.

That should keep you busy.

Now of course there may be many reasons for this but one is an increase in genetics defects.

Well, we may just have hit a biological limit with the existing technology. There have been some rather interesting studies lately on senescence, senescence genes and telomerase. Personally, I am too crotchety to want to live 150 years. As for the decay in creation - I don't really have an opinion on the matter and don't think I should use my philosophical lens to read too much into the studies I cited. But that's just me.

with respect to my views on things, just didn't want your ears to bleed.

That's OK. I brain hemorrhage easily. Doesn't take much to blow my mind.

purely curiousity driven....what do you do? you say you used to teach...are you in research now?

Well, you might have guessed based on the frequency of my posting that I have a little spare time. The fact is, I'm between jobs, and looking for a another teaching gig. I had a good job at one of the best independent schools in the northwest up until August. I resigned and we relocated to be closer to family (a decision brought on by some rather difficult family crises). So I am crossing my fingers for the spring hiring season. Barring that, I may have to get back into research...reluctantly. Being able to spend a little time discussing stuff that interests me with people with similar interests is a bit of a luxury, and I find this board to be a refreshing change from the one I left recently. Too much acrimony.

In other words, the time that we are most reproductively active also correscponds to the time when those particular genes for those diseases are silent and thus are not selected against. But because we are living longer, we are observing these diseases more and more.

An interesting and eminently testable hypothesis. Care to go back to grad school?

Here's my $0.02 - and let me start by saying that I don't think zoegirl and I differ on the fundamental meaning of evolution. Evolution in the strictest sense is nothing more than changes in alleles in a population over time - the forces that may cause those alleles to change have been described already. This has been termed micro evolution, and because it us demonstrably verifiable and because it doesn't seem to violate any religious scripture seems to be widely, if not universally accepted by creationists. Now, evolution in the big scheme of things is really a matter of micro evolution (usually coupled with mutations of some sort or another) over long periods of time. If you believe the earth is old, then micro-evolution over deep time can and does lead to large changes - the formation of new species, for example. And the field of phylogenetics and paleontology seeks to explain and describe these large scale changes. Now because this notion does violate certain passages of religious texts read literally, many people do not believe macro-evolution is a logical consequence of lots and lots of micro-evolution. So evolution is a process both at small, measurable levels, and if we are to believe the findings of phylogenetics, paleontology and even genetics, comparative physiology and developmental biology evolution is also a phenomenon that has brought about very large scale changes. You're free to accept it or not - I'm just describing what evolution is and is not.

that's what I asked a few pages ago. If microevolution is agreed on by both sides, then I don't see why you cannot have macroevolution over longer time scales. It is also possible that there was accumulation of genetic material over time. Can the creationists prove that macroevolution didn't happen? Of course they can't. It's the same situation in which atheistic evolutionists can't disprove God. So using the argument "we cannot observe or test macroevolution" is hypocritical because the same question could asked of them ("can you observe and test God") Of course we cannot actually test either in the lab but it is clear that evolution happened simply by looking at the fossil record (unless you believe that God interfered at multiple times in Earth's history and created things), and also by the numerous convergent lines of evidence that ARWallace lists.

This example is but one of many assumed changes to the species. Evolution if you believe in it has at its core a belief that changes take place one after another and over time the species becomes something else. So if you believe in evolution then the cause can come from God or nature. If from God then why would we drift to some other thing since we were created in HIs image, does this imply that only some people will be in God's image, at some point the logic falls apart. And if nature then why give nature the power to change God's image? The bottom line is, did God give the power of creation to nature? If He did not then accepting evolution over His direct hand would go against scripture.

who's to say we will stray from the image of God. Has Homo sapiens really changed that much in appearance since we appeared on Earth? There are many examples of evolutionary stases where species "designs" remain fairly unchanged with only minor modifications. Look at sharks for example. They have been around for hundreds of millions of years and they were recognizable as "sharks" from the beginning. The changes that are ongoing in humans are microevolutionary for the most part. We may be getting a little larger than our ancestors but we retain the same basic form.
Also, saying this assumes you know God's true form. If we evolved to be green with 6 fingers and toes and breathed CO2, we would still be recognizable as a bipedal hominid. If you object to that, then what exactly does God look like? If He is a white man with white features, then is a black man or Asian man "outside of God" since he is not matching God's image? If God is another race, then can we say white man is not made in God's image. That's what I'm trying to say, you cannot make every man on Earth match God's image perfectly. "God's image" is subject to change.
One more thing. If a species of hominid related to man evolved in a few million years (from man), technically they wouldn't be Man anymore. So your problem is solved! Man is defined as we see him today. Anything else would be considered a new species.

Second, I remain somewhat more conservative about our place in nature. We are a frail and not very resilient species compared to many. And if you believe we are the products of evolution, I would remind you that despite our profound impact on the planet, that we've only been here a nanosecond in the history of the Earth. We are not, by this reasoning, the paragon of evolution in action - we are merely a clever and somewhat talented group among all extant taxa that are also products of evolution, at this moment in time. This doesn't mean we aren't unique or special in god's eye, if you have such theistic leanings. Only that I tend to be a bit circumspect in my views of our place in nature. I used to live near Seattle, and every year a handful of hikers would perish on Mt. Ranier. This mountain is visible from Seattle, and these hikers were usually equipped with the best and most expensive equipment and survival gear that REI had to offer. And usually they would only be missing a few days before they were found dead. So if 21st century mountaineers, in the peak of their physical fitness, equipped with the best that technology had to offer could die within clear view of a major American city (with cell phones in hand), I contend that the human species may not be the masters of nature we might think we are.

I mentioned this in my last post. I said if we placed an average American in the jungle with nothing, then he/she would most likely perish. You can say that we are evolving into our artificial environment. I guess shows like "Man vs. Wild" are trying to reverse that. hahaha

Al wrote: An interesting and eminently testable hypothesis. Care to go back to grad school?

As much as I enjoyed the classes, trying to teach full-time and go to school part-time was, to say the least, exhausting!!

(I figured I had one time in my life where I had the most energy and was foolish enough to try this)

Hope you find a job....mid-year is tough.

What classes did you teach?

then I don't see why you cannot have macroevolution over longer time scales. It is also possible that there was accumulation of genetic material over time.

Well, I'm sure you get a few replies to your post - but let me add a few quick thoughts. YEC don't believe the Earth has been around long, and discredit radiometric dating methods that suggest otherwise. They further feel that genetic diversity operates fairly strictly within the boundaries of biological "kinds" mentioned in the Bible. They don't, to my knowledge, argue that new species can't form or that genetic changes associated with such changes can't occur. Only that speciation will not produce new families, or orders, or kingdoms. Finally, they believe much of the fossil record was deposited rather suddenly following a global flood.

Can the creationists prove that macroevolution didn't happen?

Well, I think they could. And I can even think of some tests that they could do to test the notion. Whether they could do so to your satisfaction is another question. But they could theoretically test that question, I think.

Bear Grylls is a choirboy. Les Stroud, now there's a man's man.

Zoegirl: "What classes did you teach?"

General biology, advanced biology and forensic science. I have been making use of some down time to work through a chemistry text in case a job in that field comes up as well. And I am working through the rest of my advanced biology text as well as a whole host of books I bought but never had time to read. Oh, and have become a bit of a chef, I fancy, now that I have time to properly plan and cook meals!

For myself, biology, Anatomy and Physiology (an Honors version as well) and AP BIO.

I inherited a course that was, for all intents and purposes, AP Bio. I found it totally impossible to cover all the material - a mile wide and in inch deep. So I basically made it a topics in advanced biology (topics I liked!) and we went into a lot of depth. Did about the 1st half of the text, but jumped around a bit - a unit on immune systems and viruses, phylogenetics and systematics in much more depth than the text...that sort of thing. Fun while it lasted.

I understand the AP course is being revamped - dropping ecology (can be covered in AP envrio) and the physiology stuff that is usually covered in another class. I am hopeful that their revised curriculum will be achievable for us mere mortals.

ARWallace wrote:I inherited a course that was, for all intents and purposes, AP Bio. I found it totally impossible to cover all the material - a mile wide and in inch deep. So I basically made it a topics in advanced biology (topics I liked!) and we went into a lot of depth. Did about the 1st half of the text, but jumped around a bit - a unit on immune systems and viruses, phylogenetics and systematics in much more depth than the text...that sort of thing. Fun while it lasted.

I understand the AP course is being revamped - dropping ecology (can be covered in AP envrio) and the physiology stuff that is usually covered in another class. I am hopeful that their revised curriculum will be achievable for us mere mortals.

Amen and Amen....

It is tough...and I end up really integrating a lot of anatomy within a comparative unit and focusing on only specific concepts that allow us to go deeper.

Himantolophus wrote:

Here's my $0.02 - and let me start by saying that I don't think zoegirl and I differ on the fundamental meaning of evolution. Evolution in the strictest sense is nothing more than changes in alleles in a population over time - the forces that may cause those alleles to change have been described already. This has been termed micro evolution, and because it us demonstrably verifiable and because it doesn't seem to violate any religious scripture seems to be widely, if not universally accepted by creationists. Now, evolution in the big scheme of things is really a matter of micro evolution (usually coupled with mutations of some sort or another) over long periods of time. If you believe the earth is old, then micro-evolution over deep time can and does lead to large changes - the formation of new species, for example. And the field of phylogenetics and paleontology seeks to explain and describe these large scale changes. Now because this notion does violate certain passages of religious texts read literally, many people do not believe macro-evolution is a logical consequence of lots and lots of micro-evolution. So evolution is a process both at small, measurable levels, and if we are to believe the findings of phylogenetics, paleontology and even genetics, comparative physiology and developmental biology evolution is also a phenomenon that has brought about very large scale changes. You're free to accept it or not - I'm just describing what evolution is and is not.

that's what I asked a few pages ago. If microevolution is agreed on by both sides, then I don't see why you cannot have macroevolution over longer time scales.

Because you are in fact asking for two different things.

It is like saying I see apples, so oranges can happen too. It may be the case both happened, but you can't use an apple to prove an orange.

Micro works within the boundaries of a pre-existing design, but macro needs to cross such boundaries. A finches beak growing and then going back to normal shows flexibility built into the design of a finch to adapt to its environment. This is micro. Add 10,000 years and you will have shrinking and growing beaks back and forth, back and forth, but no new changes to the finch except perhaps its eventual extinction. Micro does not show the inherent design of the finch changed in any meaningful, significant or even permanent way as to become something it was not previously. Such would be macro.

ARWalace,

Thanks for the links. The mutation rates were pretty much what I thought. Do you happen to know of any inverted part of DNA that worked to produce a new protein without any additional changes to the DNA? I can see how parts of DNA being swapped and added to or reduced may work but have problems with an inversion. Would a polypeptide chain be folded starting at the back end to make a protein molecule? Since the start stop codes on the DNA would be inverted does that mean that a protein would be made only if the new section of DNA had a start code by nature of the inversion? I guess I could look this up but thought you might know off the top of your head. I guess if the section were between start and stop codes this problem goes away.

I found another defect called C-Harlem (I think so) and it appears to be better than sickle cell at preventing death due to malaria. But this defect is not widely spread in the infested area. Do you think that sickle cell is preventing the better defect from expanding in the infected area? Does this make the case that natural selection is in fact doing the opposite of what it is supposed to do? It may be just a judgement of mine which places one defect over another

Well, I'm sure you get a few replies to your post - but let me add a few quick thoughts. YEC don't believe the Earth has been around long, and discredit radiometric dating methods that suggest otherwise. They further feel that genetic diversity operates fairly strictly within the boundaries of biological "kinds" mentioned in the Bible. They don't, to my knowledge, argue that new species can't form or that genetic changes associated with such changes can't occur. Only that speciation will not produce new families, or orders, or kingdoms. Finally, they believe much of the fossil record was deposited rather suddenly following a global flood.

YEC's may not buy macroevolution (since it requires an old Earth) but they do believe (for the most part) in microevolution. On one hand they argue that macroevolution over long time scales is impossible but yet they seem to accept the idea that there was explosive speciation (evolution) after the flood. The use the same mechanisms as evolution does (selection, genetic drift, mutation) but this somehow happened in a geologic blink of the eye. Not to mention that they cannot agree on what exactly a "kind" is.
I continue to ask, where do YEC's draw the line for microevolution. If form to form, species to subspecies, species to species is alright, why not genus to genus, pr family to family, and so on? It just seems like an extrapolation in time will give you the required changes. The greater time passed between species A and B, generally, the less alike they become. Kind of screams out evolution (macro and micro).

Well, I think they could. And I can even think of some tests that they could do to test the notion. Whether they could do so to your satisfaction is another question. But they could theoretically test that question, I think.

Suddenly playing the devil's advocate now? How could they test something on timescales untestable? They could only test microevolution, which has already been proven. I think science is doing a better job of holding up evolution (and old Earth) than disproving it! Please elaborate...

Frank:

Do you happen to know of any inverted part of DNA that worked to produce a new protein without any additional changes to the DNA? I can see how parts of DNA being swapped and added to or reduced may work but have problems with an inversion. Would a polypeptide chain be folded starting at the back end to make a protein molecule?

I think this rather depends on where the inversion is, and how much DNA is inverted. On the one hand, a large inversion that doesn't break up or insert itself into functional genes will have very little effect on gene expression. The information (i.e. genes) is still there, it has just been shuffled. The genes will be expressed correctly regardless of orientation - all of the sequences telling RNA polymerase where to begin transcription and where to stop it are intact. Now, there are cases where an inversion will interfere with gene expression. For example, some forms of hemophilia are the result of the end of the X-chromosome folding back on itself and inserting a small chunk of DNA in the gene producing a blood-clotting protein facing the wrong way. But the proteins aren't made backwards in this case - RNA polymerase just encounters a frameshift which makes the protein have an incorrect AA sequence downstream of the inversion and/or premature stop codon - basically, a useless protein.

I found another defect called C-Harlem (I think so) and it appears to be better than sickle cell at preventing death due to malaria. But this defect is not widely spread in the infested area. Do you think that sickle cell is preventing the better defect from expanding in the infected area? Does this make the case that natural selection is in fact doing the opposite of what it is supposed to do? It may be just a judgement of mine which places one defect over another

Well, there are actually several mutations that can lead to sickle cell - hemoglobin S seems to be the most common. I don't know if any are better than any other at preventing malaria. However, if one is more common in the population than any other, there can be several reasons for this; perhaps the Hb S has the least pronounced clinical symptoms in the homozygous form compared to all other mutations (i.e. lower selection against it); other forms may be relatively new mutations that are establishing themselves in the population; perhaps there is some gene flow affecting their frequencies. The simple fact is, I don't really know. But there could be several possible explanations I could think of. But when it comes to judging which defect is "placed" over any other, I imagine that is up to natural selection to decide - and usually does.