Evidence for God from Science

jlay,

You said that the bones were almost identical to a bonobo. I showed that the hip and arm proportions are not.

Close up of the hip
http://www.boneclones.com/KO-036.htm

Regardless let us not miss the mountain for the mole hill. Bonobos show us that there are apes today that have BIPEDAL characteristics, just as there are one's who don't.

I agree.

What do you believe about neanderthals with the over twelve samples of mtDNA and a sample of their nuclear DNA that shows they were not human?

I don't get into the scientific debates too much for the simple reason that I've come to appreciate how unqualified I am (I understand, for instance, how infuriating it is when someon with no training in biblical languages so poorly abuses popular works without understanding what is actually going on!). I trust that there are people out there whom God has led down that particular path. So, don't take this as an argument, per se, but a (rather simple, I suspect) question I have.

Consider the following two quotes. First, from the BBC News, an article regarding Paablo's findings from tests of Neandertal nuclear DNA:

However, the researcher is also working to extract and read Neanderthal DNA by the traditional method. About 75,000 base-pairs have been sequenced this way so far. They show that Neanderthals diverged from the evolutionary line that led to modern humans about 315,000 years ago.

Second, an article from Archeology Online says this:

According to most paleoanthropologists, Homo heidelbergensis gave rise to modern humans in Africa and Neandertals in Europe. Fossils such as the Mauer mandible and the skull from Tautavel place this divergence before 500,000 years ago. Differences between Neandertal DNA, recently recovered by scientists working in Germany and the United States, and DNA of modern humans place the separation between 690,000 and 550,000 years ago. (Amélie A. Walker)

So . . . if the question isn't obvious, let me ask directly - how does one account for the 200,000 year gap? The mtDNA findings accorded with the fossil record, but the nuclear DNA records do not. If we argue that the fossil record was just wrong, we are talking about an error rate of 50%. That is MASSIVE . . . certainly not "scientific." So what am I missing?

Clarification? Thanks.

Jac,

I don't know that I'm any better to offer an answer as my training in Science is mostly self-initiated and what formal training I have is in an area of "soft-science."

The simple answer is that evidence doesn't literally "show" anything without the framework of an interpretive model built around it.

The whole point of the scientific method is to continue investigation of a matter, and to work both to provide additional evidence and to hone the theories through a process of continual examination and questioning. Over time, as that body of evidence grows and theories are relied upon as true then those models are expanded and further explored based upon their implications and that in turn become self-reinforcing back to the theories (some of which are termed laws at that point) upon which they rest.

As we see quite often however, entire systems can be overthrown and re-examined based upon a better theory that expands the scope of what was previously in place. Einsteins Theory of Relativity is a good example in terms of what this did to the system of Newtonian Laws.

This is easier to see in the hard sciences such as Physics. It's quite a bit messier in biology and even more so in the soft sciences, such as the one I've been more engaged in which is psychology and sociology.

That's why I don't get as involved in some of the higher level threads here either, although I read them and chime in on occassion with general observations. Discussions like the "split" between neanderthals and modern man, are interesting to me, but they're not a primary basis upon which my OEC view rests anyway. I don't feel the need to "defend" whatever science (or more the point) scientists are saying on these areas of cutting edge examination. Neither do I feel threatened that my OEC viewpoint is going to be greatly impacted by what should be anticipated as great changes and shifts in theories based upon additional evidence or the frameworks that scientists build to examine it.

That said, I'm far from what I hear some of my YEC brothers and sisters saying, which is to in effect completely attack the system of science and apply what to me is a silly standard of proof such as laboratory replication of an event or development that is being inferred from the evidence and then claiming because in effect, biology isn't mathematics or physics it must therefore be rejected because I don't like what it is showing or how others are interpretting the evidence.

So I don't know if I'm answering your question, but in fact, it's not only common for science and scientists to vary widely based upon differences in their source evidence, but also the framework that they're applying to examine the evidence and this is to be expected, especially on cutting edge type fields and issues. What the approach does however after, over time as evidence increases and the theories and frameworks are tweaked is provide a more stable and reliable result over time.

YEC (again from my perspective) attempts to pick up on these issues that are at the extreme or cutting edge and then tries to reflect that back upon the entire system and then call into question things that are really much better established.

I'm not saying OEC is perfect in this regard, but then, as I've tried to assert and model, science is corallary, not foundational for the OEC viewpoint and there's not really an alliance or a need for OEC to defend or assume that science is anymore than it is.

Hope tha helps and I apologize if I've misunderstood your question or presumed more than you're asking.

blessings,

bart

No apology necessary, bart, and I don't think you misunderstood my question. But the whole "framework of interpretation" thing bothers me. If my framework can allow for a 50% error rate, what does that say about my framework as a whole?

Now, I don't want to go on and say, "So see! ALL of science is bunk!" What I will say is that this is exactly why I am 100% not impressed with scientific arguments of any kind. As I don't have the expertise to look at the numbers myself and come to my own conclusions, everything I could possibly believe on this is from authorities, and if the authorities themselves offer an interpretation that can be 50% off, that's not very comforting. Further, it's plani dishonest. They did NOT say that the divergence happened 200,000-700,000 years ago. They said, "About 500,000 years ago." And who is to say the error rate is not even greater?!?

Perhaps its not the scientists themselves who are being dishonest (or lazy) so much as it is the reporting. And perhaps the dishonesty itself isn't intentional--perhaps it is just laziness on their part. In any case, I'm forced to wonder how much lazyiness/dishonesty there is out there on this kinds of issues.

Jac, A couple of things

The news from BBC was from 2006, while the archaeology paper was from 1997, significant enough difference that can indicate newer, more recent, and perhaps better understood data.

Second, the BBC article was from nuclear DNA while the Arch. was from mDNA.

12 years in scientific data, especially in this time, can really mean a lot.

I sincerely odubt it's from either laziness or dishonesty, but from a simple fact that we are constantly getting new information. Does this mean that conclusions are arrived about origins sooner than they should be? Sure....30 years ago, archeopteryx was believed to be the sole transitional species between reptiles and birds and yet it is believed to simply be an offshoot, an evolutionary side track.
I'm going to keep reading them and will get back to you but those were preliminary...

zoe, I think you misunderstood my point.

The fossil evidence places the divergence at 500K years ago. That is one TYPE of evidence.
The mtDNA evidence matches that fine. Another type of evidence.
The most recent evidence, the nuclear DNA evidence, places the divergence at 200K years ago. That is a different TYPE of evidence.

Conclusion: The TYPES of evidence are contradictory. They are NOT complementary.

Now, if more recent study has caused scientists to change their view on the FOSSIL record, without reference to the DNA record, then fine--I'm all for seeing such changes. But we are talking about two models based on two different types of evidence. But if these models are such that they have a 50% error rate, they are all but worthless.

Jac3510 wrote:zoe, I think you misunderstood my point.

The fossil evidence places the divergence at 500K years ago. That is one TYPE of evidence.
The mtDNA evidence matches that fine. Another type of evidence.
The most recent evidence, the nuclear DNA evidence, places the divergence at 200K years ago. That is a different TYPE of evidence.

Conclusion: The TYPES of evidence are contradictory. They are NOT complementary.

Now, if more recent study has caused scientists to change their view on the FOSSIL record, without reference to the DNA record, then fine--I'm all for seeing such changes. But we are talking about two models based on two different types of evidence. But if these models are such that they have a 50% error rate, they are all but worthless.

No I understood what you meant....let me clarify my response, written too hastily. It is obvious that there are discrepancies in the data.

You are right, they don't understand it all and it does pose problems. An honest scientist would admit this. This doesn't, however, mean that they should be investigated with the hope of figuring out *why* there is a discrepancy and *whether* that discrepancy can be resolved. In other words, the fact that this discrepancy exists doesn't necessarily void any conclusions, it mean further investigation is necessary.

For example, mutation rates can be different for different sections of DNA. Fossils that are dated in one period can still exists in another, they just haven't found fossils that indicate it. So Neandethals could have existed for longer periods but they cannot say for certainty without another set of fossils that dictate that .

I have no problem with continued study, zoe. I've never advocated otherwise, nor did I here. My point is that the two sets of data need to be reanalyzed in their own right to figure out which one (or both) is wrong. What I take to be unacceptable is the the claim that somehow both could be right and give an error rate on the fossil recodr of 50%. That's just retarded.

So, yes, let them do more study. They are always doing more study. Forever, they will be doing more study. That's the nature of science. It is inductive. But forgive me if, because of that nature, I'm not impressed. That is ALWAYS the answer to EVERY problem: "we just need to study more."

Yes, they do. So let them go do it. In the meantime, they shouldn't make claims like "The divergence happened 500K years ago" or now "The divergence happened 200K years ago." Of course, both of these presuppose a divergence in the first place, until some later study comes along and calls that into question.

Yeah. Not impressed. That's why I stay out of this field. If scientists can't keep their stories straight, how the heck am I, a theologian and philosopher, supposed to keep their stories straight?

Well, more precisely, they are saying that their *data* shows that the divergence happened so and so many years ago.

I think much of it gets lost in translation, because in the journals it is much more obvious that the data provides the conclusion but when it then gets sent to the media, the media often white-washes the details and then you do get the sense that it is much more set in stone than it actually is.



Still haven't had time to read more into it...I will get back

No apology necessary, bart, and I don't think you misunderstood my question. But the whole "framework of interpretation" thing bothers me. If my framework can allow for a 50% error rate, what does that say about my framework as a whole?

It says that the working theory is based upon limited evidence and that the variations in the conclusions are much more volitile than for instance, a theory that is based on a much larger body of evidence, observed and/or examined over a much greater period of time. It also says that comments by scientists and perhaps also those who are quoting them often overstate the certainty that they have. That's especially true in the news environment. There's a huge difference in many cases between what is being said on the cutting edge (which usually goes into newspapers and journals) versus the greater body of substantiated and confirmed information that is going into textbooks. (Not to say that there isn't bias or overstatement there too at times.)

Now, I don't want to go on and say, "So see! ALL of science is bunk!" What I will say is that this is exactly why I am 100% not impressed with scientific arguments of any kind. As I don't have the expertise to look at the numbers myself and come to my own conclusions, everything I could possibly believe on this is from authorities, and if the authorities themselves offer an interpretation that can be 50% off, that's not very comforting. Further, it's plani dishonest. They did NOT say that the divergence happened 200,000-700,000 years ago. They said, "About 500,000 years ago." And who is to say the error rate is not even greater?!?

No argument there. A healthy skepticism is needed by anyone approaching these issues in my opinion. Plus, as we both know, there are other elements in a person's framework that can draw from areas that are decidedly not scientific. On questions of origin for example, it can make a difference whether the person is coming from a philosophical perspective of methodological naturalism versus a general perspective of theism as to how strongly or in what context they'll word their observations.

Perhaps its not the scientists themselves who are being dishonest (or lazy) so much as it is the reporting. And perhaps the dishonesty itself isn't intentional--perhaps it is just laziness on their part. In any case, I'm forced to wonder how much lazyiness/dishonesty there is out there on this kinds of issues.

Communications are driven by agendas and especially in the realm of journalism, controversy or perceived controversy is part of what sells newspapers or draws the attention necessary to sell advertising. I think a healthy skepticism is a very valuable thing. Where I think it becomes counterproductive is when it crosses the line in cynicism and imagines that science is huge conspiracy trying to give religion or christianity a black eye. That does exist, but it's a relatively small subset and many in the realm of science are both Christians themselves or seeking to be responsible and reasonable in their work and conclusions.

Science is still comprised of humans and there's not any doubt in my mind that overstatements happen.

Zoe, you are, of course, right that they argue that the *data* says this, but let's be even more specific - they are actually saying that their interpretation of the data says this. Hence, my original point about the validity of such models. Bottom line: at least one of these two is wrong. The alternative is to say that both are wrong by appealing to an astoundingly high error rate. In either case, none of it is very assuring.

Canuckster, I think we're actually all pretty much on the same page here. I don't think I'm too much of a cynic, but I am most definitely willfully apathetic. I don't have the creds to honestly referee this stuff. It is only when I see blaring contradictions, like the one I mentioned here, that I want a simple answer. Of course, there probably isn't a simple one. The answer probably lies somewhere in the relationship of the transmission of information from the scientists' own conclusions to the journalists' method of presentations. All that only compounds my skepticism.

However, while I see that skepticism, I will raise you a conspiracy!

And CL - I think we should do a better job highlighting the issue you brought up. While I didn't intend for my comments be be taken as sayig something of the integrety of the scientific institution as a whole, it is undeniable that they are definitely partaking in the indoctrination of our children along with our government run schools. Just one more reason to privitize the public school system, but let's not get political . . .

Jac,

Part of this is not questioning what God can or can not do. God can change water into wine or heal a blind man in a nanosecond... There is no debate there. God is God and he can do whatever and whenever he wants... The question is, however, what does the scientific evidence reveal? If we pigeon hole God to our way of understanding creation and neglect the other then we really aren't talking about science here, just our opinion of the way it should be.

Gman wrote:Jac,

Part of this is not questioning what God can or can not do. God can change water into wine or heal a blind man in a nanosecond... There is no debate there. God is God and he can do whatever and whenever he wants... The question is, however, what does the scientific evidence reveal? If we pigeon hole God to our way of understanding creation and neglect the other then we really aren't talking about science here, just our opinion of the way it should be.

How does God's omnipotence have any bearing on scientists' various interpretations of the dating of the Neandertal divergence from modern homo sapiens and what that says about scientific frameworks generally, or alternatively, about the reporting of those theories?

Jac3510 wrote:How does God's omnipotence have any bearing on scientists' various interpretations of the dating of the Neandertal divergence from modern homo sapiens and what that says about scientific frameworks generally, or alternatively, about the reporting of those theories?

Ok, neandertal divergence from modern homo sapiens is technically not scientific. It is an assumption by the evolutionary scientists... The dating might be correct... So I don't think it collides with God's omnipotence, if fact I wouldn't know what would. The age of the earth, imo, does appear to have sound scientific explanations however.