Evidence for God from Science

August wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:August,

I just asked what I intended to be an honest question.

We do seek for honest interaction and I've never tried to do anything less with you or anyone else on the board.

When you link to a site that is clearly anti-Christian and anti-Theist, then I raise the question. We are unapologetically (pun intended) biased here and this is clear in our Purpose and discussion guidelines. That doesn't mean we can't and won't look at material outside of that bias (or better stated perhaps, our faith position) nor that we can't intellectually consider counterpoints and acknowlege that other positions exist. There's a fine line however, and I simply felt, given the context of that entire site you referenced that the question was fairly asked and with it a reminder given.

Thanks,

Bart

Freudian slip?

Nope. Just a mistake on my part. Sorry.

Kurieuo: You misunderstand. I am actually saying that if there is a "chance" that life could unfold naturally without a designer, that such actually takes aways from Paley's Watchmaker argument.

DB: Thank you for your thoughtful reply...OK —got it

Kurieuo: Yet, an important point I emphasize which was cut short was: "if we factor in complex systems of machinery coming together over and over again (for example, as found in convergent evolution…

DB: [convergent evolution describes the process whereby organisms not closely related independently acquire similar characteristics while evolving in separate and sometimes varying ecosystems. On the molecular level, this can happen due to random mutation unrelated to adaptive changes — from Wikkipedia].

Kurieuo: … or as in the belief that life not only arose once, but began and got wiped out several times early on in Earth's history), then such is surely a hallmark of rigged chance (design), rather than simply random or pure chance."

DB: The first example, evolutionists simple attribute to the usual work of RM/NS. The different species with similar phenotypic parts virtually always have large molecular and structural differences — their complexities differ. For example, the wings of pterydactyls vs birds vs bats vs insects. They all had to be aerodynamically efficient, so they have similarities.

In your second example, there indeed have been five major extinctions, however, in none of them was life completely wiped out, necessitating a new beginning. Those species that survived each extinction had the unique opportunity to multiply without competition — an example is the huge success of mammals once dinosaurs were out of the way, all coming from, it is thought, a few rodents-like nocturnal mammals.

Kurieuo: I see one would be arrogant to say that a person is not rationally entitled to conclude it looks like a Watchmaker is at work.

DB: Certainly it is rational and definitely intuitive — but many processes in nature that are not intuitive (or even rational) have withstood every experiment thrown at them. Quantum mechanics is an obvious example and so is virtually everything in chemistry. Some of the more familiar examples may seem obvious now, since they pervade our lives, such as electricity, but they weren't at all intuitive to the older generations.

Kurieuo: Or are you simply desiring to make a clarification about the mechanism the Watchmaker used?

DB: Yes, for the purpose of suggesting that the extreme resistance to evolution by RM/NS (under environmental influence) may be unreasonable.

Kurieuo: As far as I see it, the Watchmaker could have used any mechanism desired, including natural selection acting on random mutations as influenced by environmental pressures.

DB: Yes, I agree.

Kurieuo: Many in the biological sciences, like those who follow Stephen Jay Gould, believe natural selection is inadequate to account for "all" evolution.

DB: That is true. In the last several decades, much work has been done on this. The evo-devo people have made huge strides in explaining the creation of novelty — “Endless Forms Most Beautiful, The New Science of Evo-Devo,” by Sean Carroll. Others have been working on something called “epigenetic variation” that has to do with alteration of phenotype from sources close to DNA, but not genes. This work would seem to allow more direct influence of the environment — a little LaMarckian (an older theory that was discarded long ago).

David Blacklock wrote:Kurieuo: Yet, an important point I emphasize which was cut short was: "if we factor in complex systems of machinery coming together over and over again (for example, as found in convergent evolution…

DB: [convergent evolution describes the process whereby organisms not closely related independently acquire similar characteristics while evolving in separate and sometimes varying ecosystems. On the molecular level, this can happen due to random mutation unrelated to adaptive changes — from Wikkipedia]

Yes. And I believe convergencies (for example, the coincidence of independantly "evolved" organs of electric fish; recommend also Hunter's commentary Electric Fish and Molecular Machines) are better support for Paley's Watchmaker argument, than a strictly Materialist accounting which would hold that any design is only apparent due to RM/NS. In fact I think convergencies have further implications towards identifying the "designer" as being a single entity, since similar designs are being reused (see Convergence: Evidence for a Single Creator). Yet, of course such convergencies could have just been coincidental having evolved independently, yet I personally think the implications point towards the perceived design in biology as being real, rather than merely apparent.

DB wrote:Kurieuo: … or as in the belief that life not only arose once, but began and got wiped out several times early on in Earth's history), then such is surely a hallmark of rigged chance (design), rather than simply random or pure chance."

In your second example, there indeed have been five major extinctions, however, in none of them was life completely wiped out, necessitating a new beginning. Those species that survived each extinction had the unique opportunity to multiply without competition — an example is the huge success of mammals once dinosaurs were out of the way, all coming from, it is thought, a few rodents-like nocturnal mammals.

Yes, I think these are significant. Paleontologists such as Eldridge and Gould in response to such observations even developed their own theory of evolution which I believe more closely resembles the factual data we have. Despite many phyletic gradualists being repulsed, I see if a Materialist perspective is to be salvaged such theories need to be seriously considered. I personally find the data equally supports interspersed acts of creation as Day-Agers believe, yet regardless of my Theistic position, I see the implications point to true design rather than only apparent design.

Furthermore, there were many sterilization events during the Hadean era when Earth was heavily bombarded by asteroids (cf. Impact frustration of the origin of life and Annihilation of ecosystems by large asteroid impacts on the early Earth). Some believe life may have actually arose and been wiped out a few times. This conclusion comes from the observation that as soon as the bombardment stopped, we see that life popped into existence essentially as soon as the environment could sustain life. You are likely aware many Materialists see this observation as meaning it must be quite easy for life to arise, despite noone having any serious idea how such complexities arose. Yet, they are entitled to their own conclusions of the data given their own Materialist philosophical perspective they adhere to. But lets be clear that such a perspective is not strictly built upon science, but is also philosophical. Rather than aligning myself to a Materialist perspective that life must have arisen quite easily, I think the evidence best implies a Creator. Again, this is philosophical conclusion, and when I further bring in my Day-Age Christian beliefs, I being to develop a theological conclusion. Yet, I surely can not be faulted as being rationally unjustified or intellectually ignorant to science, or as many Materialists would say "unscientific," simply because the philosophical conclusions I draw from the implications of science are different from ones which uphold a Materialistic philosophy?

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:Yes. And I believe convergencies ... are better support for Paley's Watchmaker argument, than a strictly Materialist accounting which would hold that any design is only apparent due to RM/NS. In fact I think convergencies have further implications towards identifying the "designer" as being a single entity, since similar designs are being reused... .Yet, of course such convergencies could have just been coincidental having evolved independently, yet I personally think the implications point towards the perceived design in biology as being real, rather than merely apparent.

Is this a scientific argument or a philosophical argument?
Personally I don't see how human re-use of design implies that other designers would also do the same. Humans often reuse designs for cost or suitability. A powerful designer would not be constrained by either of these: cost does not apply and physical laws could be created that would allow any type of design to work. Reuse of design is often not desired by humans. Someone paying a large sum of money to have a prominent architect design a building would typically not want a replica of a previous design.

sandy_mcd wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Yes. And I believe convergencies ... are better support for Paley's Watchmaker argument, than a strictly Materialist accounting which would hold that any design is only apparent due to RM/NS. In fact I think convergencies have further implications towards identifying the "designer" as being a single entity, since similar designs are being reused... .Yet, of course such convergencies could have just been coincidental having evolved independently, yet I personally think the implications point towards the perceived design in biology as being real, rather than merely apparent.

Is this a scientific argument or a philosophical argument?

I am not sure I see that an inference is any real argument. Yet, my inference draws upon science and no doubt incorporates aspect of philosophy whether in reasoning or assumptions. In scientific practice inferences are often made as to what one considers to be the best explanation, and such often involves philosophical reasoning and includes ones own philosophical outlook. There is no such thing as a neutral standpoint from which one becomes entirely objective when conducting science. Thus, I fail to see how "Science" can be without philosophy, and I see anyone who thinks that they can have strictly black and white categories as being quite naive.

sandy wrote:Personally I don't see how human re-use of design implies that other designers would also do the same. Humans often reuse designs for cost or suitability. A powerful designer would not be constrained by either of these: cost does not apply and physical laws could be created that would allow any type of design to work. Reuse of design is often not desired by humans. Someone paying a large sum of money to have a prominent architect design a building would typically not want a replica of a previous design.

You are free to draw your own inferences. Yet, as far as I am aware you do not even agree to true design. So reasoning about what further implications we can draw about the "Watchmaker," whether evidence suggests there are many minds involved, or only one, is a rather pointless exercise. The main point I would draw from convergency is that such for me implies we are dealing with true design, rather than a strictly Materialist position of apparent design.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:Yet, as far as I am aware you do not even agree to true design. ....The main point I would draw from convergency is that such for me implies we are dealing with true design, rather than a strictly Materialist position of apparent design.

[Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound as though I were referring to number of designers. I was referring to the argument that reuse or similar structures is evidence for a designer.]
No. I do not believe that there is any evidence of design (shown so far), which is distinctly different from stating there is no design. Recall the earlier thread where someone asked what would be evidence of design and there was no definitive answer.
Perhaps I can rephrase my question. Is it necessarily a sign of a Materialist position that the existence of convergencies does not lead to the inference of design? Or more simply, why does convergency imply design?
Is the similarity in ecological niche occupation of prairie dogs and meerkats (and other pairs) imply design?
[I realize that many of these questions can't be answered scientifically and rely more on philosophical outlook.]

sandy_mcd wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Yet, as far as I am aware you do not even agree to true design. ....The main point I would draw from convergency is that such for me implies we are dealing with true design, rather than a strictly Materialist position of apparent design.

[Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound as though I were referring to number of designers. I was referring to the argument that reuse or similar structures is evidence for a designer.]
No. I do not believe that there is any evidence of design (shown so far), which is distinctly different from stating there is no design.

As I previously said, you are entitled you infer what want from convergency. If you can not see any significance to the same biological structure evolving not only once, but independantly on multiple occasions... if you do not see such at least shows signs of guidence to the evolutionary process rather than a coincidental unplanned happening, then there is really nothing I can say. Yet, I see in convergencies evidence consistent with a mind behind the scenes, and something not to be expected with an ambiguous unfolding of RM/NS. Thus, I infer intelligence played a role.

sandy wrote:Recall the earlier thread where someone asked what would be evidence of design and there was no definitive answer.

No, I do not follow every thread, and particularly prefer to stay away from debates regarding ID since I feel it is nearly always misrepresented or misunderstood and such debates end up nowhere. Thus, if it is your intention to debate, I will respectfully choose not to respond.

I have been willing here to enter into discussion with David on this matter as he appears willing to honestly understand my position, while respectfully disagreeing with some of my conclusions and sharing his own thoughts. He even decided to read Behe's Black Box for himself and make his own judgement rather than listening to supporters or critics, and such says much to me. Thus, I see dialogue and understanding can emerge rather than debate and hardening. I do not care to debate my position, but I am prepared to try give an understanding of why I hold to my position. If one still does not comprehend, whether willfully or they just do not get it, then I am happy to let it remain an enigma. I do not see it as my task to convince people that design is the best inferment from the evidence, but I am prepared to try help them understand why I think it is.

sandy wrote:Perhaps I can rephrase my question. Is it necessarily a sign of a Materialist position that the existence of convergencies does not lead to the inference of design?

I understand your question to be asking whether convergencies are necessarily incompatible with a Materialist position. Given I have said Materialists infer convergencies (same biological traits) evolved independantly, obviously it is not necessarily anti-Materialist. You are I think here confusing a deductive argument with an inductive one. Mine is only inductive, and this is perhaps the best we can do in science.

sandy wrote:Or more simply, why does convergency imply design?

Since random mutations are by their very nature random, it seems odd that we would expect the exact same mutations (and deletions) to happen more than once. Thus, I make a probability judgement that it is less probable convergent evolution was undirected, and more probable that planning was involved. Therefore, I infer based on what I judge to be more probable that design appears to be more true in this scenario.

It should be noted science itself only works with probabilities. One can only make inferences as to the best conclusion based upon observed facts. The moment a particular conclusion of a person or group is set as an unchallengable fact, is the moment dogma becomes imposed onto others. If I am not allowed to draw my own conclusions from what is observed, and all I am allowed to infer in science is that which is aligned with a Materialist philosophy, then I see science itself has been hijacked by a particular group and is in a truly dire state.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:As I previously said, you are entitled you infer what want from convergency. If you can not see any significance to the same biological structure evolving not only once, but independantly on multiple occasions... if you do not see such at least shows signs of guidence to the evolutionary process rather than a coincidental unplanned happening, then there is really nothing I can say. Yet, I see in convergencies evidence consistent with a mind behind the scenes, and something not to be expected with an ambiguous unfolding of RM/NS. Thus, I infer intelligence played a role.

Does similar environment and behaviour not play a role in convergence? For instance if two disparate organisms became gliders due to changes in anatomy and arboreal existence, would natural selection not favor winglike structures over time? Similar does not mean identical, there are clear distinctions as it can be clearly shown in many cases of convergence that biological origins are not the same.

Kurieuo wrote:Since random mutations are by their very nature random, it seems odd that we would expect the exact same mutations (and deletions) to happen more than once.

Is this the case? Exact same mutations?

Kurieuo wrote:Thus, I make a probability judgement that it is less probable convergent evolution was undirected, and more probable that planning was involved. Therefore, I infer based on what I judge to be more probable that design appears to be more true in this scenario.

This would be a fine inference if it were the exact same mutations. However that is not what has occurred. Even in the fish example. The sequence of events were close to identical, even the genes effected were the same, however the chances of it occurring in both instances are not probabilistically impossible. A closer look at the physiologiy and molecular biology will show this. In fact the article stressed the similarity of changes in genetic code to these fish were in similar locations to mutations in humans which cause disease, the similarity was not a description of the genetic alterations between the fish themselves.

Nonconserved amino acid replacements occur in parts of Nav1.4a involved in inactivation. (A) Schematic illustration of a sodium channel. (B) S4—S5 linker in DII. (C) S4—S5 linker in DIII. (D and E) Inactivation loop in the LIII-IV. Nonconserved amino acid replacements are red. Triangles represent sites at which amino acid replacements are associated with diseases in humans, and the asterisk represents a site at which an amino acid replacement in humans leads to disease and there is also a change in an electric fish gene. Fish sequences used for the PAML analyses are below the dashed line and above it, for visual comparison, are sequences from the human Nav1.4 ortholog, a human brain Na+ channel gene (Nav1.1), and the single tunicate Na+ channel gene (TuNa1). Note that tunicate and vertebrate Na+ channel genes diverged 500 million years ago, whereas the Nav1.4a orthologs in electric fish diverged from their close relatives depicted here 60 million years ago for mormyrids and 80 million years ago for gymnotiforms (33).

PNAS Online

Fish have two copies of most of their genes, in most other vertebrates the additional copies have either been modified such as genes for proteins involved in blood clotting, or lost.

Because of this mutations to a gene are less likely to threaten viability. In the case of the fish one 'copy' of the gene no longer became expressed in muscles. This means that it was now free to mutate without affecting muscle functions. This alone will not lead to electric fish, and is certainly not fatal.

Since the gene has undergone decoupling from muscle functionality it was now free to develop mutations which would cause disfunction had the organism depended on the resulting protein for muscle function.

Therefore the gene responsible for the sodium channel underwent changes which subsequently allowed for electric discharges. Although similar they are not identical. A protein is a result of an amino acid chain, it is the shape of the protein which determines the function. In many cases a variety of mutations can cause the shape of a protein to change in the same way.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/figsonly/103/10/3675

Kurieuo wrote:Since random mutations are by their very nature random, it seems odd that we would expect the exact same mutations (and deletions) to happen more than once. Thus, I make a probability judgement that it is less probable convergent evolution was undirected, and more probable that planning was involved. Therefore, I infer based on what I judge to be more probable that design appears to be more true in this scenario.

Perfect, that was the kind of answer I was looking for. I hadn't picked up on this if you mentioned it before.

BGood,

I am unsure what you are arguing, well, specifically the relevance. You do not appear to be arguing against similar characteristics needing to have independantly evolved (given RM/NS was the process), but rather that the path each may have evolved by in each case was not necessarily the same.

Whether or not the same path was followed, given the same or similar end product, I do not see how such takes away from my inferring it is less probable such structures evolved undirected, and more probable that planning was involved. Certainly I do not rule out such structures could have evolved, and you can continue believing they did. My reasoning is only inductive. Yet, to restate my reasoning in light of your comments:

Since random mutations are by their very nature random, it seems odd to expect a process involving random mutations (and deletions) would lead to the same, or very similar, result more than once. Thus, I make a probability judgement that it is less probable convergent evolution was undirected, and more probable that planning was involved. So I infer based on what I judge to be more probable that design appears to be real rather than apparent in this scenario.

Kurieuo

Basically I am only trying to point out that you left out half the equation involved with convergent evolution. Sorry if it is slightly off-topic with the rest of the thread.

Kurieuo wrote:Since random mutations are by their very nature random, it seems odd to expect a process involving random mutations (and deletions) would lead to the same, or very similar, result more than once. Thus, I make a probability judgement that it is less probable convergent evolution was undirected, and more probable that planning was involved. So I infer based on what I judge to be more probable that design appears to be real rather than apparent in this scenario.

Kurieuo

The process does involve random mutations. However the selective pressures are not at all random.

If you take a look at the genetic code for the various proteins you will notice that much of the code is similar. This doesn't mean that mutations have not occurred there. What it means is that mutations in these particular locations lead to individuals which are not viable.
Take a look at the triagles, they indicate where amino acid replacement causes disease in humans, note that the code at this particular location is conserved throughout all the different samples. Obviously mutations occur at these points, the question should be why is it conserved at these particular points? Perhaps the answer is simply mutations at these points does not lead to successful individuals.

As the paper clearly estabilishes mutations at specific points are not rare. They occur in humans as well. In the case of mutations in humans which occur at those points most of them likely lead to death. Where indicated by the asterisk or triangle in the chart it lead to disease. It should not be surprising at all that the mutations at similar points occurred more than once in different species.

The fact that the mutations occurred at similar points is not what should strike you. In fact it should be expected as certain mutations cannot remain in living organisms as they would lead to certain death. Only those mutations which are not fatal can be found in a living specimen.

The reason that these fish are able to survive with the mutations is because of the decoupling of the second gene encoding for sodium channel from muscle function. In other words, the fish have one copy which provides the proteins needed for proper muscle functioning and special second copy which is not used in their muscles(This is the essential point). In humans the same mutation would cause disease or death.
How rare is it to have a gene no longer be expressed in a specific cell type? I do not know however if you look closely at the graphical supplied in the previous post it shows that Humans have a gene for the brain and one for their muscles, even though both provide similar functionality.
The similar mutations lead to the co-opting of function from the modified channels, however it should be noted that the similarity is only in the fact that they have modified organs which produce weak electric currents, by no means are they identical.
Amazing as it seems the sodium channels in our own muscles create electric potentials, and although used for muscle function are not so different from what these fish posess.