Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote:

The "word of God" is ultimately that which one should live their life by. It would seem to me that the bible (which I think we can agree does make that claim) should give us all we need in terms of understanding our natural world.

Is it really fair to put such conditions on the Bible? "Well if the Bible had a concise definition of molecular biology, I'd beleive it."
Based on your earlier post it also seems you have some misinformed ideas of what the bible is saying about the natural world. Such as the earth being the center.

As far as "the christian life" goes, there's definitely a variety of definitions of what that phrase means, and I shouldn't have used it so flippantly. However, while having a conviction about one specific interpretation of the christian life is necessary for maintaining one's belief system, I don't think making that assumption to a non-believer is very helpful for debate.

The only definition that matters is the correct one. Making the assumption was necessary for one who claimed to be something they were most definately not.

Gman wrote: Why? Do labs scare you? You were the one claiming that Darwinian evolution is the most illuminating scientific theories we have. So prove it.. Labs would be a good start.. I want to see this weight of information.

...

Earlier you stated that the sheer weight of evidence from multiple disciplines, elevates evolution to the current status as one of the most remarkable and illuminating scientific theories we have. But now you seem to be backing down from that statement.. Why? Where is this evidence?

...

Now don't panic.. Again, I want you to show me the proof for macroevolution. Show me where it has created something new.. Let's say a new species of animal then. Go for it.. Shock me.

...

So where is the science here? A hypothesis.. Is that all you have?

• Taxonomics
  Species can be objectively classified into a nested hierarchy. This results in a branching tree, in which certain traits are found only at a certain branch and beyond (e.g. birds have feathers, mammals don't; seeds are found only in certain types of plants). It was known that species could be classified in this manner long before Darwin was writing or even living (Linnaeus was key in the founding of the discipline).
  The fact that there are no known instances in which this hierarchy is violated is strong evidence for common descent, as any violation of the hierarchy would be a huge huge step towards falsifying the theory.
• Molecular Genetics
  There are DNA sequences known as pseudogenes. These are sequences that look very much like ordinary genes, but have some fault in them that stops them from becoming transcribed into protein sequences correctly. Due to gene duplication it is sometimes the case that a duplicated gene mutates into a pseudogene (i.e. non-functional) & in this case it is termed a redundant pseudogene (due to it having a functional counterpart).
  The ψη-globin gene is a redundant haemoglobin gene - it no longer transcribes proteins. This redundant gene is present in primates (including humans) only, in the exact same location on the chromosome.
• Palaeontology
  Many transitional forms have been found in the fossil record. A species such as Tiktaalik represents a transition from fish to tetrapods, having the gills and scales of fish but the lungs and rib structure of a tetrapod. A particularly interesting thing about the discovery of Tiktaalik was that the palaeontologists who found it were digging in a coastal area known to be of around the same age as the hypothesised transition from fish to amphibian.
  A particularly striking find was that of Yanoconodon allini, which shows a jaw strutcure intermediate to the jaw structure of reptiles, and the jaw/inner ear structure of mammals; the ear bones are of a similar scale to those of mammal ears, but like reptiles (and unlike mammals) the bones are attached to those of the jaw.
• Geographic Distribution
  Certain animal types are found only in certain areas of the world. This is probably most evident in Australia where the majority of the mammals are marsupials, and where the majority of the world's marsupials are to be found. In addition the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) are only found in Australia.
• Observed Evolution
  One of the most striking events of evolution in action yet observed is in the Podarcis sicula lizard. In the early 70s 5 pairs of the lizards were moved from the Croation island of Pod Kopiste to neighbouring Pod Mrcaru. The lizard population expanded and was essentially free from human contact as the Croation war of independence raged. The island was revisted in recent years and the Pod Mcraru population was found to have adapted to the island's available food by having a markedly different head morphology. Even more surprising - given the short time span - was the fact that the lizards on Pod MCraru had evolved a structure known as cecal valves in the gut, that alter the way in which food passes through and is broken down in the digestive system

touchingcloth wrote:Let's crack on with the evidence then, seeing as you're still having difficulty with what distinguishes science from religion. If you want to regard evolutionary theory as philosophy, then go nuts. But you have to concede that, for a "philosophy", it has remarkable predictive power.
I said there a multiple different disciplines that provide evidence for common descent, so here's a little bit of that evidence from a few of those disciplines:

touchingcloth wrote:Taxonomics
Species can be objectively classified into a nested hierarchy. This results in a branching tree, in which certain traits are found only at a certain branch and beyond (e.g. birds have feathers, mammals don't; seeds are found only in certain types of plants). It was known that species could be classified in this manner long before Darwin was writing or even living (Linnaeus was key in the founding of the discipline).
The fact that there are no known instances in which this hierarchy is violated is strong evidence for common descent, as any violation of the hierarchy would be a huge huge step towards falsifying the theory.

touchingcloth wrote:Molecular Genetics
There are DNA sequences known as pseudogenes. These are sequences that look very much like ordinary genes, but have some fault in them that stops them from becoming transcribed into protein sequences correctly. Due to gene duplication it is sometimes the case that a duplicated gene mutates into a pseudogene (i.e. non-functional) & in this case it is termed a redundant pseudogene (due to it having a functional counterpart).
The ψη-globin gene is a redundant haemoglobin gene - it no longer transcribes proteins. This redundant gene is present in primates (including humans) only, in the exact same location on the chromosome.

touchingcloth wrote:Palaeontology
Many transitional forms have been found in the fossil record. A species such as Tiktaalik represents a transition from fish to tetrapods, having the gills and scales of fish but the lungs and rib structure of a tetrapod. A particularly interesting thing about the discovery of Tiktaalik was that the palaeontologists who found it were digging in a coastal area known to be of around the same age as the hypothesised transition from fish to amphibian.
A particularly striking find was that of Yanoconodon allini, which shows a jaw strutcure intermediate to the jaw structure of reptiles, and the jaw/inner ear structure of mammals; the ear bones are of a similar scale to those of mammal ears, but like reptiles (and unlike mammals) the bones are attached to those of the jaw.

touchingcloth wrote:Geographic Distribution
Certain animal types are found only in certain areas of the world. This is probably most evident in Australia where the majority of the mammals are marsupials, and where the majority of the world's marsupials are to be found. In addition the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) are only found in Australia.

touchingcloth wrote:Observed Evolution
One of the most striking events of evolution in action yet observed is in the Podarcis sicula lizard. In the early 70s 5 pairs of the lizards were moved from the Croation island of Pod Kopiste to neighbouring Pod Mrcaru. The lizard population expanded and was essentially free from human contact as the Croation war of independence raged. The island was revisted in recent years and the Pod Mcraru population was found to have adapted to the island's available food by having a markedly different head morphology. Even more surprising - given the short time span - was the fact that the lizards on Pod MCraru had evolved a structure known as cecal valves in the gut, that alter the way in which food passes through and is broken down in the digestive system

Gman wrote:Tree of life? Scientists from "New Scientist Magazine" state in the 2009 article Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life.

Gman wrote:To make a long story short.. What is common to all these Pseudogene studies is that the pseudogenes from humans and apes are not identical.

Gman wrote: No one was there to see it transition into tetrapods...

Gman wrote: Actually monotremes pose a problem for evolutionists. What could they have evolved from? Of course there are "possible" ideas how they "may" have evolved. But again guesswork...

Gman wrote: Adaptation? Oh, well sure we know that things can adapt to their environment.. Nothing new here. Here is another belief.. I asked you specifically to give me factual information for macro-evolution and you have provided nothing of the sort.. Just possibilities, assumptions and the like. A philosophy.. Sorry.

derrick09 wrote:..the fact that the Pod Mrcaru evolved cecal valves shows that it is slowly but surely trying to turn into a different kind of animal.

touchingcloth wrote:Did you read the whole article? It was about later gene transfer and the fact that the branching areas of the tree are necessarily fuzzy when you have 2 or more populations that are not yet totally distinct.

touchingcloth wrote:I'm glad you brought that up. Pseudogenes and other bits of junk DNA cannot be selected for seeing as they never manifest themselves in the phenotype. The pseudogenes shared by primates differ at the background rate mutation, by the amount that would be expected based on the evolutionary distance between any 2 primates.

touchingcloth wrote:Are you doing this deliberately now? The lizards evolved new organs.

derrick09 wrote:Hey Gman, I like your response and I don't mean to put words in our skeptic's mouth but I have a feeling he's going to say that you didn't respond to the Yanoconodon allini and that you only responded to the popular tiktaalik fossil. Also, he's going to probably mention the fact that the Pod Mrcaru evolved cecal valves shows that it is slowly but surely trying to turn into a different kind of animal.

touchingcloth wrote:

derrick09 wrote:..the fact that the Pod Mrcaru evolved cecal valves shows that it is slowly but surely trying to turn into a different kind of animal.

It isn't trying to do anything. To suggest that would be to show a profound misunderstanding about evolutionary theory.

* Taxonomics
Species can be objectively classified into a nested hierarchy. This results in a branching tree, in which certain traits are found only at a certain branch and beyond (e.g. birds have feathers, mammals don't; seeds are found only in certain types of plants). It was known that species could be classified in this manner long before Darwin was writing or even living (Linnaeus was key in the founding of the discipline).
The fact that there are no known instances in which this hierarchy is violated is strong evidence for common descent, as any violation of the hierarchy would be a huge huge step towards falsifying the theory.
* Molecular Genetics
There are DNA sequences known as pseudogenes. These are sequences that look very much like ordinary genes, but have some fault in them that stops them from becoming transcribed into protein sequences correctly. Due to gene duplication it is sometimes the case that a duplicated gene mutates into a pseudogene (i.e. non-functional) & in this case it is termed a redundant pseudogene (due to it having a functional counterpart).
The ψη-globin gene is a redundant haemoglobin gene - it no longer transcribes proteins. This redundant gene is present in primates (including humans) only, in the exact same location on the chromosome.
* Palaeontology
Many transitional forms have been found in the fossil record. A species such as Tiktaalik represents a transition from fish to tetrapods, having the gills and scales of fish but the lungs and rib structure of a tetrapod. A particularly interesting thing about the discovery of Tiktaalik was that the palaeontologists who found it were digging in a coastal area known to be of around the same age as the hypothesised transition from fish to amphibian.
A particularly striking find was that of Yanoconodon allini, which shows a jaw strutcure intermediate to the jaw structure of reptiles, and the jaw/inner ear structure of mammals; the ear bones are of a similar scale to those of mammal ears, but like reptiles (and unlike mammals) the bones are attached to those of the jaw.
* Geographic Distribution
Certain animal types are found only in certain areas of the world. This is probably most evident in Australia where the majority of the mammals are marsupials, and where the majority of the world's marsupials are to be found. In addition the monotremes (egg-laying mammals) are only found in Australia.
* Observed Evolution
One of the most striking events of evolution in action yet observed is in the Podarcis sicula lizard. In the early 70s 5 pairs of the lizards were moved from the Croation island of Pod Kopiste to neighbouring Pod Mrcaru. The lizard population expanded and was essentially free from human contact as the Croation war of independence raged. The island was revisted in recent years and the Pod Mcraru population was found to have adapted to the island's available food by having a markedly different head morphology. Even more surprising - given the short time span - was the fact that the lizards on Pod MCraru had evolved a structure known as cecal valves in the gut, that alter the way in which food passes through and is broken down in the digestive system

touchingcloth wrote:I'd like you all to try a little thought experiment...bear with me:

Accept, temporarily, the proposition that evolution is true and that every living thing shares a common ancestor. Now take an example such as the Pod mcraru lizards and assume we have the ability to monitor one of them and its offspring, and that offsrping's offspring, and so on for many times longer than a human lifetime. So assume that as the generations go by we see a flattening of the head, an addition of a cecal valve, a lengthening of the gut, the loss of some other digestive organs, teeth that shorten and flatten, legs that get longer and skinnier, claws that shorten, vertebrae that start to become prominent resulting in a crest along the back, the loss of the ability to breed with other lizard populations, and so on for a seemingly infinite number of tiny changes with every generation.
Assume that all this happens and we have the means to examine every single generation of a single lineage for as many years as we like. At which point would you hold aloft a newly born creature and proclaim that we have found a new species? Which generation-to-generation change would have to occur to make you say this individual is a different species to his parent rather than this individual differs from his parent by an imperceptible amount?

The lizard population expanded and was essentially free from human contact as the Croation war of independence raged.

jlay wrote:What proof would I need. Rock solid proof of brand NEW genetic information.

jlay wrote: Do you mean, have faith?
Does a German Shephard's head look like a bulldogs? No. We can test and observe variation within a species. This isn't proof of anything, other than variation. What proof would I need. Rock solid proof of brand NEW genetic information.

jlay wrote: Regarding the taxonomy tree. It is funny that all the necessary info needed to make Darwinism work is simply filled in as a branch. I guess the branch is the genetic ancestor to everything. if you can't make the peices fit, just draw a branch and say, "see, there's the proof."