Evidence for God from Science

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote: Natural selection never codes, it selects. C.f. "writing" 2 pieces of software and "selecting" the best one.
Natural selection isn't a process that says "you're best...you stay" and "you're not so good, you go"...it's the phenomenon whereby the best phenotype for a given environment becomes predominant.

Well that's the other piece of the puzzle then. If it never codes, then where does the code come from?

Oh, so it does "select" the best one.... How does it know how to "select" the best one then?

The code comes out of mutations of sexual combination.
Again natural selection doesn't actually "select" as a process...it's merely the observation that the best extant phenotypes for an environment out-perform other phenotypes.

touchingcloth wrote: The code comes out of mutations of sexual combination.
Again natural selection doesn't actually "select" as a process...it's merely the observation that the best extant phenotypes for an environment out-perform other phenotypes.

So now it observes... So how does it know how to observe the best extant phenotypes for an environment? Where does that come from?

I know you can't answer the question... That's ok.

touchingcloth wrote: Increase the raw size of the data, yes! Decrease the size of the data, yes! Keep the size of the data the same, but alter how it behaves, yes!

Because DNA is essentially interpreted (it gets turned into proteins and whatnot) inserting one base into a DNA sequence can alter what (for example) the entire DNA code between the insertion and the stop codon does. Sure a lot of the time an insertion or a deletion will lead to absolute junk (possibly to the extent of the embryo not being viable...) but sometimes it will present itself as a beneficial trait in the phenotype...natural selection is then the phenomenon of this phenotype becoming predominant.

Do you know of a biologist who's produced an example of a naturally occurring code?

Of course there are many biologists who believe that DNA somehow emerged spontaneously, but none of them have proven this.

Do you know of a code that didn't come from an intelligent mind?

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote: The code comes out of mutations of sexual combination.
Again natural selection doesn't actually "select" as a process...it's merely the observation that the best extant phenotypes for an environment out-perform other phenotypes.

So now it observes... So how does it know how to observe the best extant phenotypes for an environment? Where does that come from?

I know you can't answer the question... That's ok.

Again, it's not a process, it doesn't observe, it doesn't create, it doesn't learn. It's the observation that certain phenotypes are worse or better than others for certain environments. As a simplistic example a given environment has sharp eyed birds looking for bugs. The bugs that blend better with the background survive better, and natural selection is the phenomenon/observation that this phenotype becomes more predominant.

touchingcloth wrote:The code comes out of mutations of sexual combination.
Again natural selection doesn't actually "select" as a process...it's merely the observation that the best extant phenotypes for an environment out-perform other phenotypes.

So you're saying the code came after evolution, or by way of evolution?

DannyM wrote: Do you know of a code that didn't come from an intelligent mind?

Well with an example such as DNA we don't know conclusively where it came from. It's not enough to say that we observe that, for example, languages and computer code come form human minds, therefore DNA being somewhat analogous to these must have been specified in a mind. But that isn't to say that DNA or its antecedents didn't come from a mind, just that we don't know either way.

DannyM wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:The code comes out of mutations of sexual combination.
Again natural selection doesn't actually "select" as a process...it's merely the observation that the best extant phenotypes for an environment out-perform other phenotypes.

So you're saying the code came after evolution, or by way of evolution?

Typo in my above quote...it should read "mutations or natural selection.
The genotype of a given individual (for sexually reproducing species) comes half from their mother, half from their father, plus the effect of any mutations during the process. It doesn't come from or after evolution, but the environment acts on the phenotype by degrees to cause evolution.

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote: The code comes out of mutations of sexual combination.
Again natural selection doesn't actually "select" as a process...it's merely the observation that the best extant phenotypes for an environment out-perform other phenotypes.

So now it observes... So how does it know how to observe the best extant phenotypes for an environment? Where does that come from?

I know you can't answer the question... That's ok.

In fairness, he didn't attribute the observation to the process.

Natural selection is a mechanism that provides a plausible explanation as to why some phenotypes outperform and survive while most don't. It doesn't preclude intelligent design nor can it in terms of the mechanism itself being planned or designed. But to be honest it eliminates what was up until the time it was posited as a means of filtering, a common "God of the gaps" argument that such a mechanism didn't exist and it was the active hand of God.

That's an inherent danger in most God of the Gaps arguments. It begs the question if and when a natural explanation comes forward as to why it was needed and invoked in the first place as if God needs to be proven or explained in that manner. I'm firmly convinced of the existence of God. I don't need to construct proofs based on the absence of evidence or the absence of a plausible explanation for an unexplained phenomenon. God's existence is independent of those sort of things and further, the presence of what is proven to be "natural" as opposed to "super-natural" doesn't preclude God as the author or designer of the process.

That's how I see it anyway.

touchingcloth wrote:Again, it's not a process, it doesn't observe, it doesn't create, it doesn't learn.

Then it's random...

Random
1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
2. Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.
3. Building Trades.
a. (of building materials) lacking uniformity of dimensions: random shingles.
b. (of ashlar) laid without continuous courses.
c. constructed or applied without regularity: random bond.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/random

touchingcloth wrote:It's the observation that certain phenotypes are worse or better than others for certain environments. As a simplistic example a given environment has sharp eyed birds looking for bugs. The bugs that blend better with the background survive better, and natural selection is the phenomenon/observation that this phenotype becomes more predominant.

Again you keep saying that it's an observation... If it's not random then answer the following questions.

1. What is making this observation?
2. What is determining that certain phenotypes are worse or others for certain environments?
3. How does it know what will work in one environment and not the other?

We have to be strong in our convictions. I'm waiting for some solid evidence here... If you have it, please reveal the source.

Thanks TC...

the mutations are random, selection isn't

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:It's the observation that certain phenotypes are worse or better than others for certain environments. As a simplistic example a given environment has sharp eyed birds looking for bugs. The bugs that blend better with the background survive better, and natural selection is the phenomenon/observation that this phenotype becomes more predominant.

Again you keep saying that it's an observation... If it's not random then answer the following questions.

1. What is making this observation?
2. What is determining that certain phenotypes are worse or others for certain environments?
3. How does it know what will work in one environment and not the other?

We have to be strong in our convictions. I'm waiting for some solid evidence here... If you have it, please reveal the source.

Thanks TC...

1. What is making this observation?
We are? Canuckster put it well when the said that I wasn't assigning the observation to the process...largely because there is no process!
2. What is determining that certain phenotypes are worse or others for certain environments?
The environment...being for example predators (predators will catch prey that is easy for them to catch...phenotypes that are difficult for the local predators to catch will predomindate), or the physical surroundings (in hot temperatures phenotypes that succumb to heat will die, phenotypes that deal well with heat will not).
3. How does it know what will work in one environment and not the other?
There is no "it"...procreation is the limiting factor...a creature that is able to survive in an environment and to procreate will see an increase in its genes in the following generations. It is the fact that such genes propagate that we term natural selection, not any process that mindfully selects the genes.

Canuckster1127 wrote: In fairness, he didn't attribute the observation to the process.

Natural selection is a mechanism that provides a plausible explanation as to why some phenotypes outperform and survive while most don't. It doesn't preclude intelligent design nor can it in terms of the mechanism itself being planned or designed. But to be honest it eliminates what was up until the time it was posited as a means of filtering, a common "God of the gaps" argument that such a mechanism didn't exist and it was the active hand of God.

That's an inherent danger in most God of the Gaps arguments. It begs the question if and when a natural explanation comes forward as to why it was needed and invoked in the first place as if God needs to be proven or explained in that manner. I'm firmly convinced of the existence of God. I don't need to construct proofs based on the absence of evidence or the absence of a plausible explanation for an unexplained phenomenon. God's existence is independent of those sort of things and further, the presence of what is proven to be "natural" as opposed to "super-natural" doesn't preclude God as the author or designer of the process.

That's how I see it anyway.

Thanks Canuckster, that was a great post.

touchingcloth wrote:

DannyM wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:The code comes out of mutations of sexual combination.
Again natural selection doesn't actually "select" as a process...it's merely the observation that the best extant phenotypes for an environment out-perform other phenotypes.

So you're saying the code came after evolution, or by way of evolution?

Typo in my above quote...it should read "mutations or natural selection.
The genotype of a given individual (for sexually reproducing species) comes half from their mother, half from their father, plus the effect of any mutations during the process. It doesn't come from or after evolution, but the environment acts on the phenotype by degrees to cause evolution.

Okay, but where did the code come from in the very beginning?

DannyM wrote: Okay, but where did the code come from in the very beginning?

Which code? DNA? RNA? Or their possible antecedents?

touchingcloth wrote: 1. What is making this observation?
We are? Canuckster put it well when the said that I wasn't assigning the observation to the process...largely because there is no process!

You mean intelligence... You need intelligence to observe the process. Thanks for the clarification. Got it.

touchingcloth wrote:2. What is determining that certain phenotypes are worse or others for certain environments?
The environment...being for example predators (predators will catch prey that is easy for them to catch...phenotypes that are difficult for the local predators to catch will predomindate), or the physical surroundings (in hot temperatures phenotypes that succumb to heat will die, phenotypes that deal well with heat will not).

There are no predators... Again we have nothing.. Predators are fully formed functioning animals. I stated earlier that I wanted to know the source. How does it all start? How does it select? What does it select? We don't even have phenotypes.

We need solid information and I just don't see it unfortunately...

touchingcloth wrote:3. How does it know what will work in one environment and not the other?
There is no "it"...procreation is the limiting factor...a creature that is able to survive in an environment and to procreate will see an increase in its genes in the following generations. It is the fact that such genes propagate that we term natural selection, not any process that mindfully selects the genes.

Then there is nothing.. There are no genes. There are no creatures.. We have nothing.

You have to start from somewhere... Sorry I just don't buy this.