Evidence for God from Science

400,000 goes into 6,000,000,000 15,000 times. I would call 1/15,000th a blip.

Again, its natural selection combined with mutations, not just natural selection alone. It's creation of random new characteristics combined with the destruction of ones that don't make the grade. Genetic mutations are what made generations of single celled organisms eventually become crabs as well as everything else, not natural selection. Natural selection accounts for the extinction of species while mutations account for the creations of new ones.

As for if there is no observable evidence, all I can say is yes there is. Take any biology class. Fossil records show species in different layers of sediment (which are from different periods of time) and when placed chronologically, scientists see the fossils very slowly gaining new characteristics over time. The end results are vastly different from the beginning results, the creatures of late generations have much more complicated characteristics than the early generations. If darwainian evolution was true, this is the evidence it would leave. There's no way it could ever leave the evidence you demand, where we see one species evolve directly into another before our eyes.

Plus, we have observed micro evolution directly. If you do the math, thousands and thousands of micro-evolution changes will eventually add up to become something that we would call a macro-evolution change if the first and last changes on the chain were compared. It makes complete philosophical sense. In fact it's hard to imagine a scenario where micro-evolution WOULDN'T result in macro-evolution.

As for my responsibility to provide observed and testable proof, I'm detecting a little bit of a double standard. I've seen next to no testable evidence to the contrary.

No fossil has been 'observed' changing into anything. Fossils exist in the present, not the past.

I think you are getting your sciences confused. Forensic v. Observational.
I've taken college level biology, and anthropology. In biology I don't recall studying fossils. Not to say that biology wouldn't be used, but biology doesn't do what you are claiming. Biology can only 'study' a fossil today. it makes no inferences about the past. It takes a philosophy with presuppositions to make the claims you have in your previous posts. Either you are willing to recognize this or you or not.

If you do the math, thousands and thousands of micro-evolution changes will eventually add up to become something that we would call a macro-evolution change if the first and last changes on the chain were compared.

Sorry Seraph, but you are committing great error in fallacious reasoning. There is not mathmatical evidence of evolution. You are making a philosophical assumption. It is the fallacy of equivocation. You are liberally using the word evolution as it relates to one thing, and then swirling the pot and applying that use of the word evolution to 'prove' particles to people. And then you wave your wand and say, "tada, we see evolution happening all the time." It's deceptive. Not saying you are doing it intentionally. You obviously appear to beleive what you say. But I'm here to tell you that you have built your evolutionary worldview on very shaky ground. Gman is much better at dealing with this than I.

As for my responsibility to provide observed and testable proof, I'm detecting a little bit of a double standard. I've seen next to no testable evidence to the contrary

You can't be serious? This is akin to saying, "I know you are but what am I."

I would call 1/15,000th a blip.

Uh, yes, a blip. Especially since you are assuming that the earth would be life supporting at the alpha point. it wouldn't. When would it? And then you assume that every change is progressive. When in fact the fossil record is actually a death record of failure. What we see today is not evolution but extinction. We see species being pressured, and collapsing. Not to mention all the 'living' fossils that we have discovered that are unchanged.

It's creation of random new characteristics combined with the destruction of ones that don't make the grade.

Creation? Please provide me with one testable and observable evidence of NEW information being created and added to the genome. A mutation is not new info. it is corrupted existing info. there is nothing in crab color, finch beaks, etc. to indicate any mutations, or new info to the genome, which you HAVE to have. What we know about mutations in testable and observable situations is that they are overwhelmingly disasterous. Not slightly, but overwhelmingly. Figure the odds of what we know about mutations, adjust time, and then use your math. A blip. Maybe a blip is too generous.

Jlay, there is nothing that magical about mutations creating new information. It doesn't have to create brand spanking new pieces of DNA to do what the theory of evolution (especially at the microevolution level) requires. Whether you call it corrupting old information, it still is changing a gene product in some way. Whether or not that gene product leads to a change in crab carapace color, feather color, courtship behavior, petal shape, enzyme activity, enzyme-substrate relationship, keratin organization, it alters the way the organisms fits within the environment. And that is where natural selection occurs.

Now the question is whether the mutations happen at the rate that is required and effect that is required. But there is nothing inherently ruinous to the theory about corrupting information. After all, this information leads to constructing or regulation the construction of proteins. There are almost disastrous mutations called frameshift mutations, where a nucleotide base is added or deleted to the gene sequence, which completely alters the amino acid sequence. But there are simple missense mutations that simply alter one amino acid, far more likely to have only a slight change to the function. Not to mention chromosomal changes, duplication of genes, fusion of chromosomes.

We can argue about the rate or the amount/accumulation of mutations, but not about what mutations do or what is needed. Behe's new book, edge of evolution, discusses this and it's a great read.

It doesn't have to create brand spanking new pieces of DNA to do what the theory of evolution (especially at the microevolution level) requires.

Wow Zoe. That is quite the caveat in the (). Especially considering that micro is not the issue here. I think in reading the thread its pretty clear where I take exception.

As for if there is no observable evidence, all I can say is yes there is. Take any biology class. Fossil records show species in different layers of sediment (which are from different periods of time) and when placed chronologically, scientists see the fossils very slowly gaining new characteristics over time

Seraph, one possible explanation for seeing different characteristics at different layers(periods of time), is the theory that Hugh Ross holds to. God created increasingly more complex lifeforms, ultimately culminating with His final creation of the most advanced lifeform(modern humans). More advanced life as time goes on, doesn't have to mean evolution.

Rick, yes, and there are other theories that fit non-darwinian models as well.

If darwainian evolution was true, this is the evidence it would leave.

i think it is important to point out that this is another common fallacy in evolutionary thinking, a form of affirming the consequent.

My point in saying that its the type of evidence evolution would leave was to combat the idea that there is no evidence of evolution. There is as much evidence present as would be predicted by the theory. As well, this isn't the only premise for why I or evolutionists think that darwinian evolution did take place.

My problem with the theory that God created more advanced life as time went on is that the advancment of the species creates a pretty visible "chain" where many of the new species at a point appear a lot like the older, but with just one or sometimes a few traits altered from it's previous incarnation. If evolution is not at play, why would God make each generation of species appear like the last with only minor differences? It sounds sort of like a desperate theory to me. In fact accepting this to be true in order to prove that evolution is false would be affirming the consequent.

Seraph wrote:If evolution is not at play, why would God make each generation of species appear like the last with only minor differences?

For one, survival could be a reason; you could also say it was simply God's choice of design. To say that it *must* be evolution just because you can't figure out why God would do something is rather silly in my opinion.

I personally adhere to progressive creationism (like Hugh Ross), and I have no problem thinking that evolution might be responsible in some cases. (but not all) In fact, I wouldn't say I necessarily have a problem with (macro) evolution at all, aside from man evolving. The Bible (in my eyes) clearly states that man was created directly by God, not passively by God through evolutionary mechanisms.

If evolution is not at play, why would God make each generation of species appear like the last with only minor differences?

Can you elaborate a little more and give specific examples.

There is as much evidence present as would be predicted by the theory.

Really? According to who? Proponents of Darwinian evolution?

My point in saying that its the type of evidence evolution would leave was to combat the idea that there is no evidence of evolution.

Well evidence really is the issue here. Evidence is just evidence. It is the interpretations of evidence that are at issue. For example, we have a fossil record. That isn't disputed. It is the interpretations of the fossil record that are conflicting. One person looks at the Grand Canyon and sees millions of years of slow erosion. Another, sees the result of a catostophic event that happened rapidly. Both will claim the Grand Canyon as evidence for their worldview.

Seraph, you are certainly free to believe whatever it is you like. However, just based on your statements in this thread, it would seem to me that you would be wise to do a little personal evaluation, just as we all need to do. It isn't wise to support one's worldview on a foundation of logical fallacies.

I admit, I'm only 21 and not a biologist so I'm not going to be able to give specific cases where evidence of a genertic mutation resulting in a change of traits for its descendents has been found, though it's not hard to find these supposed examples from studies in biology, such as the supposed mutation within homo erectus that resulted in homo sapiens. But as to who is interpreting the evidence, it makes logical sense to a layman like me that if evolution were the mechanism through which life appeared on Earth, we would have a fossil record that contains a noticable transition from simplistic lifeforms that appear to date from very long ago to more complex ones that appear to date from more recently than the simplistic ones. Again, I'm not a biologist but I'll believe that this is what the fossil record looks like since both evolutionists and non-evolutionists admit this appears to be the case. No one can prove anything using evidence with 100% certainty since it has to be interpreted like you said, but I think that the "logical" thing to believe is the answer that, from one's knowledge, appears most likely to be true, which to me appears to be theistic evolution. This is why I really don't think my worldview is founded upon logical fallacies. I'm definatly not saying my worldview is accurate beyond the shadow of any doubt, but then again no intellectually honest (or sane) person would make that claim about themself.

Plus, if it was your outlook that evidence can't be trusted, you could turn this on the Bible. One could say "why should I believe anything the Bible says? Just because it says stuff doesn't mean it's true". You would simply arrive at a place where you're a complete non-beliver in anything, science or otherwise. Meanwhile, if I formed a worldview purely on an interpretation that I choose to make completely on my own, I don't think it would be much different than pretending.

OK, Seraph let's look at it logically.

Is there another reason why we would find 'simple' life forms?

Let me ask you this. Do we find simple life forms today? Yes. if you go out and start digging in your yard what kind of life forms will you find? Simple or complex? You will find earthworms, snails, etc. That stuff is in the earth. What is the likelyhood that it will be preserved in the fossil record, say, compared to a cow? Have you ever observed a dead animal carcass, lie there for years, and slowly get buried month after month, year after year? No. That is not how things work in nature. We can observe that, now. However, the snail, the crab, etc, can and does die already buried, and is thus much more likely to be preserved. So does that mean that in 10k years people will dig and then presume that there were no advanced life forms? No. It is only likely that you will see advanced life forms preserved where very special conditions exist. floods, mudslides, bogs. So, why would you take testable and observable observations and ignore them for the past? Is that logical? Simple lifeforms in the soil, at the bottom of lakes, oceans, rivers, etc. are the one's likely to be preserved in the fossil record, and be preserved apart from more complex life forms. and since they already dwell at the bottom, it is likely that they would be found at the bottom of the fossil record. It is only natural.

I don't think the evidence is the problem. I think the problem is the presuppositions with which the evidence is handled. it is those presuppositions that will allow an entire scientific community to dismiss the reasonable explanation above, and instead embrace the illogical. Despite what you think, the fossil record is not layers where you can trace evolution by simply traveling upward. And so in your last paragraph you are making assumptions about my position simply being one of extreme skepticism. The fact is I do have good reasons to reject your presuppositions and hold to mine. Regardless of how 'popular' yours might be.

Listen, you are saying it yourself. You are saying things like 'supposed,' and trusting that as evidence. 'supposed mutations' are not evidence. It is imagination.

the fossil record is far more complex than just "gee it's at the bottom of the fossil record, must have been at the bottom of the lake"....I don't know where you are getting this idea that there aren't layers that are ordered through time. It's no surprise to scientists that not everything becomes fossilized and that there are gaps. Let's give them more credit than this!

You claim that they have presuppositions, Jlay, but I would argue that you are coming with just as many suppositions to the evidence.

Zoe,
Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say the layers weren't ordered. I said that you can't simply look at the layers and see what Seraph is claiming. That being a clear step by step journey through the layers from simple lifeforms to complex establishing intermediary transitions. That simply isn't the case.

Zoe, read my post, I said I have presuppositions. Eveyone has them. To be honest I think you are reading things into my post, responding with a great deal of unmerited criticism and not recognizing the obvious things I pointed out.

regarding the gaps. I am not specifically speaking of gaps. I am providing a valid answer as to why we would see the simplest fossils at the bottom of the strata. You criticise my repsonse but you providing zero evidence to show how complexity you refer to defeats my position.

Regarding the order of the layers. The reality is that we are able to observe things today in nature, but not in the past. In some cases the order of the layers may represent a time line. The layer above is younger than the below. However this isn't always the case. In reality, we don't know if the layers were laid down progressively. We can't go back in time. We can observe how layers are laid down today. Sometimes, especially in a catastrophy, multiple layers are laid down simultaneosly. In fact, apart from catastrophy we don't see much of 'layers' being formed at all today. At least not in the order that we see in the geologic column. We actually see layers being erroded.
We have observed rapid deposition and strata formation like this at Mt. St. Helens (and other eruptions) where multiple sediment layers formed at the same time. Some up to 400 feet thick. I'm sure you could demonstrate this to students by taking water, and different types of dirt and sand material, mixing it all up, and then waiting for it to settle. If we didn't observe those conditions, some would view this as different layers laid down progressivley over time, some thousands possibly hundreds of thousands of years apart. I don't think it is coincidence that what distinquishes many stratified layers is that the strata are composed of distinct materials, such as a layer of shale, topped by sandstone, topped by limestone.

look, I stand by my observations. I would venture to say that you look for the exceptions and proclaim them the rule simply because they work for your presuppositions.

Zoe,
The fact is you accused me of something I didn't say. Your criticism seems more personal directed than evidence directed. The reality is that you have criticized my postion while offering Zilch in terms of actual evidence. I'm sure everyone would appreciate you pointing out where my observations are invalid. I would say that your reply comes across as predjudicial, and a little snobbish.
Example: "the fossil record is far more complex than just "gee it's at the bottom of the fossil record"
Newton: “Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and
confusion of things."

Please show where I am doing what you accuse, that being addressing exceptions. Do you honestly believe that simple life forms being more prone to fossilization is the exception?
Certainly rapid deposition and multiple strata formation is the norm in regards to repeatable, and observable events.