Evidence for God from Science

Whoever said the species thing was overrated was right. A certain gull that lives in England can't or won't interbreed with a somewhat similar gull that shares its geography. If you circled the globe observing this gull - going west and staying on latitude - the gull starts to change. From England to Greenland, Canada, Alaska, the Aleutians, Siberia, across Asia and back to England, that first gull gradually turns into the other. At every step along the way, they interbreed. When does this gull "become" one species and quit being the other? The salamanders that live on the ridge of mountains that surround the Central Valley of California (40 miles by 400 miles) are another example of the many "ring species" of the world.

The term "species" more reflects the human drive to label things than it serves a useful function in nature. As evolution occurred, living things gradually turned into other living things. Lines of continuity connect whole groups of past and present living things. If they were all still alive today, attempting to separate cats from dogs would be a doomed enterprise. Instead of discrete names, we would need sliding scales, placing labels in the realm of fiction. We don't recognize evolution when it happens because it occurs too slowly - not something we could recognize in one (or 10) lifetimes.

Species are sometimes defined as groups that can't interbreed with other groups. Sometimes, species can interbreed, but won't. The insects with the big red thoracic dot and the unadorned ones ignore each other - until the curious entomologist paints red dots on the plain ones. Immediately the orgy begins, creating normal progeny. Sometimes very similar species breed with each other, but create a sterile offspring. Horses and donkeys create mules, which are sterile.

DB

Himantolophus wrote:I can't prove or disprove OEC, so I'm not looking to debate TE vs. OEC because they both share a lot of the same beliefs. If God is part of the evolutionary process, we will never know.

What's your stance on the evolution involved in OEC vs. the kind of hyperevolution used by YEC? What about the speciation claimed by Robert? I still think millions of species in 500 years is beyond OEC/TE evolution.

Just to verify - you are an OEC Theistic Evolutionist right?

You probably know I am a OEC Day-Age proponent. As such I believe God created life ex nihilo as with the universe. As Earth's environment changed from being able to sustain simple life to more complex life, God created creatures according the environment. Thus, we have more simple cell organisms early on in Earth's history (apparently it seems almost as soon as Earth could sustain life), and we end up with more and more complex life forms over time since Earth's environment is able to sustain them, until finally humanity came onto the scene - the pinnacle of God's creation. Thus, evolution is in no way comprises my OEC Day-Age beliefs. I do accept variations and natural selection, but stop at the point of saying appendages can grow, salt water fish can become fresh water, grow legs, walk on land, reptile dinosaurs became birds with feathers, etc. There is just too much genetic information required to be explainable by natural selection mixed with genetic variations or mutations under environmental pressures.

As for YEC, it is odd they attack evolution so much while embracing a really rapid evolution required post-flood with the "kinds" of animals. I disagree with Robert's YEC beliefs. Yet, YECs do limit such evolution to that of a really, really rapid microevolution. I do not believe they would cross the boundaries into saying a dog became a cat, or a horse a giraffe or what-have-you. So even though their beliefs are based on their own extraordinary science, they still do have limits to what they accept with evolution.

David Blacklock: good post. i think the "blurry" at best definition of species is strong evidence for evolution. The fact that the way we see things now is a "snapshot" in an ongoing evolutionary process is strong evidence of the changes ongoing with those species. Given a creationist definition of "kinds" and "created kinds", the species should be very clear cut, not vague.

You probably know I am a OEC Day-Age proponent. As such I believe God created life ex nihilo as with the universe. As Earth's environment changed from being able to sustain simple life to more complex life, God created creatures according the environment. Thus, we have more simple cell organisms early on in Earth's history (apparently it seems almost as soon as Earth could sustain life), and we end up with more and more complex life forms over time since Earth's environment is able to sustain them, until finally humanity came onto the scene - the pinnacle of God's creation. Thus, evolution is in no way comprised in my OEC Day-Age beliefs. I do accept variations and natural selection, but stop at the point of saying appendages can grow, salt water fish can become fresh water, grow legs, walk on land, reptile dinosaurs became birds with feathers, etc. There is just too much genetic information required to be explainable by natural selection mixed with genetic variations or mutations under environmental pressures.

Thanks for the clarification. i never really knew exactly what a OEC thinks animals came about. So, you think God chose the time and place and just "poofed" (pardon the term) species on the Earth? How does that fit into the Genesis acount of all creatures created in the Beginning? I guess "Day-Age" could explain it... So you don't believe in any type of evolution? Even microevolution? You say variations and natural selection are good to you but aren't thoses the mechanisms of microevolution? and wouldn't accumulated micro = macro?

On the things you mention describing macroevolutionary change, what about the stuff that shows those features and how did they come about if it wasn't macroevolution? The tetrapods with tiny legs and fish bodies? The dinosaurs that have imprints of feathers? Would God have created something in between two "kinds"? We also know of populations of saltwater fish that have landlocked themselves in freshwater (salmons, trouts, whitefish, sharks, striped bass). I'd hardly consider that evolution since the landlocked population is the same species as the marine form.

Most OEC'er's and progressive creationists are quite comfortable with microevolution.

See the main boards description on progressive creationism.

Ex Nihilo does not exclude HIm using the raw material of previous species to develop the new ones

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... ssive.html

Specifically

"holds that each new life form was not, necessarily, created out of nothing, or out of previously non-living material. Or at least that the "template" of previously existing life is used again - with adjustments. It agrees with the latter, not only in affirming the verbal inspiration of the Bible, but that God was present at every stage of the creation of life and that every new life form was a deliberate and miraculous act of God."

Himantolophus wrote:David Blacklock: good post. i think the "blurry" at best definition of species is strong evidence for evolution. The fact that the way we see things now is a "snapshot" in an ongoing evolutionary process is strong evidence of the changes ongoing with those species. Given a creationist definition of "kinds" and "created kinds", the species should be very clear cut, not vague.

You probably know I am a OEC Day-Age proponent. As such I believe God created life ex nihilo as with the universe. As Earth's environment changed from being able to sustain simple life to more complex life, God created creatures according the environment. Thus, we have more simple cell organisms early on in Earth's history (apparently it seems almost as soon as Earth could sustain life), and we end up with more and more complex life forms over time since Earth's environment is able to sustain them, until finally humanity came onto the scene - the pinnacle of God's creation. Thus, evolution is in no way comprised in my OEC Day-Age beliefs. I do accept variations and natural selection, but stop at the point of saying appendages can grow, salt water fish can become fresh water, grow legs, walk on land, reptile dinosaurs became birds with feathers, etc. There is just too much genetic information required to be explainable by natural selection mixed with genetic variations or mutations under environmental pressures.

Thanks for the clarification. i never really knew exactly what a OEC thinks animals came about. So, you think God chose the time and place and just "poofed" (pardon the term) species on the Earth? How does that fit into the Genesis acount of all creatures created in the Beginning? I guess "Day-Age" could explain it... So you don't believe in any type of evolution? Even microevolution? You say variations and natural selection are good to you but aren't thoses the mechanisms of microevolution? and wouldn't accumulated micro = macro?

Zoegirl is right. I actually believe in natural selection, I do believe in mutations, genetic drift, environmental pressures and the like. These do not phase me in the least. I accept microevolution but plainly see a large difference between microevolution and macroevolution. The main distinction for me is microevolution works with existing biological code, whereas macroevolution requires massive amounts of new biological code to come into being which was not previously in existence.

As I see it, massive amounts of DNA code (encyclopedias full) is required. No mechanism has been shown to reveal how such code can come about naturally. The genetic code required for such "changes" can not just be changes, but must itself be created ex nihilo as I see it at some point. Either such "poofing" happens naturally within a closed universe, or intelligent intervention brings about this new code. I personally see many hallmarks for true design. It is so obvious to me I do not understand how many turn a blind eye and do not see. Documentaries even created by naturalists can not even help borrowing "design" language for the very marvels they document.

Changes are fine with me, but evolution needs to describe more than change. It needs to account for the creation of massive amounts of complex biological code for organs and other appendages, bodily functions, etc to work in unitary fashion with other complex biological sub-systems. This no doubt requires massive amounts of DNA code (encyclopedias full) to come together in a coherent fashion where there previously was none. This is why micro can not be extended to explain macro.

Himantolophus wrote:On the things you mention describing macroevolutionary change, what about the stuff that shows those features and how did they come about if it wasn't macroevolution? The tetrapods with tiny legs and fish bodies? The dinosaurs that have imprints of feathers? Would God have created something in between two "kinds"? We also know of populations of saltwater fish that have landlocked themselves in freshwater (salmons, trouts, whitefish, sharks, striped bass). I'd hardly consider that evolution since the landlocked population is the same species as the marine form.

There are valid explanations as to why dinosaurs may have appeared to have feathers in the fossil record. For example, with Psittacosaurus, the "theropod feathers" was actually frayed skin. (see Bald truth about dinosaur feathers) The foot and toe structure of birds and theropods are also quite fundamentally different even it they appear superficially similar. Furthermore, all feathered "dinosaur" transitional forms occur in the fossil record 30 to 80 million years after the appearance of first birds. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... rtid=33564)

"Intermediate" fish-amphibian creatures found in the fossil record like Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are not between "kinds" as I see it. Ichthyostega could not flex its vertebral column from side to side for one, so at least is not a direct ancestor of later vertebrates which can. It died out and many evolutionists are doubtful that it forms a part of "mainline" tetrapod evolution. (Ichthyostega and the Origins of Land Vertebrates) I see nothing against believing Acanthostega was simply an fully aquatic amphibian.

These details aside however, why could creatures of different kinds not be created with similar traits? Does this not just as much imply one Designer as it does some natural inheritance? It could be that in a similar fashion a programmer uses existing code as templates, that the creator chose to use existing chunks of biological code for new creatures (as Zoegirl touched on). So I do not really have issue with so-called transitional forms since the evidence supports neither origin scenario over the other.

Himantolophus wrote:How does that fit into the Genesis acount of all creatures created in the Beginning? I guess "Day-Age" could explain it...

Try the following links for some explanations:
- Creation Timeline Table
- The Days of Creation: A Closer Look at Scripture

Glenn Morton has another exegesis where he considers the events in Genesis to be creative events. I can't find the link offhand, but I'll look tomorrow night.

Hi Kureiuo,

I have to differ with you on the massive amounts of mutational changes necessary for a large change to occur.

There have been major advancements in our understanding of evolution over the past twenty years. For example: Scientists expected a lot more human genes than 22,500 - that's not too many more than are in a worm. Embryologists began to study evo-devo - how the embryo changed into an adult. Geneticists discovered Hox genes that direct body segmentation by the mechanism of switching other genes on and off. It came as a surprise that virtually the same (modular?) genes have been found amongst diverse species - from fungi to humans.

Most successful (nonlethal) mutations were found amongst the gene switches. Complexity and variety may be created by shuffling the patterns of control on the core control genes rather than by mutative changes in the core genes themselves. Constraints imposed by these core genes and deconstraint on the switches could enhance the novelty that begged for more explanation.

Here's how it works:

1. The constrained (hard to change) parts of the genome are the "conserved core processes." These include metabolic processes of: the first bacteria, first eukaryocytes, first multicellular organisms, bilateral body plans of metazoans, Hox genes for embryonic segmentation, neural crest cells in vertebrates, limb formation in the first land vertebrates, and the neocortex. They include basic information processing of DNA, RNA, protein synthesis and all aspects of cellular metabolism.

2. The core processes have special properties that allow them to be linked together in new combinations, generating new phenotypes.

3. Originally described as the "Baldwin Effect," a stressful environment causes the above-mentioned special properties to stretch phenotypic expression, creating outlying (physiologically exceptional) individuals who are fitter models for a stabilizing mutation.

4. Despite the randomness of mutations, phenotypic variation cannot be random because it involves modification of what already exists in the core processes - yet, the possible varieties of combinations amongst the core processes are limitless.

5. Core processes arose hundreds of millions of years ago in a few intermittent waves of innovation. Most evolutionary change since the Cambrian has not changed core process genes significantly. Instead, mutations have been on regulatory DNA altering core gene expression - placing core processes into new combinations and amounts at new times and places. Lethal mutations are minimized and evolutionary change is facilitated.

DB

Shuffling around core control genes, switching them on and off, linking etc...this sounds awfully like micro-evolution(sounds reasonable), mostly probably deadly/deleterious. All you have is reactions to the environment and nothing proactive, nothing you showed increases complexity and specificity and thus function. Perhaps it might increase complexity since even a garbage bag full of different garbage items can seem complex as well.

If there are 22500 genes in a worm and a little more for humans that tells me more about a front-loading hypothesis and also more explicitly supporting John A. Davisons prescribed evolutionary hypothesis, then it does about Darwinian Evolution.

Complexity and variety may be created by shuffling the patterns of control on the core control genes rather than by mutative changes in the core genes themselves

So was this demonstrated empirically besides the obvious speculation and obvious evo-devo which has nothing to do with where symbolic information came from nor how it came together by Darwinian Mechanisms. I keep hearing all these advancements of evolution in the past 20 years and yet nothing..."may" and "maybes" and all sorts of assumptions supposedly scientific explanations for the most important questions in human existence.

Just to add here, complex specified information (CSI) and irreducible complexity (IC) are just two things that are left to fill in the blanks, one even stronger one is organized complexity in how information can organize itself out of non-living matter to produce a functional living-breathing creature. Imagine buying a complex product that didn't include the assembly instructions and you didn't know how all the parts go together and wouldn't know the original intended design from your unoriginal one you put together. Most of the time, there is only one way to do a certain thing, thats how some designs are. Designs vary in size, in package but if you bought a lawnmower, don't expect a helicopter. Organized complexity is simply a one-way ticket to either creating something that makes use of all the parts (no screws left behind) or there is no way.



Kurieuo puts it well:

"Changes are fine with me, but evolution needs to describe more than change. It needs to account for the creation of massive amounts of complex biological code for organs and other appendages, bodily functions, etc to work in unitary fashion with other complex biological [segments]. This no doubt requires massive amounts of DNA code (encyclopedias full) to come together in a coherent fashion where there previously was none. This is why micro can not be extended to explain macro."

David Blacklock wrote:I have to differ with you on the massive amounts of mutational changes necessary for a large change to occur.
...
Geneticists discovered Hox genes that direct body segmentation by the mechanism of switching other genes on and off. It came as a surprise that virtually the same (modular?) genes have been found amongst diverse species - from fungi to humans.

Hi David.

I can accept hox genes with mutation as a possible natural vehicle for macro-evolutionary change. However, just because something is "possible" does not mean it is really feasible or actually happened. For example, is there even one example where a hox gene mutation resulted in something really new and beneficial? I don't recall coming across any such example/s, but would be interested in them.

Modular I think is a good term to describe our biological code and the segments that hox genes regulate. Being able to duplicate such segments (for example, legs or eyes), switch off segments, or even move such segments of code around on the body is certainly interesting to understand how we have been biologically designed. Yet, one is still working with pre-existing code. Manipulation of pre-existing segments of code to add an extra leg here or eye there is far from explaining how massive amounts of new and meaningful genetic information can accrue.

To re-iterate what I feel is an important paragraph in my previous post: "Changes are fine with me, but evolution needs to describe more than change. It needs to account for the creation of massive amounts of complex biological code for organs and other appendages, bodily functions, etc to work in unitary fashion with other complex biological [segments]. This no doubt requires massive amounts of DNA code (encyclopedias full) to come together in a coherent fashion where there previously was none. This is why micro can not be extended to explain macro."

The keyword Evolutionary biologists should concentrate on for the next 20 years of "advancements" is modularity , modularity is organized complexity of the highest degree.

David Blacklock wrote:Whoever said the species thing was overrated was right. A certain gull that lives in England can't or won't interbreed with a somewhat similar gull that shares its geography. If you circled the globe observing this gull - going west and staying on latitude - the gull starts to change. From England to Greenland, Canada, Alaska, the Aleutians, Siberia, across Asia and back to England, that first gull gradually turns into the other. At every step along the way, they interbreed. When does this gull "become" one species and quit being the other? The salamanders that live on the ridge of mountains that surround the Central Valley of California (40 miles by 400 miles) are another example of the many "ring species" of the world.

The term "species" more reflects the human drive to label things than it serves a useful function in nature. As evolution occurred, living things gradually turned into other living things. Lines of continuity connect whole groups of past and present living things. If they were all still alive today, attempting to separate cats from dogs would be a doomed enterprise. Instead of discrete names, we would need sliding scales, placing labels in the realm of fiction. We don't recognize evolution when it happens because it occurs too slowly - not something we could recognize in one (or 10) lifetimes.

Species are sometimes defined as groups that can't interbreed with other groups. Sometimes, species can interbreed, but won't. The insects with the big red thoracic dot and the unadorned ones ignore each other - until the curious entomologist paints red dots on the plain ones. Immediately the orgy begins, creating normal progeny. Sometimes very similar species breed with each other, but create a sterile offspring. Horses and donkeys create mules, which are sterile.

The non-clarity of species could perhaps be likened to Zeno's argument against motion: "in order for a runner to move from one point to another, he must first cover half the distance between the two points, then half of the remaining distance, then half of what remains next, and so on ad infinitum. Since this requires an infinite number of steps, Zeno argued, the runner would never reach his destination." (http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s4887.html)

It is hard to define species. Whose definition do we go by? However, just like we know Zeno's argument is wrong because we clearly see in reality we are able to reach points, likewise we can see obvious differences between many animals regardless of whether "species" can be clearly defined. Our limitation to categorise and box does not take away from the fact there are many diverse kinds of creatures. We see them around us. Perhaps this is just another reason why it is wrong for people to try and box everything with nice and neat labels.

The only conflict I have and always had is with "chance and luck"...then they go on to tell me that Darwinian Evolution is a undirected- directed process pushing creativity of evolution to the limits. Somehow, they manage formulate an argument and sell it to the public as being equivalent to ohm's law or gravity.

BTW, I just noticed a entry on uncommon descent discussing this very same topic, and it appears that Dr. Behe has already responded to Dr. Lenski regarding this so called evolutionary "enhancement". I still haven't read "the edge of evolution" by Behe, "The Design of LIfe" was pretty good, but I think "the edge" is more lethal as is "Darwin Black Box" after listening to Behe. You can listen to an interview with Micheal Behe on Reasons to Believe streaming audio here: Link

I just had to add this, and at UD they deserve all the credit. Why is it that after all the years of observing evolution in action and all that "evidence" have we just recently stumbled onto an article that proclaims a breakthrough of evolution being observed in bacteria? This is not making sense again, and all the while I thought there were "tons" of these kinds of things hidden in secret underground stashes protected from evil creationists/Christians dressed up in cheap tuxedos.

From what it looks like, there is lots of thinking going on, and lots of geared up evolutionary philosophers dressed up as scientists.

I don't have time now to answer much of this now, although I will try later. I might just add a statistic, though, to spark some interest. A recent study showed that 92% of people who were skeptical about evolution, after having had a legitimate college course in evolution, changed their minds.

IOW, maybe you guys are only reading the sources that want to point out all the things we don't know. There is no branch of science where we know all (or even most) of what there is to know.

Where did I get this statistic. OK you got me - I made it up, but it had you going for a second, right?

DB