Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote:regarding the valves being new info. I would say, prove it. We have documented proof of traits that can change without any new information being created. What genetic proof do you have of new information?

There are 2 islands, Kopiste and Mcraru. The Mcraru population of lizards can be shown (via mitochondrial DNA analysis) to be descendents of the Kopiste population. The genome of the Mcraru lizards codes for cecal valves whereas that of the Kopsite lizards doesn't. We have access to individuals of a new population that has evolved a new organ (Mcraru lizards) as well as a good control population (the lizards of Kopiste).

touchingcloth wrote:

jlay wrote:regarding the valves being new info. I would say, prove it. We have documented proof of traits that can change without any new information being created. What genetic proof do you have of new information?

There are 2 islands, Kopiste and Mcraru. The Mcraru population of lizards can be shown (via mitochondrial DNA analysis) to be descendents of the Kopiste population. The genome of the Mcraru lizards codes for cecal valves whereas that of the Kopsite lizards doesn't. We have access to individuals of a new population that has evolved a new organ (Mcraru lizards) as well as a good control population (the lizards of Kopiste).

Not just descendants, genetically identical. Here's a quote from a related article:

Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.

What does this tell you exactly? That their DNA is pre-coded to developing cecal valves. Wow this evolution of yours is one smart cookie to have predicted the necessity for a cecal valve (by somehow knowing that humans will transport some of these lizards to a different island where cecal valves will be needed for adaptation) and included its genetic instructions a priori in their DNA. Hmm, or could an argument for design be made here as well?

The genome of the Mcraru lizards codes for cecal valves whereas that of the Kopsite lizards doesn't.

Was Science Daily wrong when they said the genetic info was identical?
I've yet to find anything that confirms new info. Link please.

Head size can easliy be explained through natural selection with no new genetic info.

Byblos wrote: Not just descendants, genetically identical. Here's a quote from a related article:

Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste.

jlay wrote:

The genome of the Mcraru lizards codes for cecal valves whereas that of the Kopsite lizards doesn't.

Was Science Daily wrong when they said the genetic info was identical?

Not wrong, no - but slightly inaccurate. The original study stated that the 2 populations of lizards were genetically indistinguishable from one another, based on an analysis of mitochondrial DNA. C.f. the fact that you will be genetically indistinguishable from your parents and many previous generations (I'm not sure how many, exactly) of your family, based on a mitochondrial DNA analysis. However if you were to base things on a full DNA sequencing then you would be genetically very different from even your own parents and siblings.

The PNAS has a copy of the research available here. It goes into a bit more detail on some points than the Science Daily article does.

the effects of such changes on whole-organism performance capacity and the consequences on ecological dynamics at the population level are often unclear.

I read through the complete article. although there was some info on DNA, i failed to see where it demonstrated brand new information. The article seemed to focus mainly on diet. I wouldn't say that I am more or less evolved than a vegan.

as you said, I would have a unique DNA sequence, but not a new one. I have nothing that wasn't passed down from two parents.

jlay wrote:

the effects of such changes on whole-organism performance capacity and the consequences on ecological dynamics at the population level are often unclear.

I read through the complete article. although there was some info on DNA, i failed to see where it demonstrated brand new information. The article seemed to focus mainly on diet. I wouldn't say that I am more or less evolved than a vegan.

as you said, I would have a unique DNA sequence, but not a new one. I have nothing that wasn't passed down from two parents.

Have you got different organs from your parents, though?

If responses like that are where your argument has degenerated to, then I'm done.

Its all a matter of flawed mindset.

jlay wrote:If responses like that are where your argument has degenerated to, then I'm done.

You missed my point...
You said that your DNA sequence has "nothing that wasn't passed down from your two parents" and that's true, to a limited extent; you will have some traits from recessive genes evident that neither of your parents did, and there's an overwhelming likelihood that stretches of the genetic material passed on to you underwent mutations before being passed on to you.

I think it's a stretch to conclude that evolution/speciation (micro or macro) never happened, or to completely doubt it... it seems unlikely to me that every single species was created (asa) independently,, don't you think?

BTW what is this "Schroeder's Creation Perspective"?

Anonymiss wrote:I think it's a stretch to conclude that evolution/speciation (micro or macro) never happened, or to completely doubt it... it seems unlikely to me that every single species was created (asa) independently,, don't you think?

Who is concluding that speciation or evolution never happens. Not at all. We just see different expalantions for those observations. we see fully functional species. We don't see creatures that are changing scales into feathers. Or gills into lungs. We see fully functional lungs, and fully functional gills.

Some see extinct creatures, variation, and then take a flying leap of faith into darwinian evolution. That is how this whole thing arose. A beak changes size through natural selection, and then one concludes, this could lead to even greater changes. Enough to change goo into you.

jlay wrote:

Anonymiss wrote:I think it's a stretch to conclude that evolution/speciation (micro or macro) never happened, or to completely doubt it... it seems unlikely to me that every single species was created (asa) independently,, don't you think?

Who is concluding that speciation or evolution never happens. Not at all. We just see different expalantions for those observations. we see fully functional species. We don't see creatures that are changing scales into feathers. Or gills into lungs. We see fully functional lungs, and fully functional gills.

Some see extinct creatures, variation, and then take a flying leap of faith into darwinian evolution. That is how this whole thing arose. A beak changes size through natural selection, and then one concludes, this could lead to even greater changes. Enough to change goo into you.

Yup.

Faith is the belief in God purely based on what the bible say about the creation of our universe and man; and man has a soul, is born with the original sin. It
involves the mental acceptance of and the conviction in the truth, the validity of the bible without any proof. Science on the other hand will accpet as the truth only when the knowledge can be proven.
These two approaches to knowledge are forever at odds with each other.

The scientific approach on the subject of god is...at the present stage of developement of man, he does not have the brain power to under the nature of god, his power or his role in the creation of the universe. However, using our knowledge on the human gene and other evolution observations, he understand and know that man has evolved from primitive life form and NOT created instantly by god told by the bible.

As mans' knowledge advances, the scientific method is slowly gaining grounds on faith based belief.

Ah Beng wrote:Faith is the belief in God purely based on what the bible say about the creation of our universe and man; and man has a soul, is born with the original sin. It
involves the mental acceptance of and the conviction in the truth, the validity of the bible without any proof.

Not quite. Faith allows for personal revelation and other, doubtless very powerful experiences unique to individuals that cannot be accepted by science due to their subjectivity. Faith isn't based entirely on scripture.

touchingcloth wrote:

Ah Beng wrote:Faith is the belief in God purely based on what the bible say about the creation of our universe and man; and man has a soul, is born with the original sin. It
involves the mental acceptance of and the conviction in the truth, the validity of the bible without any proof.

Not quite. Faith allows for personal revelation and other, doubtless very powerful experiences unique to individuals that cannot be accepted by science due to their subjectivity. Faith isn't based entirely on scripture.

Preach it brother!