Evidence for God from Science

Morny wrote:Not that anyone cares, but I'm back from knocking down every mogul in the Rockies.

Welcome back, hope you have a good time away.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You do know, I actually have no issue accepting common descent?

You accept the evidence that supports the conclusion that we share a common ancestor with salmon via biological procreation?

Common descent is simply the view that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor.
While undoubtedly the position of most who hold to it, you are adding to it by saying "via biological procreation."

I've elaborated a bit on my position here to Audie, so you may want to re-read over (if you haven't). We also covered some ground regarding my views and compatibility with common descent in a different thread recently.

If a person believes in either Naturalistic Evolution and Theistic Evolution, then they believe that as new life came onto the scene that new information, traits or the like was added to the previous organism via natural evolutionary processes.

If you believe in Progressive Creation as I do, then you would believe that God either created a new organism brand new from nothing, brand new from previous life or brand new using a mix of biological code or traits.

SO, all three views can support common descent, including a Progressive Creation position.
Some form of common descent can also be supported in Christianity via Scripture -- God after all made man from dust and woman from man.
The mechanism for "new biological information" being added to a new organism need not be natural evolutionary processes, but could be direct intervention.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:So I don't intend to argue against such hierarchies, but there are difficulties with grouping organisms by traits.

A couple things ...

Persistent difficulties with grouping organisms by traits would invalidate the hypothesis of common descent.

I don't think it would invalidate common descent. The keyword I suppose in your words is "persistent difficulties".

There are difficulties, some I mentioned which you respond to.
Sometimes organisms will be classified by their appearance, bone fragments, their DNA, or reproductive ability.

There may also be timing issues with some organisms appeared too soon, or not where expected in the fossil record.
So, what we say then is that similar traits must have converged -- some earlier others later.

Throughout all this though, those who hold to common descent will still see it as true.
When there are issues that arise, the trees or nested hierarchies just need re-examining.

I'll again reiterate that it's not my intention here to debate common descent.
Many attribute nested hierarchies to common descent, but they also just simply support common design. Like fork, spork and spoon -- you know?

Whether or not true, again it can still be accounted for in a progressive creation position (if you forget, you may want to refresh yourself on an exchange we previously had).

My interest here was more with, as I previously described, whether common descent via natural processes or direct intervention was more appropriate.
There are three positions as I see it: Naturalistic Evolution, Theistic Evolution or some forms of Progressive Creation.

I must admit, I've lost a little interest now it's a week later.
Burnt out in another thread. If I may, I'd refer to you a thread I've been posting in since you've been gone.
There's a lot of relevant information in there -- feel free to jump in also.

I'd recommend reading from this post here the exchanged only between myself and Audie.
Audie perhaps took over from you here, only in that thread and I've posted much there.

Morny wrote:The one objective nested hierarchy, not hierarchies, supports the hypothesis. Multiple valid nested hierarchies would invalidate common descent.

Just wondering...
How can you have "multiple valid nested hierarchies?
That is, if common descent is rejected -- invalidated -- then how could they ever be "valid"?

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:E.g., some butterflies that appeared to have similar traits = classified as same species.
DNA analysis shows that some of these butterflies in fact has very different traits in their make-up = different species.
[...]
Similarities could just be a matter of what "similar traits" we decide to focus upon.

You bring up an extremely important point. All traits go into the nested hierarchy analysis, which does not cherry-pick traits to give a biased result.

In that analysis, some traits, e.g., exterior color, convergently appear over widely differing organisms. So in the overall analysis, those traits appear as noise, as you might expect from a trait like exterior color. However, a huge set of other traits do show the unmistakable pattern of one nested hierarchy, e.g., 2-chambered heart, vertebrae, jaw.

I have no issue with nested hierarchies.
Such are just groupings. What's your point again?

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:To be clear, the issue is whether "common descent" is by direct intervention or via natural processes unfolding alone.

Not for me.

Well, you've been confused if you've thought I've been challenging common descent.

Morny wrote:I don't care what is the ultimate cause for the evidence that supports the hypothesis of common descent. BTW, common descent says, for example, that humans and snails seem to share a common ancestor via biological procreation, which almost all people here seem to categorically reject. Do you still accept common descent?

I've elaborated on my position here and elsewhere (please refresh on references in previous post).
God could very well make use of previous organisms and add to them to bring about a new creation.
Similar to how natural evolutionary laws might have an organism that it evolves into something new.

Morny wrote:In any event, the evidential support for common descent doesn't care about, or rely on, a model of underlying ultimate causes. As I've said before, an intelligent designer could have created each species independently, last Tuesday. And that would be cool. But if so, that designer is following a clear pattern of evidence that supports a hypothesis that is indistinguishable from humans and snails sharing a common ancestor via biological procreation.

Our ships seems to be sailing past each other -- I've never in this thread argued against common descent.

You seem to be here drawing a hasty generalisation.
Let me rephrase your words so you can see what I mean.

Each species could have arisen through biological procreation. But if so, those natural processes are following a clear patter of evidence that supports a hypothesis that is indistinguishable from humans and snails sharing a common ancestor due to inherited design.

Just because you're familiar with your position, or its the "popular position" for common ancestry, doesn't mean you don't need to consider other positions.
What is reasonable is to cast a net out on all positions. All positions carry a burden of proof including your own.
No position can claim that evidence for itself if there are other positions that support it.

You need to carry a burden of proof to show why you believe Naturalistic Evolution (I'm presuming) is the way.
Theistic Evolution likewise needs to carry a burden of proof to show why it is more justified.
And then the Progressive Creation position I've put forward also needs to carry a burden of proof.

In that other thread I mentioned in my last post, I provide additional arguments that I see favour the two Theistic scenarios over Naturalism.

Kurieuo wrote:Common descent is simply the view that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor.
While undoubtedly the position of most who hold to it, you are adding to it by saying "via biological procreation."

Nope.

I previous stated a while back that the hypothesis of common descent relies on just a few simple assumptions, viz., a common ancestor, variation (e.g., passing mutations to offspring), and bifurcating descent (speciation).

Because a scientific hypothesis is involved here, of course a method for variation involves biological procreation. Science defines the hypothesis, while your job is to provisionally accept the hypothesis and test against the evidence, no matter how much you viscerally disagree with the hypothesis.

And the above hypothesis assumptions predict the one nested hierarchy (or loosely, the "tree of life"). Lo and behold, the panoply of biological traits shows the pattern of that nested hierarchy, which supports the hypothesis of common descent. Lo and behold the fossil record almost unanimously agrees with that nested hierarchy. Lo and behold the recent DNA developments almost unanimously agree with that nested hierarchy. Coincidence?

Bringing in philosophical discussions about what appears to be ill-defined and untestable concepts like "Theistic Evolution" and "Progressive Creationism" is unnecessary to test the scientific common descent hypothesis.

But if you want to make your own creation hypothesis, please do. But state the implications of your hypothesis, and present your evidence. I'll provisionally accept your hypothesis, and test your evidence against that hypothesis.

Kurieuo wrote:Just wondering...
How can you have "multiple valid nested hierarchies?
That is, if common descent is rejected -- invalidated -- then how could they ever be "valid"?

Great questions! Are you turning into a scientist on me?!

Traits of cars can group by multiple nested hierarchies. For example, you can group by company, make, and model. You can also group by categories (SUV, sedan, ...), and sub-categories under those (horsepower, ...). Each of those groupings, as well as others, are useful for different purposes.

Human design of cars don't form a single nested hierarchy, because the designers freely (and advantageously) mix and match "traits" across the entire spectrum of cars.

Biological traits don't mix and match that way. The grouping pattern is highly constrained. You don't find hair follicles on mollusk. You don't find fish that lay their eggs on land or retain the fertilized egg within the mother (a.k.a. amniotes). What you do find are trait grouping patterns that make sense if a common ancestor passes new variations down to separate lines of descent.

Hi Morny,

I found a really good article on common descent that I'll share after reading if it is indeed good.
It does a better than you at explaining (but you are after all just a boring engineering, applied math, and computer science guy ).

Sorry, I jest (as though it wasn't obvious!). You do just fine I suppose.
Really, I'm surprised that you don't place greater emphasis on genotypes especially re: nested hierarchies with objects like cars.
That for me, is more important than phenotypes although twin confirmation is best.

The last thing I want to do here is discredit strongly accepted ideas within science such as the evolution of all life.
Really, I'm starting to see not much point in that. Why bother especially in discussions with those who are convinced by it.
It really doesn't make much difference to me.

To be clear though, my view is that God directly creates new life, and for me a main method God uses is inherited design.
This method of God's creating is supported by your same nested hierarchies, which casts strong doubt upon new life being created from nothing.
I doubt you could disprove this any more than I can disprove evolution. But, as you accept evolution then I'll tuck this away under the table.

So, moving onto Theistic Evolution, such simply says God was responsible for that first life coming into existence.
It is UCD in every way as much a Naturalistic Evolution. And it will support natural evolutionary laws all the same.
Both of these views are really a matter of which philosophical position you believe is more true
-- a view of the world with God (Theist) or without God (Naturalism).

I believe you're undecided, which I suppose places you in a great position to evaluate.
Unless you prefer remaining agnostic, and I can see the appeal there.

Personally I believe evolution is great teleological evidence for God's existence.
Indeed, I think if one believes in evolution then they ought to believe in God as the most logical conclusion.
One line of support for this, I'd point out the odds of some complex "convergences" and complex "mutualism" we see in various symbiotic relationships.
Such things make it smell like natural evolutionary laws were actually stacked to unfold according to an intended design.

If things were just pure random chance, ignoring that I'd expect no life to come into existence,
I'd expect it to all look more chaotic and not much significance at all. Very primitive and retarded at best.
Certainly not the intricate and fascinating relationships that evolved and flourished.

But, as I discovered, whether one sees the significance of such telos seems to be a largely subjective affair.
Since you've confessed to me as being more an agnostic fundamentalist, I'd be interested to know your own thoughts?

New life created from nothing?

Pure random chance?

Your friend j would start labeling fallacies.

Kurieuo wrote:The last thing I want to do here is discredit strongly accepted ideas within science such as the evolution of all life.

That's the first thing I and all scientists want you to do. Finding evidence that invalidates the hypothesis of common descent would put you on the front cover of every biology book. Heck, you'd be on the front cover of every science book, and I'd buy and put your inevitable action figure on my desk.

Kurieuo wrote:So, moving onto Theistic Evolution, [...]

You can believe in Theistic Evolution or anything else, but the first step is for us to agree that the hypothesis of a common ancestor, variation, and bifurcating descent predicts the observed pattern of the one objective nested hierarchy.

I really don't have a problem if you believe God diddles DNA or poofs organisms into existence, because I cannot invalidate that hypothesis. But we do have an open problem, if you don't provisionally agree that the evidence supports the common descent hypothesis.

Kurieuo wrote:Indeed, I think if one believes in evolution then they ought to believe in God as the most logical conclusion.

Huge category mistake. People believe in God. Science people don't believe in evolution, they agree that evidence supports the hypothesis of evolution. Two vastly different concepts, and the cause of innumerable misunderstandings.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:The last thing I want to do here is discredit strongly accepted ideas within science such as the evolution of all life.

That's the first thing I and all scientists want you to do. Finding evidence that invalidates the hypothesis of common descent would put you on the front cover of every biology book. Heck, you'd be on the front cover of every science book, and I'd buy and put your inevitable action figure on my desk.

That's not what I wish to do here.
Perhaps you should tell all scientists to take their own advice since you are in communication with them.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:So, moving onto Theistic Evolution, [...]

You can believe in Theistic Evolution or anything else, but the first step is for us to agree that the hypothesis of a common ancestor, variation, and bifurcating descent predicts the observed pattern of the one objective nested hierarchy.

Erm, ok. Well, have a read of this because as a first step I'd like you to agree with me on Universal Common Descent for the sake of this discussion:
https://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2014 ... n-descent/

Morny wrote:I really don't have a problem if you believe God diddles DNA or poofs organisms into existence, because I cannot invalidate that hypothesis. But we do have an open problem, if you don't provisionally agree that the evidence supports the common descent hypothesis.

What... just "poofs" into existence like the universe and first single celled life?

Morny, it really seems to me you're having a one-side conversation.
Are reading everything I wrote in my previous post/s, because you seem really tunnel focused here?
I've willingly become apart of the choir already and tucked away my God diddles DNA belief.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Indeed, I think if one believes in evolution then they ought to believe in God as the most logical conclusion.

Huge category mistake. People believe in God. Science people don't believe in evolution, they agree that evidence supports the hypothesis of evolution. Two vastly different concepts, and the cause of innumerable misunderstandings.

What are you saying? You're not getting me.

Perhaps you can ask "science people" whether they are Theists or Atheists or somewhere in between (since you have access to them all).
I believe the stats are something like 50% believe in God or some supernatural power, 30% atheist and 20% agnostic or don't say.
Why the 50%? Maybe they shouldn't be scientists because they're a category mistake.

Out of those 50%, those who accept natural evolutionary laws would have to be classified as Theistic Evolutionsts.
Those 30% would be Naturalistic Evolutionists, believing the universe and life can just arise by pure luck.
And the remaining 20% are somewhere in between.

I really don't feel we're having a conversation here.
So unless I feel we're connecting in this conversation then I'm out.

All the best Morny.

Have really got into this thread!

Am really tired so might not make much sense and my knowledge of science is just above x
zilch but evolution, for me, points pretty strongly towards intelligent design. Especially dna.

Kurieuo wrote:Our ships seems to be sailing past each other -- I've never in this thread argued against common descent.

I thought you disagreed, or at best withheld judgment, that the evidence supports the common descent hypothesis that includes the functionality of biological procreation. Why else did you seem to object that I'm "adding" "via biological procreation" to the conversation?

Kurieuo wrote:Perhaps you can ask "science people" whether they are Theists or Atheists or somewhere in between (since you have access to them all).
I believe the stats are something like 50% believe in God or some supernatural power, 30% atheist and 20% agnostic or don't say.

Huh? I cannot think of anything less relevant to a discussion of whether scientific evidence supports a hypothesis. Biologists don't use their faith, or lack thereof, to make scientific determinations.

The questions and statements I'm making are conceptually far simpler than all other conversations I see going on here, and certainly do not involve philosophical/religious concepts. I'm a simple-minded person, so please assume that anything I write is straightforward.

Audie wrote:New life created from nothing?

Good point!
It's as absurd for a creationist to believe something can come from nothing also.
Just because God is added into the mix doesn't change that.

Sadly, some scientists are believing things can come from nothing.
So if we're to believe them, I suppose the science is leaning towards evidence of "stuff" coming from nothing.

Audie wrote:Pure random chance?

Isn't that what you're left with, without God?
Mixed with whatever the laws in place necessitate.
But otherwise, it's all dumb luck.

Audie wrote:Your friend j would start labeling fallacies.

You can always throw back at him the fallacies fallacy.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Our ships seems to be sailing past each other -- I've never in this thread argued against common descent.

I thought you disagreed, or at best withheld judgment, that the evidence supports the common descent hypothesis that includes the functionality of biological procreation. Why else did you seem to object that I'm "adding" "via biological procreation" to the conversation?

I don't believe the nested hierarchies (circumstantial evidence) proves that common descent was via biological procreation only.
It could well be an organism was taken and new one split off.
Speciation might start with a "common ancestor" and then well let's have blue eyes instead of green. (biological procreation).
Or, if we split off further back.... instead of water, let's also add the mammalian capacity for breathing air instead of just oxygen in water (inherited design from a previous water-only breathing organism mixed with new traits). This then splits off into a new nested hierarchy... and so on and so forth.

BUT, in my second last message, I said Il'll tuck away these beliefs.
I'll opt for door #2 with Theistic Evolution and accept "common ancestor via biological procreation".
Since you think common descent must necessarily be via biological procreation
-- that the DNA re-uses and mutational changes all prove 100% that common descent was via biological procreation only.

There's this idea going around that one must believe this or that.
I prefer to focus on what I consider the important things and withhold from choosing.
Certainly have my bias towards a position I believe, but I'm flexible when in discussion with others.
It really doesn't phase me to accept evolution here. So, now what - where to now skip?

The next part of our venture would be what personal or philosophical beliefs might come from this, no?

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Perhaps you can ask "science people" whether they are Theists or Atheists or somewhere in between (since you have access to them all).
I believe the stats are something like 50% believe in God or some supernatural power, 30% atheist and 20% agnostic or don't say.

Huh? I cannot think of anything less relevant to a discussion of whether scientific evidence supports a hypothesis. Biologists don't use their faith, or lack thereof, to make scientific determinations.

The questions and statements I'm making are conceptually far simpler than all other conversations I see going on here, and certainly do not involve philosophical/religious concepts. I'm a simple-minded person, so please assume that anything I write is straightforward.

Biologists do indeed use their faith, because it is their passions that drive them to be intrigued by and try understand the world.
Whether they're in awe of understanding how God designed things to work, or whether they're inspired by how brilliant it is these things arose by a stroke of luck.

But, that's drifting further. My response here was in response to your own statements that I felt entirely missed the point of what I was saying.
So now you're confused too, maybe we just ignore our exchanges here. They're likely irrelevant anyway.

I have a question that I hope someone can offer me a relatively basic answer for.

It seems to me that a ToE necessarily predicts perfect hierarchical nesting. Thus, the observation of such nesting in nature provides a powerful argument in favor of the ToE, insofar as we have an important and fundamental validated prediction. But the flip side suggests that the modus tollens here provides an equally strong defeater of the ToE. Thus, observations of violations of such nesting actually work as a violation or disconfirmation of that same prediction. If, on the other hand, such violations of the nesting prediction are not defeaters or disconfirmers, then is the basic prediction no prediction at all insofar as it becomes unfalsifiable?

If I've understood the basic approach, then I wonder what the common response is to the widely recognized examples of violations of the nesting principle? This is one of the things that makes me skeptical of evolutionary claims. Clearly, however, people have encountered this problem and I have to believe they have addressed it. So can someone give me an overview of the general overview to how such exceptions are approached? I think knowing that would help ensure I don't misrepresent the theory in either my own thinking or my discussion about it with others.

Thanks in advance

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Our ships seems to be sailing past each other -- I've never in this thread argued against common descent.

I thought you disagreed, or at best withheld judgment, that the evidence supports the common descent hypothesis that includes the functionality of biological procreation. Why else did you seem to object that I'm "adding" "via biological procreation" to the conversation?

I don't believe the nested hierarchies (circumstantial evidence) proves that common descent was via biological procreation only.
It could well be an organism was taken and new one split off.
Speciation might start with a "common ancestor" and then well let's have blue eyes instead of green. (biological procreation).
Or, if we split off further back.... instead of water, let's also add the mammalian capacity for breathing air instead of just oxygen in water (inherited design from a previous water-only breathing organism mixed with new traits). This then splits off into a new nested hierarchy... and so on and so forth.

BUT, in my second last message, I said Il'll tuck away these beliefs.
I'll opt for door #2 with Theistic Evolution and accept "common ancestor via biological procreation".
Since you think common descent must necessarily be via biological procreation
-- that the DNA re-uses and mutational changes all prove 100% that common descent was via biological procreation only.

There's this idea going around that one must believe this or that.
I prefer to focus on what I consider the important things and withhold from choosing.
Certainly have my bias towards a position I believe, but I'm flexible when in discussion with others.
It really doesn't phase me to accept evolution here. So, now what - where to now skip?

The next part of our venture would be what personal or philosophical beliefs might come from this, no?

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Perhaps you can ask "science people" whether they are Theists or Atheists or somewhere in between (since you have access to them all).
I believe the stats are something like 50% believe in God or some supernatural power, 30% atheist and 20% agnostic or don't say.

Huh? I cannot think of anything less relevant to a discussion of whether scientific evidence supports a hypothesis. Biologists don't use their faith, or lack thereof, to make scientific determinations.

The questions and statements I'm making are conceptually far simpler than all other conversations I see going on here, and certainly do not involve philosophical/religious concepts. I'm a simple-minded person, so please assume that anything I write is straightforward.

Biologists do indeed use their faith, because it is their passions that drive them to be intrigued by and try understand the world.
Whether they're in awe of understanding how God designed things to work, or whether they're inspired by how brilliant it is these things arose by a stroke of luck.

But, that's drifting further. My response here was in response to your own statements that I felt entirely missed the point of what I was saying.
So now you're confused too, maybe we just ignore our exchanges here. They're likely irrelevant anyway.

You'd consider that "faith" to be indistinguishable from the faith of a ( sorry cant help it) Mormon? A baptist or unitarian?

Everyone has faith in something, and it's often our passions that drive us.