Evidence for God from Science

So, DNA genealogies is molecular phylogeny used on non-coding DNA basically (with a slight difference that ruins the analogy somewhat).

More about DNA geeologies: For the past 40 years, evolutionary biologists have been investigating the possibility that some evolutionary changes occur in a clock-like fashion. Over the course of millions of years, mutations may build up in any given stretch of DNA at a reliable rate.

Isn't this premise contradicted by punctuated equilibrium?

That gradualism has ebbs and flows is not swept under the rug....That the Theory is modified when new evidence comes out is the way science works....

Pardon? 1) Gradualism has ebbs and flows? You may as well say I slowly ran to class. 2) What new evidence in the fossil record showed that evolution occurs in spurts instead of gradually? The fact is, the fossil record did not like what gradualism predicted. It showed (shows) fossils coming into existence, staying relatively unchanged for a long period of time, and disappearing.

“explosion.”

I love scare quotes. Can't wait until your next "interesting" response.

I love it how off-topic we are, and for once it's not my fault. I'm just watching the scenery.

Hi KM,

I think gradualism is frequently mistaken to mean constant speedism, which it isn't. It ebbs and flows, as was recognized by Darwin:

"Many species once formed never undergo any further change...; and the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." [Origin of the Species, 4th and subsequent editions].

The main criticism of Gould's punctuated equilibrium (other than constantly changing his mind about what punctuated equilibrium was) by other evolutionists was that he wasn't saying anything everybody else didn't already know.

DB

David Blacklock wrote:Hi KM,

I think gradualism is frequently mistaken to mean constant speedism, which it isn't. It ebbs and flows, as was recognized by Darwin:

"Many species once formed never undergo any further change...; and the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." [Origin of the Species, 4th and subsequent editions].

The main criticism of Gould's punctuated equilibrium (other than constantly changing his mind about what punctuated equilibrium was) by other evolutionists was that he wasn't saying anything everybody else didn't already know.

DB

So in essence, Darwinism predicts the gradual evolution (not exactly ignoring your quote of Darwin) of one species into another, except when it doesn't, and it predicts the fossil record to mirror this, except when it doesn't. I can understand why this theory is so popular. Unfortunately for me, I have added Voyage of the Beagle, The Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals to my saved items list on amazon (they're all in one book now). I was going to do it eventually, but now it has a few hundred less books between it and the front of the queue. But it's a priority queue, so it might leap ahead. This all gets worst because I have found a website where you can download free ebooks as well. Gosh darn it.

>>So in essence, Darwinism predicts the gradual evolution (not exactly ignoring your quote of Darwin) of one species into another, except when it doesn't, and it predicts the fossil record to mirror this, except when it doesn't<<

Now you're cooking, KM - that's close. The Origin of the Species is still an excellent book. Darwin spend decades agonizing over its wordage, like he agonized over all his work - but some of the chapters turned out not to be as accurate as others.

DB

David Blacklock wrote:>>So in essence, Darwinism predicts the gradual evolution (not exactly ignoring your quote of Darwin) of one species into another, except when it doesn't, and it predicts the fossil record to mirror this, except when it doesn't<<

Now you're cooking, KM - that's close. The Origin of the Species is still an excellent book. Darwin spend decades agonizing over its wordage, like he agonized over all his work - but some of the chapters turned out not to be as accurate as others.

DB

Considering that much of the evolutionary model rests on environmetal changes placing selective pressures on populations, wouldn't the rate of change be different for different populations according to the changes that occurred in the environment?

So attacking the fickle-ness of the changes in the fossil record wouldn't necessarily be the huge debilitating attack .... in times of environmental stability we would see populations in stasis and the fossil record would reflect this....in times of environmental change, we would see population change.

Keep in mind I'm not saying this is how it necessarily happened, I'm just clarifying the arguments. DB, would you agree or disagree?

Thanx for the comment, Zoey - I agree completely and Darwin would have agreed also, as shown by his quote I posted yesterday. There are some species alive pretty much unchanged for the last 300 million years. With no substantial change in their environment and no catastrophes that affected them, there was no selection pressure for them to change.

DB

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

I'll be glad to answer your questions. Gould wrote a lot of words. He was absolutely prolific. Occasionally, to his chagrin, he wrote things the anti-evolutionists took out of context, but he was 100% a believer in evolution. He noticed, along with others, that the fossil record seemed to go in spurts, with long times of stability, then times of rapid change. Evolutionists have no probelm with this. Times of rapid evolution occurred when conditions changed, causing extinctions and opening up new possibilities for other life forms. Times of stability created no circumstances that caused natural selection - or whatever other mechanisms are at work - to upset the apple cart.

I never said Gould wasn't a Darwinist. Quite the opposite, I refer to him because he is. But here's the thing you ignore. If Darwinism predicts slow, gradual change, and Gould came up with punctuated to explain the evidence away, 1) where is your idealistic view that scientists follow the evidence wherever it leads, and 2) if a prediction of Darwinism turns out to be wrong, why is it simply swept under the rug, and Darwinism is modified to explain why its predictions come out false?

Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about Einstein and Relativity?
He just came up with relativity to explain the evidence away?

That is how scientific theories work, they are constantly tweaked, adjusted, and re-evaluated.
Here's a link, to help you understand these concepts.

I would like to add that "punctuated evolution" can also be the result of the incomplete fossil record.
Take for example amphibian evolution. The original forms probably evolved in a localized ecosystem and then began to migrate out.
By the time they appear in the fossil record, it would look like a sudden appearance of new forms.

By taking the period of sudden appearance and the most likely environment a group of scientists were able to pinpoint several areas where they may be able to stumble onto this early population.
This lead to the discovery of tiktaalik.

David Blacklock wrote:Thanx for the comment, Zoey - I agree completely and Darwin would have agreed also, as shown by his quote I posted yesterday. There are some species alive pretty much unchanged for the last 300 million years. With no substantial change in their environment and no catastrophes that affected them, there was no selection pressure for them to change.

DB

It would probably be more accurate to say, that the strong selective pressures have not changed, thus no change in form.

Otherwise drift would likely have taken place.

So attacking the fickle-ness of the changes in the fossil record wouldn't necessarily be the huge debilitating attack .... in times of environmental stability we would see populations in stasis and the fossil record would reflect this....in times of environmental change, we would see population change.

that's why punctuated equilibrium and gradualism may both be happening. To argue for the P.E. side, most species stay the same if exposed to stable environmental conditions. The deep-sea tends to have numerous species of ancient relic species. Some scientists argue that this is due to environmental stability although it could also be due to less competition for resources from more "advanced" forms. But changes in the environment, like changes in ocean circulation, temperature, volcanism, vicariant events, can all trigger "explosive" evolution.
Take the marine faunas of the Eastern Pacific and Western Atlantic for example. They were once homogeneous before the uplift of the Panamanian Isthmus. When the barrier raised, the Eastern Pacific cooled dramatically and experienced much higher upwelling. The shelf also narrowed. The West Atlantic experienced a dramatic decrease in both depth and upwelling and also warmed considerably. This led to a mass extinction of marine life in almost every major family on both sides but especially in the Atlantic. To fill vacated niches, there was a intense radiation of speciation to recover these lost niches. Examples are gobies, chaenopsid blennies, parrotfish, grunts, Caribbean cones, Panamic columbellids, Atlantic murex, Paicifc cancellarids. The faunas are still very closely related but they still have disparities in certain families. Molecular techniques have dated these radiations close the the time of the Panamanian event
This same thing has happened with Brazil and the Amazonian Plume (related to Caribbean forms), in the Indo-Pacific on the numerous island groups, and especially with Conus in the Cape Verde and cichlids in the rift valley of Africa. It seems like environmental change is the main driving force for the punctuated equilibrium model.

Thanx for the comment, Zoey - I agree completely and Darwin would have agreed also, as shown by his quote I posted yesterday. There are some species alive pretty much unchanged for the last 300 million years. With no substantial change in their environment and no catastrophes that affected them, there was no selection pressure for them to change.

For gradualism, there seems to be continuous change going on even in forms that seem to be "unchanged". The coelocanth Latimeria looks like ancient coelocanths, but it is not only a different genus and species, but a different family. The stalked crinoids of the deep ocean are different genera and species from ancient ancestors. Every "relict" species is different at at least the species level. If you look at fossil beds in the SE, you will find fossils of gastropods that are closely related to living species (Oliva, Scaphella, Murex, etc.) but they are different. This indicates that gradual evolution, as proposed by Darwin, is also occurring.

I would like to add that "punctuated evolution" can also be the result of the incomplete fossil record.
Take for example amphibian evolution. The original forms probably evolved in a localized ecosystem and then began to migrate out.
By the time they appear in the fossil record, it would look like a sudden appearance of new forms.

True... this is apparent in the Indo-Pacific "center of diversity" for numerous marine forms. Reef fish are notoriously rare in the fossil record so their origins are best traced by molecular studies.

Nice post, Hman - very interesting data.

DB

Just an fyi on the "Expelled" movie...

"Several visitors have asked about Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. This is a review of the movie by Bob Stuart, a friend of the ministry. It is apparent from the review that the movie is entertaining and informative. However, it has some elements that we find troublesome and inaccurate, so that we cannot enthusiastically support it." -Rich Deem

More about it here. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/expelled.html

I will be curious to see the atmosphere in the theater when people go to see it...I wonder if there would be obvious reactions throughout the film .

Good review...looking forward to seeing to movie

I still see an obvious...rejection of any desire to examine anything other than YEC from many Christians...I struggle to get some students and parents (and other non-science faculty) to even think about such things, finding the YEC paradigm comforting and they have a "why bother upsetting the boat" mentality

....does the movie present OEC as legitimate and supported by many Christians? I know it would still be polarizing for those atheist scientists, I would love to see a film like this have some effect of bringing Christians together.

zoegirl wrote:....does the movie present OEC as legitimate and supported by many Christians? I know it would still be polarizing for those atheist scientists, I would love to see a film like this have some effect of bringing Christians together.

I'm not aware of any... It appears that the movie has been hijacked by YEC. Therefore it is going to be very easy to criticize any evidence. My guess is that it will simply cancel itself out. Much like shooting itself in the foot. Oh well, at least someone tried.

I don't get it... I thought intelligent design incorporated OEC? Why would the movie try and push YEC when intelligent design is closer to OEC? I just don't see the public taking YEC as seriously as OEC.

Himantolophus wrote:I don't get it... I thought intelligent design incorporated OEC? Why would the movie try and push YEC when intelligent design is closer to OEC? I just don't see the public taking YEC as seriously as OEC.

Intelligent design has some unusual elements to it in the practical world. Almost all the scientists are OEC. However, many using the material are YEC and arguing not from conviction, but from convenience as a platform to attempt to influence legal and school board decisions to allow or reintroduce creationist theories into the science classroom.