Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:

K wrote:Actually it doesn't clarify much really except explaining a bit about the ins and outs of what Mito Eve represents, MRCA, etc.
That doesn't do much to help me understand why you outrightly reject one human (modern human) couple.

No it doesn't, did you read this:

Nuclear genes from these contemporary women of Mitochondrial Eve are present in today's population, but mitochondrial DNA from them is not.

how do you account for this, did it not make any sense to you? Doesn't it say that people from other women are present its just that the mito dna, which transfers from female-female is absent?

So placed mito-DNA aside (which was the discussions at hand). what is it you are saying about nuclear genes?
Must it be vertical gene transfer rather than horizontal? Are you aware of studies supporting horizontal gene transfers?
I'd much rather have references to studies or articles you've read. That's probably be the best approach?

K wrote:

neo-x wrote:

mitochondrial Eve is not the mother of all humanity, she is the most recent mother of all living humanity.

Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived. Furthermore the bulk of Mito genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years, to many different ancestors.

There was never a bottleneck which came down to 8 people or two people. In simple words, there was never one couple.

There are many studies that have been done in this area, not just limited to Mito or Y-chrom.
You appear to be packaging them altogether (?) and presenting your own analysis.

I'd just appreciate receiving links to articles/studies that you are basing all your words on, so that I can at least be on the same page with your own knowledge.
Consider my as knowing as nothing. What I know is irrelevant. So I need to learn.
But I'm not going to trust some shmuck across the world telling me how it is. You know?
Sorry if that offends. Just give me credible sources so I can learn.

As far as I'm aware, mito studies trace all existing women back to one woman.
This doesn't mean the population at the time of this woman was 1 Biblical Eve, in fact many assume it was 500, 2000 or more.
So... obviously it doesn't necessarily support one couple.

No offense taken but I suggest you do your own homework, find your own sources. Best still, go ask some biology professors because obviously they couldn't all be schmucks now, could they? And perhaps you will have a better understanding face to face. Further I have no idea what to you "credible links" means for all I know it could be Bio-logos or reasonable faith or any of the pseudoscience sites as far as evolution is concerned.

You want links? see sources in the evolution thread. Expect 8-12 months to go through it in detail. The path to your enlightenment is long and filled with stumbling blocks but persevere and you shall make it.

The thing is I tried giving links many times (and on that thread too) and reality had to come out saying "No one bothers with links and lengthy papers." People will simply respond with, that's not ture? or do you trust God's word or man's word? or How do you know its true? And I really have no stamina left to convince someone.

Here's some info about mitochondrial Eve if anyone is interested.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/were-th ... am-and-eve
http://www.reasons.org/articles/when-di ... -adam-live

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

neo-x wrote:

K wrote:Actually it doesn't clarify much really except explaining a bit about the ins and outs of what Mito Eve represents, MRCA, etc.
That doesn't do much to help me understand why you outrightly reject one human (modern human) couple.

No it doesn't, did you read this:

Nuclear genes from these contemporary women of Mitochondrial Eve are present in today's population, but mitochondrial DNA from them is not.

how do you account for this, did it not make any sense to you? Doesn't it say that people from other women are present its just that the mito dna, which transfers from female-female is absent?

So placed mito-DNA aside (which was the discussions at hand). what is it you are saying about nuclear genes?
Must it be vertical gene transfer rather than horizontal? Are you aware of studies supporting horizontal gene transfers?
I'd much rather have references to studies or articles you've read. That's probably be the best approach?

K wrote:

neo-x wrote:

mitochondrial Eve is not the mother of all humanity, she is the most recent mother of all living humanity.

Each of our genes “coalesces” back to a different ancestor, showing that, our genetic legacy comes from many different individuals. It does not go back to just two individuals, regardless of when they lived. Furthermore the bulk of Mito genes in the nucleus all trace back to different times—as far back as two million years, to many different ancestors.

There was never a bottleneck which came down to 8 people or two people. In simple words, there was never one couple.

There are many studies that have been done in this area, not just limited to Mito or Y-chrom.
You appear to be packaging them altogether (?) and presenting your own analysis.

I'd just appreciate receiving links to articles/studies that you are basing all your words on, so that I can at least be on the same page with your own knowledge.
Consider my as knowing as nothing. What I know is irrelevant. So I need to learn.
But I'm not going to trust some shmuck across the world telling me how it is. You know?
Sorry if that offends. Just give me credible sources so I can learn.

As far as I'm aware, mito studies trace all existing women back to one woman.
This doesn't mean the population at the time of this woman was 1 Biblical Eve, in fact many assume it was 500, 2000 or more.
So... obviously it doesn't necessarily support one couple.

No offense taken but I suggest you do your own homework, find your own sources. Best still, go ask some biology professors because obviously they couldn't all be schmucks now, could they? And perhaps you will have a better understanding face to face. Further I have no idea what to you "credible links" means for all I know it could be Bio-logos or reasonable faith or any of the pseudoscience sites as far as evolution is concerned.

You want links? see sources in the evolution thread. Expect 8-12 months to go through it in detail. The path to your enlightenment is long and filled with stumbling blocks but persevere and you shall make it.

The thing is I tried giving links many times (and on that thread too) and reality had to come out saying "No one bothers with links and lengthy papers." People will simply respond with, that's not ture? or do you trust God's word or man's word? or How do you know its true? And I really have no stamina left to convince someone.

Well, when you say goes back to 2 million years ago, that is certainly not your homo sapiens who'd be anatomically similar to us.

So you make all these statements, believe we came from a group of x individuals and that it is impossible to be one couple, believe Mito DNA is actually traced back 2 million years ago.... I'd just like to read the sources so I can digest the actual data behind your statements. Not for everything to do with your evolutionary beliefs (as in your other thread), but just these beliefs.
The actual science behind your specific statements here is actually getting buried and that is what I'm interested in.

Please understand that you already believe in human evolution, you already have made up your mind on this and that based upon whatever it is you've read, but here you're just declaring your end beliefs.
Then you appear to get frustrated because I'm not just accepting what you claim to be the case re: your statements.

I've done much reading and reached different conclusions to you.
I don't think it is unfair that I just ask for references to some articles or studies that you've read and/or base you beliefs on.
This would actually make your task easier I think. It'd help to clarify your statements. I'm fair when I read science. Doesn't mean I'll interpret the data the same. It would at least allow me to digest your sources and possibly provide further justifications for my own beliefs if that is possible.

Really not sure what is so hard about that.
RickD quickly provided some Day-Age sources, which I would expect to be rejected out of hand by yourself.
But, at least he places his cards down on the table face up.

Also, by "credible links" I mean actual scientific articles or studies.

I thought Biologos would be a main source for your beliefs as a Theistic Evolutionist?
Reasonable Faith (Craig) by no means represents itself as a science website.
Maybe you mean Reasons to Believe. Biologos and RTB are firstly Christian apologist sites and they don't hide that.

But, obviously Biologos and RTB interpret the scientific data within their Christian framework rather than assuming philosophical Naturalism. Maybe you think that is what's bogus? I don't know. But, in any case I just mean even your own sources.

Kurieuo wrote:Also, by "credible links" I mean actual scientific articles or studies.

I thought Biologos would be a main source for your beliefs as a Theistic Evolutionist?
Reasonable Faith (Craig) by no means represents itself as a science website.
Maybe you mean Reasons to Believe. Biologos and RTB are firstly Christian apologist sites and they don't hide that.

But, obviously Biologos and RTB interpret the scientific data within their Christian framework rather than assuming philosophical Naturalism. Maybe you think that is what's bogus? I don't know. But, in any case I just mean even your own sources.

K,

While Neo once said he was a TE in a loose sense, he's recently said he's not a TE. I searched for the last 5 minutes, trying to find where Neo said it, but I couldn't find it. If I remember correctly, Neo said he thinks TE is something like a compromise for people who are trying to fit evolution into the bible. Neo has made it clear that he believes evolution can't be found in the bible. At least not in genesis.

With that said, I'm not sure he's a fan of biologos.

Thanks Rick.

Neo has mentioned elsewhere not seeing any design or specific purpose to evolution and as such humanity.
In that same thread I was hoping to receive greater clarity about what he believes because such seems incoherent with Theism.
I think it is best he explains. My statement was put in question form for some clarification.

Truly, I do think some confusion going on at a deeper level... because the two do not logically gel together.
There's a contradiction of sorts at some foundational worldview level with Christianity/Theism if God is made into a mere bystander.

Theism doesn't just place God as a mere bystander in the world who observes and doesn't even cause a spark.
If God is a mere bystander, this isn't just not Christianity where Christ brought everything into existence (at least at some point) and it's not even Theism.
Deism or perhaps some Pantheistic view where God and universe is one and the same.

But, hopefully Neo can clarify this too. Although it's going a little off-topic.

Kurieuo wrote:Thanks Rick.

Neo has mentioned elsewhere not seeing any design or specific purpose to evolution and as such humanity.
In that same thread I was hoping to receive greater clarity about what he believes because such seems incoherent with Theism.
I think it is best he explains. My statement was put in question form for some clarification.

Truly, I do think some confusion going on at a deeper level... because the two do not logically gel together.
There's a contradiction of sorts at some foundational worldview level with Christianity/Theism if God is made into a mere bystander.

Theism doesn't just place God as a mere bystander in the world who observes and doesn't even cause a spark.
If God is a mere bystander, this isn't just not Christianity where Christ brought everything into existence (at least at some point) and it's not even Theism.
Deism or perhaps some Pantheistic view where God and universe is one and the same.

But, hopefully Neo can clarify this too. Although it's going a little off-topic.

Maybe Neo is a Deistic Evolutionist.

Make no mistake about it, a deist god is in no way personal nor is he loving - "he's" just sitting back and watching the scenes and centuries of carnage and suffering, only flipping his channel/century remote's button every time he gets bored of seeing humanity suffer in the same old ways. Clearly, he COULD intervene and bring hope to his miserable humans, but instead, he chooses to, mostly, merely, vicariously watch. It makes no sense at all that such a god would come down and suffer the hideous death that Christ did, out of such great love. So, the deist god has enormous power, creates on a incomprehensibly vast and extraordinarily complex scale, but then he just watches it like kids torturing bugs on a fire ant bed - or he is just indifferent. This deist deity cares not a whit that man has an accurate understanding of his thoughts, allows his word (IF any of it actually IS his word) to be blended into a vast collection of human fiction and outright lies. So, we're to believe that this "hands-off" god, suddenly, supposedly wakes up, leaves his sofa and is born by Mary to come and die to fulfill his word, supposedly loaded with fiction? Really?!!! And the fiction is so elaborate that it leads us to believe that 1) it's true and 2) that we somehow needed him to die and rise. But why would we conclude that if his word is riddled with fiction and outright lies? How do we know what is what - what's true, what's totally untrue, and what's some weird hybrid - all of it open to a vast, speculative analysis as to what it all might POSSIBLY mean - or not.

So this deist god can speak an amazing universe into existence, creates an astonishing Creation, but then he either can't or doesn't care about his word, his world and universe, and he must only have created via random processes that he doesn't micromanage or terribly care about outcomes, but then he goes anal and gets born at Bethlehem. He's sovereign but doesn't utilize it. He's unreliable, fickle and callous to untold suffering. Wow, just @ http://www.imscratchingmyhead.com! Why would anyone believing many of the foundational stories of the Bible are unreliable and mostly fiction discern that they need to be saved - WHY? Let's not forget that Jesus endorsed the OT as Scripture. So is the NT also full of fiction - did He not really intend us to think that the OT was God's Holy Word? What's the need for Salvation? Is 2 Timothy 3:18 just a load of crap? Inquiring minds want to know!

Guys really, this is just stupid.

Neo-x isn't a deist..........................................

To be clear, I am certainly not singling out Neo - I'm not quite sure how he would categorize himself. But the god I see many who believe so much of Scripture is pure fiction must be very similar to ones who would seem to believe in a deist-type of god. People like Thomas Jefferson amaze me - they believe some "being" or super intelligence created the universe out of nothing, but then they start foaming at the mouth if one suggests God has done miraculous things, a little water into wine, raised the dead, cast out demons, the Bible can't be His Word, insisting that "he could only have done things either this way or that way."

D220, I'm personally not saying he is or isn't, but rather clarification would be needed.

I did find the original topic on which I based my own confusions re: what Neo-X believes:

neo-x wrote:I don't think all that which exists could exist on its own. I do think God is needed to produce matter and energy or the laws which might be needed to execute such chain of events. I just don't think he has to be so actively participating (or guiding) in the forming of this universe or life on this planet. It is not necessarily needed.

I sought clarification in that thread on this, although I seemed to have gone off on a tangent into more complicated questions also.
But, if God had no participation in guiding what life would unfold, or even the forming of our universe, then it is hard to see a personal God (Theism).

Kurieuo wrote:D220, I'm personally not saying he is or isn't, but rather clarification would be needed.

I did found the original topic on which I based my own confusions re: what Neo-X believes:

neo-x wrote:I don't think all that which exists could exist on its own. I do think God is needed to produce matter and energy or the laws which might be needed to execute such chain of events. I just don't think he has to be so actively participating (or guiding) in the forming of this universe or life on this planet. It is not necessarily needed.

I sought clarification in that thread on this, although I seemed to ask additional much more complicated questions also.
But, if God had no hand in guiding what life would unfold, either at the start when He caused the spark or during then a personal God (Theism) isn't what we have.

Ok I see your point.

I guess this is where I may differ from John, to me from God's perspective (being eternal and not constrained by time) the worlds evolution was predestined to have a certain outcome, I would view that as a God guided process, God wound the clock up (so to speak and let it run) but knew the outcome the whole time. But in saying that, I find it really hard to speak about what God is or isn't involved in, does that then mean that I have no free will to make choices, was it all predestined and God guided? Or is it as John says, God is more hands off and lets nature take it course, which would leave free will intact? I think it may be both somehow, like all the other contradictions, two sides of the same coin maybe?

I actually don't think that neo's position is comparable to deism in that I don't think it makes God a bystander. I think lurking under that accusation is just another version of the sovereignty/free-will debate. The implication is that if God does not predetermine an act that God somehow is just a bystander. Now, I'm obviously neither a Molinist nor an evolutionist (I'm a YEC Thomist!), but I could see how neo's position is compatible with K's. Neo could just claim, consistent with K's beliefs, that God knew all possible worlds--which would include all possible mutations--and chose to actualize this particular one. On that view, God isn't "guiding" the evolutionary process at all. It really is unguided (just like our choices really are free), but God is hardly a bystander!

Anyway, carry on.

Jac3510 wrote:I actually don't think that neo's position is comparable to deism in that I don't think it makes God a bystander. I think lurking under that accusation is just another version of the sovereignty/free-will debate. The implication is that if God does not predetermine an act that God somehow is just a bystander. Now, I'm obviously neither a Molinist nor an evolutionist (I'm a YEC Thomist!), but I could see how neo's position is compatible with K's. Neo could just claim, consistent with K's beliefs, that God knew all possible worlds--which would include all possible mutations--and chose to actualize this particular one. On that view, God isn't "guiding" the evolutionary process at all. It really is unguided (just like our choices really are free), but God is hardly a bystander!

Anyway, carry on.

Jac3510 wrote:I actually don't think that neo's position is comparable to deism in that I don't think it makes God a bystander. I think lurking under that accusation is just another version of the sovereignty/free-will debate. The implication is that if God does not predetermine an act that God somehow is just a bystander. Now, I'm obviously neither a Molinist nor an evolutionist (I'm a YEC Thomist!), but I could see how neo's position is compatible with K's. Neo could just claim, consistent with K's beliefs, that God knew all possible worlds--which would include all possible mutations--and chose to actualize this particular one. On that view, God isn't "guiding" the evolutionary process at all. It really is unguided (just like our choices really are free), but God is hardly a bystander!

Anyway, carry on.

Thanks Jac, you can say things much better than I ever could, my understanding is somewhat limited by my brains capacity.