Evidence for God from Science

Audacity wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Whether evolution was the vehicle used or creation was that vehicle, evolution in any case needs existing life to act upon. Biological evolution, is logically sound when used as a tool of speciation, logically works when life is already present -- e.g., two species, one being naturally selected over the other according to mutations that happen in already existing biological information. The more life, the more complicated it is, the better. So for many to claim that all life is explainable by evolution, is really overstating what follows from such. The conclusion doesn't follow that because evolution works well at diversifying species, that it was the cause of initial species of life.

And no knowledgeable evolutionist would say such a thing. They recognize that evolution and its supporting theories only apply to the diversification of life, and not its origin.

Rather natural selection requires initial life form/s in order to act, and mutations require genetic code (as we understand matters today since Darwin wasn't aware of such in his time) to act upon and mutate.

Correct.

The mechanisms must be quite different therefore for early life, compared to mechanisms like natural selection and mutations that may act upon life that is already established.

Yup, and evolutionist aren't concerned with the origination of life. Whether it was abiogenesis, the hand of god, or panspermia, it makes no difference.

True, but I'm also trying to get at something more with different stages of life. Thinking over matters carefully, I see a minimum of three stages to the development of life.

The first stage surrounds the origin of life. Many often think there is one first seed, rather than first life forms (or even multiple origins). Such conforms with a physicalist accounting of life's ancestral origins, simple life early on is witnessed. As anyone who has spent a little time discussion evolution and creation ought to know, biological evolution doesn't deal with origins of life (although I see such as inextricably linked).

The second stage is where life builds up to a "critical mass" where evolution can start driving new species, variations and the like. This stage may start with singular cellular life, but then the gap is how do we get the information rich biological code and it's arrangement thereof, specific functions of RNA and proteins alongside DNA, as is found in more complex life forms. What are the mechanisms here, for increasing the genetic information so much so, that what mechanisms we do understand with evolution could start working via natural selection and mutations acting upon such genetic information and biology, etc. Take cross-breeding which can occur. Cross-breeding couldn't occur in the beginning, until a critical mass is hit where life has taken hold that allows cross-breeding to occur. Once this critical mass of life is hit, clearly cross-breeding can now form a part of evolutionary mechanisms for new species arising. Similarly, natural selection acting upon random mutation needs to reach a certain critical mass. The period up until this point, is what I'd define as a "stage 2" in the development of life. Mechanisms during such are much less known and decided, according to my own knowledge.

The third stage, is now we have reached a certain "critical mass" with life--there are diverse forms of life, and rich genetic information found in populations of species--the often stated evolutionary mechanisms like natural selection acting upon mutations can more effectively work (which actually is accepted even by creationists to varying degrees).

As I reflect over many the discussions that often happen in this debate, I see the first is a given, that biological evolution doesn't deal with origin of life. Yet, I see the second kind of gets lumped in with the third. Prove the third stage of evolution and you prove the second stage somehow evolved too, which needs different support to be justified. The second stage of life, as I see matters, can't be justified via the same mechanisms of speciation that evolution deals with in the third. Something is needed to create those initial forms of life, where brand new information developed from scratch (rather than pre-existing forms), where the first instructions are developed for RNA during manufacturing proteins, where first roles for proteins in cells are given to define structure, function, and regulation of the body’s tissues and organs.

This stage may start with singular cellular life, but then the gap is how do we get the information rich biological code and it's arrangement thereof, specific functions of RNA and proteins alongside DNA

I think this right here is what is the crux of your argument. If I may, I'd say that I look at it as not as an increase in information. It's just a different arrangement of the same building blocks, nothing has been changed or added to them. To think that life at a microscopic level is less complex, is not the same as to say, therefore easier to have had formed.

And another problematic phrase you use is "and mutations acting upon such genetic information and biology". and then "for increasing the genetic information so much"

Mutations don't act on genetic information. There is no such thing. A mutation is not functional - preset code which comes and fights with the DNA code to overcome it. When the DNA, or "information" as you call it - the building blocks of life, gets garbled because of radiation or a replicating problem occurs where the cell can't part with the right ingredients or misses a chromosome or two in the process or miss copying a gene, is what is called a mutation. The mutation doesn't arrive from somewhere. And we know that happens today still, the DNA molecule doesn't replicate perfectly there are always problems. The only kicker is that if the said garbled arrangement of the molecule works in favor of its host in the environment it lives in or not; and could the host pass it on successfully. If the host survives, it copies the garbled genes on and thus you say it is increased information. But it's not increased info in the same sense that it's (externally) added information. Its just the same DNA molecule which is partly arranged in a way it was not before. If the garbled information or mutation as you say, doesn't help the host even if the host passes it on, it will go down in the gene pool as a minor variation and less likely to occur or may go completely away.

Edit:
To take an example...let's say for the sake of simplicity the original sequence in the DNA was:

AGGT CTGG CGAT TTGA AACC TGCA GAAC...

and via UV radiation of the sun the molecule rearranged itself to

ACGT CCGG AGAT TCGA CACT TGCA GAAC.

Compare the two and you see slight variations. Now how this may result in the organism? It may be that it formed a part of a visual sensor the or hearing sensor or skin change or maybe it formed a nose. Whatever function you think of, the variation in the garbled code could make the particular function inert, malfunctions it, or forms it in a slightly different way. That's mutation, and if this change helps the host, then good, if not then the change may cause the host to die and the host eventually can go extinct. Just one of the many possibilities, e.g overlapping of sequence, clipping of it, etc. can all result in different changes.

If you saw the video (I detest his quibs on creationists) you see the same thing explained.
By the way, the same happens in humans, rats and chimps and even reptiles. Humans carry genes for producing egg yolk, full set of fur coat, male nipples etc. Chimps and rats carry the same genes of the fur coat but in their development the gene is functional, it hasn't been garbled, in humans, these genes are broken the sequence is there but with slightly rearranged, mutated - garbled code, its there but can't fully function.

This is why when people say God made everything with the same material is good on a superficial level because we tend to think that the code doesn't exist in us for things that don't work in us. Like we are made exactly for the things we do today. But it does, we still carry egg-yolk making sequence when our ancestors delinked from reptiles. It's still there just slightly broken.

Take cross-breeding which can occur. Cross-breeding couldn't occur in the beginning, until a critical mass is hit where life has taken hold that allows cross-breeding to occur.

I am not sure what this means, k. You don't need cross breeding to occur, you only need the DNA to branch out. What do you mean by critical mass?
------------
K, I have just slightly added a couple of terms to my post above to clarify a couple of things.

Link added:
Also, read this small link about the evolution of cecal valves in Podarcis sicula, a species of lizard. Ofcourse you can find more material on it. But my point with this is, how new function or information, as you put it, forms through evolution, on its own. Cecal valves only appear in 1% in scaled reptiles. This species didn't have them but in a couple fo decades they did.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 112433.htm

Audacity wrote:Why would god find it necessary to put this many on earth? Why was it necessary to make Nephrurus amyae



when he had already made Nephrurus wheeleri?

I don't see it as matter of necessity, the creator (let's me use God since that's what I believe), there was nothing necessary about creating so many. I don't see God needed reason to create such. Further, I'd assume a weaker position of that God merely may have been originally created such.

An alternative option, open to me and what I believe, is that such do in fact came descended from a more original form gecko. Like we have many different dogs, due to interbreeding and what-not. I thought this would be an interesting analysis for me, to define what might be "original" so went looking for gecko phylogeny. I guess a quick look isn't going to be enough, but I would nonetheless be an interesting exercise to try get to what I'd see might be "originals".

Yet, at some point, I'm sure I'd stop. Take stock and so, ok, now these are so radically different, the times start feeling a bit awkward, that this might actually be closer to an original creation (from a Progressive Creation perspective). Really, I haven't thought much about criteria for discerning "original creation" versus being a descendant.A lot of work would be involved, examining DNA, genes and the like -- the same kind of work evolutionary scientists do.

Geckos are said to go back 100 million years, with their sticky feet and the like. So they go back a long way, which would make matters even more difficult. People can crossbreed certain species of geckos, so how do we really know the species we believe are "pure bloods" didn't really come about due to crossbreeding? That's a long time for variation and the like. I hope you are understanding here I'm not at all shut off that a lot of diversity can happen naturally, and I dare say a lot of creationists aren't either (including YECs, though timescale is an obvious issue for them).

In any case, I don't claim to have complete answers, but merely suggest the idea that we do have original creations that God may have punctuated Earth with. Rather than the idea that everything came from single cellular life, species have an original kind unique to them. And at the opposite end, rather than the idea God created absolutely all extant species, it's more God created certain original kinds. Deciding what may/may not be an original is a much tougher question.

Kurieuo wrote:Such simply boils down a "why didn't God create like this" type of argument. Why did God, if he created lifeforms, create 1000s of slight variations of geckos? Why did God not create a really diverse number creatures like ones with their hair parting when they raise their tails like Moses parted the sea with his staff, or perhaps virgin births in some geckos (oh, that one doesn't work as just looked it up and some are in fact asexual and female can fertile their own eggs [sorry, I'm not a gecko nerd... yet])? Why if God created, didn't he create everything in 6 days, a God who uses millions of years is a weak God (do such not realise what they are saying of God if it is true...)? Why didn't God create everything instantaneously? Why did God, give us males a prostate in what is a really poor place to put it since if it enlarges it causes us all sorts of discomfort? Why is there seemingly junk DNA? Why are our eyes designed to stupidly see things upside-down creating an inefficiently where our brains need to correct this? Why did God design the female mantis to try devour the male after mating? Why are some animals made to devour each other to survive? Why is there pain and suffering in the world? Why did God allow Adam and Eve to sin?

Quite so. It is very difficult for us, even made in his image, to understand the 'character' of God. However, we do characterise him as 'omnipotent', 'omniscient' and so on, and also 'omnibenevolent', 'intelligent', 'compassionate', 'wise' and 'bountiful'. These are reflections of human attributes, and I do not think it is wholly worthless to explore how they may be expressed in the character of God.

But, to those more challenging "whys", normally one answer isn't going to satisfy everyone, however, if we see good reason for belief in God then we should investigate different responses and try to resolve such for ourselves. Not because we're trying to justify God's existence, because we already have good reason for believing such. BUT, so we can have better understanding, talk more coherently about such, be able to give a response to those who might approach questions of God's existence from such angles, etc.

Exactly so.

Then we have more simple life had during Earth's very early volcanic past; more complex life couldn't survive such until Earth's atmosphere was more developed. Then once it is developed, we see more complex life. It seems illogical to me for God to create life at times when they clearly won't survive.

That's very true, but this whole argument constrains God into a straitjacket of his own making. How silly to decide to create humans ex nihilo, but start with a world which wasn't be 'ready' for such a creation for billions of years. If ex nihilo creation is the game, then it could all be done in a few minutes, including fossil fuels; if gradual development is the game, then there's no need to spoil it by poking a spontaneously creative finger in here and there like an impatient child.

More logical that God matches creatures to a time and place as Earth matures where it can survive for a significant period of time. If God did create, this is what I think we ought to expect. AND, as Earth evolves, suitable habitats and the Earth's overall environment changes, such environments may no longer lend themselves well to such creatures and so as emotional as it might make you feel, and as sad as it might seem, such creatures become extinct. Yet, it is all part of the order God intended for our temporal world.

Absolutely. This is a perfectly expressed evolutionary scenario.

In fact, I think extinction is more an issue for pure evolutionary scenarios (which I understand Hugh that unlike Neo-X you're not a "purist" given your Theistic Evolution) IF the rate of extinction is many times higher than the rate of evolution (and by what we apparently see today, all life will one day eventually go extinct).

I don't follow that. Extinction is not at all a problem for any evolutionary scenario.

In any case, I find "why didn't God [insert how you would do things if you were God]" challenges are quite weak. Limited by the person's ability to understand outside of their "what God is or would be like" box. They don't understand, so their God didn't do things that way, therefore God didn't do it or doesn't exist. Creationists too, for their part, do the same thing against evolution. Note, these are weak arguments and quite easily prone to a strawman fallacy.

Yes. Fair enough; I agree with that.

In any case, my question back to you was trying to highlight that there were different epochs and environments throughout Earth's history. We have different environments at different times, different epochs during Earth's history. That fact that only simple life was supportable in Earth's early stages fits with its volcanic nature. Volcanoes helped to create Earth's atmosphere allowing more complex forms of life to be able to survive. God punctuates life at different times according to their environments, and you're right that as Earth's environment changed over time, new life suited to such made its way there. Almost with seeming ease, too easily for a pure evolutionary scenario if you ask me (weak subjective opinion).

All true. And surely we must conclude, if all this is God inspired, directed and maintained, that God 'saw that it was good'. The whole process of the development and progress of the universe must be seen as continuously divinely worthwhile, not just a long lead-up to the main event - humanity. I don't want to reduce us to the same value as 'just another leaf on the tree', but for any leaf to imagine that the whole tree was only constructed in order for it to emerge is more self-centred than warranted, even if it's a particularly significant one.

Whether evolution was the vehicle used or creation was that vehicle, evolution in any case needs existing life to act upon. Biological evolution, is logically sound when used as a tool of speciation, logically works when life is already present -- e.g., two species, one being naturally selected over the other according to mutations that happen in already existing biological information. The more life, the more complicated it is, the better. So for many to claim that all life is explainable by evolution, is really overstating what follows from such. The conclusion doesn't follow that because evolution works well at diversifying species, that it was the cause of initial species of life. Rather natural selection requires initial life form/s in order to act, and mutations require genetic code (as we understand matters today since Darwin wasn't aware of such in his time) to act upon and mutate. The mechanisms must be quite different therefore for early life, compared to mechanisms like natural selection and mutations that may act upon life that is already established.

Yes. The early development of life was evolutionary in concept, in that life forms adapted, multiplied and diversified, but the mechanisms by which they did so - and still do so in prokaryotic organisms - are different. The concept of non-interbreeding species gets very distorted among bacteria. Part of your comment seems to devolve to the question of abiogenesis, which, of course, many people like to separate into a different area of inquiry from evolution itself, but must be as inextricably bound to it as the ex nihilo creation of the universe is to the big bang. I personally have no difficulty in postulating the inevitable emergence of self-replicating chemistry from appropriate initial conditions, and not much credence in all those probability arguments which essentially claim that the extremely improbable cannot occur without divine intervention. That's not good mathematics.

hughfarey wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Such simply boils down a "why didn't God create like this" type of argument. Why did God, if he created lifeforms, create 1000s of slight variations of geckos? Why did God not create a really diverse number creatures like ones with their hair parting when they raise their tails like Moses parted the sea with his staff, or perhaps virgin births in some geckos (oh, that one doesn't work as just looked it up and some are in fact asexual and female can fertile their own eggs [sorry, I'm not a gecko nerd... yet])? Why if God created, didn't he create everything in 6 days, a God who uses millions of years is a weak God (do such not realise what they are saying of God if it is true...)? Why didn't God create everything instantaneously? Why did God, give us males a prostate in what is a really poor place to put it since if it enlarges it causes us all sorts of discomfort? Why is there seemingly junk DNA? Why are our eyes designed to stupidly see things upside-down creating an inefficiently where our brains need to correct this? Why did God design the female mantis to try devour the male after mating? Why are some animals made to devour each other to survive? Why is there pain and suffering in the world? Why did God allow Adam and Eve to sin?

Quite so. It is very difficult for us, even made in his image, to understand the 'character' of God. However, we do characterise him as 'omnipotent', 'omniscient' and so on, and also 'omnibenevolent', 'intelligent', 'compassionate', 'wise' and 'bountiful'. These are reflections of human attributes, and I do not think it is wholly worthless to explore how they may be expressed in the character of God.

No, definitely not worthless to explore, but God's attributes would be a whole other discussion.

Hugh wrote:

But, to those more challenging "whys", normally one answer isn't going to satisfy everyone, however, if we see good reason for belief in God then we should investigate different responses and try to resolve such for ourselves. Not because we're trying to justify God's existence, because we already have good reason for believing such. BUT, so we can have better understanding, talk more coherently about such, be able to give a response to those who might approach questions of God's existence from such angles, etc.

Exactly so.

Then we have more simple life had during Earth's very early volcanic past; more complex life couldn't survive such until Earth's atmosphere was more developed. Then once it is developed, we see more complex life. It seems illogical to me for God to create life at times when they clearly won't survive.

That's very true, but this whole argument constrains God into a straitjacket of his own making. How silly to decide to create humans ex nihilo, but start with a world which wasn't be 'ready' for such a creation for billions of years. If ex nihilo creation is the game, then it could all be done in a few minutes, including fossil fuels; if gradual development is the game, then there's no need to spoil it by poking a spontaneously creative finger in here and there like an impatient child.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I personally don't see progressive creation in a manner where God is like an impatient child while waiting millions of years, even 4.5 billions years, or 13.8 billion year, to create humanity (and species prior). Since, for God, time isn't much an issue, such that patient or impatient would have nothing to do with God's method of creation. So then, how God created, either/or or both. We must look to the evidence and decided for ourselves. I see an issue with how all the information got there, and genetic information is information. DNA, RNA and proteins, how it all works, is rather fascinating and screams design to me.

To happen by chance... but then you don't believe it happened by chance but due to divine planning and providence it seems. God's hand was throughout it all, and so then like a magnet, I suppose the right combinations could very easily come together (since chance has nothing to do with your evolution, but rather it was necessary according to God's plan).

Have you watched Unlocking the Mystery of Life? Yes, and ID film, and you'll disagree with some statements made, but when they get into the cell and like, very interesting. I'd encourage you watching it.

Hugh wrote:

More logical that God matches creatures to a time and place as Earth matures where it can survive for a significant period of time. If God did create, this is what I think we ought to expect. AND, as Earth evolves, suitable habitats and the Earth's overall environment changes, such environments may no longer lend themselves well to such creatures and so as emotional as it might make you feel, and as sad as it might seem, such creatures become extinct. Yet, it is all part of the order God intended for our temporal world.

Absolutely. This is a perfectly expressed evolutionary scenario.

Or, perfectly expressed progressive creation scenario. Perhaps, there's not too much difference between us. Except, I do believe God directly created life here and there, whereas you believe such naturally evolved through divine guidance. Your adding God into the mix, any problems I see with evolution would vanish since everything would just arise through a magnetic attraction of sorts. Correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position. Well, I can't deny God didn't work as such, like you can't deny God didn't just create. I suppose we have our personal tastes in this respect.

For myself, when I do bring such ideas back to Scripture, which has God personally involved in creating, even being incarnated and found in the form of a man, such methods seem foreign to a more active and personal God I believe exists. Further, I'm not sure whether you're like Neo-X in believing that evolution wasn't guided by God (it seems to me you believe God must have guided such or it wouldn't have happened), but if you do believe evolution needed divine planning and/or guidance of some sort, then logically it seems to me you would reject that a pure "naturalist" accounting as so improbable that you'd believe it wouldn't occur alone. So then, if God needs to be added into the equation in any sense, because to believe it could all just happen on its own beggars belief, then I too have a right to think something simpler that God just created more directly at different times (although such by no means variation and the like doesn't also happen).

Hugh wrote:

In fact, I think extinction is more an issue for pure evolutionary scenarios (which I understand Hugh that unlike Neo-X you're not a "purist" given your Theistic Evolution) IF the rate of extinction is many times higher than the rate of evolution (and by what we apparently see today, all life will one day eventually go extinct).

I don't follow that. Extinction is not at all a problem for any evolutionary scenario.

Well, not if you believe God has everything planned and all is guided by His hidden hand. But, say mass extinction events, if the rate of extinction is higher than the rate of new life caused via evolution, then evidently life will eventually cease. What we appear to see, is an explosion of complex life (Cambrian), then mass extinction events followed again by explosions of life, crossing through different eras throughout Earth history. It seems to me, that "punctuated" creation fits well, of course so would your theistic evolution. Purely unguided natural evolution though, the odds seem too enormous for me to believe and the hurdles I see which would need overcoming (which with God, anything is possible).

Hugh wrote:

In any case, I find "why didn't God [insert how you would do things if you were God]" challenges are quite weak. Limited by the person's ability to understand outside of their "what God is or would be like" box. They don't understand, so their God didn't do things that way, therefore God didn't do it or doesn't exist. Creationists too, for their part, do the same thing against evolution. Note, these are weak arguments and quite easily prone to a strawman fallacy.

Yes. Fair enough; I agree with that.

In any case, my question back to you was trying to highlight that there were different epochs and environments throughout Earth's history. We have different environments at different times, different epochs during Earth's history. That fact that only simple life was supportable in Earth's early stages fits with its volcanic nature. Volcanoes helped to create Earth's atmosphere allowing more complex forms of life to be able to survive. God punctuates life at different times according to their environments, and you're right that as Earth's environment changed over time, new life suited to such made its way there. Almost with seeming ease, too easily for a pure evolutionary scenario if you ask me (weak subjective opinion).

All true. And surely we must conclude, if all this is God inspired, directed and maintained, that God 'saw that it was good'. The whole process of the development and progress of the universe must be seen as continuously divinely worthwhile, not just a long lead-up to the main event - humanity. I don't want to reduce us to the same value as 'just another leaf on the tree', but for any leaf to imagine that the whole tree was only constructed in order for it to emerge is more self-centred than warranted, even if it's a particularly significant one.

I do believe creation is important, even nature itself will sing and praise God. While our story is about us, the rest of creation has its own story and relationship to God. Jesus commanded the wind to stop. The earth, rivers, seas and mountains worship God. Just look at Rev 4:13. Also read over my post here for more: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 96#p216975

I think the one thing, focusing on biology and the physical world ignores, is consciousness. A complete accounting of life, will seek not only to explain the physical order of things, but also consciousness. If you have, I'd encourage you to pick up a copy of Thomas Nagel's book, Mind and Cosmos. After reading, you may not look at nature the same way again.

Hugh wrote:

Whether evolution was the vehicle used or creation was that vehicle, evolution in any case needs existing life to act upon. Biological evolution, is logically sound when used as a tool of speciation, logically works when life is already present -- e.g., two species, one being naturally selected over the other according to mutations that happen in already existing biological information. The more life, the more complicated it is, the better. So for many to claim that all life is explainable by evolution, is really overstating what follows from such. The conclusion doesn't follow that because evolution works well at diversifying species, that it was the cause of initial species of life. Rather natural selection requires initial life form/s in order to act, and mutations require genetic code (as we understand matters today since Darwin wasn't aware of such in his time) to act upon and mutate. The mechanisms must be quite different therefore for early life, compared to mechanisms like natural selection and mutations that may act upon life that is already established.

Yes. The early development of life was evolutionary in concept, in that life forms adapted, multiplied and diversified, but the mechanisms by which they did so - and still do so in prokaryotic organisms - are different. The concept of non-interbreeding species gets very distorted among bacteria. Part of your comment seems to devolve to the question of abiogenesis, which, of course, many people like to separate into a different area of inquiry from evolution itself, but must be as inextricably bound to it as the ex nihilo creation of the universe is to the big bang. I personally have no difficulty in postulating the inevitable emergence of self-replicating chemistry from appropriate initial conditions, and not much credence in all those probability arguments which essentially claim that the extremely improbable cannot occur without divine intervention. That's not good mathematics.

I agree, and can understand why you wouldn't have a problem accepting extremely improbable any more than I don't have a problem accepting the extreme improbability of a place like Earth eventually evolving out of the "big bang" singularity. Carefully planned and set in motion.

neo-x wrote:

This stage may start with singular cellular life, but then the gap is how do we get the information rich biological code and it's arrangement thereof, specific functions of RNA and proteins alongside DNA

I think this right here is what is the crux of your argument. If I may, I'd say that I look at it as not as an increase in information. It's just a different arrangement of the same building blocks, nothing has been changed or added to them. To think that life at a microscopic level is less complex, is not the same as to say, therefore easier to have had formed.

And another problematic phrase you use is "and mutations acting upon such genetic information and biology". and then "for increasing the genetic information so much"

Mutations don't act on genetic information. There is no such thing. A mutation is not functional - preset code which comes and fights with the DNA code to overcome it. When the DNA, or "information" as you call it - the building blocks of life, gets garbled because of radiation or a replicating problem occurs where the cell can't part with the right ingredients or misses a chromosome or two in the process or miss copying a gene, is what is called a mutation. The mutation doesn't arrive from somewhere. And we know that happens today still, the DNA molecule doesn't replicate perfectly there are always problems. The only kicker is that if the said garbled arrangement of the molecule works in favor of its host in the environment it lives in or not; and could the host pass it on successfully. If the host survives, it copies the garbled genes on and thus you say it is increased information. But it's not increased info in the same sense that it's (externally) added information. Its just the same DNA molecule which is partly arranged in a way it was not before. If the garbled information or mutation as you say, doesn't help the host even if the host passes it on, it will go down in the gene pool as a minor variation and less likely to occur or may go completely away.

Edit:
To take an example...let's say for the sake of simplicity the original sequence in the DNA was:

AGGT CTGG CGAT TTGA AACC TGCA GAAC...

and via UV radiation of the sun the molecule rearranged itself to

ACGT CCGG AGAT TCGA CACT TGCA GAAC.

Compare the two and you see slight variations. Now how this may result in the organism? It may be that it formed a part of a visual sensor the or hearing sensor or skin change or maybe it formed a nose. Whatever function you think of, the variation in the garbled code could make the particular function inert, malfunctions it, or forms it in a slightly different way. That's mutation, and if this change helps the host, then good, if not then the change may cause the host to die and the host eventually can go extinct. Just one of the many possibilities, e.g overlapping of sequence, clipping of it, etc. can all result in different changes.

Yes, this is what I meant by "mutations acting upon such genetic information and biology", although if I were more careful I'd reword this to something more like "mutations happening in genetic information." It's not so much that "mutations" act (like say Natural Selection acts), but more meant the genetic information is needed for mutations to occur. Otherwise I see nothing wrong with you you've written; but it does accentuate my point that this "critical mass" (which I'll try explain below) is needed in order for the main evolutionary mechanisms (NS acting upon mutations) to do their thing.

Neo-X wrote:If you saw the video (I detest his quibs on creationists) you see the same thing explained.
By the way, the same happens in humans, rats and chimps and even reptiles. Humans carry genes for producing egg yolk, full set of fur coat, male nipples etc. Chimps and rats carry the same genes of the fur coat but in their development the gene is functional, it hasn't been garbled, in humans, these genes are broken the sequence is there but with slightly rearranged, mutated - garbled code, its there but can't fully function.

This is why when people say God made everything with the same material is good on a superficial level because we tend to think that the code doesn't exist in us for things that don't work in us. Like we are made exactly for the things we do today. But it does, we still carry egg-yolk making sequence when our ancestors delinked from reptiles. It's still there just slightly broken.

I'd like to respond to this, and really, when we're talking psudeogenes, I find biologists start thinking themselves theologians. They raise theological arguments to do with God and God's design rather than focus on evolution. Trying to prove evolution through falsifying what they see as an outrageous competing position (aka certain creation positions). Falsification of another position, doesn't prove your own position (someone should tell that to Jerry Coyne ).

There is an often made formal fallacy by many evolutionary scientists too, that is, affirming the consequent. Note, the following logic doesn't follow:

• 1) If P then Q
  2) Q is true
  3) Therefore P

It's easy to do, I'm sure I've done it, we all do it. So then, let me substitute in the argument from the egg-yolk gene found in humans that is apparently non-functional.

• 1) If 'we are descended from reptiles' then 'we should carry non-functional genes'.
  2) We do carry non-functional genes (Vitellogenin "egg-yolk" genes)
  3) Therefore, these egg-yolk making sequences we carry are left over from when our ancestors delinked from reptiles

Note, the conclusion doesn't follow from the argument presented. Yes, you do have a confirmed prediction, and one that might be quite troubling for those who believe God created life forms. It is good evidence, but it is not equivalent to proving that we are descended from reptiles.

Clearly evolutionary theory is consistent with vitellogenins. The same is true for other patterns we observe also. Such patterns can fall into an evolutionary common descent pattern, or they may not. One thing I find troubling with evolutionary theory as scientists use it, is that if a sequence is not the case, then evolution can account for that too. Evolution is used to explain a wide range of observable features, that's great right? The downside is that it becomes less falsifiable, and in doing so, evidential arguments are less forceful. If it can explain A, and B, and C, then when we find 'C' it isn't compelling evidence for the theory.

Let me use the egg yolk example, referencing Dennis Venema's BioLogos article: Vitellogenin and Common Ancestry: Understanding synteny:

• Modern birds (such as chickens) have three vitellogenin genes: VIT1, VIT2, and VIT3. The latter ones sit side by side in the chicken genome, with VIT1 in a different location. The three VIT genes sit next to other genes in the chicken genome: VIT1 sits next to a gene called “ELTD1”, and VIT2 and VIT3 sit between genes named “SSX2IP” and “CTBS”. These genes are not involved in making egg yolk - they just happen to be the closest neighbors of the VIT genes.
  ...
  researchers f[ou]nd fragmentary remains of all three VIT genes in the human genome (though the human VIT1 sequence was the best preserved of the three) they also found sequence matches that span both regions on either side of the genes in question. This evidence increases our confidence that we are indeed looking at regions with shared synteny: in other words, a region in two present-day species that was once a region in the genome of their common ancestral population. The human VIT sequences, as expected, are far too fragmentary to act as functional VIT genes.

So then, from this, the vitellogenin genes in chickens share a weak similarity with corresponding genetic segments in humans. Venema (and many evolutionary scientists) view the human segments as pseudogenes (non-functional vitellogenin genes inherited from their egg-laying ancestors). The conclusion, vitellogenin similarity between humans and chickens proves humans and chickens evolved via mutations from a common ancestor (note the affirming the consequent fallacy).

Yet, despite the conclusion not logically following, it is also argued that similarity of the vitellogenin genes between humans and chickens is further confirmed by their positioning within their respective genomes (synteny). This is something common descent through evolution would predict, right? (C) But then, if there was loss of synteny (B) with the positioning was found elsewhere, even dramatically so (A) evolution still wouldn't be harmed. The theory has a range of explanatory mechanisms every outcome that might be found (A, B and C). This means these apparent evidentiary arguments don't count as very forceful evidence, and indeed it seems impossible to falsify full-blown common descent via evolution which I why I don't even bother to try. I'd prefer not to and just let people believe saturated with such thought believe it, while knowing to my own rational satisfaction reasons why I believe in my form of progressive creation.

Of course, things like the yolk sac, and egg-yolk gene, this particular apparently non-functional psuedogene, when I bring such information back to my theological beliefs, and beliefs on creation, I need to work through it in order for my beliefs to be consistent with reality. Any rationalist, which I consider myself as being, ought to and, that I believe I do best as I can. It is part of loving God with my mind as far as I see matters.

Neo-x wrote:

Take cross-breeding which can occur. Cross-breeding couldn't occur in the beginning, until a critical mass is hit where life has taken hold that allows cross-breeding to occur.

I am not sure what this means, k. You don't need cross breeding to occur, you only need the DNA to branch out. What do you mean by critical mass?

How does DNA branch out? One way I can logically conceive, is via cross-breeding. Another is genetic transposition. Then mutations (like you pointed out happens with increased radiation), and NS acting on genetic code. But, how does the initial genetic code get there which can then possibly be shared across species, duplicated and modified?

A "critical mass" of such genomic information is required. A critical mass of "life", and I'd say "life forms", is required before natural selection can work it's magic. Otherwise there can be no mutations. First, an accumulation of life is necessary, an accumulation of genetic information within populations (and by all accounts being qualified in Information Technology, I think I'm fit to see that such is clearly "information" on different levels), then once this is had speciation can take place via natural selection acting upon mutations. But prior to this "critical mass" being had (i.e., minimum size or amount of life and biological information required to start Darwinian forms of evolution), other mechanisms are required to offer up a complete picture that all life is in fact descended from single cellular life such as say, unicellular algae.

Neo-x wrote:Link added:
Also, read this small link about the evolution of cecal valves in Podarcis sicula, a species of lizard. Ofcourse you can find more material on it. But my point with this is, how new function or information, as you put it, forms through evolution, on its own. Cecal valves only appear in 1% in scaled reptiles. This species didn't have them but in a couple fo decades they did.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 112433.htm

Thanks, I did find it interesting. From the article, I read that the genome of the adapted lizards on the new island, is still the same i.e., "Tail clips taken for DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards were genetically identical to the source population on Pod Kopiste." This to me points to a mechanism I referred to in one of my earlier posts as a biological plasticity.

Yes, we can adapt, some species more than others, and this results in morphological changes -- yet, the plasticity is accounted for in the biology of the species. Kind of like an elastic band. It is similar to finches beaks, during drought the seeds eaten by the finches became tougher, and birds with bigger beaks able to survive and reproduce. After the drought ended, seeds returned beaks also returned back to pre-drought sizes.

In your profile signature, you have, "The thing is I find it funny when people accept micro evolution but not macro its like saying I believe in inches but not miles." This is one reason why some mechanisms (for better or wrose, often boxed into "microevolution") do not allow for miles. A finch remains a finch, the Italian lizard as it lizard, despite these adapative changes. It's like they have an elastic band on them, which allows them to travel inches and not miles. Unless, there is a way to snap that rubber band and re-encode, if you will, their genome (which require other mechanisms to be brought to bare than I think those displayed with finches and these lizards).

To interject a thought -- DNA was discovered by someone -- which means it's Always been around -- it Came from Somewhere. And, this world 'evolved' / developed from Somewhere. Everything has an Origin. Things don't simply 'become' from ???? --

Not true, Newton invented gravity. Before that, people could fly

Kurieuo wrote:A finch remains a finch, the Italian lizard as it lizard, despite these adapative changes. It's like they have an elastic band on them, which allows them to travel inches and not miles. Unless, there is a way to snap that rubber band and re-encode, if you will, their genome (which require other mechanisms to be brought to bare than I think those displayed with finches and these lizards).

Well no. There is no evidence that there is any elastic band. You're falling into the abelcainsbrother fallacy, which is that if it hasn't been watched in a laboratory it can't be true, but in fact the processes that lead one finch to have a slightly thicker beak than another are the same processes that enabled a reptile with split ends to learn, after several million years, to fly.

crochet1949 wrote:To interject a thought -- DNA was discovered by someone -- which means it's Always been around -- it Came from Somewhere. And, this world 'evolved' / developed from Somewhere. Everything has an Origin. Things don't simply 'become' from ???? --

Yes they do, all the time. Rain becomes a river, volcanoes become islands, single cells become babies. Chemical solutions became self-replicating molecules. I'm not clear what point you are making.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audacity wrote:Why would god find it necessary to put this many on earth? Why was it necessary to make Nephrurus amyae



when he had already made Nephrurus wheeleri?

I don't see it as matter of necessity, the creator (let's me use God since that's what I believe), there was nothing necessary about creating so many. I don't see God needed reason to create such. Further, I'd assume a weaker position of that God merely may have been originally created such.

Not to quibble, but if god had no reason to create 1,600 species of geckos, why would he have done so? Don't all creatures do things because ______________ ?

An alternative option, open to me and what I believe, is that such do in fact came descended from a more original form gecko. Like we have many different dogs, due to interbreeding and what-not. I thought this would be an interesting analysis for me, to define what might be "original" so went looking for gecko phylogeny. I guess a quick look isn't going to be enough, but I would nonetheless be an interesting exercise to try get to what I'd see might be "originals".

Maybe I misunderstand Progressive Creation, but doesn't it reject macroevolution, as in "descended from"?

hughfarey wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:A finch remains a finch, the Italian lizard as it lizard, despite these adapative changes. It's like they have an elastic band on them, which allows them to travel inches and not miles. Unless, there is a way to snap that rubber band and re-encode, if you will, their genome (which require other mechanisms to be brought to bare than I think those displayed with finches and these lizards).

Well no. There is no evidence that there is any elastic band. You're falling into the abelcainsbrother fallacy, which is that if it hasn't been watched in a laboratory it can't be true, but in fact the processes that lead one finch to have a slightly thicker beak than another are the same processes that enabled a reptile with split ends to learn, after several million years, to fly.

Of course there is, you left out my qualifying sentence: "This is one reason why some mechanisms (for better or wrose, often boxed into "microevolution") do not allow for miles." It just depends on the mechanisms involved. Think I'm wrong, I can find ligers and other hybrids of very similar kinds, but crossbreed a dog and cat and get back to me. Interbreeding as a mechanism of evolution will only get you so far, because the "rubber band" won't let you go further.

Hortator wrote:Not true, Newton invented gravity. Before that, people could fly

So that means that our wings must have evolved into the arms we now have. Only problem is that people Still Try to fly and end up with Broken arms, etc. and sometimes Die. So we'd be better off if he hadn't invented gravity.

Audacity wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Audacity wrote:Why would god find it necessary to put this many on earth? Why was it necessary to make Nephrurus amyae



when he had already made Nephrurus wheeleri?

I don't see it as matter of necessity, the creator (let's me use God since that's what I believe), there was nothing necessary about creating so many. I don't see God needed reason to create such. Further, I'd assume a weaker position of that God merely may have been originally created such.

Not to quibble, but if god had no reason to create 1,600 species of geckos, why would he have done so? Don't all creatures do things because ______________ ?

Men have nipples perhaps for no other reason than women do, right? (Interestingly though on occasion it has been reported men have nursed babies. ) There needs to be no reason to me other than God delighting in creating a beautiful array, not merely of dissimilar creatures, and many varieties of similar kinds. For me, I marvel at the beauty of many different varieties of similar looking fish and butterflies. I know I'm not alone, ask other Christians here. That is reason enough. It seems some people see the design and beauty, while others don't.

K wrote:

An alternative option, open to me and what I believe, is that such do in fact came descended from a more original form gecko. Like we have many different dogs, due to interbreeding and what-not. I thought this would be an interesting analysis for me, to define what might be "original" so went looking for gecko phylogeny. I guess a quick look isn't going to be enough, but I would nonetheless be an interesting exercise to try get to what I'd see might be "originals".

Maybe I misunderstand Progressive Creation, but doesn't it reject macroevolution, as in "descended from"?

You're not misunderstanding. PC sees limits, but defining those limits can potentially get messy. Which is why I personally much prefer talking in terms of known mechanisms and how far they might possibly go in the real world.

I'm quite secure and considering possibilities outside the boundaries of what I think is actual and/or I believe, so will freely talk in such terms. It is certainly possible new species might arise from natural selection acting upon mutations. So let's look at real world mechanisms of what type of mutations are required to get you such with varieties of species, deeper down going the tree from one genus to another and further. I see such as a possible, but to conclude therefore that all life is actually related to algae is unsound and doesn't logically follow.

An issue for me comes in the creation of new previously non-existing information whether that is enormous chunks of inexplicable DNA being required, the information required by RNA to read DNA blueprint and manufacture the range of proteins from amino acids that as needed by an organism, the information behind all the different types of proteins to function and act as they do.

hughfarey wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:A finch remains a finch, the Italian lizard as it lizard, despite these adapative changes. It's like they have an elastic band on them, which allows them to travel inches and not miles. Unless, there is a way to snap that rubber band and re-encode, if you will, their genome (which require other mechanisms to be brought to bare than I think those displayed with finches and these lizards).

Well no. There is no evidence that there is any elastic band. You're falling into the abelcainsbrother fallacy, which is that if it hasn't been watched in a laboratory it can't be true, but in fact the processes that lead one finch to have a slightly thicker beak than another are the same processes that enabled a reptile with split ends to learn, after several million years, to fly.

That reptile was a mighty Slow learner since it took That long to learn to fly.