Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:And also, it would help if all sides came to an agreement on what macroevolution is. "Random" means different things, depending on which side of the evolution argument one is on. I've heard some creationists use the word "random" in a way that evolutionists don't mean. Could that be the same with macroevolution? Could we agree that the theory behind macroevolution is common decent? Or, macroevolution is the theory that all living things on earth evolved from a common ancestor? Is that a fair meaning of macroevolution?

I don't think that'll happen because for some evolutionary biologists the term "macroevolution" isn't even a term they use.

Is that because they assume macroevolution from microevolution, and just call it evolution? Or is there another reason? I know I'm looking for a general answer, where biologists may have their own specific answer.

Most don't see a division they see macroevolution as the name of the end result of microevolution.
Microevolution over 1000's of generations = macroevolution.

Unfortunately Paul, even the top evolutionary biologists in the world stated that they couldnt extrapolate macro from micro as far as evolution is concerned
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/09/bu ... 04215.html

The chicago conference was where the top evolutionary biologists in the world at that time got together to try to come together on this very same question, and here is what they came up with.
The scientific journal literature also uses the terms "macroevolution" or "microevolution." In 1980, Roger Lewin reported in Science on a major meeting at the University of Chicago that sought to reconcile biologists' understandings of evolution with the findings of paleontology. Lewin reported, "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science, Vol. 210:883-887, Nov. 1980.)

Then Steven J. Gould came up with punctuated equilibrium that basically says that evolution can super speed up or slow down at will. How convenient .
If the evidence goes against you , you just find a way to make the theory unfalsifiable .

As far as punctuated equilibrium read this part of the science article.

Two years earlier, Robert E. Ricklefs had written in an article in Science entitled "Paleontologists confronting macroevolution," contending:

The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. ... apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground.

(Science, Vol. 199:58-60, Jan. 6, 1978.)

Plus you cant even say that Macroevolution equals many small steps of microevolution.

Finally, in 2000 Douglas Erwin wrote a paper the journal Evolution and Development entitled "Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution" where he explained the historical controversy over whether microevolutionary processes can explain macroevolutionary change:

Arguments over macroevolution versus microevolution have waxed and waned through most of the twentieth century. Initially, paleontologists and other evolutionary biologists advanced a variety of non-Darwinian evolutionary processes as explanations for patterns found in the fossil record, emphasizing macroevolution as a source of morphologic novelty. Later, paleontologists, from Simpson to Gould, Stanley, and others, accepted the primacy of natural selection but argued that rapid speciation produced a discontinuity between micro- and macroevolution. This second phase emphasizes the sorting of innovations between species. Other discontinuities appear in the persistence of trends (differential success of species within clades), including species sorting, in the differential success between clades and in the origination and establishment of evolutionary novelties. These discontinuities impose a hierarchical structure to evolution and discredit any smooth extrapolation from allelic substitution to large-scale evolutionary patterns. Recent developments in comparative developmental biology suggest a need to reconsider the possibility that some macroevolutionary discontinuities may be associated with the origination of evolutionary innovation. The attractiveness of macroevolution reflects the exhaustive documentation of large-scale patterns which reveal a richness to evolution unexplained by microevolution. If the goal of evolutionary biology is to understand the history of life, rather than simply document experimental analysis of evolution, studies from paleontology, phylogenetics, developmental biology, and other fields demand the deeper view provided by macroevolution.

(Douglas Erwin, "Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution," Evolution and Development, Vol. 2(2):78-84, 2000.)

So the next time a Darwinist tells you that scientists don't use terms like "microevolution" or "macroevolution," remind them why this claim is a long-debunked myth!

1

PaulSacramento wrote: Micro, yes, macro, no.
Micro is proven and because it has been proven, logic follows that, given enough time, macro is a distinct possibility.

Only if one equivocates and conflates terms.

jlay wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: Micro, yes, macro, no.
Micro is proven and because it has been proven, logic follows that, given enough time, macro is a distinct possibility.

Only if one equivocates and conflates terms.

Jlay, I believe you're correct.
Saying macroevolution is true because microevolution is provable, is only possible if one conflates the two.

Ivellious wrote:Wow, KBC, congrats on taking what I said and not even remotely interpreting it correctly. I said populations change...never did I say that a million individuals are spontaneously changed at once. I meant exactly what you said...allele frequencies in a population change over time due to various genetic and environmental interplay.

actually... you said... exactly...

Ivellious wrote:Also, organisms do not change.

all organisms do change, life is a population of organisms that are mechanistically arranged to vary at each replication event "AND" they mechanistically vary during their existence. No matter how you meant what you said you are incorrect.

Ivellious wrote:I was simply correcting the statement that skakos made about animals constantly needing to change, because that seemed to imply that individual animals "evolve." I said that populations evolve over time, which is absolutely correct.

Then we can challenge that conceptual error too. All life continues to evolve after a replication event....
I am not afraid to state and not imply that individual animals "evolve" ...
...Go ahead tell me that lamarkian inheritance is impossible according to the current "belief system". I dare ya.

I'm saying that every bit of diversity we see in the canine gene pool is the result of starting with established info. Diversity of existing info does not account for how the info appeared to begin with.

What info? change appears by mutation. Mutation does not always happen from UV radiation. You need a single mutation for the DNA to change and pass it on, if it survives, in the long run all organisms would be carrying that mutation. Those who do not survive will become less and less. Unlike a person or creature, a gene does not have two parents, it only has one. Diversity of "info" are just mutations, carried on because they survived in the organism's DNA.

THere is no answer. It is taking micro evolution and saying just give it enough time and we can get from molecules to man. It is conflating change (diversifying of existing info, my $20 example.) to change (molecules to man).

Care to shed some light then how all living things have similar DNA pattern, shared genes. etc? I have still to see one of you explain it without running into a God of the gaps.

Certainly the burden of proof is on you. I haven't presented any God of the gaps. You are once again making presumptions based on a worldview founded in equivocation and question begging.

Shift burdens all you like, you haven't presented any God of the gaps because you won't answer the question. If you do, God of the gaps is all that you could say.

I have plenty of threads to prove you wrong.

Let's see.

Neo, that is just an assertion that the evidence doesnt support. There are huge leaps of information between these animals as evidence by the whale evolutionary chart , plus there is no transition found in the chart. Its just a patch of guesswork. Neo, where are the transitional forms for the whale evolutionary chart? You have basilosaurus swimming at roughly the same time as ambulocetas (which was supposed to be one of the early transitional forms that was both aquatic and land dwelling. The early chart shows them to be about 12 to 15 million years apart. This chart doesnt support micro turning into macro. It was one of the first charts that I studied when believed evolution. This new find of ambolucetas swimming at the same time as basilosaurus doesnt just make the chart problematic, it blows it out of the water.

And what does the evidence support?

I am not sure why whale seems to be a problem that you would discard evolution. You do not need fossils, you need DNA. 12-15 million years on the evolutionary timescale is a fraction of a second.

Thats the other problem Jlay, and dont forget the fruit fly experiments where they subjected them to blasts of radiation and every harsh conditions but not only did they produce nothing but fruit flies.

Because you are expecting new organisms to arrive out of fruit fly. Look at the gene pool. If a mutation occurred and caused the fly to lose its wings (that the gene turned off), would you still call it a fruit fly? Now imagine that you identically get two fruit flies each having their wings lost, the gene turned off. Now will the offspring show wings or not? They can, because genes are not lost (not always). The gene is there, it is just turned off. The fly carries the genes from both parents, but their wingless parents got their genes from their winged parents. So the offspring of the wingless fly will get 1/8 of the gene (on average) of his winged grandparents. Which makes a case that it can produce wings, even when its immediate parents did not. But lets say the random shuffling of genes in the cell, made such a shuffle that only the wingless parent genes were copied and the winged grandparents genes were not copied at all or was only very very tiny. This would increase the chance that a wingless offspring would be born but now there has been a mutation and there has been a drift in the DNA. So this unique individual does not have any gene that causes it to have wings. Now, to successfully replicate this mutation, it needs to to reproduce, so it mates with a normal fruit fly. the offspring gets half the genes from his father and half from mother. So he may inherit the wings gene again from his mother, but the allele, that is his father's wingless gene might stop it from having wings or turn it off. It may be that the first offspring may have wings (and still have the wingless gene in the DNA) and the second offspring is wingless completely (and may also have turned off winged genes). The wingless gene now embedded in the DNA, goes from offspring to offspring, to such a point where there are equal number of wingless and winged off-springs and therefore at some point, two wingless fruit flies mate again. With each passing generation, the over all size of the mutated wingless gene might grow substantially.

Now comes the natural selection process. The wingless flies have a very low chance of survival if it adapts to the survival and eating habits of the normal fruit fly. But it may become more attuned to catching food on foot. Using its feet now it may move faster, it has to survive, it can't fly. So it tries to move and run faster, since those who do not may be easily preyed upon, over time making only the faster runners to breed more since they survive more. Now at some point, in this population of wingless flies (which are only flies now because of their DNA) there appears another mutation which causes there legs to be more extended, this helps them run faster. But it is not their habit alone which has caused the mutation. No. Genes do not have intentions. It is simply a shuffling of bases in the the DNA, the 4 bases of DNA which cause all genetic change. The change is rare and has to go in successful reproduction over various generations to become large in numbers of individuals. So repeat the process again the same way we did with the wingless genes. Now you have, what used to be fruit flies, creatures that have no wings, and have great legs (given that the mutated gene for large legs got copied the same way the wingless gene got copied). But it also runs faster now, because of natural selection social behavior and other benefits.

Now if you come upon this creature. You would not call it a fly strictly. First it has no wings, second it runs fast and has big legs. Now remember, the normal fruit flies exist all the same. Lets say for our own understanding we call this creature bug 1. Now we think it has some characteristics of the fruit fly, and some not. So we call it a separate name and classify it separately from the fruit fly. We also find out that they are related by DNA. Some of it belong to the fruit fly, some is unique or new. Some genes are turned off completely and some are missing. Through breeding further mutations could develop which separates these two creatures completely (the DNA would still be there, which we call junk DNA or turned off genes).

Now you have two creatures sharing mutual DNA, yet looking and surviving and eating differently. I have greatly reduced some details and other factors just to get across the basic idea. Evolution happening in individual genes and then passing onto bigger populations. That is how we get the dog, and the wolf, the chimp and man. That is why Hippos and whales are related. Both related and sharing DNA, and yet two different organisms. So technically if you still want to call the wingless and long legged Bug 1 as fruit fly as it shares 90% of the DNA with the fruit fly then you might as well also call man a chimp too because it shares 98% of the same DNA of that of the chimp. Or else they are two different creatures because they are both different.

See how do you define different? How do you define limit. Who is to say that the dogs are not wolves with genetic change? Mirco evolution to marco evolution happens like this. That is why we have shared DNA and genes. Because the DNA belongs to a common ancestor. For DNA to replicate, from simple to complex organism, it does not need two individuals, it only needs one mutated gene. Micro-Macro. It is complex, and that is why it seems "too much".

100 years and millions of fruit flies are nothing compared to the gigantic evolutionary clock which goes back billions of years of mutated genes and such. Though I hope, that the sooner we decode the DNA molecule the better.

neo-x wrote:
Care to shed some light then how all living things have similar DNA pattern, shared genes. etc? I have still to see one of you explain it without running into a God of the gaps.

Neo, I see two possibilities here.

1) It is because there is a common ancestor, and all traits get passed down.

2) The Creator used DNA as a building block for life with all living things.

Neo, I would expect as a believer, you would at least acknowledge the possibility that the Creator used the same "stuff" to create all living things.

Neo, if you have some time, look at this and tell me what you think:http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/humanchi ... milarities

Neo, I see two possibilities here.

1) It is because there is a common ancestor, and all traits get passed down.

2) The Creator used DNA as a building block for life with all living things.

With all due respect, Rick, there are several fundamental issues I take with assuming the second option to be true, beyond the obvious "God of the gaps" that it presents.

First, you have to get past the fact that ALL life on Earth has an incredibly cohesive DNA structure. When you trace the genes, gene expressions, varying allele types, and so on, there is, without any shred of doubt, a pattern to life on Earth today. With time and diligence, you can take basically any group of plants and animals on Earth and put together a phylogenetic tree based on their DNA. Are there discrepancies? Yes, there are frequently a handful of base pairs that won't match the final tree completely. But there are a number of reasons why this may be, and it certainly does not falsify the phylogenetic history itself.

Now, with that in mind, you are essentially saying that, if this simply is just God using similar building blocks, he did a damn good job of giving the appearance of relatedness between species. To me, that reasoning is no better than saying that God just gave the universe an appearance of age, which is faulty at best.

Second, you have to deal with the fact that there are thousands (and likely millions upon millions that we do not know of) animal and plant species that lived on Earth before us, and are no longer around. And following the fossil record, regardless of whether we see every minute transitional form, there is a clear evolution of life, starting simple as can be and gaining in complexity and variety as time wore on. And more recently, there are primitive forms of many organisms that live today. These are not interpretations, they are fact.

The question is, what happened to them? If not natural selection acting on them and causing changes and extinctions, how does their existence fit into your idea? Did God just create millions of types of life and systematically kill them off and replace them with slightly altered versions over and over and over again until we finally reach today's variety of life? The Intelligent Design crowd face this exact same problem.

Neo, if you have some time, look at this and tell me what you think:http://www.reasons.org/rtb-101/humanchi ... milarities

I've gone through the page and the articles/posts that are linked to it. I found a lot of the arguments to be generally unconvincing...For instance, the articles debunking the "99% similarity" myth are accurate, more or less (though he didn't cite any sources for the studies, which bugs me), but biologists don't use raw percentages like that to form their hypotheses anyway. Much like if cats and dogs are 85% similar, we wouldn't simply say that it means they are closely related. Basically, the argument that reasons.org presents is an appeal to a piece of "common knowledge" that isn't biologically significant in reality.

Likewise, the article on chromosome 2 was not good science either. The author blatantly admits that chromosome 2 is clear evidence for the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes (which is why humans have one less pair than other primates), but in the same breath says that instead of looking at it that way, he thinks it just means God was being clever. While he seems to be arguing for theistic evolution (which I don't generally oppose), it's bad science to just say that there is evidence for this happening via evolution, but he would prefer to think it was God's doing.

I think the main difference between evolution driven By God and evolution that is promoted by atheists is the notion of "purpose".
To the atheist ( Darwinist), evolution is driven by natural selection, random mutation and survival of the fittest and NONE of that has a purpose BEYOND propagation of the species.
To the theistic evolutionist, there is a purpose and that purpose is God.

And what does the evidence support?

I am not sure why whale seems to be a problem that you would discard evolution. You do not need fossils, you need DNA. 12-15 million years on the evolutionary timescale is a fraction of a second.

Neo, you didnt finish reading the rest of my post. That 12-15 million years was the old timescale, and that was obliterated since they found the basilasaurus (fully aquatic whale)swimming the seas at the same time as ambulocetas (who was the supposed intermediary between pakicetas and basilosaurus)

Such a transition is a fete of genetic rewiring and it is astonishing that it is presumed to have occurred by Darwinian processes in such a short span of time. This problem is accentuated when one considers that the majority of anatomical novelties unique to aquatic cetaceans (Pelagiceti) appeared during just a few million years – probably within 1-3 million years. The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years (according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper), that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility.

It is not rational to expect this whale evolutionary chart to be realistic.

Whales require an intra-abdominal counter current heat exchange system (the testis are inside the body right next to the muscles that generate heat during swimming), they need to possess a ball vertebra because the tail has to move up and down instead of side-to-side, they require a re-organisation of kidney tissue to facilitate the intake of salt water, they require a re-orientation of the fetus for giving birth under water, they require a modification of the mammary glands for the nursing of young under water, the forelimbs have to be transformed into flippers, the hindlimbs need to be substantially reduced, they require a special lung surfactant (the lung has to re-expand very rapidly upon coming up to the surface), etc etc.

With this new fossil find, however, dating to 49 million years ago (bear in mind that Pakicetus lived around 53 million years ago), this means that the first fully aquatic whales now date to around the time when walking whales (Ambulocetus) first appear. This substantially reduces the window of time in which the Darwinian mechanism has to accomplish truly radical engineering innovations and genetic rewiring to perhaps just five million years — or perhaps even less. It also suggests that this fully aquatic whale existed before its previously-thought-to-be semi-aquatic archaeocetid ancestors.

I guess I'll agree with you, Paul, but scientifically speaking, I can't think of any way to legitimately introduce "purpose" to evolution. We see evolution driven by variation, mutations, gene flow, and natural selection. All of those things are very real, and about as factual as gravity. You can argue philosophical notions of purpose and divine guidance, but that is something beyond what science is capable of studying. I don't reject theistic evolution, I just reject the notion that we need to insert God into evolution to make it work.

Ivellious wrote:I guess I'll agree with you, Paul, but scientifically speaking, I can't think of any way to legitimately introduce "purpose" to evolution. We see evolution driven by variation, mutations, gene flow, and natural selection. All of those things are very real, and about as factual as gravity. You can argue philosophical notions of purpose and divine guidance, but that is something beyond what science is capable of studying. I don't reject theistic evolution, I just reject the notion that we need to insert God into evolution to make it work.

I know what you mean and I think that the first step is to understand that purpose is still implied in every type of evolution.
In Darwinian the purpose is ONLY to propagate the species BUT if that were true, many of our moral views work AGAINST that purpose, so there must be more to that.
If the purpose is the propagation of the species so as to lead them to full evolutionary form in union with God, then many of the "issues" we have that seem to go against "selfish gene propagation" are answered.
That we are MORE than the sum of our genes when there is no reason for us to be more than that, means something.

And I don't deny that it would appear that, as you say, we are something beyond our genes. I would argue (though many people might disagree with me on this) that many animals, particularly mammals, display a significant amount of social and emotional capacity that humans thought only we were capable of for hundreds of years.

Paul, you do bring up an interesting point about moral views disagreeing with evolutionary concepts. I'm presuming that the concept of altruism fits in there somewhere, and indeed altruism has been a heavy question for evolution, especially considering many species act altruistically in nature. There is a great deal of research and theorizing done on this question, and I would personally disagree that most of our morals completely contradict the forces of natural selection.

Many of our most basic moral values, across people of all backgrounds and worldviews, are clearly there to promote teamwork and cohesiveness among groups of humans. Which is especially important considering that alone, humans are generally frail and likely incapable of surviving long-term in the wild, especially 3,000-50,000 years ago. I'm not trying to discount God here. I'm just saying that while it might seem like evolution is all about destroying everyone around you so that only you can propagate, that is a falsehood. Evolution can just as easily favor altruistic and "moral" lifestyles as well, and humans are not the only such example of this, not by a long shot.

And I don't deny that it would appear that, as you say, we are something beyond our genes. I would argue (though many people might disagree with me on this) that many animals, particularly mammals, display a significant amount of social and emotional capacity that humans thought only we were capable of for hundreds of years.

No reason why they wouldn't when we think about it.

Paul, you do bring up an interesting point about moral views disagreeing with evolutionary concepts. I'm presuming that the concept of altruism fits in there somewhere, and indeed altruism has been a heavy question for evolution, especially considering many species act altruistically in nature. There is a great deal of research and theorizing done on this question, and I would personally disagree that most of our morals completely contradict the forces of natural selection.

I was thinking more along the lines of compassion and seeking beyond what we need to know to survive.

Many of our most basic moral values, across people of all backgrounds and worldviews, are clearly there to promote teamwork and cohesiveness among groups of humans. Which is especially important considering that alone, humans are generally frail and likely incapable of surviving long-term in the wild, especially 3,000-50,000 years ago. I'm not trying to discount God here. I'm just saying that while it might seem like evolution is all about destroying everyone around you so that only you can propagate, that is a falsehood. Evolution can just as easily favor altruistic and "moral" lifestyles as well, and humans are not the only such example of this, not by a long shot.

It is very clear that for social creatures like humans that cooperation is a huge advantage for survival and I do not think that survival of the fittest condones "raping and pillaging" of the weak by the strong (although some have used if to justify such).
Humans also do behave in ways that go against what is best for them in regards to their future, damage to their environment for example, unsafe sexual practices, homosexual activity ( decrease in chance of species propagation), etc.

What info? change appears by mutation. Mutation does not always happen from UV radiation. You need a single mutation for the DNA to change and pass it on, if it survives, in the long run all organisms would be carrying that mutation. Those who do not survive will become less and less. Unlike a person or creature, a gene does not have two parents, it only has one. Diversity of "info" are just mutations, carried on because they survived in the organism's DNA.

Neo,
And where did I say that? hint, I didn't.
Neo, you have to start somewhere. Genetic information. The current evolutionary theory is DESCENT with modification. Do you know what the word descent means?
When anyone proposes a whale evolutionary chart, they have a STARTING point. And that has to do with the EXISTING info. Show me how mutation can result in invertebrate to vertebrate. The descent doesn't account for the existance of what it is descending from.

Care to shed some light then how all living things have similar DNA pattern, shared genes. etc? I have still to see one of you explain it without running into a God of the gaps.

Tell me why things shouldn't have similar DNA patterns? I think the ID movement has shown that it isn't a GOG argument to infer design. And it certainly isn't to infer function, which is exactly what DNA does. You are simply not holding yourself to the same standard. If you think I would for once be ashamed to say that similar patterns infer common design then you need couseling. Perhaps you don't understand calling yourself a THEISTIC evolutionists. What does the THEISTIC part refer to? So don't be a hypocrite. All your doing is pushing your God of the gaps back in the time line.

Shift burdens all you like, you haven't presented any God of the gaps because you won't answer the question. If you do, God of the gaps is all that you could say.

Says the THEISTIC evolutionist.

If you are going to accuse me of making an fallacious argument, then prove it. Otherwise step off. I've already said what I was and wasn't arguing for. You were wrong in what you alleged. Why is the burden on me? Get over it.

100 years and millions of fruit flies are nothing compared to the gigantic evolutionary clock which goes back billions of years of mutated genes and such. Though I hope, that the sooner we decode the DNA molecule the better.

And there it is. The evolution of the gaps. You just need time. Spare me.

Evolution can just as easily favor altruistic and "moral" lifestyles as well, and humans are not the only such example of this, not by a long shot

NO IT CAN'T. Stop ascribing human traits to a man made concept. Evolution is not an "it." It is not a being. But that is exactly what you are treating like. Which is the lie that has been swallowed hook, line and sinker. Nature shows us extinction. Creatures that failed. They didn't evolve. They didn't adapt. They simply died. Gone. Nature is blind and indifferent to anything surviving.
So, evolution can't FAVOR anything. Evolution is not a thing. It is a term and concept humans use to try and understand the changes they see in Nature. If there is any outside 'mind' then you have moved from science to relgion, and then are proposing a God of the gaps in the biggest possible way. Which is why I see TE as the ultimate hypocrisy. So sad that so many don't see it.

It is very clear that for social creatures like humans that cooperation is a huge advantage for survival and I do not think that survival of the fittest condones "raping and pillaging" of the weak by the strong (although some have used if to justify such).
Humans also do behave in ways that go against what is best for them in regards to their future, damage to their environment for example, unsafe sexual practices, homosexual activity ( decrease in chance of species propagation), etc

In terms of evolutionary theory, who cares? Humans can intelligently evaluate what is benefitial. Nature can NOT. There is no mind in nature. Nature doesn't care if the fit survive. There are plenty of cases where fitness is not an actual advantage, but simply an accident.