Evidence for God from Science

Paul: Genesis states that Man, like all other animals came from the earth.

Nils wrote: ↑Sat Oct 13, 2018 12:00 am Dbowling, Evolution news writes about the Nobel Prise in Chemistry 2018:
“She and the graduate students working with her soon found that it was much harder to anticipate the effects of designed changes than they had thought. That’s when she made the shift to what is known as directed evolution. The idea here is that by applying carefully designed biological selection to huge collections of variant genes that came from a suitably designed starting point, we should be able to find the one-in-a-billion variant that does what we want. If we do, then we can make a billion variants of that one and repeat the process. “ https://evolutionnews.org/2018/10/nobel ... nt-design/

What they were doing was to use an evolutionary process where they changed natural selection for the fittest by a manual selection for the fittest and changed natural mutations by manually forced mutations. See https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018 ... lution.pdf for an explanation. The result is the same that would occur naturally if there were the same environmental pressure. The difference is that the natural process would take thousands or perhaps millions of years instead a few years in the lab.

This shows two things. First that the relation between beneficial mutations and deleterious mutations is of little interest (as also Behe showed in his “Quarerly” article that you have referred to). Second that to achieve multiple changes you don’t have to multiply the probabilities for each change with each other (the Behe’s argument in his book is that you have to). If that were the case the probability would be extreme low. The example shows that there is one change at a time. If you think that all changes have to happen instantly evolution is impossible. But there is no need. This mistake is the base for the IDmovement’s scepticism to evolution. I saw a Youtube video with Stephen Meyer a few days ago. Embarrassing.

Dbowling, if you insists on your opinions you have to argue, not only refer to some Digital Research or Behe document. I don’t trust them at all.

ACB, check what Denis Lamoureux says, there are lots on Youtube, for instance an interview where he explained why he changed from scepticism to belief in evolution. He is a theist and PhD both in theology and biology. He says that evolution is shown beyond doubt. If you are interested in detail, read the online article http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

Also see my answer to Thatkid below.

Nils

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:56 am Science has shown that changes HAPPEN and that those changes can lead to adaptations that can further lead to what may be considered a different species.
The issue is, really, perception of species.
Take dogs, all of the same species but different breeds( German Sheppard and retrievers).
Wolves are not a different breed of dog but a different species BUT they still can inter breed.
So, it becomes a bit complex because even humans and apes ( two different species) can interbreed ( with help it seems).
So, where do we draw the line at what is and isn't a different species ?

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:08 am

Paul: Genesis states that Man, like all other animals came from the earth.

But that's an incomplete statement, as man was made AFTER the animal kingdom was completed, and in the image of God, as opposed to how the animals were created, each after it's own kind. Scripturally, there is a huge disconnect by one trying to fit the evolution of man to the text. And certainly this is true of Adam and Eve's creations as well. It doesn't even fit as allegory.

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:04 pm
Observation and experimentation have demonstrated that three coordinated mutations at the molecular level are beyond the capability of random mutation for the history of life on our planet.
This means that the Darwinian processes of random mutation and natural selection alone are incapable of producing the genetic differences we see between species in the fossil record and in life today.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:13 am Genesis states that Man, like all other animals came from the earth.
That all living creatures have similar building blocks is a given.
That some or even all, would have a "common ancestor" is also feasible.

To me, what needs to be explained is not that random mutations occur BUT WHY and HOW living cells adapt to them.

Why does evolution occur AT all as opposed to NOT occurring?

Philip wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 5:51 pm The idea that blind, non-intelligent things could produce what exists or ANYTHING that has existed in the past, is the fantasy of those desperate to believe in a Godless universe!

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:55 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:04 pm
Observation and experimentation have demonstrated that three coordinated mutations at the molecular level are beyond the capability of random mutation for the history of life on our planet.
This means that the Darwinian processes of random mutation and natural selection alone are incapable of producing the genetic differences we see between species in the fossil record and in life today.

If you assume that the probability of a beneficial mutation is 1 in 10 billions and the probability of a second beneficial mutation has the same probability and the same with a third one, and those mutation are coordinated then you have to multiply the probabilities and get a total probability that is 1 in 10^30 that is impossible low. So if there only are coordinated mutations (mutations in the same individual or a small related population) there will never be three mutations and Darwinian evolution fails.

But evolution is not coordinated in this way. There are of course other methods and the simplest is that the mutations are independent. After the first beneficial mutation nothing happens until the decendants with that mutation dominates the population. Then the second mutation occurs etc. The result is that the probabilities are independent and the resulting probability will be reasonable.

The problem with Behe is that he believes that there is irreducible complexity, that there are structures that are not possible to acquire through evolution where every step is beneficial. However the examples that he has suggested are shown to be inconclusive.

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:09 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:13 am Genesis states that Man, like all other animals came from the earth.
That all living creatures have similar building blocks is a given.
That some or even all, would have a "common ancestor" is also feasible.

To me, what needs to be explained is not that random mutations occur BUT WHY and HOW living cells adapt to them.

Why does evolution occur AT all as opposed to NOT occurring?

Living cells don’t “adapt” to mutations. Living cells are controlled by the genes and if the genes are different (mutated) the control works different.

The question is not why evolution occurs. The question is how it could be possible to NOT have evolution, given mutations and heredity. I can’t imagine a world without natural selection i.e. a world where there is no difference in survival between individuals that have similar properties but still some difference in properties that depend on the genes.

This is also a short answer to ACB's idea of natural variation.

Nils

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:16 am

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:09 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 9:13 am To me, what needs to be explained is not that random mutations occur BUT WHY and HOW living cells adapt to them.
Why does evolution occur AT all as opposed to NOT occurring?

Living cells don’t “adapt” to mutations. Living cells are controlled by the genes and if the genes are different (mutated) the control works different.

The question is not why evolution occurs. The question is how it could be possible to NOT have evolution, given mutations and heredity. I can’t imagine a world without natural selection i.e. a world where there is no difference in survival between individuals that have similar properties but still some difference in properties that depend on the genes.

This is also a short answer to ACB's idea of natural variation.

Nils

So the genes "adapt" to the mutation?
I mean, if there is a natural "selection" then there must be something the drives/orients the selection and thus adaptation.

If a particular genetic mutation is beneficial to an organism then that mutation can be propagated to the organism's offspring through the process of natural selection (survival of the fittest).
If a particular genetic mutation is not beneficial to an organism then the particular mutation will not be propagated by natural selection.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:09 am To adapt:
Become adjusted/Adjust to new conditions.

A mutation is a new condition.
To use this paragraph:

If a particular genetic mutation is beneficial to an organism then that mutation can be propagated to the organism's offspring through the process of natural selection (survival of the fittest).
If a particular genetic mutation is not beneficial to an organism then the particular mutation will not be propagated by natural selection.

Natural selection "chooses" ( selects) the mutation as "beneficial" and it is propagated by reproduction.
So, "something" Adapts ( becomes adjusted to the new condition-the mutation).
What then "adapts" to the mutation?

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:21 am

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:55 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:04 pm
Observation and experimentation have demonstrated that three coordinated mutations at the molecular level are beyond the capability of random mutation for the history of life on our planet.
This means that the Darwinian processes of random mutation and natural selection alone are incapable of producing the genetic differences we see between species in the fossil record and in life today.

If you assume that the probability of a beneficial mutation is 1 in 10 billions and the probability of a second beneficial mutation has the same probability and the same with a third one, and those mutation are coordinated then you have to multiply the probabilities and get a total probability that is 1 in 10^30 that is impossible low. So if there only are coordinated mutations (mutations in the same individual or a small related population) there will never be three mutations and Darwinian evolution fails.

This is a factually accurate statement.
And this factually accurate statement is supported by:
- what we see in the fossil record
- what we see in the structure, diversity and complexity of DNA in life today
- what we see in the observed behavior of 'random mutations' at the molecular level in nature and in the lab

But evolution is not coordinated in this way. There are of course other methods and the simplest is that the mutations are independent. After the first beneficial mutation nothing happens until the decendants with that mutation dominates the population. Then the second mutation occurs etc. The result is that the probabilities are independent and the resulting probability will be reasonable.

This is a statement of faith.
This statement of faith has no empirical support and is contradicted by:
- what we see in the structure, diversity, and complexity of DNA in life today
- what we see in the observed behavior of 'random mutations' at the molecular level in nature and in the lab

The exponential nature of the difference in malaria's ability to develop resistance to atovaquone and malaria's ability to develop resistance to chloroquine demonstrates that your presumption is flawed.
The two coordinated mutations required for malaria to develop resistance to chloroquine is child's play when compared with the diversity and complexity that we see in the DNA of life today.

The problem with Behe is that he believes that there is irreducible complexity, that there are structures that are not possible to acquire through evolution where every step is beneficial. However the examples that he has suggested are shown to be inconclusive.

You are again making an assertion with no empirical support.
Behe's poster child, the bacterial flagellum, is just one of countless examples in nature that far exceed the number of coordinated mutations that random mutation is capable of generating.

There is conclusive empirical evidence to support the Darwinian principle of natural selection.
There is also some DNA and fossil evidence to support the Darwinian principle of common descent.
However, the observed behavior of 'random mutation' at the molecular level demonstrates that the Darwinian process of 'random mutation' is incapable of producing what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today.

The assertion that 'random mutation and natural selection' alone is an adequate causal factor for what we see in life today is an "act of faith" that is directly contradicted by empirical observation.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:09 am To adapt:
Become adjusted/Adjust to new conditions.

A mutation is a new condition.
To use this paragraph:

If a particular genetic mutation is beneficial to an organism then that mutation can be propagated to the organism's offspring through the process of natural selection (survival of the fittest).
If a particular genetic mutation is not beneficial to an organism then the particular mutation will not be propagated by natural selection.

Natural selection "chooses" ( selects) the mutation as "beneficial" and it is propagated by reproduction.
So, "something" Adapts ( becomes adjusted to the new condition-the mutation).
What then "adapts" to the mutation?