Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:

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.

That indeed is a poor argument and I am glad science doesn't do that. If you look up in detail you will see that the next step is to find CA's and see if they carry it and how far back does it go. Does it land us anywhere near a common ancestor? There will be a slew of creatures which should carry the traits or genes at important branchings in the TOL which they do.

The proper argument is:
1) If 'we are BRANCHED from reptiles' then 'we MAY carry non-functional genes' and our nearest and MRCAs MAY show that. And reptiles may carry non-functional genes too when they branched from amphibians and apmphibians may carry the same when they branched off from fish. And we must see if their MRCAs carry the gene in the same way. The beauty is that all life does the same. It isn't an isolated case at all.
2) We do carry non-functional genes and our MCRAs do to. The same way all the other species do to.
3) Therefore, non-functional genes we carried over gradual generations are left over from when our ancestors delinked from reptiles, because the more we go back the more functional they become.

That is not affirming the consequent, k. It is as close to evidence and the nature of it that you can get and I am sorry but I don't know how else to view it.

Sorry, but that is kind of the same, just feels more verbose. I can't change logic, but I can help reformulate. I always try to achieve is P > Q; P therefore Q -- a very typical modus ponens argument. It's the simplest type and can be easily followed. I find it is often easier to break an argument into many arguments following this structure.

Sadly this this particular argument, there isn't a knock-down argument that can be made from this, however it can still be rather potent. So let me see if I can restructure using the original argument in a rough kind of way.

1) If 'we carry non-functional genes that are functional in other species and was functional in a common ancestor, then we each shared that same common ancestor via evolution.
2) We do carry non-functional genes (Vitellogenin ("egg-yolk") genes) which are functional in chickens, platypus and other mammels believed to be descended from a common ancestor (reptiles).
3) Therefore we are descended from a common ancestor.

Now this argument might still be rough, but better structured. That said, I don't believe it is still valid because I do not believe the conclusion is necessarily true. In fact, I know it's not, because what Rich Deem believes about creation and psuedogenes, and even myself, can account for psuedogenes fairly easily.

However, any positions that cannot account for such, I believe the argument is quite damaging. So then (1) is true, and only true, if common descent via evolution is the only position that can account for such. If it isn't, then such is merely corroborating evidence for common descent via evolution and all those other positions which accommodate such.

If one can think of possible creation scenarios which explain such, then it isn't a tight knock-down argument in favour of evolutionary theory. As far as I see it, YECs could even accommodate it in the same way they do the age of the universe. I think, such kind of makes God a liar though I know some feel that might be a cheap shot, but I can't help thinking it. I mean, to believe God setup the world just 6000 years ago, and all we observe shows it is much older, well it seems like we're being lied to in creation. Scripture I read, says to test and hold onto the good, that creation (i.e., nature) testifies to God. Yet, some like AiG respond that God has told us in His word how He did it so God's no liar, either we trust in Him or we don't. But then, you know me, and many others here reject their interpretation of Genesis, while I understand how they arrive at such, it isn't at all clear that world must 6000 or thereabout years old. And, I've debated creation interpretations much.

In any case, as for my own position, you might recall I believe God makes use of pre-existing life, like programmers make use of coding frameworks. God might even mix and match this and that biological code. I do find it interesting that there is an underlying code to biology, such in itself smacks to me of a coder. Have a read of my posts some time back here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 15#p168162 (edit: fixed link), some of which you responded to. The only exception I'd add to psudeogenes, is that such can't be damaging, in the sense that species should be still able to have a normal and healthy qualify of life. If they're not damaging then there's no need to remove such code from a species' genome. In fact, we ought to expect damaging genes to be removed if God is creating a new species based upon code in other life forms. So if such is found, then such would be an argument against my current position.

Now I would much prefer all genes have functions. That they don't, does leave me with an unsettling feeling even if my position can account for such. Yet, given the history of previously thought vestigial organs being found to have use, and more and more psuedogenes being found with us, I am always very skeptical whenever someone claims something has absolutely no function. Further, there are other arguments that I see do lean me more towards Progressive Creation and away from Evolutionary Theory (at least as the be-all and end-all). So it's not all clean and a matter of weighing pros and cons.

Something I do know here, is that we're not going to see complete eye-to-eye, but I'm glad whenever we post on such to each other there is a level of respect carried. We each have our tastes and I'm sure you have many other reasons also, and these discussions can get tense. I respect you and your beliefs, I think the best we could hope for is just respecting each other's position as being what it is. Such won't stop us questioning each other, we'll discuss from time to time, like here, but really I don't expect to change your opinion. To be honest, I probably would have been 10 or so years ago, but I'm not at all fussed to change your view. You can reach a certain group of people for Christ, that I perhaps couldn't. The more tools and differences of opinion, the better in outreach for Christ. Same with Hugh. That's ultimately what I see as important.

Neo-X wrote:
if the image doesn'y open properly please see this link:
https://www.evogeneao.com/learn/tree-of-life
Is it prove? I doubt there will ever be enough for anyone.

That's really cool, one of the best ones I've seen. I'd love to see one with greater interactive where you can actually click on the branches and drill down. I'm sure one day there will be something like that, if there isn't already I just haven't found.

It probably wouldn't surprise you, that when I Iook at evolutionary cladograms, I see areas where God may have created something new from something previous, sometimes brand new from scratch, and the possibilities for where things may have simply naturally evolved through my Progressive Creation lens.

Kurieuo wrote:

Neo-X wrote: if the image doesn't open properly please see this link: https://www.evogeneao.com/learn/tree-of-life
Is it proven? I doubt there will ever be enough for anyone.

That's really cool, one of the best ones I've seen. I'd love to see one with greater interactive where you can actually click on the branches and drill down. I'm sure one day there will be something like that, if there isn't already I just haven't found.

There are several. This is my favourite: http://www.onezoom.org

hughfarey wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Neo-X wrote: if the image doesn't open properly please see this link: https://www.evogeneao.com/learn/tree-of-life
Is it proven? I doubt there will ever be enough for anyone.

That's really cool, one of the best ones I've seen. I'd love to see one with greater interactive where you can actually click on the branches and drill down. I'm sure one day there will be something like that, if there isn't already I just haven't found.

There are several. This is my favourite: http://www.onezoom.org

Yep, that one is quite spectacular. Love animals, cool seeing them altogether.

Question Hugh, would you say that God "made" animal life, even if they came out of the earth? Both forms are in Genesis, back to back. E.g., Genesis 1:24-25 reads:

• 24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

I know indirectly, it can be said God made, but I guess more if you're comfortable with ultimately God being responsible for all that was made. I'm assuming you would be. I don't have anything behind asking, was merely wondering.

Neo-X, what about you; I know you feel uncomfortable thinking that God guided, but then even back at the universes creation with everything set in motion. Would you say God "made" life and each species as such in virtue of how the universe was "ignited" by God in the very beginning?

hughfarey wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Rain comes from the sky --is simply one form of moisture as is hail , fog, snow. And That comes from clouds. Part of the nature that God created. Remember -- before Noah's rain there hadn't been rain. Earth was watered from under the earth. Rain Can form rivers, but not necessarily. Drought Can dry up rivers and often Does. Egg and sperm unite and Can make baby. Egg by itself becomes Nothing. Sperm, by itself, doesn't produce anything , either. The chemical came from Somewhere. "In the beginning , God created the heavens and the earth".

Mostly absolutely true. A beautifully poetically expressed description of the evolutionary framework of the universe.

Ah, not sure How to respond to That. Maybe a bit 'tongue in cheek' on Your part?!

My first reaction to that was '"no, no, Not evolutionary -- God did it'" !!!!!!

Kurieuo wrote:Question Hugh, would you say that God "made" animal life, even if they came out of the earth? Both forms are in Genesis, back to back. E.g., Genesis 1:24-25 reads:

• 24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

I know indirectly, it can be said God made, but I guess more if you're comfortable with ultimately God being responsible for all that was made. I'm assuming you would be. I don't have anything behind asking, was merely wondering.

Neo-X, what about you; I know you feel uncomfortable thinking that God guided, but then even back at the universes creation with everything set in motion. Would you say God "made" life and each species as such in virtue of how the universe was "ignited" by God in the very beginning?

To be honest with you, with what I have been reading lately in some research in QM, I think it could be shown with confidence in then near future that the universe could come out of nothing (and the rate of expansion we have, we'll have nothing in teh coming time), as mind-boggling as it sounds.

But to your question, I would agree that God made something which led to a universe and life. And I am not saying this just to be technically correct. It's just what I see or don't see and I don't know how else to say it.

I would love to say God designed but I don't see design at all. I don't see purposed-function. Did God made life? I think I'd be comfortable in saying God intended us. How? through really random processes.

hughfarey wrote:"Finches will always be finches". This is a wholly unjustified guess. Any examination of the past billion years suggests that at no time in the past would such a prediction ever have been true, so why should it be true now? Finches may well carry on being finches for some time, maybe another ten million years or so, but to speculate further than that is unwarranted.

And, Who, pray tell, Is examining the past Billion years ??? And Why would anyone Be speculating ten million years in the future. Flightless lizards becoming Birds ? Why not spend the time researching something Profitable.

My "speculation" based on God's Word is that 'maybe another ten million years or so' -- but probably a whole lot Sooner -- this old earth / or Young earth is going to be destroyed and God will bring the New Jerusalem down to earth for all His Children to live in with their glorified bodies. That 'way out speculation' is found in the last couple of chapters of Revelation.

And, after you've stopped laughing or having a good chuckle -- the discussion will Probably move on to more Interesting discussion. And that's okay.

The graph that's been included -- fascinating -- but how do birds or anything else survive those ice ages. With all that ice -- nothing will grow and the Cold would freeze everything.

crochet1949 wrote:

hughfarey wrote:"Finches will always be finches". This is a wholly unjustified guess. Any examination of the past billion years suggests that at no time in the past would such a prediction ever have been true, so why should it be true now? Finches may well carry on being finches for some time, maybe another ten million years or so, but to speculate further than that is unwarranted.

And, Who, pray tell, Is examining the past Billion years ??? And Why would anyone Be speculating ten million years in the future. Flightless lizards becoming Birds ? Why not spend the time researching something Profitable.

My "speculation" based on God's Word is that 'maybe another ten million years or so' -- but probably a whole lot Sooner -- this old earth / or Young earth is going to be destroyed and God will bring the New Jerusalem down to earth for all His Children to live in with their glorified bodies. That 'way out speculation' is found in the last couple of chapters of Revelation.

And, after you've stopped laughing or having a good chuckle -- the discussion will Probably move on to more Interesting discussion. And that's okay.

The graph that's been included -- fascinating -- but how do birds or anything else survive those ice ages. With all that ice -- nothing will grow and the Cold would freeze everything.

All valid questions which I would encourage you to search answers for and don't think you know them via common sense only.

And by the way the same God designed another galaxy, our neighbour Andromeda which is heading straight towards us on a collision course and the glorious Jerusalem and new earth will be obliterated in due time. I hope that design is a part of revelations or how you see it otherwise its a very difficult thing to explain from a purposed-creation and design.

neo-x wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Question Hugh, would you say that God "made" animal life, even if they came out of the earth? Both forms are in Genesis, back to back. E.g., Genesis 1:24-25 reads:

• 24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

I know indirectly, it can be said God made, but I guess more if you're comfortable with ultimately God being responsible for all that was made. I'm assuming you would be. I don't have anything behind asking, was merely wondering.

Neo-X, what about you; I know you feel uncomfortable thinking that God guided, but then even back at the universes creation with everything set in motion. Would you say God "made" life and each species as such in virtue of how the universe was "ignited" by God in the very beginning?

To be honest with you, with what I have been reading lately in some research in QM, I think it could be shown with confidence in then near future that the universe could come out of nothing (and the rate of expansion we have, we'll have nothing in teh coming time), as mind-boggling as it sounds.

But to your question, I would agree that God made something which led to a universe and life. And I am not saying this just to be technically correct. It's just what I see or don't see and I don't know how else to say it.

I would love to say God designed but I don't see design at all. I don't see purposed-function. Did God made life? I think I'd be comfortable in saying God intended us. How? through really random processes.

Maybe it depends on where a person Lives -- but I see 'design' all over the place. Genesis creation -- man created separately from the animal world. Man having dominion over the animals. Nature is beautiful -- multi-colored birds - a wide variety of them. The changing of the seasons -- well -- at least in the northern states. I'm in south-central Texas. Weather has been crazy around here. But -- order in growing seasons- planting - harvesting of crops.
God created Adam and Eve and they proceeded to have children together / marriage and family / That has been around for eons of time. Maybe not 'eon's', but for a Long time. Well -- since Adam and Eve.
The planets -- in orbits -- sun rises and sets -- the moon is there -- there are constellations in the sky to be observed by us. I don't see Randomness -- I see Order.

crochet1949 wrote:And, Who, pray tell, Is examining the past Billion years ??? And Why would anyone Be speculating ten million years in the future. Flightless lizards becoming Birds ?

Evolutionary biologists do exactly that; it's fascinating.

Why not spend the time researching something Profitable.

Because its more fun.

The graph that's been included -- fascinating -- but how do birds or anything else survive those ice ages. With all that ice -- nothing will grow and the Cold would freeze everything.

Apart possibly from the 'snowball earth' scenario, which may have occurred some 650 million years ago, before there were any birds to freeze, you ought to understand that ice ages did not effect the entire earth, so all the living things, including birds, lived in the places where there wasn't any ice.

Crochet, I ofcourse can't change what you see. Maybe you will discover my meaning or you won't. It doesn't matter really. And the reason why is because we see what we want to see and how we can make sense of it. The only thing that is honest in my opinion is that you have good reasons for what you see or believe. Being honest with things that may even challenge your preset beliefs. Which is a hard thing to do given what we're often taught.

I abhor the idea of dumbing things down or not exploring because it might challenge us or what we want to believe. That is just what I think. And then let the chips fall where they may.

neo-x wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:

hughfarey wrote:"Finches will always be finches". This is a wholly unjustified guess. Any examination of the past billion years suggests that at no time in the past would such a prediction ever have been true, so why should it be true now? Finches may well carry on being finches for some time, maybe another ten million years or so, but to speculate further than that is unwarranted.

And, Who, pray tell, Is examining the past Billion years ??? And Why would anyone Be speculating ten million years in the future. Flightless lizards becoming Birds ? Why not spend the time researching something Profitable.

My "speculation" based on God's Word is that 'maybe another ten million years or so' -- but probably a whole lot Sooner -- this old earth / or Young earth is going to be destroyed and God will bring the New Jerusalem down to earth for all His Children to live in with their glorified bodies. That 'way out speculation' is found in the last couple of chapters of Revelation.

And, after you've stopped laughing or having a good chuckle -- the discussion will Probably move on to more Interesting discussion. And that's okay.

The graph that's been included -- fascinating -- but how do birds or anything else survive those ice ages. With all that ice -- nothing will grow and the Cold would freeze everything.

All valid questions which I would encourage you to search answers for and don't think you know them via common sense only.

And by the way the same God designed another galaxy, our neighbour Andromeda which is heading straight towards us on a collision course and the glorious Jerusalem and new earth will be obliterated in due time. I hope that design is a part of revelations or how you see it otherwise its a very difficult thing to explain from a purposed-creation and design.

I looked that up about Andromeda -- the galaxy is heading towards our galaxy at about 250,000 mph and astronomers estimate that about 3.75 billion years from now -- the two galaxies will collide. The article continued on to suggest that the event will last for a million years or so and a new galaxy will emerge.

From the Biblical perspective -- this world Is getting worse and worse and nuclear war Could be possible. When nations go to war against nations -- there Is a grand finale of wars and then God Does intervene. We Are promised a new heaven and new earth. The old Will be destroyed. A new world Is promised.
When people are left to their own desires -- we are very capable of destroying the good. God created a perfect world for His people and He promises to renew it for those who follow Him.

hughfarey wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:And, Who, pray tell, Is examining the past Billion years ??? And Why would anyone Be speculating ten million years in the future. Flightless lizards becoming Birds ?

Evolutionary biologists do exactly that; it's fascinating.

Why not spend the time researching something Profitable.

Because its more fun.

The graph that's been included -- fascinating -- but how do birds or anything else survive those ice ages. With all that ice -- nothing will grow and the Cold would freeze everything.

Apart possibly from the 'snowball earth' scenario, which may have occurred some 650 million years ago, before there were any birds to freeze, you ought to understand that ice ages did not effect the entire earth, so all the living things, including birds, lived in the places where there wasn't any ice.

Well -- good to know you're having fun with your researching

A question -- regarding that graph -- it talks about times of Mass Extinction -- that sounds like Everything is destroyed. Like No place was spared. Just wondering.

hughfarey wrote:"Finches will always be finches". This is a wholly unjustified guess. Any examination of the past billion years suggests that at no time in the past would such a prediction ever have been true, so why should it be true now? Finches may well carry on being finches for some time, maybe another ten million years or so, but to speculate further than that is unwarranted.

While I do believe this, I prefer to talk in details, specifically the mechanisms, to determine whether such is possible. In this instance, I was specifically had in mind Darwin's finches, which remained finches despite beak size adapting according to their environment which changed during drought and then returned to non-drought sizes when drought stopped.

I'll quote here my fuller paragraphs, which should be taken as one complete thought, rather than individuated sentence or even the final paragraph on its own (I include in square brackets what I had in mind):

Kurieuo wrote: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 [e.g., like plasticity] (for better or worse, often boxed into "microevolution") do not allow for miles. A finch remains a finch, the Italian lizard as it lizard, despite these adaptive 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 [e.g., deleterious mutations that stops a species reverting], if you will, their genome (which require other mechanisms to be brought to bare than I think those displayed with finches and these lizards).

For more information on this, although I expect you are aware, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_plasticity

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.

Fallacy? All you have in the laboratory is example after example of normal variation amongst a population and based on demonstrating this you assume life evolves while making it up as you go. Does it not bother you that scientists made up the myth speciation and what happens when certain life in a population cannot breed? How can you trust these people? It is a made up myth what they claim speciation leads to. And this should not be just skimmed over as no big deal,they are pushing myths.Speciation is very important when it comes to evolution and yet it is a made up myth what they claim about it.