Evidence for God from Science

An interesting show on Origins TV this week.

The guest, Dr. Jerry Bergman, holder of several science doctorates and a cancer researcher, presented quite a bit of evidence showing that mutation CANNOT be the mechanism which produced the Origin of the Species.

He showed statisics that only 0.04% of all mutations are 'beneficial', and in some cases may only be beneficial to man and not to the organism (for example, seedless watermelons and grapefruits)

He also mentioned the Archon sheep. It's shorter legs were thought to be a benefit to sheepherders (can't jump as high, so they didn't need high fences to keep them in). Darwin even touted this bred of sheep as evidence of the 'mega-mutation' needed to create a new species. Yet, the breed died out because the short legs were actaully caused by a cartilage defect which actually made the sheep much less robust. [/url]

It's no use Phil, these fundamental atheists...once you show that science disproves their beliefs, then they run off to another topic or claim your source is biased and wrong or misinformed etc...

Also, I wouldn't call it proof-proof is evidence which is capable of making a person believe in something...but when you have as much faith as the fundamentalists...it really doesn't matter what the evidence is, how strong it is, or how much....unless it proves their side, it's wrong..

Oh, that's funny, mutations aren't random.

Is this a "Kmart special"???

In fact, on last weeks show, Dr. Bergman demonstrated how mutations AREN'T random. One of the four DNA Amino acid 'letters'; A,T,G, and C(?); gets mutated at 20 times the rate of the least common 'letter' to mutate.

The FACTS are probablyon that website if you click back to last week's show.

Why not go to the original research instead of taking someone's word for it. Then you may see that indeed you are being misinformed.

Science is a collaborative effort to describe the natural world. Bias of any kind is not favorable to this effort.

And twisting and manipulating data for the purpose of misinforming the public certainly is looked down upon.

PHIL121 wrote:Is this a "Kmart special"???

In fact, on last weeks show, Dr. Bergman demonstrated how mutations AREN'T random. One of the four DNA Amino acid 'letters'; A,T,G, and C(?); gets mutated at 20 times the rate of the least common 'letter' to mutate.

The FACTS are probablyon that website if you click back to last week's show.

Ok lets do a little analysis then.
What exactly are you saying and how does it translate into the real world.

The following is a list of codons and the amino acids they encode.
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran ... odons.html

Now let us say that you are correct and the nucleotide cytosine mutates at 20 times the rate of other nucleotides. Since DNA consists of two complementary strands any change to cytosine will also affect its complement guanine. Now in the research I beleive you may be refering to cytosine has a tendancy to be replaced with adenine in G-C pairs. This effectively replaces guanine with thymine.

G-C <--- methyl
G-Cmethyl
G - A

G<----
T-A

Lets go through the list and see which amino acids might be affected by this.

TGT Cys --> Becomes TTT Phe
TGC Cys --> Becomes TTC Phe
TGG Trp --> Becomes TTG Leu or TGT Cys
GCT Ala --> Becomes TCT Ser
GCC Ala --> Becomes TCC Ser
GCA Ala --> Becomes TCA Ser
GCG Ala --> Becomes TCG Ser or remain GCT Ala
GGT Gly --> Becomes TGT Cys or GTT Val
GGC Gly --> Becomes TGC Cys or GTC Val
GGA Gly --> Becomes TGA STOP or GTA Val
GGG Gly --> Becomes TGG Trp or GTG Val or remains GGT Gly
GTT Val --> Becomes GAT Asp
GTC Val --> Becomes TTC Phe
GTA Val --> Becomes TTA Leu
GTG Val --> Becomes TTG Leu
CGT Arg --> Becomes CTT Leu
CGC Arg --> Becomes CTC Leu
CGA Arg --> Becomes CTA Leu
CGG Arg --> Becomes CTG Leu or remains CGT Arg
AGG Arg --> Becomes ATG Met/START or AGT Ser
AGA Arg --> Becomes ATA Ile
AGT Ser --> Becomes ATT Ile
AGC Ser --> Becomes ATC Ile
TGA STOP --> Becomes TTA Leu
GAT Asp --> Becomes TAT Tyr
GAC Asp --> Becomes TAC Tyr
GAA Glu --> Becomes TAA STOP
GAG Glu --> Becomes TAG STOP or


Now thats quite a few amino acids, and the fact that proteins are composed of many amino acids, can only mean one thing. The significance of a single nucleotide having a high tendancy to change does not mean that only certain things are predestined to change. It fact, in effect means that all virtually all proteins are effected, which is no surprise.

But then lets get back to the original study.
In one study it was found in the p53 gene of human skin that this was likely to occur.

In another study on a completely different gene it was found that cytosine insertions were likely!

You can see that if you take things out of context you can pretty much argue anything. So go back to the source, be informed.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Science is a collaborative effort to describe the natural world. Bias of any kind is not favorable to this effort.

If a bias of any kind is not favorable to this effort, why does science exclude the supernatural a priori? Sorry, but methodological naturalism IS a bias. It is a metaphysical assumption that many scientists and athiests (not all) don't like to own up to.

How are creationists supposed to argue their case when science rules out the possibility of God creating us before even looking at the evidence and facts etc..? If that isn't a bias, I don't know what is.

roysr wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Science is a collaborative effort to describe the natural world. Bias of any kind is not favorable to this effort.

If a bias of any kind is not favorable to this effort, why does science exclude the supernatural a priori? Sorry, but methodological naturalism IS a bias. It is a metaphysical assumption that many scientists and athiests (not all) don't like to own up to.

How are creationists supposed to argue their case when science rules out the possibility of God creating us before even looking at the evidence and facts etc..? If that isn't a bias, I don't know what is.

You're right it is bias, but because observations can be skewed by the one who is doing the observing it is best to try to observe as through the eyes of a baby.

That doesn't mean that science assumes that the metaphysical does not exist, only that science is limited to the physical. There is a distinction there. Science leaves alot of room for personal and spiritual interpretations in our complete lives. However when discussing science there is no room for any of this.

In other words within science, observation does not need reason only explanation. That way road blocks which may come up in a persons sence of reality and personal truths cannot get in the way of observation.

So when looking at the evidence and facts, nothing goes before them only from them.

Observation before explanation. This is how science works.

But if scientists without any a priori beliefs come up with "God must have designed this"....you still won't call it science.

You're right it is bias, but because observations can be skewed by the one who is doing the observing it is best to try to observe as through the eyes of a baby.

You are right, observations can be skewed by the one who is doing the observing, especially when you rule things out a priori without having evidential support (which science does). Also, the "the eyes of a baby" comment you made was a false analogy.

That doesn't mean that science assumes that the metaphysical does not exist, only that science is limited to the physical. There is a distinction there.

And I never said it did. But there are people, like Dawkins, who use the methodology as their "worldview".

In other words within science, observation does not need reason only explanation.

An explanation based on a metaphysical bias.

So when looking at the evidence and facts, nothing goes before them only from them.

Observation before explanation. This is how science works.

It is metaphysical assumption, observation and then explanation. This is how science works. This will be my last post here because I am not in the mood to play forum "ping pong" with you.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: That doesn't mean that science assumes that the metaphysical does not exist, only that science is limited to the physical. There is a distinction there. Science leaves alot of room for personal and spiritual interpretations in our complete lives. However when discussing science there is no room for any of this. In other words within science, observation does not need reason only explanation. That way road blocks which may come up in a persons sence of reality and personal truths cannot get in the way of observation. So when looking at the evidence and facts, nothing goes before them only from them.
Observation before explanation. This is how science works.

Wow! We certianly don't want truth getting in the way of observation Why have there been explanations of speciation when all we have seen is extinction? How can their be the big bang theory? This doesn't hold water at all.

Reason is a critical component of Science. IF the scientific method can be applied in a field like anthropology or evolution it can be applied anywhere. Anthropology presupposes evolution is true, that it is a personal belief, and then they spin yarns about bones to proove evolution. IT is not science to reject God, it is as valid an explanation of observations as anything. Science is not a magical thing it is simply a reflection of the very reason and logic of man, it can be used to carefully explain anything. IT is a procedure for gathering knowledge. As I have said in other places it is a philosophical debate; it is not that one is science and the other is REligion. That is worng, it is popular thinking, but it is wrong. The scientfic method can bring people to right and worng explanations.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:But if scientists without any a priori beliefs come up with "God must have designed this"....you still won't call it science.

IT isn't science yet it is a valid scientific theory. IT explains things and it comes from a genuine desire to answer questions with careful logic and reason. There is a true answer to our question and the answer is part of science, but our speculations about that answer are only theories.

Jbuza wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:But if scientists without any a priori beliefs come up with "God must have designed this"....you still won't call it science.

IT isn't science yet it is a valid scientific theory. IT explains things and it comes from a genuine desire to answer questions with careful logic and reason. There is a true answer to our question and the answer is part of science, but our speculations about that answer are only theories.

?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:But if scientists without any a priori beliefs come up with "God must have designed this"....you still won't call it science.

IT isn't science yet it is a valid scientific theory. IT explains things and it comes from a genuine desire to answer questions with careful logic and reason. There is a true answer to our question and the answer is part of science, but our speculations about that answer are only theories.

?

WAs I hard to understand? Would you say that we have an understanding of science, or would you say how we understand things is science? Was spotaneus generation science? I don't happen to believe it was, you may. I believe science is independant of our descriptions of things. Our descriptions are usually arrived at thorugh the logical sequence of scientific theorizing, but that doesn't amek them correct.