Evidence for God from Science

A scientist who firmly believes in the existence of God he says is confirmed to him through the workings of the Genome project.

Interesting to note, however, he believes in theistic natural evolution but believes that humans will NOT evolve any further.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 84,00.html
http://coolblue.typepad.com/the_cool_bl ... index.html

godslanguage wrote:A scientist who firmly believes in the existence of God he says is confirmed to him through the workings of the Genome project.

Interesting to note, however, he believes in theistic natural evolution but believes that humans will NOT evolve any further.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 84,00.html
http://coolblue.typepad.com/the_cool_bl ... index.html

Good article. Thanks for posting it.

I do find it interesting that he would claim evolution as a mechanism in the past but deny its future impact.

Any theistic evolutionist have a thought on that? Is it that if God used evolution to create man, and Adam represents the final product that with the breathing of spirit into man, there is nowhere more to go developmentally and thus this is a finished work?

Those in our scientific community, can you add anything? Is there a relationship between the population of a community or species such that there is a slowing down in the rate of evolutionary development as the population grows?

Canuckster1127 wrote:

godslanguage wrote:A scientist who firmly believes in the existence of God he says is confirmed to him through the workings of the Genome project.

Interesting to note, however, he believes in theistic natural evolution but believes that humans will NOT evolve any further.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 84,00.html
http://coolblue.typepad.com/the_cool_bl ... index.html

Good article. Thanks for posting it.

I do find it interesting that he would claim evolution as a mechanism in the past but deny its future impact.

Any theistic evolutionist have a thought on that? Is it that if God used evolution to create man, and Adam represents the final product that with the breathing of spirit into man, there is nowhere more to go developmentally and thus this is a finished work?

No this is not what I beleive he was saying.

“Scientifically, the forces of evolution by natural selection have been profoundly affected for humankind by the changes in culture and environment and the expansion of the human species to 6 billion members."

What he was saying was: The rate of evolution of the human race as a whole are statistically lower due to the large population.
Selection no longer is as selective as many survive who would have otherwise perished in the past. Cultural factors include favoring of a broad spectrum of traits due to cosmopolitan tastes.

However on the flip side the chances for novel mutations to occur are higher.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Those in our scientific community, can you add anything? Is there a relationship between the population of a community or species such that there is a slowing down in the rate of evolutionary development as the population grows?

Yes there is a relationship between population size, rate of exchange of genetic information and therefore the relative stability of combinations of features.

We can start a new post on this if you would like.

But a simple analogy would be letting a drop of blue paint and a drop of yellow paint fall into a swimming pool filled with white paint. What are the chances of us seeing even a tiny speck of green?

What if we do the same in a tea cup, are the chances higher?

I don't know if the motive was to get people to buy his book, but Collins really gives no scientific explanation in this article as to why evolution among humans should cease. His statement of "what you see is what you get" because humans have been around for a long time requires a lot more justification if he wants to make a convincing argument. Furthermore, it is well-known that humans are still changing, as such factors as average height and lifespan have changed dramatically in the last 200 years. Granted, some of these changes may be due to better medicines, less stressful lives, etc., but there are genetic bases for the factors as well, thus supporting the case that humans are still evolving.

In terms of population size and evolution, it is well-known that the smaller a population gets, the better chance there may be for evolution (genetic drift, bottleneck effects), but I've never heard of concept where evolution stops because a population becomes very large. Even extremely large populations of species, such as the cane toad in Australia, are still evolving, as are many insect species that likely number in the billions.

But is Collins trying to show that microevolution no longer occurs (I know you enjoy equivocating between macro and micro...), because that seems to be what you're refuting when you mention our changing heights, etc...

Your talking scales, there is no differentiation. It's like talking about micro and macro erosion, micro and macro polution.

I have shown that a single cow emits methane, does that prove that a large portion of methane is produced by the U.S. cattle industry? Or does micro flatulence not lead to macro flatulence?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Your talking scales, there is no differentiation. It's like talking about micro and macro erosion, micro and macro polution.

I have shown that a single cow emits methane, does that prove that a large portion of methane is produced by the U.S. cattle industry? Or does micro flatulence not lead to macro flatulence?

It might be interesting to do a similar study in the United State Senate ....


But the fallacy in this analogy would be that we're talking time frames and what is observable and recreatable which turns the process at some point from induction to deduction.

But is Collins trying to show that microevolution no longer occurs

I don't know...I can't really decipher from this article what exactly Collins is trying to say...maybe vagueness is the bait he using to generate interest in his book. When he uses terms such as "humankind" and "man", it is unclear whether he is referring to evolution of Homo sapiens or the hominid lineage in general, so I can't say what degree of evolution he's discussing. Either way, I don't see any data provided to back up his claims...