Evidence for God from Science

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 194141.htm

Very interesting article that outlines the reviving of a previously discounted and rejected scientific theory that genetic mutations could not give rise immediately to new species in which no cross breeding could take place with the originating population.

Without attempting to get bogged down in the technicalities of the article, which is worth looking at, I think it gives rise to a few things that we as creationists, and open minded evolutionists should keep in mind.

1. Evolution, while scientifically based and demonstrable to some degree, is not clearly defined on the greater questions of how changes from species and then further from phylae and kingdomes took place. A great deal is based upon deduction limited to the realm of the natural only.

2. Many mechanisms supposed to be reasonably certain now, are constantly changing and major changes, such as the one referenced here, are happening.

3. This type of development, while not completely indicative of the scope of claims such as sudden appearance (punctuated equilibrium in evolutionary parlance) gives more plausibility to progressive creationism as consistent with both the fossil record and (possibly) some observation of the mechanism God used in His creative process. Of course, it is not inconsistent at all to assert that the common tie in terms of similar dna and genetic material is the result of a common creator rather than asserting there must be a completely natural cause or link in every instance.

Science is inherently unable to definitively answer some of these questions and must, by necessity remain tied to only that which is natural and observable. As shown in this article, there's plenty openings for doubt and caution in overstating how much it can and does prove.

I would add that for me an unclear distinction remains between what is "natural and observable", and what is not.

Canuckster1127 wrote:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 194141.htm

Very interesting article that outlines the reviving of a previously discounted and rejected scientific theory that genetic mutations could not give rise immediately to new species in which no cross breeding could take place with the originating population.

This was not a rejected theory, only one which was discounted because the only way to prove it would be by pure luck. Processes of gradual accumulations had already been documented.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Without attempting to get bogged down in the technicalities of the article, which is worth looking at, I think it gives rise to a few things that we as creationists, and open minded evolutionists should keep in mind.

1. Evolution, while scientifically based and demonstrable to some degree, is not clearly defined on the greater questions of how changes from species and then further from phylae and kingdomes took place. A great deal is based upon deduction limited to the realm of the natural only.

The differences between kingdom and phylae are the same sort of changes. Presumably a split beteewn two species gives rise to each kingdom. In other words terms such as kingdom and phylum do not imply greater changes took place at once, it only means that the same sort of changes have accumulated over time. So I am not sure what these greater questions are.

Canuckster1127 wrote:2. Many mechanisms supposed to be reasonably certain now, are constantly changing and major changes, such as the one referenced here, are happening.

This mechanism is in addition to observed phenomenon, there is no change in existin mechanism, only another one possibly being confirmed.

Canuckster1127 wrote:3. This type of development, while not completely indicative of the scope of claims such as sudden appearance (punctuated equilibrium in evolutionary parlance) gives more plausibility to progressive creationism as consistent with both the fossil record and (possibly) some observation of the mechanism God used in His creative process. Of course, it is not inconsistent at all to assert that the common tie in terms of similar dna and genetic material is the result of a common creator rather than asserting there must be a completely natural cause or link in every instance.

Not sure how punctuated equilibrium ties into this.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Science is inherently unable to definitively answer some of these questions and must, by necessity remain tied to only that which is natural and observable.

Agreed

Canuckster1127 wrote:As shown in this article, there's plenty openings for doubt and caution in overstating how much it can and does prove.

Not sure what you are referring to here.

Hello Bgood,

1. You're right, rejected was an overstatement, but it still is a significant development in providing a mechanism that demonstrates the arising of a unique species which does not cross-breed with the progenitor species.

2. It is another one being confirmed and it highlights, in my opinion that there are many gaps in evolutionary theory for whick satisfactory explanations do not exist, and those gaps are larger and more inexplicable the further back we go.

3. I know Punctuated Equilibrium is not referenced per se, but isn't this something along the lines of what PuncEq claims on a smaller scale? Sudden appearance of a unique species which does not crossbreed with the progenitor line while it may be only one such mechanism, when combined with sudden climate changes or other environmental changes, may be a more plausible explanation than the now party line gradual change type theory in play. Of course, I happen to believe sudden appearance in that context supports progressive creationism equally as well.

4. Good to know we agree on some things.

5. I think my follow-up comments help to clarify further.

This is a small piece of evidence in and of itself, but it highlights how dynamic this whole process is, even in the observable and measurable field of evolutionary biology that can be onbserved. It illustrates to me, just how far a stretch it is to draw this back for the time spans that are involved and to hear anyone daring to speak with any surity or certainty of the capability of evolution to explain our existence absent any involvement by God.

It shows to me, that there is a significant element of "faith" or "belief" that only that which is natural can suffice as a means of explanation for life. That's a remarkably brazen approach, where it exists in my opinion, given the progress and uncertainty present even now, which is illuminated in my opinion, by this article.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Hello Bgood,

1. You're right, rejected was an overstatement, but it still is a significant development in providing a mechanism that demonstrates the arising of a unique species which does not cross-breed with the progenitor species.

To claraify, an alternative method of speciation, this does not invalidate prior findings.

Canuckster1127 wrote:2. It is another one being confirmed and it highlights, in my opinion that there are many gaps in evolutionary theory for whick satisfactory explanations do not exist, and those gaps are larger and more inexplicable the further back we go.

A satisfactory solution did exist, this is an additional solution which now has some tentative evidentiary support . No sure what gaps you are referring to.

Canuckster1127 wrote:3. I know Punctuated Equilibrium is not referenced per se, but isn't this something along the lines of what PuncEq claims on a smaller scale?

No punctuated equilibrium refers to the perceived effect of adrupt changes. Local smaller populations are less likely to be fossilized than a species which has a very broad range. Therefore species which develop locally and then expand their territories appear to "suddenly appear" in the fossil record. This is punctuated equilibrium.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Sudden appearance of a unique species which does not crossbreed with the progenitor line while it may be only one such mechanism, when combined with sudden climate changes or other environmental changes, may be a more plausible explanation than the now party line gradual change type theory in play.

You must keep in mind that even if a very important gene jumps chromosomes, thus leading to two distinct sub-population in the same region, that differentiatiation has not occurred to the point where a difference could be identified through fossil remains. Which ever way genetic isolation occurred, the initial population still needs to build up unique features to be discernable from the parent population. They are species because they do not interbreed, however to be able to identify them as separate species without the benefit of genetic or behavioral analysis further changes must accumulate.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Of course, I happen to believe sudden appearance in that context supports progressive creationism equally as well.

We are not talking the about sudden appearance of cats and dogs from a primitive carnivore here. What we are talking about is that suddenly there are two imcompatible subsets within a population. In time they will differentiate.

Canuckster1127 wrote:That's a remarkably brazen approach, where it exists in my opinion, given the progress and uncertainty present even now, which is illuminated in my opinion, by this article.

I am not sure what uncertainty you are speaking of which would lead to this sort of conclusion.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Hello Bgood,

1. You're right, rejected was an overstatement, but it still is a significant development in providing a mechanism that demonstrates the arising of a unique species which does not cross-breed with the progenitor species.

To claraify, an alternative method of speciation, this does not invalidate prior findings.

No. But then again, when the prior findings are themselves not complete or conclusive the alternative method, certainly does add to the conversation and begs the question as to how conclusive prior assertions may or may not be.

Canuckster1127 wrote:2. It is another one being confirmed and it highlights, in my opinion that there are many gaps in evolutionary theory for whick satisfactory explanations do not exist, and those gaps are larger and more inexplicable the further back we go.

A satisfactory solution did exist, this is an additional solution which now has some tentative evidentiary support . No sure what gaps you are referring to. [/quote]

Apparently we have different definitions as to what "satisfactory" is in this context. There is a great deal yet to be clarified and proven with hard evidence in terms of the evidentiary support previously appealed to.

Canuckster1127 wrote:3. I know Punctuated Equilibrium is not referenced per se, but isn't this something along the lines of what PuncEq claims on a smaller scale?

No punctuated equilibrium refers to the perceived effect of adrupt changes. Local smaller populations are less likely to be fossilized than a species which has a very broad range. Therefore species which develop locally and then expand their territories appear to "suddenly appear" in the fossil record. This is punctuated equilibrium.[/quote]

That's a possible explanation but hardly definitive and hardly the only explanation plausible. I believe there is no such clear cut or broad agreement among proponents themselves of punctuated equilibrium themselves as what you are suggesting here.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Sudden appearance of a unique species which does not crossbreed with the progenitor line while it may be only one such mechanism, when combined with sudden climate changes or other environmental changes, may be a more plausible explanation than the now party line gradual change type theory in play.

You must keep in mind that even if a very important gene jumps chromosomes, thus leading to two distinct sub-population in the same region, that differentiatiation has not occurred to the point where a difference could be identified through fossil remains. Which ever way genetic isolation occurred, the initial population still needs to build up unique features to be discernable from the parent population. They are species because they do not interbreed, however to be able to identify them as separate species without the benefit of genetic or behavioral analysis further changes must accumulate.[/quote]

Agreed. I still think it's a significant possibility being added with stronger probability than existed before despite the obvious difficulty in proving it from the fossol record. Are you catching some of the irony here by the way? You appealing to the paucity of the fossil record?

Canuckster1127 wrote:Of course, I happen to believe sudden appearance in that context supports progressive creationism equally as well.

We are not talking the about sudden appearance of cats and dogs from a primitive carnivore here. What we are talking about is that suddenly there are two imcompatible subsets within a population. In time they will differentiate.[/quote]

I understand. This demonstrates some of the vastness of the unanswered questions scientifically still in my mind however.

Canuckster1127 wrote:That's a remarkably brazen approach, where it exists in my opinion, given the progress and uncertainty present even now, which is illuminated in my opinion, by this article.

I am not sure what uncertainty you are speaking of which would lead to this sort of conclusion.[/quote]

A question of degrees no doubt. It simply struck me as illustrative of the overstatements often made by those who point to science in this field as difinitive or illustrative of the absence of any need for God. There's much that is thought to be known, that these types of findings keep demonstrating are really not understood anywhere near well enough to be making such exclusive and definitive statements.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:To claraify, an alternative method of speciation, this does not invalidate prior findings.

No. But then again, when the prior findings are themselves not complete or conclusive the alternative method, certainly does add to the conversation and begs the question as to how conclusive prior assertions may or may not be.

Are you saying in general? How does this apply to this particular finding? In other words how specifically, does this new finding relate to the incompleteness of prior findings and inconclusiveness of prior assertions?

Canuckster1127 wrote:

A satisfactory solution did exist, this is an additional solution which now has some tentative evidentiary support . No sure what gaps you are referring to.

Apparently we have different definitions as to what "satisfactory" is in this context. There is a great deal yet to be clarified and proven with hard evidence in terms of the evidentiary support previously appealed to.

I am confused can you explain how the new finding fills in a gap or highlights the existence of gaps? It's like saying that charred carcasses can be attributed to forest fires, and there was a theory that they can be the result of lightning strikes as well. However it would take extraordinary luck to verify this, but now we have definitive proof. Does this mean that the previous explanation is now in doubt?

Canuckster1127 wrote:

You must keep in mind that even if a very important gene jumps chromosomes, thus leading to two distinct sub-population in the same region, that differentiatiation has not occurred to the point where a difference could be identified through fossil remains. Which ever way genetic isolation occurred, the initial population still needs to build up unique features to be discernable from the parent population. They are species because they do not interbreed, however to be able to identify them as separate species without the benefit of genetic or behavioral analysis further changes must accumulate.

Agreed. I still think it's a significant possibility being added with stronger probability than existed before despite the obvious difficulty in proving it from the fossol record. Are you catching some of the irony here by the way? You appealing to the paucity of the fossil record?

No I don't get it. I am refering to the nature of the fossil record, ie genetic analysis cannot be done. Therefore species must be identified by morphology. In other words it is quite likely that terms such as species in the fossil record most likely in reality can be a whole family of species, but due to the nature of the remains, cannot be determined as such. Triceratops for instance. Or for example lions, and tigers. If we did not see their outward appearances it would be difficult to classify them as different species based on skeletal remains alone. And I am not sure what you mean by significant possibility added with stronger probability? The article refers to a method, for the beginnings of speciation, which does not require physical isolation.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

We are not talking the about sudden appearance of cats and dogs from a primitive carnivore here. What we are talking about is that suddenly there are two imcompatible subsets within a population. In time they will differentiate.

I understand. This demonstrates some of the vastness of the unanswered questions scientifically still in my mind however.

Such as?

I don't understand, can you be specific as to what this particular finding demonstrates? Because respectfully, this is not at all what I get from this article.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

I am not sure what uncertainty you are speaking of which would lead to this sort of conclusion.

A question of degrees no doubt. It simply struck me as illustrative of the overstatements often made by those who point to science in this field as difinitive or illustrative of the absence of any need for God. There's much that is thought to be known, that these types of findings keep demonstrating are really not understood anywhere near well enough to be making such exclusive and definitive statements.

Regarding the existence of God, absolutely the observations leading to evolution do not prove he does not exist.