Evidence for God from Science

Now, let's start with mutations. The problem I have in this area is that random mutations are *nearly never* beneficial. The chances of a beneficial mutation are extremely slim, let alone a major mutation. Gradual changes have flaws of their own, such as the half rat-half bat, which would neither have the ability feed itself nor fly. (causing it to die, of course)

But mutations can be beneficial. There are millions of base pairs in a single organism and a plethora of methods for mutations to occur. Mutations can be induced or may occur by chance, and the number of types of mutations is quite high (substitution, replication, inversion, deletion etc.) While mutations may be rarely beneficial, the number of mutations occurring and the variety of their cause and nature provides an incredible resource for beneficial mutations. If it a beneficial mutation only occurs one in 100 million mutations (I am not familiar with the probability, but we'll just assume this number), there are millions of organisms with 10s of thousands to billions of base pairs each, and there is thousands if not millions of generations of organismal lineages over time. Much like rare elements: they may only occur in very specific situations (supernovas), which occur rarely of all the trillions of stars. Even then only a fraction of supernovas may produce these rare elements, and what are the chances that we happen to have this element on our planet, being in a specific part of the universe? Although rare, if there is enough repetition and resources (trillions of starts) behind the process, it will occur enough to be prevalent everywhere.

There are no half rat-half bat species. As your link states, speciation can occur through "gradualism". Well, actually, it occurs because of many other extremely complex processes, such as sexual selection, hybridization etc. Species do not transform from one "kind" into another. All species are transitional forms. We are a transitional form. The reasoning behind this is that all definitions of species, genera, families etc. are arbitrary, human definitions to a continuous connected process. There is no such thing as a discrete form. What your link doesn't seem to understand is that very thing. They assume discrete forms of life, when this is not the case when you back out and view the bigger picture.

The primary source, as far as I've been taught is productive isolation coupled with selection. An organism is a collection of genes which code for traits and features (in a simplified view) and a species is just a designated label for a group of interbreeding organisms that share genes and traits. "Species" is only used for organizational purposes, as many "related" organisms can interbreed with varying levels of success, which supports this view that biology does not work in discrete units or "kinds".

An example of a species evolving: a group of organisms which are capable of interbreeding becomes broken due to geographic isolation. Due to natural variation of traits within a "species" both groups will not have an identical genetic makeup. The "genepool" of each group will be different. Beyond this, the selective pressures (available food, predators, climate etc.) will vary between the two groups, or at least it can (it may not). Selective pressures increase the frequency of specific traits through differential reproduction. Individuals which have a slightly larger beak, for example, will be able to break larger nuts, and if one of those two groups encounters such a situation (of larger nuts) the frequency of individuals with larger beaks will increase in that population due to, again "differential reproduction". I just looked at the wikipedia page for natural selection and saw that they were using this example. I assure you I am going off the top of my head here.

You may say then "well that is just an example of micro-evolution", and you'd be right, sort of. But the logical problem refuters have is what stops the next step? Given climate, species compositions and food, among countless other aspects which are more complex (and change over time), how does this process stop? It should continue, because no process or biological condition comes in to halt the process. Why shouldn't it happen 10 more times, 100 mores times, or even 10000?

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1428/ringspecies.jpg This picture from the course on Evolution I took last year demonstrates this point well with bird songs instead of beaks. Geographic isolation stops gene flow, and allows populations to be subject to different pressures, as well as differential responses due to slight differences in their "genepools".

It can be abrupt like I've implied, but it can also be a continuum like the diagram illustrates. This process continues until interbreeding is impossible. The genes vary so much they cannot make, and they become, as you would call them different "kinds". However, all throughout the range with the exception of the extreme ends, they can interbreed with varying levels of success.

This has also been seen with tree frogs in North America. Frogs in Canada can mate with the ones in the nothern states, and those northern state frogs can mate with frogs from the southern states and northern Mexico, but northern Mexico frogs cannot mate with Canadian frogs. There is a continuum of mating but once the genetic make up of the interbreeding populations of organisms become too different, their karyotypes (chromosomes) and likewise embyrology do not match up successfully, at least not enough to lead to reproductive success over time (they may have successful offspring one in 100 attempts, for example).

Evolutionary theory predicts this, and we find it. That is how evolution is substantiated. This has nothing to do with chance and everything to do with sound reasoning and evidence. Genetic theory predicts it, natural selection predicts it, and what do you know? It happens.

The even more complex thing is genes are coupled to other genes. So when you change the beak, or a part of the brain, or a part of a very small physiological trait, it may also change something fundamental to its biology. Selective pressures on physical size of a cichlid fish may reduce gill size, and gill size will reduce oxygen intake, which has been shown to reduce brain size, and possibly (yet to be confirmed) the number of folds in the brain. This sort of physiological change can have substantial changes to foraging requirements, behaviour and sexual selection, which will then further perpetuate change. Sexual selection can itself cause differential reproduction based on seemingly arbitrary choices by mates. The process becomes extremely complex and interrelated.

Inject into all of this random mutation, which is occasionally beneficial, and you have a monster of a complex "machine" churning out countless varieties of genetically replicating organisms.

That was a long winded answer but it was necessary.

'The beginning' is a problem I also can't come to agreement with evolution on, and it should be obvious as to why. The most famous of the theories in this area is the 'Big Bang' to my knowledge, and that simply doesn't hold water. I do realize there are plenty of theorizations about various aspects of evolution, and I am admittedly unknowledgeable about many of them. (much like you probably have various misconceivings about my own faith, perhaps without knowing it.) I invite you to correct me, or inform me of any misinformation I may be in the possession of. As, without criticism, there can be no improvement.

That is not the subject matter of evolution. It does not try to provide an origin for life on earth, it just describes and predicts the variation we see. Abiogenesis is what you're referring to, and that field is growing rapidly. More and more evidence is coming to light, but our understanding of the most complex organic chemical processes is still lacking.

The big bang is a fast in the sense that everything in the universe points to an origin. The big bang is easily compatible with the existence of God because it affirms a "possible" beginning. It is only incompatible with biblical literalism.

I have 13, 50 page lectures on evolution, which are filled with pictures, graphics and diagrams. They are not very wordy because evolution is one of the most complex scientific ideas every conceived. Things need to be simplified, even for students of the profession. If you want I could compress them and send them to you. They start easy and increase in complexity. The point would not be to understand everything they state, but if you gave them time you would have your entire view of evolution flipped on its head. I do not advise you keep reading emotionally charged content such as that from godandscience.org, as almost everything they state is twisted and manipulated. Straw mans are their order of the day.

As an alternative that is easier than reading I suggest you check out both of these channels:

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa
http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007

I suggest these channels because they are decently easy to understand, although AronRa is quite intense at times, and moves quickly.

I hope this helps.

You are putting the work of this man above the work of other scientists on the field. He has an agenda to prove evolution wrong because it conflicts with his beliefs (which do not pass the rigors of the scientific method, ironically).

Check out the channels I posted. I am a simple ecologist, I have not devoted my life to evolution. People have addressed his claims, or claims of people just like him, and such rebuttals are in the channels I sent.

Indeed, I am aware of transitional species- as I thought I made obvious with the 'half rat-half bat'. (Rats evolving into bats was a fairly well-known evolution, from what I have seen.)

I have not heard of it, although I do not doubt this is possible. If you still think there is a half rat-half bat "transitional form" you did not grasp what I was talking about. The species "rat" and "bat" are based on necessity of categorization to make sense of changing genotypes and phenotypes. Flying squirrels is a good instance of a mammal which can glide, but also exist like their land dwelling brethren.

A place to start would be:

The idea that the lack of transitional forms is due to gaps in the fossil record is not reasonable given the tremendous number of fossils that have been discovered in recent studies. Therefore, the old "evolution of the gaps" theory is not supported by the extensive fossil record that now exists. Gradualism, although it seems a more logical mode of evolution, is not supported by the fossil record.

This isn't a sound conclusion at all. Because there is a ton of fossils, we should expect there to be tons of "transitional" fossils? First of all, there is already tons of evidence (go to AronRA for more details), so this statement seems to be based on HIS definition of what a transitional form is. This is unsurprising and a straw man because proponents of his view constantly push the goal posts back. A reasonable common ancestor is presented for two lineages present today, but the creationists push the goal post and ask for transitions of the transitions. If that can't be provided they assume their position correct, when that isn't the reasonable conclusion given the question doesn't make sense after a certain point. Please watch the two channels I provided,

I think the lack of 'transitional fossils' is a good point against evolution personally; the fossil record in general is a rather good one in my opinion.

Then your opinion is misinformed. There isn't a lack of transitional fossils. Look them up yourself and do some research. Watch the channels I sent. I can't walk you through everything.

What do you mean by 'his' definition of a transitional form? A transitional form IS a transitional form. As it stands, what other definition can you give it?

This took two seconds to find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Proponents of creationism have frequently made claims about the existence or implications of transitional fossils that paleontologists consider to be false,[10][11] and in some cases deliberately misleading.[12] Some of these claims include:

* 'There are no transitional fossils.' This is a claim made by groups like Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research.[3][10][13][14] Such claims may be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature[13] but are also explained as a tactic actively employed by creationists seeking to distort or discredit evolutionary theory and has been called the "favorite lie" of creationists.[3] Some creationists dispute the lack of transitional forms.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... al_fossils

Since all species are in transition due to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception.

Even other religious people agree its a bad argument:

http://creation.com/qa#bad_arguments

‘There are no transitional forms.’ Since there are candidates, even though they are highly dubious, it’s better to avoid possible comebacks by saying instead: ‘While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.’

Even though this statement is highly questionable, it is still implicitly admitting you shouldn't bother with this argument. Every single "species" is a transitional form. The fossil record cannot capture these mythical creatures that are half rat-half bat, because they do not exist, at least not in a way that would be immediately obvious and simplified. I don't think you should be focusing on this point because it's not a corner stone of evolutionary theory, and it's little more than a straw man by creationists. Evolution doesn't work in discrete steps or units so poking and prodding at evolutionary theory to produce these discrete steps or units is a fruitless and misguided venture.

I would watch those channels, but I really don't have the time to sit and watch videos at the current moment. I much prefer written documents, as I can bring them with me and read at my own pace. I will check them out when I get a chance, however, as it stands, I am still not feel evolution is a very sturdy theory. I understand how one can reach such conclusions, but the details you claim are rather irrelevant (fossils is what I am referring to here) feel rather absent to me.

I have attached an entire lecture series on the theory of evolution. You will have to google some terms and look into some topics further for full understanding, as it is lecture material, but they can be read away from a computer.

In regards to the rat-bat, a bat is very different from any species of flying squirrel I've seen. I don't feel it's a good comparison.

It's not supposed to be a comparison. You made the claim that such a half rat-half bat would not be able to fly or feed, yet there is a gliding squirrel that does both. It's not quite a flying mammal, but it's damn close. It may or may not evolve into a flight based organism. Evolution has no path outside of selective pressures.

So far, the one point you've made that intrigues me the most is about micro-evolutions and their limits. You stated something along the lines of 'what stops them from continuing?' This is a rather good point, and one that I feel ashamed of for not thinking about before. Above all else, this is the new question on my mind, and I'll be seeking to do further research on this particular item.

This is good because it shows you're catching on to the implications of microevolution. Beneficial and neutral mutation occur, this is a fact. Reproductive isolation and thus speciation occurs. This is a fact. We have not observed any organisms in our lifetime evolve drastically because its impossible, but we have observed bird, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals separate so that different populations either have poor mating success or no mating success at all. They may be still of the same "kind" by your definition, but they are no longer able to breed. Now that gene flow is cut off and each group is subject to totally different selective pressures (environment, predators, etc. as I mentioned) they will continue to change indefinitely. Given new traits are produced through various mutation methods (which I mentioned), and given the environment isn't a chaotic mess of random processes, species are pushed in different directions. Most die off, but some are successful. A species of salamander may be split up into 25 different sub populations during a glaciation event, and they are left separated for 10-20k years. After they can contact each other coming down from their mountain ranges, they no longer interbreed. The changes that occur from here are thousands of microevolutionary events. They never stop. Not all species have the same capability for evolution, as the number of genetic traits their genome possess (as we see, dogs are quite diverse, but cats do not seem to possess the same level of genetic variation with breeding techniques) may vary. Species with less variation will be more prone to extinction and thus evolution always selects for species with more "internal" genetic variation in the long term. Although cats seem to have less genetic variation, they still have a robust genome. The Cheetah may go extinct because it has an extremely small trait pool, so their ability to "adapt" (some individuals surviving diet change or various infectious diseases) is reduced.

Did you know some humans are immune to HIV? It's a small percentage, but some are. If HIV were to hit every single human on earth, the human species would not go extinct. The ones left would be immune to HIV and that group of individuals would continue on. However, that group would not have the same genetic makeup as the entire human species. The entire trait pool would change drastically, and it would alter prevalent features, disease resistance, intelligence, mating preferences, generally morphology etc.

Anyway, take a look at the lectures I sent. Specifically the speciation lectures. I advise starting from the beginning, as you do not have a lot of knowledge in this field.

You will also realize from those lectures that Evolution isn't just a study of morphological traits from fossils. It is a large, vast field of scientific research. The concepts behind evolution are extremely complex, and I found myself struggling with many of them. You will find that the counter arguments you have been reading are quite "base" compared to what is actually being discussed and disputed in the field. It isn't a small field of a bunch of intellectuals who cook up a bunch of data and have some anti-religious agenda. There is some insanely hard science going on every day in this field, and it just keeps getting more rigorous and complex.

Maytan wrote:Evolutionary theory predicts this, and we find it. That is how evolution is substantiated. This has nothing to do with chance and everything to do with sound reasoning and evidence. Genetic theory predicts it, natural selection predicts it, and what do you know? It happens.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:I'm not a biology/evolutionary scientist by any means, so I can't really respond to his points on a lot of that. What I found interesting was that he told you to avoid websites that challenge portions of evolutionary thought, but referred you (exclusively) to someone with a series of lectures. If the field is as diverse as he says it is, surely there are other places you can go to find people who will disagree with portions of what the guy has to say.

He mentioned straw man arguments, and I think he may be committing one himself. There are a lot of Christians who also believe that evolution paints a fairly accurate picture of history. He's attacking people who find problems with parts of evolution as people who disagree with evolution completely, which is just pure fallacy.

musician wrote:

Maytan wrote:Evolutionary theory predicts this, and we find it. That is how evolution is substantiated. This has nothing to do with chance and everything to do with sound reasoning and evidence. Genetic theory predicts it, natural selection predicts it, and what do you know? It happens.

And this is exactly the point I try to make from time to time: if "It happened" is an acceptable substantiation for evolution, than "it happened" is just as comfortable with creation. None of this stuff is repeatable, and it all happened ages ago. It has everything to do with chance. In fact, the entire beginning of that explanation of evolution sets the stage for chance by describing what a large and complicated evolutionary machine is present on Earth so as to suggest that the chances are increased.

It seem strange that those who reject intelligent design are so eager to project their design onto nature.

- N

This has nothing to do with chance and everything to do with sound reasoning and evidence. Genetic theory predicts it, natural selection predicts it, and what do you know? It happens.

musician wrote:

Maytan wrote:Evolutionary theory predicts this, and we find it. That is how evolution is substantiated. This has nothing to do with chance and everything to do with sound reasoning and evidence. Genetic theory predicts it, natural selection predicts it, and what do you know? It happens.

And this is exactly the point I try to make from time to time: if "It happened" is an acceptable substantiation for evolution, than "it happened" is just as comfortable with creation. None of this stuff is repeatable, and it all happened ages ago. It has everything to do with chance. In fact, the entire beginning of that explanation of evolution sets the stage for chance by describing what a large and complicated evolutionary machine is present on Earth so as to suggest that the chances are increased.

It seem strange that those who reject intelligent design are so eager to project their design onto nature.

- N

jlay wrote:Obviously you are not going to be able to train your self as an ecologist. And you are in no position to equal this person in that regard. My first advice would be to get trained in spotting logical fallacies. This will allow you to recognize when you friend is doing something contrary to the science he represents.
Jason Lisle has a very inexpensive book that is a basic overview of this very thing. He is also a phd in astrophysics, so he is all too aware of the errors your friend is making.

here is a free sample of some of his work.
http://books.google.com/books?id=teSXGS ... le&f=false

I see a couple of fallacies at work here. The most common being the fallacy of reification. He is erroneously assigning attributes to natural selection as if it is a mind or thing. It isn't. Natural selection doesn't predict anything, and it never will. It is simply a term we assign to a effects we see in nature. That is not what your friend is doing. He is making a leap of faith. What he means to say is, we (evolutionists) expect to see these things, therefore they support out models of particale to people evolution. Neither is genetic theory a thing or a mind. There are certainly minds behind it. And there in lies the problem. It elevates 'genetic theory' above the fallible human minds that conceived it, as if it is a entity in and of itself. And somewhat above reproach.
And all that leads to the 2nd fallacy. It is basically stacking the deck. They say, 'look at natural selection, look at genetic theory. It verifies our predictions.' Just, 'look at the facts.'
It is basically 'creating' proof where there is none. It is so common in the science community that it is essentially accepted and ignored when pointed out.

Most of this, he simply explained something we all agree on. That most mutations are not beneficial. So, in essense he waste a lot of ink explaining something that doesn't refute our position, or support his position. If your friend has any evidence in all these papers of any NEW information being added to the genetic code due to random mutations, then we would all love to see this breakthrough.

You might also ask, since he uses several terms that refer to the genetic code as information, how information can be accounted for in materialistc processes, and not just take for granted that the information is there.

zoegirl wrote:Natural selection in and of itself can't predict the future (simply because we don't know what the future holds), however, that being said, we can design experiments that allow for conditions that would have selective pressure and measure the results. In that regard, it is predictive. We can generate hypothesis and test these hypotheses. This can be done with sexual selection, disruptive selection...this is not controversial, nor is it against scripture. I can certianly provide examples, just not right now....have to write up some homework assignments!!

What is really the heart of the issue is not natural selection but whether the necessary mutations that generate new phenotypes would provide the needed "fuel" for natural selection to then work. We can observe natural selection quite readily, the "Beak of the Finch", a great study of selection over the years of beak sizes of finches dependent on the rainfall in the surrounding area. There is nothing scary about natural selection.

Natural selection in and of itself can't predict the future (simply because we don't know what the future holds), however, that being said, we can design experiments that allow for conditions that would have selective pressure and measure the results. In that regard, it is predictive. We can generate hypothesis and test these hypotheses. This can be done with sexual selection, disruptive selection...this is not controversial, nor is it against scripture. I can certianly provide examples, just not right now....have to write up some homework assignments!!

jlay wrote:I dont' disagree with Zoe, but it does raise and isse. And there in lies the problem for me. DESIGN the experiments. At this point the word natural has to be tossed out the window. No matter how sincerly one wishes or thinks they can mimmick nature, they can not. They have inserted intelligence into the mix.

Zoe is correct. There is nothing to be scared of regarding natural selection. However, we should be scared/concerned/whatever, about scientists who want to ascribe god like qualities to NS to fit their models. As if NS is some force that is actively shaping the outcome. It isn't.
This is the problem with Maytan's friend. He is making that leap of faith. He is arguing that because natural selection is a true process, (And of course it is. testable and observable) and that beneficial mutations, though rare, do occur, (Another testable and observable fact.) that particles to people evolution is true. He is assuming that these facts justify his position. But those facts are no less a part of the ID crowd, or any other creation model. Not even one iota.

jlay wrote:

Natural selection in and of itself can't predict the future (simply because we don't know what the future holds), however, that being said, we can design experiments that allow for conditions that would have selective pressure and measure the results. In that regard, it is predictive. We can generate hypothesis and test these hypotheses. This can be done with sexual selection, disruptive selection...this is not controversial, nor is it against scripture. I can certianly provide examples, just not right now....have to write up some homework assignments!!

I dont' disagree with Zoe, but it does raise and isse. And there in lies the problem for me. DESIGN the experiments. At this point the word natural has to be tossed out the window. No matter how sincerly one wishes or thinks they can mimmick nature, they can not. They have inserted intelligence into the mix.

Zoe is correct. There is nothing to be scared of regarding natural selection. However, we should be scared/concerned/whatever, about scientists who want to ascribe god like qualities to NS to fit their models. As if NS is some force that is actively shaping the outcome. It isn't.
This is the problem with Maytan's friend. He is making that leap of faith. He is arguing that because natural selection is a true process, (And of course it is. testable and observable) and that beneficial mutations, though rare, do occur, (Another testable and observable fact.) that particles to people evolution is true. He is assuming that these facts justify his position. But those facts are no less a part of the ID crowd, or any other creation model. Not even one iota.