Evidence for God from Science

An article from the BBC about how complex life might have risen - not sure I actually understand what they are talking about mind. Any comments?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13445951


Silvertusk

"But we both agree that much of complexity does not have an adaptive explanation."

Kind of a telling sentence I think...

What the article told me more than anything is how little agreement there is on some of this stuff, but how sure individuals are of their own positions. It may be because I'm in a 'harder' science than speculative biology, but I don't like basing my viewpoints on 'things may' have x impact on y situation...

Ifs, buts, maybes, likelinesses... usual evolutionary story.

One thing that comes to my mind though, is that 150 years after Darwin presented his theory, and after so many millions pumped into the research of evolution, with all the bias there is, it seems that evolutionists still don't have any evidence more concrete than "maybe".

Silvertusk wrote:not sure I actually understand what they are talking about mind.

Neither do I, actually it makes me quite confused (as most of the pro-evolutionary material, which seems filled with non-sequiturs to me).
I mean, look at this sentence:
"But the study provides evidence that the "adaptive" nature of the changes it wreaks may not be the only way that complexity grew."

Thanks for those reponses. Glad I am not alone in my skeptism and confusion.

Silvertusk.

"Natural selection is a theory with no equal in terms of its power to explain how organisms and populations survive through the ages; random mutations that are helpful to an organism are maintained while harmful ones are bred out."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought random mutations were proven to never be helpful to an organism, and only effected them in a negative way.

eric246 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought random mutations were proven to never be helpful to an organism, and only effected them in a negative way.

You're not wrong. Although there have been "beneficial" mutations that adapt animals to their environments, those will never add new information to the genome, they will only rearrange the existing information. The total amount of information in the genome will either decrease, or at best, remain the same. So, that process is actually opposite to what an evolutionist would predict - it will never lead to more complex life forms, not even if we involve billions of years. You can't become rich if you never profit.

Let me regurgitate what I’ve learned:

Scientists are assuming that the complexity of life is not solely attributed to mutations and natural selection but the tendency of sticky proteins, dehydrons, to build upon each other and form more complex structures. Or are they referring to the complexity of DNA? Probably DNA, that would make more sense. How else would it be structurally resproducable? They are postulating the lengthening of DNA through DNA’s interactions with “sticky” proteins and over time desireable protein sequences were selected.

…and that humans maintained smaller populations over longer periods of time so these defects accumulated the most in our gene pool leading us to become the most adapted species. Dehydrons can be attributed to decreasing the functions of interacting proteins, thus increasing “cooperability” with other proteins. They reference human hemoglobin as an example of this phenomenon. I wonder what other examples of this phenomenon there are?

Ok, this may start to worry me a bit. If this is proven would this either disprove Stephen Meyer's ID theory about the information of DNA having to come from an intelligent mind or would this disprove the whole design argument for God's existence? Even worse, would this disprove both? I may have to either ask RTB or the ID guys about this one. Or would this only prove or help prove Darwinian evolution?

cubeus19 wrote:Ok, this may start to worry me a bit. If this is proven would this either disprove Stephen Meyer's ID theory about the information of DNA having to come from an intelligent mind or would this disprove the whole design argument for God's existence? Even worse, would this disprove both? I may have to either ask RTB or the ID guys about this one.

How exactly would that disprove the design argument? You think design is restricted to biology?

And I like the seemingly innocent tag team (or is it?).

Not sure if DNA here is being 'explained' by evolutionary processes, but if it is then this would be circular reasoning since, as I understand it, evolution requires DNA as a point of heredity in order to occur.

Byblos wrote:

cubeus19 wrote:Ok, this may start to worry me a bit. If this is proven would this either disprove Stephen Meyer's ID theory about the information of DNA having to come from an intelligent mind or would this disprove the whole design argument for God's existence? Even worse, would this disprove both? I may have to either ask RTB or the ID guys about this one.

How exactly would that disprove the design argument? You think design is restricted to biology?

And I like the seemingly innocent tag team (or is it?).

Well isn't the article saying that organisms gradually build their systems in terms of their complexity over time? And if that is the case than it shows that you may not necessarily need a designer to front load or pre plan the information at the beginning. Well where else does the design argument effect over than biology? Isn't this argument primarily restricted to the biological world? Or are you lumping in the FINE TUNING argument of the initial conditions of the universe to house life with the design argument for the biological world?

Also, I don't know what you are talking about as far as "tag reaming", please explain.

DannyM wrote:Not sure if DNA here is being 'explained' by evolutionary processes, but if it is then this would be circular reasoning since, as I understand it, evolution requires DNA as a point of heredity in order to occur.

Yeah. That's my point. The article never addresses DNA. As you put it, "evolution requires DNA as a point source for evolution to occur." But where did the first DNA chain come from? That's the real question. Did these sticky dehydrons help produce it? I've been thinking about this article for a while and it bothers me that the title doesn't seem to be substantiated in the least.

cubeus19 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

cubeus19 wrote:Ok, this may start to worry me a bit. If this is proven would this either disprove Stephen Meyer's ID theory about the information of DNA having to come from an intelligent mind or would this disprove the whole design argument for God's existence? Even worse, would this disprove both? I may have to either ask RTB or the ID guys about this one.

How exactly would that disprove the design argument? You think design is restricted to biology?

Well isn't the article saying that organisms gradually build their systems in terms of their complexity over time? And if that is the case than it shows that you may not necessarily need a designer to front load or pre plan the information at the beginning. Well where else does the design argument effect over than biology? Isn't this argument primarily restricted to the biological world? Or are you lumping in the FINE TUNING argument of the initial conditions of the universe to house life with the design argument for the biological world?

Fine tuning would be a fantastic start yes, since the probability challenges it represents are absolutely mind-numbing (making biological design seem like a walk in the park). But fine tuning of the initial conditions is by no means the entire spectrum of non-biological design although they are mostly concentrated in the cosmological realm. A good example would be complex elements such as carbon that would take 3rd generation galaxies to form in order to produce it.

cubeus19 wrote:

Byblos wrote:And I like the seemingly innocent tag team (or is it?).

Also, I don't know what you are talking about as far as "tag reaming", please explain.

Never mind me, I was having a senior moment.

cubeus19 wrote:Ok, this may start to worry me a bit. If this is proven would this either disprove Stephen Meyer's ID theory about the information of DNA having to come from an intelligent mind or would this disprove the whole design argument for God's existence? Even worse, would this disprove both? I may have to either ask RTB or the ID guys about this one. Or would this only prove or help prove Darwinian evolution?

whynot: Well...I'm not a theist or a christian, but if I were...I'd be jumping for joy at the findings of this article...specially if I were an ID'er. I'm really surprised anyone would see this as a possible blackeye for the believer. Everyone must have missed the significance of this statement down towards the end of the article:

"In fact, it's a mess - there's so much unnecessary complexity."

Am I the only one who sees the relevant significance to ID this represents, if true? Come on guys...and gals...I'm not even a theist and I see the value to theism's ID apologetics here. I'll spell it out for you by the numbers:

P1: Interpret God's claim in Genesis of making man in His image, as an ongoing process, rather than a done deal in Adam and Eve. God uses every available life challenging methodology in his process refinement plan, including Jesus as suffering servant exemplar excellence.

P2: Unnecessary complexity means unused potential means anticipated future survivability demands.

P3: Unnecessary now--->vitally crucial later=evidence for God's process refinement theology.

P4: Logically impossible for natural selection to account for anticipated future load demands.

C: Need I say more?