2005 Top Award for Evolution -AAAS

[Beastt]

If you're going to use examples of design conceived and executed by man, then the best you can hope for is to determine what man did and did not design. We already have a pretty good grasp on that. I don't think it plausible to suggest that supernatural creation would find enough common ground with man's creations to allow man's creations to serve as an appropriate model. ..

I disagree.

On what grounds?

 

[Quasicentennial]

Beastt Which version of "God's Ten Commandments" and what does this have to do with the OP or the fact that it assumes a randomness which is other than random?
Contemporary English version. It has nothing to do with the subject randomness. I just want to let agnostic scientists know that people around the world who aren't all scientists but from all kinds of occupations, unemployed and those who have committed crimes - turn to Jesus or God for moral support. The Bible teaches people to be good towards one another, otherwise if it was'n't for the Bible, you would probably end up in the grave from endless world war conflicts.

 

[Tomk80]

Is that the best you can do? If so, you've got nothing.

You are the one defending ID here, SamCJ. You are the one claiming that non-human design can be seen all around us, based on an analogy with human design. Then you should be able to pick such an example that can clearly be used for comparison. It's not our job, SamCJ, as we don't make the claim. We don't believe you, remember, so we can't pick such an example. We don't think it exists.

Indeed, we have nothing for your assertions. Why? Because we don't think your assertions are correct.


Regarding randomness. In several threads now, you have been given the links to research that shows that mutations occur independent to their environment. In other words, which mutations occur is not determined by the environment they will be needed in. We can also not predict which mutation will occur next in which creature. Now, for all purposes of biological research, this is as random as can be. Can you provide any evidence that these mutations do not occur in a random fashion? If so, could you start providing them at some point?

 

[Dannager]

Beastt Which version of "God's Ten Commandments" and what does this have to do with the OP or the fact that it assumes a randomness which is other than random?
Contemporary English version. It has nothing to do with the subject randomness. I just want to let agnostic scientists know that people around the world who aren't all scientists but from all kinds of occupations, unemployed and those who have committed crimes - turn to Jesus or God for moral support. The Bible teaches people to be good towards one another, otherwise if it was'n't for the Bible, you would probably end up in the grave from endless world war conflicts.

Study some political science. Endless world war would not be the result. In fact, religion has (historically) been the most often-used cause for justifying military action to the populace.

 

[Tomk80]

Beastt Which version of "God's Ten Commandments" and what does this have to do with the OP or the fact that it assumes a randomness which is other than random?
Contemporary English version. It has nothing to do with the subject randomness. I just want to let agnostic scientists know that people around the world who aren't all scientists but from all kinds of occupations, unemployed and those who have committed crimes - turn to Jesus or God for moral support. The Bible teaches people to be good towards one another, otherwise if it was'n't for the Bible, you would probably end up in the grave from endless world war conflicts.

Historically, christianity is one of the religions most associated with war and violence. But no reason for facts to blow your nice, little world-in-a-box aye?

 

[SamCJ]

On what grounds?

On the grounds that we are able to recognize intelligence in our acient ancestors and you have no grounds to support your belief in the lack of a common ground.

Repeating: I created Him in my image and likeness or maybe it was vice versa. Either way, I think you scientists are up to the task of figuring out how to recognize intelligence of unknown beings who leave their marks on our natural world. Scientists have always underestimated what they could achieve. Did you read the NY Times article under "Does God throw dice?" post? It is full of disproven self-doubts.

 

[Tomk80]

On the grounds that we are able to recognize intelligence in our acient ancestors and you have no grounds to support your belief in the lack of a common ground.

Repeating: I created Him in my image and likeness or maybe it was vice versa. Either way, I think you scientists are up to the task of figuring out how to recognize intelligence of unknown beings who leave their marks on our natural world. Scientists have always underestimated what they could achieve. Did you read the NY Times article under "Does God throw dice?" post? It is full of disproven self-doubts.

What reason do we have to think such beings exist? None, not at this point. So why should we investigate what mark they leave? We know what marks non-existant beings make. None.

 

[SamCJ]

Regarding randomness. In several threads now, you have been given the links to research that shows that mutations occur independent to their environment. In other words, which mutations occur is not determined by the environment they will be needed in. We can also not predict which mutation will occur next in which creature. Now, for all purposes of biological research, this is as random as can be. Can you provide any evidence that these mutations do not occur in a random fashion? If so, could you start providing them at some point?

I guess you are referring to Luria-Delbrok. That is the only link that I recall fitting your description. Strangely, that experiment discovered that a mutation had occured which was not needed at the time it occurred but which was helpful to its survival later. To me that discovery could be used by IDists to confirm foresight and intelligence. Now I have trouble understanding why God would want to give that ability to some bacterium, but I am not as smart as he is alleged to be.

I think the demand for a single comparable is smart alecky and off base. Intelligence is going to be discovered if it is there through an inductive process that develops rules from the generalizations we are able to draw from many examples. I also think that you and Jet Black are well aware of that, so that the question was devious and rude.

 

[SamCJ]

What reason do we have to think such beings exist? None, not at this point. So why should we investigate what mark they leave? We know what marks non-existant beings make. None.

I don't have time right now to argue with you faith-based religious belief in no-God.

 

[Tomk80]

I don't have time right now to argue with you faith-based religious belief in no-God.

Look at my faith icon, I'm an agnostic.

But that's what it all comes down to, isn't it? If you won't convince us of a reason to search for signs of other design than human design, why would we do it?

 

[Tomk80]

I guess you are referring to Luria-Delbrok. That is the only link that I recall fitting your description. Strangely, that experiment discovered that a mutation had occured which was not needed at the time it occurred but which was helpful to its survival later. To me that discovery could be used by IDists to confirm foresight and intelligence. Now I have trouble understanding why God would want to give that ability to some bacterium, but I am not as smart as he is alleged to be.

It's Luria & Delbrock, amongst others yes. And this experiment was done in the 1940's, so they wouldn't be able to discover such a mutation as you describe at that time, as that needs a comparison of DNA that wasn't possible at that time. So my guess is that either you have read something else, or you haven't understood what you read.

Also, you are doing a nice cherrypicking here. The Luria-Delbrock experiment showed that of 100's of mutations, some were beneficial, some were not and some were neutral. The distribution of these mutations did not show a poisson distribution, which would be expected if the mutations were related to their future environments. Is it possible that one of those mutations were neutral first and then shown to be beneficial later? Sure. But you want to pick that one example to show ID, ignoring all the other data. You have to look at the complete picture, not at a single datapoints, SamCJ.

I think the demand for a single comparable is smart alecky and off base. Intelligence is going to be discovered if it is there through an inductive process that develops rules from the generalizations we are able to draw from many examples. I also think that you and Jet Black are well aware of that, so that the question was devious and rude.

Why? If you want to detect design by comparison, which you say is possible, we will need such an comparable. If there are many examples, which should be the case if what you say is true, you should be able to show one. If we don't agree, you can always pick another one of the many examples. The question is neither devious, nor rude. It's completely relevant, because if we can't even find one example, we aren't going to find many. If you can't show us what to look for, we can't find it.

 

[USincognito]

Contemporary English version. It has nothing to do with the subject randomness.

And randomness has nothing to do with evolution, so why bring it up in a Creation/Evolution thread, except to divert it into an Apologetical tangent?

I just want to let agnostic scientists know that people around the world who aren't all scientists...

Most of the people who aren't Christians posting to this subforum aren't scientists. And most people who are scientists in this world are religious in some form or another.

...but from all kinds of occupations, unemployed and those who have committed crimes - turn to Jesus or God for moral support.

What does this have to do with Creationism and Evolution? Many of the most prolific and erudite posters to this forum are religious, and what drunkards, drug dealers and murderers do in prison regarding how they deal with their own issues regarding salvation have nothing what so ever to do with the validity of evolutionary theory.

The Bible teaches people to be good towards one another, otherwise if it was'n't for the Bible, you would probably end up in the grave from endless world war conflicts.

I'm going to take a different tangent from that offered by a few other responders, and say that the Bible, and the Koran and Torah and the Vedas and the Sutras have helped a lot of potentially bad people from adversely effecting the lives of many people. But conversely, they've similarly been responsible for a lot of deaths over the ages. That point is irrelavent since you're referring specifically to the world wars which shows me you are lacking in historical knowledge about what caused them.

World War I was not caused by the absence of the Bible, but the assasination of an Austrian noble and the intertangling alliances Europe had created during the mid-19th to early 20th Centuries. World War II was caused by the ****y treatment of Germany following WWI which facillitated the rise of Hitler as well as Japan's lack of oil and natural resources as it tried to move to a semi-industrialized economy.

On the flip side, I've been reading the wonderful book "Reading Lolita In Tehran" over the last week, and the correllations between the "moral" justifications the Islamic Republic used to justify it's executions, those cited in the witch hunts and Inquisition and how totalitarian regimes from the French "Committee of Public Safety" loped off uncounted heads is frightening... and oddly prescient given such documents as Bob Enyart's "Day One" screed where he dreams of fantisizes about executing (then) Colorado Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder.

In summary, I think relgion serves a nobel purpose, but it's dangers are a genie in a bottle that too many are willing to uncork without realizing it's potential fin de cicile.

 

[rjw]

With due respect, Roland I think I have made myself clear enough concerning my OP. I bet I have rephrased it 4 or 5 times.



No



I think so.



Explain theistic evolution for me. I don't get it.

2 important questions you did not respond to:
1. Don't you suspect AAAS was trying to influence public opinion in favor of no-ID in their awards selections?
2. What are the laws governing mutations that result in speciation?

Gidday SamCJ,

With due respect, Roland I think I have made myself clear enough concerning my OP. I bet I have rephrased it 4 or 5 times.

You may even have rephrased your OP 20 times. And in those OPs you write:-

(1) “AAAS says that these biologists ideas sprang from a belief that mutations are an accident of nature that happen randomly. I simply want a detailed explanation of why AAAS attributes the biologists' ideas to "evolution."”

(2) “I suspect AAAS gave these awards primarily to influence public opinion in favor of evolution theory. IMO evolution theory to the extent it advocates randomness and denies the possibilty of intelligent design does not deserve any credit for the biologists' findings, particularly the promising findings about the chimps' genome.”

(3) “I think the answer is the randomness was absolutely irrelevant to the biologists analysis, but that is contrary to the AAAS presentation.”

(4) “My OP is designed to show the misleading nature of the AAAS awards.”

That is you argue that the AAAS either explicitly or implicitly makes the claim. I am asking you to show me where in that article this claim is explicitly or implicitly made by the AAAS!

So far you have not.

I am not being picky here SamCJ, but this does appear to be a central claim of yours, so I am asking you to justify it.

If you rephrase your OP 5 times and in 4 of those you repeat the same argument but with different words, then I am quite entitled to ask you to back yourself up. Don’t you think so?

When you write “Evolution is presently all about randomness” what do you mean? Do you mean “Evolution is only about randomness”?

No.

Well evolution is not “all about randomness”. Evolution is about many things and random processes are just one part of all this. Sources of variation are not necessarily entirely random as I have explained in an earlier post and I shall deal with this near the end. Evolution is also about selection, isolation, speciation, reproductive success etc.

Atheistic scientists exclude the possibility of intelligence in everything. Does this mean therefore that everything is about randomness – according to the atheist?

I think so.

I do appreciate your honesty.

Scientists (theistic and atheistic) have been studying both random and non-random processes in nature for centuries. Atheistic scientists fully understand that many processes in nature are non-random. Therefore an atheist cannot study nature and argue “because I am an atheist – all things must be random” – that is impossible.

Explain theistic evolution for me. I don't get it.

I thought I saw you use the term several times in earlier posts of yours. Because I am not a theistic evolutionist, hopefully my explanation will be reasonable. A theistic evolutionist is someone who accepts, more or less, the mainstream ToE but nevertheless argues that God is behind that evolution in some intimate way. They are, if you like, theistic naturalists. That is, they accept mainstream scientific theories but argue that God is intimately connected with nature such that he his the ultimate author and/or sustainer of things in nature.

2 important questions you did not respond to:
1. Don't you suspect AAAS was trying to influence public opinion in favor of no-ID in their awards selections?
2. What are the laws governing mutations that result in speciation?

1. No I don’t. That is why I asked you for evidence. I am not saying that it is not possible. However, I do not think they were trying to influence public opinion. The chimp genome, for example, was high on the list of priorities. One reason for this was the notion that chimps and humans are closely related. However, the analysis of the chimp genome did not require any evolutionary theory to be successful and no one is making that claim. What is being claimed is that the analysis builds onto Darwin’s theory.

2. I am not a scientists let alone a biologist and so am not necessarily aware of any “laws governing mutation”. Because you associate “laws governing mutation” with “speciation”, I presume you are asking me for sources of variation within the genome since the theory is that selection acts on these variations to produce novelties, thereby leading to new species of animal.

The sources of variation or types of variation are* (and I do not know if this list is exhaustive):-

1) Spontaneous mutations – these occur during DNA replication and repair. For example, things do not replicate correctly and subsequent repair fails.

2) Induced mutations – these mutations can be deliberate or environmental. The associated mutation rate is generally above the background level. They are:-

a. Ionizing radiation – alpha, beta, gamma and X rays, usually resulting in deletions or insertions of DNA.

b. Non ionizing radiation – UV light. Causes adjacent thymines on DNA strands to stick together. These have to be repaired and repair failure leads to a point mutation.

c. Chemicals. These interact with DNA and create base changes. The classes are – base analog chemicals, base modifiers, and intercalating agents. Base analogs are chemicals that are similar to bases but have different base pairing properties and can cause transitions from GC to AT, for example. Base modifiers are chemicals which cause improper base pairing. Intercalating agents are chemicals which insert themselves into DNA, leading to replication and transcription problems, resulting in deletions or insertions of bases.

3) Mutator mutations. These are mutations which interfere with the ability of other genes to mutate.

Other sources of variation are:-

1) Gene duplication where genes duplicate within the genome allowing one gene to presumably function normally while the other gene goes on to acquire new functions. Gene duplication is very important in the evolution of plants. It is beginning to be seen as important in the evolution of animals.

2) Chromosome duplication. Here a part of, or the total chromosome set of a plant or animal duplicates. As with gene duplication, this is seen as very important in the evolution of plants, and evidence for it in animals is beginning to be discovered now.

3) Chromosomal rearrangements. These are changes in location of parts of DNA within the genome, resulting in large structural changes. There are two types – translocations and inversions. Translocations are movement of DNA to other chromosomes. Inversions are 180 degree flips of DNA within a chromosome.

Some of these variations occur in a non-random manner in that some parts of a DNA molecule will be more prone to mutation than other parts, or some portions will be more prone to rearrangement than other parts. This arises, I believe, due to the differing strength of bonds between and within the different bases of a genome. Also genes within a chromosome are generally linked. That is, if one gene translocates, then the genes closest to it are more likely to translocate too.

This has been a quick, and I do not know how complete, summary. I hope it helps.


Regards, Roland


* from Schaum’s Outline Series, “Genetics”, 4th Ed.

 

[gluadys]

Explain theistic evolution for me. I don't get it.

I thought I saw you use the term several times in earlier posts of yours. Because I am not a theistic evolutionist, hopefully my explanation will be reasonable. A theistic evolutionist is someone who accepts, more or less, the mainstream ToE but nevertheless argues that God is behind that evolution in some intimate way. They are, if you like, theistic naturalists. That is, they accept mainstream scientific theories but argue that God is intimately connected with nature such that he his the ultimate author and/or sustainer of things in nature.

As a TE, I second that description. The basic difference between ID and TE is that ID locates God in what we don't know (God of the gaps, God of our ignorance) while TE locates God in what we do know. For ID every step forward in science reduces God. For TE every step forward in science means we know more of God.

2. What are the laws governing mutations that result in speciation?

I won't repeat Roland's answer which was good as far as it went. Mutations do not result in speciation directly, except in such rare cases as the nylon bug.

What they do produce, as Roland's outline makes clear, is variation. Not all mutations, by any means, produce variation, but some do. Even more precisely, they produce variations in genes. You might think of genes as recipes for proteins. Proteins are built when RNA reads the DNA sequence of a gene and uses that as a set of instructions for assembling amino acids and folding them correctly to make a protein. When a mutation affects a gene, its rather like someone making a change in the recipe. It could be a minor one like substituting a bit of cloves for a bit of allspice. Or it could be something more major, like replacing a beef burger with a veggie burger. In any case the protein made on the basis of the genetic variation will also be different--and whatever that protein does will be done differently. Or possibly not be done at all.

However, this doesn't take us much toward speciation, because all this happens in a single cell in a single individual. And whatever change has occurred will no longer exist when the individual dies.

Unless--unless--the change is inherited.

This means first that the only mutations relevant to eventual speciation are those that occur in germline cells. For these are the only ones capable of passing a mutation on to the next generation.

But just occurring in a germline cell is not sufficient to guarantee inheritance. There are a significant number of events which can conspire to prevent the mutation getting into the embryo.

1. Not every germline cell matures to the point of undergoing meiosis and becoming a gamete.
2. Every cell, including germline cells, has two copies of every gene. A mutation is likely to affect only one copy of the gene. Therefore, when the cell undergoes meiosis, there is only a 50% chance that a resulting gamete will contain the mutated gene. Other gametes will form from the non-mutated gene.
3. Not every gamete fuses with another to form the single cell that will become an embryo.

If the mutated gene passes these three hurdles, however, it hits the jackpot. For every single cell in the embryo will contain the same genetic pattern, including a copy of the mutated gene. This includes the cells in the embryo that will become the germline cells that will eventually pass the mutation on to the original organism's grandchildren.

We haven't got anywhere near speciation yet. But from this point on, the role of the mutation is no longer important. Instead reproduction patterns, variation, environmental pressures, selection, adaptation, and isolation will become the factors that move a population toward speciation. Mutation is only an initial step in a complex process.

I can go into more detail on each of these processes if you like.

 

[SamCJ]

Well evolution is not “all about randomness”. Evolution is about many things and random processes are just one part of all this. Sources of variation are not necessarily entirely random as I have explained in an earlier post and I shall deal with this near the end. Evolution is also about selection, isolation, speciation, reproductive success etc.

Only the part that causes it to be abhorrent to Christians.

Scientists (theistic and atheistic) have been studying both random and non-random processes in nature for centuries. Atheistic scientists fully understand that many processes in nature are non-random. Therefore an atheist cannot study nature and argue “because I am an atheist – all things must be random” – that is impossible.

I have been dealing with biases for 40 years. No one ever admits the influence of their bias. That does not mean it does not exist.

I thought I saw you use the term several times in earlier posts of yours. Because I am not a theistic evolutionist, hopefully my explanation will be reasonable. A theistic evolutionist is someone who accepts, more or less, the mainstream ToE but nevertheless argues that God is behind that evolution in some intimate way. They are, if you like, theistic naturalists. That is, they accept mainstream scientific theories but argue that God is intimately connected with nature such that he his the ultimate author and/or sustainer of things in nature.

Glaudys says you are right in your definition of a theistic evolutionists. Since she is a very intelligent one, I will explain my problems with it in response to her post which follows yours.

1. No I don’t. That is why I asked you for evidence. I am not saying that it is not possible. However, I do not think they were trying to influence public opinion. The chimp genome, for example, was high on the list of priorities. One reason for this was the notion that chimps and humans are closely related. However, the analysis of the chimp genome did not require any evolutionary theory to be successful and no one is making that claim. What is being claimed is that the analysis builds onto Darwin’s theory.

I conceded long ago that I had nothing to back up my suspicions except my knowledge of the ways of the world. I will now add, that I have not reread the article to find something there on my side of this point, assuming you would not be asking the question if the article had a definite answer which you can find as easily as I. However, I do a daily Google search for "scientific breakthrough" and there have been probably 50 hits to different newspapers. Every paper puts "Evolution" in the headline. If I have misconstrued the AAAS intent, it appears that every paper in the US has as well. (This might be exaggerated some, but that is my general impression without an exhaustive review of the details.)

2. I am not a scientists let alone a biologist and so am not necessarily aware of any “laws governing mutation”. Because you associate “laws governing mutation” with “speciation”, I presume you are asking me for sources of variation within the genome since the theory is that selection acts on these variations to produce novelties, thereby leading to new species of animal.

The sources of variation or types of variation are* (and I do not know if this list is exhaustive):-

1) Spontaneous mutations – these occur during DNA replication and repair. For example, things do not replicate correctly and subsequent repair fails.

2) Induced mutations – these mutations can be deliberate or environmental. The associated mutation rate is generally above the background level. They are:-

a. Ionizing radiation – alpha, beta, gamma and X rays, usually resulting in deletions or insertions of DNA.

b. Non ionizing radiation – UV light. Causes adjacent thymines on DNA strands to stick together. These have to be repaired and repair failure leads to a point mutation.

c. Chemicals. These interact with DNA and create base changes. The classes are – base analog chemicals, base modifiers, and intercalating agents. Base analogs are chemicals that are similar to bases but have different base pairing properties and can cause transitions from GC to AT, for example. Base modifiers are chemicals which cause improper base pairing. Intercalating agents are chemicals which insert themselves into DNA, leading to replication and transcription problems, resulting in deletions or insertions of bases.

3) Mutator mutations. These are mutations which interfere with the ability of other genes to mutate.

Other sources of variation are:-

1) Gene duplication where genes duplicate within the genome allowing one gene to presumably function normally while the other gene goes on to acquire new functions. Gene duplication is very important in the evolution of plants. It is beginning to be seen as important in the evolution of animals.

2) Chromosome duplication. Here a part of, or the total chromosome set of a plant or animal duplicates. As with gene duplication, this is seen as very important in the evolution of plants, and evidence for it in animals is beginning to be discovered now.

3) Chromosomal rearrangements. These are changes in location of parts of DNA within the genome, resulting in large structural changes. There are two types – translocations and inversions. Translocations are movement of DNA to other chromosomes. Inversions are 180 degree flips of DNA within a chromosome.

Some of these variations occur in a non-random manner in that some parts of a DNA molecule will be more prone to mutation than other parts, or some portions will be more prone to rearrangement than other parts. This arises, I believe, due to the differing strength of bonds between and within the different bases of a genome. Also genes within a chromosome are generally linked. That is, if one gene translocates, then the genes closest to it are more likely to translocate too.

This has been a quick, and I do not know how complete, summary. I hope it helps.

]

I did not mean for you to go to so much trouble. I think your comment that prompted my question was that everything is governed by the laws of nature. I thought my question was mostly rhetorical, pointing out that random mutations of evolution are an exception. With your detailed answer, I do not know whether you agree with most atheistic evolutionists I have argued with that the 1 in 100 million replications that is a mutation is random, or do you disagree believing them to be governed by laws of nature.

 

[SamCJ]

As a TE, I second that description. The basic difference between ID and TE is that ID locates God in what we don't know (God of the gaps, God of our ignorance) while TE locates God in what we do know. For ID every step forward in science reduces God. For TE every step forward in science means we know more of God.

One response to me somewhere said in effect: That God is perfectly capable of creating random events. If he is omniscient, as I have been told, then he knows how the random event will turn out. If he cannot err, as I have been told, then the event cannot turn out differently from the way he knows. So can you still argue that the event is random, since it can only be one way in the eyes of God? Free will, if we have it, would make our actions random, but it has similar problems.

Random means unpredictable, but nothing is unpredictable for God. Saying God can create random events is like saying God can make a rock so heavy that he cannot pick it up. It is a contradiction of terms.

IMO, the reason so many ardent opponents of ID are atheists, is because their position that the crucial initial mutations are random is a denial of any guidance by God. In my view, that randomness in inherent in the definition of evolution as it is commonly understood.

Most Christians find that view abhorrent 1) because it refutes Genesis, and 2) because it means we were not created for a purpose God had in mind, we were not special and superior to other living or even non-living things, and it is unlikely that there is any afterlife (there is no reason there would be one).

I can understand how a TE would be comfortable with natural selection, as I am. But I cannot understand how a TE could be comfortable with random mutations in view of the above paragraph. If item #2 of that paragraph is true, who needs, loves or wants God. On the other hand, if the mutations are only random because man cannot predict them, when actually they are directed by God, and he directed them so man would be created as something special, we are special in his eyes, and he loves us enough to want us around him after we die, then the mutations are not random to God and he has directed the outcome, subject perhaps to our free will messing things up.

Why believe in God, if he is not necessary to fill the gaps. I guess you are saying you do not believe God directed the mutations to create mankind on purpose; God did not intervene in world affairs to create the first living cell from inert matter; God did not cause the Big Bang to set things in motion, because science has not established a cause of any of those things. Per TE, God is only responsible for things science has found the physical cause of. In my view, once science has found a physical cause, God becomes less necessary as an explanation. It is true that science has been jarring the religious beliefs of us gap-guys, but at the same time, science restores our hope by creating more gaps never before dreamed of.

It seems strange to me that TEs oppose IDists. You say we learn about God by learning about nature. I have been preaching that here without support from anyone around here for some time. I would think those who hold that view would want the possibility of an intelligent designer recognized by scientists rather than excluded as a possibility.

 

[SamCJ]

It's Luria & Delbrock, amongst others yes. And this experiment was done in the 1940's, so they wouldn't be able to discover such a mutation as you describe at that time, as that needs a comparison of DNA that wasn't possible at that time. So my guess is that either you have read something else, or you haven't understood what you read.

Also, you are doing a nice cherrypicking here. The Luria-Delbrock experiment showed that of 100's of mutations, some were beneficial, some were not and some were neutral. The distribution of these mutations did not show a poisson distribution, which would be expected if the mutations were related to their future environments. Is it possible that one of those mutations were neutral first and then shown to be beneficial later? Sure. But you want to pick that one example to show ID, ignoring all the other data. You have to look at the complete picture, not at a single datapoints, SamCJ.

That is the one Loudmouth (I believe it was he) relied most heavily on and it was his interpretation I described to you. If there was a lot of additional evidence cited to me, I did not find it persuasive, either because the reliance on it was not sufficiently explained to me or because the reliance was illogical.

Why? If you want to detect design by comparison, which you say is possible, we will need such an comparable. If there are many examples, which should be the case if what you say is true, you should be able to show one. If we don't agree, you can always pick another one of the many examples. The question is neither devious, nor rude. It's completely relevant, because if we can't even find one example, we aren't going to find many. If you can't show us what to look for, we can't find it.

NY Times article this past week said scientists discovered how to make a particle spin in opposite directions at the same time. It had been conceived as possible as a result of induction and deduction. No one demanded comparables in nature as a pre-condition of not belittling the search. THere is plenty of intelligence around from which rules should be developable to distinguish intelligent causes from random causes. Why do we need such a comparable? If it is just because you and Jet Black say so, I don't buy it. So far, that is the only reason I have been given.

Suppose such an induced rule were developed. Would it be testable? Sure. Simply show that something that conformed to the rule of intelligence was nothing more than a result of a strange conjunction of unusual physical effects; i.e., random cause.

 

[SamCJ]

If a watch were able to reproduce I would be less inclined to believe that it was created by man.

Five, Judge Jones and atheistic evolutionists apparently believe it would require less intelligence rather than more to create a self-replicating watch. Off hand, I think that view is astoundingly ridiculous. Tell me why I am wrong.

 

[gluadys]

One response to me somewhere said in effect: That God is perfectly capable of creating random events. If he is omniscient, as I have been told, then he knows how the random event will turn out. If he cannot err, as I have been told, then the event cannot turn out differently from the way he knows. So can you still argue that the event is random, since it can only be one way in the eyes of God? Free will, if we have it, would make our actions random, but it has similar problems.

Is there consistency between human free will and God's foreknowledge? It is an old old question of theodicy. Does history just happen or does God control it? And if God controls it, is history fated, or is it open to the free choices of human individuals?

Long ago, during a Mission Week at my university, I attended a seminar at which the guest speaker was a bio-chemist and a Christian. It was titled Providence and Chance. He made the case that Providence and Chance were two sides of the same coin. What, in the view of science, is called chance, is or at least may be, in God's perspective, Providence--an aspect of God's ongoing care of creation. That still makes sense to me.

Paul says in one of his letters that God makes all things work together for the good of the believer. Does that mean God wills everything that happens to the believer? Or that some things just happen, but God turns them to good?

I will admit frankly that I do believe in free will and that I cannot answer the question of how human free will and divine foreknowledge interact. But I see chance in nature as analogous to free will in the human spirit. If God can handle human futures while permitting free will, God can handle future natural events while permitting chance events.

Random means unpredictable, but nothing is unpredictable for God.

Right. So "random" as used in science may refer to the fact that human scientists cannot predict the event, not to a failure of divine knowledge, much less to God's absence. Randomness may be only apparent, a limitation on the human capacity to process data overload.

IMO, the reason so many ardent opponents of ID are atheists, is because their position that the crucial initial mutations are random is a denial of any guidance by God.

That may be, but it is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. It is irrelevant to science what the varying philosophical positions of its practitioners are.

In my view, that randomness in inherent in the definition of evolution as it is commonly understood.

Not in the definition of evolution, because evolution is not random. But, yes, mutations are random. Though whether randomness at that level is a property of nature or a limitation of human ability to predict is an open question.

Most Christians find that view abhorrent 1) because it refutes Genesis,

They think it refutes Genesis, but that depends on how one interprets Genesis.

and 2) because it means we were not created for a purpose God had in mind, we were not special and superior to other living or even non-living things, and it is unlikely that there is any afterlife (there is no reason there would be one).

In the first place, they should get rid of their pride. In the second place, this is an incorrect conclusion in any case. The method of creation does not mean God had no purpose in mind.

If item #2 of that paragraph is true, who needs, loves or wants God.

Good thing it is not true then. It is quite illogical.

Why believe in God, if he is not necessary to fill the gaps.

Because there are no gaps in nature, only in human knowledge of nature. God did not make nature with gaps in it.

I guess you are saying you do not believe God directed the mutations to create mankind on purpose; God did not intervene in world affairs to create the first living cell from inert matter; God did not cause the Big Bang to set things in motion, because science has not established a cause of any of those things.

Actually quite the opposite. It is because I do believe God intervenes in human lives and in human history that I also believe God intervenes in natural history. God's intervention in human lives and in human history does not usually require obvious miracles, so there is no reason to look for obvious miracles in his interventions in natural history either.

Per TE, God is only responsible for things science has found the physical cause of. In my view, once science has found a physical cause, God becomes less necessary as an explanation.

But is explanation the only reason you believe in God? I think there are far more reasons to have faith in God than explaining what we don't yet know about nature. And when, if, we get to the point of being able to explain nature seamlessly, without any gaps at all, there is still ample reason to believe in God and that God created nature.

It is true that science has been jarring the religious beliefs of us gap-guys, but at the same time, science restores our hope by creating more gaps never before dreamed of.

Which is why I included "if" in the sentence above. It is typical of scientific exploration that every question answered raises still more questions.

It seems strange to me that TEs oppose IDists. You say we learn about God by learning about nature. I have been preaching that here without support from anyone around here for some time. I would think those who hold that view would want the possibility of an intelligent designer recognized by scientists rather than excluded as a possibility.

Well it is not excluded as a possibility. There is no scientific way to exclude that possibility.

But for the same reason there is no scienctific way to recognize the existence or activity of a deity either.

So to keep science, science, we must keep to neutrality on this question.

Now, as soon as you begin to philosophize about science, it does become an open question and worthy of debate. And in a philosophical debate you will find TEs promoting and defending the concept of God and Creation.

 

[FSHWILDFIRE]

This prob has not much to do with what is being discussed however I noticed gluadys to be a theistic evolutionist.
Theistic evolution is a very difficult position to defend, however this does not make it false in any way. However, the very essence of evolution is naturalistic/materilaistic and this position has certain outcomes. If one holds genesis as true and evolution as true as my botany professor said, there is a "clear contradiction". Genesis imposes purpose upon the universe...humans, mankind etc.. Evolution has no purpose! No purpose! In my population genetics course they had told us to be a good population geneticist which is quite important in evo bio, it is vital to understand that life has no purpose. Evolution is an inevtiable outcome of organisms interacting with their environment and that is it. Evolution is at heart an ecological idea, and ecology is unpredictable. Theistic evolution is just pragmatic way of looking at the creation evolution debate. It is some sort of spirtual-science amalgam. And when Richard Dawkins spoke on the issue of religion in Buffalo awhile ago I think he made it clear that Theistic evolution is nonsense, and does injustice to both the theistic and the atheistic wordview. The majority of evolutionary biologists will ignore theistic evolution because it implies a misunderstanding of the nature of evolution. Just a few thoughts, I don't want to start any "beef" as they say. I'm just taking part in the conversation of life and I would love to hear your thoughts.