The Proof

[Dannager]

This is a valid argument, but is it based on misleading information. As a Creationist I think I have to make clear that the claim you've posted is not necessarily a Creationist claim. A Creationist claim would be the following:

"Random mutation HAS NOT caused the addition of major new information (genetic material) to the genome."

The problem that I often encounter on this forum and elsewhere is that there are a lot of pseudo-science theories and claims that are all mixed together as "Creationist". So you can pick some especially wrong or misleading Creationist claim from some website or book, disprove it, and then claim that you've disproved Creationism.

However Creationism is not the bunch of theories that you can find promoted on websites like AiG. At first, Creationism is just the belief in some events that happened several thousand years ago. No more, no less. So it has little to do with physical science, but - if at all - more with historical science. Creationist claims are not falsifiable, and thus not scientific in the sense of a scientific theory.

"Creation science" is not Creationism, it is promotion of Creationism. Or rather, it is promotion of AiG or whatever website wants to sell books and DVDs about it. It's important to understand the difference.

This is, I think, both an honest and accurate assessment of the realm of creationism.

 

[NathanCGreen]

the claim that "mutation has not caused the addition of major new information" is not falsifiable, and hence not scientific. So I agree, that should be classified as faith.

What rubbish! The claim that "mutation has not caused the addition of information" IS falsifiable! All one needs to do is find an organism which has obtained new information (not a mere reshuffling) to its genome in respect of others of the same kind. Then the claim would be proven wrong. But that has not happened, and will never happen.

 

[ClearSky]

That's not what was meant here. Scientists can of course show you many examples for new information added to a genome by mutations, for instance to the human genome by the famous Milano mutation.

The point is not that there were no mechanism for adding new information to the genome. The point is that God did not use this mechanism. He created the genome directly. However you can not tell afterwards whether the information was added by mutation and selection, or if it was added by God. In that sense, the claim of a God-created genome is not falsifiable.

 

[anonymous1515]

That's not what was meant here. Scientists can of course show you many examples for new information added to a genome by mutations, for instance to the human genome by the famous Milano mutation.

The point is not that there were no mechanism for adding new information to the genome. The point is that God did not use this mechanism. He created the genome directly. However you can not tell afterwards whether the information was added by mutation and selection, or if it was added by God. In that sense, the claim of a God-created genome is not falsifiable.

That is true. If you begin the question with the assumption that God created a bunch of kinds, each with its own DNA, and that it was NOT the result of mutation, then it is NOT scientific. It just isn't.

We have observed mutation adding information to a genome. We have observed mutation adding useful information to a genome. A clonal culture of bactera was grown over 1000 generations, and monitored throughout. It turns out, the bacteria's DNA mutated, and the variation was then acted upon by natural selection. Even though the bacteria started out as clonal (no variation), it developed variation in its phenotype, and then responded to natural selection.

The point is, based on what we KNOW, evolution happens. It is fine to say "Ok, i see that evolution is happening today. I also see that the evidence for evolution from common descent is very very very strong. However, I am still going to believe the Genesis story to be literal." It is fine to say that, so long as you don't assert it is scientific.

 

[ptamper]

Scientists seldom disagree on the actual science. Just on things like how important it is or what should be done with the information.

You make excellent points and I cannot say that you are far from truth here.

What I would portray on this is that even things which it is said now are indisputable are not so clear cut. Lets say we take some science book and some biology book from today and we company with same from 500 years ago.

Yes, we would find much is very different. Yes even fundamental things like what makes up the body. What is light? What is the meaning of stars? You see. 500 year ago they were equally sure. The science guys at the time will have studied and tested and generally agreed that this is all true. And that what went before was not so true.

But things change. We can consider this. 500 years from today science guys will be looking at our present books and finding much of what is writtten to be different to what they believe. They will say things are wrong. Yes even fundamental errors.

You see science would like us to belive that it a jounrey up a straight and narrow path. The highter they go the clearer things become. The fog ligt. Until eventually they reach the ultimate truth.

Now I will say this is not true. The joureny of science is no different to religion. It is no straight path. IT is a walk through a forest which contans many pathways. Sometimes they go on the wrong. Sometimes they go backwards on themselves

Beleivers follows the light.

 

[anonymous1515]

The joureny of science is no different to religion.

I urge you to take a philosophy of religion class. And then take a philosophy of science class.

And then come back and redo your post.

 

[mark kennedy]

I urge you to take a philosophy of religion class. And then take a philosophy of science class.

And then come back and redo your post.

I took a philosophy of religion class and it turned out to be secular humanism. Finding a philosophy of science class would be difficult since scientists don't get into philosophy until late in their carriers.

Philosophy is fine when you define your central terms clearly and stick to you primary definitions. Evolutionists rarely do since the philosopher/ornithologist Ernst Mayr gave the scientific world the best definition to date for evolution and evolutionists abandon it as a matter of course. He said it was the 'change in the frequency of alleles in populations over time'. That is basically a variation of the gene which is often mistaken for a mutation.

My central point has been and remains that changes necessary for the evolution of the human brain from that of apes are not accounted for by mutations.

The 118-bp HAR1 region showed the most dramatically accelerated change (FDR-adjusted P , 0.0005), with an estimated 18 substitutions in the human lineage since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, compared with the expected 0.27 substitutions on the basis of the slow rate of change in this region in other amniotes (Supplementary Notes S3). Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken, indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago. No orthologue of HAR1 was detected in the frog (Xenopus tropicalis), any of the available fish genomes (zebrafish, Takifugu and Tetraodon), or in any invertebrate lineage, indicating that it originated no more than about 400Myr ago (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature Sept 14, 2006)​

So for 400 million years this crucial RNA regulatory gene remains unchanged and remains unchanged in Chimpanzees and chickens except for a couple of nucleotides. For the human brain to have evolved it would require 18 substitutions. One thing is crystal clear, random mutations are no explanation since the deleterious affects would be devastating. With a multiplicity of mutations you get into something called synergistic epistasis where the affects are multiplied.

Don't take my word for it, look at the comparison in section a. What you will find is that there are 18 substitutions required in the human version:

No demonstrated or directly observed mechanism in natural science exists for this. Yet, despite this fundamental problem evolutionists insist on exclusively naturalistic assumptions for human origins.

One thing is certain, random mutations are no explanation at all.

I have studied the philosophy of religion and the philosophy of science involved. Based on my reading of both the Christian philosophy (aka theology) and the philosophy of science that has come to be known as evolution I am convinced that the post your reply to the previous poster is superficial rhetoric and stands with no need for revision.

 

[ptamper]

I urge you to take a philosophy of religion class. And then take a philosophy of science class.

And then come back and redo your post.

I am grateful for this advice Anonymous. This is genuine. You are right of course. There are subject which I do not have the power to debate in such detailed and excellent way as guy like Mark Kennedy.

I do deal with the big picture- which brings good and bad. But I have a sense of some anger in your response. Can you point to certain areas which you think to have been badly thought. This would be a help to me.

I shall offer you another idea to explore this matter. Let us consider science knowledge of the bod.y

For much of human time it has been accepted in west that the body is made up of fourr things. These are types of bile, spit and blood. People ill had not balanced these well. So to to make somebody better doctor may cut them or force vomit to return balance.

Now this knowledge was not just picked from air. This was something based on what they say was fact. On cutting humans open and studying the insides. They knew of blies because they could be seen inside the body.

This was studied by the greatest science guys and put in books and taught in academise and passed onto future generationss.

It went from genertion to generation. More and more knowledge was discoverd. The thinking became more advanced as they leart more. Better ways of testing and blood letting was used. All the time the fog was clearing.

This is not just medieval time. THis is recent we are talk. If you showed doubt in this sceience belief you would be irrational. Ignorant of the facts. They would say If you would only take time to study the spit and the bile and blood you too would understnad why all this is true and based on fact.

Now today science looks at this belief. It is thought crazy. Not advanced.. They say all that knowledge was wrong. Today, of couse, we have the correct knowledge- they say to us.

So I propose again that there is great danger in holding science to be somthing more than just a set of belief.

 

[FallingWaters]

That is true. If you begin the question with the assumption that God created a bunch of kinds, each with its own DNA, and that it was NOT the result of mutation, then it is NOT scientific. It just isn't.

The only reason it's "not scientific" is because scientists don't believe it, not because it's not true.
The only thing that would be required for it to be scientific is for scientists to agree that it is true.
God did create all the kinds, each with their own DNA, right from the beginning.
The function mutation serves is to help preserve the species, not create new ones.

We have observed mutation adding information to a genome. We have observed mutation adding useful information to a genome. A clonal culture of bactera was grown over 1000 generations, and monitored throughout. It turns out, the bacteria's DNA mutated, and the variation was then acted upon by natural selection. Even though the bacteria started out as clonal (no variation), it developed variation in its phenotype, and then responded to natural selection.

"Virtually all observed mutations are in the category of loss of information. This is different from loss or gain of function."
Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?

The point is, based on what we KNOW, evolution happens. It is fine to say "Ok, i see that evolution is happening today. I also see that the evidence for evolution from common descent is very very very strong. However, I am still going to believe the Genesis story to be literal." It is fine to say that, so long as you don't assert it is scientific.

It is possible for all the scientists in the world to be wrong.

 

[anonymous1515]

Wow, 3 responses to my posts in a row! I must have said some controversial things. I'll try to address each of them as best I can, with the knowledge I have. Let's start with ptmaper's response:

I do deal with the big picture- which brings good and bad. But I have a sense of some anger in your response. Can you point to certain areas which you think to have been badly thought. This would be a help to me.

I am not angry with either you or your response. To me, it just sounded ill-conceived. You claimed that science is no different than a religion, which I would imagine implies that "since science is just another religion, you (scientists) cannot possibly assert it to be more correct than literal interpretation of scripture. As such, my belief in a literal account of Genesis is just as valid as your belief in evolution." Well, I agree that we both have the right to believe what we want. But I would argue that our beliefs are not equally valid.

There are many differences between science and religion - one of which is falsifiability. Scientific theories can be falsified (and yes, even evolution can be falsified!). That is the beauty of science. It is full of checks and balances. If I dream up a hypothesis, we can design a test to falsify it. Evolution is very easily falsifiable, yet nobody has been able to falsify it yet.

I shall offer you another idea to explore this matter. Let us consider science knowledge of the bod.y

For much of human time it has been accepted in west that the body is made up of fourr things. These are types of bile, spit and blood. People ill had not balanced these well. So to to make somebody better doctor may cut them or force vomit to return balance.

Now this knowledge was not just picked from air. This was something based on what they say was fact. On cutting humans open and studying the insides. They knew of blies because they could be seen inside the body.

This was studied by the greatest science guys and put in books and taught in academise and passed onto future generationss.

It went from genertion to generation. More and more knowledge was discoverd. The thinking became more advanced as they leart more. Better ways of testing and blood letting was used. All the time the fog was clearing.

This is not just medieval time. THis is recent we are talk. If you showed doubt in this sceience belief you would be irrational. Ignorant of the facts. They would say If you would only take time to study the spit and the bile and blood you too would understnad why all this is true and based on fact.

Now today science looks at this belief. It is thought crazy. Not advanced.. They say all that knowledge was wrong. Today, of couse, we have the correct knowledge- they say to us.

So I propose again that there is great danger in holding science to be somthing more than just a set of belief.

Well, I should start by saying that I am very familiar with the theory of the four "humors." They were blood, black bile, yellow bile, and phlegm. But, the fact that science changes over time is not one of its faults. Rather, it is one of it's beauties. Yes, scientists were wrong about the 4 humors. But the theory was falsified, and we have improved our scientific knowledge because of it. The fact that science is fluid and organic, rather than unchanging and rigid, is not a weakness. It is a strength; it is how science improves.

Religion, on the other hand, is rigid and inflexible. Scripture is not supposed to change over time. It is not allowed to adapt. Once the message of the prophet is recorded, it is set in stone. Interpretations of it may change, but the actual words do not. The fact that interpretations may change is not a weakness either. It just means that we are able to apply the scripture differently than we had previously (and it is equally plausible that Jesus originally intended us to do so).

Nobody has ever said that science should be static. If your teachers have said this, you are right to criticize them. Science is far from static; it is an ever changing enterprise.

 

[anonymous1515]

The only reason it's "not scientific" is because scientists don't believe it, not because it's not true.
The only thing that would be required for it to be scientific is for scientists to agree that it is true.

Well, maybe I should correct myself a little bit here. To claim that the earth was created 6000 years ago is not scientific. However, it can become a scientific hypothesis if we test it. Science begins with a question: is the Earth 6000 years old.

Hypothesis/prediction: if the Earth is 6000 years old, we should find no rocks or trees older than 6000 years.

Methods: go out and look for evidence that falsifies the prediction.

If you find rocks that are older than 6000 years, you have falsified your prediction. As such, the hypothesis is rejected. You see, it can become a scientific question. It is, however, unscientific to hold onto a rejected hypothesis despite its being falsified.

God did create all the kinds, each with their own DNA, right from the beginning.
The function mutation serves is to help preserve the species, not create new ones.
"Virtually all observed mutations are in the category of loss of information. This is different from loss or gain of function."
Are mutations part of the “engine” of evolution?

It is possible for all the scientists in the world to be wrong.

Yes, it is possible for all scientists to be wrong. However, it only makes sense to assume we are right about a theory until it is falsified. We have seen new species arise as a result of mutation and natural selection. I won't discuss mutation and natural selection with you right here, but if you would like we can start a new thread to discuss it perhaps? I would also urge you to look at some primary scientific literature on mutation and natural selection.

You may just stumble across something that changes your opinion.

 

[anonymous1515]

I took a philosophy of religion class and it turned out to be secular humanism. Finding a philosophy of science class would be difficult since scientists don't get into philosophy until late in their carriers.

Yeah, philosophy of religion was relatively secular. But if it wasn't approached in that manner, then it would just be church. I think it is wise that they show both atheistic and religious philosophical positions, rather than just one side of the coin.

Philosophy is fine when you define your central terms clearly and stick to you primary definitions. Evolutionists rarely do since the philosopher/ornithologist Ernst Mayr gave the scientific world the best definition to date for evolution and evolutionists abandon it as a matter of course. He said it was the 'change in the frequency of alleles in populations over time'. That is basically a variation of the gene which is often mistaken for a mutation.

Well, yes, alleles are variations in a given gene. A change in allele frequencies need not mean a change in allele frequencies that already exist though. For example, mutation can add a new allele into the population.

My central point has been and remains that changes necessary for the evolution of the human brain from that of apes are not accounted for by mutations.
So for 400 million years this crucial RNA regulatory gene remains unchanged and remains unchanged in Chimpanzees and chickens except for a couple of nucleotides. For the human brain to have evolved it would require 18 substitutions. One thing is crystal clear, random mutations are no explanation since the deleterious affects would be devastating. With a multiplicity of mutations you get into something called synergistic epistasis where the affects are multiplied.

Don't take my word for it, look at the comparison in section a. What you will find is that there are 18 substitutions required in the human version:

No demonstrated or directly observed mechanism in natural science exists for this. Yet, despite this fundamental problem evolutionists insist on exclusively naturalistic assumptions for human origins.

Well, the mechanism has been explained. Random mutation and natural selection are mechanisms. I am not very familiar with the transition between apes and humans, but I do have a few questions about this study (and you seem to by the guy to ask about it )

Has it been demonstrated conclusively that point mutations in any one of the 18 nucleotides involved in the change from chimps to humans would be fatal? For example, has it been demonstrated that you need to have all 18 nucleotides change at the same time for the human HAR1 gene to function? Or does it function equally or better when only one nucleotide changes at a time?

The excerpt from the paper you provided does not explain it. The fact that such a drastic change had to happen so quickly does not falsify evolution. It is conceivable that that mutation and natural selection could have worked to produce such a change. The onus is now on scientists (and creationists) to design a test to falsify that prediction. You have not provided enough information here to satisfactorily do so here. Maybe there are other papers that deal with that particular sequence?

But I do appreciate your post. It is very interesting, and quite fun to think about. Thanks.

By the way, if you think that this piece of evidence is enough to falsify evolution from common descent, then perhaps we should start a new thread to discuss it? Up to you.

 

[FallingWaters]

Well, maybe I should correct myself a little bit here. To claim that the earth was created 6000 years ago is not scientific. However, it can become a scientific hypothesis if we test it. Science begins with a question: is the Earth 6000 years old.

Hypothesis/prediction: if the Earth is 6000 years old, we should find no rocks or trees older than 6000 years.

Methods: go out and look for evidence that falsifies the prediction.

If you find rocks that are older than 6000 years, you have falsified your prediction. As such, the hypothesis is rejected. You see, it can become a scientific question. It is, however, unscientific to hold onto a rejected hypothesis despite its being falsified.
...

If you change the unprovable assumptions your dating method is based on, then you can arrive at an age in the thousands instead of millions or billions of years.

 

[anonymous1515]

If you change the unprovable assumptions your dating method is based on, then you can arrive at an age in the thousands instead of millions or billions of years.

I agree. So then we have to ask ourselves, what methods of dating make the most sense? Also, how many different ways can we date something, and how many of those methods of dating agree? Which ones are valid? Maybe there are instances where a method of dating is subject to variability, and if so, how much variability is plausible.

I am not a geologist, and I must admit I am relatively unfamiliar with the physics involved in dating. It seems to me that Creationists often assert that dating methods may have some error associated with them. They then claim that because there is a chance, however minute, that some of our dating methods may be wrong, the literal version of creation cannot be ruled out.

Well, this kind of logic, I would argue, is not scientific. If many, many dating methods suggest an old earth, and there is a 0.0001% chance that a few of them may have significant variability associated with them, I don't think that it makes sense scientifically to hold onto the notion of a 6000 year old earth.

Conversely, if the methods by which we date very old objects can be shown to be consistently variable, or that there are massive discrepancies in the estimated ages of objects, then I would argue that we should not discard the notion of a young earth (that is not synonymous with accepting it, mind you). Can it be demonstrated that our methods are consistently flawed, and consistently overestimate the date of objects? Almost all geologists would claim no.

 

[FallingWaters]

I don't care if what I believe is considered true by scientific community or not.

There are more and more Christians coming to the realization that all the chest-pounding of the current scientific community is nothing more than a promotion of what they want to believe and has no real evidence or proof that cannot be looked at from a Biblical assumption and brought to a Biblical conclusion.

 

[anonymous1515]

I don't care if what I believe is considered true by scientific community or not.

There are more and more Christians coming to the realization that all the chest-pounding of the current scientific community is nothing more than a promotion of what they want to believe and has no real evidence or proof that cannot be looked at from a Biblical assumption and brought to a Biblical conclusion.

Yes, but that is not scientific. If you want to ask about a scientific explanation, then fine. But if you are going to say "well, I accept that science indicates X, but I interpret the Bible to say Y, so I am going to stick with Y" then you have to realize that you are basing your claim on faith, not on science.

For example, some Christians believe that light coming from hundreds of thousands of light years away was put there by God to trick us into thinking that the Earth is old. Well, its fine if you believe that, but it isn't science. It is taking a Biblical assumption (i.e. Genesis is literal) and coming to a Biblical conclusion (i.e. despite evidence to the contrary, I believe that the light must have been placed there by God)

In any case, I'm sorry that you think so poorly of science and scientists. Scientists are not atheists all working with an agenda to refute the Bible. They use data they find, and come up for natural (I use the term natural to mean non-supernatural) explanations for why they happen. The 'chest-pounding' you seem to observe is just scientists trying to figure out why things work the way they do without invoking a supernatural reason (i.e. miracles). If you want to believe that something supernatural is at work, fine. Just don't call it science.

 

[FallingWaters]

...Just don't call it science.

I don't care about your little pet peeve.
It is science because it's genetics, physics, astronomy, geology, etc.
It is a discussion of science.

 

[anonymous1515]

I don't care about your little pet peeve.
It is science because it's genetics, physics, astronomy, geology, etc.
It is a discussion of science.

I suppose I'll let others with more patience than myself take over from here. Take care FallingWaters.

 

[IrishRockhound]

I don't care about your little pet peeve.
It is science because it's genetics, physics, astronomy, geology, etc.
It is a discussion of science.

From Wikipedia:

"Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge'), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research."

The restricted sense of the word is the one that scientists use. Again from Wikipedia:

"Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

Science is work or research done using the scientific method. In simpler terms, it can be thought of like so:

1. Begin with new hypothesis.

2. Formulate prediction based on hypothesis, i.e. if it is true, we should see [insert hypothetical supporting evidence].

3. Test hypothesis by looking for evidence.

4a. If evidence is supporting, return to step 2 and repeat.

4b. If evidence is contradictory, return to step 1 and repeat.

IRH

 

[Dannager]

If you change the unprovable assumptions your dating method is based on, then you can arrive at an age in the thousands instead of millions or billions of years.

FallingWaters, I'd love the opportunity to explain to you the reasons that our dating methods function the way they do. They are not guesses, and are actually calibrated against known factors in order to be reliable. There is no way that they can be calibrated in an intellectually honest fashion and give you ages in the thousands. Again, if you'd like to discuss this in an area where such discussion is allowed, I'd be more than happy to participate.