Ann Gauger's latest salvo against Dennis Venema's arguments against an original pair of human beings

Andreas Wagner, in many papers on enzyme function, gene networks, and metabolic pathways, has found that there are many pathways leading to the same very robust features. His book Arrival of the Fittest summarizes many of these findings. His results are consistent with the known fact that many deletion mutants have no phenotype, and with the preponderance of degenerate pathways in cell physiology. So I don’t think the idea of “many ways things can happen” is a faith statement. I think it is rapidly becoming an important part of evolutionary theory. I am not disputing your results on ancestral reconstruction, but pointing out that other approaches give very different answers to the issue of robustness in biology.

3 Likes

Thanks for your comment. I have been intending to read that book for some time but Doug Axe “borrowed” it. I will try to make it a priority. But I am not sure how data about the robustness of pathways to gene deletion addresses the problem of getting new enzymes.

1 Like

Dr. Gauger,

You seem to be assuming that the pathway from A to B was the only way forward for evolution. Since that pathway was so improbable from a statistical viewpoint, according to your reasoning, traversing the path must have required intervention (i.e., intelligent design) from outside the system under consideration.

What I want to know is: what is the foundation for your assumption that the only evolutionary path available from A was to B? Is it possible that pathways were also available to M, Q, W, and on beyond Zebra, even if they were not taken?

Thanks,
Chris Falter

2 Likes

D[quote=“Chris_Falter, post:108, topic:36790”]
You seem to be assuming that the pathway from A to B was the only way forward for evolution. Since that pathway was so improbable from a statistical viewpoint, according to your reasoning, traversing the path must have required intervention (i.e., intelligent design) from outside the system under consideration.
[/quote]
What you ask is at the heart of the problem. And we don’t know how flexible evolution is or how many palthways are available as a solution. I see your idea used in many answers to questions and challenges, but I haven’t seen any justification for it . Perhaps Andrea Wagner’s book will provide that.

1 Like

I very much appreciate your response about the protein fold paper. As the moderator stated earlier, it is a rabbit trail that would pull the thread off topic so I will gladly let you have the last word.

Your email would hold way more weight than mine would, so if you find the time I would really appreciate it if you would bring it to their attention. All one has to do is look at the number of ERVs in the human genome paper and the lineage specific ERVs in the chimp genome paper to get accurate numbers. Also, there were no PtERV1 insertions that violated a nested hierarchy in the Yohn et al. (2005) paper, even though the author of the ENV article claims there were. I would also suggest that you read the Yohn paper and the ENV article and decide for yourself if an honest person would portray the Yohn paper in that manner.

1 Like

I take it from your post that you would like Science to have the preferred place, the authority to judge in all matters. Unfortunately, due to human nature, this is not always wise. And especially in regard sacred texts that have been held for thousands of years, as you say, we should be reluctant to jettison them until we are sure Science is right. That means that Science has to be scrutinized very carefully by people who oppose its position on that particular point. That’s what we’re doing.
I know this is mainly an evangelical group, but I’m going to add in some words of Pope John Paul II. In his speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences he said that evolution was more than a hypothesis, meaning that evolution as a theory should be taken seriously. But he went on to say that qualified people including scientists philosophers and theologians should sit down together and discuss this matter, because it was of prime importance. He did not say let the scientists decide.

But is he really saying that science should have the authority to judge in all matters? [quote=“agauger, post:111, topic:36790”]

And especially in regard sacred texts that have been held for thousands of years, as you say, we should be reluctant to jettison them until we are sure Science is right.
[/quote]

And who is saying we should jettison sacred texts?

Hi Dr. Gauger,

I am not a professional biologist, but as a reader of biology papers and blog posts, I have come across many examples of flexible pathways. Here are a few examples:

Food for thought.

Grace and peace,
Chris Falter

I think a much more profound question is -
“If Science ruled out God, would it make a difference?”

They should be grateful God doesn’t rule out science.

What say you?

How would scientists – that are confined to God’s laws – ever use those laws to “rule out” something transcendent to them?

Who is “they”? Why would God, who created humanity in His image, require that His image-bearers stop studying His creative work?

3 Likes

@agauger,

So, let’s assume that we were even willing to " let the Theologians decide." Is there some position that Evangelical theologians have not yet accepted that you wish they would accept?

1 Like

I remember that Karl Giberson, a Christian and a scientist (and a past contributor to BioLogos) said that only nature gets to vote!

1 Like

The pope did not say let the theologians decide either; he said that men of learning should talk to one another.
He also said that when our scriptural hermeneutics were properly understood, as well as our scientific results, the problem would resolve. It is in the free dialogue of members of all academies, that the truth will be discerned. And we have neither perfect understanding of Scripture or evolutionary science .
It is my firm belief that there is truth to be discerned concerning our origins that will be reconciling both science and theology and scripture. We just aren’t there yet.

With a little humility on both sides perhaps we can come to understand that we don’t yet have the truth and we can agree that there is more to be done.
Nature it doesn’t Vote. It is the people who interpret what they see that vote, and interpretations can be in error.

5 Likes

Why do you find my attempts to clarify or disprove the standard model so, may I say, threatening? It’s my time to waste or to put to good use.
Despite what you may think, I am trying to use the scientific method to ask an important question, is the current scientific model correct or not? And the model is based on many assumptions which need to be tested.
Now I am going to have to sign off for a while. I won’t answer any questions for the next few days. It’s been good talking to you. I hope there has been more light than heat exchanged.

He didn’t mean that Nature literally votes. I think he meant that we explain natural phenomena by studying nature. This means research. Yes, interpretation can be in error, but evidence-based science is self-correcting.

1 Like

You just responded to yourself. Probably not what you intended to do.

Your email would hold way more weight than mine would, so if you find the time I would really appreciate it if you would bring it to their attention. All one has to do is look at the number of ERVs in the human genome paper and the lineage specific ERVs in the chimp genome paper to get accurate numbers. Also, there were no PtERV1 insertions that violated a nested hierarchy in the Yohn et al. (2005) paper, even though the author of the ENV article claims there were. I would also suggest that you read the Yohn paper and the ENV article and decide for yourself if an honest person would portray the Yohn paper in that manner.

I will do this. Thanks.

1 Like

@Theo_Book
Good question. I don’t believe that science could actually rule out God. Jettison was the wrong word for most people. But some would want to.

@Chris_Fuller,
Thanks, I’ll look at these.

2 Likes

If you would answer my question in the form I ask it… maybe we would all make more progress. Let me ask it again:

@agauger,

Let’s assume that we were even willing to " let the Theologians decide." Is there some position that Evangelical theologians have not yet accepted that you wish they would accept?