Different kinds of gaps

[Vanengelen (Erik van Engelen)]

@mitchellmckain

It is insane for anyone to use a nuclear bomb to kill a fly. It is not about effort but about consistency and rationality – it is about reality.

In the same sense, it is insane for anyone to use a super nova to create the few C-atoms that enable life on our small speck of dust?

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

Total complete nonsense. Fusion and nucleosynthesis takes enormous energy and pressure. Killing flies does not.

Your earlier response was basically saying maybe God just likes to kill flies with nuclear bombs. That sounds more like a devil who just likes massive death and destruction. Like I said before, I believe in a God who is consistent and rational, doing things because that is what it takes and not because of childish whims. It is religious people who employ such childish whims to serve their own self-important childish interests.

[Vanengelen (Erik van Engelen)]

@rsewell

Science can accomplish a lot, but it is not obliged to apologize for the inability to travel back in time. Behe has turned that into a poster child for ID, presenting limitations of current understanding as a limitation of nature itself. But “we are not certain” is not the same as “it is impossible that bacteria figured out how to get around on their own”.

Yes, surely, this is true. However. Experiments with bacteria show that although there is lots of change in genomic information over time, there is no originating of new complex structures. And nobody expect this either.

[T_aquaticus]

@heymike3

Picking up from the article you sent me, I find this to be a poor characterization of the approach the theistic evolutionist takes.

It is meant to be a characterization of the ID/creationist approach.

[T_aquaticus]

@Leyton

Ultimately, the differences in embryonic development are due to differences in DNA, measurable as differences in nucleotide sequences. If vertebrates have evolved from a common ancestor, then evolutionary mechanisms need to be a credible explanation for how these differences arose.

Thus far, you have only mentioned differences with respect to morphology.

@Leyton

Yes, but progress through neutral drift would be even more difficult than the example I gave. If there is no selective advantage, then the chance of being fixed falls to 1/2N (where N is the effective population size) so is much less than eg the 2% for a variation with a selective advantage of 1%.

You need to factor in the number of neutral mutations that occur within a population. The overall rate of fixation for neutral mutations is about the mutation rate, so 50-100 neutral mutations will fix in the human population per 25 years.

@Leyton

My example was of selection for a specific phenotype (having resistance to the presence of a pesticide / antibiotic).

@Leyton

In typical insect and bacterial populations, most if not all possible nucleotide changes will arise in most generations. But in every case they result in a decrease in fitness, except when an insecticide / antibiotic is present; in which case, if the nucleotide change confers resistance, then it will have increased fitness relative to its neighbours while the insecticide / antibiotic is present. Organisms with resistance invariably are less fit than the normal (wild type) which is why, in my previous post, I included the continued presence of the pesticide / antibiotic while the resistant form is spreading through the population.

That really doesn’t address the issue at hand. The problem is the Sharpshooter fallacy. If there are many, many combinations of 2-4 mutations that can produce a beneficial phenotype then it isn’t surprising that we see them evolve, especially if those mutations are beneficial on their own. There are also tons of neutral mutations at different frequencies in any given population, some of which may have reached fixation 10’s of millions of years ago.

@Leyton

Not quite, in the example I gave it would still be only about 73%; but let’s suppose the mutation conferred an increase in fitness of about 4% so that there was approx. 99% chance of fixation with 50 attempts. You have to wait 50 times as long for the mutation(s) to arise that many times.

Why? With a large enough population you can have a mutation at every available base in a single generation. If we limit our search to the human diploid genome, we would need about 180 to 360 million births to get all three possible mutations at a given base (mutation rate of 50 to 100 mutations per person per generation).

I also find it extremely unlikely that there’s only one possible beneficial mutation in any given genome. It is very likely that beneficial mutations are occurring throughout the genome in different individuals which means that they will be increasing in frequency alongside each other.

@Leyton

You are completely ignoring that, when a mutation arises, unless it confers an advantage, it will just mutate to something else. Even if, combined with other mutations that may occur in the future, it could contribute to a substantial change.

The chances of two mutations happening at the same base and moving towards fixation in a relatively short period of time is very unlikely.

@Leyton

Not at all. As indicated above, I assume that mutations will occur throughout the genome. But unless they confer a benefit, they will be lost / randomised.

That would be a bad assumption.

[T_aquaticus]

@Vanengelen

Experiments with bacteria show that although there is lots of change in genomic information over time, there is no originating of new complex structures.

That would depend on how you define “new complex structures”. That also seems to be a subjective opinion.

[heymike3]

I’m having a hard time distinguishing theistic evolution from providential evolution which would be teleological by definition.

Also, I would seriously question, like call out as a double agent, theistic evolutionists who believe knowledge of the infinite, that is creatures who bear the image of God, are an accident in the world.

[Daniel_Fisher]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

Abiogenesis isn’t part of evolutionary theory. And while I hear that strides are being made toward plausible explanaitons of the beginnings of life, it also remains true right now that it is still more of a frontier with many more unknowns in it. Biological evolution, on the other hand, is much more established by now. Not that it doesn’t have plenty of unknowns still ripe for exploration and further discovery too - but the presence of mysteries yet to be solved doesn’t change the fact that no other explanation of how former life gave rise to the present diversity of life - no other explanation comes even close to explaining all of the data that evolutionary theory makes sense of.

well, maybe more accurate if you said…

no other explanation [that a priori excludes God or any other form of intelligent agency from consideration] comes even close to explaining all of the data that evolutionary theory makes sense of?

[Daniel_Fisher]

@Leyton

As I’ve written elsewhere (not on BioLogos), I’ve been a Christian since childhood, and pursued science at school, and accepted evolution; you could say I was a theistic evolutionist, although I didn’t know the term then. It was studying science at university, especially biochemistry, that prompted me to question evolution (even though it was of course the given behind all of the biological subjects). If I thought evolution were sound as a scientific theory I would happily revert to being a theistic evolutionist.

This is intriguing to me, as you’re one of the few people i’ve run into that had a similar experience to mine… In my case, i was similarly a Christian, learned evolution as a child and never really considered them in conflict, when i began my biochemistry undergrad studies began to see the extreme implausibility of the theory in practical out working and professors couldn’t even begin to answer my specific doubts and questions.

Would you mind sharing more specifically or in more detail (or point me to where you’ve already posted): exactly what it was that you studied during your university time that planted doubts in your mind about the scientific plausibility of the theory?

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Daniel_Fisher

no other explanation [ that a priori excludes God or any other form of intelligent agency from consideration ] comes even close to explaining all of the data that evolutionary theory makes sense of?

No it doesn’t. Exclude what there is no warrant for including.

[Daniel_Fisher]

@Klax

@Daniel_Fisher

no other explanation [ that a priori excludes God or any other form of intelligent agency from consideration ] comes even close to explaining all of the data that evolutionary theory makes sense of?

No it doesn’t. Exclude what there is no warrant for including.

A priori. precisely.

[T_aquaticus]

@heymike3

I’m having a hard time distinguishing theistic evolution from providential evolution which would be teleological by definition.

From what I understand, theistic evolution would be indistinguishable from natural processes while ID/Creationism would be distinguishable from natural processes.

To use an analogy, theistic evolution would be a vintner having good weather a good harvest of grapes to make wine with. ID/Creationism would be Jesus turning water into wine.

[T_aquaticus]

@Daniel_Fisher

well, maybe more accurate if you said…

no other explanation [ that a priori excludes God or any other form of intelligent agency from consideration ] comes even close to explaining all of the data that evolutionary theory makes sense of?

You can include God and intelligent agency.

These are the types of data you would need to explain:

1. The twin nested hierarchy of morphology and DNA sequence
2. The pattern of transition and transversion mutations when comparing genomes. See here: Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - BioLogos
3. Why exons have more conserved sequence than introns when comparing genomes between species
4. The pattern of orthologous and non-orthologous endogenous retroviruses
5. The pattern of transitional fossils, why they follow the same nested hierarchy as living species
6. Genetic equidistance

Those are just a few off the top of my head.

[Daniel_Fisher]

@T_aquaticus

@heymike3

I’m having a hard time distinguishing theistic evolution from providential evolution which would be teleological by definition.

From what I understand, theistic evolution would be indistinguishable from natural processes while ID/Creationism would be distinguishable from natural processes.

To use an analogy, theistic evolution would be a vintner having good weather a good harvest of grapes to make wine with. ID/Creationism would be Jesus turning water into wine.

Agree, and good analogy… i’d only clarify that the term “theistic evolution” has, ahem, evolved over the years… some generations ago, “theistic evolutionist” would have been applied to folks like Behe, who embrace the overall process of evolution, but who believed that certain steps in the process were unachievable by natural (undirected/unguided) means, and which required God’s direct intervention… limited interventions that, in principle, would be distinguishable from natural processes.

But nowadays, you are quite correct; current usage is that theistic evolution is God working through natural means that are completely undetectable, or indistinguishable from blind, unguided/natural causes… and ID is applied even to those generally evolution-affirming folks like Behe that yet believe that certain aspects of the evolutionary process are better explained by direct intelligent guidance than by natural processes.

[T_aquaticus]

@Daniel_Fisher

some generations ago, “theistic evolutionist” would have been applied to folks like Behe, who embrace the overall process of evolution, but who believed that certain steps in the process were unachievable by natural (undirected/unguided) means, and which required God’s direct intervention… limited interventions that, in principle, would be distinguishable from natural processes.

Perhaps. This may be why some people at BioLogos have called themselves Evolutionary Creationists in order to better define where they stand.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Daniel_Fisher

@Klax

@Daniel_Fisher

no other explanation [ that a priori excludes God or any other form of intelligent agency from consideration ] comes even close to explaining all of the data that evolutionary theory makes sense of?

No it doesn’t. Exclude what there is no warrant for including.

A priori. precisely.

Nonsense. Precisely. If there were scientific evidence of or warrant for divine intervention it would have to be included by any and every professionally rational person.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

In a very strange field. Where God created nature as if They didn’t but there was still some warrant, apart from the claim of incarnation, that They did.

[heymike3]

@T_aquaticus

from natural processes

Mutations that are triggered by SEUs would raise the question I commonly think about: From nothing, an infinite regress, or an unobservable first cause?

[beaglelady]

@heymike3

This feels like up is down, and down up.

Please explain

[T_aquaticus]

@heymike3

Mutations that are triggered by SEUs would raise the question I commonly think about: From nothing, an infinite regress, or an unobservable first cause?

What wouldn’t raise that question? Are you going to repeat this same stuff no matter what people post?