Francis Collins Interviewed in National Geographic, Social Media Reacts | The BioLogos Forum

Faith & Science Conversation
22

Interesting Lou how we all like to put the burden of proof on the other guy. … so I’m thinking, is that fair, that a theory is valid unless it is disproven? Or is it required to be proven to be valid? It seems to me that evolution ought to be proven. In other words, if there was no evolution, could we still see what we see today? In other words, how is evolution more valid than the sudden appearance of species or kinds, through some undetermined mechanism.

…the raw material on which natural selection acts is random copying errors (mutations). If evolution by goo-to-you were true, we should expect to find countless information-adding mutations. But we have not even found one indisputable example.
It is misleading to claim that evolution does not depend on chance but instead it relies on ‘non-random’ natural selection. This ignores the fact that natural selection cannot explain the origin of complex, self-reproducing life forms—and evolutionists have no way to explain this essential step in the evolution of life.
Incidentally, it’s important to note that a non-complex life form is an impossibility, since it needs to have the ability to reproduce. Even the simplest known true self-reproducing organism, Mycoplasma genitalium (a parasitic bacterium, discussed in chapter 4), has 482 genes with 580,000 ‘letters’ (base pairs). But even this appears not to be enough to sustain itself without parasitizing an even more complex organism. Most likely, as discussed, the parasitism resulted from loss of some of the genetic information required to make some essential nutrients.6 Therefore, a hypothetical first cell that could sustain itself would have to be even more complex. (Jonathan Sarfati and Michael Matthews, Refuting Evolution 2)

23

Brad, thanks for the helpful clarification. As far as evolution is concerned, then, we don’t disagree.

24

John, I think the burden of proof lies with the person who makes a claim that explicitly invokes miracles (this is not an a priori prejudice against miracles, we just don’t have good evidence that miracles happen).

I’ve agreed that we don’t know how life started. However, the statements in your quoted source are not necessarily true, as they assume that early forms of life had to be very similar to those of today. That was probably not the case.

When a source uses standard creationist phrases like “evolution by goo-to-you”, it suggests the source denies even common descent. So does your own phraseology. Is that the case? That kind of denial is not evidence-based, and if that is your position, I suggest you read the many excellent posts on BioLogos by Dennis Venema to explore the issue for yourself. You’ll discover that the concordance of fossil evidence, genetic evidence, karyotypic evidence, and biogeographical evidence conclusively prove common descent of at least the vertebrates.

25

No, Lou, the point is not whether I can prove another process, but whether the hypothesis fits the facts. Of course yes, if I propose another theory, I should be able to demonstrate that the observable facts fit the theory. But the issue here is whether there is sufficient evidence for evolution from observable facts, based on the premise of the theory. The theory postulates random mutations, not directed mutations. Therefore it should fit the probability test for all the necessary mutations to occur, and to occur in a fashion that allows them to be selected. It needs to account for formation of new organs and appendages (gain of genetic information) within this process, as well as formation of genetic processes themself, and then all the way to the diversity of orders, genera and species. I think the formation of new species might not be so difficult, since new organs and appendages are not being formed in that process. But beyond that there is some mighty complex changes that have to occur, requiring a great multiplicity of genetic combination and formation. The simple probability of individual mutations will not suffice, because one mutation at a time cannot be selected for, and there are multitudinous more deleterious mutations than beneficial ones. So I would argue on that basis that evolution would have to be a miracle for it to work, (so you are actually the one arguing for a miracle) unless you can demonstrate by scientific/mathematical principles that it is perfectly reasonable for evolution to have created everything without any discernible outside direction.

If it is so highly improbable, yet it happened, it begins to sound like the gambler who draws four aces ten times in a row; this does not sound random…

Strange you didn’t mention anything about the requirement for basic life that was referred to; minimum useful genome for life would be 482 genes with 580,000 base pairs, and probably larger. Without evidence for any other kind of life with a smaller genome, and without even a reasonable hypothesis for such life, it seems you are operating on faith, or trying to turn pyrite into gold? Or do you have an alternative explanation for minimum genome size?

I know many people believe that various types of evidence conclusively prove common descent. It proves it to them. But for many others, the objections must be met. If someone says that gravity does not work because some objects are carried upward, an explanation can be provided about wind carrying things upward. This can be demonstrated. The same principle applies to objections to certain aspects of evolutionary theory (and for it to work, every step and every aspect must work in synchronized concert).

At the risk of putting too much into one post, I also want to challenge Brad a bit. How do you distinguish your statement from the dualism of nature - spirit? You say that God had no influence in any discernible way on the process of creation, yet you believe God is involved, but you have no evidence. So you are basing God’s involvement strictly on faith? God is somehow spiritually involved, but not materially. You believe God created and maintains and upholds but do not let it influence your historical science? Are you certain then that God did create, and that the universe did not exist eternally? But you are also calling everything in nature a miracle because God did it… so then creation itself is a miracle… but Lou says the burden of proof is on you to invoke the miracle. Well, I am getting a bit confused certainly.

26

@johnZ So evolution, as BioLogos sees it, can NOT be a directed process?

Its interesting that you see evolution as…

My reading for the last month or so as indicated that there is potentially so much more going on in our DNA than makes sense through truly random mutation. Bear with me here as I only have a very base knowledge that these ideas exist. I could very well misrepresent them. However, Convergence Theory, Epigenetics, Evo Devo (??) and even embryonic development all appear to posit restrictions and constraints on the evolutionary process. For example, while we tend to focus on DNA similarities between species, identical strands of DNA can function in entirely different ways. I find that fascinating. While I’m not sure that any of the aforementioned theories PROVE design or miracles, they certainly expand the narrative from random process to something much much bigger. All of which, I think, speak to your last sentence.

My apologies to all the geneticists, biologists, and actual scientists out there if I’ve butchered, misrepresented, or otherwise misused your life’s work. :slight_smile: PLEASE, step in and correct me.

Jim

27

Jim, one of your comments reminded me of something, re a strand of dna can function in different ways. My understanding is that a strand of dna often has multiple functions, apparently up to three different impacts. This complicates dna mutation since to be beneficial, or to carry out the change, so many things are impacted at once, and so much exact change in dna is required in order for anything new to survive without destroying the old before the new comes to be. The interesting thing is not only do you need DNA to direct outward processes, you also need dna to replicate itself, and you need the processes which dna directs in order to provide energy and material for the dna to replicate. Fascinating.

And certainly I think that evolution can be a directed process, which would be a reasonable assumption if the probability for successful randomness were extremely low. Like we would assume something other than pure randomness for a gambler drawing four aces ten times in a row. That doesn’t mean that I think evolution is conclusive, just that if it happened, it would have had to be directed, under normal scientific deductions.

1 Like
28

“No, Lou, the point is not whether I can prove another process, but whether the hypothesis fits the facts.”

I didn’t ask you to prove another process. I didn’t even discuss processes. No use talking about processes until we agree about what the process has to explain. So the first step in any discussion about this is to agree on the thing that needs explanation. It is the consensus of virtually all serious workers, including every scientist who writes for BioLogos, that common descent of at least the vertebrates is a well documented fact. If you don’t believe something as well documented as that, this tells me you are not looking objectively at the evidence.

As for your claims about probability, these have been debunked many times. For example, the genetic difference between chimps and humans is consistent with observed mutation and insertion rates and the geologically-estimated divergence time of our common ancestor.

“Strange you didn’t mention anything about the requirement for basic life that was referred to”

I said “the statements in your quoted source are not necessarily true, as they
assume that early forms of life had to be very similar to those of
today. That was probably not the case.” I stand by that.

Let me know if you agree about common descent of at least the vertebrates. If not, I will bow out of the discussion. Time is too precious.

29

Lou, do the statements about minimum genome size for life depend on assuming that early forms of life had to be similar to today? Can you demonstrate or even hypothesize scientifically of a form of life that was different than what we know today, that could potentially have evolved into the life forms that we do know today? I mean you can have faith that such life forms existed, but are you operating with evidence, or just on blind faith?

Looking at geologic divergence times and then correlating to mutation and insertion rates is not considering whether this is happening through sheer random chance in the normal part of the probability curve, or whether it happened on the edge of impossibility, ie. the probability was infinitesimal (but apparently happened anyway)…

30

“Lou, do the statements about minimum genome size for life depend on
assuming that early forms of life had to be similar to today?”

(edited to fix blockquote error)
Yes, I think those calculations had to have a quite detailed model in mind, otherwise such calculations couldn’t be done. No scientist claims to know how it started. I have no idea how it started either. Neither do you. We are even, unless you (unlike me) do claim to know how it started.

I’m sorry but your second paragraph is word salad to me. We know the mutation rate from observation. With this data we can roughly predict the number of mutations per gene that would be expected in the time since our divergence from the chimp lineage. The number roughly matches what we observe. Slight variations from this prediction would be expected because some mutations would be subject to natural selection, but the observed and expected numbers are close enough that no extra force needs to be invoked. Furthermore, the lineages leading to other animals and the lineage leading to humans have similar ranges of rates of genetic change; one might expect that if humans were the intended outcome of evolution, then lineages branching off from the human lineage would show slower rates of change. But human evolution does not appear to be exceptionally fast.

I asked you whether you deny common descent of vertebrates. Do you?

31

The minimum genome size of 482 genes with 580,000 base pairs is based upon a somewhat self-sustaining life entitity, which in fact still depends on other life for nutrient supply. So it is very generous, and speculates that perhaps there is an unknown way such an organism could exist without other life, which it actually cannot do. Obviously, this is the conclusion based on all the evidence, not based on speculation or faith. This means there is more evidence for the improbability than there is for the possibility of life forming on its own. We are not “even” if the other side postulates that God created orginal life by means that did not require an unlikely process. There is more evidence for that kind of faith than the faith you are exhibiting in spontaneous biogeneration, isn’t there?

32

Obviously the first life couldn’t have depended on other life; these calculations are not “generous”. They were made under very specific assumptions; the correct conclusion is that the assumptions are most likely wrong. But YOUR explanation does require an explicit miracle. But again, neither of us can claim to know how it started, and in this sense we should be even, except that you do seem to claim that you know how it started.

For the third time, can you please tell me whether you deny the evidence for common descent of the verterates, including man?

33

Do I deny evidence for common descent? That is a good question. I would never deny evidence. But who dropped the smoking gun? Is it the same person who pulled the trigger?

Your speculation, Lou, that " the correct conclusion is that the assumptions are most likely wrong. " needs to have some evidence attached to it. Otherwise it goes contrary to the existing evidence. Do you deny that the existing evidence demonstrates that these are the conditions for elementary life? These are not mathematical calculations per se. They are basic bio-chemical requirements and the necessity for genetic conditions to operate these processes. To say that the assumptions are most likely wrong, is an unscientific statement without evidence. Especially without even a hypothetical theory that could provide an alternate pathway for basic self-reproducing life.

The claim that this minimum genome is considered generous towards evolution is because the minimum genome for basic life without any association or dependancy on another life form is estimated to be much larger.

34

Thanks for sort of answering my question. I’m not sure what to make of your answer, but that’s my own fault for writing my question ambiguously. How about this less ambiguous version–do you believe that all vertebrates (including man) descended from a common ancestor? That’s a simple yes/no/maybe question.

Regarding the complexity statement you refer to, this is a version of the often-refuted “tornado in a junkyard” argument for the origin of life. Everyone agrees with you that it is impossible for even the simplest of today’s cells to arise suddenly out of a non-living environment. But even the simplest organism today is the product of billions of years of evolution. We can’t just ignore that little fact. So again, we don’t know enough about what the first cell was like to make statements about its minimal complexity. And the first cell also probably isn’t the start of the story. We don’t know.

If you did want to use those numbers about current cellular complexity to come up with an estimate of the complexity of the first cellular life, maybe it would be possible to see how cellular or genetic complexity increases over the last couple of hundred million years, and then extrapolate that rate backwards a few billion years. But we know enough now to be able to do that.

35

We don’t know. We don’t know. But we believe. That is what you are saying, Lou. Just as long as you know what you are actually saying… The reality is that you don’t know whether the simplest organism today is the product of billions of years of evolution. You merely believe it. You call it a fact, when you don’t know. (and you said you don’t know). How can you do that??

In the original cell, we are not talking about complexity. We are talking about necessary conditions for life. Life means it must reproduce and self-replicate; otherwise it is dead, not alive. It must be able to grow, to sustain chemical reactions, etc. Proteins and amino acids cannot exist on their own; cannot self-replicate. They are merely building blocks, but essential building blocks and components for life. Viruses cannot exist on their own; they are dependant on existing life. We know of thousands, millions of different types of cells, which use different foodstuffs, and grow in different conditions. Anoxic, anaerobic, reducing, oxidizing, etc. Corrosion of metal is caused by microbes. Almost every chemical reaction on earth depends on microbes or plants. Yet they do not have smaller genomes. In fact, smaller organisms sometimes have larger genomes. Some amoebas have a genome that is 100 times larger than the human genome. Therefore it would not be illogical on that basis to suppose that the amoeba evolved from human beings… except we would not believe it.

You are pretty hung-up on whether I believe that all vertebrates descended from a common ancestor. Why is this so important to you? Does it change the validity of any of the real scientific points that are made? Does it change your bias?

In any case, I have already said elsewhere that I am unlikely to accept macro-evolution. The evidence of some similarities does not lead to a necessary conclusion for descending from one species to another species, not even if those species are all vertebrates. I do not find placement in the geologic column conclusive, although I can understand why evolutionists believe in their interpretation. There are many many fossils, but comparatively few intermediates between species. It is not conclusive that what are called intermediates or transitionals are not simply different types, or off-types, or in some cases merely variations within species. (You must also be aware that creationists definition of “kinds” varies from present definitions of species, which sometimes change as more knowledge becomes available.)

But I don’t think it is possible to argue on the basis of broad generalities such as a belief or non-belief. Scientifically, each required transition from one species to another would have to stand on its own. You cannot argue that if species a transitioned to species b, that therefore species f must have transitioned to species g or h. Nor can you argue that evolution is possible; therefore it happened. Even if it was possible, it may still have not happened, or it might only be responsible for half of the observed facts. Besides, undirected evolution as a system or process does not appear within the normal range of scientific possibility to be the cause of all life as we see it.

The appearance of a fossil that appears to have transitional traits in a geological layer where it is predicted is interesting. But it does not prove much, even if it is consistent with evolution. Creation theory would predict that you will find “new” extinct species anywhere in the fossil record, some of which will have unique characteristics not seen before, some of the characteristics partly resembling various other species.

You can extrapolate a mutation rate backwards. What you really need to do, however, is demonstrate that during this backwards extrapolation, actual viable intermediates could and did actually survive.