We have genes for feather development? Really? Do you have any references for that? (Getting our feathers ruffled was never meant to be taken literally.)
1 Like
Hello, @dcscccc I hope you are abiding in Godâs grace today.
You are asserting that neutral mutations are fixed, which AFAIK is a big error. Did you read the paper by Nelson that Swamidass linked to? Nelson explains the neutral theory in reader-friendly terms.
And you are basing this assertion on what published research, dcs? Have you performed biology experiments on the functionality of VITG1?
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of homologous proteins, d. But if you would provide a little more detail and a link or two, we might be able to understand the point you are trying to make. As it stands, Iâm not sure what youâre referring to here.
Weâve been on this merry-go-round many times, d. Many people, in many threads, have explained to you the stochastic qualities of genomic variation across species. To give just a couple of explanations that are consistent with common descent:
- The in-between species could have experienced a mutation that the farther ones did not.
- Incomplete lineage sorting could have occurred.
D, your assertion does not make a bit of sense to me. Perhaps you could try to explain with a little more detail.
Paging @Swamidass to present some examples. I do know that we have seen citrate metabolism evolve in E. Coli.
1 Like
So @dscccc,
I can only explain to you how mainstream science interprets this data. Under these rules, the data is very clear. I understand you look at data differently. That is great. It does not really matter if we come to the same conclusion here.
Moreover, you do not seem to read the papers you quote, nor do you seem to read the links I sent you. You also did not comment on the original reason for the answer, to explain the mathematical basis for evolution. Iâve also already stated that the signals are much clearer in recent evolution (e.g. human-chimp) than ancient evolution (e.g. the paper you quote). Nor are you presenting an alternate mathematical framework to make sense of the data. Remarkably, you admit you cannot understand the experimental validation of evolution I have given (which is okay), and then claim again that evolution is not experimentally validated (which begs the question).
All this makes it difficult to continue the scientific conversation. You just do science different than us.
The fact still remains, under the rules of mainstream science, the evidence for common descent, especially in closely related cases (like humans and chimps) is very strong. So strong that scientists are passed the point of constantly wondering if common descent is true. It was also enough to convince me that evolution is a good scientific description of our world.
I understand that you approach the data differently. That is great. Hopefully it gets you somewhere meaningful.
I also sense that you are very opposed to common descent. Science aside, can you tell us a bit more about why you reject it?
1 Like
Hi George,
I just saw this review of Ben MacFarlandâs âA World from Dust,â and thought you would be interested. MacFarland, a Ph.D chemist, argues that 12 chemistry principles strongly constrain/direct the process of evolution. I havenât read the book yet, so I donât know what those 12 principles are. But it seems quite interesting to me.
beaglelady, here is the paper:
so according to evolutionery logic we need to conclude that human evolved from bird. interesting. isnt it?
so all those arguments actually base on the belief that the consensus is right. sorry dr joshua, but it isnt a scientific argument but a logical fallacy called "argument from authority ":
.[quote=âSwamidass, post:523, topic:4944â]
Remarkably, you admit you cannot understand the experimental validation of evolution I have given (which is okay), and then claim again that evolution is not experimentally validated
[/quote]
if you called a variation evolution- ok. but it isnt evolution in terms of new family or complex biological systems. even creationists agree with this kind of changes. actually even cars and watches change over time (the color of the car may change because of the sun). so in terms of variations its also evolution. in your links there is nothing that show how any complex trait evolve. so it doesnt show any evolution of new biological system.
if i will give you evidence against evolution predictions, will you accept it?
I admit I am not as well versed as some on this board, so could you walk me through how a study of ancient regulatory genes leads you to that conclusion?
what are you refer to?
Please quote me the section that says âhumans have genes for feathers development.â
Iâm not making an argument from authority. Mainstream science could be wrong.
Rather, Iâm stating a fact: âmainstream science has moved on from this debate because the evidence is so strong in favor of common descent.â I can explain this data to you, and how scientists interpret it, but I have no interest in debating it. I can also guarantee you that arguing on a forum is not going to change anything about how mainstream science understands the evidence for evolution. Science proceeds by other means.
Particularly telling, even the articles you quote disagree with you. It appears like you have not read them carefully, and are just quote mining things to take out of context on your behalf. Iâm not interested in arguments like this. Science isnât really meant to be debated this way. Frankly, if you just read the papers you quote closely, there would be no need for me to respond.
So, no thank you. Not interested in a senseless debate.
Instead, tell me more about why you think it is so important to argue against evolution? Do you have a theological problem with it? What do you think you are accomplishing by arguing about it?
1 Like
Sorry, I was referring to this statement. I looked at the abstract but cannot make the connection to your conclusion.
I think @dcscccc is trying to apply âevolutionary logicâ to make an absurd claim, to demonstrate the logic is false. The problem is that he doesnât really understand âevolutionary logic.â The claim that humans evolved from birds is absurd because it doesnât follow from âevolutionary logicâ in the first place, not because their is a flaw in âevolutionary logicâ per se.
I think he is also mistaking the point that this genetic data shows we share a common ancestor with birds, not that we âevolved from birds.â There is a big difference between these claims. In the same way, we did not evolve from chimps, rather we think we evolved from a common ancestor with chimps.
Sigh ⌠so how do you suppose you are going to DEFINE the phrase âbelieve the Bible is trueâ ?
There are MILLIONS of Christians ⌠GOOD Christians ⌠who think the Bible is true in some way ⌠but who DONT believe the languages of the world originate from the Tower of Babylon. Do YOU believe the worldâs languages come from the Tower of Babylon?
And so why do **** I **** care if atheists agree with this or that ? I know many Atheists who think Coca Cola is the REAL THING ⌠as do I. This does not make me itchy to be an Atheist.
You are essentially arguing that because I believe God is involved in Evolution ⌠ipso facto⌠I will eventually be forced to believe there is no God.
You are one hilarious fellow, right?
You originally asked:
@deliberateresult, Iâm still curious your response to my answerâŚ[quote=âSwamidass, post:462, topic:4944, full:trueâ]
This is a really important question that deserves a good answer.
This question cuts to the core of the debate. For many Christians, arguments against evolution builds their faith, giving us confidence that our faith is true. Anti-evolutionist become an epistemology: the reason why we know our faith is true. In this mindset, theistic evolution is particularly dangerous, because directly challenges this foundation, suggesting to many that our faith is false.
For me, I search for confident faith too, but I find a different foundation. I ask: how do I know my faith is true? Is it through science or scientific arguments? Is it through intently studying nature? Or it another way?
I believe that God makes Himself known to the world is through the death and Resurrection of Jesus. This is the âone signâ (quoting Jesus) that God offers to prove that He exists, is unimaginably good, and wants to be known. This is a âsign,â a miracle with public evidence to which we can point (both inside and outside the Bible) when we ask âwhyâ we know our faith is true. For me, the Resurrection is my epistemology.
Of course there is evidence of God in nature, but without Jesus it is hard to appreciate it. Whether evolution is true or false, I follow Jesus because He rose from the dead. Jesus is my starting point, not anti-evolutionism.
What evidence did God leave for us regarding the Resurrection?
There are over 100,000 relevant texts. There is a whole academic field devoted to studying 1st Century Palestine. There are a few holdouts, but even those that reject the Resurrection agree that there is compelling evidence for it. It is without doubt the most substantiated ancient miracle. For example, look at this remarkable dialogue between NT Wright and Sean Kelly (chair of philosophy at harvard) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsKv9uX8rwE. I really reccomend NT Wrightâs masterpiece âthe Resurrection of the Son of Godâ. And for those with short attention spans, this article: http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Problem.htm.
In our scientific world, it is normal to look to science to lead us to God. This is the allure anti-evolutionism and ID. However, we know from Scripture, that God comes to us another way. He comes to us through Jesus.
[/quote]
Hi Chris,
I have recently heard of this approach and have read his paper, âA chemical systems approach to evolution,â R. J. P. Williams, Dalton Trans,2007, 991â1001. It is an interesting approach, and my impression is that he is trying to link the relative distribution of metals needed for various biochemical systems with their relative abundance on earth, and energetics that involve systems containing various chelated metal systems. I have also looked at a few papers that try to link structures of some enzymes with the common descent outlook, and also how random mutations performed under laboratory conditions may impact on enzyme activity.
Overall, I agree that there are many pointers to the suitability of earth for life, and variation is axiomatic. I would find a notion of direction in the bio-world interesting, but this does not sit well with my reading of evolution, where the majority (that I can see) all argue for a chance/random based outlook that relies purely on some type of scientific argument(s) - even laboratory experiments on enzyme activity require intervention by the scientist, and screening/selection methods, to isolate the modified enzyme showing greater activity. Thus most of these arguments fall far short of a scientifically verifiable notion within the general areas they infer from their work.
From a faith perspective, my reasoning is as follows:
God raised Christ from the dead, because God gives/creates life and that is Godâs omnipotence.
God created life
The earth has been created to sustain life.
These points all agree with the revelation of God as taught by the Christian faith, and as spelled out in scripture.
see this article by carl zimmer for more information:
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/11/20/your-inner-feather/
too bad. i can show you a lot of other evidence that contradict evolution theory if you want. but if you dont what to talk about those evidence i realy have nothing to say. its sound like you believe in evolution because mainstream science say so and not because of the evidence.
actually no. i just use the evolutionery logic- and according to this logic- if human have a vit gene= therefore human (mammal) evolved from reptiles. in the same way- if human have a feathers genes= therfore human (mammal) evolved from birds. same logic.
[quote=âSwamidass, post:530, topic:4944â]
Instead, tell me more about why you think it is so important to argue against evolution? Do you have a theological problem with it?[/quote]
good question. first- i care about the scientific evidence (that strongly support the id model). second- evolution doesnt fit well with the creation model. but its good to hear that we both believe in a designer, with or without evolution. if you want do discuss about the evidence for design (without any conection to evolution) i will like to do that. have a nice day.
.
Let me rephrase your three steps:
1.) The TOE is defined as a purely natural, non-teleological process.
2.) My brothers and sisters at BioLogos support and promote the TOE.
3) Being Christians, my brothers and sisters at BioLogos believe that God was involved.
The issues I am raising do not dispute the above. The issues I am raising do not go away simply because someone who believes in evolution says they also believe in God. Indeed, the issues I am raising are magnified when someone who believes in evolution says they also believe in GodâŚ
âŚUnless they qualify their belief in evolution with an acknowledgement of the obvious evidence from life that life requires a Creator, and deliberately distance themselves against the TOE.
When you say that BioLogos teaches evolution with God, you are speaking erroneously. BioLogos promotes naturalistic evolution, claiming that the science strongly supports it, and then adds an affirmation of faith. That is not at all teaching evolution with God. If you want to understand what teaching evolution with God looks like, pick up Lee Spetnerâs two books, âNot By Chance,â and âThe Evolution Revolution.â Spetner makes a strong case for non-random evolution, citing the clear evidence for intelligent agency in life. The evolution that Spetner endorses is clearly distinguish as a different theory of evolution than the TOE. Many here at BioLogos present a palpable aversion to the evidence for intelligent agency, citing the fear of some future scientific discovery that cannot even be imagined today, but will supposedly explain that evidence in purely naturalistic terms.
That imagined fear will never be realized. In the meantime, the evidence for intelligent agency is very real and it is a very powerful Christian apologetic which we should embrace and proclaim.
To nitpick, science isnât really meant to be debated at all.
Itâs meant to be discussed so that those with conflicting hypotheses can agree on the empirical predictions that will discriminate between the hypotheses in the future.
The only real prediction that comes from the ID camp is that junk DNA will turn out to be functional. Then they grossly misrepresent the proportion of junk DNA that is reclassified as functional.
3 Likes
How so, Joe? Please be specific.
Please be sure to address the fact that negatives can never logically be proven.
3 Likes