- My heart and mind tells me there is God, with a crucial role for humanity.
- God gives us faith in our eyes and ears.
- Our eyes and ears tell us the earth is millions of years old; it certainly isn’t less than 6,000 years old.
- DEDUCTION: God must have drafted Natural Selection and Genetic modifications to create humanity as we know it today.
Hi Chris…
Its very good to hear from you again! I can sympathize with the fact that busy spells sometimes keep you from checking in. I run my own business and encounter the same reality. Indeed, I am currently enjoying a very brief break in a very busy season myself.
" If the issue interests you as much as you say it does, I urge you to read broadly in the field."
Chris, all I can say here is not only do I indeed read broadly, I embraced, lived, and defended biological evolution for more than three decades.
I really need to call you out on this one, Chris. This claim is wrong on more than one level:
- I am not young earth.
- Concerning your citations, unless I am missing something, you referred me to an article concerning the nylonase mutation and the frame shift proposal. My response to you should have indicated my familiarity with both even though I did not read your specific citation. The only other citation I can recall was to Lenski’s bacteria experiment. Here I responded to you referencing a paper by Lenski’s own team.
I will quote and cite others when necessary, but for the most part, I try to make my own case. Lenski, et al cannot be remotely considered either YE or ID. Perhaps this slipped your mind. To refresh your memory, here is a copy-and-paste of what I said:
"It is often true that the more we understand the effects of mutations that appear at first blush to convey some sort of de novo feature, the more we learn, in fact, that an existing regulatory mechanism is involved. As we have learned more about the nylonase feature, we have come to understand that the bacteria already possessed the ability to digest a very similar chemical. There is an increasing interest in exploring the possibility that, although random mutation is a reality, many, if not most, mutations that appear to confer a benefit to the organism may actually be pre-programmed into the organism (See the work of Lee Spetner and his theory of Non Random Evolution, for example). As for Lenski’s bacteria, his own team identified a “genetic switch” upstream which had been turned off. A series of mutations merely turned this switch on. Indeed, in the wild, these bacteria already possessed the ability to metabolize citrate. Lenski’s bacteria crossed the 50,000 generation plateau a couple of years ago. They remain bacteria. Slightly modified bacteria, but bacteria nonetheless. Lenski’s experiment constitutes real data and it is consistent with other data from other lab experiments: there are very real and very strict limits to what genetic mutation can accomplish. Here is my own ID prediction: No matter how long this experiment continues; whether it eclipses 100,000 generations or a million or more generations, Lenski’s bacteria will always be bacteria; nothing more.
Care to bet against this prediction?"
So you see Chris, there is no truth to the charge that I have only cited YE and ID sources. By the way, my rebuttal ended with my own ID prediction and an offer to bet against it. Do you have any confidence at all that these bacteria will ever become anything other than bacteria?
I know of many people who entered their respective scientific fields believing in the TOE and then became convinced by the evidence that ID offered a much stronger case. I know of no one embracing and then rejecting ID. But I will take you at your word. I find this fascinating. Perhaps this is the real conversation you and I should be having.
What about Denis Lamoureux?
1 Like
I embraced and then rejected ID too. This is almost the rule among evangelical scientists. I know probably a dozen at my university alone.
@deliberateresult Here’s Dennis Venema (@DennisVenema)'s story: http://biologos.org/blogs/dennis-venema-letters-to-the-duchess/series/from-id-to-biologos. He embraced and then rejected ID. It’s well worth reading.
Challenging someone over whether a Bacteria population will ever be something else is really an argument for atheists.
Supporters of BioLogos support the idea that GOD has guided evolution. So how you can you prove anything by asking a Christian if something will evolve into something else if God doesn’t want it to?
Again, Joe, I charge you with being intentionally provocative - - not someone doing detective work.
Christians who support the use of natural selection and mutations to create a new life form are not choosing an ILLOGICAL stance. It is perfectly logical. You can’t challenge God’s ability to accomplish this end, right?
So why do you keep beating the drum and beating your head against the wall?
The challenge is not an argument for atheists or theists - it is a normative outlook in all of the sciences, when a hypothesis is proposed. Thus, IF a hypothesis makes a statement, such as (purely to clarify) that if A occurs in a given manner, then a prediction is that B would result, science would require B to be formed.
With experiments such as bacteria, the prediction is that a change would be detected given sufficient number of iterations (generations, I assume, of bacteria). If the predicted change is nebulous, then debate is inevitable. In this case, one person says given enough changes in “generations of bacteria”, they will evolve some given trait. The other says, your theory states a change in species, so perform sufficient changes until we observe a new species.
Within the context (and semantics) of evolution, both statements are scientifically valid, but the second has not been demonstrated.
This is not provocation; however I find your incessant “GOD has done this or that…” irritating.
Wow…
Now THAT is ironic, don’t you think? You are IRRITATED by claims that God had something to do with the creation of humanity!!!
.
Let the record show that I have offered no money or other inducements to @GJDS to self-incrimination of the motivations of those who oppose Biologos.
For Christians who RELY on this idea, it should not be surprising if some crucial step in speciation cannot be replicated by science… since the position of such Christians (and BioLogos) .is that God’s participation could easily overcome any particular barrier to natural speciation.
You should calm down - my point is obvious, in that you make odd statements directed at scientific matters, and then add “God must have dun it …” This does not support anyone, least of all BioLogos - and it is obnoxious to infer that if someone does not agree with you, we must be against BioLogos (or perhaps against people who work there). Just who has made you judge and jury on this site (and self-incrimination??? - irritated by claims that God had something to do with anything - where did that come from?)
There is no argument concerning God as Creator George - this is not the cause of irritation from you - instead, it is a strange version of “god of the gaps” mentality that I find irritating.
So if something in nature looks like what humans do, it’s evidence for design, and if it looks like something humans can’t do, it’s evidence for design? [quote=“dcscccc, post:615, topic:4944”]
but the flagellum and a lot of other molecular machines are indeed look like a man made machines:
[/quote]
Humans do not make machines out of proteins, and do not design self-assembling machines.
Overall, the argument that living things look like they’re designed strikes me as completely backwards. For example, it’s claimed that genomes look and act like computer code, and therefore must be designed. The reality, however, is that genomes look like computer programs that weren’t designed, but that were written and rewritten over time by semi-competent programmers. Genomes have blocks of nonfunctioning code, blocks that are obvious cases of cut-and-paste with later modification, identical functions performed by unrelated modules. This is the sort of thing you see if you haven’t started by designing your program from the ground up, or if you’ve had to change it in unexpected ways without having enough time to re-engineer it.
2 Likes
Good to hear from you as well, Joe.
Given the fact that you define the theory of evolution so differently than the scientific community does, you will understand that I have to wonder about those 3 decades.
And here I have to question how carefully you read Lenski’s paper–unless you are relying on third parties. Lenski’s team discovered that the citT gene was copied (via an amplification mutation) into the region of a promoter active in the presence of oxygen. Your desciption of this discovery does not sound like their description of the discovery. Your description does seem to echo the description by the Institute for Creation Research site, however.
The only place I see this analysis on the web is in an article by Purdom on the Answers in Genesis website. It is completely contrary, however, to the report of the team that made the discovery:
Analysis of the published base sequence residing in the pOAD2 plasmid of Flavobacterium Sp. K172 indicated that the 392-amino acid-residue-long bacterial enzyme 6-aminohexanoic acid linear oligomer hydrolase involved in degradation of nylon oligomers is specified by an alternative open reading frame of the preexisted coding sequence that originally specified a 472-residue-long arginine-rich protein.
I have followed the footnotes in the Purdom/AiG article, and discovered that they make the unwarranted conclusion that the frameshift mutation led to a less specific esterolytic activity. Ohno’s team, however, did not describe a less specific esterolytic activity, but rather the ability to break down a different ester (nylon-6).
Given what I discovered in my research, Joe, I am led to conclude that you got your information on Arthrobacter sp. K172 from the AiG website.
Spetner is a Jewish physicist who believes that all of life stems from 365 different species that God created during the literal 6 days of Genesis 1. You expect me to take a citation to Spetner as evidence of your recent reading outside of YEC/ID authorship?
After all this research, Joe, I have found no hint of a citation to mainstream biology in the passage you cited as proof to the contrary. I suppose I might have missed something, but you’re going to have to supply specific evidence if you want me to believe otherwise.
Of course, I cannot and do not dispute that you have read, at some point, evolutionary biologists. What I am asserting, based on the evidence you cite, is that you have not been reading both sides of the debate on issues that have been discussed in this thread, such as Arthrobacter sp. K172, Lenski’s LTEE with E. Coli, and the evolution of the flagellum.
And with that I bid you adieu, my brother. Enjoy the weekend with your family, and may you find success with your business.
EDIT: Added a preposition
1 Like
Busted. The debate scene is a lot tougher when people actually read primary sources. 
I think you are going to have to explain YOUR interpretation a lot more than what you offer.
What do I hear from Creationists?
- Creationists say God created the Earth in a day.
- Creationists say God created a woman from a rib.
- Creationists say God gave Samson magical hair.
And all of this you accept as … well … literally… as GOSPEL! And any YEC who comes around with this statements are welcome with open arms?
Let’s compare these amazing pronouncements to what I claim:
A) I say God made pinpoint mutations in Genetic chromosomes … (mutations are already known to happen).
B) I say God used cosmic rays (and lots of other kinds of energy sources) to make these mutations (energy sources are already known to cause mutations).
C) I say God took MILLIONS of years to do these things.
And you say I’m the one making radical statements, full of presumption, and that you can barely stand it?
You’ve GOT to be kidding?!
I suppose I can understand why you confuse my position with a God-of-the-Gaps.
But it really isn’t that. At the beginning, I state that God can execute his plan 100% by natural law … or he could perform the occasional miracle. But this is no sliding scale of credibility. It’s no more unfathomable than what YEC’s proclaim every day. Does God use natural laws to make Eve from a piece of bone? Or is suspending natural law to do so?
Do YOU know the answer to that, @GJDS? Don’t worry … this isn’t a test. Because we all know YOU don’t know. And I don’t know. But at least I acknowledge that I don’t know!
What irritates me is when Creationists INSIST they know what God did … when, really, they don’t have any idea.
God of the gaps by definition is any belief that God can be found in the natural order. In other words if you believe there is anything about the world itself that cannot be explained in scientific terms then you believe in a god of the gaps. I don’t believe it is possible to find (scientific) evidence of God outside of the life of Jesus. There are no holes in creation where God had to stick his finger in to keep the whole thing afloat. The physical world is not the ultimate nature of reality however. God is the ultimate nature of reality. Nothing exists save what God Wills to exist. We will never find God in the natural order because the world is a buffer between us and God. There is no possibility of stairways to heaven. God is not outside of the world either. The world is inside of God. Everything you experience is directly from God. Including your perception of the complex and complete world that he has created for you to experience.
My statement of faith is that God created the heavens and the earth. I fail to see why anyone may wish to debate this clear statement.
The debate is in the details I think.
Hi Joe,
Let’s take a look at the “experiment” that occurred starting around 1.3bya, at the emergence of eukaryotic bacteria. The volume of water in the biosphere is 1.2 x 10^21 L, which is conveniently 10^20 larger than the amount of water in Lenski’s design (12 flasks x 1 L/each). Let’s assume that the bacteria population per L in the ancient biosphere was not as dense as Lenski’s population due to competition from non-eukaryotic organisms, darkness at depth, etc., by a factor of 10^4. The emergence of multicellular life is thought to have occurred 500 million years later (800mya). So if we replicate Leski’s experiment by a factor of 10^16 (10^20 difference in water volume divided by 10^4 difference in bacteria density), we would predict that non-bacteria might emerge in 500 million years. Since it’s not easy to duplicate Lenski’s operation, much less multiply it by a factor of 10^16, it’s easier to just multiply the 500 million years by the replication factor of 10^16.
So I am willing to bet that, if you ran Lenski’s experiment for 5 x 10^24 years (500 million times 10^16), you would see non-bacteria.
That’s 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years.
The universe is only 13,800,000,000 (1.38 x 10^9) years old, by comparison.
I’m willing to wait to collect my bet.
Enjoy the weekend, Joe!
PM - I think this is a very poor description. Most of the most important things in the world cannot be explained in scientific terms - mind, morality, beauty, teleology, intentionality (“aboutness”), the existence of order, the experience of providence, etc, etc. Were that not so, science would be able to give a full description of reality, which is the scientistic position. It implies that the universe is an entirely closed material system, for which there is no evidence (it’s an assumption) and which is universally denied in Scripture, which describes God as immanent and soverignly free to act in his own world…
As an intellectually cogent critique, “God of the Gaps” is merely a slogan unless the accused has a habit of denying that all processes or events not currently explained by science have a direct miraculous cause, sans efficient material causes… without offering sufficient evidence for it, because in principle nothing prevents that being true, at least in any particular case.
But there are many other ways in which God’s work is found in the natural order, apart from the miraculous.
1 Like
Though I sympathize with your calculation, I do not think this thought experiment would necessarily work. Lenski’s experiment very uniform conditions and favors rapidly dividing cells over all else. This is a common bias of lab based systems.
The problem is, to generate complexity other concerns over rapid division are probably important. The environment has to be more complicated, with unfilled niches to reward adaptation and innovation. That is one big way how “information” enters into evolution (speaking very loosely here), from the environment.
So, you are right, that the Lenski experiment does not have enough probabilistic resources to do anything really interesting. Unfortunately, it has additional problems too.
Yes, the back-of-the-envelope calculation underestimates the advantage of real-world environmental variety (over Lenski’s experimental design). Thus I have underestimated the amount of time it would take Lenski’s experiment to replicate the real world result.
Even if my calculations are off by many orders of magnitude, though, we see that a wager on non-bacteria emerging is still completely meaningless.