And yet … you call one of the BioLogos Mission Statements as deceptive - - when in fact it goes to great lengths to avoid any deception! To paraphrase:
o Evolution on Earth requires God;
o Any model of Evolution of that excludes God’s participation is rejected;
o Evolution must include a teleological role for God.
So, what you are saying is that your own position is also deceptive? If it isn’t, how exactly do your positions differ from the positions set out by BioLogos?
Given that you don’t accept the refined theory, does it really matter?
The one mechanism that Darwin put forward was natural selection, and it is still a central pillar of the theory.
“To be sure, much of evolution has been tree-like and is captured in hierarchical classifications. Although plant speciation is often effected by reticulation (80) and radical primary and secondary symbioses lie at the base of the eukaryotes and several groups within them (81, 82), it would be perverse to claim that Darwin’s TOL hypothesis has been falsified for animals (the taxon to which he primarily addressed himself) or that it is not an appropriate model for many taxa at many levels of analysis. Birds are not bees, and animals are not plants.”
Doolittle and Bapteste, 2007
Want to try that one again?
What creationists are claiming that all eukaryotes share a common ancestor and evolved from that common ancestor?
The tree is real for very large groups of species, such as the eukaryotes. Do you accept common ancestry for all eukaryotes? If not, then why make the argument you are trying to make?
The tree for animals has already been determined empirically, as the authors of the papers you are quoting have already pointed out.
Hi Ashwin,
It seems to me that you are willing to agree with the biologists that descent with modification explains from the scientific perspective how the primates are descended from a common ancestral population, and that descent with modification, be it structured as a tree or as a network, explains from a scientific perspective the origin of species both small and large. You do have serious reservations about origin-of-life pronouncements, and think that the first cellular organism was the result of God’s direct intervention–i.e., a miracle–rather than through regular scientifically tractable means. You also believe that any tree that biologists can reconstruct will only reach back to the origin of multi-cellular life some 630 MYA.
If I have understood you correctly, we are largely in agreement on these points. The only substantial difference I see between us is that I am open to the possibility OOL researchers may be able, someday far in the future, to infer a scientifically tractable mechanism through which biological life on earth came to exist. Should that day arrive, I would regard the mechanism as an exhibition of God’s marvelous creativity and design. For today, however, I would agree that the RNA world is a hypothesis rather than a theory.
One of the most recent sources you cited in another thread reached this conclusion:
I agree with this conclusion that Marvin quoted. If you are willing to agree with that conclusion, too, then we can throw a party, hand out trophies, and move on to other pursuits.
Grace and peace,
Chris
So do you agree with the authors?
“We exemplify this on a subset of 1159 suitable genes that have individual histories, most likely due to incomplete lineage sorting or introgression, processes that can make the genealogy of mammalian genomes complex.”
It’s not as if some of the genes they looked at demonstrated more relatedness to jellyfish or amphibians for some mammal species. All of the genes they looked at put these species well within the mammal clade. The only arguments they are putting forward is for the fine details of that tree, and the noise within that tree caused by very real biological processes like incomplete lineage sorting. It is an argument about noise being high when looking at the deep nodes of a tree WHICH IS EXPECTED WITH EVOLUTION. You might as well claim that a blurry photo of a distant galaxy means that galaxies don’t exist.
“To be sure, much of evolution has been tree-like and is captured in hierarchical classifications. Although plant speciation is often effected by reticulation (80) and radical primary and secondary symbioses lie at the base of the eukaryotes and several groups within them (81, 82), it would be perverse to claim that Darwin’s TOL hypothesis has been falsified for animals (the taxon to which he primarily addressed himself) or that it is not an appropriate model for many taxa at many levels of analysis. Birds are not bees, and animals are not plants.”
Doolittle and Bapteste, 2007
Can he be more clear?
Hi Ashwin,
You are basing your conclusions on a 2011 paper. However, later research that used a much larger dataset strongly refuted the conclusions of that paper. The 2017 paper is:
Here is the tree that is strongly supported by their analysis:
I refer you to the paper for the mathematical details.
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter
Which means Biologos rejects the Scientific theory of evolution which is a theory that excludes Gods participation and excludes a teleological role for God.
My position is not deceptive because i don’t use the term evolution to describe a belief that is patently not Evolution and in fact denies evolution is ultimately a natural process.
Yes it does. It shows whether the so called “theory” is falsifiable … and what exactly the theory itself is. For example, if evolution as a theory can be refined ad infitum and all its components replced at some point or the other, its not a falsifiable theory. Its an over arching philosophy which is essentially untestable.
I hold that the idea of evolution is unfalsifiable… and every component which can be falsified has been falsified.
Ever heard of the neutral theory of evolution? Natural selection has been cut down to size. It is not what Darwin claimed it would be… i.e a unifying principle. Its valid in some cases/example of evolution and invalid in others…
Its also untestable/unfalsifiable… Biologists are even now looking for a definition of Natural selection that would permit falsification.
Yes… the point being that Tree of Life is Falsified… At best… its a “Tree of animals”…
not even plants and animals. Reticulated evolution is another word for data that is not tree like… it refers to a network.
You have lost Prokaryotes, eukaryotes and plants…
Even creationists wouldnt have a problem with the last comment 
** Birds are not bees, and animals are not plants.”**
Even Biologist are not claiming eukaryotes have a common ancestor… The current understanding is that eukaryotes are a hybrid of Eubacteria and archebacteria traits/genes… also cyanobacteria contribute to plants at some level too…
I dont think anyone even claims the first hybrid gave rise all the families of eukaryotes… thats also a reticulated mess and scientists are trying very hard to fit it into a tree…
Why would creationists make such a claim when even evolutionary biologists hesistate to?
My point is that Biologists are now beginning to repesent life as creationists wouls… as a unrooted network on an overall level with trees found among more similar organisms.
No the idea is, life is not a tree… its a network of gene sharing.
Are you claiming that common ancestry started only with eukaryotes?
And if most unicellular eukaryotes turn out not to show tree like patterns (which is a highly likey scenario considering the various conflicting results with respect to where the eukaryote Ca is positioned in the tree), would you claim common ancestry started out only with multicellular organisms? And what do you do when plants show extensive reticulation (as they are shown to do)?
Yet they somehow feel compelled to propose a network type of relationship… reticulated networks are currently being used to show the relationship between birds also for your information… Basically we have a broken chain of several tree like patterns. this is not the unbroken chain of descent predicted by Common ancestry.
I was pointing out where science stands currently in my view.I am currenlty agnostic on primate evolution.I am not philosophically commited to any from of scientism as it stands on a false belief in the inerrance of scientific consensus.Let me give an example. In Einsteins times, it was the opinion of most scientists including Einstein that the universe was eternal, and went through and endless cycle of expansion and collapse. If any one changed their theology based on Einsteins then scientifically valid view, they would have been in great error.Though i do read science, i am very careful about what i believe is truth with a capital T. I allow philosophy and world views (including views on the bible) to educate my final beliefs and i would expect this from any rational person.
I prefer a wait and watch policy with respect to scientific consensus. My theological views are formed in the traditional way. reading the bible and praying.
I expect the next few decades to show the following based on my understanding of the issues-
There is a big need for a paradigm shift in biology…
Its possible to arrive at a statistical tree of life (i.e a tree of trees) and also a tree of life from single genes. I don’t dispute that. However, there is no reason why one set of genes should tell a different story from the other if both are inherited from a CA. Its the overall picture that is reticulated… I dont think the 2011 paper disputes that Trees of life can be created…
They just tell different stories based on the genes you select. Introns tell different stories… coding sequences tell another story… micro Rna based comparisons tell something else.
If the introns are inherited from a CA, then where do the CDS and other gene sequences which tell a different story come from?
This is why Scientists like Baptiste say that these genomic trees need not really represent the history of a species vis a vis its lineage.Its just a way to classify or represent organisms.
Didn’t we cover this already? BioLogos says it rejects the science of Evolution when defined in a way that excludes God.
Is there more than one person using your @Ashwin_s login? That might explain your inability to maintain continuity in your discussions.
Is there a way in which the science of evolution is defined in a way that includes a theistic God?
It’s defined excluding God as a possibility.
If the theory wasn’t falsifiable then it wouldn’t be refined. The theory changes because parts of it are found to be wrong, and we know that parts of the theory are wrong because IT IS FALSIFIABLE.
Here are 29+ potential falsifications for the theory of evolution:
That’s like saying the idea of erosion has been falsified in geology because there are places on Earth where there is deposition taking place. Natural selection, both positive and negative, still occur in all genomes as well as neutral drift. Finding sections of a genome where junk DNA is accumulating neutral changes does not falsify the claim that sections of the genome are under purifying selection.
You reject the tree of animals, which is the whole point. You don’t accept the evidence that animals descended from a common ancestor through vertical inheritance.
And creationists accept that all eukaryotes, from protists to humans, evolved from the common ancestral pool of eukaryotes that were the result of this hybridization, just as almost all scientists do?
Do you or do you not accept that even all primates share a common ancestor? yes or no?
And what are the mechanisms they propose for the cause of this network?
If you define the actions of God as those which go against natural processes then you will probably end up disproving the existence of God as more evidence accumulates for natural processes.
That is completely false. Science doesn’t exclude any possibility. Science can only include possibilities that are supported by evidence.
No, it’s not. The science of evolution is completely agnostic on the subject of God. Unless you think describing the natural mechanisms underlying a process is the same as saying that nothing but those natural mechanisms can possibly exist.
It’s like saying, when I pray I make physical sound which travels x distance and I definitely don’t see any evidence of God in that range, so praying is pointless. (Disclaimer: I don’t think praying is pointless.) You could probably even design a test to figure out if the sound is being fully absorbed by the expected physical materials in x range, and then get even fancier and repeat it all for the electromagnetic signal of your brainwaves.
Would you honestly expect any of that to tell you anything about the existence of God?
So then why would you insist that if the science of evolution isn’t affirming God, it’s “by definition” excluding God?
The theory of gravity neither includes nor excludes God.
The theory of quantum mechanics (which has a prominent role for randomness) neither includes nor excludes God.
Meteorology (which has a prominent role for randomness) neither includes nor excludes God.
The theory of evolution neither includes nor excludes God.
Grace and peace,
Chris
Since only parts can be falsified. It leaves a core that cannot be falsified.
Common ancestry has been falsified in some cases… and I guess is being refined.However, the refined version seems more general that the original one.
Hereditary change through mutations is being added to by processes such as endosymbiosis, HGTs,ERVs,Gene duplication etc.
So what is the unfalsifiable core. Why retain the name evolution for the new extension? Or has the idea of evolution become so general that it is just a different name for “natural causes”?
If the unfalsifiable core is naturalism, it’s a philosophy. Not a scientific theory.
Ideas cannot be falsified perse. However, if there was a theory that a particular feature in nature is caused by erosion, it can be falsified. Darwins theory is that Natural selection is the creative force behind all the variation we see causing random variations to accumulate in a directional manner and thus shape all the design features observed. That idea has proven to be false.
I accept its very difficult to falsify natural selection as it is not defined well enough to be falsified.
Its a fair question. And the answer is that scientist have consistently said so.
Blockquote
It was Darwin’s greatest accomplishment to show that the complex organization and functionality of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process—natural selection—without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent. The origin and adaptations of organisms in their profusion and wondrous variations were thus brought into the realm of science.
i.e, God is not needed as an explanation.
Blockquote
Natural selection sorting out spontaneously arising mutations is a creative process because it causes favorable mutations to combine and accumulate, yielding a great diversity of organisms over eons of time. But there are important features that distinguish the kind of “design” achieved by natural selection, namely the adaptations of organisms, from the kind of design produced by an intelligent designer, an engineer.
i.e The work of natural selection will be different from that of a creator God. Here the scientist is claiming that they can differentiate whether a “design” is made by God or not. They make logical arguments against a designer by trying to show that the “designs” could not have originated from anyones mind.
I have heard christians like @Bill_II in this forum repeat this same argument and suggest that the design is not intelligent… i.e the Designer is dum (either in that he designed wrong or used bad tools)
Blockquote
This is Darwin’s fundamental discovery, that there is a process that is creative although not conscious. And this is the conceptual revolution that Darwin completed: the idea that the design of living organisms can be accounted for as the result of natural processes governed by natural laws. This is nothing if not a fundamental vision that has forever changed how mankind perceives itself and its place in the universe.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567#sec-8
What people like @gbrooks9 describe is not evolution in any shape or form as taught by someone like Ayala and most other scientists. It is different in the following points -
Now, we could nitpick on the difference between philosophical materialism and methodological materialism, but this so called difference is absolutely lost in how scientists interpret, present and teach evolution to each other or the general public. Most of these scientists are moved by a fundamental vision.
Its a difference that exists only in the minds of Theistic evolutionists.
@Chris_Falter: we discussed similar stuff.
All the parts can be falsified, as already demonstrated.
Why wouldn’t it be added? That is how nature works, so it is part of the theory.
Evolution is the theory of how organisms change over time. If HGT, ERVs, gene duplications, and the like are evidenced mechanisms that cause change in species over time, then they should be included as part of that theory.
Evolution isn’t a religion. There are no tenets of Evolution that need to be dogmatically defended and held on to. What the evidence shows is what the theory is. Period.
The theory of evolution is the same as every other single theory in science. If you object to the theory of evolution citing natural mechanisms, then you are rejecting the whole of science and the scientific method.
The theory is that the vast bulk of the genomes of animals was inherited through vertical inheritance, and that the differences between species are due to genetic changes that were blind to the fitness of the organism. Those genetic changes were then filtered through natural selection and neutral drift.
All of these parts of the theory are exceedingly testable and falsifiable. Numerous and massive departures from a nested hierarchy would falsify vertical inheritance. Lack of sequence conservation in functional DNA would falsify selection and neutral drift. The pattern of transversions and transitions throughout the genome would falsify the theory that mutagenesis is blind to fitness. All of this is so easily testable.
It wasn’t a discussion at all. You had made the same assertion about the theory of evolution excluding any possibility of God for the n-th time. In response I raised several points about other disciplines of science that use similar methodologies (incorporating randomness) and are often used by atheist apologists.
You clicked the reply button and typed some words. Your words essentially repeated your assertion without addressing any of the points I had made.
I don’t know what our interaction should be called. But I wouldn’t call it a discussion.
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter
I also feel you didn’t get my point.
If that’s what you mean.
Can provide a formal statement to this effect from any source? I would be particularly interested in what is meant by “a vast bulk”… is that a number… an opinion… or an assumption?
When you say genetic changes were blind to fitness… what exactly do you mean? What about epigenetics?.
It’s been falsified extensively in single celled organisms… we have already discussed that…
Functional DNA is defined based on sequence conservation… B that count 8.2% of the human genome would be functional… and your claim would be circular reasoning.
As per ENCODE 80% has some biochemical function… if that is true it would falsify you claim…
So your choice is between circular reasoning and falsification.
I don’t object to natural mechanisms. I object to generalising the theory through refinements and tautologies to the extent that it is the same as saying “change happened through natural means”.
So what exactly is the theory?
Is it “genetic change happens through natural processes”?
All the claims have been falsified.
Nominating this for the “most refreshingly lucid posts” list.
(Not that such a list exists, but if it did, this’d be on it! )
I did, but I don’t think you read my post carefully enough.
Your essential point is that a theory has to be open to God’s involvement. It doesn’t have to advocate for it, but it at least has to be open to it.
As far as I can tell, you think that the theory of evolution is not open to God’s involvement because it describes changes as
You summon the writings of some atheist biologists and philosophers in support, because they claim that evolution excludes God’s involvement.
There - are you convinced that I understood you?
Now, will you really listen to what I am saying? You haven’t yet, but it wouldn’t be right for me not to live in hope.
What I am saying is that:
(1) All scientific theories are open to God’s involvement, even the theory of evolution.
1a. Scientific methodology by definition neither excludes nor includes God. Because it does not exclude God by definition, it is open to God’s involvement.
1b. Evolution is built with scientific methodology.
1c. Therefore, evolution is open to God’s involvement
(2) A scientific theory’s incorporation of randomness and explicit lack of direction/telos does not mean that it is not open to God’s involvement.
2a. The scientific definition of randomness is epistemological, not ontological.
2b. Modeling a process with a random, probabilistic component does not exclude God’s involvement.
2c. Modeling a process with a random, probabilistic component does not exclude telos and purpose.
2c1. Other non-random components of the model can indicate direction.
2c2. Software processes that use random walks together with loss functions can achieve a purpose. This demonstrates that a process with a random component (like genetic mutation) and a loss function (like natural selection) can have a designer and a telos. However, the detection of the designer and telos requires stepping outside the model; similarly, detecting the designer and telos of evolution requires stepping outside the realm of scientific methodology into the realm of faith.
2d. The fact that scientific methodologies do not detect purpose/telos does not mean that other methodologies cannot be used to detect purpose/telos.
2d1. The fields of study that are capable of detecting purpose/telos include religion and philosophy.
2d2. Faith can also detect purpose/telos in situations that appear from the “natural” perspective to have none.
(3) Other disciplines of science have theories that exhibit all the features that you think are problems with evolution.
3a. For example, physics propounds theories like quantum mechanics that
3a1. Even though quantum mechanics exhibits everything that you object to in evolution, you accept quantum mechanics.
3a2. Therefore, you should be able to accept the theory of evolution.
3b. Other scientific fields such as meteorology likewise have dominant theories that model stochastic processes with a randomness component and disavowal of direction/telos.
3b1. You nevertheless seem to accept the validity of meteorology.
3b2. Therefore, you should be able to accept the validity of evolution.
(4) The fact that a theory is badly used by some people, even when the people using it badly are among its leading practitioners, does not mean it is wrong.
4a. The theories of physics are badly used by leading practitioners such as Krauss, Hawking, Stenger, and Feynman.
4b. Nevertheless, most Christians including you and me accept the theories of physics without feeling a need to accept the false metaphysical claims of leading practitioners.
4c. Since you and I accept physics theories even though many scientists misuse them for atheistic apologetics, we can do the same with biology theories.
So far, you have not even acknowledged any of the points I have made, much less responded to them.
But I’m still hoping.
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter
It is stunningly audacious of you to state this while being unable to respond to the facts that
I salute your audacity, Ashwin. I would only point out that audacity is not an indicator of argument quality.
Grace and peace,
Chris Falter
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.