• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why science and religion are not compatible

Patrick1000 said:
The claim is birds from dinosaurs. Any molecular evidence at all will do. Show me the mutations over time. Direct, or good indirect evidence for those mutations having occurred and their being "unintentional". That is the claim of the evolutionary biologists. I would like to see it backed up with something substantive.

If not birds from dinosaurs then mamals from ancient fish.
Click to expand...
Languages evolve too. I assert that both French and Spanish are evolved forms of Latin. I base that belief on the morphology of the languages. I can't tell you exactly when and in what order the mutations took place in the evolutionary path from Latin to the modern Romance languages. However, it would be unreasonable to reject the language evolution theory on that account. The similarities are unmistakable and can't reasonably be accounted for by any process except transmission with modification.
 
Patrick1000 said:
The claim is birds from dinosaurs. Any molecular evidence at all will do. Show me the mutations over time. Direct, or good indirect evidence for those mutations having occurred and their being "unintentional". That is the claim of the evolutionary biologists. I would like to see it backed up with something substantive.

If not birds from dinosaurs, then mamals from ancient fish. Any mainstream lineage will due. I am not picky.
Click to expand...


Again, you are asking for things that don't exist. We don't have DNA from many fossils and what we do have is patchy at best.

I'm not aware of any surviving DNA from a raptor, and the bird-dinosaur link is with raptors and not with theropods.

The evidence for evolution is in other converging lines -- anatomical studies of fossils, genetic linkages of surviving species with presumed common ancestors, etc.

No one claims that we have or can trace specific genetic mutations from ancient fish to mammals. Not being able to do so, though, is not a problem for the theory. It is just something that we cannot do.

We can point out the genetic differences in modern fish and modern humans and try to construct what genetic changes probably occurred from a common ancestor, but at this point we can only do that in theory because we don't have enough knowledge yet to construct such a map. And that would necessarily involve considerable guesswork.
 
Evidence for common ancestry is not evidence of specific mechanism

Ichneumonwasp said:
Again, you are asking for things that don't exist. We don't have DNA from many fossils and what we do have is patchy at best.

I'm not aware of any surviving DNA from a raptor, and the bird-dinosaur link is with raptors and not with theropods.

The evidence for evolution is in other converging lines -- anatomical studies of fossils, genetic linkages of surviving species with presumed common ancestors, etc.

No one claims that we have or can trace specific genetic mutations from ancient fish to mammals. Not being able to do so, though, is not a problem for the theory. It is just something that we cannot do.

We can point out the genetic differences in modern fish and modern humans and try to construct what genetic changes probably occurred from a common ancestor, but at this point we can only do that in theory because we don't have enough knowledge yet to construct such a map. And that would necessarily involve considerable guesswork.
Click to expand...

Evidence for common ancestry is not evidence for any specific mechanism. This point I made clear from the get go. Sure there is good evidence for common ancestry. How did one animal get to the next though, assuming that(common ancestry) to be true?
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
I agree, science has not proven that incorrect. On the other hand there is no compelling reason to BELIEVE in , to accept anything as a "first cause".

And so it is an odd sort of Mexican stand off. Science cannot prove, what most Americans claim to believe, which is itself at odds, with the most popular naturalist theory of human existence that we have, which is a theory that denies us our God. Oh my, what a mess!
Click to expand...

Psst, you're an atheist, remember?
 
Patrick1000 said:
Evidence for common ancestry is not evidence for any specific mechanism. This point I made clear from the get go. Sure there is good evidence for common ancestry. How did one animal get to the next though, assuming that to be true?
Click to expand...


That is where inductive reasoning (and parsimony) come into play.

In Darwin's day, all Darwin could do was point to the evidence for common ancestry. He didn't know the mechanism that accounted for it.

We can point to a potential mechanism that has a natural explanation, namely genetic mutation with selection and change in allele frequency over time. There is a ton of evidence demonstrating genetic changes that result in marked changes in body form and function. None of us doubt that, you understand the process, so there is no reason to belabor the point.

What I am hearing you say is that you see a conceptual gap between the types of mutations we see as responsible for sickle cell anemia and the much bigger changes we see in organisms from different species. That is why I tried to point you to the single gene change that appears to be responsible for taming foxes (and presumably dogs from wolves). I did not mean that as an example of natural selection, but the actual mechanism for selection is not important -- for this process it is the change in genetic material and the fact that a selection pressure was applied that is important. We can see fairly big changes in the animals that are tamed and that process is not cultural, it is biological. It depends on a single gene change.

With eukaryotes, and especially complex multicellular organisms, single gene changes can have much more profound effects on the ultimate structure of an organism because those organisms go through long developmental phases. Our DNA is set up in a very complex way with regulatory regions that can alter cascades of genes; but the more important issue is what happens during early development where small changes can result in profound alterations in body planning. That sort of thing does not occur in prokaryotes because they are set up differently.

We have seen speciation events in several different organisms, again where speciation is defined as the development of a strain that can no longer mate with the original strain. Why is this important? Because if one group of organisms can no longer mate with another, they can no longer share genes. We know that with the sorting, including crossing over, in sexual species that new genetic combinations arise, but if two groups of initially similar organisms are separated by geography or inability to mate successfully then they will tend to diverge over time. New mutations occur, new sorting takes place in different ways based on the new mutations; new body plans can emerge with alterations in regulatory regions or in the genes responsible for early development.

That is the thinking behind the development of new species from a common ancestor, how it can occur on a genetic basis. Because of the time involved we cannot observe it directly; we can only recreate what seems to have occurred in the past. The best place to look for this information, what we can use to think inductively about the process, is in the field of cladistics with special emphasis on the molecular data.

Parsimony comes into play because other mechanisms are possible -- it is possible that there is a designer who makes whatever genetic manipulations are necessary to account for new species, for descent from a common ancestor. But such a designer would necessarily require an origin. That origin must be accounted for on natural grounds, which puts us back into the area of evolution by means of natural selection, or supernatural grounds. Whichever route you might choose, that explanation requires more entities than are required to produce the changes we see.

Do we have perfect evidence? Well, of course not. We do, however, have remarkably overwhelming evidence for descent from a common ancestor and the genetic mechanism provides a natural explanation for how changes arise in the first place. To make sense of all this, though, I think you might want to spend more time thinking about embryology and less about sickle cell anemia.
 
Patrick1000 said:
Actually, I challenged you to read scientist Stephen Meyer's book, SIGNATURE IN THE CELL, and then asked you to tell me what you thought of the book. I said I did not agree with Meyer's conclusions, but pointed out his presentation of the evidence, all of it, including negative evidence, the absence of findings, for life's origins was very thorough compared to that presented by evolutionary biologists in the main.

I actually make no claims myself. I personally think science has limits and this is probably one of them, though I may well be wrong and that would be OK. That said, main stream scientists have yet to present anything like compelling evidence for "evolution's mechanism".

I stand eagar to be convinced of the truth they can show me, but they never show us anything, just empty words about what should be the case.

Religious people at least follow through on their beliefs in a way the evolutionary biologists don't follow through on their BELIEFS. That is exactly what the evolutionary biologists are entitled to call their opinions with regard to "evolution's mechanism", they are nothing more than BELIEFS.
Click to expand...

Since Meyers presentation of evidence was so well done why don't you agree with his conclusion?

Could you present some of that evidence here?
 
My point exactly.

Ichneumonwasp said:
That is where inductive reasoning (and parsimony) come into play.

In Darwin's day, all Darwin could do was point to the evidence for common ancestry. He didn't know the mechanism that accounted for it.

We can point to a potential mechanism that has a natural explanation, namely genetic mutation with selection and change in allele frequency over time. There is a ton of evidence demonstrating genetic changes that result in marked changes in body form and function. None of us doubt that, you understand the process, so there is no reason to belabor the point.

What I am hearing you say is that you see a conceptual gap between the types of mutations we see as responsible for sickle cell anemia and the much bigger changes we see in organisms from different species. That is why I tried to point you to the single gene change that appears to be responsible for taming foxes (and presumably dogs from wolves). I did not mean that as an example of natural selection, but the actual mechanism for selection is not important -- for this process it is the change in genetic material and the fact that a selection pressure was applied that is important. We can see fairly big changes in the animals that are tamed and that process is not cultural, it is biological. It depends on a single gene change.

With eukaryotes, and especially complex multicellular organisms, single gene changes can have much more profound effects on the ultimate structure of an organism because those organisms go through long developmental phases. Our DNA is set up in a very complex way with regulatory regions that can alter cascades of genes; but the more important issue is what happens during early development where small changes can result in profound alterations in body planning. That sort of thing does not occur in prokaryotes because they are set up differently.

We have seen speciation events in several different organisms, again where speciation is defined as the development of a strain that can no longer mate with the original strain. Why is this important? Because if one group of organisms can no longer mate with another, they can no longer share genes. We know that with the sorting, including crossing over, in sexual species that new genetic combinations arise, but if two groups of initially similar organisms are separated by geography or inability to mate successfully then they will tend to diverge over time. New mutations occur, new sorting takes place in different ways based on the new mutations; new body plans can emerge with alterations in regulatory regions or in the genes responsible for early development.

That is the thinking behind the development of new species from a common ancestor, how it can occur on a genetic basis. Because of the time involved we cannot observe it directly; we can only recreate what seems to have occurred in the past. The best place to look for this information, what we can use to think inductively about the process, is in the field of cladistics with special emphasis on the molecular data.

Parsimony comes into play because other mechanisms are possible -- it is possible that there is a designer who makes whatever genetic manipulations are necessary to account for new species, for descent from a common ancestor. But such a designer would necessarily require an origin. That origin must be accounted for on natural grounds, which puts us back into the area of evolution by means of natural selection, or supernatural grounds. Whichever route you might choose, that explanation requires more entities than are required to produce the changes we see.

Do we have perfect evidence? Well, of course not. We do, however, have remarkably overwhelming evidence for descent from a common ancestor and the genetic mechanism provides a natural explanation for how changes arise in the first place. To make sense of all this, though, I think you might want to spend more time thinking about embryology and less about sickle cell anemia.
Click to expand...

The evolutionary biologists have nothing better to offer. My view is that chance/random/unintentional mutation again and again and again and again, a thousand plus times over to turn a reptilian cardiopulmonary system into an avian heart/lung is flat out ridiculous. Would never happen, and pretending like it would doesn't make the hokus pokus hokum true.

We have ZERO EVIDENCE, only wishful thinking on the part of evolutionary biologists.

Embryology? I prefer to think about how different an avian lung is from a reptile's, or a mamal's, and how a series of unintentional mutations could not "make such a lung happen" in a million million years.
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
So you say, but there is no evidence for that, nor is it plausible, reasonable. It is an empty wish, belief.
Click to expand...

Seems you have never read any good science books. Please do and get back to us in a few months.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Before proceeding, is it evidence that you want -- you've already been provided evidence in this thread -- or proof? Science doesn't prove propositions, it disproves some and others pass.
Click to expand...

And many it places on the TODO pile; or the None Of My Business pile. Knowing that evolution is the business of science and God isn't is part of understanding science.
 
westprog said:
And many it places on the TODO pile; or the None Of My Business pile. Knowing that evolution is the business of science and God isn't is part of understanding science.
Click to expand...

If people make quotes to what this GOD is, that is testable.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Patrick1000 said:
So you say, but there is no evidence for that, nor is it plausible, reasonable. It is an empty wish, belief.
Click to expand...
It's perfectly plausible that small changes accumulate into big ones. American and UK English have small differences because they separated only a relatively short time ago and changes have not had long to accumulate. But English and German have been evolving more or less separately for 1,500 years, and by now are distinct and mutually unintelligible languages, although many similarities can still be discerned.

The changes have simply grown over time. Likewise with species. The more remote the latest common ancestor, the greater the disparity between descendant species.
 
Paulhoff said:
If people make quotes to what this GOD is, that is testable.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

Certain definitions of God are possibly testable. Most aren't. If they were, then there would be experiments going on.

I have no doubt that scientists would love to do a suite of experiments proving or disproving God. They don't, because they know that such experiments aren't available.
 
Patrick1000 said:
The evolutionary biologists have nothing better to offer. My view is that chance/random/unintentional mutation again and again and again and again, a thousand plus times over to turn a reptilian cardiopulmonary system into an avian heart/lung is flat out ridiculous. Would never happen, and pretending like it would doesn't make the hokus pokus hokum true.

We have ZERO EVIDENCE, only wishful thinking on the part of evolutionary biologists.

Embryology? I prefer to think about how different an avian lung is from a reptile's, or a mamal's, and how a series of unintentional mutations could not "make such a lung happen" in a million million years.
Click to expand...



I don't understand why you think it is so impossible. What do you know about the embryological development of the heart? You do realize that some people are born with three heart chambers do you not and sometimes two? Or hypoplastic chambers? Those alterations are due to genetic variations, so there were genetic changes that resulted in four chambered hearts, changes in lung morphology, changes in great vessel origin, etc.

I can't help but wonder that you have a possibly distorted view of protein-protein interaction in eukaryote development. That is why, in my first post in this thread to you, I tried to point you to patterning in the central nervous system (which is the area I know most about) where two protein families 'control' most of the ventral-dorsal development in a dose dependent fashion. One of those protein families, if expressed too early, could also result in the absence of a nervous system. It's fascinating stuff.

If you don't want to learn the information and choose to have a truncated view of what genetic changes can do that is your prerogative. Your arguments suffer, however.
 
westprog said:
Certain definitions of God are possibly testable. Most aren't. If they were, then there would be experiments going on.

I have no doubt that scientists would love to do a suite of experiments proving or disproving God. They don't, because they know that such experiments aren't available.
Click to expand...

They say their so-called idea of a god is all-knowing, but time and time again in their bible it is shown not to know what the outcome of it's doings are going to be, has in the so-called flood for one.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Parsimony comes into play because other mechanisms are possible -- it is possible that there is a designer who makes whatever genetic manipulations are necessary to account for new species, for descent from a common ancestor. But such a designer would necessarily require an origin. That origin must be accounted for on natural grounds, which puts us back into the area of evolution by means of natural selection, or supernatural grounds. Whichever route you might choose, that explanation requires more entities than are required to produce the changes we see.
Click to expand...

I disagree. God doesn't need to have an origin. The Jewish/Christian God is unchangeable and therefore is eternal. The changes we see can all be accounted for by natural processes. The existence of the processes themselves can't be accounted for by anything natural (in my opinion).

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that religion needs to keep moving the goal post and unfortunately, that's correct. What bothers me is that Thomas Aquinas had already placed that goal post so far back (to the level of existence itself) that there would be no need to ever move it to accommodate science (as Catholic, I'll just blame the reformation for that).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom