Dowis Refutes Dawkins

[ERayR]

This is not correct.

As has already been said on this thread, nothing will ever disprove creationism as it doesn't pertain to science.

My question for you was if you wanted to be able to see why scientists believe this supports the evolutionary argument - whether or not you wanted to increase your understanding (of others points of view). I will take this as a no.

Yes as long as I can. My day seems to be busying up on me.

[danielwoods]

Thank you for answering that question. This is key to understanding why science can't provide evidence for creationism or its variants.

This is true to a point. Philosophically speaking, the only thing I can really be sure of is that my mind exists in some form. Everything else is interpretation based on some framework of belief. From that standpoint, all beliefs are equally valid / faith dependent If, however, we assume that the scientific method is valid, and that other entities exist, then we can favor certain theories over others. Aristotelian physics was the reining interpretation for thousands of years. Once people started testing it using physical experiments, the evidence did not support Aristotle's views and they were abandoned. This is how science works. It requires us to be willing to shed long held beliefs about something if better evidence comes along.

The belief in common descent requires and predicts many very specific things. To date there is no scientific evidence that contradicts this. We have talked about just one teeny protein in this thread, but the evidence is overwhelming. Note, this doesn't mean that God didn't create each species individually. It just means that if he did, the method he chose to use is not scientifically distinguishable from common descent. So out of the literally countless ways that he could have chosen to put us together, the method he used looks exactly like evolution.

I'm a little uneasy with, "there is no scientific evidence that contradicts [belief in common descent]" because of my experience in other fields, life is never 100% this or that. Even in geology they use the term "non-conformity" when they run across a tree that is fossilized through many layers that it wasn't supposed to, or the whale that was fossilized upside down through many layers again (a non-conformity), yet geologists will make the same statements, "there's no scientific evidence contradicting our views..." Bla bla bla... sorry it has a ring of faith to it, that I am uneasy with.

So, if I found one bit of scientific evidence that contradicted belief in common descent, then the statement would be, "well most scientific evidence supports this view..." And I would agree, because that is what most scientists believe. However, what is interesting, is not all scientists believe this.

There is a lot here. Evolutionary science is vast and to understand it is helpful to talk specifics. You specifically pulled a quote from here which talks specifically about the coding for a particular protein. This is not talking about any morphological structure. This protein is used and essential in aerobic respiration. It's use does not vary across organisms. It serves the same purpose in your cells as it does in bacteria. There is no reason why a human couldn't use the exact same protein that the bacteria does. So if God was using similar parts for similar functions we could predict that he would use the same protein across all organisms. This is almost what we see. What we see is a similar protein across all organisms with some small functionally irrelevant changes. What's interesting about these changes is that they fall out onto the evolutionary tree. That is Human's proteins are an almost identical match to Chimpanzee's. A human's protein is also more similar to a rabbits than a bird. Penguins and chickens are more similar to each other than a frog. The further back on the evolutionary tree you go, the more random changes there are. This is not changes to morphology. These changes do not provide any advantage or disadvantage. If God wanted he could have used the same protein in all organisms or different functionally equivalent proteins in all organisms. The way that God chose to do it though was a way that is indistinguishable from common descent. Hence the mutations that early mammals got in this protein are passed on to all mammals. Look at this slide for an illustration from my link in my previous comment: The length of each branch are proportional to the differences between the two proteins. I honestly don't know how you can honestly look at this and say that this is not evidence for common descent. I can understand you not being convinced by it, or believing God must have had his reasons, but this is compelling.

This is only compelling if you already believe that similarity equals relatedness. In essence, if the evolutionary tree is accurate, sure it's compelling.

I said nothing of the sort. Also macro evolution and micro evolution are identical. The only difference is the time involved.

What does time add, that we can't add in the lab? To put it another way, why is it that when we push animals to the limits of their genetics, they don't evolve as per the theory?

I can fully accept that the digital code might not be from a natural source. It doesn't change any of the large body of evidence that shows a common ancestor. I will reiterate my position stated early in the thread. The evidence points to God using evolution (assuming one believes in God). If not there must be some as yet to be discovered compelling reason that forced God to create us in a way that mimics the evidence of evolution.

I agree to a point, however, it seems to me that the evidence fits creation better.

Edited July 22, 2013 by danielwoods

[ERayR]

I'm a little uneasy with, "there is no scientific evidence that contradicts [belief in common descent]" because of my experience in other fields, life is never 100% this or that. Even in geology they use the term "non-conformity" when they run across a tree that is fossilized through many layers that it wasn't supposed to, or the whale that was fossilized upside down through many layers again (a non-conformity), yet geologists will make the same statements, "there's no scientific evidence contradicting our views..." Bla bla bla... sorry it has a ring of faith to it, that I am uneasy with.

So, if I found one bit of scientific evidence that contradicted belief in common descent, then the statement would be, "well most scientific evidence supports this view..." And I would agree, because that is what most scientists believe. However, what is interesting, is not all scientists believe this.

This is only compelling if you already believe that similarity equals relatedness. In essence, if the evolutionary tree is accurate, sure it's compelling.

What does time add, that we can't add in the lab? To put it another way, why is it that when we push animals to the limits of their genetics, they don't evolve as per the theory?

I agree to a point, however, it seems to me that the evidence fits creation better.

Wish I could give you another rep point for this. Well said.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Yes as long as I can. My day seems to be busying up on me.

The area that danielwoods quoted talked about ubiquitous proteins. These are proteins that perform functions at the cellular level that are found throughout all living organisms. The protein we are talking about is cytochrome c. It is a large molecule that traps and transports a single electron. It is used to support aerobic respiration in the mitochondria (power house) of cells.

Proteins are made up of amino acids building blocks. To perform its job a protein needs to be a particular shape. Some of these amino acid building blocks are functionally interchangeable. So for example say at position 19 you could have A,B,C,D,or E and they would all work the same.

So we have a protein that is necessary to life. It's make up is somewhat flexible. God could have created all organisms with the same exact amino acid structure in the protein. God could have created all organisms with random amino acid stucture. God can basically do what ever he wants right? Common descent and evolutionary theory on the other hand require a common source for this protein hundreds of millions of years ago. Are you with me up to here?

[cdowis]

Snark noted. CDowis withdrew from discourse with me. His/her refusal to engage started early in this thread. When it takes 30 minutes to type a post and it is ignored it just isn't worth the effort. If you would like to see one of her / his points addressed by me you are more than welcome to bring it up.

I still have no response to post #161.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I'm a little uneasy with, "there is no scientific evidence that contradicts [belief in common descent]" because of my experience in other fields, life is never 100% this or that. Even in geology they use the term "non-conformity" when they run across a tree that is fossilized through many layers that it wasn't supposed to, or the whale that was fossilized upside down through many layers again (a non-conformity), yet geologists will make the same statements, "there's no scientific evidence contradicting our views..." Bla bla bla... sorry it has a ring of faith to it, that I am uneasy with.

Thank you for this. It is easy to get carried away. Obviously absolutes are not typically supported by science only probabilities.

So, if I found one bit of scientific evidence that contradicted belief in common descent, then the statement would be, "well most scientific evidence supports this view..." And I would agree, because that is what most scientists believe. However, what is interesting, is not all scientists believe this.

I'm sure that there are probably some biologists out there that don't believe in evolution, but they are very very rare. Certainly not employed at BYU.

This is only compelling if you already believe that similarity equals relatedness. In essence, if the evolutionary tree is accurate, sure it's compelling.

It's not just the similarity. It's the fact that mammals don't have mutations that are present in the bacteria. When a mutation happens it is found in all of the descendants on the evolutionary tree. Not found in distant cousins. Why do you suppose that God made all of the mutations in the gene match the already proposed and accepted evolutionary tree? Why not give mammals some of the mutations found in bacteria but not in chickens just to throw evolutionists off a little bit? The mutations serve no function. There is no biological reason that humans need a different amino acid sequence in this protein. Why do we have one? Why is ours identical to a chimpanzee? This is a real question. I haven't been able to come up with a reasonable answer outside common descent.

What does time add, that we can't add in the lab? To put it another way, why is it that when we push animals to the limits of their genetics, they don't evolve as per the theory?

They do. Fruit flies evolved new metabolic pathways when exposed to different food sources. Bacteria evolve all the time. Evolution requires accumulation of dna mutations over thousands of generations. Unless you can come up with a way to speed up the sexual maturation process of higher level organisms by several orders of magnitude it will not be done. Do you also reject it when scientists tell you that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion? After all we have been unable to duplicate the nuclear fusion process that happens in the sun on earth.

I agree to a point, however, it seems to me that the evidence fits creation better.

If there were a supernatural source for the coding itself wouldn't that be creation by definition? Also thank you for you thoughtful post.

Edited July 22, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ERayR]

The area that danielwoods quoted talked about ubiquitous proteins. These are proteins that perform functions at the cellular level that are found throughout all living organisms. The protein we are talking about is cytochrome c. It is a large molecule that traps and transports a single electron. It is used to support aerobic respiration in the mitochondria (power house) of cells.

Proteins are made up of amino acids building blocks. To perform its job a protein needs to be a particular shape. Some of these amino acid building blocks are functionally interchangeable. So for example say at position 19 you could have A,B,C,D,or E and they would all work the same.

So we have a protein that is necessary to life. It's make up is somewhat flexible. God could have created all organisms with the same exact amino acid structure in the protein. God could have created all organisms with random amino acid stucture. God can basically do what ever he wants right? Common descent and evolutionary theory on the other hand require a common source for this protein hundreds of millions of years ago. Are you with me up to here?

The God could have statement is a put off for me. Especially in the tone I perceived. Anything that is a part of the design of flora and fauna is an example of Gods genius. These points you bring up to prove divergence from a single source is just as plausible as a creation proof. In case you are unaware I do not subscribe to a young earth model but I do subscribe to a creation model which takes into consideration evidences of very old technologically advanced civilizations. Information dismissed out of hand by young earth creationists and evolutionists alike.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The God could have statement is a put off for me. Especially in the tone I perceived. Anything that is a part of the design of flora and fauna is an example of Gods genius.

No disrespect was meant. We don't know each other and tone is hard to convey over the internet. Earlier you thought I was talking down to you or assuming you were less intelligent. This is not the case at all. I'm not sure how else to put it. Maybe the way you said it will suffice: "Anything that is a part of the design of flora and fauna is an example of Gods genius." Everything is strong evidence of God's hand. God presumably had lots of choices in creating the earth. What I find fascinating about science is discovering the how. To me evolution does not take away from God's genius, but as you say is an example of God's genius.

[danielwoods]

Thank you for this. It is easy to get carried away. Obviously absolutes are not typically supported by science only probabilities.

Wow. Likewise. I don't usually get that nice of a response. And I agree.

I'm sure that there are probably some biologists out there that don't believe in evolution, but they are very very rare. Certainly not employed at BYU.

Well, macro-evolution anyway.

It's not just the similarity. It's the fact that mammals don't have mutations that are present in the bacteria. When a mutation happens it is found in all of the descendants on the evolutionary tree. Not found in distant cousins. Why do you suppose that God made all of the mutations in the gene match the already proposed and accepted evolutionary tree? Why not give mammals some of the mutations found in bacteria but not in chickens just to throw evolutionists off a little bit? The mutations serve no function. There is no biological reason that humans need a different amino acid sequence in this protein. Why do we have one? Why is ours identical to a chimpanzee? This is a real question. I haven't been able to come up with a reasonable answer outside common descent.

Ok, you state, "When a mutation happens it is found in all of the descendants on the evolutionary tree. Not found in distant cousins." How do you know this?

How long does it take for the evolutionary tree to develop? And your axiom here, isn't testable if it the data set occurs over say 300K years. When a mutation happens it is found in all of the descendants, if they are in fact descendants, then sure. But there's no way to test this. Otherwise it is also possible that the exact same mutations happened as a result of exposer to the exact same circumstances, and were passed on to their progeny.

The net result is the data we can observe today. We have to extrapolate (using our philosophy and experience) how the data fits into real life.

They do. Fruit flies evolved new metabolic pathways when exposed to different food sources. Bacteria evolve all the time. Evolution requires accumulation of dna mutations over thousands of generations. Unless you can come up with a way to speed up the sexual maturation process of higher level organisms by several orders of magnitude it will not be done.

I love fruit flies, they have so many generations per year (Wiki says 10 days for one generation so that's 36 generations a year?) Now compared to higher level organisms which generations are about an average 20 years per? So, if we were to compare, and we've been studying fruit flies (genetically) since 1987 to now, about 26 years at 36 generations a year, so about 936 generations. Which would equal, about 18,720 years of generations for the higher level organisms. Yet, in all that time, we observe, if pushed beyond it's genetic limits, it dies. Mutations occur and usually kill it. This is the most common response to such genetic manipulation. You'd think that if macro-evolution were true, that the little fly would evolve some other way to survive. Now maybe we need more time. And that's one of my points. The call for more time is a plea based on faith, not evidence. The evidence seems compelling to me that in fact there is little to no macro-evolution going on, even though there are 936 generations to observe and manipulate.

The other thing we observe is the opposite of what evolution would predict. Stasis. When the fruit fly survives the best, is when it hasn't mutated, and is functioning fully as a fruit fly. When it's able to eat and reproduce as a fruit fly. Mutations are a stress on the system, which cause it to excel only in very specific circumstances (as you pointed out new metabolic pathways). Most of the time mutations are deadly, and a fruit fly does best without mutations.

Do you also reject it when scientists tell you that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion? After all we have been unable to duplicate the nuclear fusion process that happens in the sun on earth.

The fundamental difference is time. We can analyze, theorize and test our theories in present time. We can shoot things at the sun and explode things and all sorts of things in real time. What we can't do is go back in time and observe and test the ideas we have about evolutionary history. It's gone. All we have is a limited amount of data and a whole lot of extrapolation. We can't ever go back and find out if we are right or wrong.

In answer to your question. No. If they say it's powered by nuclear fusion, I have no reason to doubt it. I have come across numerous things that cause me to doubt macro level evolution.

If there were a supernatural source for the coding itself wouldn't that be creation by definition? Also thank you for you thoughtful post.

Yes. And thank you!

Edited July 22, 2013 by danielwoods

[ERayR]

No disrespect was meant. We don't know each other and tone is hard to convey over the internet. Earlier you thought I was talking down to you or assuming you were less intelligent. This is not the case at all. I'm not sure how else to put it. Maybe the way you said it will suffice: "Anything that is a part of the design of flora and fauna is an example of Gods genius." Everything is strong evidence of God's hand. God presumably had lots of choices in creating the earth. What I find fascinating about science is discovering the how. To me evolution does not take away from God's genius, but as you say is an example of God's genius.

Beyond variety within a species or kind i do not see evolution as the tool used. I do not see all life as coming from a single source by divergence. I have already explained the fall/atonement problem. Besides that in Mormon thought life is not created. It has always been and always will be. It seems totally inefficient to use evolution to bring life to a planet when a simple transplantation would suffice. The concept of creating something that already exists in abundance. Again I Do not believe that God created life but organized what was.

[Brian 2.0]

It seems totally inefficient to use evolution to bring life to a planet when a simple transplantation would suffice. The concept of creating something that already exists in abundance. Again I Do not believe that God created life but organized what was.

My question is a bit of a tangent... but lets's admit it, this thread could use some tangents as we keep saying much the same thing over and over again...

What branch of the "evolutionary tree" do you think this transplanted life was when it was put on this earth? Let's forget about plants in this and just think of animals. I realize this is all speculation, and I have no intention of arguing your answers scientifically or anything as this is pure religous talk. Like Seeking, I too think you are an intelligent person, and this is a fun concept to spitball around... sort of like we're blowing off Sunday School and having speculation talk in the foyer.

You seems to indicate you believe in micro evolution and species variations at least in that process... so how far back would these "transplanted" creaturse be in the "evolutionary tree". For example... would you say that all species of birds we have now were transplated here, or that maybe one "bird" was and that animal served as a common ancestor for all the birds we have now.

A creationist or ID believer who believes in micro, but not macro evolution, trends to agree with the last "tips" of the evolutionary tree and some of the branch off points (say between the different species of fruit flies we've been talkign about), but at some point moving down the tree towards the trunk... intelligent design (or transplatation) happened... the tree doesn't actually go back to ONE common ancestor. It's interesting to think where and how far down the evolutionary tree one draws the line.

[Bikeemikey]

It all depends on where you place your faith, in unprovable scripture or in unprovable scientific theory's. For me I start from the assumption that there is a core of fact in the scriptures. This is reinforced by the spiritual experiences I have received. I believe the account of the fall and the account of the atonement are factual. That being said man evolving over long periods of time is an incompatible process with the concept of a fall of the literal offspring of God. First the concept of a common ancestor evolution is one of ascension from the primitive to the complex, from savage to civilized instead of from a higher state to a lower one. And when you remove the fall you remove the need for an atonement. You turn "what happened" into a fairy tale to make your process work.

I have great faith in both God and humanity. For that reason I can have great faith in Christ and Science. Also, as a fan of Popper, nothing is provable. Somethings however have thus far avoided falsification.

I also believe the Scriptures contain fact. I also believe that the fall and atonement are factual events. This is a vastly different claim than the scriptures are literal observations of the totality of each event.

I personally see no incompatibility between Evolution, the Fall, and the Atonement.

Not sure where you got the idea of fairy tales from.

Also, we are moving from a condition of savage to civilized... that is the whole purpose of civilization.

That said I have no interest in derailing the thread into issues of compatibility and notion of savage vs. civilized.

Let it simply be stated that I am an active LDS member who fully embraces the Atonement and the Fall yet also have no objection to the evidence of science relating to Evolution, or any thing else for that matter. If it is evolution, it will be far grander than we can currently understand... if it is not evolution then there will be some cause behind why things appeared the way they have. Either way there is no issue here.

[Bikeemikey]

No not confirmed. All that has been confirmed is that changes happen. It has not been confirmed that these changes results in changes of the macro-evolution type. That is what is extrapolated because because of the beginning assumptions.

Where did the Macro-Micro evolution ideas come from... There is just evolution over longer and shorter periods of time... The other redundant distinction seems an artificial line drawn in the sand by those who are happy to accept enough of evolution that they dont have to contest that change occurs but not so much that they have to agree that this suggests that it left long enough we may have evolved over vast period of billions of years out of virtually nothing.

So who came up with this micro-macro evolution distinction?

[Bikeemikey]

Beyond variety within a species or kind i do not see evolution as the tool used. I do not see all life as coming from a single source by divergence. I have already explained the fall/atonement problem.

You have explained that you think it is a problem... however, others have stated they think it is not...

I have not seen any detailed analysis of this assertion during this thread that shuts the book on the issue. In fact... most commentary has been about how we shouldn't talk about it much at all in order to avoid derailment.

However, if your argument on this matter is central to your argument against evolution then I suggest we spend sometime reviewing it.

Cheers.

[danielwoods]

So who came up with this micro-macro evolution distinction?

One is directly observable, the other is not.

[Bikeemikey]

One is directly observable, the other is not.

Not my question... I know what is being referenced by the terms... I am interested in where the terms came from. Are they terms generated with in the scientific community to describe what they feel to be different evolutionary concepts? Are they terms generated by religious critics of evolution who realized they needed accept some claims of evolution but didn't want the whole package? I want to know where the term/idea came from.

I am interest in the history of the terms... the origins and etymology of the words mirco-evolution and macro-evolution... I already know what they mean.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[danielwoods]

Not my question... I know what is being referenced by the terms... I am interested in where the terms came from. Are they terms generated with in the scientific community to describe what they feel to be different evolutionary concepts? Are they terms generated by religious critics of evolution who realized they needed accept some claims of evolution but didn't want the whole package? I want to know where the term/idea came from.

I am interest in the history of the terms... the origins and etymology of the words mirco-evolution and macro-evolution... I already know what they mean.

Sorry. I don't know. I'd have to research it. I suspect it was developed by the critics of evolution to more exactly define what their criticism was.

[thesometimesaint]

Where did the Macro-Micro evolution ideas come from... There is just evolution over longer and shorter periods of time... The other redundant distinction seems an artificial line drawn in the sand by those who are happy to accept enough of evolution that they dont have to contest that change occurs but not so much that they have to agree that this suggests that it left long enough we may have evolved over vast period of billions of years out of virtually nothing.

So who came up with this micro-macro evolution distinction?

Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, "Variabilität und Variation".

[ERayR]

My question is a bit of a tangent... but lets's admit it, this thread could use some tangents as we keep saying much the same thing over and over again...

What branch of the "evolutionary tree" do you think this transplanted life was when it was put on this earth? Let's forget about plants in this and just think of animals. I realize this is all speculation, and I have no intention of arguing your answers scientifically or anything as this is pure religous talk. Like Seeking, I too think you are an intelligent person, and this is a fun concept to spitball around... sort of like we're blowing off Sunday School and having speculation talk in the foyer.

You seems to indicate you believe in micro evolution and species variations at least in that process... so how far back would these "transplanted" creaturse be in the "evolutionary tree". For example... would you say that all species of birds we have now were transplated here, or that maybe one "bird" was and that animal served as a common ancestor for all the birds we have now.

A creationist or ID believer who believes in micro, but not macro evolution, trends to agree with the last "tips" of the evolutionary tree and some of the branch off points (say between the different species of fruit flies we've been talkign about), but at some point moving down the tree towards the trunk... intelligent design (or transplatation) happened... the tree doesn't actually go back to ONE common ancestor. It's interesting to think where and how far down the evolutionary tree one draws the line.

In my early life I was a farmer/rancher and used micro-evolution to improve my cows, pigs and horses. At no time were we able to change the animals into anything other than animals improved for the purposes we used them. Pigs are a great example. In the early 1900 lard was a profitable commodity so pigs were selected that yielded lots of fat/lard. As other alternatives, which were better and cheaper were developed pigs were bred for their ability to convert feed to hams and pork chops and much less fat. Similar changes can be seen in most animals and plants. Farmers/ranchers are great manipulators of micro-evolution. I have heard fellow pig farmers quip more than once; "wouldn't it be great to develop a pig that laid eggs then we could produce bacon and eggs at the same time". As much as we are able to control the conformation of those animals we are unable to change them into different animals. Pigs are still pigs, cows are still cows, etc.

All that being said I would postulate that a small herd of cows, pigs, etc. would suffice to populate a planet provided they had adequate protection from predators.

[Bikeemikey]

Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, "Variabilität und Variation".

Thanks so much. Appreciate the links.

Very interesting... a term of scientific origin after all.

It does appear that creationists and Intelligent Design advocates may be somewhat misrepresenting the concepts of of micro and macro evolution when they link it to the idea of micro within species and macro between species.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[ERayR]

Thanks so much. Appreciate the links.

Very interesting... a term of scientific origin after all.

It does appear that creationists and Intelligent Design advocates may be somewhat misrepresenting the concepts of of micro and macro evolution when they link it to the idea of micro within species and macro between species.

The link is made by evolutionists who claim there is no difference.

PS. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates are basically the same thing. ID just adds one more step, that puts a designer in charge of the process.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Beyond variety within a species or kind i do not see evolution as the tool used. I do not see all life as coming from a single source by divergence. I have already explained the fall/atonement problem. Besides that in Mormon thought life is not created. It has always been and always will be. It seems totally inefficient to use evolution to bring life to a planet when a simple transplantation would suffice. The concept of creating something that already exists in abundance. Again I Do not believe that God created life but organized what was.

I can totally respect that. BTW, I do agree that evolution poses a very large and significant (though not insurmountable) problem towards traditional lds view of the fall / atonement. I myself view these and many other things in a largely symbolic way that I think most would be uncomfortable with (not holding my view as superior at all - it just works for me).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Ok, you state, "When a mutation happens it is found in all of the descendants on the evolutionary tree. Not found in distant cousins." How do you know this?

How long does it take for the evolutionary tree to develop? And your axiom here, isn't testable if it the data set occurs over say 300K years. When a mutation happens it is found in all of the descendants, if they are in fact descendants, then sure. But there's no way to test this. Otherwise it is also possible that the exact same mutations happened as a result of exposer to the exact same circumstances, and were passed on to their progeny.

The net result is the data we can observe today. We have to extrapolate (using our philosophy and experience) how the data fits into real life.

Interesting. I completely conceded that the evolutionary tree constructed from the amino acid / dna sequencing of the cytochrome c protein is very extrapolated concept. As you say we can't go back 300,000 years and observe the mutations as they happen. In this case as you say you look at the mutations and assume common descent and then construct the tree. The reason this is compelling is that the evolutionary tree that we just independently created matches the evolutionary tree we get from looking at physiology and any number of other ways of independently reconstructing the tree.

You propose that the same mutations might have happened as a result of exposure to the exact same circumstances. This almost seems testable. What makes this difficult is there is no known force that will force a very specific amino acid to change to the exact same different amino acid across multiple species. Additionally chimpanzee's and human's have the exact same protein, and the DNA that encodes the protein differs by just a few base pairs.

I guess if I had a firm spiritual witness on the way creation happened I might look at the data in a different light (this is not said in a condescending way BTW, but in all sincerity). Lacking such, and my view of many things in scripture as figurative likely makes me more susceptible to the evolutionary argument.

I love fruit flies, they have so many generations per year (Wiki says 10 days for one generation so that's 36 generations a year?) Now compared to higher level organisms which generations are about an average 20 years per? So, if we were to compare, and we've been studying fruit flies (genetically) since 1987 to now, about 26 years at 36 generations a year, so about 936 generations. Which would equal, about 18,720 years of generations for the higher level organisms. Yet, in all that time, we observe, if pushed beyond it's genetic limits, it dies. Mutations occur and usually kill it. This is the most common response to such genetic manipulation. You'd think that if macro-evolution were true, that the little fly would evolve some other way to survive. Now maybe we need more time. And that's one of my points. The call for more time is a plea based on faith, not evidence. The evidence seems compelling to me that in fact there is little to no macro-evolution going on, even though there are 936 generations to observe and manipulate.

The other thing we observe is the opposite of what evolution would predict. Stasis. When the fruit fly survives the best, is when it hasn't mutated, and is functioning fully as a fruit fly. When it's able to eat and reproduce as a fruit fly. Mutations are a stress on the system, which cause it to excel only in very specific circumstances (as you pointed out new metabolic pathways). Most of the time mutations are deadly, and a fruit fly does best without mutations.

Fair points. I think most biologists would agree that mutations are overwhelmingly negative or neutral most of the time. Most organisms will not evolve unless there is significant environmental stress to do so (look at so called living fossils like crocodiles that fill the same environmental niche as they did eons ago - assuming you believe in an old earth). The math is also interesting. 18720 years? As a comparison, scientists would tell you that the first "modern" humans arrived on the scene 100,000 years ago.

The fundamental difference is time. We can analyze, theorize and test our theories in present time. We can shoot things at the sun and explode things and all sorts of things in real time. What we can't do is go back in time and observe and test the ideas we have about evolutionary history. It's gone. All we have is a limited amount of data and a whole lot of extrapolation. We can't ever go back and find out if we are right or wrong.

In answer to your question. No. If they say it's powered by nuclear fusion, I have no reason to doubt it. I have come across numerous things that cause me to doubt macro level evolution.

Thanks for your response. I wonder though if you find more reasons to doubt macro evolution because of its inherent conflicts with traditional lds tenants? Not saying this is a bad reason to do so. Do you relate with Elder Packer when he said "When confronted by evidence in the rocks below, rely on the witness of the heavens above"? Please note again I don't find anything wrong with this approach or think Elder Packer inferior for expressing it.

Also - I am hosting family over the long pioneer day weekend, so probably my last long post on this subject. I did enjoy the conversation.

Edited July 24, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ERayR]

I can totally respect that. BTW, I do agree that evolution poses a very large and significant (though not insurmountable) problem towardbs traditional lds view of the fall / atonement. I myself view these and many other things in a largely symbolic way that I think most would be uncomfortable with (not holding my view as superior at all - it just works for me).

Ah yes the symbolism label IMNSHO is a label for information one cannot reconcile to ones worldview. In this case evolution. I am not trying to be snarky but I see it all to often. When one is challenged by a scripture one can almost be sure the answer will be "I look at that as symbolic". If we are not careful we will symbolize ourselves right out of salvation.

[ERayR]

Interesting. I completely conceded that the evolutionary tree constructed from the amino acid / dna sequencing of the cytochrome c protein is very extrapolated concept. As you say we can't go back 300,000 years and observe the mutations as they happen. In this case as you say you look at the mutations and assume common descent and then construct the tree. The reason this is compelling is that the evolutionary tree that we just independently created matches the evolutionary tree we get from looking at physiology and any number of other ways of independently reconstructing the tree.

It is very easy to construct such trees when circular referencing is used. By this I mean making the data fit by discarding or ignoring what doesn't fit.

You propose that the same mutations might have happened as a result of exposure to the exact same circumstances. This almost seems testable. What makes this difficult is there is no known force that will force a very specific amino acid to change to the exact same different amino acid across multiple species. Additionally chimpanzee's and human's have the exact same protein, and the DNA that encodes the protein differs by just a few base pairs.

When designing flora and fauna a shrewd and intelligent creator would use a common template, changing only what is necessary.

I guess if I had a firm spiritual witness on the way creation happened I might look at the data in a different light (this is not said in a condescending way BTW, but in all sincerity). Lacking such, and my view of many things in scripture as figurative likely makes me more susceptible to the evolutionary argument.

Branch out in your exploration of data. Look at the data for highly technological civilizations in the far distant past. It is there but is summarily dismissed (and ridiculed) by evolutionists and young earth creationists alike. There is as much evidence for this as for these other two concepts. The problem is it doesn't fit the mold so it has to be dismissed.

Fair points. I think most biologists would agree that mutations are overwhelmingly negative or neutral most of the time. Most organisms will not evolve unless there is significant environmental stress to do so (look at so called living fossils like crocodiles that fill the same environmental niche as they did eons ago - assuming you believe in an old earth). The math is also interesting. 18720 years? As a comparison, scientists would tell you that the first "modern" humans arrived on the scene 100,000 years ago.

And yet we have a multitude of flora and fauna which I am told is only a fraction of what we have had. All of this from a system that produces " mutations are overwhelmingly negative or neutral most of the time".