Meanwhile, to cut through all the gibberish going on here, science doesn’t preclude a god, it just doesn’t bother testing for one. The supernatural is beyond the bounds of science. It tests for what can be shown in the natural world. If you are saying evolution happens, and god made it happen, I can’t really argue with you. I don’t personally believe it, but I can’t argue with you. If you think you can test “god” in the natural world, by all means, continue your work. Again, come back when you have something.

I didn’t take as disrespectful and I’m sorry I gave that impression.

There is no time limit on the “asignment”. You can do it whenever you feel like it. The point is not the similarities but the pattern of similarities and differences. The penguin and the sea lion have very similar life styles but the penguin is more similar to the night hawk in every way. I recommended starting with the respiratory system because this is where it really stands out. The penguin’s respiratory system is very different from the sea lion’s despite the fact they are both mostly aquatic. The penguin’s and the night hawks respiratory system are very similar dispite have very different needs. You see the same thing comparing the bat to the sea lion and the sea hawk. You also see the same pattern in the circulatory system, the digestive system, or any place you care to look. If each animal was designed for its particular niche I don’t think this is what you would see. That’s why I picked these four animals, two mostly aquatic carnivors and two nocturnal flying insectivors.

If we find that penguin hemoglobin and myoglobin were more similar to sea lion hemoglobin and myoglobin than to the night hawk’s that would be evidence against evolution and for special creation. Finding a bird with three bones in its middle ear would be the same thing. Why do barn owls tracking a mouse by sound in the darkness have only one bone in its middle ear, while a cat doing the same thing and a human that couldn’t do it if his life depended on it, have three? Doesn’t the owl need the amplification supplied by those bones as much as the cat?

For the record I’m Catholic not an atheist.

Isn’t this transition well documented in the fossil record?

Doug said:
“In checking this stuff out a bit in the last couple days, I came across something called Haldane’s dilemma. Do the google search on it. Read the evolutionists defense/dismissal of the “dilemma” but also read the following:

Cost theory and the cost of substitution—a clarification
Examine all of it objectively and see what you think.”

Maybe you could summarize ReMine’s main points when you get the chance? I had not heard of Haldane’s dilemma before and did a google search. ReMine was the only name that came up suggesting this is a big problem for evolutionary theory, and he’s an electrical engineer.
The explanation from biologists seems to be that Haldane didn’t account for more than one gene being selected for at a time, genetic changes due to neutral drift rather than selection, varying population sizes, and sexual recombination. In other words, his calculations were oversimplified.

I just posted an entry on this topic on a previous blog entry. I will copy a portion of that entry below.

is evolution falsifiable? Well according to Scientific American “It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor [namely Evolution].” Emphasis mine.

That notwithstanding Sci Am does defend evolution’s falsifiability with the following:
“If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.”

So that’s all it takes? If I look over to the loveseat and see a two-headed, freak of nature, with green scaly skin, waving the keys to what looks like the millenium falcon, parked in my front yard; either, he spontaneously generated or he makes the claim that he’s just checking on his high school biology experiment: us; and evolution has been disproved. Wow I wish i’d known it was so easy!

———————————-

I have a plane to catch. Going to Austin this weekend (another reason I can’t do my homework assignment) and Denver next weekend so I won’t be able to contribute much for the next 2 weeks (but I may pop in).

Breifly and quickly regarding mutation rates David Holland provided. First they are very vague and say nothing of the rate of fixation, whether they are neutral, detrimental, fatal, or beneficial or just the combined total of all the above. Second, in breifly skimming the pages you provided it appears that those estimates were derived largely based on the difference between chimp and human DNA. I know you’re smart enough to see why this is circular for this particular discussion.

In checking this stuff out a bit in the last couple days, I came across something called Haldane’s dilemma. Do the google search on it. Read the evolutionists defense/dismissal of the “dilemma” but also read the following:

Cost theory and the cost of substitution—a clarification
Examine all of it objectively and see what you think.

Have a good weekend!

The criticism comes from the fact that it’s not science. Are there any ways this belief could possibly be falsified?
The reason that science deals with natural explanations has nothing to do with whether there is a god or not. It’s because natural mechanisms/phenomena are observable and, in some instances, repeatable. We don’t have access to any supernatural realms, so how can we test supernatural beliefs/theories using the scientific method?
The scientific method’s track record speaks for itself.

Number one I didn’t intend any disrespect in pointing out that you share the name of the Judas Priest drummer…I meant it in harmless jest and aopologize if it was taken in any other way.

From my point of view your request is ridiculous because you’ve requested an in-depth study of 4 creatures, a pretty big assignment for a weekend hobby. Its ridiculous because you have no expectation that I will do it (you’d be right). Its ridiculous because you provide no reason or incentive for me to do it. Your more recent implication is that I will see for myself the convincing evolutionary evidence, and the”truth” will be its own reward. Its ridiculous because you would find unsatisfying any explanation I returned, because it does not fit with your dogmatic naturalist-only veiw of science.

I view this blog as a place to discuss evolution. Some topics inspire debates about the hows of evolution. Some open up the more dramatic debate of whether macro-evolution is a reality or a figment of the imagination. I prefer that the topics of creationary science or ID only be discussed breifly on this blog. ID and creation are generally very different camps. Each, in turn, is composed of a number of different ideas as well. Some ID’ers believe a designer was only involved in composing the genetic language and getting the ball rolling. Others believe the designer micromanages the universe. Creationists include young-earth, old-earth recent-Adam, old-earth old-Adam, etc. Then there are the compromisers like theistic evolutionists.

My view of creation is that God created the various “kinds” (i know… what is a kind?). Similarities between different “kinds” are logically attributed to the fact that they have a common creator/designer. Evolution explains these similarities with a common ancestor. When a similar task is acheived by very different means, (ie. insect vs. bird vs. bat flight) creation explains this based on an appropriate design given a specific environment or need. Evolution calls it convergent evolution. A symbiotic relationship is designed that way. Evolution calls it co-evolution. When finches show different beak shapes and sizes, evolution describes this as adaptation. Creation calls this variation within the “kind”, arguing that God created the kinds with vast amounts of genetic information to adapt to different environments.

This comes under criticism as just using God as an excuse to explain what is not understood. The criticism comes from the dogmatic view that there is no god and that everything can be explained naturally (or that there is a god but he didn’t do anything). Including God in science doesn’t exclude investigating things that aren’t understood. The value in understanding the universe is not a possession of evolution. Regarding vestigial organs and junk DNA, evolution is the stumbling block to understanding. Operational science is independent of the worldview.

Evolution comes under a similar criticism. For example, evolution doesn’t explain co-eviolution. It has no documented eplanations that amount to anything more than just so stories – the evolutionary inerpretation of the symbiotic relationships.

You see, it would be pointless to spend any significant effort trying to convince you that creation is accurate. You’ve pointed out before that disproving evolution is not the same as proving creation, and I agree. But it is the first step. As long as your faith in evolution remains unwavering, you will not seek an alternative. If you are truly interested you’ll seek information from more credible sources than than some guy on a blog.

I’m not the drummer of Judas Priest.

Why do you think it was ridiculous? These sort of comparisons are what I consider the best evidence for evolution. You are more likely to accept it if you find it youself. If you can explain it with creation I would certainly like to hear it. I doubt very much you can and I think you know it too. That’s why you didn’t try. As to trying to get rid of you, if I wasn’t interested in what you have to say I simply wouldn’t read it.

Regarding your estimate of mutation rates, Hans Ellegren comes up with 100 mutations per generation. Nachman and Crowell come up with 175 mutations per generation. Your estimate is low. (A few minutes on google to find these. Did you think to look?)