Dale, Rich, and Greg discuss providence and Genesis

[T_aquaticus]

@Ashwin_s

No… I have no hesitation in pointing out a philosophical bias among Christians as well.

You say that you would be convinced of evidence, and you don’t assume naturalism or materialism. Why can’t other Christians who accept evolution hold the same position as you?

@Ashwin_s

No. The difference is in actual physical characteristics, behaviour etc. This is what needs to be explained, not just a change in genome sequences.

Then what are you talking about when you ask for a model based on probability? I had assumed you were talking about genetic sequences. Is this not the case?

@Ashwin_s

It has to be a history of the actual genetic change followed by corresponding change in the organism…

That’s exactly what we have with humans and other ape genomes. They are a direct record of those mutational events within their lineages. We can even accurately predict the distribution of different types of substitution mutations, which I discuss in this thread:

Mutations Are Consistent With Biochemistry

In a previous thread I discussed what science meant by random mutations and how this term is defined by experimental results and statistics. A lot of this work was done in the 1940’s and 50’s, and since then many new facts have been discovered in the field of genetics, such as the discovery of DNA. This gave rise to the field of molecular biology and allowed us to understand biology at the molecular scale. So what exactly causes mutations? We once again have to reiterate the the limited scope of science. What science can do is put forward hypotheses and see if the evidence is consistent with that hypothesis. What science can not do is make ontological statements about absolute truth. With that in mind, the next few posts will discuss the evidence that links mutagenesis (the production of mutations) with the biochemistry of the cell and why scientists aren’t simply assuming that mutations are caused by biochemistry.