Greg On The Odds of Macroevolution and Vegas

[T_aquaticus]

@Greg

First of all, science cannot determine the level that our Creator was involved in micro changes or any amt of change. God could have created a water dwelling creature who waded in the water with the means to adapt into a swimmer. And He could have directly intervened in any process as He saw fit.

If God did do this, he did it in such a way that it is indistinguishable from the ongoing processes we see in living organisms today. We tend to call these natural processes because they appear to happen through known natural processes and happen spontaneously. I started a thread on how the differences between the genomes of different species are consistent with known biochemical pathways, if you are interested:

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.