Scientists Who Believe in a Creator, and Why.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, I will combine the following:

The problem is that you can't know this. You can't observe what is beyond or not the fundamental laws, so you make a rule in your brain. The rule is in your brain - laws can't be caused. The problem is that there are no laws in the universe. That is an idea in brains. There is a universe, which we can follow back in time to a certain point and no longer. Knowledge stops there.
The laws apply to what we can observe and that leads to this:

Did you read the article? Our models based on observation stop before the singularity! Yes, the universe was hot and became inflated, but how long the pre-inflation state lasted and what if anything caused it, is unknown.
So back to the Laws. The Laws stop at the point of when inflation started and what is the cause of it (and the Laws) and how long that lasted is unknown.
So you don't know that the Laws are un-caused and I don't know if they are.

You are doing philosophy as back to Aristotle's idea of the first uncased cause of everything else. It is a cute idea, but it can't be answered because we can't observe it.

Here is what you do:
You have Laws, that is regularities in what you observe and apply models to. That works. You then say that the regularity in your observations are fundamental to the universe. They are not. They are where our ability to build a model stops, but that doesn't tell us if they are fundamental or not. They are only the limits of the model; i.e. knowledge.
Remember I am a skeptic and I have no problem with I don't know. And I have no problem what we can't explain everything according to science.
In other words, we can only look so far back and we can't in effect observe a singularity, because it can't be observed.
So any idea of multi-verses and what not are nothing that ideas in the brains of some people.
So let us say, we observe something new in regards to this universe, then it means that it is new to this universe.
Remember something not in this universe, can be observed. All you have is this universe.
The singularity is un-observable just like multi-verses and what not.

So in other words in regards to the singularity, you could ask: How is the existence of a singularity to be tested, if you can't observe a singularity?
In theoretical physics there is a limit. The moment you propose something which is un-observable, you might as well be doing philosophy or religion.
That includes this by you: "This means the fundamental laws, whatever they are, cannot be caused." That is an idea in your brain and it can't be tested through observation. You are not doing science.
That the Laws are basic is no more different that saying God is basic.

Remember there is limit to knowledge and that includes observation and being testable. You can't test God as the first un-caused cause just as you can't test some of the ideas in theoretical physics.

Now if you can catch your own thinking and not take it for granted, you can notice, what it is that you do:
If we reach the limit of our ability to test, then it means, that it is fundamental to the universe. But it doesn't mean that. It mean we have reached the limits of knowledge. Not the limit of the universe, but rather the limit of human understanding.
And that in practice means it is unknown whether the universe is natural or not.

You are overemphasizing what is known and not known concerning science in the negative. I reality, yes, science does not 'know' anything in any absolute sense. Science is simply descriptive of the nature of our physical existence, and the knowledge of science is based on objective verifiable evidence. The only consideration of the unknown is that it is the frontier of sciences efforts to increase the knowledge of science.

As far as the origins of our universe, and what is possibly beyond our universe. There is a bit more knowledge of the origins of our universe universe and all possible universes. The increasing knowledge of Quantum Mechanics has demonstrated that the singularity and the origins of our universe is in a Quantum world and nature. Of course we do 'know' what was before the origins of the singularity, but science has provided good reasons that our universe is not unique and possibly a part of a multiverse physical existence.

 

[Milton Platt]

I thought this was informative. It just doesn’t give their names, but each one explains why they believe in a Creator.
None are YEC’s....I felt it necessary to point that out.

“Many experts in various scientific fields perceive intelligent design in nature. They find it illogical to think that the intricate complexity of life on earth came about by chance. Hence, a number of scientists and researchers believe in a Creator.

Some of these have become Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are convinced that the God of the Bible is the Designer and Builder of the material universe. Why have they arrived at that conclusion? Awake! asked some of them. You may find their comments interesting.*

“Unfathomable Complexities of Life”

▪ WOLF-EKKEHARD LÖNNIG

PROFILE: Over the past 28 years, I have done scientific work dealing with genetic mutation in plants. For 21 of those years, I have been employed by the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, in Cologne, Germany. For almost three decades, I have also served as an elder in a Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

My empirical research in genetics and my studies of biological subjects such as physiology and morphology bring me face-to-face with the enormous and often unfathomable complexities of life. My study of these topics has reinforced my conviction that life, even the most basic forms of life, must have an intelligent origin.

The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But these fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind, however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny. I have examined such arguments over decades. After much careful study of living things and consideration of the way the laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist, I am compelled to believe in a Creator.

“Everything I Observe Has a Cause”

▪ BYRON LEON MEADOWS

PROFILE: I live in the United States and work at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the field of laser physics. Presently I am involved in the development of technology to improve the ability to monitor global climate, weather, and other planetary phenomena. I am an elder in a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Kilmarnock, Virginia, area.

In my research I often work with the principles of physics. I seek to understand how and why certain things happen. In my field of study, I find clear evidence that everything I observe has a cause. I believe that it is scientifically reasonable to accept that God is the original cause of all things in nature. The laws of nature are too stable for me not to believe that they were put in place by an Organizer, a Creator.

If this conclusion is that obvious, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Might it be that evolutionists look at their evidence with presupposed conclusions? This is not unheard of among scientists. But observation, no matter how convincing, does not presuppose conclusion. For example, a person researching laser physics could insist that light is a wave, similar to a sound wave, because light often behaves like a wave. However, his conclusion would be incomplete because the evidence also indicates that light behaves as a group of particles, known as photons. Similarly, those who insist that evolution is a fact base their conclusions on only part of the evidence, and they allow their own presupposed conclusions to influence the way that they view the evidence.

I find it amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution as fact when evolutionary “experts” themselves argue over how it is supposed to have happened. For example, would you accept arithmetic as a proved fact if some experts said that 2 plus 2 equals 4, while other experts said it was believed to total 3 or possibly 6? If the role of science is to accept only what can be proved, tested, and reproduced, then the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor is not a scientific fact.

“Something Cannot Come From Nothing”

▪ KENNETH LLOYD TANAKA

PROFILE: I am a geologist presently employed by the U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona. For almost three decades, I have participated in scientific research in various fields of geology, including planetary geology. Dozens of my research articles and geologic maps of Mars have been published in accredited scientific journals. As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I spend about 70 hours every month promoting Bible reading.

I was taught to believe in evolution, but I could not accept that the immense energy required to form the universe could have originated without a powerful Creator. Something cannot come from nothing. I also find a strong argument in favor of a Creator in the Bible itself. This book gives numerous examples of scientific facts in my field of expertise, such as that the earth is spherical in shape and hangs “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22) These realities were written in the Bible long before they were proved by human investigation.

Think of the way we are made. We possess sensory perception, self-awareness, intelligent thought, communication abilities, and feelings. In particular, we can experience, appreciate, and express love. Evolution cannot explain how these wonderful human qualities came to be.

Ask yourself, ‘How reliable and credible are the sources of information used to support evolution?’ The geologic record is incomplete, complex, and confusing. Evolutionists have failed to demonstrate proposed evolutionary processes in the laboratory with the use of scientific methodologies. And while scientists generally employ good research techniques to acquire data, they are often influenced by selfish motives when interpreting their findings. Scientists have been known to promote their own thinking when the data are inconclusive or contradictory. Their careers and their own feelings of self-worth play important roles.

Both as a scientist and as a Bible student, I search for the whole truth, which reconciles all known facts and observations to reach the most accurate understanding. To me, belief in the Creator makes the most sense.

“The Obvious Design Evident in the Cell”

▪ PAULA KINCHELOE

PROFILE: I have several years of experience as a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology. I am presently employed by Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. I also work as a volunteer Bible teacher in the Russian-speaking community.

As part of my education in biology, I spent four years focusing on just the cell and its components. The more I learned about DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolic pathways, the more amazed I became with the complexity, organization, and precision involved. And while I was impressed with how much man has learned about the cell, I was even more amazed at how much there is yet to learn. The obvious design evident in the cell is one reason I believe in God.

My study of the Bible has revealed who the Creator is—namely, Jehovah God. I am convinced that he is not only an intelligent Designer but also a kind and loving Father who cares for me. The Bible explains the purpose of life and provides the hope of a happy future.

Young ones in school who are being taught evolution may be unsure of what to believe. This can be a confusing time for them. If they believe in God, this is a test of faith. But they can meet that test by examining the many amazing things in nature that surround us and by continuing to grow in knowledge of the Creator and his qualities. I have personally done this and have concluded that the Bible’s account of creation is accurate and does not conflict with true science.

“The Elegant Simplicity of the Laws”

▪ ENRIQUE HERNÁNDEZ-LEMUS

PROFILE: I am a full-time minister of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I am also a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. My current work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as the gravothermal catastrophe, which is a mechanism of star growth. I have also worked with complexity in DNA sequences.

Life is simply too complicated to have arisen by chance. For example, consider the vast amount of information contained in the DNA molecule. The mathematical probability of the random generation of a single chromosome is less than 1 in 9 trillion, an event so unlikely that it can be considered impossible. I think it is nonsense to believe that unintelligent forces could create not just a single chromosome but all the amazing complexity present in living beings.

In addition, when I study the highly complex behavior of matter, from the microscopic level to the movement of giant stellar clouds through space, I am impressed by the elegant simplicity of the laws governing their motion. To me, these laws imply more than the work of a Master Mathematician—they are like the signature of a Master Artist.

People are often surprised when I tell them that I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Sometimes they ask me how I can believe in God. Their reaction is understandable, since most religions do not encourage their believers to ask for proof of what they are taught or to research their beliefs. However, the Bible encourages us to use our “thinking ability.” (Proverbs 3:21) All the evidence of intelligent design in nature, together with evidence from the Bible, convinces me that God not only exists but is also interested in our prayers.

............................

The views presented by the experts in this article do not necessarily reflect those of their employers.”

Source: Why We Believe in a Creator — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

(Article is from 2006; it changes the stats a little. For example, Dr. Lönnig now has over 40 years of plant mutagenic experience.)

Why does the religious beliefs of a handful of scientists matter?

 

[Milton Platt]

Explain your assumption of a handful of scientists.

The ones he listed

 

[shunyadragon]

The ones he listed

OK. Most of the Creationist scientists are not scientists in the field concerning evolution, which is indeed rare.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So to sum up Jehovah’s Witnesses claims.
-35,000 species allegedly went on the boat (from your link)
-The flood occurred 4350 years ago
(From Flood of Noah’s Day — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY)

First of all, ‘35,000 species on the Ark’ is not a JW claim. It was a study by University students. The types of animals that were on the Ark, could have been young, therefore smaller...allowing even more species on the Ark.

Fact: There are 6.5 million species of land creature today (How Many Species on Earth?)

No, it’s a best-guess estimate; your own link said that. That doesn’t make it a fact...which assumption you made — from estimate to fact — lies at the heart of many arguments against organic (CD) evolution.

This raises obvious questions;
How did we get from 35,000 species to 6.5million since the alleged flood without evolution occurring?

I never said small changes within species (micro-evolution) never occurred. Another assumption which is false.

f you are saying we went from 35,000 to 6.5million in 4,350 years, why couldn’t we go from 1 or a small number to 1billion plus in the 4+billion years evolution had to play with?

Huh?

You sure play with facts, don’t you?
Multi-cellular life is only 560 million (?) years old

Contrary to what you’ve been told, an unguided force like evolution has no creative power...it can only work with what it’s got.
The LTEE is verifying this.

 

[Milton Platt]

OK. Most of the Creationist scientists are not scientists in the field concerning evolution, which is indeed rare.

Right. There are scientists who are religious and there are scientists who are not. More are not than are. I was just trying to get the OP to state why pointing out that this handful of scientists were religious in some way was important.If his point was only to say that since some scientists are religious, then there must be a god, I would say that following his own logic (ad populum) that since there are more who don't believe in a creator, there must not be a creator. both arguments are fallacious.

 

[shunyadragon]

First of all, ‘35,000 species on the Ark’ is not a JW claim. It was a study by University students. The types of animals that were on the Ark, could have been young, therefore smaller...allowing even more species on the Ark.

It is not a claim that is supported by science. Something like getting 35,000 clowns in a Taxi.

You sure play with facts, don’t you?
Multi-cellular life is only 560 million (?) years old

The first multicellular life is at least 3.5 billion years old:

There are all sorts of ways to reconstruct the history of life on Earth. Pinning down when specific events occurred is often tricky, though. For this, biologists depend mainly on dating the rocks in which fossils are found, and by looking at the “molecular clocks” in the DNA of living organisms.

There are problems with each of these methods. The fossil record is like a movie with most of the frames cut out. Because it is so incomplete, it can be difficult to establish exactly when particular evolutionary changes happened.

Modern genetics allows scientists to measure how different species are from each other at a molecular level, and thus to estimate how much time has passed since a single lineage split into different species. Confounding factors rack up for species that are very distantly related, making the earlier dates more uncertain.

These difficulties mean that the dates in the timeline should be taken as approximate. As a general rule, they become more uncertain the further back along the geological timescale we look. Dates that are very uncertain are marked with a question mark.

3.8 billion years ago?
This is our current “best guess” for the beginning of life on Earth. It is distinctly possible that this date will change as more evidence comes to light. The first life may have developed in undersea alkaline vents, and was probably based on RNA rather than DNA.

At some point far back in time, a common ancestor gave rise to two main groups of life: bacteria and archaea.

How this happened, when, and in what order the different groups split, is still uncertain.

3.5 billion years ago
The oldest fossils of single-celled organisms date from this time.

3.46 billion years ago
Some single-celled organisms may be feeding on methane by this time.

3.4 billion years ago
Rock formations in Western Australia, that some researchers claim are fossilised microbes, date from this period.

3 billion years ago
Viruses are present by this time, but they may be as old as life itself.

2.4 billion years ago
The “great oxidation event”. Supposedly, the poisonous waste produced by photosynthetic cyanobacteria – oxygen – starts to build up in the atmosphere. Dissolved oxygen makes the iron in the oceans “rust” and sink to the seafloor, forming striking banded iron formations.

Recently, though, some researchers have challenged this idea. They think cyanobacteria only evolved later, and that other bacteria oxidised the iron in the absence of oxygen.

Yet others think that cyanobacteria began pumping out oxygen as early as 2.1 billion years ago, but that oxygen began to accumulate only due to some other factor, possibly a decline in methane-producing bacteria. Methane reacts with oxygen, removing it from the atmosphere, so fewer methane-belching bacteria would allow oxygen to build up.

Read more: Timeline: The evolution of life

Contrary to what you’ve been told, an unguided force like evolution has no creative power...it can only work with what it’s got.
The LTEE is verifying this.

Assertion based on a religious agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

Right. There are scientists who are religious and there are scientists who are not. More are not than are. I was just trying to get the OP to state why pointing out that this handful of scientists were religious in some way was important.If his point was only to say that since some scientists are religious, then there must be a god, I would say that following his own logic (ad populum) that since there are more who don't believe in a creator, there must not be a creator. both arguments are fallacious.

I was primarily referring to the few Creationist scientists that present a phony science to justify their agenda. There are many many scientists the world over from many religious backgrounds that accept the science of evolution as it is without a dishonest fundamentalist perspective.

 

[paarsurrey]

Scientists Who Believe in a Creator, and Why?

It is very natural to believe in one G-d (not Trinity or Jesus god or Bahaullah god). Isn't it appreciable, please?

Regards

 

[danieldemol]

I never said small changes within species (micro-evolution) never occurred. Another assumption which is false.

So some 6million plus new species is “micro” evolution to you?! If that’s the case you’re just calling regular evolution “micro evolution” which is pure semantics.

You sure play with facts, don’t you?
Multi-cellular life is only 560 million (?) years old

I never said anything about multi-cellular organisms, even a virus according to my understanding can have different species and it may not even consist of a single cell.

‘Most recently, scientists reported in the journal Nature that they had discovered microfossils in Canada that might be between 3.77 billion and 4.29 billion years old, a claim that would push the origins of life to very shortly after Earth first formed oceans. The filament-like fossils contained chemical signals that could herald life’
From What Was the First Life on Earth?

Contrary to what you’ve been told, an unguided force like evolution has no creative power...it can only work with what it’s got.
The LTEE is verifying this.

No one has ever told me that evolution has “creative power” whatever that is. What I have been told is that random gene mutation can produce beneficial mutations which nature may then selectively weed out the non-beneficial mutations. The LTEE has confirmed this by producing some 10-20 beneficial mutations.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I thought this was informative. It just doesn’t give their names, but each one explains why they believe in a Creator.
None are YEC’s....I felt it necessary to point that out.

“Many experts in various scientific fields perceive intelligent design in nature. They find it illogical to think that the intricate complexity of life on earth came about by chance. Hence, a number of scientists and researchers believe in a Creator.

Some of these have become Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are convinced that the God of the Bible is the Designer and Builder of the material universe. Why have they arrived at that conclusion? Awake! asked some of them. You may find their comments interesting.*

“Unfathomable Complexities of Life”

▪ WOLF-EKKEHARD LÖNNIG

PROFILE: Over the past 28 years, I have done scientific work dealing with genetic mutation in plants. For 21 of those years, I have been employed by the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, in Cologne, Germany. For almost three decades, I have also served as an elder in a Christian congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

My empirical research in genetics and my studies of biological subjects such as physiology and morphology bring me face-to-face with the enormous and often unfathomable complexities of life. My study of these topics has reinforced my conviction that life, even the most basic forms of life, must have an intelligent origin.

The scientific community is well aware of the complexity found in life. But these fascinating facts are generally presented in a strong evolutionary context. In my mind, however, the arguments against the Bible account of creation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny. I have examined such arguments over decades. After much careful study of living things and consideration of the way the laws governing the universe seem perfectly adjusted so that life on earth can exist, I am compelled to believe in a Creator.

“Everything I Observe Has a Cause”

▪ BYRON LEON MEADOWS

PROFILE: I live in the United States and work at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the field of laser physics. Presently I am involved in the development of technology to improve the ability to monitor global climate, weather, and other planetary phenomena. I am an elder in a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Kilmarnock, Virginia, area.

In my research I often work with the principles of physics. I seek to understand how and why certain things happen. In my field of study, I find clear evidence that everything I observe has a cause. I believe that it is scientifically reasonable to accept that God is the original cause of all things in nature. The laws of nature are too stable for me not to believe that they were put in place by an Organizer, a Creator.

If this conclusion is that obvious, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Might it be that evolutionists look at their evidence with presupposed conclusions? This is not unheard of among scientists. But observation, no matter how convincing, does not presuppose conclusion. For example, a person researching laser physics could insist that light is a wave, similar to a sound wave, because light often behaves like a wave. However, his conclusion would be incomplete because the evidence also indicates that light behaves as a group of particles, known as photons. Similarly, those who insist that evolution is a fact base their conclusions on only part of the evidence, and they allow their own presupposed conclusions to influence the way that they view the evidence.

I find it amazing that anyone accepts the theory of evolution as fact when evolutionary “experts” themselves argue over how it is supposed to have happened. For example, would you accept arithmetic as a proved fact if some experts said that 2 plus 2 equals 4, while other experts said it was believed to total 3 or possibly 6? If the role of science is to accept only what can be proved, tested, and reproduced, then the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor is not a scientific fact.

“Something Cannot Come From Nothing”

▪ KENNETH LLOYD TANAKA

PROFILE: I am a geologist presently employed by the U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona. For almost three decades, I have participated in scientific research in various fields of geology, including planetary geology. Dozens of my research articles and geologic maps of Mars have been published in accredited scientific journals. As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I spend about 70 hours every month promoting Bible reading.

I was taught to believe in evolution, but I could not accept that the immense energy required to form the universe could have originated without a powerful Creator. Something cannot come from nothing. I also find a strong argument in favor of a Creator in the Bible itself. This book gives numerous examples of scientific facts in my field of expertise, such as that the earth is spherical in shape and hangs “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22) These realities were written in the Bible long before they were proved by human investigation.

Think of the way we are made. We possess sensory perception, self-awareness, intelligent thought, communication abilities, and feelings. In particular, we can experience, appreciate, and express love. Evolution cannot explain how these wonderful human qualities came to be.

Ask yourself, ‘How reliable and credible are the sources of information used to support evolution?’ The geologic record is incomplete, complex, and confusing. Evolutionists have failed to demonstrate proposed evolutionary processes in the laboratory with the use of scientific methodologies. And while scientists generally employ good research techniques to acquire data, they are often influenced by selfish motives when interpreting their findings. Scientists have been known to promote their own thinking when the data are inconclusive or contradictory. Their careers and their own feelings of self-worth play important roles.

Both as a scientist and as a Bible student, I search for the whole truth, which reconciles all known facts and observations to reach the most accurate understanding. To me, belief in the Creator makes the most sense.

“The Obvious Design Evident in the Cell”

▪ PAULA KINCHELOE

PROFILE: I have several years of experience as a researcher in the fields of cell and molecular biology and microbiology. I am presently employed by Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. I also work as a volunteer Bible teacher in the Russian-speaking community.

As part of my education in biology, I spent four years focusing on just the cell and its components. The more I learned about DNA, RNA, proteins, and metabolic pathways, the more amazed I became with the complexity, organization, and precision involved. And while I was impressed with how much man has learned about the cell, I was even more amazed at how much there is yet to learn. The obvious design evident in the cell is one reason I believe in God.

My study of the Bible has revealed who the Creator is—namely, Jehovah God. I am convinced that he is not only an intelligent Designer but also a kind and loving Father who cares for me. The Bible explains the purpose of life and provides the hope of a happy future.

Young ones in school who are being taught evolution may be unsure of what to believe. This can be a confusing time for them. If they believe in God, this is a test of faith. But they can meet that test by examining the many amazing things in nature that surround us and by continuing to grow in knowledge of the Creator and his qualities. I have personally done this and have concluded that the Bible’s account of creation is accurate and does not conflict with true science.

“The Elegant Simplicity of the Laws”

▪ ENRIQUE HERNÁNDEZ-LEMUS

PROFILE: I am a full-time minister of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I am also a theoretical physicist working at the National University of Mexico. My current work involves finding a thermodynamically feasible explanation for the phenomenon known as the gravothermal catastrophe, which is a mechanism of star growth. I have also worked with complexity in DNA sequences.

Life is simply too complicated to have arisen by chance. For example, consider the vast amount of information contained in the DNA molecule. The mathematical probability of the random generation of a single chromosome is less than 1 in 9 trillion, an event so unlikely that it can be considered impossible. I think it is nonsense to believe that unintelligent forces could create not just a single chromosome but all the amazing complexity present in living beings.

In addition, when I study the highly complex behavior of matter, from the microscopic level to the movement of giant stellar clouds through space, I am impressed by the elegant simplicity of the laws governing their motion. To me, these laws imply more than the work of a Master Mathematician—they are like the signature of a Master Artist.

People are often surprised when I tell them that I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Sometimes they ask me how I can believe in God. Their reaction is understandable, since most religions do not encourage their believers to ask for proof of what they are taught or to research their beliefs. However, the Bible encourages us to use our “thinking ability.” (Proverbs 3:21) All the evidence of intelligent design in nature, together with evidence from the Bible, convinces me that God not only exists but is also interested in our prayers.

............................

The views presented by the experts in this article do not necessarily reflect those of their employers.”

Source: Why We Believe in a Creator — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

(Article is from 2006; it changes the stats a little. For example, Dr. Lönnig now has over 40 years of plant mutagenic experience.)

Scientists named "Steve", or variations of that name, that accept evolution theory as presented in mainstream science:

Project Steve | National Center for Science Education
List of Steves | National Center for Science Education

Among them, many theists, off course.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Surely you can do better than this collection of liars, loons, and losers.

I can see how you'ld think that, consedering the sheer whackyness factor of the embarassing ignorance and dishonesty displayed by these "scientists". But actually.... no, it actually IS the best he can do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

“Simply”, huh?

Yes.

You understand how reproduction works, yes?
How you get your DNA from your mom and dad + some mutations added?
And how your off spring will get your DNA (which is the DNA of your parents +your unique mutations) and add their own mutations to it?
And how their off spring will get their DNA (which is the DNA of your parents + your unique mutations + their unique mutations)
Then that off spring will also bring forward off spring in the same way: the DNA of your parents + your unique mutations + the mutations of your off spring + the mutations of their off spring + the mutations of the off spring of that off spring + the mutations of .... etc etc etc etc

It's not exactly rocket science.

Nah, sorry...genetic mutations rarely produce novel, functional information

Rarely is enough for evolution to work with.
In fact, evolution requires the slow gradual accumulation of micro changes because too big a change in one go will likely not end well.

And if mutations do create a different process, the organism always loses function in another. The LTEE started by Lenski is a good example of this.

Sure, there is usually a cost.
Like if for example some mutation triggers bones to become denser by taking up more calcium, that calcium needs to come from somewhere. More calcium for the bones means less calcium for other things. This in turn might trigger or be accompagned by dietry changes, to accomodate for an increased need of calcium take-in, etc.

You are wrong however that this cost always implies to loss of function. This is demonstrably not true. In fact, the loss of a function in some cases can actually be the evolutionary progress....

Like moles losing their eyesight to the point of their eyes even being covered by a thick layer of skin that can't be opened anymore. Essentially a thick, permanently shut, eyelid. Their bodies still spend the energy to build those eyeballs though. This was an evolutionary advantage for those moles, because they started living underground. Eyes with dirt in them can get infected which can lead to death. And it's not like you need eyes in the pitchdark underground. So the long-term evolutionary "solution" was to mutate the eyes away behind a thick layer of skin. Today, it's not longer a hazard for deadly infection in these animals.


So you see... It would serve you well to first inform yourself a tiny little bit.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And it’s estimated there have been over 1 billion species.

That seems like a small number to me. I'ld expect more.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

...and each gain of one process has resulted in loss of function in another.

Which, even if true, doesn't matter if the population is nevertheless booming and thriving as a direct result to the beneficial mutation.

If the cost of the mutations is greater then the gain, then guess what: then it's not a beneficial mutation.

The fact that we speak of a beneficial mutations, implies that the net gain was positive.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And keep in mind, these mutations are from artificial means.

This is utterly false.
Nobody is going into those genomes to fiddle around with the genes. The mutations just occur, just like they do in the wild.

Under lab-controlled conditions

Under controlled conditions, yes. Meaning they control the environment. As in temperature, available resources, etc.

Controlled conditions doesn't mean that they go into the genome and fiddle around with the genes.

Consider a freezer. That's a controlled environment as well.
But the process of water freezing into a ice, is very much a natural process. No scientist is going in to stack the watermolecules into ice. The water is merely placed in a controlled environment and due to the conditions in that environment the water freezes naturally.

The ice coming out of the fridge isn't "artificial ice". It's just ice. The same ice that would form in your garden when it freezes. The same ice that forms on the north pole or in the alps.

Only the environment inside the freezer, is artificial. What happens in that environment, is not.

The researchers are forcing pressures on the E. coli strains.

Yes.

Just like in the wild, the natural environment is forcing pressures on the organisms residing in that particular geographic location.

What's the problem?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hey, hope you’re having a good day.

Most recently, scientists reported in the journal Nature that they had discovered microfossils in Canada that might be between 3.77 billion and 4.29 billion years old

Yeah, might be. Might not, too.

The LTEE has confirmed this by producing some 10-20 beneficial mutations.

And for each of those beneficial mutations, what other beneficial function was weakened? Many, usually revealing a slower reproduction rate, or reduced lifespan. You won’t find that information freely dispensed. (Although Dr. Lenski does admit to degradative mutations in the LTEE he’s overseeing.)

Except here....
Thanks, Professor Lenski, the LTEE Is Doing Great! | Evolution News

 

[Hockeycowboy]

This is utterly false.
Nobody is going into those genomes to fiddle around with the genes. The mutations just occur, just like they do in the wild.

You’re wrong, to some degree. Not genetic manipulation, but Lenski and his associates, in several experiments, have reduced certain pressures, and increased others, to rates that aren’t normally found. Return that E. coil strain to the wild...it couldn’t defend itself; it would lead to extinction. Why? Because it lost function.

In the “Long Term”? Bacteria will stay bacteria. A new species, maybe. But that’s not disputed.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@TagliatelliMonster , ‘skin over moles’ eyes’?

Again, we’re talking micro-evolution. No dispute,

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That is not biblical faith. Biblical faith is not blind belief

Religious-type faith is unjustified belief, that is, blind.

but is as real as knowing an electron exists without ever seeing one -because it is evident due to other things.

I can feel electrons coursing through my body. And I can see them light up an electric light. Not so much any gods.

Unfortunately, people are concerned less with righteousness and more with powers

Righteousness, like sinner, implies a religious judgment. I define my own standards for ethical behavior.

it's best to just focus on doing the right thing (especially the commandments as given)

Once again, I don't go to the religions or religious for ethical instruction.