1. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12739 by S on December 13, 2006 at 1:49 pm

Hi Mark,

I think we've shown the error in your logic pretty well – just look down the posts again. Read The God Delusion again. We have provided logic, reason, pointed to direct and physical evidence. It is just that you are not thinking about, and not realising, what we are saying. Your logic and reason shields are up. And the massive holes in your argument are blind spots that you don't (want to) see. I really we wish we could help you understand. To us it is really quite simple and obvious. Emperor's new clothes is a good way to describe the situation.

Regarding predictions. I'll refrain from using the term prophecy as this suggests a divine source, which is not accurate. Predictions can be made by anyone. People like Leonardo da Vinci and Arthur C. Clarke have been much more accurate at predicting, than the bible – they even had diagrams to back them up.

I and many others predicted before the war started that Iraq would now be a mess. This is one of the many reasons we marched through London in protest. And we were right. Was there divine intervention or was it just pretty obvious, based on previous experience?

Just because a prediction turns out to be correct, doesn't mean there was a divine source, even if it is written in the bible. At very best, Israel is a self-fulfilling prophecy (oops...I ended up using the term) and Jews have been in that region for the last 3 millennia anyway.

2. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12545 by S on December 12, 2006 at 1:36 pm

In response to Shaunyboy and to complement Torbjörn:

The randomness that I refer to is the genetic mutation. Only random mutation can bring about the type of species changing characteristics that evolution demands. I contend again that citing examples of pesticide or antibiotic resistance are not examples of this type of change, they are neither random nor species changing.

Not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying pesticide resistance and antibiotic resistance are not examples of genetic mutation or that the genetic mutation in these cases are not random? If it is the former, then this is incorrect. If it is the latter, then this is incorrect. Any mutation tends to be random (not totally – you have hypervariable regions of DNA that are more prone to mutation – that's how our immune systems work so well). Whether mutation occurs in insects, humans or bacteria the mutations tend to be random. In all cases, the selection process is not.

Mutations in insects or bacteria just have a greater selective pressure on them when exposed to pesticides and antibiotics. Under these conditions virtually all of the insects and bacteria die (that's the point of these toxic agents). Their environment is so stringent, life is so difficult for them, that within the genetically diverse population (as many populations are), only a very few survive. These are the ones that have a genetic background (generated by random mutation) that can tolerate the chemicals that were fatal to the rest of the population. This small population, which is quite sick, but not dead, then grows and has inbuilt resistance. If the exposure to pesticide or antibiotic continues, then this continues to select for better resistance as the faster growing healthy mutants (again generated by random mutation) outnumber the original sickly (but tolerant) individuals. This is exactly the same principle as evolution; in fact this is evolution by natural selection. It uses the same mechanisms to generate variability (you just need to look at humans to see the wide range of possibilities). When the environment changes, and some of the population dies off, you're left with the genetically lucky individuals.
Regarding the 'species changing' thing. I've already cited examples of new species of fruit flies generated by simply changing their diets and isolating the two populations. The geographic isolation of 2 groups of the species tend to lead to 2 distinct gene pools. If their respective environments are quite different, then their gene pools will become quite different due to different selective pressures and hence they themselves become different. We can see the distinct gene pools in humans; native Japanese look different from native Africans, look different from native Scandinavians, et cetera. This, too, is due to geographic isolation.

Regarding the "time thing". You as a molecular biologist (Steve) may believe that their has been enough time (and your envelope calculation makes a lot of assumptions!), but there are mathmaticians who look at the numbers and the probabilty factors involved and say - 4.6 billion is not enough time. Some of these mathmaticians such as Dembski certainly have a Christian case to promote, but others are just as much atheists as you (such as Wikramasingh and Hoyle) yet they cannot accept that NDT is viable as the science of universe unfolds before us.

A mathematician needs to make assumptions too; at least a biologist makes good assumptions (as one understands the mechanisms involved). I have a good understanding mathematics, and the mathematics is quite elementary really – no need for the fancy stuff here. With regards to the late Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, they were important proponents of the Panspermia hypothesis
Panspermia suggests that the seeds of life are in the Universe, that they may have delivered life to Earth from elsewhere. This is a controversial hypothesis, but it is compatible with evolution on earth (or elsewhere – the bacteria, if from space, needed to evolve anyway). So I'm not sure how they support your augment. If anything, they support evolution by natural selection here on earth.

And Mark – please stop banging on about Newton. He had as much of a clue about evolution by natural selection, as he had about personal computers.

3. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #12098 by S on December 10, 2006 at 3:16 pm

This all seems to be getting a bit biblical, so I thought I'd inject some science…

To Shaunyboy:

The 'not enough time' thing.

The current scientific consensus for the age of the Universe is about 13.7 billion years. Geologists, based on extensive and detailed scientific evidence, consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.6 billion years. An incredibly long time, that is extremely difficult to comprehend. Here are some basic, back of an envelope calculations I've made, that give you an idea of how easy it is for evolution to fit into this time scale. 4.6 billion years equates to:

330 million generations of humans (Life cycle=14 years). Human genome contains 3 billion DNA base pairs. However only 2% of the genome is encoded by the 25,000 genes (60,000,000 base pairs).

However we evolved from other species with much shorter life cycles. Some examples of shorter life cycles:

97 trillion generations of Bacteria (life cycle=20 mins). Bacterial genomes' contain about 600,000 DNA base pairs.

22.5 billion generations of Rat (life cycle=60 days) Rat genome contains 2.75 billion DNA base pairs.

Lots of numbers I know, but the basic idea is that the number of available years for evolution to occur is huge when you take into account the number of generations (or replications) and the amount of genetic material within genomes to play with.

The 'it's a random process' thing.

The process of natural selection isn't random; it selects improved designs, however small or large they may be (under the conditions present at the time). The designer (imperfect replication) is unguided, a bit like, to use your Corvette analogy, car designers/manufacturers. There are some great cars out there, due to a natural selection – people generally buy good cars, and don't buy bad ones. This is why many firms have become extinct - people didn't buy the bad cars. This is simple competition, but it molds the next generation of car. The environment (the market) plays a part in this. Cars used to be very unsafe; however after years of selective pressure from consumers, extra features have been invented, added and refined, such that we now have very safe cars. Cars are currently undergoing a different pressure; the cost of oil. The environment has changed and cars must adapt (become more fuel efficient) or they too will become extinct.

To repeat, the selection process is not random. Variation proposes and selection disposes.

Shaunyboy said 'Even if such a copying error were to provide a miniscule initial advantage the liklihood of the "characteristic" surviving beyond the first one or two generations is small'

Why? The advantage may not be miniscule, but if it was, why would the advantage disappear over a couple of generations? That doesn't make sense.


To Mark and others:

When talking about Newton please remember he died a long time before Darwin, Mendel, Watson, Crick and the huge number of scientists that have massively advanced our understanding of Biology. Newton didn't have a clue about genetics, molecular biology or natural selection (or the theory of relativity, for that matter).

The second point is that universities (certainly Oxford and Cambridge) arose from the church – they were religious institutions; a beautiful irony, if ever there was one. Universities existed to understand and describe god's world. So it is hardly surprising that Newton had religious thoughts. By the way, he went to Trinity College, Cambridge (yes, I know). Things have now changed of course – we know it is not god's world, but our own.

4. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11967 by S on December 8, 2006 at 3:59 pm

A response for Shaunyboy:

'…the examples you describe all relate to disease processes that are fatal and for the most part not heritable. Are these really examples of the evolutionary mechanism at work?'

Yes. Several points here. Just because something is fatal, doesn't mean it can't be inherited (breast cancer is a good example), thought I see that you understand the selection process. I used a disease process to aid my explanation of the molecular events that take place. Changes in the DNA sequence are just that – they are merely changes – there is no motive. Whether that change is beneficial, detrimental or inconsequential is another matter. The selection process tends to favour the beneficial changes, tolerates the inconsequential, and removes the detrimental.

'I think your point about the scale of beneficial mutations being high is arguable.'

To reiterate, the mutation when it happens, is just a change – there is no motive either way. This, to my molecularly-oriented mind, is the blind unknowing designer you're looking for – not god. And by a process of trial and error, the good ones tend to get passed down; the bad ones tend not to. Similarly, the corvette evolved by trail and error. The designer here is man. But the process that is the same – trial and error.

The lack of understanding at the molecular level (or of trust in the scientific community), really hampers your ability to conclude that the imperfect replication of DNA (and RNA) is the true designer you seek.

'There's not really any evidence for such large scale mutations simultaneously occurring is there?'

Different mutations are occurring all the time in many ways, in all organisms. Yes, many are corrected by DNA repair enzymes and other processes such as apoptosis – but more so when it is detrimental.

By the way, all tissues tested, including the testis, contain DNA Polymerase eta.

5. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11832 by S on December 7, 2006 at 2:14 pm

Please Note: S=Steve

To Shaunyboy:

A DNA polymerase is a major protein that assists in DNA replication. This is the little molecular duplicating machine that tracks along a single strand of DNA, generating a new complementary strand of DNA.

DNA polymerases vary from organism to organism. Some have proof-reading abilities, some not. So the error rate can vary quite considerably.

The environment can cause the error rate to increase hugely. There are many substances that get stuck in the DNA strands and derail the polymerase, causing mistakes. Good examples of these, are substances called carcinogens that can cause cancer if the particular mistake is in a gene that regulates cell growth. What quite often happens is that the growth gene is mutated into the 'on' position making the cell grow and divide uncontrollable fast. This activity can lead to a tumour. Tobacco smoke contains many carcinogens, this increases the error rate and if unlucky, mistakes are made in the growth control genes.

One of these machines in humans, DNA polymerase-eta makes one base error for every 18 to 380 nucleotides synthesized, an error rate of between 0.2-6%. Very high. Not all human polymerases are this bad, but you get the idea.

Plus you have these duplication errors made in thousands/millions/billions/trillions of individuals of the same species at the same time. This parallel processing means your chances of a beneficial mutation is high, relatively speaking.

I could go on, but I'll leave this biology lesson for now.


JonG wrote:

'How ironic then that the 'free thinkers' of this world are starting petitions against 'free thinking'..?! Are you against education all-together or just religious education?'


An absurd conclusion to the point of the petition (ref - http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/freethinking/). The point of the petition is to prevent the one-sided indoctrination of the young that occurs with religion. This type of brainwashing, however innocent, is not teaching in the good educational sense. The young suicide bombers of the Middle East are the extreme manifestations of this cultural indoctrination.
Teach comparative religion/philosophy, giving equal spaces for all the major religions and the alternative based on physical evidence, direct observation, logic and scientific inquiry. Let children have all the information to allow them to make an informed decision when they're older. Telling children not to think by drumming the idea that blind faith is a virtue is deeply offensive and immoral.

6. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #11696 by S on December 6, 2006 at 3:15 pm

Tom, welcome to the site – thank you for your honest post. I'm sorry to say, but you have been indoctrinated by people close to you (most likely your parents). I too believed in god at your age (indoctrinated by my parents), but I questioned the world around me and God didn't make sense. I read many books on evolution, became a scientist and realised that we have a much better explanation of how life arose. Stories from a book (and from people you love and care about) are not real piece of evidence that people can test. Evolution has been tested and does occur.

Your comment regarding not being scared of death remind me of how suicide bombers, with their blind unquestioning faith, see life. Life is full of wonderful things – believing in a god doesn't make it any better – though it can make it worse.

Atheists are just as happy and hopeful as anyone else. I'll admit that when I did realise, for the first time, that god didn't exist it was a scary thought, but that soon passed.

People are currently trying to petition the UK government to prevent indoctrination of young people see: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/freethinking/

You should read some science books to answer some of your questions. Wikipedia is a decent starting place. Perhaps you could do A level biology.

7. The Need to Believe

Comment #1265 by S on October 11, 2006 at 4:24 am

I can't believe this guy used to be the editor of Newsnight. His criticisms are utterly ridiculous. Becuase we refuse to believe in entities without evidence we are dogmatists. Pull the other one.


"entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"