Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

hughfarey wrote:I think I understand, but we are not quite as hopelessly ignorant of ideas as some seem to think.
Can I try to work my way through this (below)?

"Something happens..." - Yes. Genetic change via incorrect reproduction or radiation.
"and, somehow, the animal realizes..." Surely a metaphor. The animal doesn't realise anything.
"that white fur helps in the hunting process ( camouflage)..." Yes. Such an animal captures prey quicker, eats more easily, is healthier, and has more time for mating. Although the increased mating facility may be offset by decreased 'attractiveness' to the opposite sex, as long as the one outweighs the other the new genetic structure will be passed on to some of its offspring.
"and, somehow,..." as long as the genes for white fur are passed on at all, they will tend to occur in increasingly large numbers of animals. Gradually white animals will out-perform darker ones in a snowy environment, which eventually leads to the darker ones becoming a minority. They may struggle on as a minority, die out, move elsewhere, or simply, by near universal interbreeding, be absorbed into the white community.
"via natural selection..." That's what natural selection is.
"that trait is "passed" on as a "beneficial trait"..." Beneficial, defined as leading to increased reproductive success.
"but we don't know WHY this happens." Well, as you can see, we've a pretty good idea.

Oh yes, I agree on your explanation.
We just don't know HOW or WHY the natural selection process works and, IMO, I believe it is an "internal programming" in the cells.
I mean, the process isn't "intelligent" enough to "deduce" what is or isn't beneficial if it were then it would be "intelligent" right?
I mean we know WHY a trait is selected via natural selection but we don't know WHY natural selection works at all.

I think that there isn't any intelligence needed for the process to work. Natural selection isn't really a conscious selection between traits, its blind. It however is the most logical outcome as to why a mutation may survive based on traits. In one sense Natural selection works because its the by-product of a life as variation occurs in all living things.
An animal has to eat, mate etc. And because of mutations, the dynamic is established as it correspondends with the environment, food, weather etc. What we call natural selection is really the reproduction rate of genes which help an animal do what it does at a more efficient rate then others around it.

We may Call it natural selection but its real usage was to distinguish against artificial selections such as humans breeding dogs. And btw this is the reason why the argument of lab fruit flies and human bred dogs into a debate about evolution has never been a strong argument since both of these are artificial selections.

Anyway, I think that it's easy to see why NS happens. It is a consequence of life. The same way earthquakes and tectonic plates are a necessary consequence of a planet with an active core. The process doesn't need intelligence to work.

HOW does it work?
Gene shuffling, mistakes in copying DNA and alterations to DNA caused by radiation alter the behaviour of individuals with respect to their peers. A greater variety of possible behaviours is available to a group of organisms than there was before. This is the base from which 'selection' is possible, and how it occurs is well understood.

WHY does it work?
Any selection which leads to continuous reproductive success will be propagated, leading to two groups of organisms, one with it and one without. The reproductive success may either work best in a slightly different environment, such that the two groups separate, or the two groups may compete, in which case the better one will supplant the other. The mathematics of how this occurs is well understood.

I'm not sure how better to respond to "we don't know WHY natural selection works at all" without it being reworded more specifically.

neo-x wrote:

Nicki wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:

The bears -- isn't it Also possible and black bears have a thinner fur covering because they are in a much warmer climate. The polar bears Need the much heavier fur for warmth. Polars bears Live in the colder regions.

Evolutionists would say it was the snow and cold which led to the heavy white fur - those bears which happened to be born with lighter-coloured (camouflaging, I guess), heavier fur survived better in snowy conditions, which meant they could reproduce more than their ancestors and relatives with darker, thinner fur. The shaggy white coats ended up winning out in the snow.

Actually, they wouldn't say snow led to the white fur as there is nothing in the snow that can produce a mutation. A mutation happened which led to white fur and bears that were close to the polar regions found an advantage in the snow. The rest I agree with.

I meant the snow indirectly caused heavy white fur to be dominant - in evolutionary theory.

Well firstly how did we get the information needed to make life survive and be able to reproduce? I get that isn't an evolutionary question but it ties with this. How did we manage to have male and female sexes at the same time? We both need them for survival yet they had to appear at the same time. A lot of this Ken Ham picks up on in the Bill Nye debate. How does non theistic/deistic evolution explain this?

hughfarey wrote:HOW does it work?
Gene shuffling, mistakes in copying DNA and alterations to DNA caused by radiation alter the behaviour of individuals with respect to their peers. A greater variety of possible behaviours is available to a group of organisms than there was before. This is the base from which 'selection' is possible, and how it occurs is well understood.

WHY does it work?
Any selection which leads to continuous reproductive success will be propagated, leading to two groups of organisms, one with it and one without. The reproductive success may either work best in a slightly different environment, such that the two groups separate, or the two groups may compete, in which case the better one will supplant the other. The mathematics of how this occurs is well understood.

I'm not sure how better to respond to "we don't know WHY natural selection works at all" without it being reworded more specifically.

Alright, let me re-phrase it then:
What, in our cells, "drives" the natural selection process?
How does the process "decide" which mutation, for example, is "better" and what about those times in which natural selection goes "backwards", like when an animal with eyes, loses it's eyes ( no longer "needed") ?

Um. Natural selection mostly works at a higher level than cells. No cell decides anything, even metaphorically. Nor does it matter whether evolution goes backwards or forwards. If the new variation leads to increased reproductive success, it gets transmitted and propagated by reproduction whether the cells know anything about it or not. If it leads to decreased reproductive success, it gradually dies out. If it has no effect on reproductive success, it may be passed on as a non-competitive variant selection of genes.

hughfarey wrote:Um. Natural selection mostly works at a higher level than cells. No cell decides anything, even metaphorically. Nor does it matter whether evolution goes backwards or forwards. If the new variation leads to increased reproductive success, it gets transmitted and propagated by reproduction whether the cells know anything about it or not. If it leads to decreased reproductive success, it gradually dies out. If it has no effect on reproductive success, it may be passed on as a non-competitive variant selection of genes.

This is a natural selection myth as far as we know because there is no evidence that has been produced that shows natural selection at work.This is because there is not a credibile mechanism for how life evolves but a bunch of evolution myths have been thought up to fill in the gaps of our knowledge.People believe these assumptions but overlook the lack of confirming evidence.It is shocking to know that no evidence has ever shown natural selection to be a real force.It is kinda like angels and demons we read about in the bible that are at work but we can't see them.It is the same with this mysterious invisible force called natural selection.It is not just natural selection that has not been confirmed to be real too,there are other evolution assumptions that either have never been demonstrated or are just made up myths based on the facts of the world around us.

hughfarey wrote:Um. Natural selection mostly works at a higher level than cells. No cell decides anything, even metaphorically. Nor does it matter whether evolution goes backwards or forwards. If the new variation leads to increased reproductive success, it gets transmitted and propagated by reproduction whether the cells know anything about it or not. If it leads to decreased reproductive success, it gradually dies out. If it has no effect on reproductive success, it may be passed on as a non-competitive variant selection of genes.

So at what level does NS work then?
If not a the cellular level, where? and how?

http://www.livescience.com/1736-greates ... ution.html

At the level of organism reproduction. If the organism reproduces, the new material is selected. If it doesn't, it isn't.

hughfarey wrote:At the level of organism reproduction. If the organism reproduces, the new material is selected. If it doesn't, it isn't.

What drives that reproduction?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 7:39 am

hughfarey wrote:At the level of organism reproduction. If the organism reproduces, the new material is selected. If it doesn't, it isn't.

What drives that reproduction?

I find Michael behe’s natural selection and directed mutation .
My stance has gradually grown more evolution friendly

https://evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so_michael_behe/

bippy123 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:13 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 7:39 am

hughfarey wrote:At the level of organism reproduction. If the organism reproduces, the new material is selected. If it doesn't, it isn't.

What drives that reproduction?

I find Michael behe’s natural selection and directed mutation .
My stance has gradually grown more evolution friendly

https://evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so_michael_behe/

Yep, sure.
BUT what drives that?
What drives selection A over B ?
What "decides" the selection?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:06 pm

bippy123 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:13 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 7:39 am

hughfarey wrote:At the level of organism reproduction. If the organism reproduces, the new material is selected. If it doesn't, it isn't.

What drives that reproduction?

I find Michael behe’s natural selection and directed mutation .
My stance has gradually grown more evolution friendly

https://evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so_michael_behe/

Yep, sure.
BUT what drives that?
What drives selection A over B ?
What "decides" the selection?

Paul do a search on Michael behe and chloroquin resistance

https://evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so_michael_behe/

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:06 pm

bippy123 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:13 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 7:39 am

hughfarey wrote:At the level of organism reproduction. If the organism reproduces, the new material is selected. If it doesn't, it isn't.

What drives that reproduction?

I find Michael behe’s natural selection and directed mutation .
My stance has gradually grown more evolution friendly

https://evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so_michael_behe/

Yep, sure.
BUT what drives that?
What drives selection A over B ?
What "decides" the selection?

Paul I get what your saying and this is precisely why you really need to look at behes chloroquin resistance argument and why I believe that the mutations are not random but directed .

As far as what or how that process is being driven by , we simply don’t know yet , but as behe has shown the odds are massively against this happening in a Darwinian way .even PZ Myers admitted this here .

https://evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so_michael_behe/

At first PZ lambasted behe a few years back

“” And then of course there’s PZ Myers. He made much the same criticisms, and also wrote:
Behe isn’t just a crackpot who thinks he has a novel explanation for an evolutionary mechanism — he’s a radical anti-evolutionist extremist who rejects the entire notion of the transformation of species by natural processes. … Most of the arguments are gussied up versions of the kind of handwaving, ignorant rationalizations you’d get from some pomaded fundagelical Baptist minister who got all his biology from the Bible, not at all what you’d expect from a tenured professor of biochemistry at a good university — throwing in an occasional technical gloss or mangled anecdote from the literature is only a gloss to fool the rubes.””

But when new evidence came out later that showed that in fact behe was correct this is the semi apology Pz Myers gave although I’m sure he clenched his teeth while
Giving it

“” Fair enough; if you demand a very specific pair of amino acid changes in specific places in a specific protein, I agree, the odds are going to be very long on theoretical considerations alone, and the empirical evidence supports the claim of improbability for that specific combination.”””

We know that God is the creator and sustainer of all, we know that nothing can exist without God and as such, we know that the process we call evolution, a process that we are learning more and more about each day, a process that is NOT what it was 100 years ago ( and only God knows what it will be 100 years from now, what discoveries we will find about it), could not come to be without God.