Evidence for God from Science

Mystical wrote:Zenith: No matter how much time you have, you cannot make a single-celled organism become a fish or a fish become an amphibian, or a mammal, or an ape become a person, or a dinosaur become a bird. That is macroevolution.

There is no proof for macroevolution.

There is proof for microevolution--small changes. Small changes that never become big enough to make anything something else.

there's no proof for your argument, either. But, one would logically assume (or i should hope so) that constant miniscule changes over the course of millions of years would result in a large variety, no? you can see this, actually see it happening with bacteria, why should it be any different with other organisms?

You're right about one thing, there is no proof for macroevolution. That's because it is a myth. There are only small changes. But these small changes will add up over the years, i hope you can see that. What could stop small changes from adding up? For you to say that microevolution does not explain the differentiation of organisms on our planet would mean that there is a force that stops any kind of adaptation in an organism after a certain point. There is no proof of that, in fact there is plenty of evidence showing that microevolution does not stop; that organisms are always changing through the generations. If that were not true, then every human would be the same, or at least very similar.

there's no proof for your argument, either. But, one would logically assume (or i should hope so) that constant miniscule changes over the course of millions of years would result in a large variety, no? you can see this, actually see it happening with bacteria, why should it be any different with other organisms?

True...but it's not logical to just say that you can get new species just because you can get many varieties in a species....

You're right about one thing, there is no proof for macroevolution. That's because it is a myth. There are only small changes. But these small changes will add up over the years, i hope you can see that. What could stop small changes from adding up? For you to say that microevolution does not explain the differentiation of organisms on our planet would mean that there is a force that stops any kind of adaptation in an organism after a certain point. There is no proof of that, in fact there is plenty of evidence showing that microevolution does not stop; that organisms are always changing through the generations. If that were not true, then every human would be the same, or at least very similar.

Unwarranted extrapolation.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

there's no proof for your argument, either. But, one would logically assume (or i should hope so) that constant miniscule changes over the course of millions of years would result in a large variety, no? you can see this, actually see it happening with bacteria, why should it be any different with other organisms?

True...but it's not logical to just say that you can get new species just because you can get many varieties in a species....

How many of these changes are allowed, because given enough you have a new type.

Morphological changes allowed under microevolution so far are as follows.

Changes in dental structure.
Changes in skull shape.
Changes in Fur coloration.
Changes in eye shape and acuity.
Additions and subtractions and changes to horn shape.
Changes in relative length of limbs.
Changes in gastrointestinal processes.
Changes in blood chemistry.
Changes in Enzymatic activity.
Changes in development speed.

Using just these "allowable changes" One could possible take apopulation of mice and perhaps breed them into a population similar to anteaters given enough time.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

there's no proof for your argument, either. But, one would logically assume (or i should hope so) that constant miniscule changes over the course of millions of years would result in a large variety, no? you can see this, actually see it happening with bacteria, why should it be any different with other organisms?

True...but it's not logical to just say that you can get new species just because you can get many varieties in a species....

How many of these changes are allowed, because given enough you have a new type.

Morphological changes allowed under microevolution so far are as follows.

Changes in dental structure.
Changes in skull shape.
Changes in Fur coloration.
Changes in eye shape and acuity.
Additions and subtractions and changes to horn shape.
Changes in relative length of limbs.
Changes in gastrointestinal processes.
Changes in blood chemistry.
Changes in Enzymatic activity.
Changes in development speed.

Using just these "allowable changes" One could possible take apopulation of mice and perhaps breed them into a population similar to anteaters given enough time.

Let me quote myself...

Unwarranted extrapolation.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:How many of these changes are allowed, because given enough you have a new type.

Morphological changes allowed under microevolution so far are as follows.

Changes in dental structure.
Changes in skull shape.
Changes in Fur coloration.
Changes in eye shape and acuity.
Additions and subtractions and changes to horn shape.
Changes in relative length of limbs....

Using just these "allowable changes" One could possible take apopulation of mice and perhaps breed them into a population similar to anteaters given enough time.

Let me quote myself...

Unwarranted extrapolation.

Let me counter with

I can see the family resemblence...your mother is a lovely lady.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I can see the family resemblence...your mother is a lovely lady.

ROFL

How dare you, she's going to cry when she reads this.

Not as much as when she cried when she first laid eyes on you....lol

Who can blame her?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:True...but it's not logical to just say that you can get new species just because you can get many varieties in a species....

Unwarranted extrapolation.

humans have a bad habit of having to label and categorize everything. this makes it seem that things are more seperated than they are. species is really an outdated word. every organism that ever lived is different, and the ones that passed their genes on are transitionals. this would really make the line between two species a gray area, and not really defined. organisms change over time, the best adapted surviving and passing on traits that get varied through generations. There are no species, everything is just in the middle of constant change. we are all made of cells, but they are different and specialized to allow us greater chance of survival. and these cells are all made of similar molecules. the molecules are made of elements, elements made of atoms and so on.

Zenith wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:True...but it's not logical to just say that you can get new species just because you can get many varieties in a species....

Unwarranted extrapolation.

humans have a bad habit of having to label and categorize everything. this makes it seem that things are more seperated than they are. species is really an outdated word. every organism that ever lived is different, and the ones that passed their genes on are transitionals. this would really make the line between two species a gray area, and not really defined. organisms change over time, the best adapted surviving and passing on traits that get varied through generations. There are no species, everything is just in the middle of constant change. we are all made of cells, but they are different and specialized to allow us greater chance of survival. and these cells are all made of similar molecules. the molecules are made of elements, elements made of atoms and so on.

Ideologically speaking, but not according to evidence.

In the words of august, http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=105

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Ideologically speaking, but not according to evidence.

according to what evidence?

A few evidences for macroevolution:

1. The fossil record, as a whole pretty much.

2. The fact that genetically we are a) all related, meaning we all have a common ancestor - this is fact, not hypothesis, and b) we are less and less closely related to one another in exactly the areas of life you would expect. For instance, biology says evolution went (skipping a few steps) fishes > fishes with backbones > amphibians > reptiles > dianosaurs/mammals > prehistoric apes > us. We are closer related (genetically) to a an ape than other mammals, to a mammal than to a reptile, to a reptile than an amphibian and so on and so forth.

3. Some snakes have withered legs which are "left over" traits from their lizard days, that have not completely de-evolved, but which no "intelligent designer" would give them.

4. Whales have 4 precursory fingers under their fins (they're mammals which returned to the sea), they're warm-blooded, mammals, breath air, don't have gills, have mammalian hip-bones (the kind used for walking, not swimming) and can get the bends and die, unlike every other species of fish.

5. Macroevolution is proven, as someone said. Not only can we sit back and watch it happen under microscopes, but we know that genetic mutations, duplicated genes and other assorted screwups of mother nature occur all the time.

This is fact. You are not an exact replica of your parents' DNA, some of it is altered randomly with every generation.

This in mind, if you seperate two species for a long enough time they absolutely will become genetically incompatable, once these minor changes make them so. It is literally just a matter of time.

When they can no longer reproduce with oneanother, they are two seperate species, and will adapt differently from one another, becoming less and less similar over millions of years, until you have a flying squirrel or a monkey with a bigger brain.

I could go on but I've really got to get to other things.

Why must atheists copy/paste. This looks familiar...

Responses:

1) Actually quite false. Fossil record shows sudden appearance and statis, it does not show gradual change over time.
2) Design fits the evidence you present in #2, so it's not evidence for evolution quite.
3) Isn't this quite possibly an argument from ignorance? And circular reasoning?
4) The hip bones are required for reproduction...this is utter nonsense once again.
5) Blah blah blah this is nonsense again. My goodness, I keep on seeing this junk.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Why must atheists copy/paste. This looks familiar...

Responses:

1) Actually quite false. Fossil record shows sudden appearance and statis, it does not show gradual change over time.

If I remove frames from a movie and blow them up all I show is sudden apearance and stasis, no?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:2) Design fits the evidence you present in #2, so it's not evidence for evolution quite.

Why use a different part for the same function? Why a different size screw for each door hinge?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:3) Isn't this quite possibly an argument from ignorance? And circular reasoning?
4) The hip bones are required for reproduction...this is utter nonsense once again.

Sharks don't have hip bones. Neither do Tuna. Sea Turtles do however. The only commonality is that turtles and whales both breathe air. I suppose the hip bone is to help them breathe.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:5) Blah blah blah this is nonsense again. My goodness, I keep on seeing this junk.

Macro and micro is one and the same. Many small changes over time accumulate no?

If I have a elephants and I strand them on a small island you think over time that they will shrink in size?

Given that individuals predisposed genetically to smaller size will be healthier due to fewer caloric intake requirements.