Evidence for God from Science

thereal wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:We have to believe that all life came about by natural means in order to believe viruses can evolve and pest species can become resistent? This is absurd nonsense. You don't have to believe in macroevolution to believe in microevolution. Evolution is not one of those miracle elixers left over before the creation of the FDA. It will not cure cancer and give you more energy.

Talk about banging on drums...the old micro- vs. macro- escape... I have no doubt that if microevolution weren't visible to the layperson, I'd have to make repeated arguments for its existence as well. Anyway, my point was to address the statement that suggested that medicine, surgery. technology, etc. have nothing to do with evolution, which is obviously false.

Obviously not. And it's not a micro vs macro escape. You have to show that minor changes within a species can be extrapolated indefinately. I don't have to show it's false. Keep on asserting, it's the best thing you can do when you lack evidence.

You can belittle me all you want I guess. The greatest Darwinist defense.

"You seem to have a very limited view or knowledge of evolution if the only thing that comes to your mind is a rat turning into a horse (didn't happen) or plant turned into a fish (I really hope that was a joke)."

Ofcourse I didn't mean this literally, that was only part of my point. Rats obviously don't turn into horses just as plants don't turn into fish, this was only a figure of speech. And your right, I am very limited in the knowledge of the evolution theory, but only because I took computer electronics instead of biology.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: Obviously not. And it's not a micro vs macro escape. You have to show that minor changes within a species can be extrapolated indefinately. I don't have to show it's false. Keep on asserting, it's the best thing you can do when you lack evidence.

Lets do a little mental excersize. Tell me what do you think would happen if I took all the DNA from a cats egg cell and replaced it with that of a dog?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

thereal wrote: Obviously not. And it's not a micro vs macro escape. You have to show that minor changes within a species can be extrapolated indefinately. I don't have to show it's false. Keep on asserting, it's the best thing you can do when you lack evidence.

Lets do a little mental excersize. Tell me what do you think would happen if I took all the DNA from a cats egg cell and replaced it with that of a dog?

A democrat in the White House?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Lets do a little mental excersize. Tell me what do you think would happen if I took all the DNA from a cats egg cell and replaced it with that of a dog?

Tell me what do you think will happen if you tell the scientific community that you believe natural selection took all the DNA from a cat's egg cell and replaced it with that of a dog?

Turgonian wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Lets do a little mental excersize. Tell me what do you think would happen if I took all the DNA from a cats egg cell and replaced it with that of a dog?

Tell me what do you think will happen if you tell the scientific community that you believe natural selection took all the DNA from a cat's egg cell and replaced it with that of a dog?

Let's be fair. Bgood is making a valid point. Obviously, if you're going to make comments about evolution, you should be accurate in terms of what evolution claims as a sciencific theory.

Turgonian, I don't think you've really met or interacted with Bgood since you've come onto our board. He is seeking to demonstrate here that evolution does not make any such claim.

What do you suppose happens if the mouse gene for eyes is artificially located in the fly genome for legs? Does anybody want to know?

Ah.... Micky mouse with wings?

What happens when an "enhanced version (i.e., a synthetic mutation) of the original wild-type green fluorescent gene found in the jellyfish Aequorea Victoria" is "integrated into the [rabbit] genome through zygote microinjection"?

Very close, but no banana

Here are the choices:

Does an eye develop?

If it doesn't. what does develop?

If an eye develops, what kind?

Whatever develops., where does it develop?

Does the same thing happen every time with this experiment?

You mean this guy..? Sorry, can't get this picture out of my mind...

David Blacklock wrote:Very close, but no banana

Here are the choices:

Does an eye develop?

If it doesn't. what does develop?

If an eye develops, what kind?

Whatever develops., where does it develop?

Does the same thing happen every time with this experiment?

Yes
Normal fly's eye
Where it should
Yes?

*Dunt dunt dun DUN*

BGood, and thereal, a little mental exercise:

http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/ ... 8_27-07_00

And listen to it (in response to thereal's equivocation between microevolution and macroevolution...again).

I can't believe my ears. Yes, please, I would like to here the responses from Bgood and TheReal from an unbiased response from a microbiologist. Who should I believe?

How will you reinterpret his understanding with yours based on what experiments you or others have made to prove micro as just a journey towards macro?