Evidence for God from Science

Kristoffer wrote:

DannyM wrote: Please don't cite Richard Dawkins' blind watchmaker...Please.

Sounds like a rekommendation thanks.

Yeah, you'll love it - right up your street.

Is this dawkins a christian or something? never heard of him.

Try answering my post to you on page 1, relating to design. What is this "hurdle" facing design?
-
-

Kristoffer wrote:Is this dawkins a christian or something? never heard of him.

ten seconds of googla could of told me how wrong i got it

Although one of the links said "culturally christian" whatever that means.

Isn't that what we do see? Species dying is a crucial part of evolution (natural selection and whatnot). The species that are alive evolve at a rate far slower than what humans can percieve (changes occuring over the course of millions of years, civilized humanity has only been around for about 10,000).

A change occuring after 400,000 years would be considered "fast" by that timeline's standards, which is why we don't see people being propelled by these changes.

See? No, actually, we don't see that. In fact, no one has ever 'seen' it. Unless you have some mysterious observational science that is about to turn the world on its ear. This contradicts what evolutionists claim evolution does. If evolution is that slow, we'd be lucky to have gotten out of the slime. I mean you are saying that 400k years is fast. Even if the world were 4 billion years old, this would mean you would only have time for roughly less than 10k successful changes to get from goo to you. Particles to people. and that is aassuming the conditions for life are there from day one, and that they maintain from them till now. Which contradicts evolutionary models. According to those, the earth was not hospitable to life until much later. Evolution requires beneficial changes and enough time for those changes. But evolution doesn't know what the environmental conditions will be 400k years down the road. In fact evolution doesn't 'know' anything. So under your model, the conditions could be changed and disasterous, by the time the actual evolved trait appears.

also, I fail to see how you have demonstrated that species dying is a critical part. that is a definitve STOP. A failure of the supposed process.

One large problem is that since evolution is such a slow process, people wouldn't recognize evolution if they saw it. We do see rapid evolution in people though. People's evolution is now being driven more quickly by technology rather than natural environments. People are not seperate from nature so our technological advances as a race are indeed part of our natural evolution which stems from an earlier stages of evolution where we developed a brain capable of learning.

The process is that when a species undergoes a genetic mutation it will live on and reproduce only if the new trait is beneficial, since the beneficial trait allows it to survive and carry on. If the trait is harmful, it will be killed off by natural selection and its genes won't be passed on. So in this way, the present species on Earth becomes more advanced over time since only the beneficial traits get passed on. Evolution doesn't have a mind or foresight since its not a conscious being, but it's through this cycle that things gradually go from very simple things to advanced things.

Environment plays a huge role because it changes what characteristics are "favored" by natural selection. If there is a pack of white crabs and black crabs on a beach with white sand, the black crabs are going to get killed off by natural selection because they can't hide themselves from predators as well in the white sand. But if a volcano erupts and the beach's sand turns black from the ash, now the black crabs are going to survive and the white crabs will be the ones killed off since the black crabs now blend in better than the white. This example shows how environment impacts which species live on while others die.

One big key point is to remember how long 6 billion years is. That's a LOT of time to for evolution to start over if it hits a dead end like you said. It doesn't have to get it right the first time. If a species evolves itself into a dead end that is distasterous for survivng, it goes exitinct and a different species with more benefical traits carries on instead.

Another is that it's not just one species evolving making its way to humanity, millions of of species are evolving alongside one another, so if one were to fail, another species would be the anscestors to the future more advanced races. This is also why there isn't much danger of a dead end putting a stop to life developing.

The earliest life forms were able to get out of the slime because they didn't require as much fuel as we do. They were more tolerant of environments because they didn't need much to survive. They only had to undergo osmosis and whatnot, while more advanced things need to eat in order to sustain themselves.

Just a small response to what you wrote: You described survival of the fittest. The idea that all the 'lesser-equipped' species die out. However, this by definition reduces the size of the gene pool. If evolution overall increases the size of the gene pool (ie, we have new species), this process must occur at a much faster rate than the process by which species die out. I just don't see that happening from the evidence that's out there.

It seems to though. Just looking at people, despite natural disasters and the struggles humanity goes though to stay alive, the human population was able to go from 2 million to 6 billion in a very short amount of time.

That isn't biological evolution though. Human beings are biologically the same (as evidenced by taking people out of third world, disconnected areas and bringing them to a modern society... they 'fit right in'). We just supplement our biology (via intelligence) with technological breakthroughs. For instance - the main cause of death in the world has come from starvation and disease. We have medicine for disease and advanced farming for starvation.

Maybe not technology but culture?

this process must occur at a much faster rate than the process by which species die out

Not necessarily, when species die out they leave a gap that can stay open for something else to fill much later, their are many niches that are empty in modern times but on the earth's timescale millions of years isn't really a long time, its only long to us. If thats how long it takes then While those gaps are still open a different equilibrium must some how be achieved by the ecology right? Removing one species doesn't mean everything dies.

medicine for disease and advanced farming for starvation.

we also have family planning for starvation. Such a shame food isn't distributed entirely equitably.

Our 'cultural' evolution really doesn't have any relevance to biological evolution... and in fact it could just as easily go backward as forward.

I still hold to the idea that species would need to develop much more rapidly than not for evolution to take place consistently. For instance, if you have 100,000 species on earth and you lose 1 a year, you would very quickly completely run out of genetic material (100,000 years would have you losing all of it, although the equation is probably exponential decay, not linear). The point is that natural selection removes genetic material from the system. If the generation of new genetic material doesn't surpass the rate of natural selection, you eventually lose all of the genes (all the species die), and you also lose variety (since fewer species survive). We can watch natural selection occur over the course of a relatively short period of time. We have never seen macroevolution on anywhere near the same timescale (please note my term 'see' means looking at the evidence presented in science).

not necessarily...if small minor changes can shift a population, create new elements in a gene pool, then you can see changes and tnew species. (notice I am saying IF)....hard to measure over a long time.

One example is Black Cats in the dark ages in europe. Perfectly black cats were regarded as witches familiers so they were killed on quite a large scale, the ones that were left over had just a little bit of white fur and most black cats still have fur like that today which has a bit of white in. Small changes like that can happen very quickly especially if the ones with the change dont die.

Sometimes very massive amounts of species have died in mass-extinction. one event was so bad that 90% of life was killed, obviously the worse it is the longer it takes life to recover and if you want to know what a transitional is...almost everything is transitional even so called living fossils slowly change. Thats another confusing thing: Some things change very swift and others change much more slower paced.

Environment plays a huge role because it changes what characteristics are "favored" by natural selection. If there is a pack of white crabs and black crabs on a beach with white sand, the black crabs are going to get killed off by natural selection because they can't hide themselves from predators as well in the white sand. But if a volcano erupts and the beach's sand turns black from the ash, now the black crabs are going to survive and the white crabs will be the ones killed off since the black crabs now blend in better than the white. This example shows how environment impacts which species live on while others die.

But these characteristics ALREADY exist. this is not evidence of particles to people evolution. The black and white crabs are already there. The genetic info is already there. nothing has been 'selected.' If anything this is evidence of genetic info being removed. It doesn't really explain why one survived, but why one went extinct. So, NS actually better describes why we have extinction.

[quoteWe do see rapid evolution in people though.][/quote]
Please share one testable and observable proof of new genetic info being 'seen.'

One big key point is to remember how long 6 billion years is. That's a LOT of time to for evolution to start over if it hits a dead end like you said.

Not if 400k years is a blip. do the math bro.

Another is that it's not just one species evolving making its way to humanity, millions of of species are evolving alongside one another, so if one were to fail, another species would be the anscestors to the future more advanced races. This is also why there isn't much danger of a dead end putting a stop to life developing.

Maybe you should start evangelizing canines, bananas and other things, since they may just be slow evolving humans. just to be safe you know.

The earliest life forms were able to get out of the slime because they didn't require as much fuel as we do. They were more tolerant of environments because they didn't need much to survive.

Testable, observable evidence?? Let me save you the time. There is NONE.