Evidence for God from Science

They occur on a genetic level so we can't tell them part. They even claim from generation to generation of humans we are evolving. Bottom line is they arrange what appears to be progressive evolutionary fossils of a species to demonstrate this as if we could live the expanse of time required we would see the new species emerge

This is an example of the fallacy of equivocation. This is using the word evolution to simply mean change. And then conflating that use of the word to support a completely seperate usage. Yes, change is happening. But do these measurable, observable changes get us from molecules to man? From goo to you? How do slight changes and goof ups in the code account for a fully functioning eye, that also is fully intergrated to function with every other body system? Every example of change is a loss or corruption of existing genetic code. So how does loss get us up the ladder? "Change" from loss might get us from a wolf to a poodle, but how do we get a wolf to begin with? It's a pretty important question don't you think?

No one looks at any living species as transitional. It is a fully developed species. The fossil record is a record of death. The death of fully developed species. We have extinct animals by the load. Which means these species did not evolve, but collapsed due to not being fit for their environment.

jlay wrote:

They occur on a genetic level so we can't tell them part. They even claim from generation to generation of humans we are evolving. Bottom line is they arrange what appears to be progressive evolutionary fossils of a species to demonstrate this as if we could live the expanse of time required we would see the new species emerge

This is an example of the fallacy of equivocation. This is using the word evolution to simply mean change. And then conflating that use of the word to support a completely seperate usage. Yes, change is happening. But do these measurable, observable changes get us from molecules to man? From goo to you? How do slight changes and goof ups in the code account for a fully functioning eye, that also is fully intergrated to function with every other body system? Every example of change is a loss or corruption of existing genetic code. So how does loss get us up the ladder? "Change" from loss might get us from a wolf to a poodle, but how do we get a wolf to begin with? It's a pretty important question don't you think?

No one looks at any living species as transitional. It is a fully developed species. The fossil record is a record of death. The death of fully developed species. We have extinct animals by the load. Which means these species did not evolve, but collapsed due to not being fit for their environment.

Those are some very good points. In my opinion it seems that the human race is going downhill instead of up. I know many people would probably say its because of our diet and that everything we eat has preservatives and such but if evolution were fact wouldn't we be adapting to the new food instead of getting cancer?

I have addressed the Cambrian explosion in detail in the first couple of pages of the evolution and ID thread. There are many things we still don't know about this period in time, but this in no way invalidates all the other converging lines of evidence in support of evolution. When molecular evidence was shown that Diacodexis was an ancestor of modern whales, we had a period of time when there weren't any intermediate fossils. Plenty of ID proponents attacked this notion for a while. Until of course Pakicetus, Ambulocetus and Dorudon were dug up. The point is, there is ongoing research in these fields of evolution. These are great questions to ask, but they are just that, questions.

Jlay shows a lack of understanding of what evolution actually entails. Evolution doesn't explain (or "I don't know") "X", therefore it is false. We are going back to false dichotomies. I really want to drive this point across:

Pierson5 wrote:When less than 0.01% of the papers published on a topic are in support of an alternative explanation, you can pretty much guarantee that there’s no debate. If an “expert” has no direct evidence in support of his own position, but can only attempt to tear down the opposing position, you can reasonably conclude that he doesn’t have anything meaningful to offer. From your previous posts, it sounds like this is the reason we don't give a lot of credit to young earthers, correct?

Oh, and one more thing. Just like every scientific theory, evolution does not have ALL the answers. But, just like atomic theory or germ theory, this does not discredit the validly of all the other evidence in support of the theory.

I am still waiting for evidence for the alternate "theory."

Mitzy wrote: Those are some very good points. In my opinion it seems that the human race is going downhill instead of up. I know many people would probably say its because of our diet and that everything we eat has preservatives and such but if evolution were fact wouldn't we be adapting to the new food instead of getting cancer?

This is a good question.

1. Cancer is a VERY complicated issue
2. The problem is, when evolution refers to "survival of the fittest" it is talking about reproductive fitness.

If we set up a scenario, let's say there is a mutation that causes bones in younger children/adolescents to become stronger/less resistant to fractures. Unfortunately this mutation causes cancer (or any other ailment you can think of) later on in life, say 30s or 40s.

If we set up another scenario, let's say there is a mutation that causes bones in younger children/adolescents to become brittle/less resistant to fractures. But later on in life, say 30s or 40+, there is no instance of cancer.

Which one will be passed along? The first one. Reproductive fitness is at its peak during these "younger years" and those who don't die off/don't have fractures at a young age will be able to thrive and reproduce (even though they die off at an older age), therefore passing on this mutation which eventually causes cancer. The same could be said about eating food which would eventually cause cancer. (which is still a complicated issue, and pesticides have been tested and re-tested, I think the scientific community is fairly confident pesticides/radiating food, etc... has no adverse effects).

This is a good question.

1. Cancer is a VERY complicated issue
2. The problem is, when evolution refers to "survival of the fittest" it is talking about reproductive fitness.

If we set up a scenario, let's say there is a mutation that causes bones in younger children/adolescents to become stronger/less resistant to fractures. Unfortunately this mutation causes cancer (or any other ailment you can think of) later on in life, say 30s or 40s.

If we set up another scenario, let's say there is a mutation that causes bones in younger children/adolescents to become brittle/less resistant to fractures. But later on in life, say 30s or 40+, there is no instance of cancer.

Which one will be passed along? The first one. Reproductive fitness is at its peak during these "younger years" and those who don't die off/don't have fractures at a young age will be able to thrive and reproduce (even though they die off at an older age), therefore passing on this mutation which eventually causes cancer. The same could be said about eating food which would eventually cause cancer. (which is still a complicated issue, and pesticides have been tested and re-tested, I think the scientific community is fairly confident pesticides/radiating food, etc... has no adverse effects).[/quote]

If that is true then why are there more people coming out that they are gay and claim they are born that way? If evolution is true then how would that be survival of the fittest? Or is it really part of evolution and within time everyone will be gay and have to reproduce through test tubes and eventually with evolution everyone will be born with both sexes.

If that is true then why are there more people coming out that they are gay and claim they are born that way? If evolution is true then how would that be survival of the fittest? Or is it really part of evolution and within time everyone will be gay and have to reproduce through test tubes and eventually with evolution everyone will be born with both sexes.

First of all, homosexuality is so totally removed from evolution that it's not relevant. Also, for the record, gay people ARE totally capable of reproducing, so it has no effect on the "reproductive potential" of an individual, so the point is moot anyway.

Also, since evolution only deals with genetically passed-down traits, and at this point it appears that homosexuality is absolutely not a genetically transferred trait. So evolution isn't related to homosexuality in the lightest.

Third, evolution does not steer species toward test tube reproduction. That clearly cannot be a goal of evolution.

Ivellious wrote:

If that is true then why are there more people coming out that they are gay and claim they are born that way? If evolution is true then how would that be survival of the fittest? Or is it really part of evolution and within time everyone will be gay and have to reproduce through test tubes and eventually with evolution everyone will be born with both sexes.

First of all, homosexuality is so totally removed from evolution that it's not relevant. Also, for the record, gay people ARE totally capable of reproducing, so it has no effect on the "reproductive potential" of an individual, so the point is moot anyway.

Also, since evolution only deals with genetically passed-down traits, and at this point it appears that homosexuality is absolutely not a genetically transferred trait. So evolution isn't related to homosexuality in the lightest.

Third, evolution does not steer species toward test tube reproduction. That clearly cannot be a goal of evolution.

Ok so I was being a little sarcastic. You did say that "The problem is, when evolution refers to "survival of the fittest" it is talking about reproductive fitness" The only way for homosexuals to reproduce would be to be artificially insiminated, have heterosexual sex, or a surrogate mother. It appears to be that more and more people each day are gay or coming out and they all claim they were born that way. I do however don't believe in a "gay gene". I have heard some people say that homosexuality is part of us evolving.

Mitzy wrote:

Ivellious wrote:

If that is true then why are there more people coming out that they are gay and claim they are born that way? If evolution is true then how would that be survival of the fittest? Or is it really part of evolution and within time everyone will be gay and have to reproduce through test tubes and eventually with evolution everyone will be born with both sexes.

First of all, homosexuality is so totally removed from evolution that it's not relevant. Also, for the record, gay people ARE totally capable of reproducing, so it has no effect on the "reproductive potential" of an individual, so the point is moot anyway.

Also, since evolution only deals with genetically passed-down traits, and at this point it appears that homosexuality is absolutely not a genetically transferred trait. So evolution isn't related to homosexuality in the lightest.

Third, evolution does not steer species toward test tube reproduction. That clearly cannot be a goal of evolution.

Ok so I was being a little sarcastic. You did say that "The problem is, when evolution refers to "survival of the fittest" it is talking about reproductive fitness" The only way for homosexuals to reproduce would be to be artificially insiminated, have heterosexual sex, or a surrogate mother. It appears to be that more and more people each day are gay or coming out and they all claim they were born that way. I do however don't believe in a "gay gene". I have heard some people say that homosexuality is part of us evolving.

First of all, is homosexuality a specifically human behavior? If it is a fundamentally biological behavior, there should be some other species which share it. And, in fact, there are close to 500 known species which are known to engage in homosexual behavior, including elephants, dolphins, sheep, bears, deer, rats, cats, dogs, cows, rabbits, kangaroos, squirrels, whales, bats, pigs, mice, goats, as well as just about every other primate. And that’s just the mammals! There are many more birds, fish, reptiles, and even insects which have also engaged in homosexual behavior.

You also need to remember that evolution is described as a change in allele frequency of a Population over time. Individual organisms don’t “evolve” any more than a single pixel makes up a picture on your computer screen. What is necessary for evolution to take place is for there to be a group of individuals, a population, within which genes can change and flow.

This isn't as black and white as it sounds. It's a very complicated subject. Sure, individuals engage in homosexuality some of the time, or even a lot of the time, depending on the species. But not all of the time- they still find time to mate heterosexually. Sex seems to be a very fluid trait in many animals, pretty much any sexual configuration that can be performed within anatomical limits is done by some kind of animal.

You can also consider the social benefits of a population in which all members can share the close bonds of a sexual relationship, not just males and females. In bonobo chimpanzees, the female-dominated social network is composed of close bonds which are shown by frequent homosexual interactions between female members of the group. In fact, more than half of an adult female bonobo’s sexual interactions will be homosexual in nature. Clearly, in the case of bonobo chimpanzees, the bonds formed between females by homosexual relations are socially stabilizing. A stable society is much more likely to promote successful reproduction of young. Thus, homosexuality would be an evolutionarily beneficial behavior.

With regards to whether or not it's based on genetics is also a complicated subject. There was research done in Toronto a while back which showed that the more older male siblings a man has, the more likely he is to be a homosexual. The hypothesis is that the mothers becomes immunologically sensitized to the successive male fetuses within her, since they contain male proteins that she is not used to. It's a pretty complicated phenomenon. We could get into the research if you really want, but it may have to wait a little bit as I'm posting from a cell phone...

I do want to make it clear though. This is in no way a stance on the MORAL position in favor, or against homosexuality. To do so would be commiting a naturalistic fallacy. To say that because something is natural, it is either right or wrong is clearly illogical. The moral discussion of homosexuality is reserved for other, non-scientific settings.

In regards to Ivellious' comment, I would just like to point out I don't think there is a "goal" of evolution.

Pierson5 wrote: I have addressed the Cambrian explosion in detail in the first couple of pages of the evolution and ID thread.

No evolutionist can properly explain why all the body plans that would ever exist appear at the beginning of the imaginary evolutionary ladder nor can they explain why the avalon explosion of life has no links to the cambrian. If evolution were a correct understanding then logically complexity and variation would increase over vast periods of time not begin with them already existing.

Pierson5 wrote:There are many things we still don't know about this period in time, .

Like why so many varied forms show up at the beginning

Pierson5 wrote:but this in no way invalidates all the other converging lines of evidence in support of evolution.

It doesn't invalidate it for you. For most of the rest of us though this is a theory stopper. It is amazing how faith and belief in something overrides the evidence against it. Yet we have tons of evidence that people will latch on to a concept and trade their very lives to support it even though we can clearly see how wrong the concepts are now. So, really nothing has changed for humans except the date and the specifics of the nature god.

Pierson5 wrote:When molecular evidence was shown that Diacodexis was an ancestor of modern whales,

...Most taxa relevant to cetacean phylogeny are extinct, and will never be characterized for soft anatomical, behavioral and molecular traits. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4701022364

The observable evidence is that some creatures have similarities in some of their structures. Not really amazing if they share a common designer. The evidence used to back the evolutionary hypothesis is entirely based on structural similarity which they infer requires a link via lineage but, as logical as this might seem they could also have chosen convergent evolution for similarity of form between very dissimilar creatures. So, how can one analyse the observable evidence and determine whether it was common designer, ancestry or convergent evolution? You actually can't. You simply pick one and hope your right.

Pierson5 wrote:we had a period of time when there weren't any intermediate fossils. Plenty of ID proponents attacked this notion for a while. Until of course Pakicetus, Ambulocetus and Dorudon were dug up. The point is, there is ongoing research in these fields of evolution. These are great questions to ask, but they are just that, questions.

You are still in the period of time when there are no empirically defined intermediate fossils. Remember that thing called scientific method? it requires empirical evidence that is repeatable. The only thing you have is repeatable beliefs awaiting the proper evidence to support them.

KCBid, I think it would be best to move this to the evolution/ID thread. I'll do just that when I have access to an Internet connect (besides my phone). Probably tomorrow.

Jlay shows a lack of understanding of what evolution actually entails. Evolution doesn't explain (or "I don't know") "X", therefore it is false. We are going back to false dichotomies. I really want to drive this point across:

Please don't put words in my mouth, or make baseless claims. You didn't address anything I said in my post.

jlay wrote: Please don't put words in my mouth, or make baseless claims.

Then how about explaining what ID means?
Did the designer plant a unicellular lifeform with all the genetic information to develop into the life we see today?
Does the designer routinely make new species? Are they assembled from materials or just poofed into existence?
Do species have a planned obsolescence or why do they go extinct?
How many and how frequent are these new species introductions? Is it just a pair of animals or does a whole herd of wildebeest just show up at once?
If the species only lose information, does this happen at a steady rate so the time of origin of a species can be approximated?

Basically, what does the evidence show? I can't find any of this most basic information about ID anywhere.