Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

BritGuy wrote:

neo-x wrote:The accurate thing to say would be that modern birds descended from dinosaurs.

Can you enlighten with one example or any modern bird and the dinosaur it descended from?
And for accuracy's same, point to fossils that show this.

this is a general overview, you can find more specific instances online as hugh suggested.

Or, those creature could have been created as they were with no macro-evolution involved.

doesn't look like it but I'll leave it at that.

BritGuy wrote:

neo-x wrote:

BritGuy wrote:

neo-x wrote:The accurate thing to say would be that modern birds descended from dinosaurs.

Can you enlighten with one example or any modern bird and the dinosaur it descended from?
And for accuracy's same, point to fossils that show this.

this is a general overview, you can find more specific instances online as hugh suggested.

I'll take that as "no", but it's what you want to believe anyway.

No to what? didn't hugh just gave you one example?

PaulSacramento wrote:According to Genesis, chronologically, The sun and the moon and the stars were made AFTER the Earth was, so...

What? Where?

PaulSacramento wrote:http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... nt-evolved

Earth is the planet of the plants—and it all can be traced back to one green cell. The world's lush profusion of photosynthesizers—from towering redwoods to ubiquitous diatoms—owe their existence to a tiny alga eons ago that swallowed a cyanobacteria and turned it into an internal solar power plant.

By studying the genetics of a glaucophyte—one of a group of just 13 unique microscopic freshwater blue-green algae, sometimes called "living fossils"—an international consortium of scientists led by molecular bioscientist Dana Price of Rutgers University, has elucidated the evolutionary history of plants. The glaucophyte Cyanophora paradoxa still retains a less domesticated version of this original cyanobacteria than most other plants.

According to the analysis of C. paradoxa's genome of roughly 70 million base pairs, this capture must have occurred only once because most modern plants share the genes that make the merger of photosynthesizer and larger host cell possible. That union required cooperation not just from the original host and the formerly free-ranging photosynthesizer but also, apparently, from a bacterial parasite. Chlamydia-like cells, such as Legionella (which includes the species that causes Legionnaire's disease), provided the genes that enable the ferrying of food from domesticated cyanobacteria, now known as plastids, or chloroplasts, to the host cell.

"These three entities forged the nascent organelle, and the process was aided by multiple horizontal gene transfers as well from other bacteria," explains biologist Debashish Bhattacharya of Rutgers University, whose lab led the work published in Science on February 17. "Gene recruitment [was] likely ongoing" before the new way of life prospered and the hardened cell walls of most plants came into being.

In fact, such a confluence of events is so rare that evolutionary biologists have found only one other example: the photosynthetic amoeba Paulinella domesticated cyanobacteria roughly 60 million years ago. "The amoeba plastid is still a 'work in progress' in evolutionary terms," Bhattacharya notes. "We are now analyzing the genome sequence from Paulinella to gain some answers" as to how these events occur.

The work provides the strongest support yet for the hypothesis of late biologist Lynn Margulis, who first proposed in the 1960s to widespread criticism the theory that all modern plant cells derived from such a symbiotic union, notes biologist Frederick Spiegel of the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, who was not involved in the work. That thinking suggests that all plants are actually chimeras—hybrid creatures cobbled together from the genetic bits of this ancestral union, including the enabling parasitic bacteria.

The remaining question is why this complex union took place roughly 1.6 billion years ago. One suggestion is that local conditions may have made it more beneficial for predators of cyanobacteria to stop eating and start absorbing, due to a scarcity of prey and an abundance of sunlight. "When the food runs out but sunlight is abundant, then photosynthesis works better" to support an organism, Bhattacharya notes. And from that forced union a supergroup of extremely successful organisms—the plants—sprang.

Or, a creator could've used common elements to create similar life forms.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

BritGuy wrote:

neo-x wrote:The accurate thing to say would be that modern birds descended from dinosaurs.

Can you enlighten with one example or any modern bird and the dinosaur it descended from?
And for accuracy's same, point to fossils that show this.

this is a general overview, you can find more specific instances online as hugh suggested.

Or, those creature could have been created as they were with no macro-evolution involved.

doesn't look like it but I'll leave it at that.

Of course the picture doesn't look like it Neo. They took an assumed belief, macro-evolution, and made a pretty picture showing life forms they think evolved from others, and voila! Evolution is proven! Sorry Neo, common Creator=common elements in different life forms.

Rick you cant prove it, infact biologically its plain wrong.

neo-x wrote:Rick you cant prove it, infact biologically its plain wrong.

Neo, you're claiming macro-evolution is a fact. It's not. It's not proven. I'm just saying what you call "proof" of evolution(common genes) isn't necessarily what you think it is. There may be another reason for what you claim.

Here's a brilliant biologist who thinks biologically, you're wrong:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/horizon ... n-ancestry

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... nt-evolved

Earth is the planet of the plants—and it all can be traced back to one green cell. The world's lush profusion of photosynthesizers—from towering redwoods to ubiquitous diatoms—owe their existence to a tiny alga eons ago that swallowed a cyanobacteria and turned it into an internal solar power plant.

By studying the genetics of a glaucophyte—one of a group of just 13 unique microscopic freshwater blue-green algae, sometimes called "living fossils"—an international consortium of scientists led by molecular bioscientist Dana Price of Rutgers University, has elucidated the evolutionary history of plants. The glaucophyte Cyanophora paradoxa still retains a less domesticated version of this original cyanobacteria than most other plants.

According to the analysis of C. paradoxa's genome of roughly 70 million base pairs, this capture must have occurred only once because most modern plants share the genes that make the merger of photosynthesizer and larger host cell possible. That union required cooperation not just from the original host and the formerly free-ranging photosynthesizer but also, apparently, from a bacterial parasite. Chlamydia-like cells, such as Legionella (which includes the species that causes Legionnaire's disease), provided the genes that enable the ferrying of food from domesticated cyanobacteria, now known as plastids, or chloroplasts, to the host cell.

"These three entities forged the nascent organelle, and the process was aided by multiple horizontal gene transfers as well from other bacteria," explains biologist Debashish Bhattacharya of Rutgers University, whose lab led the work published in Science on February 17. "Gene recruitment [was] likely ongoing" before the new way of life prospered and the hardened cell walls of most plants came into being.

In fact, such a confluence of events is so rare that evolutionary biologists have found only one other example: the photosynthetic amoeba Paulinella domesticated cyanobacteria roughly 60 million years ago. "The amoeba plastid is still a 'work in progress' in evolutionary terms," Bhattacharya notes. "We are now analyzing the genome sequence from Paulinella to gain some answers" as to how these events occur.

The work provides the strongest support yet for the hypothesis of late biologist Lynn Margulis, who first proposed in the 1960s to widespread criticism the theory that all modern plant cells derived from such a symbiotic union, notes biologist Frederick Spiegel of the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, who was not involved in the work. That thinking suggests that all plants are actually chimeras—hybrid creatures cobbled together from the genetic bits of this ancestral union, including the enabling parasitic bacteria.

The remaining question is why this complex union took place roughly 1.6 billion years ago. One suggestion is that local conditions may have made it more beneficial for predators of cyanobacteria to stop eating and start absorbing, due to a scarcity of prey and an abundance of sunlight. "When the food runs out but sunlight is abundant, then photosynthesis works better" to support an organism, Bhattacharya notes. And from that forced union a supergroup of extremely successful organisms—the plants—sprang.

Or, a creator could've used common elements to create similar life forms.

Yep, of course.
Or the Creator could have instilled in every living organism, the ability to evolve and "be fruitful and multiply".

Dear me, BritGuy, that's a bit ungenerous. I agree that your inquiry has not been answered, in that you have not been "enlightened," as you requested, and presumably remain in darkness, but at least the three particulars you required were provided, namely a modern bird, an ancestral dinosaur, and a chain of fossils connecting them. Of course, if you are determined to believe that every species was independently created, then no diagram of evolutionary succession, however complete, will change your mind, so it was a bit disingenuous to ask for it, don't you think?
Be that as it may, I wonder if you would care to enlighten me about something? The hundred million or so different species of organism which grace the planet today are a tiny fraction of the number of species that have gone extinct. My understanding is that the divine purpose behind all the earlier organisms is to be part of the great expansion and diversification of God's greatest gift to the universe, life. Is it your understanding is that God created all those species simply for the amusement of destroying them all again? If "God saw that it was good," why did it repenteth him of having done it quite so often? After the flood, He is reported as having said in his heart, "I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done." But he did, didn't he, over and over again? Can you enlighten me?

RickD wrote:Neo, you're claiming macro-evolution is a fact. It's not. It's not proven. I'm just saying what you call "proof" of evolution(common genes) isn't necessarily what you think it is. There may be another reason for what you claim.

Quite right . . . it's the whole cum hoc ergo propter hoc thing (correlation does not imply causation ). That is, we see a correlation of body types, biological features, etc., and therefore we conclude that the one caused the other (or perhaps, more subtly, post hoc ergo propter hoc, that is, "After this, therefore because of this"--but at that point, we're splitting hairs)? Please. No one should be impressed by such nonsense, but, it is what it is.

That would depend on ones understanding of what "macro-evolution" means.

*Raises hand*

I'm happy to say/go that the theory of evolution is pretty damn good/solid.

*Check to see if they need to put on that dratted uniform*

To Jac3510,

Except that isn't what's been happening with the development of things when it comes to evolution (And the theory there of).

Very much cheers to all.

PaulSacramento wrote:That would depend on ones understanding of what "macro-evolution" means.

I would say macro evolution is evolution above species level. One species evolving into another species. At least that's what seems to be the accepted definition nowadays.

Is there evolution within various species (micro evolution)? I would say yes, IF one is referring ONLY to the range of possibilities and changes within any given species, while ALL offspring and generations remain genetically part of the species. Perhaps canines are a good example. Look at dogs - we've got a wide range of possible sizes, shapes and color variations. There is everything from the tiniest of Chihuahuas to massive Saint Bernards and Great Danes. But despite centuries of breeding dogs and of artificially gathering dogs from different parts of the world to selectively breed (in which various canine types would have not been able to naturally come into proximity and breed), and selective, carefully planned breeding having produced an astounding range of dog types, yet, after centuries of artificially pairing and breeding various dog types, not one new species has ever been produced. No dogs have eventually produced anything other than more dogs. It's because they are genetically locked, it's an impossibility. And this has been the result, despite centuries of selective/artificially bringing together dogs from across oceans and continents.

And the failure of science to produce a brand new species from selective breeding experiments shows that dogs aren't the only area where this fact has been established. But remember, evolution has no such guiding of selective/artificial/geographically manipulative breeding. Supposedly, species have managed this ability to mutate/pass on mutations via advantages they supposedly bring, RANDOMLY, UNGUIDED (I'm not addressing theistic evolution). But we've not been able to scientifically plan, calculate and breed any new species. And cross-species offspring are typically sterile. And yet millions of species supposedly were able to do this through random chance? Random chance has a better shot at creating new species than the boys in the genetics lab? Huh? Ah, but evolutionists add in the magic word, using the word millions (much like our politicians do when referencing vast sums of money) - as if there was virtually unlimited amounts of time for evolution to produce so many new species. But is that really true?

Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe have stated that: "The Cambrian “Explosion” is a dramatic event in life’s history taking place around 540 million years ago. Over the course of perhaps less than 2 to 3 million years, nearly every animal phylum (over 70) ever to exist on Earth appeared. Identifiable, complex predator-prey relationships were already well established. only about five or six new phyla have appeared during the past 540 million years, and about 15 phyla have disappeared - taking the idea of evolution in the opposite direction of what naturalistic models predict." Scooby Doo says, "Ruh, Roh!" (even though he did mutate into a cartoon dog)

Think about the above. According to scientists, for about 3 billion years (from about 3.5 billion years ago until about 540 million years ago), all earth life (bacteria and simple, soft-bodied animals) remained in only very simple life forms, and yet we're to believe that over 70 phylum of complex animals and sophisticated predator/prey relationships developed and were well established within only A FEW MILLION YEARS? So who hit the "fast-foward" evolution button? And now 15 of those 70+ phylum have disappeared? So who pushed the "stop" button? And there is just no way that unguided, random processes produced all those new phylum of advanced animals and complex prey relationships in a few million years - but that's what we're supposed to believe. And so evolutionary theories DO have some very strict time limitations - at least when it comes to the fossil record and the Cambrian Explosion - which happened in a very narrow window of (supposed evolutionary)time.

Ross further says that, "Geneticists observe that deleterious mutaions outnumber benefical mutations by as much as 10,000 to 1, and in some species by as much as much as 10 million to one. Neutral or slightly deleterious mutations vastly outnumber both the beneficial and clearly deleterious mutations. He points out that "the number of neutral mutations is dropping, while the quantity of recognized deleterious mutations is rising," and "that by themselves, these statistics seriously challenge both naturalistic and theistic evolutionary models."

I have come to the solemn conclusion that people objecting to evolution do not understand it. You are patently wrong but that is to be expected now.

Calling evolution "just a theory" involves a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. Evolution is a fact, and the three main processes that make up evolution - replication, variation, and selection - are observable and undeniable.

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch as many here believe. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. Its a strawman and shows ignorance on the topic.

What people usually mean when they say this is "Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically." Therefore people should say that! The problem with using the word "theory" in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known theories such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Newton's Theory of Gravity, as well as lesser-known ones such as the Debye-Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions..

You know, if ducks would mate with crocodiles and produce crocoducks, then that would mean that there is something really wrong with evolutionary theory. BUT it doesn't predict such a thing. Same thing for two ducks giving birth to a crocoduck. If that were ever to happen then something is patently false and the whole theory would need massive readjusting. That is not what transitional species are all about. And btw, only species evolve, not individuals (gene frequency in populations). And also, the common-sense idea that people have about evolution is basically a Lamarckist one, which was proven to be false (except for epigenetic inheritance) long ago. Larmarckism would say that an individual feels the need to evolve for a certain purpose, does, and passes the trait on. The common giraffes stretching their necks to reach higher branches scenario etc which many non evolutionists believe.

The basic framework for understanding evolution is the fact that all living things have parents (mostly two, but not always). Darwin’s terminology “descent with modification” refers to the fact that new variations in individuals result from transmission of traits, half contributed by a mother and half by a father. He was unaware of Gregor Mendel’s work on inheritance of traits in pea plants, although the two men lived at the same time. Mendel identified how hereditary factors sort out and come back together; called genetics, this science is integral to the pattern Darwin identified.
Later work in the field showed that change occurs not only from new combinations of genes, but through a process known as genetic drift. Cells divide by replicating themselves, a copying process that is frequently imperfect. The copies end up being slightly different from their originals. Some scientists say the resulting mutation is caused by “mistakes” in genetic copying, but since there is no intention on the part of cells, it seems more accurate simply to say that “changes” are made during genetic copying.

Change, whether effected through new combinations of genes or genetic drift, is fundamentally necessary to evolution, providing the raw materials for innovative forms. Over time, changes in a population’s genetic makeup accumulate to the point that a species is effectively separate from its ancestors.