Evidence for God from Science

Jbuza wrote:

Wow thanks for your evolution interpretation of wolfs, that's great. IT doesn't mean anything, except show's that you believe evolution to be true. IT does show that man could take wolfs and breed all manner of dog by breeding for desired traits.

It is not an interpretation. Speaking directly of "ludicrous and asinine", that is how you are behaving.

Man did not make the wolf, the coyote, the fox, the dingo, the jackal, the dhole, the pariah dog and a number of other canine variants excluding some of the domesticated versions. This speciation is a direct result of natural selection, as stated before, due to environmental variables of locale. If this were not true, then all wolves across the globe would look exactly alike, and there would be no foxes, dingos, jackals, African wild dogs, dholes, pariahs, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Extinct canid species, no longer found in the world due to improper mutation with respect to natural selection:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... 6/5693/101
Further scientific data for failed natural selection speciation:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n9468212
Further scientific data for failed natural selection speciation:
http://www.nhm.org/exhibitions/dogs/evo ... lution.htm

It is facts that win contention, not the rudiments of delusion and denial based on indoctrination. The facts are clear that speciation occurs, for those that mutate favorably, there is survival. For the rest there is endless books about their decline and eventual disappearance.

So sorry, masa. And of course you have irrefutable evidence that they all evolved from something? I am not saying that individual packs won't be individual, but that they will continue to be dogs.

Jbuza wrote:So then how does a mutation happen in response to a stressful condition? The environment of germ cells remains unchanged; it would matter little to the germ cell what the outside environment was like. Everything is supposedly in stasis today and that is why we don't see evolution. Why don't you explain how a germ cell mutates in response to a stressful condition it has never experienced.

mutations don't happen in response to the environment. but the disabling mutations are weeded out by the environment. the organisms that can't cut it will die out and their genes will die out with them if they don't reproduce first. we don't see evolution because it takes so damn long. we've only been around for a few thousand years, hardly enough time to see serious changes in animals.

Jbuza wrote:Yet they seem to be the same

explain

Jbuza wrote:Are you seriously missing this, or just being ignorant. If all animals are in decent from more simple forms, than there are only two possible observations. New forms appear complete, or new forms appear gradually. If one organism changes through the most gradual process into another organism, than their must be that animal, although only slightly different from its parents, that is halfway between the organism the selective pressure was on and the organism that it became when things were once again in stasis. You cannot say well everything is a transitional and have that eliminate the need to show animals that were partway through this gradual process of change.

you are the one missing the point. i guess you could say that new forms appear gradually, but its more like every organism is a new form. look at how hard it is to find two identical people. every organism is between two species. species are just a label that humans have given to organisms that appear drastically different than other organisms. its not as clean-cut in reality. taxonomy is an obsolete science. the only reason we view organisms as seperated is because we have only just begun observing the things around us and we only have a small piece of information of the history of life on our planet. all life is made of cells and these cells are made different by the order of dna. the order of dna is a complex pattern of a's t's c's and g's. any minor change in the order of these 'letters' can have a drastic effect on the physical makeup of the organism.

Jbuza wrote:Observations. We see that animals remain stable. We do not see the above partway evolved organisms. My own logic and reason. The fact that alternatives are asinine.

the fact that you think all alternatives are assinine is ignorant and close-minded. you will get nowhere thinking like this.

we observe that animals do not change because we have only been observing them for a few hundred years. we do observe that bacteria evolves and adapts, and we have observed some insects evolve and adapt but that is because their reproductive cycles are much faster and therefore gene differentiation occurs more rapidly. they are all made of cells just like us, why should we be any different?

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:[Here you go half way between something in the past and a horse.

Someone draw that from a tooth, or assemble it from a mass of bones of unknown origin?

No Sir.

Zenith
We've only been around for a few thousand years, hardly enough time to see serious changes in animals.

Which is why I say that evolution is not based on observations, and is a belief not a science.
----------------------
Mice appear to be the same regardless of environment. The mouse's DNA ensures that.
----------------------
Zenith
you are the one missing the point. i guess you could say that new forms appear gradually, but its more like every organism is a new form. look at how hard it is to find two identical people. every organism is between two species. species are just a label that humans have given to organisms that appear drastically different than other organisms. its not as clean-cut in reality. taxonomy is an obsolete science. the only reason we view organisms as seperated is because we have only just begun observing the things around us and we only have a small piece of information of the history of life on our planet. all life is made of cells and these cells are made different by the order of dna. the order of dna is a complex pattern of a's t's c's and g's. any minor change in the order of these 'letters' can have a drastic effect on the physical makeup of the organism.

And yet in spite of all the mutations that some say are happening all the time, we observe stability.
---------------------
Zenith
the fact that you think all alternatives are assinine is ignorant and close-minded. you will get nowhere thinking like this.

Oh is that so. Perhaps I should just accept theories that run contrary to the world that I observe.
--------------------
we observe that animals do not change because we have only been observing them for a few hundred years. we do observe that bacteria evolves and adapts, and we have observed some insects evolve and adapt but that is because their reproductive cycles are much faster and therefore gene differentiation occurs more rapidly. they are all made of cells just like us, why should we be any different?

How about a spider trapped in amber from “20,000,000 years ago” that is the same as one commonly found today.
http://www.atsnn.com/story/174330.html

there are many many observations like this one.
Sorry I'm too bored with the futility of showing the others, if you want to believe evolution in spite of it being contrary to what we observe, go to it. I'm done till I find something at least interesting to talk about.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:[Here you go half way between something in the past and a horse.

Someone draw that from a tooth, or assemble it from a mass of bones of unknown origin?

No Sir.

Hey that must be one of the few dozen verified dinos. What is the name of this one?

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote: Someone draw that from a tooth, or assemble it from a mass of bones of unknown origin?

No Sir.

Hey that must be one of the few dozen verified dinos. What is the name of this one?

????I haven't a clue what you are talking about.
It's a mammal.

Look at the dentition. And if you don't see it then you need to go do more research on animal physiology.
Not a dinosaur.

Just like a car expert can tell you what car a certian fender came from, a zoologist can tell you what animal a tooth came from.

Jbuza wrote:

Sorry I'm too bored with the futility of showing the others, if you want to believe evolution in spite of it being contrary to what we observe, go to it. I'm done till I find something at least interesting to talk about.

LOL.... move along people, nothing to see here. Move along. Next, you too lookey lou's.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote: Someone draw that from a tooth, or assemble it from a mass of bones of unknown origin?

No Sir.

Hey that must be one of the few dozen verified dinos. What is the name of this one?

????I haven't a clue what you are talking about.
It's a mammal.

Look at the dentition. And if you don't see it then you need to go do more research on animal physiology.
Not a dinosaur.

Just like a car expert can tell you what car a certian fender came from, a zoologist can tell you what animal a tooth came from.

OK then what is this mammal. And are you saying that these fossils are categorized by their teeth? Yeah I'll bet those are the same zoologists that have been turning crocodiles into dinosaurs based on teeth.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote: Someone draw that from a tooth, or assemble it from a mass of bones of unknown origin?

No Sir.

Hey that must be one of the few dozen verified dinos. What is the name of this one?

????I haven't a clue what you are talking about.
It's a mammal.

Look at the dentition. And if you don't see it then you need to go do more research on animal physiology.
Not a dinosaur.

Not a dinosaur? Why that is the infamous jawbone of the Marsupiasaurasaurus(cousin of the biblical ass)!!!! As far as dinosaurs, we have no proof of them at all, like people claiming that crocodilians
are dinosaurs, please it's all myth!!!

Just like a car expert can tell you what car a certian fender came from, a zoologist can tell you what animal a tooth came from.

A zoologist couldn't any more identify a tooth than a mechanic could identify a blinker on a buzby. It's all supposition and conjecture based on primordial chicken noodle soup.

Have I reached ludicrous and puerile yet? Let me know.

Hey if you want to believe in evolution based on some teeth, than go to to it, since you all know that zoologists are infallible.

What is ludicrous is saying that a zoologist can tell you what an animal looked like based on his teeth. At least the mechanic has observed the actual car the fender goes on.

I never said there was no such thing as a dinosaur, but I am clear their is a jackass as I have observed one.

Jbuza wrote:

Zenith wrote:We've only been around for a few thousand years, hardly enough time to see serious changes in animals.

Which is why I say that evolution is not based on observations, and is a belief not a science.

So chemistry is also just a belief and not a science? I mean, no one has ever seen an atom or a molecule.

sandy_mcd wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

Zenith wrote:We've only been around for a few thousand years, hardly enough time to see serious changes in animals.

Which is why I say that evolution is not based on observations, and is a belief not a science.

So chemistry is also just a belief and not a science? I mean, no one has ever seen an atom or a molecule.

No, it is not the same thing. I mean we actually observe chemical reactions. Chemistry would be far different if we did not observe any chemical reactions
taking place, but we just had people saying that chemicals reacted at some point in an unknown past, and that if we are patient chemical reactions may take
place again someday.





Large microscopes that use electrons instead of light have been able to see
single atoms as fuzzy pictures on film. The atoms we have seen this way are
the larger atoms that contain a lot of protons and neutrons in their nuclei.

new kind of microscope called the "scanning tunneling
microscope", which allows an extremely sensitive "probe" (basically a rod with
a very fine tip) to wander around on the outside of some solid materials, and
actually feel the bumps that are caused by the atoms there, and then a
computer can convert those bumps into a picture of the surface, showing the
individual atoms lying there, and the patterns they form, the steps as one
layer of atoms gives way to another, and all sorts of details that could never
be seen before.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/as ... PHY118.HTM

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote: Someone draw that from a tooth, or assemble it from a mass of bones of unknown origin?

No Sir.

Hey that must be one of the few dozen verified dinos. What is the name of this one?

????I haven't a clue what you are talking about.
It's a mammal.
Look at the dentition. And if you don't see it then you need to go do more research on animal physiology.
Not a dinosaur.
Just like a car expert can tell you what car a certian fender came from, a zoologist can tell you what animal a tooth came from.

OK then what is this mammal. And are you saying that these fossils are categorized by their teeth? Yeah I'll bet those are the same zoologists that have been turning crocodiles into dinosaurs based on teeth.

No it's a mammal based on its teeth.
It's an ungulate based on it's foot.
It's a horselike animal based on it's skull.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:[Here you go half way between something in the past and a horse.

Someone draw that from a tooth, or assemble it from a mass of bones of unknown origin?

No Sir.

BGood, since when does similarity show relationship?