Evidence for God from Science

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Yes. Yes. I understand how evolution explains away observations.

Any scientific theory needs to explain the observations.

Do you have a counter explanation?

I don't need to explain evolutionary interpretations and suppositions. If you haven't figured out what the counter explanation is by now, than I'm sure one more reiteration to you will be foolishness. Their is a difference between explaining observations, and the sort of narrative that evolution has become.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Yes. Yes. I understand how evolution explains away observations.

Any scientific theory needs to explain the observations.

Do you have a counter explanation?

I don't need to explain evolutionary interpretations and suppositions. If you haven't figured out what the counter explanation is by now, than I'm sure one more reiteration to you will be foolishness. Their is a difference between explaining observations, and the sort of narrative that evolution has become.

Again you seem to have a counter theory but you fail to realize that you are declaring that observations support it without defining the observations, nor showing how they support it.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Yes. Yes. I understand how evolution explains away observations.

Any scientific theory needs to explain the observations.

Do you have a counter explanation?

I don't need to explain evolutionary interpretations and suppositions. If you haven't figured out what the counter explanation is by now, than I'm sure one more reiteration to you will be foolishness. Their is a difference between explaining observations, and the sort of narrative that evolution has become.

Again you seem to have a counter theory but you fail to realize that you are declaring that observations support it without defining the observations, nor showing how they support it.

OK which observations were you asking about?

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Again you seem to have a counter theory but you fail to realize that you are declaring that observations support it without defining the observations, nor showing how they support it.

OK which observations were you asking about?

You say that DNA is stable. What observation's prove this?

And nothing circular as in "DNA effects morphology, I don't see morphology changing, so DNA is stable."

I mean actual data. Something which shows the inherent stability of DNA.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Again you seem to have a counter theory but you fail to realize that you are declaring that observations support it without defining the observations, nor showing how they support it.

OK which observations were you asking about?

You say that DNA is stable. What observation's prove this?

And nothing circular as in "DNA effects morphology, I don't see morphology changing, so DNA is stable."

I mean actual data. Something which shows the inherent stability of DNA.

So your saying that I cannot use the fact that off spring resemble parents to show that DNA has stable information in it? OH OK

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Again you seem to have a counter theory but you fail to realize that you are declaring that observations support it without defining the observations, nor showing how they support it.

OK which observations were you asking about?

You say that DNA is stable. What observation's prove this?

And nothing circular as in "DNA effects morphology, I don't see morphology changing, so DNA is stable."

I mean actual data. Something which shows the inherent stability of DNA.

So your saying that I cannot use the fact that off spring resemble parents to show that DNA has stable information in it? OH OK

No, you cannot because it has been shown that offspring do not have duplicate copied of their parents DNA.
I can take a clay ball and change it slightly every frame so that each frame resembles the one before. The clay ball resembles its predasessor. But this is how they can make claymation changing Gumby into a train.

Stable information in it or DNA is stable?
Care to clarify your language? No one is claiming that offspring will be random and come out completely different than their parents.

It has also been shown that gene duplication has inherent flaws which makes mutation inevitable.

Also separate populations do not share the same DNA, nor do they have the same range of genetic variety. Why, if DNA is stable?

All observations are counter to your claim that DNA is stable.

DNA has stable information. I have never argued that every individual in a population are genetic copies of each other.

DNA recombination works to correct defective genes, and the process of sexual reproduction ensures that offspring will continue to resemble their parents.

This process does not show that evolution occours.

Jbuza wrote:DNA has stable information. I have never argued that every individual in a population are genetic copies of each other.

DNA recombination works to correct defective genes, and the process of sexual reproduction ensures that offspring will continue to resemble their parents.

Defective genes yes, but what of mutations which are not defective? What of populations which do not have access to this gene pool?

Does sexual reproduction ensure that babies resemble their great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents? Nope.

Jbuza wrote:This process does not show that evolution occours.

That's quite a jump what's your reasoning?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Does sexual reproduction ensure that babies resemble their great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents?

Yes that is the point. 1000 years ago man was using the same organism. We haven't grown another arm to multi-task although it would be easier to drink my coffee while typing, in fact it would be useful for all manner of things.

I know I know you'll think I don't understand for thinking that evolution could actually cause a mutation.

Hey I look around and I simply don't see variety within species whereby some groups of the species are dying out and other are surviving by some new beneficial mutation.


Well, who known perhaps I am wrong and that is why physicians don't bother collecting family background.

Mendelian inheritance demonstrates that DNA causes stability within a species.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Does sexual reproduction ensure that babies resemble their great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents?

Yes that is the point.

How can this possibly be the point of sexual reproduction ? Asexual reproduction, which takes place mostly in plants and simple animals, is a much better method for ensuring that offspring resemble parent. Please explain how sexual reproduction, which involves mixing split up genetic material from multiple individuals, is better than asexual reproduction at having babies resemble forbears.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/ency ... 30820.html
Asexual reproduction is the simplest form of reproduction, occurring in many simple plants and animals. Binary fission, shown here occurring in an amoeba, is one of a number of asexual reproduction processes.
Examples of asexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction is the simplest form of reproduction, occurring in many plants and simple animals. Strawberry plants can reproduce by sending out runners; onion plants form bulbs; and potato plants form tubers. Amoebas divide into two (binary fission) and hydra form new hydra by budding. The offspring are always genetically identical to the parent.

sandy_mcd wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Does sexual reproduction ensure that babies resemble their great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents?

Yes that is the point.

How can this possibly be the point of sexual reproduction ? Asexual reproduction, which takes place mostly in plants and simple animals, is a much better method for ensuring that offspring resemble parent. Please explain how sexual reproduction, which involves mixing split up genetic material from multiple individuals, is better than asexual reproduction at having babies resemble forbears.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/ency ... 30820.html
Asexual reproduction is the simplest form of reproduction, occurring in many simple plants and animals. Binary fission, shown here occurring in an amoeba, is one of a number of asexual reproduction processes.
Examples of asexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction is the simplest form of reproduction, occurring in many plants and simple animals. Strawberry plants can reproduce by sending out runners; onion plants form bulbs; and potato plants form tubers. Amoebas divide into two (binary fission) and hydra form new hydra by budding. The offspring are always genetically identical to the parent.

OK. Would you also have me explain why rocks don't sink in water?

I never made the claim that sexual reproduction shows more stability than asexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction ensures that the offspring will recombine stable information.

OK. Would you also have me explain why rocks don't sink in water?

Some don't.

I never made the claim that sexual reproduction shows more stability than asexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction ensures that the offspring will recombine stable information.

Most humans have a few mutations that weren't in their parents genes. "Stable" is a relative thing, I suppose...

Jbuza wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Does sexual reproduction ensure that babies resemble their great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents?

Yes that is the point.

How can this possibly be the point of sexual reproduction ? Asexual reproduction, which takes place mostly in plants and simple animals, is a much better method for ensuring that offspring resemble parent. Please explain how sexual reproduction, which involves mixing split up genetic material from multiple individuals, is better than asexual reproduction at having babies resemble forbears.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/ency ... 30820.html
Asexual reproduction is the simplest form of reproduction, occurring in many simple plants and animals. Binary fission, shown here occurring in an amoeba, is one of a number of asexual reproduction processes.
Examples of asexual reproduction. Asexual reproduction is the simplest form of reproduction, occurring in many plants and simple animals. Strawberry plants can reproduce by sending out runners; onion plants form bulbs; and potato plants form tubers. Amoebas divide into two (binary fission) and hydra form new hydra by budding. The offspring are always genetically identical to the parent.

OK. Would you also have me explain why rocks don't sink in water?

I never made the claim that sexual reproduction shows more stability than asexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction ensures that the offspring will recombine stable information.

Concerning everything I have read on the asexual/sexual reproduction that is entirely incorrect.

Asexual reproduction ensures exact copies. Which means if there is a gene mutation that causes a member of the species to perish, it will certainly mean that line becomes extinct.

Sexual reproduction does not create exact copies, otherwise, you would not be discernable from your father or brother. It ensures that if a certain genetic mutation occurs to the detriment of the species, by combining with another mate, that mutation can be "weeded" out, thus ensuring the survival of the species.

I have a friend, who swears infidelity on one of his parents, (jokingly), because he bears little resemblance to either of them. He looks almost identical to his great grandfather. He also does not suffer from the blood disorder of his father, grandson of the great grandfather. A mutation has been "weeded" out, that would otherwise likely mean the end of this bloodline, if humans reproduced asexually.

Jbuza wrote:I never made the claim that sexual reproduction shows more stability than asexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction ensures that the offspring will recombine stable information.

sexual reproduction ensures that the two sets of genes from the parents will recombine in a different order so that the offspring is different. the fact that only the genes of the parents are being used is what enables any kind of stability. sexual reproduction became more prevalent because it enabled more diversity and more diversity meant a greater chance of survival.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Does sexual reproduction ensure that babies resemble their great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents?

Yes that is the point. 1000 years ago man was using the same organism. We haven't grown another arm to multi-task although it would be easier to drink my coffee while typing, in fact it would be useful for all manner of things.

Evolution does not work this way you don't suddenly have another arm. Even phenotypic and behaviorial changes can cause speciation. Look at the deer and a moose.

Jbuza wrote:I know I know you'll think I don't understand for thinking that evolution could actually cause a mutation.

Hey I look around and I simply don't see variety within species whereby some groups of the species are dying out and other are surviving by some new beneficial mutation.

No-one is dying out, only the variation changes over time. Like old english gradually changed into modern English. What language dies out? None.

Die-outs are not always necessary and is a more drastic scenario which obviously cannot occur all the time. But take for example the many instances of introduced species wreaking havok with local fauna and flora. Obviously competition does occur and effect the populations to a great extant. Sometimes leading to Extinction and in other cases leading to shifs and accomadations for the introduced species.

Jbuza wrote:Well, who known perhaps I am wrong and that is why physicians don't bother collecting family background.

Mendelian inheritance demonstrates that DNA causes stability within a species.

Stability does not mean no change.

For instance, was Adam black, white or asian?