Evidence for God from Science

theophilus wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:In a nutshell, evolution predicts that, if a living organism is exposed to changes in it's environment, it will adapt to survive.
The variety of species with "enough in common with each other" is what would be the case if evolution is correct.

This is also what would be true if the Bible's account of creation is true. God created different kinds of animals that contained enough genetic data so that they could adapt to a wide range of environments. In each environment those genes which contribute to survival are preserved and passed on to descendants and others are eliminated. Different varieties develop in different environments. This is a more detailed explanation of this process.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -wholphins

I agree.
I even go as far as to state that ANY "intelligent design" would have the capability to do just that - change to adapt and survive.

PaulSacramento wrote:

theophilus wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:In a nutshell, evolution predicts that, if a living organism is exposed to changes in it's environment, it will adapt to survive.
The variety of species with "enough in common with each other" is what would be the case if evolution is correct.

This is also what would be true if the Bible's account of creation is true. God created different kinds of animals that contained enough genetic data so that they could adapt to a wide range of environments. In each environment those genes which contribute to survival are preserved and passed on to descendants and others are eliminated. Different varieties develop in different environments. This is a more detailed explanation of this process.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -wholphins

I agree.
I even go as far as to state that ANY "intelligent design" would have the capability to do just that - change to adapt and survive.

It is brilliant, isn't it. And to think that nature thought of it and actually produced it is exponentially more brilliant.

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

theophilus wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:In a nutshell, evolution predicts that, if a living organism is exposed to changes in it's environment, it will adapt to survive.
The variety of species with "enough in common with each other" is what would be the case if evolution is correct.

This is also what would be true if the Bible's account of creation is true. God created different kinds of animals that contained enough genetic data so that they could adapt to a wide range of environments. In each environment those genes which contribute to survival are preserved and passed on to descendants and others are eliminated. Different varieties develop in different environments. This is a more detailed explanation of this process.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -wholphins

I agree.
I even go as far as to state that ANY "intelligent design" would have the capability to do just that - change to adapt and survive.

It is brilliant, isn't it. And to think that nature thought of it and actually produced it is exponentially more brilliant.

I think thatis one of the issues I have always had with "natural selection" or "nature driven" theories of evolution.
There doesn't seem to be a reason FOR nature to "create" an oganisim with the ability to adapt and survive, why should "nature care" ?

PaulSacramento wrote:I think thatis one of the issues I have always had with "natural selection" or "nature driven" theories of evolution.
There doesn't seem to be a reason FOR nature to "create" an oganisim with the ability to adapt and survive, why should "nature care" ?

The (pure) naturalist will say for no reason whatsoever, it just happened. Oh but it happened gradually .

Byblos wrote:The (pure) naturalist will say for no reason whatsoever, it just happened. Oh but it happened gradually .

unless of course that doesn't fit the evidence and then they posit hopeful monsters in a faster time frame. gotta cover every base to protect the theory ya know.
Evolution can explain that the entirety of the avalon and cambrian explosions can occur in a relatively narrow window of time and yet also explain why a great many creatures such as ceolacanth has hardly changed at all from the fossil record. For a theory that was asserted to overcome the original religious designer arguement because a designers intelligence would explain everything without need to look any further it certainly has expanded to fit the same explanitory powers as the cause it was used against. There is never a need to look any further cause evolution did it. evolution can do anything...

It is really important to remember that even the very basis of the Theory of Evolution, the term "species" is not fully defined ("The Species Problem"). Darwin himself was enthustatic about "solving the problem of species" with his new theory: if animals constantly "change", there was no need for defining different species!

The very "basis" of evolution is natural selection, not the definition of species. Any biologist will tell you that species names and distinctions are a human concept that is there for our own benefit in describing them, not an intrinsic or innate quality of living things. Yes, in evolution we utilize species to draw boundaries between similar creatures, but typically these days we base it off of differences in the genetic code.

Also, organisms do not change. Populations change. And yes, if a population does undergo significant change, it is necessary to define them as being a new species so that we can define the transition between one species and the next.

Ivellious wrote:Also, organisms do not change. Populations change. And yes, if a population does undergo significant change, it is necessary to define them as being a new species so that we can define the transition between one species and the next.

So wrong.
A population is made up of individual organisms. A population in its entirety cannot change at once. It must begin with one organism as envisioned by evolutionary concept and then radiate outward in the population until it predominates. Thus, and therefore all evolutionary change envisioned to be possible according to the evolutionary mechanism begins with a single organism which passes its difference on to its offspring and if it is better at survival and replication than its predecessors then the population will eventually become that type with that change.

Tell us what are the odds that a population of a million organisms could all change at once? logic and reason, logic and reason...

Wow, KBC, congrats on taking what I said and not even remotely interpreting it correctly. I said populations change...never did I say that a million individuals are spontaneously changed at once. I meant exactly what you said...allele frequencies in a population change over time due to various genetic and environmental interplay.

I was simply correcting the statement that skakos made about animals constantly needing to change, because that seemed to imply that individual animals "evolve." I said that populations evolve over time, which is absolutely correct.

Ivellious wrote:Wow, KBC, congrats on taking what I said and not even remotely interpreting it correctly. I said populations change...never did I say that a million individuals are spontaneously changed at once. I meant exactly what you said...allele frequencies in a population change over time due to various genetic and environmental interplay.

I was simply correcting the statement that skakos made about animals constantly needing to change, because that seemed to imply that individual animals "evolve." I said that populations evolve over time, which is absolutely correct.

But remember Ivellious that there seem to be limits to this change, and the fossil records show this. We have no empirical evidence that macroevolution occurs. Zilch, zippity doo-daa, as was shown recently by the crashing down of the whale evolutionary chart which has been turned on its head.

bippy123 wrote:

Ivellious wrote:Wow, KBC, congrats on taking what I said and not even remotely interpreting it correctly. I said populations change...never did I say that a million individuals are spontaneously changed at once. I meant exactly what you said...allele frequencies in a population change over time due to various genetic and environmental interplay.

I was simply correcting the statement that skakos made about animals constantly needing to change, because that seemed to imply that individual animals "evolve." I said that populations evolve over time, which is absolutely correct.

But remember Ivellious that there seem to be limits to this change, and the fossil records show this. We have no empirical evidence that macroevolution occurs. Zilch, zippity doo-daa, as was shown recently by the crashing down of the whale evolutionary chart which has been turned on its head.

You don't even need fossil records. You can see a lot through selective breeding. Take canines for example. You can pressure the genetic info into a lot of diversity but it has limits. I'd love to see an explanation of how nature goes from invertebrates to vertebrates.

bippy123 wrote:

Ivellious wrote:Wow, KBC, congrats on taking what I said and not even remotely interpreting it correctly. I said populations change...never did I say that a million individuals are spontaneously changed at once. I meant exactly what you said...allele frequencies in a population change over time due to various genetic and environmental interplay.

I was simply correcting the statement that skakos made about animals constantly needing to change, because that seemed to imply that individual animals "evolve." I said that populations evolve over time, which is absolutely correct.

But remember Ivellious that there seem to be limits to this change, and the fossil records show this. We have no empirical evidence that macroevolution occurs. Zilch, zippity doo-daa, as was shown recently by the crashing down of the whale evolutionary chart which has been turned on its head.

You mean this whale evolution issue?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/di ... 52021.html

or this one:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/ ... eller-text

PaulSacramento wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

Ivellious wrote:Wow, KBC, congrats on taking what I said and not even remotely interpreting it correctly. I said populations change...never did I say that a million individuals are spontaneously changed at once. I meant exactly what you said...allele frequencies in a population change over time due to various genetic and environmental interplay.

I was simply correcting the statement that skakos made about animals constantly needing to change, because that seemed to imply that individual animals "evolve." I said that populations evolve over time, which is absolutely correct.

But remember Ivellious that there seem to be limits to this change, and the fossil records show this. We have no empirical evidence that macroevolution occurs. Zilch, zippity doo-daa, as was shown recently by the crashing down of the whale evolutionary chart which has been turned on its head.

You mean this whale evolution issue?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/di ... 52021.html

or this one:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/ ... eller-text

Paul thank you for the links. Actually both these links state my case perfectly.
Notice how national geographic did the story on the basilosaurus fossil found that fit in their timeline of 33 to 37 million years, but not even a blip on their radar of the scientific find of the basilosaurus fossil found that dated from 49 million years ago. Golly jee!!!, how could those unbiased folks at national geographic miss this tiny detail lol
Could it be that maybe it completely obliterates the evolutionary whale transition chart and in fact show that there wasn't in fact any macroevolution happening at all with whales???

Nahh, this can't be . Why?
Because the Darwinian evolutionists said so!!!!!
I believe this is called the evolution of the gaps theory lol

Take canines for example. You can pressure the genetic info into a lot of diversity but it has limits

I know this ain't going to convince you of anything but you are wrong here. You expect that a Dog will become a cat. Well that is the wrong assumption. Forget the dog, look at the genes, is it changing? If it is changing, over time lets say 300 million years, the gene might become so vastly different (depends on natural selection) that you may not think it is the dog (based on what you think a dog looks like) but some other species.

you see, how do you define limit, how you do define where and when exactly a dog no longer is a dog? Physical traits, anatomy, behavior?

The problem with saying that a dog will remain dog-like is that these naming conventions our for our own understanding, to the DNA, its nothing, its just evolving.

Evolution is about small changes, so small that it may be one gene mutation over thousands of years. Some mutations cause organisms to compete aggressively, others do not. But even recessive genes are most often retained in the DNA, the process is random of course. the point is, you have to look at the genes and see the change, not that you can get a new species of unknown origin by mating canines.