Evidence for God from Science

KBCid wrote:Don't forget that Adam & Eve were the only hominid without a fur covering requiring them to wear clothing. How did that get selected for from an evolutionary perspective and second why would God choose a creature that somehow magically managed to exist without fur and imbue them with the intellect to know how to cover themselves so they could persist. Strangely both male and female would have to both be furless mutations within the same time frame. So what are the odds that a male and female both with the same genetic defect occured within the same time frame and God hooked them up before they died from exposure.

There are no odds. It was precisely as intended.

There are no odds. It was precisely as intended.

The odds are 3,720 to 1.
Or, are those the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field?

RickD wrote:

There are no odds. It was precisely as intended.

The odds are 3,720 to 1.
Or, are those the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field?

Those are the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field that is densely crammed.

And well, there are worse odds.

KBCid wrote:Don't forget that Adam & Eve were the only hominid without a fur covering requiring them to wear clothing. How did that get selected for from an evolutionary perspective

I think the missionary gene mutation required the natives to cover their naked selves.

KBCid wrote:Strangely both male and female would have to both be furless mutations within the same time frame. So what are the odds that a male and female both with the same genetic defect occured within the same time frame and God hooked them up before they died from exposure.

I hope this caricature isn't a serious interpretation of evolution. I wouldn't trust that kind of evolution either. Fortunately it is not the scientific version.

KBCid wrote: So what are the odds that a male and female both with the same genetic defect occured within the same time frame and God hooked them up before they died from exposure.

Byblos wrote:There are no odds. It was precisely as intended.

I like precision. odds have always been the evo magic wand rationale... if there is even one chance at all then it evolved. And somehow we are required to refute the odds in order to refute their argument. go figure.
But for you Byblos I will simply 'believe' in precision

I don't see why being generally hairless would automatically kill off a human subspecies. Especially considering they would have originated in sub-Saharan Africa, where not having loads of heavy body hair could actually help you out...I mean, if the first of our species was in Siberia, your point might be valid. Otherwise, not really.

Ivellious wrote:I don't see why being generally hairless would automatically kill off a human subspecies.

then why do all the other species still existing in the warm climates still have fur? If it wouldn't kill them to lose it then it does not provide a selective advantage for NS to keep it?

Not necessarily. There are other hairless or nearly hairless mammals out there. Traits aren't just "dropped" if it doesn't necessarily help them. We've been over this before...in order for a new trait (like, say, lions losing their hair), that new trait typically would have to provide a significant advantage over the previous trait. If it doesn't, or the change in survival/reproduction is minimal, there is no reason to believe that it will automatically take over. In many cases fur provides benefits that aren't directly tied to environmental/climate/temperature needs, either, so location can be irrelevant to why a mammal might need fur.

Again, your point just shows no understanding for how evolution can work. In your opinion, humans could not have survived via evolution because we didn't have loads of hair like other mammals. Well, our hominid ancestors didn't have as much hair as other mammals either, and they got along just fine. Elephants don't have much hair at all and they live in very warm climates (in that case, woolly mammoths did lose fur when they moved into warmer climates because the fur was a disadvantage for them). Elephants have no God-given soul to cloth them...so, using your logic, there is no reason they should be alive.

Ivellious wrote:Again, your point just shows no understanding for how evolution can work.

Although it is not essential to understand evolution to introduce a different and better explanation, it is very unusual in science for break-through upheavals to come from those who do not grasp the status-quo.