Evidence for God from Science

Halsoft wrote:What even is the conversation here? Is somebody playing devils advocate on evolution? Its pretty simple stuff really. I think dog breeds is a great example of selective breeding. But as far as natural evolution you can just take a look around yourself and look at all the different kinds of people on the planet.

We are performing a thought experiment. No one is trying to convince the other here, I am simply trying to show how the same evidence can be interpreted differently. A close up and in depth look if you will on the reasoning process.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Halsoft wrote:What even is the conversation here? Is somebody playing devils advocate on evolution? Its pretty simple stuff really. I think dog breeds is a great example of selective breeding. But as far as natural evolution you can just take a look around yourself and look at all the different kinds of people on the planet.

We are performing a thought experiment. No one is trying to convince the other here, I am simply trying to show how the same evidence can be interpreted differently. A close up and in depth look if you will on the reasoning process.

Just do not invoke the grim spectre of SEDI, "same evidence, different interpretation".

It is a favourite hand wave, but few of those resorting to it, I believe, would feel that the janitor should do brain surgery, just because he has gotten access to the same information.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Genetics.

DNA.

Do Shih Tzu's have a the same genes as wolves?

All species within the Canis genus, the wolf like canids, are phynogenetically closely related with 78 chromosones and can potentially interbreed. It is thought that the wolf is the most probable ancestor and closest relative to the domestic dog.

Storyteller wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Genetics.

DNA.

Do Shih Tzu's have a the same genes as wolves?

All species within the Canis genus, the wolf like canids, are phynogenetically closely related with 78 chromosones and can potentially interbreed. It is thought that the wolf is the most probable ancestor and closest relative to the domestic dog.

Lets leave this to the Good One, and Abe, see if abe can be led into how thinking is done.

Storyteller wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Genetics.

DNA.

Do Shih Tzu's have a the same genes as wolves?

All species within the Canis genus, the wolf like canids, are phynogenetically closely related with 78 chromosones and can potentially interbreed. It is thought that the wolf is the most probable ancestor and closest relative to the domestic dog.

So all species belong to super groups which can interbreed?

Audie wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Halsoft wrote:What even is the conversation here? Is somebody playing devils advocate on evolution? Its pretty simple stuff really. I think dog breeds is a great example of selective breeding. But as far as natural evolution you can just take a look around yourself and look at all the different kinds of people on the planet.

We are performing a thought experiment. No one is trying to convince the other here, I am simply trying to show how the same evidence can be interpreted differently. A close up and in depth look if you will on the reasoning process.

Just do not invoke the grim spectre of SEDI, "same evidence, different interpretation".

It is a favourite hand wave, but few of those resorting to it, I believe, would feel that the janitor should do brain surgery, just because he has gotten access to the same information.

wonder who you have in mind here?

It really depends on which side you start on, doesn't it?
Starting from your non-goddist side, I'm waving my hand.
Starting from Goddist side, well you're the one waving your hand.

The way it works though, is no one has an objectively claim over the evidence.
And if anything, the Goddist was the one who stamped their flag first in the ground.

Not until around the 19th century did something try to dig such out, and throw away "the baby" with the water.
Why? Oh, on the grounds that a female preying mantis wouldn't eat its male partner, parasites and the like.
On metaphysical and moral grounds was Goddism rejected by some. Not science.
Nevermind the many theodicies out there that respond to such.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Halsoft wrote:What even is the conversation here? Is somebody playing devils advocate on evolution? Its pretty simple stuff really. I think dog breeds is a great example of selective breeding. But as far as natural evolution you can just take a look around yourself and look at all the different kinds of people on the planet.

We are performing a thought experiment. No one is trying to convince the other here, I am simply trying to show how the same evidence can be interpreted differently. A close up and in depth look if you will on the reasoning process.

Just do not invoke the grim spectre of SEDI, "same evidence, different interpretation".

It is a favourite hand wave, but few of those resorting to it, I believe, would feel that the janitor should do brain surgery, just because he has gotten access to the same information.

wonder who you have in mind here?

It really depends on which side you start on, doesn't it?
Starting from your non-goddist side, I'm waving my hand.
Starting from Goddist side, well you're the one waving your hand.

The way it works though, is no one has an objectively claim over the evidence.
And if anything, the Goddist was the one who stamped their flag first in the ground.

Not until around the 19th century did something try to dig such out, and throw away "the baby" with the water.
Why? Oh, on the grounds that a female preying mantis wouldn't eat its male partner, parasites and the like.
On metaphysical and moral grounds was Goddism rejected by some. Not science.
Nevermind the many theodicies out there that respond to such.

Metafreakin' physics?

Its not goddist vs evo either. Sometimes one "side" simply has " [poop] for brines" as dendee
put it.

Your notion of no objective claim to evidence may do
after enough wine , late night at a round basement table with a drip-candle
set in a bottle. In court, your client will turn green and the judge
will get you for contempt.

Audie, you're a trip!

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Storyteller wrote:Genetics.

DNA.

Do Shih Tzu's have a the same genes as wolves?

All species within the Canis genus, the wolf like canids, are phynogenetically closely related with 78 chromosones and can potentially interbreed. It is thought that the wolf is the most probable ancestor and closest relative to the domestic dog.

So all species belong to super groups which can interbreed?

Yes.

They`re the same species so they can breed.

To be fair, I had to look this up But appaerntly wolves are interfertile so they can interbreed with any canid and reproduce.
Begs the question, why?

No kidding ST! Imagine how surprised the wolves were who produced the first whale?

Kurieuo wrote:No kidding ST! Imagine how surprised the wolves were who produced the first whale?

Now I have images of wolves producing whales and going like

See, this is what gets me about evolution (not that I`m against it, there is a lot out there pointing to it`s validity)
I can just about get my head around how we, and everything, may have evolved, when you think of wolves and dogs, apes and man, etc. I can see the link, the similarities but when did it all start? How did we get from some single celled creature to me?

Then you get lions and tigers, same species, cat, yet they can`t successfully reproduce.

See, I wonder if we were all created as our basic "things" y`know, kinda like canine, feline, ovine, humanoid, etc then we just kept fine tuning it as we developed.

I am actually really open to evolution but I can`t see it not being driven by something. (God, obvs)

Storyteller wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:No kidding ST! Imagine how surprised the wolves were who produced the first whale?

Now I have images of wolves producing whales and going like

You think I jest, but I was being serious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOAdiKIDxIo

Kurieuo wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:No kidding ST! Imagine how surprised the wolves were who produced the first whale?

Now I have images of wolves producing whales and going like

You think I jest, but I was being serious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOAdiKIDxIo

So is this the whole micro/macro evolution thing?

Err, no. I'll have you know there is no micro/macro distinction.

Evolution is just a bunch of changes over time. The difference between micro and macro is just time. Why would you think there are limitations? Anything is possible really.

In that video we see a clear record of intermediary species between a wolf-like creature and the whale. All this happened within a few million years.

PS. Sorry to hijack the thread, I'm actually interested in the line of questioning.

It`s still a lot to get my head around.

Some days I think yeah, evolution has to be how it happened (God still started it) but I dunno, something niggles me about it. I can`t put my finger on it, it`s just something, y`know?

I suppose part of it is that I have been raised to accept evolution, that evolution disproves God, kinda if you believe evolution is true then you can`t believe in God too. Now, I believe in God so I have to test what I used to think. There are other options to evolution, yet I can`t completely discount it, and I don`t think I should, or that I even have to.

I know what I`m saying probably doesn`t make sense, I`m still trying to figure it all out myself