Evidence for God from Science

Bare with me. Don't know too much on evolution or I should say the underlying mechanics. But theres something I have to ask and I always wondered. Let me see if I can explain this right.


Since its random or in other words no real direction why are all humans physically the same? Why aren't there multiple offshoots of hybrid humans? Am I suppose to believe that Evolution randomly simultaneously evolved everyone the exact same way?

The model would explain it this way:

While the mutations are random, the selective pressures from the environment will cause similar traits to be passed on in the populations. In other words, of a certain trait causes a selective advantage, those having that trait will reproduce more and pass down those genes responsible for that trait. The would mean that more individuals in the population in the next generation would have that trait.

Now it could happen that some members in a population are in two areas that have different environments and thus different selective pressures. In that case, the model is that the two populations would show different traits being passed down to the next generation, because the different traits cause differenct selective advantages in the two areas.

But does it really explain the isolated tribes? I understand the explanation. But it can't account for everyone.

It doesn't mean that every group is the same, selection would result in the different races, For instance, because of the geographical barriers in the asian countries, this would explain the different appearance versus the different external appearance of all of the different peoples around the world. Doesn't mean that we are different species, just have different traits that have different advantages.

Swimmy wrote:But does it really explain the isolated tribes? I understand the explanation. But it can't account for everyone.

This is the really interesting part. There is a very interesting case with many life forms on our planet that were seperated for millions of years between continents and habitat, yet astonishingly show very miniscule physiological differences similarily to how humans share very little physiological differences. This is a front-line argument against gradualism via RM and NS in my opinion.

zoegirl wrote:It doesn't mean that every group is the same, selection would result in the different races, For instance, because of the geographical barriers in the asian countries, this would explain the different appearance versus the different external appearance of all of the different peoples around the world. Doesn't mean that we are different species, just have different traits that have different advantages.

I guess what I'm saying is If evolution was fact there would be a lot more diversity than there already is. Whatever that diversity entails IDK. Maybe walking fishmen, or humans with lizard heads mixxed in with us.

I think that highlights the limits of mutations.

I think you are right and since you mention it, it may actually be something Darwin himself was aware of in his mentioning "subspecies" to describe non-European humans. IMV Darwin was very much concerned about morality and did believe in European ethnocentrism which he hoped would be the guiding principles of morality in the subspecies and, physiologically, compared the subspecies closer to apes than to man. Although he did have a high regard for the American Indian.

I do see your point but an evolutionist will maintain that Darwinism fits in keeping with what can be currently observed, meaning that man has achieved and therefore maintained an optimal genomic maturation. Considering that man has achieved a language and can adjust his ability to survive using his big brain, Darwinist will argue that there is no pressing external or environmental stresses to urge further mutations, but it would at least be nice if evolution could improve on our immune system against things like AIDS and the common cold even.

evolutionary theory is not concerned with "improving" in the sense of having any purpose. It is purely the idea that whatever traits *currently* offer the selective advantage to the population will be the ones passed down.

(here I am discussing the idea of microevolution, or changes in gene frequency)

Case in point: the gene mutation for sickle cell anemia. while we would consider this mutation to not be an improvement, it offers a selective advantage to those living in areas of malaria, where a heterozygous individual for the normal hemoglobin allele and a sickle cell allele actually survives better in those areas because the protist that causes malaria cannot infect those with the mishapen hemoglobin.

eveolutionists would certainly not consider that we have acheived any sense of finality on our genetic changes.

There is a sense of evolutionary constraint, meaning that we would not in all probability ever acheive the number of mutations that would develop a lizard head, but they would not see as as reaching some boundary

As for the immune system, they would counter that both the HIV viral particle and the common cold virus have such high amounts of mutations that they mutate far greater rate than our immune system.

Swimmy wrote:Am I suppose to believe that Evolution randomly simultaneously evolved everyone the exact same way?

Bottom line is if anyone rejects an intelligent designer, you will *have* to accept chance as your god. There is no way around it...


And I don't know about you but I would never gamble on such a thing. Including one's life...

Oh by the way my charge for your question is free... And you don't have to pay thousands of dollars in tuition to figure it out. Even a child can understand this.

Gman wrote:Bottom line is if anyone rejects an intelligent designer, you will *have* to accept chance as your god. There is no way around it...

Are you seriously unable to think of an alternative to creationism other than chance? Science doesn't claim that chance is an alternative to creation; this is a preposterous proposition. Adam and Eve weren't spontaneously created by a random breeze blowing through the Garden of Eden! Evolution is a gradual, directed process; I suggest you do a little research on how evolution differs from chance.

Gman wrote:And I don't know about you but I would never gamble on such a thing. Including one's life...

I've seen this argument before, and it makes no sense. Are you saying that it's possible to choose to believe in something? Even something that, to the potential believer, seems logically ridiculous?

Gman wrote:Oh by the way my charge for your question is free... And you don't have to pay thousands of dollars in tuition to figure it out. Even a child can understand this.

This one seems familiar, too: accept creation, because it doesn't require any thinking; reject evolution, because it's difficult to understand. I find that sad: we should make the most of our amazing brains to understand the world around us, not reject thinking because it leads us to conclusions that are incompatible with the established culture/faith.

ManOfScience wrote:Are you seriously unable to think of an alternative to creationism other than chance? Science doesn't claim that chance is an alternative to creation; this is a preposterous proposition. Adam and Eve weren't spontaneously created by a random breeze blowing through the Garden of Eden! Evolution is a gradual, directed process; I suggest you do a little research on how evolution differs from chance.

I've seen this argument before, and it makes no sense. Are you saying that it's possible to choose to believe in something? Even something that, to the potential believer, seems logically ridiculous?

I see a lot of words here, "Man of science," but I see no argument. I see a lot of bluster, but I see no real contradiction. I see a lot of wind, but I see no elegant breeze. Before you start spouting your objections, you'd better equip yourself with something substantial before you climb out of your pram on this site my friend; we require back up on here and not just pathetic rhetoric. Be warned Mr. Big Potato.

Let us get this clear, people. If we are not the result of an intelligent cause, then we are the result of an unintelligent cause. Or does anyone wish to posit a semi-intelligent cause…? Let us get back on the podium and explore this. Anyone claiming to be “of science” who wishes to contradict us here, bring it on! Let us get down to it and breath life into this debate right here…