Evidence for God from Science

Ok, the title is a bit misleading BUT since it is the title of the article and book, I went with it:

http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-fai ... m-might-be

INTRO BY JIM: We’re often asked how our position of Evolutionary Creation differs from Intelligent Design. That’s a tricky question to answer succinctly, as there is a considerable range of views under each of these positions. At BioLogos, we state clearly that we accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for common ancestry by the process of evolution. We do not, however, commit to a particular scientific account of the mechanism(s) of evolution, because this is still an active area of research in the scientific community. So there will be some diversity of opinion on this among those associated with BioLogos. The Discovery Institute—the most prominent organization advocating for Intelligent Design—has even more diversity in the range of scientific explanations that are accepted, from Young Earth Creationism to acceptance of common ancestry.

Michael Denton is a fellow of the Discovery Institute. From the title of his new book, you wouldn’t expect him to be one of the people there who accept common ancestry, but the views expressed in it would fit comfortably with our Evolutionary Creation view. It’s hard to read the title, therefore, as anything other than misleading. There is vigorous debate about the mechanisms by which life evolves, with the so-called “neo-Darwinian” view being challenged from many corners of the scientific community and alternatives such as the “extended evolutionary synthesis” being developed. But evolution itself is not a theory in crisis. If the Discovery Institute would consistently disseminate to its followers the distinction between the abundant evidence for common ancestry and the remaining debate about the particular mechanisms of evolution, the intellectual distance between EC and ID would quickly diminish. Denton’s book could be the vanguard of such a change.

What follows is an in-depth review of the book by Sy Garte and Aniko Albert, with a lot of discipline-specific language, which may be a challenging read for those unfamiliar with evolutionary biology. Our editorial team wrote a short summary of the review here, for those interested.

- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-fai ... CxnYW.dpuf

As a Christian that believes that the theory of evolution is correct BUT has always had issues with the view that "natural selection" had the answers for macroevolution.
I have known for sometime that, over the last couple of decades ( if not more), many biologists had come to the same conclusion and now I am glad it is out in the open more.

PaulSacramento wrote:Ok, the title is a bit misleading BUT since it is the title of the article and book, I went with it:

http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-fai ... m-might-be

INTRO BY JIM: We’re often asked how our position of Evolutionary Creation differs from Intelligent Design. That’s a tricky question to answer succinctly, as there is a considerable range of views under each of these positions. At BioLogos, we state clearly that we accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for common ancestry by the process of evolution. We do not, however, commit to a particular scientific account of the mechanism(s) of evolution, because this is still an active area of research in the scientific community. So there will be some diversity of opinion on this among those associated with BioLogos. The Discovery Institute—the most prominent organization advocating for Intelligent Design—has even more diversity in the range of scientific explanations that are accepted, from Young Earth Creationism to acceptance of common ancestry.

Michael Denton is a fellow of the Discovery Institute. From the title of his new book, you wouldn’t expect him to be one of the people there who accept common ancestry, but the views expressed in it would fit comfortably with our Evolutionary Creation view. It’s hard to read the title, therefore, as anything other than misleading. There is vigorous debate about the mechanisms by which life evolves, with the so-called “neo-Darwinian” view being challenged from many corners of the scientific community and alternatives such as the “extended evolutionary synthesis” being developed. But evolution itself is not a theory in crisis. If the Discovery Institute would consistently disseminate to its followers the distinction between the abundant evidence for common ancestry and the remaining debate about the particular mechanisms of evolution, the intellectual distance between EC and ID would quickly diminish. Denton’s book could be the vanguard of such a change.

What follows is an in-depth review of the book by Sy Garte and Aniko Albert, with a lot of discipline-specific language, which may be a challenging read for those unfamiliar with evolutionary biology. Our editorial team wrote a short summary of the review here, for those interested.

- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-fai ... CxnYW.dpuf

Eventhough I think evolution is a myth I see no reason to think it is in a crisis.Scientists circle the wagons and protect and defend evolution,despite the serious problems with evolution science.I don't see how you can reject the mechanisms of evolution and yet accept evolution by common ancestry and act like it is a scientific truth.Once you start rejecting parts of evolution you won't be able to convince those who know all about evolution to see it from our Christian version of evolution as they will think you are changing it to line up with the bible.

Also:
http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

Eventhough I think evolution is a myth I see no reason to think it is in a crisis.Scientists circle the wagons and protect and defend evolution,despite the serious problems with evolution science.I don't see how you can reject the mechanisms of evolution and yet accept evolution by common ancestry and act like it is a scientific truth.Once you start rejecting parts of evolution you won't be able to convince those who know all about evolution to see it from our Christian version of evolution as they will think you are changing it to line up with the bible.

Evolution is change over time and that has been proven so, no, it isn't a myth.
What is now being addressed is the mechanism that causes/is the principal mover in evolution.
As was staed in the link above:

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Eventhough I think evolution is a myth I see no reason to think it is in a crisis.Scientists circle the wagons and protect and defend evolution,despite the serious problems with evolution science.I don't see how you can reject the mechanisms of evolution and yet accept evolution by common ancestry and act like it is a scientific truth.Once you start rejecting parts of evolution you won't be able to convince those who know all about evolution to see it from our Christian version of evolution as they will think you are changing it to line up with the bible.

Evolution is change over time and that has been proven so, no, it isn't a myth.
What is now being addressed is the mechanism that causes/is the principal mover in evolution.
As was staed in the link above:

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.

Sorry bro,but evolution is a myth but I'm glad to see a push for further research into evolution but I doubt it is gonna change much,but we'll see.It must first be demonstrated life evolves before we should do any kind of research into evolution.You come up with a hypothesis - life evolves,then demonstrate it scientifically and then you do more research,it has never even been demonstrated life evolves though,not even close. I have looked at peer reviewed evidence and I have realized that it is just normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence and this is a serious problem that is overlooked.
Here is an example of normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02

abelcainsbrother wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Eventhough I think evolution is a myth I see no reason to think it is in a crisis.Scientists circle the wagons and protect and defend evolution,despite the serious problems with evolution science.I don't see how you can reject the mechanisms of evolution and yet accept evolution by common ancestry and act like it is a scientific truth.Once you start rejecting parts of evolution you won't be able to convince those who know all about evolution to see it from our Christian version of evolution as they will think you are changing it to line up with the bible.

Evolution is change over time and that has been proven so, no, it isn't a myth.
What is now being addressed is the mechanism that causes/is the principal mover in evolution.
As was staed in the link above:

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.

Sorry bro,but evolution is a myth but I'm glad to see a push for further research into evolution but I doubt it is gonna change much,but we'll see.It must first be demonstrated life evolves before we should do any kind of research into evolution.You come up with a hypothesis - life evolves,then demonstrate it scientifically and then you do more research,it has never even been demonstrated life evolves though,not even close. I have looked at peer reviewed evidence and I have realized that it is just normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence and this is a serious problem that is overlooked.
Here is an example of normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02

There is actually a lot of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Modern medicine, and even modern agriculture is based upon the Theory of Evolution (TOE) being true. One thing you must realize is that the vast majority of the TOE is about insects and bacteria, only a small part of it is about animals and even a smaller part about mammals and humans.

Ever wonder why each year the flu shot is different than last years flu shot? And next years will be different than this years flu shot? Ever wonder why when going to the doctor he sticks the stick down your mouth to do a throat culture?
Farmers will often discover their insecticide is no longer effective because the pest have evolved in a way that it is no longer effective against them. None of this would happen if the TOE was false.

I can understand someone rejecting the part as applied to humans if they feel it goes against their religious beliefs, but to reject all of it, even that which applies to insects, and bacteria, would be akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Ken

Abel, your problem is that you have decided that evolution is something that it simply is not and then you go about disproving it, not evolution mind you, but YOUR understanding of what you think it is.

I suggest you do a thorough reading over at Biologos.

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Eventhough I think evolution is a myth I see no reason to think it is in a crisis.Scientists circle the wagons and protect and defend evolution,despite the serious problems with evolution science.I don't see how you can reject the mechanisms of evolution and yet accept evolution by common ancestry and act like it is a scientific truth.Once you start rejecting parts of evolution you won't be able to convince those who know all about evolution to see it from our Christian version of evolution as they will think you are changing it to line up with the bible.

Evolution is change over time and that has been proven so, no, it isn't a myth.
What is now being addressed is the mechanism that causes/is the principal mover in evolution.
As was staed in the link above:

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.

Sorry bro,but evolution is a myth but I'm glad to see a push for further research into evolution but I doubt it is gonna change much,but we'll see.It must first be demonstrated life evolves before we should do any kind of research into evolution.You come up with a hypothesis - life evolves,then demonstrate it scientifically and then you do more research,it has never even been demonstrated life evolves though,not even close. I have looked at peer reviewed evidence and I have realized that it is just normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence and this is a serious problem that is overlooked.
Here is an example of normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02

There is actually a lot of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Modern medicine, and even modern agriculture is based upon the Theory of Evolution (TOE) being true. One thing you must realize is that the vast majority of the TOE is about insects and bacteria, only a small part of it is about animals and even a smaller part about mammals and humans.

Ever wonder why each year the flu shot is different than last years flu shot? And next years will be different than this years flu shot? Ever wonder why when going to the doctor he sticks the stick down your mouth to do a throat culture?
Farmers will often discover their insecticide is no longer effective because the pest have evolved in a way that it is no longer effective against them. None of this would happen if the TOE was false.

I can understand someone rejecting the part as applied to humans if they feel it goes against their religious beliefs, but to reject all of it, even that which applies to insects, and bacteria, would be akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Ken

Thanks for your response and yes I know there is alot of evidence in evolution science and I know about viruses and bacteria.You know for days I have only focused on this normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves thing but this is a very important problem with evolution science that I know no evolutionist can get around because I have thoroughly looked into it and researched it.I have researched evolution from all sides too,not just from reading why certian Christian ministries reject it.

As a matter of fact I'm not even really using what certian Christian ministries say about evolution and why they reject it and I actually think they are weaker arguments against evolution imo Christian ministries even YEC's accept too much evolution and give it too much benefit of the doubt imo.I'm using alittle bit of info from many different perspectives about why evolution is a myth. I'm blending it all together kinda from different view points so that they seem like original arguments against evolution.I use alittle bit of Charles Darwin,I use alittle from different books I've read,also from reading talkorigins and other evolution web-sights looking at evidence to verify,Rupert Sheldrake and I'm even using atheist arguments against evolution that are biologists.Yes,there are atheist's that are honest enough to point out the problems with evolution science eventhough they are ignored too.

I do not deny life can adapt such as viruses and bacteria there are plenty of ways we can know life can adapt to hostile environments and we don't need scientists in a lab demonstrating life can adapt and then telling us it evolved because it adapted,especially when even after it adapted there is no evolution,it remains whatever it was even after it adapted and if you take the time to actually look at peer reviewed evidence you'll see this trick being used confusing adaptation with evolution and implying they are the same thing over and over. It took me awhile to figure out their trick too.

You know they say adaptation is a mechanism of evolution and people believe it,overlooking that there is no evidence adaptation is a mechanism of evolution. I'm going by what their evidence shows and demonstrates though and realizing they are making up things when they speak or write about it that their evidence does not show. It is a deceptive trick being used.

People just trust scientists to tell the truth instead of examining their evidence to see if it backs up what they explain. It comes down to believing the scientist or going by their evidence and saddly most just believe and trust the biologist is telling the truth. It reminds me of how Christians trust their Pastor to tell them the truth without even reading the bible themselves to make sure they are right.

PaulSacramento wrote:Abel, your problem is that you have decided that evolution is something that it simply is not and then you go about disproving it, not evolution mind you, but YOUR understanding of what you think it is.

I suggest you do a thorough reading over at Biologos.

Actually I once considered accepting evolution from a Christian perspective but I decided to look into it and research it and all I can say is that I found too many problems to accept it.I am only against evolution based on my research into it. I do not question your faith or any other Christian that has accepted evolution but for me I have tried to before and I cannot do it based on the evidence but I would accept evolution if there was convincing evidence life evolves.

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Eventhough I think evolution is a myth I see no reason to think it is in a crisis.Scientists circle the wagons and protect and defend evolution,despite the serious problems with evolution science.I don't see how you can reject the mechanisms of evolution and yet accept evolution by common ancestry and act like it is a scientific truth.Once you start rejecting parts of evolution you won't be able to convince those who know all about evolution to see it from our Christian version of evolution as they will think you are changing it to line up with the bible.

Evolution is change over time and that has been proven so, no, it isn't a myth.
What is now being addressed is the mechanism that causes/is the principal mover in evolution.
As was staed in the link above:

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.

Sorry bro,but evolution is a myth but I'm glad to see a push for further research into evolution but I doubt it is gonna change much,but we'll see.It must first be demonstrated life evolves before we should do any kind of research into evolution.You come up with a hypothesis - life evolves,then demonstrate it scientifically and then you do more research,it has never even been demonstrated life evolves though,not even close. I have looked at peer reviewed evidence and I have realized that it is just normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence and this is a serious problem that is overlooked.
Here is an example of normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02

There is actually a lot of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Modern medicine, and even modern agriculture is based upon the Theory of Evolution (TOE) being true. One thing you must realize is that the vast majority of the TOE is about insects and bacteria, only a small part of it is about animals and even a smaller part about mammals and humans.

Ever wonder why each year the flu shot is different than last years flu shot? And next years will be different than this years flu shot? Ever wonder why when going to the doctor he sticks the stick down your mouth to do a throat culture?
Farmers will often discover their insecticide is no longer effective because the pest have evolved in a way that it is no longer effective against them. None of this would happen if the TOE was false.

I can understand someone rejecting the part as applied to humans if they feel it goes against their religious beliefs, but to reject all of it, even that which applies to insects, and bacteria, would be akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote:Thanks for your response and yes I know there is alot of evidence in evolution science and I know about viruses and bacteria.You know for days I have only focused on this normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves thing but this is a very important problem with evolution science that I know no evolutionist can get around because I have thoroughly looked into it and researched it.I have researched evolution from all sides too,not just from reading why certian Christian ministries reject it.

What are some of the research papers you have read, and please list some of the errors you have found in them.

abelcainsbrother wrote: I do not deny life can adapt such as viruses and bacteria there are plenty of ways we can know life can adapt to hostile environments and we don't need scientists in a lab demonstrating life can adapt and then telling us it evolved because it adapted,especially when even after it adapted there is no evolution,it remains whatever it was even after it adapted and if you take the time to actually look at peer reviewed evidence you'll see this trick being used confusing adaptation with evolution and implying they are the same thing over and over. It took me awhile to figure out their trick too.

You know they say adaptation is a mechanism of evolution and people believe it,overlooking that there is no evidence adaptation is a mechanism of evolution. I'm going by what their evidence shows and demonstrates though and realizing they are making up things when they speak or write about it that their evidence does not show. It is a deceptive trick being used.

People just trust scientists to tell the truth instead of examining their evidence to see if it backs up what they explain. It comes down to believing the scientist or going by their evidence and saddly most just believe and trust the biologist is telling the truth. It reminds me of how Christians trust their Pastor to tell them the truth without even reading the bible themselves to make sure they are right.

There is a difference between adaption and evolution; when the genetics change, that is evolution. Do you know of any research cases when there was no change in genetics yet they called it evolution anyway?

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Abel, your problem is that you have decided that evolution is something that it simply is not and then you go about disproving it, not evolution mind you, but YOUR understanding of what you think it is.

I suggest you do a thorough reading over at Biologos.

Actually I once considered accepting evolution from a Christian perspective but I decided to look into it and research it and all I can say is that I found too many problems to accept it.I am only against evolution based on my research into it. I do not question your faith or any other Christian that has accepted evolution but for me I have tried to before and I cannot do it based on the evidence but I would accept evolution if there was convincing evidence life evolves.

This isn't a faith issue, at all.
This is about science.
The multiple lines of evidence for evolution are clear.
Now, you certainly don't have to agree that these lines lead to evolution of course BUT then you have to address WHy they exist and why they seem to lead to evolution.

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Eventhough I think evolution is a myth I see no reason to think it is in a crisis.Scientists circle the wagons and protect and defend evolution,despite the serious problems with evolution science.I don't see how you can reject the mechanisms of evolution and yet accept evolution by common ancestry and act like it is a scientific truth.Once you start rejecting parts of evolution you won't be able to convince those who know all about evolution to see it from our Christian version of evolution as they will think you are changing it to line up with the bible.

Evolution is change over time and that has been proven so, no, it isn't a myth.
What is now being addressed is the mechanism that causes/is the principal mover in evolution.
As was staed in the link above:

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.

Sorry bro,but evolution is a myth but I'm glad to see a push for further research into evolution but I doubt it is gonna change much,but we'll see.It must first be demonstrated life evolves before we should do any kind of research into evolution.You come up with a hypothesis - life evolves,then demonstrate it scientifically and then you do more research,it has never even been demonstrated life evolves though,not even close. I have looked at peer reviewed evidence and I have realized that it is just normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence and this is a serious problem that is overlooked.
Here is an example of normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02

There is actually a lot of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Modern medicine, and even modern agriculture is based upon the Theory of Evolution (TOE) being true. One thing you must realize is that the vast majority of the TOE is about insects and bacteria, only a small part of it is about animals and even a smaller part about mammals and humans.

Ever wonder why each year the flu shot is different than last years flu shot? And next years will be different than this years flu shot? Ever wonder why when going to the doctor he sticks the stick down your mouth to do a throat culture?
Farmers will often discover their insecticide is no longer effective because the pest have evolved in a way that it is no longer effective against them. None of this would happen if the TOE was false.

I can understand someone rejecting the part as applied to humans if they feel it goes against their religious beliefs, but to reject all of it, even that which applies to insects, and bacteria, would be akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote:Thanks for your response and yes I know there is alot of evidence in evolution science and I know about viruses and bacteria.You know for days I have only focused on this normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves thing but this is a very important problem with evolution science that I know no evolutionist can get around because I have thoroughly looked into it and researched it.I have researched evolution from all sides too,not just from reading why certian Christian ministries reject it.

What are some of the research papers you have read, and please list some of the errors you have found in them.

abelcainsbrother wrote: I do not deny life can adapt such as viruses and bacteria there are plenty of ways we can know life can adapt to hostile environments and we don't need scientists in a lab demonstrating life can adapt and then telling us it evolved because it adapted,especially when even after it adapted there is no evolution,it remains whatever it was even after it adapted and if you take the time to actually look at peer reviewed evidence you'll see this trick being used confusing adaptation with evolution and implying they are the same thing over and over. It took me awhile to figure out their trick too.

You know they say adaptation is a mechanism of evolution and people believe it,overlooking that there is no evidence adaptation is a mechanism of evolution. I'm going by what their evidence shows and demonstrates though and realizing they are making up things when they speak or write about it that their evidence does not show. It is a deceptive trick being used.

People just trust scientists to tell the truth instead of examining their evidence to see if it backs up what they explain. It comes down to believing the scientist or going by their evidence and saddly most just believe and trust the biologist is telling the truth. It reminds me of how Christians trust their Pastor to tell them the truth without even reading the bible themselves to make sure they are right.

There is a difference between adaption and evolution; when the genetics change, that is evolution. Do you know of any research cases when there was no change in genetics yet they called it evolution anyway?

Ken

Research Papers? I have read some before but it is not necessary.There are many evolution web-sights and blogs that promote evolution you can read. You see I'm giving you information but if you want to know the truth it requires you to look into it yourself as I have.Otherwise you'll just take the easy way out and trust scientists and evolutionists. As far as my point about variation in reproduction and how this is used for evidence life evolves is just something that you're going to have to look into yourself and realize it for yourself. I doubt you would believe me over a scientist so you must look into it yourself. You'll see example after example of normal variation in reproduction that they call micro-evolution being used for evidence life evolves and once you realize this you'll realize evolution is a myth.You don't have to be a scientist to look at what is used for evidence life evolves.

As far as adaptation and evolution. I agree with you that adaptation and evolution are two different things but in evolution science it is implied adaptation is evolution. I've even had evolutionists claim it is,but you don't have to take my word for it. You can look into it yourself. Change in genetics? Are you really looking for evidence life evolves or getting hung up on genetic changes? Because I expect to see evidence life evolves not you tell me life evolved because there was a genetic change and that means it evolved.

Sorry but I have no doubt that when life adapts there are genetic changes like for instance eskimo's who have adapted to live in extreme cold,their bodies can handle it alot more than humans that are not adapted to that kind of evironment but eskimo's are still humans and have not evolved even after they adapted which is the same thing we see with viruses,bacteria and even insects you brought up show too.

There is no such thing as natural selection according to what everyday nature tells us and what evidence in evolution science demonstrates. But don't just take my word for it,look into it yourself and see.

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Eventhough I think evolution is a myth I see no reason to think it is in a crisis.Scientists circle the wagons and protect and defend evolution,despite the serious problems with evolution science.I don't see how you can reject the mechanisms of evolution and yet accept evolution by common ancestry and act like it is a scientific truth.Once you start rejecting parts of evolution you won't be able to convince those who know all about evolution to see it from our Christian version of evolution as they will think you are changing it to line up with the bible.

Evolution is change over time and that has been proven so, no, it isn't a myth.
What is now being addressed is the mechanism that causes/is the principal mover in evolution.
As was staed in the link above:

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.

Sorry bro,but evolution is a myth but I'm glad to see a push for further research into evolution but I doubt it is gonna change much,but we'll see.It must first be demonstrated life evolves before we should do any kind of research into evolution.You come up with a hypothesis - life evolves,then demonstrate it scientifically and then you do more research,it has never even been demonstrated life evolves though,not even close. I have looked at peer reviewed evidence and I have realized that it is just normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence and this is a serious problem that is overlooked.
Here is an example of normal variation in reproduction being used for evidence life evolves.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_02

There is actually a lot of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Modern medicine, and even modern agriculture is based upon the Theory of Evolution (TOE) being true. One thing you must realize is that the vast majority of the TOE is about insects and bacteria, only a small part of it is about animals and even a smaller part about mammals and humans.

Ever wonder why each year the flu shot is different than last years flu shot? And next years will be different than this years flu shot? Ever wonder why when going to the doctor he sticks the stick down your mouth to do a throat culture?
Farmers will often discover their insecticide is no longer effective because the pest have evolved in a way that it is no longer effective against them. None of this would happen if the TOE was false.

I can understand someone rejecting the part as applied to humans if they feel it goes against their religious beliefs, but to reject all of it, even that which applies to insects, and bacteria, would be akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Ken

I don't know ken cause what you describe with insecticides is what is called adaptation or microevolutuon , and that is proven fact , but it isn't macro evolution which had never been proven by direct observation Or inthe lab.

If I brought you a picture with a bunch of cars lined up in time sequence and said that to look at it , anyone would say that it looks like the car went through a process of evolution , even a picture of a boat that is slowly being transformed step by step into a car .

They are all using the same material and similar parts, but we both know that an intelligent designer designed all these cars.

All like the DNA cells have complex specified information Inputted into them .

Now how the designer made this design happened is up for debate , see I have softened my Stance thanks to a few helpful posts by rick that opened my eyes a bit , but I can't possibly see CSI cone about without intelligence involved in the process .

Correct Abel , many evolutionary scientists conflate adaptation with evolution and say that macroevolution is simply lots of adaptation but that is when they go past something that they haven't been able to prove .

From fruit flies to lenskis bacteria we haven't seen it happen yet . Will it ever happen ?
I don't know and no one else knows but I'm open to come back to it if and when it does , but it would be an intelligent evolution of it happens