Evidence for God from Science

I have been thinking and have found how to prove and or disprove evolution. to prove evolution we must watch changes in the human race carefuly, things we should look for would be elongation of the fingers, better to use computers and mobile phones with. and if space colonies are set up, what happens to humansto adapt to such an environment.

To disprove Evolution, we need to do the same thing, watch, and wait to see if nothing changes. if creationisim is correct nothing will change, humans will stay in their current err, form.

You'll get run through with the second thing you said. When I asked one group of people for proof of evolution, they said it's happenning with bacteria and junk (it's bogus, it's not macroevolution, but microevolution if anything). When I told another group there's no signs of evolution occuring, they said it's so slow we can never see it....so, you can't use that argument all the time....they'll make up bull to refute you....though I agree it actually would work...with an open minded evolutionist. I can't get you a link, but Gould (an evolutionst who seemed to doubt his religion at times) said that when he goes into his backyards, he sees definite species of insects, birds, etc....which goes against evolution, because he shouldn't be able to clearly identify anything since everything is in a state of evolving.

well true, but if evolution is correct we can see what it does over millions and thousands of years i dont mean watch it over the next couple of hundred of years, i mean thousands, the reason that gould can see certain species of things, and classify them, is because they have already evolved to the best of their ability in that certain environment. put some changes into that environment, even gradual changes (different chemicals put into the soil. introduced plants. you know what they are) may trigger evolution.

Well ok, I guess they'll settle the matter in about 50,000 years or so.

But seriously, they can do this sort of thing on an expiremental basis. Fruit flies, for instance, have very short life spans so it's possible to set up a population of them and introduce variables that should cause natural selection and thus evolution to occur. In the course of a few years we can see thousands of generations come and go, and see the effects that our environmental changes has on them.

This expirementation is currently ongoing, but to the best of my knowledge there's been no signifigant evidence that a new species of fruit flies could be developed. Of course this is the key - microevolution entails speciation/adapation within a species, but macroevolution requires the development of an entirely new species that is incable of reproducing with the original.

I've read, in Tornado in a Junkyard, (I think that's it) that the fruit fly experiments tell heavily against evolution. When scientists tried something as simple as breeding for lower or higher (they did both) numbers of hairs, after reaching a certain limit, the fruit flies became sterile. Going to far away from a norm causes a sterile animal, limiting it's "evolution" capacity to zero.

they have even done comruter generated models on the matter. the best one i like however is the Pepered moth story found here
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html
but a way to put evolution is god making slight changes to living organisims to ensure thier survival. why does evolution have to be considered puerly scientific? if evolution is right, why does it have to be void of a god? wouldnt god have given us this ability to change as to increase our survival?

While the pepper moth story is misleading, the idea it serves to illustrate (i.e., natural selection) is generally accepted. It is an obvious logical conclusion that the fittest are more likely to survive within a given environment where certain characteristics would be more beneficial. Yet, natural selection can not account for the massive amounts of genetic information required to transform one species into another. It can only remove less fit species, not create brand new ones.

Darwins finches are also often brought up, but let those who use such an example not forget that their were obvious boundaries within the finches own genetic information. Boundaries within the finches own genetic code that limited the amount of change that could take place within their beaks. Not to mention the beaks reverted back to their original state. This does not indicate new information being added, or a new species in being birthed in an early stage, but only pre-existing boundaries within the finches genetic information allowing for certain adaptations. Perhaps comparible to some extent with the thicker skin on a labourers hands that develops (though to some ways a bad example). To say such skin could eventually form a shell and new species or something , would be to extropolate beyond what the evidence suggests, and even beyond belief were it not for those who believe in similar ideas.

Kurieuo.

I've read and been told by a semi-Christian (wasn't sure) professor that the peppered moths story is a fake....especially those pictures...they land in the branches and leaves, not on the trunks

And Kuriendo, do you know which Soviet scientist made up the use it or lose it idea? It goes along with the thicker skin. If you use something a lot, your offspring will have more of it (bigger brains if you were a thinker) or if you don't use something (like a finger, for some bizarre reason) your children down the line won't have one either. It's stupid, but it's being used in current news still. This one article says that as our brains grew from some hairy primate (forgot which one) that's where we invented God when we had big frontal lobes....

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I've read, in Tornado in a Junkyard, (I think that's it) that the fruit fly experiments tell heavily against evolution. When scientists tried something as simple as breeding for lower or higher (they did both) numbers of hairs, after reaching a certain limit, the fruit flies became sterile. Going to far away from a norm causes a sterile animal, limiting it's "evolution" capacity to zero.

Agreed KM, that's what I was saying. That we can test evolution and so far have actually shown it not to be possible; though we have shown speciation certainly possible on a number of accounts.

Also fully agree with Kurieuo's post, FWIW.