Scientific, archaeological, current events proof of bible!

[bu villain]

How exactly does natural selection know if a genetic change is successful? What feedback does it get? It has to make random changes to even start to evolve..

The only thing that determines if a gene change is "successful" is survival. Take a group of brown rabbits in a snowy environment. A genetic mutation (random) occurs in two rabbits, one is born with bright white fur and the other bright red. The white one is well camoflauged and thus more likely to survive. That rabbit then is more likely to reproduce white offspring with the white gene. The bright red rabbit would stand out and likely be eaten, thus no new generation to inheret the red gene.

In order to improve the genetic structure, it has to make changes to the code itself. Mutations are either neutral or harmful - very rarely has one been shown to be even minorly beneficial, and none have shown the steps between species.

I just gave an example above that shows a beneficial example. Of course most mutations would be harmful because there are far more ways to disrupt a system than improve upon it. What do you mean exactly by showing steps between species? A frog will never turn into a dog so there will never be something in between. Even assuming you are talking about two "species" on the same genetic line, let's say homo habilus and homosapiens, the "step" in between would be homo erectus. The word 'step' is a little misleading because there are an infinite number of 'steps' just as there are infinite color steps between orange and yellow.

Diploid organisms (plants and animals) have two copies of each chromosome. Change just one gene and see what happens.

What happens? You might get a different trait (e.g., hair color, eye color, etc). They aren't copies as in the exact same genetic code. You have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Each pair is made up of one from your mother and one from your father. Unless your mom and dad have the exact same DNA (highly unlikely), your chromosome pairs will not be identical to eachother.

[David88vert]

The only thing that determines if a gene change is "successful" is survival. Take a group of brown rabbits in a snowy environment. A genetic mutation (random) occurs in two rabbits, one is born with bright white fur and the other bright red. The white one is well camoflauged and thus more likely to survive. That rabbit then is more likely to reproduce white offspring with the white gene. The bright red rabbit would stand out and likely be eaten, thus no new generation to inheret the red gene.

Obviously, that would mean that you would have to have a lot of the exact same change happen in the exact same area, and those changed individuals would have to meet and propogate - in masses. One rabbit wouldn't only change - many would have to at the same time, in the same breeding area, from both genders, and would have to find each other - and not just one pair either. For a lot of creatures that have limited young, it would have to happen on a massive scale. The probability of that happening in just one instance is so rare that we have yet to observe it in action. It is nothing more than conjecture. Without proof, it must be believed through faith, like a religion.

I just gave an example above that shows a beneficial example. Of course most mutations would be harmful because there are far more ways to disrupt a system than improve upon it. What do you mean exactly by showing steps between species? A frog will never turn into a dog so there will never be something in between. Even assuming you are talking about two "species" on the same genetic line, let's say homo habilus and homosapiens, the "step" in between would be homo erectus. The word 'step' is a little misleading because there are an infinite number of 'steps' just as there are infinite color steps between orange and yellow.

If evolution as currently stated is true, then you would have to have genetic disruptions between the existence of multiple species. This has never been observed in current nature by any biologist.

What happens? You might get a different trait (e.g., hair color, eye color, etc). They aren't copies as in the exact same genetic code. You have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Each pair is made up of one from your mother and one from your father. Unless your mom and dad have the exact same DNA (highly unlikely), your chromosome pairs will not be identical to eachother.

The proteins stay the same structure. They do not created a new species. The data inside is approximately 3 billion characters long. 99.7% of them copy over the same. The few characteristics that vary do not create a new species - ever. The copying of data is so exact that you only see one error per 10 billion letters. Try to type that well. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, you get mutations such as sickle-cell anemia.

Even Francis Crick, stated in his book that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going".


Currently, if you choose to believe that we exist by randomness, you are just using faith. Just like religion. Nothing wrong with that though. And no - it still does not prove the existence of God. It just means that we have to choose what we believe.

[5speed]

Obviously, that would mean that you would have to have a lot of the exact same change happen in the exact same area, and those changed individuals would have to meet and propogate - in masses. One rabbit wouldn't only change - many would have to at the same time, in the same breeding area, from both genders, and would have to find each other - and not just one pair either. For a lot of creatures that have limited young, it would have to happen on a massive scale. The probability of that happening in just one instance is so rare that we have yet to observe it in action. It is nothing more than conjecture. Without proof, it must be believed through faith, like a religion.


If evolution as currently stated is true, then you would have to have genetic disruptions between the existence of multiple species. This has never been observed in current nature by any biologist.


The proteins stay the same structure. They do not created a new species. The data inside is approximately 3 billion characters long. 99.7% of them copy over the same. The few characteristics that vary do not create a new species - ever. The copying of data is so exact that you only see one error per 10 billion letters. Try to type that well. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, you get mutations such as sickle-cell anemia.

Even Francis Crick, stated in his book that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going".


Currently, if you choose to believe that we exist by randomness, you are just using faith. Just like religion. Nothing wrong with that though. And no - it still does not prove the existence of God. It just means that we have to choose what we believe.

Very well put sir.

[bu villain]

Obviously, that would mean that you would have to have a lot of the exact same change happen in the exact same area, and those changed individuals would have to meet and propogate - in masses. One rabbit wouldn't only change - many would have to at the same time, in the same breeding area, from both genders, and would have to find each other - and not just one pair either. For a lot of creatures that have limited young, it would have to happen on a massive scale. The probability of that happening in just one instance is so rare that we have yet to observe it in action. It is nothing more than conjecture. Without proof, it must be believed through faith, like a religion.

If evolution as currently stated is true, then you would have to have genetic disruptions between the existence of multiple species. This has never been observed in current nature by any biologist.

The proteins stay the same structure. They do not created a new species. The data inside is approximately 3 billion characters long. 99.7% of them copy over the same. The few characteristics that vary do not create a new species - ever. The copying of data is so exact that you only see one error per 10 billion letters. Try to type that well. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, you get mutations such as sickle-cell anemia.

New species don't just appear, they never will so I'm not sure what your point is here. And about mutations causing diseases, I already addressed that in my last response.

Even Francis Crick, stated in his book that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going".

Currently, if you choose to believe that we exist by randomness, you are just using faith. Just like religion. Nothing wrong with that though. And no - it still does not prove the existence of God. It just means that we have to choose what we believe.

I was going to respond to your remarks but I can tell it is futile. I admit the details of evolution are complex and confusing, even counterintuitive at times. But, no one has time to research the intracacies of everything and that's why we rely on experts. If I have a car question I trust a mechanic. If I have a medical question I ask a doctor. If you really care about knowing the answer to such details of evolutionary theory, you should go talk to an evolutionary biologist. If 98% of doctors say smoking can cause lung cancer, I believe them even though I don't know anyone with cancer. Why is it that when 98% of biologists say evolution is the method of speciation, you are so convinced you understand it better than they?

[David88vert]

I was going to respond to your remarks but I can tell it is futile. I admit the details of evolution are complex and confusing, even counterintuitive at times. But, no one has time to research the intracacies of everything and that's why we rely on experts. If I have a car question I trust a mechanic. If I have a medical question I ask a doctor. If you really care about knowing the answer to such details of evolutionary theory, you should go talk to an evolutionary biologist. If 98% of doctors say smoking can cause lung cancer, I believe them even though I don't know anyone with cancer. Why is it that when 98% of biologists say evolution is the method of speciation, you are so convinced you understand it better than they?

It is futile because the current theory is flawed. Evolution was proposed without the current scientific knowledge we have now. Darwin marketed his theory before mathematics had shown that only probability can be determined, and DNA was not discovered until 1953.
Perhaps the theory can evolve into something plausible in the future, but to teach it as fact when it is obviously not probable, is irresponsible.

I question your 98% number. I do not know where you came up with that number but I do have comments on it.
According to this 2006 study (http://www.rice.edu/sallyport/2006/w...cientists.html), only 41% of biologists at "elite research universities" do not believe in God. Presumably the other 59% do believe in God or are agnostic.

If I was paid to promote evolution, I would be an evolutionary biologist. It's a simple concept really, you sell the concept, you get compensation. And if you do not wish to believe in religion, the field of choice is evolutionary biology. Dawkins, Moran, and Gould are all examples of this.

I have questioned evolutionists, and have yet to have one explain how evolution overcame mathematics and physics, much less DNA. As I stated earlier, you are free to believe whatever you wish. I have no problem with people believing evolution. Just understand that you are taking that on faith, not a definitive proof.

[bu villain]

It is futile because the current theory is flawed. Evolution was proposed without the current scientific knowledge we have now. Darwin marketed his theory before mathematics had shown that only probability can be determined, and DNA was not discovered until 1953.
Perhaps the theory can evolve into something plausible in the future, but to teach it as fact when it is obviously not probable, is irresponsible.

Darwin was only the beginning. To credit him entirely for the modern theory is to disregard the last 100+ years of contributions and study. It's not "fact" so to speak but neither is gravity for that matter. No one can tell you why two masses are attracted to each other but do you advocate not teaching about it until we figure that out? Science is always up for revision when new evidence comes to light but until it does, we teach the best theories we have.

I question your 98% number. I do not know where you came up with that number but I do have comments on it.
According to this 2006 study (http://www.rice.edu/sallyport/2006/w...cientists.html), only 41% of biologists at "elite research universities" do not believe in God. Presumably the other 59% do believe in God or are agnostic.

Belief in God does not mean you don't believe in evolution so I'm not sure why you are referencing that study. Here is an example from a 1997 Gallup Poll that states 95% of scientists believe in evolution. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) Notice 40% believe in theistic evolution.

If I was paid to promote evolution, I would be an evolutionary biologist. It's a simple concept really, you sell the concept, you get compensation. And if you do not wish to believe in religion, the field of choice is evolutionary biology. Dawkins, Moran, and Gould are all examples of this.

Every scientist is paid to study their field, so do you question all scientific findings to this extent or only evolution? I don't see what religion has to do with any of this other than religious people seem to only disregard science when it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

I have questioned evolutionists, and have yet to have one explain how evolution overcame mathematics and physics, much less DNA. As I stated earlier, you are free to believe whatever you wish. I have no problem with people believing evolution. Just understand that you are taking that on faith, not a definitive proof.

I don't see what is to overcome in math and physics and DNA. Either something is possible or its not. I am taking it on "faith" in the same way as I take the idea that things are made of protons and electrons on "faith". The same way I know the sun is a giant ball of gas burning at millions of degrees. If you want to argue that this "faith" is the same as religious faith, I guess there is no point in testing hypothesis, collecting data, or doing experiments.

[David88vert]

Darwin was only the beginning. To credit him entirely for the modern theory is to disregard the last 100+ years of contributions and study. It's not "fact" so to speak but neither is gravity for that matter. No one can tell you why two masses are attracted to each other but do you advocate not teaching about it until we figure that out? Science is always up for revision when new evidence comes to light but until it does, we teach the best theories we have.



Belief in God does not mean you don't believe in evolution so I'm not sure why you are referencing that study. Here is an example from a 1997 Gallup Poll that states 95% of scientists believe in evolution. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) Notice 40% believe in theistic evolution.



Every scientist is paid to study their field, so do you question all scientific findings to this extent or only evolution? I don't see what religion has to do with any of this other than religious people seem to only disregard science when it conflicts with their religious beliefs.



I don't see what is to overcome in math and physics and DNA. Either something is possible or its not. I am taking it on "faith" in the same way as I take the idea that things are made of protons and electrons on "faith". The same way I know the sun is a giant ball of gas burning at millions of degrees. If you want to argue that this "faith" is the same as religious faith, I guess there is no point in testing hypothesis, collecting data, or doing experiments.

I'm not throwing out any scientists work, including Darwin's. But I'm also not going to swllow it hook, line, and sinker without learning about it first with my own research.
I don't see scientists proclaiming that gravity is spawning new species, new elements, or anything like that. I have not problem with scientists trying to further the studying of the evolutionary theory. I do have a problem with it being taught as fact, when it clearly is not fact. Scientists that push evolution do it with the same conviction and tactics as religious doctrines - and with just as much missing answers.
You are correct that belief in one does not require a disbelief in the other. I agree 100% with you on that. Again, that is faith - which I have advocated that it is the entire time.
I question any science that makes outlandish claims that go against mathematical probability. I question religions also - unfortunately, they do not have to attempt to prove their claims.
You appear to not understand possibility and probability. Possibility is either 0 or 1, and since we cannot prove that something is always impossible, the answer is always 1. Probability is always measured between the two, and will move up and down the scale. The probability that teh current evolution theory got us to where we are was once calculated as 1 in 10x38th power. You have a much better chance of winning the lottery every day for the rest of your life. Do you have faith that you can do that?

[bu villain]

I'm not throwing out any scientists work, including Darwin's. But I'm also not going to swllow it hook, line, and sinker without learning about it first with my own research.
I don't see scientists proclaiming that gravity is spawning new species, new elements, or anything like that. I have not problem with scientists trying to further the studying of the evolutionary theory. I do have a problem with it being taught as fact, when it clearly is not fact. Scientists that push evolution do it with the same conviction and tactics as religious doctrines - and with just as much missing answers.
You are correct that belief in one does not require a disbelief in the other. I agree 100% with you on that. Again, that is faith - which I have advocated that it is the entire time.
I question any science that makes outlandish claims that go against mathematical probability. I question religions also - unfortunately, they do not have to attempt to prove their claims.
You appear to not understand possibility and probability. Possibility is either 0 or 1, and since we cannot prove that something is always impossible, the answer is always 1. Probability is always measured between the two, and will move up and down the scale. The probability that teh current evolution theory got us to where we are was once calculated as 1 in 10x38th power. You have a much better chance of winning the lottery every day for the rest of your life. Do you have faith that you can do that?

In the end you either trust the scientific method and scientist or you don't. If you don't trust them, I doubt I can convince you otherwise. The evidence I have seen is convincing to me, obviously not so to you. I guess you just have a higher threshold for belief than 95% of scientists. Btw, if current evolutionary theory is true, then the chance it got us to where we are today is 100%. The chance of one person winning the lottery may be 1 in a million and yet someone always wins the lottery.

Also, I would like to know, what are the consequences of teaching evolutionary theory that you fear? Since it is really the only scientific theory on the subject out there right now, do you suggest we not teach it at all or do you simply want more emphasis placed on the fact that we can't answer every single question associated with it?