New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

[Youwerecreated]

Books from my wonderful local library, by scientists who understand the tenants of evolution.

But that's irrelevant. Perhaps you'd care to address my points?

I understand the theory of evolution.

Over the years many new breeds came in to being,whether it was from cross breeding or it was adapting to their enviornment. The creator gave organisms the ability to adapt. The ones that could not adapt, were eliminated by Natural selection.

This is Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations ,small changes within a group.God put mechanisms in us to keep us what we were intended to be with little chancge. God allowed us to adjust but it is limited.

I believe that the diversity seen today is the result of cross breeding and small biological changes. But any evolution that which i believe happened was at the will of the creator. I don't know for sure how long life has been on the earth. I don't know how old the earth is. And i don't know how long creation days were,but i have no doubt that life is a product of design.

I'm a little confused now as to what your position is.

At first I thought you were denying the creation of new species by evolution because the Bible says God created everything, here you're admitting new species are formed in a period after God's initial creation, so why do you deny macro evolution and speciation if you know species have come about that weren't directly created by God?

Ok i'll explain, i am getting ready for my bike ride.

I believe that you can get limited change through Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations.

These are changes within a group or family. The change will not be to a new family or group, it will be a new breed maybe but not a bird having an ancestor that was a dinosaur or a human having an apelike creature as an ancsetor.

I believe within the family, their can be new traits added to the genepool through adaptation and or cross breeding .new abilities can arise by adapting but that does not mean necessararily that the whole genepool will have this ability or trait.but a dog is gonna remain in the dog family a horse will remain in the horse family so on and so on.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you are going in for the "Did they prove it or is it only theory ?" argument you are already showing me you are ignorant as to how the science actually operates so there is no need to pretend you would be able to produce scientific evidence of anything.

So might as well cut to the chase here. Instead of pretending something is science, you can use the ready made bullcrap detector the scientific community has created for us, the peer review system.

If it isn't in a peer reviewed journal, it means whatever study or research has not passed muster among those in the field for sound methodologies or reasonably supportable conclusions. It means its crap until further notice.

Tak a hike,you don't know me well enough to make such a comment fool.

I can see your silly arguments clear enough. At least 2 other posters seem to think you don't really seem to grasp the nature of Evolution. If you can't handle the brutal truth about your arguments and the big honking glaring flaws in it, so be it.

You are using stock replies from the typical sources. You think you are the only one to claim:

"No evidence of Macro-evolution"
"Its only a theory"
"It just is designed, OK!"

These are old worn out tropes for Creationism. You are not dazzling anyone with your brilliance by using them.

I am waiting for you to claim that "evolution is an atheist conspiracy and the creation scientists are being excluded from the scientific world unfairly"

That being said, if evolution was so flawed, you would have seen thousands of peer reviewed scientific journal articles to support your theory. EVERY biologist would give their kidneys to be the one to come up with a new theory which they could attach their name to. But you don't. What we have is some self-reflexive articles by people who are not taken seriously by any recognized scientific body.

In fact the he National Center for Science Education decided to compile a list-- one with very, very strict guidelines. Each scientist who signed had to agree that creationism was, in fact, silly and that it should not be taught in schools. They had to be from an area of science where their expertise was actually pertinent and, finally, because this apparently needed to be stipulated, they had to be an actual scientist. Oh, and in order to sign, you had to be named Steve or a variant thereof. As it stands, over 1000 Steves are on the list, including Stephen Hawking.

Explaining the reasoning behind the stunt, the scientific community noted that they could have easily compiled a contradicting list of tens of thousands of signatures. But focusing on scientists not named Steve would have taken too much time, and they had things to do.

You sound like later trader did you change screen names ?

I don't need peer reviews to tell me what i am observing in the many labs i worked. That might impress you,but that does not do much for me. Misinformation is accepted all the time do you think peer reviews can't be wrong ?

So you think the science community can't be wrong ?

Well i have been in that community for many years, you're in denial if you deny that there are not ideologues from both sides in the science community. It does effect their presuppositions.

Well you come in to a conversation lobbing insults from the start, how should you be received ?

You definately remind me of later trader. If what i say can't be supported by the evidence then feel free to point it out. Why do you bother to make this long drawn out response filled with rehtoric and not evidence shooting down my views ? if not then sit back and learn

 

[Youwerecreated]

Key word, bred. As in, artificially selected by humans, removed from the wild, and therefore natural selection. And that's not even considering it's an amazingly short time to demand a major evolutionary change. These are usually bred for specific traits, and any mutations that produce undesirable variance are promptly not bred. They don't have mutations arising to help them survive in the wild if they aren't in the wild in the first place. To consider this proof that evolution is false, belies a misunderstanding of how evolution works.

Yes,but it happens in the wild as well.

Cross-species Mating May Be Evolutionarily Important And Lead To Rapid Change, Say Indiana University Researchers

More

What Is a Beefalo?

I have to go now talk to you later.

But you weren't saying cross-breeding couldn't happen. You were saying when we breed cows, we always get cows and nothing ever changes. I think you're mixing up what you were replying too.

Ok ,point taken, i may have confused the issue.

Evidently the buffalo is in the cow family.

 

[Woyzeck]

According to who your teachers and books ?

Books from my wonderful local library, by scientists who understand the tenants of evolution.

But that's irrelevant. Perhaps you'd care to address my points?

I understand the theory of evolution.

Over the years many new breeds came in to being,whether it was from cross breeding or it was adapting to their enviornment. The creator gave organisms the ability to adapt. The ones that could not adapt, were eliminated by Natural selection.

This is Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations ,small changes within a group.God put mechanisms in us to keep us what we were intended to be with little chancge. God allowed us to adjust but it is limited.

I believe that the diversity seen today is the result of cross breeding and small biological changes. But any evolution that which i believe happened was at the will of the creator. I don't know for sure how long life has been on the earth. I don't know how old the earth is. And i don't know how long creation days were,but i have no doubt that life is a product of design.

Except we know the diversity isn't from 'cross-breeding.' We wouldn't see this much diversity if it worked out that way. Instead of a tree of cousinship that gets continually wider as time goes on, it would simply get narrower and narrower. This 'diversity from 'cross-breeds' doesn't explain much of the earth's natural history.

'Cross-breeding' does not work as a scientific theory because it doesn't explain the patterns and evidence we've found over the years. It leaves many holes. For instance, it does not answer the variety of traits, especially those new ones which did not exist before. This would be true if it were impossible for new information to enter a gene pool, except it's not impossible. It does not explain away either the common ancestors we share. It does not explain why some species are extinct! If species are all created via cross-breeding then we should be able to breed some species back into existence!

Also, do you accept macro-evolution or not? Drock has a point, you seem to accept it, and then at the same time, you don't.

And you still haven't answered any of my points. Could you please stop changing the subject and address my post directly? I'm particularly interested in what you have to say about the e. coli experiment, since that directly contradicts your point about no new information being able to enter the genome.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well talk to you later time for the bike ride.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Could you provide more information about the finches? I don't know much about finches, or their evolutionary progress since Dawrin's time. And perhaps you could also address the rest of my post?

My best guess with what little I know would be, whatever fitter traits natural selection filters through, it can just as easily remove them. One of the prime tenants of evolution is that nothing is permanent, and instead of concrete ideals, organisms are more so statistics in a shifting cloud of averages.

This is true as long as there is new information entering the gene pool. When a species get''s isolated that is how you wind up with a breed. The reason is over time information = traits get bred out of them that is why you see some over time are incompatible to breed back in the family.

That is why a horse and a donkey produces a mule, but that mule is as far as it will go. I have never heard of a mule being fertile unless it can only breed with either the horse or the donkey only.

Information can enter and exit a gene pool. It simply cannot only exit.

And now we're going from finches back to cross-breeding again. You still haven't tied this in with the finches we were originally discussing or given me more information to give you a better and well-informed answer.

That is true,and i am saying that new information comes through cross breeding and an animal adapting to it's enviornment.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Books from my wonderful local library, by scientists who understand the tenants of evolution.

But that's irrelevant. Perhaps you'd care to address my points?

I understand the theory of evolution.

Over the years many new breeds came in to being,whether it was from cross breeding or it was adapting to their enviornment. The creator gave organisms the ability to adapt. The ones that could not adapt, were eliminated by Natural selection.

This is Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations ,small changes within a group.God put mechanisms in us to keep us what we were intended to be with little chancge. God allowed us to adjust but it is limited.

I believe that the diversity seen today is the result of cross breeding and small biological changes. But any evolution that which i believe happened was at the will of the creator. I don't know for sure how long life has been on the earth. I don't know how old the earth is. And i don't know how long creation days were,but i have no doubt that life is a product of design.

Except we know the diversity isn't from 'cross-breeding.' We wouldn't see this much diversity if it worked out that way. Instead of a tree of cousinship that gets continually wider as time goes on, it would simply get narrower and narrower. This 'diversity from 'cross-breeds' doesn't explain much of the earth's natural history.

'Cross-breeding' does not work as a scientific theory because it doesn't explain the patterns and evidence we've found over the years. It leaves many holes. For instance, it does not answer the variety of traits, especially those new ones which did not exist before. This would be true if it were impossible for new information to enter a gene pool, except it's not impossible. It does not explain away either the common ancestors we share. It does not explain why some species are extinct! If species are all created via cross-breeding then we should be able to breed some species back into existence!

Also, do you accept macro-evolution or not? Drock has a point, you seem to accept it, and then at the same time, you don't.

And you still haven't answered any of my points. Could you please stop changing the subject and address my post directly? I'm particularly interested in what you have to say about the e. coli experiment, since that directly contradicts your point about no new information being able to enter the genome.

What happens if two different breeds cross ?

What happens if a breed has been isolated but still has the ability to cross with members in the family ?

Are new traits introduced ?

 

[HUGGY]

Breaking NEWS!!!!!

This just in!!!

There is still no God!!

 

[Dr.Drock]

I understand the theory of evolution.

Over the years many new breeds came in to being,whether it was from cross breeding or it was adapting to their enviornment. The creator gave organisms the ability to adapt. The ones that could not adapt, were eliminated by Natural selection.

This is Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations ,small changes within a group.God put mechanisms in us to keep us what we were intended to be with little chancge. God allowed us to adjust but it is limited.

I believe that the diversity seen today is the result of cross breeding and small biological changes. But any evolution that which i believe happened was at the will of the creator. I don't know for sure how long life has been on the earth. I don't know how old the earth is. And i don't know how long creation days were,but i have no doubt that life is a product of design.

I'm a little confused now as to what your position is.

At first I thought you were denying the creation of new species by evolution because the Bible says God created everything, here you're admitting new species are formed in a period after God's initial creation, so why do you deny macro evolution and speciation if you know species have come about that weren't directly created by God?

Ok i'll explain, i am getting ready for my bike ride.

I believe that you can get limited change through Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations.

These are changes within a group or family. The change will not be to a new family or group, it will be a new breed maybe but not a bird having an ancestor that was a dinosaur or a human having an apelike creature as an ancsetor.

I believe within the family, their can be new traits added to the genepool through adaptation and or cross breeding .new abilities can arise by adapting but that does not mean necessararily that the whole genepool will have this ability or trait.but a dog is gonna remain in the dog family a horse will remain in the horse family so on and so on.

You're saying new species can form within a family, which is exactly what happened when Homo Sapiens came about from the great ape family Hominidae, but then you say Homo Sapiens didn't come from another species.



That's double talk, I think you just talked yourself into a corner. You either deny all new species have ever been formed, or you admit humans evolved from another species.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm a little confused now as to what your position is.

At first I thought you were denying the creation of new species by evolution because the Bible says God created everything, here you're admitting new species are formed in a period after God's initial creation, so why do you deny macro evolution and speciation if you know species have come about that weren't directly created by God?

Ok i'll explain, i am getting ready for my bike ride.

I believe that you can get limited change through Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations.

These are changes within a group or family. The change will not be to a new family or group, it will be a new breed maybe but not a bird having an ancestor that was a dinosaur or a human having an apelike creature as an ancsetor.

I believe within the family, their can be new traits added to the genepool through adaptation and or cross breeding .new abilities can arise by adapting but that does not mean necessararily that the whole genepool will have this ability or trait.but a dog is gonna remain in the dog family a horse will remain in the horse family so on and so on.

You're saying new species can form within a family, which is exactly what happened when Homo Sapiens came about from the great ape family Hominidae, but then you say Homo Sapiens didn't come from another species.



That's double talk, I think you just talked yourself into a corner. You either deny all new species have ever been formed, or you admit humans evolved from another species.

Nope, think again. yes a new breed can come to be within a family but a new family can't come from a breed,pretty simple eh? why are you having such a hard time grasping this ?

If you compare the DNA of cousins it's pretty close correct ? Now try your comparison between a chimp and a human. Let's do it ,there is a 5% difference in the DNA of a chimp and a human.what is 5% of 3 billions base pairs of DNA ? 150 million base pairs of DNA to make a chimp a human. Now i have already shown that the mutation rate that we see today,it would take the human and chimp to separate 6 billion years we know that didn't happen both sides agree. Then if we figure the mutation rate that is needed by the Neo Darwinist to match how long ago the divergence took place between human and ape, no organism could survive that mutation rate and every living organism would be extinct.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I would like you to prove otherwise,Drock.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Ok i'll explain, i am getting ready for my bike ride.

I believe that you can get limited change through Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations.

These are changes within a group or family. The change will not be to a new family or group, it will be a new breed maybe but not a bird having an ancestor that was a dinosaur or a human having an apelike creature as an ancsetor.

I believe within the family, their can be new traits added to the genepool through adaptation and or cross breeding .new abilities can arise by adapting but that does not mean necessararily that the whole genepool will have this ability or trait.but a dog is gonna remain in the dog family a horse will remain in the horse family so on and so on.

You're saying new species can form within a family, which is exactly what happened when Homo Sapiens came about from the great ape family Hominidae, but then you say Homo Sapiens didn't come from another species.



That's double talk, I think you just talked yourself into a corner. You either deny all new species have ever been formed, or you admit humans evolved from another species.

Nope, think again. yes a new breed can come to be within a family but a new family can't come from a breed,pretty simple eh? why are you having such a hard time grasping this ?

If you compare the DNA of cousins it's pretty close correct ? Now try your comparison between a chimp and a human. Let's do it ,there is a 5% difference in the DNA of a chimp and a human.what is 5% of 3 billions base pairs of DNA ? 150 million base pairs of DNA to make a chimp a human. Now i have already shown that the mutation rate that we see today,it would take the human and chimp to separate 6 billion years we know that didn't happen both sides agree. Then if we figure the mutation rate that is needed by the Neo Darwinist to match how long ago the divergence took place between human and ape, no organism could survive that mutation rate and every living organism would be extinct.

That's exactly what I'm saying, a new species within a family, homo sapiens are a new species in the hominidae family.

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The family includes gorillas, orangutans, bonobos, chimps, humans and dozens of extinct great ape species.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're saying new species can form within a family, which is exactly what happened when Homo Sapiens came about from the great ape family Hominidae, but then you say Homo Sapiens didn't come from another species.



That's double talk, I think you just talked yourself into a corner. You either deny all new species have ever been formed, or you admit humans evolved from another species.

Nope, think again. yes a new breed can come to be within a family but a new family can't come from a breed,pretty simple eh? why are you having such a hard time grasping this ?

If you compare the DNA of cousins it's pretty close correct ? Now try your comparison between a chimp and a human. Let's do it ,there is a 5% difference in the DNA of a chimp and a human.what is 5% of 3 billions base pairs of DNA ? 150 million base pairs of DNA to make a chimp a human. Now i have already shown that the mutation rate that we see today,it would take the human and chimp to separate 6 billion years we know that didn't happen both sides agree. Then if we figure the mutation rate that is needed by the Neo Darwinist to match how long ago the divergence took place between human and ape, no organism could survive that mutation rate and every living organism would be extinct.

That's exactly what I'm saying, a new species within a family, homo sapiens are a new species in the hominidae family.

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The family includes gorillas, orangutans, bonobos, chimps, humans and dozens of extinct great ape species.

Of course your books are gonna put them in the same family.

Prove humans are related to that family, they are not except through wild speculation.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Nope, think again. yes a new breed can come to be within a family but a new family can't come from a breed,pretty simple eh? why are you having such a hard time grasping this ?

If you compare the DNA of cousins it's pretty close correct ? Now try your comparison between a chimp and a human. Let's do it ,there is a 5% difference in the DNA of a chimp and a human.what is 5% of 3 billions base pairs of DNA ? 150 million base pairs of DNA to make a chimp a human. Now i have already shown that the mutation rate that we see today,it would take the human and chimp to separate 6 billion years we know that didn't happen both sides agree. Then if we figure the mutation rate that is needed by the Neo Darwinist to match how long ago the divergence took place between human and ape, no organism could survive that mutation rate and every living organism would be extinct.

That's exactly what I'm saying, a new species within a family, homo sapiens are a new species in the hominidae family.

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The family includes gorillas, orangutans, bonobos, chimps, humans and dozens of extinct great ape species.

Of course your books are gonna put them in the same family.

Prove humans are related to that family, they are not except through wild speculation.

So why are talking like you take the family classifications in biology seriously then in the next post you don't?

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're saying new species can form within a family, which is exactly what happened when Homo Sapiens came about from the great ape family Hominidae, but then you say Homo Sapiens didn't come from another species.



That's double talk, I think you just talked yourself into a corner. You either deny all new species have ever been formed, or you admit humans evolved from another species.

Nope, think again. yes a new breed can come to be within a family but a new family can't come from a breed,pretty simple eh? why are you having such a hard time grasping this ?

If you compare the DNA of cousins it's pretty close correct ? Now try your comparison between a chimp and a human. Let's do it ,there is a 5% difference in the DNA of a chimp and a human.what is 5% of 3 billions base pairs of DNA ? 150 million base pairs of DNA to make a chimp a human. Now i have already shown that the mutation rate that we see today,it would take the human and chimp to separate 6 billion years we know that didn't happen both sides agree. Then if we figure the mutation rate that is needed by the Neo Darwinist to match how long ago the divergence took place between human and ape, no organism could survive that mutation rate and every living organism would be extinct.

That's exactly what I'm saying, a new species within a family, homo sapiens are a new species in the hominidae family.

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The family includes gorillas, orangutans, bonobos, chimps, humans and dozens of extinct great ape species.

You just contradicted your own theory.

If a family can't be produced by a breed how did birds evolve from dinosaurs ?

How did apes produce humans ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's exactly what I'm saying, a new species within a family, homo sapiens are a new species in the hominidae family.

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The family includes gorillas, orangutans, bonobos, chimps, humans and dozens of extinct great ape species.

Of course your books are gonna put them in the same family.

Prove humans are related to that family, they are not except through wild speculation.

So why are talking like you take the family classifications in biology seriously then in the next post you don't?

I don't do that ,but the unproven and that is only open to opinion i reject.

The definition of hell in the book you just quoted only supports some Christians view not all.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Nope, think again. yes a new breed can come to be within a family but a new family can't come from a breed,pretty simple eh? why are you having such a hard time grasping this ?

If you compare the DNA of cousins it's pretty close correct ? Now try your comparison between a chimp and a human. Let's do it ,there is a 5% difference in the DNA of a chimp and a human.what is 5% of 3 billions base pairs of DNA ? 150 million base pairs of DNA to make a chimp a human. Now i have already shown that the mutation rate that we see today,it would take the human and chimp to separate 6 billion years we know that didn't happen both sides agree. Then if we figure the mutation rate that is needed by the Neo Darwinist to match how long ago the divergence took place between human and ape, no organism could survive that mutation rate and every living organism would be extinct.

That's exactly what I'm saying, a new species within a family, homo sapiens are a new species in the hominidae family.

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The family includes gorillas, orangutans, bonobos, chimps, humans and dozens of extinct great ape species.

You just contradicted your own theory.

If a family can't be produced by a breed how did birds evolve from dinosaurs ?

How did apes produce humans ?

What did I say that contradicted the theory of evolution? That new species form within a family?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Of course your books are gonna put them in the same family.

Prove humans are related to that family, they are not except through wild speculation.

So why are talking like you take the family classifications in biology seriously then in the next post you don't?

I don't do that ,but the unproven and that is only open to opinion i reject.

The definition of hell in the book you just quoted only supports some Christians view not all.

Yes you just did do that, you were talking about the biological family classification in one post, then in the next post you're talking about how ridiculous it is to take the biological family classification seriously.

Which is it? Do you take biological family classifications seriously or don't you?

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's exactly what I'm saying, a new species within a family, homo sapiens are a new species in the hominidae family.

Hominidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The family includes gorillas, orangutans, bonobos, chimps, humans and dozens of extinct great ape species.

You just contradicted your own theory.

If a family can't be produced by a breed how did birds evolve from dinosaurs ?

How did apes produce humans ?

What did I say that contradicted the theory of evolution? That new species form within a family?

You said thats what i am saying.i said a breed can't produce a family and you agreed. What ever biologist say humans diverged from is a breed.

A family don't produce another family either.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So why are talking like you take the family classifications in biology seriously then in the next post you don't?

I don't do that ,but the unproven and that is only open to opinion i reject.

The definition of hell in the book you just quoted only supports some Christians view not all.

Yes you just did do that, you were talking about the biological family classification in one post, then in the next post you're talking about how ridiculous it is to take the biological family classification seriously.

Which is it? Do you take biological family classifications seriously or don't you?

No, not when it is only suppoted by opinion. That is only an opinion that apes and humans are in the same family otherwise prove it. Just because we are similar in some aspects does not prove we are related.