New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

[Youwerecreated]

Organisms in the wild usually aren't called breeds, and I'm pretty sure you're not using the word family correctly either.

And I'm not sure what this line of questioning has to do with my post. You do realize diversity from cross-breeding is full of holes and doesn't explain the information we have about biology, right?

Ok this is an example of what i have said before, terminology has been built to support the theory. Because of the terminology it sends the wrong message like everything you read has been observed and it is factual and supported by the evidence. Thats just not true.

Sorry what? Breeds aren't actually classified scientifically, and are usually the domain of domestic animals and their breeders. Referring to all organisms on earth having 'breeds' is therefore inaccurate. I'm not even sure what you're referring to when you say 'breed' anyway. Or family, because family is actually a scientific biological classification.

Also still waiting for you to actually answer my post above about the holes with your cross-breeding theory.

You 're gonna have to repost them please.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The difference between chimps and humans actually isn't that high. It's only as high as 1.5%.

I'm not sure where you're getting your calculations about mutation rate, but we already know how long it took to diverge from our most recent common ancestor, which would suggest that there is something wrong with your math, and not something wrong with the mutation rate. For the record, we diverged seven million years ago.

Wrong,you better do your homework it is closer to 5% anyone who say's otherwise is mistaken. I am on my way out to watch my Arizona Cardinals scrimmage talk to you later.

"The DNA sequences of humans and chimpanzees are 98 percent identical. ...."

Scientific American

Let's see the dishonesty at work.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J4BTwamx0U]‪The Truth About Human & Chimp DNA Clip-1‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-wXHSLVdI&feature=related]‪The Truth About Human & Chimp DNA Clip-2‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWVOFwDSGs0&feature=related]‪The Truth About Human & Chimp DNA Clip-3‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUlAt1ye2tU&feature=related]‪The Truth About Human & Chimp DNA Clip-4‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wde9sWxppR4&feature=related]‪The Truth About Human & Chimp DNA Clip-5‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XviqMLQcjiY&feature=related]‪The Truth About Human & Chimp DNA Clip-6‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

I suppose because it is nine years old and outdated.

Your figure came first.

Honestly, what the hell are you going on about now?

2002 (your link) is older than 2005 (my link).



If you want, I will find something newer, but that is the number - 98%. Your information is outdated.

Well you know the chimps DNA has never been mapped so how would they know there is only a 2% difference ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I suppose because it is nine years old and outdated.

Your figure came first.

Honestly, what the hell are you going on about now?

2002 (your link) is older than 2005 (my link).



If you want, I will find something newer, but that is the number - 98%. Your information is outdated.

Yes your information came from the human Genome project ,and your sources and all the others that use that number will be proven wrong once they map the DNA of the chimp. You know they're in no hurry for that because once again they will have to admit their distortions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I suppose because it is nine years old and outdated.

Your figure came first.

Honestly, what the hell are you going on about now?

2002 (your link) is older than 2005 (my link).



If you want, I will find something newer, but that is the number - 98%. Your information is outdated.

I wasn't talking about the links.

 

[Volatire]

Everyone here who believes the 1994(?) scientific study needs to read Steven Hawking's new book "The Grand Design" and also needs to read up on M-Theory.

 

[Woyzeck]

Ok this is an example of what i have said before, terminology has been built to support the theory. Because of the terminology it sends the wrong message like everything you read has been observed and it is factual and supported by the evidence. Thats just not true.

Sorry what? Breeds aren't actually classified scientifically, and are usually the domain of domestic animals and their breeders. Referring to all organisms on earth having 'breeds' is therefore inaccurate. I'm not even sure what you're referring to when you say 'breed' anyway. Or family, because family is actually a scientific biological classification.

Also still waiting for you to actually answer my post above about the holes with your cross-breeding theory.

You 're gonna have to repost them please.

They're here and here.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Everyone here who believes the 1994(?) scientific study needs to read Steven Hawking's new book "The Grand Design" and also needs to read up on M-Theory.

What is the m-theory ?

 

[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.

No !!! i don't accept macro-evolution at all.

I believe God created all animal families, and the breeds within each family.I believe several breeds within each family were the product of cross breeding or adapting. Or God created every family and breed within a family and many went extinct do to entropy and Natural Selection.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't even know what this means. But you clearly didn't look at all the links.

Could you perhaps go into greater detail about why what I posted isn't evidence for evolution?

Oh ok i found the others.

Once again, because an organism can adapt to it's surrounding is not evidence of Macro-evolution. That is evidence of the only evolution ever observed Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations.

Oh this again. You claim no evidence for evolution, someone presents it, then you specify macro-evolution. How quaint. I'm not sure why you claim to not accept evolution, but then accept micro-evolution, but not the possibility of new species.

How do you explain the existence prior species, if all species have remained constant for all time? We know for certain that some only lived in a very specific time frame of natural history. Did they just come from nothing, not evolving from already existing species?

That fish is still the same fish it adapted to it's enviornment.The Bacteria the same thing can be said, it's still bacteria that adapted.

Environmental adaption is pretty key to evolutionary change. And given enough changes, this will induce a new species, provided geographic isolation, and some other factors.

By the way, do you know what separates and defines the E. coli used by Lenski's experiment and the harmful kind like Salmonella? The non-harmful e. coli cannot process citrate. Guess what the non-harmful kind evolved to do in the long-term experiment? Process citrate.

If i go to a much higher altitude to live,and it was much i higher altitude then my body is use to but over time i get use to it. Is that evolving or adapting ?

Adapting, but it's a faulty analogy, evolution doesn't work that way.

What is the difference of adapting by growing a bigger beak to survive and my body chemistry having to adjust so i can live at the much higher altitude ?

The rest i think have been addressed.

I don't know, but let me ask you was it still a bacteria ?

 

[Woyzeck]

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.

No !!! i don't accept macro-evolution at all.

I believe God created all animal families, and the breeds within each family.I believe several breeds within each family were the product of cross breeding or adapting. Or God created every family and breed within a family and many went extinct do to entropy and Natural Selection.

There's no such thing as 'breeds' within scientific classification. I don't even think you're using the term 'family' correctly.

If God created all animal "families" why can we trace the evolutionary history to species that existed previous? If 'cross-breeding' is actually how it happened, then we should be able to see and trace what was cross-bred when. But as it turns out, that's not what we see in the natural world. There are some, ligers, donkeys, but they are few. If cross-breeding was how we got the diversity, we should be able to trace what species they came from. Hell, if cross-breeding was actually true, all the various species should have the same age, except those that are cross-breeds. That would be the point where, as you say, 'God' created it all. But there isn't, various species have various 'ages' so to speak. They don't have a uniform one. Going further, if it was all created, then why do we see some species arriving on the scene at various points in time, and then going extinct. Why do we see most modern animals arriving relatively late to the party after the billions of years of life's existence on the planet? What were they cross-bred from? Life after all, tends to gear towards organisms of larger complexity as time marches on. Cross-breeding would not explain this.

You begin to see just where this 'cross-breeding' thing ends up not explaining a lot of what we see in modern biology.

And as it turns out, there's no evidence to suggest things were simply created as they were, remained unchanged for all time, and then more organisms created via breeding two species. If that were the case, we should be able to see that sort of trend in the various forms of evidence. But instead they indicate towards the modern theory of evolution.

 

[Si modo]

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.

No !!! i don't accept macro-evolution at all.

I believe God created all animal families, and the breeds within each family.I believe several breeds within each family were the product of cross breeding or adapting. Or God created every family and breed within a family and many went extinct do to entropy and Natural Selection.

You can, of course, believe anything you want, but your theory is, by definition, non-scientific.

 

[Woyzeck]

Oh ok i found the others.

Once again, because an organism can adapt to it's surrounding is not evidence of Macro-evolution. That is evidence of the only evolution ever observed Micro-evolution or Micro-adaptations.

Oh this again. You claim no evidence for evolution, someone presents it, then you specify macro-evolution. How quaint. I'm not sure why you claim to not accept evolution, but then accept micro-evolution, but not the possibility of new species.

How do you explain the existence prior species, if all species have remained constant for all time? We know for certain that some only lived in a very specific time frame of natural history. Did they just come from nothing, not evolving from already existing species?



Environmental adaption is pretty key to evolutionary change. And given enough changes, this will induce a new species, provided geographic isolation, and some other factors.

By the way, do you know what separates and defines the E. coli used by Lenski's experiment and the harmful kind like Salmonella? The non-harmful e. coli cannot process citrate. Guess what the non-harmful kind evolved to do in the long-term experiment? Process citrate.

If i go to a much higher altitude to live,and it was much i higher altitude then my body is use to but over time i get use to it. Is that evolving or adapting ?

Adapting, but it's a faulty analogy, evolution doesn't work that way.

What is the difference of adapting by growing a bigger beak to survive and my body chemistry having to adjust so i can live at the much higher altitude ?

One is based on mutation and natural selection. The other is not.

The rest i think have been addressed.

Not really.

I don't know, but let me ask you was it still a bacteria ?

Why wouldn't it be?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

No !!! i don't accept macro-evolution at all.

I believe God created all animal families, and the breeds within each family.I believe several breeds within each family were the product of cross breeding or adapting. Or God created every family and breed within a family and many went extinct do to entropy and Natural Selection.

There's no such thing as 'breeds' within scientific classification. I don't even think you're using the term 'family' correctly.

If God created all animal "families" why can we trace the evolutionary history to species that existed previous? If 'cross-breeding' is actually how it happened, then we should be able to see and trace what was cross-bred when. But as it turns out, that's not what we see in the natural world. There are some, ligers, donkeys, but they are few. If cross-breeding was how we got the diversity, we should be able to trace what species they came from. Hell, if cross-breeding was actually true, all the various species should have the same age, except those that are cross-breeds. That would be the point where, as you say, 'God' created it all. But there isn't, various species have various 'ages' so to speak. They don't have a uniform one. Going further, if it was all created, then why do we see some species arriving on the scene at various points in time, and then going extinct. Why do we see most modern animals arriving relatively late to the party after the billions of years of life's existence on the planet? What were they cross-bred from? Life after all, tends to gear towards organisms of larger complexity as time marches on. Cross-breeding would not explain this.

You begin to see just where this 'cross-breeding' thing ends up not explaining a lot of what we see in modern biology.

And as it turns out, there's no evidence to suggest things were simply created as they were, remained unchanged for all time, and then more organisms created via breeding two species. If that were the case, we should be able to see that sort of trend in the various forms of evidence. But instead they indicate towards the modern theory of evolution.

A family to me is a group but different breeds. Dog's ,cat's,horses. A group or family is a kind.

Because all creatures were created with the same type substances under the same code. The information in the genes is whats different,similarity does not prove evolution.

Did you watch the videos i posted ? tell me what you thought ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I had to edit post.

 

[Woyzeck]

No !!! i don't accept macro-evolution at all.

I believe God created all animal families, and the breeds within each family.I believe several breeds within each family were the product of cross breeding or adapting. Or God created every family and breed within a family and many went extinct do to entropy and Natural Selection.

There's no such thing as 'breeds' within scientific classification. I don't even think you're using the term 'family' correctly.

If God created all animal "families" why can we trace the evolutionary history to species that existed previous? If 'cross-breeding' is actually how it happened, then we should be able to see and trace what was cross-bred when. But as it turns out, that's not what we see in the natural world. There are some, ligers, donkeys, but they are few. If cross-breeding was how we got the diversity, we should be able to trace what species they came from. Hell, if cross-breeding was actually true, all the various species should have the same age, except those that are cross-breeds. That would be the point where, as you say, 'God' created it all. But there isn't, various species have various 'ages' so to speak. They don't have a uniform one. Going further, if it was all created, then why do we see some species arriving on the scene at various points in time, and then going extinct. Why do we see most modern animals arriving relatively late to the party after the billions of years of life's existence on the planet? What were they cross-bred from? Life after all, tends to gear towards organisms of larger complexity as time marches on. Cross-breeding would not explain this.

You begin to see just where this 'cross-breeding' thing ends up not explaining a lot of what we see in modern biology.

And as it turns out, there's no evidence to suggest things were simply created as they were, remained unchanged for all time, and then more organisms created via breeding two species. If that were the case, we should be able to see that sort of trend in the various forms of evidence. But instead they indicate towards the modern theory of evolution.

A family to me is a group but different breeds.

Because all creatures were created with the same type substances under the same code. The information in the genes is whats different,similarity does not prove evolution.

Did you watch the videos i posted ? tell me what you thought ?

That is a remarkably vague definition and the reason for a scientific definitions and classification.

And that doesn't actually address any of the questions I asked concerning cross-breeding at all.

I got through a few minutes of the video. It gave me a few chuckles with saying "real" science doesn't support evolution. Sounds almost like Sarah Palin's "Real" Americans rhetoric. But a public access show is very much not a credible source of information, especially when they say within the first few minutes of the show that their mission is more about theological and philosophical questions. Very much not worth my time or brain cells.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

No !!! i don't accept macro-evolution at all.

I believe God created all animal families, and the breeds within each family.I believe several breeds within each family were the product of cross breeding or adapting. Or God created every family and breed within a family and many went extinct do to entropy and Natural Selection.

You can, of course, believe anything you want, but your theory is, by definition, non-scientific.

Not scientific,families are named and so is each breed. And we know if you breed boxers to boxers you get boxers,if you breed two different breeds of dogs you're gonna get traits from both parents. My theory can be proven yours has never been observed.

 

[JScott]

That one is based on my beliefs.

I believe they did not eat meat until after the fall of adam.

So you think as I'll mature and grow older than I will acquire a belief, a belief that requires me to ignore a host of scientific facts?


I have a little more faith in myself.

I don't deny he ate meat,i deny he was this predator you believe he was. But i differ with you when he began eating meat.

His teeth were not sunk into the jaw enough to support attacking other dinosaurs and ripping meat out of them.

But mostly because nothing ate meat until after the fall of adam.

How far in do the teeth have to be for it to be meat eaters teeth?

 

[Woyzeck]

No !!! i don't accept macro-evolution at all.

I believe God created all animal families, and the breeds within each family.I believe several breeds within each family were the product of cross breeding or adapting. Or God created every family and breed within a family and many went extinct do to entropy and Natural Selection.

You can, of course, believe anything you want, but your theory is, by definition, non-scientific.

Not scientific,families are named and so is each breed. And we know if you breed boxers to boxers you get boxers,if you breed two different breeds of dogs you're gonna get traits from both parents. My theory can be proven yours has never been observed.

There's not a lick of scientific evidence for the 'cross-breeding' nonsense. Artificial selection a la breeding, whether it be dogs, cows, or what have you, are bred for specific purposes, not for survival. They demonstrate evolution, but not the filtering of natural selection. This is a key difference you don't seem to understand.

Evolution has in fact been observed, tested and has yet to be disproven. But this is the point where you specify you mean macro-evolution, and the dance begins again.

 

[Si modo]

No !!! i don't accept macro-evolution at all.

I believe God created all animal families, and the breeds within each family.I believe several breeds within each family were the product of cross breeding or adapting. Or God created every family and breed within a family and many went extinct do to entropy and Natural Selection.

You can, of course, believe anything you want, but your theory is, by definition, non-scientific.

Not scientific,families are named and so is each breed. And we know if you breed boxers to boxers you get boxers,if you breed two different breeds of dogs you're gonna get traits from both parents. My theory can be proven yours has never been observed.

Rather your theory is ALWAYS proven - "God did it" explains everything, but more importantly, it explains nothing in this world.

That is exactly why your theory is not in the least scientific, thus has no place in science.