a scientific proof that GOD existes ... ( long read )...

So there's a simple explanation for some of the differences in our behaviors.. but not a simple explanation as to why that difference exists. Also, there is much more to our creativity than simply copying others.

hartsickdiscipl

Not really. Someone figures something out, then everyone copies it. Then that becomes the new human baseline until another person figures something out, then everyone copies that, and so on. That's how we got to where we are today. There are different levels of intelligence among other animals, just as with humans; it's just that those other animals don't copy others, so the product of that intelligence cannot be preserved.

As to why that difference exists, it seems like a rather simple enough difference that the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is certainly not "there is an all-powerful creator who uniquely designed them that way".

We actually share a majority of our DNA with chimpanzees, dogs, cats, cows and (gasp) even fruitflies. Genetically, there is no shortage of similarities between us and other animals to demonstrate a connection.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]Why are we the only species on the planet that develops technology, destroys and modifies our environment on such a radical scale? hartsickdiscipl

We wiped out all competitors that were likely to do the same (see Neanderthals).

Why do we have so little hair on our bodies compared to most land-based mammals?hartsickdiscipl

The theory is we evolved to become hairless to survive changing climates.

Why do we think about a creator? Do you think a wasp, a whale, or a toad thinks about it's creator?

hartsickdiscipl

I've no idea what these animals think. Nor is this a very relevant point; just because a species has a monopoly on an idea does not validate it.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

So there's a simple explanation for some of the differences in our behaviors.. but not a simple explanation as to why that difference exists. Also, there is much more to our creativity than simply copying others.

GabuEx

Not really. Someone figures something out, then everyone copies it. Then that becomes the new human baseline until another person figures something out, then everyone copies that, and so on. That's how we got to where we are today. There are different levels of intelligence among other animals, just with humans; it's just that those other animals don't copy others, so the product of that intelligence cannot be preserved.

As to why that difference exists, it seems like a rather simple enough difference that the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is certainly not "there is an all-powerful creator who uniquely designed them that way".

So you're saying that nobody ever creates anything new? Or at least something that's at least 51% their own creation based on someone else's work? That everything we do is copying someone else's behavior? Who did the first humans copy?

>That DNA could just have easily been manipulated and put into the form that it is today. I find that just as likely as it developing or evolving on it's own.hartsickdiscipl

If it was by design, why does junk DNA exist? Why do humans have appendixes, vestigial tail bones?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

We actually share a majority of our DNA with chimpanzees, dogs, cats, cows and (gasp) even fruitflies. Genetically, there is no shortage of similarities between us and other animals to demonstrate a connection.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

We wiped out all competitors that were likely to do the same (see Neanderthals).

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]Why do we have so little hair on our bodies compared to most land-based mammals?Danm_999

The theory is we evolved to become hairless to survive changing climates.

Why do we think about a creator? Do you think a wasp, a whale, or a toad thinks about it's creator?

hartsickdiscipl

I've no idea what these animals think. Nor is this a very relevant point; just because a species has a monopoly on an idea does not validate it.

I see nothing in your statements that amounts to anything more than theories with no more foundation in proven truth than what I or the OP said. Like I said, I would expect life forms that exist in the same environments to have major DNA similarities. Just as plants that exist in the same environments often share similar traits.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]>That DNA could just have easily been manipulated and put into the form that it is today. I find that just as likely as it developing or evolving on it's own.Danm_999

If it was by design, why does junk DNA exist? Why do humans have appendixes, vestigial tail bones?

I never said that we were created from scratch.. simply that the creature that we know as a "human being" was created from what was already on this planet.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

So there's a simple explanation for some of the differences in our behaviors.. but not a simple explanation as to why that difference exists. Also, there is much more to our creativity than simply copying others.

hartsickdiscipl

Not really. Someone figures something out, then everyone copies it. Then that becomes the new human baseline until another person figures something out, then everyone copies that, and so on. That's how we got to where we are today. There are different levels of intelligence among other animals, just with humans; it's just that those other animals don't copy others, so the product of that intelligence cannot be preserved.

As to why that difference exists, it seems like a rather simple enough difference that the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is certainly not "there is an all-powerful creator who uniquely designed them that way".

So you're saying that nobody ever creates anything new? Or at least something that's at least 51% their own creation based on someone else's work? That everything we do is copying someone else's behavior? Who did the first humans copy?

What? When did I say that? Like I said, someone figures something out - that's where the newness comes in - and then the crucial difference is that this innovation can then be propagated among the human population of the one who made this advancement, rather than simply being lost when that human dies. Other animals basically have to re-learn everything all over again with each passing generation because there is no transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next via this mindless copying that children exhibit to an especially great degree.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Not really. Someone figures something out, then everyone copies it. Then that becomes the new human baseline until another person figures something out, then everyone copies that, and so on. That's how we got to where we are today. There are different levels of intelligence among other animals, just with humans; it's just that those other animals don't copy others, so the product of that intelligence cannot be preserved.

As to why that difference exists, it seems like a rather simple enough difference that the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is certainly not "there is an all-powerful creator who uniquely designed them that way".

GabuEx

So you're saying that nobody ever creates anything new? Or at least something that's at least 51% their own creation based on someone else's work? That everything we do is copying someone else's behavior? Who did the first humans copy?

What? When did I say that? Like I said, someone figures something out - that's where the newness comes in - and then the crucial difference is that this innovation can then be propagated among the human population of the one who made this advancement, rather than simply being lost when that human dies. Other animals basically have to re-learn everything all over again with each passing generation because there is no transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next via this mindless copying that children exhibit to an especially great degree.

Ok, that explanation painted a better picture for me. It makes perfect sense, but still doesn't explain why the difference exists.

Like I said, I would expect life forms that exist in the same environments to have major DNA similarities. Just as plants that exist in the same environments often share similar traits.

hartsickdiscipl

Ok, that explanation painted a better picture for me. It makes perfect sense, but still doesn't explain why the difference exists.

hartsickdiscipl

No, it doesn't... but, like I said, that doesn't mean that the default reason is "there is an all-powerful creator who designed humans that way". It's ultimately a pretty subtle difference, just one whose effects are compounding in nature. It's also rather clearly an evolutionarily beneficial quality for a species to possess, so...

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]>That DNA could just have easily been manipulated and put into the form that it is today. I find that just as likely as it developing or evolving on it's own.hartsickdiscipl

If it was by design, why does junk DNA exist? Why do humans have appendixes, vestigial tail bones?

I never said that we were created from scratch.. simply that the creature that we know as a "human being" was created from what was already on this planet.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]Like I said, I would expect life forms that exist in the same environments to have major DNA similarities. Just as plants that exist in the same environments often share similar traits.

Danm_999

The existence of similarities and extinct "competitor" species doesn't prove that we evolved on our own from other primates. Yes, we are far more effective at exploiting, destroying, and modifying our environments on a global scale than any other species. Beavers, ants, etc.. Not even comparable.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]>That DNA could just have easily been manipulated and put into the form that it is today. I find that just as likely as it developing or evolving on it's own.Danm_999

If it was by design, why does junk DNA exist? Why do humans have appendixes, vestigial tail bones?

I never said that we were created from scratch.. simply that the creature that we know as a "human being" was created from what was already on this planet.

Would you care to demonstrate how to eliminate those liablities from the DNA code of a human/primate, and come out with an otherwise full-functional creation? I think your question is akin to me questioning a nuclear physicist on the apparent faults of his work.. which I have no place questioning.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]Like I said, I would expect life forms that exist in the same environments to have major DNA similarities. Just as plants that exist in the same environments often share similar traits.

hartsickdiscipl

The existence of similarities and extinct "competitor" species doesn't prove that we evolved on our own from other primates. Yes, we are far more effective at exploiting, destroying, and modifying our environments on a global scale than any other species. Beavers, ants, etc.. Not even comparable.

>Would you care to demonstrate how to eliminate those liablities from the DNA code of a human/primate, and come out with an otherwise full-functional creation? I think your question is akin to me questioning a nuclear physicist on the apparent faults of his work.. which I have no place questioning.

hartsickdiscipl

I wouldn't care to, since I think that theory is utter bunk.

What I'm saying is, why is a race, or a being, or a presence, so advanced that it can alter an animals DNA to create a being capable of sapience, not able to eliminate problems like the appendix or vestigial tail, that even our modest biology knows how to treat?

It makes no logical sense that a design would influence us so greatly, but then absolutely drop the ball in very, very simple concerns.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] Well, firstly, the genetic similarities between us and animals is supported by quite strong foundations, as is the extinction of neanderthals. So then I ask why do you favour this argument we're somehow fundamentally different from our environment? Because we're more adept at exploiting it? I might argue the beaver, or the ant, is special, given the vast impacts these animals have on environments.

Danm_999

The existence of similarities and extinct "competitor" species doesn't prove that we evolved on our own from other primates. Yes, we are far more effective at exploiting, destroying, and modifying our environments on a global scale than any other species. Beavers, ants, etc.. Not even comparable.

I'm not going to directly challenge anything you just said, because we'll never come to the same conclusion on some of these points, even when given the same evidence. We'll have to agree to disagree on these points.

I do find it to be quite a coincidence that we have creation stories written in ancient texts from various parts of the world. Do ants and beavers have such creation stories?

[QUOTE="Astrapsody"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I took the time to read it. VERY good points are made here. Probably way too much for most people to want to dive into. I don't believe in the extrapolated version of evolution that's being pushed on us by mainstream science, although I do believe in adaptation to a certain point.. it's impossible to deny. There's nothing more unscientific than pointing at some close similarities in DNA between difference species, and then declaring that one must have evolved from the other. If you look at ALL DNA on this planet, you see major similarities between almost anything that's currently alive today, which IMO is nothing more than the result of us all existing in the same environment. I call it "shared parts" theory. Of course some species are going to be genetically and physically similar to each other when they share the same basic environment. That doesn't prove that humans evolved from apes.

What I find more plausible, and more inline with the OP's points.. is that the human race was genetically created by what we would consider aliens, and what ancient humans would consider gods. Take a look at yourself, and then look at every other species on this planet. Don't we seem a little bit out of place here? Why are we the only species on the planet that develops technology, destroys and modifies our environment on such a radical scale? Why do we have so little hair on our bodies compared to most land-based mammals? Why do we think about a creator? Do you think a wasp, a whale, or a toad thinks about it's creator?

hartsickdiscipl

:|

"Mainstream science"

...

"nothing more unscientific than pointing at some close similarities in DNA"

and, then...

..."is that the human race was genetically created by what we would consider aliens".

We have intelligence. Such a higher capacity for it that, in fact, we're able to do things that other beings with less intelligence can't. It's amazing what the mind can do, huh? And there aren't just "some" close similarities. A large majority of our DNA is EXACTLY the same as the DNA found in apes and such.

That DNA could just have easily been manipulated and put into the form that it is today. I find that just as likely as it developing or evolving on it's own.

Also, why are we the only ones with the level of intelligence needed to treat the world the way we do?

That's such a weird question. It's like asking, why are ants the only creatures able to build mounds the way they do? That's just they way they evolved and learned to survive. And for some reason you think there's some secret, scientific conspiracy? That's the idea I'm getting from you. That every single scientist is, for some reason, manipulating the data they find. And you have hypothesis that is supported by...what evidence, exactly?

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I never said that we were created from scratch.. simply that the creature that we know as a "human being" was created from what was already on this planet.

hartsickdiscipl

Would you care to demonstrate how to eliminate those liablities from the DNA code of a human/primate, and come out with an otherwise full-functional creation? I think your question is akin to me questioning a nuclear physicist on the apparent faults of his work.. which I have no place questioning.

Well the synthesis of vitamin C is pretty easy. You need four enzymes to synthesize vitamin C; we have three, and we also have a nonfunctional, defective sequence in our DNA which, if functional, would give us the fourth. All you'd need to do is to fix up that defective sequence in our DNA, and boom, naturally synthesized vitamin C. Almost all plants and animals can do this, which is why they don't need to consume anything containing vitamin C.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]>Would you care to demonstrate how to eliminate those liablities from the DNA code of a human/primate, and come out with an otherwise full-functional creation? I think your question is akin to me questioning a nuclear physicist on the apparent faults of his work.. which I have no place questioning.

Danm_999

I wouldn't care to, since I think that theory is utter bunk.

What I'm saying is, why is a race, or a being, or a presence, so advanced that it can alter an animals DNA to create a being capable of sapience, not able to eliminate problems like the appendix or vestigial tail, that even our modest biology knows how to treat?

It makes no logical sense that a design would influence us so greatly, but then absolutely drop the ball in very, very simple concerns.

Maybe we could have a use for these "leftovers," given the right environment and circumstances. I don't find these things are ridiculous or as much of a fault as you apparently do.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] Why then begs the question; why leave over useless DNA and organs and bones which only benefitted ancestral incarnations? The appendix for example, is quite a dangerous organ in that it can cause death when it ruptures, but serves no purpose. Why didn't the designer remove this flaw? Why didn't the designer allow us to synthesise vitamin C? Why didn't they completely remove the vestigial tail bone?GabuEx

Would you care to demonstrate how to eliminate those liablities from the DNA code of a human/primate, and come out with an otherwise full-functional creation? I think your question is akin to me questioning a nuclear physicist on the apparent faults of his work.. which I have no place questioning.

Well the synthesis of vitamin C is pretty easy. You need four enzymes to synthesize vitamin C; we have three, and we also have a nonfunctional, defective sequence in our DNA which, if functional, would give us the fourth. All you'd need to do is to fix up that defective sequence in our DNA, and boom, naturally synthesized vitamin C. Almost all plants and animals can do this, which is why they don't need to consume anything containing vitamin C.

Also, I just noticed an odd point here: you say that you have no place questioning a nuclear physicist on the apparent faults of his work... but by challenging evolution you are questioning the entire biology community on the apparent faults of their collective work.

I do find it to be quite a coincidence that we have creation stories written in ancient texts from various parts of the world.hartsickdiscipl

Do ants and beavers have such creation stories?

hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Astrapsody"]

:|

"Mainstream science"

...

"nothing more unscientific than pointing at some close similarities in DNA"

and, then...

..."is that the human race was genetically created by what we would consider aliens".

We have intelligence. Such a higher capacity for it that, in fact, we're able to do things that other beings with less intelligence can't. It's amazing what the mind can do, huh? And there aren't just "some" close similarities. A large majority of our DNA is EXACTLY the same as the DNA found in apes and such.

Astrapsody

That DNA could just have easily been manipulated and put into the form that it is today. I find that just as likely as it developing or evolving on it's own.

Also, why are we the only ones with the level of intelligence needed to treat the world the way we do?

That's such a weird question. It's like asking, why are ants the only creatures able to build mounds that way they do? That's just they way they evolved. And for some reason you think there's some secret, scientific conspiracy? That's the idea I'm getting from you. That every single scientist is, for some reason, manipulating the data they find. And you have hypothesis that is supported by...what evidence, exactly?

Ants building a mound is more like humans building houses, IMO.. Not like humans detonating atomic weapons, for example.

I don't think that scientists (at least the vast majority) know anything different than what they believe and publish. I just think that they draw some innaccurate, flawed conclusions based on the data they have. I think they extrapolate conclusions and miss some pretty basic points that fit better into other theories.

Maybe we could have a use for these "leftovers," given the right environment and circumstances. I don't find these things are ridiculous or as much of a fault as you apparently do.

hartsickdiscipl

I don't think that scientists (at least the vast majority) know anything different than what they believe and publish. I just think that they draw some innaccurate, flawed conclusions based on the data they have. I think they extrapolate conclusions and miss some pretty basic points that fit better into other theories.

hartsickdiscipl

Are these the same scientists whose apparent faults in their work you have no place questioning? :P

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Would you care to demonstrate how to eliminate those liablities from the DNA code of a human/primate, and come out with an otherwise full-functional creation? I think your question is akin to me questioning a nuclear physicist on the apparent faults of his work.. which I have no place questioning.

GabuEx

Well the synthesis of vitamin C is pretty easy. You need four enzymes to synthesize vitamin C; we have three, and we also have a nonfunctional, defective sequence in our DNA which, if functional, would give us the fourth. All you'd need to do is to fix up that defective sequence in our DNA, and boom, naturally synthesized vitamin C. Almost all plants and animals can do this, which is why they don't need to consume anything containing vitamin C.

Also, I just noticed an odd point here: you say that you have no place questioning a nuclear physicist on the apparent faults of his work... but by challenging evolution you are questioning the entire biology community on the apparent faults of their collective work.

I'm not questioning their work. I'm questioning the unproven extrapolations and conclusions that they make mainstream based on their work. I have no doubt that 99.8% of their science is correct, and I don't question it. I question their way of viewing the results and their assumptions based on the data given.

I'm not questioning their work. I'm questioning the unproven extrapolations and conclusions that they make mainstream based on their work. I have no doubt that 99.8% of their science is correct, and I don't question it. I question their way of viewing the results and their assumptions based on the data given.

hartsickdiscipl

What assumptions are those?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I'm not questioning their work. I'm questioning the unproven extrapolations and conclusions that they make mainstream based on their work. I have no doubt that 99.8% of their science is correct, and I don't question it. I question their way of viewing the results and their assumptions based on the data given.

GabuEx

What assumptions are those?

The idea that they understand such a large part of our history, based on a couple hundred years of genetic study. The idea that they can extrapolate the rest, often in a manner contrary to other theories that fit with the written records in historical texts.. such as creation stories.

The idea that they can extrapolate the rest, often in a manner contrary to other theories that fit with the written records in historical texts.. such as creation stories.

hartsickdiscipl

Not to mention if you object to modern science, because you think it's a human construction, where does that leave historical texts and creation stories? These were created by cultures thousands of years ago who didn't have adequate understanding of not only the nature of the world and the universe, but basic geographical, biological and physical sciences.

Why are we preferencing their theories? You yourself admit scientists have access to evidence which is correct 98.8% of the time.

[QUOTE="Astrapsody"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

That DNA could just have easily been manipulated and put into the form that it is today. I find that just as likely as it developing or evolving on it's own.

Also, why are we the only ones with the level of intelligence needed to treat the world the way we do?

hartsickdiscipl

That's such a weird question. It's like asking, why are ants the only creatures able to build mounds that way they do? That's just they way they evolved. And for some reason you think there's some secret, scientific conspiracy? That's the idea I'm getting from you. That every single scientist is, for some reason, manipulating the data they find. And you have hypothesis that is supported by...what evidence, exactly?

Ants building a mound is more like humans building houses, IMO.. Not like humans detonating atomic weapons, for example.

I don't think that scientists (at least the vast majority) know anything different than what they believe and publish. I just think that they draw some innaccurate, flawed conclusions based on the data they have. I think they extrapolate conclusions and miss some pretty basic points that fit better into other theories.

Must I say it again? We have intelligence! That is why. You are being very hypocritical. You accuse scientists (and that's all scientists; that a fairly big blanket) of making assumptions (which you haven't demonstrated; show me what claims they've made that have not been supported by evidence), while you yourself make huge, bold assumptions (such as aliens basically planting us here on Earth) that are only seemingly supported by your ignorance (i.e. we are so different from other creatures just because we have greater intelligence).

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

I'm not questioning their work. I'm questioning the unproven extrapolations and conclusions that they make mainstream based on their work. I have no doubt that 99.8% of their science is correct, and I don't question it. I question their way of viewing the results and their assumptions based on the data given.

hartsickdiscipl

What assumptions are those?

The idea that they understand such a large part of our history, based on a couple hundred years of genetic study. The idea that they can extrapolate the rest, often in a manner contrary to other theories that fit with the written records in historical texts.. such as creation stories.

It's not as though genetic study is the only means by which human history is determined; there's also the fossil record, to give another example, which by now is rather extensive, and which contains a number of important entities that bridge evolutionary gaps that would otherwise appear to exist.

And as for the rest, not coming to their conclusions simply because some written text says otherwise would be much along the lines of finding a clear footprint in a patch of mud, but then not coming to the conclusion that someone walked by the area simply because someone wrote a book once saying that no one did. There is literally no piece of objective evidence that supports any literal reading of a religious creation story out there. To avoid making a conclusion despite this fact would be downright unscientific.

I think perhaps the greatest proof of evolution is what are known as ring species. Those being individual species that have migrated and their genetic code has mutated so that they can better survive in their habitat. Every one of these individual subspecies can still interbreed with one another except for the two end points due to the differences in genetic coding. Real world examples of this include Greenish Warblers, Ensatina Salamanders, and more.

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

You make very valid points with this paragraph. Now, I'm definitely not a scientist, and I often attempt to sound smarter than I actually am. So when I say this, know that it is entirely my opinion.

I think that most of the evidence that supports evolution, in fact, supports just the opposite. That life was indeed created by an intelligent creator. Take for example the interconnectedness on life on Earth. You believe that it means evolution took place. That two fossils containing similar properties means that it must've evolved. I would argue that the interconnectedness is simply proof of a clever creator using a system that works between different species. The fact that our world works as well as it does on it's own is not simply a product of millions of years of chance evolution. The odds against such an idea are staggering. I actually do believe that evolution is real on a micro level. But not on a macro level. Research has shown that mutations are never positive. The few mutations we see today are evidence of that. Take Cancer for example. Cancer is essentially just cellular mutation. Harmful cellular mutation might I add. The concept of an entire species evolving positively into an entirely new species is, frankly, ludicrous. There is absolutely no record of species evolution. I find it hard to believe that evolution, which went on for millions of years to get to the point it's at right now, we have never actually recorded in human history. Why is it that the only evolution we see anymore is in microscopic bacteria and the like? Now, there may be answers for my questions, and I expect GabuEx here to provide them. Like I said, I am no scientist.

GabuEx

Interconnectedness shows a clever creator? How?

Humans have a tailbone - the exact same tailbone that chimpanzees have, structurally speaking - yet they have no tail. Why would we have the exact same fundamental skeletal structure as other great apes when we clearly do not have the same bodily structure? Would a clever creator not have created unique skeletal structures to match? Was there a 2-for-1 deal on skeletons and God had some left over? Honest question.

That's not the only example of this, either. Many flightless birds have hollow bones. Why? The benefit of hollow bones is to enable flight, yet these birds cannot fly. And before one wishes to suggest that it might perhaps be the case that they provide an additional benefit that we don't know about, let me additionally point out that there also exist flightless birds that are more distant evolutionary relatives of birds capable of flight, and these flightless birds do not have hollow bones. So what gives? Again, did God just not have enough marrow left over to fill the bones of these flightless birds, or what?

A clever creator would create completely unique animals perfectly tailored, would he not? We certainly have nothing of the sort in life on Earth. Heck, much of our DNA sequence does nothing whatsoever, and serves absolutely no purpose other than simply to bear witness to our evolutionary heritage. Why would God have done all this, if indeed he meticulously built every form of life we have? Did he want us to come to the conclusion that evolution is true, or what?

And as for macroevolution, I'm going to assume that you would agree with the idea that a workable definition of a species is a group of animals that may interbreed. If that is the case, then consider the case of ring species. Ring species are geographically connected groups of animals that are similar, but clearly different at the same time. At every single boundary, the two groups of animals straddling the boundary can interbreed fine. However, when you take an animal from the start of the ring and an animal from the end of the ring, they cannot interbreed. In other words, ring species provide a clear and undeniable progression of evolution, at each of which stage the animals can interbreed, but clearly producing two different species of animals at the start and end who cannot interbreed. And this is exactly what has happened in Earth's evolutionary history, only on a much grander scale.

No offense, but the idea that all mutations are negative is false. In fact, most mutations are more or less benign. Take our inability to synthesize vitamin C, for example. Obviously, we are not dead, despite the fact that we cannot synthesize vitamin C while other animals can. This mutation was not removed from the gene pool for the simple reason that, while not beneficial, it was not negative, either, so it just sort of went along for the ride.

Oh, and cancer is not an example of genetic mutation, which is the type of mutation that drives evolution. Genetic mutation occurs when the DNA in an animal's offspring is altered at a very early stage such that it is different from either of its parents', thereby producing different physiological effects when that offspring grows and matures.

I like your analogy at the end of that bolded paragraph. I'm a big fan of analogies. Which is why I'm going to use one right now to close out this post.

When you look at any object or appliance in the modern household today, it's an automatic fact that someone had to of made it. It doesn't need to be debated. A universal truth. Now, a machine is very different from biological tissue, I know. So don't bother pointing it out to me. But why is it that the human body, which is made up of trillions of cells each more complex than a factory the size of a city, can carry the label of random chance? Shouldn't it be assumed that someone had to of made it as well? Humans evolving from a pile of primordial goo is akin to a mother board plugged into a wall evolving into a super computer. It's just not possible. And even if it was...Let's just assume for a moment that it is possible. The human form came into existence completely by chance. This would mean that all of it's complexities such as the brain and central nervous system that all work together in perfect order to keep it alive just randomly happened by chance over millions of years. I'm sorry, but I reject that concept.

KH-mixerX

But it's not random chance. That's one of the most common misconceptions about evolution, and it's just not true. It's not random chance any more than things falling down is random chance. When a mutation occurs, it is either beneficial, negative, or benign, which evolutionarily speaking means that it makes the animal possessing the mutation either more, less, or no more and no less able to survive and reproduce than its peers. If the mutation makes it less able to survive and reproduce, then it is an evolutionary dead end, and slowly (or quickly, depending on how bad it is) is removed from the gene pool. If the mutation makes it more able to survive and reproduce, then it will be gradually propagated over several generations into the population at large, as the animal possessing it will survive and reproduce at a greater rate than those who don't possess it. (And, of course, if it's benign, then it just has no effect at all.)

The actual mutations themselves are unpredictable, but the process that selects them for either propagation or removal is far, far from random chance. The whole "whirlwind through a hangar making a plane" analogy just plain fundamentally misunderstands evolution. It is not just a sudden event, like a skunk suddenly giving birth to a dog, but rather is a very, very gradual process that has progressed over millions and millions of years. And we have found thousands and thousands of fossils of animals that bridge apparent gaps, too, such as Tiktaalik, which was likely part of the bridge between fish and amphibians.

And though you already alluded to the fact that humans and machines are different, let me just state for the record what that difference is, since it's absolutely fundamental: machines are not capable of self-replication. That is the fundamental, most important difference that shoots down any analogy that compares humans to an inorganic compound incapable of self-replication. Because life is capable of self-replication, life gains the ability to slowly, gradually change over millions of years as imperfect replications are created. Motherboards can't evolve into supercomputers because silicon, gold, steel, and all the other compounds that make them up are static, and cannot reproduce.

As for the first half of your reply(specifically the questions I bolded and underlined), I cannot explain those instances. But that argument can go both ways.

A clever creator would create completely unique animals perfectly tailored, would he not?

Would he? Would he not? Who knows such things? I don't. I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. Maybe he would do all those things that you said he did. Maybe he wouldn't.

_______________

The second half of your post I have a big problem with.

It is not just a sudden event, like a skunk suddenly giving birth to a dog, but rather is a very, very gradual process that has progressed over millions and millions of years.

I never said that's how species evolution occurs.

But it'snotrandom chance.

You see, that's where your wrong. It is random chance. You said that there are three types of mutation. Beneficial, benign, and negative. To say humans evolved beneficially consecutively from the beginning of the evolutionary chain, all the way to where we're at now is ridiculous. The statistics against such a statement would be overwhelming.

All life is in a constant state of adaptation and mutation according to evolution. Correct? Because of the changing environment and various other processes that choose the mutations. If so, then why are humans not also constantly evolving? Throughout human history, our environment has been in a constant state of flux. But with each fundamental change in our surroundings, we've adapted by the creation of tools. A human needs to get to the top of a mountain, so they create tools for climbing. A human needs to travel long distances for migration, they create the wheel. A human needs to get to the fruit at the top of a tree, they make a ladder, not develop longer necks. If humans are akin to any other animal, then why did we not also adapt and mutate? And even taking that question a step further, why are we the only being in the evolutionary chain to gain such a level of intelligence? How did our environment demand such an adaptation? It just doesn't add up. And one more thing. The entire world doesn't share the same environment. So why is it that every human from every region is anatomically identical? Shouldn't there be many different types of humans based on the environment that they came from? Different environments demand different $tyle of life. Different needs for survival. There is no way, according to evolution, that the entire human population should have the exact same anatomy.

The bottom line is that evolution has way to many holes in it's current state for me to give it any amount of credit. Many people argue that the idea of a supreme deity is the product of man trying to justify its existence. I would say that evolution is the product of man trying to explain God away.

Romans 1:20 says...For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.

I know quoting the Bible here will completely destroy my credibility, but Romans 1:20 is the essence of my argument.Through creation, God revealed His divine nature to mankind. Men should have received this revelation and responded by worshipping Him. Instead, man exchanged the truth of God for a lie and chose to worship the creature rather than the Creator. Because of this, mankind is guilty before God.

Ants building a mound is more like humans building houses, IMO.. Not like humans detonating atomic weapons, for example.

I don't think that scientists (at least the vast majority) know anything different than what they believe and publish. I just think that they draw some innaccurate, flawed conclusions based on the data they have. I think they extrapolate conclusions and miss some pretty basic points that fit better into other theories.

hartsickdiscipl

And when was the first atomic bomb detonated? What, something like 55 years ago?

Now compare that to the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years in which humans didn't build atomic bombs, didn't drive automobiles, didn't have airplanes, and didn't use internal combustion engines.

Do you know WHY it took so long for us to develop atomic bombs? Because we're fully capable of doing WITHOUT them. Just like the ants, just like the squirrels, just like the Giant Pacific Jellyfish. For the VAST majority of human existence, we've been without ANY of the modern **** that we take for granted. We were living like ANTS. Sure, we could make houses and use tools. But so can ants, termites, chimpanzees, and birds.

And the thing about scientists is this...I guarantee that most every scientist would LOVE to be the one who started a major revolution in science. To be revered the way that Einstein is. If there was actually any kind of evidence for stuff like God or ghosts, then scientists would be jumping all over that ****. Because the first scientist to prove that stuff is going to go down in history as one of the most important people who ever lived. Fame, fortune, blah blah blah. So...why is it that scientists DON'T try to prove the existence of God? Is it more likely because the entire scientific community is in on a big conspiracy? Or is it more likely because the evidence just isn't there?

As for the first half of your reply(specifically the questions I bolded and underlined), I cannot explain those instances. But that argument can go both ways.

A clever creator would create completely unique animals perfectly tailored, would he not?

Would he? Would he not? Who knows such things? I don't. I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. Maybe he would do all those things that you said he did. Maybe he wouldn't.

_______________

The second half of your post I have a big problem with.

It is not just a sudden event, like a skunk suddenly giving birth to a dog, but rather is a very, very gradual process that has progressed over millions and millions of years.

I never said that's how species evolution occurs.

But it'snotrandom chance.

You see, that's where your wrong. It is random chance. You said that there are three types of mutation. Beneficial, benign, and negative. To say humans evolved beneficially consecutively from the beginning of the evolutionary chain, all the way to where we're at now is ridiculous. The statistics against such a statement would be overwhelming.

All life is in a constant state of adaptation and mutation according to evolution. Correct? Because of the changing environment and various other processes that choose the mutations. If so, then why are humans not also constantly evolving? Throughout human history, our environment has been in a constant state of flux. But with each fundamental change in our surroundings, we've adapted by the creation of tools. A human needs to get to the top of a mountain, so they create tools for climbing. A human needs to travel long distances for migration, they create the wheel. A human needs to get to the fruit at the top of a tree, they make a ladder, not develop longer necks. If humans are akin to any other animal, then why did we not also adapt and mutate? And even taking that question a step further, why are we the only being in the evolutionary chain to gain such a level of intelligence? How did our environment demand such an adaptation? It just doesn't add up. And one more thing. The entire world doesn't share the same environment. So why is it that every human from every region is anatomically identical? Shouldn't there be many different types of humans based on the environment that they came from? Different environments demand different $tyle of life. Different needs for survival. There is no way, according to evolution, that the entire human population should have the exact same anatomy.

The bottom line is that evolution has way to many holes in it's current state for me to give it any amount of credit. Many people argue that the idea of a supreme deity is the product of man trying to justify its existence. I would say that evolution is the product of man trying to explain God away.

Romans 1:20 says...For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.

I know quoting the Bible here will completely destroy my credibility, but Romans 1:20 is the essence of my argument.Through creation, God revealed His divine nature to mankind. Men should have received this revelation and responded by worshipping Him. Instead, man exchanged the truth of God for a lie and chose to worship the creature rather than the Creator. Because of this, mankind is guilty before God.

KH-mixerX

As for the first half of your reply(specifically the questions I bolded and underlined), I cannot explain those instances. But that argument can go both ways.

A clever creator would create completely unique animals perfectly tailored, would he not?

Would he? Would he not? Who knows such things? I don't. I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. Maybe he would do all those things that you said he did. Maybe he wouldn't.

KH-mixerX

What I'm getting at is this: there is no real evidence of truly intelligent design in animals, humans included. There is a ton of extraneous junk in creatures' DNA that serves no purpose - so why would it be there if the creature was specifically designed? - and there are tons of examples of animals that have features or qualities that seem unmistakably inherited from evolutionary ancestors, such as our inability to synthesize vitamin C, or our tailbone, or our toenails, or flightless birds' hollow bones. These qualities are benign, which is why their removal has not been evolutionarily selected, but they also serve no beneficial purpose - so if one wants to assert an intelligent designer behind such creatures, one really must be able to explain where the intelligence is behind such things. And if one can't, then it seems to me that one ought to question whether indeed there was such an intelligent design at all. Why did a designer give us so much junk DNA? Why did a designer give us a defective gene for the fourth enzyme for vitamin C synthesis? These are important questions that, unless they have an answer, put the idea of an intelligent designer in rather serious jeopardy.

The second half of your post I have a big problem with.

It is not just a sudden event, like a skunk suddenly giving birth to a dog, but rather is a very, very gradual process that has progressed over millions and millions of years.

I never said that's how species evolution occurs.

But it'snotrandom chance.

You see, that's where your wrong. It is random chance. You said that there are three types of mutation. Beneficial, benign, and negative. To say humans evolved beneficially consecutively from the beginning of the evolutionary chain, all the way to where we're at now is ridiculous. The statistics against such a statement would be overwhelming.

KH-mixerX

But it really isn't random chance, simply because the process of evolutionary selection is so predictable. The statistics are perfectly fine when one considers the fact that negative mutations are removed and benign mutations are, well, benign, whereas beneficial mutations are propagated and therefore compound. As I demonstrated with the ring species example, we have even specifically observed examples of animals that changed due to differing environments such that the animals at the start and end can no longer interbreed. That right there is a perfect example of beneficial mutations becoming propagated throughout a population such that it gradually becomes sufficiently different from another population. And if we can observe this even today, it doesn't seem terribly far-fetched that over millions of years this same thing could happen on a much larger scale.

All life is in a constant state of adaptation and mutation according to evolution. Correct? Because of the changing environment and various other processes that choose the mutations. If so, then why are humans not also constantly evolving? Throughout human history, our environment has been in a constant state of flux. But with each fundamental change in our surroundings, we've adapted by the creation of tools. A human needs to get to the top of a mountain, so they create tools for climbing. A human needs to travel long distances for migration, they create the wheel. A human needs to get to the fruit at the top of a tree, they make a ladder, not develop longer necks. If humans are akin to any other animal, then why did we not also adapt and mutate? And even taking that question a step further, why are we the only being in the evolutionary chain to gain such a level of intelligence? How did our environment demand such an adaptation? It just doesn't add up. And one more thing. The entire world doesn't share the same environment. So why is it that every human from every region is anatomically identical? Shouldn't there be many different types of humans based on the environment that they came from? Different environments demand different $tyle of life. Different needs for survival. There is no way, according to evolution, that the entire human population should have the exact same anatomy.

KH-mixerX

Well, first, if you want a perfect example of human evolution in action, just look at black people versus white people. An increased amount of melanin in the skin, which is what gives black people their dark skin color, provides natural protection against UV radiation from the sun and the skin cancer that it can cause. However, it also results in a decreased ability to synthesize vitamin D from direct sunlight. Nearer to the equator where sunlight exposure is much stronger, the protection against skin cancer is more important, so people whose ancestral heritage is mostly from that region have darker skin. Further away from the equator, however, skin cancer is not such a problem and the ability to synthesize vitamin D becomes more evolutionarily beneficial, so people whose ancestral heritage is mostly from that region have lighter skin.

Another example is sickle-cell disease. When one has both alleles, their life span is shortened; however, when one has only one of the two necessary alleles for sickle-cell disease, they have a strong natural resistance to malaria. In regions where malaria is very common, this trait is sufficiently beneficial that the alleles for sickle-cell disease are actually quite common, whereas in regions where malaria is not common, this trait is seen much less frequently.

And as BumFluff noted, humans are evolving even to this day.

But OK, let's address the question regarding why humans in different environments aren't radically anatomically different. You've actually more or less answered this question yourself, though I'm not sure if you knew you were doing so. The reason is precisely because we are intelligent enough to create tools to do a job that we need doing. Remember what makes a genetic mutation beneficial: it is beneficial if it provides the one possessing it an increased ability to survive and reproduce. Note that this is a comparative statement: an animal with a beneficial genetic mutation is better than his or her peers at surviving and reproducing.

But since we can create tools to do jobs for us, this makes the cases very few and far between in which a genetic mutation in a human genuinely does give an increased ability to survive and reproduce above his or her peers. The only areas where this can happen are in areas where humans do not yet have any tools that can perform the function given to us by the mutation in question, and the list of such areas is becoming progressively shorter. If you have a human with a long neck, and a human with a pole, both are going to be able to get something out of a tree. In addition, the human with the tool also is not going to get any of the downsides that the built-in feature might come with, such as a decreased cranial stability, or a larger target for predators. So a long neck would not be an evolutionary benefit at all. Same reason why we don't have evolutionarily-developed means to do the other things we use tools. Tools effectively enable us to be customizable - we can have what we need to get any given job done, and then we can leave it behind when we no longer need to perform that job. And this is basically superior to evolutionarily-derived built-in traits, which may hinder our ability to perform a different task than the one they enable us to naturally perform.

The bottom line is that evolution has way to many holes in it's current state for me to give it any amount of credit. Many people argue that the idea of a supreme deity is the product of man trying to justify its existence. I would say that evolution is the product of man trying to explain God away.

KH-mixerX

That's just not true. I'm sorry, but it's not. I can prove that it's not, at least for me, quite easily: I'm not an atheist. I have no need to explain God away, because I do believe in the existence of God. That does not, however, mean that I can simply ignore the evidence for evolution that is before me.

I certainly can't deny that of the most prominent scientists, a vastly disproportionate number are indeed atheist. However, science itself is not atheist. Many claim that it's atheist because it doesn't allow God as an explanation, but that's simply because it by definition confines itself only to the observable and testable. It doesn't attempt to disprove God when it speaks of evolution, or the Big Bang, or anything else for that matter. All it is saying is that the evidence indicates that what it explains was not the result of the direct intervention of a supreme being, but rather the result simply of natural laws, most of which laws theists and atheists alike agree that they exist.

Romans 1:20 says...For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.

I know quoting the Bible here will completely destroy my credibility, but Romans 1:20 is the essence of my argument.Through creation, God revealed His divine nature to mankind. Men should have received this revelation and responded by worshipping Him. Instead, man exchanged the truth of God for a lie and chose to worship the creature rather than the Creator. Because of this, mankind is guilty before God.

KH-mixerX

I'm not trying to disprove your religion, or take it away from you. If it's important to you and is a large part of your life, then by all means, keep it close to your heart. I'm just answering your questions about evolution.

I was kind of hoping this thread would have died by now, or at least have changed course.

...I'm going back to TvTropes.

I was kind of hoping this thread would have died by now, or at least have changed course.

...I'm going back to TvTropes.

metroidfood

Of course you realize that by posting in it you bring it to the top of the thread list... :P

[QUOTE="metroidfood"]

I was kind of hoping this thread would have died by now, or at least have changed course.

...I'm going back to TvTropes.

GabuEx

Of course you realize that by posting in it you bring it to the top of the thread list... :P

I feel my brain swelling with the mysteries of the universe the more i read your posts:oops:

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

Well, first, if you want a perfect example of human evolution in action, just look at black people versus white people. An increased amount of melanin in the skin, which is what gives black people their dark skin color, provides natural protection against UV radiation from the sun and the skin cancer that it can cause. However, it also results in a decreased ability to synthesize vitamin D from direct sunlight. Nearer to the equator where sunlight exposure is much stronger, the protection against skin cancer is more important, so people whose ancestral heritage is mostly from that region have darker skin. Further away from the equator, however, skin cancer is not such a problem and the ability to synthesize vitamin D becomes more evolutionarily beneficial, so people whose ancestral heritage is mostly from that region have lighter skin.

Another example is sickle-cell disease. When one has both alleles, their life span is shortened; however, when one has only one of the two necessary alleles for sickle-cell disease, they have a strong natural resistance to malaria. In regions where malaria is very common, this trait is sufficiently beneficial that the alleles for sickle-cell disease are actually quite common, whereas in regions where malaria is not common, this trait is seen much less frequently.

And as BumFluff noted, humans are evolving even to this day.

But OK, let's address the question regarding why humans in different environments aren't radically anatomically different. You've actually more or less answered this question yourself, though I'm not sure if you knew you were doing so. The reason is precisely because we are intelligent enough to create tools to do a job that we need doing. Remember what makes a genetic mutation beneficial: it is beneficial if it provides the one possessing it an increased ability to survive and reproduce. Note that this is a comparative statement: an animal with a beneficial genetic mutation is better than his or her peers at surviving and reproducing.

But since we can create tools to do jobs for us, this makes the cases very few and far between in which a genetic mutation in a human genuinely does give an increased ability to survive and reproduce above his or her peers. The only areas where this can happen are in areas where humans do not yet have any tools that can perform the function given to us by the mutation in question, and the list of such areas is becoming progressively shorter. If you have a human with a long neck, and a human with a pole, both are going to be able to get something out of a tree. In addition, the human with the tool also is not going to get any of the downsides that the built-in feature might come with, such as a decreased cranial stability, or a larger target for predators. So a long neck would not be an evolutionary benefit at all. Same reason why we don't have evolutionarily-developed means to do the other things we use tools. Tools effectively enable us to be customizable - we can have what we need to get any given job done, and then we can leave it behind when we no longer need to perform that job. And this is basically superior to evolutionarily-derived built-in traits, which may hinder our ability to perform a different task than the one they enable us to naturally perform.

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

The bottom line is that evolution has way to many holes in it's current state for me to give it any amount of credit. Many people argue that the idea of a supreme deity is the product of man trying to justify its existence. I would say that evolution is the product of man trying to explain God away.

GabuEx

That's just not true. I'm sorry, but it's not. I can prove that it's not, at least for me, quite easily: I'm not an atheist. I have no need to explain God away, because I do believe in the existence of God. That does not, however, mean that I can simply ignore the evidence for evolution that is before me.

I certainly can't deny that of the most prominent scientists, a vastly disproportionate number are indeed atheist. However, science itself is not atheist. Many claim that it's atheist because it doesn't allow God as an explanation, but that's simply because it by definition confines itself only to the observable and testable. It doesn't attempt to disprove God when it speaks of evolution, or the Big Bang, or anything else for that matter. All it is saying is that the evidence indicates that what it explains was not the result of the direct intervention of a supreme being, but rather the result simply of natural laws, most of which laws theists and atheists alike agree that they exist.

Romans 1:20 says...For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse.

I know quoting the Bible here will completely destroy my credibility, but Romans 1:20 is the essence of my argument.Through creation, God revealed His divine nature to mankind. Men should have received this revelation and responded by worshipping Him. Instead, man exchanged the truth of God for a lie and chose to worship the creature rather than the Creator. Because of this, mankind is guilty before God.

KH-mixerX

I'm not trying to disprove your religion, or take it away from you. If it's important to you and is a large part of your life, then by all means, keep it close to your heart. I'm just answering your questions about evolution.

I know your not trying to disprove my religion, or take it away from me. In fact, there is such a thing a theistic evolution. Which argues that God used evolution to bring life to this planet.

All of the stuff you said was very well put together and intelligent. Unfortunately, I think you have me beat in terms of knowledge on the topic. I still cannot accept evolution though. Everything in me(minus the religion), tells me that it isn't how life began on this planet. I've looked into it many times to try to find something that would undoubtedly prove evolution to me, but I've yet to find it. There are still too many questions. Why have we never observed species evolution during our existence? Why is it that many of the so-called "missing links" we've found so far turned out to have entirely explainable pasts such asRamapithecus,Eoanthropus,Hesperopithecus,Pithecanthropus,Australopithecus africanus, andSinanthropus? Why is it that carbon dating, which is only accurate till about 50,00 years, is still used to date the so-called "millions of years old" fossils we find today? Why are we as humans not evolving? And I'm not talking about just genetic evolution. If you're going to say evolution is a fact, then you must apply ever aspect of it to a subject.I do believe evolution is true to an extent. I just don't thing it can be applied to the origin of life. You pointed out all the useless genetic "stuff"(for lack of a better word) that we have in us. I think that is merely the product of benign mutations at work.

*sigh*

I digress though. It's 3:30am and I'm debating the origin of life on a video game forum in my underwear. What has my life come to?:lol:

EDIT: For some reason the quote html code is messed up in this post. Since I don't know how to fix it, I'll just let Gabu remedy it when he inevitably replies.

I know your not trying to disprove my religion, or take it away from me. In fact, there is such a thing a theistic evolution. Which argues that God used evolution to bring life to this planet.

All of the stuff you said was very well put together and intelligent. Unfortunately, I think you have me beat in terms of knowledge on the topic. I still cannot accept evolution though. Everything in me(minus the religion), tells me that it isn't how life began on this planet. I've looked into it many times to try to find something that would undoubtedly prove evolution to me, but I've yet to find it. There are still too many questions. Why have we never observed species evolution during our existence? Why is it that many of the so-called "missing links" we've found so far turned out to have entirely explainable pasts such asRamapithecus,Eoanthropus,Hesperopithecus,Pithecanthropus,Australopithecus africanus, andSinanthropus? Why is it that carbon dating, which is only accurate till about 50,00 years, is still used to date the so-called "millions of years old" fossils we find today? Why are we as humans not evolving? And I'm not talking about just genetic evolution. If you're going to say evolution is a fact, then you must apply ever aspect of it to a subject.I do believe evolution is true to an extent. I just don't thing it can be applied to the origin of life. You pointed out all the useless genetic "stuff"(for lack of a better word) that we have in us. I think that is merely the product of benign mutations at work.

*sigh*

I digress though. It's 3:30am and I'm debating the origin of life on a video game forum in my underwear. What has my life come to?:lol:

EDIT: For some reason the quote html code is messed up in this post. Since I don't know how to fix it, I'll just let Gabu remedy it when he inevitably replies.

KH-mixerX

We have observed evolution during our existence, however, evolution is such a slow and gradual process, that its nigh impossible to observe it in process. It seems completely plausible that over the course of 3 billion years on this planet, life has had plenty of time to mutate and evolve into the massive variety of species we see today. Like Gabu, I don't really have a question about the existence of a Creator. The mere fact that there IS existence and a Universe with laws that allow life to appear is such a miracle to me that I believe a consciousness at the very least, created the Universe and is sustaining it through the laws of physics. I've come to believe that whatever this being is though, it is not concerned with our little personal lives, but rather the experience of evolving and becoming self conscious in physicality (which has been achieved on this planet, though I question if it's going to work out).

I can't begin to even question why God has chosen this process in which to create and evolve the Universe because we are part of that creation and existence, making it impossible to imagine a different form of existence and mode of evolution. It's just something we wont know until we're dead, and I can be patient. There is something there, I'm sure, I just don't know what it could be.

A clever creator would create completely unique animals perfectly tailored, would he not?

Would he? Would he not? Who knows such things? I don't. I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. Maybe he would do all those things that you said he did. Maybe he wouldn't.

KH-mixerX

I don't understand why even though

1- evolution happened

2- we know how evolution happened

you can say that the "creator" tailored animals. If anything, the creator tailored evolution, but that didn't happen and it makes no sense.

This has probably been stated already (if it hasn't...well I'd be kinda disappointed), but if matter and energy cannot be created (nor destroyed) then how was God created and how did he make matter and energy?

God has to be matter and energy if he is able to create something, right? And if not how long was he standing there before he figured 'Hmmm...this is really boring, maybe I should do something about it.'

I mean, even if he (generalizing here, don't be offended, I could refer to him as 'it') isn't a living being or lifeform he has to be there, or somewhere, therefore he has to be energy or matter.

I don't think it is possible to prove or disprove the existance of God using science.

SO, with that in mind, it's possible for God to just appear out of 'thin air', but not an entire universe? To me that's like saying it's possible to have the rooster without the egg.

On your points about the human and chimapnzee blood TC they have not compared blood structure but DNA structure. DNA contains the code for the creation of proteins within human cells, and proteins are made from amino acids. Amino acids are coded from bases in the DNA and human and chimpanzee share 98% of the same DNA structure. The remaining 2% is what classes us as humans. This shows as there are a number of hormones which we share such as thyroxine. Also you say evolution is full of holes and then state that it can therefore not be true. Just because science has not proved something does not mean it will in the future. A hole in a relatively new theory does not automatically dismiss it.

This has probably been stated already (if it hasn't...well I'd be kinda disappointed), but if matter and energy cannot be created (nor destroyed) then how was God created and how did he make matter and energy?

God has to be matter and energy if he is able to create something, right? And if not how long was he standing there before he figured 'Hmmm...this is really boring, maybe I should do something about it.'

I mean, even if he (generalizing here, don't be offended, I could refer to him as 'it') isn't a living being or lifeform he has to be there, or somewhere, therefore he has to be energy or matter.

I don't think it is possible to prove or disprove the existance of God using science.

SO, with that in mind, it's possible for God to just appear out of 'thin air', but not an entire universe? To me that's like saying it's possible to have the rooster without the egg.

livingundead

That's all things we can't speculate on though cause if God created all the Matter and is the energy driving all energy in the Universe, then God is apart and far more vast than the concepts of space and time that we've come to understand. He's apart from time (which began with the Universe 13.7 billion years ago) and he's apart from space. To speculate "how long" he was sitting in some void is impossible since the flow of time didn't exist before the Universe was created.

I had the idea recently that perhaps God's reasoning for creating the Universe was to do more than know itself conceptually as consciousness, but to experience that knowing. In order to do that, there would have to be something that God is not, which before the Universe, all there would have been was God. Maybe it created it as way of separating itself into different forms that could evolve, grow, and change. For God, evolution wouldn't be necessary, but since we are small pieces of the giant machine that is the Universe in motion, we experience a passage of time and gradual evolution process.

Well im sure everyone on GS is a atheist, We as Christian are targets, i wish we all can get alone :)

I hate when atheist think their more educated on the world existing than us Christians , and make fairy tale jokes.....

I know your not trying to disprove my religion, or take it away from me. In fact, there is such a thing a theistic evolution. Which argues that God used evolution to bring life to this planet.

All of the stuff you said was very well put together and intelligent. Unfortunately, I think you have me beat in terms of knowledge on the topic. I still cannot accept evolution though. Everything in me(minus the religion), tells me that it isn't how life began on this planet. I've looked into it many times to try to find something that would undoubtedly prove evolution to me, but I've yet to find it. There are still too many questions.

KH-mixerX

Well I'm not trying to "win" or anything, and I hope that your statement that I have you "beat" doesn't mean I'm intimidating you or anything, as that's not my intention at all. If something about evolution still bothers you, then by all means, don't accept it. Accepting something that you do not believe the evidence supports is one of the most unscientific things a person can do. Science is meant to be questioned; that's why the peer-review process is so rigorous. If people don't ask questions, they can never understand.

Why have we never observed species evolution during our existence?

KH-mixerX

We have. I presented an example in the form of ring species. Ring species is the situation where animals in the same species are separated by geographical boundaries. The animals at each boundary can interbreed fine; however, the animals at the start and end cannot. This is textbook speciation: you take two groups of the same species, put them in different environments, and slowly but surely natural selection plus mutations will produce two separate species no longer capable of interbreeding.

Why is it that many of the so-called "missing links" we've found so far turned out to have entirely explainable pasts such as Ramapithecus, Eoanthropus, Hesperopithecus, Pithecanthropus, Australopithecus africanus, and Sinanthropus?

KH-mixerX

MiscIassifications and hoaxes happen. Humans aren't perfect; that's just a fact of life. However, every single one of the miscIassifications and hoaxes was rectified and fixed by scientists. That's the way science works; if something doesn't fit into our knowledge base, then scientists will work to figure out what's going on until we find out what does fit. Modern science is very good both at keeping out falsehoods and at quickly removing falsehoods that happened to find their way in.

Why is it that carbon dating, which is only accurate till about 50,00 years, is still used to date the so-called "millions of years old" fossils we find today?

KH-mixerX

It's not. There are many, many forms of radiometric dating. There's an entire cIass of dating techniques known as isochron dating that is used to date rocks based on minerals within those rocks, and these techniques have the added benefit as well that they are unaffected both by contamination and by initial quanties of the child element produced by the radioactive decay. Many of these are accurate up to billions of years in the past due to the very, very slow decay of the elements involved.

Why are we as humans not evolving? And I'm not talking about just genetic evolution. If you're going to say evolution is a fact, then you must apply ever aspect of it to a subject.

KH-mixerX

What are you talking about, then? I'm not sure I understand, as I did illustrate two instances of human evolution (melanin levels in the skin and the alleles for sickle-cell disease). And evolution as spoken of in biology is genetic evolution; anything else is beyond the scope of biology.

I do believe evolution is true to an extent. I just don't thing it can be applied to the origin of life. You pointed out all the useless genetic "stuff"(for lack of a better word) that we have in us. I think that is merely the product of benign mutations at work.

KH-mixerX

But the thing there is that there's so much junk DNA. If we were all created only a short while ago, there's no way that we'd have already accumulated as much junk DNA as we have today. I mean some animals, such as the pufferfish, have junk DNA make up as much as 90% of their total DNA.

Well im sure everyone on GS is a atheist, We as Christian are targets, i wish we all can get alone :)

I hate when atheist think their more educated on the world existing than us Christians , and make fairy tale jokes.....

AussieePet

I don't think it's meant as a joke, it's used as a means to illustrate our opinion. I agree with you about people teasing others because of their education, but you'd be surprised to see Christians saying the same thing about us.