Faith.

[JonFromMinnesota]

And I kept calling on evidences, that repeatable, testable, verifiable evidences that some common DNA can mutate to both human and chimp DNA, or some single cell organism can evolve to multi-cell organism, and yet there is NONE.

Multiple studies that demonstrate repeatable experiments have been cited to you. Stop lying.

 

[dcalling]

Multiple studies that demonstrate repeatable experiments have been cited to you. Stop lying.

Show them please.

 

[Received]

The question is simple. Why do Christians have faith?

It's impossible not to have faith, as faith underpins our use of rationality and even allows us to trust that the observable world is real.

So to me it isn't a matter of faith or no faith, but where you place your faith as the highest ideal or aim.

 

[skalle]

So to me it isn't a matter of faith or no faith, but where you place your faith as the highest ideal or aim.

Why Jesus then?

 

[com7fy8]

Why do Christians have faith?

to me it isn't a matter of faith or no faith, but where you place your faith as the highest ideal or aim.

Why Jesus then?

I experience that God brought me to Jesus. Because Jesus is His Son, whom God approves, and God who loves us shares His very own best with us.

So, this could give us a meaning for "faith working through love" (in Galatians 5:6) > because God loves us . . . if we put our faith in Him, we get His very best, because love gives the best . . . and personally shares the best. And Jesus is the best

And by faith we have Jesus being formed by God in us, as our new inner Person > Galatians 4:19. So, this is very personal sharing, to have Jesus forming right inside of us; by living in us, Jesus can share with us how He is, how He pleases and relates with our Heavenly Father, and in us He also has us sharing with Him in how He is all-loving. This way, by the way, is how we get to know Him best . . . by becoming how He is and how He is loving > 1 John 4:17.

"It takes one to know one."

And God will do no less in His children > Hebrews 12:4-11, 1 John 4:17.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Something can only be a theory if it is scientificly proven, that is been testable, repeatable and verifiable, just a lot of evidences only makes something a hypthosis, which is what I said all alone about ToE.

No, that is not how science works.

You should learn about how science works. A good place to start is to read up on what the various words mean in scientific jargon in context of the various disciplines: fact, law, hypothesis, theory.

Facts = pieces of data, observations
Laws = abstractions of this data, generalities of common "threads" in sets of data
Hypothesis = proposed models of explanation, that can be tested
Theory = the "graduation" stage of a hypothesis, a model that's been tested many times and past the tests with flying colors. A model with explanatory power that is testable and has been demonstrated to be accurate (note the word accurate, it does not say correct).


Hypothesis and Theories offer explanations for facts and laws.
Really good theories, don't become facts or laws. They stay theories.

Science doesn't deal in certainties.
Science also isn't in the business of "proving" things. Rather, it is in the business of disproving things. When you have a hypothesis and you design an experiment to test that hypothesis... then you don't design the test in such a way to try and confirm the model. On the contrary: you explicitly try to disprove it, instead. Failing to do so, is a success for the hypothesis.

See, science can't tell you what is "absolutely correct" (in general). But it CAN tell you what is "absolutely false".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All that observed is micro changes

one inch + one inch + one inch + one inch + ..... + one inch = many, many miles.

In case you haven't noticed yet... DNA is inheritable and by extension cumulative.
Every generation adds "an inch". After many generations, that build up of inches, becomes miles. Inevitably.

It's not hard to comprehend.

, did we ever able to observe one species changed to another species in a lab?

[

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

If not, how could you claim the board claim of ToE is true?

The same way that we can determine that your dad is your actual biological dad, without having to observe your parents have sex.

Even if you were switched at birth in the hospital, without anyone knowing about it, your DNA wouldn't lie. It would be evident that your dad isn't your actual biological dad. That's how strong genetic evidence. That's who good humans have gotten in determining actual biological ancestry.

And we don't even need your father's DNA either. We could simply compare your DNA to the DNA of your siblings. They'ld give us the same answers.

We can literally measure how related two random individuals are.

I already said again and again, did they test the culture to see if new DNA is present? if not, how can they claim anything is evolved?

Every new born of every species has "novel DNA".
It's called the mutation rate. In humans, this averages at around ~50 mutations per new-born.

That means that on average, ALL of us have some ~50 things in our DNA that we did not get them from mom or dad. How is that not "new DNA"?

I know, what I mean by proof is they have to be repeatable, testable and verifiable, even though the model could be totally wrong.

Not everything in science needs to be "repeatable", because -even only by common sense- not everything is repeatable. For the sheer fact certain phenomena / processes are completely dependend on external factors which might not be reproducable.

But that doesn't mean that we can't figure out if those unrepeatable events happened in the past. Nore does it mean that we can't test such models of explanation.

Consider a murder trial. You can't "repeat" the murder... You can try and reconstruct it, but you will not be able to "repeat" it. Yet, it's perfectly possible to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that it happened, how it happened and who the murderer is. All purely by circumstantial evidence left behind by the event, building a hypothesis / model to explain said evidence and then test that model against even more data.

I found this, however the link expired a long time ago, else I bet if you check out the source code, it is using some much simplified model istead of a real life mode, because the real life model is too complex to be modeled at this point.
Seq-Gen: an application for the Monte Carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees

Try genetic algorithms, instead.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How about from single cell organism to multi cell organism?

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...single-to-multi-cell-clusters-discovered.html

Yeast.

 

[Uber Genius]

The question is simple. Why do Christians have faith?

Going a different route then the other responders. I have faith in God because it best explains features of the external world:
1 - The origin of the universe from nothing

2 - The fine-tuning of the physical constants that govern our universe for the creation and sustainability of life

3 - The ground of objective moral values and duties

4 - the miraculous nature of Jesus life, and resurrection

5 - the fact that I have libertarian free will to respond to your post

6 - the ground for my rationality, that my thinking is pointed at truth about the external world rather that whatever would lead to survival of the fittest ( on Darwinian evolution it is very unlikely I would be rational

7 - the origin of my self-awareness, intentionality, in other word a soul.

8 - the fact that I was completely healed of third-degree burns as a 10-year old after being prayed for (confirmed by doctors the following day)

9 - the hundreds of times God has given me specific words of encouragement for people where there is no possible way I could have humanly knew the things I shared

10 - the three times in my life where I experienced an other-worldly presence that was overwhelmingly loving and accepting and physically pinned me to the ground where I was unable to move, or speak.

That is one one hundredth the evidence I examine when concluding that the best explanation is the fact that there is a personal, loving God, and I'm fortunate to know him.

 

[dcalling]

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...single-to-multi-cell-clusters-discovered.html

Yeast.

If you read that article, there is no mention of any new DNA in the cluster, nothing new is created in the process. It seems that those yeast might have the tendency to cluster when pressed. After all, all other yeast clusters...

 

[dcalling]

one inch + one inch + one inch + one inch + ..... + one inch = many, many miles.

In case you haven't noticed yet... DNA is inheritable and by extension cumulative.
Every generation adds "an inch". After many generations, that build up of inches, becomes miles. Inevitably.

It's not hard to comprehend.

Let's discuss this. Real science must be testable, verifiable and repeatable, else it is only hypothesis. I hope you agree with me on that, or else you are just another man of faith

the small inch to mile hypothesis might work, unless there are something insurmountable is on the way. It is the dream of many engineers to make things the way you described, i.e. you can change something tiny every day and eventually it will be a big change, and yes low level works (move a dirty mount,even a mountain) can be done that way, but many are impossible, i.e. solve the traveling sales man with O(n) time.

Some guy also claimed that he build a machine, and he will teach the machine tiny blocks of knowledge each day, and eventually it will be like a human... Do you believe him?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you read that article, there is no mention of any new DNA in the cluster, nothing new is created in the process. It seems that those yeast might have the tendency to cluster when pressed. After all, all other yeast clusters...

You asked about single celled becoming multi-celled.
That's exactly what the yeast did in that paper.

You asked for such an example and I gave it to you.
If you wish to reject it, that's fine. But nonetheless that the paper gives you exactly what you asked for.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's discuss this. Real science must be testable, verifiable and repeatable, else it is only hypothesis.

First of all, "repeatable" is not part of it. Some things by nature are not repeatable.
Like a volcano eruption, to give just one example.

Secondly, that DNA:
- mutates in every newborn
and
- is passed on in its mutated form to off spring

Is pretty testable and verifiable.

I hope you agree with me on that, or else you are just another man of faith

I always chuckle when a theist 'accuses' me of having 'faith', as if that is a bad thing. I agree it's a bad thing (and disagree on me having it), but you gotta love the irony...

the small inch to mile hypothesis might work, unless there are something insurmountable is on the way.

Many cdesign proponentsists say this, but none have ever demonstrated such a magical "insurmountable" wall. There is no reason to think such a limit exists.

DNA mutates, individuals reproduce and passes on the changes. And it goes on and on and on like that.

This is very testable, as it makes a whole load of predictions concerning the make up of all genomes in existance. The biggest one of all being nested hierarchies. Which is exactly what we find, in both genetics as well as anatomy.

It is the dream of many engineers to make things the way you described, i.e. you can change something tiny every day and eventually it will be a big change,

Well, we kind of allready have that. It's called genetic algorithms.
But actually, that's not at all the "dream" of many engineers, because this only leads to sub-optimal designs. Reason being that you can't go back to the drawin boards to correct sub-optimal changes of the past.

And that's how we ended up with an eye with a blind spot, for example. There are MANY such examples.

Some guy also claimed that he build a machine, and he will teach the machine tiny blocks of knowledge each day, and eventually it will be like a human... Do you believe him?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand.

 

[dcalling]

You asked about single celled becoming multi-celled.
That's exactly what the yeast did in that paper.

You asked for such an example and I gave it to you.
If you wish to reject it, that's fine. But nonetheless that the paper gives you exactly what you asked for.

Not when the property is there all alone. If the cell have a tendency to tick, it does not make it a multi-celled organism (or if it is already a multi-celled organism, and displays such, it is not a mutation)

 

[dcalling]

First of all, "repeatable" is not part of it. Some things by nature are not repeatable.
Like a volcano eruption, to give just one example.

You can't make an experiment that can't be repeated and claim you found something. If a scientist did an experiment and claimed to found something, but the experiment can't be repeated, it is usually failed experiment or fraud.

Secondly, that DNA:
- mutates in every newborn
and
- is passed on in its mutated form to off spring

Is pretty testable and verifiable.

We observe mutations, but we never observed anything that mutated to something very different. i.e. we have not found the dna mutation sequence from some primate to humans, or primate to aps, what's the conditions and energy levels required to make it happen.

I always chuckle when a theist 'accuses' me of having 'faith', as if that is a bad thing. I agree it's a bad thing (and disagree on me having it), but you gotta love the irony...

Because it is nature for theist to have faith, because it is almost impossible to prove the existence of God. Most atheist though think they got there via science

Many cdesign proponentsists say this, but none have ever demonstrated such a magical "insurmountable" wall. There is no reason to think such a limit exists.

DNA mutates, individuals reproduce and passes on the changes. And it goes on and on and on like that.

This is very testable, as it makes a whole load of predictions concerning the make up of all genomes in existance. The biggest one of all being nested hierarchies. Which is exactly what we find, in both genetics as well as anatomy.

Nope, it is just observations, you can't prove that it is evolved. The way to evolve a chicken-egg process is just as complex as starting point of life. It take many man hours to get a somewhat complex software changed.

Well, we kind of allready have that. It's called genetic algorithms.
But actually, that's not at all the "dream" of many engineers, because this only leads to sub-optimal designs. Reason being that you can't go back to the drawin boards to correct sub-optimal changes of the past.

You already point out the short comings of genetic algorithms, which is better than some so claimed software engineers

However we don't have it yet. No one has a model of steady learning, and genetic algorithms is not it. You can have a model to learn one kind of thing all the time (images/word usages etc), but none can be generic enough to apply to all, else google will have fired most of their engineers already, and there won't be hope in human race

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can't make an experiment that can't be repeated and claim you found something. If a scientist did an experiment and claimed to found something, but the experiment can't be repeated, it is usually failed experiment or fraud.

Now, you're talking about an experiment. Which is not what the point was about. The point was about "macro" evolution.
The actual complete process as it unfolded in nature over eons.
That is not something that is repeatable.
I wasn't talking about experiments, and considering the context of the post, neither were you. So don't come on here and move those goalposts in the hope of scoring points, because it's not going to work.

We observe mutations, but we never observed anything that mutated to something very different.

Because it doesn't work that way. Evolution is gradual. Speciation doesn't happen overnight.

i.e. we have not found the dna mutation sequence from some primate to humans, or primate to aps, what's the conditions and energy levels required to make it happen.

The process of getting from the common ancestor with chimps to homo sapiens took 8 million years. That's 8 million years of mutation accumulation in every new generation every some 16-odd years.

This is not something that is accomplished in 5 or 6 mutations.
It is near impossible to determine the actual sequence of every single mutation from start to finish. So near impossible that we might as well call it impossible.

But that doesn't stop us from determining that it occured.

Consider a murder that takes place at 16h.
It is equally near impossible to know what the murderer did, wore and thought every second of that day. But that doesn't stop us from determining that the murder took place and identifying the guilty.

Because it is nature for theist to have faith, because it is almost impossible to prove the existence of God.

You can ommit the word "almost" in that sentence, btw...

Most atheist though think they got there via science

I don't know what that means. Nore what the point of the statement is.

Nope, it is just observations, you can't prove that it is evolved.

We can, just like we can prove that your dad is your biologcal dad in exactly the same way, using the same knowledge.

In case you haven't noticed yet, we can actually determine kinship and common ancestry between individuals by comparing their DNA....

Or are you going to deny that we can do this?

The way to evolve a chicken-egg process

What do you mean by a "chicken-egg" process?

It take many man hours to get a somewhat complex software changed.

Biological life, isn't software. It's essentially bio-chemistry.

You already point out the short comings of genetic algorithms, which is better than some so claimed software engineers

Not a single software engineer worth his salt will say otherwise.
Just like in biological evolution, genetic algoritms can only move forward with what currently exists. There is no plan or intent or blueprint. There is just a fitness test, extant "life" and mutations occuring during breeding.

It's a given that such a process can't "go back" a few generations to do things differently. It's an intrinsic part of it.

Which is why in practice, genetic algoritms are never used to design something from scratch, unless it is for fun. In practical applications, genetic algoritms are rather used to optimize designs drawn up by actual engineers. Because often times, these algortims come up with optimalisations that an engineer would never think off. It's the ultimate "out-of-the-box" thinking kind of thing.

GA's are really good at optimizing existing complex designs.

And that's what biological evolution does every generation: optimize extant life (for the habitat they find themselves in).

However we don't have it yet. No one has a model of steady learning, and genetic algorithms is not it.

GA's are used every day in a LOT of industries for a very wide variety of things.
Because they work.

You can have a model to learn one kind of thing all the time (images/word usages etc), but none can be generic enough to apply to all, else google will have fired most of their engineers already, and there won't be hope in human race

The more you talk about GA's, the more I'm convinced that you don't understand what they are all about.

 

[dcalling]

Now, you're talking about an experiment. Which is not what the point was about. The point was about "macro" evolution.
The actual complete process as it unfolded in nature over eons.
That is not something that is repeatable.
I wasn't talking about experiments, and considering the context of the post, neither were you. So don't come on here and move those goalposts in the hope of scoring points, because it's not going to work.

All science theories has to be proven in experiment, something that can't be proven in experiments can only remain a hypothesis. You just admited that TOE is a hypothesis

Because it doesn't work that way. Evolution is gradual. Speciation doesn't happen overnight.

that is the original hypothesis, except with the discover of the period of rapid evolution and more modern findings, the original TOE sort of changed. To my surprise some even start to think it is not all random (discovered that during my discussion with another guy, I keep pressing on that with optimal survival condition, i.e. in a lab, the germs should show all sort of mutations because even the not so suitable ones can survive, but nope..)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All science theories has to be proven in experiment, something that can't be proven in experiments can only remain a hypothesis.

Now, you're just showing that you have no clue on how science works...
Theories are never considered "proven". Theories can only be supported.

Succesfull experiments, evidence in general, supports theories. They don't prove them.

You just admited that TOE is a hypothesis

I did not. You thinking this, is just another result of your ignorance on how science operates.

that is the original hypothesis

No. That's observation.
Every individual ever born was of the same species as its direct parents. Mutations accumulate over generations. That's a gradual process.

, except with the discover of the period of rapid evolution and more modern findings

"rapid" in geological timescales. I guess you are talking about the cambrian explosion. This did not happen overnight. This period lasted some 80 million years.

Yes, there are circumstances when evolution accelerates (or slows down). In both cases, it stays a gradual process.

The periods of "faster" evolution, go hand in hand with "rapid" changes in the environment. It goes hand in hand with fast changing selection pressures.

If everything stays the same, and population have reached their local optimum, nothing much will change, until selection pressures change.

The speed of evolution is directly related with the pace of a changing environment.

And again, I can't stress this enough, "fast" here does NOT mean "overnight".
Nore does it mean "not gradual". It's always gradual. By necessity. Inevitably.

, the original TOE sort of changed

Off course it changed... The theory today is not the same theory as initially proposed by Darwin. It's called learning and progress. As we find out more, theories either get discarded or more detailed / refined. This is the case in ALL scientific theories, not just in biology.

Darwin was bang on the money with the core idea of natural selection. However, Darwin didn't know about DNA. So he didn't know by which mechanism change was introduced. Darwin got some things wrong as well. Just like Newton.

It's been 2 centuries since Darwin. Millions of biologists continued to research this subject. Off course the theory has changed since then. Why would you expect otherwise???

To my surprise some even start to think it is not all random (discovered that during my discussion with another guy, I keep pressing on that with optimal survival condition, i.e. in a lab, the germs should show all sort of mutations because even the not so suitable ones can survive, but nope..)

Evolution has NEVER been regarded as a random process - not even in Darwin's time. The only people who have claimed it to be random, are dishonest creationists.

Natural selection is the opposite of random.

 

[dcalling]

Now, you're just showing that you have no clue on how science works...
Theories are never considered "proven". Theories can only be supported.

That is true, however a hypothesis that can't be supported by experiments will remain hypothesis, else what's the different between science and faith?

Succesfull experiments, evidence in general, supports theories. They don't prove them.

That is true, but again, if you can't experiment something, it remains a hypothesis.

I did not. You thinking this, is just another result of your ignorance on how science operates.

Yes you did, see above.

"rapid" in geological timescales. I guess you are talking about the cambrian explosion. This did not happen overnight. This period lasted some 80 million years.

Cambrian itself is only 20 to 25 mil years. Don't you find it strange, that life starts so fast, not only that, the more complex life is, the faster they seems to evolve. Totally different to software, where the development time is almost exp to complexity?

If everything stays the same, and population have reached their local optimum, nothing much will change, until selection pressures change.

Why is that? You seems to imply selection pressure accelerates change! Are you imply the cells know what's good or bad mutation for them to suit the environment?

Evolution has NEVER been regarded as a random process - not even in Darwin's time. The only people who have claimed it to be random, are dishonest creationists.
Natural selection is the opposite of random.

Same as top. I agree natural selection is not random (fit for survival), how about mutation? I am trying to see what your concept is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is true, however a hypothesis that can't be supported by experiments will remain hypothesis, else what's the different between science and faith?

No. A hypothesis that can't be supported by experiments, is going to be discarded.
And if it can't be supported, because the idea is unfalsifiable and thus no experiments simply can be conducted, then it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.

That is true, but again, if you can't experiment something, it remains a hypothesis.

Then it's not a hypothesis. See, there are certain criteria. One of them is that they need to be testable / falsifiable. To use your words, you need to be able to "experiment something". Or it doesn't qualify as a hypothesis.

Yes you did, see above.

I did not.

Cambrian itself is only 20 to 25 mil years.

Over the following 70 to 80 million years, the rate of diversification accelerated by an order of magnitude[note 3] and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today.[

~Wikipedia

Don't you find it strange, that life starts so fast, not only that, the more complex life is, the faster they seems to evolve.

Complexity doesn't really have any role in this.
But no, I don't find it that strange. There's much weirder stuff in the universe, me thinks.

Totally different to software, where the development time is almost exp to complexity?

Life is chemistry, not "software". And your complexity argument is not correct.

Why is that?

Because selection pressures are dictated by the environment.

Mutation off course continues, that's pretty consistent. But a local-optimum means that 'small incremental changes' aren't able to really improve the system all that much. It means the system has reached some type of "balance".

Its appearance or even anatomy might still change a little bit. But mostly it will be in ways that have no real effect on the overall fitness of the system.

We have several examples of both sides of this in extant species. There are creatures that have changed in truelly radical ways, like whales.

Then there are creatures that stayed basically the same for long periods of time, with some relatively minor differences, like crockodiles.

You seems to imply selection pressure accelerates change!

lol, off course they do!!
The environment, which dictates selection pressures, is ever-changing. Species migrate. New enemies show up, or old enemies go away. Volcano's explode and radically change large area's. Ice ages freeze half the planet. Germs mutate and pose new threats.

Every time that such a thing happens, for a lot of creatures it literally is "adapt or die".

When the environment changes, potential local-optimums are also out the window.

Are you imply the cells know what's good or bad mutation for them to suit the environment?

No. Nobody or no thing needs to "know" anything.
Instead, individuals need to survive in the environment they find themselves in, find a mate and breed. Those that are biologically "best" equipped for that task, will be most succesfull at it. They'll be the ones spreading their genes, while the others won't.

Every individual will just have to manage with the set of biological equipment (the mutated DNA) that nature has given it. You either survive and breed, or you don't.

It is an inevitable process. There's no escaping it. Creatures live and die. They breed and spread mutated DNA or they don't. The fittest will be most succesfull at it.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

I agree natural selection is not random (fit for survival), how about mutation? I am trying to see what your concept is.

Mutation is random, yes. But mutation is not evolution. It's just one aspect thereof.
Evolution, the process, is not random. It has random ingredients. It also has non-random ingredients, like natural selection. And because of that, evolution as a process, is not a random process.


Consider this as an analogy....

You have a bag of euro coins. All types of coins are in it. 1c, 2, 5c, 10c, 20c, 50c, 1€ and 2€. They all have different sizes.
You create a device where the coins can slide through, with holes in the bottom in the various sizes of the coins. So 1c will fall through the 1c hole, 2c through the 2c hole, etc. Beneath each hole, you place a cup.

Now poor the bag into device. The input is random. There's no telling which coin will come out of the bag next. Yet in the cups, everything is nicely sorted. Is that a random process?

Off course it isn't. Filters that are defined by certain criteria, never are.

Natural selection is such a filter. Its criteria are dictated by the environment.