[__ Science __ ] Evolution and Harmless Mutations

[chessman]

You, for example, are still denying what they said,

I never, not one time, denied what THEY said. On the otherhand here’s a quote from their conclusion and then a quote from Barbarian:

“The mutation rate has been determined experimentally.”​

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1209226/pdf/491.pdf

Their finding wasn't about rates of mutation.

 

[Barbarian]

Could be, if that was the most efficient way to get the job done. I don't know enough about creating universes to say whether pre-loading or active intervention is the best way to go. Telling the occasional photon to interact with an allele, undetectable by man, would be a trivial task for God.

For an omnipotent Creator, those two may very well be the same thing:

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologicae

 

[Barbarian]

I never, not one time, denied what THEY said. On the otherhand here’s a quote from their conclusion and then a quote from Barbarian:

(Barbarian looks up the Summary conclusion)
The distribution has been studied experimentally and has been found to conform with the conclusions drawn from the hypothesis that the resistant bacteria arise by mutations of sensitive cells independently of the action of virus.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1209226/pdf/491.pdf

The conclusion is that adaptive mutations arise randomly. The distribution is the data that supports the conclusion. Their finding wasn't about rates of mutation, it was whether or not adaptive mutations arise randomly. Turns out, they do.

 

[Truth7t7]

The producer's website claimed that he saw Kubrick in May 1999. Which was two months after Kubric had died. Shoddy research, um?



I notice the guy, even in poor lighting, doesn't look or sound like Kubric. And there's this, carelessly left on the tape:
Furthermore, unedited versions of the interview contain hints that the “Stanley Kubrick” in the video is an actor. In a since-deleted clip, the interviewer called his subject “Tom” and instructed him on how to tell the next part of his story:

“You don’t say he said anything. You say what he says. Tom, I’m giving you directions. You don’t have to imitate him (Richard Nixon). You’re not reporting it. You’re repeating it … We’re doing exposition here. That’s how we’re going to sneak it in.”
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-stanley-kubrick-faked-moon-landings/



The producer was calling him "Tom." So there is that. Seems to have been an actor, but not Kubric, who as you learned, died two months earlier.



Unless Kubric's nickname was "Tom", it appears not to be so.

And of course, you still have to explain how Kubrick got that mirror array built on the moon. How do you think he did that?

The person interviewed was Stanley Kubrick, and the video interview was dated 1999 no month given.

To claim that man interviewed was an actor? Big Smiles!

This figure claims he informed Barry Abrams, Woody Allen, And Stephen Speilberg?

Where is a record of any denials from them?

 

[Barbarian]

The person interviewed was Stanley Kubrick, and the video interview was dated 1999 no month given.

As you saw, the website claimed May 1999. However Kubric died two months earlier than the purported interview.

To claim that man interviewed was an actor?

As you know, the producer referred to the man presented as Kubric by the name "Tom." Not only did the interview happen two months after Kubric died, he apparently changed his name to "Tom" after his death. Either that, or the guy doesn't look or sound like Kubric because he's an actor playing Kubric.

This figure claims he informed Barry Abrams, Woody Allen, And Stephen Speilberg?

Where is a record of any confirmation from any of them? And you still haven't explained how Kubric got that mirror array assembled on the moon? How did he do that? We know it's there, because astronomers use it regularly.

The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from the Moon's surface using a laser with a millisecond pulse length.[4] Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory using a Q-switched ruby laser.[5] Greater accuracy was achieved following the installation of a retroreflector array on 21 July 1969, by the crew of Apollo 11, and two more retroreflector arrays left by the Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 missions have also contributed to the experiment. Successful lunar laser range measurements to the retroreflectors were first reported by the 3.1 m telescope at Lick Observatory, Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories Lunar Ranging Observatory in Arizona, the Pic du Midi Observatory in France, the Tokyo Astronomical Observatory, and McDonald Observatory in Texas.

The unmanned Soviet Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 rovers carried smaller arrays. Reflected signals were initially received from Lunokhod 1, but no return signals were detected after 1971 until a team from University of California rediscovered the array in April 2010 using images from NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.[6] Lunokhod 2's array continues to return signals to Earth.[7] The Lunokhod arrays suffer from decreased performance in direct sunlight—a factor considered in reflector placement during the Apollo missions.[8]

The Apollo 15 array is three times the size of the arrays left by the two earlier Apollo missions. Its size made it the target of three-quarters of the sample measurements taken in the first 25 years of the experiment. Improvements in technology since then have resulted in greater use of the smaller arrays, by sites such as the Côte d'Azur Observatory in Grasse, France; and the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation (APOLLO) at the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

 

[Razeontherock]

They classified by function, rather than by biology. This is why you can't try to use Biblical classifications as biological entities.

Which is why you can't go speaking about species as it relates to Scripture.

 

[Razeontherock]

Sorry, that's wrong. There's no reason at all for Him to classify bats as birds or classify whales as fish for dietary reasons.

Leviticus 11 is not a science textbook, so why do you have the need to pretend it's "classifying?"

 

[chessman]

(Barbarian looks up the Summary conclusion)

And therefore Barbarian has no excuse for misrepresenting their summary’s conclusion.
Here’s just one example of your obvious misrepresentation

Here’s the concluding paragraph of THEIR summary:

“The mutation rate has been determined experimentally.”​

Versus what Barbarian says their finding was about:

Their finding wasn't about rates of mutation

Here’s what Barbarian thinks is unreasonable for Him (Yahweh) to do:

There's no reason at all for Him to classify bats as birds or classify whales as fish for dietary reasons.

Here’s what Yahweh says is reasonable for the Israelites to do:

“‘These you may eat from all that are in the water: any in the water that has a fin and scales, whether in the seas or in the streams—such you may eat. ... ​

Any that does not have a fin and scales in the water—it is a detestable thing to you.​

“‘And these you must detest from the birds; they must not be eaten—they are detestable: the eagle and the vulture ...​

​

Leviticus 11:9,12 - 13 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Leviticus 11:9,12&version=LEB

 

[Barbarian]

And therefore Barbarian has no excuse for misrepresenting their summary’s conclusion.
Here’s just one example of your obvious misrepresentation

Here’s the concluding paragraph of THEIR summary:

The distribution has been studied experimentally and has been found to conform with the conclusions drawn from the hypothesis that the resistant bacteria arise by mutations of sensitive cells independently of the action of virus.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1209226/pdf/491.pdf

As you see, the conclusion is that adaptive mutations arise randomly. As shown to you earlier, you confused the data with the conclusion

Here’s what Barbarian thinks is unreasonable for Him (Yahweh) to do:

Barbarian observes:
There's no reason at all for Him to classify bats as birds or classify whales as fish for dietary reasons. Since the dietary laws list different sorts of animals, if God was classifying them by biological standards He could just have listed the bats and birds separately.

What God was doing, was speaking to the Israelites in the way they would understand. As you learned, the Israelites classified animals functionally, not biologically. And that's no more "wrong" than our way. It's just not correct if you classify animals biologically.[/QUOTE]

 

[Barbarian]

Leviticus 11 is not a science textbook, so why do you have the need to pretend it's "classifying?"

You can classify things by other criteria than scientific ones. In the case of the Israelites, they did it by function. Go wasn't inventing a new classification, He was merely using the system the Israelites used, so they would understand.

 

[Barbarian]

Which is why you can't go speaking about species as it relates to Scripture.

Yep. Hence the confusion about whales and fish, and birds and bats, if you try. That's not what scripture is for.

 

[john darling]

If a beneficial mutation occurs in a dog, that dog must separate from the other dogs to form its own pack to maintain that mutation in a separate gene pool.

Sexual reproduction should never have been a beneficial mutation to begin with. How is it beneficial that you now require a pair of the same organism to continue reproducing?

And, even if that was the way mutations developed, sexual reproduction involves a lot of plumbing. What are the chances that two animals of the same species would be born with all the necessary plumbing, but one male and the other female, that the mutations would happen in the same geographical location and within the same life span of the animal?

If any part of that equation is missing, the animals will die without producing any offspring and the mutations will be lost.

I've been told that huge mutations, where lots of organs appear at once, don't happen; rather the mutations are incremental, but how does that work with something like sexual reproduction where many parts are needed for the whole to work?

Also, besides just the physical organs, the instinct to be attracted to the opposite sex, to use the organs, and then to care for the offspring would need to be mutated, too.

 

[Barbarian]

I guess the sad part is that evolution can't be observed. At least not evolution that refers to a change in kinds. Some scientists fail to understand the difference between evolution and adaptation.

Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Adaptation is a change that makes an organism better fitted its environment. So, for example, if a mutation occurred that let Tibetans be healthy at high altitudes, that would be an adaptation, and it would likely spread through the population. And that would be evolution, which is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. On the other hand, if you were to go to Tibet, your body would produce more red blood cells to make up for the lower oxygen level. That's an adaptation, too. But that one is not evolution, because it isn't a change in allele frequency in a population. So, some adaptations are the result of evolution, and some are not.

I suppose as people, we fear the unknown and must strive to understand it in order to explain it. No, some can't enjoy the feeling of awe to know that something looks amazing just because that is the way God designed it.

It's better when you know how it works, and how it came to be. It's more awesome when you realize that He created (not designed; God has no need of figuring out things) a universe in which such things come to be, as He intended.

 

[Barbarian]

Sexual reproduction should never have been a beneficial mutation to begin with.

The simplest form of sex is optional, and not required. It merely allows transfer of genetic material between bacteria.

How is it beneficial that you now require a pair of the same organism to continue reproducing?

There are a number of advantages, the biggest of which is it allows a population to evolve more quickly to adapt to changing conditions. A favorable mutation can spread more quickly by sexual reproduction. It also permits greater genetic diversity, which increases the likelihood of survival of at least some members of the population. Populations without much genetic diversity tend to go extinct.

The drawback is, as you suggested, that only half of one's genes get passed on in each offspring. But for most animals, that's much less of a drawback than the decrease in genetic diversity and sluggish response to new environments.

And, even if that was the way mutations developed, sexual reproduction involves a lot of plumbing.

In our case. But more primitive organisms, don't have so much. Bacteria just have a pillus. Snails, which are usually hermaphrodites, just pierce the other snail with a "dart" that inserts the gametes. So it gradually got more complex.

Which is why there's no issue with two mammals suddenly evolving all the plumbing in one shot. It didn't happen that way.

I've been told that huge mutations, where lots of organs appear at once, don't happen; rather the mutations are incremental, but how does that work with something like sexual reproduction where many parts are needed for the whole to work?

A little at a time. Originally, sex wasn't even involved with reproduction. That came later.

 

[Barbarian]

As is the case for five failed hypotheses I listed.

They seem to have been creationist hypotheses.

Yea, the theroy’s very definition of species keeps changing. Which is why I put it in scare quotes.

That's important to understand. And to give you credit, most creationists won't admit that. As Darwin said, if evolution were not true, we would see nice, neatly definable species. But we see all sorts of in-between cases, that make it impossible to produce a definition of "species" that applies in all instances. This is a constant embarrassment for creationism, which cannot explain these cases. But as you know, it's perfectly understandable in terms of evolutions.

Natural selection isn’t the issue with hypothesis 1 . Random (or not) mutations is the failed hypothesis.

No, that's wrong. As you know, Luria and Delbruck got their Nobels for demonstrating that. The paper you cited says that some bacteria respond to stress by increasing mutation rates. What it doesn't say is that the resulting mutions are not random. They are. Here's what you didn't understand in your citation:

Because most mutations are detrimental, organisms have evolved mechanisms to keep their mutation rates as low as possible [1]. However, during adverse conditions, increasing genetic variation within a population could allow some members to achieve a phenotype that allows them to survive and proliferate. A transient increase in mutation rate would be particularly advantageous because then survivors would not continue to be burdened with a high mutation rate.

Notice, this increases the rate of mutations, but they are still random. In a stressful environment, an increased mutation rate is desirable, because it increases the likelihood that a favorable mutation will appear.

Sometimes knowing about genetics is helpful if you want to discuss genetics.

​

And notice the work proves the cells themselves (not just the next generation) responded non-randomly to the pressures. They adapted.

By increasing the number of mutations, not by making them non-random. Barry Hall showed how this happened in a culture of bacteria, tracking mutations as they happened. They were random, but of course natural selection means the process of adaptation is not random.

You're confusing mutations with natural selection.

nope.

Yep. As you now see, mutations are random. Natural selection is not. Biology 101.

The code is “universal”

Actually, it's not. There are differences in different organisms. Because it's so important in living things, the DNA coding is remarkably constant. But not perfectly so. And as you would expect, these sort out according to evolutionary phylogenies:

Proc Jpn Acad Ser B Phys Biol Sci. 2008;84(2):58-74.
Evolving genetic code.
Ohama T1, Inagaki Y, Bessho Y, Osawa S.

Abstract
In 1985, we reported that a bacterium, Mycoplasma capricolum, used a deviant genetic code, namely UGA, a "universal" stop codon, was read as tryptophan. This finding, together with the deviant nuclear genetic codes in not a few organisms and a number of mitochondria, shows that the genetic code is not universal, and is in a state of evolution. To account for the changes in codon meanings, we proposed the codon capture theory stating that all the code changes are non-disruptive without accompanied changes of amino acid sequences of proteins. Supporting evidence for the theory is presented in this review. A possible evolutionary process from the ancient to the present-day genetic code is also discussed.

So that’s your hypothesis? Only one of many different life codes survived?

As you just learn, the code does evolve, albeit very slowly. Whether there's only one workable genetic code, or this was the only one that survived, is unknown.

Have you any observational results of life which is different than the universal DNA code of life?

RNA viruses.

Hypothesis 4:

The key was to identify “a long series of gradations in complexity, each good for its possessor” which could lead to “any conceivable degree of perfection.” (Darwin, 165)​

It is commonly believed that complex organisms arose from simple ones. Yet analyses of genomes and of their transcribed genes in various organisms reveal that, as far as protein-coding genes are concerned, the repertoire of a sea anemone—a rather simple, evolutionarily basal animal—is almost as complex as that of a human. (Technau)​

​

​

Some organisms that are quite simple, even have more code than we do. I don't see a point. Complexity of genome is not complexity of phenotype. And often evolution leads to simpler structures, not more complex. Mammalian lower jaws, ribs, and shoulders are simpler than those of reptiles, for example.​

​

(Barbarian notes that simpler trilobite eyes are much less functional than mammalian eyes)​

Complex doesn’t mean they have an iris (or not).

It merely means they are less effective at controlling light and focusing. They lack focusing, which came much later. Here's a diagram of a trilobite eye:

And a much more complex mammalian eye:

Notice the mammalian eye includes the ability to focus (flexible lens, moved by a ring of fine muscles to control radius of the lens surface) an adjustible iris to control the amount of light entering the eye, and a moveable eyball, controlled by seven muscles that allow you to move your gaze without moving your head.

Vertebrate eyes, like ours, produce an image. Compound eyes, like those of trilobites don't form an image, but a sort of mosaic that is poor on detail, but good for detecting motion. This makes stationary objects less noticable to arthropods. Bees, for example, tend to miss flowers that are stationary, and find flowers that are moving in the wind. Because of the rounded surface of the arthropod eye, the peripheral omnitidia have low resolution.

So you see, the much more complex vertebrate eye is critical to organisms needed to see things very close and very far, with good resolution. The simpler trilobite eye does quite well for its purpose, but lacks many functions in more complex eyes.

Arthropods that are apt to be active in dim light (e.g., crayfish, praying mantis) concentrate the screening pigments of their ommatidia into the lower ends of the pigment cells. This shift enables light entering a single ommatidium at an angle to pass into adjacent ommatidia and stimulate them also. With many ommatidia responding to a single area in the visual field, the image becomes coarser. The praying mantis probably can do little more than distinguish light and dark in the evening.

15.9.5: Vision in Arthropods

The arthropod (e.g., insects, crustaceans) eye is built quite differently from the vertebrate eye (and mollusk eye). Arthropod eyes are called compound eyes because they are made up of repeating …

bio.libretexts.org

Plus, the point of the research was about the protein coding complexity needed to form eyes in such an early creature, not the eye similarity themselves.

Show us that the proteins in trilobites are more complex than in mammals. What do you have?

The same complexity in the code that formed their eyes forms our.

No. Insect eyes arise from ectoderm, while vertebrate eyes are derived from brain tissue, mesoderm, and endoderm.

Clusters of homeotic genes sculpt the morphology of animal body plans and body parts. Different body patterns may evolve through changes in homeotic gene number, regulation or function. Recent evidence suggests that homeotic gene clusters were duplicated early in vertebrate evolution, but the generation of arthropod and tetrapod diversity has largely involved regulatory changes in the expression of conserved arrays of homeotic genes and the evolution of interactions between homeotic proteins and the genes they regulate.

Homeotic genes and the evolution of arthropods and chordates | Request PDF

Request PDF | Homeotic genes and the evolution of arthropods and chordates | Clusters of homeotic genes sculpt the morphology of animal body plans and body parts. Different body patterns may evolve through changes in... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

We need irises, they don’t.

Because light variation wasn't as important to organisms not forming images with their eyes.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm not sure what you mean by needing separate gene pools. That may be somewhat true of recessive gene alleles, but should not matter for dominant alleles. And even with recessives, you don't need separate populations, just time and enough chance matings.

Hi KevinK

Can we see a better pix of you?
Curious minds want to know...

 

[Vince9700]

Why do Christians need to involve themselves in evolutionary science? If evolution was debunked tomorrow that would still not provide any further proof of a god. Also, if Christians could demonstrate that the god of the bible existed that would refute evolution.

 

[GodsGrace]

They seem to have been creationist hypotheses.



That's important to understand. And to give you credit, most creationists won't admit that. As Darwin said, if evolution were not true, we would see nice, neatly definable species. But we see all sorts of in-between cases, that make it impossible to produce a definition of "species" that applies in all instances. This is a constant embarrassment for creationism, which cannot explain these cases. But as you know, it's perfectly understandable in terms of evolutions.



No, that's wrong. As you know, Luria and Delbruck got their Nobels for demonstrating that. The paper you cited says that some bacteria respond to stress by increasing mutation rates. What it doesn't say is that the resulting mutions are not random. They are. Here's what you didn't understand in your citation:

Because most mutations are detrimental, organisms have evolved mechanisms to keep their mutation rates as low as possible [1]. However, during adverse conditions, increasing genetic variation within a population could allow some members to achieve a phenotype that allows them to survive and proliferate. A transient increase in mutation rate would be particularly advantageous because then survivors would not continue to be burdened with a high mutation rate.

Notice, this increases the rate of mutations, but they are still random. In a stressful environment, an increased mutation rate is desirable, because it increases the likelihood that a favorable mutation will appear.

Sometimes knowing about genetics is helpful if you want to discuss genetics.

​

By increasing the number of mutations, not by making them non-random. Barry Hall showed how this happened in a culture of bacteria, tracking mutations as they happened. They were random, but of course natural selection means the process of adaptation is not random.

You're confusing mutations with natural selection.



Yep. As you now see, mutations are random. Natural selection is not. Biology 101.



Actually, it's not. There are differences in different organisms. Because it's so important in living things, the DNA coding is remarkably constant. But not perfectly so. And as you would expect, these sort out according to evolutionary phylogenies:

Proc Jpn Acad Ser B Phys Biol Sci. 2008;84(2):58-74.
Evolving genetic code.
Ohama T1, Inagaki Y, Bessho Y, Osawa S.

Abstract
In 1985, we reported that a bacterium, Mycoplasma capricolum, used a deviant genetic code, namely UGA, a "universal" stop codon, was read as tryptophan. This finding, together with the deviant nuclear genetic codes in not a few organisms and a number of mitochondria, shows that the genetic code is not universal, and is in a state of evolution. To account for the changes in codon meanings, we proposed the codon capture theory stating that all the code changes are non-disruptive without accompanied changes of amino acid sequences of proteins. Supporting evidence for the theory is presented in this review. A possible evolutionary process from the ancient to the present-day genetic code is also discussed.



As you just learn, the code does evolve, albeit very slowly. Whether there's only one workable genetic code, or this was the only one that survived, is unknown.



RNA viruses.

​

​

Some organisms that are quite simple, even have more code than we do. I don't see a point. Complexity of genome is not complexity of phenotype. And often evolution leads to simpler structures, not more complex. Mammalian lower jaws, ribs, and shoulders are simpler than those of reptiles, for example.​

​

(Barbarian notes that simpler trilobite eyes are much less functional than mammalian eyes)​

It merely means they are less effective at controlling light and focusing. They lack focusing, which came much later. Here's a diagram of a trilobite eye:

And a much more complex mammalian eye:

Notice the mammalian eye includes the ability to focus (flexible lens, moved by a ring of fine muscles to control radius of the lens surface) an adjustible iris to control the amount of light entering the eye, and a moveable eyball, controlled by seven muscles that allow you to move your gaze without moving your head.

Vertebrate eyes, like ours, produce an image. Compound eyes, like those of trilobites don't form an image, but a sort of mosaic that is poor on detail, but good for detecting motion. This makes stationary objects less noticable to arthropods. Bees, for example, tend to miss flowers that are stationary, and find flowers that are moving in the wind. Because of the rounded surface of the arthropod eye, the peripheral omnitidia have low resolution.

So you see, the much more complex vertebrate eye is critical to organisms needed to see things very close and very far, with good resolution. The simpler trilobite eye does quite well for its purpose, but lacks many functions in more complex eyes.

Arthropods that are apt to be active in dim light (e.g., crayfish, praying mantis) concentrate the screening pigments of their ommatidia into the lower ends of the pigment cells. This shift enables light entering a single ommatidium at an angle to pass into adjacent ommatidia and stimulate them also. With many ommatidia responding to a single area in the visual field, the image becomes coarser. The praying mantis probably can do little more than distinguish light and dark in the evening.

15.9.5: Vision in Arthropods

The arthropod (e.g., insects, crustaceans) eye is built quite differently from the vertebrate eye (and mollusk eye). Arthropod eyes are called compound eyes because they are made up of repeating …

bio.libretexts.org

Show us that the proteins in trilobites are more complex than in mammals. What do you have?



No. Insect eyes arise from ectoderm, while vertebrate eyes are derived from brain tissue, mesoderm, and endoderm.

Clusters of homeotic genes sculpt the morphology of animal body plans and body parts. Different body patterns may evolve through changes in homeotic gene number, regulation or function. Recent evidence suggests that homeotic gene clusters were duplicated early in vertebrate evolution, but the generation of arthropod and tetrapod diversity has largely involved regulatory changes in the expression of conserved arrays of homeotic genes and the evolution of interactions between homeotic proteins and the genes they regulate.

Homeotic genes and the evolution of arthropods and chordates | Request PDF

Request PDF | Homeotic genes and the evolution of arthropods and chordates | Clusters of homeotic genes sculpt the morphology of animal body plans and body parts. Different body patterns may evolve through changes in... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

Because light variation wasn't as important to organisms not forming images with their eyes.

Hi Barb...
Are you around?
I have a video I'd like you to view and then tell me what you think of it.... I understand legitimate scientists are beginning to think in this direction....I thought only Keanu Reeves knew about this stuff...

Give it a chance and let me know if you've heard about this information stuff....I've been thinking this for years.

 

[GodsGrace]

Why do Christians need to involve themselves in evolutionary science? If evolution was debunked tomorrow that would still not provide any further proof of a god. Also, if Christians could demonstrate that the god of the bible existed that would refute evolution.

We cannot prove scientifically that God exists because he can't be recreated, duplicated or whatever scientists call it.

As far as I can tell...and I haven't read this thread at all...it seems to be a war between evolutionists and creationists.

I understand creationists think the world is only 6,000 years old.
I live in the mountains and I can tell you that can't be right.

OTOH, evolutionists believe all we see came from a one celled organism.

And what sparked that life?
Who can know? They sure don't.
But we find out more and more -- and the more we find out,,,the more unplausible evolution seems...

Darwin said the Cambrian Explosion presented a problem which he hoped future science would be able to explain...they still cannot.

 

[Vince9700]

We cannot prove scientifically that God exists because he can't be recreated, duplicated or whatever scientists call it.

Most non Christians don't need anyone to scientifically prove god exists. I cannot prove that my wive loves me but I have a lot of evidence to believe that she does. Is there any evidence that can sway a belief?

As far as I can tell...and I haven't read this thread at all...it seems to be a war between evolutionists and creationists.

I understand creationists think the world is only 6,000 years old.
I live in the mountains and I can tell you that can't be right.

OTOH, evolutionists believe all we see came from a one celled organism.

And what sparked that life?
Who can know? They sure don't.
But we find out more and more -- and the more we find out,,,the more unplausible evolution seems...

Darwin said the Cambrian Explosion presented a problem which he hoped future science would be able to explain...they still cannot.

I guess I don't understand why Christians care. Most will believe the bible over science on this subject from my experience. So why do so many try to debunk it?