Scientific Proof Of God

[Rum]

Don't be so silly.

[laklak]

silly.jpg (14.44 KiB) Viewed 1650 times

[Seabass]

WOULD YOU EVER INVITE THIS PHOQUER TO DINNER?

the hippie chick is worth more than all his *SCIENCE*

[JimC]

Evolutionary changes happen since they improve the chances of survival of a species.

Not at all. Evolutionary changes are caused by errors during DNA replication. Those errors can be beneficial, neutral or deleterious in regard to the chances of survival of a species. There is no intent to those changes. They are accidental, random changes.

You are confusing changes to the offspring of individuals with changes over evolutionary scale to a gene pool. Evolutionary changes are what occurs after a whole population alters through time. You are totally correct that mutational changes (to offspring) may be "beneficial, neutral or deleterious in regard to the chances of survival of a species", and that there is no intent involved.

...the foundation of which is errors during DNA replication, no?

Not just errors, but the constant re-sorting of the genes that sexual reproduction achieves via meiosis, constantly making new combinations of existing genes available for selection, plus the extra copies of various genes that are then re-purposed. And sure, errors and recombination are the vital precursors of evolutionary change, but the terminology is important. Evolutionary change, neutral or via selection, is what is observed through time as the gene pool of a given population, making use of the build up of variation in each generation, alters.
A good example of the concepts of adaptive structures via natural selection vs features which are in effect random can be seen in stick insects. It is abundantly clear that their excellent camouflage to prevent predation is achieved by natural selection. However, various species differ in the exact position of the "knobs", which are highly likely to be derived from random events in the evolutionary history of a given species - as long as a stick insect looks very much like a twig (which themselves are quite random), the exact morphology is neutral with respect to selection.

[rainbow]

Science cannot explain EVERYTHING

[superuniverse]

Always wondered about the whining part. 

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/17 ... oe-allen17 


But now I understand it. 

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

[Brian Peacock]

[Seabass]

Always wondered about the whining part. 

But now I understand it. 

[Svartalf]

ate too much chilli sauce, did you?

[Rum]

Always wondered about the whining part. 

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/17 ... oe-allen17 


But now I understand it. 

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

I'm not sure what whining or otherwise has to do with scientific proof of god. My cousin is a born again Xian and he whines like fuck.

And Hitchens never whined. He railed and ranted, he was angry and passionate, but he never whined. Dawkins maybe - now and again.

[Svartalf]

Fact is, proof is that that there is no god... a real god would nurture the ONe True Church and smite all heretics, which it doesn't do, or there would not be so much variation in and around chretinity, let alone other religions.

As things go, society tends to nurture obvious heretics (mormons and JW with their rewriting of, or adding to Scripture, Wealth theologians when we all know what Jesus thought of the Rich...) those thrive, which is proof that no Good God is around to control them.

[Scot Dutchy]

Never mind the huge amount of religions. Even in xianity there are over 40,000 never mind the muslim varieties.

[Scot Dutchy]

Of course questions like the multiverse is something they all cant answer.

[Alan B]

And then, of course, there's the 'Million Gods Project'. One god for each universe in the Multiverse...

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... t3263.html

[Scot Dutchy]

Million gods wont get far in an infinite multiverse.