Two Questions for Christians

[Squid]

I’m sorry to jump in here once again but there seems to be some confusion in the area of natural selection.  So, I figured I’d jump in with an informational post.  First I’ll start off with the definition of natural selection from several sources and go from there.

A process of interaction between organisms and their environment that results in a differential rate of reproduction of different phenotypes in the population; can result in changes in the relative frequencies of alleles and genotypes in the population â€" that is, in evolution (Curtis & Barnes, 1994)

Natural selection, resulting from the different abilities of organisms to survive and reproduce in their environment.  Natural selection is the primary process by which populations of organisms become progressively better adapted to their environments (Hartl & Jones, 2002)

Natural selection: the unequal survival and reproduction of organisms due to environmental forces, resulting in the preservation of favorable adaptations.  Usually, natural selection refers specifically to differential survival and reproduction on the basis of genetic differences among individuals. (Audesirk, Audesirk & Byers, 2002)

Now, we have some definitions which are worded differently but all convey the same idea.  Natural selection is a process which takes place over time and it is an interaction of an organism with its environment.  Let’s look at an example from Audesirk et al. (2002):

On the island of Trinidad, guppies live in streams that are also inhabited by several species of larger, predatory fish that frequently dine on guppies.  In upstream portions of these streams, however, the water is too shallow for the predators, and the guppies that manage to find their way to these shallower waters are free of danger from predators.  When scientists compared a group of male guppies that had colonized an upstream area to those that remained downstream, they found that the upstream guppies had become much more brightly colored than the downstream guppies.  The explanation for this difference stems in part from the sexual preferences of female guppies.  The females prefer to mate with the most brightly colored males, so the brightest males have a large advantage when it comes to reproduction.  In predator-free areas, male guppies are free to evolve the bright colors that females prefer.  Bright color, however, also makes guppies more conspicuous to predators, and therefore more likely to be eaten.  Thus, where predators are common, they act as agents of natural selection.  In predator rich areas, the brightest males are less likely to survive, and duller males have the advantage.  The color difference between the upstream and downstream guppy populations is a direct result of natural selection. (pp. 281).

Three categories of selection (based on their effects on a population) are recognized:

1.   Directional selection
2.   Stabilizing selection
3.   Disruptive selection

Audesirk et al. (2002) explains each one:

Directional selection favors individuals who possess values fro a trait at one end of the distribution range of a particular trait and selects against both average individuals and  individuals at the opposite extreme of the distribution.  For example, directional selection may favor small size and select against both average and large individuals in a population.

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is another example of directional selection.

Stabilizing selection favors individuals who possess an average value for a trait (for example, intermediate body size) and selects against individuals with extreme values. [The peacock’s tail and sickle cell heterozygotes are examples]

Disruptive selection favors individuals who possess relatively extreme values for a trait at the expense of individuals with average values.  Disruptive selection favors organisms at both ends of the distribution of the trait (for example, both large and small body sizes)…individual black-bellied seed-crackers (small, seed-eating birds found in the forests of Africa) have beaks that come in one of two sizes.  A bird may have a large beak or small beak, but very few birds have a medium-sized beak.  The species’ food source includes both hard seeds and soft seeds, and each bird seems to specializes in eating only one type of seed.  Cracking hard seeds requires a large stout beak.  However, a smaller, pointier beak is apparently a more efficient tool for processing soft seeds.  Individuals with intermediate-sized beaks have a lower survival rate than do individuals with either large or small beaks.  Disruptive selection in black-bellied seed crackers thus favors birds with both large and small beaks, but not those with medium-sized beaks. (pp. 297-298)

To summarize natural selection in a few words, Morris probably says it well:

…those that did reproduce would pass along their traits to their offspring, while other individuals would not.  In time, this would cause these favorable characteristics to spread throughout a population.  There would thus be a gradual change in the character of the species, as it accumulated changes that caused it to become better adapted to its environment.

Natural selection is not a theory of chance.  It preserves favorable adaptations and weeds out unfavorable traits. (pp. 144)

I hope this helps somewhat….carry on…

References:

Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G. and Byers, B. (2002). Biology: Life on Earth. (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Curtis, H. and Barnes, S. (1994). Invitation to Biology. (5th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

Hartl, D. and Jones, E. (2002). Essential Genetics: A Genomics Perspective. (3rd ed.). Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Morris, R. (2002). The big questions: Probing the promise and limits of science. New York: Henry Holt.

[Dickson]

That could have been a dopamine or serotonin release following the extreme stress of your sorrow. Also, some scientists think the function of crying is to release stress hormones, since tears released while crying (as opposed to tears) contain significantly greater quantities of hormones prolactin, adrenocorticotropic hormone, Leu-enkephalin, and elements potassium and manganese. So the sense of peace and calm might've been the biological relief of your body having successfully purged a lot of stress.

Oh, easily, it could have been a biological response (and that's really interesting info about crying) but again, even though this isn't a popular view around here, I felt embraced by something and felt larger than my own biology.

[Loffler]

That could have been a dopamine or serotonin release following the extreme stress of your sorrow. Also, some scientists think the function of crying is to release stress hormones, since tears released while crying (as opposed to tears) contain significantly greater quantities of hormones prolactin, adrenocorticotropic hormone, Leu-enkephalin, and elements potassium and manganese. So the sense of peace and calm might've been the biological relief of your body having successfully purged a lot of stress.

Oh, easily, it could have been a biological response (and that's really interesting info about crying) but again, even though this isn't a popular view around here, I felt embraced by something and felt larger than my own biology.

It was larger than you, that's for sure. No doubt stress management neurochemistry is much older than you or even humanity.

There are plenty of drugs that make one feel larger than their own biology. Some occur naturally in the body.

[Dickson]

At the risk of kicking a guy when he's down, this is sooooooooo much more pleasant without voter.  

[McQ]

I’m sorry to jump in here once again but there seems to be some confusion in the area of natural selection.  So, I figured I’d jump in with an informational post.  First I’ll start off with the definition of natural selection from several sources and go from there.

I just knew you weren't dead!  

[Squid]

I’m sorry to jump in here once again but there seems to be some confusion in the area of natural selection.  So, I figured I’d jump in with an informational post.  First I’ll start off with the definition of natural selection from several sources and go from there.

I just knew you weren't dead!  

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated...

I've been tied up in changing jobs, moving, classes and feverishly working to pull things together for my thesis.  I have more free time here and there now so I can stop by every so often.

[Dickson]

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated...

One of my favorite Twain quotes.

[Deicideisfunny]

Good Questions
*Watches Christians try to answer*
 

[Squid]

I know this doesn't address all the topics mentioned but I figured I could at least toss some more info into the discussion.  I'd love to tackle the other questions and so forth but the IRB waits for no one - gotta have that proposal submitted soon.

The fossil evidence for evolution would actually support Creation more. We only find conpletely identifiable species, but nothing in between. Evolution requires transitional species. Over a 4.6 billion year history, the amount of transitionary fossils would be staggering. Yet there are none. Everything we find we are able to classify into its own species - even if at first we think it's transitional. Lucy for example, or the archaeopteryx. We keep digging, but finding true and noticeable species. Where is everything in the middle?

You’ve made a common error many people make when thinking about evolutionary change.  Essentially, every form of organism is “transitional”.  The protest of someone who wants the “half lizard, half mammal” creature will always win in their demands because their basic understanding of evolutionary changed is incorrect.  A specimen which is said to be “transitional” is one which links together other specimens to tie a lineage together.  For example, say we have species X which live, oh say, 10 million years ago and we also have species Y which lived about 5 million years ago. We know that X and Y are of the same lineage but are lacking specimens within that 5 million year window to link together their differences in, we’ll say, phenotype particulars such as appendage changes.  A transitional specimen in this case would be a specimen from that time frame within that lineage.  Therefore the creationist cries for some odd chimerical creature are nothing but a showcase for ignorance in evolutionary biology.

Let us take a look at one real world specimen.  A good example is the discovery of T. roseae.  This specimen represents a crucial link between terrestrial tetrapods and fish.  Tiktaalik is a sarcopterygian fish from the Devonian period.  It is important in the fish to tetrapod lineage because, as Daeschler, Shubin and Jenkins (2006) state:

…[Tiktaalik roseae] represents an intermediate between fish with fins and tetrapods with limbs, and provides unique insights into how and in what order important tetrapod characters arose (pp. 757)

It represents a specimen linking earlier specimens such as Panderichthys and Elpistostege  to the later specimens such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega.  Since most people understand concepts better with visual stimulation, here’s some pictures:

Picture 1 shows T. roseae’s position within the lineage:

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k86/solidsquid/nature04639-f72.jpg

Picture 2 shows the actual specimen:

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k86/solidsquid/nature04639-f22.jpg

To go into further detail and offer more examples for the fish to amphibian transtition, we can see one of the earliest tetrapods, Acanthostega which has been connected positively to the later tetrapod Icthyostega (Coates and Clack, 1990) and the structure of its limbs. Other data converge to support the transition, not simply just fossil record specimens. For instance, it has been found that salmon have a particular protein which aid in its movement from sea to fresh water and back. The protein in particular is called glycine-rich RNA binding protein (SGRP) which is 70% homologous to the cold inducible RNA binding proteins (CIRP) found in mammals and amphibians (Pan, Zarate, Choudhurry, Rupprecht, and Bradley, 2004). This particular feature also serves as an example of genetic homology as well â€" which is another point I’ll address further in this post.

Another recent find is that of a new specimen of lizard (Adriosaurus microbrachis) which is about 95 million years old. This specimen shows, “complete loss of the manus and zeugopodium in association with elongation of the axial skeleton” (Palci and Caldwell, 2007). The significance of this find would be that it would fit the laymanistic concept of a “transitional” specimen from “lizard” to “snake”.

A similar find was reported in April of 2006 of an Upper Cretaceous serpent with functional hindlimbs as well as a sacrum supporting its pelvic girdle whereas these have been lacking in other specimens which more closely resemble modern snakes (Apesteguia and Zaher, 2006).

This image is of A. microbrachis and shows the pectoral girdle and cervical vertebrae:

http://i16.tinypic.com/5zqgrw8.jpg

This is a drawing of what the specimen would have most likely resembled, notice the reduction in size of the forelimbs â€" which is also shown in the photograph of the fossil specimen above:

http://i16.tinypic.com/5y7n8fp.jpg

This is a photo take directly from the article on the specimen N. rionegrina:

http://i19.tinypic.com/4ldhqc2.jpg

Another issue in the assertion of “staggering” amount of fossils (once it is understood what science considers a “transitional” specimen to be) is the issues of fossilization itself as well as time and labor.  What is meant by time and labor is that there aren’t hundreds of thousands of field researchers combing the land in search of fossils.  The research is restricted to field researchers and also amateur fossil hunters.  Looking for and finding not just fossils but specific specimens is time consuming, arduous for the individuals and not many people have all the time in the world to go where ever they want and start digging.

Now, as to fossilization itself as a process, this is not a guaranteed prize for every dying creature.  It is not some snap process nor is it as easy as having something buried in mud.

Monroe and Wicander (2001) provide some quick information about fossilization, stating:

Dissolved minerals can be precipitated in the pores of bones, teeth, and shells or can fill the spaces within cells of wood.  Wood may be preserved by silica replacing the woody tissues; it then is referred to as petrified, a term that means "to become stone".  Silicon dioxice (SiO2) or iron sulfide (FeS2) can completely replace the calcium carbonate (CaCO3).  Insects and the leaves, stems, and roots of plants are commonly preserved as thin carbon films that show the details of the original organism.

Shells and bones in sediment may be dissolved leaving a cavity called a mold shaped like the shell or bone.  If a mold is filled in, it becomes a cast. (178-179).

And Alters (2000) also provides a quick overview of the process:

During the formation of sedimentary rock, dead organisms are sometimes washed along with the mud or sand and eventually reach the bottom of a pond or lake.  Dead marine organisms fall to the bottom of the ocean.  As the sediments harden into rock, they harden around the bodies of these dead organisms.  The hard parts of these organisms, such as their skeletons, may become preserved or may be broken down and replaced with other minerals.

Sometimes, however, soft-bodied animals are preserved in exceptionally fine-grained muds, in conditions in which the supply of oxygen was poor while the muds were being deposited, thus slowing the decomposition of the organism.  Eventually, the soft parts of an organism decay completely, leaving behind a mold, or impression, of its body.  Mold may become filled with minerals, such as lime or silica found in underground water, forming casts, which resemble the original organism or body part. (539-540)

For fossilization to occur the right ingredients must be there â€" the correct soil, lack of other creatures which might consume the specimen, environmental factors which may destroy a specimen before it can be successfully buried.  Then there is no guarantee that a  large enough portion let alone any of the body may be fossilized.  Your argument relies upon the assumptions of a non-changing environment, a 100% fossilization occurrence, and non-interference by any factor (weather, decay, predators, scavengers, et cetera) once an organism has died.

Tarbuck and Lutgens (2002) note the chances of an organism becoming fossilized are not in the middle of the curve â€"

…only a tiny fraction of organisms that lived during the geologic past have been preserved as fossils. Normally, the remains of an animal or plant are totally destroyed." (183).

This is one large hindrance to having a fossil record full of "transitions" or some ideal, smooth linear progression.

Among fossils we have two major groups, body and trace fossils. Bunch and Tesar (2003) comment on these two groups stating:

Body fossils are either actual remains of organisms in which the original chemicals have been replaced by other chemicals, thus retaining the original shape but not the organic chemistry. Bones, teeth, and shells are the most common animal body fossils. Petrified wood is a common plant body fossil. Softer tissues, such as those that compose worms and leaves are less apt to be preserved; they are more likely to have been eaten or broken down by decomposers (bacteria, etc.).

Trace fossils include imprints, tracks, burrows, feces, and chemical traces. They can be very informative about the habits and habitats of their creators. They also may tell us something about the organisms’ anatomy. For example, footprint size and the distance between prints in a track provide clues to the size and weight of the animal that made the track. (pp. 211).

Geological events such as erosion also play a large role in the finding of complete fossil "chains" as well as being able to find perfectly stratified sediment as well. Many variables work against piecing together a complete fossil record. The work that has been completely thus far is fairly amazing in what scientists have put together over the years and continue to do so.

In a review of intertidal fossilization probabilities by Schopf (1978), he found for that specific environment in one specific area (Friday Harbor, Washington) in 16 different sediments only 29% of the total fauna was represented.  This is just one example, however, and many factors play a role yet to think that once an organism dies that its fate is sealed in stone so to speak is incorrect.

Chemical and anatomical similarities such as what? Life requiring proteins from the 20 amino acids? Absolutely. DNA/RNA? Absolutely. Yet those all scream common design as well. As far as anatomical similarities which ones are you referring to? That mammals/reptiles/amphibians have 4 legs? Why don't birds? They come later in the evolutionary model.

What is being referred to is called homology.  Homology is defined as (in the biological context) “relationship between traits of organisms that are shared as a result of common ancestry (Mindell and Myer, 2001)”.  The definition is simple yet homology itself is not.  Here is another visual aid taken from Mindell and Myer:

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k86/solidsquid/Homology.jpg

Mindell and Myer explain the figure stating:

Different forms of homology are associated with one or more different evolutionary processes: orthology with organismal lineage splitting (cladogenesis); paralogy with gene duplication; xenology with lateral gene transfer; partial homology with exon shuffling or other recombination mechanisms; gametology with origination of genetic sex determination and barriers to recombination between sex chromosomes; pro-orthology with duplication of a particular gene in one lineage but not in another; and synology with fusion of formerly independent lineages. Note that a single trait can have several different homology relationships, as seen for the trait whose relationships of orthology, synology, paralogy, and xenology are shown in yellow. Red and blue branches denote distinct lineages from which representative taxa have merged, by means of endosymbiosis, over time. The lattice structure depicts the early stages of the evolution of life, before the existence of highly integrated cells, when lateral transfer of molecular traits appears to have been particularly common.

In relation to body plan homologies we can examine those genes which control that aspect.  Body plan is controlled by Hox clusters, this is the same for us and for fruit flies. Recent research has revealed the connection of evolutionary relationships of those clusters between bilaterians (animals with a bilateral symmetry) and cnidarians (such as jellyfish with radial symmetry), a so-called “missing link” between the two (Ogishima and Tanaka, 2007).

And we can go further in talking about homology. Organisms have “adapted” to their environment through a weeding out of unfit geno/phenotypes. Or, formally defined by Curtis and Barnes (1994) as:

a process of interaction between organisms and their environment that results in a differential rate of reproduction of different phenotypes in the population; can result in changes in the relative frequencies of alleles and genotypes in the population, that is, evolution (pp.G-14).

Aside from forelimb structure, another example would be the middle ear of tetrapods which can be traced all the way back to prehistoric fish. This structure is shared by mammals, reptiles, dinosaurs, amphibians and so forth. A detailed analysis of the Devonian fish, Panderichthys, finds representations of “the earliest stages in the origin of the tetrapod middle ear architecture” (Brazeau and Ahlberg, 2006).

These similarities are not arbitrarily chosen on some whim. Homology supports what we should find as evolutionary theory states. These structures should not be confused with analogous structures which are only superficially similar such as the wing on a bird and the wing of an insect.

Homologies are not restricted to comparative anatomy either it also appears in genetics, biochemistry, neuroscience and may other areas. One well studied homologue is cytochrome c which is found to be similar in over 60 different species (Curtis and Barnes, 1994). The amygdaloid complex in the brain of amniotes share “basic developmental, subdivisions, hodological and neurochemical features” (Moreno and Gonzalez, 2006). The book lungs within species of the class Arachnida are homologous (Scholtz and Kamenz, 2006). 14% of nervous system specific genes have found orthologs across 13 different species (Noda, Ikeo and Gojobori, 2006).

Lizards, along with some other vertebrates have a “third eye” called the parietal eye which has photosensitive cells. Su, Luo, Terakita, Shichida, Liao, Kazmi et al. (2006) showed that a particular opsin, called parietopsin has orthologs across many species.

Davis, Dahn and Shubin (2007) reported on the functional Hox gene of Polyodon spathula also known as the paddle fish. They found several genetic orthologs between the Hox gene expression and regulation in this fish and tetrapods further supporting the homologous structure of forelimbs.

The list goes on and on. Homology goes far past the example of forelimb structure in high school text books . Homology is predicted by evolution and is validated through a wealth of research across many fields within science.

References:

Alters, S. (2000). Biology: Understanding life. (3rd ed.).  Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett.

Apesteguia, S. and Zaher, H. (2006). A Cretaceous terrestrial snake with robust hindlimbs and a sacrum. Nature, 440, 1037-1040.

Brazeau, M. and Alhberg, P. (2006). Tetrapod-like middle ear architecture in a Devonian fish. Nature, 439, 318-321.

Bunch, B. and Tesar, J. (2003). Discover Science Almanac. New York: Hyperion.

Coates, M. & Clack, J. (1990). Polydactyly in the earliest known tetrapod limbs. Nature, 347, 66-69.

Curtis, H. and Barnes, N. (1994). Invitation to Biology. (5th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

Daeschler, E., Shubin, N. & Jenkins, F. (2006). A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan.  Nature, 440, 757-763.

Davis, M., Dahn, R. and Shubin, N. (2007). An autopodial-like pattern of Hox espression in the fins of a basal actinopterygian fish. Nature, 447, 473-477.

Mindell, D. & Myer, A. (2001). Homology evolving. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 16, 434-440.

Monroe, J. & Wicander, R. (2001). Physical geology: Exploring the earth. (4th ed.). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.

Moreno, N. and Gonzalez, A. (2006). The common organization of the amygdaloid complex in tetrapods: New concepts based on developmental, hodological and neurochemical data in anuran amphibians. Progress in Neurobiology, 78, 61-90.

Noda, A., Ikeo, K. and Gojobori, T. (2006). Comparative genome analyses of nervous system-specific genes. Gene, 365, 130-136.

Ogishima, S. and Tanaka, H. (2007). Missing link in the evolution of Hox clusters. Gene, 387, 21-30.

Palci, A. and Caldwell, M. (2007). Vestigial forelimbs and axial elongation in a 95 million-year-old non-snake squamate. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 27(1), 1-7.

Pan, F., Zarate, J., Choudhury, A., Rupprecht, R. and Bradley, T. (2004). Osmotic stress of salmon stimulates upregulation of a cold inducible RNA binding protein (CIRP) similar to that of mammals and amphibians. Biochemie, 86, 451-461.

Scholtz, G. and Kamenz, C. (2006). The book lungs of Scorpiones and Tetrapulmonata (Chelicerata, Arachnida): evidence for homology and a single terrestrialisation event of a common arachnid ancestor. Zoology, 109, 2-13.

Schopf, T. (1978). Fossilization potential of an intertidal fauna: Friday Harbor, Washington.  Paleobiology, 4, 261-270.

Su, C., Luo, D., Terakita, A., Shichida, Y., Liao, H., Kazmi, M. et al. (2006). Parietal-eye phototransduction components and their potential evolutionary implications. Science, 311, 1617-1621.

Tarbuck, E. and Lutgens, F. (2002). Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology. (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

[slayerment]

These questions are simple.  I'd like an answer.

1.)  How much evidence for scientific theories must be presented before there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the truth?

2.)  When will you begin to offer scientific evidence of the existence of your god?

I'm not a Christian, however, I would like to share my perspective.

1. Evidence is always subjective. Different people require different amounts of evidence for anything. How much evidence would you need to believe that aliens are real? Would a picture prove it? A video? How about simply a logical argument that is built off another belief you hold.

2. Why do you need to offer evidence for God to believe in God? Evidence is just one way to interpret reality. Do you really believe that our 5 sense reality is all that there is to the universe when science itself proves that this is only a thin spectrum of reality? What about all that dark matter? What about the 99.9% of empty space in the atoms that compose you? What is that other 99.9% of "emptiness" that makes up each individual? All anybody is doing is making their best judgment based off what they have gathered. How is an atheist any more right to not believe in a God than a religious person to believe in a God? Evidence is simply another type of belief system, so why then is scientific evidence the only way towards truth?

[rlrose328]

1. Evidence is always subjective. Different people require different amounts of evidence for anything. How much evidence would you need to believe that aliens are real? Would a picture prove it? A video? How about simply a logical argument that is built off another belief you hold.

Yes, I want video of god, a picture of god that can be scientifically verified.  That's what I need.

2. Why do you need to offer evidence for God to believe in God? Evidence is just one way to interpret reality. Do you really believe that our 5 sense reality is all that there is to the universe when science itself proves that this is only a thin spectrum of reality? What about all that dark matter? What about the 99.9% of empty space in the atoms that compose you? What is that other 99.9% of "emptiness" that makes up each individual? All anybody is doing is making their best judgment based off what they have gathered. How is an atheist any more right to not believe in a God than a religious person to believe in a God? Evidence is simply another type of belief system, so why then is scientific evidence the only way towards truth?

All of that is fine a good... great philosophical discussion.

However... my problem is that those who have faith and believe in god and use his bible as their daily guidebook want to use said guidebook to make laws for there rest of us to follow, whether we believe in god or not.  THAT creates a problem from where I sit.  I have no problem with people believing... honestly, I don't.  My own mother is a very devout woman and we're good friends.  Most of friends are Christians.  HOWEVER, I part ways with them when it comes to gay rights and abortion and any other number of issues that are guided primarily by religion (I know, abortion is opposed by more people than just Christians).  And THAT is why it is important for them to provide proof of their god.

If I said that the Winnie the Pooh books show the dangers of eating honey and that we should ban honey because this parable, inspired by a reall Pooh, indicates it's bad for people, everyone would think I was nuts, right?  Until I showed proof that Winnie the Pooh is real and he really did say that, I have no right to expect that type of legislation to get past my telling someone.  If someone wants to eat honey and it's dangerous, more power to them.

Same thing with same sex marriage and their wanting to ban it by using the bible.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Why do you need to offer evidence for God to believe in God? Evidence is just one way to interpret reality.

Um no ... I would have to disagree with that on just about every level.

Evidence based reasoning (in effect science) is, to date, the ONLY thing that has ever provided any reasoned and justifiable (by which I mean validatably supported) explanations for any facet of the universe in which we live.

Kyu

[PipeBox]

These questions are simple.  I'd like an answer.

1.)  How much evidence for scientific theories must be presented before there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the truth?

2.)  When will you begin to offer scientific evidence of the existence of your god?

I'm not a Christian, however, I would like to share my perspective.

1. Evidence is always subjective. Different people require different amounts of evidence for anything. How much evidence would you need to believe that aliens are real? Would a picture prove it? A video? How about simply a logical argument that is built off another belief you hold.

2. Why do you need to offer evidence for God to believe in God? Evidence is just one way to interpret reality. Do you really believe that our 5 sense reality is all that there is to the universe when science itself proves that this is only a thin spectrum of reality? What about all that dark matter? What about the 99.9% of empty space in the atoms that compose you? What is that other 99.9% of "emptiness" that makes up each individual? All anybody is doing is making their best judgment based off what they have gathered. How is an atheist any more right to not believe in a God than a religious person to believe in a God? Evidence is simply another type of belief system, so why then is scientific evidence the only way towards truth?

Evidence is NOT simply another belief system, UNLESS you consider reality subjective.    Evidence is concrete fact that lends credence to an argument or viewpoint, but it is not wrong.  It may be interpreted wrongly, but what we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell, is most certainly to be taken as accurate manifestations of reality.  What we think of that information, and how we interpret it, may or may not constitute reality.  Evidence, at its purest form, is a statement of the existence.  The Bible exists, most certainly, but then you must consider all the evidence surrounding it, for example, and decide if it is to be taken seriously.  Evidence against the Bible, in this case, would include fossil records, the age of the earth, age of the universe, fact that the writers were human and moved by human motives, et cetera.  You must account for ALL evidence in some way with your worldview.  I won't linger on what evidence is.

People require different amounts of evidence because that is their choice.  They may also make that choice based on strength of the arguments generated from that evidence, rather than just the volume of evidence.  People take different amounts of evidence to convince based on whether they take issue with gaps in an explanation, how well they can connect related evidence, how much they're willing to trust the source presenting an argument based on that evidence.  This doesn't mean each piece of evidence is merely belief.   Quite the contrary.

With all this in mind, remember that to suggesting reality and evidence ITSELF to be subjective is lethal to everything: Light, the Bible, 4chan, fossils, your feelings, and mercury.  All of these things only appear to exist, but to cast down one is to suggest the possibility of nothing being as it appears, because reality is not concrete.  I will not live that way, I will evaluate what I perceive, thin slice of reality though it may be, I will not question whether my perception can be trusted.   It's not living if you can't be sure your mind is your mind.  But feel free to play in the fluffiest philosophy, I did for awhile.  

[curiosityandthecat]

[Titan]

Evidence is NOT simply another belief system, UNLESS you consider reality subjective. Evidence is concrete fact that lends credence to an argument or viewpoint, but it is not wrong.

I'm sorry to jump into the middle of this discussion. But what do you define as evidence? For instance, politicians like to quote statistics as evidence for ideologies and positions and I always find problems with "evidence" like that. If you mean evidence as scientific experiments and studies done through archaeology, geology, biology, physics and chemistry then I'm absolutely on the same page.

Evidence against the Bible, in this case, would include fossil records, the age of the earth, age of the universe, fact that the writers were human and moved by human motives, et cetera. You must account for ALL evidence in some way with your worldview. I won't linger on what evidence is.

I personally believe that the universe is as old as scientists hypothesize, I believe evolution was a part of the formation of life and I'm a Christian...After reading Genesis quite a few times for this specific reason I don't believe that the two contradict.

With all this in mind, remember that to suggesting reality and evidence ITSELF to be subjective is lethal to everything: Light, the Bible, 4chan, fossils, your feelings, and mercury. All of these things only appear to exist, but to cast down one is to suggest the possibility of nothing being as it appears, because reality is not concrete. I will not live that way, I will evaluate what I perceive, thin slice of reality though it may be, I will not question whether my perception can be trusted.

Side track, every once in a while I have these phases where it is hard for me to grasp what reality is. I can bring it about just by thinking about it...and it takes a long time to get back to reality...am I the only one who gets that? I believe the same thing as you, it's just fits of...I don't know...psychosis I guess.