Evolution proves that god is real

Below I will focus on misconceptions which Con has presented. Definitions God:God is defined to be the one that creates the universe. Con reinterprets this to mean only "created", or historically initiated the universe because "the creation of the universe is already done, it exists. " This restatement is adding imputed meaning to the phrase "one that creates". We both agree that the subject at hand is the current extant species and recorded fossil record, and earlier events are not part of the debate. The heart of the contention of this argument is that there exist ongoing creation events. Create: Create is defined to be: to make or produce (something) : to cause (something new) to exist- to cause (a particular situation) to exist [1] Artificial selectionArtificial selection [is] a process in the breeding of animals and in the cultivation of plants by which the breeder chooses to perpetuate only those forms having certain desirable inheritable characteristics. [2] Argument 1: Creation Let us examine what it means to have new organisms and species. Charles Darwin states: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. ” [3] Here Darwin is stating there exist slight and ongoing modifications in a chain of organisms, which today we know to be slight variations in DNA. Darwin goes further to state that life forms are modifications of earlier life forms when he says: "Some few naturalists, on the other hand, have believed that species undergo modification, and that the existing forms of life are the descendants by true generation of pre existing forms" [3] The foundation of the notion of evolution is dependent upon an ongoing series of creation events which continuously occur in the universe. This is proof that creation is ongoing, and we need some term to refer to the source of creation. The main contention that Con offers is this: The "creation" of this new genome only involves creation ex materia, the creation of something out of something else, not creatio ex nihilo as my opponent suggest. Here Con is arguing against an imputed idea that creation only can exist, and did exist, at the start of the universe which is the opposite of what is being argued. It appears then that Con is actually not yet in disagreement with the argument being presented here at this time. The claim is here that creation is happening later- in an ongoing manner. We can choose a different term than "God", for example "the genesis factor" to explain the ongoing creation of new forms of organisms. Further, we can investigate, and postulate how this takes place. Some possible theories for how DNA is modified can include high energy cosmic rays causing a codon to be eliminated, quantum decoherence in atomic reconfiguration leading to transcription errors, or a tiny little man with a long white beard that is actively rearranging DNA sequences. Regardless of the underlying source of the modification of the DNA it serves as an act of creation, we can choose to give it a name which we may call "the genesis factor". Con can disagree with the concept that we call this "God" because Con adds imputed meaning to the word "God" in the same way imputed meaning was added for "one that creates the universe" but this is a conceptual misunderstanding, not a refutation of the argument. Argument 2: Love Love may or may not be a supernatural process, that would be another debate. We both agree that love is a primary criteria for our selection of procreation partners. The position being put forth here is that love is the primary mover of evolution within certain organisms and exists outside the conceptual framework of traditional evolution theory. Charles Darwin himself admits there may be causes of modification which exist outside of natural selection “Furthermore, I am convinced that natural selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification. ” [3] In evolutionary theory, selection is already divided into groups of selective criteria. In artificial selection it is the choice of a breeder to perpetuate certain forms that have desirable characteristics. Natural selection is the choice of environmental factors which contribute to the propagation of desirable characteristics. This is a third type of selection, we will call “selection through love”. Love as a criteria for the propagation of characteristics is neither the choice of a breeder trying to get children of a certain form, nor that of the environment as Charles Darwin uses the term. Love as a choice often entails choosing inherently undesirable characteristics for transmission. Charles Darwin convinces himself that natural selection is the primary selective force on modification of forms. However, this flies in the face of what science entails- gathering of evidence from observation rather than relying on belief. To be fair, Darwin was focusing on his historic observations of worms, which may not have this third form of selection- the selection through love. In organisms we can observe that are loving- it appears to be the primary mover of evolution, above any other force, yet it is strangely absent from evolutionary thought. Con attempts to transform love to something else when he states The feeling we call "love" is a result of various neurotransmitters that influence us so that we form emotional bonds. If one is baking a cake and wants to understand a recipe fully, one does not focus on the hydrogen bonds in the cake batter, nor the protein modifications of heating. One focuses on the time of mixing, the relative portions of the ingredients, and high level aspects of the process. Comprehension is not elicited through reductionism. The high level statement that “love is the primary mover of the evolutionary process in loving organisms” is not refuted or disputed by Con, but rather, is notable by the lack of disputation of the argument. The original assertion was that the creator (God) granted the aspect of love to some organisms through the ongoing creation process, and that this aspect is the prime evolutionary mover of those organisms. The ongoing creation process has been clearly demonstrated and does not appear disputed yet by Con. Con does appear to be imputing characteristics to God above and beyond the role of the creator. I can’t modify that, nor can I claim others who do similar imputations are correct or incorrect, but I can point out that this is not a problem with the argument, but rather a reader adding their own commentary. If it is convenient for the reader, use the term "genesis factor" in place of "God" if there are too many connotations attached to "God". As an aside, there is a raging debate about what caused the extremely rapid rate of expansion human culture and thought to separate us from the other hominid lines around 100,000 years ago, and this may be the answer. The creator, God, imbued us with a stronger power of love, and this is the critical differentiation from other competing organisms. This is not a central portion of the debate, but is an interesting offshoot. Conclusion I would again like to thank Con for providing a nice conceptual framework to further prove the starting assertions. The above arguments show conclusively that God is in fact, by definition, the source of evolution, and further, that this creator God has potentially subverted the natural selection forces of evolutionary processes through the creation of love. Evolution for humans is powered more by love than by natural selection. Thanks for reading. Sources [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] Darwin, Charles “On the Origin of Species”