Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?

[Violet]

I would like to read Miller's response to this article. My question to Luskin would be: How could chromosomal fusion within a population (at any time) not bring about a new species? Luskin suggests that at some point in the existence of Homo 'genus', there was a fusion that did not create a new species. More reasonably, Miller, if i'm not mistaken, suggests that there was a fusion in a population (of an ancestral species that of the Pan genus and the Homo genus) that created two new species, one which was probably the ancestor or our species. Later Luskin suggests that the fusion could have (no evidence involved) occurred 10,000 years ago in our own species without creating any physiological or morphological changes which doesn't make sense since such a fusion intuitively or logically should produce some change.

Rather... I question the notion of precisely what a 'species' is. Is not that description entirely subjective?

Those who understand nihilistic existentialism can just skip over this next part

---

Say we have in front of us 6 squares of equal size. One is blue, the next red, the third green, another purple, the fifth pink, and the last black. All of these are of the same classification of "square" and their equal size... but their colors are drastically different. Do we consider them as quite related, somewhat related, quite different, or quite related in a variety of attributes and quite different in others?

Now transcend this to us having 6 varying things similar enough to our understanding of what a "human" is to call them all humans. They may each posses a radically different height, but is not height ultimately meaningless as for what a "human" is? Perhaps they are colored each differently, but is not color ultimately meaningless in our consideration of their status as a human? Simply, it must be recognized that before there are classifications, there first are individuals. Something may make up individual subatomic particles, which make up atoms, which make up molecules, which make up a number of substances, which jumble together as a meaningless 'mess' that may or may not 'do' anything at all.

We in turn interpret this meaningless mess, and attempt to define some sort of order to it, which may or may not be true of it. We then look at two similar messes, see some similarities between them, and perhaps classify them as being the same in some aspects, maybe calling those aspects something like "hot" or "glass" or "yellow". We then might find that there are some things even more similar than that, and further classify them by their similarities to each other, such as a butterfly's similarity to a moth, rather than a butterfly's similarity to a bird. Eventually, we become extremely specific in our classifications, and "species" is just another classification like such.

---

Depending on how the classification of "species" is defined... a new species may or may not have been created by a "fusion" (and that may mean that the species has indeed changed, but not enough for us to stop calling them the same species, take for example the glass that has been chipped or cracked... not enough of a change for it to disbecome a cup, but a change to that cup nonetheless (for it is now a chipped cup or a cracked cup ))... and as long as were talking science without evidence I will say GTFO until he has some, or can provide some rational as to why it might have occurred... or more importantly: mattered.