Why is evolution hiding?

[Phatt Matt s]

Yes but I wanted discussion. And people here may provide better links than a search engine. Also, like I said, I strongly dislike the bigotry and arrogance of certain people who state their theory on evolution, and the purpose for human, as if they know with certainty that what they say is true.

I also don't like it when Christians or people of any Religion have this same attitude about their beliefs.

There is a large difference between certainty about something that can be proven, and certainty about something with zero evidence.

Creationism and Evolution are not two equal ideas on level ground, and we just happen to choose one. Not even close. One is intentional ignorance of facts, intentional lying, misinformation, and taking advantage of ignorance. One is selective acceptance of evidence and rejection of anything that doesn't fit a preconceived worldview. The other is one of the most robust scientific theories man has ever formulated; with incredible explanatory power, the ability to predict future phenomena, and not without mention, the basis for modern biology, genealogy, medicine, etc.

So the reason people get so heated is that this willful ignorance has consequences. Teaching children that "God did it" and that we have all the answers kills the drive to question and discover.

I argue that there has been much evidence. One example is the image on the Guadalupe tilma. It was always believed to be a miraculous image, it lead to the conversion of the Aztecs, and with are scientific technology we can determine if an image was painted or if fibers were dyed and what they have been dyed with.

Scientists do not know of any artwork that has or even could by natural phenomenon be produced in a manner so baffling and mysterious, nor do they understand why a tilma made of cactus fibers isn't decomposing after hundreds of years.

There are thousands of miracles that Scientists and Doctors of no Religious persuasion have given credence to.

I agree SC Religion can be very bad for people so that they do not explore, discover, or keep an open mind.

---

A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours.  There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria).

 They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc.  there is much variation in bacteria.  There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16).  but they never turn into anything new.  They always remain bacteria.  

Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

This isn't to say we don't have a common ancestor but it is a reason I don't have blind faith, in certain theories of Evolution.

---

To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread ("sweep") through a population and stay (become "fixed")...strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population. To make a lasting change, beneficial mutation would have to spread ("sweep") through a population and stay (become "fixed")...New, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population."

 Some evolutionist researchers went looking for classic sweeps in humans, and reported their findings in the journal Science.  "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations".  "In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years."  Evolutionists had identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome", and they expected that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps."  So what did they find?  "In contrast to expectation, their test detected nothing...
Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924.

Yet some of these links and books on evolution will leave out all such scientific discoveries that will not propogate their agenda, which is why I don’t swallow a lot of what I read, but consider that it is worthy of belief and intelligently thought out.