Why do Evolutionists clain that mutations within a species is 'micro-evolution'?
360714
Micro-evolution is when a plant or animal varies from the statistical norm of the species in some way that causes it to have an advantage over the other members of it's species in the particular environment in which it happens to be located.\n\nThis can be a result of mutation, however generally it is simply the result of the normal variations within a group of plants or animals since most every mutation is not beneficial but either benign or harmful.\n\nFor instance if greater size allows an animal to fight off predators or run faster then the other members of it's species then it will have a greater chance of reproducing and the species will tend to "evolve" into a larger species.\n\nThat micro-evolution can occur is clearly demonstrated by examining the different breeds of dogs that have been artificially altered by the selective breeding that has gone on according to the preconceived plans of dog breeders.\n\nMacro-evolution is an entirely separate although similar premise. According to macro-evolution an ameba like creature can become a multi-celled creature that can develop complex internal organs and nervous systems and external organs like eyes and ears. It doesn't stop there though. It claims that a fish can become an amphibian which can become a mammal and that one species of animal, like a monkey can somehow have it's genetic code altered at the microscopic level millions and billions of times over in a beneficial way resulting in an intelligent human being.\n\nScientists who have worked out statistical models of the chances of such a thing happening have estimated that the odds are something like 10 to the 250th power against that scenario. They say that anything with odds over 10 to the 10th power, that is (ten billion) 10,000,000,000 to 1 are generally considered to be outside the realm of what is possible to happen without some external factor being the cause.\n\nhttp://web.express56.com/~bromar/
990517
12 March 2002\n\nPOINTS OF ORIGINS: Variety is the Spice of Life\nby Dr. Glenn Jackson\n\nAmong modern environmentalists the term "species diversity" is a real keyword. Having lots of different species is considered good for the environment. But having all these species makes it hard to classify them all. When you start to talk about all of the extinct species too -- well, it gets pretty crowded. Most evolutionists are fond of pointing out that 95% (some even say 99%) of all species that have ever lived, are now extinct. Let me suggest a thought that may never have occurred to you before. Maybe most of these were just species that didn't make it to survive much beyond the year of Noah's Flood. Maybe all these "weird" prehistoric life forms only look weird to us because we're just not used to them anymore. There is mounting evidence that the ancient world had many more species -- but all living at the same time! -- not all living in vastly different times like the Paleozoic and Jurassic, etc. One entomologist (insect-studier) from Univ of Kansas says, "I never expected to find this staggering array of diversity. It blew me away." Dr. Engel is an expert on bees (Science News, 2/10/01, p87). A newer DNA study has found that crabs "must have evolved at least five different times." (Science News, 3/2/02) Now it's impossible enough to believe that crabs evolved even once -- let alone five times! Bat DNA seems to indicate that echo-location must have "evolved" in bats at least two times -- maybe three. This conclusion even has the evolutionists going batty! I'm serious. This has been driving them nuts. How could sonar have evolved twice? It's so far-fetched to believe that it could have even evolved once! To make matters worse, fossil species are now so many, that the names are getting all confused (Knoxville-News Sentinel, 2/4/02, pE14). I believe that the richness of the Earth's many species of living things today -- is nowhere near what it was before the Great Flood. That would explain why we see fossils of all these "weird" creatures trapped in the rocks left by the debris from the Flood. With all those extra life forms, there were plenty for evolutionists to choose from, while they were looking for all of their "missing links." Well, since they have started to double-check on all of those links, by using DNA, they have found that their best examples really weren't links at all -- but totally separate created kinds, just like the Genesis account predicts. If the scientists would only begin to do their investigations based on the assumption that creation is true and not evolution -- I'd bet that they'd reach their conclusions a lot faster, and things wouldn't be so confusing but would all begin to make perfect sense. Well, "thinking themselves wise they became fools." You keep thinking. \n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nDr. Glenn Jackson holds four degrees in science and education from George Mason University and University of Virginia. He has taught elementary through college level sciences for over twenty years and in four states. He is a lifetime member of both American Mensa and the Creation Research Society.
790810
Every fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution.\nCreation relies on a lot of belief and the ability to dismiss all the known evidence, since ancient Greece to the present time, in the case for evolution.\nEvolution, on the other hand, keeps presenting solid evidence, regardless of those who believe otherwise. \n\nHere is a theoretical example of natural selection and adaptation.\n\nSay you have an island, about twenty miles from any other island, where there is a species of bird, say finches. In any population of birds, there is going to be a variety of beak sizes and wing sizes, (like nose and ear size, and height variation in humans), suddenly there was a drought, lasting several years, and the main food source of the finches, say, sesame seed, was destroyed, and all they had to eat was wheat, which is harder to break and eat than sesame. \nWhat characteristics would give one bird an advantage over another? Those with smaller beaks would have more difficulty cracking the wheat and feeding it to any baby birds, therefore they would have less live young. Those with largeer, stronger beaks would crack and eat more wheat and have more live young. Chances are, that their offspring would have, on average, larger, stronger beaks than those of small beaked finches. The stronger your beak, the more you eat, the more children you have. \nSo what other characteristics? Those with stronger, larger wings could try to find other food, but if they can't make to the other island, they die, those that make it to the other island, and if it has food, will have, on average, larger wings than those that didn't make it. They wil have more children, who, on average, will have larger wings.\nThese are simplified examples, it is more complex than this, but the basics are there.\n\nAnother, real life example is the Peppered moth.\nHere is the Wikipedia link\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution\n\nThis is evolution at work.\nRead more about evolution, but do it with an open mind. It wiil be of no use looking at evidence if you have already decided to reject it. Remember, you are doing science, at that is what scientist do. The more you read, the more you will understand. Try "Origin of Species " by Charles Darwin as a start, or try Google for a summary.\n\nGood luck to you.
361147
Micro evolution has been proven.  It is evidenced in history and observable in life.  That doesns't contradict the Bible or interfere in my beliefs in any way.\n\nMy problem with evolution is that:\n\nSomething cannot come from nothing.  It is against the laws of our universe for something to come from nothing.  Thus Someone (outside our universe) had to create it.\n\nMutations are degenerative.  That's why no one thinks it's a compliment to be called a mutant.  Diseases are mutations.  Where are all the positive mutations needed for macro evolution to be true?\n\nIn order for evolution to be true, original life would have to have been self-supporting and we have become more and more weak and dependent ever since.  If original life sustained itself on nothing, and we are growing more and more superior, why can't we sustain ourselves on nothing?  Why must we eat and have clothing and shelter?  We consume resources.  What resources did original life have?  How were they not depleted?  \n\nWhere do morality, intellect, and love come from?  Are they really suited to survival of the fittest?  \n\nIf the universe is orderly and designed by accident, why aren't all accidents orderly and designed?  How could the balance of our ecosystem just happen?  \n\nIf evolution crossed the line of species, how did that work?  If a man was born to an ape, what did he mate with?  If another ape, wouldn't their offspring have been sterile?  That would then be the end of mankind.  Why don't apes still have human babies today?  \n\nI believe that God created the earth in 6 literal 24 hour days.  He created everything in an order that supported life.  Yes, things change over time, but they don't cross the line of species without negative consequences.
967456
You are looking at evolution incorrectly. It is not progressive and it has no direction. Your question is ill posed.
230791
Micro evolution involves species adapting to their environment, and also natural selection. For example, when farmers use pesticides, some "stronger" insects still survive the spray, and they go on the reproduce, making a population of "strong" insects. It's still the same species however, because the "strong" insects would still have the potential to be able to mate with the normal insects.\n\nMacro evolution involves the creation of a new species. What defines a species is a poseparatedthat can interbreed. This is why all dogs are the same species, even though a beagle clearly looks different from a chow- they can still mate. Some species can interbreed, however, like how a tiger and a lion mate with each other but the offspring are not fertile. What can make one species become two can be a natural disaster, such as a flood. Lets say a flood split a forest in two, each side seperated by water. A species of frogs has now been split by the water into two populations. The frogs on one side may start to mutate. After time, the genetic differences between the frogs on one side of the water may be so great compared to the other side, that they could no longer recognize eachother to mate with. A new species of frog has evolved.
1019223
It's not entirely believable that we evolved from apes. If you have ever actually looked into the question you would know that animals do evolve. I'm a Christian and still don't refute the facts that "survival of the fittest" is an actual scientific process. People don't evolve from ants because they have an entirely different make-up than people. Ants have an exo-skeleton while mammals do not. One good example of things evolving are moths. During the industrial revolution in Europe many objects (trees) became covered with a light soot. The moths used to be able to camoflauge themselves on tress but couldn't anymore because of the soot on the trees. Survival of the fittest was demonstrated because all of the darker moths that blended in with the trees were not eaten by preadtors. When these dark colored moths began surviving they reproduced and their offspring were well-suited to their environment due to their dark color. Evolution can not be denied. How can you explain how some animals must be "2 sexes" so that they can ensure their population can continue? It's obvious that at one time those types of animals were either male or female and had to "evolve" to survive. The whole theory behind evolution is: "Those that are best-suited to their environment will survive." Maybe not all monkeys had problems with predators as others did, which means they had no reason to evolve. Darwin broke-it down very easily and demonstarted a gradual change that developed us into humans.
264365
Because we didn't evolve from apes we share a COMMON ANCESTOR with other apes (we are actually a species of ape, but you were probably using the term in the common, not the scientific, sense).  That common ancestor no longer exists.\n\nFor those who say that evolution is false:\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.  This is true.  However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.\n\n3. The fossil record.\n\nAlthough the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species.  There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from which a fossil comes can be determined with reasonable accuracy.\n\n4. Imperfect structures (the blind spot of the mammalian eye, for example).\n\nI want to mention the bind-spot of the mammalian eye specifically because creationists often hold up the human eye up as an example of something that is too perfect to occur by "chance" (i.e. as the result of the natural selection of beneficial changes among random mutations).\n\nThere are also numerous examples where the morphology of a species is constrained by similar patterns in its ancestors (quadrupeds, vertebrates, etc.).\n\n5. Developmental biology reflects evolutionary lineage.\n\nCreationists like to bring up a man named Haeckel in response to this argument.  Haeckel suggested that development reflects evolutionary origin.  It was later discovered that several of the sketches he used as evidence over-exaggerated certain features, and some were of different embryos all together. However, many of his sketches do accurately reflect the morphology of the embryo. Haeckel's methods were sometimes wrong and his ethics were poor, but it just so happens that his theory turned out to be fairly accurate.\n\nAny developmental biologist can tell you that embryos of related species show similar morphology in the early stages of development. The point at which their development begins to diverge shows a strong correlation with the relative point at which the evolution of the two species diverged. Human embryos look similar to chimpanzee embryos for a lot longer than they look similar to ca
158486
hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:\n\n    In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."\n\n    Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.\n\n    Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.\n\n    Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.\n\n    - Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981\n\nGould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:\n\n    Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignora
653816
Evolution is a theory.
312318
NatBoCheck: Well for starters even creationists believe in microevolution, but then you probably don't know what that is.\n\nGive me a few mins...\n\n"The process of evolution can be summarized in three sentences: Genes mutate. [gene: a hereditary unit] Individuals are selected. Populations evolve."\n\n"The mechanisms of evolution are mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, recombination and gene flow."\n\nMutation\n\nThe cellular machinery that copies DNA sometimes makes mistakes. These mistakes alter the sequence of a gene. This is called a mutation. There are many kinds of mutations. A point mutation is a mutation in which one "letter" of the genetic code is changed to another. Lengths of DNA can also be deleted or inserted in a gene; these are also mutations. Finally, genes or parts of genes can become inverted or duplicated. Typical rates of mutation are between 10-10 and 10-12 mutations per base pair of DNA per generation. \n\nNatural Selection\n\nSome types of organisms within a population leave more offspring than others. Over time, the frequency of the more prolific type will increase. The difference in reproductive capability is called natural selection. Natural selection is the only mechanism of adaptive evolution; it is defined as differential reproductive success of pre- existing classes of genetic variants in the gene pool.\n\nThe most common action of natural selection is to remove unfit variants as they arise via mutation. [natural selection: differential reproductive success of genotypes] In other words, natural selection usually prevents new alleles from increasing in frequency. This led a famous evolutionist, George Williams, to say "Evolution proceeds in spite of natural selection."\n\nNatural selection can maintain or deplete genetic variation depending on how it acts.\n\nGenetic Drift\n\nAllele frequencies can change due to chance alone. This is called genetic drift. Drift is a binomial sampling error of the gene pool. What this means is, the alleles that form the next generation's gene pool are a sample of the alleles from the current generation. When sampled from a population, the frequency of alleles differs slightly due to chance alone.\n\nAlleles can increase or decrease in frequency due to drift. The average expected change in allele frequency is zero, since increasing or decreasing in frequency is equally probable. A small percentage of alleles may continually change frequency in a single direction for several generations just as flipping a fair coin may, on occasion, result in a string of heads or tails. A very few new mutant alleles can drift to fixation in this manner.\n\nRecombination\n\nEach chromosome in our sperm or egg cells is a mixture of genes from our mother and our father. Recombination can be thought of as gene shuffling. Most organisms have linear chromosomes and their genes lie at specific location (loci) along them. Bacteria have circular chromosomes. In most sexually reproducing organisms, there are two of each chromosome type in every cell. For instance in humans, every chromosome is paired, one inherited from the mother, the other inherited from the father. When an organism produces gametes, the gametes end up with only one of each chromosome per cell. Haploid gametes are produced from diploid cells by a process called meiosis.\n\nIn meiosis, homologous chromosomes line up. The DNA of the chromosome is broken on both chromosomes in several places and rejoined with the other strand. Later, the two homologous chromosomes are split into two separate cells that divide and become gametes. But, because of recombination, both of the chromosomes are a mix of alleles from the mother and father.\n\nRecombination creates new combinations of alleles. Alleles that arose at different times and different places can be brought together. Recombination can occur not only between genes, but within genes as well. Recombination within a gene can fo
1180171
Hi, EyeLoveJesus!  I like your question!  :-)   Evolution is still a theory---it is not proven 100% yet.  Science is also not stoic and unchanging---it is always flexing and changing over time and by different discoveries.  I don't agree that scientists are "desperate to disprove "god"".   Science isn't focusing on "god".  It is focusing on studying the world and universe.  :-)  Anyway....\n\nScientists tend to form different theories (not facts) from the same discovery.   It is fascinating to learn about the different theories and to decide which one likes better.   Scientists don't think alike at all.  They tend to see different things in the same objects.  :-)   There are usually heated debates and discussions among them!  ;-)\n\nFor me, I know of two different theories of how evolution might have processed:  macro evolution ("giant leaps") or micro-evolution.   I tend to take more stock in micro-evolution.  That means each generation is born with very tiny mutations that will eventually create or de-create whatever trait or physical attribute of the organism.   Macro-evolution happens when one generation is born with a completely different physical attribute that none of the species has.\n\nI hope I clarified.  I will keep an eye on this Q as I find this fascinating!  Thanks for sharing the link.  :-)
131055
I'd like to think that you're asking this question with an earnest wish to get good informative answers. If that is the case, I invite you to see the link that Kurdiatcha left, or to do a web search for the term, or else, to read some good Evolution textbooks such as Ridley's "Evolution" or Freeman & Herron's "Evolutionary analysis", or Futuyma, or Stephen Jay Gould if you want something more entertaining.\nIf that is not the case, I'm not bothering anymore *sigh*
177690
An organism will have offspring, each will be different. The offspring with the "differences" that give it the best chance of survival, will tend to live, and pass those traits on to there offspring. That's it, that's all evolution is.
671450
Evolution is a proven fact! There are more scientific evidence about Evolution and NONE about the Hebrew myth of creation! \nBiological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations).\nDocumentation of ancestor-descendant relationships among organisms also comes from the fields of biogeography, taxonomy, anatomy, embryology and, most recently, genetics — particularly DNA analysis.\nThe fossil record remains first and foremost among the databases that document changes in past life on Earth. Fossils provide the dimension of time to the study of life. Some of the most basic observations about fossils and the rock record were made long before Darwin formulated his theory of “descent with modification.” The fossil record clearly shows changes in life through almost any sequence of sedimentary rock layers. Successive rock layers contain different groups or assemblages of fossil species.\n{We have now more than enough fossils to determine for sure that humans didn’t appear on this planet in the genetic form they are today!\nWE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST ANOTHER SPECIES WHICH LIVED WITH US!! And I am talking about Neanderthal man who was not our ancestor but a different Human than us!!! (Did God experiment with human species?) We even have proof that at a certain point in time 3 human species shared the planet! (Homo sapiens, Homo Erectus, Homo Neanderthals)}\nOf course I want comment the stupid argument why all the apes didn’t evolve to humans. Ok I will comment!!\n(We share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas; we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes--orangutans and gibbons--and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past! \nBy the way why God decided to create 5 different species of primates and 280 different species of monkeys?)\nAs a conclusion Evolution is not a theory but a proven fact (In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world.) Creation is a Hebrew Myth and unfortunately is not a fact but a myth!!!!
291260
Adaptation? Evolution?
853160
THE EVOLUTION\n\n“I know that the word of “Evolution” has become an obsolete and worthless word in some circles of the people___ and they do frown even on it’s simple reference.\n\nYou will however surprise to know that I, not only, respect these friends and their feelings, rather, I agree to their viewpoint, to some extent, in the light of the current knowledge. Because they apprehend “Evolution” in terms of material or mechanical evolution whereas material or mechanical evolution is far different from that of the creative evolution.\n\nAn important source of Evolution is the Nature’s process of selection. Which is originally one of the laws of nature and a secondary cause, like the other laws of nature, as it’s Creator is again God.\n\nAll the species generated by this process are again the indirect creation of God as the Nature’s process of selection, itself, is not capable to create any specie. It simply admits some species to be nourished, leaving aside the others, to be withered and this process works under some hereditary variations. So___ the survival or removal of a specific specie, is never accidental as it is presumed by the believers of material or mechanical evolution”.\n\nThis very statement of Edward Luther Castle positively removes that superstition. Which has captured, not only, the materialists but the religious leaders as well. Who are still in it’s captivity even after the lapse of so many years. Dr. George Erl Devis, the physicist, writes:\n\n“As much as the knowledge is flourishing and the superstitions are being unveiled___ importance & inevitability of the critical study of religion & ethics___ is increasing day by day in the same scale.”\n\nThe physicist is hinting upon the urge of the “quest for truth and the specific process” which may bring forth, a suitable solution for the problems of life. Of course, we can not lead the life in a particular way unless we come to know the origin of life. What is the actual and factual truth? Only after positive cognition of the same, we can learn to lead the real life. And__ the same learning may, in turn, lead us to the aim of life.\n\nGeorge Erl Devis writes further:\n\n“The surprising scientific discoveries have produced certain indispensable questions. Though not so new, but their nature has become more changed, on account of___ the receipt of detailed information about cosmic system. And___ in any case____ man can not be held as excluded thereform. Among these questions, is the most important question___ upon whose answer is depending___  our aim of life and the system of our moral values. And___ that is the same old question that:\n\nIs there any Supreme and Sublime Source who is the Creator of whole cosmos and who could be surnamed as God?\n\nAnd___ thereby arises the other question, that if God has created us then who has created God? This question is usually raised by the children, in a highly logical air.\n\nWe can not deny the fact, that science has no convincing reply of the question that God is existing or not? Rather, science can never bring forth a scientific proof thereof.\n\nWe are breathing in such a physical universe which is running smoothly in terms of the pre-ordained laws of it’s complexed system. But, it does not mean that we can ever derive some information, through this very universe, about a thing, which is existing outside to this universe. Our universe is just like a room without any doors and windows. And even if it is having the same, then, such glasses are fixed therein that to see & understand the outside thereform is totally impossible. Whereas to see inside from the outside__  is almost possible.”\n\nAs we can not prove the existence or non-existence of God on the basis of science. So it is the all-alone way for us, that whatsoever stock of information we have, about this universe. We should derive a reasonable result therefrom. Such a reasonable result___ which could never be objected on logic