Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
Soul Winner wrote: »It would appear that Natural Selection can also be used in the exact same way. There's even a Natural Selection theory which can be applied to the Cosmos doing the rounds now. Anyway, yes Intelligence can explain most things in nature because intuitively it makes sense to our cognitive faculties. The reason Natural Selection is so popular with materialists is because it can explain design without a designer. In its wider scope it can do this, but with closer scrutiny it starts to fall apart as a valid explanation for how life got going and how it evolved. If Natural selection only starts acting when life comes about then it was not active prior to life forming. Hence life forming under strictly natural means was just a fluke chance happening, or it was deliberately constructed by a Constructor.
The only people who object to a Constructor are those who feel that the implications of that being true would just devastate their world view. That's why they will jump through all kinds of hoops - even imaginary hoops - in order to keep their sacred theory based in Materialism alive.
So the real conflict is not between Religion and Science as such, its between certain world views. Depending on how you interpret the available evidence you will side with one or the other. Materialist interpret the evidence with the need to appeal to a designer and ID proponents interpret the same evidence as obviously designed. Unlike the materialists they have no problem with whatever religious implications that interpretation might have.
That you can't detect the Intelligence source itself has no bearing on the fact that a thing is designed. When you find the remains of an Inca village you don't assume that design is a bad explanation because we can't find the Inca people who built it. That would be stupid. Some people look at DNA and it is blatantly obvious to them that there must have been intelligence involved simply due to the fact that there are billions of lines of code - enough to fill hundreds of bibles - encoded within its double helix structure. A code that has stored (encoded) within it all the information and instructions needed to build cells, tissue, organs, blood vessels, arteries, skin, hair, bone and so on. How did that information get there? How did DNA come about? How did it get from coming about to learning how to encode information like this? What is it????
Will get to your other post later. Have to pop out now...
This post makes no sense. In an earlier post, I explained why design cannot be inferred from biological systems since biological chemicals have distinct properties.
"we have to look at the differences between the 'hardware' of biology (organic compounds), and the hardware of artificial computers (semiconductor material, plastic, etc.). When we do this, we will understand why natural abiogenesis is plausible for life, but not for standard computers. Organic chemicals are far more versatile when it comes to self-organisation than the materials we use to build things. They can naturally form complex ecosystems of interacting and communicating molecular species."
Yet you re-posted the same assertions? Why did you do this when they have been answered already?0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Ok, so that's making a distinction between an Old Earth Creationist and a Young earth creationist. But an OEC may still believe the world was created in six days, just that it was billions rather than 6000 years ago.
Very well i will have to make the distinction in future in calling these people when I encounter them '6 day Creationists'.What about someone like Michael Behe? He differs from the OEC in that he doesn't believe the world was made in 6 days, nor does he believe species were created fully formed. He accepts that the earth is billions of years old. He accepts that all life forms have evolved from a common ancestor - pretty much following the same gradual changes as you within a similar time framework as you do. (He accepts this for scientific reasons, such as DNA, geology, carbon dating etc). The only difference is that he doesn't accept that these gradual changes took place randomly.
By that definition he sounds like what I would call a theistic evolutionist.PDN wrote:Now think about that for a moment. Is it fair to label such a person as a 'Creationist' - knowing fine well that the word 'Creationist', in many people's minds, is a pejorative term describing a YEC? Do you think that to label such people as Creationists promotes informative discussion? Or is it more a form of muck-raking?
Well to me based on the above description he doesn not sound like what the term 'Creationist' usually implies at all. To me that word when mentioned in discussion implies the YEC and/or the 6 day type.
Of course I wasn't the one who was labelling him as such. I'm guessing that question was more directed at Wicknight (or was it a more aimed at the floor/general kind of thing)?
edit: see you after the Arsenal game
0 -
-
-
playtimeover wrote: »I am in favor of BIBLE rather than Creationism. Because I heard that BIBLE is Best Insurance Before Leaving Earth.
I'll bet you haven't even looked at the other companies' plans.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
It is estimated that it took 10 million years for the first self replicating molecules to evolve to use RNA. DNA would have taken longer still.
Estimated?? What were the first self replicating molecules to use RNA? Have we got physical evidence for them? Has there ever been a cell that didn't have DNA? If so then it must have evolved DNA. If DNA has the instructions to build the cell then how can a cell form without DNA? And how can a cell go from not having the instructions to build itself to one which has got those instructions? Instructions which are contained within DNA coding?Self replicating systems (proto cells) evolved to use DNA and this took a long time, possibly longer than it took for DNA cells to go from single cells to humans. So clearly arriving at DNA is tricky.
You bet ya. But just stating that self replicating systems (proto cells) evolved to use DNA does not mean that its true. You need evidence for this. You don't have any. Saying that evidence will be found in the future is a prediction of the theory that must be either falsified or supported by physical evidence. We don't have this yet so therefore what you said is complete and utter speculation.No one thinks it just happened, so any time you hear JC or someone like that saying DNA (or RNA or proteins) could not just randomly form by chance as if this is an issue for evolution they are lying to you about what evolution says and what biologists (or as JC calls them materialists) believe.
In the absence of a guiding intelligence it did just happen. Even though under the theory of evolution it took a fair bit of time. Life must have started out very simple and increased in complexity through a very slow process of natural selection acting on random mutations.Just a point, the length of DNA doesn't reflect the complexity of life. Humans have 46 chromosomes, dogs have 78, where as a fern has 1260 chromosomes. Potatoes have 48 (more than us)
This is further evidence for evolution. The more static and older the species the more mutations that duplicate DNA it has picked up.
And it is very difficult to explain in terms of intelligent design.
Is a fern a 1000 times more complex than a human. Is a dog twice as complex as a human? You can build an ant with 1 chromosome of DNA where as some bacteria need much more.
Well yeast can be anything up to 45 million years old as a species (possibly even older) and yet it only has 32 chromosomes. Under your reckoning shouldn't yeast have picked up more mutations that would have duplicated DNA in all that time? I don't think a chromosome count in organisms is good evidence for evolution at all. In fact it could be used as a counter argument under your criteria. If your criteria of - the older the species the more chromosomes it is likely to have - is true then how do you explain the chromosome count in yeast given that it is much older than humans?A mutation is any change in the system used to replicate itself that produces different results than the parent.
"Corruption" of code is nonsensical in this context since the code isn't being understood by anything.
Addition and loss depend on the system used to replicate. In the case of DNA you can add genetic material or remove genetic material and this will alter the child and thus alter the proteins the child produces.
Here's the official definition from Wikipedia:
In molecular biology and genetics, mutations are changes in a genomic sequence: the DNA sequence of a cell's genome or the DNA or RNA sequence of a virus. Mutations are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication.
The pivotal word in this paragraph is Sequence. If the sequence is altered at all then the resulting child will most likely be damaged and thus not survive and hence not reproduce hence making it impossible for further mutations to take place. But getting back to the word Sequence. The specific placement of the nucleotide bases within the DNA molecule is what determines what the organism will eventually become. Changes or mutations like that in the example above will most likely result in destruction for the resulting child.
So where did the original sequencing of these bases come from? The specificity and complexity of the original sequence could only have come about by chance if there was no guiding intelligence in the mix. So under Darwinian principles this happening was the result of chance at a time when the earth was only starting to evolve the capacity to support the resulting self replicating proto cell.
The odds against such a sequence happening at any time are vanishingly small anyway, but for it to happen just at the time when the earth was only starting out in its capacity to support it is just mind bogglingly begging the question.You are thinking of DNA as an information code, when in fact it make far more sense to think of it as a machine made up of lots of tiny worker units. A worker unit can either do action A or it can do action B and depending on what it does this effects the product the DNA machine makes (a protein)
If you have a line of worker units in the order A A A B B A A B you will make a particular protein (call it the AABBAAB protein)
Now if you add a new worker unit (which is just a molecule in a string of molecules) in the middle of all this you have a line of workers in the oder A A A B A B A A B and they make a different protein (call it AAABABAA protein)
"Information" is rather irrelevant to this. The workers don't know what they are doing, they just do it because it is the only thing they can do (the workers are just chemicals, who can only bond a particular way). They don't understand what they are doing, they aren't following a blueprint of what to do.
How these workers are arranged is purely down to which ones work. No one put them in order to achieve a particular out come. Nature is constantly rearranging them (mutation) and if a mutation does something benefital it survives natural selection.
Every time a life form reproduces all these workers are copied, and this system does not produce a perfect copy. A mutation is a change in the pattern. So A A A B B A A B becomes A A A B A B A A B and all of a sudden you have a slightly different machine that is going to make a slightly different output (ie protein) every time it is run (which is constantly throughout the life of the child as the child's cell or cells produce proteins to do things.
If this new protein does something useful in the wider machine then this new version thrives.
That makes sense but to say that the sequence whereby these workers are arranged cannot be construed as information is rather silly. If I arranged 1000 piles of hay in a field where -from an aerial view - their specific placement spelled out the sentence: "This hay is for the cows! Therefore leave the hay alone." you wouldn't deduce that information wasn't present because the bails of hay don't know what they are doing, would you? Do letters in normal sentences know what they are doing?
In the absence of natural selection and in a process that had no intelligence guiding it, the only way that the original sequence in the coding of the first cell could have come about was by chance. The chances that a single self replicating system could have come about by chance is like saying that if I randomly dropped the 1000 bails of hay out of a huge helicopter they would eventually spell out the sentence: "This hay is for the cows! Therefore leave the hay alone." How long do you think it would take? How many drops from the helicopter would it take? And what if it happened on the first try? You'd think there was another force at work wouldn't you? Yet this is what we are supposed to believe happened under the general theories of abiogenesis, when the first self replicating system arose on the very very early earth, and that it only happened once.Mutations are changes in the replication system. What they do is irrelevant to calling them a mutation.
Mutations are always bad is not even something Young Earth Creationists believe as they require benefitial mutations to go from the handful of animals on the ark to the millions we have today.
More from Wikipedia:
Mutation can result in several different types of change in DNA sequences; these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely.No actually they are always nearly neutral to the living system. You have on average 60 mutations from your parents, the majority of which probably do nothing to you.
Yes but what about mutations that take place in single cell organisms? These inevitability will lead to destruction for the child. If mutations at this level are usually detrimental and result in death then how can further mutations take place from the resulting mutated child? But even if some do survive, and subsequent mutations for that survive then how could such a multiple of billions of mutations eventually lead to such symmetrical organisms like human beings?This is why creatures like ferns have so many chromosomes, over the years they have built up a lot of mutations that do nothing.
As already pointed out above, if ferns have more chromosomes because their speicies is much older than humans then why does yeast have a lower chromosome count than humans? It too is much older than humans.Since they aren't having any great negate effect on the organisms with these mutations they don't die off (ie they aren't deselected by nature). They just hang around until some major evolutionary event takes place, like a chromosome splitting in half. Some species of ferns have evolved very little in the millions of years they have existed, so they have all these mutations built up. Mutations keep happening independently to natural selection.
Again, why does yeast have less chromosomes so?Low. Which is why it takes millions of years.
Think about it. The world is covered with self replicating molecules, and these undergo mutations all the time (billions of mutations happening every second spread over a population of billions of replicating units) and it still took 10 million years (longer than humans have existed) to develop a system that used RNA. 10 million years is a long time.
So is 45 millions years and thats how old yeast is at least. In fact it is probably much much older. I pick 45 million years as a figure because yeast has actually been found dating back that far.Again there is no information in DNA. There is just stuff that makes other stuff.
Again think of it simply as worker units. Mutations can add worker units by a number of ways all of which resolve around chemistry and the interaction of chemical molecules. For example during replication as a DNA strand is replicating itself it can make more than one replicate and this extra strand of DNA is stuck in at the end or the middle during replication. A sequence such as A A B B A becomes A A B B A B B (the copy of BB was made twice).
Naturally a string of workers A A B B A B B will produce something different than A A B B A, so the new DNA string will produce a different protein than the original.
I say there is no information here because the worker units have no idea what they are doing, they just do it. Worker unit A can only produce a specific thing. Worker unit B can only produce a specific thing. They don't choose what they make based on information.
Dealt with this earlier. But let me reprise. If your worker units which are assembled in a specific sequence cannot be construed as information then the letters you are reading in this sentence also cannot be construed as being a source of information. You might as well be reading a sequence like this: pdfnjw foufuwul hjzuccuu ucskfso kuxuvsoawoc icooijxdff bkko. Which obviously makes no sense. Same thing for DNA. If you mess with the sequence then you change the outcome. Unless the coding in DNA is specified in a particular way it will affect what will result. DNA contains all the instructions that each protein is to carry out in the cell. It also contains the folding sequence of the amino acids which go to make up the various different types of proteins that will carry out those instructions. Instructions to build a house is also information for building a house. Instructions and information are one and the same both for building a house and for building proteins.The odds of that happening are not low at all, given the conditions of the early Earth (yes we know these independently) it would be more surprising not to find self replicating molecules.
So how come - under the theory of evolution - life only arose once? And at the exact same time as it became possible for the earth to support it?To go from the very first self replicating unit to a human? Trillions.
But again how many mutations do you think you can generate if you have an Earth covered in self replicating units, who mutate all the time, and you have 4 billion years.
Trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions.
In theory that all sounds plausible but where is the hard evidence? Has this process ever been observed? Is it testable in the LAB? Why has yeast got a lower chromosomes count than a human being?Life can't devolve. It can evolve or it can die. Dead creatures don't reproduce, thus "bad" mutations do not continue to exist in the eco-system.
If mutations can result in a reduction of the original information in the proto cell then the resulting system - assuming it survives and replicates - will have changed into a less complex system. I think we can safely call that a devolution. That ferns contain more information than humans is due to their longevity just begs the question I've asked several times already. Why does yeast have a lower chromosome count than human beings given that it has been evolving for many millions of years longer than humans?Yes, huge ignorance and gross misunderstanding.
Trying to learn via my questions born of ignorance.
Basically nothing you have said in this post is accurately describing what Darwinian evolution says, irrespective of whether it is true or not. It is describing some nonsensical Creationist version of evolution that is full of straw men and misrepresentations.
My questions are valid enough for you to try and answer them though.So I'm under no doubt that you don't understand Darwinian evolution.
I can only ask the questions that come to my mind given what I do know about Darwinian evolution. I can only ask that which I'm confused about given my present understanding. I can do no other so help me God.The question I'm still not sure about is if you actually are interested in understanding Darwinian evolution, or if you have closed your mind due to religious reasons and concluded it cannot be true what ever it is.
I'm genuinely interested but I must admit that the answers I'm getting (and not just from you) just add more confusion to my already troubled open mind and hence result in more questions. Sorry about that old buddy old pal. :pac:No one apart from those with a deep ideological reason for thinking this actually thinks this.
That should tell you something, that perhaps you are missing something or not understanding it properly.
Hmmmm...Christians, Muslims, Hindus, atheists etc all accept evolution as making perfect sense.
Correction: 'Some Christians, some Muslims, some Hindus, and some atheists etc all accept evolution as making perfect sense.'
Fair play to them. The same argument could be made that some Christians, some Muslims, some Hindus, and some atheists etc all reject evolution as making perfect sense.Based on who's assessment of serious scrutiny? Yours? Answers in Genesis?
You think you have scrutinized evolution more than biologists have for the last 100 years?
There are many biologists in the past and today who did not and do not subscribe to the theory at all. They have PhDs in biology and biochemistry from reputable universities. Are they as ignorant as me when it comes to this theory given that they must must have understood it in order to get their PhD degrees in this area?Or perhaps you are simply mistaken in your understanding of this topic?
That's possible but my questions are as valid as anyone else.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Estimated??
Yes, it is sort of hard to give exact figures when you are dealing with something that is supposed to have happened 4 billion years ago.
I don't know, no, yes.Soul Winner wrote: »What were the first self replicating molecules to use RNA? Have we got physical evidence for them? Has there ever been a cell that didn't have DNA?Soul Winner wrote: »If so then it must have evolved DNA. If DNA has the instructions to build the cell then how can a cell form without DNA?
There are other ways to store the "instructions" to build a cell.
Even the most simply self replicating molecule has the characteristics needed to build another copy of itself, that is what makes it self replicating.
RNA and DNA are simply more complicated versions of this. They are not the starting point.Soul Winner wrote: »You bet ya. But just stating that self replicating systems (proto cells) evolved to use DNA does not mean that its true. You need evidence for this. You don't have any.
There are tons of evidence for this idea, know as the "RNA world" hypothesis.Soul Winner wrote: »Even though under the theory of evolution it took a fair bit of time.
Which is the point. All of JC's figures are the odds of a complex structure like a protein or a cell just randomly joining up.
No biologists alive thinks that is what actually happened.
Time is not going to be the only factor, others like mutation rate effect this as well.Soul Winner wrote: »Well yeast can be anything up to 45 million years old as a species (possibly even older) and yet it only has 32 chromosomes. Under your reckoning shouldn't yeast have picked up more mutations that would have duplicated DNA in all that time?
It was not meant as proof of evolution, more a serious blow to ID. Why would an intelligent designer use 32 chromosomes to make yeast when he can make an ant with only one.
Do you not think 32 chromosomes is odd for something that is the size and complexity of a flake of human skin?Soul Winner wrote: »Here's the official definition from Wikipedia:
You lost me when you put "official" and "Wikipedia" in the same sentence. :pac:Soul Winner wrote: »If the sequence is altered at all then the resulting child will most likely be damaged and thus not survive and hence not reproduce hence making it impossible for further mutations to take place.
Changes or mutations like that in the example above will most likely result in destruction for the resulting child.
I already explained this isn't true. I'm not sure how to explain it again.
The majority of mutations do nothing to you. You are living proof of this since humans on average contain 60 to 80 mutations in their DNA sequence from their parents DNA sequence.
So if mutations in DNA "most likely" result in the destruction of the child how are you still here? How am I still here? How are any of us still here? We should all be dead right?Soul Winner wrote: »The odds against such a sequence happening at any time are vanishingly small anyway, but for it to happen just at the time when the earth was only starting out in its capacity to support it is just mind bogglingly begging the question.
You are going to have to expand on this. What do you mean the Earth was only starting to support chemical sequences?
When did the Earth not support this?Soul Winner wrote: »That makes sense but to say that the sequence whereby these workers are arranged cannot be construed as information is rather silly. If I arranged 1000 piles of hay in a field where -from an aerial view - their specific placement spelled out the sentence: "This hay is for the cows! Therefore leave the hay alone." you wouldn't deduce that information wasn't present because the bails of hay don't know what they are doing, would you? Do letters in normal sentences know what they are doing?
The sentence "This hay is for the cows" is information because it conveys a concept between people.
DNA doesn't do that, any more than the chemical bonds in salt do that.Soul Winner wrote: »In the absence of natural selection and in a process that had no intelligence guiding it, the only way that the original sequence in the coding of the first cell could have come about was by chance.
Why the absence of natural selection? There is no biologists alive who thinks the original sequence in the coding of the first cells didn't come about via natural selection.Soul Winner wrote: »Mutation can result in several different types of change in DNA sequences; these can either have no effect, alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning properly or completely.
Yes, that is correct. Did you notice they didn't say that the only outcome or even the likely out come of a mutation is to prevent the gene from functioning?
I'm going to skip over further points along these lines because you are just saying the same inaccurate thing over and over.
They aren't a source of information, they are chemical bondings. They are no more a source of information to the cell that H2O is.Soul Winner wrote: »Dealt with this earlier. But let me reprise. If your worker units which are assembled in a specific sequence cannot be construed as information then the letters you are reading in this sentence also cannot be construed as being a source of information.Soul Winner wrote: »You might as well be reading a sequence like this: pdfnjw foufuwul hjzuccuu ucskfso kuxuvsoawoc icooijxdff bkko. Which obviously makes no sense.
Make sense to who?
If you want to call H2O (two hydrogen atoms to one oxygen atom) FFQ you can. All these are are human classification of molecules.
Chemical molecules don't understand things. The molecules don't read the DNA sequence and go "Oh, ok, I have to build a protein now" They just do it, based on chemical bonds. There is no information here in any meaningful sense of the word.Soul Winner wrote: »Instructions and information are one and the same both for building a house and for building proteins.
If there is information in DNA there is also information in salt molecules.
We don't know life only arose once. Life could have arisen thousand of times. Only one form survived which is understandable in a system of limited resources.Soul Winner wrote: »So how come - under the theory of evolution - life only arose once?Soul Winner wrote: »And at the exact same time as it became possible for the earth to support it?
That is like asking what are the odds that I started to feel hot exactly the same time that the temperature in the room was turned up.
Life arose because the conditions were right, not the other way round.Soul Winner wrote: »In theory that all sounds plausible but where is the hard evidence? Has this process ever been observed?
Has a 4 billion year process ever been observed? Think about that one for a second.Soul Winner wrote: »Is it testable in the LAB? Why has yeast got a lower chromosomes count than a human being?
I haven't studied yeast so I don't know.
You apparently have so perhaps you can explain why if we are all intelligently designed yeast has 30 more chromosomes than an ant?Soul Winner wrote: »If mutations can result in a reduction of the original information in the proto cell then the resulting system - assuming it survives and replicates - will have changed into a less complex system.
Not necessarily. We have already established that the number length of the DNA does not directly relate to the complexity of the organism.
But even if that were true a less complex child is not a de-evolve version of the parent.
Evolution is about adaption to environment. If a child is more adapt to the environment, even if it is less complex is structure, then it has evolved.Soul Winner wrote: »I think we can safely call that a devolution.
That statement sums up this entire thread to be honest.Soul Winner wrote: »That ferns contain more information than humans is due to their longevity just begs the question I've asked several times already. Why does yeast have a lower chromosome count than human beings given that it has been evolving for many millions of years longer than humans?
Are you genuinely interested in the answer to that question or do you simply think it disproves what I said?Soul Winner wrote: »Trying to learn via my questions born of ignorance.
You seem to spend a lot of time repeating questions that have already been answered.
For example it is a complete fabrication that the majority of mutations result in the death of the off spring.
If that it the Creationist argument for why evolution cannot happen surely that being wrong shows that evolution can happen, and we can all go home :pac:
I haven't given up yet (as I have with JC and Wolfsbane) that you are genuinely not interested in learning about evolution.Soul Winner wrote: »My questions are valid enough for you to try and answer them though.Soul Winner wrote: »I can only ask the questions that come to my mind given what I do know about Darwinian evolution.
Asking questions isn't the issue. Ignoring the answers is.Soul Winner wrote: »Fair play to them. The same argument could be made that some Christians, some Muslims, some Hindus, and some atheists etc all reject evolution as making perfect sense.
Yes but the argument from the Creationist camp is that you would only accept evolution in order to reject God. That clearly isn't the case.Soul Winner wrote: »There are many biologists in the past and today who did not and do not subscribe to the theory at all.
There are not "many". There are a tiny tiny tiny handful. Answers in Genesis tried to compile a list of biologists who reject evolution and I think they got to about 20. Out of the hundreds of thousands of biologists working today.Soul Winner wrote: »Are they as ignorant as me when it comes to this theory given that they must must have understood it in order to get their PhD degrees in this area?
No. Which is why I'm still bothering to explain it to you but wouldn't bother explaining it to them since if someone understands it and yet still rejects it that is ideology, not ignorance.
I'm still holding out hope for you yet 0 -
-
Yes, it is sort of hard to give exact figures when you are dealing with something that is supposed to have happened 4 billion years ago.
Cool, we agree on something at last.I don't know, no, yes.
For the record, your Yes answer is to the following question:
Has there ever been a cell that didn't have DNA?
OK, explain please. A cell that had/has no DNA. Go...There are other ways to store the "instructions" to build a cell.
How?Even the most simply self replicating molecule has the characteristics needed to build another copy of itself, that is what makes it self replicating.
RNA and DNA are simply more complicated versions of this. They are not the starting point.
What is the starting point then? Amino acids (the basic building blocks of life) are folded into three dimensional structures called proteins. The particular folding instructions of the various amino acids (20 in all) to make Proteins is coded for in DNA. These instructions are encoded in the sequence of nucleotide bases in the double helix structure of DNA. Proteins read this sequence in the bases and decode it in order to bring about transcription which is needed in order to create mRNA so that it can be replicated in another (extremely complicated) part of the cell. In short cells need proteins and proteins cannot form without DNA. DNA has all the instructions for the building of all the proteins. So how can you have a cell that has no DNA?There are tons of evidence for this idea, know as the "RNA world" hypothesis.
A critique of the RNA world hypothesis from www.arn.org by Gordon C. Mills - [SIZE=-1]Department of Human Biological Chemistry and Genetics and Dean [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Kenyon - [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Department of Biology San Francisco State University:[/SIZE]
"Hubert Yockey, borrowing a metaphor from Jonathan Swift, suggests that current origin-of-life research, including the RNA World hypothesis, floats improbably in mid-air like the roof of a house built by an architect of the Grand Academy of Lagado. This savant had contrived a method of building houses by beginning at the roof and working downwards. "The architect pointed out that among the advantages of this procedure," Yockey notes, "was that once the roof was in place [before the walls or foundation] the rest of the construction could proceed quickly and without interruption by weather." That "roof" -- consisting in this instance of tiles which represent the catalytic activities of RNA -- may look solid to those believers in the existence of a prebiotic RNA World. But is the roof really solid? Is it supported by walls and a foundation?" More here.Which is the point. All of JC's figures are the odds of a complex structure like a protein or a cell just randomly joining up.
No biologists alive thinks that is what actually happened.
The abiogenesis theories are starting to remind of some of the outlandish theories that try to explain the Big Bang without the need for an absolute beginning of the universe simply because the religious implications are enormous. As soon as they get to within a certain Planck time of the initial singularity the laws of physics needed to explain it all, fall apart and break down. Likewise with naturalist theories for the origin of life. The laws of natural selection break down because at this level there is no Natural Selection, just organic chemicals swimming around in the primordial pond. There is no struggle for survival at this level.It was not meant as proof of evolution, more a serious blow to ID.
Contrast that statement with the following:
"Just a point, the length of DNA doesn't reflect the complexity of life. Humans have 46 chromosomes, dogs have 78, where as a fern has 1260 chromosomes. Potatoes have 48 (more than us)
This is further evidence for evolution. The more static and older the species the more mutations that duplicate DNA it has picked up."
Given what we know now about yeast, this was hardly a blow for ID now was it?Why would an intelligent designer use 32 chromosomes to make yeast when he can make an ant with only one.
I'm not the one who says that the older the organism the more chromosomes it should have - you said that. I don't know why yeast has only 32 chromosomes and humans have 46. I wasn't using that as evidence for anything, I was just refuting what you said about the longevity of species, that the older the species the more chromosomes it will have accumulated during its longer evolution period. Yeast proves that hypotheses false because yeast is much older as a species than humans and yet it has a lower chromosome count than humans.Do you not think 32 chromosomes is odd for something that is the size and complexity of a flake of human skin?
I have no opinion on the matter either way. It doesn't strike me as odd at all because I wasn't the one pointing to it as good evidence for anything, just that it was good evidence which falsified your theory.You lost me when you put "official" and "Wikipedia" in the same sentence. :pac:
That's a strange comment coming from the master Wikipedia quoter :pac:I already explained this isn't true. I'm not sure how to explain it again.
The majority of mutations do nothing to you. You are living proof of this since humans on average contain 60 to 80 mutations in their DNA sequence from their parents DNA sequence.
So if mutations in DNA "most likely" result in the destruction of the child how are you still here? How am I still here? How are any of us still here? We should all be dead right?
My point was that the random mutations theory is not an adequate explanation for how life evolved, I don't actually subscribe to the random mutations hypothesis in the first place so how would I know?You are going to have to expand on this. What do you mean the Earth was only starting to support chemical sequences?
When did the Earth not support this?
OK let me explain. The earth is supposedly 4 billion years old. And life supposedly appeared on the earth 3.5 billion years ago. Which means that the earth was in development for 500 million years before life arose and according to the literature this is the time when the earth became capable of supporting any lifeforms that might arise. Before 3.5 billion years ago the earth would have been made of molten rock and as such the organic chemicals required for the proto cell to form would need the earth to cool down, but just at the time when the earth did cool down the astronomically low odds happening just happened to happen. Brilliant lads.The sentence "This hay is for the cows" is information because it conveys a concept between people.
DNA doesn't do that, any more than the chemical bonds in salt do that.
Chemical bonds in salt can be explained naturalistically. It can be tested in the LAB. All you need are the right chemical compounds in the right place under the right environmental conditions and voilà we can make salt. That process is not so easy when it comes to protein formation. Depending on the sequence of the amino acids a certain type of protein will result. The sequencing instructions are encoded within DNA. It is DNA which is responsible for how all the proteins are formed, what proteins are formed and for what functions the proteins are formed. This coding may or may not make any sense to you or I but for proper functionality to be achieved within the cell it makes a world of difference.Why the absence of natural selection? There is no biologists alive who thinks the original sequence in the coding of the first cells didn't come about via natural selection.
"Natural selection can only apply to self replicating systems that are subject to environmental factors." Wicknight in the first line of this post
So according even to you before the first self replicating system arose there was no Natural Selection right? But all we had before the first self replicating system was organic chemicals swimming around in the primordial slime pool waiting to assemble themselves into the specific sequence in order to form the first ever self replicating system.Yes, that is correct. Did you notice they didn't say that the only outcome or even the likely out come of a mutation is to prevent the gene from functioning?
YesThey aren't a source of information, they are chemical bondings. They are no more a source of information to the cell that H2O is.
Oh but there are. See above salt explanation.Chemical molecules don't understand things. The molecules don't read the DNA sequence and go "Oh, ok, I have to build a protein now" They just do it, based on chemical bonds. There is no information here in any meaningful sense of the word.
If there is information in DNA there is also information in salt molecules.
Individual letters in words do not understand things either. They are abstract entities that have meaning to those who use them in order to communicate with one another. Their specific sequencing is very important for a proper understanding of what is being conveyed. Depending on the specific sequencing of these individual letters, the resulting words, sentences and paragraphs will either make sense to the reader or they won't. Letters are two dimensional entities either written or typed out on a medium which when read will either make sense to the reader or not. The same principle applies to the specific sequencing of the amino acids except much more advanced than any language known to man and it goes one step further, it is actually three dimensional. The specific folding sequence will either produce a specific functioning protein or it won't. The sequencing instructions are encoded within the structure of the DNA double helix, depending on what way the nucleotide bases are themselves sequenced will determine what type of protein will result when this information is decoded. This is a billion light years removed from the chemical compounds that are need to make salt.We don't know life only arose once.
Not according to this article on Richard Dawkins.netLife could have arisen thousand of times. Only one form survived which is understandable in a system of limited resources.
Why do you think that the earth at that time had limited resources? Surely there could have been more than just one primordial soup pond on the vast earth from which life could have simultaneously arisen separated by enough distance that the resulting lifeforms would not have to fight over the limited resources of one pond?That is like asking what are the odds that I started to feel hot exactly the same time that the temperature in the room was turned up.
No its not. Feeling hot as a result of an increase in temperature is what will naturally happen. The odds that you will feel hot after an increase in temperature are very high. However the odds that life will arise given the right conditions and proper chemical compounds all mixed up together will produce life are vanishingly small, and that it happened just as the earth became capable of supporting it is mind boggling. Talk about a leap of faith.Life arose because the conditions were right, not the other way round.
The conditions have been right for over 3 billion years, so how come we don't observe it happening all the time?Has a 4 billion year process ever been observed? Think about that one for a second.
The way some evolutionists talk you'd swear that it had been.I haven't studied yeast so I don't know.
You apparently have so perhaps you can explain why if we are all intelligently designed yeast has 30 more chromosomes than an ant?
Beats the hell out of me. Chromosome counts are not my forté, nor does ID hold them up as proving anything as far as I know.But even if that were true a less complex child is not a de-evolve version of the parent.
What if given the proper environmental conditions life started to devolve to a more primitive state? In theory the environmental conditions are the feedback system by which selection takes place, then surely a cataclysmic event conceivably could set evolution to devolution. Imagine a meteorite hit the earth wiping out most of the animal and plant life, the survivors with the limited resources remaining would need to adjust to the new environmental conditions that they now find themselves in. Surely adapting to this new environment would either result in extinction for the surviving species or force it to survive on the limited resources available. Given all the cataclysmic events that have occurred on this earth since life arose there would have been many such set backs like this until the environmental conditions began to change back to a more favorable degree for evolution to kick back in. Can this type of adaptation be construed as devolution or is it still simply evolution but going in a different direction?Evolution is about adaption to environment. If a child is more adapt to the environment, even if it is less complex is structure, then it has evolved.
I suppose that answers my previous question - thanksThat statement sums up this entire thread to be honest.
So there's no such thing as devolution then? No matter what direction life takes, be that up, down or sideways, no matter how complex and advanced a species gets or how less advanced it gets, it is all evolution? I'd rather call reverting back to a lesser advanced state a devolution but heck that's just me.Are you genuinely interested in the answer to that question or do you simply think it disproves what I said?
I couldn't care less, unless someone can adequately show the real reason for the differing chromosome counts in all the species of plants and animals. I just think that your theory was wrong on that score and for now that was what had me interested in it.You seem to spend a lot of time repeating questions that have already been answered.
For example it is a complete fabrication that the majority of mutations result in the death of the off spring.
If that it the Creationist argument for why evolution cannot happen surely that being wrong shows that evolution can happen, and we can all go home :pac:
I'm not arguing against evolution per se, just the mechanism by which it is supposed to take place. The reason I keep asking the same questions regarding Natural Selection is because the answers I'm getting generate more questions than anything else.I haven't given up yet (as I have with JC and Wolfsbane) that you are genuinely not interested in learning about evolution.
Ah thanks, you're a pal. Put it this way, if Natural Selection was thrown out tomorrow as a theory in the scientific community in favor of ID, I'd still be interested in the answers to these questions from somebody who accepts it as a valid theory.Asking questions isn't the issue. Ignoring the answers is.
Ignoring the answers and simply rejecting the answers as inadequate are two very different things. I have given my reason for rejecting them and your refutations of my reasons for rejecting them simply do not hold water for me. Like I said, they raise more questions than anything else.Yes but the argument from the Creationist camp is that you would only accept evolution in order to reject God. That clearly isn't the case.
We agree yet again.There are not "many". There are a tiny tiny tiny handful. Answers in Genesis tried to compile a list of biologists who reject evolution and I think they got to about 20. Out of the hundreds of thousands of biologists working today.
20 that are willing to be counted at least. But you can't just help yourself to the hundreds of thousands that are left un-vouched for though. Not all of them have nailed their colors to any specific mast as yet so until they do the jury is out. In any case even if there was just 20, are they to be castigated because they don't subscribe to a specific interpretation of the evidence that they just happen to disagree with? Surely not.No. Which is why I'm still bothering to explain it to you but wouldn't bother explaining it to them since if someone understands it and yet still rejects it that is ideology, not ignorance.
No is not wicknight, that is someone who knows it and simply doesn't accept it. They claim to simply go where the evidence leads them and for them in the case of microbiology and biochemistry the evidence is stronger for Intelligent Design than it is for chance, necessity or a combination of both. That is how these guys see it and sure even if they are wrong that is not a good reason to castigate them. I thought part of the fun of Science was finding out how wrong you are.I'm still holding out hope for you yet
:rolleyes:0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »OK, explain please. A cell that had/has no DNA. Go...
One word for you Ribo Nucleic Acid
There are a number of viruses that only contain RNA.Soul Winner wrote: »How?
Any system of chemical bonds. RNA plays a major role in most life forms for the construction of protein (though DNA is still the central role) and in some viruses RNA is all there is.
But on a more fundamental level any chemical bond that is replicating can story the pattern to construct primitive cell (proto-cell)Soul Winner wrote: »In short cells need proteins and proteins cannot form without DNA. DNA has all the instructions for the building of all the proteins. So how can you have a cell that has no DNA?
Modern cells require this. But it is incorrect to assume that modern cells are all there ever were, that is the whole point of evolution.
You wouldn't look at a Ferrari and say "How the heck did cave men build that?"
Equally it is illogical to look at a modern cell and say how did random formations of chemicals in a primordial soup form that!Soul Winner wrote: »Gordon C. Mills
Scientists can of course disagree, though Mills' bio would seem to suggest he is more interested in finding some where where God has to be inserted rather than seriously considering a naturalistic origin of lifeFor the past 12 years he has applied his research training and experience to developing a Christian view of evolution and the origin of life, culminating in a series of publications. This view was initially termed a "Design Theory of Theistic Evolution", but he is now referring to it as a "Design Theory of Progressive Creation". Dr. Mills has authored about 20 papers dealing with this subject, most appearing in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, with others in Origins & Design, and in Christian Scholar's Review.
I appreciate that a purely naturalistic origin of life is troubling for some Chrisitans, but that isn't a reason it isn't true.
That article was also written in 1996, there have been a lot of advances in understanding since then.
Here is a more up todate publication from a quick Google Search
http://books.google.ie/books?id=3mREVdXNzFcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=RNA+world&source=bl&ots=29qPBkpHZP&sig=1SIMqxNYArlrladOriQQyg3aScs&hl=en&ei=TnfaTKCCIIuFhQff18jcAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCgSoul Winner wrote: »The abiogenesis theories are starting to remind of some of the outlandish theories that try to explain the Big Bang without the need for an absolute beginning of the universe simply because the religious implications are enormous.
I would suggest that is your bias shining through. Most if not all current abiogenesis theories work within known and understood laws of chemistry and the current understanding of the chemicals likely found on the early Earth.
This to me would be a lot less outlandish that introducing an unknown yet super powerful designer that we have no external evidence for and who simply is introduced to make ID work.Soul Winner wrote: »The laws of natural selection break down because at this level there is no Natural Selection, just organic chemicals swimming around in the primordial pond. There is no struggle for survival at this level.
Yes there is. There is natural selection and struggle for survival because these chemicals replicate (thus allowing for the possibility for changes during replication) and because there is only a infinite amount of resources to replicate with (ie you need stuff to build a copy of yourself)
So does that make you see how it isn't that outlandish at all?
The yeast examples shows that older species more chromosomes is not a hard rule, but then I never claimed it was. If you look at a range of species not just one you pick out that bucks the trend, this general idea holds. Of course time is not the only factor at play, mutation rate is also an issue along with other thing.Soul Winner wrote: »Contrast that statement with the following:
"Just a point, the length of DNA doesn't reflect the complexity of life. Humans have 46 chromosomes, dogs have 78, where as a fern has 1260 chromosomes. Potatoes have 48 (more than us)
This is further evidence for evolution. The more static and older the species the more mutations that duplicate DNA it has picked up."
Given what we know now about yeast, this was hardly a blow for ID now was it?
It is still a blow for ID though since the issue with ID is that there is supposed to be a designer.
What ever way you want to look at it if DNA is designed by someone why does yeast require nearly as much "information" put there by the designer as humans do?Soul Winner wrote: »My point was that the random mutations theory is not an adequate explanation for how life evolved, I don't actually subscribe to the random mutations hypothesis in the first place so how would I know?
You have repeatably claimed that random mutations will in the majority of cases kill or damage the offspring and this means it cannot be adequate explanation for evolution of life.
Given that this isn't true, that the vast majority of mutations do no harm to the off spring to you accept then that is isn't an argument against evolution?
Do you think it is odd that mold just happens to appear on your food when you take it out of the fridge and leave it out? I mean you can have that bowl of baked beans in your fridge for days yet you take it out and within a few hours mold can form. How does the mold know now is the right time to form? Why not in the fridge?Soul Winner wrote: »OK let me explain. The earth is supposedly 4 billion years old. And life supposedly appeared on the earth 3.5 billion years ago. Which means that the earth was in development for 500 million years before life arose and according to the literature this is the time when the earth became capable of supporting any lifeforms that might arise. Before 3.5 billion years ago the earth would have been made of molten rock and as such the organic chemicals required for the proto cell to form would need the earth to cool down, but just at the time when the earth did cool down the astronomically low odds happening just happened to happen. Brilliant lads.
You see how silly this argument is?
The chemicals required to form self replicating molecules were always there, but as you said the very very early Earth was probably too violent so the chemical reactions didn't take place. These reactions happened as soon as the Earth had cooled to a level that it could. It wasn't a coincidence, any more than mold happens to grow on your food around the time that the temperature gets right for mold to grow.Soul Winner wrote: »Depending on the sequence of the amino acids a certain type of protein will result. The sequencing instructions are encoded within DNA. It is DNA which is responsible for how all the proteins are formed, what proteins are formed and for what functions the proteins are formed. This coding may or may not make any sense to you or I but for proper functionality to be achieved within the cell it makes a world of difference.
But it still just follows basic rules of chemistry and chemical bonds. The "world of difference" to the cell is what evolution takes care of.Soul Winner wrote: »"Natural selection can only apply to self replicating systems that are subject to environmental factors." Wicknight in the first line of this post
So according even to you before the first self replicating system arose there was no Natural Selection right?
Some times I wonder are you actually listening at all.
The first self replicating systems did not contain RNA or DNA. These sequence systems evolved.
I'm going to just have to start ignoring you if you keep insisting this was the case as I can only repeat myself so many times.Soul Winner wrote: »But all we had before the first self replicating system was organic chemicals swimming around in the primordial slime pool waiting to assemble themselves into the specific sequence in order to form the first ever self replicating system.
No that isn't all we have. We have self replicating molecules. They do not use any DNA like sequencing because they aren't yet making proteins. They are just replicating themselves.Soul Winner wrote: »Oh but there are. See above salt explanation.
Oh but they aren't. You view them as such because of your cognitive biases, not because they actually are. Saying there is a world of difference between DNA and salt is not true, it is fundamentally just chemical reactions. We simply view complex things as being more wondrous than similar things but as far as nature is concerned it is all just chemistry.
DNA itself is just made up of sugars and the way to produces proteins follows the chemical laws for sugars.
Correct. We understand things, which means information is something passed around between intelligent beings and requires understanding.Soul Winner wrote: »Individual letters in words also do not understand things.
The cell does not understand the DNA sequence. It is not an idea or concept that must be understood by the cell to do something. It happens automatically based on chemical laws.
Think of it this way, does your key hold information? No, of course not (except maybe the serial number or something on the top), it is just a key. You don't read it, you don't understand it. But your key holds a sequence of ridges that in the correct sequence will open your door. But they do this not through the transfer of information but simple physical laws. If the ridges in the key hit the inside of the lock the door won't open. If they don't they turn and open the door.
Compare that to your drivers licence. That holds a wealth of information and is meant to be understood by someone (ie the police man pulling you over)Soul Winner wrote: »Not according to this article on Richard Dawkins.net
Unfortunately as so often happens with popular science writing (the original article was from Wired) it seems that the headline writer didn't bother to read the actual article.
Theobald’s study does not address how many times life may have arisen on Earth. Life could have originated many times, but the study suggests that only one of those primordial events yielded the array of organisms living today.
Because there is a finite amount of stuff on it.Soul Winner wrote: »Why do you think that the earth at that time had limited resources?Soul Winner wrote: »Surely there could have been more than just one primordial soup pond on the vast earth from which life could have simultaneously arisen separated by enough distance that the resulting lifeforms would not have to fight over the limited resources of one pond?
The replicating units would have fought with themselves. If you have a billion replicating units in a pond and enough molecules to make another 500 million some of the billion replicating units are not going to replicate at the end of the day.Soul Winner wrote: »No is not. Feeling hot as a result of an increase in temperature is what will naturally happen. The odds that you will feel hot after an increase in temperature are very high. However the odds that life will arise given the right conditions and proper chemical compounds all mixed up together will produce life are vanishingly small
No they aren't. The odds that life will arise given the right conditions and proper chemical compounds are very very high.Soul Winner wrote: »The conditions have been right for over 3 billion years, so how come we don't observe it happening all the time?
The conditions haven't been right for 3 billion years. At the moment there isn't the right conditions nor the right chemical compounds. At some point in the distant past bacteria changed the make up of the atmosphere to be largely oxygen based.Soul Winner wrote: »The way some evolutionists talk you'd swear that it had been.
No, this obsession with observing everything directly with your own eyes only seems to come solely from Creationists.
Most scientists, not just biologists, don't trust their own eyes very much and much prefer a large body of evidence that one single person couldn't possible observe.Soul Winner wrote: »Beats the hell out of me. Chromosome counts are not my forté, nor does ID hold them up as proving anything as far as I know.
It is not a question of supporting, it is a question of contradicting. Chromosome counts across all species (not just one or two edge cases) contradict ID. There is no pattern across any species as to complexity to length ratio.
Almost as if there was no intelligent design at all :PSoul Winner wrote: »What if given the proper environmental conditions life started to devolve to a more primitive state?
Evolution isn't concerned with primitive or complex states. It is concerned with adapted or not adapted (ie will the environment kill me or not).
If decrease in complexity makes you more likely to survive then this is still evolution. In Darwinian biology there is no such thing as devolution since non-adapted creatures by definition simply die. A species cannot continuously un-adapt, so they can't devolve.Soul Winner wrote: »Imagine a meteorite hit the earth wiping out most of the animal and plant life, the survivors with the limited resources remaining would need to adjust to the new environmental conditions that they now find themselves in. Surely adapting to this new environment would either result in extinction for the surviving species or force it to survive on the limited resources available. Given all the cataclysmic events that have occurred on this earth since life arose there would have been many such set backs like this until the environmental conditions began to change back to a more favorable degree for evolution to kick back in.
That is a fundamental misunderstanding. The only environment not favourable to evolution is one that is static and has unlimited resources. The harsher the environment the more evolution will take place.
What you actually describe would result in rapid evolution not devolution, since the challenges of the environment are now much greater. The unadapted will be deselected very quickly, so even the most minor mutational change, which in the previous environment may have given little benefit at all may give much greater benefit in this much harsher environment.
Say normally you have a mutation that causes a slight darkening of your skin, very minor. In normal civilization this probably has zero effect on you, it doesn't help or hinder you from mating and thus this mutation becomes just another one of the mutations considered not to really do anything significant.
Now in a post apocalyptic world such a mutation may mean you can walk for 6 days to find water in the blazing sun rather than 5 days that everyone else can. Everyone but you dies because the water is 6 days away. You, by luck because you have this mutation, are better adapted to survive in a post apocalyptic world where water is 6 days way, so you are selected by natural selection to survive. You return to the camp with water and since you are the only man left you have lots of sex with the surviving women and the slight pigment change gene ends up in all your children, who are now themselves more adapted to this envoriment. When they go for water with the other children not fathered by you they are the only ones to survive, so their children have this gene and so on for a few generations until no one is left except people with this gene.
This happens much faster in harsher environments because life and death struggle are more pronounced. A mutation that would have no effect on you in a comfortable environment has a major effect in a harsh one.Soul Winner wrote: »Can this type of adaptation be construed as devolution or is it still simply evolution but going in a different direction?
It is evolution. There is only one direction, the direction of adaption to the current environment.
Not in biology.Soul Winner wrote: »So there's no such thing as devolution then?Soul Winner wrote: »No matter what direction life takes, be that up, down or sideways, no matter how complex and advanced a species gets or how less advanced it gets, it is all evolution? I'd rather call reverting back to a lesser advanced state a devolution but heck that's just me.
That is because you are fundamentally thinking about evolution incorrectly. You think of evolution as a increasing of complexity (eg bacteria to humans). That is not what it is, which should be obvious since bacteria are still here along with humans.
Evolution is increasing adaptation to an environment that is also constantly changing.
Bacteria alive to day are as evolved as we are because they are still here, ie they are adapted to survive in their current environment just like we are.Soul Winner wrote: »No is not wicknight, that is someone who knows it and simply doesn't accept it. They claim to simply go where the evidence leads them
They are lying, either to themselves or to us.
Either way I would have not interest in trying to convince them they are wrong as if they understand evolution and seen the evidence for it and still reject it they are as deluded as someone who has been in space yet still calls the Earth flat.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement