PDA

View Full Version : Does the Theory of Evolution reflect Creation?



David M
07-18-2012, 03:15 AM
I have started a conversation with Richard to try and explain why things appear as they do and to do this some ground might have to be conceded by Creationists and Evolutionists. Some Creationists can accept that evolution can take place within species but can some Evolutionists recognise Creation within evolution?

Sine this is largely a matter of speculation, requiring faith; I am comfortable with trying to find an explanation to satisfy scientific discovery which Creationists can simply gloss over without having to give any other explanation for and only have to say; that is the way God made it appear.

If we can accept a long period of time for God to create simple life forms and give Him time to let those life forms replicate and adapet to their environment in order to prove their perfectness, then after a very long period of small creative steps in every increasing complexity, once that was complete, man as the pinnacle and final creation could have been created very quickly.

From the time man has been created, he has not changed. In 6,000 years or a little longer, man has not evolved. This is the conclusion of a Theoretical Physicists and Evolutionist, whose video is posted below. I think this video goes to support my theory of Evolution seen as progressive steps of Creation with man being the final creation and the pinnacle of God's creation after which there are no more creative steps. From now on, man does not evolve, but with the mercy of God will be transformed to have an incorruptible body as Jesus has now and be given eternal life. The fact that God's power was seen to raise Lazarus from the dead and Jesus, goes to show that the creation of man was quick and that God's creative steps were done quickly but allowed time inbetween.

Those parts of Creation or Evolution requiring dependancy of plants and animals could have all been done as part of God's creative process as each new creation built on what had been made and proven over time to be "perfect". Why should we throw all logic away and not allow God to start off creating "life" is a simple way and building up to the complexity of man? Creating a working DNA molecule is perhaps fare more difficult than for God to create one atom of hydrogen from raw energy.

Anyway, this has given us food for thought, and here is the video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkuCtIko798

David

Rose
07-18-2012, 01:58 PM
From the time man has been created, he has not changed. In 6,000 years or a little longer, man has not evolved. This is the conclusion of a Theoretical Physicists and Evolutionist, whose video is posted below. I think this video goes to support my theory of Evolution seen as progressive steps of Creation with man being the final creation and the pinnacle of God's creation after which there are no more creative steps. From now on, man does not evolve, but with the mercy of God will be transformed to have an incorruptible body as Jesus has now and be given eternal life. The fact that God's power was seen to raise Lazarus from the dead and Jesus, goes to show that the creation of man was quick and that God's creative steps were done quickly but allowed time inbetween.

Hi David,

About 6 to 7 millions years ago the human line diverged from their closest ancestors the African Apes. It's surprising how just a few small genetic changes eventually led to the highly evolved human brain. The human brain has about 3 times the capacity of our closest cousins the primates, all because of a simple genetic mutation that switch off a gene that limited neuronal growth. Another regulating gene named HAR1F also changed, allowing greater brain tissue growth during the 7th and 19th week of fetal development. Also the speech center which we share with our primate cousins differs by a regulator gene named FOXP2 which allows for development of speech in humans, and the lack of keeps primates at the mental level of a 3-4 year old child.

The study of DNA has opened up huge discoveries in our evolutionary past showing how the development of our larger brains began over 6 million years ago with a few minor genetic mutations which led to speech development and brain size.

Humans and African apes are members of the same Family Hominidae and the subfamily Homininae. Apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes and humans have 23, the reason for that lies in the second human chromosome which turns out to be a merging of chromosomes #12 & #13 in the ape genome around 6-7 million years ago. This is just another piece of confirmatory evidence that links our ancestry with primates over 6 millions years ago.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_8.htm

Why are there still chimpanzees?

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=wh0F4FBLJRE&vq=medium

Transitional forms:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=wh0F4FBLJRE&vq=medium


Those parts of Creation or Evolution requiring dependancy of plants and animals could have all been done as part of God's creative process as each new creation built on what had been made and proven over time to be "perfect". Why should we throw all logic away and not allow God to start off creating "life" is a simple way and building up to the complexity of man? Creating a working DNA molecule is perhaps fare more difficult than for God to create one atom of hydrogen from raw energy.



David

It seems that humans are not quite as perfect as they could be, our bodies have many design flaws that a competent designer should have corrected, but is totally in keeping with evolution. When one starts making a list of the things that go wrong with the human body, it quickly becomes very clear that there is room for great improvement. As far as "complexity" goes we humans are really no more complex than our closest relative the primates; the only differences are a few minor genetic mutations that led to our larger brain capacity which then led to our ability to reason. Because of our ability to reason we no longer physically evolve by the process of natural selection like other animals do...we have the power of choice by reason.

Take care,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
07-18-2012, 02:34 PM
I have started a conversation with Richard to try and explain why things appear as they do and to do this some ground might have to be conceded by Creationists and Evolutionists. Some Creationists can accept that evolution can take place within species but can some Evolutionists recognise Creation within evolution?

Sine this is largely a matter of speculation, requiring faith; I am comfortable with trying to find an explanation to satisfy scientific discovery which Creationists can simply gloss over without having to give any other explanation for and only have to say; that is the way God made it appear.

If we can accept a long period of time for God to create simple life forms and give Him time to let those life forms replicate and adapet to their environment in order to prove their perfectness, then after a very long period of small creative steps in every increasing complexity, once that was complete, man as the pinnacle and final creation could have been created very quickly.

From the time man has been created, he has not changed. In 6,000 years or a little longer, man has not evolved. This is the conclusion of a Theoretical Physicists and Evolutionist, whose video is posted below. I think this video goes to support my theory of Evolution seen as progressive steps of Creation with man being the final creation and the pinnacle of God's creation after which there are no more creative steps. From now on, man does not evolve, but with the mercy of God will be transformed to have an incorruptible body as Jesus has now and be given eternal life. The fact that God's power was seen to raise Lazarus from the dead and Jesus, goes to show that the creation of man was quick and that God's creative steps were done quickly but allowed time inbetween.

Those parts of Creation or Evolution requiring dependancy of plants and animals could have all been done as part of God's creative process as each new creation built on what had been made and proven over time to be "perfect". Why should we throw all logic away and not allow God to start off creating "life" is a simple way and building up to the complexity of man? Creating a working DNA molecule is perhaps fare more difficult than for God to create one atom of hydrogen from raw energy.

Anyway, this has given us food for thought, and here is the video

David

Hey there David,

I really appreciate you effort to understand how your religious beliefs might fit with the results of modern science. But I think it might be a bit premature to try to suggest modifications of the Theory of Evolution. Would it ever enter your mind to modify Einstein's Theory of General Relativity? Of course not, since the theory is founded upon complex mathematics that you know you don't know. For example, Einstein's Field Equation:

527

My point is that the Theory of Evolution is every bit as complex as the Theory of General Relativity. It is a modern science with a massive amount of experimental validation supporting an exceedingly advanced theoretical structure involving science from nearly all fields such as DNA analysis, chemistry, geophysics, mathematics, and even Einstein's astrophysics. For example, you would have to read and understand documents like this which unite physics, mathematics, and biology:
Geometrical correlations in the nucleosomal DNA conformation and the role of the covalent bonds rigidity
Maryam Ghorbani and Farshid Mohammad-Rafiee

Department of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies in Basic Sciences (IASBS), Zanjan 45137-66731, Iran,
Department of Physics and Astronomy, UCLA, Los Angeles, California 90095-1596, USA and
Department of Biological Sciences, IASBS, Zanjan 45137-66731, Iran

Abstract
We develop a simple elastic model to study the conformation of DNA in the nucleosome core particle. In this model, the changes in the energy of the covalent bonds that connect the base pairs of each strand of the DNA double helix, as well as the lateral displacements and the rotation of adjacent base pairs are considered. We show that because of the rigidity of the covalent bonds in the sugar-phosphate backbones, the base pair parameters are highly correlated, especially, strong twist-roll-slide correlation in the conformation of the nucleosomal DNA is vividly observed in the calculated results. This simple model succeeds to account for the detailed features of the structure of the nucleosomal DNA, particularly, its more important base pair parameters, roll and slide, in good agreement with the experimental results.

Therefore, the first order of business is to get oriented to the facts of reality - to learn the science of evolution which in its fulness would imply learning the entire body of all modern science. Only then would it make sense to speculate about how concepts of creation drawn from ancient pre-scientific religious texts could fit with it.

Now I don't mean to throw a wet blanket on your speculation about how Creation and Evolution could fit together. On the contrary, your speculations are very useful because they will force us to learn what the science says. Case in point, you wrote:
From the time man has been created, he has not changed. In 6,000 years or a little longer, man has not evolved.

Where did you get the idea that man has only existed for 6000 years? This is contrary to all the scientific results I have ever read. Here's what the wiki says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human):
Humans (Homo sapiens[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#cite_note-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#cite_note-4)), the only living members of the genus Homo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo), are mammals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal) of the primate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate) order originally from Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa), where they reached anatomical modernity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans) about 200,000 years ago and began to exhibit full behavioral modernity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity) around 50,000 years ago.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#cite_note-evolutionthe1st4billionyears-5)

I think it would be great if we could dig into the question of the evidence for the age of the human race since this would need to be settled before there could be any agreement between Evolution and Creationism.

Thanks for starting this very interesting thread.

Great chatting!

Richard

David M
07-18-2012, 02:40 PM
It seems that humans are not quite as perfect as they could be, our bodies have many design flaws that a competent designer should have corrected,

Hello Rose
Whatever you consider wrong with our bodies now, what difference will that make when God has promised that He will "make all things new". Also, he is offering eternal to life to those who want to be saved and who repent. What is wrong with an incorruptible body that will not die? Will your belief in Evolution get you to the stage which God is offering?


Re chimpanzes etc. They might be the closest to human beings and that just helps make my case for gradual steps of creation leading to man. Surely, if Evolution is valid, why stop at man, why stop at chimpanzes or stop at anything that is still in existence? If you think it would be to man's advantage to have eyes in the back of our head, why does not Evolution progress in man to give us eyes in the back of our head. We are under a great deal of Evolutionary pressure at the moment, for man's intelligence is destroying the earth and his own habitat, he had better evolve quickly from now on if he is to survive.

The physicist in the video is convinced the evolition of man has stopped. I say; "it never started".

All the best,

David

David M
07-18-2012, 03:00 PM
Hey there David,

I really appreciate you effort to understand how your religious beliefs might fit with the results of modern science. But I think it might be a bit premature to try to suggest modifications of the Theory of Evolution. Would it ever enter your mind to modify Einstein's Theory of General Relativity? Of course not, since the theory is founded upon complex mathematics that you know you don't know. For example, Einstein's Field Equation:
Alas Einstein never found a theory to unite the forces. I asked a question about whether matter converts to only one type of energy or whether there is more than one energy type. If you want to pursue this line of investigation, you have to be prepared to consider that all of the theory of Evolution might not be correct and consider the possibility for steps in creation to overcome the massive gaps in the transition of the species. In that video that you posted to prove your point about Evolution it was admitted that there are massive gaps that remain unexplained.


Now I don't mean to throw a wet blanket on your speculation about how Creation and Evolution could fit together. On the contrary, your speculations are very useful because they will force us to learn what the science says. Case in point, you wrote:
From the time man has been created, he has not changed. In 6,000 years or a little longer, man has not evolved.

Where did you get the idea that man has only existed for 6000 years?
There is not alot of evidence for modern civilization going back further than six or seven thousand years. If I concede 10,000 years it makes no difference. I have made the point that man is the most complex life form and was created last. I am considering the transition to man was a step change in Evolution explained by creation.

I can see from your replies that you are not opening up your mind and do not want to possible concede that creative steps are involved. It is easier for me to agree to a form of Evolution than it is for your to admit to a creative process. Since you said that you think the first cell might have been created, why stop there. If you concede one tiny bit of a creation, why not consider more. I am trying to resolve the conflict between Evolutionists and Creationists and accept scientific findings where I can. I am not dismissing things as readily as you accuse Creationists of doing.

It is going to be hard, but you have to consider the possibility that Evolution might not be as science is telling you at the moment, which is why as free-thinker you can change your mind about Evolution as you have done about the God of the Bible.

If you are going to exclude the Creator all together, you have to explain how the quark and the lepton and the neutrino and the electron formed. You have to show how matter and forces self-formed from nothing or raw energy.

It is up to you how far we are going to be able to progress down this road of discovery that will cut across conventional Creationism and conventional Evolutionism.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough
07-18-2012, 03:44 PM
Alas Einstein never found a theory to unite the forces. I asked a question about whether matter converts to only one type of energy or whether there is more than one energy type.

What does Einstein's failure have to do with anything? We've only just begun our scientific discoveries.

I'm not sure why you are interested in "other types of energy." That kind of discussion would require advanced knowledge of physics. And even if we did have a variety of types of energy, why would it matter? What's your point?



If you want to pursue this line of investigation, you have to be prepared to consider that all of the theory of Evolution might not be correct and consider the possibility for steps in creation to overcome the massive gaps in the transition of the species. In that video that you posted to prove your point about Evolution it was admitted that there are massive gaps that remain unexplained.

Excellent! You have made an assertion about "massive gaps in the transitions of species." I'm not aware of those "massive gaps" so could you please cite some scientific source that supports your assertion? Don't cite a creationist site since they are not reliable and I don't have time to debunk more of their rubbish right now (I've got a big backload of rubbish that CWH recently dumped). If there is a real problem of "massive gaps" you must be able to find real evidence in published scientific articles.




Where did you get the idea that man has only existed for 6000 years? This is contrary to all the scientific results I have ever read. Here's what the wiki says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human):
Humans (Homo sapiens[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#cite_note-3)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#cite_note-4)), the only living members of the genus Homo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo), are mammals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal) of the primate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate) order originally from Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa), where they reached anatomical modernity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_humans) about 200,000 years ago and began to exhibit full behavioral modernity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity) around 50,000 years ago.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#cite_note-evolutionthe1st4billionyears-5)

I think it would be great if we could dig into the question of the evidence for the age of the human race since this would need to be settled before there could be any agreement between Evolution and Creationism.
There is not alot of evidence for modern civilization going back further than six or seven thousand years. If I concede 10,000 years it makes no difference. I have made the point that man is the most complex life form and was created last. I am considering the transition to man was a step change in Evolution explained by creation.

Your assertion that "there is not a lot of evidence for modern civilization going back further than six or seven thousand years" directly contradicts the quote I gave which says that homo sapiens have exhibited "full behavioral modernity" for around for 50,000 years. Do you have evidence to contradict that assertion? And what about the evidence that homo sapiens have existed for about 200,000 years?



I can see from your replies that you are not opening up your mind and do not want to possible concede that creative steps are involved. It is easier for me to agree to a form of Evolution than it is for your to admit to a creative process. Since you said that you think the first cell might have been created, why stop there. If you concede one tiny bit of a creation, why not consider more. I am trying to resolve the conflict between Evolutionists and Creationists and accept scientific findings where I can. I am not dismissing things as readily as you accuse Creationists of doing.

I don't know how you got the impression that my mind is not open. Did I write a word rejecting the possibility of "creative steps"?

I have absolutely no problem admitting a "creative process" as a possibility. Why did you say that?

But I do have a problem with arbitrarily inserting "God did it" into things that are still unknown and that are similar to things well explained by natural processes. For example, you indicated that you did not understand that atoms form through natural processes when you said "the question remains, did atoms self-form or were they created?". So I explained that the self-formation of atoms is basic science that is perfectly well understood, and then you switched the question to the elementary particles, "Where did they come from?" That's fine, but such questions never end and they will not lead to understanding. The correct question goes the other way. NOW THAT YOU ADMIT that atoms can self-form through the natural laws of physics, and that molecules can self-form through the natural laws of chemistry, and that molecules can self-form simple cell-like structures (e.g. soap bubbles) there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that divine intervention was suddenly needed to form the first living cell. Maybe yes, maybe no, we just don't know yet.

I concede that divine intervention is a possibility for the first cell because I don't know how they arose. But that's a far cry from suggesting that there is an intermittent divine creation of each new species. That idea doesn't match the facts at all. For example, why would God put fossil genes in humans and monkeys to make it look like we descended from a common ancestor?



It is going to be hard, but you have to consider the possibility that Evolution might not be as science is telling you at the moment, which is why as free-thinker you can change your mind about Evolution as you have done about the God of the Bible.

Any question about objective reality - whether it be evolution or the God of the Bible - is based on logic and facts. You should not be accusing me of being closed minded. I have said nothing that would justify such an assertion.



If you are going to exclude the Creator all together, you have to explain how the quark and the lepton and the neutrino and the electron formed. You have to show how matter and forces self-formed from nothing or raw energy.

That's already been done. We can create elementary particles in the lab by colliding high-energy streams of protons into each other. Everything is explained by natural law. There is only one last gap in physics - the question of "where did the energy come from?" Everything having to do with particles themselves follows natural law after that.



It is up to you how far we are going to be able to progress down this road of discovery that will cut across conventional Creationism and conventional Evolutionism.

All the best,

David
I think it's up to both of us. And I must say that I am loving the conversation. :thumb: (And I'd love it even more if you quit talking about me and my supposed "closed mind" and focus on the topic at hand.)

All the best, my friend,

Richard

David M
07-18-2012, 05:38 PM
What does Einstein's failure have to do with anything? We've only just begun our scientific discoveries.
You mentioned Einstein, so I thought I would point out to you that Einstein did not have all the answers and his E=mc2 might have to be modified if there is more than one energy type.


I'm not sure why you are interested in "other types of energy." That kind of discussion would require advanced knowledge of physics. And even if we did have a variety of types of energy, why would it matter? What's your point?
We can forget it for now, but you still have a lot of explaining to do to explain the "Big Bang" or "in the beginning"



Excellent! You have made an assertion about "massive gaps in the transitions of species." I'm not aware of those "massive gaps" so could you please cite some scientific source that supports your assertion? Don't cite a creationist site since they are not reliable and I don't have time to debunk more of their rubbish right now (I've got a big backload of rubbish that CWH recently dumped). If there is a real problem of "massive gaps" you must be able to find real evidence in published scientific articles.
Go and listen to the video that no-one had replied to your post. The Evolutionist in the video mentioned that phrase; as I said. I am merely pointing out what he said.



Your assertion that "there is not a lot of evidence for modern civilization going back further than six or seven thousand years" directly contradicts the quote I gave which says that homo sapiens have exhibited "full behavioral modernity" for around for 50,000 years. Do you have evidence to contradict that assertion? And what about the evidence that homo sapiens have existed for about 200,000 years?
We can examine the evidence you claim as we go along the timeline. Let's see if we can follow a sequence of Evolution that has no "massive gaps" and see how far we get. I think you are arguing too much and are likely to make me want to give up before we start.


I don't know how you got the impression that my mind is not open. Did I write a word rejecting the possibility of "creative steps"?
But you want me to take God out of the equation and only consider science. I am prepared to follow science until we get to a gap or an explanation that only "God" can fill.


I have absolutely no problem admitting a "creative process" as a possibility. Why did you say that?
As long as you keep God in the background till needed to explain the gaps and the steps that Evolution cannot explain, I will bear what you now say in mind.


But I do have a problem with arbitrarily inserting "God did it" into things that are still unknown and that are similar to things well explained by natural processes. For example, you indicated that you did not understand that atoms form through natural processes when you said "the question remains, did atoms self-form or were they created?". So I explained that the self-formation of atoms is basic science that is perfectly well understood, and then you switched the question to the elementary particles, "Where did they come from?" That's fine, but such questions never end and they will not lead to understanding. The correct question goes the other way. NOW THAT YOU ADMIT that atoms can self-form through the natural laws of physics, and that molecules can self-form through the natural laws of chemistry, and that molecules can self-form simple cell-like structures (e.g. soap bubbles) there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that divine intervention was suddenly needed to form the first living cell. Maybe yes, maybe no, we just don't know yet.
This has now answered the question above. I an not saying we insert God arbitrarily, but if Evolution cannot prove the link or has a problem it cannot explain, then why not insert "God"?
Atoms are made of elementary particles, most non-scientists probably know this by now, so your explanation of how atoms are formed is ignoring the fact that elementary particles have to be made in the first place. It is this sort of pedantic statement and questioning that is tiring. We shall have to put this to rest, as there is no explanation from science (yet) how the elementary particles making up the atom are formed.


I concede that divine intervention is a possibility for the first cell because I don't know how they arose. But that's a far cry from suggesting that there is an intermittent divine creation of each new species. That idea doesn't match the facts at all. For example, why would God put fossil genes in humans and monkeys to make it look like we descended from a common ancestor?
At least we have a starting point. You present the facts and we can see how far we can get. Genes can be common amongst species, which does not have to indicate descendency. You can find common electronic circuits in televisions and radios such as an audio amplifeir, but it does not mean that one descended from the other. Let's concentrate other factors if possible.


That's already been done. We can create elementary particles in the lab by colliding high-energy streams of protons into each other. Everything is explained by natural law. There is only one last gap in physics - the question of "where did the energy come from?" Everything having to do with particles themselves follows natural law after that.
In the main, elementary particles are not made in the laboratory, they already exist and it is only by smashing atoms apart, are the elementary particles revealed. There is a massive difference between creating elementary particles in a controlled way from nothing or raw energy and smashing atoms apart.


I think it's up to both of us. And I must say that I am loving the conversation. :thumb: (And I'd love it even more if you quit talking about me and my supposed "closed mind" and focus on the topic at hand.)
You are the Evolution scientist and so it is up to you to present the best evidence so that I can follow it and understand it, until we come to a point where we come up against a stop.

What is the next step from the bacteria cell if that is the simplest cell we are beginning with? We can bypass the question at the beginning of this thread about whether the simplest component of the simplest cell could self-form.

OK. Let's say we have now got two cells after division, what is the next step in Evolution for the bacteria cells? Do we make thousands of different types of bacteria first? I will leave you to tell me how we progress.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough
07-18-2012, 08:45 PM
For example, why would God put fossil genes in humans and monkeys to make it look like we descended from a common ancestor?
At least we have a starting point. You present the facts and we can see how far we can get. Genes can be common amongst species, which does not have to indicate descendency. You can find common electronic circuits in televisions and radios such as an audio amplifeir, but it does not mean that one descended from the other. Let's concentrate other factors if possible.

Excellent. This is exactly what I was looking for - the missing knowledge responsible for your failure to understand the evidence for evolution.

Your assertion that "Genes can be common amongst species, which does not have to indicate descendancy" reveals that you are not familiar with the kind of DNA evidence used in the science of evolution. I highly recommend that you get a copy of Sean Carroll's The Making of the Fittest (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393330516?ie=UTF8&tag=thebibwhe-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0393330516). It is one of the best introductions to evolutionary science, especially for those who have any doubts about its validity. It is lucid, easy to read, and packed with amazing and convincing facts. The subtitle says it all: “DNA and the Forensic Record of Evolution.” The same kind of evidence that is now universally accepted in all courts as proof of guilt or innocence also provides evidence “beyond all reasonable doubt” about the evolutionary history of all living beings. Here is how Carroll explains his motivation for the book:
More accurate and rigorous than fiber or fingerprint analysis, and far more reliable than eyewitness testimony, DNA analysis can provide conclusive proof about who was or was not at the scene of a crime. The authority of DNA evidence … led to a revolution in the criminal justice system and a vast increase in the use of DNA testing to both convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent. …

The power of DNA testing extends far beyond criminal justice. The determination of paternity is now definitive, and testing for carriers of genetic diseases is now routing, thanks to DNA science. but there is one arena where that power is not yet widely appreciated: in what one might call the philosophical realm.

Just as the sequence of each individual’s DNA is unique, the sequence of each species’ DNA is unique. Every evolutionary change between species, from physical form to digestive metabolism, is due to – and recorded in - changes in DNA. So, too, is the “paternity” of species. DNA contains, therefore, the ultimate forensic record of evolution.

As you can see, DNA most definitely determines descendancy. That's what I was talking about when I asked "why would God put fossil genes in humans and monkeys to make it look like we descended from a common ancestor?". Fossil genes are like fingerprints. They are genes that got turned off millions of years ago and were passed down to all descendants. They can be used to trace out the lines of the phylogenetic tree of life. You can learn more about them here (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040921081106.htm) and here (http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=0005BABA-81CC-153E-811383414B7F00FF). And here is a good interview with Sean Carroll (and the link has an mp3 and a transcript too):
The Making of the Fittest: A Conversation with Evolutionary Biologist Sean Carroll (http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=0005BABA-81CC-153E-811383414B7F00FF)
In this episode, evolutionary biologist Sean Carroll talks about his new book, "The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution." Even without fossils or comparative anatomy, vast amounts of evidence for evolution and its mechanisms exist in the genomes of the organisms alive today. Carroll discusses immortal genes, fossil genes and repetition in evolution, as well as environmental issues in light of evolutionary understanding.

And here's a whole page of excellent lectures by experts in the science of evolution: http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/evolution/lectures.html. Check out Sean Carroll's lecture Endless Forms Most Beautiful. He might help you get a better understanding of the real character of Charles Darwin.

Bottom line: There is a massive body of DNA evidence that supports the theory of evolution. God would have had to put these genes into all the animals to make it look like they were all related and descended from common ancestors. Why would he do that?

Now consider your comment in light of these facts. Why did you go looking for a reason to reject the science before you even understood it? Do you understand what that indicates? What would you think of a person who made up reasons to reject the Bible without ever reading a page of it?

Rose
07-18-2012, 10:01 PM
What is the next step from the bacteria cell if that is the simplest cell we are beginning with? We can bypass the question at the beginning of this thread about whether the simplest component of the simplest cell could self-form.

OK. Let's say we have now got two cells after division, what is the next step in Evolution for the bacteria cells? Do we make thousands of different types of bacteria first? I will leave you to tell me how we progress.

All the best,

David

Hi David,

If we start with the first bacteria it would be a prokaryotic cell (about 3.5 billion years ago), which divides by binary fission. After that for the next 2 billion years the development of the eukaryotic cell took place...before we go any further let that sink in for a moment...it took 2 BILLION YEARS for prokaryotic cells to evolve into eukaryotic cells. Once eukaryotic cells developed at about 1.5 billion years ago they divided into three groups: the ancestors of modern plants, fungi and animals split into separate lineages, and evolved separately. At about 900 million years ago the first multicellular eukaryotic life developed...then the fun began :D

Take care,
Rose

Rose
07-18-2012, 10:48 PM
Here is a good video where Richard Dawkins covers the main points of evolution.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUFOlyt7ErE&feature=related

David M
07-19-2012, 02:21 AM
Hi David,

If we start with the first bacteria it would be a prokaryotic cell (about 3.5 billion years ago), which divides by binary fission. After that for the next 2 billion years the development of the eukaryotic cell took place...before we go any further let that sink in for a moment...it took 2 BILLION YEARS for prokaryotic cells to evolve into eukaryotic cells. Once eukaryotic cells developed at about 1.5 billion years ago they divided into three groups: the ancestors of modern plants, fungi and animals split into separate lineages, and evolved separately. At about 900 million years ago the first multicellular eukaryotic life developed...then the fun began :D

Take care,
Rose

OK Rose. Regardless of time scale, 2 billion years is a massive chunk of time out of 3.5 billion years for what seems like a comparatively small step to produce another type of cell. In practice, the change from a prokaryotic cell to a eukaryotic cell might involve a massive step, so we should look at the differences and then explain how those differences came about. If we can do this, then that is one step in the chain that we can agree is an evolutionary step.
Here is the link to the Wikipedia page showing the different cells: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cells_%28biology%29
Here are several images for readers to see what we are discussing:
The top smaller image is the animal cell and the smaller image at the bottom is the plant cell. The images are better seen on the Wikipedia website. The table shows the comparison of the two types of cell (bacterial - prokaryotes and animal and plant - eukaryotes). There are differences in components which need to be explained, so I suggest we try and start with one of the component differences. Do you have any reference material that might help us?
529530531532


All the best,

David

David M
07-19-2012, 03:00 AM
Now consider your comment in light of these facts. Why did you go looking for a reason to reject the science before you even understood it? Do you understand what that indicates? What would you think of a person who made up reasons to reject the Bible without ever reading a page of it?
I am not rejecting science and I am accepting that within the DNA molecule their will be unique signatures proving a relationship to a parent. In just one DNA molecule there are possibly 80 million base pairs; it is not surprising that we shall see similarities and differences; these differences might not be enough to explain certain transitions. Those transitions we will come across as we examine the timeline and the progression of complexity of the various species of plants and animals.

You say that genes have been turned off, so what does that prove? What if God decided He did not want to use that gene in His next creative step; it does not matter if God were to use a common DNA molecule and pick and choose. We are on a discovery to explain the transitions. This is a mammoth task which we are probably not going to be able to do, otherwise science would have proven it convincingly so that there would be no doubt amongst scientists. It is the elimination of that doubt in your fellow scientists that you have to do.

At the moment in this thread, I am having a conversation with Rose about the progression from a prokaryote cell to a eurkaryote cell. This is a massive step requiring the formation of new cell components; organelles for example which are not in prokaryote cells.

We never got around to proving the first cell self-formed and accepted that it might have been created. Can we prove now the transition from one type of cell to the other self-formed, or is this going to require that we accept it was a creative step?

All the best,

David

Rose
07-19-2012, 11:15 AM
At the moment in this thread, I am having a conversation with Rose about the progression from a prokaryote cell to a eurkaryote cell. This is a massive step requiring the formation of new cell components; organelles for example which are not in prokaryote cells.

We never got around to proving the first cell self-formed and accepted that it might have been created. Can we prove now the transition from one type of cell to the other self-formed, or is this going to require that we accept it was a creative step?

All the best,

David

As of yet scientists can't prove that prokaryotic cells evolved to form eukaryotic cells, but many good theories have been proposed based on what evidence they have. If you want to posit the biblegod as the creator you may, but if that's the case then he took 2 billion years to accomplish his task and in the process made it look exactly like evolution.

Here is a good site that discusses the different transitional possibilities of prokaryotic =====> eukaryotic. (http://bacterialphylogeny.com/eukaryotes.html)

http://bacterialphylogeny.com/img/eukaryotes/models.jpg

http://bacterialphylogeny.com/img/eukaryotes/chimericorigin.jpg

David M
07-20-2012, 04:53 AM
As of yet scientists can't prove that prokaryotic cells evolved to form eukaryotic cells, but many good theories have been proposed based on what evidence they have. If you want to posit the biblegod as the creator you may, but if that's the case then he took 2 billion years to accomplish his task and in the process made it look exactly like evolution.

Here is a good site that discusses the different transitional possibilities of prokaryotic =====> eukaryotic. (http://bacterialphylogeny.com/eukaryotes.html)


Hello Rose
I am trying to get a solution to the simplest of things from which to build a case for Evolution. It seems like the simplest components of the simplest cell are complex, so getting to the more complex eukaryotic cells is even more challenging when you consider the extra individual parts required.

I expect it is the simplest things that take the longest to get right. Having a design is one thing and getting a working model is another. Today, we have the advantage of having computer simulations to speed up designs and proving things before committing to make the anything. Computer simulation programs, have to be written ( around some program design) for the simulation programs to work and before you get a good working simulation program working, will involve many revisions to the program. Another question for us to consider is; if we allow for the "God" factor; did God do all the simulations in His "head" before he made the first of anything? Was every conceivable thing designed perfectly before God made it? The alternative to this is that God made things and then developed them further along the lines of Evolution theory.

I have lots of questions brewing up. The Bible could suggest that man was designed before anything was ceated. Alternatively, if God had made the universe and all the atomic particles and atoms that lead to the formation of stars and planets, did God have the idea of creating life afterwards?

If you start with nothing and God wanted to produce a "man" in His own image, where do you start from? I am now assuming that God cannot make a carbon copy of himself and thus God is true when He says; I am ONE and there is none, beside me. That is my argument for saying that Jesus could not have pre-existed with God from the beginning. Jesus could not have been made and before God ever had the idea of creating man or the universe. His Son would not have been just an idea and there was no reason or purpose for a Son of God to exist at the very beginning; not until man was made.. Sine you have given up believing in God, the point of Jesus' pre-existence or not is of no concern to you.

Back to considering the simplest cell for which I have the other thread going with Richard. What do you see as the simplest component of the simplest cell that could self-form and that can be replicated in the laboratory? This is what I want to consider first of all.

The bacteria cell might appear very simple, but each component is complex. How did the tail of the bacteria form? This looks like "engineering" on a nano scale. I think it is incredible what scientist have been able to find out and the more they have found out has just exposed the complexity and wonder of what I can only describe as "Creation". Consider the flagellum of the bacteria cell; does not this look like engineering to you?

535

How do you begin to explain how each or those individual parts came to form and come together to form such a wonderful miniature bio-machine? There are something like 50 proteins to make this mechansim. Here is the Wikipedia article of the motion of the bacteria cell.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria
MovementFurther information: Chemotaxis, Flagellum, Pilus
Many bacteria can move using a variety of mechanisms: flagella are used for swimming through water; bacterial gliding and twitching motility move bacteria across surfaces; and changes of buoyancy allow vertical motion.[128]

Flagellum of Gram-negative Bacteria. The base drives the rotation of the hook and filament.Swimming bacteria frequently move near 10 body lengths per second and a few as fast as 100. This makes them at least as fast as fish, on a relative scale.[129]

In twitching motility, bacterial use their type IV pili as a grappling hook, repeatedly extending it, anchoring it and then retracting it with remarkable force (>80 pN).[130]

Flagella are semi-rigid cylindrical structures that are rotated and function much like the propeller on a ship. Objects as small as bacteria operate a low Reynolds number and cylindrical forms are more efficient than the flat, paddle-like, forms appropriate at human size scale.[131]

Bacterial species differ in the number and arrangement of flagella on their surface; some have a single flagellum (monotrichous), a flagellum at each end (amphitrichous), clusters of flagella at the poles of the cell (lophotrichous), while others have flagella distributed over the entire surface of the cell (peritrichous). The bacterial flagella is the best-understood motility structure in any organism and is made of about 20 proteins, with approximately another 30 proteins required for its regulation and assembly.[128] The flagellum is a rotating structure driven by a reversible motor at the base that uses the electrochemical gradient across the membrane for power.[132] This motor drives the motion of the filament, which acts as a propeller.

Many bacteria (such as E. coli) have two distinct modes of movement: forward movement (swimming) and tumbling. The tumbling allows them to reorient and makes their movement a three-dimensional random walk.[133] (See external links below for link to videos.) The flagella of a unique group of bacteria, the spirochaetes, are found between two membranes in the periplasmic space. They have a distinctive helical body that twists about as it moves.[128]

Motile bacteria are attracted or repelled by certain stimuli in behaviors called taxes: these include chemotaxis, phototaxis, energy taxis and magnetotaxis.[134][135][136] In one peculiar group, the myxobacteria, individual bacteria move together to form waves of cells that then differentiate to form fruiting bodies containing spores.[51] The myxobacteria move only when on solid surfaces, unlike E. coli, which is motile in liquid or solid media.

Several Listeria and Shigella species move inside host cells by usurping the cytoskeleton, which is normally used to move organelles inside the cell. By promoting actin polymerization at one pole of their cells, they can form a kind of tail that pushes them through the host cell's cytoplasm.[137]



Once again, what scientist have found out is marvellous, and what man has been able to with miniaturisation and the realm of nano-engineering is marvellous, but is still a very long way from building anything like this. Manipulating a few atoms to write out the initials "IBM" is amazing, but is a very long way off manipulating atoms to form proteins from scratch, and yet this is postulated to have come about all by chance.

The fact that you have permitted me to posit "God" into the equation, we can also examine the timescales later. For now we might be close to agreement that God created along the lines of Evolution theory. If that is the case, I am not worried about upsetting Creationists, I am now worried you have a "God" to find out about and how you are going explain this "God". If this unknown "God" exists (sounds like Paul on Mars Hill again) how are you going to declare this God?

You see, the challenging questions just will not go away.

All the best,

David

Rose
07-20-2012, 07:59 AM
Hello Rose
I am trying to get a solution to the simplest of things from which to build a case for Evolution. It seems like the simplest components of the simplest cell are complex, so getting to the more complex eukaryotic cells is even more challenging when you consider the extra individual parts required.

I expect it is the simplest things that take the longest to get right. Having a design is one thing and getting a working model is another. Today, we have the advantage of having computer simulations to speed up designs and proving things before committing to make the anything. Computer simulation programs, have to be written ( around some program design) for the simulation programs to work and before you get a good working simulation program working, will involve many revisions to the program. Another question for us to consider is; if we allow for the "God" factor; did God do all the simulations in His "head" before he made the first of anything? Was every conceivable thing designed perfectly before God made it? The alternative to this is that God made things and then developed them further along the lines of Evolution theory.



You see, the challenging questions just will not go away.

All the best,

David

Good morning David,

The simplest things need not take the longest, nor was 2 billion years needed to go from a prokaryotic cell to a eukaryotic cell if "God" truly were the designer. All that is needed for any simple or complex organism to construct itself is the instructions written in the code of the DNA...that is what changed!

On the other hand the biblegod did not seem to need any time to create Adam out of the dust of the earth, or Eve from his rib, so whatever way one looks at it a whole lot of time does not seem to be needed for "God", unless he chose the route of designing the DNA and then letting nature take its course.


Take care,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
07-20-2012, 08:19 AM
Hello Rose
I am trying to get a solution to the simplest of things from which to build a case for Evolution. It seems like the simplest components of the simplest cell are complex, so getting to the more complex eukaryotic cells is even more challenging when you consider the extra individual parts required.

Hi David,

The flagellum you posted is the icon of creation "science." If you were trying to "build a case for Evolution" you would begin with the established facts upon which the theory is founded. You would not be posting creationist talking points that seek to undermine the theory by focusing on aspects that some think cannot be explained. But as it turns out, there is evidence for the evolution of the flagellum (see video below).

Now don't get me wrong. I think it is great to explore how the first cells might have evolved. But this is any area filled with a lot of unknowns because the science is young, so it is the last place any person would begin if they were truly interested in understanding the science. It is, of course, the first place that opponents would look because they are trying to find reasons to reject the theory.



I expect it is the simplest things that take the longest to get right. Having a design is one thing and getting a working model is another. Today, we have the advantage of having computer simulations to speed up designs and proving things before committing to make the anything. Computer simulation programs, have to be written ( around some program design) for the simulation programs to work and before you get a good working simulation program working, will involve many revisions to the program. Another question for us to consider is; if we allow for the "God" factor; did God do all the simulations in His "head" before he made the first of anything? Was every conceivable thing designed perfectly before God made it? The alternative to this is that God made things and then developed them further along the lines of Evolution theory.

I am utterly mystified by your view of God as subject to human limitations. Our limitations are due to ignorance. We are not omniscient like God is supposed to be. So are you denying that God is omniscient? If not, then why would he need to practice and bumble along like a human scientist or engineer?



I have lots of questions brewing up. The Bible could suggest that man was designed before anything was ceated. Alternatively, if God had made the universe and all the atomic particles and atoms that lead to the formation of stars and planets, did God have the idea of creating life afterwards?

Again, your question seems to assume that God is not omniscient. Is that your position?



If you start with nothing and God wanted to produce a "man" in His own image, where do you start from? I am now assuming that God cannot make a carbon copy of himself and thus God is true when He says; I am ONE and there is none, beside me. That is my argument for saying that Jesus could not have pre-existed with God from the beginning. Jesus could not have been made and before God ever had the idea of creating man or the universe. His Son would not have been just an idea and there was no reason or purpose for a Son of God to exist at the very beginning; not until man was made.. Sine you have given up believing in God, the point of Jesus' pre-existence or not is of no concern to you.

Your logic fascinates me. You take a few words from the Bible and develop a doctrine you take as absolute. Why don't you treat your interpretation of the Bible the same way that you treat other people's interpretation of the evidence from science? I.e. with skepticism that acknowledges your interpretation (or the Bible itself) could be wrong? Are not the words of the Bible like any other "evidence"? They must be interpreted in light of a "theory." Different theories would give different interpretations of the same facts.



Back to considering the simplest cell for which I have the other thread going with Richard. What do you see as the simplest component of the simplest cell that could self-form and that can be replicated in the laboratory? This is what I want to consider first of all.

The bacteria cell might appear very simple, but each component is complex. How did the tail of the bacteria form? This looks like "engineering" on a nano scale. I think it is incredible what scientist have been able to find out and the more they have found out has just exposed the complexity and wonder of what I can only describe as "Creation". Consider the flagellum of the bacteria cell; does not this look like engineering to you?


How do you begin to explain how each or those individual parts came to form and come together to form such a wonderful miniature bio-machine? There are something like 50 proteins to make this mechansim. Here is the Wikipedia article of the motion of the bacteria cell.

The flagellum is very far advanced over the simple cell so it does not apply to our current discussion. And the creationist argument is misleading anyway. The flagellum is made from components already possessed by simpler cells. That's how it evolved. The parts were not simply assembled all at once. The creationist argument for the flagellum has been debunked. There is good evidence it really did evolve. Here's a quick overview:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4



Once again, what scientist have found out is marvellous, and what man has been able to with miniaturisation and the realm of nano-engineering is marvellous, but is still a very long way from building anything like this. Manipulating a few atoms to write out the initials "IBM" is amazing, but is a very long way off manipulating atoms to form proteins from scratch, and yet this is postulated to have come about all by chance.

There are two fundamental misunderstandings in your comment. First, Nature BEGINS at the nano-level, whereas we humans are huge by comparison and must develop specialized tools to manipulate atoms at that level. Second, science does not say the structures "came about by chance." On the contrary, scientists understand that molecules combine through natural law and organisms evolution through random mutations and natural selection. It is entirely misleading to reduce all this science to the idea that organisms simply appeared by "chance." Many creationists deliberately mislead people this way. I'm sorry to see that they have successfully duped you too.



The fact that you have permitted me to posit "God" into the equation, we can also examine the timescales later. For now we might be close to agreement that God created along the lines of Evolution theory. If that is the case, I am not worried about upsetting Creationists, I am now worried you have a "God" to find out about and how you are going explain this "God". If this unknown "God" exists (sounds like Paul on Mars Hill again) how are you going to declare this God?

You see, the challenging questions just will not go away.

All the best,

David
It is good that your concept of how God created has itself evolved to include evolution.

There is much to discuss, but Rose is taking her man/dog out for his morning three mile hike. :sunny:

Talk more soon,

Richard

David M
07-21-2012, 01:06 AM
There are two fundamental misunderstandings in your comment. First, Nature BEGINS at the nano-level, whereas we humans are huge by comparison and must develop specialized tools to manipulate atoms at that level. Second, science does not say the structures "came about by chance." On the contrary, scientists understand that molecules combine through natural law and organisms evolution through random mutations and natural selection. It is entirely misleading to reduce all this science to the idea that organisms simply appeared by "chance." Many creationists deliberately mislead people this way. I'm sorry to see that they have successfully duped you too.


It is good that your concept of how God created has itself evolved to include evolution.

There is much to discuss, but Rose is taking her man/dog out for his morning three mile hike. :sunny:

Talk more soon,

Richard

Richard
I did not have to attempt to open up this discussion as I have done. If you think I have bee duped, then there is no point for me to continue. The video that you posted, was good in as far as it went. I would like to see the continuation of that to see how the other functioning parts came together to make the flagellum. I am interested to learn of how Evolutionists are explaining these things. I took the Wikipedia article as a scientific article and did not see any bias towards Creationism. I am amazed that scientists find these things out and can say that 50 proteins are involved with the making of the flagellum. I am accepting most things science is telling us. I have a right to be skeptical about some of the evidence science is putting forward, just as much as you are skeptical with what the Bible says.

It is clear from your replies that I am damned if I believe God is capable of creating everything instantaneously and simultaneously and damned if I introduce any human logic to the situation to try and understand from the science and human perspective. If am not pro every Creationist, why are you slamming me for trying to open up the conversation, in which Creationists will not agree. Why question my beliefs when I am trying to open up the conversation and be reasonable in my thinking?

I don't think I want to keep justifying every comment I make when trying to open up a line of discovery. Either say something like; "that is an idea worth exploring" or "that idea won't work for this reason..."
I feel that in these conversations, I am being questioned about every word I say. To have to explain every word and comment is not something I feel is necessary. You might as well ask me why I mix up American and English spelling of words on this forum. If I have to explain everything that is not necessary to explain in order for a meaningful discussion to progress, it is a sure way to turn me off. If we keep challenging each others words, we won't make progress as quickly as we need to.

If my feet are going to be held to the fire for every comment I make, my feet will be burnt from under me eventually. I think this is why people quit conversations with you. You can feel you are winning, as long as you keep burning people's feet from under them. Because people quit, does not mean that you have won the argument; you are just destroying people's will to continue. All you can claim is that you have the stamina to keep up long interrogations in which people get tired and quit from fatigue.

All the best,

David

David M
07-21-2012, 02:06 AM
Good morning David,

The simplest things need not take the longest, nor was 2 billion years needed to go from a prokaryotic cell to a eukaryotic cell if "God" truly were the designer. All that is needed for any simple or complex organism to construct itself is the instructions written in the code of the DNA...that is what changed!

On the other hand the biblegod did not seem to need any time to create Adam out of the dust of the earth, or Eve from his rib, so whatever way one looks at it a whole lot of time does not seem to be needed for "God", unless he chose the route of designing the DNA and then letting nature take its course.


Take care,
Rose

Hello Rose
We are considering a simple cell. Richard told me the bacteria cell was the simplest. It is a lot simpler than a human cell. Is there a cell that exists without DNA that is simpler? I was wondering if the amoeba cell might be any simpler, but maybe not from what Wiki says:

Genome
The amoeba is remarkable for its very large genome. The species Amoeba proteus has 290 billion base pairs in its genome, while the related Polychaos dubium (formerly known as Amoeba dubia) has 670 billion base pairs. The human genome is small by contrast, with its count of 2.9 billion base pairs.[9
I don't think they are allowing for the 32 chromosomes each of which has a DNA molecule inside. What do you think about the comparison?
537

OK Richard has entered the discussion and given me a video part explaining how one component of the flagellum had a purpose before the flagellum formed. That is OK, I now look forward to be enlightened about the other parts that make up the flagellum and see how and where they existed before becoming part of the flagellum. I am continuing this line of reasoning until we come to a stop point or not. If Evolutionist can explain how every thing comes together; that is good and you might win your case.

At the moment, while Evolutionists have faith that they will be able to explain everything given enough time, then as much room should be given to Creationists to have faith that there is a designer and maker involved in the process.

I am trying to open up a new line of discussion to examine how everything might have come together. To do this, I am ignoring the timescales for the moment and agree that the sequence is possible first of all. To believe in the resurrection or an after life of some kind, it is necessary to believe that God can form the body quickly. Building repeat models can be done very quickly once a working model has been made and all the problems resolved. It is getting to the working model in the first place that takes the time.

I have introduced a number of questions and it would be helpful if you gave your answer to the questions so I can appreciate what you are thinking. If you cannot explain, other than; given enough time all things are possible by evolution, this is no different to Creationists saying; with God all things are possible.

I am trying to progress the discussion in such a way that either Evolution can come up with the answers or we have to accept the concept of a designer or intelligence exists. If Richard can concede that the first cell could have been created, then we can continue with our discussions on the Bible as to whether all or part of the Bible has come from God, and which bits might be the fictitious works of man. At least we have some basis for discussing "God". Evolutionists in the main,totally eliminate God . Now if you and Richard are not eliminating God, I am prepared not to eliminate what looks to appear to be evolution based on the evidence of the science presented so far. With an incomplete picture, there is no harm in speculating. Because I am speculating, does not mean I believe everything I say; speculation is not belief and I am opening up a conversation that might lead to a discovery of creative evolution, whereby we all have to change previously held beliefs. As it is, the belief I now have, is being used against me to stifle the conversation before it can get anywhere.

If we do not want the conversation to progress, we can all agree that since we have got established beliefs, no discussion without bias is possible, and therefore it is pointless ever trying to start a discussion do with Evolution or Creation as it is always doomed to failure.

All the best,

David

luke1978
07-21-2012, 03:35 AM
I called this post my 2 cents as I'm always short on time and don't really have time to participate in the forum as I would like too. However I enjoy reading the threads so I might just jump in from time to time with "my two cents worth"

Okay we have David, Richard and Rose discussing evolution.

Richard has conceded the first cell may be from God.

David has indicated he is taking his research very seriously and is making some very good points.

Rose is also making some good points about the timescales involved etc.

So we have a first cell possibly from a God, long timefames and as David has pointed out a very high level of complexity!

So my two cents worth:

1.God made the first cell or even better "seed" in the way of DNA and the first cell.
2.We know that we can use artificially made DNA to change how a cell behaves(Plagiarism but it works).
3.We have billions if not trillions of planets in the universe and in my opinion God must be big!


Did God kick off the big bang with a special recipe for life to evolve on the planets that fall in the Goldilocks zones around stars?

I have studied computer programming and DNA is a programming language. What if God was so smart he could create a code that adapts to evolve to the right conditions to survive on millions, billions or trillions of planets?

What if the asteroids are delivering the "seed" around the universe? - Very intelligent seed which when science fully understands it may even be able to replicate the ingredients and try and declare man God or realise this seed is not evolved and prove a God.

As for the bible which I have not given up on(I'm struggling!) God inspires these sort of works through man from outside of time? - Maybe he even sends a Jesus in at a special time in mans evolutionary knowledge such as 2000 years ago to give us comfort in this rough materialism type of existence(Disease, wars, famine etc). This could be done on many different planets which may explain why aliens do not visit us.

I propose the next phase of evolution will now be spiritually. To survive as a species we do need to love one another etc. The world now needs to work together and prepare to occupy more then one planet. There is a big universe out there.

So in closing if evolution is true it is a highly intelligent process and also a brutal one! - But I guess the will of "the all that is" will prove to make sense when we reach the omega point.

http://129.81.170.14/~tipler/summary.html

Hope you like my bit of commentary. I'll jump in on a few posts every now and again but I read most of them.

I am what I am and I will be what I will be....


Edit - The bit about aliens not visiting us is because I think they have evolved spiritually and are leaving us to do the same. At some point we may be ready for interaction and even as a Christian I believe with a universe this size God may have planned for life not just on earth. Also I think the spiritual evolution may coincide with the technological evolution when a planet realises they must work in unity to survive.