Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 102
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146

    Evolution is simpler than we thought

    This information is very important for anyone who wants to understand evolution. It's from a page on PBS.com called Genetic Tool Kit. There is a short video on the page that explains these ideas very well.

    Neil Shubin and Sean Carroll discuss homeobox genes, a set of genes that produce basic body parts in all animals. In 1994, Walter Gehring discovered the eyeless gene, which guides formation of fruit fly eyes. As an experiment, Gehring put a mouse's eyeless gene into a fruit fly, resulting in normal fruit fly eyes. The same holds true for homeobox genes for wings, legs, even heads. This discovery indicates that animals descended from a single common ancestor that passed along to them a set of homeobox genes, used to build a wide variety of forms from just a few basic body plans. From Evolution: "Great Transformations"
    Again, we have solid genetic evidence that "indicates that animals descended from a single common ancestor."
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    This information is very important for anyone who wants to understand evolution. It's from a page on PBS.com called Genetic Tool Kit. There is a short video on the page that explains these ideas very well.


    Again, we have solid genetic evidence that "indicates that animals descended from a single common ancestor."
    No it is not evidence of evolution because the logic is that someone or something intelligent have to put this eyeless gene into the fruit fly eye. This have never occur on its own in nature.

    God Bless Creation.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hi David,

    Good questions! I'll have to do some research to answer. The articles posted by Rose are a good place to start to get a basic understanding of the evolution of the simplest cells.

    One point occurred to me this morning. Scientists have concluded that the first cells were the prokaryotes with no nucleus. They believe they evolved about 3 billion years ago whereas it took another two billion years for the eukaryotes to evolve. Think about that - it took 2 billion years to evolve from a prokaryote to a eukaryote. How would you account for this fact from a creationist point of view? It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary point of view, but why would God create prokaryotes and then wait for 2 billion years to move to the next step?

    Great chatting!

    Richard

    Thank you Richard.


    Take all the time you need to gather the evidence/information. Getting the most recent scientific reports might not be easy unless you know where to look or have special access to confidential information.

    This thread can stay in limbo until you come back with answers to the questions and we establish the simplest component and see what is involved in its production and whether the science laboratory has come close to replicating the process.


    In answers to your questions.
    The 2 billion year gap from a prokaryote to a eukaryote means nothing in Creation terms (exluding evolutionay periods for species to multiply). If God can create all life; bacteria, plant and human life, He could have done so rapidly. I am not dismissing evolution within species over time that produced the variety of species having similarities. I did not want to get involved at this stage about Evolution/Creation of man, though man could have been created quickly as this was the last of God's creation having proved and fine tuned all living life forms before creating man.

    Please take the following as food for though, they are my speculations and at this stage. I am not out to prove anything, but I am answering your questions and giving thoughts that would account for the Theory Evolution to be answered by Creation in that evolutionary links are in fact steps in Creation.

    If you want evidence of God creating quickly, this is endorsed by the miracles. Of course if you don't believe the miracles, there is no proof for anything, but this is the Bible giving additional evidence in support of the Creation process. From the Biblical perspective, the power of God to create man is endorsed by the resurrection of Lazarus and of Jesus. It is this assurance of the resurrection of Jesus to eternal life (as you know) is the foundation of the Christian faith. Life after death involves a transformation that does not take billions of years. However, the Creation process might have involved periods in which evolution of the species was inbuilt, but when God came to create man, God had already created and proven His designs of all basic species and proven the building blocks of life all work and are perect. This would mean that God could create man quicker than any other life form. If the initial life forms had not been created quickly, corruption would have set in before they were complete.

    God must have manipulated molecules at lightening speed in performing miracles. Raising a person from the dead is no less complicated that creating the first man or woman. The miracles of healing support the fact of creation of man in a very short space of time. Either the body has to be formed quickly or preserved while in the process of creation or it corrupts before complete. Normal biological processes would mean that the body would start to decay unless God could keep the body in suspended animation. This is another subject that scientist think they are close to solving, but that is another subject for another thread.

    The 2 billion year gap makes sense from an Evolutionary point of view, but we do not know that God waited that long. Remember, you started your questions by saying; "scientists believe about 3 billion...." You have not said; "science has proved...." What is the evidence/proof for the scientists' belief? Now if God did create the simplest life forms first and gradually created more complex organisms over a period of time, we can consider this as God laying the foundations leading up to the creation of man. By creating life forms is ascending complexity, God could be using building blocks already proven to work correctly. Maybe anything that did not work correctly was destroyed or allowed to die off. Note; this is my own speculation to derive a sense of order to creation which science is interpreting as evolution.

    If Creation did not happen at stages, there is nothing else to do other than try to find an evolutionary connection between all living things. If Creation did happen it does not have to exclude long periods of time. Hence as someone who believes in God and God's power to create, I also can reason that God incorporated periods in which adaptation of the species ocurred. So species could have adapated/evolved but not necessarily into different kinds. Because of the similarity using basic build blocks of life, this will give cause to see links/similarities that lead non-believers in Creation to think they have proven that all life forms are interconnected and could have developed without God. However, this brings us back to considering how the simplest of all life-form components could have formed from basic molecules.

    By considering that God's creation began with simple life forms and God creating evermore complex life-forms over a long period of time until the creation of each individual species was complete and was eventually described as "good" (or perfect), everything was in put in place reay for the creation of man which was done quickly. This goes someways to explaining evolution in terms of phases of creation. It makes sense for God to create all the simpler life forms first and proving them perfect before creationg man who would also be perfect. In so doing God was also preparing the environment for man to live and all living forms to exist.

    So in the creation of the species in which God builds on already established building blocks for life, it is not surprising that links/similarities between the species can be seen and it is these similarities that science sees as evolutionary links. This is a somewhat unorthadox interpretation of the Creation involving creation and evolutionary time periods, but would go to explain the long time gaps leading up to man, and that man was created quickly. This can also give a reasons for scientists to see evolutionary links within species and the similarities between different kinds. As you say, Evolution does not recognize kinds, but from the creational point of view, it explains why different kinds cannot reproduce. Evolution/science has not proven to my satisfaction the links between kinds. The only links I see is similarites in the basic building blocks of life as God created ever more complex life forms.


    At this stage, I would prefer not to argue with timescales (or any of the above answers) and stick to the question of how we prove the simplest cell components could have formed themselves from the basic elements/molcules.


    This thread can now wait to be resumed once you have prepared your answers.



    All the best,

    David

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hi David,

    Thanks for the links. The article on simple cells looks interesting. I only had time to glance at it, but it looks like they are trying to be true to science and deal with the facts. That's good. But it brings up something important. When creationists finally accept science (which that site seems to do) then what's the point? It doesn't matter if we must conclude that the first cell was designed by God because we are now so far removed from the Biblical story of creation (Young Earth, direct creation of each "kind", etc.). I would be very interested to know why you think any of this is important. The Bible says nothing about God creating the first cell and then letting (or guiding) evolution as the actual process of creation. Is this what you believe now? If not, I don't see why we are digressing on this point (except that it's totally fascinating!).
    Neither have science proved that the first cell was somehow created or formed by its own. How was it created or formed by its own? Neither have science proved that the first cell was a simple cell.

    What are the real issues where Christianity clashes with the modern scientific worldview? Here are a few questions that would help clarify things:

    1) Do you accept that life has been on this planet for about 3.8 billion years?
    No, there are evidence that this planet is not 3.8 billion years old. There are evidence that the dating technology used may be faulty as there are variations in the datings used by different technologies. Evidence of a young earth:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...or-young-world


    2) Do you believe this basic timeline is correct in any way at all?
    It's a human imagination same as people imagining cars evolved from bicyce and motorcycles. I could easily give a timeline of how cars evolve from the invention of wheels, carts, chariots, carriages etc.

    • procaryotes began about 3.8 billion years ago,
    • eukaryotes about 2 billion years ago,
    • multicellular organisms about one billion years ago
    • Cambrian explosion (bilateral body plans) about half a billion years ago
    • dinosaurs about 300 million years ago
    • etc.


    3) If you don't accept the time line, how do you account for all the fossil evidence that shows organisms changed from less complex to more complex as time advanced?
    And how do you account for life that remains unchanged for millions of years such as the horse shoe crab which shows that there is no such thing as less complex life evolving to more complex life. How do you explain the sudden change from one complex life to another such as from dinosaurs to mammals. The only explanation is that someone or something intelligent created them by altering their DNAs.

    God Bless Creations.
    Last edited by CWH; 07-06-2012 at 05:47 PM.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    No it is not evidence of evolution because the logic is that someone or something intelligent have to put this eyeless gene into the fruit fly eye. This have never occur on its own in nature.
    You totally missed the point. They didn't say a word about nature putting mouse genes into fruit flies. Can you tell my why those scientists said what they said? Did you understand a word of it?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You totally missed the point. They didn't say a word about nature putting mouse genes into fruit flies. Can you tell my why those scientists said what they said? Did you understand a word of it?
    Can't you read this PUT in enlarge thus showing that human not Nature put that gene. It has never occur naturally but artificially :

    Neil Shubin and Sean Carroll discuss homeobox genes, a set of genes that produce basic body parts in all animals. In 1994, Walter Gehring discovered the eyeless gene, which guides formation of fruit fly eyes. As an experiment, Gehring put a mouse's eyeless gene into a fruit fly, resulting in normal fruit fly eyes. The same holds true for homeobox genes for wings, legs, even heads. This discovery indicates that animals descended from a single common ancestor that passed along to them a set of homeobox genes, used to build a wide variety of forms from just a few basic body plans. From Evolution: "Great Transformations"
    God Bless.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hi David,

    Thanks for the links. The article on simple cells looks interesting. I only had time to glance at it, but it looks like they are trying to be true to science and deal with the facts. That's good. But it brings up something important. When creationists finally accept science (which that site seems to do) then what's the point? It doesn't matter if we must conclude that the first cell was designed by God because we are now so far removed from the Biblical story of creation (Young Earth, direct creation of each "kind", etc.). I would be very interested to know why you think any of this is important. The Bible says nothing about God creating the first cell and then letting (or guiding) evolution as the actual process of creation. Is this what you believe now? If not, I don't see why we are digressing on this point (except that it's totally fascinating!).

    What are the real issues where Christianity clashes with the modern scientific worldview? Here are a few questions that would help clarify things:

    1) Do you accept that life has been on this planet for about 3.8 billion years?

    2) Do you believe this basic timeline is correct in any way at all?

    • procaryotes began about 3.8 billion years ago,
    • eukaryotes about 2 billion years ago,
    • multicellular organisms about one billion years ago
    • Cambrian explosion (bilateral body plans) about half a billion years ago
    • dinosaurs about 300 million years ago
    • etc.


    3) If you don't accept the time line, how do you account for all the fossil evidence that shows organisms changed from less complex to more complex as time advanced?

    Great chatting!

    Richard
    Richard
    In the time it took me to write and submit my reply to your post before this one in which you asked similar questions, I think I have answered this. I do not exclude long periods of time, though I am not going to readily agree that the time scales you quote are necessariy correct, but let's agree somewhere in the middle rather than stop this discussion going futher. I have given my somewhat unorthodox speculations in order to see why Creation can lead to showing how scientists can take what is seen in Creation asv proof of their theory of Evolution. Evolutionists are not going to agree that God exists, but I see that by God's intelligent design he has created things in order and increasing complexity and with such similarities in the basic building blocks of life Evolutionists can see this as evidence for supporting their theory of Evolution denying God of any involvement.

    What I have said, I expect Creationists to correct me. However, I accept God created the earth and man upon it however it was done. I am not basing my belief in God on the story of Creation alone. If God had not given us the story, it would not stop me believing in God for the many other reasons I see recorded in the Bible; for example, prophecies concerning the Israel, the coherency of the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus etc. etc.

    Let's stay on track discussing the simplest cell.


    David

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    Can you tell my why those scientists said what they said? Did you understand a word of it?
    Can't you read this PUT in enlarge thus showing that human not Nature put that gene. It has never occur naturally but artificially :
    You didn't answer my question.

    Can you tell me why those scientists concluded that all animals share a common ancestor? What evidence supported their conclusion? Can you answer this simple question?
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Richard
    In the time it took me to write and submit my reply to your post before this one in which you asked similar questions, I think I have answered this. I do not exclude long periods of time, though I am not going to readily agree that the time scales you quote are necessariy correct, but let's agree somewhere in the middle rather than stop this discussion going futher. I have given my somewhat unorthodox speculations in order to see why Creation can lead to showing how scientists can take what is seen in Creation asv proof of their theory of Evolution. Evolutionists are not going to agree that God exists, but I see that by God's intelligent design he has created things in order and increasing complexity and with such similarities in the basic building blocks of life Evolutionists can see this as evidence for supporting their theory of Evolution denying God of any involvement.

    What I have said, I expect Creationists to correct me. However, I accept God created the earth and man upon it however it was done. I am not basing my belief in God on the story of Creation alone. If God had not given us the story, it would not stop me believing in God for the many other reasons I see recorded in the Bible; for example, prophecies concerning the Israel, the coherency of the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus etc. etc.

    Let's stay on track discussing the simplest cell.


    David
    Hi David,

    The reason I asked about your opinion of the basic timeline of the history of life on this planet was to find out if we shared any common understanding of science. It is very difficult to discuss science with creationists because they use scientific results inconsistently. When a conclusion suits the creationist argument, they cite it as if it were an indisputable scientific fact. When it contradicts creationism, they simply reject it making up whatever reasons are necessary. This is illogical because the conclusions that they accepted are based on the same set of assumptions that they reject! It is extremely confusing to talk to a creationist because I can never depend upon their acceptance of the facts that they used in coming to their conclusions!

    The creationist strategy fails to understand the consilience of science - the unity of scientific knowledge. You can't arbitrarily pick and choose which conclusions you accept and which you don't. When you question the dates you are not merely questioning the dates, you are questioning all the assumptions (which are based on the best scientific facts available) that went into making those conclusions. In effect, you are rejecting the entire body of scientific knowledge. The creationist arguments are therefore self-refuting.

    Please try to understand what I am getting at. Science is our "window on reality." It seems to me that creationism is like looking through a shattered window. It totally distorts the image:

    Name:  windows-broken-screen1.jpg
Views: 52
Size:  65.7 KB

    When creationists cite scientific results, they are implicitly accepting ALL THE ASSUMPTIONS that the scientist used to come to those results. If they reject any of the assumptions that the scientist made, then they cannot accept the conclusion.

    Case in point: The timeline of the history of life on this planet is based on conclusions drawn from physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, geology, evolution, astronomy, and many other disciplines. If you reject those dates, you are bringing into question every fact from all those sciences that confirmed those dates.

    If the foundation is destroyed, how can we proceed in this discourse? You can't cite any science because essentially all science contradicts your assumptions about creationism.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You didn't answer my question.

    Can you tell me why those scientists concluded that all animals share a common ancestor? What evidence supported their conclusion? Can you answer this simple question?
    Neither did you understand me. There is no common ancestor if someone have to put a gene into an organism. It will only proved common descent if that gene occurs naturally instead of being PUT. It's like saying that all computer virus came from the first computer virus which is a simple computer code made by an computer programmer which evolved by itself into more complicated computer viruses and worms that we see today. And no computer viruses ever evolved by itself, they are all made by humans! They proved that they come from a common descent call computer codes.

    God Bless.
    Last edited by CWH; 07-06-2012 at 08:54 PM.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •