Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564

    Does the Theory of Evolution reflect Creation?

    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
    Last edited by David M; 07-18-2012 at 03:19 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post


    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...&vq=medium

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

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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:

    Name:  012ec2c92f77b1206e3ae0edfe5a541d.png
Views: 33
Size:  1.1 KB


    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:
    Humans (Homo sapiens[3][4][5]), the only living members of the genus Homo, are mammals of the primate order originally from Africa, where they reached anatomical modernity about 200,000 years ago and began to exhibit full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago.[6]
    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
    • 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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    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

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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:
    Humans (Homo sapiens[3][4][5]), the only living members of the genus Homo, are mammals of the primate order originally from Africa, where they reached anatomical modernity about 200,000 years ago and began to exhibit full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago.[6]
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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. (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
    • 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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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"


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I think it's up to both of us. And I must say that I am loving the conversation. (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
    Last edited by David M; 07-18-2012 at 05:59 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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. 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 and here. 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
    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/e.../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?
    • 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. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post

    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

    Take care,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Here is a good video where Richard Dawkins covers the main points of evolution.

    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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