Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The concept that the cell could evolve is not observed but speculated. It requires great faith that it could evolve.
What we observe is a complex machine - actually a series of factories with specific functions within the machine.
Even the evolution promoting biology teacher will teach these 'organelles' using similes of factories.
For example
1) Mitochondria - the power plant > required for ATP synthesis for high energy "aerobic" systems
2) Golgi apparatus - the packaging plant
etc...
another thing.. not only can the evolution folks explain which came first - the protein or the DNA (which came first the chicken or the egg problem) the cell needs a barrier to protect it from their external environment.
If it does not have this barrier what we observe is cell lysis or cell death due to it not being in an "isotonic" solution - which would be required.
This is no small obstacle either for the evolution theologian. What we observe in the cell membrane is phospholipid bilayer and cholesterol among various complex channel proteins.
So not only do you need the information to make the proteins, you need the ability to produce lipids.
This is no small jump in their evolution model.
It is a great leap of FAITH however to believe this all somehow evolved. It's not observed. It's not Science.
I hate labels. I feel the way I feel and that is it really. But there is an interesting parable that may apply here. A man plants his field with wheat. And vandals plant weeds over night. In the morning his field is full of weeds and wheat. The moral is that even amung the weeds there is good wheat and you just have to look for it. And who says the depiction of God in the bible is exactly the way it is. Even if it is can you really imagine a Being so powerful to be able to create you and me and this vast entire universe to really be so primitive. No way. It is so easy to take this man made book and discredit God. But all these books are still writing about the same God. It is up to the individual to see past the human part and get to the spiritual part...if they want to.
The problem with your parable is that the analogy is biased. It assumes that what is 'planted' is useful wheat and what is added is useless tares (see the parable of the sower -you didn't think we'd see the pinch? )
Another parable might be of a field of brambles being replanted with properly bred crops and reactionaries come and rip ip up and say they preferred the brambles.
When we say that the crops are more useful, we get some tosh about seeing past the mere obvious superiority of cereals to a sorta 'spiritual' superiority of brambles.
Ok, it's your field and you can grow what you want, but don't think you can discredit a much better argument by these self - serving parabolic analogies. The are the instruments of bamboozlement.
So I guess there were humans around to record your god's creation sextuplantdaze™
Yup we never observed evilooshun, I guess you haz us on the rope, dang RM, how could we have missed such a salient point.
I mean the creationists obviously had eye witnesses.
The point is what we observe is an interdependent cycle. Anything outside of that cycle is Speculation not Science.
One can conclude rationally that all pieces must be there for the machine to operate.
The mousetrap
needs 5 components to all be there for it to catch mice. You take away the spring; for example, and you do not catch 4/5 as many mice. You do not catch any. The machine is not operational.
When you run your lawn mower and it all the sudden stops working, what is the conclusion? Something within the engine broke. All pieces need to be there for the thing to operate.
This is what is Observed. This is Science.
What initiated the cycle which all components are observed to be there? A Creator. No engineer would conclude that their machine would evolve without them. It is irrational thinking to believe that it could.
The concept that the cell could evolve is not observed but speculated. It requires great faith that it could evolve.
What we observe is a complex machine - actually a series of factories with specific functions within the machine.
Even the evolution promoting biology teacher will teach these 'organelles' using similes of factories.
For example
1) Mitochondria - the power plant > required for ATP synthesis for high energy "aerobic" systems
2) Golgi apparatus - the packaging plant
etc...
another thing.. not only can the evolution folks explain which came first - the protein or the DNA (which came first the chicken or the egg problem) the cell needs a barrier to protect it from their external environment.
If it does not have this barrier what we observe is cell lysis or cell death due to it not being in an "isotonic" solution - which would be required.
This is no small obstacle either for the evolution theologian. What we observe in the cell membrane is phospholipid bilayer and cholesterol among various complex channel proteins.
So not only do you need the information to make the proteins, you need the ability to produce lipids.
This is no small jump in their evolution model.
It is a great leap of FAITH however to believe this all somehow evolved. It's not observed. It's not Science.
It is a bit of a leap, too, to set aside all the evidence that evolution did happen and is still happening and focus on the unexplained problems and suggest that because we haven't a mechanism (the analogies of factories producing products is a useful convention, but to overdraw it as you have done to suggest that it is all mechanical and designed is the misinformation of the ID fraternity) to explain everything it can't be true.
For those who try to make room for God - theories with the arguments about how much there is that science doesn't know, you're damn' quick to proclaim the evolution of cell membranes, proteins, lipids and the like as impossible.
In fact I believe we went into the abiogenesis question in some detail and there were huge gaps, true, but also some mechanisms to fill in these 'leaps' of yours and which showed that it was very possible.
Its true we can't show DNA and amoebas evolving as we watch, nor earthworms evolving compound eyes, lizards evolving feathers and sperm whales developing baleen, but we have fossil evidence showing that such processes happened.
It is not science to deny what occurred in the past just because it is in the past.
The point is what we observe is an interdependent cycle. Anything outside of that cycle is Speculation not Science.
One can conclude rationally that all pieces must be there for the machine to operate.
The mousetrap
needs 5 components to all be there for it to catch mice. You take away the spring; for example, and you do not catch 4/5 as many mice. You do not catch any. The machine is not operational.
When you run your lawn mower and it all the sudden stops working, what is the conclusion? Something within the engine broke. All pieces need to be there for the thing to operate.
This is what is Observed. This is Science.
What initiated the cycle which all components are observed to be there? A Creator. No engineer would conclude that their machine would evolve without them. It is irrational thinking to believe that it could.
[quote=lee9786;24343301The mousetrap needs 5 components to all be there for it to catch mice.[/QUOTE]
See even this is false. You can remove parts of a mouse trap and still have a mouse trap. It does not function AS well but it still functions.
Even then... and this is the important thing in understanding evolution.... each time you remove a part you are left with something that can perform OTHER functions too.
Irreducible complexity has failed. You continuing to tout it does not change this fact.
The second video is going to really fry your noodle given you can build a one part mouse trap.
So I am sorry but the idea you are selling about how a 5 part mouse trap has to be in place.... is simply false on every level. Worse... I reckon you know it too but posted it anyway and that says more about you than I ever could write.
Yes, you are right here, just as the theory of latex paint color homogenization also does not explain why my mom's cheese casserole tasted so good, or why the sightly broiled-on cheese milk proteins stuck to the molecular ceramic infrastructure of the casserole dish. But how it comes off when I listen to some Mozart on my CD player.
In other simple words, the two {evolution and biogenesis} are totally unrelated, Vansdad, and yet, having been shown this with full explanation many times, you persist in returning to such banal illiteracy. Why IS that? What portion of good neural connectivity are all you super-stubborn Chrisitian dogmatists missing? Can we perhaps help you with that necessary operation(s)?
This posits a near-total lack of understanding of a process that has been so thoroughly documented now, with several lab PROOFS of Evolution now in existence. So we know how, when and why it works, we find obvious examples of it in the field, both in currently existing animals and plants, but also in artifacts we find from which we can and do no pull useful DNA samples.
But then as well, there's that pesky fossil history coupled with independent and alternate but staggeringly accurate dating methods, which also (WOW!) fit precisely into the geological columns' record of time, sedimentary deposition and the organisms it has reliably entrapped. And it accurately PREDICTS the behavior of species across time and with now-known current and historical global climatological changes (via glacial ice layer analysis, which is pretty much inarguable as well...).
Oh but wait! Then there's those problematic "varves" which accurately provide detailed sedimentology from not one sole Fludd(thx Seeker, for that one...), but from literally hundreds of thousands, if not a million or more, annual events. (One mere 40 - 80 day fludd would not, in fact could not, deposit all of the now extinct spores, spawning fish die-off carcasses, and various other animal & plant carcasses that existed in all those millenia of life on earth, en-route to where it is today,
Matter of fact, if we go look at those drill samples of those varves that Creationists have claimed happened over one six-month period of time ()), we find that the depositions from last year or 10 years go, do indeed exactly match the annual spring freshet, including current organisms. Who'dah thunk, huh, Vansdad?
Q: Just how can you intelligently reject ALL of this evidence, produced from sires and indepenedent researchers all over the world, and then, with your stated dislike of long posts (see below), just hand-wavingly dismiss it all as "no evidence at all"? Huh? How?
Make yourself clear, man, or get off the battlefield.
And yet, according to the setting and state of humanity and social evolution small "e"; don't get all bent...), morality is what's defined by the group in power. The Nazis, Stalin's mob of thugs, the Catholic Church during the Inquisition and the Crusades, and against the various aboriginals where the Church has historically sent in it's storm trooper priests to disrupt and ruin an original functioning culture and convert it into a blindered and fear-stricken culture of total obedience (the RC CHurch thus being perhaps the most egregious of all of the big list of Thug Cultures...)
Not together! Again, Vansdad, your lack of understanding iof the biology and physics and logic of Evolution is, frankly, appalling! Yes, we had to have life forst in the form of a DNA or RNA-based structure, but once that LEGOâ„¢ set was in existence, it is then simplelogic that, given the means of genome changes (mutations, transcription errors, introcution of new information via the known mechanisms of viral injection, cellualr conjoinment, and many others...), coupled with DNA's reliable documentation of those changes, so that they can then be tested against the real world, thatproduces (again, logically,Vansdad...) a few of the thus resulting better-suited versions!!
Which, hey! Wow! They then build on their own internal recent genetic successes all while trying yet more versions! Not by design, not by intelligence, but by simple molecular interaction.
Had this particular molecule, the original simple RNA, arisen EVER, then we'd not be here. It's that simple. This is not by som GLory of god happening, and if any of the conditions were not suitable for this conclusion, then again, we'd not be here.
This also does not therefore PROVE that God had a hand in it, just that it happened, just as Venus or Jupiter were born in our evolving solar system, but do not (likely) support life (at least as we know it). But the conditions here on earth have likely been more or less duplicated on one or 50,000 or the literal multi-billions of other systems out there, molecules behaving the sam across the universe in all likelihood... and as we've seen here in our own explorations of this solar system..)
Too hard for you to cipher out? Really? You still want to deny such obvious logic?
I'd argue that you are in no way "open" to the now-established menas of organism diversification. For example, if you also believe in, let's cay, the global Noah's Fludd, then you can't say you have a logical and open mind. what's your position on that one, pray tell?
Unfortunately, as Seeker says here:
This probably also explains why so many Christian acolytes and stubborn pragmatistic denialsit apologists didn't want to take Science as an elective in High School. Too danged much reading and learning and stuff. Plus, the parental influence ("You are NOT allowed to take science! It's the Devil's Spawn! Didn't your mother tell you that? Jesus Be Praised in his Glory!")
Far better to just let others do your spiritual and investigatory thinking for you, right?
Not to mention that if the mystical "He" actually did such a macro-work, and is, as one of my now-disowned born-again Christian "friends" asserts, is controlling each and every sub-atomic particle in the Universe at the same time, like "as we speak now", howcome He made so many obvious mistakes in both the animal and plant kingdoms, and why did His best creation (at least in their opinion...) have to be disciplined by an impossible fludd scenario?
That's just immature and inane!
Thx. I'm trying! BTW, good luck with the Euro! Now that's "social evolution" for yah!
I guess you are so right. Thanks for clarrifying. Now I know how it all began.
The problem with your parable is that the analogy is biased. It assumes that what is 'planted' is useful wheat and what is added is useless tares (see the parable of the sower -you didn't think we'd see the pinch? )
Another parable might be of a field of brambles being replanted with properly bred crops and reactionaries come and rip ip up and say they preferred the brambles.
When we say that the crops are more useful, we get some tosh about seeing past the mere obvious superiority of cereals to a sorta 'spiritual' superiority of brambles.
Ok, it's your field and you can grow what you want, but don't think you can discredit a much better argument by these self - serving parabolic analogies. The are the instruments of bamboozlement.
Too bad you missed the point...I knew someone would.
Again, your theory about creation and evolution makes sense through a Deistic perspective, not so much a Christian perspective.
I've never claimed to be a Christian.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
), we find that the depositions from last year or 10 years go, do indeed exactly match the annual spring freshet, including current organisms. Who'dah thunk, huh, Vansdad?
