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.
Alright, first let me just say I have a problem with the way your phrasing your question. Evolution and abiogenesis may be two separate topics of study, but they are not taught that way. At least I wasn't taught that way.
I haven't taken any biology course at a higher level of learning, but I do know that in high school abiogenesis was never mentioned. Macro-evolution, micro-evolution, and abiogenesis all just fell under the umbrella of "evolution" and no distinctions were ever made. So unless unless you're posing this question to people who have degrees in whatever evolutionary scientists get degrees in, I think its unfair to split "evolution" into separate categories.
Still, let me answer your question. As I understand evolutionary theory original life was very simple and grew into complex forms. Random mutations to DNA caused this.
That's my problem, I don't believe DNA mutations could lead to higher life. I'm studying computer science, and DNA is easily comparable to a computer program.
If a program has a "mutation" and a block of memory becomes inaccessible that program has two options. It immediately crashes or it continues until the affected memory is called and then crashes. The only option is death. The same thing happens in the human body. Cell mutation = cancerous cells = death.
Also, a simple program cannot become a complex program unless its designed that way. I could design a program to change its variables or functions based on the environment its run in, but that's a design. The first cell, being run off very simple DNA, would not be able to change its design.
Analogies aside, there are just a bunch of holes in evolutionary theory. Holes that in my opinion make the ship sink. For example, where did cell reproduction come from? Evolution requires me to believe that not only did the first cell somehow come into existence, but that that cell was also capable of creating more cells like it? I think that's a pretty big leap of faith.
Elementary and High School education tend to be rather general in terms so as to prepare a person for the working world and/or avenues into institutions of higher leanring. Had you taken a college level biology class, you would've seen the differences between abiogenesis and Evolution made quite plain.
Secondly, Evolution, to oversimplify, is the slow progression of changes as a species adapts to it's new environment in the never-ended quest for new food sources and protection from predators. It isn't a case of a spontanious mutation occuring that jsut happened to adapt said fauna to that environment.
Notice the reference to “We” by the creator. The cloning of humans as a more primitive worker or “lulu amelu” suddenly does not seem so far fetched and the strange genetic anomalies seem to support some genetic manipulation in our distant past. The modern-day researchers go further to say that this “fusion” of our chromosome 2 is what makes us human
First of all even though I don't pretend to be an expert in DNA I realize that it's a relatively new field of study as compared to other scientific bodies of knowledge that have existed for long periods of time and I suspect that there is a great deal that we still don't understand about it. I also think it's simplistic to state that the total numbers of genes should directly correlate to how advanced they are in terms of evolutionary change. That's obviously not the case and even though we expected that it would be we apparently were wrong.
I also think it's a mistake to try to squeeze in this bit about cloned humans being created as primitive workers. That's clearly not based on any scientific evidence, it's based on some obscure religious passages that are not the result of using the scientific method. In future years we're bound to piece together a more complete picture of how DNA and evolution operate in much greater detail. We simply don't have all of the answers at this point in time so it's erroneous to state that human beings are somehow different from other living things that would suggest there was a creator.
In the spirit of an honest, open fruitful discussion, and not wanting to beleaguer the usual epithets to death, again, I'd rerally like a devout Creationist Christian or two to list for us the main elements of Evolution as they understand them, and then to tell us why or how these don't apply, exist or function. Since they often tell us Evolution's a total lie.
An example would be:
1) Evolutionary theory says: Genetic mutation occurs randomly, on it's own, over time, within a species' genotype.
Creationists' answer: This doesn't ever happen, it's never seen nor been documented.
Like that. Sounds simple enough, huh? Tell us where we're so wrong please.
Why am I interested in this? Because, given their usual commentary and criticisms, I'd like to see if Creationists actually understand the documented and common-sense components of Evolution, and their logical arguments against them. Not just the usual "Evoluton's a lie!", but without any supporting arguments. Here's your chance!
One ground-rule though: do not confuse Evolution (how species diversity arose after "life" was a fact) with Abiogenesis (how life, which later evolved, started in the first place.) In other words, none of those "Something out of Nothing" disclaimers please; evolution does not even try to go there.
Thanks for playing!
Riffleman, what evolution do you want us to define? The evolution as stated by Darwin in "Origins", Social evolution, micro evolution, macro evolution, Neo-Darwinism, Punctuated equilibrium, etc. Maybe you could just define your own brand of evolution. I think you just believe any change is evolution. This just makes the word "change" void. So in reality we know that change is not evolution. I do not look like my parrents, but that difference in and of itself does not mean I am evolving into something else. So, I appologize for not playing the game, but evolutionists have not defined evolution and when we hold their feet to the fire they redefine it again. Wasn't that considered an evil by Plato?
Riffleman, what evolution do you want us to define? The evolution as stated by Darwin in "Origins", Social evolution, micro evolution, macro evolution, Neo-Darwinism, Punctuated equilibrium, etc. Maybe you could just define your own brand of evolution. I think you just believe any change is evolution. This just makes the word "change" void. So in reality we know that change is not evolution. I do not look like my parrents, but that difference in and of itself does not mean I am evolving into something else. So, I appologize for not playing the game, but evolutionists have not defined evolution and when we hold their feet to the fire they redefine it again. Wasn't that considered an evil by Plato?
Alright, first let me just say I have a problem with the way your phrasing your question. Evolution and abiogenesis may be two separate topics of study, but they are not taught that way. At least I wasn't taught that way.
Unfortunately though, as Montana Guy noted, this is a common mistake, and is often the result of a Christian teacher's bias when he sees an opportunity to muddy the waters. No self-respecting and intellectually honest scientist will venture out with absolute statements as to how life arose.
I'm only interested in discussing Evolution here, as in: how the huge diversity of obviously related organisms we now find on the planet got that way. not how life arose. Just looking at the dictionary definition of evolution says it all: how things change, not how they arose. Evolution is not a "category" of abiogenesis.
So, for now, let's confine ourselves to that. Agreed?
Still, let me answer your question. As I understand evolutionary theory original life was very simple and grew into complex forms. Random mutations to DNA caused this.
That's my problem, I don't believe DNA mutations could lead to higher life. I'm studying computer science, and DNA is easily comparable to a computer program.
Not really. DNA has the unique ability to repair itself, or to adjust or to turn itself off if it's not needed.
If a program has a "mutation" and a block of memory becomes inaccessible that program has two options. It immediately crashes or it continues until the affected memory is called and then crashes. The only option is death. The same thing happens in the human body. Cell mutation = cancerous cells = death.
Also, a simple program cannot become a complex program unless its designed that way. I could design a program to change its variables or functions based on the environment its run in, but that's a design. The first cell, being run off very simple DNA, would not be able to change its design.
The first pre-cell, perhaps just a string of amino acids floating in a nice warm sea, would respond to a one-in-a-trillion chance change in it's structure if that change provided some advantage. Remember now, Creationists often say "How could chance account for this? We can mix up stuff in a test tube all day long and it never produced a cat!"
Well, imagine how many molecules there are in a test-tube of sea water. Billions! And if there are simple cells there, cellular replication occurs about every 24 hours. Maybe faster, maybe slower. Times billions of cells.
Then, multiply this times the number of test-tube volumes of sea water there are in ,say, just the South Pacific. Uncountable numbers, right? Now then: how many different conditions of temp, salinity, occasional lightning strikes, oxidation or lack thereof, etc. All the variables that can and do affect a chemical reaction.
Then add in the natural affinity that these molecules have demonstrated in the lab; they WANT to get together. Why? We don't really know, but they do; fact. No computer program can simulate all this.
Then, multiply this by a few billion years of time, times the number of experiments that are going on.
Then add in the simple logic that says: if a chance but positive mutation occurs, a better life form will result. If we add in some additional positive factor, it's simply and reliably more successful. A computer program has no intrinsic way of knowing if it's new chance subroutine is better or not. But... a living form does, by virtue of it's better "fit" in it's original, or an entirely new, niche.
Analogies aside, there are just a bunch of holes in evolutionary theory. Holes that in my opinion make the ship sink. For example, where did cell reproduction come from? Evolution requires me to believe that not only did the first cell somehow come into existence, but that that cell was also capable of creating more cells like it? I think that's a pretty big leap of faith.
Not exactly. A line, a row, of linked amino acids would attract another like (or matching but opposite) chain of amino acids. They do this in the lab. They want to. it's not hard to see this link then possibly breaking up when it achieves some more stable conformation, and then there's two, and then four and then eight, etc. You know the drill.
A partial enclosure by a proto-cell wall? Imagine a chance agglutination (gathering) of some slightly protective material alongside that chain of amino acids. It just happens to stick itself there by being, well, sticky, one afternoon.. Again, if it provides any initial protection, even modest, it will be incorporated. That's the big difference between life and a computer program. Yes, in theory, one could write a massive macro-program that incorporates self-improvement and recognition of same, but isn't that what computer scientists are sort of afraid of? AI bettering itself?
Well, life's got that one figured out. Self-improvement is automatically recognized and approved for future production!
You cant be simply awe-struck by things and conclude there's no rational explanation for it . A lot of things that are initially awesome are explainable. Like a lunar landing, or the Mars Rover or the human eye, for which there are progressively less complex versions as we go back in evolutionary time.
Back to when a simple photo sensitive assembly was positioned within the molecular structure (some chemical strands that are temporarily energized or altered by exposure to light, which makes the attached molecule twist slightly, and the organism moves towards (or away from) the source of light. voila; a proto-eye is born)
It's all logical and eventually explicable. Again, we don't know, and may never, just how it all started, though some Brits are very close to mixing up some common chemicals, adding in some "conditions" and producing molecules that then reproduce identical versions of themselves. in fact, it's probably happened by now; they were very close last summer!
That, my friend, is defined as life.
Finally, by comparative anatomy coupled with dating/aging, we have found a progression from less-complex to more complex. The new science of DNA genome mapping will finally put this all to bed; in fact, it already has. Dr. Richard Lenski, in 2008, reviewed the evidence he'd wisely kept frozen, by each generation, for over 22 years. Wow, huh?
As a result, he found the exactpoint where, by chance mutation, a species evolved into another one, capable of doing things the original could not. This is, by definition, a new species, or at the least, a sub-species. A micro-change but significant nonetheless. Predictably, this change allowed others that had been sort of waiting in the wings to kick in, resulting in a brief flurry of evolutionary changes, resulting in a rapid change in the genome (the organism's genetic map) away from the original. and that change will likely provide the new organism with newer opportunities, resulting in some newer species.
This in 22 years. imagine what 4.5 billion years, with many different species vying for "newness" or a better ability to utilize their environment, all happening coincidentally on multiple fronts simultaneously (not in a single evolutionary line, as Creationists say is impossible. That is, I agree... but it's not how it happened). BTW, the fossil record is full of unsuccessful forms; they tried, they failed. Proving that this process was going on as predicted. And, in the end...
Voila! Massive species diversity, but all inexorably linked through their mappable mitochondrial DNA. and still ongoing to this day. Sing along... "You're a transitional, I'm a transitional, all God's children are transitionals"
_________________________________________
Well, as usual, this is far too long, and it's still only a super-summary with no good backup details possible. But I hope you get the picture more accurately now.
Riffleman, what evolution do you want us to define? The evolution as stated by Darwin in "Origins", Social evolution, micro evolution, macro evolution, Neo-Darwinism, Punctuated equilibrium, etc. Maybe you could just define your own brand of evolution. I think you just believe any change is evolution. This just makes the word "change" void. So in reality we know that change is not evolution. I do not look like my parrents, but that difference in and of itself does not mean I am evolving into something else. So, I appologize for not playing the game, but evolutionists have not defined evolution and when we hold their feet to the fire they redefine it again. Wasn't that considered an evil by Plato?
Chromosome Fusion Evidence of DNA manipulation in our distant past? Monday, April 10, 2006
The Human Genome Project has dished up some real surprises to scientists. The first surprise was the vast percentage of the human DNA that is inactive. It is estimated that at least 97% of our DNA is in actual fact a waste of space, as it does not contain any active genes that actually carry the code for any of our physical makeup.
Then within the genes there are Introns – parts that do not carry any code; and Exons - sections that carry some sort of genetic code. The full length of our DNA is made up of some 20 000 genes that have now been identified.
These genes carry the blueprint for the structure of our entire body. What is very puzzling is the fact that Homo sapiens, as the supposed pinnacle if civilized evolution on this planet, should have such large parts of unused DNA. We seem to have the longest DNA molecule among all other species, but we use the smallest part of it in proportion to the other species. In other words, all the other creatures use much more of their DNA than humans do. Some species use as much as 98% of their DNA.
This flies directly in the face of the principles of evolution.
Humans should have the most complex and evolved DNA of all creatures, to have reached levels of civilization seemingly much higher than any other species on Earth over millions of years of evolution. What is even more curious is the predicted number of genes in species. The numbers seem to increase steadily from basic organisms to the most advanced. We would expect that humans should end up having most genes, but strangely this is not the case. Here are some examples of the predictions for total number of genes in species.
Fruit Fly 21 000
Zebrafish 50 000
Chicken 76 000
Mouse 81 000
Chimp 130 000
Human 68 000
Can you see the problem here?
The Chimp is our closes know genetic relative and yet it has almost twice as many genes as humans.
]And then we get to the anomaly of the chromosomes. Our DNA is broken up into 23 pairs of chromosomes. By comparison, all apes have 24 pairs. One would expect that Homo erectus, our immediate evolutionary precursor would then also have had 24 chromosome pairs.
Just one year ago on 6 April 2005, researchers from the National Human Genome Research Institute announced that,
“A detailed analysis of chromosomes 2 and 4 has detected the largest “gene deserts” known in the human genome and uncovered more evidence that human chromosome 2 arose from the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes” as reported in Nature.
It is also the second largest chromosome we possess and it seems to make no sense why 2 primordial chromosomes should have merged to make us human, if this new chromosome gives us no apparent advantage for survival.
So when we read in the Sumerian tablets that humans were cloned as a sub-species between Homo erectus and a more advanced human-like species that arrived on Earth some 400 000 years ago, it suddenly makes a little bit more sense. The tablets describe how our maker removed certain parts of the “Tree of life” to trim the ability of the new “creature” and how they struggled to make the perfect “primitive worker” so that it could understand commands but not be too smart to question their existence. Similar suggestions of genetic cloning are made in The Koran and Hindu Laws of Manu. The Koran:
• Ya Sin: “Is man not aware that We created him from a little germ?”
• The Believers - God says almost verbatim what the Sumerian tablets tell us. “We first created man from an essence of clay; then placed him a living germ in a secure enclosure. The germ we made a clot of blood, and the clot a lump of flesh. This we fashioned into bones, then clothed the bones with flesh…”
Laws of Manu:
• 19. But from minute body (-framing) particles of these seven very powerful Purushas springs this (world), the perishable from the imperishable.
• 20. Among them each succeeding (element) acquires the quality of the preceding one, and whatever place (in the sequence) each of them occupies, even so many qualities it is declared to possess.
Notice the reference to “We” by the creator. The cloning of humans as a more primitive worker or “lulu amelu” suddenly does not seem so far fetched and the strange genetic anomalies seem to support some genetic manipulation in our distant past. The modern-day researchers go further to say that this “fusion” of our chromosome 2 is what makes us human.
Are we getting closer to proving that humans were created by his MAKER as slaves to work in the early gold mines on Earth? It certainly seems like it. Michael Tellinger April 2006
I watched "What Darwin Never Knew" the other night. Your question about the other 97% of human DNA is answered in that show. I highly recommend the show to those of you who make uneducated assumptions about evolution.
Apparently, a lot has been learned in the past few years. That 97% of DNA are control switches for the DNA that your article calls "active". For instance, the switches would control the DNA that grows hair on a Zebra. They would tell the hair where to grow, when to stop growing, and what color to be.
There is no reason to assume that humans are the pinnacle of evolution.
That is not how evolution works. How much DNA a creature has is not relevant to our perception of how evolved it is.
The rest of the stuff in the article you posted is mostly crazy talk.
I watched "What Darwin Never Knew" the other night. Your question about the other 97% of human DNA is answered in that show. I highly recommend the show to those of you who make uneducated assumptions about evolution.
Apparently, a lot has been learned in the past few years. That 97% of DNA are control switches for the DNA that your article calls "active". For instance, the switches would control the DNA that grows hair on a Zebra. They would tell the hair where to grow, when to stop growing, and what color to be.
There is no reason to assume that humans are the pinnacle of evolution.
That is not how evolution works. How much DNA a creature has is not relevant to our perception of how evolved it is.
The rest of the stuff in the article you posted is mostly crazy talk.
Yes, I should have edited down the article to just the hard science. Z. Stitchin's theories of course would give anyone room for pause.
Yes, I should have edited down the article to just the hard science. Z. Stitchin's theories of course would give anyone room for pause.
Hard science? Really?...
Quote:
In The 12th Planet (1976), describing the Anunnaki's genetic engineering to fashion The Adam, Zecharia wrote: "Man is the product of evolution; but modern Man, Homo sapiens, is the product of the 'gods'. For, some time circa 300,000 years ago, the Nefilim took ape-man (Homo erectus) and implanted on him their own image and likeness." In The Earth Chronicles Time Chart (The Wars of Gods and Men, 1985) Zecharia wrote: 300,000 years ago: The Anunnaki toiling in the gold mines mutiny. Enki and Ninhursag create Primitive Workers through genetic manipulation... Homo sapiens begins to multiply."
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.
!
Timely explanation....
