Evolution's Evidence Clarified by Christians (genesis, bible, worship, quote)

[rifleman]

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!

[corendel]

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.

[MontanaGuy]

corendel wrote:

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.

That's a common misunderstanding but it's not your fault, it's the fault of our education system and the fact that evolution was dumbed down and high school biology doesn't tend to get into the substance of evolution with enough information so that it can be understood. They also do a poor job of most other subjects that require a substantial amount of knowledge to be able to grasp. If you have a high school diploma you've just been taught a basic overview of most subjects and the emphasis has been placed on the ability to be able to function in society. That would include such things as reading and writing skills, simple math, and other necessities that anyone who is seeking employment needs to know. Of course some high schools are excellent and do a much better job of educating young people than others but it's unrealistic to say that "it's unfair to split evolution into separate categories". Abiogenesis was never mentioned at my high school either but that doesn't change the reality that it's a separate field of study from evolution.

[rifleman]

Corendel, I appreciate your thoughts, and will get to them in quiet detail tomorrow. Just FYI, and I'm not bragging, but I happen to be a biologist several times over, as well as an engineer, and lost my personal dedication to Christianity as I worked my way through my first university degree.

I can and will answer your interesting comparison to a computer program. Something for you to think about in the meantime though, would be if, in a computer program, there were a system that analyzed errors and decided if they might be productive, and then would automatically incorporate them into the program. Of course, such a concept is beyond our current programming technology, else our PCS (or to a lesser extent, our MACs) would not freeze up as much as they do.

Right now, bad programs or executions just die (or freeze your computer up), with no tech support to help out. In Evolution, bad ideas also die, but the few good ones are incorporated by a very logical and simple process: life.

See you tomorrow. Meantime, anyone else?

G'night, & thx MG!

[PanTerra]

Did anyone see this episode of NOVA?

NOVA | What Darwin Never Knew

"That's my problem, I don't believe DNA mutations could lead to higher life."

That really doesn't matter whether you believe it or not, as it just goes on doing it, inspite of your disbelief. This episode of NOVA actually shows you how it happens.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by corendel

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.

Sorry to put it this way but that's a product of your education and has nothing to do with the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are two separate sciences.

However, I will say that all too often I feel that people are looking for how life can be spontaneously generated. DNA, in my opinion, is simply too complex to have originated spontaneously. It, like everything else we see, would have more than likely come from infinitesimally graduated degrees dictated by a selection process itself.

At the moment, we don't have an exact idea of how this process works or worked but I do firmly feel it would be almost indistinguishably evolutionary in its nature.

Originally Posted by corendel

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.

Again... Unfortunately it seems like your education has done you a dis-service. There really isn't much distinction to be made between microevolution and macroevolution. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a given population's ecological niche over a period of time. There is nothing micro or macro about that - it's just evolution. Unfortunately, some scientists use that terminology for reasons I won't go into and that has led to proponents of Intelligent Design misusing and deliberately lying about what the terms mean so as to further propagate their bogus movement.

Originally Posted by corendel

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.

This is a fairly accurate analysis but you should take precaution when deeming something simple or complex as this can be considered highly subjective. Though a single-celled bacteria would not be as complex as a human being, we are still made of the same complex stuff -DNA.

To put it another way... It's a lot like saying that Moby Dick and The Cat in the Hat could not be derived from the same thing. But, they are. They both use a 26 letter English alphabet. The severity, amount and extent to which the English alphabet is used in both may be dramatically different but they are nonetheless comprised of the same letters.

Originally Posted by corendel

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.

Would you believe that "mutations" in the way we arrange letters could lead to the wide diversity of books printed in the English language? We only have twenty-six letters but we have millions of books written in English - and no two books are exactly the same!

Originally Posted by corendel

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.

DNA is not a computer program though the analogy is a simple one and one that can be easily interpreted. It is more like an instruction set, more precisely - a recipe for how to make something. If you make chocolate chip cookies and "mutate" a few extra chocolate chips into the recipe do you still have chocolate chip cookies?

Originally Posted by corendel

Also, a simple program cannot become a complex program unless its designed that way. The first cell, being run off very simple DNA, would not be able to change its design.

I don't mean to sound rude but I demand a good, solid working body of evidence to support this claim! And, by the way, DNA does not change its design. DNA is intrinsically the same in the same way that our alphabet does not change its design. The arrangement of the letters is what changes to produce words.

Originally Posted by corendel

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.

It's a leap of faith if you assume that all of that came one bright sunny and volcano-laden morning all by itself. That is what Intelligent Design proponents and Creationist would like you to believe is so illogical about evolution in the first place and yet it's what they worship (The Book of Genesis).

Slow, gradual, advantageous and reproductive change in the midst of countless biological and physiological feedback systems is how evolution works. Please, do not accuse me of adhering to a science that claims that massive complexity will suddenly arise from nowhere. That is in the realm of Disney, Pixar Studios, and the Bible.

[corendel]

Oi! Almost every post about the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. I know science clarifies them as two different fields of studies. What I was trying to say is that if you picked a random person off the street and asked what abiogenesis is you'd get "huh?" as a response. Nevermind...

I watched the DNA portion of the NOVA video (chapter 11) and I'll admit its interesting. But its still about adaptation, micro-evolution, or whatever you want to call it. It's not the changing of one species into another.

Anyways, I don't want to get into any major arguments, but I do have to point out a few things.

DNA is not a computer program though the analogy is a simple one and one that can be easily interpreted. It is more like an instruction set, more precisely

This I have to disagree with entirely. DNA is definitely a computer program. Any programmer knows that a program consists of three things: classes, functions, and variables (OO design, anyways, for those who know what that means).

As an individual, I have ten fingers. A finger is a "class" in my DNA program. Each of my fingers is an "object" of that class. It has various functions, such as maintaining the muscles, movement, etc. My global class, the one that has all the information to make me, has a finger variable detailing the number of fingers I have.

The language DNA is written in is its instruction set (that's an actual computer science term, mainly used with assembly languages).

[Dusty Rhodes]

Originally Posted by corendel

I watched the DNA portion of the NOVA video (chapter 11) and I'll admit its interesting. But its still about adaptation, micro-evolution, or whatever you want to call it. It's not the changing of one species into another.

Actually it is.... it is just set in the framework of geologic time. One little change then another very little change. Redwoods will grow old waiting for discernable change. Darwin was quite adamant about the geologic time span of change. Evolution is not in a hurry.

[FreeThinkerInTex]

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

[sanspeur]

That's a bit of a looney toons site there Tex... I wouldn't put a lot of stock in it.
From that site.. Anunnaki Hybrid DNA - Alien Races

Better to get your info straight from the source. genome.gov | All About The Human Genome Project (HGP)