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.
Photosynthesis by cyanobacteria began to occur about 2 billion years before there were any animals or plants.
Finding something hard to believe doesn't mean it can't be explained through evidence.
I see nobody wants to answer how the cyanobacteria magically appeared and started photosynthesis and then magically spawned diverse life that reproduces in various ways.
Let's address how this proposal is impossible. If cyanobacteria were here first that does not explain how more complex organsms "evolved" from this. Variation always produce less genetic information in the offspring than it's parent (you continue this process for forever they will always be the same species). For instance a white tiger is still a tiger (with less genetic material than it's progenitor). The eukaryotes that are proposed to have evolved from these cyanobacteria are more complex. The organisms that allegedly evolved from that are more complex. You telling me "evolution did it" does not explain how these simple life forms spawn complex.
You don't get it. The dates were surmised and stayed the same even with the arrival of radiometric dating, and they still teach the geologic column in schools even though in only exists in textbooks. Textbooks still teach the fossils are dated by rock and rock by fossils to this day (it's called relative dating).
No sir. You don't get it. Dates get revised all the time. That tends to happen when dating methods become more precise and diverse over time. Today most revisions are incrementally small.
I actually agree with all the definitions you provided of evolution, with the exception of the term " Chance." Thats where we basically differ. Evolution is genetic mutations , but I do not agree they were chance ignited, I believe they were purposefully ignited by the divine.
Etc. etc. Edited for brevity.
I cannot, for the life of reason within me, give the existing world over to a chance beginning; it just makes no sense to me.
Well here's the rub, Mickiel. WE KNOW it occurs by chance because with modern DNA genome mapping (which I hope you either understand or at least believe...) we can actually see the genome changing or not.
As we have now reliably observed, these are natural and frequent enough to account for genetic diversity (i.e.: occurring purely at random times and frequencies), and obviously the highest percentage of those would be negative, toxic or lethal in some way. This would be like you or I reaching into the backs of our new HD TVs with blindfolds on, twiddling with a hot soldering iron on the various micro-componentry and hoping for a better picture, perhaps one in 3-D. Right? Impossible. I agree.
But this is NOT how Evolution works! Those mutations do indeed occur, and we can easily prove this to anyone. The huge majority are in fact lethal, and that cell's subsequent lineage dies off. Pretty much puts an end to that possible line of future changes, huh? But every now and again, there absolutely is a positive (or at worst, neutral) genetics rearrangement and subsequent change.
The reasons these changes or mutations occur is from such diverse elements as high-strength ionizing radiation (i.e.: it ionizes, or knocks important molecular elements off the DNA molecule structure..) gamma radiation from the sun, from outer space, from the Radon under our feet, from the soil, from Strontium 90 isotopes that we ingest (as in milk from cows anywhere near Chernobyl!) and in the veggies we al consume, and so on. Lots of different sources of ionizing radiation. In fact...
Then, there's simple functional/mechanical errors within the cellular mechanisms, such as "transcription errors", where the cellular mechanics occasionally fail to do it right.
And then read the "Errors are a natural part..." etc. And later on, where it is titled: "When Replication Errors Become Mutations"
You have only to scan it; I realize, respectfully, that it may be beyond your current level of biology, but you should still be able to at least get the jist of it, right? It simply says errors do occur during natural cellular replication, and mutations are random and by chance.
Then, finally, read this brief summary "Abstract"...
...in which this renowned doctor (Richard Lenski) concluded a 22 year-long (WOW!) experiment, where he saved examples of each of 32,000 generations (double WOW!), but in the end saw only one positive mutation. But that one lead to a new species! Quite an elegant experiment, wouldn't you agree, since he didn't even know about DNA genome mapping 22 years ago! He was just being thorough! And now, his results are thus impeccable and irrefutable! And it all came about by chance mutation.
BTW, if God truly did direct and divine it all, and is The Great and Powerful Intelligent Design guru, why then does He direct so many (about 99.8%) of these Godly mutations to be lethal or at best neutral? Why not just direct the ones He wanted all along to do just that? Otherwise, this makes no sense at all, and given the ultra-high rate of mutation failures in nature, it's obvious that what we do observe is in fact a purely natural and low-frequency event.
I think you've been assuming the number of such evolutionary occurrences to be low, and yet they somehow all result in some improvements. Hardly what true Evolutionary "theory" predicts nor observes. In fact, positive mutations are both rare and infrequent. But because of the time and the shear numbers of mutating individuals, even the very low numbers of positive mutations do add up, and they grow on each other exponentially. It can even be proven mathematically and statistically if you'd like.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,521,162 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiel
With reserved evolution I believe God is holding it back until he again evolves all of humanity from flesh to spirit beings. Its being kept back and reservered for a future use, no longer employed as he did in early times
Well kind of what I alluded to earlier. But……
What if the children of the universe decide not to wait and evolve themselves by virtual/mechanical/biological means? What happens if we remove ourselves from a carbon base (the flesh) and move to a silicon base? What happens if we decide to make our existence completely in the virtual (basically electronic ghosts) with very little in the way of physical structures (Maybe just enough to support the virtual world and interact with the outside world when necessary)?
What happens then?
In my mind whether natural evolution has stopped and/or has diminished make absolutely no impact to the future of the evolution of man or whatever descendants that comes from us. Technology keeps us moving forward believe it or not. And I’m in full agreement with Kurzweil’s observations that we will keep moving forward at an increasingly accelerated pace. The future is bright and the singularity is near.
BTW, if God truly did direct and divine it all, and is The Great and Powerful Intelligent Design guru, why then does He direct so many (about 99.8%) of these Godly mutations to be lethal or at best neutral? Why not just direct the ones He wanted all along to do just that? Otherwise, this makes no sense at all, and given the ultra-high rate of mutation failures in nature, it's obvious that what we do observe is in fact a purely natural and low-frequency event.
I think you've been assuming the number of such evolutionary occurrences to be low, and yet they somehow all result in some improvements. Hardly what true Evolutionary "theory" predicts nor observes. In fact, positive mutations are both rare and infrequent. But because of the time and the shear numbers of mutating individuals, even the very low numbers of positive mutations do add up, and they grow on each other exponentially. It can even be proven mathematically and statistically if you'd like.
Enjoy the links!
Well I did enjoy the links, they were of intrest.
Again, I don't know why God does the things he does, I can only give my speculations on it. But the fact that so high a percentage of mutations are nuetral, I think that supports reserved evolution. I think positive evolution, excluding the intellect, is indeed rare and waning; I have said this all along. I don't see any physical evolution growing exponentially , but admit there may be few exceptions, but they are few and not the full blown evolution of pre mesolithic man.
Well kind of what I alluded to earlier. But……
What if the children of the universe decide not to wait and evolve themselves by virtual/mechanical/biological means? What happens if we remove ourselves from a carbon base (the flesh) and move to a silicon base? What happens if we decide to make our existence completely in the virtual (basically electronic ghosts) with very little in the way of physical structures (Maybe just enough to support the virtual world and interact with the outside world when necessary)?
What happens then?
In my mind whether natural evolution has stopped and/or has diminished make absolutely no impact to the future of the evolution of man or whatever descendants that comes from us. Technology keeps us moving forward believe it or not. And I’m in full agreement with Kurzweil’s observations that we will keep moving forward at an increasingly accelerated pace. The future is bright and the singularity is near.
Well if man evolves himself by the means you listed ( and I am not saying those means you listed are impossible) I still believe he will evolve according to and by the same means he got here, which I view as God. Remember, I believe in humanitys future evolution, I just view the source of that comming evolution as God.
No sir. You don't get it. Dates get revised all the time. That tends to happen when dating methods become more precise and diverse over time. Today most revisions are incrementally small.
I am aware that things change within science all the time. Why do they change? If aspects are subject to change at any time then how can you say something is true? Truth is not relative it is absolute. Which makes it strange that they even classify radiometric dating as absolute, even though it is subject to "fine tuning".
It's even stranger that a so-called "absolute" method must agree with the relative methods.
Quote:
Absolute dating is the term used to describe any dating technique that tells how old a specimen is in years. These are generally analytical methods, and are carried out in a laboratory. Absolute dates are also relative dates, in that they tell which specimens are older or younger than others. Absolute dates must agree with dates from other relative methods in order to be valid.
Gee radiometric dating is supposed to be "absolute" but if it does not agree with the relative methods it is not valid.
Well what's wrong with that?
Quote:
Relative dating methods determine whether one sample is older or younger than another. They do not provide an age in years. Before the advent of absolute dating methods, nearly all dating was relative. The main relative dating method is stratigraphy.
Well if "absolute" method must agree with relative method (ones that do not give you age in years) we are just reasoning in a circle.
Now now Mickiel; let's not tinker with what I actually said: I said clearly that the huge percentage of mutations are negative/lethal, not "neutral" as you hope for and then state.. This is indeed as we would rationally expect with a purely chance-based occurrence and random improvements to existing successful genotypes.
Remember now: science first hypothesizes (i..: guesses, but carefully..), then it investigates until it can confirm or deny the validity of the hypothesis, then it forms a theory, and and then it predicts. Positive and confirmed predictions are the final and best possible test for any theory, and the more such predictions are confirmed, the more we realize we essentially have a Law about, well, gravity, light, radio wave propagation, and Evolution. In that last case, we predict a huge lethal mutation rate if it's natural and by chance,, and that, not neutrality, is exactly what we indeed see. Wow, huh? Case closed.
And in your heart of hearts, you know and see it too, Mickiel, and down deep, you realize your God's integrity may well be at risk. Which you don't want to hear but... there it is, Mickiel. Proven and predictable.
So again, as an Intelligent Designer, God gets most of it, about 99 % "dead wrong".
No what I'd predict at all! Hardly very productive or efficient, agreed? In fact, Mickiel my friend, this sort of predictabiltiy sort of finishes off the concept of your particular version of God. If He/sHe/It truly does exist, it is certainly not in the simplistic, child-like form that He has to be in to be widely accepted by the countless bilions of scientifically illiterate masses!
Heck; they're also just generally hugely illiterate about, well... most everything! Birth control, where rain or snow or wind come from, how a car's engine works, how nuclear fusion reactions occur, how to avoid getting or spreading HIV, why it's not good to beat your childfen to death and so on ad infinitum!
So I think you should consider moving on from the truly mass-hysteria & immature versions of spiritual philosophy. I suggest that you at least consider Mystic's version. At least it moves beyond the overly simplified stuff and begines to ask some reasonable questions about spirituality and it's possible sources.
Now now Mickiel; let's not tinker with what I actually said: I said clearly that the huge percentage of mutations are negative/lethal, not "neutral" as you hope for and then state.. This is indeed as we would rationally expect with a purely chance-based occurrence and random improvements to existing successful genotypes.
Remember now: science first hypothesizes (i..: guesses, but carefully..), then it investigates until it can confirm or deny the validity of the hypothesis, then it forms a theory, and and then it predicts. Positive and confirmed predictions are the final and best possible test for any theory, and the more such predictions are confirmed, the more we realize we essentially have a Law about, well, gravity, light, radio wave propagation, and Evolution. In that last case, we predict a huge lethal mutation rate if it's natural and by chance,, and that, not neutrality, is exactly what we indeed see. Wow, huh? Case closed.
And in your heart of hearts, you know and see it too, Mickiel, and down deep, you realize your God's integrity may well be at risk. Which you don't want to hear but... there it is, Mickiel. Proven and predictable.
So again, as an Intelligent Designer, God gets most of it, about 99 % "dead wrong".
No what I'd predict at all! Hardly very productive or efficient, agreed? In fact, Mickiel my friend, this sort of predictabiltiy sort of finishes off the concept of your particular version of God. If He/sHe/It truly does exist, it is certainly not in the simplistic, child-like form that He has to be in to be widely accepted by the countless bilions of scientifically illiterate masses!
Heck; they're also just generally hugely illiterate about, well... most everything! Birth control, where rain or snow or wind come from, how a car's engine works, how nuclear fusion reactions occur, how to avoid getting or spreading HIV, why it's not good to beat your childfen to death and so on ad infinitum!
So I think you should consider moving on from the truly mass-hysteria & immature versions of spiritual philosophy. I suggest that you at least consider Mystic's version. At least it moves beyond the overly simplified stuff and begines to ask some reasonable questions about spirituality and it's possible sources.
Best of luck!
I don't know Mystics version but would like to see it. I don't subscribe to ecclesiastical forms of outworn faiths , my views are different because my beliefs are, but I share in common with them a belief in God, but thats about generally it. My supersition is central to my own consciousness and I consider God as the maker of primordal and modern man, and the architect of evolution; and I view his current use of evolution as reserved. Science has its theorys, many of them I think are excellent; but science took its roots in the divine and for all its pomp of factness, its not unlike some of the more easily disparaged outbreaks of pseudoreligions.
I have looked into history and in its period of transition from its religious basis, science often shares with the celestial maps of astrology, or a hundred other irrationalisms, the same nostalgia for the final answer as I do; the one truth, the single cause. And in my view, the best path for me is to consider both science and philosophy and spirituality; I am more grounded by seeing some of all three and my consciousness is comfortable combining them to form my beliefs.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,521,162 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickiel
Well if man evolves himself by the means you listed ( and I am not saying those means you listed are impossible) I still believe he will evolve according to and by the same means he got here, which I view as God. Remember, I believe in humanitys future evolution, I just view the source of that comming evolution as God.
Could you please clarify your meaning? How is man going to evolve from now until we are changed into spirits?
Do you mean we are going to just keep evolving the old fashion way. Natural selection?
Btw. If I missed your meaning from an earlier post please understand there is a lot of posts here with alot of information.
Thank You.
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.
Some light reading for you! With respect!
