Science vs. Creationism

[One Brow]

“The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature,” wrote Flew in 2007, “but that these regularities are mathematically precise, universal, and ‘tied together.’ Einstein spoke of them as ‘reason incarnate.’ The question we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked—and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.”

How else is nature supposed to behave? Is one up quark supposed to have completely different behavior from another up quark, unless some God is sitting on top of it, telling it what to do?

What is the only source of information that we know of? In a word, intelligence.

Balderdash. Any tornado has a huge amount of information swirling away inside of it, but (almost) no one claims God is directing the tornado while it collapses the roof of a hospital.

Would chance accidents produce complex information, such as a computer program, an algebraic formula, an encyclopedia, or even a recipe for a cake? Of course not.

No information is more complex than chance information. Static consists of the much more complexity than intelligible signals.

 

[MVP]

At least some scientists are rethinking the origin of the universe. .

Yup, 0.14%. Keep them coming.

 

[Zulu]

Romans 5:12 states that “through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.”

The evidence, then, points to a passing on of sin from Adam to succeeding generations as a result of the recognized law of heredity.


Sin put man out of harmony with his Creator. It thereby damaged not only his relations with God but also his relations with the rest of God’s creation, including damage to man’s own self, to his mind, heart, and body. It brought consequences of enormous evil upon the human race.


Adam was not deceived, so his sin was willful, deliberate. (1*Timothy 2:14) It amounted to the murder of his offspring, for they now inherited his imperfection, thus coming under sentence of death. Clearly, Adam deserved to die, for as a perfect man, he had willfully chosen to disobey God’s law. It would have been contrary to God's righteous principles for him to apply the ransom in Adam’s behalf.

Adam had no existence before he was created, and he would have none after he died. So he had only two choices: (1)*obedience and life or (2)*disobedience and death. If Adam had not sinned, he would have lived on earth forever. He would never have gone to heaven.

The first humans, Adam and Eve, were created perfect. Their fall into sin was deliberate. Before them was either everlasting life or death. They disobeyed God and sided with Satan. When they died, they had no prospect of benefiting from Christ’s ransom sacrifice.

1 Timothy 2:13-15

 

[colton]

The first humans, Adam and Eve, were created perfect. Their fall into sin was deliberate. Before them was either everlasting life or death. They disobeyed God and sided with Satan. When they died, they had no prospect of benefiting from Christ’s ransom sacrifice.

I'm not sure that I want to get into a full-blown discussion of this, but three questions spring to mind:

1. How much knowledge of good vs evil did they have BEFORE partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Assuming your answer is "not much", your judgment of a deliberate fall into sin seems far too harsh.

2. All of us disobey God and side with Satan, from time to time. Why do you assume Adam and Eve did not have access to the same principle of repentance that we do?

3. You also said, "It amounted to the murder of his offspring, for they now inherited his imperfection, thus coming under sentence of death." How can Adam have even HAD offspring had he not sinned? If there was no death, there would also be no birth--or so it seems to me. Otherwise there would have been an unchecked exponential growth in the number of people and the whole garden (and thereafter, the Earth) would have become full past capacity.

 

[PearlWatson]

Never said accidentally, a mutation arises and if it is heritable and gives an advantageous result then it will be passed on... A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step!!!

a mutation arises...accidentally

you believe stored calcium accidentally mutates(changes) into a pseudo-skeleton and that this accidental mutation became heritable

 

[PearlWatson]

Yes there was one part of Darwin's theory that hasn't been shown with evidence to be factual, but the rediscovery of Medelian genetics and current molecular studies highly support Darwin's theory on Natural selection!!

One part?

 

[One Brow]

a mutation arises...accidentally

you believe stored calcium accidentally mutates(changes) into a pseudo-skeleton and that this accidental mutation became heritable

Actually, that would been dozens of mutations, selected from among tens of billions of mutations, regarding calcium storage, not "a mutation".

 

[One Brow]

One part?

I believe he's referring to Darwin's hypothesis for the medium of transfer from one generation to the next, gemmules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemmule_(pangenesis)

 

[Zulu]

I believe he's referring to Darwin's hypothesis for the medium of transfer from one generation to the next, gemmules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemmule_(pangenesis)

Yup!!

 

[Deleted member 848]

a mutation arises...accidentally

Yes. DNA replication is remarkable (and I cannot overstate how remarkable it is) in terms of accuracy, efficiency, and speed-- but, like everything else in this world, it isn't perfect. When mistakes are made, there are several ways that the body can correct it-- however, cells can sometimes miss this as well. Hence, with an altered DNA sequence, you now have an altered mRNA sequence. With an altered mRNA sequence, you now have an altered protein sequence. Proteins always exist in 3D conformations in organisms, and this conformation is COMPLETELY determined by the individual amino acids that make up the protein. If you have an amino acid like histidine become a glycine, it COMPLETELY changes the structure of the protein, and every biochemist knows that structure = function.

I'm trying to point out to you, genetically and biochemically, how a single mutation can seriously alter the function of a protein. That's why a single altered base-pair is the difference between someone having bi-concave shaped red blood cells (and being susceptible to malaria)-- in comparison to a heterozygous individual, who has some sickle-shaped Red Blood Cells, but is now able to stave off malaria infection, passing on his mutated red blood cell genes to the rest of his offspring.


This is why sickle-celled anemia is so high in Africa. Natural selection of genetic mutations, in action:

you believe stored calcium accidentally mutates(changes) into a pseudo-skeleton and that this accidental mutation became heritable

Mutations, when in the germ-line, are always heritable. That is not up for discussion. When your DNA sequence changes in your germ line, it will be there as long as your cell-replication machinery doesn't make mistakes-- the only time we ever really see cell-replication machinery make mistakes routinely, is in cancer (for various reasons).

 

[Zulu]

Yes. DNA replication is remarkable (and I cannot overstate how remarkable it is) in terms of accuracy, efficiency, and speed-- but, like everything else in this world, it isn't perfect. When mistakes are made, there are several ways that the body can correct it-- however, cells can sometimes miss this as well. Hence, with an altered DNA sequence, you now have an altered mRNA sequence. With an altered mRNA sequence, you now have an altered protein sequence. Proteins always exist in 3D conformations in organisms, and this conformation is COMPLETELY determined by the individual amino acids that make up the protein. If you have an amino acid like histidine become a glycine, it COMPLETELY changes the structure of the protein, and every biochemist knows that structure = function.

I'm trying to point out to you, genetically and biochemically, how a single mutation can seriously alter the function of a protein. That's why a single altered base-pair is the difference between someone having bi-concave shaped red blood cells (and being susceptible to malaria)-- in comparison to a heterozygous individual, who has some sickle-shaped Red Blood Cells, but is now able to stave off malaria infection, passing on his mutated red blood cell genes to the rest of his offspring.


This is why sickle-celled anemia is so high in Africa. Natural selection of genetic mutations, in action:

Mutations, when in the germ-line, are always heritable. That is not up for discussion. When your DNA sequence changes in your germ line, it will be there as long as your cell-replication machinery doesn't make mistakes-- the only time we ever really see cell-replication machinery make mistakes routinely, is in cancer (for various reasons).

Good stuff!!

 

[Zulu]

 

[PearlWatson]

Yes. DNA replication is remarkable (and I cannot overstate how remarkable it is) in terms of accuracy, efficiency, and speed-- but, like everything else in this world, it isn't perfect. When mistakes are made, there are several ways that the body can correct it-- however, cells can sometimes miss this as well. Hence, with an altered DNA sequence, you now have an altered mRNA sequence. With an altered mRNA sequence, you now have an altered protein sequence. Proteins always exist in 3D conformations in organisms, and this conformation is COMPLETELY determined by the individual amino acids that make up the protein. If you have an amino acid like histidine become a glycine, it COMPLETELY changes the structure of the protein, and every biochemist knows that structure = function.
I'm trying to point out to you, genetically and biochemically, how a single mutation can seriously alter the function of a protein. That's why a single altered base-pair is the difference between someone having bi-concave shaped red blood cells (and being susceptible to malaria)-- in comparison to a heterozygous individual, who has some sickle-shaped Red Blood Cells, but is now able to stave off malaria infection, passing on his mutated red blood cell genes to the rest of his offspring.
This is why sickle-celled anemia is so high in Africa. Natural selection of genetic mutations, in action:
Mutations, when in the germ-line, are always heritable. That is not up for discussion. When your DNA sequence changes in your germ line, it will be there as long as your cell-replication machinery doesn't make mistakes-- the only time we ever really see cell-replication machinery make mistakes routinely, is in cancer (for various reasons).

The remarkableness of it is what makes me question the general acceptance of the basic enzymes of life coming into being as an accident, let alone that a series of accidents led to all the life on earth, made up of remarkably coordinated systems...like the circulatory system, of which a blood cell is just one part. How did the blood cell come into existence by accidental mutation? There would be no use for it unless a ton of other mutations occurred simultaneously. You can't get all the complex, coordinated parts of our circulatory system by a series of individual accidental mutations no matter how much time you have.

I don't question that changes occur to things that already exist. You have a blood cell...their very existence and functions are amazing...and the shape changed...but it remained a bloodcell.

You want me to believe stored calcium accidentally became a bone by this same process...but a bone ain't just calcium formed into a shape...forming a pile of calcium into a functional shape is amazing in itself...let alone all the other parts that make up a *bone. Then we accidentally had mutations that formed vertebrae and all the parts of a skeleton that make up a fish? All this bit by bit. Darwinists are damn nuts to demand this belief is logical or science-based.

*see bone diagram for all the parts

 

[Deleted member 848]

The remarkableness of it is what makes me question the general acceptance of the basic enzymes of life coming into being as an accident, let alone that a series of accidents led to all the life on earth, made up of remarkably coordinated systems...like the circulatory system, of which a blood cell is just one part. How did the blood cell come into existence by accidental mutation? There would be no use for it unless a ton of other mutations occurred simultaneously. You can't get all the complex, coordinated parts of our circulatory system by a series of individual accidental mutations no matter how much time you have.

I think you underestimate the time scale. We see rapid evolution in things like viral genomics within mere months, or years. Complete alterations of capsid structure, etc.

I think this is a better question: to what extent do you believe in evolutionary mechanics? Do you think that mutations aren't inheritable, and that every species is static? Or do you merely think that every species can evolve only to a certain extent? How do you reconcile all of this evolutionary evidence provided to you?

I don't question that changes occur to things that already exist. You have a blood cell...their very existence and functions are amazing...and the shape changed...but it remained a bloodcell.

So you don't think that you can make new species via evolution? Is that your point?

You want me to believe stored calcium accidentally became a bone by this same process...but a bone ain't just calcium formed into a shape...forming a pile of calcium into a functional shape is amazing in itself...let alone all the other parts that make up a *bone. Then we accidentally had mutations that formed vertebrae and all the parts of a skeleton that make up a fish? All this bit by bit. Darwinists are damn nuts to demand this belief is logical or science-based.

*see bone diagram for all the parts

Quit polarizing the discourse. This isn't Darwinists vs those who are religious. I'm religious myself-- probably just as religious as yourself, in fact.

 

[LogGrad98]

Question: can we recreate evolution in a lab? Are the mechanics of evolution well-enough understood that we can reproduce it? Have we created life through evolutionary means? Seriously just curious. I have read about experiments with what we think the early "soup" looked like and then shocked it with fake lightning and were able to jolt together the beginnings of protein structures, but far from something that would then move to the next step and start reproducing. How close are we to being able to recreate life in the laboratory or cause something to evolve artificially (and not by purposefully meddling with genetics, which is more like creative design than evolution).

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Question: can we recreate evolution in a lab? Are the mechanics of evolution well-enough understood that we can reproduce it? Have we created life through evolutionary means? Seriously just curious. I have read about experiments with what we think the early "soup" looked like and then shocked it with fake lightning and were able to jolt together the beginnings of protein structures, but far from something that would then move to the next step and start reproducing. How close are we to being able to recreate life in the laboratory or cause something to evolve artificially (and not by purposefully meddling with genetics, which is more like creative design than evolution).

If you're talking evolution, than that's easy. Document the gene frequencies of any population. Wait 'til the next generation, document the gene frequencies. The change is evolution.

If you're talking the beginning of life, abiogenesis, than that's an entirely different concept altogether.

 

[LogGrad98]

If you're talking evolution, than that's easy. Document the gene frequencies of any population. Wait 'til the next generation, document the gene frequencies. The change is evolution.

If you're talking the beginning of life, abiogenesis, than that's an entirely different concept altogether.

Talking about both. Documenting it is different than recreating it.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Talking about both. Documenting it is different than recreating it.

Define "recreate." Evolution defined is the change in gene frequencies in a population over time. Create a population and gene frequencies will change over time. It's more work to KEEP gene frequencies from changing, a general impossibility among non asexual reproducing organisms.

If you're recreating the same change in gene frequencies in a population over time, I'd find that difficult as well as there's no real way to narrow the variables to one.

 

[LogGrad98]

How about abiogenesis then?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

How about abiogenesis then?

No clue. Different field. I think I read once about creating some amino acids, but I know very little about that.