Still don't believe in evolution? Try this!

[The Midnight]

How do evolutionist explain how the original "simple cells" (including genes, DNA's, protein, etc) was originated or come from?

 

[Siro]

How do evolutionist explain how the original "simple cells" (including genes, DNA's, protein, etc) was originated or come from?

They don't. Evolution deals with the process with which living things change. Different fields of science do try to answer the question of how life arose. Some will study how complex organic molecules assemble into symbiotic systems that in turn become organelles. Others will go back further to study how simple organic molecules join to make more complex ones. There are many hypotheses, but none offer a full explanation, or conform with all observations. Consequently, no theory of abiogensis enjoys general acceptance within the scientific community. But one thing is certain, there IS a naturalistic explanation. That will be the case regardless of whether intelligence lies behind the creation of the universe. The universe was created SOMEHOW.

 

[LogGrad98]

This thread is like a really sadistic version of Groundhog Day.

 

[The Midnight]

They don't. Evolution deals with the process with which living things change. Different fields of science do try to answer the question of how life arose. Some will study how complex organic molecules assemble into symbiotic systems that in turn become organelles. Others will go back further to study how simple organic molecules join to make more complex ones. There are many hypotheses, but none offer a full explanation, or conform with all observations. Consequently, no theory of abiogensis enjoys general acceptance within the scientific community. But one thing is certain, there IS a naturalistic explanation. That will be the case regardless of whether intelligence lies behind the creation of the universe. The universe was created SOMEHOW.

Therefore you cannot rule out the existence of a creator outside of this physical realm.

 

[Siro]

Therefore you cannot rule out the existence of a creator outside of this physical realm.

That's irrelevant. This universe works through comprehensible and predictable laws and mechanisms. Wherever we look, we can trace back the journey of things, and deconstruct how they came to be. We understand how the stars interact to form galaxies, and how gas interacts to form stars. We can follow that chain of creation all the way back to the beginning of the universe (one example out of so many). What you are saying is that despite the fact so much can be explained, a couple of random things must have no explanation except for inexplicable acts of magic. But that idea isn't worth discussing because it is a fantasy of your own creation. It has nothing to do with science or religion. All it has to do with is a universe that is bound to your own dictates. A story which you convinced yourself to be true because it feels good to you. Which means it's a discussion that can't possibly be relevant to anyone except those who accept on faith those random conditions.

 

[silesian]

specifics

No amount of accidental genetic change can cause one kind of life to turn into another kind!

To which of these points do you disagree?

1. Do you agree that brown bears could migrate north?

2. Do you believe that the offspring of a brown bear could be a white bear?

3. Do you believe that, in polar environments, white bears would have advantages over brown bears as both predator and prey?

4. Do you believe that white bears could pass their genotype and phenotype to their offspring?

5. Do you believe that competition for scarce resources cause brown bears to die more frequently than white bears?

6. Do you believe that, over generations, the population could shift from "mostly brown" to "mostly white"?

7. Do you believe that all the brown bears could eventually die?

 

[silesian]

In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection—the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed—could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany. Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.” And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants .*.*. died or were weaker than wild varieties.” So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.

Cool example of human hubris. Regrettably to your thesis, it speaks nothing about natural selection, which takes a bit longer than 30 years. And the fact that most mutations hurt the species is a well understood and accepted scientific principle that is perfectly consistent with the theory of evolution.

 

[carolinajazz]

To which of these points do you disagree?

1. Do you agree that brown bears could migrate north?

2. Do you believe that the offspring of a brown bear could be a white bear?

3. Do you believe that, in polar environments, white bears would have advantages over brown bears as both predator and prey?

4. Do you believe that white bears could pass their genotype and phenotype to their offspring?

5. Do you believe that competition for scarce resources cause brown bears to die more frequently than white bears?

6. Do you believe that, over generations, the population could shift from "mostly brown" to "mostly white"?

7. Do you believe that all the brown bears could eventually die?

.....yes to 1-6, no to number 7! By the way, they are all still "bears" right? Didn't change to hippo's or croc-ga-gators, right? Still mammals that are warm blooded, correct? Bears are a "family kind" correct? But you can have a variety of bears just as you pointed out.....white, brown, grizzly, Kodiak, etc!

 

[The Midnight]

That's irrelevant. This universe works through comprehensible and predictable laws and mechanisms. Wherever we look, we can trace back the journey of things, and deconstruct how they came to be. We understand how the stars interact to form galaxies, and how gas interacts to form stars. We can follow that chain of creation all the way back to the beginning of the universe (one example out of so many). What you are saying is that despite the fact so much can be explained, a couple of random things must have no explanation except for inexplicable acts of magic. But that idea isn't worth discussing because it is a fantasy of your own creation. It has nothing to do with science or religion. All it has to do with is a universe that is bound to your own dictates. A story which you convinced yourself to be true because it feels good to you. Which means it's a discussion that can't possibly be relevant to anyone except those who accept on faith those random conditions.

Says who?

 

[♪alt13]

....all good questions and the Bible account in Genesis answers them! By the way, if you go further in the General Discussion threads you will find we discussed thoroughly for many months the subject of evolution vs. creation and all of it's aspects. Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.

The facts. Many characteristics of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell. Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed?

In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection—the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed—could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany. Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.” And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants .*.*. died or were weaker than wild varieties.” So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.

.....which brings us to your first question: are there "genetic codes" in the animal kingdom that prevent the change from one specie to another specie or one "kind" to another "kind?" Genesis chapter*1: Living things reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this. Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.”

Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: “Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed .*.*. Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution.”

Much the same observation is made in Science magazine: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average].” So, then, what is inherited by living things is not the possibility of continued change but instead (1)*stability and (2)*limited ranges of variation.

The conclusion is clear. No amount of accidental genetic change can cause one kind of life to turn into another kind!
The truth is upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion that gene mutations are the raw material for any evolutionary process involving natural selection is an utterance of a myth.

1-you need to cite a source when you copy and paste ****. It is insanely rude not to. If you can copy and paste a paragraph then you can copy and paste a url.

2-tl;dr

 

[Yell42]

I see no reason that evolution cannot be Gods method of creation

LMFAO .

 

[Yell42]

....those who don't believe in "creation" won't be persuaded by evidence. If mountains of evidence fails to impress them.....then another unique creature from the animal kingdom.....certainly won't!

There are many varieties of fish all with different and unique functions! Some 500 varieties of electric fish have batteries. Many fish have lights: flashlight fish, anglerfish, lantern fish, viperfish and constellation fish.....and humans inventors are constantly attempting to copy the complex abilities of living creatures! Does it seem reasonable to believe that they happened by chance alone? Are these not the kind of intricate designs that experience teaches can only be the product of a brilliant designer? Do you really think that chance alone could create what it later took gifted men to copy?

All this copying from animals by humans is reminiscent of what the Bible suggests: “Ask the very beasts, and they will teach you; ask the wild birds—they will tell you; crawling creatures will instruct you, fish in the sea will inform you.”—Job 12:7, 8, Moffatt.

ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

 

[Yell42]

Negative! "All" biologists and scientists DO NOT accept evolution as fact! Many, numbering in the thousands, consider it a hoax!

you probbaly consider a 'creationist' to be a scientist


LOL

 

[silesian]

.....yes to 1-6, no to number 7! By the way, they are all still "bears" right? Didn't change to hippo's or croc-ga-gators, right? Still mammals that are warm blooded, correct? Bears are a "family kind" correct? But you can have a variety of bears just as you pointed out.....white, brown, grizzly, Kodiak, etc!

So you don't believe that extinction is even possible? Do you believe that dinosaurs never existed or that they are still alive?

Yes, there are many species of bears in existence, which I think you understand, and I think you also understand that this is beside the point.

The point being: there are no brown bears in polar regions, where polar bears have adapted (not just whiteness, but a range of characteristics suited ideally to the environment). I'm not sure the creationist theory of how Polar bears got there. I've hear some creationists insist that they were placed there by God a few thousand years ago, two or more of them emigrated to Mesopotamia and lived with Noah for awhile on his boat and then these two migrated back to the polar regions and repopulated the north pole (I'm not making this up).

Others say they adapted over millions of years as God himself manipulated their DNA.

If I understand your views, you seem to think that adaptation happens but it has some sort of limitation. It stops before a new species can be created. To this I ask, what is the constraint on adaptation? Why does it exist? If it is biochemical, what evidence is there that DNA and adaptation has this arbitrary limit? Or is it that DNA/ adaption is not scientifically limited, but somehow limited by God?

 

[silesian]

....all good questions and the Bible account in Genesis answers them! By the way, if you go further in the General Discussion threads you will find we discussed thoroughly for many months the subject of evolution vs. creation and all of it's aspects. Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.

The facts. Many characteristics of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell. Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed?

In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection—the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed—could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany. Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.” And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants .*.*. died or were weaker than wild varieties.” So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.

.....which brings us to your first question: are there "genetic codes" in the animal kingdom that prevent the change from one specie to another specie or one "kind" to another "kind?" Genesis chapter*1: Living things reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this. Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.”

Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: “Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed .*.*. Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution.”

Much the same observation is made in Science magazine: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average].” So, then, what is inherited by living things is not the possibility of continued change but instead (1)*stability and (2)*limited ranges of variation.

The conclusion is clear. No amount of accidental genetic change can cause one kind of life to turn into another kind!
The truth is upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion that gene mutations are the raw material for any evolutionary process involving natural selection is an utterance of a myth.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010233

Dude, interesting coincidence that this link contains your response word for word. I have no problem using a source to support your claim, but don't represent this as your original thoughts. Very bad form.

 

[Yell42]

yeah Carolinajazz, keep quoting passages from a 2000 year old book written by goat herding, iron age peasants who thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth


Brilliant stuff

 

[Gameface]

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010233

Dude, interesting coincidence that this link contains your response word for word. I have no problem using a source to support your claim, but don't represent this as your original thoughts. Very bad form.

He's notorious for doing this. I'm not sure he's even smart enough to understand what people are saying when they complain about it.

 

[Stoked]

LMFAO .

If God is all powerful then he can do anything.

Compelling comment btw.

 

[The Thriller]

The problem has always been with how literal you take the bible.

During the Reformation many reformers like Martin Luther wanted to base more belief in the writing of the bible. Literally then, the world was created in x-days. Literally, the sun stopped when Israel fought. Literally, a dragon in Revelation.

Even today, you see a great difference within Christianity in regards to the literal meaning of the primary writings contained in the bible. In America, major push backs come from evangelical southerners who take the bible literally. There are even parks created where they demonstrate how Noah kept baby dinosaurs (2 of each) in his ark.

Personally, I take the whole day thing as symbolic. But many will swear that literally the planet is only 5,000 years old.

 

[Scat]

why he can't make atheists like me to start believing in God?

Those who don't believe in god won't be persuaded by evidence. They hold such opinion because they believe it to be more compatible with their belief system. If mountains of evidence across so many disciplines fail to impress them, another sign from God certainly won't.

...