Evolution? How?

Jack-Lynn Margulis's book on Capturing Genomes is a good intro to the first appearance of protoctista and then nucleated plants and bacteria. The data supports a first occurence of protoctists about 3.5 Billion yeARS AGO, AND THEN FOLLOWED BY BACTERIA AND ALGAE. tHE first colony plants , stromatolites, appeared at between 2.5 to 3 BY. photosynthetic plants occured just before the atmosphere showed the existence of excess Oxygen (proterozoic Iron banded Formation of the Mesabi and Australia). So there were plenty of plants to graze on by earliest uni and multicelled animals in the upper Proterozoic
The interesting thing is that the first occurences of all these life forms all follow a sequence that, seen in terms of planetary tectonics, makes really good sense.

0 Replies

Quote:

In graduate school, I had an open mind about it. People presented evolution as fact, and I thought, 'Can you show me? Not just statements, but from real evidence?' As I studied the complexity of life processes and biomolecules, I saw there were really no facts at all for evolution.

Farmerman,

Perhaps you would do a much better job of replying to Jacks previous post regarding the findings of Dr Eric Norman - biomedical researcher.

Sorry to dump the heavy lifting on you, but you seem more than equal to the task!

0 Replies

Re: What if.........

Jackofalltrades wrote:

What if God created the earth with the fossils already in it just to mess with the scientisis minds Just a random thought.

Sure. Suppose he created the whole Earth last year, just to mess with our minds, or maybe you only *think* you remember yesterday and actually god created you and all your memories yesterday. That's possible too. But it's all magic magic magic, woo hooo, what else can we dream up... this is fun Smile

Jackofalltrades wrote:

BTW C.I. The moon thing got me thinking about how the moon is set up to orbit the earth at such a precise rotation that the same side of the moon is always facing the earth. I think that is pretty amazing...makes you wonder, but I'm willing to bet that there is a scientific explanation for this also (guess I shouldn't bet on a sure thing :wink: ).

The moon didn't always spin at the rate it does today. Gravitational tidal forces between Earth and the Moon have caused (and continue to cause) it to always face us.

0 Replies

Jackofalltrades wrote:

But I still have a problem with how the plants evolved at the same time as the critters.

They didn't. Plants came first, and were pretty dominant for a long time before animals began to evolve to exploit them. Farmerman's post contains more detail if you're interested.

0 Replies

eorl, Im sorry Im not very knowledgeable of Normans work being "Creationist" Im aware of his vaunted "Faculty position at ICR and his early work on DNA (at a time before we understood about how entire genes change via codons, exons, interons, transposons etc.
Norman, as I recall, did some work on B-12 deficiencies and ascribed some Creationist reason. If one looks at Pernicious anemia in populations, you actually see that this afflicts people more in the Mediterranean and SubSahara populations. This argues for an "Short tandem repeat allele" sequence and not Creationism. Im not certain about his pronouncements but everything Ive read that ICR posts about him always start withhis statement about how he couldnt find any facts in the molecular biochem that support evolution. However, he does state that he became a Christian and saw things with that view at quite an early age.

I know lots of Jesuit geoscientists and evolutionary scientists, even they dont lead with the statement that
"I accepted Jesus and hes been directing my research" like Norman seems to often do.

0 Replies

Quote:

Jackofalltrades wrote:
What if God created the earth with the fossils already in it just to mess with the scientisis minds [Question] Just a random thought.

A wise man of Hamadan , in present day Iraq once theorized that the Creator had molded rock into shapes of molded "plastic". The wise man, Ibn -Sina (avicenna to us), actually had the idea about 1000 years ago. His theory , called vis plastica lived a life of esteem for a few hundred years, thus keeping serious scientific inquiry quietly at bay until Scheuchers work in the discovery of HOMO deluvii testis "fossil man who hung around and saw the flood". So, like most everything else Creationist, your ideas are in the correct time period

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Jack, this seems like a much a more reasonable argument than anything I have seen so far, at least on the surface.

I still have misgivings obviously, not the least of which is the fact that he start out with "Jesus" (and presumably the results of the research he was yet to undertake) when he was 11.

But I will respond to this more completely soon.

My POINT however was....how can you criticise science for not adequately explaining the existence of your soul...WHEN IT DOES NOT EXIST ???

You do not "know" that the soul or spirit do not exist... You do not even know the difference between the words soul and spirit...

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Comment:
Both words are used in this same verse why did the translators give them different words if they are synonymous.

Jack
Also your article by the geneticist did not convince me... and I am a Christian from youth too..

With billions of years in the age of this universe that is ample time for evolution to take place. The atmosphere on earth was radically different when cells were possibly formed here. There was a soup of chemical particles charged and floating in the air energizing and developing the cellular diversity that was flourishing. Also the earth had much higher nuclear charge to it... This is known to scramble and rearrange DNA... When you take the conditions of the earth then and assume the earth is the same today well your conclusions will be wrong.. For one thing, the air was much thicker and would not have supported even human life on the earth's early history... Yet, this would have been a perfect environment for cells to evolve... It was dinosaurs that filtered the air long enough till it became even too thin to support them. Then (with the thinner atmosphere) the earth was ready for humans.

I am sure this geneticist has not been able to recreate the the rich nuclear soup of chemicals that existed in Earths early atmosphere.

If so maybe the cell would not react the same because the cell has evolved and lost some of it's earlier functions... Just like humans lost their four stomaches and small brains (i.e. Lucy)... With four stomaches b12 would have had much more of a chance of metabolizing in the body. This may quite understandably have enabled a more dynamic cellular structure too. These extra organs of the humans/cells now lost to the past could certainly have at first facilitated evolution...

0 Replies

Prove "soul and spirit:" Now, that's about as religious as any statement in the bible. LOL How does one prove something "nobody" can observe?

0 Replies

Quote:

We now know that if Darwin could have foreseen coming scientific developments, he would have had good reason to be concerned that his theory might one day be proved wrong.

In particular, Gregor Mendel had not yet established and published his work on the laws of heredity and genetics, which said that the characteristics of offspring are passed on from parents according to precise mathematical ratios and do not derive from chance random processes in what Darwin called 'blending inheritance'.

James Joule, R.J.E. Clausius, and Lord Kelvin were only just developing the concepts of thermodynamics, the first law of which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed (so the present universe could not have created itself), and the second law of which says that the universe is proceeding in a downward degenerating direction of increasing disorganization (so things overall do not of themselves become more organized with time).

Louis Pasteur was just beginning his famous experiments which showed that life (even microbial life) comes from life, not from non-life.

The mathematical laws of probability, which show that the odds of life's occurring by chance are effectively zero, had not yet been applied to the theory of evolution.

Molecular biology, with its revelation that the cell is so enormously complex that it could not possibly have been formed by chance, had not yet commenced.

The fossil record had not yet been investigated sufficiently for palaeontologists to be able to say, as they now do, that chains of intermediate 'links' do not exist.

Let's examine these point by point. Most of the statements make similar mistakes. Feel free to pick any of the points to discuss after I have refuted them.
1. Mendel dealt with parent to child heredity. Darwin dealt with changes in populations. (natural selection) The simplistic statement here fails to recognize the difference. Simple case in point using YY GG flowers.. In the natural world with dominant and recessive genes the patterns would exactly follow Mendel. In Darwin's theory, an animal would eat the Y flowers and not the G ones. In the course of only a few generations the number of Y flowers would be greatly reduced because it is only the GG ones that would survive the predator. There is no prediction of predators in Mendel's heredity theory so it does not refute Darwins. In fact it supports Darwin's theory since it shows that the genes best suited for survival will survive and the other gene will not reproduce in the population because of environmental reasons.

2. 2 points here. First of all. Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory. Second point. Classic error in that it requires that all instances be the average. The universe as a whole is increasing in disorganization. That does not mean that every part of it is nor does it mean they are all doing it at the exact same rate.

3. What is a virus? is it life or not? A virus is little more than a strand of DNA or RNA covered by a protein coating. We know that viruses reproduce. We know that RNA strands can be made in the lab without life.

4. This one is too funny. The way the math is used would prove that no one has ever won the lottery. The odds of a given person winning the lottery are slim. The odds of one person out of 5 million are about 1 in 2. The odds of a single molecule becoming life are practically zero. The odds one molecule out the trillions and trillions of molecules are much better. This is nothing more than mathematical dishonesty on the part of the author.

5. More mathematical dishonesty. In the billions and billions of life forms the odds of every one of those life forms being in the fossil record are astronomical. How many people do you know that have died in a tar pit? Then the odds of finding that one or two of a particular lifeform are also on the long side. Consider the fact that every year we find fossils of species that we didn't know existed before. Some links may never be found in the fossil record. Not because they didn't exist but because they never existed in a large enough quantity to be fossilized or to be found by humans if they were fossilized.

I will be happy to discuss the math on 4 and 5 with you if you need it explained further.

0 Replies

OFF TOPIC
C.I. wrote

Quote:

Prove "soul and spirit:" Now, that's about as religious as any statement in the bible. LOL How does one prove something "nobody" can observe?

This facet as I take it is a different discussion rather than evolution and perhaps a new thread should be started concerning the soul and spirit. This is the Spirituality and Religion Forum if I'm not mistaken so it is a valid topic for this forum, but as for proving something nobody has seen...well lets get back to the Big Bang or what ever it was that started this time line that has led us to discuss whatever it is that started this time line that we are now discussing...um...about...er...this...uh...time line Confused

Yeah,right Very Happy

0 Replies

With a soul or spirit, there's no beginning or an end. Most scientists who agree with the big bang at least have an "after" to support their claim.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

mesquite wrote:
RexRed wrote:
Also another remarkable thing about Genesis and science is recorded in this verse...

Genesis 1:21
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis is amazing. God makes the light on the first day, and the sun moon and stars on the fourth day. But what the hey, what is a day with no sun anyway.

Genesis 1:3-5
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. [Literally, "and the evening was, and the morning was, the first day."]

Genesis 1:16-19
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

When God said, "let there be light", light had already been created... God just spoke it back into being... This light he spoke into being was not physical light but pure intelligence/communication/spiritual light... The word for light is transliterated into the greek from the Hebrew into the word logos. Let there be logos or word. "In the beginning was the logos"... God needed words/light before he dreamt up his human creation...

You have some tremendous mental gymnastics going on there. I still see it this way.

verse 3. He wished light into existance.

verse 4. He saw it and divided it from darkness. Yep, it is there.

verse 5. He named it. Oh, and by the way there was evening and morning signifying a 24 hour day.

verse 16. He made the providers of light, sun, moon and stars.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Prove "soul and spirit:" Now, that's about as religious as any statement in the bible. LOL How does one prove something "nobody" can observe?

Manifestations are observable. Smile

0 Replies

New thread here RexRed:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=47699&highlight=

...and no they ain't.

0 Replies

HOw? When somebody takes drugs?

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

RexRed wrote:
mesquite wrote:
RexRed wrote:
Also another remarkable thing about Genesis and science is recorded in this verse...

Genesis 1:21
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis is amazing. God makes the light on the first day, and the sun moon and stars on the fourth day. But what the hey, what is a day with no sun anyway.

Genesis 1:3-5
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. [Literally, "and the evening was, and the morning was, the first day."]

Genesis 1:16-19
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

When God said, "let there be light", light had already been created... God just spoke it back into being... This light he spoke into being was not physical light but pure intelligence/communication/spiritual light... The word for light is transliterated into the greek from the Hebrew into the word logos. Let there be logos or word. "In the beginning was the logos"... God needed words/light before he dreamt up his human creation...

You have some tremendous mental gymnastics going on there. I still see it this way.

verse 3. He wished light into existence.

verse 4. He saw it and divided it from darkness. Yep, it is there.

verse 5. He named it. Oh, and by the way there was evening and morning signifying a 24 hour day.

verse 16. He made the providers of light, sun, moon and stars.

There are billions of years in Genesis somewhere and I will show you where...

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Notice the first "was" in verse 2 above is not in italics and the second "was" is? Look in any King James Bible, every one is like this. Why did the translators italicize only one "was"? I will leave that question with you all and see who can give me the answer...

Genesis 1
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

This means that through billions of years the earth came to a balance and the earth now had (for the most part) a night and a day. This was when God instituted the changes he did on the heavens and the earth in Genesis. Considering in the earth's history there was a time when the earth did not even have a moon and the earth was much larger and spun at a different rate..

0 Replies

Is "was' the correct interpretaton from the original Hebrew text?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Is "was' the correct interpretaton from the original Hebrew text?

Very close, (words in italics are added) looking for a little more... (hint) think of what part of speech "was" is, a form of the verb "to be". Idea

One "was" is added and one is not, why?

0 Replies

Many translations from Hebrew to English can be difficult to impossible. There are many disagreements as to the current editions of the bible when compared to the Hebrew Torah.

0 Replies

The following was copied from a search link.

"A CRUCIAL ILLUSTRATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT

But to return to the problem that we face in reading a modern or near medieval translation, the fact is that many English words often translate a single Greek word that in turn has its message meaning origin in an Old Testament word. This is true of the name of our Savior "Jesus." This word is an English transliteration of the Greek word, Iesou. This in turn is a compounded word that is derived from two Hebrew words. In order that the English reader may understand the implications of this, it is necessary to divide the Greek/English word into its two meaning elements. Ie- (Je-) is an abbreviation of the great covenant name, Yhwh. This name, poorly transliterated as Jehovah in several translations of the Old Testament, is a name that is based on the Hebrew root hyh, "to be, to exist." That root properly can be translated in many ways into English, depending upon the whether the Hebrew "perfect tense," the "imperfect tense" or in one of the derived participle or the basic infinitive form. Even then a grasp of the flow of the context in which the verb form is found can modify the meaning greatly. For example, the so called "perfect tense" that looks at single, completed action can be used in a context that is past, present or future, or even previous past, previous present and previous future. Any one of these temporal elements may show up in a specific use of the perfect tense form of hyh, depending entirely upon the context in which it is found. Indeed, the Hebrew language often assumes this verb form in a stative situation, allowing it to be supplied by the reader. A somewhat similar problem exists where the imperfect tense of the verb hyh is used. The reader must recognize that the imperfect form of the verb conveys movement or process in distinction from the perfect form of the verb. And he must recognize from the context that the movement or process may be being initiated, flowing along or even consummated in distinction from the simple future meaning that usually is given to the imperfect verb hyh , and very often correctly."

0 Replies

Evolution? How?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know