-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution and God
- Thread starter Mr Spinkles
- Start date
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
Why wouldn't god have just created it in an orderly fashion in the first place? His way of doing things seems a little roundabout to me...
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Your post doesn't answer my question at all-- O. gigas cannot physically breed with O. lamarckiana. Please explain how they could possibly be considered the same species.
Also, I would like to know
Also, I would like to know
dolly
Member
kbc_1963 said:
Except that I go by evidence, and there is no evidence which points to creationism. (Lack of evidence for/holes in evolution doesn't prove Creationism). And yes, it is highly possible that if there was a deity then they created the world, however there is no evidence that such a being exists in the first place.
No it doesn't. The small probability doesn't matter in evolution. Why? Because we just happened to be the lucky planet. However improbable it is, with all the planets in different solar systems, in different galaxies, during all of time, life had to evolve in at least one (because it is possible, though unlikely). We happened to be lucky. Probability doesn't disprove evolution. Even then, I have yet to see an accurate probability percentage.
Except that it is possible. Unlikely, but possible.
Only because you think too highly of the human race. Humans were an accident. Nothing more.
Again, yes, because the earth wasn't created this way for us.
I'm not a Christian. Bible verses mean little to me.
Well said, Runt.
Curtis= there could have been a series of big bangs. Everything explodes, then gets drawn back in and explodes again. etc
Mr Spinkles
Mr
dolly-- I could be wrong, but I thought that scientists today generally favor the open universe theory in which the Big Bang occurs and the universe will never collapse in on itself again to form another Big Bang.
As I have pointed out before Dolly you and science both prefer not to consider probabilities in all your theorems and this is a scientific error or blinder that allows for the belief in just about any theory anyone can concieve, and the biggest thing you havent taken into account in that our earth is unique among all the planets we can possibly see (we have never found any that have all that we have here so throwing out probabilities on the basis of infinite possibility is a scientific error with absolutly no backing
to support your belief ,you have never given our situation on earth a thought have you? you believe that because the situation exists here then it must be everywhere so you build your theory that since the situation exists here then I can count on it existing in untold billions of other places in the universe. All things must be looked at in order to gain a good conception of life and by ignoring any part of the equation you can only fail and through the course of our discussion you have made a series of errors:
1) belief in earths everywhere---- evidence of even one zero
2) belief that probable odds don't count based on belief in #1
3) belief that theory alone without a continuous chain of evidence to support it counts as better evidence than me saying it was done by intelligence.
I say that earths situation is unique and there is no evidence to prove otherwise--- prove me wrong if my scientific reasoning is flawed--- evidence against zero
I also say that by looking at the apparent evidence of all things having highly complex organization that it is the work of intelligence --- evidence against zero
I say that science has had tons of time to prove life could have started any other way besides intelligent beginings and all attempts at making a proveable chain of events have failed--- evidence for it 100%
My scientific reasoning is correct according to all known information on these subject and to theorize against plain evidence is unscientific and becomes personal belief and faith which unlike my own faith is based on blind theorizing.
If you and science were doctors then I would expect that if I went to see you about my foot you would look everywhere except there and even when I point at it and say just take a look directly at it, you would reply that we couldnt possibly learn anything by doing that.
It appears that proving GOD exists is unnecessary when it is so easy to prove how unscientific the thinking of our people is. I wonder if it might be wise to make scientists out of fishermen? at least they will let go of a theory that keeps producing zero results and move on, eventually they would have to face the evidences and find the truth.
Check this out, with a few exchanges of words I have the same arguement for my side as you do for yours.
The huge probability that GOD doesn't exist doesn't matter . Why? Because we just happened to be the lucky people. However improbable it is, with all the things we still don't know, and all the unproveable things we have tryed (because it is possible, though unlikely). We happened to be lucky. science doesn't disprove GOD. Even then, I have yet to see a proveable scientific theory for anything else.
Cute huh?
Mr Spinkles,
I thought it was apparent that the statement posted says they havent try all the possibilities of mating the 2 because they thought it was too costly. so conclusive proof that they can't breed has not been ruled out.
I will however add that the plants in question have not changed from their species according to the bibles definition, it is still a plant right? so it would not be conclusive proof of evolution even if it was a new breed of plant.
There are a multitude of things that could prove me wrong and science right,
here are a few:
1) a fossil showing a transition from fish to mammal or any of those missing links that would show a true transition from one phyla to another.
2) scientist manipulation of the dna of anything to produce anything that could be considered common to another phyla
3) science being able to create life that reproduces, from chemicals alone
4) a theory that can provide realistic odds of it possibly working (hehehe)
etc........
no I dont believe GOD caused life to evolve, based on the facts of irreducible complexity look for instance at the eye
The Eye
In general, biological processes on the molecular level are performed by networks of proteins, each member of which carries out a particular task in a chain.
Let us consider the question, how do we see? through the efforts of many biochemists an answer to the question of sight is at hand. When light strikes the retina a photon is absorbed by an organic molecule called 11-cis-retinal, causing it to rearrange within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in shape of retinal forces a corresponding change in shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which it is tightly bound. As a consequence of the protein's metamorphosis, the behavior of the protein changes in a very specific way. The altered protein can now interact with another protein called transducin. Before associating with rhodopsin, transducin is tightly bound to a small organic molecule called GDP, but when it binds to rhodopsin the GDP dissociates itself from transducin and a molecule called GTP, which is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP, binds to transducin.
The exchange of GTP for GDP in the transducinrhodopsin complex alters its behavior. GTP-transducinrhodopsin binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When bound by rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cleave a molecule called cGMP. Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the action of the phosphodiesterase lowers the concentration of cGMP. Activating the phosphodiesterase can be likened to pulling the plug in a bathtub, lowering the level of water.
A second membrane protein which binds cGMP, called an ion channel, can be thought of as a special gateway regulating the number of sodium ions in the cell. The ion channel normally allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump proteins keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the concentration of cGMP is reduced from its normal value through cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, many channels close, resulting in a reduced cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions. This causes an imbalance of charges across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain: the result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.
If the biochemistry of vision were limited to the reactions listed above, the cell would quickly deplete its supply of 11-cis-retinal and cGMP while also becoming depleted of sodium ions. Thus a system is required to limit the signal that is generated and restore the cell to its original state; there are several mechanisms which do this. Normally, in the dark, the ion channel, in addition to sodium ions, also allows calcium ions to enter the cell; calcium is pumped back out by a different protein in order to maintain a constant intracellular calcium concentration. However, when cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel and decreasing the sodium ion concentration, calcium ion concentration is also decreased. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP, is greatly slowed down at lower calcium concentration. Additionally, a protein called guanylate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when calcium levels start to fall. Meanwhile, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase, which places a phosphate group on its substrate. The modified rhodopsin is then bound by a protein dubbed arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from further activating transducin. Thus the cell contains mechanisms to limit the amplified signal started by a single photon.
Trans-retinal eventually falls off of the rhodopsin molecule and must be reconverted to 11-cis-retinal and again bound by opsin to regenerate rhodopsin for another visual cycle. To accomplish this trans-retinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to transretinol, a form containing two more hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then isomerizes the molecule to 11-cis-retinol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal, and the cycle is complete.
Although many details of the biochemistry of vision have not been cited here, the overview just seen is meant to demonstrate that, ultimately, this is what it means to 'explain' vision. This is the level of explanation that Biological science eventually must aim for. In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an "evolutionary explanation" of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today.
It must also be pointed out that the eye as shown in the fossil record came into existence with the same level of design we see nowshortly after the cambrian explosion so it didn't have millions and billions of years to perfect itself to the level we see now.
The purpose of these examples is also to show that the same problems which beset origin-of-life research also bedevil efforts to show how virtually any complex biochemical system came about. Biochemistry has revealed a molecular world which resists all current explanations. Neither of Darwin's black boxes "the origin of life" or "the origin of vision or other complex biochemical systems" has been accounted for by his theory or any other theory since that time.
I thought it was apparent that the statement posted says they havent try all the possibilities of mating the 2 because they thought it was too costly. so conclusive proof that they can't breed has not been ruled out.
I will however add that the plants in question have not changed from their species according to the bibles definition, it is still a plant right? so it would not be conclusive proof of evolution even if it was a new breed of plant.
There are a multitude of things that could prove me wrong and science right,
here are a few:
1) a fossil showing a transition from fish to mammal or any of those missing links that would show a true transition from one phyla to another.
2) scientist manipulation of the dna of anything to produce anything that could be considered common to another phyla
3) science being able to create life that reproduces, from chemicals alone
4) a theory that can provide realistic odds of it possibly working (hehehe)
etc........
no I dont believe GOD caused life to evolve, based on the facts of irreducible complexity look for instance at the eye
The Eye
In general, biological processes on the molecular level are performed by networks of proteins, each member of which carries out a particular task in a chain.
Let us consider the question, how do we see? through the efforts of many biochemists an answer to the question of sight is at hand. When light strikes the retina a photon is absorbed by an organic molecule called 11-cis-retinal, causing it to rearrange within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in shape of retinal forces a corresponding change in shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which it is tightly bound. As a consequence of the protein's metamorphosis, the behavior of the protein changes in a very specific way. The altered protein can now interact with another protein called transducin. Before associating with rhodopsin, transducin is tightly bound to a small organic molecule called GDP, but when it binds to rhodopsin the GDP dissociates itself from transducin and a molecule called GTP, which is closely related to, but critically different from, GDP, binds to transducin.
The exchange of GTP for GDP in the transducinrhodopsin complex alters its behavior. GTP-transducinrhodopsin binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When bound by rhodopsin and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the ability to chemically cleave a molecule called cGMP. Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the action of the phosphodiesterase lowers the concentration of cGMP. Activating the phosphodiesterase can be likened to pulling the plug in a bathtub, lowering the level of water.
A second membrane protein which binds cGMP, called an ion channel, can be thought of as a special gateway regulating the number of sodium ions in the cell. The ion channel normally allows sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein actively pumps them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and pump proteins keeps the level of sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the concentration of cGMP is reduced from its normal value through cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, many channels close, resulting in a reduced cellular concentration of positively charged sodium ions. This causes an imbalance of charges across the cell membrane which, finally, causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain: the result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.
If the biochemistry of vision were limited to the reactions listed above, the cell would quickly deplete its supply of 11-cis-retinal and cGMP while also becoming depleted of sodium ions. Thus a system is required to limit the signal that is generated and restore the cell to its original state; there are several mechanisms which do this. Normally, in the dark, the ion channel, in addition to sodium ions, also allows calcium ions to enter the cell; calcium is pumped back out by a different protein in order to maintain a constant intracellular calcium concentration. However, when cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel and decreasing the sodium ion concentration, calcium ion concentration is also decreased. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP, is greatly slowed down at lower calcium concentration. Additionally, a protein called guanylate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when calcium levels start to fall. Meanwhile, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase, which places a phosphate group on its substrate. The modified rhodopsin is then bound by a protein dubbed arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from further activating transducin. Thus the cell contains mechanisms to limit the amplified signal started by a single photon.
Trans-retinal eventually falls off of the rhodopsin molecule and must be reconverted to 11-cis-retinal and again bound by opsin to regenerate rhodopsin for another visual cycle. To accomplish this trans-retinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to transretinol, a form containing two more hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then isomerizes the molecule to 11-cis-retinol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal, and the cycle is complete.
Although many details of the biochemistry of vision have not been cited here, the overview just seen is meant to demonstrate that, ultimately, this is what it means to 'explain' vision. This is the level of explanation that Biological science eventually must aim for. In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an "evolutionary explanation" of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today.
It must also be pointed out that the eye as shown in the fossil record came into existence with the same level of design we see nowshortly after the cambrian explosion so it didn't have millions and billions of years to perfect itself to the level we see now.
The purpose of these examples is also to show that the same problems which beset origin-of-life research also bedevil efforts to show how virtually any complex biochemical system came about. Biochemistry has revealed a molecular world which resists all current explanations. Neither of Darwin's black boxes "the origin of life" or "the origin of vision or other complex biochemical systems" has been accounted for by his theory or any other theory since that time.
There is no need to prove that life could start by design it is self evident
The probablity that any one person will actually be born is supposed to be something like 1 in 130,000,000,000. And yet THAT has occurred, many times, so I don't see why the low probability for life being created randomly means it didn't happen. It just means it is an incredibly unlikely occurance that nevertheless occurred--just like your own birth.
now there's a real scientist
Mr Spinkles
Mr
They have tried to get the two plants to mate, and were unable. O. gigas and O. lamarckiana simply will not breed together. They are seperate species, kbc--admit it!kbc_1963 said:
In that case, will you concede that plants can evolve into new species of plant?
Before I provide you with this evidence, I have a quick question: Could the fossils show a transition from fish to amphibian, then to reptiles, then to mammals? Also, what would you expect a transitional fossil from fish to amphibian to look like? Ok, now you can look:
Don't even dare go to this website, though. It has lots of that evidence which you like to pretend doesn't exist: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1
What if scientists manipulated the DNA of something to produce something common to another order? Scientists have done this--they manipulated the DNA of mice, and they grew human ears.
First of all, we already know of chemicals that reproduce...they're called viruses. Secondly, some scientists at MIT have created self replicating molecules that reproduce.
Well, if you can't even admit that O. gigas is a seperate species from O. lamarckiana, the odds of you accepting any theory other than that women were created from one of Adam's ribs is very unrealistic....
The next time you cut and paste something from http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm , please do not alter the first sentence from "Let us return to the question" to "Let us consider the question". People might not realize that you copied and pasted the entire thing from a website if you do that. I'll respond to this later.
dolly
Member
KBC, reread my post. The probability of this happening on one planet is unlikely (though again, none of the percentages you give I particlarly trust). However this is nulified when you consider how many different time abiogenesis would have accorded. Scientists consider probabilty, but because of time/the number of planets/etc the probability that creationists use to "disprove" evolution doesn't in fact disprove evolution. Therefore, it isn't important at all.kbc_1963 said:
Well, no BUMBLEBEE. But that's part of the probability isn't it.
Because we can see every single planet in every single galaxy, right?
Did I say this? No. Reread my post. I did not say that the circumstances of earth happened everywhere, I said that if it could happen, and time is infinite, and there are infinite (because of time) places in the universe for this to happen, then eventually it will. And it did. Here. On Earth. To me, this is more likely than some sky man making a human out of dirt.
Where did you get this? I never once said this, or insinuated this. Everywhere? Obviously not. Other ones? Yes. Why? Because it is ridiculously unlikely that there isn't even one that has the correct environment for abiogenesis in the entire universe. And don't forget, like can exist in an environment that isn't exactly, or even remotely, like ours.
No, because #1 was a twist of words.
Yes, because I don't believe in your deity - or any deity like that.
Well, yes Earth is unique. Why? Because Earth's current environment is partially shaped by the types of species which live here. This is also irrelevant, because abiogenesis couldn't happen in this version of earth. Life could happen/exist in environments complely different than modern Earth depending on which chemical reactions it needs to live.
Exactly how many biology classes have you taken? If all these attempts have failed so completely, then haven't you creationists had time to prove that (especially since it's so obvious)? Even if the scientific community wanted people to believe it, it wouldn't be overly hard for creationists to show that it was wrong?
Also, are you a biologist then? And you are combating the horrible evolution lies by discussing it with 15 year olds on forums? Please. If it was this easy to disprove evolution, evolution would have been the laughing stock of the modern world for decades.
Incoherent would fit it better I think.
Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
I agree Dolly.
The odds of our planet turing out the way it did are really not as high as people make them out to be. The people who are sitting around saying, "What are the odds that we're an oxygen-breathing species and we just happened to get put on a planet with oxygen" have got it all wrong. We were 'created' for anf rom the earth, not the other way aound. If the only substance in our atmosphere was sulfer, we'd still exist, we'd just breathe sulfer.
The odds of our planet turing out the way it did are really not as high as people make them out to be. The people who are sitting around saying, "What are the odds that we're an oxygen-breathing species and we just happened to get put on a planet with oxygen" have got it all wrong. We were 'created' for anf rom the earth, not the other way aound. If the only substance in our atmosphere was sulfer, we'd still exist, we'd just breathe sulfer.
You better go check that again
Did I by chance say that it was all mine? I merely bring evidences from those that have had the background and time to research each of the items I look for.
I will indeed look at the evidences you have brought to the table as I will do that which science won't. It will take some time to thoroughly check it out so I may make a new thread at that time.
Plagiarism is clearly defined and clearly dishonest - "merely bring[ing] evidences" without appropriate attribution will get you thrown out of most schools.kbc_1963 said:
You assume time is infinite without backing
you assume that the exact conditions that it would take to make life is possible by natural happenings
We have the ability to see a decent amount in space thx to hubble and yet for all that is seen there is none like earth. Your intimation is that if our situation exists then it makes it possible that it could occur by random chance, I however say that the situation that allows life was intelligently designed for that purpose and that it cannot occur by randomness at all and the only thing that could give you backing and prove me wrong would be the finding of a planet that has what it takes to sustain life.
When you say that it had infinite time then by default that means infinite occurances untill we came along so earths everywhere throughout time in order for the unlimited trials untill it would have succeeded here, so I wasn't trying to twist your words, this would be the only possible way to
aaahhhhh haaaaa --- unlikely even rediculously so but possible right? you see i'm rubbing off on ya after all, you have considered how unlikely the probabilities of what I'm saying, there is hope for you yet. Now if you just apply those same odds figuring technics to every stage of your own thoughts we might get somewhere.
Exactly how many biology classes have you taken? If all these attempts have failed so completely, then haven't you creationists had time to prove that (especially since it's so obvious)? Even if the scientific community wanted people to believe it, it wouldn't be overly hard for creationists to show that it was wrong?
naaaa nothing like that at all, the forums are a great place to gain information and since I can't be everywhere at once it is easier to get leads for possible new information here and then I can go and look into it first hand, like the leads Mr. Spinkles has given.
Pah
Uber all member
kbc_1963 said:
The mouse in question was merely the host for a scaffold of fiber in which human tissue was impregnated and nourished by the mouse.. DNA was not altered.
But, and a big BUT, sciencists in Japan have created a new mouse with green glowing skin by injecting DNA from a jellyfish into the fertilized egg of the mouse. The new mouse would be a new species if the DNA were different from another mouse. The old "cross-breeding" rule is no longer sufficent in the face of generitc manipulation.
It's called stealing an intellectual product - taking the words of another without attribution. That would be against the rules of ReligiousForums.
-pah-
Stealing huh, I don't see it as stealing since there is no profit being made and at the same time I didn't see it in the rules here, but it is not a big deal either way since I do have all the information of where it comes from, It will just have to be added in as I go, oh well just more work to get the information I look for, and such is life.
according to what I understand from what I read they havent tryed to do artificial insemination technics so the whole thing is still a bit fuzzy around the edges, so as of yet I can't give ya a concession. I do believe that it is probable that we could have a form of speciation where you could get a multitude of different plants or animals or whatever the phyla may be it is just restricted in that they can't crossover to another phyla such as from plant kingdom to animal kingdom
When anything is used in order to make profit then it must be attributed, when we are throwing around idea's and the like here then I should be covered by freedom of speech but admittedly I am no expert in the greyness of law. I would also point out that anytime i'm asked where I get something from I have always given that information without question just as I did for Dolly, so without a clear intent to make it look like I am asserting something is from my own research it should be assumed that there are many ideas and wordings that are drawn on from outside sources otherwise most words or word groupings would require an exorbitant amount of referencing. I would also like to point out we are not in a school nor will we be rated according to authenticity however If Pah can show me the rule here then I will follow it, I will look for myself as well, ahh what a shame to waste time on this when there is more important matters at hand.