"Where Did Life Come From?" A 13 Minute Primer For Creationists

[Salvador]

Based upon genetic redundancy of the genetic code's codons, they are partitioned bisymmetrically between "whole" and "split" codons.

Up until now, the reason why they are equal in numbers have been mostly unknown.

"Lets focus on the standard genetic code table The table consists of 16 blocks, with four triplets in each. Eight blocks in this table contain four synonymous triplets, that is, each of these blocks can be considered degenerated and represents a single appropriate amino acid: Gly, Ala, Ser, Pro, Val, Thr, Leu, and Arg. Each of the remaining 8 blocks of the table maps either two amino acids, or an amino acid and the stop-triplet. Except for the property indicated, these two groups of blocks are bound by Rumer’s transformation, indicating that under substitution of all purines to pyrimidines in accordance with the rule TCAG→GACT, the first group is transformed into the second and vice versa.
This partitioning of the table into two blocks is the only one, which meets Rumer’s rule with Shcherbak claiming that the ratio R = (C+G)/ (A+T) = 3 is valid both for the first and the second nucleotide positions in the triplets of the first group. For the second group of triplets, this ratio is naturally reversed, that is, R = 1/3. These regularities of the genetic code were found first by Rumer, but in the succeeding 20 years they were considered mostly as accidental coincidence. After detailed analysis made by Shcherbak in 1988–1989, the situation has drastically changed. Shcherbak revealed fundamental relationships between genetic code structure and nucleon structure of nucleuses of chemical elements composing 20 canonical amino acids. As known, canonical amino acids are composed of standard peptide groups, with atomic mass, expressed as an integer, equaling to 74, and by side chains with atomic masses varying within the range from 1 for Gly to 130 for Trp. The summarized atomic mass of the side chains of amino acids entering the second 8-blocks group equals 1110. This group consists of 15 amino acids, with summarized mass of their standard peptide groups equaling to 74 × 15 = 1110 (Fig. 2). This exact coincidence of two large numbers could hardly be considered accidental, because other regularities exist in each of the eight selected blocks of the genetic code table. For amino acids encoded by a group of triplets, entering the first eight blocks, such ideal coincidence of numbers is not observed. However, some arithmetical curiosities can be found here, too. The sums of atomic masses of peptide groups and side chains for the whole group of amino acids equal to 333 and 592, respectively. Then, the whole sum of amino acid atomic masses in this group can be calculated by adding 333 to 592, which equals 925. The least common multiple for the numbers entering this arithmetical equation equals to PQ = 37 (by Shcherbak Prime Quantum). Dividing the equation by this number, we arrive at 9 + 16 = 25 or 3 squared + 4 squared = 5 squared (see Fig. 2). Is this Pythagorean correlation accidental or does it have a deeper meaning?"

Reference: Physics of Life Reviews 1 (2004) 202–229

Genetic code: Lucky chance or fundamental law of nature?
Victor A. Gusev , Dirk Schulze-Makuch b

A stop codon is a perfect abstraction for zero to derive at the genetically encoded message of PQN 037.

The numeric message of 37 is simply conveyed with 74/2. For example, somebody gets handed a string of 74 beads. This gets folded exactly in half, so 37 beads are above the recipient's hand and 37 are below the recipient's hand. Now, the number of beads observed has gone from 74 to 37. This message of 37 gets conveyed.

The 74 beads are analogous to the nucleon count of a canonical amino acid's peptide component. The folding of the string to derive at shChebak's PQN 037 is analogous to Rumer's bisection of the genetic codons based on their level of redundancy.

0 with 37 displays 037.

"Here we show that the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13). The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin. Plausible ways of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to pass non-biological information."

Reference: ) The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov. Redirecting


Deductive reasoning clearly derives at the message of PQN 037 found in the WOW signal of the terrestrial genetic code!

 

[blü 2]

Those interesting phrases are dotted throughout every article on evolution that I have ever read. If you have to say..."I think it happened like this, therefore it must have"....then you have a "belief", not scientific facts.
These words are commonly overlooked.

This is a particular problem with abiogenesis, which is not evolution. You'll mislead yourself if you conflate the two

The truth is, science does not know how life "happened" and it never will......because, as science already knows, "all life springs from pre-existing life"......a fact that is completely ignored

No science supports your claim that 'all life necessarily springs from pre-existing life. The fossil record points to the opposite ─ a gradual evolution over 2.7 bn years from origin to protocell to replication to variety of microorganisms and then about 0.8 bn ya the coming of larger, more complex forms, as shown in the simplified 'tree of life' or 'wheel of life' representations. No hint, let alone requirement, of magic in any of that.

And if H sap sap was the purpose of the universe and of abiogenesis, that's a staggeringly inefficient way to do it. Whereas a universe estimated to contain more than 10^22 stars, each potentially with one or many planets will contain a colossal variety of real situations every second in which quite enormous improbabilities will occur purely by chance.

and why abiogenesis will remain unsolved by those who cannot (or will not) acknowledge the possibility of God's existence.

So to get this clear, if science demonstrates a real path from chemistry to biochemistry to self-reproducing cells, that will shatter your faith?

And when you say, 'the possibility of God's existence,', do you mean an imaginary god, one who only exists as a concept in individual brains, or do you mean a real being, one with objective existence, like the cuttlefish, sardine, crab, grasshopper, spider, skink, sparrow, human? And if real, what real thing, exactly, are we looking for and what test will determine whether any particular real thing is God or not?

Which is to say, the fact that there's no coherent concept of a real god, a concept capable of providing such a test, is yet more evidence that all gods are imaginary, no? And doesn't it follow that to speak of a real god is to have no idea what you're talking about?

OK, so what "evidence" are we talking about here? What "repeatable experiments" do we really have?

The evidence of the fossil record ─ from simplicity to complexity, for instance ─ the evidence of evolution in populations of microorganism, which are not strictly repeatable as a rule since they rely on chance variations, but which demonstrate that not only that changes occur in that fashion but can be induced to occur, in each case with the results confirmed by genetics. >Here's one famous example< which you may already know.

Can we rely on "peer review" to arrive at the truth of any matter? Do people really listen to any "expert" who is in opposition to science's pet theory? Be truthful.....

If you have the evidence, and you present and argue according to scientific method, then you can get published, whether to confirm or deny (If you don't have a relevant degree, you'll need either a particularly strong and clear argument or a recruited degree-holder who's impressed by your claims. Peer review is a check for errors, omissions, insufficiencies or failures of technique, and so on. It's a human enterprise, but it represents a reputable level of checking that's a great deal better than nothing.

There is a definition, but not one that is acceptable to materialists.

Is that because it relies on imaginary things like omnipotence, omniscience and so on? The question is a simple one: if God is real then God exists in the world external to the self, is part of nature. If God is not real then God is imaginary.

The Creator is not a material being,

Which is to say, the Creator is imaginary.

he has the capacity to create matter because he is the source of all energy

Mass-energy is part of the material universe; it may also be that what we presently think of as the singularity of the Big Bang at time zero contained mass-energy alone, and if so, then the dimensions including time, the forces, particles, mass, gravity, rules of physics, may all be manifestations of mass-energy or consequences of its properties. (If instead the contents of the Big Bang were a salad, that wouldn't affect materialism, just make the details more untidy.)

according to scripture.

You'll know the old argument: God wrote two books, but one, the bible, was written down, collected, edited and organized by agenda-driven humans, and the other, nature, came straight from the divine pen. Which then should be more reliable if the question is, What's true in reality?

For materialists who believe in only what they can see, measure and quantify, the Creator certainly does not fit in with their requirements for existence....but is that alone a reason to doubt him?

It is if [he] has no definition appropriate to a real being. It compels the conclusion that [he]'s imaginary - there's nothing else [he] could be.

They will cling to what satisfies them for their own reasons. It reveals something about them.

When all the evidence says that God is imaginary, why doesn't that make God imaginary? Tthere's nothing wrong with admiring imaginary figures like Dumbledore or Superman; they can perhaps be sources of moral reassurance or personify particular virtues; but at the end of the day they're still not real, and the broom will stay in the corner however many times you say Accio to it.

Simply put, the Creator created everything......he prepared habitats long before he created living things to inhabit them. Food sources were there already, water and the right mixture of gases in the air to sustain their lives.

It's far simpler, therefore far more credible, to observe that creatures evolving in a particular place will be well adapted to the physical properties of that place. The right mixture of gasses, is an example. If we lose the Matto Grosso we might live to see a striking example.

He also gave his last creation free will so that we could be appropriate caretakers of this planet as the Creator's representatives here, made in his image and likeness......that means that we can choose whatever is in our hearts to pursue. But, if we are not spiritually minded, we will find substitutes for our inbuilt need to worship....be that science, or even sports, humans will gather in their "temples" and give glory to their "idols". They won't see that as worship, but it fits the definition. It satisfies their need.

Not the teensiest bit of real evidence supports your scenario. The idea that man made God in his own image is vastly more credible, considering the world's abundant supply of gods, who have in common that none of them ever says or ever does. Only in stories does that happen; in reality all the saying and doing is said and done by humans (unless you count the blind doings of nature). The world behaves exactly as you'd expect if gods only existed in individual imaginations. So innocent people, believers or not, die every day, and guilty people, believers or not, get to keep their gains, and the world is only as just, as organized, as humane, as we humans succeed in making it.

Most people are happy to find ways to dump him because it frees them to do things that they would not ordinarily do if they knew that they were accountable to a higher power.

I know you only say that in order to annoy, so I'll leave it there.


And you didn't explain to me why no one in religion is conducting reasoned enquiries into the nature and methodology of magic and trying to find the how of miracles ─ which is the only sensible reaction if you really think magic is real.

 

[WalterTrull]

Life is.

 

[Salvador]

Life is.

"A self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.".

--Joyce G.F. Deamer D.W. Fleischaker G. Origins of Life: The Central Concepts. Jones and Bartlett; Boston: 1994. Foreword. [Google Scholar]

 

[Deeje]

This is a particular problem with abiogenesis, which is not evolution. You'll mislead yourself if you conflate the two

Can you tell me, what is the point of finding out how life changed over time, if you have no idea how it started in the first place? And if you have no solid evidence for a slow evolutionary change over millions of years, then all you have is the opinion of scientists who are rather desperate to have their theory upheld at any cost. They will interpret their "evidence" to support their theory, rather than the other way around.

No science supports your claim that 'all life necessarily springs from pre-existing life. The fossil record points to the opposite ─ a gradual evolution over 2.7 bn years from origin to protocell to replication to variety of microorganisms and then about 0.8 bn ya the coming of larger, more complex forms, as shown in the simplified 'tree of life' or 'wheel of life' representations. No hint, let alone requirement, of magic in any of that.

Please provide the evidence for this. Tell us how science knows that "a gradual evolution over 2.7 billion years from origin to protocell to replication to variety of microorganisms and then about 0.8 bn ya the coming of larger, more complex forms, as shown in the simplified 'tree of life' or 'wheel of life' representations"....
And then tell us who invented the tree of life scenario?

You seem to be fixated on magic for some reason...I see no magic promoted in scripture. I see someone with the ability to manipulate matter.....being able to deconstruct and reconstruct molecular structure in living things......which I am sure science would love to try. Imagine what heinous things they would be able to do...!
The Philadelphia Experiment comes to mind.

And if H sap sap was the purpose of the universe and of abiogenesis, that's a staggeringly inefficient way to do it. Whereas a universe estimated to contain more than 10^22 stars, each potentially with one or many planets will contain a colossal variety of real situations every second in which quite enormous improbabilities will occur purely by chance.

Who said H sap was the purpose of the Universe? I do not see anything like that recorded in my scripture. All I see is that a lower lifeform called humans was created on this planet to be the caretaker of all that the Creator put here.....if you want to talk about staggering inefficiency, then why not look at the state of this planet and see what science has created here.....every destructive activity perpetrated by men uses a product of science. Aren't you proud?

So to get this clear, if science demonstrates a real path from chemistry to biochemistry to self-reproducing cells, that will shatter your faith?

TBH I haven't seen a real path demonstrated.....only suggested. Chemistry is chemistry to the Creator. Nothing will shatter my faith because it doesn't depend on man. Do you trust him?....really? The more that is revealed about what greedy humans are doing to this earth, the more accountable they become. The Landlord is about to evict those disgusting tenants.....he will repair his property...and to offer it to more deserving occupants. Would you blame him? He will hardly allow the same kind of people to inhabit his earth again.

And when you say, 'the possibility of God's existence,', do you mean an imaginary god, one who only exists as a concept in individual brains, or do you mean a real being, one with objective existence, like the cuttlefish, sardine, crab, grasshopper, spider, skink, sparrow, human? And if real, what real thing, exactly, are we looking for and what test will determine whether any particular real thing is God or not?

There is no instrument developed by man that can test for God, except the human heart....that is how he communicates his existence to those who genuinely seek him.
There is no test for macro-evolution either....except for what goes on in the imagination of scientists who must at all costs support their pet theory.

The evidence of the fossil record ─ from simplicity to complexity, for instance ─ the evidence of evolution in populations of microorganism, which are not strictly repeatable as a rule since they rely on chance variations, but which demonstrate that not only that changes occur in that fashion but can be induced to occur, in each case with the results confirmed by genetics. >Here's one famous example< which you may already know.

Oh yes, that one famous example....
"In 1975, a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory, that could digest certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate. These substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935.

Further study[clarification needed (In the same paper, as implied by the position of the reference note?)] revealed that the three enzymes that the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were significantly different from any other enzymes produced by any other bacteria, and not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon byproducts.[3]" (from your link)

What is there about this example that leads me to an obvious conclusion....?

"Nylon-eating bacteria are a strain of Flavobacterium (more recently categorized as Arthrobacter) that can digest certain by-products of nylon 6 manufacture.[1] This strain of Flavobacterium sp. K172, became popularly known as nylon-eating bacteria, and the enzymes used to digest the man-made molecules became popularly known[2] as nylonase."

This is adaptation....the nylon-eating bacteria is a "strain" of existing bacteria.....it demonstrates that all organisms have the capacity to adapt to a changed environment in order to survive. Like the Peppered Moth....it remained true to its kind. This is a far cry from amoebas to dinosaurs...especially when you don't know how the amoebas got here or how they managed to replicate themselves...then transform themselves into all the different lifeforms in existence.

Like Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands.....the species that he saw were varieties of the mainland species that he already knew. The finches were all still finches and the tortoises were still tortoises...the iguanas were still iguanas but adapted to a marine habitat. This is not evolution but simply the production of variety within a taxonomic family of organisms to perpetuate their lives in a changed habitat. Who says it can go further than what has been observed? That is based on imagination....not scientific fact.

 

[Deeje]

If you have the evidence, and you present and argue according to scientific method, then you can get published, whether to confirm or deny (If you don't have a relevant degree, you'll need either a particularly strong and clear argument or a recruited degree-holder who's impressed by your claims. Peer review is a check for errors, omissions, insufficiencies or failures of technique, and so on. It's a human enterprise, but it represents a reputable level of checking that's a great deal better than nothing.

Peer review...?
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems

Is that because it relies on imaginary things like omnipotence, omniscience and so on? The question is a simple one: if God is real then God exists in the world external to the self, is part of nature. If God is not real then God is imaginary.

Again you are imagining things yourself.....you imagine that science has the best answers.....but you don't really know because science isn't exact in these areas where theory is not provable. My unprovable God is as imaginary as your own unprovable science.

Which is to say, the Creator is imaginary.

He is as real to me as you are.....I have never met you, but I know you exist because you communicate with me.
God communicates with me too, but just not in the same way....he is just as real though.

Mass-energy is part of the material universe; it may also be that what we presently think of as the singularity of the Big Bang at time zero contained mass-energy alone, and if so, then the dimensions including time, the forces, particles, mass, gravity, rules of physics, may all be manifestations of mass-energy or consequences of its properties. (If instead the contents of the Big Bang were a salad, that wouldn't affect materialism, just make the details more untidy.)

If you say so.

You'll know the old argument: God wrote two books, but one, the bible, was written down, collected, edited and organized by agenda-driven humans, and the other, nature, came straight from the divine pen. Which then should be more reliable if the question is, What's true in reality?

The two books from God that I constantly refer to are the Bible and nature. Both speak volumes about an Intelligent Designer of all things. He has reasons for everything he does, and doesn't do. If you are unacquainted with them, then the Bible is a good place to start the process of understanding where we fit into the big picture. Most people I speak to don't have a big picture...they only have vague notions about going to heaven....these are just fragments and bits and pieces that don't fit together. Since they make no sense, many throw the baby out with the bathwater and give up. The only other place to go is science, which fills a void.

It is if [he] has no definition appropriate to a real being. It compels the conclusion that [he]'s imaginary - there's nothing else [he] could be.

He is not imaginary to those he has revealed himself to. If you have what God is looking for in the personal qualities that he seeks in those to whom he will grant citizenship to in his incoming Kingdom, then he will let you know....if you don't seek him with an open heart and mind, you will never find him at all. If delusion is what suits you, then he will allow you to keep it. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)

When all the evidence says that God is imaginary, why doesn't that make God imaginary?

No. The evidence for his reality is all around us....it isn't imaginary, so neither is he.

It's far simpler, therefore far more credible, to observe that creatures evolving in a particular place will be well adapted to the physical properties of that place. The right mixture of gasses, is an example. If we lose the Matto Grosso we might live to see a striking example.

All creatures have the capacity for adaptation...it is inbuilt in their DNA. This is a product of design...not a serious of unintended flukes. No adaptive change ever witnessed by humans has taken any species outside of its taxonomy. To suggest that it "can"..."might have"..."could have"...is pure speculation, backed up by no solid evidence. Then to say that it "must have" is a joke.

Not the teensiest bit of real evidence supports your scenario.

Yours is also unsupported by real evidence. The evidence you have has been interpreted to match science's pet theory. You can make fossils say whatever you want them to when you put words in their mouths.

The world behaves exactly as you'd expect if gods only existed in individual imaginations. So innocent people, believers or not, die every day, and guilty people, believers or not, get to keep their gains, and the world is only as just, as organized, as humane, as we humans succeed in making it.

That is true...but the Bible explains why. This is not the world that humans were programmed to live in. We have much higher expectations. We want to live in a world free of war, violence, famine, poverty, sickness and greed. But as long as humans are in charge of the world, this is as good as it gets.....inspiring, isn't it?

How many form of government have they tried over time? How many have delivered peace and security to the earth? We are showing ourselves what its like to live in a world without God. The more we stray away from him, the worse it gets...hasn't anyone noticed?

And you didn't explain to me why no one in religion is conducting reasoned enquiries into the nature and methodology of magic and trying to find the how of miracles ─ which is the only sensible reaction if you really think magic is real.

There's the "magic" thing again. There is no magic.
We don't need to prove God's existence to those who don't want or need him. He will do that for himself in his own time....and by the look of things, it won't be long. The planet is groaning as never before and we have contributed to its pain. God will hold the human race accountable for the damage. (Revelation 11:18)

Unless we change our course and see the need to have the Creator guide and direct our steps, we will have no future......but since atheists do not see one beyond this life anyway......they get what they expect....don't they?

 

[Salvador]

Can you tell me, what is the point of finding out how life changed over time, if you have no idea how it started in the first place? And if you have no solid evidence for a slow evolutionary change over millions of years, then all you have is the opinion of scientists who are rather desperate to have their theory upheld at any cost. They will interpret their "evidence" to support their theory, rather than the other way around.

Please provide the evidence for this. Tell us how science knows that "a gradual evolution over 2.7 billion years from origin to protocell to replication to variety of microorganisms and then about 0.8 bn ya the coming of larger, more complex forms, as shown in the simplified 'tree of life' or 'wheel of life' representations"....
And then tell us who invented the tree of life scenario?

You seem to be fixated on magic for some reason...I see no magic promoted in scripture. I see someone with the ability to manipulate matter.....being able to deconstruct and reconstruct molecular structure in living things......which I am sure science would love to try. Imagine what heinous things they would be able to do...!
The Philadelphia Experiment comes to mind.

Who said H sap was the purpose of the Universe? I do not see anything like that recorded in my scripture. All I see is that a lower lifeform called humans was created on this planet to be the caretaker of all that the Creator put here.....if you want to talk about staggering inefficiency, then why not look at the state of this planet and see what science has created here.....every destructive activity perpetrated by men uses a product of science. Aren't you proud?


TBH I haven't seen a real path demonstrated.....only suggested. Chemistry is chemistry to the Creator. Nothing will shatter my faith because it doesn't depend on man. Do you trust him?....really? The more that is revealed about what greedy humans are doing to this earth, the more accountable they become. The Landlord is about to evict those disgusting tenants.....he will repair his property...and to offer it to more deserving occupants. Would you blame him? He will hardly allow the same kind of people to inhabit his earth again.


There is no instrument developed by man that can test for God, except the human heart....that is how he communicates his existence to those who genuinely seek him.
There is no test for macro-evolution either....except for what goes on in the imagination of scientists who must at all costs support their pet theory.

Oh yes, that one famous example....
"In 1975, a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory, that could digest certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate. These substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935.

Further study[clarification needed (In the same paper, as implied by the position of the reference note?)] revealed that the three enzymes that the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were significantly different from any other enzymes produced by any other bacteria, and not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon byproducts.[3]" (from your link)

What is there about this example that leads me to an obvious conclusion....?

"Nylon-eating bacteria are a strain of Flavobacterium (more recently categorized as Arthrobacter) that can digest certain by-products of nylon 6 manufacture.[1] This strain of Flavobacterium sp. K172, became popularly known as nylon-eating bacteria, and the enzymes used to digest the man-made molecules became popularly known[2] as nylonase."

This is adaptation....the nylon-eating bacteria is a "strain" of existing bacteria.....it demonstrates that all organisms have the capacity to adapt to a changed environment in order to survive. Like the Peppered Moth....it remained true to its kind. This is a far cry from amoebas to dinosaurs...especially when you don't know how the amoebas got here or how they managed to replicate themselves...then transform themselves into all the different lifeforms in existence.

Like Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands.....the species that he saw were varieties of the mainland species that he already knew. The finches were all still finches and the tortoises were still tortoises...the iguanas were still iguanas but adapted to a marine habitat. This is not evolution but simply the production of variety within a taxonomic family of organisms to perpetuate their lives in a changed habitat. Who says it can go further than what has been observed? That is based on imagination....not scientific fact.

Evolution is simply significant enough gene pool changes within a species changing over the course of many generations resulting in organisms having genetic traits different enough from their distant ancestors; so that there'd be no possible sexual reproduction occurring between somebody who were to have distant ancestral genetic traits with anybody living in the current population.


The fossil record isn't the only evidence in support of evolution. There is other collaborating evidence, such as overwhelming genetic evidence of common ancestry between humans and other great ape species.

Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry:

Chromosome 2 in humans

Main article: Chromosome 2 (human)

Further information: Chimpanzee Genome Project § Genes of the Chromosome 2 fusion site

Figure 1:

Figure 1: Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere

Evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is found in the number of chromosomes in humans as compared to all other members of Hominidae. All hominidae have 24 pairs of chromosomes, except humans, who have only 23 pairs. Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.

The evidence for this includes:
The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the common chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.

Chromosome 2 thus presents strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to J. W. Ijdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent

Endogenous retroviruses (or ERVs) are remnant sequences in the genome left from ancient viral infections in an organism. The retroviruses (or virogenes) are always passed on to the next generation of that organism that received the infection. This leaves the virogene left in the genome. Because this event is rare and random, finding identical chromosomal positions of a virogene in two different species suggests common ancestry. Cats (Felidae) present a notable instance of virogene sequences demonstrating common descent. The standard phylogenetic tree for Felidae have smaller cats (Felis chaus, Felis silvestris, Felis nigripes, and Felis catus) diverging from larger cats such as the subfamily Pantherinae and other carnivores. The fact that small cats have an ERV where the larger cats do not suggests that the gene was inserted into the ancestor of the small cats after the larger cats had diverged. Another example of this is with humans and chimps. Humans contain numerous ERVs that comprise a considerable percentage of the genome. Sources vary, but 1% to 8% has been proposed. Humans and chimps share seven different occurrences of virogenes, while all primates share similar retroviruses congruent with phylogeny.

Figure 2:

There's plenty of evidence humans share common ancestry with other great apes.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.. ERVs are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome! There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The chances that a virus was inserted at the exact same location is 1 in 3,000,000,000. Humans and chimps share 7 instances of viruses inserted at perfectly matched location. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs.

Johnson, Welkin E.; Coffin, John M. (1999-08-31). "Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96(18): 10254–10260. Bibcode:1999PNAS...9610254J. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.18.10254. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 17875. PMID 10468595

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Isn't it interesting, the same people who scream about separation of church and state like to fund PBS to push religious evolutionary ideas on kids. And that without a balancing rebuttal. Imagine my surprise.

Not interesting at all, since evolution is a scientific model of the field of biology and not a religion

 

[WalterTrull]

"A self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution.".

--Joyce G.F. Deamer D.W. Fleischaker G. Origins of Life: The Central Concepts. Jones and Bartlett; Boston: 1994. Foreword. [Google Scholar]

Nah.

 

[blü 2]

Can you tell me, what is the point of finding out how life changed over time, if you have no idea how it started in the first place?

There are two questions to be answered, abiogenesis and evolution, the point of origin and the consequences of that origin. As I mentioned, abiogenesis is a work in progress, but perhaps >this article< will give you an idea of the kinds of questions to be looked at, and the kinds of things we now know that once we didn't that appear to be relevant.

As for evolution, we have evidence from the fossil record across some 3.5 bn years of the earth's history, which show us that first there were microorganisms for the first 2.7 bn years followed by the Cambrian and the coming of critters which across 0.8 bn years become steadily more complex, survive or fail to survive extinction events, and result in the world we presently live in. It's not that we don't find examples of evolution from the more to the less complex, like varieties of species that live in the open but have branches that live in caves and lose the (unused) power of sight; but the general trend is cumulative. To get personal, H sap sap didn't exist till about 200,000 years ago, but the ancestors of H sap sap did; and we had cousins too, in H neanderthalis, the Denisovans, and so on, with whom some of us interbred, as the genetic evidence shows.

And if you have no solid evidence for a slow evolutionary change over millions of years, then all you have is the opinion of scientists who are rather desperate to have their theory upheld at any cost.

There are mountains of evidence for evolution, that grow higher by the week; and there are Nobel prizes, everlasting fame, great riches and enormous distinction for any scientist who can falsify the theory of evolution. But look at the creos. They got their modern form when Whitcomb and Morris published The Genesis Flood in 1961; they declare evolution to be the hated enemy, the Great Falsehood ─ yet in the 58 years since The Genesis Flood they've managed to put not even one teeny weeny scientific scratch on the theory of evolution. Nothing. And consider the Dover Trial 2005, where their heroes like Dembski, Meyer and Campbell were eager to give statements until they discovered that if they did,. they'd face cross-examination on them; and at that point they vanished towards the far hills and were never heard from again. I therefore have a grudging respect for Michael Behe, champion of "Intelligent Design", who faced cross-examination and was cut to ribbons; none of his claimed examples of "irreducible complexity" was sustainable; all were explainable, and explained, in terms of exaptation. The odd thing is that he'd said around 2000 that he was aware of the problem, yet here it is, 2019, and he still hasn't been able to fix it, or to provide a real example of "irreducible complexity" either.

Please provide the evidence for this. Tell us how science knows that "a gradual evolution over 2.7 billion years from origin to protocell to replication to variety of microorganisms and then about 0.8 bn ya the coming of larger, more complex forms, as shown in the simplified 'tree of life' or 'wheel of life' representations"....

Okay. Read these in order:
Introduction to evoution
Evolution / biology
Then if you can't find further links to what you want to know, ask me.

You seem to be fixated on magic for some reason.

Only because I don't think there's any such thing, and yet your entire story of origins is entirely based on it. As are your concepts of resurrections, miracles, post-mortal existence and so on.

..I see no magic promoted in scripture.

Then you haven't read it. Before we even get to creating the solar system and life, God brings the EM spectrum into existence with the single command Light! (in nearly all translations phrased as Let there be light!, which is okay. So tell me: what happened when the command was made, what process began that created the EM spectrum, how did it operate, and how come it produced light? Or was it magic such as Gandalf and Dumbledore would be proud of?

Who said H sap was the purpose of the Universe? I do not see anything like that recorded in my scripture.

I'm glad to hear it and of course I withdraw the remark. However the authors of the bible had no concept of the universe; the first thing that exists for them is our earth (described throughout the bible as fixed and immovable and central, not to mention flat) and God's abode (the heavens) and standing on the earth, God magics into being the firmament ─ the sky as a hard dome over the earth that you can walk on ─ then the waters and the dry land were separated without bulldozers; then plants and trees were magicked into being, then lights in the sky, which we know, but they didn't, are stars like our sun, then the sun and moon; then birds and fish; then land animals; then H sap sap. All by magic.

There is no instrument developed by man that can test for God, except the human heart....that is how he communicates his existence to those who genuinely seek him.

So you think emotion can account for what we're talking about here, and takes priority over facts and reason? Is that why God didn't bother to communicate germ theory to his son, who went on record that you don't wash your hands before you eat?

Oh yes, that one famous example....
"Nylon-eating bacteria are a strain of Flavobacterium (more recently categorized as Arthrobacter) that can digest certain by-products of nylon 6 manufacture.[1] This strain of Flavobacterium sp. K172, became popularly known as nylon-eating bacteria, and the enzymes used to digest the man-made molecules became popularly known[2] as nylonase."

Yup. Evolution before your very eyes. One day there's no species that can eat nylon, next time we look there is. Yes it's adaptation, but adaptation by changing the metabolism of the critter, so it's also evolution. Be sure to read and get your head around those links above.

 

[blü 2]

Peer review...?
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems

Like I said, it's done by humans. If it's inadequate, then it'll be replaced, not removed.

My unprovable God is as imaginary as your own unprovable science.

Nay, not so. i can show you what a dachshund, a jelly-fish, a cricket, is, so you or anyone else can tell one if they find one. You can't tell me what your God is, nor how I can tell whether this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not. That's because the concept of a real God doesn't exist; all descriptions of God work only for imaginary gods, and when applied to real things are incoherent.

He is as real to me as you are.....I have never met you, but I know you exist because you communicate with me.

That's easily tested. Ask God for the demonstration whether the Riemann hypothesis is true or false. Ask God to either give it to you written out in publishable form or else dictate it to you clearly and slowly; then publish it and win (if memory serves) a million US bucks. Do that and I'll regard it as a major piece of evidence that you're on to something. Meanwhile I think there's no such evidence, and that your communications of this kind contain no new information and are basically emotional states. Not that I begrudge you pleasing emotional states, of course, but a spade is a spade.

 

[WalterTrull]

When does magic become science, I wonder. I suppose after certain number of predictable iterations.

 

[Deeje]

Evolution is simply significant enough gene pool changes within a species changing over the course of many generations resulting in organisms having genetic traits different enough from their distant ancestors; so that there'd be no possible sexual reproduction occurring between somebody who were to have distant ancestral genetic traits with anybody living in the current population.

Remaining in a taxonomic family does not depend on ability to reproduce. Horses and mules for example, are both members of the equine "family" yet ability to reproduce ceases within one generation. Mules are invariably sterile. If one goes back in a supposed evolutionary line, when do we see horses that aren't equines?
The same goes for lions and tigers (both felines)......unnatural mating (caused by human intervention) can produce offspring, but sterility results. And yet even if sterility did not result, the offspring would still remain within its "family". You do understand the difference between what science can prove, and what science can assume, I hope. Amoebas to dinosaurs is an assumption.....and a laughable one at that IMO.

Genetic roadblocks seem to be ignored. Each variety within a taxonomy are programmed to mate with their own species. Despite sharing the same environment, they stay true to their own kind. You don't see any cross species in vast oceans full of marine creatures......or in any part of nature. Everything stays true to its kind.
Mutations, (that can occur in any species) are almost always detrimental and work against evolution, which supposedly keeps improving a species. So depending on mutations to facilitate good outcomes for evolution is rather overly optimistic.....but science seems to promote them, none the less.

The fossil record isn't the only evidence in support of evolution. There is other collaborating evidence, such as overwhelming genetic evidence of common ancestry between humans and other great ape species.

The fossil record is full of holes which appear to be filled more by imagination about what "could have" or "might have" happened. To then take that speculation and assume that these things "must have" taken place because evolution demands that it must, is not science fact...but pure science fiction.

Sorry but the jargon and the diagrams don't make macro-evolution any truer.

Science has no more real proof for its theory than ID proponents have for a powerful Creator. That means that evolution is based on belief, not facts. It's that simple for me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Remaining in a taxonomic family does not depend on ability to reproduce. Horses and mules for example, are both members of the equine "family" yet ability to reproduce ceases within one generation. Mules are invariably sterile. If one goes back in a supposed evolutionary line, when do we see horses that aren't equines?
The same goes for lions and tigers (both felines)......unnatural mating (caused by human intervention) can produce offspring, but sterility results. And yet even if sterility did not result, the offspring would still remain within its "family". You do understand the difference between what science can prove, and what science can assume, I hope. Amoebas to dinosaurs is an assumption.....and a laughable one at that IMO.

Genetic roadblocks seem to be ignored. Each variety within a taxonomy are programmed to mate with their own species. Despite sharing the same environment, they stay true to their own kind. You don't see any cross species in vast oceans full of marine creatures......or in any part of nature. Everything stays true to its kind.
Mutations, (that can occur in any species) are almost always detrimental and work against evolution, which supposedly keeps improving a species. So depending on mutations to facilitate good outcomes for evolution is rather overly optimistic.....but science seems to promote them, none the less.



The fossil record is full of holes which appear to be filled more by imagination about what "could have" or "might have" happened. To then take that speculation and assume that these things "must have" taken place because evolution demands that it must, is not science fact...but pure science fiction.

Sorry but the jargon and the diagrams don't make macro-evolution any truer.

Science has no more real proof for its theory than ID proponents have for a powerful Creator. That means that evolution is based on belief, not facts. It's that simple for me.

Deeje, you have been corrected on this countless times. Mutations are almost always neutral. Of course creationists have to deny the concept of "Junk DNA". And far more of the rest are positive. Almost all strong mutations are negative. That is mutations that are immediately observable tend to be negative. But you cannot base a conclusion on the exceptions.

 

[Salvador]

Remaining in a taxonomic family does not depend on ability to reproduce. Horses and mules for example, are both members of the equine "family" yet ability to reproduce ceases within one generation. Mules are invariably sterile. If one goes back in a supposed evolutionary line, when do we see horses that aren't equines?
The same goes for lions and tigers (both felines)......unnatural mating (caused by human intervention) can produce offspring, but sterility results. And yet even if sterility did not result, the offspring would still remain within its "family". You do understand the difference between what science can prove, and what science can assume, I hope. Amoebas to dinosaurs is an assumption.....and a laughable one at that IMO.

Genetic roadblocks seem to be ignored. Each variety within a taxonomy are programmed to mate with their own species. Despite sharing the same environment, they stay true to their own kind. You don't see any cross species in vast oceans full of marine creatures......or in any part of nature. Everything stays true to its kind.
Mutations, (that can occur in any species) are almost always detrimental and work against evolution, which supposedly keeps improving a species. So depending on mutations to facilitate good outcomes for evolution is rather overly optimistic.....but science seems to promote them, none the less.



The fossil record is full of holes which appear to be filled more by imagination about what "could have" or "might have" happened. To then take that speculation and assume that these things "must have" taken place because evolution demands that it must, is not science fact...but pure science fiction.

Sorry but the jargon and the diagrams don't make macro-evolution any truer.

Science has no more real proof for its theory than ID proponents have for a powerful Creator. That means that evolution is based on belief, not facts. It's that simple for me.

Macro-evolution must be true in order for millions of species to have descended from the 40,000 kinds of animals that survived the Great Flood aboard Noah's Ark. ....

 

[Deeje]

There are two questions to be answered, abiogenesis and evolution, the point of origin and the consequences of that origin. As I mentioned, abiogenesis is a work in progress, but perhaps >this article< will give you an idea of the kinds of questions to be looked at, and the kinds of things we now know that once we didn't that appear to be relevant.

The questions in that article are ridiculous. Is this how a scientific mind thinks? No wonder there is confusion.

As for evolution, we have evidence from the fossil record across some 3.5 bn years of the earth's history, which show us that first there were microorganisms for the first 2.7 bn years followed by the Cambrian and the coming of critters which across 0.8 bn years become steadily more complex, survive or fail to survive extinction events, and result in the world we presently live in.

You have no real evidence from the fossil record that was not manufactured by interpreting said "evidence" to suit their theory. There are so many holes in the fossil record that it makes using it laughable.....Like a chain with no links. If all the links are missing, how is it a chain?

It's not that we don't find examples of evolution from the more to the less complex, like varieties of species that live in the open but have branches that live in caves and lose the (unused) power of sight; but the general trend is cumulative. To get personal, H sap sap didn't exist till about 200,000 years ago, but the ancestors of H sap sap did; and we had cousins too, in H neanderthalis, the Denisovans, and so on, with whom some of us interbred, as the genetic evidence shows.

How susceptible are we to the power of suggestion?

Is this Neanderthal man? They used to think so...but recent discoveries have shown that Neanderthal man was as human as we are.

So is this what early humans really looked like?
Science is only guessing because no one really knows.
There are people in the world today who look like these.

Maybe Neanderthals looked more like this?

I find it so funny that when it was discovered that Neanderthals walked fully upright, they changed the artwork to depict early man, still looking like an ape, but walking upright to convey the idea. Cracks me up...

There are mountains of evidence for evolution, that grow higher by the week; and there are Nobel prizes, everlasting fame, great riches and enormous distinction for any scientist who can falsify the theory of evolution.

LOL.....yes there are "mountains".....and they are described as "overwhelming" by some....but what are they 'mountains' of? You don't need me to draw you a picture....

Now, tell me what scientists will pitch against the tide to denounce evolution? They would be laughed out of academia. I have seen academics lose their jobs over such audacity.

So is it really that they can't disprove evolution? Or that no one can actually prove it in the first place?

I have a feeling that using the same method, no one can falsify God either.

Okay. Read these in order:
Introduction to evoution
Evolution / biology
Then if you can't find further links to what you want to know, ask me.

From your first link....
"Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life (covered instead by abiogenesis), but it does explain how early lifeforms evolved into the complex ecosystem that we see today.[7] Based on the similarities between all present-day organisms, all life on Earth is assumed to have originated through common descent from a last universal ancestor from which all known species have diverged through the process of evolution.[8]"

Are you reading what I'm reading? Good grief! Just because one creature is "similar" or has even one "similar feature" (as is the case with whale evolution, relying on an ear bone to prompt people to believe that whales were once four-legged land dwellers) means that evolution "must have" taken place? No other possible explanation?....like that they may have had the same Creator, using a similar model of something he made before but perhaps tweaked it, or improved on it? No room for that? He's a creator, not a magician.

it goes on to say...
"All individuals have hereditary material in the form of genes received from their parents, which they pass on to any offspring. Among offspring there are variations of genes due to the introduction of new genes via random changes called mutations or via reshuffling of existing genes during sexual reproduction.[9][10] The offspring differs from the parent in minor random ways. If those differences are helpful, the offspring is more likely to survive and reproduce. This means that more offspring in the next generation will have that helpful difference and individuals will not have equal chances of reproductive success. In this way, traits that result in organisms being better adapted to their living conditions become more common in descendant populations.[9][10] These differences accumulate resulting in changes within the population. This process is responsible for the many diverse life forms in the world."

Now wait a minute....let me get this straight.....
Minor genetic changes happen over time to give rise to new species within a population...meaning that within that family of creatures, some variety will be seen due to different environments and food sources eliciting such change.....?
So please tell me how we go from that to "This process is responsible for the many diverse life forms in the world."

That is one heck of a leap, don't you think? All science has ever observed is the production of a new variety within a taxonomic family....and yet it can suggest everything that preceded that, and for which they have no real solid evidence, is summed up in that sentence.....amazing! And you think we are gullible?

From your second link....
"Evolutionary biologists have continued to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses as well as constructing theories based on evidence from the field or laboratory and on data generated by the methods of mathematical and theoretical biology. Their discoveries have influenced not just the development of biology but numerous other scientific and industrial fields, including agriculture, medicine and computer science.[21]"

"Forming and testing hypotheses"?

What is a hypothesis?

"a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.".....well that explains it. You start with an idea and then you fudge your evidence until it fits....then you can call it a theory, which isn't really a theory....because its not really "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.".....its so much more than that.

"synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, guess, hunch, feeling, suspicion..."

No. no, no...a scientific theory is nothing like that because science changed the definition of a theory so that it would make their nonsense sound more credible.

When did science become a religion? When did it make 'beliefs' into facts.....whilst pointing fingers at Creation believers for doing the exact same thing? Your beliefs are founded on faith.....not on actual, provable science. How is it that you think you can take the high ground? You've got nothing more than I have...just more impressive ways to present it.

You guys really don't get it do you? You are so dazzled by the "ideas" of science that you can't see past the end of your collective noses to actually see what is written in the articles you produce to support it....SMH.

 

[Deeje]

Macro-evolution must be true in order for millions of species to have descended from the 40,000 kinds of animals that survived the Great Flood aboard Noah's Ark. ....

How do you figure? Since it was the Creator who brought the specimens to Noah, and it was he who brought the deluge, using natural sources, what is to stop him assisting with reproduction after their release after the waters subsided? No one knows.

No one knows what specimens were on the ark either.....it just says every "kind"...not every species. It was, after all only the land dwellers. Marine creatures were not affected.

 

[blü 2]

The questions in that article are ridiculous. Is this how a scientific mind thinks? No wonder there is confusion.

Then I've found the right person to ask. Are prions alive? Are viruses? Why? or Why not?

You have no real evidence from the fossil record that was not manufactured by interpreting said "evidence" to suit their theory.

You haven't said that after reading the links I gave you, let alone being willing to understand what they say. The evidence for evolution is everywhere. The evidence for imaginary gods is everywhere. The very notion of a real god is incoherent.

There are so many holes in the fossil record that it makes using it laughable.....Like a chain with no links. If all the links are missing, how is it a chain?

You allow reasoned inference everywhere else in your life. Why try to exclude the fossil evidence just to satisfy a baseless prejudice?

Is this Neanderthal man?

We've identified the genes of H neanderthalis, so let's send the genetic evidence off for a path report and find out.

I find it so funny that when it was discovered that Neanderthals walked fully upright, they changed the artwork to depict early man, still looking like an ape, but walking upright to convey the idea. Cracks me up...

I'm delighted you're entertained, but puzzled why you can't accept that science is a process of continuous enquiry that knows it draws conclusions that may be mistaken or incomplete or have the wrong emphasis ─ and constantly checks for them.

Shouldn't the question really be why religion doesn't do the same?

Now, tell me what scientists will pitch against the tide to denounce evolution?

Tell me, what do you propose to put against conclusions honestly and transparently reasoned from examinable evidence? So far all you have is stories. You don't even have a definition of 'truth' that can be tested objectively ─ 'truth' to you instead means 'what I like to think'. Please correct me if I'm wrong by setting out the test you use to tell whether any statement is true or not.

I have a feeling that using the same method, no one can falsify God either.

The answer to that will have to wait until you've told us what real thing the word 'God' is intended to denote, and the test that will tell me (or anyone else) whether this keyboard of mine is God or not.

From your first link....
"Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life (covered instead by abiogenesis), but it does explain how early lifeforms evolved into the complex ecosystem that we see today.[7] Based on the similarities between all present-day organisms, all life on Earth is assumed to have originated through common descent from a last universal ancestor from which all known species have diverged through the process of evolution.[8]"

See? No magic anywhere! Now you're ready to look at the evidence and become specific about claims you think are unsoundly based, and write articles in reputable journals of science about what you've found. When you send me a copy of what they published of yours, I'll send you a bottle of Dom Perignon.

No other possible explanation?

Rather, no alternative explanation is as well-based having regard to the evidence. (You keep wanting answers to be absolute, but as Brian Cox said, A law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't been falsified yet.)

No. no, no...a scientific theory is nothing like that because science changed the definition of a theory so that it would make their nonsense sound more credible.

By your reasoning, the Holy Ghost is the supernatural remnant of a dead person, presumably haunting a church or monastery, while the Holy Spirit is grappa (RCC) or scotch (Anglo) or ouzo (Greek Orthodox) in the communion cup.


Now about that definition of a real god, and the consequent test that'll tell me whether my keyboard is God or not. Without that, well, science is the only coherent view of reality on the table, no?

 

[Salvador]

How do you figure? Since it was the Creator who brought the specimens to Noah, and it was he who brought the deluge, using natural sources, what is to stop him assisting with reproduction after their release after the waters subsided? No one knows.

No one knows what specimens were on the ark either.....it just says every "kind"...not every species. It was, after all only the land dwellers. Marine creatures were not affected.

If there were a "Creator" who could have miraculously engineered a global flood drowning all non-marine life , save for an Ark loaded with over a million species of terrestrial animals, then this "Creator" likely could have miraculously struck down all the really bad people out of existence from this world with lightning; hence, no global flood would have been necessary for this Creator to have restored his righteousness upon the world.

A tribute to Thor, the lightning god of my Nordic ancestors.

 

[tas8831]

0 with 37 displays 037.

Yes and 37 with 0 is 370.

Give this crap a rest, man....