Creation vs. Evolution

[iouae]

Evolution requires changes to happen with small incremental changes, with each step being viable in its own right. Artificial devices like watches are not put together like this, so the analogy fails at the first hurdle.

The fossil record suggests small incremental changes over time, supporting the evolution model and requiring the rejection of your Paley's Watch analogy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

This analogy has been used before because it is so irrefutable.

Living things start with Goldilocks conditions having to be around.
Then they need structures like cell membranes, nuclei, DNA, ribosomes, vacuoles, Golgi apparatus, cytoplasm.
This is just like a watch, except infinitely more complicated structures. If it were a human cell it would need 20 000 genes producing 20 000 proteins/enzymes - a lot more parts than in a watch. If it were Amoeba proteus, it would have 100 times more DNA, meaning even more parts, most of them vital to life.

Then these all need to come together, just like those in a watch.

Then they have to come together in the correct order, just as in a watch.

Unlike a watch, these cannot wait around, because they are dying apart, as you read. So they have to get together in finite time.

Then they have to work together, and get all their chemical reactions going.

And they need to be energised by fuel, so the fuel dispensing process has to be going all the time.

But our genius gcthomas' only response is "Artificial devices like watches are not put together like this, so the analogy fails at the first hurdle. "

 

[iouae]

Watches don't self-replicate.
The simplest early self replicating molecules would have been rather less likely to inspire your apparent desire to be so easily personally incredulated (sic) by the genetic numbers.:think:
Pre-Cambrian life forms typically increased their size and complexity by using a fractal system which has a considerably smaller genetic mechanism than modern life, much smaller genetic numbers involved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoibwW1DMuw

If you had 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 of a clue how complicated life really is, you would be "personally incredulated" that you still believe dumb luck created even a virus.

 

[alwight]

If you had 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 of a clue how complicated life really is, you would be "personally incredulated" that you still believe dumb luck created even a virus.

If you had a clue you might understand that life most probably and evidentially has evolved from simple beginnings, that it doesn't get created like a watch each time, it evolves complexity. lain:

 

[iouae]

If you had a clue you might understand that life most probably and evidentially has evolved from simple beginnings, that it doesn't get created like a watch each time, it evolves complexity. lain:

The simplest life forms are prokaryotes like bacteria. They don't come simpler than this except viruses which need other things to live on.

Have you any clue how complicated bacteria are?

 

[gcthomas]

This analogy has been used before because it is so irrefutable.

You are suggesting that human and amoeba cells could not just come together, but biologists agree with you on this. No one is claiming that cells just came together in one random step, so you are tilting at windmills. Neither is anyone suggesting, except Creationists, that taking apart a modern cell is a good way to assess a theory about the viability of the separate parts as they might have been a billion years ago.

Your analogy is just a teleological argument that was largely abandoned a century ago, but was resurrected as a zombie argument in the 1960s by Creationists keen to promote a particular theology. It has been made so painfully clear that evolution proposes a step by working step process that you must be pretty dishonest to continue to push this idea as if it was an attack on evolution theory.

 

[iouae]

You are suggesting that human and amoeba cells could not just come together, but biologists agree with you on this. No one is claiming that cells just came together in one random step, so you are tilting at windmills. Neither is anyone suggesting, except Creationists, that taking apart a modern cell is a good way to assess a theory about the viability of the separate parts as they might have been a billion years ago.

Your analogy is just a teleological argument that was largely abandoned a century ago, but was resurrected as a zombie argument in the 1960s by Creationists keen to promote a particular theology. It has been made so painfully clear that evolution proposes a step by working step process that you must be pretty dishonest to continue to push this idea as if it was an attack on evolution theory.

Gcthomas - there is no unit of life simpler than the cell.
Unless you were home-schooled, you would not dispute this.

The simplest cell is prokaryotic. It is still incredibly complicated, with infinitely more vital parts than a watch.

Nothing can live that is simpler than a cell. All steps must bring all the organelles of a cell together. That is my watch analogy.

You wrote "It has been made so painfully clear that evolution proposes a step by working step process..." What steps other than bringing cell organelles together could start life off?

 

[Hedshaker]

Dear Hedshaker,

Now come on! You know that he was just using a soliloquy. He hardly thinks Our God is 'magic.' Our God does 'Miracles,' not magic. And you know it by now, so why call on him for it??

Much Love & Cheerio,

Michael

Please explain clearly the difference between magic and miracles.

 

[noguru]

Please explain clearly the difference between magic and miracles.

Miracles are events that can not be explained by natural causes, done by what a person deems as "God". Magic is an event that can not be explained by natural causes, done by what a person deems as "anything other than God". It is very simple. I'm surprised you do not get it.

 

[alwight]

The simplest life forms are prokaryotes like bacteria. They don't come simpler than this except viruses which need other things to live on.

Have you any clue how complicated bacteria are?

I realise that you would like to rush rapidly toward the apparently irreducibly complex and bypass the likely probability that the simplest self replicating molecule needn't be bacteria nor deemed as "life" at all, nor even have any DNA. Evolution works at any level where evolution can occur. Complexity evolves gradually step by step. lain:

 

[TheDuke]

If you wish we can expand on that idea showing how evolutionary beliefs about 'junk DNA' hindered research.

Last time I looked, research was something done exclusively by 'evolutionists'.

Non coding DNA does contribute to an organisms biochemistry.

Of course it does. What does this statement have to do with the topic?

Your statement should say something like.....researchers have removed a small portion of non coding DNA in mice. The mice seem to have no adverse effects after a couple generations in labratory conditions. The researchers admit there could be adverse effects not yet noticed.

Correct, it's the beginning, more to come. But already it's evident that not all DNA is necessary.
Or do you reckon that a Euglena requires the same level of biochemical complexity as a human?
(clue: both organisms have roughly the same amount of DNA)

So Kimura acknowlegea the problem is real then tries to shoehorn the evidence into his belief system.

I don't suspect you have any idea of modelling, do you?

Genetics shows that we are descendants of Neanderthals

Wrong again!

 

[TheDuke]

Emus were created when the cattle were created. Same with ALL beasts!!


Aren't they trying to do that with the Titanosaurus? They find one bone and they say he is the largest dinosaur ever!! Give me a break!!


I'm simply done with trying to answer your questions one sentence at a time. I feel debased doing that.

Hopefully you do realize Emus are birds, right

I asked you for an example of a reconstruction from 1 bone, the best you can do is handwavingly question the size assignment of a barely defined species we know close to nothing about. Way to go!

Look, mate, if you don't want a conversation, then don't participate in the forum, what do you think I enjoy mopping up after every post you make? :spam::spam::spam:

 

[TheDuke]

If you ever spent time in the scriptures you may be persuaded to Christ. Someday, pick up a King James Bible and start with Romans. Read it in about 90 minutes or so and then the rest of Paul's epistles, Romans through Philemon. You will see differently if you really understand what is written. Go easy on Mikey

Yeah, for you scripture must really be like opium, eh....
Have you ever wondered why is it that grown-ups who read your precious little bible don't all magically convert?

I'll let you in on a secret - takes more than a fairy-tale to convince anyone who finished elementary.

 

[DavisBJ]

Ping

Good question! I don't know the answer. But there are different ideas as to how God created...just as there are numerous ideas about the Big Bang.

And when there are differing ideas about the big bang, then scientists try to identify ways to tell which idea is correct. – You know, things like COBE and WMAP.

As to differing ideas about how God created, a) Specifically what are the primary competing ideas? And b) What specific experiments would you propose to see which idea is best supported by the evidence?

 

[Jose Fly]

The simplest cell is prokaryotic. It is still incredibly complicated, with infinitely more vital parts than a watch.

Well, yeah....that's hardly surprising given that the first 2 billion years of life on earth was dedicated solely to prokaryote evolution. That's a lot of time to evolve some pretty complicated things.

 

[DavisBJ]

Davis,

Are you done with your tantrum and tirade of twisted words and meanings? A prophet / person who never makes mistakes? Lofty expectations, BJ!! Yes, some things I just don't believe. So what?! I do not play canasta with angels and I'm not hardly in awe of Uri Geller. I don't laugh in God's face and do my best with the doctrine I hold. And I don't act like an infant with crayons. There, does that make your tantrum feel better?? I'm so glad you have so much 'intellect' but what good is going to do you when God's Son returns to Earth, and you are nonplussed?! Are you going to give Him the same tantrum, like why He didn't 'reveal' Himself to you?? I made the choice to believe in Him when I heard stories about Him. I believed. You don't. Enough said. Tons of Luck!!

Michael

I will remind you that truthfulness is one of the primary virtues extolled by Christianity, and presumably, by your God. In regards to that, last year you were emphatically untruthful about a rather important doctrine - the Second Coming. But in contrast, I, and a lot of others, said it would not happen last year. Who had truth on their side in that regard is now a matter of historical fact, and you just ain't looking so good. How does it feel to come in behind a whole bevy of atheists in regards to a matter of truth?

 

[iouae]

I realise that you would like to rush rapidly toward the apparently irreducibly complex and bypass the likely probability that the simplest self replicating molecule needn't be bacteria nor deemed as "life" at all, nor even have any DNA. Evolution works at any level where evolution can occur. Complexity evolves gradually step by step. lain:

Do you have any "self replicating molecule" in mind which is the missing link to life?

And even if there were such, explain to me how this brings us closer to life?

I think you are in denial of one of the foundational laws of biology, that the simplest unit of life is the cell. If it were not, then somewhere on earth, in the laboratory etc. we should have discovered such a molecule. Again, do you have anything in mind?

 

[iouae]

Well, yeah....that's hardly surprising given that the first 2 billion years of life on earth was dedicated solely to prokaryote evolution. That's a lot of time to evolve some pretty complicated things.

At least you seem to acknowledge that prokaryotic life is the simplest we can go, unlike Alwight who thinks ??????

 

[6days]

***Now please identify for us those “incorrect assumptions” that you contend falsify one of the mostly widely used and trusted dating techniques in the world today. Specifically, beyond vague allusions to the apparent incipient stupidity of tens of thousands of PhD scientists....

The three assumptions I mentioned are correct. All scientists (geologists) get their PhD being taught that the earth is billions of years old and that radiometric dating is accurate. You wont get through university if you don't understand it. However..... thousands of scientists (geologists, biologists, geneticists, adtrono.ers etc) are saying the evidence supports thousands of years...definetly not billions.*Im sure you are aware of RATE.... a team of 8 PhD scientists who spent a couple years studying radiometric dating results. Their study shows that the consensus view of radiometric dating is flawed. The technical report can be obtained but here is a laymans report.

http://creation.mobi/radiometric-dating-and-old-ages-in-disarray

 

[Jose Fly]

At least you seem to acknowledge that prokaryotic life is the simplest we can go

Where did I say that?

 

[6days]

*
As to differing ideas about how God created, a)*Specifically what are the primary competing ideas?*

You are familiar with the answers...For example I believe the Bible telling us He created in six days. Some believe in a god called Allah in the Qu'ran who used long time periods.

*And b)What specific experiments would you propose to see which idea is best supported by the evidence?

Hmmmm...well for those two competing ideas we could see if one is self contradictory. The Qu'ran contradicts itself on the creation issue so we would eliminate that possibility.*