Its easy.... God said it.
:chz4brnz:
Evolution... Do we believe?
- Thread starter PopeFrancieLXIX
- Start date
:chz4brnz:
Hmm... well, I've had reason to feel that way about you, sometimes.
It can also mean "true." Which is the meaning of "eukaryote." True nucleus. Prokaryotes have "nucleoids" which are somewhat like a real nucleus, in that the DNA is there.
Complexity or size of genome is not a necessary consequence of evolution.
Yeah that's right. There is a lot of functional non-coding DNA, but some of it just hasn't been adapted for anything.
Maybe so.
Well, as Gould points out, if you start with prokaryotes (first identifiable organisms) then it has to get more complex for a while at least. But there's no guarantee. There are tiny, incredibly simple cells that are obligate parasites, and are certainly less complex than those first bacteria.
Unlikely. Simply because so much of it codes for things that didn't exist in those first organisms. It's a clever idea, and a lot of people have discussed it. But with so much sequencing of DNA going on, it's apparently not a viable hypothesis now.
Remember the Y2K panic? I knew some COBOL guys who had all the work they wanted, fixing up ancient systems that had been patched with all sorts of ad hoc changes (and little or no documentation). Because of all those changes, many systems were no longer compatible with fixes that were universal before so many "mutations" were implemented.
So, each bank, each payroll program had to be carefully checked and tested to see what had to be done to go to 4-digit years, without crashing something else. "Genetically", they had evolved to the point where "genes" weren't interchangeable.
After the prokaryote division, even the DNA code was no longer quite universal. So your hypothesis isn't far off the mark, although in a way outside of your conclusion.
I hope we remain friends, and need not worry about who is most indebted.
6days
New member
Barbarian said:
That's what evolutionists used to think.... it would be true if evolution was possible.*
There is no such thing as a simple cell. Advances in microbiology have shown the incomprehensible complexity of the living cell. A few years ago, scientists decided to try simulate one of the smallest known genomes of any organism (525 gene). The scientists had "a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes."*
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...puters/260198/*
Interestingly, the article unwittingly suggests an Intelligent Designer may be responsible... "Now figure that millions of bacteria could fit on the head of a pin and that many of them are an order of magnitude more complex than M. genitalium. Or ponder the idea that the human body is made up of 10 trillion (big, complex) human cells, plus about 90 or 100 trillion bacterial cells. That's about 100,000,000,000,000 cells in total.*
Anyone interested try googling some of the animations done by Harvard university, or Oasis, or others of the 'manufacturing city' within a cell. They provide awesome evidence of the Creator.
Barbarian observes:
There are tiny, incredibly simple cells .....
They didn't know of these even simpler cells. They can't even live outside of other cells.
N. equitans* ' genome consists of a single circular chromosome, and has an average G+C content of 31.6%. It lacks almost all genes required for synthesis of amino acids, nucleotides, cofactors, and lipids, but encodes everything needed for repair and replication. 95% of its DNA encodes for proteins for stable RNA molecules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoarchaeum_equitans
Even simpler:
Carsonella ruddii, an endosymbiotic bacteria that lives in plant lice, has a genome of only 159,662 base pairs, with just 182 genes, the smallest known.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-simplest-organism-known.htm
Astonishingly simple. Far simpler than the first prokaryote. But there are naturally-occuring self-replicating things that don't even have nucleic acids:
Nanobacterium (NAH-no-bak-TEER-ee-əm, pl. nanobacteria NAH-no-bak-TEER-ee-uh) is the unit or member name of a proposed class of living organisms, specifically cell-walled microorganisms with a size much smaller than the generally accepted lower limit for life (about 200 nanometres for bacteria). Originally based on observed nano-scale structures in geological formations (including one meteorite), the status of nanobacteria has been controversial, with some researchers suggesting they are a new class of living organism[1][2] capable of incorporating radiolabeled uridine,[3] and others attributing to them a simpler, abiotic nature.[...However, the idea that they are living entities has now largely been discarded, and the particles are instead believed to be nonliving crystallizations of minerals and organic molecules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanobacterium
So now we have natural, self-replicating entities with cell walls, no DNA, no genes and very simple chemical composition.
And the barrier between life and non-life is now completely gone.
See above. Surprise.
See above. Nanobacteria are much, much simpler than your examples.
If you are willing to admit to me that there is a Creator, why not just accept the way He did it?
There are tiny, incredibly simple cells .....
They didn't know of these even simpler cells. They can't even live outside of other cells.
N. equitans* ' genome consists of a single circular chromosome, and has an average G+C content of 31.6%. It lacks almost all genes required for synthesis of amino acids, nucleotides, cofactors, and lipids, but encodes everything needed for repair and replication. 95% of its DNA encodes for proteins for stable RNA molecules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoarchaeum_equitans
Even simpler:
Carsonella ruddii, an endosymbiotic bacteria that lives in plant lice, has a genome of only 159,662 base pairs, with just 182 genes, the smallest known.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-simplest-organism-known.htm
Astonishingly simple. Far simpler than the first prokaryote. But there are naturally-occuring self-replicating things that don't even have nucleic acids:
Nanobacterium (NAH-no-bak-TEER-ee-əm, pl. nanobacteria NAH-no-bak-TEER-ee-uh) is the unit or member name of a proposed class of living organisms, specifically cell-walled microorganisms with a size much smaller than the generally accepted lower limit for life (about 200 nanometres for bacteria). Originally based on observed nano-scale structures in geological formations (including one meteorite), the status of nanobacteria has been controversial, with some researchers suggesting they are a new class of living organism[1][2] capable of incorporating radiolabeled uridine,[3] and others attributing to them a simpler, abiotic nature.[...However, the idea that they are living entities has now largely been discarded, and the particles are instead believed to be nonliving crystallizations of minerals and organic molecules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanobacterium
So now we have natural, self-replicating entities with cell walls, no DNA, no genes and very simple chemical composition.
And the barrier between life and non-life is now completely gone.
See above. Surprise.
See above. Nanobacteria are much, much simpler than your examples.
If you are willing to admit to me that there is a Creator, why not just accept the way He did it?
way 2 go
Well-known member
1 rotation of the earth = 1 day
day one earth and light without form
day two and three gave form to the earth
day four form to the light
Right Divider
Body part
Dumb. Just plain dumb.
(Barbarian shows that the simplest known natural self-replicating cells don't even have nucleic acids, erasing the boundary between life and non-life.)
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan
6days
New member
Interplanner
Well-known member
And that makes sense to you? Magical light with no source?
http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/quotethis/a/reaganquotes.htm
Reagan was attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "facts are stubborn things."
way 2 go
Well-known member
:think:
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
why do you think the light was not matter and energy ?
"Facts are stupid things." -at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"
http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/quotethis/a/reaganquotes.htm
Freudian slip, I suppose.
Some other interesting ones:
"Well, I learned a lot....I went down to (Latin America) to find out from them and (learn) their views. You'd be surprised. They're all individual countries"
"I am not worried about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself."
http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/quotethis/a/reaganquotes.htm
Freudian slip, I suppose.
Some other interesting ones:
"Well, I learned a lot....I went down to (Latin America) to find out from them and (learn) their views. You'd be surprised. They're all individual countries"
"I am not worried about the deficit. It's big enough to take care of itself."
Anyway, we now have examples of replicating microbes, which have cell walls, reproduce outside of other cells, and don't have nucleic acids. There are synthetic self-replicating chemical systems that are more complex than these.
Whether or not they are alive depends on your particular idea of what "alive" means.
Whether or not they are alive depends on your particular idea of what "alive" means.
everready
New member
Nothing magical about it:
I John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
everready
Let me rephrase that: light with no source, which is a physical impossibility that is easily avoided by simply acknowledging that Genesis isn't literal, but still real in a parabolic sense?
Primitive people always assume that whatever they can't understand is magical or supernatural. There are supernatural things, and God does do miracles. However, He doesn't have to do them. Nature is His, and it was created to do His will. Miracles are done to teach us something, not because God is compelled to do them to get His work done.
6days
New member
Rising from the dead after 3 days is also a physical impossibility, without God. But we believe based on the truth of His Word.
The big difference between those two events is that only one has been disproven, and quite easily at that. Across all different fields of science, we can find that the universe is far older than the sun, and that the sun is far older than the Earth, and that the Earth is far older than 6000 years.
Meanwhile, a resurrection event cannot be proven, but it also cannot be disproven, and it has more substantial literature backing it up than does the Genesis creation story. So you're comparing apples and oranges here