Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What did the first Prokaryotic Cell on earth evolve from ?
It did not “evolve” because if it was the first prokaryotic cell, then it formed from non-living chemical precursors. You might usefully examine the chemistry of lipid bilayers for some ideas. Bacterial cell membranes are formed from a lipid bilayer,

Evolution is a biological process; it cannot happen in the absence of living imperfect reproducers under resource constraint.

rossum
 
You need to learn what “conflation” and “begging the question” mean. They are pretty fundamental ideas to any debating course, and your case is just about the dictionary definition of them.
Another example:
  1. Nothing is better than God.
  2. Half a loaf is better than nothing.
  3. Therefore half a loaf is better than God.
😀

rossum
 
Unless you think that the scientific usage of “language” with regard to DNA is actually the same as the normal use of “language” which involves a conscious thinker making sounds to express ideas, then your analogy doesn’t hold.
The Gospel according to John:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
 
Last edited:
You might want to look up the actual meanings of what is translated as “word” in English Bibles. I’m pretty sure it’s not referring to spoken language (i.e. human language), but to something like a formless idea which is made manifest by God’s will.

I’m pretty sure it comes from the Greek “logos,” which means something like order.
 
Last edited:
You might want to look up
These sorts of personal comments may fulfill some need in the poster; usually the concept is too difficult to verbalize so an appeal to a source that might do so. The typical reaction on the other side of the dialogue is that the person did not understand. But, this being a public forum, it would have meaning for others.
 
I so nearly agree with what Aloysium says about the creation of every living thing, except, of course, that I call the process he describes evolution. However, if there is a difference between adaptation and evolution at organism level I should like to know what it is.

Buffalo, there is no difference to an evolutionist between micro and macro evolution. But be that as it may, if there was originally less variety, roughly how many ‘kinds’ of animals did God create?

Edwest211, you’ve gone a bit quiet. What do you think happened at creation? And what do you think has happened since? Evolution?
 
It’d have been nice if you’d given a starting point so without one I’ll assume you’re amicable to the 6,000 year philosophy.

So that gives is approximately 2,000 years for life to, in use of your (not my) terminology, microeveolve prior to flood. As I believe you’ve stated that the many, what a scientists calls ‘species’, came post-Flood with less variation prior (correct me if I’m wrong) I’d like to point out a few things.

1: Grizzly bears, Black Bears, and Polar Bears. If we are to say “they’re all just bears” then in a matter of, let’s be generous and say 1000 years post-ark, you’ve got a split from omnivorous smaller black bears, larger grizzlies, and purely carnivorous white-furred polar bears.

2: Wooly Mammoths, Mastodons, African Elephants, North-African Elephants, Asian Elephants. The wooly mammoth and an Asian elephant are considerably different in tusk size and fur. And to think of wooly mammoth even existing 4,000 years ago is really really pushing against the written record if these were all “just elephants.”

Now there is a point to what I’m saying. If you accept microevolutions happening over the scale of time necessary for the broad diversity we see today, it creates problems. The first is that if such widespread diversity came across that quickly, we’d be seeing a visible rate of change in species. (Using the scientific use of the word.) And even if you say that the rate of change has slowed, it then means that the rate of (your definition) microevolutions had to be astronomical before to the point that the number of (scientific) species pre-Flood was astronomical given what we see today.

And if you accept a microevolutions that can work that quickly to produce such stark results, it’s very untenable to hold (your definition) microevolutions as out of the question.
 
Last edited:
No, I am not agreeable to 6000 years. Adam and Eve could be up to 10-12000 bp and 50,000 bp could be reasonable.

I don’t think so. Adaptation can be rapid. It is macro-evolution that takes eons.

Take Lenski’s experiment that rossum is so fond of. 15 years for 1 of 12 flasks to digest citrate, some 30,000 generations.

Before him Hall showed it much less. Lenski’s claim is that many small mutations were necessary before to digest citrate.

Subsequent experiments have shown it to take less than 4 weeks disproving the many mutations they claimed.

The finches were another example of rapid adaptation. In the end after the pressure was eliminated the beaks changed back. That is what I call superb programming.
 
Last edited:
That is what they say. However, even evo supporters have made this distinction. If memory serves me correct I think and evo came up with it.

The difference:

Adaptation - micro-evolution - ability to adapt to pressures.

Macro - new novel features.

Big difference.
 
This isn’t a personal comment. The end of the post you just partially quoted explains pretty clearly why I said this. When we talk about the “Word” of God, we’re not talking about a language with nouns and verbs, we’re talking about the potential of an unformed idea to become realized in the world.

Since we’re now for some reason discussing the idea that DNA is a “language” (it isn’t except as a loose metaphor), then the idea that God is language should be challenged as well. God can’t be a language by the definitions recently posted, because “All languages are made by somebody.” Was God made by somebody?

No, there is no Catholic belief that God is a created thing, and therefore the usage in that passage must be as I’ve described. You can’t use it to support the “language so intelligent language-maker” claim with regard to DNA, because in this case even “word” doesn’t refer to language.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it’s a big difference. That’s what “micro” and “macro” mean.
 
The Logos of God is more Wisdom than literal alphabets put together to form words which then form longer sentences.
 
That’s how I see it, also.

I’d say, rather than “language requires an intelligent language maker” that “ideas require an idea maker.”

I can conceive of new languages being created by computers for computers, with no actual mind behind them.
 
You seem to be supposing that the ability to adapt to pressures does not involve new novel features. That rather depends what you mean by “new” or “novel” features, as almost all physical adaptations to pressures involve some change of features, some of which, over time, are extreme. The wings of a bird, or flippers of a dolphin, for example, can clearly be seen to be adaptations of quadruped legs. Are you happy to call birds and dolphins adaptations?

How many ‘kinds’ of elephants did God create? Is an Indian elephant just an adaptation of a mammoth, or has it got “new novel features”?
 
I’m not sure what the point of your post is, or in what way it supports a creationist philosophy. The study you reference says “Epigenomic modifications alter gene expression without changing the letters of the DNA alphabet (A-T-C-G)”, which means that many varieties of some plants occur with very similar DNA. So they do, and the same may be true of many other species, but it would be quite wrong to suppose that all similar species are merely epigenetic modifications of each other.

How many original kinds do you think God spontaneously created from the earth? And do you think all subsequent increase in variety is due to epigenetic modification?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top