Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The first single-celled organism was not just a mixture of chemicals in a lipid bubble. Without the needed biological mechanism to convert some kind of energy into food to keep the cell alive, it dies. Without the ability and the machinery to reproduce, it is the only proto-cell in the world. Even if the unproven scenario occurs that millions of proto-cells started floating around, they are still bags of useless chemicals. They have no organization or life-like function.

So, it is a fantasy to believe that they were “alive” at all. They were missing even the simplest amount of information and specialized parts to function as living things. There is no scenario or model to explain the existence of the first cell.
 
And information comes from chemicals that might be able to perform limited, one-time functions when, say, they are exposed to light? What makes them “upgrade”? Apparently, they just did but without any real, credible explanation.
 
edwest211 said:
And information comes from chemicals that might be able to perform limited, one-time functions when, say, they are exposed to light? What makes them “upgrade”? Apparently, they just did but without any real, credible explanation.
Click to expand...
Right, how far can it keep upgrading without any food sources… it’s the only thing alive.
 
edwest211 said:
And information comes from chemicals that might be able to perform limited, one-time functions when, say, they are exposed to light? What makes them “upgrade”? Apparently, they just did but without any real, credible explanation.
Click to expand...
Information also can come from exposure to the environment. That is the explanation offered by Darwin.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
edwest211:
And information comes from chemicals that might be able to perform limited, one-time functions when, say, they are exposed to light? What makes them “upgrade”? Apparently, they just did but without any real, credible explanation.
Click to expand...
Information also can come from exposure to the environment. That is the explanation offered by Darwin.
Click to expand...
There was no environment in the beginning, just a barren wasteland devoid of all life.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
40.png
edwest211:
And information comes from chemicals that might be able to perform limited, one-time functions when, say, they are exposed to light? What makes them “upgrade”? Apparently, they just did but without any real, credible explanation.
Click to expand...
Information also can come from exposure to the environment. That is the explanation offered by Darwin.
Click to expand...
There was no environment in the beginning, just a barren wasteland devoid of all life
Click to expand...
It was still an environment - even if it had no life in it. Actually, Darwin’s theory does not address the origin of life anyway. It addresses the origin of species within life.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
Techno2000:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
40.png
edwest211:
And information comes from chemicals that might be able to perform limited, one-time functions when, say, they are exposed to light? What makes them “upgrade”? Apparently, they just did but without any real, credible explanation.
Click to expand...
Information also can come from exposure to the environment. That is the explanation offered by Darwin.
Click to expand...
There was no environment in the beginning, just a barren wasteland devoid of all life
Click to expand...
It was still an environment - even if it had no life in it. Actually, Darwin’s theory does not address the origin of life anyway. It addresses the origin of species within life.
Click to expand...
I wonder why 🤔
 
We are talking about the first cell. Whatever it was. It’s like saying, “We don’t know how it happened but it happened.” It’s like my car exists but we have no clue who made it or how it was made. And all those parts that make it up just sorta happened.
 
With the advent of computers, the electronic age morphed into the age of Information. The technics that we employ typically define how we understand the world. Conceptualizing the processes that govern the development of organisms as information can lead to insights as to how this all came to be.

We know we began as one cell. That one cell contains all the information required to construct a person. From that one cell comes the placenta, the umbilical cord and the sac that contain the waters surrounding us as we grow within the womb. From that one cell come neurons, muscle, osteocytes, skin and so on. What happens during the course of development is that the initial information is pared down to construct the various types of tissues, coming together as organs, within systems that constitute bodily activity. Stem cells are pluripotential, not quite like the first cell but very close. The information they contain can give rise to a variety of cell types. They are being used to treat Diabetes and Parkinson’s, among 80 diseases that are utilising these transplants. Blood services throughout the world seek donations.

From the Nature Reviews Genetics article you quote above, it appears that something similar to the microcosm of the individual organism is at work in the macrocosm of life.
buffalo said:
genomic data is revealing an unexpected perspective of gene loss as a pervasive source of genetic variation that can cause adaptive phenotypic diversity
Click to expand...
To repeat - a loss of information is a pervasive source of phenotypic diversity. With that in mind we can definitely state that Genesis is supported by genetic research.

Imagine a pluripotential Adam, containing all the information required to bring humanity into existence. The information that would eventually form the body of each individual human being was culled from our first parent. We can then begin to grasp how Eve was formed from Adam, why our early forebears would have lived much longer than we do, why there was little risk of genetic abnormalities in the very small original human communities, and finally, why we see the genetic diversity among human beings, which gives rise to the illusion of polygenism.

I don’t know, but the evidence does fit that story.

And then, there is the human spirit.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Adam and Eve had pristine genetics.

Dr. John Sanford “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome”
Below is additional support for IDvolution.
Some quotes from Dr John Sanford on genetic entropy. Very consistent with IDvolution and Scripture. To get the full effect take the time to view the videos. Listen carefully where he states it is “kind of a trade secret of population geneticists.” The design of the genome is astonishing and shows intelligence, design and purpose.
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is a thought of God."Pope Benedict XVI​

“a vastly superior operating system”
“a galaxy of design and complexity”
“over 90% of the genome is actively transcribed”
“the genome has multiple overlapping messages”
“data compression on the most sophisticated level”
“more and more the genome looks like a super super set of programs”
“more and more it looks like top down design”
“the reality is everybody is mutant”
“the selection process really has nothing to grab hold of”
“so it’s kind of a trade secret amongst population geneticists,any well informed population geneticist understands man is degenerating”
“so in deep geological time we should have been extinct a long time ago”
“the human race is degenerating at 1-5% per generation”
“so personal and so immediate, because there is no circle of life where things where things stay the same, and it’s not an upward spiral of evolution, things keep getting better and better, it is a downward spiral exactly as described in Scripture”
“I realized it had major implications for evolution, but I had no… I couldn’t have guessed how profound the biblical implications are, how profoundly the evidence supports the biblical perspective of a dying universe and a dying world, we are dying because of the fall”
“and our only hope is Christ” IDvolution.org: Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome"
 
Aloysium said:
To repeat - a loss of information is a pervasive source of phenotypic diversity. With that in mind we can definitely state that Genesis is supported by genetic research.

Imagine a pluripotential Adam, containing all the information required to bring humanity into existence. The information that would eventually form the body of each individual human being was culled from our first parent.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid I’ll have to stop you right there because you are already departing from the truth. The information in Adam’s DNA was sufficient to form Adam. That is all. It did not contain the information to form all future humans in all their diversity. That additional information came from interactions with the environment. The design information on how to form various skin colors, for example, was not present in Adam. The information that forms those colors was gradually acquired through the process of evolution. They were not “hidden” somewhere in Adam’s DNA only to be “revealed” when the need for those colors arose. This is supported by all sorts of experiments where artificial environments are constructed at random. Living organisms placed in those environments invariably develop the characteristics that are best suited to that environment. Since there are infinitely many possible artificial environments that can be imagined, it is impossible that all the information to make those adaptations were already existing in some primordial first representative of that species. If you take fruit flies and systematically remove all fruit flies from the population whose right front leg is shorter than or equal to its left front leg, you will eventually get a population of fruit flies with huge right front legs compared to their left front legs. It is unreasonable to assume that the pattern for asymmetric leg length was programmed into the first fruit fly, just waited for some sadistic grad student to come along and perform that study.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
That additional information came from interactions with the environment
Click to expand...
So random mutations can see and know environments, and predict what those environment will be like millons of years into the future ?
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
If you take fruit flies and systematically remove all fruit flies from the population whose right front leg is shorter than or equal to its left front leg, you will eventually get a population of fruit flies with huge right front legs compared to their left front legs.
Click to expand...
So, this only works on fruit flies … Isn’t that just selective breeding ?
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
That additional information came from interactions with the environment
Click to expand...
So random mutations can see and know environments, and predict what those environment will be like millons of years into the future ?
Click to expand...
The mutations do not have to know anything about future environments. They try two things. One of them works well with the environment. The other doesn’t. The information about which one works becomes part of the inherited information. It has nothing to do with predicting anything.
Techno2000 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
If you take fruit flies and systematically remove all fruit flies from the population whose right front leg is shorter than or equal to its left front leg, you will eventually get a population of fruit flies with huge right front legs compared to their left front legs.
Click to expand...
So, this only works on fruit flies … Isn’t that just selective breeding ?
Click to expand...
You can call it selective breeding or you can call it Darwinian evolution. Two names for the same thing. The only difference is what is doing the selective breeding. In the case of the fruit flies, it was the sadistic grad student punishing fruit flies with shorter right legs. In the case of skin color, it is the environment of the tropics that punishes people with light skin.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top