Questions about evolution and origins

  • Thread starter Thread starter amaxiner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
I also pointed out that Biblical literalists assert the existence of Adam, Eve, Seth etc while having no fossil evidence of any of them.
Click to expand...
Were they buried in sedimentary rock somewhere as a result of a flood?
 
buffalo said:
40.png
rossum:
I also pointed out that Biblical literalists assert the existence of Adam, Eve, Seth etc while having no fossil evidence of any of them.
Click to expand...
Were they buried in sedimentary rock somewhere as a result of a flood?
Click to expand...
Maybe. Same as the rest of the world’s population. Which this guy from Bible Science works out to be…

"…a total estimated population at the Flood of 10,299,681,562,500 "

Now two things. First that is not a typo. He really means ten trillion. And second, he’s a phd in maths, so question his figures at your peril!

And all these people must form a nice, neat layer in any given surface that dates to about 4,500 years ago. Let me know when you find any, Buff. Great rewards await.
 
@Bradskii, Out of pure curiosity, I would really like to see how he arrives at a population of 10 trillion. 3 orders of magnitude greater than today. Do you have a reference to this?
 
Last edited:
Wow, just wow. I didn’t do the math, but the assumptions are really something. Assume average lifespan of 900 years. AVERAGE. (Not the odd miraculous old guy, everybody). Average ten children. If you live 900 years, how do you only have ten children?!?!? There are so many things wrong here that I don’t have the time or inclination to list them, but those two jump out.
 
It behooves any who’re interested in the topic of e.g., Classic Darwinism as meaning “evolution” - to familiarize oneself with (some) actual BioSciences… On this note … thus far, no science has come close to definitively showing how LIFE ITSELF has emerged from NON-LIFE/CHEMICALS… Related… No one has shown how either DNA molecule … and the encoded BioInfo within (aka Organism Assembly Instructions) have come to pass…
 
EndTimes said:
It behooves any who’re interested in the topic of e.g., Classic Darwinism as meaning “evolution” - to familiarize oneself with (some) actual BioSciences… On this note … thus far, no science has come close to definitively showing how LIFE ITSELF has emerged from NON-LIFE/CHEMICALS… Related… No one has shown how either DNA molecule … and the encoded BioInfo within (aka Organism Assembly Instructions) have come to pass…
Click to expand...
Definitely? No. But you need know nothing about any current theories of abiogenesis to follow the principles of evolution. Just like you don’t need to fully understand the big bang (which again, no-one does) to understand planetary formation.
 
I actually am rather skeptical, based on what I have read, about abiogenesis. I think biologists are a long way from showing how that could have occurred. The best they can do now is effectively say “it had to occur”.
Having said that, I do not think this issue necessarily an issue with regards to evolution.
 
EndTimes said:
It behooves any who’re interested in the topic of e.g., Classic Darwinism as meaning “evolution” - to familiarize oneself with (some) actual BioSciences… On this note … thus far, no science has come close to definitively showing how LIFE ITSELF has emerged from NON-LIFE/CHEMICALS…
Click to expand...
Darwin’s book is called “On the Origin of Species”, not “On the Origin of Life”. The origin of life – abiogenesis – is not the same as evolution since many of the processes seen in evolution were not yet operating.

Science has made progress in abiogenesis. Currently we can show natural chemical processes that produce amino acids, chiral amino acids, lipid bilayers (i.e. cell membranes), purines, pyrimidines and RNA. Abiogenesis is still a work in progress, but progress is being made.
Related… No one has shown how either DNA molecule … and the encoded BioInfo within (aka Organism Assembly Instructions) have come to pass…
Click to expand...
Short RNA molecules form chemically and, unlike DNA, RNA is itself chemically active. Scientists have assembled random RNA molecules and checked them for useful functions. See Ekland et al(1995) Structurally complex and highly active RNA ligases derived from random RNA sequences for an example.
The fact that such a large and complex ligase emerged from a very limited sampling of sequence space implies the existence of a large number of distinct RNA structures of equivalent complexity and activity.
Click to expand...
All RNA sequences contain information. Some sequences have been shown to contain useful information.

ETA: Shortly after I posted this, I noticed an article on abiogenesis: A New Clue to How Life Originated. The scientific paper the article refers to is here and it was published today, 12 August. As I said, abiogenesis research is ongoing.
 
Last edited:
Evolutionists are always on hair-trigger watch whenever the topic of the question of the origin of life arises - with the exact same response… which originates for the reason that the Answer to how Life Itself arose - stumps the Evolutionists who are vigorously investigating the actual origin of species aka Life. As to RNA/DNA it’s the same-same … Theories/Hypotheses abound … but alas, no actual Answer. Deeper than that is the likewise mum connected with the Origin of the encoded Bio-Information Of DNA… which when decoded becomes the active assembly Instructions for E.G., Humans…
 
The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God, more or less, set up in order to have evolution. — Jacques Monod, 1976
 
buffalo said:
The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God, more or less, set up in order to have evolution. — Jacques Monod, 1976
Click to expand...
But you do agree that evolution occurs. That those organisms less fit are removed from a breeding population. You have no problem with this. You agree with it. And the people whose views you post that you think supports your position (like Behe) have no problem with it either.

And your view is exactly that which Monod is railIing against. Your view is that God is controlling all this. That He designed it. Do we need to cut ‘n’ paste your posts to prove that.

I need to gig up that cartoon of the guy shooting himself in the foot again.
 
Bradskii said:
evolution occurs.
Click to expand...
Micro-evolution (aka adaptation occurs), Lineage splitting occurs (speciation an loss of function once had). Natural selection and random mutations cannot and does not do what macro claims. What we see is devolution, not evolution.
 
Bradskii said:
Your view is that God is controlling all this. That He designed it. Do we need to cut ‘n’ paste your posts to prove that.
Click to expand...
My view is God front loaded this, in the beginning (intelligently designed it in). You should know this after all my posts, so don’t misrepresent.

And yes God can intervene at will.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
evolution occurs.
Click to expand...
Micro-evolution (aka adaptation occurs), Lineage splitting occurs (speciation an loss of function once had). Natural selection and random mutations cannot and does not do what macro claims. What we see is devolution, not evolution.
Click to expand...
ANY evolution requires natural selection to work. Why do you still not understand it?
 
buffalo said:
Lineage splitting occurs (speciation an loss of function once had).
Click to expand...
And gain of function also happens. Whales have lost the ability to walk on land, but have gained the ability to hold their breath for a very long time. Abilities can be both lost and gained. Your insistence on loss only is obviously contradicted by reality.
Natural selection and random mutations cannot and does not do what macro claims.
Click to expand...
Your personal opinion is not relevant here, buffalo. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims? Can any land mammal hold its breath as long as a whale can?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top