The bottom line - what do we really know?

[Mountainmike]

When people speak of evolution, they discuss complete organisms and family trees. Fossil record and such like things.
An assumption of common descent rather than multiple independent pathways.
They speak of molecular biology mechanisms of inheritance. They speak of mechanism of genetic variation and optimization by survival of fittest
Then the scientific world and OOL community does what it always does. Pretend the puzzle is almost solved , rather than barely started.

I will change that paradigm completely.
I will Focus not on the complete organism. Let us focus on the component cell. If you cannot explain that , you have no theory of life.

Here is the actual reality. The actual voice of science.

The simplest known cell is incredibly complicated. The simplest known bacteria has hundreds of genes.
The modern cell is a self evolving, (assumed) self designing!, self repairing, self sustaining factory of thousands of proteins and other biochemicals.
It is orders of magnitude more complex than any chemical factory we know.
It takes a very thick, very big book to even sketch the chemical pathways
Modelling the simplest bacteria took hundreds of computers many hours.
The attempt to backward engineer it removing assumed redundant feature failed at around 500 genes before it became unstable or failed to reproduce.

Before that is a big fat void of nothingness in knowledge.

Life is defined as "self sustaining, capable of darwinian evolution" .
Nobody knows where, when or how the first life started. That step cannot be repeated and it does not repeat.
(which is strange if it assumed an energy viable reaction that formed it, it should have happened many times._
Nobody knows what genome it had. But to be "life" it must have a genome.
There is no structure conjectured for the first life, detailed enough to test. And there is no model of conjectured chemistry of non life chemicals that can combine to form it. Without knowing what the precursors were, nobody can say if they existed or do exist.
The minimum life is and must be IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX. How do we know? Because of the definition of life, presupposes structures for energy, for reproduction , for mutation and even the genome as an information carrier has a minimum theoretical entropy to carry that information.

So not only does science not know how life started at all.
There is no structure proposed for first life or process to it.
So there is no hypothesis of abiogeneis.
There are no intermediate stages to test, so there is no hypothesis of evolution at cellular level either.
And if you cannot explain the pieces, you can explain the jigsaw. So there is no theory of evolution.

So before anyone tells you evolution is a fact, and we know what kind of step abiogenesis was, or another dawkins says it is a "fact".
Just explain to them they know nothing at all.

Materialist atheists have been exaggerating what they know because they have no other idea for life.

For sure. We see how wonderful life is. It can adapt. Indeed much of the life you see every day is INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED by man! He does what he does best.
He notices patterns in nature, so has selectively bred better livestock and plants of all descriptions, which is much of what you see in the country side.

So do not be afraid to voice an opinion.
I believe life started like this (whatever your pet idea) so long as it arrives at the life we have!

And when the atheist or evolutionists says - "you speak all myth and fable" - you can tell them looking straight in the eye, they have no idea where life came from either. So we both speak from faith including them!

Other dimensions of the same problem.

The forensics of eucharistic miracles have serious forensic pathologists saying they are "credible and compelling evidence of created heart tissue" which defeats darwins theory by the test he himself set (all life from progressive small change). So there is more evidence of creation than there is for abiogenesis.

Many neurologists and cardiologists now agree that the evidence of verifiable near death (so out of body) experiences shows that consciousness (or memory) can no longer be considered a process of the brain. Because it can be separable in verifiable ways. So the brain filters consciousness , and it is not the source of it. So life cannot be just a chemical accident. Consciousness is not a chemical process. And therefore life as an evolution from chemicals does not explain human life.


We as Christians have nothing to apologize for, or be reticent about.
Evolutionists have no idea where life came from or how it developed.

In the landmark case on intelligent design, professor Behe picked the wrong thing to argue. He should have picked the first living cell. And asked the atheists to define what it was,. when how and where it it came to be, then how it developed from there. The court would have been silent. So their theory of life is not "scientific" it is just their belief and conjecture.

If you disagree prove me wrong.
Why have I written this? I am writing a more detailed book. If there are holes in the arguments I need to repair them!

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

What we have here is an argument that exhibits skepticism towards scientific theories of evolution and abiogenesis, asserting that there is a lack of clear scientific understanding about the origins of life and its subsequent evolution. The author emphasizes that the focus of evolutionary discourse often ignores the complexity of the smallest cellular units of life, and points out that even the simplest known bacteria is highly complex and requires hundreds of genes to function properly. He argues that any scientific theory about life's origin and evolution must be able to explain the development of such cells, and he asserts that current theories fail to do this.

The author highlights the gaps in our understanding of abiogenesis—a term denoting the process of life arising naturally from non-living matter—and the origin of the first living cells, arguing that these are not just gaps but rather voids. He contends that the very definition of life requires an understanding of highly complex and interconnected processes, such as energy production, reproduction, mutation and so forth, believing that current scientific theories are not able to sufficiently explain the origin of these processes. He also suggests that this lack of understanding extends from abiogenesis specifically to evolution generally, especially at the cellular level, and maintains that without a clear understanding of the components the entire theory is invalid.

The author has invited critical scrutiny because he is writing a book on this subject. "If there are holes in the arguments," he said, "I need to repair them!" Well, to be sure, there are definitely a few holes to choose from, but I shall concentrate on just three problems here.

1. The Argument Commits a Basic Category Error. The author seems to conflate the theory of evolution and abiogenesis (i.e., treating them as if they were the same thing or inextricably connected), as evidenced by his post which fails to recognize, much less acknowledge and address, the categorical differences between the two. Abiogenesis deals with questions about how life arose from non-living matter, whereas evolution explains how life diversified and adapted once it existed. They are two distinct areas of study, with evolution being more thoroughly understood and supported by a substantial body of evidence. In other words, even if scientists never determine how life arose, it cannot be denied that life exists, and its biodiversity really seems to exhibit patterns of common ancestry. Those patterns need explaining, regardless of how life originally arose. Providing an explanation is precisely what a theory does.

2. The Argument Includes a False Claim. The author claims that "there is no hypothesis of abiogenesis." This is factually incorrect. There are several hypotheses regarding the origin of life—RNA world hypothesis, metabolism-first hypothesis, extraterrestrial origin of organic compounds hypothesis, deep-sea vents hypothesis, and so on. However, it is true that none of these have been conclusively established yet. This is not a shortcoming or failure, however, but rather the typical ongoing process of scientific inquiry. It also needs to be underscored that these hypotheses are all falsifiable (counterexamples are logically possible) and testable (can be supported or refuted empirically), which is not the case for special creation.

3. The Argument Presents a False Dichotomy. The argument implies a zero-sum game between evolutionary science and Christian theology, wherein gains for one entails losses for the other. This represents a false dichotomy, for there is a third option where one can affirm both without compromising either one. It is popular among Christians to believe that if we cannot explain something scientifically then obviously God did it, and it is popular among atheists to believe that if we can explain something scientifically then evidently God didn't do it. Both commit the same logical error from opposite ends, which the third option avoids altogether: Whether or not we can explain something scientifically, God nevertheless did it (e.g., human reproduction, Ps 139:13).

 

[GodLovesCats]

What we really know are the proven facts we learn that cannot be disputed by other experts. This is true in all legal, scientific, geographical, historical, linguistic, and mathematics subjects. We also know what is logical based on valid premises.

 

[Aussie Pete]

What we have here is an argument that exhibits skepticism towards scientific theories of evolution and abiogenesis, asserting that there is a lack of clear scientific understanding about the origins of life and its subsequent evolution. The author emphasizes that the focus of evolutionary discourse often ignores the complexity of the smallest cellular units of life, and points out that even the simplest known bacteria is highly complex and requires hundreds of genes to function properly. He argues that any scientific theory about life's origin and evolution must be able to explain the development of such cells, and he asserts that current theories fail to do this.

The author highlights the gaps in our understanding of abiogenesis—a term denoting the process of life arising naturally from non-living matter—and the origin of the first living cells, arguing that these are not just gaps but rather voids. He contends that the very definition of life requires an understanding of highly complex and interconnected processes, such as energy production, reproduction, mutation and so forth, believing that current scientific theories are not able to sufficiently explain the origin of these processes. He also suggests that this lack of understanding extends from abiogenesis specifically to evolution generally, especially at the cellular level, and maintains that without a clear understanding of the components the entire theory is invalid.

The author has invited critical scrutiny because he is writing a book on this subject. "If there are holes in the arguments," he said, "I need to repair them!" Well, to be sure, there are definitely a few holes to choose from, but I shall concentrate on just three problems here.

1. The Argument Commits a Basic Category Error. The author seems to conflate the theory of evolution and abiogenesis (i.e., treating them as if they were the same thing or inextricably connected), as evidenced by his post which fails to recognize, much less acknowledge and address, the categorical differences between the two. Abiogenesis deals with questions about how life arose from non-living matter, whereas evolution explains how life diversified and adapted once it existed. They are two distinct areas of study, with evolution being more thoroughly understood and supported by a substantial body of evidence. In other words, even if scientists never determine how life arose, it cannot be denied that life exists, and its biodiversity really seems to exhibit patterns of common ancestry. Those patterns need explaining, regardless of how life originally arose. Providing an explanation is precisely what a theory does.

2. The Argument Includes a False Claim. The author claims that "there is no hypothesis of abiogenesis." This is factually incorrect. There are several hypotheses regarding the origin of life—RNA world hypothesis, metabolism-first hypothesis, extraterrestrial origin of organic compounds hypothesis, deep-sea vents hypothesis, and so on. However, it is true that none of these have been conclusively established yet. This is not a shortcoming or failure, however, but rather the typical ongoing process of scientific inquiry. It also needs to be underscored that these hypotheses are all falsifiable (counterexamples are logically possible) and testable (can be supported or refuted empirically), which is not the case for special creation.

3. The Argument Presents a False Dichotomy. The argument implies a zero-sum game between evolutionary science and Christian theology, wherein gains for one entails losses for the other. This represents a false dichotomy, for there is a third option where one can affirm both without compromising either one. It is popular among Christians to believe that if we cannot explain something scientifically then obviously God did it, and it is popular among atheists to believe that if we can explain something scientifically then evidently God didn't do it. Both commit the same logical error from opposite ends, which the third option avoids altogether: Whether or not we can explain something scientifically, God nevertheless did it (e.g., human reproduction, Ps 139:13).

I disagree that evolution is a separate issue from evolution. This is a convenience concocted by evolutionists because abiogenesis is impossible. If you do not beleive this assertion, check out Professor James Tour's youtube presentations on the subject. Surely a hypothesis has to have some basis in reality, otherwise its just a fantasy. And that describes OOL research to a "T".

It's the same with adaptation, calling that evolution when it is no such thing. Evolution research is not science. It is based on flawed assumptions that are routinely proven to be wrong. There are only two reasons to persist with this myth: the first, to prove that the material world can exist without a Creator God, two, as a sop to the antichrist scientific community. Again, the fact that adaptation occurs cannot be used to prove evolution.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I disagree that evolution is a separate issue from [abiogenesis].

Unfortunately, you did not provide any reason for disagreeing.

This is a convenience concocted by evolutionists because abiogenesis is impossible.

This indefensible assertion is trying hard to pretend that no Christians accept evolution (but most of us do). The origin of life and the origin of species are two distinct and separate things. Perhaps I can make the point a different way: Making a clear and convincing case that the origin of life required an intelligent designer doesn't prove that evolution has never happened precisely because they are two distinct and separate things!

Surely a hypothesis has to have some basis in reality, otherwise its just a fantasy. And that describes origin of life research to a T.

Does the RNA world hypothesis, for example, have some basis in reality or literally none?

It's the same with adaptation, calling that evolution when it is no such thing.

Nobody calls it evolution. They call it a mechanism of evolution, one of many.

Evolution research is not science.

Provide a definition of science. And then let's see what fields of research commonly accepted as scientific fit that definition.

It is based on flawed assumptions that are routinely proven to be wrong.

What assumptions is it based on that have been routinely proven wrong?

There are only two reasons to persist with this myth: the first, to prove that the material world can exist without a Creator God, and two, as a sop to the antichrist scientific community.

Another assertion trying hard to pretend that no Christians accept evolution (but most of us do).

Again, the fact that adaptation occurs cannot be used to prove evolution.

We don't have a theory in search of observable evidence to support it, we have observable evidence in search of a theory to explain it—which is what evolution does.

 

[The Barbarian]

When people speak of evolution, they discuss complete organisms and family trees. Fossil record and such like things.
An assumption of common descent

Conclusions from evidence. Most notably the fact that observed evolution, genetics, fossil record, embryology and comparative anatomy all give us the same conclusions.

They speak of molecular biology mechanisms of inheritance. They speak of mechanism of genetic variation and optimization by survival of fittest
Then the scientific world and OOL community does what it always does. Pretend the puzzle is almost solved , rather than barely started.

Evidence does matter, yes. That's why almost all biologists have concluded that the evidence shows what actually happens.

I will change that paradigm completely.
I will Focus not on the complete organism. Let us focus on the component cell. If you cannot explain that , you have no theory of life.

Evolutionary theory is not a theory of life. It assumes life began and describes how it changes over time. Even Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things. That's the reality. Sorry to derail your argument so early. You are now actually arguing against God's claim that the Earth brought forth living things. But investigation increasingly shows that God is correct.

Here is the actual reality. The actual voice of science.

The simplest known cell is incredibly complicated. The simplest known bacteria has hundreds of genes.

Bacterium. The singular is "bacterium." Bacteria are rather complex organisms, the result of several billion years of evolution. Simplest one I know if is Nasuia deltocephalinicola with 137 genes. Scientists have shown that much simpler self-replicating chemical systems exist, however. Would you like to learn about those?

The modern cell is a self evolving,

Individuals do not evolve. Populations do.
"People are usually down on things they aren't up on."
Everette Dirkson

(assumed) self designing!, self repairing, self sustaining factory of thousands of proteins and other biochemicals.
It is orders of magnitude more complex than any chemical factory we know.

If you think so, you've never been in a chemical factory. There's more than 137 things in the front office of a chemical factory, much less then entire complex itself.

It takes a very thick, very big book to even sketch the chemical pathways

Guess how I know you've never had a course in biochemistry?

Modelling the simplest bacteria took hundreds of computers many hours.
The attempt to backward engineer it removing assumed redundant feature failed at around 500 genes before it became unstable or failed to reproduce.

As you see, God evolved something much more simple and sophisticated than could be "designed." That's the problem, you see. Engineers are wising up and copying evolutionary processes to solve problems that they can't solve by design. Would you like to learn how that works? God is a lot smarter than creationists think He is.

Life is defined as "self sustaining, capable of darwinian evolution" .
Nobody knows where, when or how the first life started.

As you now realize, evolutionary theory just assumes the origin of life (Darwn thought it was God's doing) and describes how it changes over time. Try to stay focused.

So not only does science not know how life started at all.

The first hint was finding that all the chemicals needed for life can form abiotitcally. Would you like to learn about that?
The second hint was that the one organelle absolutely necessary for life as we know it, forms spontaneously from chemicals in abiotic environments. Want to learn about that?

So before anyone tells you evolution is a fact,

It's directly observed. Can't be more factual than that. You've confused biological evolution with abiogenes and (probably) common descent.

The forensics of eucharistic miracles have serious forensic pathologists saying they are "credible and compelling evidence of created heart tissue"

Sounds interesting. Show us that.

You have a lot of confusions to clear up before you write that book.

 

[Mountainmike]

Conclusions from evidence. Most notably the fact that observed evolution, genetics, fossil record, embryology and comparative anatomy all give us the same conclusions.


Evidence does matter, yes. That's why almost all biologists have concluded that the evidence shows what actually happens.

Evolutionary theory is not a theory of life. It assumes life began and describes how it changes over time. Even Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things. That's the reality. Sorry to derail your argument so early. You are now actually arguing against God's claim that the Earth brought forth living things. But investigation increasingly shows that God is correct.


Bacterium. The singular is "bacterium." Bacteria are rather complex organisms, the result of several billion years of evolution. Simplest one I know if is Nasuia deltocephalinicola with 137 genes. Scientists have shown that much simpler self-replicating chemical systems exist, however. Would you like to learn about those?

Individuals do not evolve. Populations do.
"People are usually down on things they aren't up on."
Everette Dirkson


If you think so, you've never been in a chemical factory. There's more than 137 things in the front office of a chemical factory, much less then entire complex itself.


Guess how I know you've never had a course in biochemistry?


As you see, God evolved something much more simple and sophisticated than could be "designed." That's the problem, you see. Engineers are wising up and copying evolutionary processes to solve problems that they can't solve by design. Would you like to learn how that works? God is a lot smarter than creationists think He is.


As you now realize, evolutionary theory just assumes the origin of life (Darwn thought it was God's doing) and describes how it changes over time. Try to stay focused.


The first hint was finding that all the chemicals needed for life can form abiotitcally. Would you like to learn about that?
The second hint was that the one organelle absolutely necessary for life as we know it, forms spontaneously from chemicals in abiotic environments. Want to learn about that?

It's directly observed. Can't be more factual than that. You've confused biological evolution with abiogenes and (probably) common descent.

Sounds interesting. Show us that.

You have a lot of confusions to clear up before you write that book.

Cutting through all the waffle.
1/ you have no idea how the first life began. When . Where . How. What.
2/ you have no idea of the first genome .
3/ you have no conjectured structure For the first living thing, or process to it.
4/ the minimum Cell we know is incredibly complex
5/ you clearly have no idea how complex - it produces thousands of biochemicals. The complexity is not the genome,
6/ you have no idea of the evolutionary pathway from 3/ to 4/.
in short You know squat about the pathway to present life at cell level,

So some humility in the light of what you don’t know. Which is pretty much nothing except the structure of present cells . Nothing before that except guess. Since big organisms are made of cells. You know little about their evolution either.

7/ I studied biochemistry straight a in as far as it went, I live with a technical director molecular biologist who knows ALOT more than you ever will, and on complexity I am echoing the comments of some leading origin of life researchers. Argue with them.

I presume the fact you think ot is simple is you read too many 8th grade books,

8/ clearly evolution happens. when I look out of my window much of it is intelligent design by man using what he observes, but that does not explain life Or even close.


You are welcome to your belief in how life came to where we know, and for as long as you adopt such a sneering tone you will never let new information in, so you are stuck there,

I am pointing how little is actually known , which is less than your cult of true believers think .
You have no idea WHATSOEVER what chemicals were needed for life until you can answer 3.

but then I like logic, not evolution / abiogenesis wish Believe.

 

[The Barbarian]

Cutting through all the waffle.

Your major waffle is conflating the origin of life with evolution, which assumes life began and describes how it changes over time.

1/ you have no idea how the first life began. When . Where . How. What.

God says the Earth produced living things as He intended. I believe Him. You should, too.

Evidence indicates it was in a hot, anoxic envirionment, similar to undersea vents. Would you like to learn about that?
Remember, biological evolution is not about the origin of life.

2/ you have no idea of the first genome .

The discovery of self-catalyzing RNA gave us a big clue...

The RNA world

evolution.berkeley.edu

Remember, biological evolution is not about the origin of life.

3/ you have no conjectured structure For the first living thing, or process to it.

For life of the sort we know about, it turns out, it's not that hard...

The first cell membranes - PubMed

Organic compounds are synthesized in the interstellar medium and can be delivered to planetary surfaces such as the early Earth, where they mix with endogenous species. Some of these compounds are amphiphilic, having polar and nonpolar groups on the same molecule. Amphiphilic compounds...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Remember, biological evolution is not about the origin of life.

4/ the minimum Cell we know is incredibly complex

Maybe 140 genes. Not all that complex.
Remember, biological evolution is not about the origin of life.

5/ you clearly have no idea how complex - it produces thousands of biochemicals. The complexity is not the genome,

Guess how I know you never studied genetics in a college course.
Remember, biological evolution is not about the origin of life.

6/ you have no idea of the evolutionary pathway from 3/ to 4/.

That's not biologica evolution. And yes, scientists have learned a great deal about it. Would you like to see more?
Remember, biological evolution is not about the origin of life.

in short You know squat about the pathway to present life at cell level,

That's true for you, but as you see, scientists are increasingly finding evidence that God was correct when he said the Earth produced life.

Remember, biological evolution is not about the origin of life.

 

[Mountainmike]

Your major waffle is conflating the origin of life with evolution, which assumes life began and describes how it changes over time.

God says the Earth produced living things as He intended. I believe Him. You should, too.

Evidence indicates it was in a hot, anoxic envirionment, similar to undersea vents. Would you like to learn about that?
Remember, biological evolution is not about the origin of life.

The discovery of self-catalyzing RNA gave us a big clue...

The RNA world

evolution.berkeley.edu

Remember, biological evolution is not about the origin of life.


For life of the sort we know about, it turns out, it's not that hard...

The first cell membranes - PubMed

Organic compounds are synthesized in the interstellar medium and can be delivered to planetary surfaces such as the early Earth, where they mix with endogenous species. Some of these compounds are amphiphilic, having polar and nonpolar groups on the same molecule. Amphiphilic compounds...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Remember, biological evolution is not about the origin of life.

Maybe 140 genes. Not all that complex.
Remember, biological evolution is not about the origin of life.


Guess how I know you never studied genetics in a college course.
Remember, biological evolution is not about the origin of life.

That's not biologica evolution. And yes, scientists have learned a great deal about it. Would you like to see more?
Remember, biological evolution is not about the origin of life.


That's true for you, but as you see, scientists are increasingly finding evidence that God was correct when he said the Earth produced life.

Remember, biological evolution is not about the origin of life.

You revel in how little you know.
I am after serious debate thanks

 

[carloagal]

Ti godi quanto poco sai.
Sono dopo un serio dibattito grazie

Mountainmike how we can demonstrated that life was created and didn't start with abiogenesis?

 

[The Barbarian]

Your major waffle is conflating the origin of life with evolution, which assumes life began and describes how it changes over time.
God says the Earth produced living things as He intended. I believe Him. You should, too.
Evidence indicates it was in a hot, anoxic envirionment, similar to undersea vents. Would you like to learn about that?
The discovery of self-catalyzing RNA gave us a big clue...

The RNA world - Understanding Evolution ​

Biologists used to view RNA as a lowly messenger — the molecule that carries information from DNA to the protein-building centers of the cell. But discoveries since the early 1980s have shown that RNA can do much more. In addition to carrying genetic information, RNA can fold up into a complex...

evolution.berkeley.edu
For life of the sort we know about, it turns out, it's not that hard...

The first cell membranes - PubMed ​

Organic compounds are synthesized in the interstellar medium and can be delivered to planetary surfaces such as the early Earth, where they mix with endogenous species. Some of these compounds are amphiphilic, having polar and nonpolar groups on the same molecule. Amphiphilic compounds...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Simplest of today's organisms have maybe 140 genes. Not all that complex.

That's not biological evolution. And yes, scientists have learned a great deal about it. Would you like to see more?

That's true for you, but as you see, scientists are increasingly finding evidence that God was correct when he said the Earth produced life.

Remember, biological evolution is not about the origin of life.

You revel in how little you know.

I just showed you quite a few facts you had no idea about. If you're interested in a serious discussion, first remember that evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life. If God had just poofed life into being, evolution would work exactly as we see it working today.

If you get nothing else from all this, remember, Biological Evolution Is Not About The Origin Of LIfe.

 

[The Barbarian]

The forensics of eucharistic miracles have serious forensic pathologists saying they are "credible and compelling evidence of created heart tissue"

You were going to show us some evidence for that claim. Would you mind doing that for us?

 

[carloagal]

You were going to show us some evidence for that claim. Would you mind doing that for us?

You can find a documentary made by Ron Tesoriero about Eucharistic Miracles of Buenos Aires on YouTube. This happened in Buenos Aires in Argentina on 1996 in which a simple host transformed into heart tissue with white blood cells studied by scientists like Ricardo Castañon Gomez, Robert Lawrence & Frederick Zugibe.

 

[The Barbarian]

You can find a documentary made by Ron Tesoriero about Eucharistic Miracles of Buenos Aires on YouTube. This happened in Buenos Aires in Argentina on 1996 in which a simple host transformed into heart tissue with white blood cells studied by scientists like Ricardo Castañon Gomez, Robert Lawrence & Frederick Zugibe.

There was a documentary on You Tube, telling us that the Ice Bucket Challenge was a satanic ritual in which people were baptized for satan by pouring ice on them.

The thing is, such miracles are interventions by God to teach us something. They don't have much to do a different miracle, transubstantiation:
The Catholic Church teaches that during the Eucharist, the body of Jesus Christ himself is truly eaten and his blood truly drunk. The bread becomes his actual body, and the wine his actual blood. The process of this change is called transubstantiation:

By the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation. (CCC, 1376)

To explain this phenomenon, Catholic theology presses Aristotelian philosophy into service. A distinction is made between substance and accidents. The substance of a thing is what that thing actually is, while accidents refer to incidental features that may have a certain appearance but can be withdrawn without altering the substance.


During the Eucharist, then, the substance of the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, while the accidents remain the same. The bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ, it is claimed, but maintain the appearance, texture, smell, and taste of bread and wine. The Catholic Church does not claim that this is a magical transformation, but that it is instead a sacramental mystery that is administered by those who have received the sacrament of order.

Transubstantiation: What Catholicism Teaches About the Supper

What are we eating in the Lord’s Supper? Is it bread and wine or the actual body and blood of Christ?

www.desiringgod.org

Even if such a miracle should occur, it has nothing to say about how God's creation works here. I'm unable to find any checkable source, however.

 

[Semper-Fi]

You are now actually arguing against God's claim that the Earth brought forth living things.

And here I thought God Formed the animals, not the earth.

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field,
and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call
them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and
every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Animals reproduce after their kind, they did not evolve from other animal kinds.

The Earth also did not form Adam, nor did mankind spring forth from animals.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.

 

[The Barbarian]

You are now actually arguing against God's claim that the Earth brought forth living things.

And here I thought God Formed the animals, not the earth.

Well, let's ask Him...

Gen 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Yep. He says the Earth brought forth living things. I believe him. You should, too. Since God made the Earth to do that, it's still God that formed them. The issue is, you don't approve of the way He did it.

Animals reproduce after their kind

God doesn't say so. And we observe living things evolving around us. So neither scripture nor the evidence supports that belief.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.

You were misled about the image. It's not a physical image. It's in our minds and souls that we are the image of God. God is a spirit and as Jesus says, a spirit has no body. God has no need of legs or a nose. Our bodies evolved from other apes, but our souls are given directly by God.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Animals reproduce after their kind.

According to creationism, sure.

Oh, wait, that's according to evolution, too. My wife's cat gave birth to a litter of ... baby cats.

 

[QvQ]

What assumptions is it based on that have been routinely proven wrong?

Neanderthals = 46 chromosomes = 100% Human

We don't have a theory in search of observable evidence to support it, we have observable evidence in search of a theory to explain it—which is what evolution does.

Neanderthals were the observable evidence that was searched for to support the theory.
Neanderthals were the evidence shoehorned, manipulated and manufactured to prove the theory.

1) Myth: Neanderthals were protohuman ape men who evolved from a separate ape.
1a) Fact: Neanderthals were 100% Human, the earliest inhabitants of Europe

2) Myth: Neanderthals were Ape Men able to have fertile offspring with Humans
2a) Fact: Neanderthals were Human, so of course, (46 chromosomes)

3) Myth: Man migrated to Europe much later and Neanderthals Ape Men became extinct.
3a) Fact: Man = Neanderthal = 100% Human were in Europe. Any migration would be assimilated

A) The Entire Myth
Man descended from Ape.
Neanderthals were Ape Men, Proto Humans, the Missing Link.

B) The Facts
Neanderthals had weapons, language, flutes, social organization and buried the dead ceremonially
Neanderthals have 46 chromosomes. All humans have 46. All apes have 48
Neanderthals were 100% Human.

Shoehorning, manipulating, manufacturing evidence to fit the Theory.
The Neanderthal Myth....without the Theory all those facts about Neanderthals, the culture, language, art, ceremony, social organization, would have been correctly recognized as an ancient and honorable Human Culture instead of a 100+ years of Ape Man Mythology.

 

[The Barbarian]

Neanderthals were the observable evidence that was searched for to support the theory.
Neanderthals were the evidence shoehorned, manipulated and manufactured to prove the theory.

Neanderthals were originally thought to be primitive humans. In fact, they are not our ancestors but our cousins (and occasionally interbred with anatomically modern humans outside of Africa). Evolutionary theory regards them as no less modern than we. We, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and at least one other subspecies of H. sapiens evolved from a common archaic H. sapiens population.

A few creationists regarded them as advanced non-humans, at least one creationist hilariously thought they were just humans with rickets (they were much more robust than modern humans; no way for them to have weakened skeletons), and so on. I believe most creationists have moved on from those silly notions and now regard them as fully human.

 

[QvQ]

Neanderthals were originally thought to be primitive humans. In fact, they are not our ancestors but our cousins (and occasionally interbred with anatomically modern humans outside of Africa).

What evidence supports any claim of "cousin" rather than "brothers?"

The Neanderthals were as anatomically modern human as the Hottentot Venus.

If Neanderthals are fully human then why assign them some other status except to plug into the theory?

Just say Human.
Evolutionist keep explaining the facts to fit the theory. How about just the facts?
Why claim that Neanderthals were in some way not human, not species but something else (cousin, ape, anatomically nonmodern) just to fit the theory?