When science can explain an apple seed...

[frogman2x]

So you've studied the scientific understanding of plant developmental biology and found it lacking? Where, precisely, do you think scientific explanations are lacking?

What was the first plant life and how did it become something other that what it was? How did it porduce offsprings other than what it was?

 

[frogman2x]

If you are so intelligent then perhaps you could create an apple seed and program it to make an apple tree. <<

They need to create an apple see and have it become a peach tree.

While science is important some scientist think because they understand some things they know it all. That's my problem with so called science. They discount a need for a creator.

Real science can prove what it says. That is why evolution is not real science.

 

[sfs]

How about what's said in this one? If what's said in this writing is true, then I can imagine that there are many other ways to treat the seed.

Well, yes. And if pigs had wings they could fly. That page looks like complete nonsense that somebody made up. Bacteria (and some other single-celled organisms) routinely take up DNA from their environment and start using it. Plants and animals don't(*).

*Except possibly in extremely rare cases. That note has to be added to most statements in biology, since all sorts of weird things happen from time to time.

 

[mathetes123]

Have you ever cut open an apple seed? Inside it has an off white color. It's moist, but yet when placed in the soil that seed knows to grow an apple tree. How does it know?

When science can explain this, then, and only then, will I listen to their nonsense on evolution.

You see if they can't tell me how an apple seed works then they have a lot of audacity to tell me how I came into being....

That's why they insist on billions of years for the universe, because with enough time they can get people to accept the lie of evolution on faith. Belief in an intelligent creator takes far less faith and is supported by the evidence of information found in our DNA as information requires an intelligent source.

Romans 1:20-22 (KJV)
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

[sfs]

If you are so intelligent then perhaps you could create an apple seed and program it to make an apple tree.

I didn't say anything about being intelligent.

While science is important some scientist think because they understand some things they know it all. That's my problem with so called science. They discount a need for a creator.

Again, what does this have to do with what you wrote? You dismissed the core of modern biology (evolution) because scientists don't understand how apple seeds work. That's bad logic -- there are lots of things scientists don't know, but that doesn't mean they know nothing at all -- and it's not even very accurate, since scientists do know quite a bit about how plants develop from seeds.

All of this has precisely nothing to do with rejecting a creator. Scientists don't discount the need for a creator; atheists do. Plenty of scientists are Christians (or belong to other religions). I'm one of them. It certainly doesn't make my life any easier that the impression most of colleagues get about Christians is that they reject science.

 

[sfs]

That's why they insist on billions of years for the universe, because with enough time they can get people to accept the lie of evolution on faith.

I don't know who told you that, but it's a gross falsehood. Astronomers decided how old the universe was; geologists and physicists decided how old the Earth was. None of them gave a hoot about providing support for evolution. Scientists of all stripes accept an old universe because of the enormous weight of evidence.

Belief in an intelligent creator takes far less faith and is supported by the evidence of information found in our DNA as information requires an intelligent source.

That's not the way it looks to virtually all scientists who actually work with DNA, whether they are believers or not.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

What's your point? Scientists who are believers acknowledge the same creator you do.

 

[sfs]

Real science can prove what it says. That is why evolution is not real science.

Real scientists don't agree.

 

[mathetes123]

I didn't say anything about being intelligent.


Again, what does this have to do with what you wrote? You dismissed the core of modern biology (evolution) because scientists don't understand how apple seeds work. That's bad logic -- there are lots of things scientists don't know, but that doesn't mean they know nothing at all -- and it's not even very accurate, since scientists do know quite a bit about how plants develop from seeds.

All of this has precisely nothing to do with rejecting a creator. Scientists don't discount the need for a creator; atheists do. Plenty of scientists are Christians (or belong to other religions). I'm one of them. It certainly doesn't make my life any easier that the impression most of colleagues get about Christians is that they reject science.

By definition, science can consider only natural explanations and does not consider supernatural explanations. In the absence of a creator God, evolution would be the best explanation for our existence left given the limitations of science. Given these limitations, science will never come to an understanding of the truth of creation and those who are predisposed to reject their creator are more than happy to accept these limitations as long as they're not held accountable to God. Unfortunately, this denial will not save them on the day of judgement when we are all called to give an account.

 

[sfs]

By definition, science can consider only natural explanations and does not consider supernatural explanations. In the absence of a creator God, evolution would be the best explanation for our existence left given the limitations of science.

My point is that even with the presence of a creator God, evolution is still the best explanation for the way biological life looks on this planet. Despite their complaints about atheistic science, creationists do an absolutely abysmal job at explaining real biological data. You'd think that they be at least as good as secular science if they really had the inside scoop on what happened.

Given these limitations, science will never come to an understanding of the truth of creation and those who are predisposed to reject their creator are more than happy to accept these limitations as long as they're not held accountable to God. Unfortunately, this denial will not save them on the day of judgement when we are all called to give an account.

Some people used Newtonian mechanics to discount the need for a creator. So what? It was still an accurate description of the way the world works.

I'm inclined to leave eternal judgment in God's hands. I'm more concerned with understanding biology, and evolution works much better for that than creationism does.

 

[mathetes123]

My point is that even with the presence of a creator God, evolution is still the best explanation for the way biological life looks on this planet. Despite their complaints about atheistic science, creationists do an absolutely abysmal job at explaining real biological data. You'd think that they be at least as good as secular science if they really had the inside scoop on what happened.


Some people used Newtonian mechanics to discount the need for a creator. So what? It was still an accurate description of the way the world works.

I'm inclined to leave eternal judgment in God's hands. I'm more concerned with understanding biology, and evolution works much better for that than creationism does.

I'm inclined to believe Gods word over the speculation of fallible men.

 

[SG9]

What was the first plant life and how did it become something other that what it was? How did it porduce offsprings other than what it was?

Good point. IMO, I believe that a seed is of two or both genders so that it can spring a new life from within itself. Genders play an important part in this science of creation of the seed, and this would apply to all 'seed' forms in both the physical and spiritual sense.

I see God being that original design of the 'Seed' that was promised to humans while we see this same sort of covenant built into the seed of a plant. It's almost as if the seeds are too, spiritual and they have life from their creator and designer, and it might be because God wrote his laws in all of creation, even in us. Thanks

 

[sfs]

I'm inclined to believe Gods word over the speculation of fallible men.

I'm inclined to believe God's work over the speculation of fallible men.

 

[gluadys]

Hi and I could only agree but perhaps, I misunderstand what DNA is? I don't know that much about plant biology, etc., but it seems that it's much more deeper then DNA, alone; if we look at ourselves we see that all humans have a common DNA type that differs from a cat or dog, or any mammal. Within each 'species' of creature are a certain DNA type and though they differ from us they are unique creatures. Now, we must consider individualism in each one of the species and this is where the DNA plays a more detailed part in this factor, just like a snowflake is created randomly and each one is different, although they are all snowflakes.

Actually, humans (and other creatures) share much of their DNA with other species. As you would expect when considering evolutionary relationships. If you think about it, we share many characteristics with other creatures, so why not have the same DNA for those shared characteristics.

1. We are animals. For any feature common to all animals (as distinct from plants or fungi or unicellular life) we have DNA which is like that of other animals. So we have DNA that makes animal cells not plant cells.

2. We are bilateral animals. If we lie in a prone position on the ground, you can see that our basic body plan is the same as that of the simplest bilateral worm: mouth at one end, anus at the other, a backside and a stomachside (dorsal and ventral). There are a series of genes called HOX genes that controls the orientation and development of this body plan and they exist in pretty well every animal from snails to ants to giraffes to us.

3. We are chordates and vertebrates. That means our main nerve lies along our dorsal side, not our ventral side. We also have the genes for a tail that protrudes beyond our anal opening (though, like some other animals we lose the tail partway through our embryological development), we have a bony cranium encasing our brain and bony vertebrae protecting our spinal cord. We share all those genes with everything that has a bony skeleton.

4. We are mammals. We share with other mammals the genes which control body temperature, grow hair, produce milk and set our legs under us (rather than sprawling out to the side) when we put ourselves in a hands and knees on the floor position. We further share with them our three-boned inner ear, our single-boned jaw and our differentiated teeth. And with all placental mammals we share the genes that allow for intra-uterine development of our young.

5. We are primates. We share with other primates the genes for forward, binocular vision, a reduction in the number and variety of functioning olfactory genes, nails replacing claws at the ends of our digits, grasping fingers and in some cases, opposable thumbs. Also with most primates originating outside of the Americas, we share the genes for narrow noses with downward pointing nostrils.

6. We do have some unique features. Our erect bi-pedal stance, our feet made for walking not grasping, our chin, our flattened face, our large brains. For such unique features we have unique genes---but not genes without a pre-human history. None of these features appear de novo, but as modifications of features in earlier primates. And so the genes which produce them are not precisely new genes, but renovated genes whose counterparts we can find in our closest animal relatives.

7. Each one of us is unique, but again, not so much because we have different genes, but because genes come in many different variations which combine in many different interactions.

I used to have a small garden and I experimented with grafting; and then there are other plants like vines that can be cloned by clippings but the thing that I learned is that there's a difference on how the plant will reproduce fruits from either seed or cloning/grafting methods. A seed will produce an individual plant with it's own DNA, and perhaps I am missing much on these details, and then a clipping that is planted into soil with the rooting-hormone will sprout it's own roots and be a clone of the mother plant or tree, and yet they are physically individual's.


This causes me to recall the seed of Abraham, and all lineage in the seed; each seed would produce an individual character in each of God's children so that each is an independent person.

My experience was that the cloned plant produced the identical fruit as the mother and the seeded plant or tree produced fruits that slightly differed, although they might be all apple trees in the experiment. I saw this chronicled on a TV documentary on apples and other fruits in certain regions. They said that each apple seed produces a tree that produces a slightly different apple if the seed is not genetically modified. They have GM'd their seeds so to produce more consistent apples in the orchards with simpler seeding methods.

The reason a cloned plant produces fruit identical to that of its parent is that it gets all of its DNA from only one parent, and without the possibility of it being modified in any significant way.

Seeds get DNA from two parents, the plant that produces the seed (housing the egg) and the plant that produces the pollen (housing the sperm) to fertilize it. The production of both egg and sperm is a complex dance of chromosomes designed to produce a different genetic makeup than that of the parent, and then the fusion of egg and sperm generates an individual that is genetically unique. It is, indeed a complex system. It certainly ensures biodiversity. It seems that in this case the genetic engineers are trying to put brakes on that system.

Oh ya, I can't forget to mention that I believe in intelligent design and a creator of all things that are not man made.

That is why I accept evolution. It is a wonderfully beautiful system designed to naturally/divinely produce biodiversity. And I am grateful to the divine wisdom that designed it.

 

[SG9]

Thank you Gluadys, it makes better sense about DNA, I knew there were more details to it. Thanks

Oh yes, I just noticed to reply, I believe much like you in both intelligent design and evolution, and in general without debating about the meaning of either. I have seen a lot of debates here about this and it gets rather confusing so I kind of avoid them. Thanks again for the info on DNA.

 

[Setyoufree]

I believe much like you in both intelligent design and evolution, ...

You can't do that Biblically. It's one or the other....If you think both then you must discount the creation story. If you do that then you must discount the resurrection from the dead. God will not call you forth through evolution.

 

[Setyoufree]

Plenty of scientists are Christians (or belong to other religions). I'm one of them.

But you believer in evolution?

I don't, however I do believe in adaptation....

 

[gluadys]

You can't do that Biblically. It's one or the other....If you think both then you must discount the creation story.

I don't find it to be true that I have to discount the creation story when I accept evolution.

God will not call you forth through evolution.

That's true, and I don't know anyone who accepts evolution who would even make that claim. Evolution is a process which helps us understand our biological makeup. It has nothing to do with a spiritual relationship to our Creator and Redeemer.

 

[sfs]

But you believer in evolution?

Believer? No. I do think it's easily the best explanation we have for biological diversity, and almost certainly more or less true.

 

[EternalDragon]

How about what's said in this one? If what's said in this writing is true, then I can imagine that there are many other ways to treat the seed.

So, it seems I should say: The DNA of a plant can be easily modified from the DNA of its seed.

And, we can imagine a case that one apple tree has different DNA from another apple tree of the same species. Or some crazier things like: 5 Fuji apples may have 5 different DNA.

How does this sound?

Wow. That was interesting. I wonder if it works?

 

[EternalDragon]

I don't know who told you that, but it's a gross falsehood. Astronomers decided how old the universe was; geologists and physicists decided how old the Earth was. None of them gave a hoot about providing support for evolution. Scientists of all stripes accept an old universe because of the enormous weight of evidence.

If things in the universe were created in mature, perfect working order to sustain life, wouldn't it naturally appear old? Even if it wasn't? Like Adam. He was created mature on day one yet looked "older" than a day old.