Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Evolution

[gluadys]

No, species.
After all, this theory does involve speciation, yes?

Well, then, radish and cabbage are NOT the same species, not even the same genus.

So would you now say that this statement of yours needs revising?

Aren't raddishes and cabbages of the same family [EG;mustard]?

If so, then this is definately not macro-evolution, but rather, micro..

 

[gluadys]

man can clone humans as well, it's a matter of what happens naturally in nature that can be considered true evolution.

In asexual reproduction, nature makes clones as well.

There is not much humans can do with living things that nature hasn't done first.

 

[createdtoworship]

In asexual reproduction, nature makes clones as well.

There is not much humans can do with living things that nature hasn't done first.

how did the first asexual organism become heterosexual btw? besides asexual reproduction is much simpler than the others. It is not the same as heterosexual cloning because two parent products are needed.

 

[gluadys]

you can hybrid a rose with a tree and get a rose tree it doesn't mean it's evolution.

That is what I am saying. The discussion on hybrids is a tangent and a red herring because you don't even need to have any hybrids to have evolution.

Yes, there are instances when some new species were formed through hybridization, but that doesn't make it the only, or even the most common, feature in the history of evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

That is what I am saying. The discussion on hybrids is a tangent and a red herring because you don't even need to have any hybrids to have evolution.

Yes, there are instances when some new species were formed through hybridization, but that doesn't make it the only, or even the most common, feature in the history of evolution.

micro evolution features yes, macro ....no

 

[gluadys]

you still cannot provide an evolution that is not man made that can cross the genus barrier. Every single hybrid presented was either man made or was sterile outright. So I think it's safe to say evolution has failed on a macro level.

No, your strawman of evolution has failed, since evolution doesn't posit crossing barriers.

I am glad you see that evolution doesn't cross barriers.

Neat shift. I see the change from "evolution does not posit crossing barriers" to "evolution doesn't cross barriers".

Now since evolution does not posit crossing barriers, when does evolution fail?

a) when, contrary to expectations, it does cross barriers?
b) when, as expected, it does not cross barriers?

 

[createdtoworship]

Neat shift. I see the change from "evolution does not posit crossing barriers" to "evolution doesn't cross barriers".

Now since evolution does not posit crossing barriers, when does evolution fail?

a) when, contrary to expectations, it does cross barriers?
b) when, as expected, it does not cross barriers?

when it doesn't cross the barrier of macro evolution at a greater than species level (genus).

 

[gluadys]

how did the first asexual organism become heterosexual btw? besides asexual reproduction is much simpler than the others. It is not the same as heterosexual cloning because two parent products are needed.

Sex was invented before gender. If you define "sex" as the transfer of genetic information to another organism, even bacteria do that, although they still reproduce asexually.

Many plants and fungi reproduce both sexually and asexually, and in some all the spores for reproduction are identical (isosporus)--so you can have sexual reproduction without having male and female.

Another way is for organisms to be both male and female. That is, every individual is a hermaphrodite. This is found in both plants and animals.

It is not a far cry from either of these to specialized genders.

And you are wrong about cloning. You cannot have a clone when you have two parents. Even if the normal mode of reproduction involves two parents, a clone has only one parent.

 

[gluadys]

when it doesn't cross the barrier of macro evolution at a greater than species level (genus).

You have a strange way of assessing the value of a theory. Most people would say that a theory has not failed if it lives up to expectations (in this case, no barriers are crossed) and that it has failed if those expectations are contradicted by the evidence (in this case, a barrier is crossed).

So you hold that the success of evolutionary theory (there is no crossing of genus boundaries) is evidence of its failure.

And, I expect, if some example were found of crossing genus barriers (which to scientists would be evidence that evolutionary theory is mistaken) you would call this failure a success.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sex was invented before gender. If you define "sex" as the transfer of genetic information to another organism, even bacteria do that, although they still reproduce asexually.

Many plants and fungi reproduce both sexually and asexually, and in some all the spores for reproduction are identical (isosporus)--so you can have sexual reproduction without having male and female.

Another way is for organisms to be both male and female. That is, every individual is a hermaphrodite. This is found in both plants and animals.

It is not a far cry from either of these to specialized genders.

And you are wrong about cloning. You cannot have a clone when you have two parents. Even if the normal mode of reproduction involves two parents, a clone has only one parent.

well then cloning is worse for evolution than previously expected. You need the full DNA of one parent to clone an organism. How can DNA evolve? It's a program that has error correcting mechanisms to it to prevent mis calculations. What would be the transitional form of DNA? Nothing. Evolution fails at the micro level as well. Not to mention epigenetics. Epigenetics proves evolution false as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tyVVlRw6hU

 

[gluadys]

well then cloning is worse for evolution than previously expected.

What makes you think that? It was never expected to be good for evolution by scientists. So maybe its only worse than you previously expected because your expectations were unrealistic.

How can DNA evolve?

With the help of natural selection.

But given the images and video clip you provided, I don't think your question is about how DNA evolves, but about how the DNA molecule originated.

That is not a question about evolution, but about chemistry. So, go ask a chemist what is necessary to make a DNA molecule.

Once the DNA molecule exists, the fact that it is self-replicating makes it easy to explain how it can evolve.

 

[Zeena]

That is not a question about evolution, but about chemistry. So, go ask a chemist what is necessary to make a DNA molecule.

Since when have chemists created DNA?

Once the DNA molecule exists, the fact that it is self-replicating makes it easy to explain how it can evolve.

Self replicating is not self-alterating, nor is it the creation of NEW DNA.

 

[metherion]

Since when have chemists created DNA?

Making it from scratch is EXTRAORDINARILY inefficient, and I'm actually not sure how to do it. However, that is biochemistry, which I (thankfully) don't specialize in. Ugh.

Usually DNA is manufactured by altering the DNA over plasmids or other single celled, fast reproducing organisms, letting them multiply, testing that the desired sequence has been propagated, destroying the cells, and harvesting the DNA from the leftovers. It's much easier than making new DNA from scratch. However, the nucleotides in and of themselves aren't too complicated.

Self replicating is not self-alterating, nor is it the creation of NEW DNA.

Actually, yes it is. The enzymes and other cellular machinery are not perfect at copying, so the self replication is self altering because of how imperfect it is. And yes, self replication does create NEW DNA, because where there was one complete strand, there are now two complete strands. The total amount of DNA has increased by one strand. That strand is NEW.

Metherion

 

[createdtoworship]

What makes you think that? It was never expected to be good for evolution by scientists. So maybe its only worse than you previously expected because your expectations were unrealistic.

With the help of natural selection.

But given the images and video clip you provided, I don't think your question is about how DNA evolves, but about how the DNA molecule originated.

That is not a question about evolution, but about chemistry. So, go ask a chemist what is necessary to make a DNA molecule.

Once the DNA molecule exists, the fact that it is self-replicating makes it easy to explain how it can evolve.

how can natural selection compose up DNA? This is a question no one can answer, but they need to since DNA is in everything living. Natural selection doesn't have error correcting mechanisms to deal with normally so I would say it's very difficult to naturally select DNA. Do you have any living examples of DNA composition in nature? Besides you offer no explanation for the presence of epigenetics. The programing that makes the decision for a cell to become a bone marrow cell or a soft tissue cell because they have identical DNA in each cell!

 

[Zeena]

Making it from scratch is EXTRAORDINARILY inefficient, and I'm actually not sure how to do it. However, that is biochemistry, which I (thankfully) don't specialize in. Ugh.

Usually DNA is manufactured by altering the DNA over plasmids or other single celled, fast reproducing organisms, letting them multiply, testing that the desired sequence has been propagated, destroying the cells, and harvesting the DNA from the leftovers. It's much easier than making new DNA from scratch. However, the nucleotides in and of themselves aren't too complicated.

It can't be done.

Actually, yes it is. The enzymes and other cellular machinery are not perfect at copying, so the self replication is self altering because of how imperfect it is.

Very well.

And yes, self replication does create NEW DNA, because where there was one complete strand, there are now two complete strands. The total amount of DNA has increased by one strand. That strand is NEW.

Metherion

It's not new, it's a copy of that which is new.

 

[gluadys]

It can't be done.

Very well.

It's not new, it's a copy of that which is new.

This is where it becomes necessary to define just what you mean by "new".

Metherion is right in one sense of "new". The second strand of DNA did not exist before, so it is new.

But you are saying that a copy of what already exists is not new.

So you are using "new" with a different meaning.

Now, what about a copy that is not a perfect copy of the original. Now you have not only a second strand of DNA which did not exist before, but parts of it are not a copy of the original.

So, now, the second strand of DNA contains new DNA which was not in the first strand.


Or do you want to redefine "new" yet again.

 

[gluadys]

how can natural selection compose up DNA?

Who made any claim that it does? Before you go off on a tangent opposing a position, you should check on whether anyone holds that position. Attacking a position no one is supporting is attacking a straw man.

 

[Zeena]

This is where it becomes necessary to define just what you mean by "new".

Metherion is right in one sense of "new". The second strand of DNA did not exist before, so it is new.

But you are saying that a copy of what already exists is not new.

So you are using "new" with a different meaning.

No, he is using 'copy' as 'new'.

New is that which was not before. Whilst copy is a dulplicate of that which already is.

Now, what about a copy that is not a perfect copy of the original. Now you have not only a second strand of DNA which did not exist before, but parts of it are not a copy of the original.

So, now, the second strand of DNA contains new DNA which was not in the first strand.

It's still not new, for it is still a copy, albiet a less that adequate copy, but a copy nonetheless.

Or do you want to redefine "new" yet again.

In speaking of speciation, appearing for the first time, EG; a new species, not the modification of an existing one.

 

[createdtoworship]

Who made any claim that it does? Before you go off on a tangent opposing a position, you should check on whether anyone holds that position. Attacking a position no one is supporting is attacking a straw man.

I asked how does DNA evolve and you said natural selection, read your posts before attacking mine. You are the one doing a straw man now. Because you are attacking something that no one is supporting. You still have no evidence that DNA evolved and no transitional forms.

 

[gluadys]

No, he is using 'copy' as 'new'.

New is that which was not before. Whilst copy is a dulplicate of that which already is.

It's still not new, for it is still a copy, albiet a less that adequate copy, but a copy nonetheless.

but what about the parts that are not copied. i am not just speaking of deletions, for if a part simply wasn't there it is not a copy of anything.

But what of the insertions, the transpositions, the reversals, the duplications. All of these are not in the original, but they are on the second string of DNA. Why is this not new material?

After all, if you transpose the letters in a word (was->saw) you don't have just an inadequate copy. You have a new word,

And, under certain conditions, if you transpose the nucleotides in a string of DNA you get a codon for a different amino acid which could result in the formation of a new protein.

So why is this not new?

In speaking of speciation, appearing for the first time, EG; a new species, not the modification of an existing one.

Is it your understanding that the theory of evolution calls for the appearance of new species that are not modifications of an existing species?


If so, you have it backwards. The theory of evolution calls for all "new" species to be modifications of existing species. That is why Darwin called it "descent with modification".

If evolution is true, there has been no such thing as a new species which is not a modification of an existing species in the last 3 billion years or so.

If you did find a "new" species which is not a modification of an existing species, that would not support the theory of evolution; it would be a major problem for evolution. Such a species could not be a result of evolution.