Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Evolution

[Mr.Waffles]

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

First of, by the fact of it being self-replicating, you are inferring the existence of an entire cell, membrane bound and fully functional. Secondly, DNA won't remain intact in any evironment for more than a few short million years at best, and is known to degrade into short fragments when in solution. It's like people have replaced the scientific method with speculation, as if they were equal.

So, go ask a chemist what is necessary to make a DNA molecule.

Currently, we know the chances of this happening in a natural, untampered environment is virtually zero. Like we can dump a bunch of car parts in a big, empty pool and get it to self assemble. Note I am paralleling statistical probabilities here, which makes this an accurate analogy in that sense.

 

[gluadys]

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.

I said "with the help of natural selection".

I did not say that natural selection composes DNA. You made that up yourself.

 

[createdtoworship]

I said "with the help of natural selection".

I did not say that natural selection composes DNA. You made that up yourself.

how does natural selection help DNA originate?

 

[gluadys]

First of, by the fact of it being self-replicating, you are inferring the existence of an entire cell, membrane bound and fully functional. Secondly, DNA won't remain intact in any evironment for more than a few short million years at best, and is known to degrade into short fragments when in solution.

No, I am not. Obviously cells are a favorable environment for DNA, but if the molecule could not self-replicate it wouldn't matter if it was in a favorable environment or not. A few million years is far more than is needed for self-replication, and if short fragments can self-replicate, then so can longer fragments.

There are other problems associated with the function of DNA molecules as the carrier of heritable information, but self-replication is not one of them.

Currently, we know the chances of this happening in a natural, untampered environment is virtually zero. Like we can dump a bunch of car parts in a big, empty pool and get it to self assemble. Note I am paralleling statistical probabilities here, which makes this an accurate analogy in that sense.

If we assume that a natural environment is like a big empty pool, that would be the case, but we should not make such assumptions.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, I am not. Obviously cells are a favorable environment for DNA, but if the molecule could not self-replicate it wouldn't matter if it was in a favorable environment or not. A few million years is far more than is needed for self-replication, and if short fragments can self-replicate, then so can longer fragments.

There are other problems associated with the function of DNA molecules as the carrier of heritable information, but self-replication is not one of them.






If we assume that a natural environment is like a big empty pool, that would be the case, but we should not make such assumptions.

Mr waffles is right,

good brother once said

"life sprang from an electrocuted mud puddle, that fishy fish sprouted legs and crawled up on shore, that those same fishy fish split off in two different directions- mammalian and reptilian, that those reptilian frayed their scales until they became feathers, shrunk down in size, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around and became tweety birds. Or that the mammalian family ditched the four legged transportation for two, grew a tail, climbed a tree, swung around from the branches until their tails fell off and they fell out the trees, built a fire, shed the fur, grew a beard, and now believe we came from monkeys.



or maybe this one



That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys."

 

[Mr.Waffles]

No, I am not. Obviously cells are a favorable environment for DNA, but if the molecule could not self-replicate it wouldn't matter if it was in a favorable environment or not. A few million years is far more than is needed for self-replication, and if short fragments can self-replicate, then so can longer fragments.

There are other problems associated with the function of DNA molecules as the carrier of heritable information, but self-replication is not one of them.

How can you even demonstrate if DNA intends and is capable of evolving in the manner that evolutionary theory dictates, if DNA itself breaks down after such a short period of time? Especially in regards to this current stage in the game, geologically speaking. It's literally a blank slate, yet somehow it's easy to prove that DNA can evolve? Rather, it's easy to assume DNA can evolve...while having literally zero evidence to boot -_-

We know how DNA self-replicates. It doesn't do it spontaneously, it is a very complex process involving a great amount of intermediaries. The process still isn't even fully understood.

If we assume that a natural environment is like a big empty pool, that would be the case, but we should not make such assumptions.

Like I said, I gave an analogy to demonstrate equal probabilities of both of them, which is essentially entirely accurate. From a naturalistic point of view, the origins of life is nothing short of a miracle.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

Mr waffles is right,

good brother once said

"life sprang from an electrocuted mud puddle, that fishy fish sprouted legs and crawled up on shore, that those same fishy fish split off in two different directions- mammalian and reptilian, that those reptilian frayed their scales until they became feathers, shrunk down in size, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around and became tweety birds. Or that the mammalian family ditched the four legged transportation for two, grew a tail, climbed a tree, swung around from the branches until their tails fell off and they fell out the trees, built a fire, shed the fur, grew a beard, and now believe we came from monkeys.



or maybe this one



That fishy fish life swam until they ran out of water, climbed up on shore, developed lungs, grew legs, became titans of their time, frayed the scales til they became feathers, shrunk, climbed a tree, jumped off a branch, flew around, and became birds. Or for men- the fishy fish swam til they ran out water, climbed up on land, grew lungs and fur this time, scampered around at the feet of giant tweety bird T rexes, til they ditched walking on all fours for two legged transportation, climbed trees, jumped down from trees to build a fire, shed their fur, grew a bigger brain, and now believes we came from monkeys."

LOL, love it. Sad part is, this is exactly the narrative evolutionary theory presents. To think this is being paraded as the greatest intelligence and crowning achievment of the modern age? A certain verse comes to mind...

"Professing to be wise, they instead became utter fools".

 

[metherion]

It can't be done. 

Nice to know you know that much about biochemical research to know that not only it hasn’t been done but that it is actually impossible. Forgive me if I don’t take your word for it.

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

Yes, it is new. 
First off, it was not there before. Now it is there.

Second off, as I stated, molecular copying enzymes are not perfect. So the strands are not always completely perfect copies of the original strand. So they are strands with different DNA in them. So they are new, in that they are not what came before, because they have been changed.

I like gluadys’ example of was->saw.

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

You mean a new species just popping into existence out of thin air? That’s not speciation. That’s also not what is claimed to happen. And if that is what you require to be evidence of evolution, you have been vastly misinformed as to what it is.

ALL species are modified versions of previous species that have become so differentiated they are now different species, with the main criteria being “can they interbreed”.

Metherion

 

[gluadys]

How can you even demonstrate if DNA intends and is capable of evolving in the manner that evolutionary theory dictates, if DNA itself breaks down after such a short period of time? Especially in regards to this current stage in the game, geologically speaking. It's literally a blank slate, yet somehow it's easy to prove that DNA can evolve? Rather, it's easy to assume DNA can evolve...while having literally zero evidence to boot -_-

well, I certainly won't try to demonstrate that DNA intends anything whatsoever. It is, after all, a molecule. Does a molecule of oxygen intend to rust iron or does it just do so automatically because of the chemical interaction of oxygen and iron? DNA is a vastly more complicated molecule, but it does not intend or plan to do anything; it participates in chemical processes as a chemical, automatically interacting with other chemicals according to the rules that govern such interactions. No intentions involved whatsoever on the part of DNA.

As for evolving, I think that like gradyll, you are not even thinking about DNA evolving. You are thinking about how it originated. That's a whole different matter than evolution. Personally, even simple chemistry is over my head, so I am not going to touch the question of the origin of DNA with a ten-foot pole.

Like I said, I gave an analogy to demonstrate equal probabilities of both of them, which is essentially entirely accurate. From a naturalistic point of view, the origins of life is nothing short of a miracle.

That may be, but life's subsequent evolution into millions of species is not.

 

[createdtoworship]

well, I certainly won't try to demonstrate that DNA intends anything whatsoever. It is, after all, a molecule. Does a molecule of oxygen intend to rust iron or does it just do so automatically because of the chemical interaction of oxygen and iron? DNA is a vastly more complicated molecule, but it does not intend or plan to do anything; it participates in chemical processes as a chemical, automatically interacting with other chemicals according to the rules that govern such interactions. No intentions involved whatsoever on the part of DNA.

As for evolving, I think that like gradyll, you are not even thinking about DNA evolving. You are thinking about how it originated. That's a whole different matter than evolution. Personally, even simple chemistry is over my head, so I am not going to touch the question of the origin of DNA with a ten-foot pole.








That may be, but life's subsequent evolution into millions of species is not.

you as a full grown adult don't understand chemical evolution of DNA and yet our children are supposed to be taught this evolution? How so?

 

[Zeena]

Nice to know you know that much about biochemical research to know that not only it hasn’t been done but that it is actually impossible. Forgive me if I don’t take your word for it.

You don't have to.

Yes, it is new. 
First off, it was not there before. Now it is there.

It's only new to us, but it was there all along.

Did not the DnA/RnA sequences cause it to be so, according to modern biochemistry?
If so, there is an underlying principal at work to cause it to be so, ergo it was there all along.

Second off, as I stated, molecular copying enzymes are not perfect. So the strands are not always completely perfect copies of the original strand. So they are strands with different DNA in them.

Can DnA be injured? It's just a part of our bodies. And we all know things go astray from their orginal makeup.

So they are new, in that they are not what came before, because they have been changed.

Changed is not new though, it is alterated.

I like gluadys’ example of was->saw.

We're seeing these things take place from the perspective of a man. We can only see things as they appear, no?

You mean a new species just popping into existence out of thin air?

Isn't that what happened when God said 'let us make man in our Image, after our Likeness', however you chose to take that?

That’s also not what is claimed to happen. And if that is what you require to be evidence of evolution, you have been vastly misinformed as to what it is.

ALL species are modified versions of previous species that have become so differentiated they are now different species, with the main criteria being “can they interbreed”.

Metherion

I beg to differ.

For each species is unique.

What is man in your philosophy?

 

[Mr.Waffles]

well, I certainly won't try to demonstrate that DNA intends anything whatsoever. It is, after all, a molecule. Does a molecule of oxygen intend to rust iron or does it just do so automatically because of the chemical interaction of oxygen and iron? DNA is a vastly more complicated molecule, but it does not intend or plan to do anything; it participates in chemical processes as a chemical, automatically interacting with other chemicals according to the rules that govern such interactions. No intentions involved whatsoever on the part of DNA.

I used the word "intend" metaphorically. And the topic of discussion is DNA "evolving". As if natural selection applies to molecules, among other things that falsify this idea. Also, speaking of intentions, RNA polymerase seems to funcion as if it did have, which is something uncanny.

As for evolving, I think that like gradyll, you are not even thinking about DNA evolving. You are thinking about how it originated. That's a whole different matter than evolution. Personally, even simple chemistry is over my head, so I am not going to touch the question of the origin of DNA with a ten-foot pole.

No I am not. I am talking about DNA "evolving". Either way, whether it's concerning it's origination or evolution, it still falls under the category of abiogenesis, which is as you said, chemistry. So what is this about you saying it is easy to prove DNA "evolved", when you yourself do not wish to approach chemistry with a 10 foot pole?

may be, but life's subsequent evolution into millions of species is not.

It isn't a miracle, correct. Because such evolutionary processes are non-existent to begin with. The idea of universal common descent ought to be put to rest.

 

[gluadys]

you as a full grown adult don't understand chemical evolution of DNA and yet our children are supposed to be taught this evolution? How so?

Of course.

There is no reason I, as a full-grown adult, need to be an expert in chemistry any more than you, as a full-grown adult, need to be an expert in linguistics. But that doesn't mean linguistics or chemistry should not be taught. They should both be taught so that some people, according to talent and inclination, can become experts in those fields.

 

[gluadys]

I am talking about DNA "evolving". Either way, whether it's concerning it's origination or evolution, it still falls under the category of abiogenesis, which is as you said, chemistry.

Right, but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about how the DNA profile of a species changes over time. That is the sort of evolution that "theory of evolution" applies to.

 

[gluadys]

You don't have to.

It's only new to us, but it was there all along.

No, it wasn't. The new codon came into existence when the base nucleotides of the DNA (or RNA) were rearranged or new ones inserted. How can an insertion have been there all along?

Did not the DnA/RnA sequences cause it to be so, according to modern biochemistry?

I really don't understand this question. Can you explain what you think is happening in more detail?

Changed is not new though, it is alterated.

Doesn't that depend on the change? You are a new creation in Christ, but you are also the same Zeena your parents cared for in your cradle.

We're seeing these things take place from the perspective of a man. We can only see things as they appear, no?

Unless God is being intentionally deceptive, what appears to us is the reality God created. We are not Hindus or Buddhists who believe creation is an illusion. (This argument is so common among anti-evolutionist Christians that I wonder if they realize that it basically renounces the doctrine of creation. No wonder astute observers tell us American Christianity is more Gnostic than biblical.)

metherion

You mean a new species just popping into existence out of thin air?

Isn't that what happened when God said 'let us make man in our Image, after our Likeness', however you chose to take that?

Not "however you choose to take that", no. "Let us make man in our Image" does not necessarily mean a human popped into existence out of thin air. It could just as easily mean that a human came into being through an evolutionary process. The only important thing is that God chose to make humanity in his own Image and Likeness, not whether he pulled him out of a metaphorical hat like a magician with a rabbit or used some other means to bring humanity (and other species) into existence. Scripture tells us God created all beings. It doesn't give us any details on the mechanics of creation.

For each species is unique.

Of course, each species is unique, because each is the beneficiary of unique modifications.

What is man in your philosophy?

God's beloved child created and redeemed to be in communion with Him through all eternity.

 

[createdtoworship]

Of course.

There is no reason I, as a full-grown adult, need to be an expert in chemistry any more than you, as a full-grown adult, need to be an expert in linguistics. But that doesn't mean linguistics or chemistry should not be taught. They should both be taught so that some people, according to talent and inclination, can become experts in those fields.

children should not be taught chemistry and should not be taught evolution either, they don't understand either of the topics until at least high school.

 

[createdtoworship]

I want to know why there is no non-clonal singular tree dated at more than 5000 years? Parasites and fire seriously could not destroy every living tree? I mean if certain trees are capable of living for 5,000 years, some should have lasted much longer.

 

[metherion]

What about natural disasters? Logging? Nobody is claiming that 'every living tree' has been destroyed, as there are plenty of trees left, but whole huge forests have been clear cut to the ground.

Also, how old are the oldest trees? 4800 to 4900 years? What if that is close to the max lifespan? And of course, not all trees are capable of living that long.

And you are also specifying to exclude certain types of other trees as well.

Metherion

 

[createdtoworship]

What about natural disasters? Logging? Nobody is claiming that 'every living tree' has been destroyed, as there are plenty of trees left, but whole huge forests have been clear cut to the ground.

Also, how old are the oldest trees? 4800 to 4900 years? What if that is close to the max lifespan? And of course, not all trees are capable of living that long.

And you are also specifying to exclude certain types of other trees as well.

Metherion

If a tree can last five thousand years, it should be able to last much longer in some circumstances. Don't you think? It's not like trees are dealing with cancer or anything.

 

[metherion]

If a tree can last five thousand years, it should be able to last much longer in some circumstances. Don't you think? It's not like trees are dealing with cancer or anything.

Except 5000 year old trees seem to be the exception, not the rule. How many trees are there listed even over 2000 years old? How many trees are there ON EARTH?

Maybe they're not dealing with cancer, but they're dealing with: insects, bacteria, fungi, other plants, parasites of all kinds, fires, volcanic eruptions that can cover large sections of the atmosphere with dust ( like every single volcanic eruption on the common era chart of this wiki page: Timetable of major worldwide volcanic eruptions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, and some between AD1 and the 12.9k years ago the next one is listed out), tsunamies and earthquakes (after all, the redwoods that are the oldest ones around are on the US Western seaboard, near the major California fault and wildfires), logging, other human deforestation (like non-logging tree clearing to make room for buildings), and this isn't an exhaustive list. And trees can't move to run away, or move to swat at such annoyances, or really anything but sit there and take it.

Metherion