You were talking about the origin of differentiated genders.
On nucleic acids, you were already answered by wikipedia.
Perhaps you should stop jumping so much from topic to topic that you can't keep straight what the topic is.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
(I was talking about a nucleac acids). Where does nucleic acid come from? Bacteria could not be bacteria without the acid however. So where is your evidence for the origin of nucleic acid which includes DNA I believe?
You were talking about the origin of differentiated genders.
On nucleic acids, you were already answered by wikipedia.
Perhaps you should stop jumping so much from topic to topic that you can't keep straight what the topic is.
It's good to see someone point out that going back through the founder of the evangelical movement, back to Augustine, shows that recognizing that the evidence from the world is divine revelation is part of being Christian.
Why do you think some people today have lost sight of this ancient truth?
Papias
Which Wiki article did you get this from? And it demonstrates why Wiki is not always a reliable source.well neither variation, mutation or evolution has occurred to spontaneously create nucleic acids. This has to happen for any bio-genesis to occur. Again no evidence. "The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known" wikipedia states.
None of that is evolution! Now, if you want to discuss the actual lineages, I will be happy to do so.good brother showed shed some light on the theory of evolution:
"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.
As I noted, sexual reproduction starts with neither organism being distinctly male and female. And they have "heterosexual sex". We have living organisms -- such as the Volvox -- who reproduce this way.but we are heterosexual so somewhere along the line our sexes had to evolve, and this is where you end up with little or no evidence. you have two separate organisms both evolving heterosexual sex at the same time within the same proximity. And then they must reproduce twice and the offspring must also reproduce. Is this what you are saying? I find it very very difficult to believe.
As gluadys pointed out, populations evolve. Nor does the entire population "experiment for sexual adaptivity". In the case where the population reproduces asexually, it is going to be two individuals who have a variation that allows exchange of genetic material. It would not even be meiosis yet. Bacteria do this by exchanging short stretches of DNA called "plasmids". Sometimes chromosomal genes move to plasmids and sometimes genes on plasmids move to the chromosome. Some bacteria who live in colonies exchange entire chromosomes.As far as populations evolving this is even worse for your case. Because instead of just one or two evolving you have an entire population experimenting at the same time, which is even more unlikely than before. What tells each individual to experiment for sexual adaptivity, especially when they are single sexes? Much more what tells an entire population to do the same? Simply nonsense.
Again, that is not true. Start by reading these webpages where abiogenesis has been observed today in real time:you brought up bacteria so where did it come from? That was my question. A bacteria comes from something, it doesn't create itself from nothing. Again no evidence of abiogenesis either.
the chain of events that had to happen in abiogenesis are these...
1) Certain simple molecules underwent spontaneous, random chemical reactions until after about half-a-billion years complex organic molecules were produced.
2)Molecules that could replicate eventually were formed (the most common guess is nucleic acid molecules), along with enzymes and nutrient molecules that were surrounded by membraned cells.
3)Cells eventually somehow learned how to reproduce by copying a DNA molecule (which contains a complete set of instructions for building a next generation of cells). During the reproduction process, the mutations changed the DNA code and produced cells that differed from the originals.
4)The variety of cells generated by this process eventually developed the machinery required to do all that was necessary to survive, reproduce, and create the next generation of cells in their likeness. Those cells that were better able to survive became more numerous in the population (adapted from Wynn and Wiggins, 1997, p. 172).
so where are these hundreds of thousands of transitions required in abiogenesis, unless you don't want to take up this topic just let me know that you don't have the answer to the question.
Actually, there is considerable evidence that the first cells did have a nucleus. The protocells form a series of concentric shells, the innermost one would be the nucleus. There is also evidence that prokaryotes (cells without a nucleus) evolved from eukaryotes (cells with a nucleus).the first single celled organisms didn't have a nucleus! This had to evolve, but there is no evidence for it evolving. Nothing to do with DNA, thats a separate topic all together. This is chemical reactions and biology topics.
Ah, the fallacy of Guilt by Association. What you need to do is see whether this doctrine was bad. Since it has been echoed by all Christians since, including Luther and Calvin, it doesn't appear that you can simply dismiss it. Also, Hodge was definitely an evangelical and one of the founders of the modern evangelical (Fundamentalism) movement.First, Augustine was not the founder of evangelicalism, and he has some pretty bad doctrines he held to, including mixing fatalism into christianity.
Empty assertion. Too many denominations have accepted evolution for you to claim that rejecting evolution is necessary to Christian faith.Second, REJECTING evolutionary doctrine is necessary to the Christian faith, and whoever stated the above (Jonathan Dudley, I presume) doesn't know or understand what they are talking about.
What "assumptions of evolution" are you talking about?When the assumptions of evolution are effectively divorced from the facts of nature, evolutionary theory has no evidence. It is a scientific religion in its own right, held together by blind, willful faith - it is not science.
But denying God's Creation and God as Creator to stick with a literal interpretation of the Bible is a salvation issue, isn't it? The first statement of faith in the Nicene Creed is that God is Creator.Because it was never part of the Christian doctrine.
Whether the world was made 15 billion years ago for fifteen minutes ago has nothing to do with your salvation.
Which Wiki article did you get this from? And it demonstrates why Wiki is not always a reliable source.
What you are talking about here is abiogenesis, not evolution. It is chemistry.
There are 2 ways to get nucleic acids:
1. The RNA world.
2. Protein first and protocells.
As it turns out, sugars (including ribose) are made by a number of chemical reactions. The bases that are in nucleic acids are also made by a number of different chemical reactions. Just in the last month, several bases were discovered to be present on comets and meteors; they are made by the action of UV light on simpler chemicals in space. But they are also made in the Miller-Urey reactions by lightning in a wide variety of atmospheres (including oxidizing ones).
4. http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~simmons/1116/16origin.htm
"However various experiments using the Miller-Urey apparatus, and different mixtures of gasses, have produced all 20 amino acids, ATP, some sugars, lipids and purine and pyrimidine bases of RNA and DNA."
So, the reactions to make RNA or simple nucleic acids are easy.
1. Szostak's lab: http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/szostak.html
2. Lazcano, A and Miller, SL The origin and early evolution of life: prebiotic chemistry, the pre-RNA world, and time. Cell 85: 793-798, 1996.
20. L Orgel, A simpler nucleic acid. Science 290: 1306-1307, Nov 17, 2000. 222/sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5495/1306 Threose nucleic acids are easy to synthesize under prebiotic conditions and act like RNA chemically. Could be precursors to RNA.
Alternatively, protocells made from proteins are living cells. These cells, in turn, make nucleic acids:
JR Jungck and SW Fox, Synthesis of oligonucleotides by proteinoid microspheres acting on ATP. Naturwissenschaften, 60: 425-427, 1973.
So there you have it: spontaneous chemical synthesis of nucleic acids.
None of that is evolution! Now, if you want to discuss the actual lineages, I will be happy to do so.
But denying God's Creation and God as Creator to stick with a literal interpretation of the Bible is a salvation issue, isn't it? The first statement of faith in the Nicene Creed is that God is Creator.
There are 2 things:the real question is how did DNA evolve? I am sure your not going to simply state that it was a chemical reaction with sugar.
Protestant thinking is that we are saved by faith alone. But if we don't have faith that God created? Remember, Jesus is God. Which means that Jesus is also Creator. That's the point of John 1, isn't it? Again, if we don't have faith that God created, doesn't that mean we don't really have faith in Jesus?No. It is only a issue with those who think they have to work their way to salvation.
Jesus set us free from such thinking.
There are 2 things:
1. How did DNA form?
2. How did directed protein synthesis evolve? Directed protein synthesis is where DNA "codes" for the amino acid sequence in proteins.
The answer to #1 is chemistry. DNA is a polymer of nucleotides. A nucleotide is a base (adenine, thymine, cytosine, or guanine) + deoxyribose (a sugar) + phosphate. Nucleotides form by simple chemistry.
DNA is a particular member of a class of polymers called "nucleic acids". RNA is also a polymer of nucleotides. The difference between DNA and RNA is the sugar. In RNA the sugar is ribose instead of deoxyribose. There are nucleic acids where the sugar is threose.
We usually write DNA in terms of the bases. So when we write ATGC, that is shorthand for a 4 nucleotide polymer whose bases are adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. However the linkage between the nucleotides occurs between the phosphate attached to one deoxyribose and another deoxyribose. DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is very simple chemistry and the chemical reaction is favored. The bases "stick out" from the sugar-phosphate "backbone". As I noted, in protocells formed abiotically, the proteins in the protocell will catalyze the synthesis of DNA or RNA from nucleotides. So, there we have the formation of DNA.
Modern cells use directed protein synthesis. That is, DNA is copied to messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA serves as a template for the synthesis of proteins in the ribosomes. Proteins are polymers of amino acids. Modern cells use 20 amino acids. 3 base "triplets" in the DNA dictate which amino acid will be used in a protein. So, the sequence of bases in the DNA dictate the sequence of amino acids in proteins. How did this system evolve? That's the subject of this paper:
1. AM Poole, DC Jeffares, D Penney, The path from the RNA world. J. Molecular Evolution 46: 1-17, 1998. Describes Darwinian step-by-step for evolution from RNA molecules to cells with directed protein synthesis. All intermediate steps are useful. http://awcmee.massey.ac.nz/people/dpenny/pdf/Poole_et_al_1998.pdf
So, in one scenario proteins form by thermal polymerization of amino acids. Thse proteins spontaneously form living cells. The proteins in the protocells make RNA from nucleotides that form by chemistry from bases, sugars, and phosphate. Then the paper details how these RNAs evolved directed protein synthesis by DNA.
But being in the Mind of God does not mean that it also exists in the cell of the organism yet, until it is actually produced, correct? I am not disputing that God knew how evolution or individual mutations would play out, but until they actually happened, they werent there yet.As an idea, in the Mind of God.
For it is by His good pleasure we are. This is why I can say that; what is, was: even as the Preacher;
Ecc 1:10
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
[note the Preacher did not say any new 'work', bur rather, 'thing' and 'it']
Actually, we can by math. DNA is a double helix, so it has two backbones per strand, one on each helix. After it splits once, there are two strands, so four backbones, 2 per helix, 2 helixes per strand. But only 2 of those are from the original. And if we have a 10,000 bp strand with 1 mutation, out of the original 20,000 base pairs, after one round of duplication, 19998 out of 40,000 are original. After one more round of duplication, we go from 4 backbones to 8 backbones, in four strands. But only 2 of those backbones are the original backbones! So two strands cannot have any of the original backbones. And with 1 more mutation per 10,000, we are left with 19,996 out of 80,000 being the originals. And so on, and so forth.We don't know that, for we know not the function of non-encoding DnA (which is now considered a faulty term by the scientific community).
Actually, they are for making new cells, either to reproduce or replace damaged cells or to grow to adulthood, or the like.And what are the functions of this 'new' strand? Is they not for mitigating damage to the original? Therefore it is a hard copy, so that the orignal can read from it what is true.
Yes, there is. And the only way to find out what is going on is to investigate.But we don't know, we can only surmise based on what is visable with the eyes. Take for example the non-encoding DnA example above
...
So, there is obviously more than 'meets the eye' going on here.
Actually, he or she will go through a lot more MITOSIS than MEIOSIS. MEIOSIS is used for making sexual cells in humans, mitosis for making regular body cells.When a baby is conceived, he goes through meiosis, his cells split and he begins to grow. Same scenario, no? Well, that baby has the same DnA he had since the moment he was concieved. In fact, he will have the same DnA his entire lifetime, though it will be altered by both how he treats the body and whatever this world throws at it, not to even mention apoptosis (the self destruction of cells) in longevity of his life.
Here is where you are starting to go astray. Nobody claims that organisms suddenly change families.Ergo, there are many factors which can alter the life form, but never change it into something other than what it already is.
The example given earlier, of rabishes, for instance, never actually changed the species, but rather, altered it. It is still of the mustard family, and nothing can ever change that. Do you know of something that can change that, empirically?
But if the material of the formation of the idea is absent, then there is no material there, and the thing is not there. Blueprints are not cars, even though they are the idea for cars.And I have a computer which stores information. When it is turned on, the information is readily available to me, providing I know where to look. When it is turned off, however, no information at all is forthcoming, no matter if I know where to look, or not.
Same difference, for we can only utilize what is readily available to us at any given moment. Point being, the idea is there, though the material for the formation of the idea be asbsent.
But the propagation of alterations is all that is needed. If you are born missing an arm due to a genetic defect, then your children will be more likely to have one fewer arm. And THEIR children will have more of a chance to have one fewer arm, and so on.And this only alters the body. That's my point.
Not sure what you are trying to say here.Just because I am missing an arm or have a cold does not make me any less or more of a person. The alteration of the body is nothing new, but it's always backwards, hence our bodies grow old and die. Our bodies do not mutate into something Eternal, but by the Spirit, EG; something FROM Someone, even God. There is never an instance where God is not actively working on/in all things. So also there is never an instance when something pops out of nothing. Even if the only possible boiling point would be God by the Spirit, it is still something, err Somone.
So we cant actually know what the world around us is or is like? Like the Matrix or something? As Gluadys said, isnt this rather dishonest on the part of God?To us, yes. From our perspective, yes.
But not to God, Who see's things as they really are.
When the Apostles, for instance, saw Jesus transfigured before them;
Matt 17:12
And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
Were they seeing Him as He really was, or what He was to become?
With regards to faith and God. Does God want us all to blindfold ourselves, cross the street without looking, and such? Even Jesus used His eyes to look at and see people.We can only 'see', by the Spirit, what it is He is revealing to us at any given time. We are to walk by faith, not sight.
Plenty. Knowing that people have souls does not tell us how to stop diseases, how to alleviate suffering caused by diseases, how to irrigate crops to help avoid famines from droughts, and so on.So what more is there to know?
Actually, I didnt leave out soul, with this line:I do not agree with your definition of man. For you leave out both soul and spirit,
No. This is not correct. For a species to be in a genus and family, it must have certain characteristics. For it to be a new species, it must have all the characteristics of the family, all the more specific ones of the genus, and some MORE that distinguish it from any other current species. But it still needs (and will have) all the features of the genus and of the family.Unfortunately, yes. And I would beg to differ as to your classification of species here. For, as species stands at the top (or bottom, depending on your view) of taxonomic rank it must needs be more definative than genre and family. Ergo, there must be too many differences from the genre and family with which to classify a given species, in order for it to be classified as a new one.
Yep. And I believe that there is no problem in God setting up the natural laws in a way that He knew would lead to humans developing.Yet, Metherion, surely we can agree that God has had us in mind?
Again, if we don't have faith that God created, doesn't that mean we don't really have faith in Jesus?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?