Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Evolution

[createdtoworship]

IOW, how did sexual reproduction evolve? Altho creationists often assume that the first sexually reproducing organism had to have 2 distinct sexes. This is not the case. The living Volvox has 2 types of cells: somatic (tissue) and sex cells. Basically Volvox are hollow balls whose cells snag nutrients from the water. The sex cells produce gametes (cells that are haploid (one set of chromosomes) instead of diploid (2 sets of chromosomes). These gametes are neither male nor female. The gametes are simply left to float in the water until they meet up with another gamete. Fertilization occurs and a new Volvox starts.


Here are some articles you can read about the change from asexual to sexual reproduction:
1. C Zimmer, The slime alternative. Discover 19: 86-93, 1998 (Sept) Amoeba Dictyostelium is single celled, but forms multicelled organism with differentiation when food supplies are low. Sexually reproduces sometimes, forms a cyst, and then asexually divides with the new genetic material. Also forms an eye of sorts from individual cells that act as lenses. Cells act and use same proteins as phagocytes in immune system. The Constitution of a New Model Army - Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute
Dictyostelium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. DL Kirk Molecular-Genetic Origins of Multicellularity and Cellular Differentiation. Reviewed by G Bell in Development: Volvox. Science 282: 248, Oct. 9, 1998. Volvox (an algae) is a model system of multicellularity. Has fewer than 20 cells and only two types: soma and germ cells. Has single celled relatives, notably Chlamydomonas.
3. Slime molds Introduction to the "Slime Molds"
4. Evolution of Sex. Science 281: 1979-2010, Sept. 25, 1998. A series of 8 review articles discussing the topic.
5. Nature Reviews Genetics - Focus on Focus on Evolution of Sex
10. Hines P, Culatta E, The evolution of sex. Science 281: 1979,Sept. 25, 1998.
13. Sign in to read: Has the mystery of sex been explained at last? - life - 15 June 2009 - New Scientist model of how sexual reproduction is beneficial
14. Unorthodox - NYTimes.com Ciliate recombination between 2 individuals without reproduction.

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.

 

[createdtoworship]

Have a look at the wiki article I linked to, your 9950 year old spruce from Sweden is listed as clonal

Clonal trees
...
Old Tjikko.9,550 Norway spruce Picea abies Fulufjället National Park, Dalarna, Sweden
The tree's stems live no more than 600 years, but its root system's age[13][14] was established using carbon dating and genetic matching.[15] Elsewhere in the Fulu mountains, 20 spruces have been found older than 8,000 years.[16]
​

Or you could read the article you linked to:

Scientists found four "generations" of spruce remains in the form of cones and wood produced from the highest grounds. The discovery showed trees of 375, 5,660, 9,000 and 9,550 years old and everything displayed clear signs that they have the same genetic makeup as the trees above them. Since spruce trees can multiply with root penetrating braches, they can produce exact copies, or clones.
​

The older trees including the 9,550 year old one, were weren't living trees but 'remains' in the form of wood and cones.


Not sure what "mortality of single cell evolution" means. However given how rapidly bacteria multiple and how difficult it is to keep an area sterile, as long as there is a food supply their rate of reproduction is a lot faster than their mortality rate.

But as you say it is a different topic.

The article says living tree? But It could be dead I suppose. But RE: cells: single cells have a high mortality especially free floating in the middle of the mud pond, I was wondering how can this be that single cells could evolve from the muck.

 

[Assyrian]

The article says living tree? But It could be dead I suppose.

It is living, but the trunk you see is only about 70 years old. It has grown still living parts, like a root, of an older clone, which in turn grew from and older clone still. There older clones were long dead when the scientists discovered them and dated their remains back 9550 years.

But RE: cells: single cells have a high mortality especially free floating in the middle of the mud pond, I was wondering how can this be that single cells could evolve from the muck.

And yet you would have to be pretty desperate to drink from that mud pond. It is however why a lot of bacteria form biofilms on surfaces rather than just floating free.

 

[gluadys]

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.

Well, the first error to get out of your head is that organisms evolve. Organisms don't evolve. Populations evolve.

The second is to suppose that sexually-differentiated gametes must be produced by sexually differentiated organisms. Many plants and fungi and some animals produce sexually differentiated gametes on the same organism.

Now take a hermaphroditic animal, like various worms, which has both male and female body parts: it produces both eggs and sperm. But unless it fertilizes itself (some do, but not many), it still has to mate with another worm. So it still has to have a means of delivering its sperm to the eggs of another worm.

So a sexual organ like a penis can evolve even when organisms are not sexually differentiated themselves.

So, prior to a species evolving sexually differentiated individuals, two steps toward gendered sexuality are already in place: sexually differentiated gametes and male and female sexual organs. All that remains is for a species to dedicate organisms to a single sexual function so that ova and sperm are produced in different individuals.

Now is that really so unbelievable?

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, the first error to get out of your head is that organisms evolve. Organisms don't evolve. Populations evolve.

The second is to suppose that sexually-differentiated gametes must be produced by sexually differentiated organisms. Many plants and fungi and some animals produce sexually differentiated gametes on the same organism.

Now take a hermaphroditic animal, like various worms, which has both male and female body parts: it produces both eggs and sperm. But unless it fertilizes itself (some do, but not many), it still has to mate with another worm. So it still has to have a means of delivering its sperm to the eggs of another worm.

So a sexual organ like a penis can evolve even when organisms are not sexually differentiated themselves.

So, prior to a species evolving sexually differentiated individuals, two steps toward gendered sexuality are already in place: sexually differentiated gametes and male and female sexual organs. All that remains is for a species to dedicate organisms to a single sexual function so that ova and sperm are produced in different individuals.

Now is that really so unbelievable?

sexual organs can evolve but we have simply no evidence of this. 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.

 

[createdtoworship]

It is living, but the trunk you see is only about 70 years old. It has grown still living parts, like a root, of an older clone, which in turn grew from and older clone still. There older clones were long dead when the scientists discovered them and dated their remains back 9550 years.

And yet you would have to be pretty desperate to drink from that mud pond. It is however why a lot of bacteria form biofilms on surfaces rather than just floating free.

you have yet another feature to evolve all the same in the muck. So a bacteria was not there, and then it was there?

 

[Assyrian]

you have yet another feature to evolve all the same in the muck. So a bacteria was not there, and then it was there?

Are you asking about single cell mortality or abiogenesis?

 

[createdtoworship]

Are you asking about single cell mortality or abiogenesis?

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. secondly, how does the nucleus evolve once a simple organism is evolved? "The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known" wikipedia states.

 

[Assyrian]

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. secondly, how does the nucleus evolve once a simple organism is evolved? "The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known" wikipedia states.

You meant single celled organisms that weren't bacteria? You should have said. Best you start that new thread you were talking about. I answered you question on tree age, this is just jumping form topic to topic.

 

[createdtoworship]

You meant single celled organisms that weren't bacteria? You should have said. Best you start that new thread you were talking about. I answered you question on tree age, this is just jumping form topic to topic.

well we can stay on bacteria, I don't have a problem with it. I do have a problem with transitional evidence in abiogenesis. You did answer the question about mortality in bacteria, if bacteria was the first organism that is. There are many missing links in abiogenesis to prove it as a theory. Standen noted a half century ago that the term “missing link” is misleading because it suggests that only one link is missing whereas it is more accurate to state that so many links are missing that it is not evident whether there was ever a chain (Standen, 1950, p. 106). again another quote from a website states..."The first links— actually the first hundreds of thousands or more links that are required to produce life—still are missing (Behe, 1996, pp. 154–156)!"

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.

 

[gluadys]

sexual organs can evolve but we have simply no evidence of this. 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.

Well, there is another false notion about evolution to throw on the trash heap.

Evolution is not a matter of deliberate experimentation by either an organism or a species. So nothing tells them to experiment.

They don't will the changes that will later be called adaptive. They are simply born with them.

Did you personally choose your genome or that of any of your children?


Here is a little mnemonic for you:

Mutations occur in DNA molecules;
Variations occur in individual organisms (or alleles);
Evolution occurs in populations.


When you can explain properly how these three facts interact, you will have begun to understand evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, there is another false notion about evolution to throw on the trash heap.

Evolution is not a matter of deliberate experimentation by either an organism or a species. So nothing tells them to experiment.

They don't will the changes that will later be called adaptive. They are simply born with them.

Did you personally choose your genome or that of any of your children?


Here is a little mnemonic for you:

Mutations occur in DNA molecules;
Variations occur in individual organisms (or alleles);
Evolution occurs in populations.


When you can explain properly how these three facts interact, you will have begun to understand evolution.

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.

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.



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."

more info on the devolution of evolution

http://www.sspx.org/against_sound_bites/devolution_of_evolution.htm

 

[gluadys]

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.

That's why the origin of the DNA molecule is not included in the theory of evolution. The origin of the DNA molecule would be a chemical process, not a biological process. Wikipedia is stating a fact when it says the chemical events leading to the first nucleic acids is not known.


But a good deal is known about evolution.

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.

Not really. The best you can call this is a tongue in cheek, highly abridged version of the history of vertebrate/tetrapod evolution. But the sequence of historical events does not tell us anything about the theory of evolution. It doesn't explain how this sequence of events can take place. It tells us nothing of the process which produced this history.

 

[createdtoworship]

That's why the origin of the DNA molecule is not included in the theory of evolution. The origin of the DNA molecule would be a chemical process, not a biological process. Wikipedia is stating a fact when it says the chemical events leading to the first nucleic acids is not known.


But a good deal is known about evolution.



Not really. The best you can call this is a tongue in cheek, highly abridged version of the history of vertebrate/tetrapod evolution. But the sequence of historical events does not tell us anything about the theory of evolution. It doesn't explain how this sequence of events can take place. It tells us nothing of the process which produced this history.

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.

 

[gluadys]

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.

Current theory suggests the nucleus may be the result of an endosymbiotic relationship.

See, this is the difference between history and theory. History tells us that for more than a billion years all life was unicellular and prokaryotic (no nucleus). Then cells with a nucleus appear.

Theory attempts to find a causal explanation for this fact.

So, I repeat again, your little paragraph may summarize evolutionary history; it says nothing about evolutionary theory.

 

[createdtoworship]

Current theory suggests the nucleus may be the result of an endosymbiotic relationship.

See, this is the difference between history and theory. History tells us that for more than a billion years all life was unicellular and prokaryotic (no nucleus). Then cells with a nucleus appear.

Theory attempts to find a causal explanation for this fact.

So, I repeat again, your little paragraph may summarize evolutionary history; it says nothing about evolutionary theory.

"The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known" wikipedia states. Besides endosymbiotic relationships have nothing to do with the formation of the nucleus. You still need evidence for evolution sorry.

 

[gluadys]

"The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known" wikipedia states. Besides endosymbiotic relationships have nothing to do with the formation of the nucleus. You still need evidence for evolution sorry.

Are you not confusing nucleic acids with a cellular nucleus? After all,nucleic acids exist in bacteria and viruses, although neither has a nucleus--and the virus is not even a cell.

How do you know that endosymbiotic relationships have nothing to do with the formation of the nucleus? I am not saying that thesis has been established yet, but it hasn't been voided either. What have you read by Lynn Margulis on this topic?

 

[createdtoworship]

Are you not confusing nucleic acids with a cellular nucleus? After all,nucleic acids exist in bacteria and viruses, although neither has a nucleus--and the virus is not even a cell.

How do you know that endosymbiotic relationships have nothing to do with the formation of the nucleus? I am not saying that thesis has been established yet, but it hasn't been voided either. What have you read by Lynn Margulis on this topic?

(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?

 

[spiritual warrior]

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.

Jonathan Dudley: Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution

Why do you think some people today have lost sight of this ancient truth?

Papias

First, Augustine was not the founder of evangelicalism, and he has some pretty bad doctrines he held to, including mixing fatalism into christianity.

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.

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.

 

[shernren]

First, Augustine was not the founder of evangelicalism, and he has some pretty bad doctrines he held to, including mixing fatalism into christianity.

The quote is referring to Charles Hodge, and then behind him to Augustine. You may also be interested to know that authors of The Fundamentals - that's right, the books after which fundamentalism is named - believed in an old earth and a local flood.