Evolution

[TravisK]

Do you guys love it or hate it?

 

[cubanito]

microevolution (wolves to chihuahuas) is undisputed, macroevolution (stellar dust to wolves) is absurd. I stopped believing in theories of macroevolution as an agnostic. It was an understanding of scientific facts, such as PV=nRT that made me recognize the mythology that a thin gas in space would condence, heat up, defy the centrifugal force of spinning, and become a star. Matter can coalesce via electrostatic attractions, but a gas in space expands, cools down and never ever can lead to matter of it's own accord.

Another is the fact of organic chemical chirality, by which it is IMPOSSIBLE to make but the simplest organic molecules in a biologically active form un a lab without pure chiral reactants. While organic chemists thought they had bridged the gap between inorganic and organic chemistry by synthesizing urea (one of the few achiral biologic compounds) Pasteur showed in his Doctoral Thesis that chirality was, and remains, an impassable bridge between the chemistry of life and non-life by his discrimination of tartaric acid crystals.

It was a simple application of my rational mind to basic high school facts that made me reject macroevolution.

My faith in the Bible came long after.

JR, fundamentalist

 

[JLMoorekcmo]

Cubanito you said it quite well. One of my favorite questions to ask people is, "How many times would you have to blow up a junk yard, to get a 747?

 

[SeventhValley]

The physical evidence (a combo of genetics,fossils etc) shows that macroevolution is most likely how God made us.

But it was guided by God not random. God made us from the dust of the earth.

 

[cubanito]

I did not believe macroevolution as an agnostic bin High School.

As a slave to Christ and a former professor of medicine at U of Miami, this 54yo is ever more amazed that intelligent people can bend reality to make the absurd appear reasonable.

Fossils and geology have never interested me. Genetics I've an aquaintance with. Right now the big lie is that there is lots of "junk" DNA. Those that promote this forget that DNA is not just an information carrier, but it itself has a structure which in the Eukaryote is carefully controlled by wrapping around histone. In any case, we are already seeing much of the "junk DNA" found useful after all.

It reminds me of the popularity of "vestigial organs" during the early days of Darwinism that led to the removal of such "vestigial" organs as the parathyroids, followed by death reminding physicians they'd better go back to viewing the body as a well designed machine, and not a hodge-podge of evolutionary dead ends. "Junk DNA" might as well be called "vestigial DNA" and we will see how much, or not, junk ther is. Originally the list of vestigial organs was at 120, now there's 2 and not all of us are convinced those 2 are in fact vestigial at all.

As to scientist being all that advanced, we still are finding large organs that, somehow, thousands of anatomists convinced one another were not there: New human body part discovered | I [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ing Love Science

Every person has an amazing ability for self-deception. Why do we think that objectivity is inherent to a doctorate? As I said, the evidence convinced me that macroevolution, guided or not, was a worthless theory long before I believed in anything. In fact, I wanted to believe in evolution, as my belief in science was the last hope of believing in anything at all. As an agnostic it was not easy walking into total darkness, with nothing to hold onto but "puteo ergo sum."

My first questions about evolution came while watching Walter Cronkite describing the moon landing. He went on and on about how billions of years was supposed to have left many feet of lunar dust and so, if the bottom of the craft sank too far, the top part of the lander would take off without a man actually setting foot on the moon. Surprise surprise, only enough dust for about 10,000 years. Walter Cronkite was glad, but the little boy (me) watching that live asked himself--where did the dust go?

I asked, and asked, and well, that led me to more questions about other subjects I found more interesting, like single carbon metabolism, and this 54 year old little boy is still asking. My question is no longer, why this or that or the other fact which is TOTALLY incompatible with macroevolution, guided OR blind, but rather, just how dark can intelligent minds get when they persist in worshiping the creation, often indeed worshipping themselves or one another, rather than the creator. And how scaredy-cat can Christians get when they are out numbered by a bunch of white coatts claiming they are objective and we ignoramuses.

I am not going to waste any time debating evolution until you can show me how PV=nRT is compatible with thin hydrogen gas condensing to a star (gravity being many, many orders of magnitude too weak) and how you can make a chirally pure molecule using only achiral precursors in ANY laboratory setting. These are Junior High subjects.

If you do not put in the effort to understand basic high school chemistry, why should I invest the time to discuss what I know best: the intricate delicate dance of 6 vitamins, hundreds of huge enzymes and the limitations of Michaelis-Menten enzyme kinetics to explain the handling of a single carbon atom to produce and break down myelin and heme? Can we all remember how beta-oxidation feeds into the Kreb cycle now?

JR, MD, the fundamentalist, ex-professor and sure, why not trot out the old sheepskin to show that fundys do not meet your stereotype? I am soooo tired of the superficial bu----- that passes for understanding. This Presbyterean would rather hang out with a Bible thumping Southern Baptist than brothers who feel the pressure to compromise to seem not so anachronistic. Gimme that 'ol time religion, or else, put aside the latte and get yourself some Cuban cofee because it is going to get very specific. Just don't give me lukewarm. Be a man and take it or leave it.

 

[nChrist]

Man was created by God - just as the Genesis record says that He did. The theory of evolution, regarding man, is junk.

 

[classicalhero]

The real question is do you believe in man or God? The Bible is God's word and it says we are a special creation of his, not some pond scum like evolution says we ultimately come from.

 

[HitchSlap]

I love it.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

The real question is do you believe in man or God? The Bible is God's word and it says we are a special creation of his, not some pond scum like evolution says we ultimately come from.

Pond scum or a handful of earth?

 

[ArtB]

The physical evidence (a combo of genetics,fossils etc) shows that macroevolution is most likely how God made us.

But it was guided by God not random. God made us from the dust of the earth.

Are you aware of any scientific evidence that supports Macro-evolution?

 

[ArtB]

I enjoyed your post, Cubanito.

I too remember those familiar words spoken by Walter Cronkite telling his listeners about 100 feet of dust that ought have accumulate over the past Hundreds of millions years, and Mr. Cronkite explained that NASA built expensive special large landing plates on the Apollo 11 moon landing that would keep it atop of the 100 + feet that ought to be on the moon. The landing only encountered a few inches of dust on the moon. Carl Sagan once again was proven wrong about his evolutionary views. I was 16 years old then. Even at that age I was weary of the extraordinary claims evolutionists were claiming to be facts.

 

[HitchSlap]

Are you aware of any scientific evidence that supports Macro-evolution?

What do you consider to be "Macro-evolution?"

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[ArtB]

What do you consider to be "Macro-evolution?"

Sure. Macro-evolution is evolution beyond the species level. The relationship of the branching of the diverse creatures that evolved from the first replicating progenote to all types of body plans that we observe in our planet Earth.

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macro-evolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree. Of course this is speculation, it was never observed in the fossil record.

Macro-evolution assumes that all species extinct and extant came into existence via the evolution from the first species via abiogenesis, and went on to evolve into all known single cell creatures, of which evolved into all known multicellular species on our planet.

Micro-evolution is evolution within a species up to the category of a Family containing related species, but with differing traits, , such as Darwin's Finches

A species is defined as the ability to interbreed and bear viable offspring.

Single cell creatures simply reproduce themselves.

 

[miamited]

Do you guys love it or hate it?

Hi travisk,

Let me first say that I don't love ideas, thoughts or inanimate things. Love is for people!

However, in answer to your question: I believe evolutionary theory to be wrong and the 'facts' supporting such theory to be based on that knowledge which the Scriptures call 'false knowledge'. I am saddened that ideas such as this blind people to the truth, but I know that such knowledge has been long foretold to be a part of the world. I fully understand its purpose and its source.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[SeventhValley]

From what I read in the fundamentals it was not totally against evolution ,it just wanted to make sure lots of evidence existed for something before looking at redoing our Bible interpretations.

So not putting science on a pedestal since when new evidence is found theories are reworked where as the Bible dose not change.

 

[classicalhero]

Their is absolutely no evidence that dumb chemicals could ever form intelligence. Origin of life Read this to see what is needed for life to form here on earth, if it is to be done via materialism.

 

[SeventhValley]

That is why I go with theistic evolution. It and or OE creationism best show us the most probable way that God created us out if dust. That is just my view though

 

[Second Phoenix]

Why is God unable to create a universe that brings forth human beings? Why does God have to zap plants and animals into place?

 

[miamited]

Why is God unable to create a universe that brings forth human beings? Why does God have to zap plants and animals into place?

Hi second phoenix,

Because God's word tells us that He made the first two human beings. Surely God could have done it the way that you explain, but it isn't how God tells us that He did it.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted