Life Origins & Science

[dad]

It seems like often you have to choose between science and religion. Why can't we utilize evolution/big bang as intelligent design by God?]

God told us how He did it. That is why.

It makes more sense to think of time as relative. A second may be a billion years, a billion years a second. Even with our limited knowledge, we can theorize that the universe and time is not so black/white, but multidimensional.

? A second a billion years!?

If everything was made at the same time, we're talking about dinosaurs and people co-existing. Fossil fuels just magically created, despite us knowing how they're made. All the evolutionary research on life discarded.

You sure better discard evolutionary religion. Yes dinos lived at the same time as people. And fossil fuels would be expected if there was a flood that killed all life almost on the planet.

I really struggle with the omnipresence aspect and knowing all dimensions, past and future.

Well you should, you are not God.

Therefore, God would have known we would have "bitten the Apple", so to speak.

And would have made a plan for salvation also before the world began...which He did.

Then to do the entire Old Testament, only to toss away all the laws for redemption in the New Testament. Is it fair that someone gets entire Hell because they lived in the Old Testament, versus Post-Jesus? That hardly seems fair based on the timeline.

People in the OT were saved by belief in Jesus also. They believed He would come, we believe He did come.

 

[Tone]

I do not believe what the YEC or undeducated people believe that the Bible says.

Ha ha ha...

*"undeducated"...

**What more education do we really need other than the Word of the Lord?

 

[gYx]

in most cases, there's no conflict between

Science as we called it is material knowledge

Spiritual knowledge is what above and beyond

 

[The Barbarian]

Lets set aside the metaphysics for a moment and go billions of years back in history to your hypothetical primordial soup and the spontaneous generation of DNA and prokaryotic cells from that soup. How did eukaryotic cells arise given the complete lack of transitional forms between the two?

The evidence is by endosymbiosis. The clue is that a number of cell organelles have their own DNA, which is like that of bacteria, not like eukaryotes. A larger cell engulfs a smaller cell, and sometimes instead of digesting it, or the smaller cell parasitizing the larger cell, they form a symbiotic union.

Is there evidence that this happens? Yes, there is:

TRENDS IN CELL BIOLOGY
Volume 5, Issue 3, March 1995, Pages 137-140
Bacterial endosymbiosis in amoebae
Kwang W.Jeon
Abstract
The large, free-living amoebae are inherently phagocytic. They capture, ingest and digest microbes within their phagolysosomes, including those that survive in other cells. One exception is an unidentified strain of Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacteria that spontaneously infected the D strain of Amoeba proteus and came to survive inside them. These bacteria established a stable symbiotic relationship with amoebae that has resulted in phenotypic modulation of the host and mutual dependence for survival.

Are there transitional forms between prokaryotes and eukaryotes? Turns out, there are...

Giardia: A Missing Link between Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes
The emergence of eukaryotic cells was important in the evolution of complex multicellular life. But how did eukaryotes evolve?
...
In 1987 Cavalier-Smith suggested that the single-celled, anaerobic eukaryote Giardia lamblia might in fact be the missing link. Giardia, he suggested, might be the anaerobic eukaryote that ingested an oxygen-using bacterium; this union could have yielded the first aerobic eukaryote, from which all others may have descended. He based his prediction on an analysis of the types and structures of the organelles in Giardia. One important observation is that Giardia lacks mitochondria and is an obligate anaerobe. In further support of this notion, experiments in which Giardia ingested a marker molecule visible in electron micrographs show that the organism is capable of endocytosing particles from the extracellular space. It is conceivable that Giardia could have taken up a mitochondrion-like organism in a similar manner.

​

In 1989 one of us (peattie) was part of a team that uncovered molecular-biological evidence in further support of Cavalier-Smith's placement of Giardia on the evolutionary tree. This work exploited the highly conservative nature of the ribosome, the structure on which proteins are synthesized. Ribosomes are found in all known cells-prokaryotic and eukaryotic alike. Their component RNA and protein molecules are assembled and folded to create a characteristic shape. There has been relatively little change over time in the molecules making up the ribosome. As a result, prokaryotic and eukaryotic ribosomes are fairly similar. The conserved nature of these molecules and their ubiquity makes them extremely useful for inferring evolutionary distances between organisms. Comparing the sequence of nucleotides in a ribosomal RNA shows how much the molecule has changed in the course of evolution from one organism to another.
In 1987 Cavalier-Smith suggested that the single-celled, anaerobic eukaryote Giardia lamblia might in fact be the missing link. Giardia, he suggested, might be the anaerobic eukaryote that ingested an oxygen-using bacterium; this union could have yielded the first aerobic eukaryote, from which all others may have descended. He based his prediction on an analysis of the types and structures of the organelles in Giardia. One important observation is that Giardia lacks mitochondria and is an obligate anaerobe. In further support of this notion, experiments in which Giardia ingested a marker molecule visible in electron micrographs show that the organism is capable of endocytosing particles from the extracellular space. It is conceivable that Giardia could have taken up a mitochondrion-like organism in a similar manner.

​

In 1989 one of us (peattie) was part of a team that uncovered molecular-biological evidence in further support of Cavalier-Smith's placement of Giardia on the evolutionary tree. This work exploited the highly conservative nature of the ribosome, the structure on which proteins are synthesized. Ribosomes are found in all known cells-prokaryotic and eukaryotic alike. Their component RNA and protein molecules are assembled and folded to create a characteristic shape. There has been relatively little change over time in the molecules making up the ribosome. As a result, prokaryotic and eukaryotic ribosomes are fairly similar. The conserved nature of these molecules and their ubiquity makes them extremely useful for inferring evolutionary distances between organisms. Comparing the sequence of nucleotides in a ribosomal RNA shows how much the molecule has changed in the course of evolution from one organism to another.

 

[Newtheran]

One exception is an unidentified strain of Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacteria that spontaneously infected the D strain of Amoeba proteus and came to survive inside them. These bacteria established a stable symbiotic relationship with amoebae that has resulted in phenotypic modulation of the host and mutual dependence for survival.

Amoeba are not prokaryotic. You're essentially using an example of parasitism of Proteus by a GNR to try and prove prokaryotic -> eukarotic evolution. No cigar.

 

[The Barbarian]

Amoeba are not prokaryotic.

But these amoeba show that endosymbiosis is a fact, and observed to happen.

You're essentially using an example of parasitism of Proteus by a GNR

No, that's wrong. It shows endosybiosis. the amobae are no longer able to survive without the bacteria, which are now an essential part of the cell, even though they have their own, bacterial DNA, and reproduce independently within the cell.

Mitochondria are little bacteria-shaped cells inside every one of your cells. They have their own, bacterial DNA, and the reproduce independently. You cannot live without them. That's also endosymbiosis.

And as you learned, there are indeed organisms transitional between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. I showed you and example.

No point in denying it.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Evidence

• Both mitochondria and chloroplasts can arise only from preexisting mitochondria and chloroplasts. They cannot be formed in a cell that lacks them because nuclear genes encode only some of the proteins of which they are made.
• Both mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own genome, and it resembles that of bacteria not that of the nuclear genome.
  • Both genomes consist of a single circular molecule of DNA.
  • There are no histones associated with the DNA.
• Both mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own protein-synthesizing machinery, and it more closely resembles that of bacteria than that found in the cytoplasm of eukaryotes.
  • The first amino acid of their transcripts is always fMet as it is in bacteria (not methionine [Met] that is the first amino acid in eukaryotic proteins).
  • A number of antibiotics (e.g., streptomycin) that act by blocking protein synthesis in bacteria also block protein synthesis within mitochondria and chloroplasts. They do not interfere with protein synthesis in the cytoplasm of the eukaryotes.
  • Conversely, inhibitors (e.g., diphtheria toxin) of protein synthesis by eukaryotic ribosomes do not — sensibly enough — have any effect on bacterial protein synthesis nor on protein synthesis within mitochondria and chloroplasts.
  • The antibiotic rifampicin, which inhibits the RNA polymerase of bacteria, also inhibits the RNA polymerase within mitochondria. It has no such effect on the RNA polymerase within the eukaryotic nucleus.

The Mitochondrial Genome
The genome of human mitochondria contains 16,569 base pairs of DNA organized in a closed circle. These encode:

• 2 ribosomal RNA (rRNA) molecules
• 22 transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules (shown in the figure as yellow bars; two of them labeled)
• 13 proteins

The 13 proteins participate in building several protein complexes embedded in the inner mitochondrial membrane.

• 7 subunits that make up the mitochondrial NADH dehydrogenase
• 3 subunits of cytochrome c oxidase
• 2 subunits of ATP synthase
• cytochrome b

All these gene products are used within the mitochondrion, but the mitochondrion also needs >1,100 different proteins as well as some mRNAs and tRNAs encoded by nuclear genes. The proteins (e.g., cytochrome c and the DNA polymerases used within the mitochondrion) are synthesized in the cytosol and then imported into the mitochondrion.
Endosymbiosis and The Origin of Eukaryotes

 

[Newtheran]

Again, absolutely none of the material that you've cited here comes close to proving the point that the eukaroytic cells evolved from prokaryotic cells. Even the initial endosymbotic relationship you cited involved an eukaryotic host. You have a pre-existing belief in evolution and therefore you see intracellular organelles as endosymbiotic proof of evolution when it is no such thing. The facts you cite about mitochondrial DNA provide no proof either, they are simple facts about mitochondria.

 

[The Barbarian]

Again, absolutely none of the material that you've cited here comes close to proving the point that the eukaroytic cells evolved from prokaryotic cells.

Let's see... we proved that endosymbiosis is real and happens. We proved that cell organelles like mitochondria and chloroplasts are genetically, anatomically and physically indistinguishable from bacteria. I even showed you a transitional form between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

With all this evidence, showing the endosymbiotic origin of eukaryotes, it's impossible to deny the fact. You have a pre-existing objection to science in general and evolution in particular and therefore you refuse to see the evidence for intracellular organelles as endosymbiotes when the evidence is very clear. No amount of evidence will shake your belief in your new doctrines.

But it's not necessary for you to believe. These discussions are not for those who refuse to see. It's for those who are still unconvinced and would like to see what the evidence for and against evolution might be.

You've been very helpful in that effort.

 

[Newtheran]

With all this evidence, showing the endosymbiotic origin of eukaryotes, it's impossible to deny the fact.

You've put forth some scientific evidence, and attempted to make it say what you wish it to say. Your initial citation involved endosymbiosis of a pre-existing eukaryotic amoeba, therefore not a prokaryote. Your supposed transitional form, Giardia, is again, a pre-existing eukaryote. Your structural coincidences are nothing more than that.

 

[The Barbarian]

You've put forth some scientific evidence, and attempted to make it say what you wish it to say.

It's very clear; there's no point in denying it.

Your initial citation involved endosymbiosis of a pre-existing eukaryotic amoeba...

...demonstrating the fact of endosymbiosis.

Your supposed transitional form, Giardia, is...

...as you learned, transitional between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

Your structural coincidences are...

... not coincidences at all, but a demonstration that mitochondria and chloroplasts are genetically, structurally, and physically indistinguishable from prokaryotic bacteria. My post beginning with "The Evidence" shows many other ways that these organelles are modified prokaryotes. No point in denying the facts.

Instead of denying the evidence, you should be thinking of finding a way to explain this that doesn't involve endosymbiosis.

What have you got?

 

[joshua 1 9]

I can't even fathom a literal six day creationist mindset.

Aleph the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet has a value of one and one thousand. They say that every day in Genesis was a literal 24 hour day. Yet a day contains all time and all ages. We know from Science that it took God 12.9 billion years to create Adam and Eve. Yet they lived in Eden 5990 years ago. Dispensationalism is the most easy to explain. Still YEC and OEC are just as valid, just more difficult to explain. This is why we need to understand archetypes and paradigms.

 

[joshua 1 9]

coincidences are nothing more than that.

The law of attraction says there are no coincidences in life. (A negative investment yields a negative return, a positive investment yields a positive return.)

 

[joshua 1 9]

My problem is, Adam 'never' had a choice, the future was known.

This contradicts science. We do have a choice and we can make decisions. They have the brain mapped out and they can tell you exactly what the different parts of the brain does. Animals do not have a choice because their brain has not evolved as much as ours has and they are not able to do the abstract thinking that we can.

Why would God tell Adam NOT to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil if he did not have a choice? Why did the serpent have to deceive Eve in order to get her to make the wrong choice? Life is ALWAYS the right choice. Death is always the wrong choice.

"19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live" Deu 30