Any other Christians in here interested in evolution? I mean genuinely wants to understand it.

[michaelvpardo]

So you were trying to merge chemical evolution and abiogenesis with the theory of evolution concerning speciation. I was clarifying the differences. More than once actually.

So obviously there is no biological processes before abiogenesis because biological implies living organisms.

But earlier, you were acting as if it’s the same and that it’s some kind of weak point in the theory of evolution.

The origin of life was taught as the foundation of the theory of evolution until the logical point was introduced that the mechanisms themselves could not evolve. At that time the scientific community was forced to separate evolution from the processes presupposesd to exist and deliver "natural" explanations to link interdependent processes.
But here's one little problem with your suppositions. Complex proteins can not persist without denaturation in an exothermic environment.
Abiogenesis actually requires fanciful worlds to have existed so that the highly specific combinants required to accidentally create proteins (like the RNA world) were in the specific concentrations necessary to create functional proteins at the correct temperature and pressure to create working tertiary forms which luckily combined to create more complex processes. Or more simply put, imaginary worlds with conditions that we can't replicate in a laboratory, and a biosynthesis that we can't duplicate? The old organic soup concept is a little problematic on a hot planet. Although decomposing organisms didn't exist before life, proteins are built through cold reactions. Once they're denatured, they don't automatically take their original form if they exist in any significant concentration, but will form interprotein linkages that destroy the tertiary form.

 

[Grailhunter]

Why does it no longer continue to evolve into more species?

I did not say evolution was not under God's control. Intelligent design.
Science has a lot of evidence that the flood occurred. Put not necessary in the chronological order that the Bible places it. It probably happened after the tower of Babel. And there are a lot of cultures that have a flood stories about saving animals. The Bible is centered on the middle east and north Africa....it is not going to tell you how pretty the penguins are or how high the kangaroos can jump. As far as they knew that was their world and it was flat.....don't fall off the edge.

Now whether it was a total flood of the earth or a continental sweep that did not effect north and south America....that is another debate. When it is talking about all flesh it is in their world.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Plus carbon dating matched up to them other forms of dating, and the info there matches up with fossil record, and those line up with geological layers and all it lines up with the genetic tree of life. It all supports each other.

It was designed to support each other, much like creation was designed by God. Man, made in the image of God, is capable of creating things, including reasonable sounding explanations of natural phenomena occurring without the need of any creator. That doesn't elevate science above any other philosophy or imagination of man. Experimental data based upon hypothesis that can be independently reproduced is what qualifies hypotheses as working theory, as opposed to speculation.

 

[BeyondET]

Evolution is a theory supported by thousands of facts across dozens of scientific field presented through the research of the experts who specialize in it.

You mentioned studying genetics. I’m a big fan of Francis Collins. One of the worlds most known and highly respected geneticist. He’s the director of NIH and was a lead scientist on the human genome project. He’s also a Christian and accepts evolution and founded Biologos.

The genetic “tree of life” correlates the story of the fossil record.

I made a post before but no one answered it.
Essentially the question was what other explanation besides evolution explains the positioning of fossils within the geological layer showcasing basal forms splitting from one another because of divergent traits?

for example, we don’t see birds predating dinosaurs. We don’t see tetrapods predating the earliest lunged fish. We don’t see bipedalism in primates predating walking on all fours. We don’t see our species predating the earliest primates.

But some animals are so advance humans can't even grasp it. One being the mantis shrimp with the world's most advance vision, one day man might be able to figure it out to Build optics better than blue ray. It's things like that tell me it's not blind evolution or by chance. Same with the octopus with three hearts and nine brains.

 

[BeyondET]

My bachelor's of Science degree was awarded by the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1980. This was well before the human genome project was completed, but my degree was in biological sciences and I had quite a few courses that included the theory of evolution and taught from that perspective, including the basic biology classes bio 101 and 102, physics for biology, comparative anatomy, animal physiology, adaption and evolution, and genetics. My test score for the graduate record examination advanced test in biology was in the top 5% nationwide, so I absorbed a bit of the teaching. However, my conclusion was that evolutionary theory was inadequate to explain the origin of life. Some time after I graduated, I also read Robert Ardrey's books African Genesis, the Territorial Imperative, and the Social contract, all about his research into the anthropological studies trying to explain how man could've evolved in such a (relatively) short period of geological time.

Evolutionary theory is in part dependent upon the concept that anything, regardless of how unlikely, will occur given sufficient time for totally random processes to accidentally combine and work together in a functional way.

What's more, Charles Darwin based his foundational work, the origin of species, on mistaken observation. He believed that the various phenotypes of finches that he observed on the Galapagos Islands were different species. However we know now that those various phenotypes are just normal morphological variations in one species, just like the various ethnicities of mankind.

Then there's the flawed logic of the theory regarding the fossil record. The similarities in morphology between "divergent" species was the original "evidence" of lineal relationship between them. However, the comparison of placental mammal to marsupials and nonplacental mammals that thrived in geographically isolated regions like Australia, lead to the "understanding" that similar morphology could evolve independently to fit similar environmental niches. So, the primary evolutionary evidence upon which the theory is based, similar morphology, is by the admission of evolutionary scientists, not actually proof of lineal relationship.

Molecular biology and genetics is also used as evidentiary by examining genetic similarity, but huge anomalies persist in the "evidence". For example, some pig proteins are closer to their human counterparts than those in apes, but no one is proposing that we evolved from pigs.

One of the very first experiments to prove the spontaneous generation of life was an attempt to generate something living inside a sealed jar that contained nothing but dirt and air. The experiment generated worms in the soil, but was flawed because the soil wasn't sterilized and contained eggs. Yet that experiment was still taught as support for the spontaneous generation of life in the 1970s, but with the note that it was flawed for the stated reasons.

Newer devised experiments utilizing a mixture of gases that might have existed in the primordial Earth were able to produce some simple hydrocarbons, the building blocks of more complex organic compounds, but not life.
To this date, no one has been able to create even the simplest form of life spontaneously under experiment.

Some biologist have given themselves over the study of cellular mechanisms in bacterium, single celled organisms, some with extremely complicated biological machines for locomotion and transport. Some of these (non-Christian) scientists arrived at the concept of irreducible complexity, the notion that the most basic definition of life includes the requirement for multiple interdependent processes which couldn't themselves evolve independently. (Evolution only occurs (theoretically) when the organism is living and capable of reproduction). Their conclusion was that life demonstrates intelligent design. This conclusion is unacceptable to a concept of "pure science" that excludes any kind of creator, so the field was labeled pseudo science, and the scientists in those endeavors, "quacks" and frauds.

The theory of evolution and the mechanisms that make it a possibility are easy to understand, but the end results are extremely improbable. However, the "scientific community " prefers a flawed theory, with flawed origin, built on flawed logic, with evidences as "proofs" that have alternative explanation, to the consideration of the supernatural, a God and Creator. This is why some evolutionary scientists turned to the newer hypothesis of "pangenesis", or that life originated "elsewhere" and somehow hitchhiked a ride to Earth. That allows them to rule out the problem of insufficient time for life to evolve here, and completely disregard its origin elsewhere.

Evolutionary science is a blind man trying to identify an elephant by its appendages.

how come Asians have eyes lids almost closed But not other humans?

 

[Grailhunter]

If it made it to the poles would been frozen water not li

how come Asians have eyes lids almost closed But not other humans?

The flood did not create the poles
And you will have to ask God on the various races....but they are not Israelite.

 

[BeyondET]

The flood did not create the poles
And you will have to ask God on the various races....but they are not Israelite.

It's called adaptation, the pacific ocean is the world's biggest and brightest, fishing on a huge ocean with sunlight reflecting off the water is taxing to the eyes to squint all the time thus adapted to not be so taxing.

Try squinting for an hour you won't make it 10 mins if your not Asian

 

[BeyondET]

The flood did not create the poles.

I had deleted what I was going to say and it wasn't that, it got mixed in

 

[Grailhunter]

It's called adaptation, the pacific ocean is the world's biggest and brightest, fishing on a huge ocean with sunlight reflecting off the water is taxing to the eyes to squint all the time thus adapted to not be so taxing.

Try squinting for an hour you won't make it 10 mins if your not Asian

Good theory.

 

[marks]

Your thread title is misleading. Your question "any other Christian interested in evolution"....no Christian I know would be interested in something that contradicts His Word.
And as @marks stated ....it is a theory not a fact stemming from concrete evidence.
Scientists will argue with scientists who claim to have evidence to back up the theory with fossils.
Scientists will also tell you that what they first theorized was wrong. New technology continues to bring better testing tools and more accurate outcomes.
Anyway...how many members here are college students feeling conflicted about the theory of evolution?

Hi H2S,

"Evolution" isn't even a Scientific Theory, it barely qualifies for an hypothesis. Theories are supposed to be based on observation and repeatable experiments, "Evolution" has neither of those.

Much love!

 

[BeyondET]

Hi H2S,

"Evolution" isn't even a Scientific Theory, it barely qualifies for an hypothesis. Theories are supposed to be based on observation and repeatable experiments, "Evolution" has neither of those.

Much love!

But you would agree, mutation, adaptation, regeneration, metamorphosis are scientifically facts.

 

[marks]

But you would agree, mutation, adaptation, regeneration, metamorphosis are scientifically facts.

Creatures mutate, but that does not lead to new species. Creatures adapt, and that does not lead to new species. A lizard regrows it's tail, but that is not evolution. Neither is the metamorphosis of a caterpillar to butterfly.

Take mutation, for an example. One theory is that celestial UV radiation damages the DNA of a creature causing that creature to reproduce mutated offspring. You can both observe and test this. Adaptation, same thing. The theory is that a creature has many possible characteristics that can be expressed in various environments, and this is what we observe repeatedly.

This is science. "Evolution" is not science, and a large section of the so-called scientific community conspire to hide that fact.

Much love!

 

[Grailhunter]

But you would agree, mutation, adaptation, regeneration, metamorphosis are scientifically facts.

Yes mostly....scientifically clear....but also God driven. I do not believe that evolution occurred by arbitrary mutations that either lived or did not. I believe that God adjusted the form of animals as they went along to be suited to their environment.

Some call our universe the orb and spiral universe. God has a pattern, the atom looks like our solar system, the solar system looks likes our galaxy, our galaxy looks like our universe. God sets things in motion and maintains and makes adjustments where needed. That is one of the reasons that the stars in the sky do not look like a train wreak....there is a harmony in the universe. Intelligent design....Divine Architect. But all of that occurred over a extended period of time.

Even the Big Bang....no bang, no sound in space and the explosion sent things traveling for millions of years and in motion the matter may have been converted to energy and back again. This was also God driven, that amount of crude matter had to come from somewhere....probably one of the few puff of smoke events....pun LOL

 

[BeyondET]

Creatures mutate, but that does not lead to new species. Creatures adapt, and that does not lead to new species. A lizard regrows it's tail, but that is not evolution. Neither is the metamorphosis of a caterpillar to butterfly.

Take mutation, for an example. One theory is that celestial UV radiation damages the DNA of a creature causing that creature to reproduce mutated offspring. You can both observe and test this. Adaptation, same thing. The theory is that a creature has many possible characteristics that can be expressed in various environments, and this is what we observe repeatedly.

This is science. "Evolution" is not science, and a large section of the so-called scientific community conspire to hide that fact.

Much love!

My comment wasn't about new species, and albinism happens to the living rather a animal or human

 

[BeyondET]

Yes mostly....scientifically clear....but also God driven. I do not believe that evolution occurred by arbitrary mutations that either lived or did not. I believe that God adjusted the form of animals as they went along to be suited to their environment.

Some call our universe the orb and spiral universe. God has a pattern, the atom looks like our solar system, the solar system looks likes our galaxy, our galaxy looks like our universe. God sets things in motion and maintains and makes adjustments where needed. That is one of the reasons that the stars in the sky do not look like a train wreak....there is a harmony in the universe. Intelligent design....Divine Architect. But all of that occurred over a extended period of time.

Even the Big Bang....no bang, no sound in space and the explosion sent things traveling for millions of years and in motion the matter may have been converted to energy and back again. This was also God driven, that amount of crude matter had to come from somewhere....probably one of the few puff of smoke events....pun LOL

The stem cell libraries are extremely vast heres just one.

 

[Heart2Soul]

But you would agree, mutation, adaptation, regeneration, metamorphosis are scientifically facts.

Yes...Noah was a mutation of the DNA. He was an albino. Blue eyes are a mutation....mutations will continue to pass on to the offspring. Downs Syndrome is a mutation....
Adaptation to the environment is a must for survival.
Regeneration is inherent in all species...even humans.
Metamorphosis is seen mostly in lower forms of species such as caterpillars.

 

[Heart2Soul]

I did not say evolution was not under God's control. Intelligent design.
Science has a lot of evidence that the flood occurred. Put not necessary in the chronological order that the Bible places it. It probably happened after the tower of Babel. And there are a lot of cultures that have a flood stories about saving animals. The Bible is centered on the middle east and north Africa....it is not going to tell you how pretty the penguins are or how high the kangaroos can jump. As far as they knew that was their world and it was flat.....don't fall off the edge.

Now whether it was a total flood of the earth or a continental sweep that did not effect north and south America....that is another debate. When it is talking about all flesh it is in their world.

It says the waters covered the even the highest mountains....Mt. Everest has marine fossils at its peak.
Marine fossils are found all over the world at the highest elevation. So believe as you want there is plenty of evidence of the entire earth being flooded.

 

[Grailhunter]

It says the waters covered the even the highest mountains....Mt. Everest has marine fossils at its peak.
Marine fossils are found all over the world at the highest elevation. So believe as you want there is plenty of evidence of the entire earth being flooded.

I am all about lots of water....the sudden flood from rain thing I am not too sure....a continental sweep by the ocean would account for the flood and the deserts.

 

[michaelvpardo]

how come Asians have eyes lids almost closed But not other humans?

That just isn't accurate. Almond shaped eyes aren't limited to Asians. One of my favorite actors, Keanu Reeves, has almond shaped eyes. He may have some Asian ancestors, but that's the point. Our physical traits aren't determined by a single gene, though a single gene can have a profound effect on any given recognizable trait.

A "breeding population" (some geographic area that is isolated from other areas by barriers to easy population mixing) has a broad mix of genetic material for any given trait (called a gene pool), but some environmental conditions may favor certain traits over others. That is, some traits may be more attractive to the opposite sex, some traits may help survive diseases, or favor an individual in hunting, gathering, warfare, etc.

These favorable traits will become , over generations, more dominant in that population, but since human beings have two genes for each function, with either one dominant over the other, or one partially dominant, the processes of miosis to produce gametes (reproductive cells with only 1 set of genes, half the normal genome) causes 4 possible genetic combinations in any fertilized egg for any given genetic traits.

A dominant gene can be expressed in 3 out of 4 combinations, but the subdominant (recessive) gene can be carried in 3 out of 4 combinations and will persist in a population, even if it leads to early morbidity and death in 1 of the 4 combinations. The gene pool retains the recessive trait, even if it isn't expressed.

There are about 20,500 genes in the human genome, each gene representing 4 possible gene combinations, and each trait expressed by 4 "genotypes" times the number of genes responsible for any given trait. That's a lot of potential variation in the gene pool of any given population.

Now the expression of the dominant and partially dominant genes is called phenotypic expression. Phenotypic expression is responsible for "breeds" or "races", the appearance of isolated groups in any given species, but the recessive genes persist in the population in healthy quantities (as much as three quarters of the population).

There are also environmental factors that effect the phenotypic or morphological expression of genes. Some genes (if not all) are "turned" on or off by environmental factors. Neither growth or maturation would be possible if this weren't true.

This gives us much greater variation in the morphological expression of any genotype. Eg. A baby looks different from an adolescent or adult, not just a smaller version of the same. Nutrition and exposure to biologically active substances in the environment alter phenotypic expression.

All this is to say that you never see all the genetic traits in a population, yet they persist. For example, a Caucasian may have (and does have) some of the genes that produce black skin coloration, but not the full set required to produce that phenotypic expression. In other words, Caucasian parents are capable of producing children with traits common in other races, but as a rare occasion when multiple genes are required to produce a given trait.

When "intermarriages" occur between "races", the children express phenotypes closer to the original model. The genetic combinations between the parents restore the genetic diversity suppressed by geographic isolation in a given breeding population.

This has been going on since the creation of man. We are all direct descendants of Adam as well as of Noah, and of their respective wives.

 

[BeyondET]

Yes...Noah was a mutation of the DNA. He was an albino. Blue eyes are a mutation....mutations will continue to pass on to the offspring. Downs Syndrome is a mutation....
Adaptation to the environment is a must for survival.
Regeneration is inherent in all species...even humans.
Metamorphosis is seen mostly in lower forms of species such as caterpillars.

Green eyes are the most rarest only 2% of the world's population has the mutation.

Of regeneration the immortal jellyfish is pretty cool, it can revert back to the infant stage and start life all over again.

Yea humans can regenerate part of the liver or part of a lower rib can grow back if removed