Yet *more* evidence for a young creation ...

[rogue06]

Life has to exist before any evolution can occur.

True, but evolutionary theory does not seek to explain how life comes about but rather what happens to it after it has arisen^[1] -- no matter how it arose.

How life first arose and what happens to it after it first arose are two totally separate issues. Moreover, evolution still works regardless of how life first came about. It matters not whether it was zapped into place ex nihilo or if it came about through purely naturalistic means. Either. Way. It. Still. Works.

I think that you may not grasp that evolution is merely the name we have given to how life changes, adapts and diversifies over time. That it does so is an observable fact.

And evolution takes place because, essentially, it's unavoidable in that it is built right into the molecules. The chemistry of DNA makes it unavoidable due to the fact that DNA doesn't replicate perfectly meaning that each generation is going to be a little different from the one before it.

Now, any time you have imperfect self-replicators in an environment of limited resources, the result is going to be a tendency of those best suited to acquire and use the resources to produce more offspring.

This will continue to happen again and again, over and over as life changes and adapts to its environment.

Furthermore, no means has ever been observed that would ever prevent numerous small changes from accumulating into larger scale changes over scores of generations. Nor would prevent those larger scale changes from also accumulating over an even longer period of time.

Isn't it wondrous that God put into place such a marvelous process as evolution?













1. In the same way that atomic theory does not explain the origin of atoms or hydraulic theory does not explain how fluids first came about.

[Jichard]

Life has to exist before any evolution can occur.


Until we find the answer we have no right to claim that something has been proved scientifically.

As people already explained to you, naturalistic abiogenesis is not the same thing as naturalistic evolution. You can have the latter without having the former.

Anyway, there are already plausible accounts of naturalistic abiogenesis. These accounts have various steps in the process of abiogenesis, and there is evidence (both experimental and observational) for many of these steps. This evidence is published in peer-reviewed scientific papers. Here's a very basic outline of one such account, in steps:

1. Formation of monomers (such as nucleic acid monomers, amino acids, and lipid monomers with hypodrophobic and hydrophilic ends) from organic molecules, via various catalysts.
2. Polymerization of these monomers into polymers (such as nucleic acid polymers, and peptides/proteins), via various catalysts.
3. Lipid membranes (either micelles or bilayers, though the latter would likely be more biologically useful) form around the monomers, catalysts, polymers, etc., thereby forming protocells that have an internal environment separated from the external environment.
4. Within the internal evironment of the protocell, various chemical reactions occur, including polymerization reactions.
5. Polymerization reactions will cause an expansion of the protocell (due to osmotic pressure), causing the protocell to take up more lipid monomers into the protocell's membrane. As the protocell grows, the protocell will be more likely to shear, resulting in daughter protocells that share some of the contents of their mother protocell; thus, one thus has a form of proto-cellular replication. Protocells that grow faster will be more likely to shear into more daughter cells; thus, protocells that grow more will have a competitive advantage and can be selected for via natural selection. Since protocells that undergo more internal polymerization reactions will grow faster and thus divide faster, this means that natural selection will tend to favor protocells that undergo more internal polymerization reactions. So naturalistic evolution can no take place.
6. As time progresses, the resulting protocells will undergo further complex chemical reactions, based on the monomers and polymers present within the protocell. For example, some of these polymers/monomers can be hydrophobic, and thus be able to embed themselves within the protocell's lipid bilayer. Or polymers can be generate, which can then serve as scaffods for further chemical reactions or themselves act as catalysts for further polymerization reactions. Therefore, overtime there is an increase in the diversity of the chemical reactions that can occur within the protocells. These increasing diverse reactions, overtime, end up resulting in many of the processes we see in modern cells, such as nucleic acid polymers (ex: RNA) acting as the catalysts for amino acid polymerization reactions (ex: formation of proteins). And there will still be natural selection of protocells who's internal chemical reactions facilitate their production of daughter cells, limit the formation of daughter cells by surrounding protocells, etc.

Here's a Youtube video presenting this visually, in laymen's terms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Everything I mentioned above would be known by anyone who's taken a contemporary biochemistry course or cell biology course.

So, tell me: what problem do you have with what I outlined above? I suspect that you won't be able this question, since your objections to naturalistic abiogenesis likely are not motivated by knowledge of the science on this topic. Instead, your objections are likely religiously-motivated (as would be your objections to naturalistic evolution) and thus your objections would not have any basis in science.

[psstein]

But, but, but it's all totally random. It would take more time than the universe has existed to create a functional protein.

It's not like there are certain combinations that are biochemically favored and advantageous. Has to be an "intelligent designer." Can't be anything else.

[Sea of red]

It's not about whether a deity exists.

YEC's simply lack the education in the sciences to properly understand them. They get so much basic physics, chemistry, geology, and mathematics wrong that it's difficult to know where to begin. I've tried to talk to them and all you get is references to the Hebrew Bible - their particular interpretation of it. OEC (ID) is not as retarded but it certainly wishes to undermine the foundations of modern life sciences; charging anyone that doesn't go along with it as a "Darwinist".

[rwatts]

... charging anyone that doesn't go along with it as a "Darwinist".

Indeed.

What's so odd is that they fail to understand that Darwin's idea about common descent is just one among several, and kill Darwin off and common descent with modification (including macro) will still be the viable scientific theory. It's just that some other process of common descent will be the theoretical and practical work horse.


Creationists, to a man (and a woman) don't appear to have much historical insight. For example, the atomic theory of matter went through a couple of really massive changes before we settled on the modern quantum theory of particulate matter. The data which proved the old versions of atomic theory to be wrong, did not disprove the atomic theory of matter per se.

It's probably the same kind of thing in the context of evolution.


I wonder if Dawkins will ever be more hated than Darwin in the eyes of creationists. Creationist hatred of Darwin is both palpable and odd-ball.

[rogue06]

Indeed.

What's so odd is that they fail to understand that Darwin's idea about common descent is just one among several, and kill Darwin off and common descent with modification (including macro) will still be the viable scientific theory. It's just that some other process of common descent will be the theoretical and practical work horse.


Creationists, to a man (and a woman) don't appear to have much historical insight. For example, the atomic theory of matter went through a couple of really massive changes before we settled on the modern quantum theory of particulate matter. The data which proved the old versions of atomic theory to be wrong, did not disprove the atomic theory of matter per se.

Reminds me a bit of the periodic table showing its corrections in a satirical way:

12560931_6246357501_b.jpg
Enbiggen imagification by clickifying on it
then clickifying on the resulting imagification

I wonder if Dawkins will ever be more hated than Darwin in the eyes of creationists. Creationist hatred of Darwin is both palpable and odd-ball.

I doubt it. After he's gone Dawkins will likely be regarded as this time's Huxley.

[psstein]

^I might have to steal that one.

Questions about how a theory relates to certain discoveries (i.e. how does gradualism relate to the poorly-named "Cambrian Explosion?") do not mean the theory is in trouble. The theory would be in trouble if it could not explain the data at all.

[oxmixmudd]

Indeed.
I wonder if Dawkins will ever be more hated than Darwin in the eyes of creationists. Creationist hatred of Darwin is both palpable and odd-ball.

People in general tend to dislike or hate those that dislike or hate them. Dawkins public negative stance on those things held dear to Creationists and Christians (and religion in general) plays into this a good bit.

The only problem is (and its a common problem in the Creationist Leadership especially) is that Jesus himself left no place for hatred (though he did rebuke the Pharisees over their hypocrisy). So if Dawkins hates creationists or Christians in general, that is no excuse for a Christian Creationist to return the favor ...

Jim

[rwatts]

People in general tend to dislike or hate those that dislike or hate them. Dawkins public negative stance on those things held dear to Creationists and Christians (and religion in general) plays into this a good bit.

The only problem is (and its a common problem in the Creationist Leadership especially) is that Jesus himself left no place for hatred (though he did rebuke the Pharisees over their hypocrisy). So if Dawkins hates creationists or Christians in general, that is no excuse for a Christian Creationist to return the favor ...

Jim

I agree.

Dawkins is his own worst enemy.

I guess it depends on perspective. If one is convinced that to win the debate for science, one has to smash religion, then Dawkins' behaviour makes sense. But if one is convinced that to win the debate for science, one has to encourage good thinking within all groups, then his behaviour makes no sense at all.

I suspect Dawkins sees religion in general and Christianity in particular as the root cause of the problem and if we got rid of these, then things would be better. That kind of attitude leaves me feeling very cold. I don't think it's that simple and would much sooner encourage and support believers who are being sensible, and discourage believers who are not being sensible.

Theistic evolutionists show creationists that one does not have to go down their path in order to be a devout and committed Christian.

[nmanning]

.
.
... or is it?

Nah, of course not! When any such evidence is found the Evo-Faithful merely re-interpret it to support their faith-based conclusions. That way, "Heads, Evos win; tails, biblical Creationists lose."

In the latest round, here's their re-interpretation:

"Researchers from North Carolina State University have confirmed that blood vessel-like structures found in an 80 million-year-old hadrosaur fossil are original to the animal, and not biofilm or other contaminants. Their findings add to the growing body of evidence that structures like blood vessels and cells can persist over millions of years..." [emphasis mine]

Source: Researchers Confirm Original Blood Vessels in 80 Million-Year-Old Fossil
https://news.ncsu.edu/2015/12/schweitzer-vessels/


You see boys and girls, before these things were discovered any scientist even suggesting that blood vessels and soft tissue could last for tens of millions of years would have been laughed out of his/her position, probably had their tenure and/or their degree revoked and probably have been tar-and-feathered in public for even suggesting such outright imbecility that opposes not just common sense but basic physics and chemistry.

But, (drum roll please) ... after the evidence is found, and given that Evolution MUST be upheld at ALL costs, they simply move the goalposts back into the next county and continue with their mantra as if nothing had happened.

HEAVEN FORBID that any of them should entertain - let alone suggest - the notion that, "Hey, perhaps these finding are NOT tens of millions of years old ... maybe there's truth to the biblical time frame."

Never happen! Paychecks, job security and professional recognition are far too important to step out on a limb like that. They'll propose anything, even advanced alien civilizations or blood vessels lasting for 80 million years, before accepting the biblical time history.

Oh well ... dumbos will be dumbos will be dumbos!

Jorge

"Dr".Fernandez - are you familiar with the term "non-sequitur"?

[Jorge]

"Dr".Fernandez - are you familiar with the term "non-sequitur"?

Definitely I'm familiar, just as definitely and obviously you are not.

Here it is again ... it cannot be any more logical:

"You see boys and girls, before these things were discovered any scientist even suggesting that blood vessels and soft tissue could last for tens of millions of years would have been laughed out of his/her position, probably had their tenure and/or their degree revoked and probably have been tar-and-feathered in public for even suggesting such outright imbecility that opposes not just common sense but basic physics and chemistry.

But, (drum roll please) ... after the evidence is found, and given that Evolution MUST be upheld at ALL costs, they simply move the goalposts back into the next county and continue with their mantra as if nothing had happened.

HEAVEN FORBID that any of them should entertain - let alone suggest - the notion that, "Hey, perhaps these finding are NOT tens of millions of years old ... maybe there's truth to the biblical time frame."

Never happen! Paychecks, job security and professional recognition are far too important to step out on a limb like that. They'll propose anything, even advanced alien civilizations or blood vessels lasting for 80 million years, before accepting the biblical time history."


I will grant you one thing, the last part (below) is DEFINITELY a non sequitur:

"Oh well ... dumbos will be dumbos will be dumbos!"


Jorge