[__ Science __ ] WHO IS DEAD? GOD OR DARWIN?

[GodsGrace]

Since the late 20th century, science has accepted the fact the the universe did not always exist and actually came into existence about 14 billion years ago, and the earth formed about 4 billion years ago.

Did this still leave enough time for evolution to take place?
From a single cell to a human?

Darwin had some doubt about his own theory of the origin of the human race.
By this he meant evolution and NOT how life began.

Scientists are beginning to abandon the theory of evolution.
Not enough time.
How does one explain the eye.
And the cell.
The cell !!

So, how did we get here?

The following is very good, the guests excellent.
If you're not too interested, at least the first 15 minutes should be seen just to keep up to date.

 

[GodsGrace]

Barbarian
Phoneman777

Thought you might be interested...

 

[Barbarian]

Since the late 20th century, science has accepted the fact the the universe did not always exist and actually came into existence about 14 billion years ago, and the earth formed about 4 billion years ago.

Yep.

Did this still leave enough time for evolution to take place?

Yep. More than enough.

From a single cell to a human?

Actually, the evolution of the eukaryotic cell was apparently way more difficult than going from a cell to a human. The record suggests that took well over a billion years. We were comparatively easy.

Darwin had some doubt about his own theory of the origin of the human race.
By this he meant evolution and NOT how life began.

He accurately predicted that the earliest humans would be found to have begun in Africa. And in his "descent of man", he rather persuasively laid out how that would have happened. Remarkably, he anticipated other discoveries about early man, although he was wrong about a few things. Worth reading.

Scientists are beginning to abandon the theory of evolution.

I still keep up with a lot of my colleagues. So far, no such change.

Not enough time.

Geneticists thing that there was. And they probably would know better than the rest of us.

How does one explain the eye.

Random mutation and natural selection. In some phyla, we can still see living member with all the major steps required for a complex image-forming eye. Mollusks, for example, retain all those steps in various member of the group.

There actually isn't a huge leap required to make a complex eye as we see it in vertebrates and octopuses.

And the cell.
The cell !!

The key there is that the one organelle that is absolutely required for a cell, is the simplest organelle, and self-assembling with readily-available molecules. And since we have found complex amino acids and even short proteins in meteorites, we know that such materials can form before living things. I'm told of a study that found all the necessary parts for nucleic acids in at least one meteorite, but I haven't read it yet. I'll let you know when I do.

Turns out, God was right when He said the earth brought forth living things. It was (to use an IDer term) front-loaded to produce life. He made it that way.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yep.

Yep. More than enough.

Actually, the evolution of the eukaryotic cell was apparently way more difficult than going from a cell to a human. The record suggests that took well over a billion years. We were comparatively easy.

He accurately predicted that the earliest humans would be found to have begun in Africa. And in his "descent of man", he rather persuasively laid out how that would have happened. Remarkably, he anticipated other discoveries about early man, although he was wrong about a few things. Worth reading.

I still keep up with a lot of my colleagues. So far, no such change.

Geneticists thing that there was. And they probably would know better than the rest of us.

Random mutation and natural selection. In some phyla, we can still see living member with all the major steps required for a complex image-forming eye. Mollusks, for example, retain all those steps in various member of the group.

There actually isn't a huge leap required to make a complex eye as we see it in vertebrates and octopuses.

The key there is that the one organelle that is absolutely required for a cell, is the simplest organelle, and self-assembling with readily-available molecules. And since we have found complex amino acids and even short proteins in meteorites, we know that such materials can form before living things. I'm told of a study that found all the necessary parts for nucleic acids in at least one meteorite, but I haven't read it yet. I'll let you know when I do.

Turns out, God was right when He said the earth brought forth living things. It was (to use an IDer term) front-loaded to produce life. He made it that way.

You don't agree with the scientists in the video?

 

[Barbarian]

From an IDer, a fellow of the Discovery Institute (Michael Denton)

t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science—that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called “special creationist school.” According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God’s direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world– that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview. (my emphasis)
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

You might know that Michael Behe describes himself as an evolutionist. He just thinks God has to step in every now and then to make it work as He wishes. He accepts the fact of common descent, but thinks that Darwinian processes cannot explain all of it, hence God and miracles.

 

[Barbarian]

You don't agree with the scientists in the video?

I've disagreed with their religious assumptions for a long time. So do many IDers now.

 

[GodsGrace]

I've disagreed with their religious assumptions for a long time. So do many IDers now.

They aren't discussing religion.
Not done with the whole video yet.
They are saying that the cell is very complicated and requires design.

 

[GodsGrace]

Now they're discussing an intelligent mind,
And up to down information.
I think this is amazing.

 

[BeyondET]

It does take design and carrying intelligence along generations and other designs. Stem cells pack a enormous amount of info, like the Monarch butterfly. Takes quite a few generations to migrate each year from Canada to Mexico then back during the seasons.

 

[Barbarian]

They are saying that the cell is very complicated and requires design.

That's where they run into trouble. I've discussed this with several prominent creationists/IDers. When asked specifically what step in the formation of a living cell is forbidden by any natural law, they never give me a straight answer. One of them was kind enough to include my POV in one of his books and sent me an autographed copy.

So he felt it was at least worth bringing up. The thing is, if you look at the whole eukaryotic cell, it's astonishingly complex and daunting. But if you look at the border between viruses (not alive, by most definitions) and prokaryotes, it's not quite as impressive. There are intermediates between viruses and mycoplasmids, which calls into question exactly what "living" means.

Could Giant Viruses Be the Origin of Life on Earth?​

The ancestors of modern viruses may have laid the groundwork for cellular life as we know it.

Could Giant Viruses Be the Origin of Life on Earth?

The ancestors of modern viruses might have provided the raw material for life as we know it, according to stunning new discoveries.

www.nationalgeographic.com

 

[GodsGrace]

It does take design and carrying intelligence along generations and other designs. Stem cells pack a enormous amount of info, like the Monarch butterfly. Takes quite a few generations to migrate each year from Canada to Mexico then back during the seasons.

What about the eye?
Did some living being live sans sight for millions of years before it could see, while the eye was evolving? How did it maintain itself and survive in the meantime?

 

[GodsGrace]

That's where they run into trouble. I've discussed this with several prominent creationists/IDers. When asked specifically what step in the formation of a living cell is forbidden by any natural law, they never give me a straight answer. One of them was kind enough to include my POV in one of his books and sent me an autographed copy.

So he felt it was at least worth bringing up. The thing is, if you look at the whole eukaryotic cell, it's astonishingly complex and daunting. But if you look at the border between viruses (not alive, by most definitions) and prokaryotes, it's not quite as impressive. There are intermediates between viruses and mycoplasmids, which calls into question exactly what "living" means.

Could Giant Viruses Be the Origin of Life on Earth?​

The ancestors of modern viruses may have laid the groundwork for cellular life as we know it.

Could Giant Viruses Be the Origin of Life on Earth?

The ancestors of modern viruses might have provided the raw material for life as we know it, according to stunning new discoveries.

www.nationalgeographic.com

The very fact that a new hypothesis is being put forward tells me they haven't got a clue and that they REFUSE to even consider ID.

I thought science was supposed to be an open minded field.

 

[jasonc]

What about the eye?
Did some living being live sans sight for millions of years before it could see, while the eye was evolving? How did it maintain itself and survive in the meantime?

They ignore that .

The human eye ,we process what we see and according to bias .

I notice odd things because I want to .I will look at old photos and date them by utilities if I don't see a caption .I will notice the types of poles of fpl and fpua and old covb . Now imagine adding glasses it changes things.now imagine we never had eyes then one day we do .
Never perceived light and depth and shapes and colors .

 

[Barbarian]

The very fact that a new hypothesis is being put forward tells me they haven't got a clue and that they REFUSE to even consider ID.

The clue was actually the discovery that there isn't a hard distinction between living things and non-living things. Science, being what it is, moves to incorporate new knowledge by changing theories as evidence demands.

I thought science was supposed to be an open minded field.

That's why they are looking at changing the concept. Turns out, there are viruses that are "alive" in the sense that many cells are alive. When I was an undergraduate, the theory was that viruses were probably degenerate bits of genome that somehow became able to infect other cells. Now, it's not so certain. Or maybe some viruses are like that, and some are much-evolved survivors from the first cellular life on Earth.

The field is moving pretty fast these days, and the outline of a more comprehensive definition of life is forming.

 

[GodsGrace]

The clue was actually the discovery that there isn't a hard distinction between living things and non-living things. Science, being what it is, moves to incorporate new knowledge by changing theories as evidence demands.

That's why they are looking at changing the concept. Turns out, there are viruses that are "alive" in the sense that many cells are alive. When I was an undergraduate, the theory was that viruses were probably degenerate bits of genome that somehow became able to infect other cells. Now, it's not so certain. Or maybe some viruses are like that, and some are much-evolved survivors from the first cellular life on Earth.

The field is moving pretty fast these days, and the outline of a more comprehensive definition of life is forming.

Right.
It's your last paragraph that I find so exciting.

 

[Barbarian]

wondering said:
What about the eye?
Did some living being live sans sight for millions of years before it could see, while the eye was evolving? How did it maintain itself and survive in the meantime?

How did a primitive chordate manage without eyes? Well, they did. Still do. How do naked mole rats manage without being able to see? Somehow, they do. In the case of chordates, those eyeless things were able to detect light over their bodies. We can, too.

On a hot Texas day, and I'm in a thin t-shirt or no shirt at all, I can tell when I move out of the shade, even if I have my eyes closed.

• If a blind chordate has a dark spot on its body, it will be able to better detect light, and also thereby be able to detect direction of light.
• If the integument under the spot gets more nerves, the acuity is improved.
• If the spot is in a slight depression, its directional acuity is improved, and the different nerves under the spot get different amounts of light, gaining more information about the source.
• If the depression forms a pit, the organism becomes even more competent at detecting light, direction and motion.
• If the depression constricts at the top of the pit, it gets better, and at some point an image can form on the pigmented spot. (chambered natutilus)
• If the pit is covered by transparent tissue, a focusing lens exists.
• If the constriction is contolled by muscles, an adjustable iris exists.

All of these steps still exist in several phyla.

 

[GodsGrace]

How did a primitive chordate manage without eyes? Well, they did. Still do. How do naked mole rats manage without being able to see? Somehow, they do. In the case of chordates, those eyeless things were able to detect light over their bodies. We can, too.

On a hot Texas day, and I'm in a thin t-shirt or no shirt at all, I can tell when I move out of the shade, even if I have my eyes closed.

• If a blind chordate has a dark spot on its body, it will be able to better detect light, and also thereby be able to detect direction of light.
• If the integument under the spot gets more nerves, the acuity is improved.
• If the spot is in a slight depression, its directional acuity is improved, and the different nerves under the spot get different amounts of light, gaining more information about the source.
• If the depression forms a pit, the organism becomes even more competent at detecting light, direction and motion.
• If the depression constricts at the top of the pit, it gets better, and at some point an image can form on the pigmented spot. (chambered natutilus)
• If the pit is covered by transparent tissue, a focusing lens exists.
• If the constriction is contolled by muscles, an adjustable iris exists.

All of these steps still exist in several phyla.

Very interesting.
I saw fish with no eyes at the NY Aquarium.
This is because they're so deep down the is no light. They wouldn't see anything anyway, so eyes are not necessary, so they never developed.
But wouldn't this hinder the human race from developing?

 

[Barbarian]

But wouldn't this hinder the human race from developing?

Would have, if we evolved from those. But it turns out that primates are so dependent on vision that there is no blind primate. So we only evolved from animas with pretty good vision. If there were primates that lived exclusively underground or in caves from which they could not leave, would they have lost vision? Very likely. It happens a lot because eyes are metabolically very expensive to maintain, and so where there is no light, they are a huge disadvantage.

 

[GodsGrace]

Would have, if we evolved from those. But it turns out that primates are so dependent on vision that there is no blind primate. So we only evolved from animas with pretty good vision. If there were primates that lived exclusively underground or in caves from which they could not leave, would they have lost vision? Very likely. It happens a lot because eyes are metabolically very expensive to maintain, and so where there is no light, they are a huge disadvantage.

But this goes right to my point.
If there is no blind primate,,,
How did they get eyes?

 

[Barbarian]

But this goes right to my point.
If there is no blind primate,,,
How did they get eyes?

Mammals generally have eyes, so the question is "how did mammals get eyes?"

But mammals evolved from the cynodont reptiles with eyes(we can talk about the evidence for that, if you like)
But reptiles evolved from amphibians with eyes (ditto)
But amphibians evolve from fish with eyes (ditto)
But fish evolved from chordates with eyes. (ditto)
And chordates were the first in our lineage with eyes. So let's look at how that evolved:

Pikaia, from the Burgess shale that preserved soft-bodied animals in the Early Cambrian, is the first animal to be definitely identified as a chordate. No eyes. It was probably, like amphioxus, sensitive to light on its body, with a spot that was particularly sensitive, like the ocellus on tunicate larva Tunicates are very primitive chordates with an odd adult form that is sessile and very un-chordate looking, while the young are very much like other chordates.

The most common early chordate arrangement is three eyes. Two laterally, and one on top of the body at the front. Most lizards still have that third eye as well, although it's quite small and mostly senses light and darkness.

It's tied to the pituitary and seems to function as a way to time development and mating. It apparently also functions as sort of a compass for lizards at least.

The point is that having eyes is just part of being a chordate. Mammals never evolved eyes, because they were already there in the ancestors of mammals.