[_ Old Earth _] Does Christianity defy evolution?

[coelacanth]

Possibly. You asked incredibly complex questions, and it was easier to post videos as a starting place since you clearly have no background in this; I thought the visual aids would help ;)

 

[RND]

From one of the videos:

"Over time, more complex metabolic and regulatory systems would evolve."

Says who and based on what provable theory? That's simple a ridiculous statement. That's like saying that a Volkswagen Beetle can become a 747 given enough time! It a fascinatingly unprovable comment that we are somehow supposed to take on "faith." Oh, yeah - there's that word again! "Faith." The assumptions that evolutionist make are based on the "faith" of their assumptions.

Never mind that this video in no way addresses the questions I asked.

"Ribozymes are routinely 'evolved' in laboratories'

Great! Where's the prove that they are 'routinely evolved' in nature? Where's the evidence of how they came about in the first place? Another statement one is suppose to "accept" based on assumptive faith.

"early ribozymes could have simply found their cofactors in the environment.'

Note the words "could have" which again is merely an assumptive guess. I 'could have' been the starting center for the LA Lakers back in the 80's if I wasn't 5' 7". Where is the "proof" that early ribozymes actually found their cofactors in the environment? There is none, so therefore we are supposed to accept this statement based on faith and faith alone.

"Experiments have shown that ribozymes capable of catalyzing a peptide bond (joining two amino acids) can be evolved."

Great! Where's the proof and evidence this actually happens in nature? Where's the amino acids come from? Where and how did they get made?

The rest on the video is based on assumptions derived from simple speculation.

 

[Caroline H]

Alright, this thread has been cleaned to the point that some of you may not even recognize it...

There will be no more name calling. Keep the tone down, stop insulting each other, and STICK TO THE TOPIC. If anyone has something personal to take up with another poster do it via PM, DO NOT use the public forums to argue. You all agreed to abide by the rules when you asked to use this forum. If it looks like someone has a problem with those rules, privies may be revoked.

 

[RND]

Thanks Caroline.

 

[coelacanth]

Done, thanks.

 

[Barbarian]

Thanks for the help. Let's move on...

"Experiments have shown that ribozymes capable of catalyzing a peptide bond (joining two amino acids) can be evolved."

Great! Where's the proof and evidence this actually happens in nature?

Turns out it happens normally around undersea vents. And in certain kinds of meteorites. Some of the amino acids and peptides in meteorites are not those found in living things on Earth, so we know they are not from contamination.

Formation of amino acids, peptide-like polymers, and microspheres in superheated hydrothermal environments
Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres
Volume 19, Numbers 3-5 / May, 1989
Hiroshi Yanagawa and Kensei Kobayashi

Where's the amino acids come from? Where and how did they get made?

The authors discovered that methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen, under high pressures and temperatures, will condense amino acids and combine them with peptide bonds. These materials and conditions are found at undersea hydrothermal vents. This is consistent with other evidence that shows life began in the sea ,and also explains why UV flux from the sun wasn't an issue.

 

[RND]

Thanks for the help. Let's move on...

"Experiments have shown that ribozymes capable of catalyzing a peptide bond (joining two amino acids) can be evolved."

Great! Where's the proof and evidence this actually happens in nature?

Turns out it happens normally around undersea vents.

Those bacteria can not live outside of the environment they are in. If that's the case how can that be evidence that those bacteria can morph into another life form or migrate to a new environment?

And in certain kinds of meteorites. Some of the amino acids and peptides in meteorites are not those found in living things on Earth, so we know they are not from contamination.

This isn't evidence of the evolution of amino acids.

Formation of amino acids, peptide-like polymers, and microspheres in superheated hydrothermal environments
Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres
Volume 19, Numbers 3-5 / May, 1989
Hiroshi Yanagawa and Kensei Kobayashi

Great! Any proof that these bacteria can morph into other life forms or exist outside of the presence environment they are in?

The authors discovered that methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen, under high pressures and temperatures, will condense amino acids and combine them with peptide bonds.

There's only one problem with this 'guess'. No one knows what the atmosphere of earth was like when the earth was created. None. There is not one scientist alive that can definitively state what earth's atmosphere was like at creation. It can only be assumed what earth's atmosphere was like. Thus this belief is only based on an assumption. This leads to 'faith' in an assumption.

These materials and conditions are found at undersea hydrothermal vents.

No doubt. Of course nothing has been offered that things exist outside of these environments.

This is consistent with other evidence that shows life began in the sea ,and also explains why UV flux from the sun wasn't an issue.

I'd like to see clear cut evidence that shows these thermal bacteria live outside of the natural environment.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Thanks for the help. Let's move on...
"Experiments have shown that ribozymes capable of catalyzing a peptide bond (joining two amino acids) can be evolved."

Great! Where's the proof and evidence this actually happens in nature?

Barbarian provides evidence that it does:
Turns out it happens normally around undersea vents.

Those bacteria can not live outside of the environment they are in.

Actually, they do. How do you think they get to new thermal vents? They are carried by seawater randomly, and when a new vent forms, a few of them happen to be there and take advantage of it.

If that's the case how can that be evidence that those bacteria can morph into another life form or migrate to a new environment?

As you see, that's not a problem. And the evolution of new characteristics, including irreducible complexity, has been directly observed in bacteria. Would you like some examples?

Barbarian observes:
And in certain kinds of meteorites. Some of the amino acids and peptides in meteorites are not those found in living things on Earth, so we know they are not from contamination.

This isn't evidence of the evolution of amino acids.

It is evidence that amino acids and peptides (short proteins) can form naturally.

The Barbarian observes:
The authors discovered that methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen, under high pressures and temperatures, will condense amino acids and combine them with peptide bonds.

There's only one problem with this 'guess'.

It's not a guess. It's directly observed.

No one knows what the atmosphere of earth was like when the earth was created.

Turns out that's not a problem, if, as the evidence shows, life began in the sea. These gases came from the interior of the Earth, not the atmosphere. But we do have good evidence for the sort of atmosphere that existed in the early Earth. The reduced iron deposits could only have formed in an atmosphere nearly devoid of oxygen.

Barbarian observes:
This is consistent with other evidence that shows life began in the sea ,and also explains why UV flux from the sun wasn't an issue.

I'd like to see clear cut evidence that shows these thermal bacteria live outside of the natural environment.

You mean around the vents? Sure. As you just realized, they had to be able to live away from the vents to colonize the new ones.

 

[RND]

Barbarian provides evidence that it does:
Turns out it happens normally around undersea vents.

You've provided no evidence that these undersea vents produce life that can be sustained outside of the limited environment they create.

Actually, they do. How do you think they get to new thermal vents? They are carried by seawater randomly, and when a new vent forms, a few of them happen to be there and take advantage of it.

That's just a blanket statement my friend with nothing offered to validate the view. Every study I have seen states that these thermal bacteria do not, nor cannot, live outside of these thermal zones. They enjoy a symbiotic relationship with the environment.

As you see, that's not a problem. And the evolution of new characteristics, including irreducible complexity, has been directly observed in bacteria.

But they are still bacteria right? They don't later morph into fish right?

Would you like some examples?

Yes, I would love some - are you going to produce some?

It is evidence that amino acids and peptides (short proteins) can form naturally.

Again, it says nothing about amino acids being formed through evolution which you contended happens - thus you have failed to produce anything that suggests amino acids can "evolve."

The Barbarian observes:
The authors discovered that methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen, under high pressures and temperatures, will condense amino acids and combine them with peptide bonds.

[quote:33m4yv1b]There's only one problem with this 'guess'.

It's not a guess. It's directly observed.[/quote:33m4yv1b] It's a guess. A hypothesis.

[quote:33m4yv1b]No one knows what the atmosphere of earth was like when the earth was created.

Turns out that's not a problem, if, as the evidence shows, life began in the sea. These gases came from the interior of the Earth, not the atmosphere. But we do have good evidence for the sort of atmosphere that existed in the early Earth. The reduced iron deposits could only have formed in an atmosphere nearly devoid of oxygen.[/quote:33m4yv1b] [/quote]Well if that's the case why would scientist attempt experiments based on what they feel the atmosphere of earth was if they belief life first sprang from the ocean? It seems rather inconsistent frankly.

Barbarian observes:
This is consistent with other evidence that shows life began in the sea ,and also explains why UV flux from the sun wasn't an issue.

[quote:33m4yv1b]I'd like to see clear cut evidence that shows these thermal bacteria live outside of the natural environment.

You mean around the vents? [/quote:33m4yv1b] Yes, around the vents.

Sure. As you just realized, they had to be able to live away from the vents to colonize the new ones.

Um, it's kinda easy to follow the logic frankly - I just don't agree with it. I'd need to see some proof. Do you have any to share?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Barbarian provides evidence that it does:
Turns out it happens normally around undersea vents.

You've provided no evidence that these undersea vents produce life that can be sustained outside of the limited environment they create.

Barbarian observes:
Actually, they do. How do you think they get to new thermal vents? They are carried by seawater randomly, and when a new vent forms, a few of them happen to be there and take advantage of it.

That's just a blanket statement my friend with nothing offered to validate the view.

Well, reality is a pretty good argument. How do you think they get from vent to vent?

Every study I have seen states that these thermal bacteria do not, nor cannot, live outside of these thermal zones.

Well that's a good start. Let's see them. Meantime...

Photosynthetic bacteria may be able to live without solar light, instead using thermal radiation from hot fluid for energy, according to a study in this week's PNAS. Researchers led by J. Thomas Beatty of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, have found obligately photosynthetic green sulfur bacteria at a deep-sea hydrothermal vent more than a mile below the ocean surface...This is actually very typical green sulfur bacteria," said Bauer. ... it looks just like other known species of green sulfur bacteria, ...

Ref:Beatty JT, Overmann J, Lince MT, Manske AK, Lang AS, Blankenship RE, Van Dover CL, Martinson TA, Plumley FG. (2005). "An obligately photosynthetic bacterial anaerobe from a deep-sea hydrothermal vent". Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102 (26)

Barbarian observes:
As you see, that's not a problem. And the evolution of new characteristics, including irreducible complexity, has been directly observed in bacteria.

But they are still bacteria right?

Yep. They just adapted to particular conditions, but they can live elsewhere, as the report notes.

Barbarian offers earlier:
Would you like some examples?

Yes, I would love some - are you going to produce some?

Enjoy.

Barbarian observes:
It is evidence that amino acids and peptides (short proteins) can form naturally.

Again, it says nothing about amino acids being formed through evolution which you contended happens

No, I pointed out that happens without living things. Amino acids can form in the absence of life.

thus you have failed to produce anything that suggests amino acids can "evolve."

Not surprising, since I didn't claim they evolve. But the evidence shows they can and do form abiotically.

Barbarian oberves:
The authors discovered that methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen, under high pressures and temperatures, will condense amino acids and combine them with peptide bonds.

There's only one problem with this 'guess'.

Barbarian observes:
It's not a guess. It's directly observed.

It's a guess.

Nope. I cited a study that observed it to happen.

A hypothesis.

No. A hypothesis is what happens before it's verified.

No one knows what the atmosphere of earth was like when the earth was created.

Barbarian observes:
Turns out that's not a problem, if, as the evidence shows, life began in the sea. These gases came from the interior of the Earth, not the atmosphere. But we do have good evidence for the sort of atmosphere that existed in the early Earth. The reduced iron deposits could only have formed in an atmosphere nearly devoid of oxygen.

Well if that's the case why would scientist attempt experiments based on what they feel the atmosphere of earth was if they belief life first sprang from the ocean?

Probably because they didn't know about hydrothermal vents in the 40s.

It seems rather inconsistent frankly.

Science moves on. As we learn more, we know more.

Barbarian observes:
This is consistent with other evidence that shows life began in the sea ,and also explains why UV flux from the sun wasn't an issue.

I'd like to see clear cut evidence that shows these thermal bacteria live outside of the natural environment.

See above.

Barbarian observes:
Sure. As you just realized, they had to be able to live away from the vents to colonize the new ones.

Um, it's kinda easy to follow the logic frankly - I just don't agree with it.

I don't think that changes anything. How do you think they get from one vent to another?

I'd need to see some proof. Do you have any to share?

In at least one case, the same kind of green sulfur bacteria grow around hydrothermal vents as are found elsewhere. The study is cited above. The interesting part is that these bacteria are photosynthetic and use the faint glow from the vents to produce their own food.

 

[RND]

Well, reality is a pretty good argument. How do you think they get from vent to vent?

That's an assumption. You have provided no evidence that thermal vent bacteria migrate to other vents.

Well that's a good start. Let's see them. Meantime...

Sure.

http://www.whoi.edu/science/B/people/ts ... hermal.htm

This study concludes that bacteria need a host to migrate. Thus it would be an assumption to believe that bacteria always have a host to help them migrate.

Photosynthetic bacteria may be able to live without solar light, instead using thermal radiation from hot fluid for energy, according to a study in this week's PNAS. Researchers led by J. Thomas Beatty of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, have found obligately photosynthetic green sulfur bacteria at a deep-sea hydrothermal vent more than a mile below the ocean surface...This is actually very typical green sulfur bacteria," said Bauer. ... it looks just like other known species of green sulfur bacteria, ...

Ref:Beatty JT, Overmann J, Lince MT, Manske AK, Lang AS, Blankenship RE, Van Dover CL, Martinson TA, Plumley FG. (2005). "An obligately photosynthetic bacterial anaerobe from a deep-sea hydrothermal vent". Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102 (26)

This says nothing about migration of these bacteria.

[quote:1k4o0l33]But they are still bacteria right?

Yep. They just adapted to particular conditions, but they can live elsewhere, as the report notes.[/quote:1k4o0l33] Clase closed then. If they remain bacteria they will always be bacteria. No proof they become something else.

Barbarian offers earlier:
Would you like some examples?

[quote:1k4o0l33]Yes, I would love some - are you going to produce some?

Enjoy.[/quote:1k4o0l33] Where are your examples then?

No, I pointed out that happens without living things. Amino acids can form in the absence of life.

But again, this isn't proof they evolve. Also, it is a simple assumption of the origin of the meteorite amino acids. So there is no proof that meteorite amino acids evolve.

[quote:1k4o0l33]thus you have failed to produce anything that suggests amino acids can "evolve."

Not surprising, since I didn't claim they evolve. But the evidence shows they can and do form abiotically.[/quote:1k4o0l33] Great, if amino acids can't evolve then how can you claim life evolves? In order for DNA to split it needs amino acids. If there is no proof amino acids evolve then there is no proof that DNA evolves.

Your circular argumentation then has been exposed.

Nope. I cited a study that observed it to happen.

No, I'm afraid you cited nothing.

No. A hypothesis is what happens before it's verified.

That's what I said.... a guess.

Probably because they didn't know about hydrothermal vents in the 40s.

So then it matters not that amino acids came from outer space then right? I would like to see a consistent argument from the evolutionist's regarding this. Where do the believe life came from? The ocean? Space? Just happened? All over the map with complete guesses.

Science moves on. As we learn more, we know more.

The more science guesses the more it doesn't know.

See above.

I don't think that changes anything. How do you think they get from one vent to another?

From what I've read the hypothesis is that they hitch a ride. They certainly don't migrate thousands of miles on their own from one vent to another.

In at least one case, the same kind of green sulfur bacteria grow around hydrothermal vents as are found elsewhere.

That's a statement, not proof. That's like saying that since California has dogs and Kansas has dogs the dogs in Kansas must have come from California. Makes no sense. Offer up some proof.

The study is cited above. The interesting part is that these bacteria are photosynthetic and use the faint glow from the vents to produce their own food.

Doesn't prove they migrate.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
Well, reality is a pretty good argument. How do you think they get from vent to vent?

That's an assumption. You have provided no evidence that thermal vent bacteria migrate to other vents.

Obviously they get there. New smokers are quickly colonized by bacteria. As I showed you, one species is identical to green sulfur bacteria found in the open ocean.

Well that's a good start. Let's see them.
Sure.

http://www.whoi.edu/science/B/people/ts ... hermal.htm

Except that this species of green sulfur bacteria are obligate photosynthesizers. They can't be endosymbionts, and are never found as such. However, they do exist in the open ocean, as free-living bacteria.

This study concludes that bacteria need a host to migrate.

Those particular bacteria. But this species of green sulfur bacteria would die if they were internal symbiotes.

Photosynthetic bacteria may be able to live without solar light, instead using thermal radiation from hot fluid for energy, according to a study in this week's PNAS. Researchers led by J. Thomas Beatty of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, have found obligately photosynthetic green sulfur bacteria at a deep-sea hydrothermal vent more than a mile below the ocean surface...This is actually very typical green sulfur bacteria," said Bauer. ... it looks just like other known species of green sulfur bacteria, ...

Ref:Beatty JT, Overmann J, Lince MT, Manske AK, Lang AS, Blankenship RE, Van Dover CL, Martinson TA, Plumley FG. (2005). "An obligately photosynthetic bacterial anaerobe from a deep-sea hydrothermal vent". Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102 (26)

This says nothing about migration of these bacteria.

But it does show that they live freely elsewhere, which pretty much eliminates the claim that they can't. BTW, no other organisms would come to black smokers unless the bacteria were there first. Nothing to eat, you know.

Barbarian observes:
Yep. They just adapted to particular conditions, but they can live elsewhere, as the report notes.

Clase closed then.

Thank you. Not only can amino acids and peptides form at black smokers, but as you see, bacteria that colonize them can live elsewhere. This is just one example of such bacteria that can do this. Would you like some more examples?

(claim that Barbarian said amino acids "evolve")

No, I pointed out that happens without living things. Amino acids can form in the absence of life.

But again, this isn't proof they evolve.

Don't remember anyone claiming they do evolve.

Not surprising, since I didn't claim they evolve. But the evidence shows they can and do form abiotically.

Great, if amino acids can't evolve then how can you claim life evolves?

Because we see that amino acids don't evolve, and living things do.

In order for DNA to split it needs amino acids.

But if, as the evidence shows, RNA came first in living things, that's not a problem.

Barbarian, regarding scientists thinking about atmospheric gases and the origin of life:
Probably because they didn't know about hydrothermal vents in the 40s.

So then it matters not that amino acids came from outer space then right?

Probably not. As you learned, amino acids form readily on Earth, also.

I would like to see a consistent argument from the evolutionist's regarding this.

They might be agreed on evolution, but abiogenesis is a different theory, and so they can differ on that.

Barbarian observes:
Science moves on. As we learn more, we know more.

The more science guesses the more it doesn't know.

You might find science puzzling, but you have to admit nothing else works better for understanding how this world works.

Barbarian asks:
I don't think that changes anything. How do you think they get from one vent to another?

From what I've read the hypothesis is that they hitch a ride.

Some might, but the ones I showed you can't. They have to be in the presence of light. And as you learned, they live in the open sea as well as near vents.

Communities of green sulfur bacteria in marine and saline habitats analyzed by gene sequences of 16S rRNA and Fenna-Matthews-Olson protein.

Alexander B, Imhoff JF.

Leibniz Institute for Marine Sciences, University of Kiel, Germany.

They certainly don't migrate thousands of miles on their own from one vent to another.

Pollen doesn't migrate, either, but it also can go thousands of kilometers on air currents. So do green sulfur bacteria, on ocean currents.

Barbarian observes:
In at least one case, the same kind of green sulfur bacteria grow around hydrothermal vents as are found elsewhere.

That's a statement, not proof.

In fact, it's documented in the report I showed you.

 

[Crying Rock]

I understand that the majority of Christians have no difficulty reconciling their faith with an understanding and acceptance of evolution as a fact.

Complete BS.

Humbly spoken:

CR

 

[lordkalvan]

I understand that the majority of Christians have no difficulty reconciling their faith with an understanding and acceptance of evolution as a fact.

Complete oopsie.

Humbly spoken:

CR

What do you mean? Why are you commenting again on one of my first posts to this thread, when you have not yet replied to my most recent post replying to your own comments?

 

[Crying Rock]

As a Christian I have encountered very few Christians that think that God created his creation via naturalist means. Naturalist meaning that God had nothing to do with it. I understand that you are an atheist. But please don't project your beliefs upon the Christian community.

 

[lordkalvan]

As a Christian I have encountered very few Christians that think that God created his creation via naturalist means. Naturalist meaning that God had nothing to do with it. I understand that you are an atheist. But please don't project your beliefs upon the Christian community.

What does this have to do with Christians who accept evolution? I have encountered very few Christians who think that God created the Universe only 6.000 years ago.

 

[Barbarian]

As a Christian I have encountered very few Christians that think that God created his creation via naturalist means. Naturalist meaning that God had nothing to do with it.

How could He have nothing to do with it, if He created the Earth by natural means? It would seem to me being the Creator would involve a role, even if He used nature to do it.

 

[coelacanth]

As a Christian I have encountered very few Christians that think that God created his creation via naturalist means. Naturalist meaning that God had nothing to do with it. I understand that you are an atheist. But please don't project your beliefs upon the Christian community.

Don't you believe that the creator created nature with all its laws or is that outside his domain? Your views seem inconsistent to me...

 

[RND]

I think the term "natural" or "naturalist" needs definition.

 

[Barbarian]

If one says that God created life by natural means, it means that it wasn't created from nothing, but was produced from pre-existing created matter. As God puts it, life was brought forth by the earth and waters.