Creation vs. Evolution

[Midnight Star]

65 million years ago - A space rock hit Earth (so most scientists believe) and wiped out the dinosaurs and countless other species.

Wasn't there at least 5 extinction events that are believed to have happened? I've heard of theories ranging from diease, climate changes (due to a shift in the earths axis over time), to meteorites.

-----

Mike.

 

[H2Andy]

I don't think it was a miracle at all. See if you can (using critical thinking skills) come up with a solution.

a solution for what?

what imaginary problem are we dealing with now?

first, there's no evidence for a world-wide flood less than 10,000 years ago (which covers the Biblical account if taken literally)

second, there is no evidence for a localized flood in the Middle East during the same time-frame.

there was no such flood. there was no need for anyone to build an ark.

it's a myth.

we can talk about possible sources later (hint: the last glacial period ended roughly 10,000 years ago, leading to warmer temperatures and higher water levels)

 

[Warthaug]

That's a very interesting point, since we use this plug-n-play "ability" today to mass produced pharmacuticals using bacteria, instead of livestock.

But to even achieve that in the laboratory is difficult and requires alot of disciplines from microbiology (the organic side), to genetics to chemistry ... you need a controlled environment (sterile, etc.,.) along with the right chemicals (be organic or inorganic in origin) to make the insertion point receptive to the new gene.

Actually, inserting genes into cells is extremely easy - I do it on almost a daily basis. Some species of bacteria require nothing more then soaking them in a solution of DNA (not joking). Other cell types can be transfected by doing nothing more then zapping the cell with a bit of electricity while soaking them in DNA...

In fact, this stuff is so easy it is the usual project that we give to undergrad students who want to try out lab science. Its easy, almost guaranteed to succeed, and doesn't require a great deal of expertise. I've even taught this to high-school students who come through on one-day tours...

I'm thinking with this type of "clean" environment necessary, with specialized chemicals (custom made) or organic enzymes or proteins that are already present in nature (which wouldnt exists in the very beginning - life wasnt here just yet), just to make it work on a very basic level, it would literaly take an act of God to bring all this together on a massive scale to achieve life as we know it.

Except, that's not how we think this came about. We believe that life started with self-polymerizing polymers (which do exist, including in interstellar space), which then formed into self-replicating molecules (these also exist, and have been made/evolved in the lab). From here you get more and more molecules working together until eventually you get what we'd call life.

No DNA, no proteins needed for the initial steps, just simple polymer chemistry - chemistry which occurs naturally without the requirement of life.

Read up on "RNA world" and "abiogenesis" for more.

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

I'm not sure if this was directly asked, it seemed implied in places, so i'll toss it in here...

-

Is the question really whether God created life from lifelessness doubted because:

If God created life in an instant (well, an instant to us would be like a second, to him who knows - in a second would be our proof, it just never seems to work that way), why do we show a fossil record that starts from the Hadian (temperture and chemical change seeking a balance) to very simple Cambrian lifeforms, gaining in complexity and diversity until what we have today - an upside down pyramid. Why take a few billion years to do it?

Is this the basis of the anti-creationist view?

-----

Mike.

Firstly, to address your first question, why not take a few billion years? It's not like he's going to die or anything. As far as we know, to god a few billion years may seem like little more then seconds.

As for the second, no it is not the basis of the anti-creationist view. Rather, it is that creationist theology disagrees with literally thousands of scientific observations - from the age of the earth, to the age of the universe, to the formation of life.

Bryan

 

[Midnight Star]

Actually, inserting genes into cells is extremely easy - I do it on almost a daily basis. Some species of bacteria require nothing more then soaking them in a solution of DNA (not joking). Other cell types can be transfected by doing nothing more then zapping the cell with a bit of electricity while soaking them in DNA...

In fact, this stuff is so easy it is the usual project that we give to undergrad students who want to try out lab science. Its easy, almost guaranteed to succeed, and doesn't require a great deal of expertise. I've even taught this to high-school students who come through on one-day tours...

Soaking them in DNA would involve the presence of DNA already.

Except, that's not how we think this came about. We believe that life started with self-polymerizing polymers (which do exist, including in interstellar space), which then formed into self-replicating molecules (these also exist, and have been made/evolved in the lab). From here you get more and more molecules working together until eventually you get what we'd call life.

No DNA, no proteins needed for the initial steps, just simple polymer chemistry - chemistry which occurs naturally without the requirement of life.

Read up on "RNA world" and "abiogenesis" for more.

Bryan

That looks like some very interesting reading. Thanks Bryan.

-----

Mike.

 

[Warthaug]

Soaking them in DNA would involve the presence of DNA already.

Yes, but DNA is one of those self-polymerizing polymers I talked about in my last post. As is RNA, and to a limited extent amino acids (the building-blocks of proteins).

Bryan

 

[Green_Manelishi]

In response to two previous posts by "Mania" (?) and Soggy.

Why yes I do suppose the beetle "kind" eventually adapted to be many of what we see today. After all, they are resilient little bug(ger)s that adapt very well. It's just as valid a theory as "up from the mud they arose".

As for testing sister: I theorize that many of the "pre-humans" fossils are actually the result of testing sister. They are mutants; much like the palm-walkers in Turkey. "Testing sister" was not banned until after the flood; the changed world (no cloud cover, or possibly a changed magnetic field) would not shield DNA from the ravages of radiation.

Of course, these are just theories; I was not around. Neither were you.

 

[Warthaug]

Wasn't there at least 5 extinction events that are believed to have happened? I've heard of theories ranging from diease, climate changes (due to a shift in the earths axis over time), to meteorites.

-----

Mike.

There has been at least 5 major extinction events recorded in the fossil record (i.e. events where enough species went extinct that there are notable "holes" in the fossil record).

As for the causes of them, not all are known. The meteorite ending the reign of the dino's is pretty firm (we have an impact crater and everything to go along with that event). As for the others, they are less clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction

An interesting thing to note is that the rate of extinction today appears to be higher then the rates of extinction in even the most severe of the historical mass-extinctions. And in this case we know the cause - human kind.

Kinda depressing...

Bryan

 

[Midnight Star]

Yes, but DNA is one of those self-polymerizing polymers I talked about in my last post. As is RNA, and to a limited extent amino acids (the building-blocks of proteins).

Bryan

I'm reading up on it now, lots of intial theories to wade through ...

-

What I was referring to, is DNA isn't simply one or two amino acids, but an entire chain. Much like chemical compounds consist of many different elements - a reaction is more likely in those instances, than in an initial "boot strap" scenario when the elements are limited or in transition (not quite themselves yet), since more things are readily availble. Like a single yellow marble looking for another like one, in either a huge bag of collected marbles, or a single randomly generated one if and when it comes ... (granted same conditions should produce the same result)

I'm at the point now of looking at inorganic polymers, and working towards towards organic. It's going to take some time ...

-----

Mike.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Here is a bunch of articles concerning the genetic differences between humans and chimps. Look through them and comment if you know what they're talking about.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/uocm-mhd030606.php

http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4797257.stm

http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3392143.stm

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1464121

http://admin.ox.ac.uk/po/news/2004-05/feb/11a.shtml