Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

[alextemplet]

The ETC is amazing, and if it speaks to your soul so be it. A quiet moment on a mountaintop does it for me. If someday scientists are able to definitively detail the exact process by which every microscopic function of our existence came to be - would that shatter your belief in a god, your sense of wonder and awe?

Good point; for me the most recent jaw-dropping moment was a few days ago when my friend and I had set up our telescopes in the field outside of town and were waiting for the sun to set. We saw a mockingbird only ten feet away from us, cleaning its feathers. We both froze and lifted our binoculars to our eyes, and watched the bird for several minutes before it flew away. I couldn't believe it wasn't afraid to be so close to us, but it was absolutely wonderful to get to see it so close.

Then the sunset itself was gorgeous - a point sadly missed by most astronomers. The night sky always holds countless wonders, and I was able for the first time to identify several galaxies in the Virgo galaxy cluster. You need an almost perfect dark night to do that! The whole time, I couldn't believe it, each galaxy is millions of light-years across, contains hundreds of billions of stars, and is several million light-years away, and there were sometimes up to five of them at once in my eyepiece! Then add in the fact that, when the light we were seeing left those galaxies, mankind didn't even exist, and the sense of wonder is only deepened.

I know, none of this has anything to do with our topic; I'm just going on about how beautiful the natural world can be. No wonder I am studying to become a scientist, huh?

[AFJ]

If you're a Christian, you believe in a personal relationship with God. My advice is - keep it personal. Why should you have to prove to yourself or anyone else that He exists? God speaks to the heart of man, right? So why appeal to logic?

Anyway, enough religious talk. like I said before, I think endosymbiotic theory is fascinating - though we obviously don't know a ton about it. We do know enough that the current theories seem to fit better than any other scientific alternative.

Thank you Mr. Arastus. You seem to be a really cool person, and yes I am a Christian through many seasons, backslidings, and back again. But I never lost my faith.

Evolution is a theory of origins so God talk is rather inevitable. So please indulge me, and I'll get to my concerns. Then at least you'll understand why there is still a debate.

No. 1. If evolution is true then Adam and Eve are not, because death entered into the world before them.

No.2 If Adam and Eve are just a bible story then there is no inherited sin that was passed down from Adam--that is a sin nature in our genes that makes us want to do opposite the law of God.

No.3 If there is no sin nature, nor death as a result of our sin, then there is no need for a Saviour form that sin.

no.4 Jesus Christ was then a liar or a lunatic, because he claimed to be Lord of all things and claimed that he was sent to be a sacrifice for our sins. then the CHURCH is a farce and has no relevant function on Earth--even a mistaken pitiful imposter, living a fantasy.

No.4 But because there is personal revelation in the heart about scripture resulting in faith in something that we cannot see--but sense and feel--therefore there is a debate.

No. 5 What I say, I say in utmost humility and sincerity. I do not mean it in any sense arrogantly. Scripture will have the last word to America and Europe who have led the way in this theory which denies God's glory in His creation, and overthrows faith in children before it can root in them. For the heavens declare the glory of God the psalms say and in the last days which in my years of scriptural study can tell you we are in says that men will be heady and highminded, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.

[alextemplet]

AFJ, forgive me for saying so, but I am surprised that you think your entire faith will fall apart because of one scientific theory. This really does baffle me.

I also do not understand how you are able to make some of the claims you are advancing. It is clear from any in-depth study of Scripture that the creation stories in Genesis were never meant to be taken as literally as you seem to interpret them, just as it is equally plain to see that we are not yet anywhere close to the last days as described in Revelation. I am simply at a loss to understand how you are able to claim such things.

Perhaps you and I should have a private discussion through e-mail concerning religious and theological topics. Then we could return here for the scientific part of it. First, however, I really would like to have a purely doctrinal dialogue with you, if only to help us understand each other, since we both claim to be Christian but we seem to be following two completely different forms of faith. My e-mail can be accessed through the information shown under my screen name.

I'll be gone for the weekend, but should be back by Monday. I may or may not find time to post over the weekend; if not, I will see you again on Monday. Have a good weekend!

[GaryGaulin]

I know, none of this has anything to do with our topic; I'm just going on about how beautiful the natural world can be. No wonder I am studying to become a scientist, huh?

You show the curiosity and excellent problem skills of a born scientist. It's something that no school or university can give a person.

I could right away see that in your replies. Instead of acting on belief (includes many Atheists) and emotion you weigh the facts to arrive at as logical a conclusion as possible. I wish there were many more like you in the world.

[David George]

I also do not understand how you are able to make some of the claims you are advancing. It is clear from any in-depth study of Scripture that the creation stories in Genesis were never meant to be taken as literally as you seem to interpret them, just as it is equally plain to see that we are not yet anywhere close to the last days as described in Revelation.

I simply don't understand why you need to interpret "God's own words"..........I've seen many christians who support evolution say this "interpretation stuff"..........it looks nice to balance evolution and faith.........the problem is different people can interpret in different manners......and i simply don't understand how the killing of innocent people can be justified.....i mean to say abt the plagues of egypt.......I would love to hear your "interpretation" on that...LOL

[alextemplet]

David, I would like an honest answer to this question:

Are you honestly interested in hearing an answer to your question, or is this just another attempt of yours to advance your obvious bigotry while attempting - poorly - to disguise it as some sort of reason?

I am sorry if this offends you, but in my experience you have shown a debating style not unlike the currently-ignored gamila, and until I am certain you are interested in a serious discussion and not simple faith-bashing, I will decline to respond to your question just as I am currently ignoring his.

[AstusAleator]

AFJ I totally understand your dillema. I just want to address these points:

No.2 If Adam and Eve are just a bible story then there is no inherited sin that was passed down from Adam--that is a sin nature in our genes that makes us want to do opposite the law of God.

No.3 If there is no sin nature, nor death as a result of our sin, then there is no need for a Saviour form that sin.

Perhaps not everything happened the way the Bible tells it - but that doesn't make it untrue. Think of biblical creation as an allegory or a myth. There is still a core message to it that is culturally and religiously important, regardless of the actual truth of the account.

People obviously need saving from something - otherwise why would they cling to religions that offer them such salvation? So perhaps the biblical account is not entirely factual; but recognizing this does not invalidate your faith. (or it shouldn't)

The all-or-nothing attitude of literal creationists is what creates angry atheists. People will either turn a perpetually blind eye to scientific evidence or be so blown away by it that their faith is irrevocably destroyed.

I'll come back to my previous point: There are many ways to interpret religious texts, and there are many doctrines, but there is only one you. You believe in a personal god, so why should you need everyone else's interpretations of what you should believe? (mine included) To butcher a famous quote by Galileo: why would God endow you with reason and logic, and then expect you to forego them? The Bible is just words on paper that have been passed down generation to generation (and changed over time, make no mistake). You, according to your faith, are a direct creation of God. Ultimately, which can you trust more?

Finally I'll just say this: AFJ you're obviously an inquisitive person, you wouldn't be here otherwise. I get the feeling logic and faith are pulling you different directions, but they don't need to. I'd advise taking Alex up on his offer for email chatter. You guys can probably figure a lot out.

[AstusAleator]

I also do not understand how you are able to make some of the claims you are advancing. It is clear from any in-depth study of Scripture that the creation stories in Genesis were never meant to be taken as literally as you seem to interpret them, just as it is equally plain to see that we are not yet anywhere close to the last days as described in Revelation.

I simply don't understand why you need to interpret "God's own words"..........I've seen many christians who support evolution say this "interpretation stuff"..........it looks nice to balance evolution and faith.........the problem is different people can interpret in different manners......and i simply don't understand how the killing of innocent people can be justified.....i mean to say abt the plagues of egypt.......I would love to hear your "interpretation" on that...LOL

DG has a point. 99% (statistic totally made up on the spot) of religious practice is interpretation. Two "bible scholars" could sit in a room for eternity quibbling over their various interpretations of religious text. One thing they can agree on is that there is an underlying truth. Personally I think that people of faith need to step back and realize what it is that they truly believe in - and let the less important matters settle out from there.

[AFJ]

Hi folks,

No problem on the email, Alex. Back to science. Just one comment Alex and I'll continue on Email--I already knew you thought Adam and Eve were an allegory. There's no way to rectify a literal interpretation of Genesis and evolution. However, and this is all I will say on this website--if you read the apostle Paul's letter to the Romans in the New Testament you will find that he taught the early Christians in Rome that we have a sinful nature that was inherited from Adam--chapters 3--8, and that Jesus Christ was the legal and substitutionary sacrifice which paid for the sin of the world.

Mr. Arastus, thank you for your understanding. I assure you that I see no difference between faith and logic. I simply love science. Even in evolutionary theory you have not or do not see many things which are postulated, or know how some things took place--but the theory fits in your mind logically or you would probably have a nervous breakdown (lol). My faith is not without evidence--some of the evidence would be supernatural intervention and would not be allowed in scientific discussion.

It is obvious that modern day science is naturalistic, and nothing wrong with that in and of itself. But the problem would be that if the truth of a matter is not completely in the scope of the natural, science would not be able to facilitate the correct answers and possibly be completely wrong in some matters. String theory postulates infinite dimensions using Einstein's physics. It is ironic that scientists consider this a possibility and yet would not converse seriously about a spiritual dimension or the spiritual nature of man, or God.

[AFJ]

Endosymbiotic theory: These are some excerpts from an online article by Dr. Georgia Purdom
Ph.D., molecular genetics, Ohio State University.

She has published papers in the Journal of Neuroscience, the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research and the Journal of Leukocyte Biology. She is also a member of the American Society for Microbiology, and American Society for Cell Biology, and the Creation Research Society.

"Endosymbiotic theory proposes that primary endosymbiosis of cyanobacteria by an ancestral cell gave rise to algae and plants and secondary endosymbiosis of algae by protists gave rise to photosynthetic protists.

"The following quote gives us a picture of how evolutionists believe plastid endosymbiosis may have occurred:

" 'Endosymbiosis may be initiated when a phagotrophic protist engulfs an alga as prey. The protist fails, however, to digest the alga and thus accidentally retains it within the cell like a toothpick that cannot be swallowed [known as the “stuck-in-the-throat” model].1...This process of endosymbiosis requires genetic integration between the host and symbiont; vast amount of genes are transferred to the host nucleus, and protein transport machinery is established to transport products back into the plastid.'1"

"Endosymbiotic theory proposes that the genes for organelle proteins got transferred to the nucleus as part of a reduction process by the bacteria/cyanobacteria as they became a permanent part of the cell."


[The Problem]

"The problem for the cell was that it then had to “evolve” transport pathways to bring the organelle proteins back to the organelle....Each organelle has specific [protein] pathways...to accomplish this and there are typically several different pathways [for each] organelle....five pathways have been identified so far for transport of proteins into mitochondria.2 The case is similar for plastids.

"Since mutations are the only “tool” evolution has to “work” with, and since evolutionists have yet to show how new information could be added to a genome without design, mutations cannot account for the origin of these protein-transport pathways. If there is no way to form these pathways, then the organelles would become obsolete once they started transferring their genes to the nucleus. Furthermore, if there was no pathway to return the proteins to the organelle, then the organelles would stop functioning and would no longer be selected for because they did not serve a purpose.

"Intermediates not found

"For many years, the eukaryotic protists Archezoa, a now abandoned classification, were thought to lack mitochondria and to have branched off before the mitochondrial endosymbiotic event.3 However, recent findings have shown that Archezoa have mitochondria-like structures called mitosomes or hydrogenosomes.3 They share similarities with mitochondria, such as membrane structure and protein transport machinery, but differ in function.3 So the search goes on for a eukaryote without mitochondria. But even if one were found, that still would not prove common ancestry and a later endosymbiotic event. Similarity is at best merely consistent with common ancestry. It may just be a different species of eukaryote that God designed in such a way that it does not require functioning mitochondria (prokaryotes don’t have mitochondria and yet make a sufficient amount of ATP).

"Scientists claim that Hatena, a recently discovered protist, is a “snapshot” of an endosymbiotic event that has not yet reached completion. This organism has a unique life cycle. It contains an algal symbiont, but when it divides only one of the daughter cells gets the alga.4 The other daughter cell has a feeding apparatus that allows it to engulf an alga.4 It only engulfs a certain species of alga, and the alga retains many of its cellular components, such as a nucleus4 (these are not found in plastids where endosymbiosis is thought to have reached completion). In a news article about the findings, one biologist commented, “Whatever you need to make that [the algal symbiont] a permanent part is not occurring here. Maybe in a hundred millions [sic] years it will figure it out.'5"

[GaryGaulin]

No. 1. If evolution is true then Adam and Eve are not, because death entered into the world before them.

No.2 If Adam and Eve are just a bible story then there is no inherited sin that was passed down from Adam--that is a sin nature in our genes that makes us want to do opposite the law of God.

No.3 If there is no sin nature, nor death as a result of our sin, then there is no need for a Saviour form that sin.

no.4 Jesus Christ was then a liar or a lunatic, because he claimed to be Lord of all things and claimed that he was sent to be a sacrifice for our sins. then the CHURCH is a farce and has no relevant function on Earth--even a mistaken pitiful imposter, living a fantasy.

No.4 But because there is personal revelation in the heart about scripture resulting in faith in something that we cannot see--but sense and feel--therefore there is a debate.

No. 5 What I say, I say in utmost humility and sincerity. I do not mean it in any sense arrogantly. Scripture will have the last word to America and Europe who have led the way in this theory which denies God's glory in His creation, and overthrows faith in children before it can root in them. For the heavens declare the glory of God the psalms say and in the last days which in my years of scriptural study can tell you we are in says that men will be heady and highminded, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.

AFJ, you had such good questions I had to answer them with what I have.

Human speciation seriously has an Adam and Eve in it. Phylogenetics helps reconstruct them. From the theory:

From http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/

Chromosome Speciation (Human, Fruit Fly)

One giant chromosome may have advantage over two average sized ones, which would help explain why that sometimes happens with beneficial results. It first of all produces very large chromosomes from the shorter connecting together. And this would be another way the genome takes a good guess what might work. It already has two functional genes and put together something bigger, maybe better.

The telomeres may encourage a beneficial chromosome fusion by their having safely tangled protective ends, a mechanism to increase chromosome complexity. After occurring it can be enough to guarantee a very major speciation event.

In in this way, human speciation chromosome complexity increased when two chromosomes fuse at opposite ends to become one very large one. Even though there was not a significant amount of gene scrambling where ends tangled the rearranging of the chromosome territories may have already produced a noticeable morphological change. Morphology based fossil evidence dates human speciation to roughly 6 million years ago, which is in the range of estimates for the chromosome fusion.

When detailed in a cladogram there are two branching events.

First, the fusion in one parent's gamete (haploid sex cell) to produce 47 chromosome offspring with the fusion. That was next replicated in the population. The mother of a 47 might have known there was something about them that was not like all the other children but is expected they will love them just the same.

Second, the 47's paired up to occasionally produce an offspring with the fusion in both of the parents gamete they recieved which gave them the first 46 chromosome genome structure, were human. The 47 chromosome parents may have also been able to tell that their 46 offspring were somehow different from their 48 and 47 chromosome peers.

Chromosomal fusion has made humans unique among their kind where such a fusion makes a total of 46 chromosomes, instead of the 48 of all great apes. Here, a parent passed to offspring a fused copy in one of the two parental gametes, to birth a being with 47 chromosomes. That fusion then passed into the population where the fusion would then on occasion have the fusion in both gametes to make the first 46 chromosome human beings where from such man and woman (Chromosomal Adam and Eve) could only be born 46 chromosome descendants, us.

Even where one believes Adam and Eve is just a made up story, the common metaphor still applies. What makes us "human" is thus described in the Bible and Quran.

The theory also has mineral dust/clay metabolism, one of the four requirements to produce intelligence.

From my experience "creating" computer models of this intelligence it is so "autonomous" it does not even care what I its "creator" tell it to do. I would just be talking to the computer. That does not change what it does in the virtual world we see through the video screen. But I don't mind that it does what it wants to do it's one of the properties of the way it works. Would be nice though for it to have the intelligence to wonder whether they have a creator pushing buttons from somewhere they can't see. Emergent "intelligent cause" could do that to us from molecular intelligence on up to human intelligence where our one lifetime is its next thought, sort of speak. Scientists estimated it is over 3 billion years old, which makes it possible for what seems to us to be a long time between thoughts, no problem at all when it lives so much longer than that we are just a brief moment. I cannot say whether molecular intelligence like this could be conscious, but that would explain where our consciousness is emergent from. Please let me know of any evidence anyone might think of.

I now reconcile Science and Genesis by considering it a thousands of year old scientific theory. None know how it was written down. But I expect scientists to be the first to be there for that event, however it happened. In this way science and religion are like one in the same. Our search for knowledge of where we came from and will go emergent from the genome that responds with high confidence pleasure chemistry similar to "love" even sex that we can feel. All that we are is inherent to in all other levels that produce the phenomena the ID movement calls "intelligent cause". And it's coherent enough that accomplished scientists are not afraid to add what they can for new information. Any Creationist who figures all that has my and I am sure their respect for having accomplished that. When this intelligent cause is at the molecular intelligence compared to age of our human intelligence a number like 6000 years old looks about right to me. It is here the "day to the lord" that scriptures describes. What science gives us for a date multiplies by time relative to the human intelligence doing the measuring. Or in other words there are two entirely separate time frames, the one that our brain experiences and the one an intelligent cause would experience.

I reconcile Science and Religion with K-12 level science that even takes the Y forking from great-ape-48 right out of the classroom. Instead have Chromosomal Adam and Eve helping to explain what it is to be "human" and where it all began.

What do you think of that answer AFJ?

[AFJ]

Mr. Gary, wanted to answer you. I didn't really understand the point about Adam and Eve, are you trying to show where death originated and that the Bible symbolically uses Adam and Eve for the telomere theory of aging or is it an indirect explanation of how we came from primates, going from 48 to 46 chromosomes? http://www.telomere.net/ (read telemere theory of animal aging)

Some comments: You started with an article that says--

The article staed
"One giant chromosome may have advantage over two average sized ones, which would help explain why that sometimes happens with beneficial results. It first of all produces very large chromosomes from the shorter connecting together."

No.1--The telomeres are for the PREVENTION and PROTECTION from the very first thing they are trying to put forth. It sometimes happens? What are the beneficial results? They give no examples.

No.2--Telomeres are the "knot" at the end of the chromosomes which protect "the chromosomes from fusing into rings, or binding haphazardly to other DNA in the cell nucleus." Check telomere.net the first paragraph.

the article then stated
"And this would be another way the genome takes a good guess of what might work."

They are speaking as if the genome has a will and intelligence--it can't guess! According to evolutionary thought, through unguided and unconscious, and unintelligent mutation this would take place. And IF it does not work, then it will be a genetic disorder--something of which there is scientific proof. Again, according to evolution, NS will then work to eliminate it, or it will stay in the population as a genetic disorder. Can you show me an instance of where these chromosomes fuse without causing a genetic disorder? Please give me research, sir.

You stated:
I now reconcile Science and Genesis by considering it a thousands of year old scientific theory. None know how it was written down. But I expect scientists to be the first to be there for that event, however it happened.

Exodus 19 and 20 Moses goes up the mountain in Sinai to God to receive the 10 commandments. He made several trips, the last one for 40 days. It was there that Moses recieved much of the law, and Genesis. 15 And Moses turned and went down from the mountain, and the two tablets of the Testimony were in his hand. The tablets were written on both sides; on the one side and on the other they were written. 16 Now the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God engraved on the tablets. Exodus 32:15,16

Some of the scripture is just history. You can not interpret historical events--you either believe it or you don't. If I tell someone "I went to California on a train," they will probably believe me--they do not interpret it-- because it is an event and it is believable. But if I tell someone "I went to Uranus on a space ship," they will not believe me--but they still will not interpret anything but that I am crazy (lol). In our history it says that Abraham Lincoln was shot by an John Wilkes Booth. There is no room for interpretation in this. I either believe it or not. The problem is not interpretation but weather you believe the historical facts of scripture as they are put forth.