A Challenge To All Creationists

[Reggie Miller]

Macro evolution isn't dependent upon it at all. Rather abiogensis is dependent on the rest of the theory.

I already went over the process briefly. I feel as though we are at the point where we can talk about more specific rather than general questions as this. Earth. It is a result of physics and chemistry. High heat and heavy atmospheric pressure with the components of water, ammonia, methane and loose hydrogen. Some believe a weak electrical current may have been needed to trigger the chemistry. These are the conditions that would have been common on earth according to Geology before the time life arose. And it is under these conditions we have been able to synthesize amino acids from inorganic materials. Amino acids are the building blocks of life and make up proteins which are capable of self replication.

I don't have to since this isn't true. The first part isn't true at least. The second part has truth. The vast majority of mutations are detrimental to the organism. However when a negative mutation occurs that hampers the organism's ability to function and survive it has a higher likelihood of dying without passing on its genetic information. Natural selection weeds out the bad either over time or initially. For example if a predator of some sort was born with a mutation that sealed the eyelid's shut and it was effectively blind it would probably die before adulthood. The vast majority of creatures die before passing on there genes in most animals.

Macro-evolution is absolutely dependent on abiogenesis if there is no allowance for a creator (God). No abiogenesis, no evolution of life of any kind.

I want you to go over the process exactly. I want to hear exactly how abiogenesis happened. Just throwing a bunch of stuff together isn't going to give you a life form and I don't want to hear that "we had heat, physics, water and boom, it happened!" That's BS.

Can you give a modern example of a mutation that resulted in a different life form (not the same genus or species) that was beneficial?

 

[Ouroboros]

3. How do you explain the fact that mutations in the genome do not create new genetic information

That's a misunderstanding.

There are 20^500 combinations possible with a gene. We only have something like 10,000-100,000 represented currently on our planet. So our little planet hasn't even touched all possibilities of "information" of the mutations yet. All planets in the universe can potentially have a full set of unique genes and still not all combinations represented. Put it this way, there are much much much more possible combinations of the genes than there are fundamental particles in the universe.

The way to calculate this is, there are 20 different peptide representations from the codon. There are different lengths of genes, but a gene of 500 codons is not uncommon. So if we use some of our knowledge of combinatorics in math, it gives us 20 to the power of 500 possible combinations. Now, the current estimate of elementary particles in the universe is something like 10^80. Which is a much lower number. So you see, the DNA doesn't have to "invent new information", only represent existing information from a huge ocean of possible ones.

And if the question is if a gene can become longer or shorter, that's already known to happen in genetics. Copy errors for instance can duplicate a gene, which then later can mutate. There are cases of fused genes as well. And so on.

but tend to be detrimental to the organism instead?

3 out of 175 mutations are detrimental. Most of them are neutral. Also, what's considered negative mutations depends on the environment. Most of the neutral ones can have slight positive or slight negative effects depending on situation. Even the same gene can have both effects, both negative and positive.

 

[metis]

"Macro-evolution" does not in any way preclude the possibility of there being a God or Gods. Not only are most Christian theologians not opposed to that basic concept of evolution, but also that a great many scientists that accept the basic ToE also have a belief in God. Unfortunately, many are told by clergy that the concepts are mutually exclusive, as I was told by my pastor when in high school many moons ago, whereas they simply either do not understand the process themselves and/or who feel obligated to tow the church line in fear of being dismissed.

 

[Reggie Miller]

That's a misunderstanding.

There are 20^500 combinations possible with a gene. We only have something like 10,000-100,000 represented currently on our planet. So our little planet hasn't even touched all possibilities of "information" of the mutations yet. All planets in the universe can potentially have a full set of unique genes and still not all combinations represented. Put it this way, there are much much much more possible combinations of the genes than there are fundamental particles in the universe.

The way to calculate this is, there are 20 different peptide representations from the codon. There are different lengths of genes, but a gene of 500 codons is not uncommon. So if we use some of our knowledge of combinatorics in math, it gives us 20 to the power of 500 possible combinations. Now, the current estimate of elementary particles in the universe is something like 10^80. Which is a much lower number. So you see, the DNA doesn't have to "invent new information", only represent existing information from a huge ocean of possible ones.



3 out of 175 mutations are detrimental. Most of them are neutral. Also, what's considered negative mutations depends on the environment. Most of the neutral ones can have slight positive or slight negative effects depending on situation. Even the same gene can have both effects, both negative and positive.

I'm not interested in talking about this in general. It's all speculation.

Show me a mutated gene that resulted in one species evolving into a completely different organism. Because that is what had to happen in order for macro-evolution to work.

 

[Reggie Miller]

"Macro-evolution" does not in any way preclude the possibility of there being a God or Gods.

No one in this conversation has said that. I am talking about macro-evolution WITHOUT A GOD, pure atheism in action.

 

[metis]

No one in this conversation has said that. I am talking about macro-evolution WITHOUT A GOD, pure atheism in action.

I came in late on this discussion, so thanks for the clarification.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I came in late on this discussion, so thanks for the clarification.

No problem. We are discussing abiogenesis because without a creator abiogenesis is absolutely necessary for evolution or any kind of life form.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm not interested in talking about this in general. It's all speculation.

No, it's not. You're the one speculating here.

Show me a mutated gene that resulted in one species evolving into a completely different organism.

That's not how it works. You're showing your ignorance. A single mutated gene doesn't make a new species. There usually are a lot more. You're basically asking "show me something that evolution doesn't say is true, then I know evolution is true." Which is ridiculous. It's like me asking, "prove to me that God doesn't exist, and I will know God exists." First of all, understand, a single mutation doesn't make a new species. That's not what evolution says at all.

Because that is what had to happen in order for macro-evolution to work.

No. That's you not understanding evolution. A single mutation does *not* make a new species.

it only gives a species a new trait. But many mutations will pile up enough differences so that individuals in the same family are incompatible and morphological different to such a degree that we, as humans, label them as new species. Species is a term that is completely arbitrary and based on human interpretation of differences of physical appearance.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Macro-evolution is absolutely dependent on abiogenesis if there is no allowance for a creator (God). No abiogenesis, no evolution of life of any kind.

Macro-evolution as colloquially used means speciation or near speciation. That could be true regardless of how life started. Rather for abiogensis to be viable macro evolution must exist. Otherwise we would all still be bacteria.

I want you to go over the process exactly. I want to hear exactly how abiogenesis happened. Just throwing a bunch of stuff together isn't going to give you a life form and I don't want to hear that "we had heat, physics, water and boom, it happened!" That's BS.

During an experiment with the aforementioned elements with regular electrical sparks we have synthesized amino acids. This has been done. That was the process of the beginning. Amino acids then naturally bond and form amino acid chains. The most common bond between two molecules of this kind is called a peptide bond. They can also be held together by a covalant bond. Both of which occur naturally without any prompting. Now a chain of amino acids is called a protein. Some proteins (not all but some) are capable of self replication. With any form of self replication there is a chance of errors. Most errors do not help that protein replicate. However with enough "mistakes" there is the opportunity for a mistake to be beneficial. The one that has a beneficial "mistake" has a better chance of surviving and making more replications of itself than the strands before it.

Proteins are the workhorses of the cell and the next part has to do with DNA and RNA. Both are synthesizeable compounds that can be worked with the new protein.

Much is not known on the exact processes and we are still uncovering more and more. The checklist of things we do know for certain.
1. Life changes and it changes drastically given enough time.
2. Life tends to evolve from very very very simple to more complex.
3. The earliest signs of life was extremely simple in comparison to most life today.
4. This simple like arose roughly 3.8 billion years ago.
5. The basic building blocks for early life can occur naturally during the correct conditions.
6. As verified with geology early earth was rich in these aforementioned conditions.
7. With laboratory testing we have made amino acids with these conditions.
8. Amino acids can become simple proteins spontaneously given time.
9. Proteins are the force behind life and the basic building blocks of RNA/DNA can be synthesized naturally as well albeit perhaps more difficultly given its chemistry is more complex.
10. Life exists today.

Can you give a modern example of a mutation that resulted in a different life form (not the same genus or species) that was beneficial?

A single mutation that resulted in a whole speciation? Of course not. A single mutation does not create speciation. I can give you modern examples of mutations within species that provided new DNA information.

 

[Ouroboros]

No problem. We are discussing abiogenesis because without a creator abiogenesis is absolutely necessary for evolution or any kind of life form.

No. It's not.

It's totally possible that life started with God making the first cells and virus, and from there evolution continued. Evolution is about how life forms evolve, i.e. change. That's what biological evolution is about. Abiogenesis is biochemistry. Evolution is biology.

 

[Reggie Miller]

No, it's not. You're the one speculating here.


That's not how it works. You're showing your ignorance. A single mutated gene doesn't make a new species. There usually are a lot more. You're basically asking "show me something that evolution doesn't say is true, then I know evolution is true." Which is ridiculous. It's like me asking, "prove to me that God doesn't exist, and I will know God exists." First of all, understand, a single mutation doesn't make a new species. That's not what evolution says at all.


No. That's you not understanding evolution. A single mutation does *not* make a new species.

it only gives a species a new trait. But many mutations will pile up enough differences so that individuals in the same family are incompatible and morphological different to such a degree that we, as humans, label them as new species. Species is a term that is completely arbitrary and based on human interpretation of differences of physical appearance.

Okay, then show me exactly how several genes mutated to make a new species.

 

[Reggie Miller]

No. It's not.

It's totally possible that life started with God making the first cells and virus, and from there evolution continued. Evolution is about how life forms evolve, i.e. change. That's what biological evolution is about. Abiogenesis is biochemistry. Evolution is biology.

Dude. It has been previously stated several times that we are discussing macro-evolution WITHOUT A CREATOR (GOD). Capisce?

 

[Reggie Miller]

Macro-evolution as colloquially used means speciation or near speciation. That could be true regardless of how life started. Rather for abiogensis to be viable macro evolution must exist. Otherwise we would all still be bacteria.

During an experiment with the aforementioned elements with regular electrical sparks we have synthesized amino acids. This has been done. That was the process of the beginning. Amino acids then naturally bond and form amino acid chains. The most common bond between two molecules of this kind is called a peptide bond. They can also be held together by a covalant bond. Both of which occur naturally without any prompting. Now a chain of amino acids is called a protein. Some proteins (not all but some) are capable of self replication. With any form of self replication there is a chance of errors. Most errors do not help that protein replicate. However with enough "mistakes" there is the opportunity for a mistake to be beneficial. The one that has a beneficial "mistake" has a better chance of surviving and making more replications of itself than the strands before it.

Proteins are the workhorses of the cell and the next part has to do with DNA and RNA. Both are synthesizeable compounds that can be worked with the new protein.

Much is not known on the exact processes and we are still uncovering more and more. The checklist of things we do know for certain.
1. Life changes and it changes drastically given enough time.
2. Life tends to evolve from very very very simple to more complex.
3. The earliest signs of life was extremely simple in comparison to most life today.
4. This simple like arose roughly 3.8 billion years ago.
5. The basic building blocks for early life can occur naturally during the correct conditions.
6. As verified with geology early earth was rich in these aforementioned conditions.
7. With laboratory testing we have made amino acids with these conditions.
8. Amino acids can become simple proteins spontaneously given time.
9. Proteins are the force behind life and the basic building blocks of RNA/DNA can be synthesized naturally as well albeit perhaps more difficultly given its chemistry is more complex.
10. Life exists today.


A single mutation that resulted in a whole speciation? Of course not. A single mutation does not create speciation. I can give you modern examples of mutations within species that provided new DNA information.

So, in a nutshell:

1. You believe abiogenesis happened even though you admit that the "exact processes" are not known. My friend, that's speculation, you believe in something that you assume happened.

2. You're not getting specific because the real answer is:

You don't know how it all happened. You make guesses, speculations, assumptions. And you believe in all of these guesses, speculations, assumptions.

Good luck with that. I don't believe in speculations.

 

[savagewind]

No, it's not. You're the one speculating here.


That's not how it works. You're showing your ignorance. A single mutated gene doesn't make a new species. There usually are a lot more. You're basically asking "show me something that evolution doesn't say is true, then I know evolution is true." Which is ridiculous. It's like me asking, "prove to me that God doesn't exist, and I will know God exists." First of all, understand, a single mutation doesn't make a new species. That's not what evolution says at all.


No. That's you not understanding evolution. A single mutation does *not* make a new species.

it only gives a species a new trait. But many mutations will pile up enough differences so that individuals in the same family are incompatible and morphological different to such a degree that we, as humans, label them as new species. Species is a term that is completely arbitrary and based on human interpretation of differences of physical appearance.

There has to have been something along the line of change which caused a new life form.
Nobody is saying a single mutation made something new. Nobody is saying a hundred mutations are able to produce anything new, but something new eventually appears. Explain the eventually, please.

 

[metis]

We are discussing abiogenesis because without a creator abiogenesis is absolutely necessary for evolution or any kind of life form.

Well, I can't go that far as our universe and everything in it appears to be in constant change. If abiogenesis did occur, it would be logical that it would cause other changes to occur. However, whether this all was caused by a "creator" or "creators" per se, I simply cannot say because I wasn't there when it all started plus there's no verifiable evidence to accept or deny that concept.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So, in a nutshell:

1. You believe abiogenesis happened even though you admit that the "exact processes" are not known. My friend, that's speculation, you believe in something that you assume happened.

2. You're not getting specific because the real answer is:

You don't know how it all happened. You make guesses, speculations, assumptions. And you believe in all of these guesses, speculations, assumptions.

Good luck with that. I don't believe in speculations.

yet you believe a magic man made everything with a wave of his wand?

 

[savagewind]

yet you believe a magic man made everything with a wave of his wand?

I don't think most God believers think that. Yet, YOU believe in a magic force that made everything without knowing anything.

 

[viole]

So, in a nutshell:

1. You believe abiogenesis happened even though you admit that the "exact processes" are not known. My friend, that's speculation, you believe in something that you assume happened.

2. You're not getting specific because the real answer is:

You don't know how it all happened. You make guesses, speculations, assumptions. And you believe in all of these guesses, speculations, assumptions.

Good luck with that. I don't believe in speculations.

I believe that such "speculations" are rational.

I think we have a consistent pattern here. Most, if not all, naturalistic explanations about things, replaced previous supernatural explanations of the same thing. The contrary never happened, to my knowledge.

In other words, your claim that the birth of life cannot have natural explanations, might in the future get thrown into the same heap where the claim "lightining can only be issued by Thor" finds itself in.

Ciao

- viole

 

[savagewind]

I think that basically to believe in evolution without a god is to believe everything made itself.

 

[Ouroboros]

Okay, then show me exactly how several genes mutated to make a new species.

Well, that would take some time and a lot of writing. I think it's more about you doing your due diligence and research some of this stuff instead of asking for being force fed. Also, if I did manage to get you all information about it, would you really read several hundreds of pages of scientific data? Would it satisfy you at all considering that you're not even trying to read this on your own? Don't think so. Jesus said something about throwing pearls...