A Very Simple Question For Creationists

[savagewind]

Haha. I see water molecules floating around in space. Not much good for the animals and the plants imo

By the way, when are evolution scientists going to get around to explaining plant evolution?

 

[Reggie Miller]

Haha. I see water molecules floating around in space. Not much good for the animals and the plants imo

By the way, when are evolution scientists going to get around to explaining plant evolution?

Yes, I am still waiting for a good explanation for the "kingdom split."

An organism had to have evolved to the point where it's DNA somehow mutated to the point that it split into animals, plants, fungi, viruses, etc. or at least into plant and animal.

Which organism evolved into the plant and also somehow evolved into an animal? Surely a plant didn't evolve into an animal or vice versa so some organism had to have evolved into both somehow. Exactly how and why did that happen?

 

[Brian Schuh]

So you believe in a God that deliberately creates and releases pathogens that cause immense suffering in billions of people, and when questioned about it your response is "Meh....God can do whatever"?

I'll just let that speak for itself.

Consider that

So you believe in a God that deliberately creates and releases pathogens that cause immense suffering in billions of people, and when questioned about it your response is "Meh....God can do whatever"?

I'll just let that speak for itself.

Who can say to God, what are you doing? One of the prophets asked that.

Is there evil in a city and I have not caused it? says the Lord. I believe the prophet Isaiah said that one.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Consider that

Who can say to God, what are you doing? One of the prophets asked that.

Is there evil in a city and I have not caused it? says the Lord. I believe the prophet Isaiah said that one.

Many of these plagues were unleashed because of man's disobedience to God. One theory says that HIV existed only in one species of primate which was immune to it, until some person committed bestiality with that primate, unleashing an HIV plague God never wanted unleashed. Same with syphilis. It existed naturally in sheep with no harm to the sheep, until someone had sex with a sheep against God's command, unleashing a disease God never wanted unleashed.

 

[james bond]

Do you seriously think that's what I said, or are you being dishonest?



Since micro-evolution is evolution below the species level, macro-evolution is evolution above that, i.e., the evolution of new species. And the evolution of new species has been repeatedly observed and documented. Even most creationist organizations don't deny that.

answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

"As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time."

In fact, most of them understand that speciation is required for their flood beliefs to work.

That's what I said you said. How is that dishonest? Go ahead and support macroevolution since that's your area that you believe in.

You didn't answer my question. That's not an example. It's about speciation. Do you know what speciation is?

From your link, AIG says in the big, bold title, "Species and Kinds Are Not the Same" which makes you look foolish in front of everyone here.

Go ahead and explain what it means to evolution. Then give me an example of a "new species has been repeatedly observed and documented."

 

[savagewind]

How many little xs might it take for an animal to turn into a plant or a plant to turn into an animal?

 

[Reggie Miller]

How many little xs might it take for an animal to turn into a plant or a plant to turn into an animal?

I note that most evolutionists do not wish to discuss this. I don't blame them.

 

[savagewind]

I note that most evolutionists do not wish to discuss this. I don't blame them.

Do you not blame them for not wanting to discuss animal vs plant evolution?

I call plants evolving along with animals friendly. I wonder how they "know" about friendly? They don't....in fact, evolution doesn't know anything, or so I have heard.

 

[savagewind]

Let's see. I am thinking about goats and them eating the leaves of trees and trees needing their leaves to live and reproduce so I can see the goat evolving with the tree but not the tree evolving with the goat.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Do you not blame them for not wanting to discuss animal vs plant evolution?

I call plants evolving along with animals friendly. I wonder how they "know" about friendly? They don't....in fact, evolution doesn't know anything, or so I have heard.

I don't blame them for not wanting to discuss something they don't understand and can't explain. I do blame them for believing that the theory is fact when it isn't, if that is what they think.

 

[BioStudent]

Many of these plagues were unleashed because of man's disobedience to God.....Same with syphilis. It existed naturally in sheep with no harm to the sheep, until someone had sex with a sheep against God's command, unleashing a disease God never wanted unleashed.

Syphilis came to Europe in the 1500's from the New World, where it had been endemic for centuries. Since sheep did not exist in the New World prior to contact with Europeans, I doubt it was possible for the locals there to be having sex with them. More importantly, the organism that causes syphilis, Treponema pallidum, has no known host besides humans, so it could not have "existed naturally" in sheep, or been unleashed on humanity through intercourse with them.


As for plant evolution, I accept the challenge of discussing the divergence of plants from animals, though I hope someone else chimes in, as my primary specialty is bacteria, not plants/animals/eukaryotes.

First off, lets say that, broadly speaking, there are three branches of eukaryotes
(organisms with nuclei and other cell compartments) - plants, animals, and fungi. The last common ancestor of all three existed somewhere around 2.4 to 1.6 billion years ago, and was single-celled and very simple. Somewhere around that time, the common ancestor of animals and fungi became distinct from the ancestor of plants. Finally, fungi and animals began to diverge, with the first modern fungi appearing by 1.4 billion years ago.

Now that we have outlined the timeline of events, lets focus on what made plants distinct from animals and fungi. The most salient change, and one that probably happened first, is plants' ability to photosynthesize, or make sugar from carbon dioxide and sunlight. There were small bacteria, likely similar to the cyanobacteria of today, that were photosynthetic long before plants arose. The first plant ancestor either preyed on or was parasitised by these bacteria, and eventually came to rely on the bacteria living inside them, similarly to the process by which eukaryote ancestors gained mitochondria. This reliance on photosynthesis for survival was likely what separated early plants from animals and fungi, and caused them to evolve distinctly from one another.

So that's the basic shape of the evolution of plants as understood by science. If anyone wants me to discuss any specific aspects, let m know and I'll try to explain them to the best of my ability.

 

[whirlingmerc]

There are several reasons a set of small changes can't explain the origin of various animal types from eaother

1) in small mutations entropy increases information decreases
and allot of work related to this was done and one might examine Werner Gitt who was department head of a German IT department in a college on that

2) small mutations are too many and with too many going on mostly slightly negative, they can't be individually selected and so organisms generation after generation tend to run down not up
see the work of Alan Sanford past professor of Cornel, inventor of the gene gun and who made the genetic simulation engine Mendel's accountant

3) There are too many revolutionary changes that can't be explained by lots of small changes
A caterpillar to butterfly, a reptile lung to a bird lung, a complex nano machine like the motor system of the 10nm motor that cells use to make ATP or the outboard motor flagella rotor... all require revolution not slight evolution

 

[rusra02]

Yet the evolution of new species has been repeatedly observed and documented.

Just a hint.....in science, data beats quotes every single time.

So, what data exists that entirely new life forms evolve? Not variations within an animal family (dog family, for example) but entirely new?

 

[rusra02]

Ah yes, the old Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig remark. One of the Watchtower's favorite go to pieces in its attempt to refute evolution. You do recognize that Lönnig, a committed ID advocate, is a lone wolf in his assessment don't you? A flyspeck on all the wall of evidence supporting evolution. Well, probably not. But no matter.

.

.

I think you know Lönnig is far from the only scientist refuting macro evolution theory. That aside, the evidence against evolution theory mounts as scientists learn more. Macro Evolution is a theory in panic retreat, IMO.

 

[Skwim]

I think you know Lönnig is far from the only scientist refuting macro evolution theory. That aside, the evidence against evolution theory mounts as scientists learn more. Macro Evolution is a theory in panic retreat, IMO.

Didn't say he was the only scientist who refutes evolution, but the only one using "his assessment." However, if you know of others who rely on "his assessment" please share. And, care to give us some examples of this "panic retreat" that has macroevolution in its grips. And examples of this mounting evidence against evolution.


.

 

[Shad]

There are several reasons a set of small changes can't explain the origin of various animal types from eaother

1) in small mutations entropy increases information decreases
and allot of work related to this was done and one might examine Werner Gitt who was department head of a German IT department in a college on that

2) small mutations are too many and with too many going on mostly slightly negative, they can't be individually selected and so organisms generation after generation tend to run down not up
see the work of Alan Sanford past professor of Cornel, inventor of the gene gun and who made the genetic simulation engine Mendel's accountant

3) There are too many revolutionary changes that can't be explained by lots of small changes
A caterpillar to butterfly, a reptile lung to a bird lung, a complex nano machine like the motor system of the 10nm motor that cells use to make ATP or the outboard motor flagella rotor... all require revolution not slight evolution

Distortion information theory by confusing it with linguistics. Distortion of natural changes with unnatural products while changing what revolution means so it is not compatible with evolution. Even though both still mean changes to a system. You hedge you bet by confining your definition of evolution to slight only. Which merely ignores the models develop since the 1960s.

There is no Alan Sanford. You didn't even fact check your copy/paste source. The gene gun was invented by John C Sanford, Ed Wolf and Nelson Allen. Three people, not one. There is no simulation.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Here's a fun fact

Dinosaurs come in two types by hip:
lizard hipped like T rex
bird hipped like Triceratops or Stegosaurus

but evolutionists make T rex that does not have a bird hip as ancestor of bird

go figure....

science... well... no

 

[whirlingmerc]

Distortion information theory by confusing it with linguistics. Distortion of natural changes with unnatural products while changing what revolution means so it is not compatible with evolution. Even though both still mean changes to a system. You hedge you bet by confining your definition of evolution to slight only. Which merely ignores the models develop since the 1960s.

There is no Alan Sanford. You didn't even fact check your copy/paste source. The gene gun was invented by John C Sanford, Ed Wolf and Nelson Allen. Three people, not one. There is no simulation.

got the name confused with a friend of mine... yes John Sanford
and yes there is a simulation engine called Mendel's Accountant

Mendel's Accountant | Home

 

[Shad]

got the name confused with a friend of mine... yes John Sanford

Sure you did.....

and yes there is a simulation engine called Mendel's Accountant

A model without any academic reviews made in a creationist bubble. It ignores a number of variables such as neutral mutations, dominant and recessive genes, and sexual selection. Any one of which renders this model false.

 

[whirlingmerc]

A discussion is here
Genetic entropy - creation.com
I do see many academic references but... works both ways

Bubbles come in many forms.... you don't think there are echo chambers in academia?