• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why evolution did not comes like this ?

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Science is not about pointing your finger at the universe, the theory must be a model, a copy, of what happens in nature. And the model with random mutations and natural selection leads to randomness destroying all organisms in the model. Natural selection is not efficient enough.
Evolution is a "scientific theory" not just an ordinary theory. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Evolution has been confirmed through observation and experimentation time and time again. So, it not only lines up with reality/nature, but has been used to make predictions about future finds. These amazing examples demonstrate the legitimacy of the scientific theory of evolution.
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
Why do you think that randomness leads to all species being destroyed? It's not like debilitating mutations are a common phenomena. And, natural selection doesn't have to be efficient, as it has billions of years to work with.

That is again pointing your finger at the universe. Not making a model. Those are billions of years for mutations to corrupt organisms as well.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
....I already said the example was evolutionary.... why don't you read and come up with an intelligent question
What do you mean by "the example was evolutionary?" Why would you use an example that disproves your argument? You clearly don't think that evolution is an accurate theory, so I'm confused as to what your argument actually is.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
That is again pointing your finger at the universe. Not making a model. Those are billions of years for mutations to corrupt organisms as well.
Yes, the stronger will procreate more quickly. Are you under the impression that a detrimental mutation will necessarily kill the animal or prevent them from procreating, because that certainly is not the case.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
That is again pointing your finger at the universe. Not making a model. Those are billions of years for mutations to corrupt organisms as well.
Can you also explain what you mean by "pointing your finger at the universe?" It sounds like you are claiming we are demanding something from the universe, but evolution is a theory that is based on observations. Like I said, it has been substantiated through observation and experimentation in nature. How is that "pointing your finger?"
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
Can you also explain what you mean by "pointing your finger at the universe?" It sounds like you are claiming we are demanding something from the universe, but evolution is a theory that is based on observations. Like I said, it has been substantiated through observation and experimentation in nature. How is that "pointing your finger?"

The theory produces corrupt organisms in the theory, that organisms are not corrupt disproves the theory.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
The theory produces corrupt organisms in the theory, that organisms are not corrupt disproves the theory.

You don't understand what "corrupt" means. Mutation does not corrupt organisms. It makes them more likely to procreate or less likely to procreate, that's all.
Mutations that result in more procreation tend to get passed on, the others tend not to get passed on.
Simple as that.
Tom
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
Show at least a bit of decency and answer my question. We can all do without the snootiness, buddy. You did not provide any kind of explanation as to what you meant by "evolutionary." If you did, prove me wrong and cite it.

Huh I explicitly referred to "correct and evolutionary explanation of choosing" etc. you read it, then reply to what I wrote.
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
Organisms are corrupted all the time. There are mutations in every species on earth from time to time. Haven't you seen the multitude of cats with extra toes?!

Indeed that tends to prove the theory, however all organisms need to be extinct for your theory to be found valid. The model predicts extinction of all, due to ns not keeping up with random mutations.
 

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
You don't understand what "corrupt" means. Mutation does not corrupt organisms. It makes them more likely to procreate or less likely to procreate, that's all.
Mutations that result in more procreation tend to get passed on, the others tend not to get passed on.
Simple as that.
Tom

Not so simple you cannot make the theory work where the corruption is weeded out. The randomness of mutations is a larger force than natural selection is capable to deal with, in the model.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Not so simple you cannot make the theory work where the corruption is weeded out. The randomness of mutations is a larger force than natural selection is capable to deal with, in the model.
Yes you can make it work out.
Only a tiny percentage of organisms reproduce. The vast majority die first. The fittest, evolutionary speaking, are the ones that do reproduce. So most random mutations provide a meal for some other creature.
Rather poor design really. Not intelligent in my opinion.
Tom
 
Last edited:

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
Yes you can make it work out.
Only a tiny percentage of organisms reproduce. The vast majority die first. The fittest, evolutionary speaking, are the ones that do. So most random mutations provide a meal for some other creature.
Rather poor design really. Not intelligent in my opinion.
Tom

Whatever numbers you put in the model, the corruption caused by random mutations wins out. Due to the number of possible deleterious mutations being much larger than beneficial. Natural selection cannot cope with it.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Whatever numbers you put in the model, the corruption caused by random mutations wins out. Due to the number of possible deleterious mutations being much larger than beneficial. Natural selection cannot cope with it.
Your willingness to preach things that are demonstrably wrong, while also failing to distinguish between your opinions and facts, tells me a lot about your religion.
You are strong evidence that Islam is wrong.
Tom
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
And yet it has coped -- for billions of years. The harmful mutations are eliminated, the beneficial ones are preserved, just like breeding livestock.

If this "corruption" model were true, why is there still life here?
 

philbo

High Priest of Cynicism
....I already said the example was evolutionary.... why don't you read and come up with an intelligent question
You are simply trolling, aren't you?

I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, as English doesn't seem to be your native language, but to be that arrogant and ignorant at the same time suggests you're not even trying to answer in good faith.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
So it's about
God creat everything vs cell of bacteria creat everything .
how smart bacteria !!!!

I mean why not the scientists could not make the bacteria make new life in laboratoire ?

I'm betting it will happen in our lifetime. These things are dependent on technology advancing.

Researchers Create the World's First Fully Synthetic, Self-Replicating Living Cell | Popular Science

posted May 20th, 2010

The J. Craig Venter Institute announced today that it has created the world's first synthetic cell, boasting a completely synthetic chromosome produced by a machine.

"This is the first self-replicating species we've had on the planet whose parent is a computer," Venter said in a press conference.

The biological breakthrough could have myriad applications, as it essentially opens the door to engineered biology that is completely manipulated by laboratory scientists. The researchers are already planning to create a specially engineered algae designed to trap carbon dioxide and convert it to biofuel. Other applications could include medicine, environmental cleanup, and energy production.

Scientists just took a major step toward making life from scratch | The Verge

This is actually contested because the gene is synthetic, not the cell it self. We will get to that though.


March 27, 2014

"Synthetic biology has come a long way in recent years. In the last two decades alone, scientists have been able to go from synthesizing the genome of a relatively small virus, Hepatitis C, to creating what researchers refer to as the "first synthetic cell" from a unicellular organism. Yet until recently, researchers had been incapable of constructing one of the most emblematic symbols of our own genetic makeup: the eukaryotic chromosome. Now, a team of scientists has announced that the age of the synthetic chromosome is upon us, as a study published in Science today reveals how the group was able to construct a yeast chromosome from scratch — an experiment that allowed the team to make fully functional "designer yeast."

Eukaryotic chromosomes belong to eukaryotes — organisms such as animals, plants, and yeast whose cells contain a membrane-bound nucleus. Although scientists have previously been able to construct viral DNA and bacterial DNA, the synthesis of a eukaryotic chromosome had not been achieved. So, when the scientists decided to construct a chromosome from scratch, they knew they had to plan it out carefully. "We didn't make a carbon copy of an existing chromosome," says Jef Boeke, a molecular biologist at New York University and co-author of the study, "but an extensively modified version designed on a computer, using a set of principles that were predicted to make happy, healthy yeast."

This careful planning is what allowed the researchers, along with 60 undergraduate students, to painstakingly string chunks of DNA together and insert them into living yeast cells. It's also what allowed them to introduce over 500 changes to the chromosome's native sequence — a process that yielded yeast cells endowed with what Boeke referred to as "unusual properties."

One of the most significant changes they introduced was the addition of a gene called "Cre". This gene is atypical because it produces a protein, also called "cre," that can scramble the synthetic chromosome's sequence when it comes in contact with estrogen — the human sex hormone. This technique is called "the scrambling approach," and it allows the researchers to rearrange the structure of the designer chromosome "on demand" within the living yeast cells, just by adding various concentrations of estrogen to the growth medium, Boeke explains. "So, just like the shuffling of a set of cards, you can delete or duplicate any subset of genes and generate a whole new set of cards — or a whole new genetic sequence."

Scientists Simulate Life By Creating First Functional ‘Plastic’ Cell: How Close Are We To Producing Artificial Life?

Jan 15, 2014 03:15 PM

Scientists are hoping to understand the origin of life better by creating artificial cells in the lab. A group of scientists from Radboud University in Nijmegen, Netherlands, has for the first time created an artificial “plastic” cell, complete with working organelles that are able to carry out chemical reactions. The study was published in the journal Angewandte Chemie.

An artificial cell is a man-made particle that simulates the functions of a real cell; in synthetic biology it is considered a completely synthetically made cell that captures energy, has an ability to mutate and reproduce, and contains macromolecules. Inside a real living cell, chemical reactions occur in various compartments and at different levels of complexity. The scientists were able to create lab-made organelles, which are small units or compartments within cells that have their own particular role and function. They are usually enclosed within a lipid bilayer. With working organelles, the plastic cell, which was made from polymer, was able to function more closely to a real cell.

“Competing groups are working closer to biology; making cells from fatty acids, for example,” the authors wrote, according to a press release. “We would like to do the same in the future. Another step would be to make cells that produce their own energy supply. We are also working on ways of controlling the movement of chemicals within the cell, towards organelles. By simulating these things, we are able to better understand living cells. One day we will even be able to make something that looks very much like the real thing…”
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Sweet.

I believe it is important for all to know what is known, and how it relates.

Even if one believes God is the creator or designer, it is not logical to assume that there was no evolution of design.

I agree entirely.

[/quote]If one does not believe in God, then one must still accept that "evolution" is a far more capable designer than man -yet without intent -and is our instructor in design.
By considering and reverse-engineering what it is thought to have produced without intent (including our own ability to design and create) we can then do similar and eventually different and greater things.[/quote]

Well, I do have to accept evolution as a capable designer, but having a genetic disease and all, it's difficult to be too happy at the moment. But undoubtedly our knowledge over last 60/70 years has contributed significantly to medicine and will continue to do so.

So, lucky timing and place to live considering. =)

[/quote]It seems that some thing should be true based on what is known -then it is tested -and, correct or incorrect, much more becomes known.

Many have beliefs, but not a firm foundation of investigation and proof -and therefore their faith is not strong. Some errantly believe that it is against faith to question, but the opposite is true.[/QUOTE]


Absolutely.
 
Top