The Problem With Evolution- Part 1, Ape to Man Ridiculousness

[Tristen]

On 9/23/2023 at 2:33 PM, BeyondET said:

New DNA isnt really needed since Earth contains around 50 trillion trillion trillion DNA base pairs already, in the past probably much more of 99% extinct.

The paradigm being contested is Common Ancestry - which proposes that all life is related via a single shared ancestor, which itself stemmed from a putative, simple, first life form. This therefore entails that every gene that has ever existed, that wasn't in the first life, had to be generated and added to the gene pool of life over time.

 

On 9/23/2023 at 3:02 PM, BeyondET said:

The human immune system will rearrange DNA to create cells to recognize and remove unwanted  intruders.

This is overly simplistic. These mechanisms do not generate new types of "cells" or genes. 

 

Certain genes in certain types of white blood cells generate gene recombinations (including directed mutations) to generate a massive variety of antigen binding sites that appear on the surface of the cells. These are very tightly regulated (including limiting the scope of mutation), and only occur within the confines of a narrow subset of genes. Furthermore, since they only occur in blood cells, they are never heritable. There is nothing in this system that can make new genes and pass them on to offspring.

[Starise]

20 minutes ago, Tristen said:

It is difficult to avoid using subjective language in these conversations. Your use of "improved" is interesting.

If, for example, the gene for eyes was inactivated (by mutation) in a lineage of fish - those fish unable to make eyes would be at a strident disadvantage to the fish with eyes (generally speaking).

However, if that mutation happened in a group of fish that lived in caves, where there is no light, and where eye infections are rampant (due to contact with the cave walls), those fish (who lost the information required to make eyes) would have a competitive advantage over fish with eyes - i.e. only in that specific environment.

It could be argued that the cave fish loosing the capacity to make eyes represents a situational improvement.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that the information to make eyes has been lost. No new information has been generated - as would be required many, many, many etc. times over to 'evolve' a complex multicellular creature from a 'simple', single-celled, primitive organism.

If we would take these same fish and they suddenly came into a situation where they were once again in light, they would be at a disadvantage, so only within the context of their present environment can they function, and can we say such things are repeated across all sorts of creatures, or is this set of creatures specifically designed to have these characteristics? I believe some creatures have a more flexible regenerative and adaptive capability which arguably doesn't transfer to all creatures, making comparisons  would need to be species situational, and certainly, I see no reason to believe these degradations in a creature seen as advantageous make the kinds of jumps that could give a fish legs.

Certainly if infections were problematic, it could kill the fish which may have been the main driver turning off that particular capability in future fish of that type.

39 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I wasn't sure what you meant by this.

My statement once again-

On 9/27/2023 at 5:35 AM, Starise said:

n addition, such unpredictable sporadic occurances have the potential for multiple occurrances. Why only one?

I could have said this better, sorry. I was referring to the idea that everything supposedly came from one organism. If such things were true, the supposed process would have potential to generate multiple occurrances, not necessarily simultaneously or even in the same ways, which would necessarily result in a variety of outcomes, which again, isn't something anyone has observed or found in the historical record. All we see is variety and adaptations among same creatures, which is several magnitudes above the idea that all came from one, or is it a handful of spontaneous non intellligent creations? Which was my point really.

Spontaneous or directed? I believe the evidence is obvious.

[Scott Free]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

I see no reason to believe these degradations in a creature seen as advantageous make the kinds of jumps that could give a fish legs.

Quantum tunneling also has an affect on DNA expression. The factors that drive mutations are complicated. One example of a population genetically adapting to new environments is the Bajau people of South-East Asia who have developed bigger spleens for diving over thousands of years.

[Tristen]

53 minutes ago, Starise said:

If we would take these same fish and they suddenly came into a situation where they were once again in light, they would be at a disadvantage, so only within the context of their present environment can they function, and can we say such things are repeated across all sorts of creatures, or is this set of creatures specifically designed to have these characteristics? I believe some creatures have a more flexible regenerative and adaptive capability which arguably doesn't transfer to all creatures, making comparisons  would need to be species situational, and certainly, I see no reason to believe these degradations in a creature seen as advantageous make the kinds of jumps that could give a fish legs.

Agreed.

That is why I would carefully characterize this example as a corruption (or loss) of information - regardless of any situational advantage.

56 minutes ago, Starise said:

Certainly if infections were problematic, it could kill the fish which may have been the main driver turning off that particular capability in future fish of that type.

Yes - Natural Selection (environmental pressures) selected in favor of the fish (and their offspring) that lacked functioning eye genes.

 

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Spontaneous or directed? I believe the evidence is obvious

The very existence of molecular information/communication is astonishingly, monstrously incredulous in an undirected paradigm. 

The problem in threads like this is that we are mainly dealing with those who wholeheartedly accept the narrative generated using exclusively secular assumptions (namely, the assumption that no god played any role in the progress of natural history), but then, in a post hoc manner, they simply tag God onto the process as the Director of their preferred narrative.

It complicates matters when we have to reconcile those who have a sincere allegiance to scripture, but also feel obligated to the secular narrative.

 

[Scott Free]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Agreed - no mechanism has ever been observed that could make the types of genetic changes needed to give credibility to the Common Ancestry paradigm.

Agree, the genetic pool of the planet is definitely being played with by higher intelligence. The odds of natural evolution as the sole explanation for diversity is like saying a working watch can be created be shaking the dissembled parts together in a bag.

[teddyv]

15 minutes ago, Scott Free said:

Agree, the genetic pool of the planet is definitely being played with by higher intelligence.

You mean, like, right now?

Quote

The odds of natural evolution as the sole explanation for diversity is like saying a working watch can be created be shaking the dissembled parts together in a bag.

This sounds like the "tornado in a junkyard" analogy which is not a great one since living systems are quite different than inanimate material objects.

[Scott Free]

Just now, teddyv said:

This sounds like the "tornado in a junkyard" analogy which is not a great one since living systems are quite different than inanimate material objects.

The question is of odds. inorganic material organizing into just one simple protein with a specific 3D shape would take half a quadrillion years to accomplish. Not to mention 100's of them together to make a life form. I see God's glory in all of it, just it is not as simple as we envision.

[teddyv]

6 minutes ago, Scott Free said:

The question is of odds. inorganic material organizing into just one simple protein with a specific 3D shape would take half a quadrillion years to accomplish. Not to mention 100's of them together to make a life form. I see God's glory in all of it, just it is not as simple as we envision.

There is ongoing research into this area that has developed certain lines of investigation. Processes like autocatalysis can result in replication of molecules. The odds, while low on the single molecule level, are being played out over quadrillions (or more) of organic molecules.

Edited September 29, 2023 by teddyv
wrong word

[Scott Free]

1 minute ago, teddyv said:

There is ongoing research into this area that has developed certain lines of investigation. Processes like autocatalysis can result in replication of molecules. 

The research only shows that specific elements can form naturally. The process that causes it all to fall together unto a completed form is not revealed in any document.  Waiting eagerly for the Resurrection to enable full exploration. All glory goes to God.

[FJK]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

There is ongoing research into this area that has developed certain lines of investigation. Processes like autocatalysis can result in replication of molecules. The odds, while low on the single molecule level, are being played out over quadrillions (or more) of organic molecules.

Maybe someone should find that catalyst and prove that living matter can be created from non living matter through natural means?

But I doubt that is something that will ever be done.