Evolution and Time

Yes, that's what I meant. Only I said it in shorthand. :thumbs:

 

Is it more "short sighted" to believe God DID do it as HE said or to believe that atheist Darwinists have the "real truth" or are you suggesting it is something in the middle?

If we can't believe God ANd we can't believe the Atheist Darwinists -- then who?

Or are you questioning the 2Tim 3:15-16 statement "ALL scripture is inspired by God" and ammending it to say "some of it is just plane old literary superstition and tradition"??

 

As you wish -

When anyone asks "does evolutionism have ENOUGH time" you have to wonder about what? What is the observed "process" that is considered to "need more time"? How much "more time" does it need?

Is the argument "I think you need more time JUST to get a single celled life form to turn into a mulit-celled life form"??

Isn't that like saying "4 billion years is not enough time for 3+3 to equal 7"? How much time would be sufficient?

Oh and just as Chicago learned -- Just because someone "has enough time to win the superbowl" does not mean that they will.

Where can we find the "data" that shows only single celled organism's across the planet and "then" 1 billion years later "multicelled"? If the "process" for that one billion year transition is accepted to be "assuming evolutionist story telling in this case is valid" -- then why wouldn't they simply use the same "process" which in this case is nothing more than "good story telling" to go from multi-celled organisms to Algae - Coral - Fish in gigantic saltatation leaps up the taxonomic hierarchy??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Given time-X to accomplish impossible-task-Y how much time would it take to accomplish impossible-task-y100?

You seem to be arguing that it would take 100X. Which certainly is an interesting point.

But if we have learned one thing at all in discussion with believers in atheist darwinism - it is that they are "very good story tellers". I just can't imagine that they would not be able to invent a story to go along with this scenario above. If they can frame the discussion such that we are comparing story with story - they are back on their home field advantage.

IMHO -

In Christ,

Bob

 

Helen

I have dealt with your “time problem” before and you never even answered my responses. Why should I think that now would be any different?

But I’ll give a go at the abbreviated version. If you use the search feature, you can find more responses, often loaded with references.

You are starting from a fallacy. You are trying to suggest that complex life did not have enough time to evolve based on the number of generations to get to multicellular life.

It sounds really good. But it is not grounded in fact.

For a very good discussion of this topic, though from a different perspective, I’d would recommend Ripley’s recent book The Cooperative Gene. I think that it was also published overseas as Mendel’s Demon.

The jist of it is that the barrier to complex life was not time or mutations. The barrier was that the development of complex life depended on two rare events. The first was evolution of the eukaryotic cell. The eukaryotic cell is basically a symbiotic relationship between several different prokaryotes living as one. (You can see that the organelles of eukaryotic cells still maintain some indication of an independent existence. Organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts still maintain a shape somewhat like bacteria and still maintain some of their own DNA separate from the rest of the cell.) It took an unusual coincidence for these various cells to come together and cooperate instead of one eating the other. Even once they began cooperating, it took time to sort out all of the genes. Many of the genes in the organelles moved to the nucleus or withered away completely.

But such a coming together depended more on coincidence and luck than on how many mutations happened or how many generations passed. It could have been much quicker. It could have taken much longer.

The second potential barrier is the transition to the simplest multicellular life with differentiated cells.

Either, or both, were steps that had to be overcome before the rise of complex life. Both were events that would be expected to be fairly rare and it is therefore not surprising that it took a long time to occur. But, neither had anything to do with your premise either. And that is where your premise falls apart. It is based on reasoning that has little to nothing to do with how science says things occurred. You have successfully knocked over a strawman, but you have done nothing to address the way things are actually thought to have occurred.

And there is a key bit of data here. If you examine the genetic diversity of life, you will see there is tremendously more genetic diversity between prokaryotes than there are between even the most distantly related eukaryotes. The evolution of the complex life we see, therefore, has taken far less innovation in the genetic world than what the prokaryotes had already produced. Your strawman just does not live up to what science actually says.

I am guessing that you will start a mutation thread soon. You will claim that there is only 1 good mutation per 1000 bad ones. Please provide a source. You will say something about gene catastrophe. I would again suggest The Cooperative Gene as this is the actual subject of the book. The one sentence answer is that you only have to remove bad mutations more quickly than they occur. As it turns out, for almost all life we have checked, the rates of harmful mutations are far less than what the various methods to deal with this problem can remove. For the most complex life, like humans, it is hard to judge but it appears that we are still below the limit. Once the harmful mutations are removed, natural selection is free to act upon those relatively rare beneficial mutations. But I bet you have a mutation strawman ready that sounds good but that ignores what is actually written by actual scientists on the topic.

 

What did I say about "good stories"?? I am sure there is an animated cartoon video coming out to show just how well this story can be imagined in thought experiments!

But then UTEOTW does add in the secret sauce just for good measure saying "Once the harmful mutations are removed, natural selection is free to act upon those relatively rare beneficial mutations"


I for one am always up for a good story and UTEOTW is never short of them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

People who do not believe God always talk about how those who do are limiting Him when they beleive what He has already said. You can not make creation fit evolution, scripture will always suffer when you do.

 

That's not mutation, Helen, that's natural selection. Mutation is something different.

 

No evidence?

Gray MW,Origin and evolution of organelle genomes, Curr Opin Genet Dev. 1993 Dec;3(6):884-90.

Molecular data (particularly sequence analyses) have established that two eukaryotic organelles, the mitochondrion and the plastid, are the descendants of endosymbiotic (eu)bacteria whose closest living relatives are the alpha-Proteobacteria (mitochondrion) and Cyanobacteria (plastid). This review describes recent data that favor the view that each organelle arose via this primary endosymbiotic pathway only once (monophyletic origin), such as the discovery of group I introns that appear to be structurally homologous and have identical insertion sites in metaphyte, chlorophyte and fungal mitochondrial genomes. However, it is also evident that the plastids in certain algal groups were acquired secondarily through a eukaryotic rather than a prokaryotic endosymbiont.




T. Vellai, G. Vida, The origin of eukaryotes: the difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Volume 266, Number 1428 / August 7, 1999

Eukaryotes have long been thought to have arisen by evolving a nucleus, endomembrane, and cytoskeleton. In contrast, it was recently proposed that the first complex cells, which were actually proto-eukaryotes, arose simultaneously with the acquisition of mitochondria. This so-called symbiotic association hypothesis states that eukaryotes emerged when some ancient anaerobic archaebacteria (hosts) engulfed respiring f-proteobacteria (symbionts), which evolved into the first energy-producing organelles. Therefore, the intracellular compartmentalization of the energy-converting metabolism that was bound originally to the plasma membrane appears to be the key innovation towards eukaryotic genome and cellular organization. The novel energy metabolism made it possible for the nucleotide synthetic apparatus of cells to be no longer limited by subsaturation with substrates and catalytic components. As a consequence, a considerable increase has occurred in the size and complexity of eukaryotic genomes, providing the genetic basis for most of the further evolutionary changes in cellular complexity. On the other hand, the active uptake of exogenous DNA, which is general in bacteria, was no longer essential in the genome organization of eukaryotes. The mitochondrion-driven scenario for the first eukaryotes explains the chimera-like composition of eukaryotic genomes as well as the metabolic and cellular organization of eukaryotes.

Sabrina D. Dyall, Mark T. Brown, Patricia J. Johnson, Ancient Invasions: From Endosymbionts to Organelles, Science 9 April 2004: Vol. 304. no. 5668, pp. 253 - 257

The acquisitions of mitochondria and plastids were important events in the evolution of the eukaryotic cell, supplying it with compartmentalized bioenergetic and biosynthetic factories. Ancient invasions by eubacteria through symbiosis more than a billion years ago initiated these processes. Advances in geochemistry, molecular phylogeny, and cell biology have offered insight into complex molecular events that drove the evolution of endosymbionts into contemporary organelles. In losing their autonomy, endosymbionts lost the bulk of their genomes, necessitating the evolution of elaborate mechanisms for organelle biogenesis and metabolite exchange. In the process, symbionts acquired many host-derived properties, lost much of their eubacterial identity, and were transformed into extraordinarily diverse organelles that reveal complex histories that we are only beginning to decipher.



So your OP was a strawman and your response was based on a false claim. Par for the YE course.

How many more of these do you need?

 

Question for the discerning thinking reader - where has this quote divided the line between "the actual fact observed" and "the story telling"?

Think about it.

Obviously the quote seeks to BLEND the two - by giving NO FACT at all about what WAS FOUND! It settles for STORY telling combined with "We have some new INSIGHTS"... How sad that this kind of junk-science propaganda passes for science "proof" in some circles today!

If the article being quoted actually HAD fact - then why is UTEOTW only selecting the "story telling segment" as IF story telling " all that is needed here"?? Surely it would be "All that is needed in an atheist darwinist context or class room" but here IN THIS venue you would need "actual fact". In an atheist darwinist class room setting you "Get graded" on your ability to swallow darwinist propaganda - but here they have no such leverage. Here it is compelling argument, data, actual facts that prevail!

In Christ,

Bob

 

I'm not. My comments have to do with time. Small changes, short time, more profound changes over longer time. Do not start a thread and then try to squelch conversation that is on topic by claiming it is not because you don't like the post.

 

Let's play the "fact from fiction" game with another one of UTEOTW's quotes above...

The key is to find the fact - and note the "imaginative thought experiement" that comprises the "Story telling"

In the RED we have the weaving of the thread for the story telling.
In the Blue we have the FACTS

Hint: A lot of story telling involved no observed facts at all!!