LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

---

To be clear then, are you indicating that you accept all modern animals evolving from one common ancestor and all modern plants likewise evolving from one common ancestor? And then are you saying that the only "jump" that you have trouble with is the progression from chemistry into living cells?

---

i don't have the education to discuss at a higher level. I am saying I don't see design without a designer. I don't see densely packed, intricate, detailed data (dna), without an intelligent being causing, assembling, and putting into motion those things creating life.

I'm also not saying you are opposing that because I've not seen you say that as other posters have. Maybe I missed it and you have. I don't know.

---

PS - thank you for a civil and fun conversation. All too often, as we know, discussing such topics (which I find quite interesting) leads somewhere else altogether.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

---

To be clear then, are you indicating that you accept all modern animals evolving from one common ancestor and all modern plants likewise evolving from one common ancestor? And then are you saying that the only "jump" that you have trouble with is the progression from chemistry into living cells?

---

i don't have the education to discuss at a higher level. I am saying I don't see design without a designer. I don't see densely packed, intricate, detailed data (dna), without an intelligent being causing, assembling, and putting into motion those things creating life.

I'm also not saying you are opposing that because I've not seen you say that as other posters have. Maybe I missed it and you have. I don't know.

---

Fair enough. I have two quick thoughts:

1) What someone not well-studied in biology would call "design" may not look so designed once you study it further. As an example, consider dolphin DNA. They carry several hundred non-functional genes encoding structures which enable mammals to smell things in the air, but which are useless for an animal living underwater. The dolphins don't use these genes - the genes are vestigial. Dolphins carry these vestigial genes because they evolved from animals that walked on land and, of course, smelled odorants in the air.

2) Perhaps more importantly for the discussion, I don't think it "matters" in some sense whether you believe life evolved with or without a higher creator. For the record, I have never had the least bit of trouble "reconciling" Biblical truths with scientific truths. I hesitate to use the word reconcile, as it implies some sort of inherent conflict, which I do not see as even existing in the first place. The reason I think the conversation is important is that I personally know people who do see conflict, and they then "choose" a side, and use that choice as a means to blindly ignore not just evolutionary biology, but other scientific truths as well. That, I think, leads to many problems (not to mention much wasted energy).

---

re #1 vestigial genes. At this point in our education they seem to be vestigial and, perhaps they are. But, for many years it was believed the appendix was an unneeded remnant from our past. Today, it is believed by many scientists, to be a reservoir of good bacteria for times when a larger quantity may be needed, like eating at an Aggie tailgate. Perhaps later we will know more about these genes and their purposes.

re #2 If there was a Big Bang, I believe there was a Big Banger. I don't see my faith contradicting science. I do however see some people's religion shutting the door to science just as I see some scientists shutting the door to God.

---

To #1 I completely understand your line of thinking, but here I am not talking about "we don't know what it does" DNA, I mean DNA that is literally an old gene that has slightly mutated and now encodes a nonfunctional polypeptide, or in some cases an early codon got swapped for the stop codon such that it creates essentially nothing at all. Again, completely see where you're coming from, but I'm discussing true, known vestigial genes, not DNA content we don't completely understand.

To #2, we completely agree on your basic point. "I don't see my faith contradicting science. I do however see some people's religion shutting the door to science just as I see some scientists shutting the door to God" - completely agree.

MT Bear: 'Scientists have quite a few hypotheses regarding the beginning of self-replication, self-assembly, etc. So to say they have "no explanation" is dishonest."

Hypothesis is theory, explanation is based on accepted facts. So it would be accurate to say that scientists have theories but not explanations regarding self replication.

A very intelligent professor once reminded me that intelligent people are not afraid to admit they don't know something, as this is true for all of us in various areas, topics and questions.

It's not, however, common for people with advanced degrees or office to admit they do not know something, and this leads to a great many bad assumptions.

LIB MR BEAR: " If there was a Big Bang, I believe there was a Big Banger. "

For some reason, that created for me the mental image of God in a Zoot Suit.

Oldbear83 said:

---

MT Bear: 'Scientists have quite a few hypotheses regarding the beginning of self-replication, self-assembly, etc. So to say they have "no explanation" is dishonest."

Hypothesis is theory, explanation is based on accepted facts. So it would be accurate to say that scientists have theories but not explanations regarding self replication.

A very intelligent professor once reminded me that intelligent people are not afraid to admit they don't know something, as this is true for all of us in various areas, topics and questions.

It's not, however, common for people with advanced degrees or office to admit they do not know something, and this leads to a great many bad assumptions.

---

We agree on what I see as being the most important thing here - intelligent people should absolutely be comfortable in saying "I don't know" when they don't. I remind my students of this on day one in lecture (I let them know they'll likely ask a question I don't know the answer to at some point). If you bluntly ask "how did the first cell arise," both the scientist and the theologian (or the person who is both) should say "I don't know," if you're asking for a mechanistic explanation.

A quibble though: "theory" as used in science vs in non-scientific circles is quite different, and a theory is definitely not a simple a hypothesis. A theory, rather, is an integrated set of ideas which explains a great many scientific observations. The theory of relativity explains a great many observations regarding gravity, etc.

MT_Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

MT Bear: 'Scientists have quite a few hypotheses regarding the beginning of self-replication, self-assembly, etc. So to say they have "no explanation" is dishonest."

Hypothesis is theory, explanation is based on accepted facts. So it would be accurate to say that scientists have theories but not explanations regarding self replication.

A very intelligent professor once reminded me that intelligent people are not afraid to admit they don't know something, as this is true for all of us in various areas, topics and questions.

It's not, however, common for people with advanced degrees or office to admit they do not know something, and this leads to a great many bad assumptions.

---

We agree on what I see as being the most important thing here - intelligent people should absolutely be comfortable in saying "I don't know" when they don't. I remind my students of this on day one in lecture (I let them know they'll likely ask a question I don't know the answer to at some point). If you bluntly ask "how did the first cell arise," both the scientist and the theologian (or the person who is both) should say "I don't know," if you're asking for a mechanistic explanation.

A quibble though: "theory" as used in science vs in non-scientific circles is quite different, and a theory is definitely not a simple a hypothesis. A theory, rather, is an integrated set of ideas which explains a great many scientific observations. The theory of relativity explains a great many observations regarding gravity, etc.

---

I agree that 'theory' in science is different from common use, but in some ways it's even more important for scientists to know the limits of certainty in their subjects.

Without going too far into it, consider for example how the development of freon was widely praised for making it possible for people to easily keep food cold for long periods of time, but its effect on the atmosphere was only learned later at some cost to the environment.

Any event which happened before the recorded history of Humanity is something we ought to be extra careful about.

Proud 1992 Alum said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Americans should no longer be allowed to reproduce. We have become way too stupid!

---

Well, that depends on who you call "Americans".

There are a lot of people who never wanted to live in a nation defined by our Constitution.

---

Aside from terrorists, brainwashed to hate everything American, I can't think of whom you may be referring to. First of all, there are people that may say they hate or love everything about something they in fact know nothing about. I would propose we confine our consideration to people who have actually read the US Constitution at least once.

There may be one group of Americans who have had a legitimate complaint about the document. I mean, 3/5ths of a man is language that we have purged, but can still recognize as having been there. The people so identified, however-- slaves and their descendants--have constantly affirmed from the time of Frederick Douglas onward their devotion to the Constitution, longing as they have to be granted the same liberties and freedoms mentioned there.

Americans of all political persuasions are comfortable with the Constitution. We may complain about some things -- disagree about how it is interpreted, and sometimes call for new amendments--this is hardly contempt for the old document, but the very expression of the political freedom the document allows. Americans in fact are so comfortable we forget its there. Just try taking it away from us, though...

---

Regarding the 3/5ths compromise, this quote from Frederick Douglass is relevant.

"But giving the provisions the very worse construction, what does it amount to? I answer It is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution. Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of "two-fifths" of political power to free over slave States. So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at is worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a coloured man to vote."

---

Douglass is correct as to what the Constitution does not forbid, but the story does not end there. When the Federal Government, by way of the Constitution and amendments is silent on the issue, the power devolves to the state. By the 1850's all but 5 of the States had prohibited free black men from voting. This is why the 15th amendment was required, which would basically render all such state law unconstitutional.

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

---

To be clear then, are you indicating that you accept all modern animals evolving from one common ancestor and all modern plants likewise evolving from one common ancestor? And then are you saying that the only "jump" that you have trouble with is the progression from chemistry into living cells?

---

i don't have the education to discuss at a higher level. I am saying I don't see design without a designer. I don't see densely packed, intricate, detailed data (dna), without an intelligent being causing, assembling, and putting into motion those things creating life.

I'm also not saying you are opposing that because I've not seen you say that as other posters have. Maybe I missed it and you have. I don't know.

---

Fair enough. I have two quick thoughts:

1) What someone not well-studied in biology would call "design" may not look so designed once you study it further. As an example, consider dolphin DNA. They carry several hundred non-functional genes encoding structures which enable mammals to smell things in the air, but which are useless for an animal living underwater. The dolphins don't use these genes - the genes are vestigial. Dolphins carry these vestigial genes because they evolved from animals that walked on land and, of course, smelled odorants in the air.

2) Perhaps more importantly for the discussion, I don't think it "matters" in some sense whether you believe life evolved with or without a higher creator. For the record, I have never had the least bit of trouble "reconciling" Biblical truths with scientific truths. I hesitate to use the word reconcile, as it implies some sort of inherent conflict, which I do not see as even existing in the first place. The reason I think the conversation is important is that I personally know people who do see conflict, and they then "choose" a side, and use that choice as a means to blindly ignore not just evolutionary biology, but other scientific truths as well. That, I think, leads to many problems (not to mention much wasted energy).

---

1) This is a self-defeating line of reasoning: DNA doesn't appear designed when you consider the presence of nonfunctional, vestigial genes-- genes which encode complex structures...... that appear exquisitely designed?

The presence of vestigial genes and nonfunctional DNA that is similar across species could very well be an indicator of a common template used by a common Designer. Instead of starting from scratch, this Designer could have instead used a previously functional template and turned off some genes, changed some, or added new ones to the template.

For example, consider how the bible says that God created woman from man- instead of creating another human de novo, He instead used a template, i.e. a piece of the man (his rib) from which to make the woman. Isn't it very interesting, that the rib contains marrow rich in pluripotent stem cells (cells that can make all other cells of the body)??

2) Of course it "matters" if you believe life evolved with or without a Creator. This is another self-defeating form of thinking. The belief that it was without is self-defeating to a belief in a Creator in the first place. If there was no creation, then there's no Creator.

Doc Holliday said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Nucleotides bonded together to make the first RNAs and there's no way something wasn't driving that to achieve a goal as opposed to a random process.

---

Perhaps I'm misreading your intent here, but evolution is by no means random. Perhaps that's what you were saying though.

---

I'm saying abiogenesis (self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, etc.) didn't just randomly happen.

Scientists have no explanation of what caused these processes.

---

What?!? Obviously evolution caused this

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Canines evolved to different canines, felines to different felines. That is life creating life.

How did space dust create life?

---

There are a variety of theories; evolution is not one of them. Evolution is about adaptive change after life came about. Cats and dogs do not create new life, they create new forms of cats and dogs, mostly with human input.

---

Wow! You and I agree

---

I don't think so. You said life created life and I said they do not.

---

beget? give rise to; bring about.

---

Again, cats have baby cats. That's not evolution.

Baylor3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Nucleotides bonded together to make the first RNAs and there's no way something wasn't driving that to achieve a goal as opposed to a random process.

---

Perhaps I'm misreading your intent here, but evolution is by no means random. Perhaps that's what you were saying though.

---

I'm saying abiogenesis (self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, etc.) didn't just randomly happen.

Scientists have no explanation of what caused these processes.

---

What?!? Obviously evolution caused this

---

I'm asking what caused evolution.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Baylor3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Nucleotides bonded together to make the first RNAs and there's no way something wasn't driving that to achieve a goal as opposed to a random process.

---

Perhaps I'm misreading your intent here, but evolution is by no means random. Perhaps that's what you were saying though.

---

I'm saying abiogenesis (self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, etc.) didn't just randomly happen.

Scientists have no explanation of what caused these processes.

---

What?!? Obviously evolution caused this

---

I'm asking what caused evolution.

---

There are a variety of explanations for the Big Bang, or for the rise of life. Fascinating searches.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Baylor3216 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Nucleotides bonded together to make the first RNAs and there's no way something wasn't driving that to achieve a goal as opposed to a random process.

---

Perhaps I'm misreading your intent here, but evolution is by no means random. Perhaps that's what you were saying though.

---

I'm saying abiogenesis (self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, etc.) didn't just randomly happen.

Scientists have no explanation of what caused these processes.

---

What?!? Obviously evolution caused this

---

I'm asking what caused evolution.

---

There are a variety of explanations for the Big Bang, or for the rise of life. Fascinating searches.

---

I've heard many of them, I love theories on the subject.

Oldbear83 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

MT Bear: 'Scientists have quite a few hypotheses regarding the beginning of self-replication, self-assembly, etc. So to say they have "no explanation" is dishonest."

Hypothesis is theory, explanation is based on accepted facts. So it would be accurate to say that scientists have theories but not explanations regarding self replication.

A very intelligent professor once reminded me that intelligent people are not afraid to admit they don't know something, as this is true for all of us in various areas, topics and questions.

It's not, however, common for people with advanced degrees or office to admit they do not know something, and this leads to a great many bad assumptions.

---

We agree on what I see as being the most important thing here - intelligent people should absolutely be comfortable in saying "I don't know" when they don't. I remind my students of this on day one in lecture (I let them know they'll likely ask a question I don't know the answer to at some point). If you bluntly ask "how did the first cell arise," both the scientist and the theologian (or the person who is both) should say "I don't know," if you're asking for a mechanistic explanation.

A quibble though: "theory" as used in science vs in non-scientific circles is quite different, and a theory is definitely not a simple a hypothesis. A theory, rather, is an integrated set of ideas which explains a great many scientific observations. The theory of relativity explains a great many observations regarding gravity, etc.

---

I agree that 'theory' in science is different from common use, but in some ways it's even more important for scientists to know the limits of certainty in their subjects.

Without going too far into it, consider for example how the development of freon was widely praised for making it possible for people to easily keep food cold for long periods of time, but its effect on the atmosphere was only learned later at some cost to the environment.

Any event which happened before the recorded history of Humanity is something we ought to be extra careful about.

---

Completely agree on your last point, but also believe that's some of the most fascinating stuff to tackle. As I mentioned in an earlier post (and as you would infer), the further back you go, the less certainty you can have. Our understanding of the past 2-5 million years is, all things considered, remarkably good. The geologic and fossil record gets more sparse, more likely to have been disrupted, and just crappier as you go back towards the beginnings of complex animal life and beyond.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

---

To be clear then, are you indicating that you accept all modern animals evolving from one common ancestor and all modern plants likewise evolving from one common ancestor? And then are you saying that the only "jump" that you have trouble with is the progression from chemistry into living cells?

---

i don't have the education to discuss at a higher level. I am saying I don't see design without a designer. I don't see densely packed, intricate, detailed data (dna), without an intelligent being causing, assembling, and putting into motion those things creating life.

I'm also not saying you are opposing that because I've not seen you say that as other posters have. Maybe I missed it and you have. I don't know.

---

Fair enough. I have two quick thoughts:

1) What someone not well-studied in biology would call "design" may not look so designed once you study it further. As an example, consider dolphin DNA. They carry several hundred non-functional genes encoding structures which enable mammals to smell things in the air, but which are useless for an animal living underwater. The dolphins don't use these genes - the genes are vestigial. Dolphins carry these vestigial genes because they evolved from animals that walked on land and, of course, smelled odorants in the air.

2) Perhaps more importantly for the discussion, I don't think it "matters" in some sense whether you believe life evolved with or without a higher creator. For the record, I have never had the least bit of trouble "reconciling" Biblical truths with scientific truths. I hesitate to use the word reconcile, as it implies some sort of inherent conflict, which I do not see as even existing in the first place. The reason I think the conversation is important is that I personally know people who do see conflict, and they then "choose" a side, and use that choice as a means to blindly ignore not just evolutionary biology, but other scientific truths as well. That, I think, leads to many problems (not to mention much wasted energy).

---

1) This is a self-defeating line of reasoning: DNA doesn't appear designed when you consider the presence of nonfunctional, vestigial genes-- genes which encode complex structures...... that appear exquisitely designed?

The presence of vestigial genes and nonfunctional DNA that is similar across species could very well be an indicator of a common template used by a common Designer. Instead of starting from scratch, this Designer could have instead used a previously functional template and turned off some genes, changed some, or added new ones to the template.

For example, consider how the bible says that God created woman from man- instead of creating another human de novo, He instead used a template, i.e. a piece of the man (his rib) from which to make the woman. Isn't it very interesting, that the rib contains marrow rich in pluripotent stem cells (cells that can make all other cells of the body)??

2) Of course it "matters" if you believe life evolved with or without a Creator. This is another self-defeating form of thinking. The belief that it was without is self-defeating to a belief in a Creator in the first place. If there was no creation, then there's no Creator.

---

1) Your line of thought on #1 basically reads as though you'd say God directed evolution. In some basic sense, we'd agree then. Evolution, by definition, uses an existing template and modifies it through time. No, it is not particularly interesting that ribs contain stem cells, seeing as other bones and several other tissues do as well, and that such stem cells are critical to replacement of aging cells.

2) I feel like you've missed my point and in what context I said it did or didn't matter. If it matters to you for different reasons, of course I have no issue there.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Any event which happened before the recorded history of Humanity is something we ought to be extra careful about.

---

Every exoplanet we have found is seen with light that is older than recorded history.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Any event which happened before the recorded history of Humanity is something we ought to be extra careful about.

---

Every exoplanet we have found is seen with light that is older than recorded history.

---

And we have very limited information about those, as you know.

It's very human to impose personal expectations on any 'blanks' in the knowledge base.

This is by far the best active thread in this forum(besides Pale Riders devotionals)

Appreciate all the commentary

4th and Inches said:

---

This is by far the best active thread in this forum(besides Pale Riders devotionals)

Appreciate all the commentary

---

Yw

MT_Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

---

To be clear then, are you indicating that you accept all modern animals evolving from one common ancestor and all modern plants likewise evolving from one common ancestor? And then are you saying that the only "jump" that you have trouble with is the progression from chemistry into living cells?

---

i don't have the education to discuss at a higher level. I am saying I don't see design without a designer. I don't see densely packed, intricate, detailed data (dna), without an intelligent being causing, assembling, and putting into motion those things creating life.

I'm also not saying you are opposing that because I've not seen you say that as other posters have. Maybe I missed it and you have. I don't know.

---

Fair enough. I have two quick thoughts:

1) What someone not well-studied in biology would call "design" may not look so designed once you study it further. As an example, consider dolphin DNA. They carry several hundred non-functional genes encoding structures which enable mammals to smell things in the air, but which are useless for an animal living underwater. The dolphins don't use these genes - the genes are vestigial. Dolphins carry these vestigial genes because they evolved from animals that walked on land and, of course, smelled odorants in the air.

2) Perhaps more importantly for the discussion, I don't think it "matters" in some sense whether you believe life evolved with or without a higher creator. For the record, I have never had the least bit of trouble "reconciling" Biblical truths with scientific truths. I hesitate to use the word reconcile, as it implies some sort of inherent conflict, which I do not see as even existing in the first place. The reason I think the conversation is important is that I personally know people who do see conflict, and they then "choose" a side, and use that choice as a means to blindly ignore not just evolutionary biology, but other scientific truths as well. That, I think, leads to many problems (not to mention much wasted energy).

---

1) This is a self-defeating line of reasoning: DNA doesn't appear designed when you consider the presence of nonfunctional, vestigial genes-- genes which encode complex structures...... that appear exquisitely designed?

The presence of vestigial genes and nonfunctional DNA that is similar across species could very well be an indicator of a common template used by a common Designer. Instead of starting from scratch, this Designer could have instead used a previously functional template and turned off some genes, changed some, or added new ones to the template.

For example, consider how the bible says that God created woman from man- instead of creating another human de novo, He instead used a template, i.e. a piece of the man (his rib) from which to make the woman. Isn't it very interesting, that the rib contains marrow rich in pluripotent stem cells (cells that can make all other cells of the body)??

2) Of course it "matters" if you believe life evolved with or without a Creator. This is another self-defeating form of thinking. The belief that it was without is self-defeating to a belief in a Creator in the first place. If there was no creation, then there's no Creator.

---

1) Your line of thought on #1 basically reads as though you'd say God directed evolution. In some basic sense, we'd agree then. Evolution, by definition, uses an existing template and modifies it through time. No, it is not particularly interesting that ribs contain stem cells, seeing as other bones and several other tissues do as well, and that such stem cells are critical to replacement of aging cells.

2) I feel like you've missed my point and in what context I said it did or didn't matter. If it matters to you for different reasons, of course I have no issue there.

---

The point in #1 was that studying DNA further in the way you described in no way makes it appear less designed. That is a logically flawed conclusion. You were trying to argue that the presence of vestigial DNA that appears to be designed makes it appear that the DNA is NOT designed. That reasoning is oxymoronic.

And the interesting part about Adam's rib was not merely that it contained pluripotent stem cells, but that the creation story has God choosing that particular part of Adam's body that did contain these cells, thus giving the story scientific consistency.

MT_Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

MT Bear: 'Scientists have quite a few hypotheses regarding the beginning of self-replication, self-assembly, etc. So to say they have "no explanation" is dishonest."

Hypothesis is theory, explanation is based on accepted facts. So it would be accurate to say that scientists have theories but not explanations regarding self replication.

A very intelligent professor once reminded me that intelligent people are not afraid to admit they don't know something, as this is true for all of us in various areas, topics and questions.

It's not, however, common for people with advanced degrees or office to admit they do not know something, and this leads to a great many bad assumptions.

---

We agree on what I see as being the most important thing here - intelligent people should absolutely be comfortable in saying "I don't know" when they don't. I remind my students of this on day one in lecture (I let them know they'll likely ask a question I don't know the answer to at some point). If you bluntly ask "how did the first cell arise," both the scientist and the theologian (or the person who is both) should say "I don't know," if you're asking for a mechanistic explanation.

A quibble though: "theory" as used in science vs in non-scientific circles is quite different, and a theory is definitely not a simple a hypothesis. A theory, rather, is an integrated set of ideas which explains a great many scientific observations. The theory of relativity explains a great many observations regarding gravity, etc.

---

I agree that 'theory' in science is different from common use, but in some ways it's even more important for scientists to know the limits of certainty in their subjects.

Without going too far into it, consider for example how the development of freon was widely praised for making it possible for people to easily keep food cold for long periods of time, but its effect on the atmosphere was only learned later at some cost to the environment.

Any event which happened before the recorded history of Humanity is something we ought to be extra careful about.

---

Completely agree on your last point, but also believe that's some of the most fascinating stuff to tackle. As I mentioned in an earlier post (and as you would infer), the further back you go, the less certainty you can have. Our understanding of the past 2-5 million years is, all things considered, remarkably good. The geologic and fossil record gets more sparse, more likely to have been disrupted, and just crappier as you go back towards the beginnings of complex animal life and beyond.

---

The geologic and fossil record is more than adequate for understanding the major events and processes that have shaped our planet, and documenting the evolutionary trajectory of life on our planet.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Any event which happened before the recorded history of Humanity is something we ought to be extra careful about.

---

Every exoplanet we have found is seen with light that is older than recorded history.

---

We should be extra careful with recorded history.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Any event which happened before the recorded history of Humanity is something we ought to be extra careful about.

---

Every exoplanet we have found is seen with light that is older than recorded history.

---

And we have very limited information about those, as you know.

It's very human to impose personal expectations on any 'blanks' in the knowledge base.

---

That's why we have the scientific method - to eliminate human biases.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

---

To be clear then, are you indicating that you accept all modern animals evolving from one common ancestor and all modern plants likewise evolving from one common ancestor? And then are you saying that the only "jump" that you have trouble with is the progression from chemistry into living cells?

---

i don't have the education to discuss at a higher level. I am saying I don't see design without a designer. I don't see densely packed, intricate, detailed data (dna), without an intelligent being causing, assembling, and putting into motion those things creating life.

I'm also not saying you are opposing that because I've not seen you say that as other posters have. Maybe I missed it and you have. I don't know.

---

Fair enough. I have two quick thoughts:

1) What someone not well-studied in biology would call "design" may not look so designed once you study it further. As an example, consider dolphin DNA. They carry several hundred non-functional genes encoding structures which enable mammals to smell things in the air, but which are useless for an animal living underwater. The dolphins don't use these genes - the genes are vestigial. Dolphins carry these vestigial genes because they evolved from animals that walked on land and, of course, smelled odorants in the air.

2) Perhaps more importantly for the discussion, I don't think it "matters" in some sense whether you believe life evolved with or without a higher creator. For the record, I have never had the least bit of trouble "reconciling" Biblical truths with scientific truths. I hesitate to use the word reconcile, as it implies some sort of inherent conflict, which I do not see as even existing in the first place. The reason I think the conversation is important is that I personally know people who do see conflict, and they then "choose" a side, and use that choice as a means to blindly ignore not just evolutionary biology, but other scientific truths as well. That, I think, leads to many problems (not to mention much wasted energy).

---

1) This is a self-defeating line of reasoning: DNA doesn't appear designed when you consider the presence of nonfunctional, vestigial genes-- genes which encode complex structures...... that appear exquisitely designed?

The presence of vestigial genes and nonfunctional DNA that is similar across species could very well be an indicator of a common template used by a common Designer. Instead of starting from scratch, this Designer could have instead used a previously functional template and turned off some genes, changed some, or added new ones to the template.

For example, consider how the bible says that God created woman from man- instead of creating another human de novo, He instead used a template, i.e. a piece of the man (his rib) from which to make the woman. Isn't it very interesting, that the rib contains marrow rich in pluripotent stem cells (cells that can make all other cells of the body)??

2) Of course it "matters" if you believe life evolved with or without a Creator. This is another self-defeating form of thinking. The belief that it was without is self-defeating to a belief in a Creator in the first place. If there was no creation, then there's no Creator.

---

1) Your line of thought on #1 basically reads as though you'd say God directed evolution. In some basic sense, we'd agree then. Evolution, by definition, uses an existing template and modifies it through time. No, it is not particularly interesting that ribs contain stem cells, seeing as other bones and several other tissues do as well, and that such stem cells are critical to replacement of aging cells.

2) I feel like you've missed my point and in what context I said it did or didn't matter. If it matters to you for different reasons, of course I have no issue there.

---

The point in #1 was that studying DNA further in the way you described in no way makes it appear less designed. That is a logically flawed conclusion. You were trying to argue that the presence of vestigial DNA that appears to be designed makes it appear that the DNA is NOT designed. That reasoning is oxymoronic.

And the interesting part about Adam's rib was not merely that it contained pluripotent stem cells, but that the creation story has God choosing that particular part of Adam's body that did contain these cells, thus giving the story scientific consistency.

---

There is no scientific consistency in the theological story of Adam. The story of Adam in neither of the two conflicting creation stories has no valid scientific basis and is contradictory to everything we have learned through science.

TexasScientist said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

MT Bear: 'Scientists have quite a few hypotheses regarding the beginning of self-replication, self-assembly, etc. So to say they have "no explanation" is dishonest."

Hypothesis is theory, explanation is based on accepted facts. So it would be accurate to say that scientists have theories but not explanations regarding self replication.

A very intelligent professor once reminded me that intelligent people are not afraid to admit they don't know something, as this is true for all of us in various areas, topics and questions.

It's not, however, common for people with advanced degrees or office to admit they do not know something, and this leads to a great many bad assumptions.

---

We agree on what I see as being the most important thing here - intelligent people should absolutely be comfortable in saying "I don't know" when they don't. I remind my students of this on day one in lecture (I let them know they'll likely ask a question I don't know the answer to at some point). If you bluntly ask "how did the first cell arise," both the scientist and the theologian (or the person who is both) should say "I don't know," if you're asking for a mechanistic explanation.

A quibble though: "theory" as used in science vs in non-scientific circles is quite different, and a theory is definitely not a simple a hypothesis. A theory, rather, is an integrated set of ideas which explains a great many scientific observations. The theory of relativity explains a great many observations regarding gravity, etc.

---

I agree that 'theory' in science is different from common use, but in some ways it's even more important for scientists to know the limits of certainty in their subjects.

Without going too far into it, consider for example how the development of freon was widely praised for making it possible for people to easily keep food cold for long periods of time, but its effect on the atmosphere was only learned later at some cost to the environment.

Any event which happened before the recorded history of Humanity is something we ought to be extra careful about.

---

Completely agree on your last point, but also believe that's some of the most fascinating stuff to tackle. As I mentioned in an earlier post (and as you would infer), the further back you go, the less certainty you can have. Our understanding of the past 2-5 million years is, all things considered, remarkably good. The geologic and fossil record gets more sparse, more likely to have been disrupted, and just crappier as you go back towards the beginnings of complex animal life and beyond.

---

The geologic and fossil record is more than adequate for understanding the major events and processes that have shaped our planet, and documenting the evolutionary trajectory of life on our planet.

---

Fast forward a million years. Where does our trajectory place us? Why do you say that?

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

---

To be clear then, are you indicating that you accept all modern animals evolving from one common ancestor and all modern plants likewise evolving from one common ancestor? And then are you saying that the only "jump" that you have trouble with is the progression from chemistry into living cells?

---

i don't have the education to discuss at a higher level. I am saying I don't see design without a designer. I don't see densely packed, intricate, detailed data (dna), without an intelligent being causing, assembling, and putting into motion those things creating life.

I'm also not saying you are opposing that because I've not seen you say that as other posters have. Maybe I missed it and you have. I don't know.

---

Fair enough. I have two quick thoughts:

1) What someone not well-studied in biology would call "design" may not look so designed once you study it further. As an example, consider dolphin DNA. They carry several hundred non-functional genes encoding structures which enable mammals to smell things in the air, but which are useless for an animal living underwater. The dolphins don't use these genes - the genes are vestigial. Dolphins carry these vestigial genes because they evolved from animals that walked on land and, of course, smelled odorants in the air.

2) Perhaps more importantly for the discussion, I don't think it "matters" in some sense whether you believe life evolved with or without a higher creator. For the record, I have never had the least bit of trouble "reconciling" Biblical truths with scientific truths. I hesitate to use the word reconcile, as it implies some sort of inherent conflict, which I do not see as even existing in the first place. The reason I think the conversation is important is that I personally know people who do see conflict, and they then "choose" a side, and use that choice as a means to blindly ignore not just evolutionary biology, but other scientific truths as well. That, I think, leads to many problems (not to mention much wasted energy).

---

1) This is a self-defeating line of reasoning: DNA doesn't appear designed when you consider the presence of nonfunctional, vestigial genes-- genes which encode complex structures...... that appear exquisitely designed?

The presence of vestigial genes and nonfunctional DNA that is similar across species could very well be an indicator of a common template used by a common Designer. Instead of starting from scratch, this Designer could have instead used a previously functional template and turned off some genes, changed some, or added new ones to the template.

For example, consider how the bible says that God created woman from man- instead of creating another human de novo, He instead used a template, i.e. a piece of the man (his rib) from which to make the woman. Isn't it very interesting, that the rib contains marrow rich in pluripotent stem cells (cells that can make all other cells of the body)??

2) Of course it "matters" if you believe life evolved with or without a Creator. This is another self-defeating form of thinking. The belief that it was without is self-defeating to a belief in a Creator in the first place. If there was no creation, then there's no Creator.

---

1) Your line of thought on #1 basically reads as though you'd say God directed evolution. In some basic sense, we'd agree then. Evolution, by definition, uses an existing template and modifies it through time. No, it is not particularly interesting that ribs contain stem cells, seeing as other bones and several other tissues do as well, and that such stem cells are critical to replacement of aging cells.

2) I feel like you've missed my point and in what context I said it did or didn't matter. If it matters to you for different reasons, of course I have no issue there.

---

The point in #1 was that studying DNA further in the way you described in no way makes it appear less designed. That is a logically flawed conclusion. You were trying to argue that the presence of vestigial DNA that appears to be designed makes it appear that the DNA is NOT designed. That reasoning is oxymoronic.

And the interesting part about Adam's rib was not merely that it contained pluripotent stem cells, but that the creation story has God choosing that particular part of Adam's body that did contain these cells, thus giving the story scientific consistency.

---

There is no scientific consistency in the theological story of Adam. The story of Adam in neither of the two conflicting creation stories has no valid scientific basis and is contradictory to everything we have learned through science.

---

The two stories are not contradictory. One of the stories is written as poetry and should be read as poetry; not history nor science.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

---

To be clear then, are you indicating that you accept all modern animals evolving from one common ancestor and all modern plants likewise evolving from one common ancestor? And then are you saying that the only "jump" that you have trouble with is the progression from chemistry into living cells?

---

i don't have the education to discuss at a higher level. I am saying I don't see design without a designer. I don't see densely packed, intricate, detailed data (dna), without an intelligent being causing, assembling, and putting into motion those things creating life.

I'm also not saying you are opposing that because I've not seen you say that as other posters have. Maybe I missed it and you have. I don't know.

---

Fair enough. I have two quick thoughts:

1) What someone not well-studied in biology would call "design" may not look so designed once you study it further. As an example, consider dolphin DNA. They carry several hundred non-functional genes encoding structures which enable mammals to smell things in the air, but which are useless for an animal living underwater. The dolphins don't use these genes - the genes are vestigial. Dolphins carry these vestigial genes because they evolved from animals that walked on land and, of course, smelled odorants in the air.

2) Perhaps more importantly for the discussion, I don't think it "matters" in some sense whether you believe life evolved with or without a higher creator. For the record, I have never had the least bit of trouble "reconciling" Biblical truths with scientific truths. I hesitate to use the word reconcile, as it implies some sort of inherent conflict, which I do not see as even existing in the first place. The reason I think the conversation is important is that I personally know people who do see conflict, and they then "choose" a side, and use that choice as a means to blindly ignore not just evolutionary biology, but other scientific truths as well. That, I think, leads to many problems (not to mention much wasted energy).

---

1) This is a self-defeating line of reasoning: DNA doesn't appear designed when you consider the presence of nonfunctional, vestigial genes-- genes which encode complex structures...... that appear exquisitely designed?

The presence of vestigial genes and nonfunctional DNA that is similar across species could very well be an indicator of a common template used by a common Designer. Instead of starting from scratch, this Designer could have instead used a previously functional template and turned off some genes, changed some, or added new ones to the template.

For example, consider how the bible says that God created woman from man- instead of creating another human de novo, He instead used a template, i.e. a piece of the man (his rib) from which to make the woman. Isn't it very interesting, that the rib contains marrow rich in pluripotent stem cells (cells that can make all other cells of the body)??

2) Of course it "matters" if you believe life evolved with or without a Creator. This is another self-defeating form of thinking. The belief that it was without is self-defeating to a belief in a Creator in the first place. If there was no creation, then there's no Creator.

---

1) Your line of thought on #1 basically reads as though you'd say God directed evolution. In some basic sense, we'd agree then. Evolution, by definition, uses an existing template and modifies it through time. No, it is not particularly interesting that ribs contain stem cells, seeing as other bones and several other tissues do as well, and that such stem cells are critical to replacement of aging cells.

2) I feel like you've missed my point and in what context I said it did or didn't matter. If it matters to you for different reasons, of course I have no issue there.

---

The point in #1 was that studying DNA further in the way you described in no way makes it appear less designed. That is a logically flawed conclusion. You were trying to argue that the presence of vestigial DNA that appears to be designed makes it appear that the DNA is NOT designed. That reasoning is oxymoronic.

And the interesting part about Adam's rib was not merely that it contained pluripotent stem cells, but that the creation story has God choosing that particular part of Adam's body that did contain these cells, thus giving the story scientific consistency.

---

There is no scientific consistency in the theological story of Adam. The story of Adam in neither of the two conflicting creation stories has no valid scientific basis and is contradictory to everything we have learned through science.

---

A statement that reflects neither an understanding of the creation story, nor of science.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Any event which happened before the recorded history of Humanity is something we ought to be extra careful about.

---

Every exoplanet we have found is seen with light that is older than recorded history.

---

And we have very limited information about those, as you know.

It's very human to impose personal expectations on any 'blanks' in the knowledge base.

---

Yes. And the light is older than recorded history. We have lots of things we know a good bit about that are before written history.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

---

To be clear then, are you indicating that you accept all modern animals evolving from one common ancestor and all modern plants likewise evolving from one common ancestor? And then are you saying that the only "jump" that you have trouble with is the progression from chemistry into living cells?

---

i don't have the education to discuss at a higher level. I am saying I don't see design without a designer. I don't see densely packed, intricate, detailed data (dna), without an intelligent being causing, assembling, and putting into motion those things creating life.

I'm also not saying you are opposing that because I've not seen you say that as other posters have. Maybe I missed it and you have. I don't know.

---

Fair enough. I have two quick thoughts:

1) What someone not well-studied in biology would call "design" may not look so designed once you study it further. As an example, consider dolphin DNA. They carry several hundred non-functional genes encoding structures which enable mammals to smell things in the air, but which are useless for an animal living underwater. The dolphins don't use these genes - the genes are vestigial. Dolphins carry these vestigial genes because they evolved from animals that walked on land and, of course, smelled odorants in the air.

2) Perhaps more importantly for the discussion, I don't think it "matters" in some sense whether you believe life evolved with or without a higher creator. For the record, I have never had the least bit of trouble "reconciling" Biblical truths with scientific truths. I hesitate to use the word reconcile, as it implies some sort of inherent conflict, which I do not see as even existing in the first place. The reason I think the conversation is important is that I personally know people who do see conflict, and they then "choose" a side, and use that choice as a means to blindly ignore not just evolutionary biology, but other scientific truths as well. That, I think, leads to many problems (not to mention much wasted energy).

---

1) This is a self-defeating line of reasoning: DNA doesn't appear designed when you consider the presence of nonfunctional, vestigial genes-- genes which encode complex structures...... that appear exquisitely designed?

The presence of vestigial genes and nonfunctional DNA that is similar across species could very well be an indicator of a common template used by a common Designer. Instead of starting from scratch, this Designer could have instead used a previously functional template and turned off some genes, changed some, or added new ones to the template.

For example, consider how the bible says that God created woman from man- instead of creating another human de novo, He instead used a template, i.e. a piece of the man (his rib) from which to make the woman. Isn't it very interesting, that the rib contains marrow rich in pluripotent stem cells (cells that can make all other cells of the body)??

2) Of course it "matters" if you believe life evolved with or without a Creator. This is another self-defeating form of thinking. The belief that it was without is self-defeating to a belief in a Creator in the first place. If there was no creation, then there's no Creator.

---

1) Your line of thought on #1 basically reads as though you'd say God directed evolution. In some basic sense, we'd agree then. Evolution, by definition, uses an existing template and modifies it through time. No, it is not particularly interesting that ribs contain stem cells, seeing as other bones and several other tissues do as well, and that such stem cells are critical to replacement of aging cells.

2) I feel like you've missed my point and in what context I said it did or didn't matter. If it matters to you for different reasons, of course I have no issue there.

---

The point in #1 was that studying DNA further in the way you described in no way makes it appear less designed. That is a logically flawed conclusion. You were trying to argue that the presence of vestigial DNA that appears to be designed makes it appear that the DNA is NOT designed. That reasoning is oxymoronic.

And the interesting part about Adam's rib was not merely that it contained pluripotent stem cells, but that the creation story has God choosing that particular part of Adam's body that did contain these cells, thus giving the story scientific consistency.

---

There is no scientific consistency in the theological story of Adam. The story of Adam in neither of the two conflicting creation stories has no valid scientific basis and is contradictory to everything we have learned through science.

---

The two stories are not contradictory. One of the stories is written as poetry and should be read as poetry; not history nor science.

---

You're right. Neither is written by the same person. They are theological myths.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

---

To be clear then, are you indicating that you accept all modern animals evolving from one common ancestor and all modern plants likewise evolving from one common ancestor? And then are you saying that the only "jump" that you have trouble with is the progression from chemistry into living cells?

---

i don't have the education to discuss at a higher level. I am saying I don't see design without a designer. I don't see densely packed, intricate, detailed data (dna), without an intelligent being causing, assembling, and putting into motion those things creating life.

I'm also not saying you are opposing that because I've not seen you say that as other posters have. Maybe I missed it and you have. I don't know.

---

Fair enough. I have two quick thoughts:

1) What someone not well-studied in biology would call "design" may not look so designed once you study it further. As an example, consider dolphin DNA. They carry several hundred non-functional genes encoding structures which enable mammals to smell things in the air, but which are useless for an animal living underwater. The dolphins don't use these genes - the genes are vestigial. Dolphins carry these vestigial genes because they evolved from animals that walked on land and, of course, smelled odorants in the air.

2) Perhaps more importantly for the discussion, I don't think it "matters" in some sense whether you believe life evolved with or without a higher creator. For the record, I have never had the least bit of trouble "reconciling" Biblical truths with scientific truths. I hesitate to use the word reconcile, as it implies some sort of inherent conflict, which I do not see as even existing in the first place. The reason I think the conversation is important is that I personally know people who do see conflict, and they then "choose" a side, and use that choice as a means to blindly ignore not just evolutionary biology, but other scientific truths as well. That, I think, leads to many problems (not to mention much wasted energy).

---

1) This is a self-defeating line of reasoning: DNA doesn't appear designed when you consider the presence of nonfunctional, vestigial genes-- genes which encode complex structures...... that appear exquisitely designed?

The presence of vestigial genes and nonfunctional DNA that is similar across species could very well be an indicator of a common template used by a common Designer. Instead of starting from scratch, this Designer could have instead used a previously functional template and turned off some genes, changed some, or added new ones to the template.

For example, consider how the bible says that God created woman from man- instead of creating another human de novo, He instead used a template, i.e. a piece of the man (his rib) from which to make the woman. Isn't it very interesting, that the rib contains marrow rich in pluripotent stem cells (cells that can make all other cells of the body)??

2) Of course it "matters" if you believe life evolved with or without a Creator. This is another self-defeating form of thinking. The belief that it was without is self-defeating to a belief in a Creator in the first place. If there was no creation, then there's no Creator.

---

1) Your line of thought on #1 basically reads as though you'd say God directed evolution. In some basic sense, we'd agree then. Evolution, by definition, uses an existing template and modifies it through time. No, it is not particularly interesting that ribs contain stem cells, seeing as other bones and several other tissues do as well, and that such stem cells are critical to replacement of aging cells.

2) I feel like you've missed my point and in what context I said it did or didn't matter. If it matters to you for different reasons, of course I have no issue there.

---

The point in #1 was that studying DNA further in the way you described in no way makes it appear less designed. That is a logically flawed conclusion. You were trying to argue that the presence of vestigial DNA that appears to be designed makes it appear that the DNA is NOT designed. That reasoning is oxymoronic.

And the interesting part about Adam's rib was not merely that it contained pluripotent stem cells, but that the creation story has God choosing that particular part of Adam's body that did contain these cells, thus giving the story scientific consistency.

---

There is no scientific consistency in the theological story of Adam. The story of Adam in neither of the two conflicting creation stories has no valid scientific basis and is contradictory to everything we have learned through science.

---

The two stories are not contradictory. One of the stories is written as poetry and should be read as poetry; not history nor science.

---

You're right. Neither is written by the same person. They are theological myths.

---

if only our pond scum had evolved as far as your pond scum. Woe is us.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

MT Bear: 'Scientists have quite a few hypotheses regarding the beginning of self-replication, self-assembly, etc. So to say they have "no explanation" is dishonest."

Hypothesis is theory, explanation is based on accepted facts. So it would be accurate to say that scientists have theories but not explanations regarding self replication.

A very intelligent professor once reminded me that intelligent people are not afraid to admit they don't know something, as this is true for all of us in various areas, topics and questions.

It's not, however, common for people with advanced degrees or office to admit they do not know something, and this leads to a great many bad assumptions.

---

We agree on what I see as being the most important thing here - intelligent people should absolutely be comfortable in saying "I don't know" when they don't. I remind my students of this on day one in lecture (I let them know they'll likely ask a question I don't know the answer to at some point). If you bluntly ask "how did the first cell arise," both the scientist and the theologian (or the person who is both) should say "I don't know," if you're asking for a mechanistic explanation.

A quibble though: "theory" as used in science vs in non-scientific circles is quite different, and a theory is definitely not a simple a hypothesis. A theory, rather, is an integrated set of ideas which explains a great many scientific observations. The theory of relativity explains a great many observations regarding gravity, etc.

---

I agree that 'theory' in science is different from common use, but in some ways it's even more important for scientists to know the limits of certainty in their subjects.

Without going too far into it, consider for example how the development of freon was widely praised for making it possible for people to easily keep food cold for long periods of time, but its effect on the atmosphere was only learned later at some cost to the environment.

Any event which happened before the recorded history of Humanity is something we ought to be extra careful about.

---

Completely agree on your last point, but also believe that's some of the most fascinating stuff to tackle. As I mentioned in an earlier post (and as you would infer), the further back you go, the less certainty you can have. Our understanding of the past 2-5 million years is, all things considered, remarkably good. The geologic and fossil record gets more sparse, more likely to have been disrupted, and just crappier as you go back towards the beginnings of complex animal life and beyond.

---

The geologic and fossil record is more than adequate for understanding the major events and processes that have shaped our planet, and documenting the evolutionary trajectory of life on our planet.

---

Fast forward a million years. Where does our trajectory place us? Why do you say that?

---

Who knows. In another million years (not very long), we may see some of the same things that have historically occurred before occur again e.g. mass extinction events. If you extend that 1 million out to 100 million years you can be more confident and can add tectonic plate movements, mass extinction events, rise and fall in sea levels in response to climate to the trajectory, and possibly species explosion. Humans, if they are still around may be far more intelligent, knowledgeable, and technologically capable, or they may be just primitive small bands of survivors.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

---

To be clear then, are you indicating that you accept all modern animals evolving from one common ancestor and all modern plants likewise evolving from one common ancestor? And then are you saying that the only "jump" that you have trouble with is the progression from chemistry into living cells?

---

i don't have the education to discuss at a higher level. I am saying I don't see design without a designer. I don't see densely packed, intricate, detailed data (dna), without an intelligent being causing, assembling, and putting into motion those things creating life.

I'm also not saying you are opposing that because I've not seen you say that as other posters have. Maybe I missed it and you have. I don't know.

---

Fair enough. I have two quick thoughts:

1) What someone not well-studied in biology would call "design" may not look so designed once you study it further. As an example, consider dolphin DNA. They carry several hundred non-functional genes encoding structures which enable mammals to smell things in the air, but which are useless for an animal living underwater. The dolphins don't use these genes - the genes are vestigial. Dolphins carry these vestigial genes because they evolved from animals that walked on land and, of course, smelled odorants in the air.

2) Perhaps more importantly for the discussion, I don't think it "matters" in some sense whether you believe life evolved with or without a higher creator. For the record, I have never had the least bit of trouble "reconciling" Biblical truths with scientific truths. I hesitate to use the word reconcile, as it implies some sort of inherent conflict, which I do not see as even existing in the first place. The reason I think the conversation is important is that I personally know people who do see conflict, and they then "choose" a side, and use that choice as a means to blindly ignore not just evolutionary biology, but other scientific truths as well. That, I think, leads to many problems (not to mention much wasted energy).

---

1) This is a self-defeating line of reasoning: DNA doesn't appear designed when you consider the presence of nonfunctional, vestigial genes-- genes which encode complex structures...... that appear exquisitely designed?

The presence of vestigial genes and nonfunctional DNA that is similar across species could very well be an indicator of a common template used by a common Designer. Instead of starting from scratch, this Designer could have instead used a previously functional template and turned off some genes, changed some, or added new ones to the template.

For example, consider how the bible says that God created woman from man- instead of creating another human de novo, He instead used a template, i.e. a piece of the man (his rib) from which to make the woman. Isn't it very interesting, that the rib contains marrow rich in pluripotent stem cells (cells that can make all other cells of the body)??

2) Of course it "matters" if you believe life evolved with or without a Creator. This is another self-defeating form of thinking. The belief that it was without is self-defeating to a belief in a Creator in the first place. If there was no creation, then there's no Creator.

---

1) Your line of thought on #1 basically reads as though you'd say God directed evolution. In some basic sense, we'd agree then. Evolution, by definition, uses an existing template and modifies it through time. No, it is not particularly interesting that ribs contain stem cells, seeing as other bones and several other tissues do as well, and that such stem cells are critical to replacement of aging cells.

2) I feel like you've missed my point and in what context I said it did or didn't matter. If it matters to you for different reasons, of course I have no issue there.

---

The point in #1 was that studying DNA further in the way you described in no way makes it appear less designed. That is a logically flawed conclusion. You were trying to argue that the presence of vestigial DNA that appears to be designed makes it appear that the DNA is NOT designed. That reasoning is oxymoronic.

And the interesting part about Adam's rib was not merely that it contained pluripotent stem cells, but that the creation story has God choosing that particular part of Adam's body that did contain these cells, thus giving the story scientific consistency.

---

There is no scientific consistency in the theological story of Adam. The story of Adam in neither of the two conflicting creation stories has no valid scientific basis and is contradictory to everything we have learned through science.

---

A statement that reflects neither an understanding of the creation story, nor of science.

---

No, just a factual observation.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

MT_Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Is single-cell life irreducibly complex? If not, explain how it came into being. If so, explain how it came into being.

---

Are you asking me, or someone else? If me, no, a cell is not irreducibly complex, nor do I think most hardcore Creationists (who are the only people I know to frequently use that term) would say it is, as it's easily reducible (functional in some way without all of its components).

I think if you want to discuss the evolution of cells, you must start by acknowledging that cells themselves have undergone a tremendous amount of evolution; the common animal cell today is vastly different from the first "cell" on the planet. But the components that make up simple cells are not particularly difficult to come by on a wet, warm-ish planet. For example, one extremely important component of any cell is a partitioning membrane that separates the external environment from the internal environment. Phospholipids readily assemble into such closed membranes because of the difference in the hydrophobic and hydrophilic ends of their molecular structure. That membrane is the beginning of one component of a cell, and one of the most important.

A different, more rigorous argument for "irreducible complexity" has long been single components of many bacterial cells, like mitochondria or flagella. The gist of that argument, greatly simplified for the sake of being succinct, is that the various components are all necessary at the same time to form a functional mitochondrion or flagellum, and without any one, the mitochondrion/ flagellum does not function. The error is to assume that those various components are only useful in that specific structure, which is not the case. Those components are readily use by other parts of a cell or by different cells for different purposes, and were repurposed to form the structure we're discussing. This is a common theme in evolution - structures being "repurposed." In a perhaps overly simple example, you might think of how the same set of limb and finger bones can be "repurposed" from a grasping hand into a fin or wing. A better example is how particular jaw bones of early synapsids were repurposed into the tiny bones of the mammalian inner ear.

Anyways, earlier you said "felines evolved to different felines, canines evolved to different canines." That's true. They both also evolved from animals that were neither feline nor canine. Do you accept this, or no? If no, what is the data you're relying on to come to that conclusion?

---

"canine to canine" is probably to narrow. How about animal life from animal life; Plant life from plant life; but life from non-life???

---

To be clear then, are you indicating that you accept all modern animals evolving from one common ancestor and all modern plants likewise evolving from one common ancestor? And then are you saying that the only "jump" that you have trouble with is the progression from chemistry into living cells?

---

i don't have the education to discuss at a higher level. I am saying I don't see design without a designer. I don't see densely packed, intricate, detailed data (dna), without an intelligent being causing, assembling, and putting into motion those things creating life.

I'm also not saying you are opposing that because I've not seen you say that as other posters have. Maybe I missed it and you have. I don't know.

---

Fair enough. I have two quick thoughts:

1) What someone not well-studied in biology would call "design" may not look so designed once you study it further. As an example, consider dolphin DNA. They carry several hundred non-functional genes encoding structures which enable mammals to smell things in the air, but which are useless for an animal living underwater. The dolphins don't use these genes - the genes are vestigial. Dolphins carry these vestigial genes because they evolved from animals that walked on land and, of course, smelled odorants in the air.

2) Perhaps more importantly for the discussion, I don't think it "matters" in some sense whether you believe life evolved with or without a higher creator. For the record, I have never had the least bit of trouble "reconciling" Biblical truths with scientific truths. I hesitate to use the word reconcile, as it implies some sort of inherent conflict, which I do not see as even existing in the first place. The reason I think the conversation is important is that I personally know people who do see conflict, and they then "choose" a side, and use that choice as a means to blindly ignore not just evolutionary biology, but other scientific truths as well. That, I think, leads to many problems (not to mention much wasted energy).

---

1) This is a self-defeating line of reasoning: DNA doesn't appear designed when you consider the presence of nonfunctional, vestigial genes-- genes which encode complex structures...... that appear exquisitely designed?

The presence of vestigial genes and nonfunctional DNA that is similar across species could very well be an indicator of a common template used by a common Designer. Instead of starting from scratch, this Designer could have instead used a previously functional template and turned off some genes, changed some, or added new ones to the template.

For example, consider how the bible says that God created woman from man- instead of creating another human de novo, He instead used a template, i.e. a piece of the man (his rib) from which to make the woman. Isn't it very interesting, that the rib contains marrow rich in pluripotent stem cells (cells that can make all other cells of the body)??

2) Of course it "matters" if you believe life evolved with or without a Creator. This is another self-defeating form of thinking. The belief that it was without is self-defeating to a belief in a Creator in the first place. If there was no creation, then there's no Creator.

---

1) Your line of thought on #1 basically reads as though you'd say God directed evolution. In some basic sense, we'd agree then. Evolution, by definition, uses an existing template and modifies it through time. No, it is not particularly interesting that ribs contain stem cells, seeing as other bones and several other tissues do as well, and that such stem cells are critical to replacement of aging cells.

2) I feel like you've missed my point and in what context I said it did or didn't matter. If it matters to you for different reasons, of course I have no issue there.

---

The point in #1 was that studying DNA further in the way you described in no way makes it appear less designed. That is a logically flawed conclusion. You were trying to argue that the presence of vestigial DNA that appears to be designed makes it appear that the DNA is NOT designed. That reasoning is oxymoronic.

And the interesting part about Adam's rib was not merely that it contained pluripotent stem cells, but that the creation story has God choosing that particular part of Adam's body that did contain these cells, thus giving the story scientific consistency.

---

There is no scientific consistency in the theological story of Adam. The story of Adam in neither of the two conflicting creation stories has no valid scientific basis and is contradictory to everything we have learned through science.

---

A statement that reflects neither an understanding of the creation story, nor of science.

---

No, just a factual observation.

---

What would be a scientific fact or knowledge that contradicts the biblical creation story of Adam?

Don't need an essay, just give your top example.