Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[devnull]

sort of, getting pretty close....of course, I am not really saying these things as I am not sure common descent happened at all, and definitely believe if it did, there is not just one source

Yeh, I have difficulty with the whole concept of this as well. Especially since there is evidence of horizontal gene transfer.

....meaning there are multiple lines of descent. If abiogenesis happened, it likely happened more than once.

Sounds likely to me.

But you are getting closer to understanding the point.

Excellent!

Im not sure how possible it might be for a species to have such a massive genome tho. Maybe others can speak to this.

Anyway, through all the BS, interesting theory

 

[Brainache]

sort of, getting pretty close....of course, I am not really saying these things as I am not sure common descent happened at all, and definitely believe if it did, there is not just one source....meaning there are multiple lines of descent. If abiogenesis happened, it likely happened more than once.

But you are getting closer to understanding the point.

Is the word "Kinds" about to rear its ugly head?

Do you know the rate of evolution that would be needed to account for all modern species if they are all descended from just a few hundred "kinds" that existed 6000 years ago?

 

[Avicenna]

Abiogenesis may have occured many times but the universality of the DNA code indicates that we have come from a specific event that resulted in the use of DNA as a mechanism of inheritance.

 

[PixyMisa]

Is the word "Kinds" about to rear its ugly head?

Do you know the rate of evolution that would be needed to account for all modern species if they are all descended from just a few hundred "kinds" that existed 6000 years ago?

Never mind that; the geological activity required to get ancient seabeds to the tops of mountains in that time would liquify the entire planet.

 

[devnull]

Abiogenesis may have occured many times but the universality of the DNA code indicates that we have come from a specific event that resulted in the use of DNA as a mechanism of inheritance.

or some sort of bottleneck perhaps?

Perhaps we'll never know.....

 

[devnull]

Never mind that; the geological activity required to get ancient seabeds to the tops of mountains in that time would liquify the entire planet.

He already stated he's an old-earth creationist.

 

[randman]

Abiogenesis may have occured many times but the universality of the DNA code indicates that we have come from a specific event that resulted in the use of DNA as a mechanism of inheritance.

Not really. If the properties of chemistry dictate the emergence of life, a huge assumption, well then it's likely it would produce similar results, hence all of life having DNA.

What is unlikely is such similar features would emerge via convergent evolution, but if you guys can buy into that, it makes no sense at all to object to DNA emerging multiple times.

 

[Cavemonster]

Rand,

Let's take a step back and get some clarity on something simple.

Does "accumulation of genetic changes" mean "Accumulation of genes"?

Rand,

I'd really like your answer to this.

 

[randman]

Im not sure how possible it might be for a species to have such a massive genome tho

I am not sure either but that's what the guys doing molecular study say must be. Maybe common descent isn't true, or front loading is correct, or we can tweak things assuming multiple lines instead of a single common ancestor.

 

[PixyMisa]

Not really. If the properties of chemistry dictate the emergence of life, a huge assumption, well then it's likely it would produce similar results, hence all of life having DNA.

Nope. The genetic code is not implicit in chemistry. There's a huge number of ways it could work, and of that huge number, we find all life on Earth shares the same one. (With a couple of minor variations.)

What is unlikely is such similar features would emerge via convergent evolution, but if you guys can buy into that, it makes no sense at all to object to DNA emerging multiple times.

Wrong.

 

[devnull]

I am not sure either but that's what the guys doing molecular study say must be.

Im not sure that's true.

I dont think theyre saying what you think theyre saying.

What I read was "we used to assume that the LCA was incredibly simple, but new evidence suggests it may have been quite a bit more complex".

Its a fair leap from that to "the LCA had a massive genome which encompasses all known genetic material"

 

[PixyMisa]

He already stated he's an old-earth creationist.

So he did. So... God magicked each new species of mollusk into existence individually, but they died and got to the tops of mountains by natural processes. Huge improvement.

 

[Brainache]

I am not sure either but that's what the guys doing molecular study say must be. Maybe common descent isn't true, or front loading is correct, or we can tweak things assuming multiple lines instead of a single common ancestor.

Or maybe the LCA had a slightly different arrangement of genes than biologists previously thought. Maybe these scientists will keep researching and learn more as they go...

Or maybe they should just give up their evil hedonistic God-hating ways and just accept the obvious truth of the bible and stop being so damn uppity!

 

[devnull]

Nope. The genetic code is not implicit in chemistry. There's a huge number of ways it could work, and of that huge number, we find all life on Earth shares the same one. (With a couple of minor variations.)

Which would really only suggest that it was the most successful one. I dont think there's any evidence to suggest there werent competitors.

Wrong.

You dont think its possible for separate abiogenesis events to have resulted in DNA? Why?

 

[randman]

The genetic code is not implicit in chemistry. There's a huge number of ways it could work, and of that huge number, we find all life on Earth shares the same one.

Who says? It stems from chemistry, right? Please cite a paper backing up your point.

Personally, I am with the IDers and do not believe such specified information can arise through a random process in the first place, but certainly the properties of chemistry would have and still do exert a controlling influence over mutations and DNA.

 

[randman]

I dont think theyre saying what you think theyre saying.

Not be mean, but since you won't read the papers, how do you know?

Just by faith in what you believe?

 

[devnull]

Not be mean, but since you won't read the papers, how do you know?

Just by faith in what you believe?

Indeed.

Well, faith, and the fact that its pretty dumb

 

[randman]

Which would really only suggest that it was the most successful one. I dont think there's any evidence to suggest there werent competitors.



You dont think its possible for separate abiogenesis events to have resulted in DNA? Why?

Great post. If it happened once, why wouldn't it happen twice and even more times.

 

[Brainache]

Who says? It stems from chemistry, right? Please cite a paper backing up your point.

Personally, I am with the IDers and do not believe such specified information can arise through a random process in the first place, but certainly the properties of chemistry would have and still do exert a controlling influence over mutations and DNA.

Really? You think the four amino acids found in DNA are the only ones that occur in nature?

 

[devnull]

Personally, I am with the IDers and do not believe such specified information can arise through a random process in the first place

That's good, cos it aint random