• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

Avicenna said:
In order for evolution to occur inheritance and mutability is needed. Survivability is based on variation. DNA would have given it's users that ability. The other non inheritance life forms of the period would have simply died out because they would not have been able to evolve.

The big bang is a one time event is it not?

And viruses have RNA based lifestyles of varying mechanisms.
Click to expand...

So why again would the process of evolving DNA not happen multiple times?
 
1. there are other nucleotide options than the four we use
2. These are ones based of pyramidine and purine bases which are similar and form relatively easily
3. The code of DNA transcription is nearly universal with few changes and convergence does not explain that.
4. You cannot evolve DNA since DNA alteration is the mechanism for inheritance. There may have been other unsuccesful ones but a inheritance mechanism is needed for survival of life.
5. Life is chemical, viruses are at the very edge of life and chemistry.

randman said:
But that was an act of God....:D

I believe it was, but some think it has happened over and over again.
Click to expand...

Both of those things are beliefs rather than statements of occurrence. And no their assumption is just as unprovable as yours. Any assumptions of events prior to the big bang are pointless. The expanding universe supports it being a one off because there is no force counteracting the expansion to yo-yo us back in.
 
randman said:
So why again would the process of evolving DNA not happen multiple times?
Click to expand...

Perhaps is has. But DNA based organisms have a far more stable genome compared to RNA based organisms. Evolution then predicts that such an organism in a short time (relatively speaking) would outcompete the existing RNA based organisms, thus driving those to extinction, removing any organism that can re-evolve DNA. All we can say at the moment is that all known organisms descended from an organism that had a number of features that could all be solved in various ways (DNA, ATP, ribosomes, glycolysis).
If various ancestors had existed there would be variations in how these features worked, but it appears that the organism that evolved these features was so successful that it dominated the earth to such an extent that it prevented organisms using different features (if they existed) from producing offspring that lasted to this day.

For all we know such organisms might even still exist in some distant ecosystem removed from much contact with the rest of the world, but the chances are small, given how damaging oxygen is to RNA. (and yes, the ability to MAKE oxygen evolved long after DNA was evolved)
 
You cannot evolve DNA since DNA alteration is the mechanism for inheritance. There may have been other unsuccesful ones but a inheritance mechanism is needed for survival of life.
Click to expand...

So since DNA could not evolve, was it created?
 
But DNA based organisms have a far more stable genome compared to RNA based organisms. Evolution then predicts that such an organism in a short time (relatively speaking) would outcompete the existing RNA based organisms, thus driving those to extinction, removing any organism that can re-evolve DNA.
Click to expand...

I wish that was so. After nearly a billion years, we still haven't gotten rid of some viruses.
 
but it appears that the organism that evolved these features was so successful that it dominated the earth to such an extent that it prevented organisms using different features (if they existed) from producing offspring that lasted to this day.
Click to expand...

Or not?

The same process happened again and maybe a few times and so other similar DNA organisms emerged. Maybe the key to the first DNA organisms evolving further lay in the emergence of new ones.

Or maybe it's just a fantasy? What kind of maniac would think dead rocks and chemistry could become a living organism? Is this like the Velveteen Rabbit or something?
 
randman said:
Or not?

Or maybe it's just a fantasy? What kind of maniac would think dead rocks and chemistry could become a living organism? Is this like the Velveteen Rabbit or something?
Click to expand...

Right... and a magical being who created himself breathing life into clay makes so much more sense.
 
randman said:
Antpo knocked the web-source for the quote. What do you think she is implying about the quote?

The source means nothing if the quote is accurate, and as far as my own words, I've restated this repeatedly, namely NeoDarwinism predicts the slow accumulation of genes, generally (noting exceptions) as the means of producing greater morphological complexity via the standard evo process involving natural selection acting on populations with these new mutations added slowly.
Click to expand...

It's the slow accumulation of genetic changes. A loss of a gene is a genetic change.
 
So it's not a fantasy to believe there just always was at all times a being capable of thought and creation capable of making living beings from rocks and chemistry?

It's clear animals are made of chemicals. Chemicals can effect the consciousness and sense of self of living beings, so why pretend there's some soul inside of things being affected by simple physical chemicals?

You're adding suppositions based on what you want to see, not by what the evidence takes you to.
 
Cavemonster said:
Rand,

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

Does "accumulation of genetic changes" mean "Accumulation of genes"?
Click to expand...

Rand,
If you ignore this again, a clarification that is central to your argument, then I will be forced to conclude you have no interest in rational debate.
 
RNA based viruses co-opt the DNA mechanisms of cells to replicate. The method by which RNA viruses work is different since viruses cannot replicate themselves and rely on other living cells to be replicated.

Their evolution is in virulence and uptake mechanisms rather than stability of the genome and expression.

And RNA viruses can be reverse transcripted into DNA such as in Retroviruses such as HIV. It's all pretty nifty stuff.

And why not? Dead rocks and chemistry drive us. The energy in sugars is huge. A large apple pie packs the kind of energy we associate with dynamite. We don't eat Calories. We eat kilo calories. In order to maintain our bodies we eat roughly 2000 KCal of food. Enough energy to raise the temperature of a litre of water by 2000 K... The energy we get is from carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and various trace elements.

You are looking at very complex chemistry and saying "it's impossible to understand, so a god must have created it". It's not looking at dead rocks it is looking at chemistry and understanding it. Diamonds and coal are the same Carbon but if you gave your missus a coal wedding ring she would think you were nuts.
 
Sceptic Tank said:
He's pretty much putting anyone on ignore who doesn't agree with him. Soon he'll just be posting into the aether. Really makes me wonder what the point of him posting at all is.
Click to expand...
I would venture that he's attempting to reassure himself that he's right, quelling the inner voices of reality.
And failing..............
 
Any life forms it produces would have to compete against a solid system already in place that would outcompete it.

And it would have a different DNA system because it would have picked a different base and a different chirality of proteins to follow not to mention a different genetic code.
 
randman said:
Nope. I have quoted Pierre Grasse in context and so does John Davison in his papers I have cited above. Since you start with such an absurd comment, I see no reason to think the rest of your post has merit.

Pierre Grasse called evolution "a myth." That's a fact whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...
Pathetic. You are so scared to address actual arguments that you have to resort to further lies to dodge them.
Now why is it that you're too frightened to accept the correct quotation of Grasse, which I included three times?

But at lease you've got Grasse's name right.
 
Sceptic Tank said:
This coming from the man who dismissed something because it came from TalkOrigins.org.
Click to expand...
Well fair's fair, he dismissed it because it exposed the creationist/IDiot quote mining of Grasse to support their nonsense. I'm sure he'd have dismissed any site that exposed the lie.:rolleyes:

Sceptic Tank said:
What happened to that plea for honest debate you made earlier in the thread?
Click to expand...
I consider that ended when his lies were exposed and he continued to use them.:boggled:
 
randman said:
but it appears that the organism that evolved these features was so successful that it dominated the earth to such an extent that it prevented organisms using different features (if they existed) from producing offspring that lasted to this day.
Click to expand...
Or not?

The same process happened again and maybe a few times and so other similar DNA organisms emerged. Maybe the key to the first DNA organisms evolving further lay in the emergence of new ones.

Or maybe it's just a fantasy? What kind of maniac would think dead rocks and chemistry could become a living organism? Is this like the Velveteen Rabbit or something?
Click to expand...

randman, if you use the "Quote" button at the bottom right of a post, then a link to that post is included when you reply. That makes it easier for people to retrace the course of an argument.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom