Evolution flawed?

[Rev7]

Hey guys,

 

Evolution. As many of you know, I do not support this theory. In my science class at school, we have been going over protein synthesis and what has to happen in order for this process to be successful. I had questions in my head about it....but decided not to take on the teacher...at this point...

 

Basically protein synthesis is separated into two different processes. Transcription, and Translation.

 

Transcription--A gene, which is the 2% of DNA that is able to be transcribed into protein, is unzipped by a protein at it's hydrogen bond. A copy of the DNA, which is essentially the chemical 'blueprint', into it's close cousin RNA is made. This copy is referred to as messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA then snakes out into the cytoplasm of the cell. This process as happens in the nucleus of the cell. *Note--Uricil (U) replaces Thymine (T)*

 

Translation--The mRNA then attaches to a ribosome, which is essentially the factory in which the protein is created. This ribosome can read up to three DNA bases at a time (The four bases found in DNA are adenine (abbreviated A), cytosine ©, guanine (G) and thymine (T) Uracil (U)), which are called codons. Now transfer RNA (tRNA) comes into play. The tRNA has amino acids on attached to them and transports the amino acid to the ribosome at which they are matched up specifically to what the mRNA has. This matching up makes the protein. The codons have the three bases, and these three bases call for an amino acid. As I said, once all of the amino acids are matched up, they form a protien.

 

--

 

Some more background information--you really are what you eat. Your body gets most of the amino acids that are necessary for protein synthesis. Your body does make some of them, but it is far more efficient for it to just take them from what you eat.

 

What I am trying to get at is that to basically form protein, and we all are essentially walking globs of protein, according to the theory of evolution, how are these amino acids acquired, in "the beginning"? Because if there is no beginning there is no middle or end.

 

So, I was wondering what the rest of the community has to say about this...

 

*To Moderators--I didn't want to bump the big Evolution thread, so I decided to make this. Feel free to move it, if you deem it necessary*

[jrrtoken]

What I am trying to get at is that to basically form protein, and we all are essentially walking globs of protein, according to the theory of evolution, how are these amino acids acquired, in "the beginning"? Because if there is no beginning there is no middle or end.

That's a good question, and there has been much debate on how life truly developed in the first place. Back in the 50's, there was the Miller–Urey Experiment, which attempted to simulate the early atmospheric conditions of Earth and to see if the building blocks of life could develop from the primordial soup. The initial results only showed a few amino acids. However, a few weeks ago, scientists opened and analyzed a few vials from a variation of the experiment that simulated volcanic eruptions. They found around 22 amino acids. This might be proof that it is possible for the simple chemicals of life can develop from the harshest environments.

[Rev7]

That's a good question, and there has been much debate on how life truly developed in the first place. Back in the 50's, there was the Miller–Urey Experiment, which attempted to simulate the early atmospheric conditions of Earth and to see if the building blocks of life could develop from the primordial soup. The initial results only showed a few amino acids. However, a few weeks ago, scientists opened and analyzed a few vials from a variation of the experiment that simulated volcanic eruptions. They found around 22 amino acids. This might be proof that it is possible for the simple chemicals of life can develop from the harshest environments.

There are only 20 different amino acids. That means that the scientists found the same amino acids on several occasions.

 

EDIT: Duh, what am I thinking?

 

Anyway, I have been studying this and on one of my google searches, this page is shown. I personally found a lot of the information on this specific page quite interesting...i.e.

Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were clumps of amino acids. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter. For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble.

 

The second trick is to say that "when you freeze water, the disordered molecules become beautifully ordered ice crystals or snowflakes. If water can bypass the Second Law and organize its molecules by a natural process, why not the chemicals of life?" At room temperature, water molecules are bouncing off each other and you have water. When you take away heat and they freeze, water molecules stick to each other with weak molecular bonds, forming ice crystals and snowflakes because of the shape of the H2O molecule. The same thing happens if you put a bunch of weak magnets in a jar and shake it. The magnets bounce around. When you stop, the magnets stick together. They are at a lower energy level. There is order, yet no complexity - just a simple repetitive structure that does not do anything. The Second Law is not bypassed or violated. But guess what. Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature. To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory.5 It means that nothing happens in the primeval soup, the pond of chemicals where evolutionists believe life began. DNA and RNA dissolve in water12, so there could not even be water in the primeval soup. DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids. Yet any random chemical reaction that produced nucleotides or amino acids would make an equal mix of left and right-handed versions of each. Even if the thousands of nucleotides or amino acids needed to form individual DNA or protein molecules were able to combine from this mix, they would be a jumble of left and right-handed versions that could not function at all. Ilya Prigogene coauthored a paper in 1972 that says in an open "system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals... Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures."10 Prigogene won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977 for research on dissipative structures, such as tornados, for contributions to nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and for bridging the gap between biology and other sciences. Evolutionists wrongly claim he won for showing how thermodynamics could explain the formation of organized systems, from fluctuations in chaos, that lead to the origin of life. They thought he was their hero. Over thirty years later, nothing has come of it. There is no escape from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It prohibits the spontaneous origin of life and the progression from microbes to man.

 

Even a single cell is not simple. In Darwin's day researchers looked at cells under the microscope and saw little balloons filled with goo they called protoplasm, so they thought cells were simple forms of life. Almost 150 years later we know that there are many types of cells, and each cell is a little city at work. The smallest known genome (Mycoplasma genitalium) has 482 genes.6 The minimum possible for an organism to survive is probably 200 to 300 genes. Most bacteria have 1000 to 4000 genes. A popular textbook on the cell1 is 1600 pages long and weighs 7 pounds. Everything about the cell is stunningly complex. Plants and animals contain a great variety of cells. The human body has about 210 different types of cells.

 

Cells are made of proteins, and everything that goes on in a creature involves proteins interacting with each other. Proteins are generally 50 to 2000 amino acids long; a typical one has about 300 amino acids.1 A protein is not just a long ribbon of amino acids strung together from the DNA pattern. It folds itself into a 3D structure.

 

The temperature and chemical concentrations must be right for it to fold correctly, and many proteins get help from special proteins called "molecular chaperones". Chaperones can keep proteins separated from each other while they are folding, prevent mistakes in folding, and even unfold mistakes to give the protein a second chance to get it right. After helping one protein fold, a chaperone will go help another one fold.

 

Making and folding proteins goes on continuously throughout the body. Misfolding can lead to more than proteins that don't work. In humans, bunches of them (aggregates) can lead to diseases such as Alzheimer's, Huntington's, or sickle cell. "Proteins are so precisely built that the change of even a few atoms in one amino acid can sometimes disrupt the structure of the whole molecule so severely that all function is lost."1 All proteins stick (bind) to other molecules. But each can bind to only a few of the thousands it encounters. "An average protein in a human cell may interact with somewhere between 5 and 15 different partners."1 Their shapes fit each other like a hand in a glove. "Proteins can form enormously sophisticated chemical devices." "The most impressive tasks are carried out by large protein assemblies formed from many protein molecules." "Each of the central processes in a cell... is catalyzed by a highly coordinated, linked set of 10 or more proteins."1 The parts of a cell where proteins are made (ribosomes) are themselves made of many different proteins. "The complexity of living organisms is staggering."1 In the face of this breathtaking complexity, evolutionists have tried to find the fewest things necessary for a cell to function. They came up with 15 general categories (such as energy production and conversion, cell division, etc.). Each category requires many proteins. All have to be in place and working together or the cell is wrecked.

 

So evolutionists have to believe that for each protein, pure chance laid out long strings of amino acids that fold themselves into the exact shapes needed to interact with other specialized proteins and, where needed, get help from chaperone proteins which themselves appeared by chance. The necessary proteins cannot be invented one at a time. Either they are all there, ready to work together, or nothing happens and they disintegrate. Yet even if it could design proteins, mutation-natural selection would only work on one at a time sporadically over many years. Considering just the complexity of proteins, the notion of creating them with mutation-natural selection is as silly as asking someone to build a television set with a spoon and a toothbrush. If Darwin had known what we have learned about proteins, he probably would have abandoned the theory of evolution.

[Endorenna]

Rev7, here's a link to a great site devoted to that subject. You can find out just about anything you want to know here.

 

Answer In Genesis

[Web Rider]

I mean, lets be fair, if we're going by the idea that proteins and amino acids came to be in "primordial soup" that was the earth, we've got a lab the size of the entire planet. That's some pretty good probability. The planet is what, 4 and a half billion years old? Even if half a billion years were dedicated to figuring out how to make amino acids correctly, that's 500,000,000 years. That's a LONG time to get things right.

 

And there's always the possibility that the basic goo for life came from space sometime in the early years of the earth. So it's entirely probable that the real processes for life started billions of years before that. The universe is what, 14 billion years old?

 

Regardless of the specifics, I think probability stands in the favor of "trial and error".

[jonathan7]

Rev7, here's a link to a great site devoted to that subject. You can find out just about anything you want to know here.

 

Answer In Genesis

 

Urgh! There isn't one iota of real science found on that site; I also love how believing that the earth is 6,000 years old is apparently a bastion of faith - in all my readings of my Bible, I have yet to find Jesus saying you must believe the earth is 6,000 years old to get to heaven...

 

Counterstrike; http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article3159404.ece

[EnderWiggin]

This thread just isn't fair with Achilles banned.

 

Rev7, wait a day or two, and you'll get your answer.

 

_EW_

[Arcesious]

Evolution. As many of you know, I do not support this theory. In my science class at school, we have been going over protein synthesis and what has to happen in order for this process to be successful. I had questions in my head about it....but decided not to take on the teacher...at this point...

 

It's always good to ask questions Rev7, don't be afraid to!

 

I found your quote-mine source... http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

 

I can understand why you didn't copy certain parts of the site in your post... The site is hardly reputable, as it's arguments are full of strawmen.

 

Transcription--A gene, which is the 2% of DNA that is able to be transcribed into protein, is unzipped by a protein at it's hydrogen bond. A copy of the DNA, which is essentially the chemical 'blueprint', into it's close cousin RNA is made. This copy is referred to as messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA then snakes out into the cytoplasm of the cell. This process as happens in the nucleus of the cell. *Note--Uricil (U) replaces Thymine (T)*

 

Translation--The mRNA then attaches to a ribosome, which is essentially the factory in which the protein is created. This ribosome can read up to three DNA bases at a time (The four bases found in DNA are adenine (abbreviated A), cytosine ©, guanine (G) and thymine (T) Uracil (U)), which are called codons.

 

Actually;

 

RNA (Ribonucleic Acid) contains:

Adenine ( A), Cytosine ©, Guanine (G) and Uracil (U)

 

DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid):

Adenine ( A), Cytosine ©, Guanine (G) and Thymine (T)

 

(Yes I am quoting people from another forum in past evolution debates)

 

Things you should know about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics:

First off it should be noted that this "law" is one of probability, not strict adherence. In other words in most laws it is a set fundamental "rule" of nature that is always followed - like cause and effect, the effect always follows from the cause. But in this law it is only that on average any system tend towards entropy or more disorder. There is nothing however in this law that states that this must always be the case on any given occasion.

Example: If one were to toss the ordered but loose leaves of the book War and Peace into the air, then scoop them up again, the pages would in all probability be far more chaotic; that is more disordered, but it is possible, no matter how improbable, that they would remain in perfect order. Likewise a second toss might well make it even less ordered (the chunks still in some resemblance of order being randomised again) BUT again it is possible that new pockets of some order results. This is what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states.

 

Yes; this law works in both closed and open systems, but the point about closed systems is that this is where the law almost certainly plays out like other strict (non-probabilistic, but determined) laws do. With any open system things can and do vary greatly. Life (and evolution) shows a perfect example of how the law plays a significant role in the universe: Life seems to buck the trend of this law, but does it really? If if so, how does it do that? Forget evolution for a minute, think of living itself! How do we (and all other organisms) continue to live, grow and so on? Answer: We take in energy from outside, we consume it. We animals are heterotrophs, and plants are autorophs. There are three main ways of getting energy I know of: chemosynthesis, photosynthesis, and cellular respiration. In doing so our personal entropy may decrease (more ordered) or at least remains constant (we stave off entropy for a time) but at the same time in taking that energy from elsewhere, and in the expenditure of energy (waste energy like, heat, sound etc.) the overall entropy in the system (world/solar system/universe) actually tends to increase a little - so the law is being obeyed even in 'allowing' little pockets of order to exist, appear and continue.

 

In addition look at this graph (a copy of that found in Victor Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis) It shows that in the universe, as it is expanding the room for order, even with a continual increase in Entropy as the 2nd Law demands (on average), is actually increasing! We can happily have an increase in order while obeying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics completely!

 

The theory of evolution (based on the facts supporting of evolution) say that all life arose over billions of years from a single common ancestor. Not much bio-diversity back then it might be imagined (although there is every reason to believe that the gene copying system was far less accurate initially; resulting in far more mutations = more variability) but overtime billions and billions of organisms came from it making a great pool of variation!

 

Let me for the record say: Homo sapiens are a species of African ape.

 

Our species (and Pan troglodytes {Common Chimpanzee} and Pan paniscus {Bonobo}) has ~3,000,000,000 base pairs. Do the math, and you will see that we differ from each other by 4%, not 1. We know this as geneticists have carefully and methodically examined both of our genomes and compared the two. We know how we differ, and exactly where we those difference lie on the respective genomes!

 

There is a whopping 96% of our genomes that are identical! Identical, can you image?! OF your 3,000,000,000 base pairs we two share ~2,875,000,000 of them in common! That's simply astounding isn't it?!

 

3,000,000,000 base pairs.

125,000,000 different? So what:

2,875,000,000 exactly the same!!

 

Not to mention the huge amount of identical retroviruses in our DNA that we share with other apes throughout the evolutionary timeline...

 

Scientists does not fear making and admitting mistakes - there have been innumerable cases of scientists admitting their mistakes - even disproving their own theories! And they always get a large round of applause for doing so. Because that is good science, it improves, changes, adapts. It is dynamic, always changing, old theories replaced by new.

 

BTW, here's a related post of mine:

 

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2534158&postcount=9

 

Scepticism is healthy- feel free to present your argument to your teacher privately as not to interrupt his class, and ask him to answer some of your questions. Some questions, however, may need to be answered by a physics teacher.

 

Edit:

This thread just isn't fair with Achilles banned.

 

Wait... what? What happened?

[Rev7]

This thread just isn't fair with Achilles banned.

 

Rev7, wait a day or two, and you'll get your answer.

 

_EW_

Ya, I was thinking the same thing.

It's always good to ask questions Rev7, don't be afraid to!

I'm not.

I found your quote-mine source... http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

I think that I put it in my post...

I can understand why you didn't copy certain parts of the site in your post... The site is hardly reputable, as it's arguments are full of strawmen.

How so?

Actually;

 

RNA (Ribonucleic Acid) contains:

Adenine ( A), Cytosine ©, Guanine (G) and Uracil (U)

 

DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid):

Adenine ( A), Cytosine ©, Guanine (G) and Thymine (T)

I said that.

 

There is a whopping 96% of our genomes that are identical! Identical, can you image?! OF your 3,000,000,000 base pairs we two share ~2,875,000,000 of them in common! That's simply astounding isn't it?!

Ya, and we have 50% that is identical to a bannana.

 

Scepticism is healthy- feel free to present your argument to your teacher privately as not to interrupt his class, and ask him to answer some of your questions. Some questions, however, may need to be answered by a physics teacher.

We have class discussions all of the time, I just didn't feel inclined to say something about it at that exact moment.

[Arcesious]

I think that I put it in my post...

 

Lol I overlooked it on accident, my bad.

 

How so?

 

It's making arguments based on analogies. Building a TV set with a spoon and toothbrush isn't anything like Abiogenesis, and the argument that it is impossible due to irreducable complexity are not realistic.

 

Here's something on the subject of Abiogenesis: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

 

I said that.

 

I think you mixed up DNA and RNA... DNA has Thymine, RNA has Uracil; not the other way around.

 

Ya, and we have 50% that is identical to a banana.

 

I've heard this one before... there is a difference between 50% and 95%. Plus, the genes in nature all trace back to a few of the oldest ancestors we have. Basically, we've going to share a lot of genes with many different species, but we have an evoltionary timeline based on transitional fossils, not to mention that we have the technology to identify DNA in fossils.

 

(Quote from yahoo, edited)

 

v

v

v

 

"That doesn't mean that there is or ever was something that looks like half-banana/half-human though. Not all our DNA is what we look like. Most DNA is involved in production of proteins, enzymes for creating or breaking down sugars, for building cellular structures and processes, etc. etc.

 

The structure of the hemoglobin pigment (a protein) in animal blood has a lot of common code with the structure of the chlorophyll pigment in plants. That doesn't mean that we have some chlorophyll or plants have some hemoglobin. It means that the same basic molecule structure was basically readapted for two very different functions.

 

And it's not just the similarities, but the precise differences within those areas of similarity that points to ancestry. If there is a common sequence in the DNA of two organisms, but that sequence has a specific "typo" in location '123' .. then we can trace common relationships and branches by finding other organisms that have the same typo in the same location '123' of that same sequence. (123 as in wherever it's stored in the genetic code, since I don't know.)

 

And finally a lot of DNA has no function at all ... literally called "junk DNA." These are carryovers from common ancestors between the two organisms ... going right back to bits and pieces that are useful in even more elemental organisms. A whole bunch of our junk DNA is from retroviruses, which we share with many creatures on our evolutionary branch.

 

It's this junk DNA that's really a tell-tale sign of common ancestry. Why else would there be common sequences of base-pairs in the DNA, that are present in both species, but serves no function in either species?"

[Rev7]

Lol I overlooked it on accident, my bad.

No problem.

It's making arguments based on analogies. Building a TV set with a spoon and toothbrush isn't anything like Abiogenesis, and the argument that it is impossible due to irreducable complexity are not realistic.

I am not quite sure how that is bad, but that is just me. I might be confusing it with analogies in an arguement to try to get your point across. (?)

I think you mixed up DNA and RNA... DNA has Thymine, RNA has Uracil; not the other way around.

It might sound like that, but I meant that RNA has Uracil. It was what, 10 at night after a long day, I was tired. I'll edit it...

I've heard this one before... there is a difference between 50% and 95%. Plus, the genes in nature all trace back to a few of the oldest ancestors we have. Basically, we've going to share a lot of genes with many different species, but we have an evoltionary timeline based on transitional fossils, not to mention that we have the technology to identify DNA in fossils.

That is only a 45% difference. Considering that we are an entirely different species, 50% the same, to me that is pretty darn close.

[True_Avery]

That is only a 45% difference. Considering that we are an entirely different species, 50% the same, to me that is pretty darn close.

I'd say, ask your teacher and do some research of your own. You seem to have the process of building down, but you either missed the lecture on how it begins or you blocked it from your memory.

 

Either way, it would be a good idea to ask your teacher regardless. That, or wait for Achilles to get back.

[Arcesious]

That is only a 45% difference. Considering that we are an entirely different species, 50% the same, to me that is pretty darn close.

 

Hey, do you look like a banana? No... Do you look somewhat like the few apes and chimps you can find under a google image search? Yes... But much less hairy and with a more upright stance. However that's not entirely my point. But think about your body, and then thing about the banana... Notice a difference? (well of course, there is 50% genetic difference). But how does the banana work, and how does your body work? They're entirely different. Not to mention that you are a mammal, the banana is a fruit. Bananas could be 70% related to us, but we still don't even come from the same evolutionary branch. We're totally different kingdoms in the order of the species. But apes and chimps, they're on our evolutionary branch. Proteins, enzymes, and genes we humans use can be used a totally different way in other organisms. All it takes is for the tiniest flip of a 'switch' and it can do something totally different than it's counterpart. Kind of like isotopes in a way...

[True_Avery]

Well, on the topic of genetic percentage difference:

 

Humans and Chimps are closely related enough that we can have blood transfusions between people and chimps of the same blood type:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehrenreich/better-to-be-a-chimpanzee_b_47953.html

http://www.paulagordon.com/shows/wrangham/

 

And heres an old, old thread I made for the social relations between Chimps, Bonobos, and Humans:

http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=183210&highlight=bonobo

 

And may I point out that the creationist websites are based around the assumption that there is a God, and that God is the christian god, and that the world is in fact 6,000 years old. Thus, their ability to look at scientific information must come under the question of their bias towards their own cause and faith.

[Andurilblade]

Urgh! There isn't one iota of real science found on that site;

 

I have visited that site multiple times, and I find their science to be quite credible, their articles written by consumate professionals and thoroughly referenced.

 

I also love how believing that the earth is 6,000 years old is apparently a bastion of faith - in all my readings of my Bible, I have yet to find Jesus saying you must believe the earth is 6,000 years old to get to heaven...

 

You're right, Jesus never said, "Thou shalt believe in a 6,000 year old earth to get to heaven," but He did say this...

 

"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

-John 5:46, 47

 

In other words, though belief in a 6,000 year old earth is not required for admission to heaven, it is foundational to the Christian faith, and those Christians who believe in evolution have seriously undermined their own faith.

 

And, by the way, Answers in Genesis says the same thing--

 

Yes, one can be a conservative Christian and preach authoritatively from God’s Word from Genesis 12 onwards. But once you have told people to accept man’s dating methods, and thus should not take the first chapters of Genesis as they are written, you have effectively undermined the Bible’s authority! This attitude is destroying the church in America.

 

-Ken Ham, founder and CEO of Answers in Genesis

 

 

And may I point out that the creationist websites are based around the assumption that there is a God, and that God is the christian god. Thus, their ability to look at scientific information must come under the question of their bias towards their own cause and faith.

 

May I point out that the evolutionist websites are based on the bias that there is no God.

[Web Rider]

You're right, Jesus never said, "Thou shalt believe in a 6,000 year old earth to get to heaven," but He did say this...

 

"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

-John 5:46, 47

Is irrelevant. Find me the line in ANY of the Christan holy books that says the earth is 6000 years old.

 

In other words, though belief in a 6,000 year old earth is not required for admission to heaven, it is foundational to the Christian faith, and those Christians who believe in evolution have seriously undermined their own faith.

Only according to people who believe the Bible to be literal fact. Given that there are different translations, this is impossible.

 

May I point out that the evolutionist websites are based on the bias that there is no God.

 

No, they operate on the science that the earth is more than 6000 years old and that life evolved. They don't care how life came to be, or if God started the universe, they only deny a pure creationist viewpoint(adam and eve, garden, 6000 years, ect..).

[Arcesious]

I wasn't addressing creationism for good reason... The OP wasn't addressing evolution with creationism. Simply, the processes of evolution and abiogenesis... It's nicer when we can keep debates like this based in facts and analyzation of processes, instead of going all 'creation vs evolution'.

[Samuel Dravis]

Anduril, the passage you quoted was a reply by Jesus to the Jews about how they didn't have faith in (at least some of) Moses' teaching and so were unable to believe in Jesus. The people he was addressing thought: "If we just act according to the letter of the law of Moses, we'll be saved!" - ignoring whatever else Moses might have had to say. Jesus says such a view is completely inadequate.

 

That is very different from Jesus saying they must accept every single thing that Moses said as a scientific or historical fact. I don't see why it is foundational to Christianity that the world is six thousand years old, or any other age.

[GarfieldJL]

Evolution in my opinion starts to break down when one starts to debate about how life began.

 

I'd go for a mix between some aspects of creationism and some aspects of evolution theory.

[Samuel Dravis]

I'd say that's mainly because evolution doesn't deal with questions of life origins, but only changes within already-living organisms. Already mentioned in this thread was abiogenesis, which is a possible solution to the question of the origin of life.

[Ray Jones]

we all are essentially walking globs of protein, according to the theory of evolution

According to the theory of evolution, we evolve.

 

When you want to understand how life possibly came into existence, you need to look at more than just the theory of evolution and proteins. Physics, chemistry and most important the chaos theory -- without a proper combination of those three you probably won't find an explanation how your god made life from err,.. mud, banana peels or whatever.

 

 

 

However. To get you started:

 

how are these amino acids acquired, in "the beginning"?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assembly

Self-assembly (SA) in the classic sense can be defined as the spontaneous and reversible organization of molecular units into ordered structures by non-covalent interactions. The first property of a self-assembled system that this definition suggests is the spontaneity of the self-assembly process: the interactions responsible for the formation of the self-assembled system act on a strictly local level—in other words, the nanostructure builds itself.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

The following is an incomplete list of the diverse phenomena which have been described as self-organizing in biology.

 

1. spontaneous folding of proteins and other biomacromolecules

2. formation of lipid bilayer membranes

3. homeostasis (the self-maintaining nature of systems from the cell to the whole organism)

4. pattern formation and morphogenesis, or how the living organism develops and grows. See also embryology.

5. the coordination of human movement, e.g. seminal studies of bimanual coordination by Kelso

6. the creation of structures by social animals, such as social insects (bees, ants, termites), and many mammals

7. flocking behaviour (such as the formation of flocks by birds, schools of fish, etc.)

8. the origin of life itself from self-organizing chemical systems, in the theories of hypercycles and autocatalytic networks

9. the organization of Earth's biosphere in a way that is broadly conducive to life (according to the controversial Gaia hypothesis)

 

 

 

 

That is only a 45% difference. Considering that we are an entirely different species, 50% the same, to me that is pretty darn close.

Okay then, give me a hundred million dollars and I'll give you pretty darn close every dollar back. ^^

[Arcesious]

The Theory of Evolution does not address how life originated- it addresses how it adapts to it's environment.

The theories of Abiogenesis are based in physics, not evolution. The first organic molecules did not evolve at first, they replicated. (like a chain reaction, only that this reaction literally formed chains of organic molecules out of other atoms of the same elements) "Massive amounts of simplicity breeds complexity"

There was an entire planet (Earth) for life to form on, and 4.5 billion years. Unless of course life originated from space, which is a far bigger sandbox for the generation of life that has existed far longer. Either way, there was plenty of time for it to happen, and plenty of atoms 'eager' to start making all kinds of chemical bonds. Especially Carbon.

 

Edit: I was beaten to it...

[Yar-El]

I'm not sure if the original poster will permit this; however, I present some food for consumption.

 

(1) Evolution + Birth = Book of Genesis.

(2) Moses wrote the Book of Genesis with a hightened sense of awareness that drew upon primitive thoughts and the exploration of human existance.

(3) Darwin created the Theory of Evolution while drawing upon the Book of Genesis.

(4) Genesis is a complete symbolic book of an individual's observation of the human condition. Birth, evolution, and death.

 

Evolution is a theory based upon another individual's theoretical examination of one's self. God originally created mankind, and then man created god through self exploration. God does exist. How you find him is not through fundamentalism.

 

I will expand on these issues if the original poster will permit me.

[Arcesious]

I'm not sure if the original poster will permit this; however, I present some food for consumption.

 

(1) Evolution + Birth = Book of Genesis.

(2) Moses wrote the Book of Genesis with a hightened sense of awareness that drew upon primitive thoughts and the exploration of human existance.

(3) Darwin created the Theory of Evolution while drawing upon the Book of Genesis.

(4) Genesis is a complete symbolic book of an individual's observation of the human condition. Birth, evolution, and death.

 

Evolution is a theory based upon another individual's theoretical examination of one's self. God originally created man, and then man created god through self exploration. God does exist. How you find him is not through fundamentalism.

 

I will expand on these issues if the original poster will permit me.

 

Our idea of how evolution works has 'evolved' greatly since then... Our understanding of it now is not based on religion- simply the processes by which we have observed it to work.

[Yar-El]

Our idea of how evolution works has 'evolved' greatly since then... Our understanding of it now is not based on religion- simply the processes by which we have observed it to work.

Moses didn't have science; however, he had something that mankind no longer has.

 

"Who am I?", "What am I?", "How did I get here?", "What had occured to create me?" We lost a hightened sense of self-awareness. Moses looked deep into the primitive psyche to find answers. Adam and Eve were not the first two humanbeings to exist; however, they were the first two to have a deeper understanding of awareness. Genesis's first chapter is reflective of how humanbeings wake up from darkness (introduction to knowledge). Humanity before Adam and Eve had self-awareness; however, their evolutionary state was at a primitive form of consciousness. They were unaware of being aware.

 

Should I continue? Walking this path is a deep look at the rawness of life. Some people may not be ready for this type of examination.

 

Calling Evolution flawed is calling the Book of Genesis flawed.