Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2013, 10:16 AM
Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection
How did life originate? Most people believe that it began with a process called abiogenesis, the development of living organisms from nonliving mater. According to this belief a very simple life form came into existence and over millions of year its descendants changed through the process of evolution to produce the large variety of life that exists today.

Not everyone believes in abiogenesis and evolution. Some people believe the Bible’s account of how life originated; it was created by God only a few thousand years ago.

Believers in abiogenesis and creation both agree that new varieties of life are constantly being produced by a process called natural selection. An examination of how this process works might show whether abiogenesis or creation is the most likely starting point for it.

When some individuals are better adapted to their environment than others they are more likely to survive and produce offspring. If members of a species are found in a variety of different environments the characteristics that aid survival may be different in different areas and over time the organisms in each location will come to differ from each other as well as from the parent species.

Perhaps the most obvious example of natural selection is the many breeds of dogs that are all descended from a common ancestor. Some breeds are the result of deliberate breeding by people who wanted dogs that had specific characteristics. This is artificial selection rather than natural selection but it works the same way; dogs having the desired characteristic are allowed to reproduce but others are not.

The selection process is similar to what a sculptor does when he makes a statue out of a block of marble; he cuts away all of the unwanted parts of the marble but doesn’t add any material from outside. Natural selection works by the elimination of unwanted or undesirable genes. No new genes are produced. The common ancestor of dogs must have possessed all the the genetic information that is found in all breeds of dogs. This process goes back further; dogs, wolves, foxes, coyotes, and jackals have a common ancestor that possessed greater genetic diversity.

There is no way this process could have started with a simple one celled organism. (I mean simple in comparison with the life that exists today; even the simplest form of life is extremely complex.) Natural selection wouldn’t work because there would be too little to select from; it would be like a sculptor trying to make a large statue out of a grain of sand.

But what about the Bible’s account of creation?

Quote:And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:24-25 ESV

God created different kinds of life. If each of these kinds had a large gene pool with the potential for producing many different varieties of descendants their creation would lead to the process of natural selection we see today.

We aren’t told how many kinds there were but the number was small enough for Noah to take a pair of each kind onto the ark. Some people don’t believe the flood occurred because the ark wouldn’t have been big enough for all of the varieties of life that exist today. When you take the results of natural selection into account you can see that the number of animals Noah needed was very small.

The term natural selection was first used by Charles Darwin in Origin of Species, which was published in 1859. Our knowledge of genetics began with experiments performed by Gregor Mendel. The results of these experiments weren’t published until after his death in 1884 so Darwin knew nothing about them when he did the research for his book.

Darwin saw natural selection taking place but because he didn’t understand how heredity works he misinterpreted what he saw. He thought that the process produced completely new characteristics and therefore was evidence that his theories about the origin of life were true. Today almost everyone shares this belief and few people realize that the things we have learned about genetics since then have produced evidence that the belief isn’t true.

This explains the subject better than I can:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answ...n-campaign

Scientists use information as a proof of evolution because the evidence overwhelmingly supports this position. The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2013, 11:39 AM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2013 11:46 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection
Darwin is irrelevant in 2013. Evolution rests entirely on massive evidence that has nothing to do with him. Talking about Darwin in this context in 2013 is irrelevant, and a Red Herring. See Jerry Coyne's (PhD) books from the University of Chicago.

The creation account in Genesis was taken directly from the Babylonian creation account, (the Enuma Elish). They knew nothing about that which they spoke. It's a myth. They made it up.

So as you see Theophilus is 100 % ignorant of Biblical Studies, genetics, Evolutionary Biology, and especially this subject which is falsely pretends to appear to know something. In short, he is just another theist liar, with nothing new, or true, or unique to say. Get lost, Theophilus. Weeping

Here's the best we know today.
Theophilus has not even a basic education in science.
Here is a PhD from Harvard.

Before Theo The Dumb can assert any of this crap, he has to prove
1. gods exist.
2. the Bible was "inspired". Neither of which he has even attempted.

Get busy. Theo The Dumb. Tongue





Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
27-04-2013, 02:44 PM
RE: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection
(27-04-2013 10:16 AM)theophilus Wrote:  Darwin saw natural selection taking place but because he didn’t understand how heredity works he misinterpreted what he saw. He thought that the process produced completely new characteristics and therefore was evidence that his theories about the origin of life were true.

The book On The Origin of Species... introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection. This book and the scientific theory of evolution have NOTHING to do with the origin of life.

How life came into being has nothing to do with anything written in On The Origin of Species and one would know this, if one had bothered to read it. Dodgy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kim's post
27-04-2013, 02:57 PM
RE: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection
Theo, back again ?

Still doing your armchair evangelism...

I like the artfulness of your post. A nice simple explanation of how natural selection works (according to you) and then this sentence:

"There is no way this process could have started with a simple one celled organism. (I mean simple in comparison with the life that exists today; even the simplest form of life is extremely complex.) Natural selection wouldn’t work because there would be too little to select from; it would be like a sculptor trying to make a large statue out of a grain of sand."

How do *you* know this genius ? God told you ? Just because *you* can't think of a way for this to be possible in no way means that it is impossible. It means you lack insight.

And you base the whole rest of your ramblings about God on this one sentence, arguing from your personal inability to comprehend. Nice try. And then a link to AiG.

Boy, you suck as an evangelist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
28-04-2013, 10:21 AM
RE: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection
That's gotta be in the Handbook of Fail somewhere. I wanna win an argument on an atheist forum, so I'm gonna link to Answers in Genesis. Hobo

Ya wanna talk about stories of creation; if it wasn't for science moving forward, creationism wouldn't have anything to talk about. And usually, as is the case here, those doing the talking still don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
28-04-2013, 10:38 AM
RE: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection
(27-04-2013 10:16 AM)theophilus Wrote:  How did life originate? Most people believe that it began with a process called abiogenesis, the development of living organisms from nonliving mater. According to this belief a very simple life form came into existence and over millions of year its descendants changed through the process of evolution to produce the large variety of life that exists today.

Not everyone believes in abiogenesis and evolution. Some people believe the Bible’s account of how life originated; it was created by God only a few thousand years ago.

Believers in abiogenesis and creation both agree that new varieties of life are constantly being produced by a process called natural selection. An examination of how this process works might show whether abiogenesis or creation is the most likely starting point for it.

When some individuals are better adapted to their environment than others they are more likely to survive and produce offspring. If members of a species are found in a variety of different environments the characteristics that aid survival may be different in different areas and over time the organisms in each location will come to differ from each other as well as from the parent species.

Perhaps the most obvious example of natural selection is the many breeds of dogs that are all descended from a common ancestor. Some breeds are the result of deliberate breeding by people who wanted dogs that had specific characteristics. This is artificial selection rather than natural selection but it works the same way; dogs having the desired characteristic are allowed to reproduce but others are not.

The selection process is similar to what a sculptor does when he makes a statue out of a block of marble; he cuts away all of the unwanted parts of the marble but doesn’t add any material from outside. Natural selection works by the elimination of unwanted or undesirable genes. No new genes are produced. The common ancestor of dogs must have possessed all the the genetic information that is found in all breeds of dogs. This process goes back further; dogs, wolves, foxes, coyotes, and jackals have a common ancestor that possessed greater genetic diversity.

There is no way this process could have started with a simple one celled organism. (I mean simple in comparison with the life that exists today; even the simplest form of life is extremely complex.) Natural selection wouldn’t work because there would be too little to select from; it would be like a sculptor trying to make a large statue out of a grain of sand.

But what about the Bible’s account of creation?

Quote:And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:24-25 ESV

God created different kinds of life. If each of these kinds had a large gene pool with the potential for producing many different varieties of descendants their creation would lead to the process of natural selection we see today.

We aren’t told how many kinds there were but the number was small enough for Noah to take a pair of each kind onto the ark. Some people don’t believe the flood occurred because the ark wouldn’t have been big enough for all of the varieties of life that exist today. When you take the results of natural selection into account you can see that the number of animals Noah needed was very small.

The term natural selection was first used by Charles Darwin in Origin of Species, which was published in 1859. Our knowledge of genetics began with experiments performed by Gregor Mendel. The results of these experiments weren’t published until after his death in 1884 so Darwin knew nothing about them when he did the research for his book.

Darwin saw natural selection taking place but because he didn’t understand how heredity works he misinterpreted what he saw. He thought that the process produced completely new characteristics and therefore was evidence that his theories about the origin of life were true. Today almost everyone shares this belief and few people realize that the things we have learned about genetics since then have produced evidence that the belief isn’t true.

This explains the subject better than I can:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answ...n-campaign

[Image: Wat8.jpg]

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
28-04-2013, 01:09 PM
RE: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection
There is no "dog kind", "cat kind", or "cow kind". Speciation works on a sliding scale, where every step is slightly different from the last. If you decide to divide animals by 'kinds' then you must include all the cow-like animals in the same kind. But cows didn't pop from nowhere, so you have to include every parent of the cow down the line. No single generation is a not-cow. They are all slightly different from the last bunch. If you do it long enough you get an ancestor of a cow that looks like a shrew. Well, sure, you can count all those cow ancestors as cows, but what about the monkeys? You did the same thing with them, and you eventually came across a shrew-like ancestor. It is almost identical to the cow ancestor. Actually, it might be exactly the same specimen. So what do you do then? Are monkeys part of cow-kind, or are cows part of monkey-kind? Maybe you decide to group them together as mammal kind. But you can do the same thing you did with cows with the shrew-thing, eventually leading back to salamander-like specimens, and eventually fish.

The problem is, people can do exactly that. So over generations, completely new characteristics do arise... unless you consider a primitive fish to have all the characteristics of cows. But considering cows have vital organs that don't exist in fish, that is simply incorrect.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Elesjei's post
29-04-2013, 03:59 PM (This post was last modified: 29-04-2013 04:24 PM by kingschosen.)
RE: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection
Oh my...

Okay *deep breath* let's start:

1) Your sculptor analogy is completely flawed. That's not how (for the sake of clarity to you, I'm going to use "YEC"language) macroevolution or microevolution works. It has been observed and documented that traits are created... not shedded. And, in fact, it has been observed in animals that create new traits cannot create offspring with relatives that lack this trait; therefore, only the animals with the new trait can breed. This is speciation.

2) The accuracy of radiometric dating is undeniable. This is observable and testable and retestable evidence. This science disproves the notion of a 6000 year old Earth. In the same vein, we have traveling starlight which is observable and testable which is contradictory to a literal creation account.

3) Ancient Near History (ANE) is riddled with similar creation and flood accounts from many different peoples. These peoples predate the Hebrew accounts by thousands of years. Unless you're doing extreme mental gymnastics, it is very difficult to say that the Genesis creation account and flood story aren't to extremely similar to stories that predate them; thus, showing a plagiarism from the Hebrews.

4) One of your arguments is that the Biblical reference of "kinds" states that God created different "prototypes" or archetype species that allowed adaptation to branch it through the years and have several different species. However, if you look at the Hebrew and the usage of the word, it is not, in fact, an archetype, but it is an absolute, finite species; this means that the language could not be interpreted as you have interpreted it. The language clearly states a creation certain species with absolutes and no room for deviation.

The usage shows that "kinds" does, indeed, mean all of, or the "like", of that animal. "Kinds" also lumps animals together based on their looks and/or actions. A bat isn't a bird, but flies like a bird, so it is a "kind" (species) of bird. Any animal that crawls on the earth is part of "beasts of the earth". Also, if an animal looks like another animal, but it is scientifically another animals, it would actually be consider the original "kind" (a black bird would be consider a crow "kind"). However, even though an animal looks similar, but has noticeable differences, it would be considered a different "kind" (eagle and hawks would be different "kinds".)

ex:
"Kinds" of birds - eagle, hawk, ostrich, owl, crow, vulture, bluejay, cardinal, sparrow, mockingbird, etc.
"Kinds" of beasts of the earth - cows, sheep, dogs, cats, tigers, lions, goats, elephants, giraffes, etc.

Let's look at it's usage:

The Hebrew word is here.

Occurrences:
  1. Genesis 1:11-12
    Fruit were created to only sprout fruits of specification. Nothing else. There is plurality here; not singularity. This implies the absolution of creation as far as the "kind" goes. It can only produce the fruit it was created to produce. No deviation.
  2. Genesis 1:21
    This verse further solidifies that the author was talking about an absolution. The word "every" here is this Hebrew word. It is an absolute "all". It's not a partial "all" or a specific group "all", but it is a complete "all". So, in the verse it's saying that absolutely all species of water creatures and birds were created in an absolute sense. The "kinds" shows that the author was including every different creature in the water and in the air.
  3. Genesis 1:24-25
    Same as Genesis 1:21.
  4. Genesis 6:20
    Here is a reference of every living, known animal of the time. Not a prototype or an archetype; but every single living creature of every species. Since this was a mere 4000 years ago, we can easily observe the genetics of modern day creatures and safely say that all those that are alive today would have been included in that description; likewise, contrary to what YECs say, there would actually be MORE species alive in the time of Noah that in modern times due to recent extinctions. This provides a massive problem of space on the ark. Again, due to the language that is used, "kinds" is very blatantly saying "species" of all animals.
  5. Genesis 7:14
    Same as of above.
  6. Leviticus 11:14-16
    Here, it becomes even more obvious that "kinds" is specifically a species. "Kinds" is used after listing of each different bird. It is saying, this bird and all that looks like it. If you notice, the author has to use "kinds" after almost every bird to include everything. This further shows that there was no archetypical animal.
  7. Leviticus 11:19
    Same as above.
  8. Leviticus 11:22
    In these verses, you can see that the Hebrews were well aware of the minute differences in similar animals. Insomuch as even creating more "kinds" for the same type of animal. Here, locusts and grasshoppers are different "kinds".
  9. Leviticus 11:29
    Same as before.
  10. Deuteronomy 14:13-15
    Goes on to show that there are even more "kinds" of birds.
  11. Deuteronomy 14:18
    Same as above.
  12. Ezekiel 47:10
    There are many fish - all of the kinds.


This is just to show you that your understanding of the Hebrew is wrong. The word "kinds" represents all species of all animals including insects. Moreover, it shows that it would be impossible for Noah to fit all these animals on the ark because the language that is used said that all species of the Earth in the most absolute sense was on the ark.

Even more flawed in the notion that God created a prototype or an archetype for these animal "kinds" and that they later created different species of the same animals. That's not how the language is used. In Genesis, it says that all animals in the most absolute sense - all species - were created. Also, according to the language, God was finished creating when He stopped... but, in order for your hypothesis to be true, God would have had to progressively create new animals species through the process microevolution. If this is case, then this invalidates what God said.

In order to stick to a reconciled version of a literal interpretation, there cannot be a progressive creation aka God had to create every species of animal in the beginning that we have to day. This is what the language says.

[Image: RHcn6pd.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like kingschosen's post
29-04-2013, 04:01 PM
RE: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection
I think you should both agree that your holy books are essentially jokes in a world outside of bronze and iron age mythologies.

Terrible, terrible jokes, but comical all the same.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 04:14 PM
RE: Abiogenesis, creation, and natural selection
(29-04-2013 03:59 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  In order to stick to a reconciled version of a literal interpretation, there cannot be a progressive creation aka God had to create every species of animal in the beginning that we have to day. This is what the language says.

And your solution is the local flood correct ? What does the language say about locality of flooding again ? If I remember rightly your own argument for it was somewhat tenuous.

Why not just concede and let the whole flood be a mythical or poetic event or whatever ?

Like... if it *was* a local flood, do you think Noah had a full menagerie on board or just a few cows ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: