SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Authentic Biblical Christianity.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : General Topics : evolution

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 )
PosterThread
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re: dialing 411

Hi eveyrone.


MikeH, how are you? I wanted to comment upon something you suggested here...

"There are several ways that creatures can gain genetic materials, plasmids, viruses, mutations, errors during meiosis etc. The transfer of antibiotic resistance between difference types of bacteria is a well document example of one of these natural techniques where new genetic materials is acquired by bacteria that previously did not have it and so providing them with enzymes that destroy antibiotics."


As I understand it though, it's [b]new[/b] genetic information that is the issue, not [b]pre-exisiting[/b] [i]genetic matierials[/i] or the [u]transfer[/u] of it? For instance, copying an encyclopedia does not explain the origin of it's contents, know what I mean? I mean accounting for the emmergence of [b]every[/b] [i]new[/i] [u]instance[/u] of genetic information...


Follow it back all the way...




As I've read about this, the explainations I've heard for all of this sound more and more like story telling. Creative minds can make up all sorts of stories about the unobservable past that do not have to be tested by being repeated in the present. It may sound convincing with lots of technical jargon but none of that jargon has the quality of real-life, real-time experience that meet the demands of life in this real-world, you know? They may work in the sterile environments of laboratories, under the control of [i]intelligent-designers[/i] but none of that says anything about how these thought-experiements would perform in the real world where no-one was watching, and no-thing cared about the end results, or how these stories would actually play out with no-one in control. It may be nice to [i]suppose[/i] that time and chance can produce wonders and miracles but real-life experience seems to yell out that machines are the products of minds and purpose, biological or otherwise.


It all seems like professional storytelling. That never ends.

Sort of reminds you of Acts 17:21.

There are some messages here at Sermonindex on this subject you all may be encouraged by...

[url=http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/viewcat.php?cid=104]Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith[/url]

[url=http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?lid=712&commentView=itemComments]Is Man a Machine?[/url]



Considering all of this, what a powerfull declaration this is:


In the beginning, was the Word...


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2007/3/12 10:39Profile
MikeH
Member



Joined: 2006/9/21
Posts: 116


 Re:

Quote:

ChrisJD wrote:
As I understand it though, it's [b]new[/b] genetic information that is the issue, not [b]pre-exisiting[/b] [i]genetic matierials[/i] or the [u]transfer[/u] of it? For instance, copying an encyclopedia does not explain the origin of it's contents, know what I mean? I mean accounting for the emmergence of [b]every[/b] [i]new[/i] [u]instance[/u] of genetic information...

No, all of the things I mentioned could create new genetic material. It might be modified forms of existing genetic material, but once any of it exists (and how it might have been created is a subject of a different topic), then making more and more with different characteristics is not difficult to imagine. A scientist could probably create and select for antibiotic resistant bacteria in a couple of days. Now many of the things that happens in nature may not be very useful, but if it becomes useful eventually, then it would be selected for. If there are 100 millions of years, then maybe it could happen.

I'm not trying to support evolution, but if we use bad science for our arguments, then I think we do more disservice to the Lord's cause than if we simply accept that we can't always answer all the questions that there are. Even if we could answer every question anyone had, there is no guarantee they would become a christian, because it is still the 'hearing of faith' that saves us, not an intellectual assent to Christian dogma. I think we all too easily believe that we have to convince people to become Christians; they need to hear God speak to them, through us by the Holy Spirit. (1 Thess 2v13). It is interesting that one of the greatest commentaries on creation is in the book of Job, by God himself. Job's reaction, "have you considered the idea of evolution?" Not at all, Job's response was:
Quote:
Job 40:3-5 Then Job answered the LORD, and said, (4) Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth. (5) Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further.

When God speaks to us about these things, our arguments rapidly come to an end!!

Kind regards
Mike

 2007/3/16 13:34Profile
ChrisJD
Member



Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA

 Re:

Hi Mike, how are you?



"When God speaks to us about these things, our arguments rapidly come to an end!!"


This made me think of Romans 1:20, where the Apostle says

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"


In a sense, isn't this passage of scripture saying that He has [b]already[/b] spoken to each of us? And yet, it seems to me that the theory of evolution is an attempt by man to alter what God has said, in creation, or to deny He has said it altogether.

And the claims of its proponents are given credibility because it is called science, and when many of us think of science, we think of the kinds of things that put men on the Moon, not elaborate [i]storytelling[/i] about things that [b]could[/b] have happened, given enough time, and some imagination on our parts. You know what I mean?


Chris


_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow

 2007/3/16 17:33Profile









 Re:

Quote:

MikeH wrote:
Sorry to take so long to reply, but, LittleGift, you have declared openly that you are an evolutionist!!!
Quote:
LittleGift wrote:
This is an example of natural selection through "survival of the fittest", not Evolution.

The evolutionists claim that there is a process of natural (as opposed to divine or intelligent design) selection, that selects the creature with the genetic material that enables it to survive best within the environment it finds itself. The mechanism of natural selection is 'the survival of the fittest". That is those creatures whose genetic material best equips them for the environment in which they find themselves, whether by being better able to find or use food, better able to find or attract mates and therefore reproduce, better able to survive the climate or other external circumstances, those creatures survive and by pass on their genetic material to the next generation. Their genes may only give them a small advantage, but over several generations or maybe several hundred generations, they will begin to predominate. Your dark and white skin example, if it is valid, would have any evolutionist jumping for joy that a Christian supports their views.
Quote:
LittleGift wrote:
The reason is that Natural Selection is going in the opposite direction from Evolution! Natural Selection often causes a LOSS in genetic complexity, not a gain (which Evolution requires).

This is simply not true. There are several ways that creatures can gain genetic materials, plasmids, viruses, mutations, errors during meiosis etc. The transfer of antibiotic resistance between difference types of bacteria is a well document example of one of these natural techniques where new genetic materials is acquired by bacteria that previously did not have it and so providing them with enzymes that destroy antibiotics. This enables them to [i]survive as the fittest[/i], whereas their fellow bacteria without these new genes are killed. Once gained, if that genetic material gives an advantage one will be natural selected for, and it works well for bacteria which we are trying to destroy with our modern drugs. So natural selection causes neither a gain or loss of genetic material, it is other mechanisms that do this. What natural selection does, is select those who having gained or changed their genetic material and are better able to prosper in their current environment?

Are you really an evolutionist?

Mike


Hi Mike. Thought this thread was finished, and only just noticed that its popped up again.

Of course I'm not an Evoluionist! :eek:

I was trying to explain that Natural Selection can never give rise to Evolution, however many billions of years there were. Natural selection almost always results in a loss of genetic richness in the population, unless there is some kind of "cross-breeding" effect from other populations that confers extra genetic variety, as sometimes happens with antibiotic resistant bacteria.

As you said, they normally become resistant either by transfer of already existing genetic material from other strains of bacteria, or by [b][i]errors[/i][/b] in the proteins in their outer coats. These proteins, or DNA, already exist, so this is not Evolution, any more than skin colour variations, or sickle cell disease in humans is. Yet both those genetic differences can confer advantages in a population.

The altered, antibiotic resistant, bacteria are often less able to survive in other ways than normal bacteria. They only have an advantage when in the presence of antibiotics that kill off the competition. You get the same kind of effect with plants if you mow your lawn regularly!

Blessings

Jeannette

 2007/3/16 18:57









 Re:

Quote:

LittleGift wrote:
As you said, they normally become resistant either by transfer of already existing genetic material from other strains of bacteria, [b][u]or by [b][i]errors[/i][/b] in the proteins in their outer coats.[/u]


Just realised that you didn't say the underlined part. I think that this is the usual or most common means of antibiotic or antibody resistance, rather than enzymes against antibiotics. As I understand it, what normally happens is that a special section of the antibiotic (or antibody) usually fits a part of the outer coat of the bacteria as a key fits a lock. Either this blocks some vital process, or breaks down the outer coating, killing the bacteria.

A [i]very slight[/] alteration in the outer coat may mean that the "key" no longer fits, so the bacteria are resistant.

This works with viruses too. Colds and flu change their outer coats all the time, which makes it almost impossible to gain resistance to them. Other viruses change very little, which is why you don't often get measles or mumps more than once.

True "Evolution" would involve bacteria changing into something else. They've had billions and trillions of generations to do it in, yet never a sign of that happening to the most super of superbugs!

Jeannette

 2007/3/16 19:12









 Re: just an aside

ever see the bumpersticker that said "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"?

i have a bumper sticker on my car that reads:

"if evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve."

:)


bub

 2007/3/17 14:54









 Re:

Quote:

bubbaguy wrote:
ever see the bumpersticker that said "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"?

i have a bumper sticker on my car that reads:

"if evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve."

:)


bub


HAHAHA! :-D Bubba, you amaze me. You have a different opinion from most of us on this topic, which it seams that no amount of reasoning can shift. Yet you never seem to be bothered by any of the contrary arguments.

I wish you were willing to be convinced that Evolution is unscientific, but you have a great attitude towards controversy!

But don't you have a problem with not believing what [i]God[/i] says? What you, or the rest of us, think isn't in the end important, but what the Lord says is...

Blessings

Jeannette

 2007/3/17 18:49









 Re: mowing the lawn

Quote:

LittleGift wrote:
The altered, antibiotic resistant, bacteria are often less able to survive in other ways than normal bacteria. They only have an advantage when in the presence of antibiotics that kill off the competition. You get the same kind of effect with plants if you mow your lawn regularly!


Does that mean my lawn will evolve if I keep mowing it for millions of years? :knockedout:

There will certainly be Natural Selection. Some plants that used to be there will die out, (unless new seeds get in from somewhere else). And the individual plants that are most vigorous and most resistant to mowing will increase.

Natural selection merely favours the genes [i][b]already present[/b][/i] The result is that the general population gets more resistant and the "unfit", in that environment, decrease or disappear altogether.

This actually [i]reduces[/i] the genetic richness of the population, and [i]weakens[/i] its ability to adapt if conditions change, for example, if I stop mowing the lawn altogether. Natural Selection doesn't produce anything new - rather the reverse.

Blessings

Jeannette

 2007/3/18 6:58





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy