Question to the evolutionists.

As a Christian (and one with an open mind), I find it very difficult to take the Genesis account literally, word-for-word. My understanding is that the 7-day account is the author’s experience as God showed him in a vision or a dream how everything was created (why does an almighty god need to rest on the 7th day anyway. It makes far more sense to me that He “rested”, i.e. stopped showing the author how our reality came to being). However, there are many aspects of the evolution theory that I also find difficult to believe. Not wanting to “prove” or “disprove” everything, I would just like a simple explanation of the following:

Given that it rained on the rocks of an ancient earth for millions and millions of years. Let’s assume the first DNA/RNA molecules formed spontaneously and viola: self-replication! We now have all the ingredients for evolution: replication and fitness-evaluation (the environment only allows the fittest to survive and replicate). My question is: At what point did sexual reproduction evolve? This would require two organisms (regardless of complexity) to evolve sexual reproductive organs at EXACTLY the same time. Furthermore, why would a virus (that simply splits to reproduce) ever want to evolve in a human to begin with (that needs to seek out another human to reproduce)? A virus is a far more “fitter” organism than we humans are anyway.

Originally posted by Wumpus
As a Christian (and one with an open mind), I find it very difficult to take the Genesis account literally, word-for-word. My understanding is that the 7-day account is the author’s experience as God showed him in a vision or a dream how everything was created (why does an almighty god need to rest on the 7th day anyway. It makes far more sense to me that H ...[text shortened]... another human to reproduce)? A virus is a far more “fitter” organism than we humans are anyway.

……At what point did sexual reproduction evolve? ..…

knowbody knows for sure but there are plenty of theories.
But it is generally thought that it probably didn’t evolve until more advances cells evolved than simple bacterial cells -that would mean that for most of the history of life on Earth (about ¾ of it) there was no sexual reproduction which implies that the evolutionary step from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction was a difficult one.

…This would require two organisms (regardless of complexity) to evolve sexual reproductive organs at EXACTLY the same time. ..…

Err -no.

It would just requires ONE organism (say a single cell of an amoeba-like organism) to mutate so that, although it still maintains the ability for asexual reproduction (probably through the usual simple cell division) it has the potential of sexual reproduction (by exchanging genes -but not necessarily involving meiosis -a simpler form of gene exchange may have evolved first) of another organism of the SAME species that carries the SAME mutation. That would mean that, initially, it would only be able to reproduce asexually but then its offspring would be able to reproduce sexually with each other. Note that would mean that the mutation wouldn’t give any immediate benefit to the organism which is why this evolutionary step was probably a difficult one.

There are many living example of organisms that can reproduce sexually AND asexually but will always reproduce asexually if there is no current opportunity to reproduce sexually (e.g. strawberry plants).

Also note that the first organisms that could reproduce sexually probably didn’t consist of separate male and female individuals but, rather, consisted only of individuals that where both male and female as this is more likely to evolve first if the sexual reproduction consists of only the simplest possible kind of gene exchange.
There are many living example of organisms that consisted only of individuals that are both male and female -Earthworms are a good example.
Separate male individuals and female individuals probably evolved later.

…Furthermore, why would a virus (that simply splits to reproduce) ...…

Err -A virus does not “split” to reproduce. A virus first enters a host cell and then releases its genes into the host cell (and OUTSIDE the virus) which then express themselves by creating new virus particles outside and detached from the original virus particle that entered that cell.
A virus that has “split” is generally a dead virus!

…ever WANT to evolve in a human to begin with (that needs to seek out another human to reproduce)?
.… (my emphasis)

-ever “WANT ” to evolve in a human?
-nothing evolves anywhere it does or to do anything it does because it “WANTS” to.
It evolves in a human being because some virus particles by chance ended up in a human and mutations and then natural selection made it evolved.

Hi Andrew

A very good answer thank you... I especialliy liked this:

"There are many living example of organisms that can reproduce sexually AND asexually but will always reproduce asexually if there is no current opportunity to reproduce sexually (e.g. strawberry plants)."

Also, thank you for correcting me on the virus. You are of course correct. Bacteria is much closer to what I described. As you can imagine, I need to chew on this a little bit... and do some additional reading. This is really thought provoking...

However, when I referred to a virus "wanting" to evolve... I should rather have said: "why would a virus evolve..."

Anwyay, thanks... I'll be back with more questions. :-)

==================================

nothing evolves anywhere it does or to do anything it does because it “WANTS” to.
It evolves in a human being because some virus particles by chance ended up in a human and mutations and then natural selection made it evolved.

====================================

Do you really think that there has been enough time in the universe for by chance selection of mutations to have brought us to the point we are today in the biological world ?

I am sympathetic to some aspects of change in life over time. But I think Evolutionists should look more into the area of sudden changes.

Supposing that the majority of unfortunate mistakes could be overlooked to select the fortunate ones, 15 billion years seems too short to go from nothing (or near nothing) to the diverse biosphere we see today.

It is kind of like expecting that over the life of my family going back so many generations, we accumlated 40 million dollars by every so often finding one million in our back yard. It is too lucky in too short a time.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==================================

nothing evolves anywhere it does or to do anything it does because it “WANTS” to.
It evolves in a human being because some virus particles by chance ended up in a human and mutations and then natural selection made it evolved.

====================================

Do you really think that there has ...[text shortened]... o often finding one million in our back yard. It is too lucky in too short a time.[/b]

Imagine 1 millenium passing (ie from 1000ad to now ) Now times that by 15 million - does that seem a lot of time? It does to me. In human terms that's over 400 million generations. Imagine a family tree that big with each person living to 35.

Originally posted by Wumpus
As a Christian (and one with an open mind), I find it very difficult to take the Genesis account literally, word-for-word. My understanding is that the 7-day account is the author’s experience as God showed him in a vision or a dream how everything was created (why does an almighty god need to rest on the 7th day anyway. It makes far more sense to me that H ...[text shortened]... another human to reproduce)? A virus is a far more “fitter” organism than we humans are anyway.

The central biological event behind sexual reproduction is the meiosis/fusion cycle, in which the cells split from diploid to haploid, and later on merge back into the diploid state.

All you need for this to happen is to have a haploid cell evolve some sort of protein that encourages such fusion. In chemistry we learn that chemical reactions occur in both directions (though in some cases either product or reactant will tend to be more stable and predominate).

Therefore, cells which can fuse would likely also be able to split back into the haploid state. All you need is one protein that encourages haploid fusion to diploid state and sexual reproduction is off and running. No need for complex and differentiated sexual organs.

In fact asexual reproduction has many of the characteristics of sexual reproduction. The cell doubles it's chromosome count then splits into two cells with the original amount of genetic material each. It's not much of a jump to having two of the daughter cells, from two different parent strains, to merge instead of having one parent cell double it's genetic material.

Viruses cannot reproduce on their own. They need cells (such as human cells in your example) to reproduce.

Originally posted by Wumpus
As a Christian (and one with an open mind), I find it very difficult to take the Genesis account literally, word-for-word. My understanding is that the 7-day account is the author’s experience as God showed him in a vision or a dream how everything was created (why does an almighty god need to rest on the 7th day anyway. It makes far more sense to me that H ...[text shortened]... another human to reproduce)? A virus is a far more “fitter” organism than we humans are anyway.

This is a very good question indeed.

I believe that it's all to do with metaphor. Christians simply refuse
to admit the bible, especially the old testament is meant as a metaphor.
What I find most interesting is that the Christian mentality will hold
steadfast to a literal translation of Eden but will strain at the leash with
metaphor if they see anything remotely metaphorical with Armagedon.
I said it before and I'll say it again, Christianity is a cult of death.

The funny thing is, if a creationist came to me with a well constructed
argument for creationism being a metaphor for the development
of a transcendental human consciousness, I would be really interested
in what they had to say.
e.g if a virus forms on a planet and there's nobody there to see it,
does it really exist?

Unfortunately such asymptomatic thinking does tend to exclude an
orthodox viewpoint.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==================================

nothing evolves anywhere it does or to do anything it does because it “WANTS” to.
It evolves in a human being because some virus particles by chance ended up in a human and mutations and then natural selection made it evolved.

====================================

Do you really think that there has ...[text shortened]... o often finding one million in our back yard. It is too lucky in too short a time.[/b]

why do you claim 15 million years are too short? on what bases do you found your claim?

"It is kind of like expecting that over the life of my family going back so many generations, we accumlated 40 million dollars by every so often finding one million in our back yard. It is too lucky in too short a time"
it not kinda like. there is no connection between the two. you finding a million in your yard is not depending on life evolving in 15 million years.
the probability of an event that already happened is 1. you can say you have 1 in a million chance of getting struck by lightning but if you were already struck, then that chance is 1. likewise the universe. if the universe had evolved any different, we would be wondering why that chain of events happened

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
why do you claim 15 million years are too short?

Actually, jaywill said "15 Billion years" and not just "15 million years"! 😀 -which makes his assertion all the more absurd!

jaywill

….15 BILLION years SEEMS too short to go from nothing (or near nothing) to the diverse biosphere we see today.
… (my emphasis)

What a totally absurd estimation on your part! “15 BILLION years SEEMS too short “? -are you mad? Can you honestly comprehend what “15 BILLION ” really means? -I mean, for example, can you actually visualise exactly 15 BILLION marbles?
Why does 15 BILLION years “SEEM” too short? What mathematical formula/heuristic are you using here to estimate this?
If 15 BILLION years “SEEMS” too short to you then exactly how many years would NOT “SEEM” too short to you and why?

…Supposing that the majority of unfortunate mistakes could be overlooked to select the fortunate ones, .…

What does that mean?
I assume that what you are referring to by “mistakes” is bad mutations? -if so:
Why is it a requirement of your argument here to “overlook the majority of unfortunate mistakes to select the fortunate ones”?
-Obviously, regardless of whether or not we “overlook” the bad mutations, the fortunate (good) ones will be selected by natural selection anyway and the bad mutations will be selected out by natural selection anyway thus no need to “overlook” the bad mutations. -have you fundamentally misunderstood the simple concept of evolution in a subtle way here?

About God resting---the Bible indicates only that He did rest--not that He "needed to rest". Small clarification.

Question, since Lorne Greene and Alpo taught us all that 1 dog year is the same a 7 human years, do dogs evolve 7 times as fast? More importantly, wouldn't this mean every species evolves at a different rate?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
About God resting---the Bible indicates only that He did rest--not that He "needed to rest". Small clarification.

Question, since Lorne Greene and Alpo taught us all that 1 dog year is the same a 7 human years, do dogs evolve 7 times as fast? More importantly, wouldn't this mean every species evolves at a different rate?

Question, since Lorne Greene and Alpo taught us all that 1 dog year is the same a 7 human years, do dogs evolve 7 times as fast?

Not necessarily. Although it seems the "1 dog year equaling 7 human years" thing looks like it may be a myth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_in_dogs).

Evolution and how fast a species evolves would depend on the environment and somewhat on how many generations occur.

This is how we can actually test the evolution of single cell organisms - because they go through many generations in relatively short periods of time.

The thing is if the environment doesn't change and an animal is well suited to that environment then there won't be a very high selective pressure and it won't change much at all. However if the environment changes then there would be more selective pressure to change and an animal might just go extinct if it can't survive at all in the new environment or the features that will help most in their survival in that environment will become more and more prominent.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
why do you claim 15 million years are too short? on what bases do you found your claim?

"It is kind of like expecting that over the life of my family going back so many generations, we accumlated 40 million dollars by every so often finding one million in our back yard. It is [b]too lucky in too short a time"
it not kinda like. there is no c ...[text shortened]... he universe had evolved any different, we would be wondering why that chain of events happened[/b]

==================================
the probability of an event that already happened is 1. you can say you have 1 in a million chance of getting struck by lightning but if you were already struck, then that chance is 1. likewise the universe. if the universe had evolved any different, we would be wondering why that chain of events happened
======================================

Umm, I regard being struck by lightening as essentially destructive.

Somehow when you talk about the probability of being struck by lightening it seems different to the CONSTRUCTIVE event of a living organism reproducing itself at the end of a long series of accidents.
(I do not mean the original organism).

What was the first instance of Natural Selection ?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Actually, jaywill said "15 Billion years" and not just "15 million years"! 😀 -which makes his assertion all the more absurd!

[b]jaywill

….15 BILLION years SEEMS too short to go from nothing (or near nothing) to the diverse biosphere we see today.
… (my emphasis)

What a totally absurd estimation on your part! “15 BILLION years SEEMS to ...[text shortened]... -have you fundamentally misunderstood the simple concept of evolution in a subtle way here?[/b]

==================================
What a totally absurd estimation on your part! “15 BILLION years SEEMS too short “? -are you mad? Can you honestly comprehend what “15 BILLION ” really means? -I mean, for example, can you actually visualise exactly 15 BILLION marbles?
===================================

I know it is a huge number.

=======================================
Why does 15 BILLION years “SEEM” too short? What mathematical formula/heuristic are you using here to estimate this?
If 15 BILLION years “SEEMS” too short to you then exactly how many years would NOT “SEEM” too short to you and why?
=======================================

Let's say I filled a barrel with chemicals of all kinds, materials of all kinds, substances of all kinds, and sent it tumbling through outer space for 15 Billion years,

Is there a possibility that light years away, 15 Billion years from the lauching of that barrel, someone might open it up and see a fully functioning Electron Microscope thrown together?

In how many years would it be plausible that a tumbling barrel of materials might eventually throw together a fully functioning Electron Microscope? Is 15 Billion unnecessarily too long or too short?

========================================
you fundamentally misunderstood the simple concept of evolution in a subtle way here?
=========================================

You're probably right. But I don't think you understand it too well either. I could be wrong.

I think this quotation is insightful on the subject. It was written by someone with two Phds. in pharmacology, A.E. Wilder Smith in a publication entitled "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution"

"Evolution is thus basically an attempt to explain the origin of life from matter and energy without the aid of know-how, concept, teleonomy, or exogenous (extra-material) information. It represents an attempt to explain the formation of the genetic code from the chemical components of DNA without the aid of a genetic concept (information) originating outside of the molecules of the chromosomes. This is comparable to the assumption that the text of a book originates from the paper molecules on which the sentences appear, and not from any external source of information ..."

Though I do not understand evolution do you think this person with two Phds. has a worthwhile insight into the theory? Or would you also consider his comment "absurd?"

If so, why?

Originally posted by jaywill
Though I do not understand evolution do you think this person with two Phds. has a worthwhile insight into the theory? Or would you also consider his comment "absurd?"

If so, why?

The person, as you claimed, has two PHD's in pharmacology. Since you are appealing to this person's authority, what authority does someone educated well in pharmacology have in a relatively unrelated topic such as evolutionary biology?

Despine this, his comment should be judged as valid or invalid based solely on its content - his phd's don't appear to be relevant to whether it should be taken seriously.

A.E Smith:
1965 he visited and promoted the false claims that dinosaur and human footprints existed at Paluxy River in Dinosaur Valley State Park. These supposed tracks were later discovered to have been forged by creationists who tried to claim humans and dinosaurs lived together