Proteins argue against evolution


#101

I hate to say it, but I think I actually agree with Alaska_Slim on something.

There are three key points. First, the Bible gives us very little information about the creation of the universe. It says he did it and that he stretched out the heavens. Second, if we don’t allow God to use a metaphor for day on the first page of the Bible, then why do we allow the Lord to assign metaphorical meanings to his parables? Scripture is filled with metaphors used to communicate truth.

Third, if God created the universe in literal days, the stars seem to be lying about their age. If not, then what are we missing in what we see? God doesn’t lie.

It wasn’t until I started investigating evolution and realized it can’t work that I decided there’s no reason to think the creation of life wasn’t accomplished in days. Sure, he could have done it in billions of years, but to what end?


#102

God made the stars. Whatever it means, I think it has to mean he made stars that are visible to earth. Maybe it took umpteen quadjillion years. Maybe it took 5 minutes. Why? So man could look at stars.

Where does the symbolism end? What supernatural events in the Scriptures are not symbolic? Why does a literal reading of Genesis worry you?

Again, my point in this conversation: I continue to find it odd that a Christian rejects the notion that God just did it the way it says. Do you believe that God has the power to speak stuff into existence? Or is he somehow limited? To answer the reverse in case the reverse is your response again, yes, I believe he has the power to set a process into motion that created the world as we see it today. I don’t reject it or scoff at that notion.


#103

Except, you skipped over the actual point.

The reused genes, don’t serve a purpose. They aren’t on, they’re just there.

If biological progesssion is happening, there’s a reason for those genes to be there.

If it isn’t happening, then there isn’t a reason for them to be there. Because they serve no function. They were turned off.

You can debate me about whether the progression is being lead by God, but if the genes don’t point to animals becoming other animals, then the presence of those genes is irrational. Because they don’t serve a purpose.

Windows has functionless code from prior iterations, because newer versions were built on top of the old, and the fucntionless parts were too costly to remove. That restriction means nothing to God.

Of course it’s happened, again, Mass extinctions, we don’t get large animals again unless this has happened.

Speciation is what allows it to happen; all you need to do to create a new species, is to create conditions where at least two groups in it can no longer breed with one another.

You can do that by geographic isolation, a chromosome pair being dropped (or added), or even just one group having a diet concentrated on one thing verses another.

Flies have been observed to do that last part after enough generations. Just by eating differently, the likelihood of two groups inter-breeding drops dramatically.

Once their genomes are put into their own tracks, they’ll start taking on qualities the other doesn’t have.
Epigenetics will continue to lead them in different directions. So will mutations.


#104

Because they’re parables? A simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson. A literal reading of Genesis doesn’t suggest otherwise.


#105

That is an excellent piece of work, RWNJ!! I couldn’t have done better myself! Kudos!


#106

A literal reading of Genesis constrains God, and states he did something quite irrational.

All of the clues we have point to the universe forming through mechanical forces; God created those forces.

Why would he violate the laws of his own creation, to produce a result it was going to have anyway?

And then be sure to leave the clear loose ends we see in the Universe, as if mechanical forces had produced the universe?

There’s literally no reason for God to do that. It’s a waste of his time & power.


#107

Metaphor is such a major and ingrained part of our speech that most people don’t even notice it. Worse, many people seem to think that the word “literal” is a synonym for “true” and “metaphor” is a synonym for “fiction”. Wrong, wrong, abysmally wrong.

Consider John 3:3.

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."

This wasn’t a parable. Was the Lord speaking literally or metaphorically? Was he telling the truth or spinning a tale? Fortunately, this point was so crucially important that he made sure the explanation of this truth got into scripture in the next few verses.

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit."

Later, in John 21, Jesus said “Feed my lambs” and “Take care of my sheep.” Was Jesus speaking literally or metaphorically? Today that sounds like a metaphor because who knows anyone who raises sheep? (Apologies if you do.) But in those days in that location, taking care of sheep was a common thing. There’s no explanation in scripture for what he meant.

Metaphor is so ingrained in our daily speech (Does your computer really have a “desktop” inside it? Look! There’s a “mouse” on you desk!) that we don’t even notice.

How do you tell the difference? You examine the context and external factors. Peter knew that Jesus didn’t own any real sheep, so he could only have been metaphorically talking about his followers. Today we know that the stars declare the Lord’s glory by declaring their age. So in the context of what we observe when we examines the Lord’s handiwork, we know the “day” the stars were created was a metaphor, and poetic to boot.

Don’t forget who invented cosmic background radiation and red shift.


#108

Yeah, that makes no sense.

He violated the laws of His own creation when Jesus turned water into wine, walked on water and raised the dead.

If His power is infinite, there is no waste.

Indeed.


#109

That’s not something that would happen anyway.

For it to be comparable, Jesus would have to be using his power to walk on water, if everyone could already do it.

If the inbuilt laws of the universe can already produce the result, there’s no reason for God to take shortcuts & and also leave behind indications as if the laws produced the result in the first place.

To the contrary, he wouldn’t turn the Devil’s stone into bread. God very much discerns what is a useful exercise of his power.

Unnecessary shortcuts that serve no purpose, would likely not be among them.


#110

Indeed.

Lol.


#111

I’m just going to say it man; nothing you’ve laid out denies evolution. You just think God took a shortcut.

And even if you think that, you admit Evolution has been happening ever since. Because God was meticulous to leave traces as if it had been happening, and created everything as if it would operate on it.


#112

Well, yeah, that’s one way to put it. At least at some level on the evolution.


#113

I know you were talking to RWNJ, but I can’t help just saying it too, man; nothing you’ve laid out denies life was designed and created by an intelligence. You just interpret the evidence badly.


#114

You can only say that, if what I say now holds true.

You believe God directed the process, but that animals did in fact progress from one another.
Ergo, Biological progression, is God’s chosen means of creation. Sort of what they advocate here.

OTOH, God cannot be involved in all of it, otherwise, we’d have the horrific realization that God creates antibacterial-resistant microbes, just to kill scores of people.

So you recognize, at least partially, that unthinking mechanical forces are also at play.


#115

I remember hearing a radio preacher (Alistair Begg) talking about this, and how some group was doing a discussion on it; they called it “Nic at Night…”

Magna-Yeah-That


#116

I’m really late to this conversation, but I feel the need to mention the fact that evolution as a science really doesn’t deal with where life began, only the mechanisms of how it changes once life begins.

Even defining life can be tricky. Are viruses alive? Thus when evolution begins can be a bit of a gray area.

The scientific term used to describe how non-living “stuff” became living stuff is called abiogenesis.

Another thing I’ve seen mentioned. The term “survival of the fittest” does not necessarily mean the physically strongest or most cunning. Strength and intelligence are one sort of fitness, but the kinds of fitness evolution deals with mostly with is how organisms adapt to changing environments. Most creatures lack the intelligence to manipulate the environment in creative ways to solve specific problems. Plants even less so. So if there is a virulent disease that sweeps through a community an organism’s fitness has already been determined by its genes, not by its strength or intelligence alone.

If a large comet hits the earth, it will be the smallest of life forms that are the fittest, not the smartest or physically strongest. Thus “fitness” in an evolutionary context is about surviving and adapting to a changing environment and has little to so with physical strength.


#117

What about Viroids, which have no protein coat, existing as only a snip of a circular RNA molecule? Or prions, a protein with a tiny DNA molecule, can be as small as 135 amino acids, encoded with just 4 types?

These two things have been hailed as “living fossils”, as they seem to be leftovers from the RNA-only world.

RNA forms RNP, RNP encodes Proteins, and from Proteins, you can get to DNA.

The only question is, how did the RNA molecule first form. Through a precursor like triaminopyrimidine (TAP) building the components, or by a more gradual process through self-replicating peptides?


#118

You sound like you are speaking from just more than a layman’s perspective. Are you this interested in the topic, or is this something you do/ have done in your professional life?

Curious, what would you think about this as a possible explanation of how life as we know it came about? It sounds like what you’ve stated and what’s stated in the video are similar, at least at a cursory level.


#119

In my edit there, I noticed that I had confused the definition of Prions with Plasmids (the actual counterpart of Viroids with DNA), so no, I’m quite the layman here.


#120

OK, @csbrown28, I watched your video, “The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis”.

I have been exasperated on a number of occasions when evolutionists try to weasel out of how life formed by saying oh no, that’s abiogenesis, not evolution. There I am trying to show a thoroughly plausible reason why it’s impossible for life to come about by natural causes and all they care about is slipping out on the technicality of the name.

That’s why I started this thread well after your mythical abiogenesis was done and after eukaryotic life exists.

Even so, it’s impossible to nail down @Alaska_Slim on the subject of where new proteins come from.

But let’s examine a few points about your video.

Has this “simple” monomer life been reproduced in a lab? You could certainly reproduce the proposed pre-biotic environment. If it happens spontaneously, it should be possible to reproduce it. Like in science.

It sounds like the result is “a simple 2 component system” that’s different from RNA/DNA and doesn’t contain any genes for useful proteins. So how do we get from there to genes for useful proteins?

If we accept this proposed mechanism, there’s still a lot of steps that we need to explain by saying “and then a miracle happened”. For example, how do mutations “form secondary structures that show some enzymatic activity”? Enzymes do specific jobs and are very dependent on shape, which is very dependent on the sequence of amino acids it’s made of. If you just shuffle about until you get there, you have to beat the odds I outlined in my original post.

It’s all wishful thinking. You can’t get there without beating the odds. And you can’t beat the odds in a trillion trillion trillion trillion years (for just one short protein), but cosmologists won’t give you nearly that long.