Throughout the history of mankind, many people have wondered where the universe first began. Most scientists believe that the whole universe was created by chance and humans came into existence by the process of evolution. Overwhelming evidence, on the other hand, suggests that the universe was created by God. Creation suggests that humans were not descended from other species, but were created in the likeness that they are today.
There are generally two assumptions about the origin of life, the view that the world was created by chance over millions of years, and the view that the world was created with a purpose and in six days (Byfield 1). These assumptions are put together in one argument which is the on going battle of Creation vs. Evolution. Most people who believe in creation are in favor of the literal interpretation of the first book of the bible, Genesis. In Genesis it clearly states that God created the earth in six normal days. There are many conflicting beliefs among supporters of evolution and supporters of creation. In the view of creation it is believed that man was created, and destruction happened as a result of man’s actions, or the fall of man. On the other hand, in evolution it is believed that destruction, through natural selection, had to occur before different species of animals could evolve into mankind over millions or even billions of years.
Some people say that both creation and evolution are merely theories and have not been able to explain how everything came into existence. Creation and evolution are basically the exact opposite ideas of each other, and cannot coexist in the same belief system. It seems as if it is a never ending battle of beliefs. They, of course, are beliefs because they cannot be tested by any scientific method. There have been many cases where scientists have tried to prove evolution but have not been able to discover much evidence, and of course, “Science is a human endeavor, and human beings make mistakes. Evolution goes far beyond the limits of science, and is even more easily influenced by human bias” ( Parker 3).
“Scientists believe we would not be here if it weren’t for three great cataclysms in the early history of the earth and of the universe” (Dauber 1). In the view of some evolutionists the big bang was what brought everything into existence, through a spontaneous explosion of matter. However, the big bang theory has a major flaw, it cannot explain where the matter came from in the first place. Basically evolutionists are saying that all of that happened by chance, it was
spontaneous, and because of evolution humans are as intelligent as they are today.
In the dictionary the meaning of create or creation is to bring something into existence when nothing was there before it was created. That is exactly how the creation of the world is explained. In order for the world to “appear” there had to be something greater to create it, which would be God.
One big argument within the conflict of evolution versus creation is the age of the earth. People who support evolution believe that the universe is about 4.5 billion years old. “The universe appears to be billions of years old....”(Bronson 1).
Those who support creation believe that the universe is about six thousand years old. According to the ‘theory’ of creation, the universe, the world, man, etc. were brought into the existence with an “appearance of age” (Bronson 2). Adam and Eve are the best example of creation with the appearance of age. They were not created as babies, but as adults.
People are able to see the very distant stars in the young universe because the universe was created to look as if it were that old and was fully functioning when it was created. Another way that evolutionists have tried to prove evolution as human origin is human evolution. Human evolution is merely a “theory of the origins of the human species” (Human evolution 1). “Humans are very different from animals, especially in the ability to use language and logic” (Safarti 1). Evolutionists suggest that the culture of primates gradually changed into
the culture that humans have today. Evolution supports the theory that small- brained primates, millions of years ago, evolved into other species, such as humans, and somehow became more intelligent (Human evolution 2).
Even though structures of the hand in primates and humans are
similar, they are designed differently to carry through different functions (Similarities 1). The human body is far too complex in it’s functions to be created by chance through the process of evolution (Paturi 1). Scientists are not able to find the missing links between primates and human beings (Few Clues 1,2). In evolution it is believed that the similarities in human and other animals justifies that evolution was how humans came to be (Human and Ape 2). The similarities between primates and humans does not prove evolution. It just proves that there is a creator who made some animals more similar than others.
In the origin of life, “Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth”
(Argument: Problem 1). There is a lot of doubt in the theory of evolution, such as the theory of human evolution. Scientists have been proven wrong in human evolution, the fossils of homo erectus (supposedly the closest evolutionary ancestor to humans) and modern humans were found to be from the same evolutionary ‘time sectors’ (people were always 1). Both the views of evolution and creation have to be accepted by faith. They cannot be tested as scientific theories (myth 3: faith 4). Evolution has many unanswered questions.
In Hebrews 11:3 it is stated that “ by faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was
visible.” Basically, creation suggests that there was nothing before the world was made through faith.“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27) In Colossians 1:15-17 it is understood that “ He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him [Christ] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth... all things were created by and for Him.” Evolution can be refuted (proven wrong) by the truth, which is the word of God.
There are some pretty huge holes in your argument. But first, sources please?
I have the sources in there, and I did this as a research/persuasive paper a couple years ago...
I got my info from the internet, books, and the bible
-Amanda-
Um, you didn't properly list your sources, I can't access them.
sorry about that...
-Amanda-
Hmm, well I'm no scientist. I'll wait happily for DB to show up.
All I have to say is it seems really silly for god to create a Universe where looking at the stars would give people the impression that it's older than it is. Almost like god didn't want people to believe in him...
"What a man does for pay is of little significance. What he is, as a sensitive instrument responsive to the world's beauty, is everything!"
H. P. Lovecraft
If you want to know WHERE the universe began you can hold your finger about a foot away from your nose and say "Right there", and you would be correct ... and you would be correct no matter where in the universe you happened to be. We can say that because the evidence for the Big Bang is truly overwhelming. And the Big Bang says that it was space that expanded. So no matter where you happened to be in the universe was at the time of the expansion of the Big Bang the same point as every other point in the universe.
For an overview of some scientific ideas on HOW the universe began, you can go to one of my blogs
So all those stupid scientists, ... the very ones who collected all that overwhelming evidence ... can't seem to see the nose in front of their fact.
I'll be looking forward to seeing this "overwhelming evideence that the universe was created by God".
Creation suggests that humans were not descended from other species, but were created in the likeness that they are today.
(1) The number of assumptions concerning the origin of life are beyond counting. A more accurate way of phrasing this sentence is ... "A naturalistic view of the origin of life assumes that it occurred by natural processes with no directing intelligence, while a creationist view assumes that God required for it to happen"
Things you should note is that nowhere in the naturalistic view is the assumption that the origin of life occurred by chance. Naturalistic views believe that there are two mechanism for which "chance" is an inappropriate description.
(a) The natural laws of nature on a macro scale are deterministic. It is not chance that rain falls down. Once the water molecules coalesce to a certain size then gravity will be sufficient to overcome the bouyancy of the atmosphere and the raindrop is FORCED to fall down. The same goes for chemical reactions. Water is an excellent solvent such that chemicals will be FORCED to dissolve in it. Brownian motion, currents, and electrical attraction will FORCE these chemical to react.
(b) Once a set of chemical reactions form a hypercycle (a group of reactions in which the chemical compounds needed to sustain the reactions are regenerated; eg. A->B, B->C, C->D, D->A) then we have a simple replicator. At that moment NATURAL SELECTION can come into play. Natural selection is NOT a chance product. More fit replicators will be concentrated and less fit ones will be eliminated.
You should also note that nowhere in the creationist view does it say that the universe was created for a purpose nor does it say that it happened in six days.
(a) Scientific creationism (the flavor of creationism before the Overton ruling) and Intelligent Design (the currently popular flavor of creationism) eskew "purpose" for a political reason ... it obviously violates the 1st amendment separation of church and state so would be declared unconstitutional before the opening gavel of a Supreme Court session. Strictly speaking so does inclusion of the word God, that is why intelligent design creationists also include the possibility of super-duper space aliens and time-travelling biologists in their list of possible creators. But no one, not even the Intelligent Design Creationists believe this is really possible so I'll let that one go.
(b) Not all creationists are YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISTS (YEC's) believing that the earth was created in 6 literal days about 6,000 years ago. OLD-EARTH CREATIONISTS (OEC's) are happy to let the word "day" in Genesis mean an unspecified period of time that could include billions of years.
(2) What is "Byfield 1"?
And what "one argument" is that. I have been on the scientific side of many a creation/evolution debate and to me it seems like each side has many arguments.
Interestingly, I totally agree with you. It does. But there are theistic evolutionists (religious people on my side of the creation/evolution debate) as well as OEC's (religious people on your side of the creation/evolution debate) who don't agree with us on that point.
Strictly speaking that is NOT a required tenet of creationist argument.
What a rather bizarre phraseology! Destruction of what? According to modern evolutionary theory the DIVERSITY of life we see today arose by the Darwinian principle of DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION. That means that present-day organisms are related to each other through COMMON ANCESTRY. Natural selection is an important mechanism behind this diversification, but it is NOT the only one. Genetic mutations are necessary to create the variation that natural selection can work with. Other factors include genetic drift, endosymbiosis, hybridization, mutation of developmental genes, sexual selection, species selection, and group selection.
Geological data suggests the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. That is the time scales that evolution has to work with. But there is nothing within modern evolutionary theory that says that rather large steps cannot occur over fairly rapid time spans. In fact, papers have shown that using known evolutionary rates it could take only 200,000 years for a population of organisms with simple light-sensitive cells to evolve into a population of organism with a camera-type eye like we have.
(1) You should properly use the word "creationism" instead of "creation". Creation does not necessarily involve an animate creator. Thus, the naturalistic view can postulate a creative event as well. CreationISM is a technical term that means what you are saying above.
(2) I would say that evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. A scientific theory is a well established explanatory hypothesis that makes testable predictions, is potentially falsifiable, and is supported by a substantial body of evidence and has not been falsified scientific observations. A scientific theory is NOT a wild-assed guess as the way some people think of the word "theory".
(3) I would say that creationism is NOT a scientific theory. No possibility is eliminated under the creationist paradigm so it explains nothing. There is no body of evidence that supports it. The core tenet, God created the universe is not falsifiable. Corollary tenets ... the young-earth, special creation etc have already been falsified.
Wrong!! Aspects of both can be tested by the scientific method. For instance, YEC says that the earth and the universe is 6,000 years old. That HAS been tested very well.
(1) Overlapping tree ring data dates tree rings back past 10,000 years.
(2) 14C dating has reliably dated organic material back past 50,000 years.
(3) Yearly sedimental deposits in certain rivers (aka VARVES) go back ofr 130,000 years
(4) Greenland and Anarctic ice-core data goes back to 450,000 to 850,000 years now
(5) Racemic degradation of amino acids can date things back to a few million years
(6) 39K/40Ar dating goes back 1.5 billion years
(7) U/Pb dating has dated earth rocks to 3.8 billion years and meteorites to 4.5 billion years.
(8) Hubble expansion astronomical data goes back about 13.7 billion years ago.
You can't reasonably ask for better tests of that hypothesis. They ALL say that the earth and the universe are significantly older than 6,000 years.
Evolutionary theory has been tested as well. Common ancestry was predicted before we had any idea of genetics. The universal genetic code supports that prediction to include such diverse organisms as bacteria and baleen whales. I discuss some other verified predictions of modern evolutionary theory in this blog. Going to PubMed and doing a search of the scientific literature using the search term "evolution" gets 211,059 hits. That is quite a few scientific papers. Even knowing nothing about them, you should get the idea that at least some of them are testing aspects of evolutionary theory.
Strictly speaking scientists don't try to PROVE anything. They gather evidence that either supports or contradicts their hypotheses. No matter how much evidence you gather there will always be possible alternative explanations. For instance, one alternative explanation that can never be ruled out is that something you haven't yet thought of is causing the results. So strictly speaking, a PROOF is not possible. However, that doesn't mean that science cannot say anything about anything. If your hypothesis is supported by numerous lines of evidence then it is very likely to be largely correct. If your hypothesis is contradicted by even a single piece of RELIABLE data is quite likely to be wrong. If the central tenets of your hypothesis are supported by numerous lines of evidence but a peripheral tenet is contradicted then perhaps you need to alter that peripheral tenet but keep the central ones. That the way it is with modern evolutionary theory the central tenets ... common ancestry & the importance of natural selection ... are STRONGLY supported by numerous lines of evidence. Creationists love to point to peripheral tenets on which some doubt has been cast ... punctuated equilibrium for example ... and suggest that it cast doubt on the whole theory. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Who is this "Parker 3" you speak of?
I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with modern evolutionary theory. Modern evolutionary theory is a BIOLOGICAL THEORY not a COSMOLOGICAL THEORY. Having said that let me now defend the Big Bang Theory (BBT).
The BBT does NOT have a flaw in it as you suggest. It doesn't because contrary to you implication, the BBT is not a theory about the ORIGIN of the universe. It is a theory about the EXPANSION of the universe. The BBT takes us back to within Planck's constant (10-43 sec.) of ORIGIN OF THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE. We do not know what happened prior to that. In a link I left up above I discuss we have ideas about naturalistic origins of the universe but we cannot test them yet. Perhaps as physicists work to unify Einstein's General Theory of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics and the math makes predictions then we can actually test them.
So it is not the job of the BBT to come up with the origin of matter. That will be the job of some of these other theories as they mature. But it is true that science does not have a DEFINITE answer to the origin of matter, creationists have just as bad a problem. They don't have an answer for the origin of God.
Er ... no.
(1) It is always a bad sign when an argument uses a common-usage dictionary to define a scientific term that may well have a technical definition different from its common-usage definition.
(2) That link above to my blog on scientific ideas as to the origin of the universe also compares these ideas to the GodDidIt hypothesis. The GodDidIt hypothesis doesn't do so well.
This is actually the Omphalos Theory presented first by Philip Henry Gosse in 1854 (If memory serves me correctly) shortly before Darwin published ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES. The word "omphalos" means "navel" or "belly button". Gosse asked the rhetorical question that you have probably heard asked before ... "Did Adam have a belly button?" He then went on to answer the question with a big "YES". Adam had a belly button because God created the earth with the appearance of age. He then went on to use this appearance of age to explain away problems that a rapidly expanding scientific community was finding concerning a literal interpretation of the bible. Gosse said that of course there were sedimentary deposits that would take several million years to lay down (that could not be explained by a global flood), fossils of long extinct organisms, etc. because God gave the earth an appearance of age.
Gosse was ridiculed. Not so much by scientists, but by the clergy of his day. They viewed Gosse's "theory" as showing God to be a deliberate deceiver. According to Gosse, this appearance of age included fossils of organisms that had in fact never existed. Why would God do that? Who was God trying to fool?
Your explanation is no different. But again I would be remiss if I did not bring up a logical objection to it as well. Your explanation is completely ad hoc. That means that the only reason to suspect it may be true is to avoid a fatal catastrophe for your theory of a young earth. There is no logical reason that God would make the earth with the appearance of age. Making Adam and Eve as adults has nothing to do with making the earth with rocks that geologically date to billions of years ago, ice cores that date to hundreds of thousands of years ago, varves that date back past 100,000 years or even tree rings that date back post 10,000 years ago. Your explanation is no more satisfying than other creationist attempts to discredit each piece of the evidence without addressing why it is that ALL these pieces of independent evidence point in the same direction.
And why would God want to deceive us that way?
Finally somebody I recognize! Jonathan Sarfati of Answers in Genesis (you misspelled his name by the way). Unfortunately Sarfati is not quite correct:
The only difference in chimp and human brains is the size. Chimps have the same gyri and sulci, the same brain nuclei in the grey matter, the same interconnections. So we aren't that much different than other animals. While it is true that we can talk, and chimps don't do that naturally; why should that qualify as "very different" considering the similarities?
Yeah, and modern evolutionary theory has data for it too:
Er ... different but the differences are all simple modifications off a common base structure.
Exactly what we would EXPECT from evolution. If special creation ... God having made each species de-novo ... is correct then God appears to be a lazy designer. Instead of poofing specifically designed utensils into his organisms of creation he uses a cobbled copy from other species??
Er ... NOBODY ever said that evolution is chance. What was that central tenet that I talked about ... natural SELECTION. Selection is the antithesis of chance.
Look back up there at that picture of the skulls. The skull labelled A is a modern chimp skull. The skull labelled N is modern human skull. The rest of the skulls (B-M) are arranged by the chronological dating of the fossils. Tell me:
(1) Where do the ape skulls end and human ones begin?
(2) What criteria did you use to make your determination?
(3) If you couldn't tell then what more is needed to make this an excellent fossil transition between apes and humans?
It is certainly evidence for it. It is evidence that was PREDICTED when Darwin first suggested that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor. None of these fossils had been found at that time. A creationist paradigm could not possibly have predicted this finding.
LOL ... so that evidence doesn't PROVE evolution but it does PROVE that there was a creator who made some animals more similar than others? And just how does it PROVE that?
In this blog I discuss some of the genetic evidence of common ancestry between chimps and humans. One potential problem for common ancestry could be the fact that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimps have 24. But we have found that all human chromosomes have a unique analogue to a chimp chromosome EXCEPT human chromosome #2. It looks like it is the product of a Robertsonian translocation that fused the remaining two chimp chromosomes together. Why would God specially create humans like that? Modern evolutionary theory says that event like that MUST have occurred if there is common ancestry.
Also humans do not make their own vitamin C. We have the gene to do it. It is called gulono-lactone oxygenase (GLO). The problem is that the gene is inactivated by a mutation. Chimps don't make their own vitamin C either. They have the GLO gene as well. Guess what ... it is inactivated by the same mutation. Why would God do that it? Modern evolutionary theory says that the inactivation occurred in a common ancestor.
This is NOT a problem for evolution for the same reason that the origin of matter is not a problem for the BBT. Evolution is a theory about the DIVERSIFICATION of life, not the origin of life. There are naturalistic theories on the origin of life and they do better than the Goddidit hypothesis as well.
There is no doubt about it in the scientific literature. The doubt about it is in the political arena.
Actually that is one of the BEST pieces of evidence for evolutionary theory.
Depends upon how you classify. But you came from your parents. Both you and your parents were alive at the same time. Let's be lumpers for a while and we will consider Homo antecessor, Homo ergaster, Homo rudolfoensis all to members of Homo erectus (they do show certain similarities). The fossil record then shows that Homo erectus spread out of Africa all the way to Indonesia and China. Somewhere in Africa an isolated group evolved into Homo sapiens. One would expect it would take a long time before H. sapiens would displace H. erectus. So the overlap in time is not a problem.
Er ... no. Evolution has evidence.
Evolution can, I showed you how above. Some aspects of creationism can as well. The evidence supports evolutionary theory and contradicts creationism. How much more do you want?
That is true. But for all practical purposes the unanswered questions lie in the peripheral aspects of the theory. The central tenets are too well supported to be reasonably questioned by anyone knowing the data. That is why, in science, it isn't questioned.
Except, by faith we understand nothing. Understanding comes from evidence.
And why would anybody think that the bible is the word of God? Before you answer, check out my "Skeptical Bible Study" posts. It is too late and they are too numerous for me to go and give you links at this time.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
What the heck...I have to tell I really don't like long comments like that. Save it for a blog...I (and any one else, for that matter) don't have time to read that...
please just keep it simple, or to the point..
-Amanda-
Check out my blog
So basically you're shutting yourself out from all evidence DB put forth because you're lazy? Way to go.
I'll read it, in due time...
-Amanda-
Check out my blog
Why not now, if you just sit and read it isn't that hard to just keep running through it. In due time usually means never and if you mean due time as in due time for you to get stuff to bury DB, then I advise you not try because trust me, DB will bury anything you put up, lol. Just a friendly warning about messing with what seems to be our resident scientist.
Think its funny you took the time to read hers and she wouldn't return the favor like i did with both.
I think the reason she keeps bring up chance is that her church and those around her preach the word to make it seem unlikely.
They try to explain it to her like car parts in a tornado, or like shaking up a box with a puzzle in it, which in truth couldn't be more far off.
Life grows everywhere you give it the opportunity, have you ever looked in a month old fridge, have seen the videos of the artic, have you seen how an optimal setting like the jungle comes up with more species than are on the rest of the globe.. anyways...
There are an estimated 100 billion stars(suns) in our galaxy, each with an estimated 6-32 planets, and there are 300 billion estimated galaxies (some with more or less star based on the type and the age of the galaxy) but lets just do a little math..
Say we underestimate and say there is 8 planets a star *no where near the middle of 6-32*
So 8(P)x100bill(Av.Stars)x300bill(Esimated Gals)
So about 2.4x10 to the 23rd by my math(which if not dead on is close)
To those who don't know what those numbers mean 24,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 estimated planets (represented by P)...
Lets say that there’s a bunch of frozen ice and rock floating around these planets (comets/or any type of projectile that enters an atmosphere)
Many of them do not directly hit these planets as they fly by, but may cast their waters onto them or clip the atmosphere, burn and melt(letting off their water or possible life), then while wet before re-entry to space pick up a few new pieces of life(if this planet had already had it carried there), then as it passes back out of the atmosphere it refreezes(capturing and carrying the life to the next one it hits or clips).
In this way, the life could spread like a consuming virus (which most of it is, as beautiful as it is at moments) all over the place in universe that is inhabitable(which would mean earth) without having much luck at all, as it is somewhat abundant and inhabits and adapts to inhabit whenever and wherever it can. See if you look at it this way, you're not some special rare snow flake, but a blend of a variety of minute life forms which happen to be splashed into our wet suitable(inhabitable) planet, which is one of very many, and nothing was left to chance as it all was predisposed to occur since the expansion, gravity, and properties of matter took its course.
---
Everything, you have done, and will do, is chemically predisposed by matter, even the fact you are reading this message. You make no choices, only perceive a given reality.
This was yet again way cool and amazing, I need to go through it once or twice again….. thank you ;-)
that comment was huge and i only had the opportunity to skim through the blog, but i do know that the bible didn't mean the earth was created in six literal days because it also mentions how a day to God is many many more to us. I don't, however, believe in evolution.
How did we "evolve" into two separate sexes? and how come other animals haven't "evolved" into anything close to a human? we haven't been able to evolve primates into humans, so how can it be proven?
The bible isn't a fairty tale, it's actually very exact in what little science it has, and most of it's prophecies are coming true as we speak.
~Bookworm62591♥
You had some logical structure in your thought...
When you talked about the soul being the non-lingering perspective I thought you were one of the correctly wired minds, then you go and type this...
Take in to account how many variable which may not be currently taking place could effect an evolution, say a comet rides by, and releases a chemical(or even a sub-species) which draws a dramatic change on the ones that had already grown to an extent and brought about these massive changes, such as sex and more speedy spirts of evolution. Don't deny a science before all of its pieces are understood, cause if you did that, we would still think we were the center of the universe. If people denouced and looked no further into the possibility and theory that we weren't it might have took until we got out of the atmosphere to solidify the claim. Slowing the projected and educated assumpitions of science is fruitless and disabling.. I don't advise it..
--
Everything, you have done, and will do, is chemically predisposed by matter, even the fact you are reading this message. You make no choices, only perceive a given reality.
(1) Concerning what the bible meant.
I think it is pretty clear that the bible meant a 24 hour day in Genesis 1. In each instance where it refers to them it preceeds it with the phrase, "Evening and morning". Furthermore, the 10 commandments uses as a justification for keeping the Sabbath holy and as a day of rest is that God himself rested on day 7. Furthermore, if one says that "day" is an unspecified length of time that could be a billion years, you still have the problem of why it is a message that could have only come from God (if real) is written so intentionally misleading.
It is true that in Psalms there is a reference to a day for God being like a thousand years (and a thousand years being like a day), but that seems to be inserted in there as an excuse for another problem in the bible ... in the Adam and Eve pericope of the bible God tells Adam that he will die the day he eats of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; but Adam doesn't die until 930 years later. That line is repeated in 1 Peter (IIRC) only this time it is used to cover another biblical error ... why it was that even though Jesus had told his followers that their generation would not pass away before he returned ... but they HAD passed away and Jesus had not returned.
(2) Concerning the evolution of sex
Actually that is a problem for evolutionary theory. The reason is that if an organism reproduces asexually then for each offspring produced a full copy of the organism's genome gets sent to the next generation; while for a sexually reproducing organism only half of its genome goes into succeeding generations per offspring. That seems like a big sacrifice so how did it happen?
The first thing that I think we can say without qualification is that sexual reproduction did not evolve for that purpose in one fell swoop. There is plenty of evidence for this.
For instance, we often tell our students that bacteria have a single circular strand of DNA. But for the greatest part of the bacteria's life cycle that is not true. Most bacteria reproduce a second circular strand and wait until conditions are ripe for them to proceed through mitosis. When those conditions occur the bacteria splits into daughter cells.
However, BEFORE those conditions occur the bacteria can still make good use of the second strand of DNA. The biggest thing it does with the second strand is to use it for GENE CONVERSION if necessary. Let me explain that ... bacteria are single cells that live in unprotected in the environment. They can be subjected to ionizing radiation and mutagenic chemicals fairly easily. Occasionally a gene that is necessary for its existence is mutated into oblivion. That does not mean the bacterium is doomed to death. Once the DNA to RNA polymerase hits a snag and cannot proceed, a process can be initiated where a DNA ligase cuts the strand, and another DNA to DNA polymerase repairs the section by using the hopefully undamaged second strand as a template. In other words a defective gene is converted back into a functional one.
Metazoan organisms (like humans) also use gene conversion to repair damage to their DNA. So having two copies of ones genome has a selective advantage over a single copy regardless of sexual reproduction.
We also know that among bacteria there is a lot of sharing of DNA between organisms. That is how antibiotic resistance can spread so rapidly in a colony of bacteria. During conditions of stress one bacterium can come into contact with another bacterium (even of a different species) and form a pilus that interconnects the two. DNA from one bacterium can be copied and sent to another bacterium through that pilus. This is not true sexual reproduction (there is nothing like meiosis for example). But it is close.
There is another example in bacteria, and actually in more complex organisms as well of sexual-like reproduction. And that example is plasmids. Plasmids are membrane bound pieces of DNA that usually contain only a few genes. They do not metabolize anything on their own but if they come into contact with another bacterium then the plasmid can fuse with that bacterium and the genes within it become functional.
There is a long-term advantage to sexual reproduction as well. Environments change. Sexual reproduction forces an intermixing of genes. Variation will be spread faster through a sexually reproducing species than in an asexually reproducing species. Because of that, it has been shown that during times of environmental stress sexually reproducing species out perform asexually reproducing ones. So if you happen to be a group selectionist then you might be inclined to see this as a selective advantage for sexual reproduction.
However, there are cases where sexual reproduction gets lost. For example, in Cnemodopherous lizards all are females. The females lay fertilized eggs. This is called PARTHENOGENESIS. This evidently happened recently in their evolutionary history. There are many species of lizards in which the females do not lay eggs until they have been PRIMED to do so by the male doing a mating dance. Cnemodopherous lizards still have this requirement, except of course one female does the mating dance for another (since there are no males).
The final clue concerning sexual reproduction is that seems to have evolved (or more likely been extensively modified) several times. Sexual determination is different for a number of species. We are mammals. In mammals females have 2 copies of a large X chromosome, while males have a single large X chromosome and a small Y chromosome.
Birds do it differently. Males have two W chromosomes while the female has a W and a Z chromosome.
Most reptiles lay their eggs in a communal buried nest. The temperature of the nest determines the sex of the offspring. In turtles (IIRC) the upper part of the nest is generally warmer and those eggs tend to be males, the lower part of the nest tends to be cooler and those eggs tend to be females.
Many fish change their sex throughout their life. In some populations the dominant fish will be male. He will secrete a pheromone that keeps the others female. Once he dies one of the females will undergo a growth spurt and become dominant and change its sex to male.
In some hymenopteran insects (bees, wasps, and ants) determine sex by a process of haplodiploidy. The females are diploid ... that is their cells contain two copies of each chromosome. The males are haploid ... they contain a single copy of each chromosome. This leads to some interesting relationship within colonies. With bees and ants the queen when it leaves a nest flies up in the air (even ants ... they have wings at this stage). The males who don't do anything else fly up and try to mate with her. Only a single male will mate with any particular queen, generally it is the strongest one that is able to make it up as high as the queen. But the sperm from that male will contain his entire genome. In other words, each sperm is a genetic duplicate of the other. The queen stores his sperm for her reproductive life. She will produce eggs which contain a haploid copy of her diploid genome. Thus each egg will contain half of her genome. Thus two eggs will NOT be genetic duplicates fo each other. In fact each egg will share on average 1/4 of the queens genome. The queen can either fertilize the egg with a sperm from the male she mated with during her mating flight in which case the offspring is destined to be a female worker or she can leave it unfertilized in which case it will become a male.
Since the genome of the workers contains the males entire genome (which is the exact same for each worker) and they share with each other an average of 1/4 the queen's genome their coefficient of relatedness is 3/4. Which is interesting since their coefficient of relatedness to the queen is merely 1/2. That means the workers are more closely related to each other than they are to the queen.
So what does this all mean? It means that we don't know exactly how or what environmental pressures caused sexual reproduction to become the dominant form or reproduction among complex organisms. But it also shows that sexual reproduction COULD have happened naturally. There are a number fo steps toward full sexual reproduction that natural selection would favor. There are a number of ways that sex can be determined so there are likely to be numerous pathways to get there. These different ways of determining sex have advantages and disadvantages of their own that natural selection could favor or eliminate.
(3) As to why no other animal has evolved into anything closely human.
The truth of that statement depends upon what you mean by "closely human". Chimpanzees, sharing 98% genetic identity with us, are pretty close to be humans if you ask me. That is a greater genetic similarity than we see between rats and mice ... or even lions and tigers (and they can hybridize) If you want something to evolve closer than that then you have a problem. We are here. We already occupy the big brained evironment altering omnivore niche, and it would be very hard for anything evolving from another primate to challenge us in that regard.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
How many times has science corrected itself and found their theory was wrong? The Bible has never been proven false in anyway and has tons of archeological, historical, and scientific evidence to its truth. Decide for yourself if you want to disregard what something that has never been contradicted says or if you want to agree with a theory from science, a field that is constantly changed their discoveries.
Leah
... has never been shown wrong is by refusing to believe what it actually says.
Nothing is Genesis is plausible. There are thousands of contradictions, both small and large. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that the writers of the bible had anything other than a very primitive (compared to what we know today) view of the cosmos. It certainly disagrees with science on numerous points. Why is it that the bible has never been the inspiration for ANY scientific discovery in the history of mankind? In fact, when we have tried to confirm what we thought the bible says we always end up disconfirming it and having to make up silly apologetics to save it.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
And to add to bookworm62519 comment about prophesy. Not only have a handful of prophecies come true, only a few have not.
Leah
And none of them have come true other than perhaps some trivial self fulfilling ones such as Jesus' triumphal entry.
Here is a challenge ... You pick the ONE prophecy that you think shows supernatural fulfillment. Tell us your evidence for it. Then I will tell you the evidence that I think says that it was not fulfilled.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
We will take this in baby steps. First, God promised after the great flood he would never again flood the whole earth. It has never flooded again
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html
here is a site that talks about archeological evidence and scientific as well. If you are interested...
Why did you first refute the Bible?
Leah
Let's make sure we agree upon the parameters of this challenge. There are no baby steps here. I have investigated a number of creationist/fundamentalists claims and have found them all so far to be bogus. But to REALLY investigate it requires time. I'm willing to put in that time for what you think is the ONE best claim for prophesy fulfillment. But I expect you to put in the time to defend it. It is perfectly fine to reference other websites to SUBSTANTIATE what you present, but it is not OK to say go here for the data. YOU NEED to tell us why it is YOU THINK it is so unrefutable.
The reason for this is because it has been my experience that once I spend the time and refute a prophecy the response is ... "Yeah, but what about this other one?" That is unfair. I want you to come up with the ONE that you think is absolutely unrefutable. I think this is more than fair. It allows YOU to choose, and it makes it such that I can focus the response one topic.
If you want to choose this one ... The prophecy that you consider unrefutable is the prophecy that God would never destroy the world by a global flood again, then you need to defend ti. My response will center on the fact that the world was never destroyed by a global flood in the first place (where did the water come from/where did the water go/tree ring data, varves, ice cores showing that the earth goes back long before Genesis/radionuclide dating, astronomical data, etc that earth and the universe goes back even longer times/paleosols showing that there have been many local floods but no global ones/tectonic plates showing uplift of mountains over long times in a way that is inconsistent with a global flood/recorded Egyptian history that begins before the biblical dating of the flood and continues after the global flood without any mentioninf of a global flood/etc) and that even if we were to accept your word that a global flood did occur the "prophecy" said NEVER. That means until the end of time. The end of time hasn't yet come has it.
I think that is being more than forthright. If you want to defend this as an unrefutable prophecy, then all you need to do is present in your own words the evidence you think makes it so. In which case I will proceed to making my case that it isn't. However, you can certainly do that. All you have to do is tell us what it is that you want to defend and present you evidence that you think makes it irrefutable. And then I will direct my attention to that one.
===
My bible studies began with an attempt to determine if there were any signs of a supernatural influence into the bible. It has progressed to the point where I have study the history, and textual criticism of the bible, in order to understand what it is REALLY saying. I did that because I wanted to know if the bible contained a message to us from a supernatural creator. My conclusion was a strong NO.
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
A million books have a million assumptions, and you can interpet it as you feel fit.
You're falling victim to the self preservation bias..
Where you can't admit you're incorrect and will twist any future ideas to assimilate to your past assumptions.
You need to set your mind less on assimilation, and more on accomidation as your current path of thought is highly illogical and irrational for any creature..
You're zeros and ones, triggered or untriggered, there is no magical system that decides your outcome, the only thing deciding the outcome in your life is your enviornment.
You will chemically produce every response you ever make to the stimuli around you and have no need for falsities which inevitably will cripple your mind, so let the belief go, and look at the world(a spec, hay in a hay stack) rationally please..
I just hope you're not trying to use this in a scholarly setting. The bible isn't considered a scientific source. I won't take the time to point out everything that's wrong with your argument since everyone else has already done so.
cheers
F*** Religion. Read more here:
http://www.progressiveu.org/020528-f-religion
The bible isn't ever going to be a scientific source...that wasn't my point.
My point is the historical documentation, in other words, it can be said to be a historical source of information.
-Amanda-
Check out my blog
Wow...Amanda, don't let these people get to you. Your article was thought-provoking, and that's what the scientific community can't stand. They think that by insulting you personally, they are proving their points. In fact, that just makes them the losers. I, too, am a Christian - unfortunately a minority in America today. But I'm guessing I'm about your age, Amanda... 17 going on 18... highschool going on college. The first big smack that I got over the THEORY of Evolution vs. the THEORY of Creation was at the following site. I think you'd be interested in it. The comments on this article reached 400 something, and I was for the majority of it the only Creationist. (Andria would be muah)
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/florida_land_of_the_delusiona...
Andria, you certainly are an arrogant little thing, aren't you. Apparently, you are so devastatingly brilliant that you know better than actual working, practicing scientists what science is. How are your gifts being wasted in retail? Surely, the Lord wants something greater for you, right? Obviously, since you know better than people who do the actual science you should have already graduated from a top university and written a revolutionary book or two, right? Scientists love discoverers, people who overturn the way things are, make grand discoveries. They name theories after them and give them big old prizes. Surely, you've got some revolutionary work in you, the field of Andrianics, that given the way science operates, you would be able to persuade people who are scientists of a better way of doing it. After all, they no longer look for phlogisten, right?
So, put up. So far, you've demonstrated an unwarranted arrogance, borne from defining your own ignorance as a positive virtue. That's not skepticism, young lady. That's foolishness.
That's just one of their comments. They were all very similar. I admit, I went into the debate un-prepared for such opposition (I didn't realize I had stumbled upon a scientific journal -lol), but when I left I felt extremely challenged to PROVE God to them all. Soon I learned though, that It was not as important that I proved my beliefs, as it was that I come away with KNOWING what I really believe through it all. In fact, God does not need to be proved. He IS. Science can never define him, because science would limit him. People all through life will criticize the faith you have in something you can't see. But who cares? If we're all honest, scientists can speculate on what began our existence and formed our earth, but none of them were there. Often-times evolutionist-supporters, like the ones commenting here, are so brainwashed, they can't think outside the box. There IS evidence for Creation. You touched on some of them, like the stars distance/light study, and the biblical flood creating the sediment layers of earth, and there's also the biblical idea that God created a mature earth - not a baby one. Still, there is so much that could overwhelm you because it sounds so 'scientific' like Beagle-boy Darwin up there. Don't let it. He's just looking at science through little Evolutionist glasses. That pleases him. Let him stay blissfully biased towards the theory that chance and monkeys worked studiously among themselves to bring Beagle-boy live to us today.
Anyways, don't let it get to you. There's so much I could say, but I don't want this to get too long, so I'll end it here. Regardless, they are not the enemy, they are merely the majority.
Andria
Hey check out my wicked sweet blog - http://couchblog1.blogspot.com/2008/02/i-have-discovered-definition-to-t...
I'm sorry Andria, but Christians are NOT a minority in America. I would LIKE to say that the number of atheists (out or in the closet) is larger than I presume, but we have very little data of that fact.
And I don't believe that Amanda has been attacked at all. The previous posts ONLY pointed out fallacies in her argument and challenged her. For the sake of what she believes in (and, quite honestly, her pride) that challenge should be welcome.
What that commenter on the scientific journal said to you was not completely respectful. They called you names; I'm not down with that. I can't say I read your comment on the site, so I don't know what you said to make that commenter so flustered.
But I don't think you should reciprocate disrespect. "Brainwashed" is a harsh term, especially when applied to a scientific individual; they typically spend a vast quantity of their lives dedicated to thinking "outside of the box" as you say.
I know that your intention was to cheer Amanda up and show her that someone is on her side, but the opposition never resorted to name-calling or purely negative adjectives to describe you Creationists. Reserve for them the same respect.
we were created and evolved from anaerobic bacteria... or something like that.