Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4337
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby abelcainsbrother » Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:29 pm

We know that evolution is built on assumption,imagination and the belief evolution is true because the only kind of evidence they have presented for evidence proves normal variation amongst a population and they use this evidence to cover everything,from evolution,micro-evolution,macro-evolution,ring species,speciation,mutations,natural selection,etc the rest is just imagination,assumption and evolution belief made to fit into the evidence. Assuming that given enough time because there is normal variation amongst a population that one kind of life can evolve into a new and totally different kind of creature is alot like extending a graph of the growth of a new puppy over its first few weeks of life as "proof" that in five years time it will be the size of an elephant.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

User avatar
Mazzy
Valued Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:30 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Mazzy » Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:59 pm

PaulSacramento wrote:Or complex to simple as it seems:

http://nautil.us/issue/9/Time/evolution-youre-drunk

Exert:

Amoebas are puny, stupid blobs, so scientists were surprised to learn that they contain 200 times more DNA than Einstein did. Because amoebas are made of just one cell, researchers assumed they would be simpler than humans genetically. Plus, amoebas date back farther in time than humans, and simplicity is considered an attribute of primitive beings. It just didn’t make sense...

Then molecular analyses did something else. They rearranged the order of branches on evolutionary trees. Biologists pushed aside trees based on how similar organisms looked to one another, and made new ones based on similarities in DNA and protein sequences. The results suggested that complex body parts evolved multiple times and had also been lost. One study found that winged stick insects evolved from wingless stick insects who had winged ancestors. 2 Another analysis suggested that extremely simple animals called acoel worms—a quarter inch long and with just one hole for eating and excreting—evolved from an ancestor with a separate mouth and anus. 3 Biologists’ arrow of time swung forward and backward and forward again.

Late last year, the animal evolutionary tree quaked at its root. A team led by Joseph Ryan, an evolutionary biologist who splits his time between the National Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Md. and the Sars International Center for Marine Molecular Biology in Bergen, Norway, analyzed the genome from a comb jelly, Mnemiopsis leidyi, a complex marine predator with muscles, nerves, a rudimentary brain, and bioluminescence, and found that the animals may have originated before simple sponges, which lack all of those features. 4...



Back to the thread topic.......... You may like to take this up with hugh. The info below is behind the article you quoted from.

"Polychaos dubium has one of the largest genomes known for any organism, consisting of 670 billion base pairs or 670 Gbp,[4] which is over 200 times larger than the human genome (3.2 Gbp). The authors of one 2004 study, however, suggest treating that measurement with caution, because it was taken before the advent of modern genomic methods.[4]"
McGrath, Casey, L, & Katz, Laura A. (2004). "Genome diversity in microbial eukaryotes". TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychaos_dubium

Polychaos dubium carries far more genetic code than a human.

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby hughfarey » Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:09 am

"Late last year..."

In spite of being told how incompetent I am, I think I'm going to give a lesson on how to respond to new information one comes across in the popular press. If you want to attempt to use it scientifically, there are important ways of establishing its, and your, credibility.

1) Drill down. What is the 'explosive' article really about? Upon what research is it based, what was the data collected and what was the conclusion the authors drew from it. For this, there is no option but to find and study the original paper.

2) Query. Unless it is a very new paper, immediately ask yourself, is it true? How has it been received by other scientists researching the same thing. Have any other papers been published on the same subject? Note that it is important to do this whether the new information supports or refutes your own ideas. If it supports your ideas, you are inclined to take it as Gospel without any further exploration, which is usually a mistake, and if it refutes your ideas, then maybe there are holes in it which other readers have already pointed out.

3) Apply. Think about how the new information fits into your whole paradigm. Does it actively support your ideas, or does it only refute your opponent's. Discovering that B is definitely wrong is not the same as proving that A is definitely correct. Sometimes new information damages A and B together, and sometimes the support it seems to give to A also turns out to support B as well.

With all that in mind, let's have a look at PaulSacramento's bombshell, which made the animal evolutionary tree quake at its root.

In an article dated 30 January 2014, three years ago, Amy Maxmen drew on a paper dated 13 December 2013 by Joseph Ryan, called 'The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution.' Ryan and his colleagues studied comparable sections of the genomes of representative samples of five major divisions of the animal kingdom, in an attempt to derive the ancestral relationships between them. The five divisions were the bilateria, cnidaria, placozoa, porifera and ctenophora. Placozoa are a fascinating group of multicellular animals resembling amoebas, but not apparently very structurally organised, and porifera are sponges, which mostly stick to one place, but are also not apparently very structurally organised. Until Ryan's studies, it was assumed that the three more organised groups were more closely related to each other than to the two less organised groups, although the position of the placozoa was, and still is, rather uncertain. Ctenophores look very like cnidarians, but, significantly, have some characteristics of the bilateria (such as anal openings). This suggested that the ancestors of all animal life divided first into the 'ordered' and 'unordered' groups, and then the 'ordered' group divided into 'anus' and 'no anus', which finally divided into 'ctenophores' and 'bilateria'. Ryan's work queried this. He suggested that he had discovered that an 'anal' group was ancestral to all other animal life, and that the group I have called 'disordered', as well as the cnidaria, were the result of more severe genome simplification than had previously been considered reasonable. We should note that simplification itself was not then, not had been for many years, surprising. Many animals have 'simplified' features, and genomes, compared to the ancestors from which they undoubtedly descended. The loss of legs in various vertebrate groups is a classic case in point.

So far, so good, until almost exactly two years later, 15 December 2015, when Davide Pisani and colleagues published 'Genomic data do not support comb jellies as the sister group to all other animals', in which they reviewed Ryan's work in detail, and did not find that it supported the conclusions he drew from it. There are still many unresolved issues around the development of bilateralism, anuses and nervous systems, but porifera have been firmly relegated to a position outside these discussions. (Placozoa are still fighting for a place next to the bilaterans though, like poor relatives appearing at a wake and demanding a slice of the will...)

Does all this help any of the spontaneous creationist philosophies? Well, no. From some of this research, one might make a good case for God creating a single original blob containing every single genetic possibility, from which all other creatures are derived, gradually selecting whichever genes were appropriate to their 'kind' and losing the others, until we end up with the rich diversity of life we see today, when plants have lost the genes for making legs, and animals hve lost the genes for photosynthesis. But this is surely just another form of evolution, not a case for successive spontaneous creation of individual organisms.

Mazzy wrote: ... [stuff ]...
No response needed. I've put my case and you don't like it. Fair enough. We differ. The discussion is not personal but for the consideration and deliberation of all our readers. Let them assess our different opinions for themselves.

One more thing though. The idea that a complex phylogeny "ought to" be represented by a complex genome, and what we mean by complex. An analogy might be that of the human brain, which achieves its maximum neuron complexity at the age of about 20, after which it begins to lose neurons at the rate of about 2% per decade. However, knowledge, wisdom and intelligence increase.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8151
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby PaulSacramento » Tue Mar 28, 2017 5:51 am

In short, science is ever changing and absolute statements have NO PLACE in science, especially in the fields that are NOT direct observable.
Just because physics gets such amazing results, doesn't mean ALL sciences are "created" equal.

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby hughfarey » Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:24 am

PaulSacramento wrote:In short, science is ever changing and absolute statements have NO PLACE in science, especially in the fields that are NOT direct observable. Just because physics gets such amazing results, doesn't mean ALL sciences are "created" equal.
Absolutely correct. Some sciences are more equal than others.

User avatar
Mazzy
Valued Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:30 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Mazzy » Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:37 am

hughfarey wrote:
Mazzy wrote: ... [stuff ]...
No response needed. I've put my case and you don't like it. Fair enough. We differ. The discussion is not personal but for the consideration and deliberation of all our readers. Let them assess our different opinions for themselves.

One more thing though. The idea that a complex phylogeny "ought to" be represented by a complex genome, and what we mean by complex. An analogy might be that of the human brain, which achieves its maximum neuron complexity at the age of about 20, after which it begins to lose neurons at the rate of about 2% per decade. However, knowledge, wisdom and intelligence increase.


No worries, I don't take your bailing out on a discussion with me personally. I know there is no fossil evidence to support deep ancestries. You say you can present such fossil evidence but you couldn't be bothered. However we all know if there was more than a few teeth, jaws and single bones to support the family Miacidae you would have presented it, instead of long posts.

On your point above. Yes, I believe the human brain is likely the most complex structure in the universe. It's hard to believe some suggest mankind is just another ape.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3334
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby neo-x » Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:43 am

Hugh, K, I really enjoyed reading the discussion between you guys.

BTW, Hugh, takes a lot to answer so many questions and explain things. Respect.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby hughfarey » Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:38 pm

That's very kind; thank you.

Morny
Valued Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:05 pm
Christian: No

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Morny » Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:35 pm

hughfarey wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:In short, science is ever changing and absolute statements have NO PLACE in science, especially in the fields that are NOT direct observable. Just because physics gets such amazing results, doesn't mean ALL sciences are "created" equal.

Absolutely correct. Some sciences are more equal than others.

All sciences rest equally on the foundation of the scientific method.

Science doesn't change willy-nilly - science changes to encompass new information, as well as old. Kepler changed astronomy by resolving annoying flaws in the idea of circular planetary orbits. Einstein changed astronomy by resolving an annoying flaw in the orbit of Mercury. Their new theories encompassed not only the new data, but also _all_ the old data.

Mazzy wrote:I know there is no fossil evidence to support deep ancestries.

Science constantly and productively debates issues at the farthest reaches of our knowledge and technology. For example, having any confidence from genetic studies on which of either comb jellies or sponges from 600+ mya are directly ancestral to us is spectacularly difficult at the moment.

However, the objective pattern of the "tree of life" (technically, the nested hierarchy of biological traits) is no longer under scientific debate, especially after the geneticists confirmed nearly the same "tree of life" that biologists from Darwin onward had worked out.

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4337
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby abelcainsbrother » Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:37 am

The tree of life itself proves the scientific method was not used when it comes to evolution.It is just made up based on believing life evolves without any peer-reviewed evidence that will confirm life evolves.Once scientists start assuming and making up things in order to promote their theory we can discount other things they claim when it comes to evolution like all life is related gentically because they are making up things as they go along.

But there is no way the evolution tree of life can be correct when you don't even know if life evolves.Evolution has no credible mechanism and it is their own fault because other scientists who accept evolution have pointed it out and have proposed new mechanisms for how life evolves trying to help evolution only to be ignored by the evolution dogma of the majority.The majority just relies on the faith and belief life evolves and are OK with it,being so bold as to claim the science is settled when they still do not even know if life evolves after 150 years and counting.They have the cart before the horse when it comes to the scientific method. If scientists cannot demonstrate life evolves and cannot even make life evolve in the lab they are not going by the scientific method.

Another way to say it is that the evolution tree of life cannot be correct if we get into the peer reviewed evidence used for evidence life evolves that will only demonstrate normal vriation amongst a population for evidence.Variation amongst a population is normal and cannot be used for evidence life evolves.

The reason why variation cannot be used for evidence life evolves is because Charles Darwin sold the theory of evolution using normal variation to assume that these small changes can lead to big change over time with natural selection working on it to eventually turn one kind of life into a new and totally different kind of life over time.So scientists cannot prove normal variation is true and use it for evidence life evolves,which is what they have done.

You see they have proven normal variation amongst a population that is normal and rely on you to accept it is reasonable to believe by faith that over time little changes can lead to big changes over time so that life can evolve.

They are doing the exact same thing Darwin did 150 years ago getting you to assume things can happen with the only difference is scientists today have unnecessarily proven normal variation amongst a population and use it for evidence life evolves.Because this is common knowledge stuff that did not need to be proven to us because plant and animal breeders knew all about normal variation amongst a population hence dogs and roses. Just think about all of the different shapes and sizes of dogs and we don't need normal variation amongst a population proven to us.It was already proven to us by plant and animal breeders for thousands of years and Darwin himself knew this.Instead they were supposed to work on proving life evolves and they have never been successful at doing this,not even close and so just rely on normal variation amongst a population for evidence life evolves still today after 150 years.

Still selling the idea to you life evolves based on you assuming that because scientists have proven normal variation amongst a population these little changes we get from normal variation amongst a population can lead to big changes over time allowing life to evolve.So that you still must assume and have faith life evolves after 150 years.This means the evolution tree of life is a made up myth based on assuming and having faith life evolves.
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

Morny
Valued Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:05 pm
Christian: No

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Morny » Sun Jun 04, 2017 6:13 pm

How might the scientific method work on a claim of common descent? Using the panoply of biological traits, how would you group hog-nosed bats, robins, and blue whales?
A, B, or C?

Code: Select all

A:  --+----- blue whale
      |
      +--+-- robin
         |
         +-- hog-nosed bat

B:  --+----- robin
      |
      +--+-- hog-nosed bat
         |
         +-- blue whale

C:  --+----- hog-nosed bat
      |
      +--+-- robin
         |
         +-- blue whale

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 6078
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Philip » Sun Jun 04, 2017 6:57 pm

Morny: How might the scientific method work on a claim of common descent? Using the panoply of biological traits, how would you group hog-nosed bats, robins, and blue whales? A, B, or C?


It really doesn't matter how one groups them. It the Designer creates and manipulates the genetic coding, from which He can assemble species in any various ways He so desires, or if He utilizes commonality per various aspects of physical/biological designs, locomotion, traits, and other similarities that have cross-functional advantages, that explains perfectly the similarities - genetically and physically. One cannot deny that would explain what is otherwise assumed to be the result of common ancestors between species / evolutionary processes at work. Course, as I'm fond of pointing out, evolution answers not one thing about the existence of God, and yet non-theists love pointlessly going on and on about it - as if it provides a solution for non-theistic origins. It does not! What came into existence sprang from something of untold great power and intelligence that was eternal and non-physical. What showed up at the universe's beginning were not RANDOM things, but precisely what was needed to build the universe that became as it is. Functionality and awesome designs and necessary interactive cross functionalities and fine-tuning were apparent moments after the Big Bang event started.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9116
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Kurieuo » Sun Jun 04, 2017 7:24 pm

Humans are great at reading patterns into things, there are many eye tricks that demonstrate this.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
abelcainsbrother
Ultimate Member
Posts: 4337
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:31 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Gap Theory

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby abelcainsbrother » Mon Jun 05, 2017 2:33 am

Morny wrote:How might the scientific method work on a claim of common descent? Using the panoply of biological traits, how would you group hog-nosed bats, robins, and blue whales?
A, B, or C?

Code: Select all

A:  --+----- blue whale
      |
      +--+-- robin
         |
         +-- hog-nosed bat

B:  --+----- robin
      |
      +--+-- hog-nosed bat
         |
         +-- blue whale

C:  --+----- hog-nosed bat
      |
      +--+-- robin
         |
         +-- blue whale


It is all how we look at the evidence and it is being looked at from an evolution view-point. Now personally I do not believe evolution,but if you do? You should still atleast acknowledge that God got it all started to cause it to happen and that it could not happen on it own. But getting back to the evidence it is being looked at from an evolution view point. Which I believe is the wrong view-point.

I mean if you believe life evolves?Then you can interpret the evidence to show common descent. However if we do not look at it from an evolution view-point we could just as easily claim that God created life at different times over billions of years at different times and be just as believable. Now you may claim that this is "God of the gaps" thinking however if you do not believe in God then you're using "materialism of the gaps" and "God of the gaps" will beat out "materialism of the gaps" any day if put to a vote.

Because it is not hard to believe God who is eternal can create life.We read about God doing miracles althroughout the bible and so God can create universes and life easy if he chooses to.But if you reject God then all you've got is "materialism of the gaps" which will require far,far more faith to accept than to just believe God did it.You've got got to believe things that require awhole lot more faith if you reject God.

No Exclusions. For you.
https://youtu.be/fswX_wJ63cc
Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

Morny
Valued Member
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:05 pm
Christian: No

Re: Evolving from Simple to Complex?

Postby Morny » Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:23 am

Kurieuo wrote:Humans are great at reading patterns into things, [...]

Yes, both a curse ("The Earth is clearly flat.") and a blessing ("Hmmm... that's odd, the east coast of S. America matches the west coast of Africa.").

Fortunately, the scientific method is spectacularly effective at separating curses from blessings. Make a hypothesis, gather evidence and/or perform experiments, evaluate results for/against the hypothesis.


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests