Death Knell Of Creationism Or A Flawed Watchmaker?: L-Gulonolactone Oxidase

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Fair enough. However evolution doesn't concern itself with how life started. That is abiogenesis. Evolution concerns itself with how life changed AFTER it first appeared.

Evolution? That is a fun topic. Abiogensis. I reject that. Not much evidence there for life to basically spawn from nothing or a rock. Wait, it really was a soupy protien mess. Yes that sounds so much better.

[thesometimesaint]

Evolution? That is a fun topic. Abiogensis. I reject that. Not much evidence there for life to basically spawn from nothing or a rock. Wait, it really was a soupy protien mess. Yes that sounds so much better.

It really doesn't bother me a bit that God used a logical self sustaining process to create and maintain life on one of his many worlds.

[bu11fr0g]

@cdowis

The key are the genes shown in green. These are all functional genes in apes and monkeys except for only chimps and men.

There are a series of brown genes that are present but mutated to be nonfunctional in men.

There are further genes listed that are nonfunctional in some but not all primates. The pattern shows how man and chimps are much more genetically related to each other than either is to other great apes

[ERayR]

Fair enough. However evolution doesn't concern itself with how life started. That is abiogenesis. Evolution concerns itself with how life changed AFTER it first appeared.

There is a lot of conjecture there too.

[ERayR]

Hey wait a minute. It just dawned on me that the primates are further advanced(evolutionarily speaking) than homo sapiens. The evidence is that their natural habitat is tropical to semi-tropical jungles. Thus no need for housing, heating or cooling. No home repairs and up keep. No property taxes or mortgage payments. No need for clothing and food can be gleaned all around them (provided one isn't to picky about diet). No cars so no licenses, insurance, car payments, no repair shops, no roads and freeways. No politicians to scheme and plunder the public treasury. No electronic gadgets that are obsolete before you get them home. I am sure I have missed many advantages and indications that they have evolved beyond homo sapiens. Perhaps the best indications is they don't sit at computers having these futile discussions.

Edited April 1, 2013 by ERayR

[bcuzbcuz]

Hey wait a minute. It just dawned on me that the primates are further advanced(evolutionarily speaking) than homo sapiens. The evidence is that their natural habitat is tropical to semi-tropical jungles. Thus no need for housing, heating or cooling. No home repairs and up keep. No property taxes or mortgage payments. No need for clothing and food can be gleaned all around them (provided one isn't to picky about diet). No cars so no licenses, insurance, car payments, no repair shops, no roads and freeways. No politicians to scheme and plunder the public treasury. No electronic gadgets that are obsolete before you get them home. I am sure I have missed many advantages and indications that they have evolved beyond homo sapiens. Perhaps the best indications is they don't sit at computers having these futile discussions.

Yes, ignorance is bliss.

[bu11fr0g]

Hey wait a minute. It just dawned on me that the primates are further advanced(evolutionarily speaking) than homo sapiens. The evidence is that their natural habitat is tropical to semi-tropical jungles. Thus no need for housing, heating or cooling. No home repairs and up keep. No property taxes or mortgage payments. No need for clothing and food can be gleaned all around them (provided one isn't to picky about diet). No cars so no licenses, insurance, car payments, no repair shops, no roads and freeways. No politicians to scheme and plunder the public treasury. No electronic gadgets that are obsolete before you get them home. I am sure I have missed many advantages and indications that they have evolved beyond homo sapiens. Perhaps the best indications is they don't sit at computers having these futile discussions.

This is wrong on so many levels, it is humorous to me.

1- homo sapiens are primates

2- 'evolutionary advanced' is a dubious term. 'biologically fit for a particular environment' is reasonable. there are parts of the jungle that chimpanzees have historically been better than humans in.

3- there are many, many more environments that humans will do better in, particularly since we can modify environments and even in the jungles humans will do better.

4- many apes are at great risk for extinction due to human interaction. by definition, this means the apes are less fit in the current environment.

5- 'evolved beyond' again is a very dubious term.

I agree that sitting at computers having dubious discussions is a potential problem. This is still a pretty reasonable place to get strong opposing opinions to see if I am missing something -- it is the best place I have found yet. Though there are occasional flippant answers that don't really help anyone.

[ERayR]

This is wrong on so many levels, it is humorous to me.

1- homo sapiens are primates

2- 'evolutionary advanced' is a dubious term. 'biologically fit for a particular environment' is reasonable. there are parts of the jungle that chimpanzees have historically been better than humans in.

3- there are many, many more environments that humans will do better in, particularly since we can modify environments and even in the jungles humans will do better.

4- many apes are at great risk for extinction due to human interaction. by definition, this means the apes are less fit in the current environment.

5- 'evolved beyond' again is a very dubious term.

I agree that sitting at computers having dubious discussions is a potential problem. This is still a pretty reasonable place to get strong opposing opinions to see if I am missing something -- it is the best place I have found yet. Though there are occasional flippant answers that don't really help anyone.

You obviously did not see my tongue planted firmly in my cheek. It is April Fools you know. Went fishing and caught a couple of sucker fish.

Edited April 2, 2013 by ERayR

[Rob Osborn]

Fair enough. However evolution doesn't concern itself with how life started. That is abiogenesis. Evolution concerns itself with how life changed AFTER it first appeared.

Hummmm... seems like we go over this every time we discuss evolution and it gets shown that evolution does indeed deal directly with how life first "evolved".

[harfad]

I have thought about it a lot for a long time. No reason other than deliberate subterfuge in anticipation of future discoveries springs to mind. I have found this answer to be increasingly inadequate. I had put this on a shelf for a long time. I now find the answer completely inadequate. How can I trust a prophet if God deliberately deceives?

I am hoping there are answers i don't know.

There are a couple of verses in the Quran in which God curses a bunch of sinners by turning them into apes! (2:065; 7:166) So it may be that the explanation for your query is not that men descended from chimps, but that chimps descended from men.

[cdowis]

@cdowis

The key are the genes shown in green. These are all functional genes in apes and monkeys except for only chimps and men.

There are a series of brown genes that are present but mutated to be nonfunctional in men.

There are further genes listed that are nonfunctional in some but not all primates. The pattern shows how man and chimps are much more genetically related to each other than either is to other great apes

Let me see if I get it.

Humans have genes in common with apes, but they are inactive in humans but active in apes, correct?

Question: what is their function?

Edited April 2, 2013 by cdowis

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hummmm... seems like we go over this every time we discuss evolution and it gets shown that evolution does indeed deal directly with how life first "evolved".

So some people want their evolution and eat it too?

I think it is quite funny actually. Everytime they discuss abiogensis they talk about evolution. Like both were going on at the exact same time. It often gets conflated. Really I think it just comes down to abiogenisis being untenable. So they are reaching for anything to make it stick. I would be happy if they just said "we don't know how life started".

Edited April 2, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It really doesn't bother me a bit that God used a logical self sustaining process to create and maintain life on one of his many worlds.

Are you talking about abiogensis or evolution? Just making sure because if you are talking about abiogensis well I think you need to rethink your position just a bit. If the later I think we agree.

[thesometimesaint]

Hummmm... seems like we go over this every time we discuss evolution and it gets shown that evolution does indeed deal directly with how life first "evolved".

Not if the dictionary means anything.

[thesometimesaint]

You cant know anything here, its all conjecture.

It is conjecture. Here are some of the more established ones.

http://www.talkorigi...CB/CB010_2.html

Claim CB010.2:

The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance. (See also Probability of abiogenesis.)

Source:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 44.

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 59-69.

Response:

1. Biochemistry is not chance. It inevitably produces complex products. Amino acids and other complex molecules are even known to form in space.
   
2. Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).
   
3. This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:
   
   • Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.
     
   • Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.
     
   • Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.
     
   • Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.
     
   • The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003). A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world (Huber et al. 2003).
     
   • Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.
     
   • Something that no one has thought of yet.
     

I tend to a agree with Emerging Hypercycles. But I really don't know. No ones does at this point.

Edited April 2, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

It is conjecture. Here are some of the more established ones.

http://www.talkorigi...CB/CB010_2.html

Claim CB010.2:

The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance. (See also Probability of abiogenesis.)

Source:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 44.

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 59-69.

Response:

1. Biochemistry is not chance. It inevitably produces complex products. Amino acids and other complex molecules are even known to form in space.
   
2. Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).
   
3. This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible. In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:
   
   • Panspermia, which says life came from someplace other than earth. This theory, however, still does not answer how the first life arose.
     
   • Proteinoid microspheres (Fox 1960, 1984; Fox and Dose 1977; Fox et al. 1995; Pappelis and Fox 1995): This theory gives a plausible account of how some replicating structures, which might well be called alive, could have arisen. Its main difficulty is explaining how modern cells arose from the microspheres.
     
   • Clay crystals (Cairn-Smith 1985): This says that the first replicators were crystals in clay. Though they do not have a metabolism or respond to the environment, these crystals carry information and reproduce. Again, there is no known mechanism for moving from clay to DNA.
     
   • Emerging hypercycles: This proposes a gradual origin of the first life, roughly in the following stages: (1) a primordial soup of simple organic compounds. This seems to be almost inevitable; (2) nucleoproteins, somewhat like modern tRNA (de Duve 1995a) or peptide nucleic acid (Nelson et al. 2000), and semicatalytic; (3) hypercycles, or pockets of primitive biochemical pathways that include some approximate self-replication; (4) cellular hypercycles, in which more complex hypercycles are enclosed in a primitive membrane; (5) first simple cell. Complexity theory suggests that the self-organization is not improbable. This view of abiogenesis is the current front-runner.
     
   • The iron-sulfur world (Russell and Hall 1997; Wächtershäuser 2000): It has been found that all the steps for the conversion of carbon monoxide into peptides can occur at high temperature and pressure, catalyzed by iron and nickel sulfides. Such conditions exist around submarine hydrothermal vents. Iron sulfide precipitates could have served as precursors of cell walls as well as catalysts (Martin and Russell 2003). A peptide cycle, from peptides to amino acids and back, is a prerequisite to metabolism, and such a cycle could have arisen in the iron-sulfur world (Huber et al. 2003).
     
   • Polymerization on sheltered organophilic surfaces (Smith et al. 1999): The first self-replicating molecules may have formed within tiny indentations of silica-rich surfaces so that the surrounding rock was its first cell wall.
     
   • Something that no one has thought of yet.
     

I tend to a agree with Emerging Hypercycles. But I really don't know. No ones does at this point.

So, its pretty much entirely conjecture on how life began or if evolution was even part of it. At least we can both agree that scientists are clueless as to how to explain how life may have arose.

[bu11fr0g]

Scientists admit these are conjectures. They will develop experiments to look at evidence in favor or against these theories.

In contrast, most religious theories ....

[kenporay]

Every so often I read about an newly discovered painting or writing by some long dead writer or artist. Experts think they can come up with the writer or painter based on similarities in the newly discovered work and known works by the same person. Should we suppose that God's work might likewise be similar.

I've even heard experts assign works to early, mid and late career of a person. Perhaps single-celled creatures are "early works" of creation while humankind is a "late work."

So the inability to produce the c vitamin is interesting, it doesn't seem like "proof positive" of evolution. No more than the inability of some, but not all, adult humans to digest milk once they get past maybe 20 years of age. So some of us just have to take evolution on faith since we can find evidence but not proof (like proof in mathematics, not like in common speach).

[ERayR]

Scientists admit these are conjectures. They will develop experiments to look at evidence in favor or against these theories.

In contrast, most religious theories ....

are just as valid as these conjectures.

[ERayR]

Every so often I read about an newly discovered painting or writing by some long dead writer or artist. Experts think they can come up with the writer or painter based on similarities in the newly discovered work and known works by the same person. Should we suppose that God's work might likewise be similar.

I've even heard experts assign works to early, mid and late career of a person. Perhaps single-celled creatures are "early works" of creation while humankind is a "late work."

So the inability to produce the c vitamin is interesting, it doesn't seem like "proof positive" of evolution. No more than the inability of some, but not all, adult humans to digest milk once they get past maybe 20 years of age. So some of us just have to take evolution on faith since we can find evidence but not proof (like proof in mathematics, not like in common speach).

Yep it all depends on where you want to put your faith. I must clarify that some religious scenarios are just as ridiculous to me as are most evolutionary scenarios.

[bu11fr0g]

It is not a matter of where do you want to put your faith. It is a matter of what the consistent observations are and what is consistent with those observations if we are looking for objective reality.

[bu11fr0g]

Frankly, Bruce R McConkies creation story (ie no blood in creatures, no death anywhere on eart 10,000 years ago) has no more basis in reality than Hubbles story or native american mythologies.

[bu11fr0g]

@erayr

What religious scenario is not as ridiculuous as evolution to you and why is the religious scenario more plausible?

[mathonihah]

You are mixing up an awful lot of stuff that have nothing to do with each other.

Frankly, Bruce R McConkies creation story (ie no blood in creatures, ...

Maybe, or maybe not. That doctrine has no scriptural basis, and is as likely to be false as it is to be true. And BRM does not establish Church doctrine.

no death anywhere on eart 10,000 years ago) has no more basis in reality than Hubbles story or native american mythologies.

On what basis? What makes you think you know so much? God has revealed that this earth was created out of preexistent materials. How do you know that fossil records showing life dating to millions of years ago were not part of an earlier creation? Can you prove that they aren't? Or how do you know that this earth has not gone through more than one creation cycle (of biblical kind)? Can you prove that it hasn't?

Not believing in a miraculous creation story is one thing, being able to justify it by rational means is something else. You would be better off just saying that you do not believe in the story, rather than trying to justify it by dubious scientific theories.

Edited April 3, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

@erayr

What religious scenario is not as ridiculuous as evolution to you and why is the religious scenario more plausible?

Evolution is not a proven scientific fact, and neither is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, it is possible to know the truth of both those two things by a revelation from God, for those who have faith and believe.