Jump to content

Which Came First; Animals Or Adam?


JAHS

Recommended Posts

If Evolution was used by The Lord, were Adam and Eve fraternal twins because they were born of the same monkey parents?

Or is Evolution so precise, that Adam was born of one set of monkey parents?

And Eve was born of another set of monkey parents?

And the 4 monkey parents were born of 8 monkey parents?

And Adam and Eve had Monkeys for Uncles?

And Adam was a monkey's Uncle?

 

Humans are a species of Ape.

Link to comment

The problem is that without DNA and it precursor RNA there is no evolution in living organisms. Evolution in biology is where one living species of organism changes over time to the point where subsequent generations can no longer interbreed with the parent species,

Why do you take such an absolutist position?  The point of Greg Laden's essay is that there were very likely many different avenues of chemical evolution, one of which is the development of primitive RNA.  But you should not rule out the possibility of other processes that could have prevailed that would have looked very different from the 4-element DNA.  I am getting the impression that you do NOT comprehend the gracious overview that Greg has provided.   That chemical evolution is a necessary precursor to biological evolution.  Which came first?   Why could not chemical evolution continue to occur, even after the emergence of biological evolution?   Why can't scientists investigate different possible precursors?  It ought to be possible to set up various kinds of experiments under controlled conditions.

Link to comment

Genesis isn't a science book.

I agree with Rivers.

In fact the word "Genesis" could be replaced with any of the following:

The Bible

The Book of Mormon

...Moses

...Abraham

The D&C

etc, etc

The creation myth of ancient peoples (or even 19thC people) isn't a reliable source of scientific explanation.

Link to comment

Why do you take such an absolutist position?  The point of Greg Laden's essay is that there were very likely many different avenues of chemical evolution, one of which is the development of primitive RNA.  But you should not rule out the possibility of other processes that could have prevailed that would have looked very different from the 4-element DNA.  I am getting the impression that you do NOT comprehend the gracious overview that Greg has provided.   That chemical evolution is a necessary precursor to biological evolution.  Which came first?   Why could not chemical evolution continue to occur, even after the emergence of biological evolution?   Why can't scientists investigate different possible precursors?  It ought to be possible to set up various kinds of experiments under controlled conditions.

 

It is not an absolutist position. But science isn't about all the possible ways to solve a problem. It concerns itself with what can be demonstrated. The limiting factor in science is known as the 'law of parsimony'.

 

They don't hand out Nobel Prizes in Medicine for something that hasn't been demonstrated.

 

Sure; all you have to do is demonstrate how the hypothesis works. Either in the lab or in nature. So far that hasn't been done.

Link to comment

It is not an absolutist position. But science isn't about all the possible ways to solve a problem. It concerns itself with what can be demonstrated. The limiting factor in science is known as the 'law of parsimony'.

 

They don't hand out Nobel Prizes in Medicine for something that hasn't been demonstrated.

 

Sure; all you have to do is demonstrate how the hypothesis works. Either in the lab or in nature. So far that hasn't been done.

As a scientist I used to perform what were called accelerated stability studies on a biological product to quickly see how long it would keep at a refrigerated temperature. The product would be incubated at 35C for 10 days which, according to the Arrhenius equation, would equal about one year at refrigerated temperature(5C). 
It's too bad we can not in a similar way perform an accelerated study of some kind to test the theory of evolution. Until we can do that there will never be a way to actually observe the process. 
Link to comment

Well, just as soon as an E.coli is shown to evolve into a homo erectus I will consider the possibility.

 

If you won't accept the evidence that simple bacteria over the course of about one billion years evolved into us. Why would you accept that they evolved into one of our progenitors?

SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsHEAnPX59Y#t=627

Link to comment

 

As a scientist I used to perform what were called accelerated stability studies on a biological product to quickly see how long it would keep at a refrigerated temperature. The product would be incubated at 35C for 10 days which, according to the Arrhenius equation, would equal about one year at refrigerated temperature(5C). 
It's too bad we can not in a similar way perform an accelerated study of some kind to test the theory of evolution. Until we can do that there will never be a way to actually observe the process. 

 

Are you aware of any attempts to study chemical evolution?  Precursors like primitive RNA?  Do you think it would be possible to test various compounds under controlled (hopefully at an accelerated pace) conditions that would lead to cell-like processes?   Do you understand how and why RNA carry messages between various parts within the cell?  Is it magic?  is it intelligence?  Your comments welcome!

Link to comment

If you won't accept the evidence that simple bacteria over the course of about one billion years evolved into us. Why would you accept that they evolved into one of our progenitors?

SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsHEAnPX59Y#t=627

Actually I have no problem in considering the possibility that God may have used some form of evolution which led to what we have and are today, so long as God is recognized as architect and controler of the existance of life.  My point is that we can not prove emperically in the lab that we are the end result of an evolutionary process. That's why it is called a theory and not a law.

Link to comment

Are you aware of any attempts to study chemical evolution?  Precursors like primitive RNA?  Do you think it would be possible to test various compounds under controlled (hopefully at an accelerated pace) conditions that would lead to cell-like processes?   Do you understand how and why RNA carry messages between various parts within the cell?  Is it magic?  is it intelligence?  Your comments welcome!

 

In my opinion the only way it could be tested is to somehow jump forward a million years and see what we have then compared to now.  Even in my accelerated stability studies I sometimes had problems with just the higher temperature itself  having a secondary deleterious effect on the testing material that would not have happpened at lower refrigerated temperatures. But it was the best we could do to get the needed information. Any artificial conditions used in the lab to test an evolutionary process might also skew the results enough to make them unreliable. What happens in a cell is not magic; it is science, created by the head scientist himself who put things in motion and let them develop according to His plans. 

Link to comment

In my opinion the only way it could be tested is to somehow jump forward a million years and see what we have then compared to now.  Even in my accelerated stability studies I sometimes had problems with just the higher temperature itself  having a secondary deleterious effect on the testing material that would not have happpened at lower refrigerated temperatures. But it was the best we could do to get the needed information. Any artificial conditions used in the lab to test an evolutionary process might also skew the results enough to make them unreliable. What happens in a cell is not magic; it is science, created by the head scientist himself who put things in motion and let them develop according to His plans. 

Thank you.   What have you heard among scientists about the how and why of locomotion of messenger RNAs?  It would seem the features of the cell make it more like a intricate and complex machine than some random product of evolution.

Edited by longview
Link to comment

Actually I have no problem in considering the possibility that God may have used some form of evolution which led to what we have and are today, so long as God is recognized as architect and controler of the existance of life. My point is that we can not prove emperically in the lab that we are the end result of an evolutionary process. That's why it is called a theory and not a law.

You do realize that the term theory in science has a very different meaning than the general usage of the word I hope. And in many scientific theories, such as evolution, it is really more factual usage.

Edited by Teancum
Link to comment

The grand question is how many eons did animals exist on the planet before Adam and Eve came along, plus we don't know how long Adam and Eve where in the Garden of Eden.  Science gives us lots of insight and sometimes answers into the mysteries of God.  Many of these we wont know until the second coming.  Till then it’s fun to speculate and try to understand the inner workings of God. 

Link to comment

My point is that we can not prove emperically in the lab that we are the end result of an evolutionary process. That's why it is called a theory and not a law.

 

A theory is ""a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" "

 Laws do not exist, they only exist in our vocabulary. 

The theory of Evolution made a lot of predictions that are true, how do you explain that? 

Edited by TheSkepticChristian
Link to comment

A theory is ""a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" "

 Laws do not exist, they only exist in our vocabulary. 

The theory of Evolution made a lot of predictions that are true, how do you explain that? 

I explain that by saying it is a good theory. Evolution is the honest result of capable people trying to explain the evidence to the best of their ability. I woud say that the physical evidence supporting the theory is considerable from a scientific viewpoint. However I also have to say that the theory of evolution has to include the assumption that the dice have been loaded from the beginning in favor of more complex and intelligent life forms. It has to include intelligent design by a supreme force (ie God), otherwise the theory could not work on its own based on randomly generated natural laws. 

In the meantime I take comfort iin the truths of the following scripture:

"Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things.
Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven.(D&C 101:32-34)
Link to comment

Actually I have no problem in considering the possibility that God may have used some form of evolution which led to what we have and are today, so long as God is recognized as architect and controler of the existance of life.  My point is that we can not prove emperically in the lab that we are the end result of an evolutionary process. That's why it is called a theory and not a law.

 

I tend to believe that God uses evolution in his creation of us. :) What I can't do in science is posit any God onto it.

Science is Agnostic on the question of God .

SEE

 

Ours is a major conceit. My cat knows he's the end result of evolution. :lol:   There is no end result in evolution. The Theory is the explanation of the phenomenon/observation that living things change over time. IE; That in a changing environment living things that reproduce win in the survivability of that species.

Link to comment

I tend to believe that God uses evolution in his creation of us. :) What I can't do in science is posit any God onto it.

Science is Agnostic on the question of God .

SEE

 

Ours is a major conceit. My cat knows he's the end result of evolution. :lol:   There is no end result in evolution. The Theory is the explanation of the phenomenon/observation that living things change over time. IE; That in a changing environment living things that reproduce win in the survivability of that species.

"What I can't do in science is posit any God onto it."

 

Some scientists will look at some biochemical process and come to the conclusion there is no God because it can be explained by scientific means.

Other scientists (like me) will look at the same biochemical process and think, how could anyone not believe that a God created all these perfectly designed proceses that somehow keep us alive. 

I do believe that things can change over time depending on their environment. That is observable in real time.

Link to comment

 

Some scientists will look at some biochemical process and come to the conclusion there is no God because it can be explained by scientific means.

 

 

Yes, that displays a lack of imagination. As if there were only one possible definition for the word "God"

Link to comment

"What I can't do in science is posit any God onto it."

 

Some scientists will look at some biochemical process and come to the conclusion there is no God because it can be explained by scientific means.

Other scientists (like me) will look at the same biochemical process and think, how could anyone not believe that a God created all these perfectly designed proceses that somehow keep us alive. 

I do believe that things can change over time depending on their environment. That is observable in real time.

 

Agreed. It works both ways. Myself I like God and believe that he uses evolution in our creation.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...