Developed purely by chance, too. Just random protons and electrons floating and darting about in a primordial soup, then a lightning strike, and POOF! Atoms form inorganic molecules—which accidentally become organic! (This happens at everyone's house daily...dirt and rocks in the yard, or pots and pans in the kitchen, just suddenly spring to life and start squirmin' and wigglin'. :) Then the molecules begin to consume energy, because of course they know how to; and suddenly arrange themselves into precise and specific order, create amino acids, and then protein chains hundreds of amino acids long, just for the hell of it, et voilà: Homo sapiens from pond scum.
Because items always tend to go from chaos to order and become arranged in impossibly unlikely alignment by themselves. Whenever I throw my clothes on the floor, they wash, iron, and hang themselves up. This is how the universe works. Purely by chance.
If you took a watch apart, put all the pieces in a paper bag, folded the top over, shook it, then dumped it all on the table....how many times would you have to do this before the watch came out assembled, ticking, and keeping the correct time?
The entirety of time up until this point wouldnt be enough to get a functioning and calibrated watch from that process. Origin-of-life scientists had mostly given up on the explanations of random chance and natural selection by the early 1970's, but the ideas are still popular among laypeople.
People just do not understand how insanely improbable it is for such complex systems to arise randomly. The roughly 16 billion years of the universe's existence isn't enough time to create even a single cell through such unintelligent processes.
Fuck Google Maps. Whenever I want directions on how to go, I just wing a cup of milk on the floor, and purely by chance the spill creates a perfect map, with little bubbles denoting my starting point and destination.
Self replicating nucleic acids are all you need to start this process, and yes, all you need for that are nucleic acids, energy, and time. And not only was there plenty of time, billions of years, but the interactions at this scale are occurring then and now tens of thousands of times a second.
Once you have a nucleic acid sequence whose structure allows it to make copies of itself, which is not an outrageous claim in the least, you're off to the races. Small errors here and there arise into secondary functions that convey advantage. Complementary advantages arrange into cooperative organization between different sequences. A sequence that breaks complex organic molecules for energy is not hard, and neither is one that uses that energy to build phosphate links, but when put together you get ATP, and the energy cycle that speeds up this whole process by orders of magnitude.
Wrap those two sequences into a bilipid layer with three other sequences, one that builds lipid bilayers, one that specializes in copying one another, and another still that specializes in recognizing necessary building blocks and transporting them through the lipid bilayer and you have all you need for a proto-cell, proto-mitochondria. All that can happen comparatively simply, and entirely randomly, and it only needs to happen once, because once it does it replicates and spreads across the world. All other complexity since then, from proteins, to regulation, and intra cellular cooperation and specialization arises effortlessly, over time, from that.
You can choose to refuse to see this because you believe it is incompatible with god, and you prefer god. But it's real, and denying it doesn't change it. So all you're really doing is blinding you to god's greatest accomplishment, for even more impressive than making man is making the systems from which man arises without intervention.
kinda like give a monkey a typewriter and infinite time and eventually he will randomly type out the entire dictionary. How did eyes develop if they didn't know there was something to see? I don't buy your post.
Ok, let's explain the eye. Let's agree that there needs to be a stepwise process; From something stupidly simple, to something profoundly complex. It has to be stepwise, it can't just be "well, light sensitive cells exist, and a inverted curved lensed organ is better" because goddamn it, you need to go from 'a' to 'B C D E F' before you get to 'G'.
If you hate that, here's a modern TED explanation, but Dawkins honestly does a better job.
It all starts with light sensitive cells.
Unsurprising, and not just because it's a thing that exists, but photons interact with electron distribution across complex molecules and a protein whose confirmation is altered slightly by photon interaction is going to be a regular occurrence and all it takes is one which is very sensitive to this effect to imagine basic utility arising from it. Photosynthesis is based on protein interaction with light and it's a few small step from light = food to light = an eye.
These light sensitive proteins fire off I'm getting close to food, and when they aren't, I'm moving away from food. Why? Well I don't know that, but it's true. I don't know that more light means easier photosynthesis, which is good for me because I photosynthesize (or maybe because I eat photosynthesizes)
So next I group these proteins in strategic locations - more light towards my front, less light in my back, now I understand direction
And then I curve it inward so I can identify precise direction
Then it curves so much that it starts to close in on itself, which ought to be terrible, but actually I'm getting closer and closer to a pin hole lens
But now I have this cavity and I want to keep gunk from getting in so I close it off with a transparent cover
But covers don't have to be uniform, oops, mine has different thicknesses at different parts -- actually, one version of that is a lens, wow that's awesome.
But that lens is only good for one direction. Oh well, I'll just use these structural cells to hold it precisely in place... oh wait, what it those structural cells flex and alter the shape of my lens, now I can focus at distance.
Except that yes, it absolutely is enough time. And not just because "well obviously, look around here we are so it must be so", but because billions of years is a metric fuck ton of time, and evolution doesn't rally take as much time as many think. It just requires things to get shaken up now and then so that new toolsets be given the opportunity to thrive against an environment without optimized dead ends competing out new lines of change.
Gave you an upper for your thoughtful comment but am going to remind you that objectivity only holds for superficial circumstances - for superficial conditions.
What does that mean?
Just this: Objectification necessarily leaves a residuum (that which objectifies).
The objectifier (that which objectifies) is necessarily "more intimate" than what it objectifies.
Thus the ultimate objectifier is always "self" (than which NOTHING is more intimate).
Because of this, "self" cannot be objectified and since it is required to have a residuum (that which objectifies) to have ANY object - there are no objects.
Thus we find that objectivity fails.
This paradox is the fundamental condition of nature. It cannot be resolved. Nature is not objective. We are nature.
And yet, despite decades of attempts in numerous labs, life has not even come close to being "created". There is a ruling process in the universe, called entropy (things tend toward disorder). Life evolving from nothing is a total violation of that ruling process, and the reason the idea that life "evolved" from nothing is so ridiculous (as is the most outrageous theory of all "The Big Bang").
Labs have absolutely HAVE recreated ALL the necessary principals that time uses to form the complexity of man from random elements.
Amino acids and nucleic acids HAVE been formed in the laboratory under primordial conditions. They HAVE bound into chains, these chains DO have the capacity in certain sequences to self replication, and that's literally all you have to demonstrated to get natural selection going. Literally everything else follows from that.
Give a laboratory the size of planet earth a billion years and they can 'artificially' 'create' life. That's a testament both to how rare the events are, but also how possible given how much time has passed and how big the universe is.
But the critical point, that every step necessary being demonstrated, has been met.
The big bang is something entirely separate, but you're selling god short by YOU arbitrarily deciding for some weird reason that evolution is incompatible with god's ability.
Saying the components of a living cell have been created in a lab, and is therefore, an indication that a living cell could be created if enough time is allowed is like having a monkey accidentally type a five-word sentence on a typewriter, and therefore, given enough time, Shakespeare's complete works could eventually be typed by that monkey. Yes, theoretically it could happen, but there is a big difference between theory and reality, between possibility, and essentially impossibility.
Except billions of years is a shit ton of time, primordial earth is huge, nucleic acids are a common comparatively stable product of these environments, them joining together in those conditions is not rare, and these interactions occur thousands of times a second at a scale we don't appreciate at this level.
All you need is the right order, and we're not talking a Shakespeare length play, but only a few hundred at most to get self replication.
Not only is it possible, but probable.
And that's just on earth. When you take a galaxy as large as ours, with as many planets as there are and then as many galaxies as there are, even with the most conservative estimates you might plug in for those probabilities it's near mathematically impossible for self replicating nucleic acids NOT to form, but because how life as we know it is the clear result of it one can conclude that this universe, reality and creation as we know it, exists specifically for us to be the result.
We're not talking a hundred monkeys in a room over a millennia. We're talking trillions upon trillions over a billion years each on a hundred million worlds each in a trillion galaxies.
Those metaphorical monkeys in those numbers over that timeframe are going to write Romeo and Juliet, the Bible, War and Peace, an Pi to a thousand digits. But they only have to write just one just once. If you're still pessimistic, Earth doesn't need to be here after all, Earth need only be where it happened. That's what God did, it's far more amazing, and you won't allow yourself to appreciate it just because some retard atheists told you it proves god doesn't exist for some reason.
Do I sound like someone who doesn't believe God did all we see on Earth and the universe? As I said, theoretically, with enough time, any random sequence of events could happen, given enough time (like flipping a coin a billion times in a row and having it come up heads every time), but remember, the universe is at most, 5 billion years old, correct?, so therefore, not even a fraction of the time required for the outrageous sequence of events you postulate to occur to produce life.
It's a shame you're getting downvoted. I agree with your posts.
I 100% believe in God and live in awe of the facts/rules/laws/etc He created that we call science. The two are NOT mutually exclusive. You don't have to be an atheist to be a scientist nor should a man of faith discount science due to their belief in God.
The only problems that arise are when the two cross over. One cannot mix science with religion and vice versa ... as you said, God wouldn't be too thrilled with people cheapening His creation by claiming some kind of magic occurred :-).
People often forget that many priests were genuine scientists hundreds of years ago. Atheists may laugh at that, but they were as interested in the universe as the most secular of scientists were. They wanted to know the facts that allow our existence (the truth of our existence is a philosophical one). They followed a SCIENTIFIC process, not a religious one. If they weren't priests, they may have been very religious. Issac Newton is such an example. That man is second only to Einstein when it comes to the greatest scientists in my opinion.
Sure, some of the priests were totalitarians and impeded the research of others claiming that it interfered with passages in the Bible, but we also see that today when liberal scientists wreck the lives and careers of people that question their work on bullshit like global warming so that their belief in the fairy tale of a peaceful, one world socialist government may come true :-) . That's mankind interfering though, not God.
If I am not mistaken, this hardcore line that was drawn between being a person of faith and a person of science occurred right around the time the Marxists latched onto Darwin's work as a sort of proof that there is no God. Once that happened, those that use religion for more dubious purposes convinced their followers that science was evil for that reason. Once again, we can thank a socialist and a fanatic for sewing the seeds of division :-). Prior to that, nobody really cared if a scientist was a person of faith.
It is written that God created man in His image. I don't think that must mean a physical form. I think our self awareness is what's created in His image ... basically our soul. I'd have to think that God created this universe with its rules (be it physics, organic chemistry, etc) in a way that life can exist, but isn't directly "created" by Him.
We are all here for some kind of purpose. Who knows what that is ultimately. What I do know is that He isn't going to allow Himself to interfere with the universe for the most part (that's where miracles come into play, and I suspect they're the result of prayer, but that's an entirely different topic). I doubt He created all of this only to interfere constantly though :-). Much like Ben Franklin said that we are only guaranteed the right to pursue happiness, but it is up to us to achieve it, God laid down the rules for our existence ... it is up to us to figure out what to do with them.
Sorry for the rambling :-) ... I love discussions like this :-).
To boost mitochondrial function, supplement with coenzymated b-vitamins (no synthetic types) and get lots red and near-infrared exposure (fire, sun, special lamps for NIR). Also increase sulfur.
Wow, this is the first time I've seen someone else say this! Not saying it's not a known theory, but I've always had the thought that the universe mimics the cells in our body, just on a different scale!
Have you seen this video by Gas? It is amazing and really fits in with your point!
I was just reading about this subject in an interview with Michael Behe. A single cell is so complex and efficient in its functions that it boggles the mind. How anyone can look at this and claim it's the product of random and gradual changes is beyond me.
The only thing that we know of that can make irreducibly complex systems is intelligence and it would need to be a superintelligence to design something this complex.
And the fact that single-celled organisms, such as paramecia, include not only all the complex functions of this one cell, but also have the ability to move!
How anyone can look at this and claim it's the product of random and gradual changes is beyond me.
Not only is it very possible, but it's very probable. I'd be the first to claim otherwise but the more you learn the more likely it is. Complexity does not require intelligence, much like the invisible hand of the market doesn't require an intelligence on high directing it. Four simple rules:
Buying what you need, at the best price you can find
Sell what people pay the most, that you can most easily produce
Are all that's necessary for the intricate complexities of our supply chains, manufacturing, employment distributions to form all on their own. Nature is no different when it comes to life. Alterations, additions and complexities that improve the capacity to reproduce perpetuate while those that do not diminish. You can absolutely start with just nucleic acid sequences whose structures self replicate, and over billions of years end up with complementary systems working together for a unified purpose best serving each component - a cell, a multi cell organism, a thinking organism that can recognize inherent instinct and override it.
Now what started it all, none can say. And if a god chose to create whole cloth what we see in such a way to obscure his hand, so be that. But there is no service in denying the actual power of natural selection.
It's actually extremely improbable, bordering on impossible, for such complicated systems to arise from random chance. These systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that a number of different components all work together to accomplish the task of the system, and if one component were removed, the system would no longer function. Gradual evolution can not create them because they need to be complete to actually function and would be useless until completed. Let me give an example:
Blood clotting is a highly choreographed system in our bodies. The system is made up of multiple steps and different molecular components. Without the whole system in place, it doesn't work. How can clotting develop over time, step by step, when in the meantime the body has no effective way to stop itself from bleeding to death whenever it's cut?
The system is also highly regulated. If a clot is made in the wrong place, you'll die. If the clot isn't made in the correct timeframe, you'll die. If the clot isn't confined to the injury site, your entire blood system could solidify. This system is so complex that it must be inserted all at once into an organism. Random selection simply cannot explain systems like this.
Also, the fossil record doesn't support gradual macro-evolution at all. There are none of the numerous transitional species that Darwin predicted would be found. The Cambrian explosion invalidates the idea entirely.
Micro-evolution has certainly been proven valid, but no evidence supports the idea of Darwinian evolution. The evidence that's been found in the last 50 or so years points strongly towards intelligent design. Secular scientists refuse to admit this because they demand that everything needs to have a naturalistic explanation and refuse to let God into their clubhouse.
We are not two cards leaning against one another where one card can not exist without the other. Gradual addition is possible for everything we have seen, and your clotting example is such an example; As long as every step is a net positive, it doesn't matter if there are downsides to be ironed out.
Clotting at all is a HUGE advantage over getting punctured and dying. Sure, there are downsides if you're missing the complex regulatory and safety features modern clotting has, but circulatory systems have existed almost as long as true multicellular organisms have - bleeding out has been a selective pressure that whole time.
So first you clot, and that's a game changer. Sure if it clots in the wrong place or if you can't clear it you'll meat the double edge of that sword but hey - being punctured is no longer a guaranteed death sentence. That's a NET POSITIVE.
Then you evolve all the other features we come to have.
'Darwinian' evolution absolutely has the evidence to support it. All the way from the biochemical at the level of nucleic acid formation into self replication, to cooperative association to form proto-cells, to gradual organ development as with eyes, systems development like the circulatory system to include clotting, to the organism level where we gain and lose traits adapting to an environment and it's pressures in species altering fashions. It's all there.
It's all from god, and you have missed it because you somehow think god's grand plan is incompatible with god... all because you hated the messenger.
I can't argue against a position you haven't articulated.
You say the Cambrian explosion completely invalidates Darwin, but... what?? how?? I can't even imagine why you would think such a thing in the first place.
The Cambrian explosion is an event that occurred roughly 550 million years ago. Up until that point, for billions of years, life had not progressesd beyond very basic forms such as rudimentary jellyfish, worms, and sponges. Suddenly, there was an explosion of complex life in a very short time period. All the major phyla and some that are now extinct just appear in the fossil record. No gradual change, no transitional fossils, nothing that would support the idea that this event came about from the Darwinian theory of gradual evolution.
This sudden burst of complex life defies Darwin's theory and renders it nothing more than a footnote in history. He theorized that future discoveries in the fossil record would produce transitional species and prove his idea of gradual evolution.The Cambrian discovery decades later did the exact opposite. Now, this leads to the logical conclusion that his theory is as of right now, wrong, because the evidence discovered directly contradicts it.
So, tell me, how does Darwinian evolution explain a documented event that directly contradicts the very core of the theory?
The short answer is one change, that itself is profound, that opens up a wide untapped evolutionary space for evolutionary exploration. Which is precisely what occurred in the Cambrian.
In a billion years you could say something similarly outrageous about humans, tool use, and thinking creatures. Billions of years of the same sort of self centered instinct driven organisms then (from their future perspective) boom, suddenly mammals, pack animals, social creatures, thinking, tool using. In the snap of a finger there are cities and technology, and a single species dominating the globe. Where's the fossil record of where it all came from? It was all reptiles and birds and fish and then in a blink of an eye suddenly spacefaring self aware social creatures with huge extremely well developed brains.
You're not going to find a ten thousand year fossil record buried in all that. So that's 'not evolution', there was no gradual process. That has to therefore be intelligent design. Someone snapped their fingers and put them there like that with purpose and intention. And we are nothing special compared to what sparked the Cambrian!
The Cambrian was a paradigm shift of proportions I'd argue even greater than cyano bacteria. You went from at most colonies of the same, or collaborative single cells banding together to share divergent function, to the game charger: A single cell containing all the regulatory capacity to differentiate. If it was at the top of the colony it produced more chloroplasts, if at the sides it produced defenses against invaders, if at the bottom it produced more flagellum.
This wasn't a game changer just because it made the perfectly optimized colony, but because it was the development of a toolset that made the previously impossible, possible. Proper multicellular organisms. The world had never seen a tail before, but now you could. Light sensitive patches in a cell could detect light and shadow, but now 'eye' cells could cluster together, they could bend inward the way multicellular structures can and cell membranes can't to create cups and then pinholes, and sight as we better know it. You could become large, too large for anything single celled to predate upon.
All thanks to unlocking regulatory processes that allowed for cellular differentialization!
And because all this was new, because there was no competition in these spaces to restrict, and because so much was such low hanging evolutionary fruit, it happened very quickly. A complex nervous system takes time, but a simple one doesn't. Legs are quite difficult actually, but neither a tail's construction or it's use is hard. And because there is no apex creature out there to constrain, evolution can try a thousand different suboptimal variations as it fills out and explores the world's diverse niches. You can get there fast, in an assortment of combinations because you don't have to build the perfect combination like we do today, any tail is an advantage. Any eye, any system to anchor yourself to the sea bed, or grasp, or bite, the bar is so low and the rewards so immense.
Today we have things largely figured out, back then they hadn't. You could have the perfect eye but not figured out locomotion yet, while some long distant cousin had perfected locomotion but not vision - so neither had an aggregate advantage. Both competed relatively equally for the same niche, so two version (or three, or thirteen) could co-exist where today one would compete out the rest. Because this ends up being the case across so many additional dimensions, invertebrates, vertebrates, exoskeletons, fins, gills, pinchers and teeth and mouths, digestive, circulatory, and nervous systems -- so many early and unperfected systems unique to life as a multicellular organism that you end up with insane diversity. Because each of these dimensions was one where you could advantage yourself in a way to compete against the others that were further along a different path in another.
Today we have less comparative diversity because there is largely a right way to do all these things, learned back in the days of the Cambrian. We can't have a predator with shitty vision that makes up for it with great locomotion, because we have predators with both that will out compete it. When organisms first burst onto the scene, everything low hanging was there to trial without cost of being punished because everything was new and advantage, until one species figured it all out, another down another path which figured things out in a different order could compete.
Measured against today, it was fast and diverse, but of course it was. Today isn't the benchmark. If you want to take the Savanah from the Lions, you can't just be a cheetah, or a hyena both serving a different niche - you have to be a straight up better lion. The Cambrian had dozens of new dimensions to advance and coexist in incompleteness along.
No transitional fossils just means it happened fast. Gradual, but fast. And it only takes one thing, just one new change to go from extremely simple life, to complex life - internal regulation. It's how a single embryo and a single sperm turn into a human being. It's the systems which allow our cells to query their environment and their neighbors and up regulate this protein, down regulate the expression of this gene, and become myocardial versus neural.
What the precise factor was that took basic regulation to the levels necessary for proper multicellular organisms is unknown but irrelevant - the advantage once that threshold is past is absurdly profound and invariably leads where we see it lead. And which ever cellular species that got there first was destined to be THE precursor to everything that would quickly follow.
I suppose the TLDR is: Who told you evolution is necessarily slow?
Get your head out of the books and experience the real world.
Accidents as magnificent as creation to not occur in a vacuum. Every aspect of life follows rules, many of them shared. All the hallmarks of intelligent design are there.
When we’re smart enough, we’ll find God’s autograph on his creation.
When we’re smart enough, we’ll find God’s autograph on his creation.
And it's called natural selection.
When his children can not conceive it, he says that he created light, and then the firmament to separate the waters, and when they are ready they recognize it as the suns igniting and processing hydrogen and helium into the larger elements necessary for life, before exploding and recoalescing into planets of water, separated by the cosmos inbetween, or from our perspective, what's up there, the firmament.
Some asshole said evolution proved god didn't exist, and because you knew god existed, that must mean evolution is wrong. But you've missed the point entirely. The premise that evolution refutes god was as absurd an argument as heliocentrism was an argument against god. The atheist was wrong not because he believed evolution, but because he was grasping at anything to prove his point but you somehow allowed evolution to belong to him rather to you.
Once you realize that, you can better admire god's work.
I have no problem believing in natural selection and evolution, and I have no problem accepting that a higher power may have been involved in the process. But accepting a higher power's hand in creating the universe does not automatically lead to a belief in the same God that wiped out the entire human race (except Noah and family) or advocated the murder of innocent women and children in the slaughter of the Canaanites, to mention just one example.
Stories that get in the way of belief are not reason not to believe - reason to question and to think and to wonder what the pieces must be in order for it all to fit together sure.
Agreed. Just because its not how we imagine it, doesn't mean there is any less validity in God, or our creator. Often times many things are not as we imagine them to be in reality.
It's possible that God created life through the process of evolution.
Complexity is not evidence of intelligence. As a software engineer I can tell you that some of the most complex code I've seen has come from the least intelligent people.
Random selection could easily create incredible complexity. The true wonder is that there is anything to make complex systems out of. Why does anything exist at all and why do the conditions for life exist in the first place?
No, no it cannot. Your example of software code is incorrect because the code is created by an intelligent designer. It didnt appear on the computer by random natural forces.The idea of evolution is that the complicated life will arise from random and unintelligent forces over time. Simply put, nothing supports this idea. The earth hasn't existed long enough for gradual evolution to create such complex life. The fossil record doesn't support it at all. The very mechanics of natural selection don't support macro-evolution.
Micro-evolution is a part of the mix, but the idea of simple lifeforms gradually changing form into far more complicated ones over time is simply not supported by the evidence we have. The chances of making something even as basic as a single celled organism through that process are astronomically slim.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
At risk of being pedantic and somewhat controversial to the College indoctrinated Apes, it didn't take a cell to prove Darwin's "Theory" is complete bunk. Look around. See any half-human-monkey hybrids? Any Half fish/felines? Yes, it may sound a bit bombastic at first but it drives to a point: If Darwin's "Theory" held any water at all, we would still see examples of his evolutionary horseshit still going on. No, what Darwin observed can be better explained as Evolutionary Adaptation within a Species or Kind or Class.
Succinctly, there are "Species" that are within "Kinds" and those are within "Classes".
So, simply put, it goes something like this: A Class is a Bird, Reptile, Mammal, Fish, etc. Within those classes the Kinds represent the various branches. On those branches are the various species of the branch. Think of an organizational chart on a powerpoint slide....it's just like that but instead of everything coming from a single top point, it comes from multiple top points. These top-points are origin, depending on Class, but they NEVER branch from or intersect, as Darwinian Theory would have you believe. Example: Mammals(class)= Equine, Bovine, Canine, Feline(Kind)=all the various Species of the specific Kind.
The short breakdown is a "Kind" cannot interbreed or come from another "Kind"; e.g. Equine "Kind" cannot interbreed with the Bovine "Kind", nor Canine with Feline to break it down further. Species, on the other hand, CAN interbreed (possibility exists) but not always produce a desirable or fertile offspring; e.g. Horse with Donkey to produce an Ass--both are equine (Kind), but different types (Species) within. Ligers are also an example (Lion and Tiger hybrid).
So why do [they], and the successfully indoctrinated muppets, push Theories as fact? Simply, [they], 1) Do not have a better explanation and want to seem relevant (they're morons cloaked in their own bullshit amongst peers...this was Darwin), 2) want to hide truth from Humanity and are being paid, or forced, to do so, 3) Numb your mind and spirit away from God and depend on fallible Humans to give you the answers to control what your eyes and ears tell you, or lastly 4) All three. It's almost always option 4.
In final summary, any time you see "Theory" behind a name and is being pushed as accepted Science, it's 100% bullshit. A Theory is defined as: "an unproved assumption : conjecture" <--- Remember that.
This turned out longer than I had planned. Sorry for that.
God creating systems from which man arises is more glorious than one where god merely creates man. It's more compatible with a god who prefers free will and consequence, and is entirely compatible with genesis when you read it as written for a newly awakened mind. But what's more, it's supported by measurable reality.
See any half-human-monkey hybrids?
Natural selection is dependent on mutation, not inter species breeding.
Chimpanzees are specialized for their environment, Gorillas for theirs, and humans for ours. You don't see anything in between, because what would they be good at that an existing species isn't already better at?
We outcompeted what we evolved from. and what we evolved from outcompeted what it evolved from. And so on and so on. We didn't evolve from monkeys, but they evolved from the same predecessors before each of us - they for their environment, us for ours. They stayed in the trees and the forest, we went to the ground, stayed there, and were pretty forgettable until we breached a critical threshold and were then off to the races, each iteration replacing the last because our environmental niche was the same as theirs.
And it was not billions replacing the last billions, it was thousands replacing thousands - Chimpanzees, only ever numbered in the low hundreds of thousands, and in no greater numbers is the extent of man as we would come to know ourselves either until that threshold was passed and we became true masters of the world, rather than as our origins as another equally competing sub group amongst the greater animal kingdom.
The short breakdown is a "Kind" cannot interbreed or come from another "Kind"; e.g. Equine "Kind" cannot interbreed with the Bovine "Kind"
We don't evolve from interbreeding, nor did we arise from it, nor is it necessary to arrive at something new. Random mutation and time is all you need for that. From individual systems such as mitochondria, chloroplasts, the eye, and species. If you doubt the power of mutation over time, look at a beagle and a world over only just a few tens of thousands of years. Labradors have webbed feet. Whales are just proto horses returned to the water post mammalian split -- or better to say that horses and whales are two branches from the same precursor before them.
A Theory is defined as: "an unproved assumption : conjecture"
No, you're describing a hypothesis. A theory is a rules system that explains existing phenomena and has falsifiable predictive power.
You underestimate the power of god, are blind to the majesty of his creation, and lack the faith to believe in him and evolution (his creation) simultaneously
Gave you an upper for your thoughtful comment but am going to remind you that objectivity only holds for superficial circumstances - for superficial conditions.
What does that mean?
Just this: Objectification necessarily leaves a residuum (that which objectifies).
The objectifier (that which objectifies) is necessarily "more intimate" than what it objectifies.
Thus the ultimate objectifier is always "self" (than which NOTHING is more intimate).
Because of this, "self" cannot be objectified and since it is required to have a residuum (that which objectifies) to have ANY object - there are no objects.
Thus we find that objectivity fails.
This paradox is the fundamental condition of nature. It cannot be resolved. Nature is not objective. We are nature.
Random nucleic acid sequences capable of self replication absolutely form, and absent existing life to predate upon them will over time from error in replication acquire additional functions to retain over time which will lead inevitably to complementary associations of increasing complexity until all the necessary functions for group regulation and replication is achieved - a simple 'cell' from which the complexity you see here all but a matter of time. And from multi nucleic / proteomic cooperative work, comes multi cellular cooperation, diversification, organization (organism), instinct, thought, and sentience.
What or who started it all? None can say. Do they have a plan, do they watch over, did they select conditions specifically so we would arise to ask of ourselves specific questions, perhaps. But natural selection is completely capable of producing this complexity all by random chance.
And for that to be god's hand should impress you even more.
If you make evolution incompatible with your view of god, you shackle yourself from seeing one of the greatest requisites of his grand creation. From random nucleic and amino acids, individual and dispersed, to complexity capable of supporting the recognition of the hand of god.
We are SO MUCH MORE than bio robots. We are Divine Sparks of Creation. We still have free will and sovereign rights. Part of this Great Awakening is that humans are finally starting to “remember” or rediscover our tangible connection to God. That connection has been suppressed and severed in myriad ways:
calcifying our pineal glands with fluoride
poisoning our brains and bodies with toxic ingredients in our food, water and even the air we breathe
using disharmonic frequencies in music to sever the heart/brain connection
using Tell-A-Vision to indoctrinate and program us since childhood
Big pharma pumping us full of mind numbing drugs that do nothing but create more disease
We are NOT robots. Not yet.
But what these mRNA experiments (they are NOT “vaccines”) aim to do is set us on the path toward transhumanism. Toward actually becoming “nothing more than bio robots.”
Treat your bodies with great care, friends. Don't put poisons in it, even very slow acting ones disguised as certain food. And exercise it. Your body is a collection of precious jewels and should be treated as such.
This reminds me of how human brain neurons look exactly like how scientists theorize the universe to look like at a far distance, like bright branches with powerful shining centers all interconnected. This is no coincidence. The chances that the universe created itself by accident is 10^10^123 power. That is so many zeroes that you couldn't even say them all in your lifetime. We are not here by accident, the world and the universe is not by chance. It is theoretically, scientifically, and mathematically impossible.
I just showed this to my husband (who more often times than not humors me with what I read on here) and he said “that right there, with the complexity of the human cell is exactly why they shouldn’t be messing with any of it
Just imagine how much one or two of those man made so called "Covid Vacs" will screw up a perfectly designed system! The evil genocide shot will destroy the cell function our Creator gave!
I'm tellin' ya, God can do ANYTHING with almost nuthin'. What I mean is, ALL OF THIS and more - just 'cuz God knows how to recycle a dude's rib. Took a RIB and comes back with all of THIS! Could you do this? Do you know ANYBODY ELSE that could do this?
And this is just a CELL? Oh, but when those cells get "organ-ized..." And you thought ribs were just for snackin'...
Its like a whole freaken city
Developed purely by chance, too. Just random protons and electrons floating and darting about in a primordial soup, then a lightning strike, and POOF! Atoms form inorganic molecules—which accidentally become organic! (This happens at everyone's house daily...dirt and rocks in the yard, or pots and pans in the kitchen, just suddenly spring to life and start squirmin' and wigglin'. :) Then the molecules begin to consume energy, because of course they know how to; and suddenly arrange themselves into precise and specific order, create amino acids, and then protein chains hundreds of amino acids long, just for the hell of it, et voilà: Homo sapiens from pond scum.
Because items always tend to go from chaos to order and become arranged in impossibly unlikely alignment by themselves. Whenever I throw my clothes on the floor, they wash, iron, and hang themselves up. This is how the universe works. Purely by chance.
My favorite way to complete jigsaw puzzles is by throwing them against the wall over and over again.
If you took a watch apart, put all the pieces in a paper bag, folded the top over, shook it, then dumped it all on the table....how many times would you have to do this before the watch came out assembled, ticking, and keeping the correct time?
The entirety of time up until this point wouldnt be enough to get a functioning and calibrated watch from that process. Origin-of-life scientists had mostly given up on the explanations of random chance and natural selection by the early 1970's, but the ideas are still popular among laypeople.
People just do not understand how insanely improbable it is for such complex systems to arise randomly. The roughly 16 billion years of the universe's existence isn't enough time to create even a single cell through such unintelligent processes.
Fuck Google Maps. Whenever I want directions on how to go, I just wing a cup of milk on the floor, and purely by chance the spill creates a perfect map, with little bubbles denoting my starting point and destination.
How's that working out for you?
Asking for a fren, lol.
Things don't just happen, someone has to make them happen.
LOL! Perfect reply.
Self replicating nucleic acids are all you need to start this process, and yes, all you need for that are nucleic acids, energy, and time. And not only was there plenty of time, billions of years, but the interactions at this scale are occurring then and now tens of thousands of times a second.
Once you have a nucleic acid sequence whose structure allows it to make copies of itself, which is not an outrageous claim in the least, you're off to the races. Small errors here and there arise into secondary functions that convey advantage. Complementary advantages arrange into cooperative organization between different sequences. A sequence that breaks complex organic molecules for energy is not hard, and neither is one that uses that energy to build phosphate links, but when put together you get ATP, and the energy cycle that speeds up this whole process by orders of magnitude.
Wrap those two sequences into a bilipid layer with three other sequences, one that builds lipid bilayers, one that specializes in copying one another, and another still that specializes in recognizing necessary building blocks and transporting them through the lipid bilayer and you have all you need for a proto-cell, proto-mitochondria. All that can happen comparatively simply, and entirely randomly, and it only needs to happen once, because once it does it replicates and spreads across the world. All other complexity since then, from proteins, to regulation, and intra cellular cooperation and specialization arises effortlessly, over time, from that.
You can choose to refuse to see this because you believe it is incompatible with god, and you prefer god. But it's real, and denying it doesn't change it. So all you're really doing is blinding you to god's greatest accomplishment, for even more impressive than making man is making the systems from which man arises without intervention.
kinda like give a monkey a typewriter and infinite time and eventually he will randomly type out the entire dictionary. How did eyes develop if they didn't know there was something to see? I don't buy your post.
Ok, let's explain the eye. Let's agree that there needs to be a stepwise process; From something stupidly simple, to something profoundly complex. It has to be stepwise, it can't just be "well, light sensitive cells exist, and a inverted curved lensed organ is better" because goddamn it, you need to go from 'a' to 'B C D E F' before you get to 'G'.
So let's do that.
I know Richard Dawkins is an ass, but here he is as a much younger self explaining just that, long before he became a jaded asshat filled with malice.
If you hate that, here's a modern TED explanation, but Dawkins honestly does a better job.
It all starts with light sensitive cells.
Unsurprising, and not just because it's a thing that exists, but photons interact with electron distribution across complex molecules and a protein whose confirmation is altered slightly by photon interaction is going to be a regular occurrence and all it takes is one which is very sensitive to this effect to imagine basic utility arising from it. Photosynthesis is based on protein interaction with light and it's a few small step from light = food to light = an eye.
These light sensitive proteins fire off I'm getting close to food, and when they aren't, I'm moving away from food. Why? Well I don't know that, but it's true. I don't know that more light means easier photosynthesis, which is good for me because I photosynthesize (or maybe because I eat photosynthesizes)
So next I group these proteins in strategic locations - more light towards my front, less light in my back, now I understand direction
And then I curve it inward so I can identify precise direction
Then it curves so much that it starts to close in on itself, which ought to be terrible, but actually I'm getting closer and closer to a pin hole lens
But now I have this cavity and I want to keep gunk from getting in so I close it off with a transparent cover
But covers don't have to be uniform, oops, mine has different thicknesses at different parts -- actually, one version of that is a lens, wow that's awesome.
But that lens is only good for one direction. Oh well, I'll just use these structural cells to hold it precisely in place... oh wait, what it those structural cells flex and alter the shape of my lens, now I can focus at distance.
Oh my, I have an eye.
Billions of years are not enough time to create not just us, but our perfect placement in the universe.
Except that yes, it absolutely is enough time. And not just because "well obviously, look around here we are so it must be so", but because billions of years is a metric fuck ton of time, and evolution doesn't rally take as much time as many think. It just requires things to get shaken up now and then so that new toolsets be given the opportunity to thrive against an environment without optimized dead ends competing out new lines of change.
Gave you an upper for your thoughtful comment but am going to remind you that objectivity only holds for superficial circumstances - for superficial conditions.
What does that mean?
Just this: Objectification necessarily leaves a residuum (that which objectifies).
The objectifier (that which objectifies) is necessarily "more intimate" than what it objectifies.
Thus the ultimate objectifier is always "self" (than which NOTHING is more intimate).
Because of this, "self" cannot be objectified and since it is required to have a residuum (that which objectifies) to have ANY object - there are no objects.
Thus we find that objectivity fails.
This paradox is the fundamental condition of nature. It cannot be resolved. Nature is not objective. We are nature.
Reality does not require an observer to be objective
...and every other key is fatal to the monkey.
This shouldn't be that controversial. It's called faith for a reason.
It is a constant surprise how many have so little faith that they NEED evolution to be a lie in order to believe.
Evolution shouldn't threaten in any way your belief, it's the universe as god deemed it.
God created the ingredients. All of them. Including the thought processes you just documented.
And yet, despite decades of attempts in numerous labs, life has not even come close to being "created". There is a ruling process in the universe, called entropy (things tend toward disorder). Life evolving from nothing is a total violation of that ruling process, and the reason the idea that life "evolved" from nothing is so ridiculous (as is the most outrageous theory of all "The Big Bang").
Life took billions of years.
Labs have absolutely HAVE recreated ALL the necessary principals that time uses to form the complexity of man from random elements.
Amino acids and nucleic acids HAVE been formed in the laboratory under primordial conditions. They HAVE bound into chains, these chains DO have the capacity in certain sequences to self replication, and that's literally all you have to demonstrated to get natural selection going. Literally everything else follows from that.
Give a laboratory the size of planet earth a billion years and they can 'artificially' 'create' life. That's a testament both to how rare the events are, but also how possible given how much time has passed and how big the universe is.
But the critical point, that every step necessary being demonstrated, has been met.
The big bang is something entirely separate, but you're selling god short by YOU arbitrarily deciding for some weird reason that evolution is incompatible with god's ability.
Saying the components of a living cell have been created in a lab, and is therefore, an indication that a living cell could be created if enough time is allowed is like having a monkey accidentally type a five-word sentence on a typewriter, and therefore, given enough time, Shakespeare's complete works could eventually be typed by that monkey. Yes, theoretically it could happen, but there is a big difference between theory and reality, between possibility, and essentially impossibility.
Except billions of years is a shit ton of time, primordial earth is huge, nucleic acids are a common comparatively stable product of these environments, them joining together in those conditions is not rare, and these interactions occur thousands of times a second at a scale we don't appreciate at this level.
All you need is the right order, and we're not talking a Shakespeare length play, but only a few hundred at most to get self replication.
Not only is it possible, but probable.
And that's just on earth. When you take a galaxy as large as ours, with as many planets as there are and then as many galaxies as there are, even with the most conservative estimates you might plug in for those probabilities it's near mathematically impossible for self replicating nucleic acids NOT to form, but because how life as we know it is the clear result of it one can conclude that this universe, reality and creation as we know it, exists specifically for us to be the result.
We're not talking a hundred monkeys in a room over a millennia. We're talking trillions upon trillions over a billion years each on a hundred million worlds each in a trillion galaxies.
Those metaphorical monkeys in those numbers over that timeframe are going to write Romeo and Juliet, the Bible, War and Peace, an Pi to a thousand digits. But they only have to write just one just once. If you're still pessimistic, Earth doesn't need to be here after all, Earth need only be where it happened. That's what God did, it's far more amazing, and you won't allow yourself to appreciate it just because some retard atheists told you it proves god doesn't exist for some reason.
Do I sound like someone who doesn't believe God did all we see on Earth and the universe? As I said, theoretically, with enough time, any random sequence of events could happen, given enough time (like flipping a coin a billion times in a row and having it come up heads every time), but remember, the universe is at most, 5 billion years old, correct?, so therefore, not even a fraction of the time required for the outrageous sequence of events you postulate to occur to produce life.
It's a shame you're getting downvoted. I agree with your posts.
I 100% believe in God and live in awe of the facts/rules/laws/etc He created that we call science. The two are NOT mutually exclusive. You don't have to be an atheist to be a scientist nor should a man of faith discount science due to their belief in God.
The only problems that arise are when the two cross over. One cannot mix science with religion and vice versa ... as you said, God wouldn't be too thrilled with people cheapening His creation by claiming some kind of magic occurred :-).
People often forget that many priests were genuine scientists hundreds of years ago. Atheists may laugh at that, but they were as interested in the universe as the most secular of scientists were. They wanted to know the facts that allow our existence (the truth of our existence is a philosophical one). They followed a SCIENTIFIC process, not a religious one. If they weren't priests, they may have been very religious. Issac Newton is such an example. That man is second only to Einstein when it comes to the greatest scientists in my opinion.
Sure, some of the priests were totalitarians and impeded the research of others claiming that it interfered with passages in the Bible, but we also see that today when liberal scientists wreck the lives and careers of people that question their work on bullshit like global warming so that their belief in the fairy tale of a peaceful, one world socialist government may come true :-) . That's mankind interfering though, not God.
If I am not mistaken, this hardcore line that was drawn between being a person of faith and a person of science occurred right around the time the Marxists latched onto Darwin's work as a sort of proof that there is no God. Once that happened, those that use religion for more dubious purposes convinced their followers that science was evil for that reason. Once again, we can thank a socialist and a fanatic for sewing the seeds of division :-). Prior to that, nobody really cared if a scientist was a person of faith.
It is written that God created man in His image. I don't think that must mean a physical form. I think our self awareness is what's created in His image ... basically our soul. I'd have to think that God created this universe with its rules (be it physics, organic chemistry, etc) in a way that life can exist, but isn't directly "created" by Him.
We are all here for some kind of purpose. Who knows what that is ultimately. What I do know is that He isn't going to allow Himself to interfere with the universe for the most part (that's where miracles come into play, and I suspect they're the result of prayer, but that's an entirely different topic). I doubt He created all of this only to interfere constantly though :-). Much like Ben Franklin said that we are only guaranteed the right to pursue happiness, but it is up to us to achieve it, God laid down the rules for our existence ... it is up to us to figure out what to do with them.
Sorry for the rambling :-) ... I love discussions like this :-).
Micro mimics macro..
Systems theory! I see it in the works of everything now, it's wild, beautiful and keeps me humble with my face turned to God.
I need to crack a lash over the big purple one. He is not performing to capacity.
The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell.
To boost mitochondrial function, supplement with coenzymated b-vitamins (no synthetic types) and get lots red and near-infrared exposure (fire, sun, special lamps for NIR). Also increase sulfur.
does taking extra thyroid medication work to increase mitochondria?
Nope.
As above, so below
Exactly what I was thinking.
I call it my "theory of microcosms"
As within so without
Wow, this is the first time I've seen someone else say this! Not saying it's not a known theory, but I've always had the thought that the universe mimics the cells in our body, just on a different scale!
Have you seen this video by Gas? It is amazing and really fits in with your point!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvG-jqGsWSk
First I've heard of it.. I just live my experience and pay attention the best I can.
As above, so below.
As above, so below. As within, so without.
Little Italy top right!
lmao a rigatoni
No son. It's a whole freaken universe.
that was my first thought!
I was just reading about this subject in an interview with Michael Behe. A single cell is so complex and efficient in its functions that it boggles the mind. How anyone can look at this and claim it's the product of random and gradual changes is beyond me.
The only thing that we know of that can make irreducibly complex systems is intelligence and it would need to be a superintelligence to design something this complex.
Irreducible complexity. Impossible without intelligent design aka God.
His fingerprints are literally everywhere.
Science is the slow realization of God's work. The more we learn the more obvious it becomes.
IT IS SOOOO BEAUTIFUL!! :D
And the fact that single-celled organisms, such as paramecia, include not only all the complex functions of this one cell, but also have the ability to move!
Bacteria have little biological outboard motors. The micro-world is some wild shit lol.
evolution is not well explained. its very easy and works like this
its like a super slow "weeding out" process that occurs over a very long time
I think what you're describing is more like adaptation, which is absolutely real (different skin colors, etc.)
evolution is the idea that humans (and animals) evolved from single-celled organisms, which makes no sense
Not only is it very possible, but it's very probable. I'd be the first to claim otherwise but the more you learn the more likely it is. Complexity does not require intelligence, much like the invisible hand of the market doesn't require an intelligence on high directing it. Four simple rules:
Buying what you need, at the best price you can find
Sell what people pay the most, that you can most easily produce
Are all that's necessary for the intricate complexities of our supply chains, manufacturing, employment distributions to form all on their own. Nature is no different when it comes to life. Alterations, additions and complexities that improve the capacity to reproduce perpetuate while those that do not diminish. You can absolutely start with just nucleic acid sequences whose structures self replicate, and over billions of years end up with complementary systems working together for a unified purpose best serving each component - a cell, a multi cell organism, a thinking organism that can recognize inherent instinct and override it.
Now what started it all, none can say. And if a god chose to create whole cloth what we see in such a way to obscure his hand, so be that. But there is no service in denying the actual power of natural selection.
It's actually extremely improbable, bordering on impossible, for such complicated systems to arise from random chance. These systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that a number of different components all work together to accomplish the task of the system, and if one component were removed, the system would no longer function. Gradual evolution can not create them because they need to be complete to actually function and would be useless until completed. Let me give an example:
Blood clotting is a highly choreographed system in our bodies. The system is made up of multiple steps and different molecular components. Without the whole system in place, it doesn't work. How can clotting develop over time, step by step, when in the meantime the body has no effective way to stop itself from bleeding to death whenever it's cut?
The system is also highly regulated. If a clot is made in the wrong place, you'll die. If the clot isn't made in the correct timeframe, you'll die. If the clot isn't confined to the injury site, your entire blood system could solidify. This system is so complex that it must be inserted all at once into an organism. Random selection simply cannot explain systems like this.
Also, the fossil record doesn't support gradual macro-evolution at all. There are none of the numerous transitional species that Darwin predicted would be found. The Cambrian explosion invalidates the idea entirely.
Micro-evolution has certainly been proven valid, but no evidence supports the idea of Darwinian evolution. The evidence that's been found in the last 50 or so years points strongly towards intelligent design. Secular scientists refuse to admit this because they demand that everything needs to have a naturalistic explanation and refuse to let God into their clubhouse.
Can you imagine throwing in mRNA into that perfect system. Abomination!!
Ugh, yea, its absolutely disgusting.
We are not irreducibly complex
We are not two cards leaning against one another where one card can not exist without the other. Gradual addition is possible for everything we have seen, and your clotting example is such an example; As long as every step is a net positive, it doesn't matter if there are downsides to be ironed out.
Clotting at all is a HUGE advantage over getting punctured and dying. Sure, there are downsides if you're missing the complex regulatory and safety features modern clotting has, but circulatory systems have existed almost as long as true multicellular organisms have - bleeding out has been a selective pressure that whole time.
So first you clot, and that's a game changer. Sure if it clots in the wrong place or if you can't clear it you'll meat the double edge of that sword but hey - being punctured is no longer a guaranteed death sentence. That's a NET POSITIVE.
Then you evolve all the other features we come to have.
'Darwinian' evolution absolutely has the evidence to support it. All the way from the biochemical at the level of nucleic acid formation into self replication, to cooperative association to form proto-cells, to gradual organ development as with eyes, systems development like the circulatory system to include clotting, to the organism level where we gain and lose traits adapting to an environment and it's pressures in species altering fashions. It's all there.
It's all from god, and you have missed it because you somehow think god's grand plan is incompatible with god... all because you hated the messenger.
Explain the Cambrian explosion using the Darwinian theory of evolution. I know we aren't going to agree, but I want to hear your take on it.
I can't argue against a position you haven't articulated.
You say the Cambrian explosion completely invalidates Darwin, but... what?? how?? I can't even imagine why you would think such a thing in the first place.
The Cambrian explosion is an event that occurred roughly 550 million years ago. Up until that point, for billions of years, life had not progressesd beyond very basic forms such as rudimentary jellyfish, worms, and sponges. Suddenly, there was an explosion of complex life in a very short time period. All the major phyla and some that are now extinct just appear in the fossil record. No gradual change, no transitional fossils, nothing that would support the idea that this event came about from the Darwinian theory of gradual evolution.
This sudden burst of complex life defies Darwin's theory and renders it nothing more than a footnote in history. He theorized that future discoveries in the fossil record would produce transitional species and prove his idea of gradual evolution.The Cambrian discovery decades later did the exact opposite. Now, this leads to the logical conclusion that his theory is as of right now, wrong, because the evidence discovered directly contradicts it.
So, tell me, how does Darwinian evolution explain a documented event that directly contradicts the very core of the theory?
The short answer is one change, that itself is profound, that opens up a wide untapped evolutionary space for evolutionary exploration. Which is precisely what occurred in the Cambrian.
In a billion years you could say something similarly outrageous about humans, tool use, and thinking creatures. Billions of years of the same sort of self centered instinct driven organisms then (from their future perspective) boom, suddenly mammals, pack animals, social creatures, thinking, tool using. In the snap of a finger there are cities and technology, and a single species dominating the globe. Where's the fossil record of where it all came from? It was all reptiles and birds and fish and then in a blink of an eye suddenly spacefaring self aware social creatures with huge extremely well developed brains.
You're not going to find a ten thousand year fossil record buried in all that. So that's 'not evolution', there was no gradual process. That has to therefore be intelligent design. Someone snapped their fingers and put them there like that with purpose and intention. And we are nothing special compared to what sparked the Cambrian!
The Cambrian was a paradigm shift of proportions I'd argue even greater than cyano bacteria. You went from at most colonies of the same, or collaborative single cells banding together to share divergent function, to the game charger: A single cell containing all the regulatory capacity to differentiate. If it was at the top of the colony it produced more chloroplasts, if at the sides it produced defenses against invaders, if at the bottom it produced more flagellum.
This wasn't a game changer just because it made the perfectly optimized colony, but because it was the development of a toolset that made the previously impossible, possible. Proper multicellular organisms. The world had never seen a tail before, but now you could. Light sensitive patches in a cell could detect light and shadow, but now 'eye' cells could cluster together, they could bend inward the way multicellular structures can and cell membranes can't to create cups and then pinholes, and sight as we better know it. You could become large, too large for anything single celled to predate upon.
All thanks to unlocking regulatory processes that allowed for cellular differentialization!
And because all this was new, because there was no competition in these spaces to restrict, and because so much was such low hanging evolutionary fruit, it happened very quickly. A complex nervous system takes time, but a simple one doesn't. Legs are quite difficult actually, but neither a tail's construction or it's use is hard. And because there is no apex creature out there to constrain, evolution can try a thousand different suboptimal variations as it fills out and explores the world's diverse niches. You can get there fast, in an assortment of combinations because you don't have to build the perfect combination like we do today, any tail is an advantage. Any eye, any system to anchor yourself to the sea bed, or grasp, or bite, the bar is so low and the rewards so immense.
Today we have things largely figured out, back then they hadn't. You could have the perfect eye but not figured out locomotion yet, while some long distant cousin had perfected locomotion but not vision - so neither had an aggregate advantage. Both competed relatively equally for the same niche, so two version (or three, or thirteen) could co-exist where today one would compete out the rest. Because this ends up being the case across so many additional dimensions, invertebrates, vertebrates, exoskeletons, fins, gills, pinchers and teeth and mouths, digestive, circulatory, and nervous systems -- so many early and unperfected systems unique to life as a multicellular organism that you end up with insane diversity. Because each of these dimensions was one where you could advantage yourself in a way to compete against the others that were further along a different path in another.
Today we have less comparative diversity because there is largely a right way to do all these things, learned back in the days of the Cambrian. We can't have a predator with shitty vision that makes up for it with great locomotion, because we have predators with both that will out compete it. When organisms first burst onto the scene, everything low hanging was there to trial without cost of being punished because everything was new and advantage, until one species figured it all out, another down another path which figured things out in a different order could compete.
Measured against today, it was fast and diverse, but of course it was. Today isn't the benchmark. If you want to take the Savanah from the Lions, you can't just be a cheetah, or a hyena both serving a different niche - you have to be a straight up better lion. The Cambrian had dozens of new dimensions to advance and coexist in incompleteness along.
No transitional fossils just means it happened fast. Gradual, but fast. And it only takes one thing, just one new change to go from extremely simple life, to complex life - internal regulation. It's how a single embryo and a single sperm turn into a human being. It's the systems which allow our cells to query their environment and their neighbors and up regulate this protein, down regulate the expression of this gene, and become myocardial versus neural.
What the precise factor was that took basic regulation to the levels necessary for proper multicellular organisms is unknown but irrelevant - the advantage once that threshold is past is absurdly profound and invariably leads where we see it lead. And which ever cellular species that got there first was destined to be THE precursor to everything that would quickly follow.
I suppose the TLDR is: Who told you evolution is necessarily slow?
Get your head out of the books and experience the real world.
Accidents as magnificent as creation to not occur in a vacuum. Every aspect of life follows rules, many of them shared. All the hallmarks of intelligent design are there.
When we’re smart enough, we’ll find God’s autograph on his creation.
And it's called natural selection.
When his children can not conceive it, he says that he created light, and then the firmament to separate the waters, and when they are ready they recognize it as the suns igniting and processing hydrogen and helium into the larger elements necessary for life, before exploding and recoalescing into planets of water, separated by the cosmos inbetween, or from our perspective, what's up there, the firmament.
Some asshole said evolution proved god didn't exist, and because you knew god existed, that must mean evolution is wrong. But you've missed the point entirely. The premise that evolution refutes god was as absurd an argument as heliocentrism was an argument against god. The atheist was wrong not because he believed evolution, but because he was grasping at anything to prove his point but you somehow allowed evolution to belong to him rather to you.
Once you realize that, you can better admire god's work.
I have no problem believing in natural selection and evolution, and I have no problem accepting that a higher power may have been involved in the process. But accepting a higher power's hand in creating the universe does not automatically lead to a belief in the same God that wiped out the entire human race (except Noah and family) or advocated the murder of innocent women and children in the slaughter of the Canaanites, to mention just one example.
Stories that get in the way of belief are not reason not to believe - reason to question and to think and to wonder what the pieces must be in order for it all to fit together sure.
Agreed. Just because its not how we imagine it, doesn't mean there is any less validity in God, or our creator. Often times many things are not as we imagine them to be in reality.
It's possible that God created life through the process of evolution.
Complexity is not evidence of intelligence. As a software engineer I can tell you that some of the most complex code I've seen has come from the least intelligent people.
Random selection could easily create incredible complexity. The true wonder is that there is anything to make complex systems out of. Why does anything exist at all and why do the conditions for life exist in the first place?
No, no it cannot. Your example of software code is incorrect because the code is created by an intelligent designer. It didnt appear on the computer by random natural forces.The idea of evolution is that the complicated life will arise from random and unintelligent forces over time. Simply put, nothing supports this idea. The earth hasn't existed long enough for gradual evolution to create such complex life. The fossil record doesn't support it at all. The very mechanics of natural selection don't support macro-evolution.
Micro-evolution is a part of the mix, but the idea of simple lifeforms gradually changing form into far more complicated ones over time is simply not supported by the evidence we have. The chances of making something even as basic as a single celled organism through that process are astronomically slim.
It could happen if God created the universe such that it could.
This. Is. Wonderous! So beautiful, just like everyone here...
Blessings frens for a glorious awakening so long in coming.
This is what a complex divinely inspired organic machine looks like. This didn’t just evolve randomly out of some primordial soup.
Darwin himself said:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
The human cell is the death of Darwinism.
At risk of being pedantic and somewhat controversial to the College indoctrinated Apes, it didn't take a cell to prove Darwin's "Theory" is complete bunk. Look around. See any half-human-monkey hybrids? Any Half fish/felines? Yes, it may sound a bit bombastic at first but it drives to a point: If Darwin's "Theory" held any water at all, we would still see examples of his evolutionary horseshit still going on. No, what Darwin observed can be better explained as Evolutionary Adaptation within a Species or Kind or Class.
Succinctly, there are "Species" that are within "Kinds" and those are within "Classes".
So, simply put, it goes something like this: A Class is a Bird, Reptile, Mammal, Fish, etc. Within those classes the Kinds represent the various branches. On those branches are the various species of the branch. Think of an organizational chart on a powerpoint slide....it's just like that but instead of everything coming from a single top point, it comes from multiple top points. These top-points are origin, depending on Class, but they NEVER branch from or intersect, as Darwinian Theory would have you believe. Example: Mammals(class)= Equine, Bovine, Canine, Feline(Kind)=all the various Species of the specific Kind.
The short breakdown is a "Kind" cannot interbreed or come from another "Kind"; e.g. Equine "Kind" cannot interbreed with the Bovine "Kind", nor Canine with Feline to break it down further. Species, on the other hand, CAN interbreed (possibility exists) but not always produce a desirable or fertile offspring; e.g. Horse with Donkey to produce an Ass--both are equine (Kind), but different types (Species) within. Ligers are also an example (Lion and Tiger hybrid).
So why do [they], and the successfully indoctrinated muppets, push Theories as fact? Simply, [they], 1) Do not have a better explanation and want to seem relevant (they're morons cloaked in their own bullshit amongst peers...this was Darwin), 2) want to hide truth from Humanity and are being paid, or forced, to do so, 3) Numb your mind and spirit away from God and depend on fallible Humans to give you the answers to control what your eyes and ears tell you, or lastly 4) All three. It's almost always option 4.
In final summary, any time you see "Theory" behind a name and is being pushed as accepted Science, it's 100% bullshit. A Theory is defined as: "an unproved assumption : conjecture" <--- Remember that.
This turned out longer than I had planned. Sorry for that.
God creating systems from which man arises is more glorious than one where god merely creates man. It's more compatible with a god who prefers free will and consequence, and is entirely compatible with genesis when you read it as written for a newly awakened mind. But what's more, it's supported by measurable reality.
Natural selection is dependent on mutation, not inter species breeding.
Chimpanzees are specialized for their environment, Gorillas for theirs, and humans for ours. You don't see anything in between, because what would they be good at that an existing species isn't already better at?
We outcompeted what we evolved from. and what we evolved from outcompeted what it evolved from. And so on and so on. We didn't evolve from monkeys, but they evolved from the same predecessors before each of us - they for their environment, us for ours. They stayed in the trees and the forest, we went to the ground, stayed there, and were pretty forgettable until we breached a critical threshold and were then off to the races, each iteration replacing the last because our environmental niche was the same as theirs.
And it was not billions replacing the last billions, it was thousands replacing thousands - Chimpanzees, only ever numbered in the low hundreds of thousands, and in no greater numbers is the extent of man as we would come to know ourselves either until that threshold was passed and we became true masters of the world, rather than as our origins as another equally competing sub group amongst the greater animal kingdom.
We don't evolve from interbreeding, nor did we arise from it, nor is it necessary to arrive at something new. Random mutation and time is all you need for that. From individual systems such as mitochondria, chloroplasts, the eye, and species. If you doubt the power of mutation over time, look at a beagle and a world over only just a few tens of thousands of years. Labradors have webbed feet. Whales are just proto horses returned to the water post mammalian split -- or better to say that horses and whales are two branches from the same precursor before them.
No, you're describing a hypothesis. A theory is a rules system that explains existing phenomena and has falsifiable predictive power.
You underestimate the power of god, are blind to the majesty of his creation, and lack the faith to believe in him and evolution (his creation) simultaneously
Gave you an upper for your thoughtful comment but am going to remind you that objectivity only holds for superficial circumstances - for superficial conditions.
What does that mean?
Just this: Objectification necessarily leaves a residuum (that which objectifies).
The objectifier (that which objectifies) is necessarily "more intimate" than what it objectifies.
Thus the ultimate objectifier is always "self" (than which NOTHING is more intimate).
Because of this, "self" cannot be objectified and since it is required to have a residuum (that which objectifies) to have ANY object - there are no objects.
Thus we find that objectivity fails.
This paradox is the fundamental condition of nature. It cannot be resolved. Nature is not objective. We are nature.
No it isn't.
Random nucleic acid sequences capable of self replication absolutely form, and absent existing life to predate upon them will over time from error in replication acquire additional functions to retain over time which will lead inevitably to complementary associations of increasing complexity until all the necessary functions for group regulation and replication is achieved - a simple 'cell' from which the complexity you see here all but a matter of time. And from multi nucleic / proteomic cooperative work, comes multi cellular cooperation, diversification, organization (organism), instinct, thought, and sentience.
What or who started it all? None can say. Do they have a plan, do they watch over, did they select conditions specifically so we would arise to ask of ourselves specific questions, perhaps. But natural selection is completely capable of producing this complexity all by random chance.
And for that to be god's hand should impress you even more.
If you make evolution incompatible with your view of god, you shackle yourself from seeing one of the greatest requisites of his grand creation. From random nucleic and amino acids, individual and dispersed, to complexity capable of supporting the recognition of the hand of god.
Mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell.
It looks like a party in a beautiful garden. Our God is worthy to be praised.
Here it is in higher resolution - https://i.maga.host/8a3wPpP.png
You forgot your cape, sir.
That's not the half of it. God made all that complexity from dust!
He spoke it into existence, he commanded the dust and it obeyed.
Not Q related, but pretty freaking amazing. Its a literal machine.
We are nothing more than BIO robots.
Makes me think the movie 'extinction' is real...
We are SO MUCH MORE than bio robots. We are Divine Sparks of Creation. We still have free will and sovereign rights. Part of this Great Awakening is that humans are finally starting to “remember” or rediscover our tangible connection to God. That connection has been suppressed and severed in myriad ways:
We are NOT robots. Not yet.
But what these mRNA experiments (they are NOT “vaccines”) aim to do is set us on the path toward transhumanism. Toward actually becoming “nothing more than bio robots.”
No thanks.
I could not have said it better.
I meant our bodies... not our spirit
Better description is bio machine avatar
A robots programmed, don't be a robot.
No. there's the concept of "emergent properties," which means the sum of the whole is greater than just the constituent parts.
Reconcile that with fractal reality
Looks like jewelry.
Treat your bodies with great care, friends. Don't put poisons in it, even very slow acting ones disguised as certain food. And exercise it. Your body is a collection of precious jewels and should be treated as such.
Looks almost cosmic.
This reminds me of how human brain neurons look exactly like how scientists theorize the universe to look like at a far distance, like bright branches with powerful shining centers all interconnected. This is no coincidence. The chances that the universe created itself by accident is 10^10^123 power. That is so many zeroes that you couldn't even say them all in your lifetime. We are not here by accident, the world and the universe is not by chance. It is theoretically, scientifically, and mathematically impossible.
Thank you God.
I just showed this to my husband (who more often times than not humors me with what I read on here) and he said “that right there, with the complexity of the human cell is exactly why they shouldn’t be messing with any of it
Mind. Blown.
Looks like a motherboard.
That's amazing.
Just imagine how much one or two of those man made so called "Covid Vacs" will screw up a perfectly designed system! The evil genocide shot will destroy the cell function our Creator gave!
We are all a miracle.
Mitochondria, protein pumps...wow. this is amazing
Beyond Creative Genious!!!
I'm tellin' ya, God can do ANYTHING with almost nuthin'. What I mean is, ALL OF THIS and more - just 'cuz God knows how to recycle a dude's rib. Took a RIB and comes back with all of THIS! Could you do this? Do you know ANYBODY ELSE that could do this?
And this is just a CELL? Oh, but when those cells get "organ-ized..." And you thought ribs were just for snackin'...
Beautiful
Awesome. Literally.
This is one cell, or really, part of one cell. We have trillions of them. And you can say there is no God??? Who made this, then? Chance??
Creation is proof of a creator.
Books do not write themselves.
DNA is the book of life.
As above so below
What a beautiful sight. God is so amazing.
Not only that, God knew you BEFORE you were born. You were once a twinkle in HIS eye. You are His child.
Source: “Cellular landscape cross-section through a eukaryotic cell.” – by Evan Ingersoll and Gael McGill.
Whoa now that’s pretty and bizarre.
I was learning to code but just gave-up.
Wow! Looks like Easter
God is the best artist ever! All power and glory and honor be to Him who created us so wonderfully!