Evolution vs Creation and spontaneous generation

by MrMoe 36 Replies latest jw friends

MrMoe

Please read it all, I know it's a bit long, but you need to read it all to see where I am coming from. I beleive in creation in the sense that the big bang and spontaneous generation don't make logical sense to me. I am sure Funkyderek and Jan will have some fun with me on this one. And please remember - I respect your beliefs, please respect mine.
Let me start with.....
Definition of the word *theory* according to New Webster's Dictionary:
THEORY - Speculate... abstract thought...general abstract principles of science... hypothetical set of facts... scientifically acceptable body of principle offered to explain phenomena.. for the sake of argument..
Definition of the word *evolution* according to New Webster's Dictionary:
A theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other pre-existing types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations and a process where the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Micro-evolution vs. Macro-evolution - (For you science buffs)
I believe in micro-evolution - and not macro-evolution, so here are some notes to ponder from my research and personal findings.
Micro-evolution reflects biological variations within a species or biological kind (varieties/breeds of dogs and cats, etc...) This is not a theory because it is taught as scientific fact and it has been proven. Macro-evolution teaches that biological variations in nature occurred with simple to complex species or biological kinds to the extreme sense that their biological kind over time was totally altered and changed into another biological type. This theory is taught as scientific fact but has not been proven.
Charles Darwin assumed in his theories that because micro-evolution occurs then macro-evolution must also be possible, but scientific evidence only supports a possibility of natural variation. Example, a mule is the product of a horse and a donkey, but this biological variation is unable to reproduce and is still considered to be an equine type animal (horse, donkey and mule.) (For your reference - a mule is a cross between a mare/female horse and a male donkey. A hinny is a cross between a jennet/female donkey and a male horse.) Dogs and cats can change in color, size and shape, but will not mutate into another animal or sub-species.
Macro-evolution is a theory that does not establish any biological limits different variations and change. Example, macro-evolution teaches that over time a fish evolved into an apelike creature and that ape evolved into a human form. This theory was founded upon similarities in design (monkeys resemble humans just like Eartha Kit looks like a cat )
Macro-evolutionary changes are not a theory that can be proven (A theory means to speculate, abstract thought, see above definition) even over millions of years. Creationists believe that genetic and biological similarities between different species is a result of being designed two serve similar functions.
The fossil record and mutations (a cleft palate, multi-headed frog, Siamese twins, etc...) serve as the evidence for evolution.
The basis of evolution is the belief that life originally evolved from nonliving matter, or "spontaneous generation." This theory was successfully refuted by the experiments of Louis Pasteur (he discovered that most infectious diseases are caused by germs) in the late nineteenth century. (***see bottom of page for more on Louis's findings***) Evidence points to the fact that life can only result from pre-existing life. Scientists cannot create a life from (even a once celled organism) nonliving materials, but they can alter established life forms through genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is very complex process and often times is performed by transplanting a gene from one living species into the DNA of another species which doesn't have that particular gene.
Scientists also cannot regenerate life using a dead cell. In order to alter genetics, they must use living organisms only.
There are four types of nucleic acids which make up DNA. A single DNA molecule contains anywhere from thousands to millions of those four types. It is a precise sequence and order of nucleic acids in DNA that determines the sequence of the various amino acids making proteins constructing our body and it's tissue/matter. The DNA of a bacteria is three million sequential letters long, but the DNA of a human cell is three billion (yes, that is billion vs. million) sequential letters long.
*********
**** Louis Pasteur facts: He is considered to be the greatest French scientist in history and did not like the theory of evolution because he felt it was "materialistic and atheistic." Quoting him mocking evolution:
"...admit the doctrine of spontaneous generation and the history of creation and the origin of the organic world is no more difficult than this. Take a drop of sea water containing some nitrogenous material, some mucus, some fertile jelly as it is called, and in the midst of it the first beings of creation take birth spontaneously. Little by little they transform themselves and climb from rank to rank, for example, to insects after 10,000 years and no doubt to monkeys and man after 100,000 years."
Pasteur's led what is deemed as a successful "experimental" campaign in the 1860's basing his findings upon spontaneous generation of microscopic animals. To disprove this idea he boiled broth to kill any microbes in it. He then allowed air to circulate over the broth with a special glass tool (can't remember exactly how so correct me if I am wrong) and the tool prevented microbes that were in the air from reaching the broth. No microbes appeared in the broth, leaving him with the conclusion that the microbes could not be spontaneously generated and only appeared if they made direct contact with the air. His conclusion was "Microscopic beings must come into the world from parents similar to themselves." There has yet to be an observable case of spontaneous generation and his findings conflicted with the theory of spontaneous generation.
SixofNine

Not sure what Louis' comments have to do with a 21st century discussion of origen of life. I'm sure he was ahead of his time, but he wasn't THAT far ahead of his time. No one is.
Mr Moe, did you catch the recent news reports about space "bugs"? It puts an interesting light on this discussion.
bboyneko 2

The idea that an all-powerful life-form just has always exsisted or suddenly came into being and then created everything despite his being perfect and complete dosent make sense to me either.
Who woulda thought a land mammal would evolve fins and swim? (whales and dolphins) or wings? (bats, sugar gliders, flying squirrels)
Without macro evolution, you have to sort of accept the idea that massivley complicated life unlike anything we have ever observed oin earth just sort of happened. To me it makes much more sense that life started small, carbon atoms, and then got bigger and bigger.
-Dan
bboyneko 2

Mr Moe, did you catch the recent news reports about space "bugs"? It puts an interesting light on this discussion.

For your pleasure:
Scientists claim evidence of space bugs
LONDON, England (Reuters) -- A team of international researchers said on Tuesday they have found what could be the first proof of life beyond our planet -- clumps of extraterrestrial bacteria in the Earth's upper atmosphere.
Although the bugs from space are similar to bacteria on Earth, the scientists said the living cells found in samples of air from the edge of the planet's atmosphere are too far away to have come from Earth.
"There is now unambiguous evidence for the presence of clumps of living cells in air samples from as high 41 kilometers (25 miles), well above the local tropopause (16 kilometers up), above which no air from lower down would normally be transported," Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe, an astronomer at Cardiff University in Wales, said in a statement.
RESOURCES
MESSAGE BOARD

He presented the findings to a meeting of the International Society of Optical Engineering in San Diego, California.
"A prima facie case for a space incidence of bacteria on to the Earth may have been established," the statement said.
Wickramasinghe and scientists from India collected the space bugs from samples of stratospheric air using the Indian Space Research Organisation's cryogenic sampler payload flown on balloons from a launch pad in Hyderabad, southern India.
Using a fluorescent dye the scientists detected living cells in the sample and estimated by the way their distribution varied with height that they are falling from space.
As much as a third of a ton of the biological material is raining down over the entire planet daily, by their estimation.
Space bacteria or hitchhikers?
Professor David Lloyd, a microbiologist at Cardiff University who examined the space bugs and co-authored the report, said they look like common terrestrial bacteria but there is no explanation of how they could have risen so high.
"There would have to be some unusual event which would take particles from the Earth to a height of 40 kilometers," Lloyd said in a telephone interview.
The bacteria could have hitched a ride on a rocket or satellite into space or they really could be from another planet.
"We have no evidence for one or the other as yet," said Lloyd. "The most likely possibility is that the bacteria have arrived from another planet. I'd like to think that, at any rate."
Trying to see what grows
Lloyd has tried, so far unsuccessfully, to grow the bacteria in culture but said he hasn't found the right conditions yet.
"It's the first pointer that it is possible to get evidence that there is life on other planets," he added.
Wickramasinghe is convinced the space bugs provide strong support for the panspermia theory -- which suggests that life may have come from outer space in the form of germs or spores.
"We have argued for more than two decades that terrestrial life was brought down to Earth by comets and that cometary material containing micro-organisms must still reach us in large quantities," he said.
Copyright 2001 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without a urine sample.
SixofNine

Thanks bb. I was just going to post another one: http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/31-7-19101-0-43-11.html
MrMoe

I did not say I didn't beleive in life on other planets, because I do. What I did day was I did not believe in spontaneous generation. And, can these scientists really prove that this bacteria is not a contaminate from earth? Sounds a bit fishy to me.
bboyneko 2
But moe, if life is proven to exsist on other planets, this casts doubt on christianity and theism just as the finding of dinosaur bones did, proving life has been on earth for billions of years before man.
Your right, there's a possibility that the bacteria is an earth contaminate. But remmeer, life can exsist in the vacuum of space. So it's not impossible it came from space.
Life at the Limits
The "habitable zone" for terrestrial life is much broader than previously thought. Examples of life at extreme conditions include:
Hottest: 113°C--Pyrococcus furiosus (Vulcano Island, Italy)
Coldest: -15°C--Crypotendolithotrophs (Antarctica)
Deepest: 2 miles (land)--bacteria found in rocks underground
Most acidic: <pH 0.0--unclassified organisms growing on gypsum in caves
Most basic: pH 11--Alkaliphilic bacteria
Highest radiation: 5 Mrads--Deinococcus radiodurans (ubiquitous)
Longest period in space: 6 years--Bacillus subtilis (Long Duration Exposure Facility)
Farthest: Moon--Humans, Streptococcus mitus from Surveyor III camera after 3 years unprotected on lunar surface
Longest dormancy: 20-40 million years--Bacillus revived from gut of bee in 20-40-million-year-old Dominican amber
Deepest and Highest pressure: 1200 atm--cold seep community at bottom of Marianas Trench
Saltiest: 30%--halophilic bacteria
MrMoe

I do not feel God wrote the bible and so therefore I feel it is not accurate. I think the dinosaurs were created by a higher power - the same as I feel humans were.
Spontaneous generation and macro-evolution are theories that cannot be proved. Micro-evolution can be. Just as I stated before:
"Micro-evolution reflects biological variations within a species or biological kind (varieties/breeds of dogs and cats, etc...) ... it has been proven.
Macro-evolution teaches that biological variations ... to the extreme sense that their biological kind over time was totally altered and changed into another biological type. This theory is taught as scientific fact but has not been proven... Example, a mule is the product of a horse and a donkey, but this biological variation is unable to reproduce and is still considered to be an equine type animal... Dogs and cats can change in color, size and shape, but will not mutate into another animal or sub-species.
Macro-evolution ... does not establish any biological limits different variations and change... This theory was founded upon similarities in design..."
ballistic

MrMoe!!!!!!!!!!
Before JanH jumps on your back, I just thought I had better tell you that Spontanieous generation and Spontanieous Equalibrium are two totally different things.
What you're refering to is the antiquated theory that small organisms could literally appear out of "nothing", while spontaneous equalibrium (as talked about in the Creation book) is a relatively new theory about mutations.
I was too far out... and not waving but drowning - Stevie Smith
bboyneko 2

moe, isn't it highly interesting that life, with the exception of insects and bacteria/viruses (if viruses are indeed life) have two eyes, two ears, 4 limbs, 5 digits on each appendage with a 'claw' on each, and an extremley similair skeletal structure, skull, backbone, ribs, pelvis, etc. Also, humans have a quadraped spine, that's why it's on our back. An ideal biped spine would be in the center of our bodies, supporting our necks and upper body much better and allowing much greater flexability and protecting the highly vulnerable spine better. If you look at the greater picture, mammals are a dominant lifeform because the earth's temperature is no longer a constant sunny place. (palm trees in the north pole) Dinosaurs were at one time dominant proably because as reptiles, they didn't need to generate their own body heat. In fact, reptiles are much more effecient at using energy from food to nurture their bodies. Being a mammal is wasteful, we waste a huge percentage of our food energy for generating heat. Once the earth became cold and had winters, the dinosaurs likley died off because of this, leaving the small mammals who could generate heat as the dominant species. Small rodents and the like.
We have a tail bone, but no tail anymore. Our DNA contains remnats of code once used when we were something else, but now useless. With such similair charactaristsics among mammals and fish and other life, it's not that far of a stretch to go from fish to mammal. Mammals became 'fish' didnt they. Look at the remarkable giraffe. It was once short-necked, and now its got a big-ass neck complete with specialized blood pumping system to help blood reach it's brain just so it can eat some leaves. Or turtles. Evolution does remarkable things.
Look at australia, a continent isolated from the rest of the world's evolutionary process. They have marsupial koalas, and kangaroos. Vastly different animals, yet related by a common ancestor marsupial. Look at the frigin' duck billed platypus! What a freak. It evolved a body similair to a beaver to aid it in water, and also a bill like a duck to aid it in eating the same sort of foods ducks eat. He even lays eggs! That's unheard of in mammals. Clearly, life when left alone for a long long time, will evolve and diverge from common ansestors.
-Dan

Evolution vs Creation and spontaneous generation

Share this