Genesis Creation v. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

The claim by Charles Darwin and his modern-day disciples, including those in academia, is that all organic beings throughout history were the descendants of a single common organic ancestor. Credible scientific evidence has also proven that organic life cannot result from non-life.

 

According to the atheists, there is no Jehovah aka Creator of life. So the question is this: If there is no Jehovah and therefore no Creator, how did evolution’s “common organic ancestor” come to life by itself?

 

The Genesis Creation account speaks about the creation of living things by Jehovah, each uniquely different and each created as-is, but with the ability to produce variations of themselves–up to a set point.

 

Credible science supports the Genesis Creation account and contradicts Darwin’s macroevolution myth. Fake science, meanwhile, relies on abiogenesis (organic life coming to life by itself) but fails to provide any credible explanation for this impossible feat.

 

QUESTION 1: How did evolution’s common ancestor come to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then proceed?

 

QUESTION 2: Humans are supposedly primates, and they supposedly came from the same common primate ancestor as primates such as apes, chimpanzees, and gorillas. So how is it that there is not so much as one single fossil showing the transitions among humans, apes, chimpanzees, and gorillas from this supposed common primate ancestor?

 

QUESTION 3: If every single organic being that has ever existed came from a common ancestor (macroevolution), how is it that there is no evidence within the fossils record to support this claim?

 


“That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” ~ Psalms 83:18

alter2ego,

Nice pic! Alter, I think it is good that you are the alter to someone’s primary ego, cause, at some point, he will likely dump you like a fish sandwich from last week. That is when s/he recognizes that s/he could become associated with the silly things you are saying.

There are folks that frequent this board that could, (and may, we will see) pull this topic inside out, upside down, and backwards, with responses, answers, explanations. But it seems clear that you are not asking questions for information. Your questions are simply a statement reflecting your overall, personally accepted (hook, line, and sinker) dogma.

So greetings to your primary alter. Dude, or dude-ess, you need to dump this alter2ego chick. She is going to make you look foolish.

 

Citations for your credible science please

Where did my post go? It shows up on the outside menu, it shows up in my history, it does not show here.

Alter2Ego said,

Credible scientific evidence has also proven that organic life cannot result from non-life.

According to the atheists, there is no Jehovah aka Creator of life. So the question is this: If there is no Jehovah and therefore no Creator, how did evolution’s “common organic ancestor” come to life by itself?


It has been proven that ALL atoms have only three inorganic particles.

Protons, neutrons, electrons.

These particles contained in the atom are: proton (positive charge, mass approx. 1), neutron (without charge, mass approx. 1) and electron (negative charge, mass approx. 1/1836).

Neutrons and protons are formed from quarks and gluons. Protons and neutrons are not fundamental particles; only the electron is a fundamental particle.


https://www.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_three_fundamental_particles_that_make_up_atoms

Four kinds of Organic Elements

Think CHON; Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen.
https://www.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_four_kinds_of_organic_elements

Organic chemistry

Organic chemistry is a subdiscipline of chemistry that studies the structure, properties and reactions of organic compounds, which contain carbon in covalent bonding.[1] Study of structure determines their chemical composition and formula. Study of properties includes physical and chemical properties, and evaluation of chemical reactivity to understand their behavior. The study of organic reactions includes the chemical synthesis of natural products, drugs, and polymers, and study of individual organic molecules in the laboratory and via theoretical (in silico) study.

The range of chemicals studied in organic chemistry includes hydrocarbons (compounds containing only carbon and hydrogen) as well as compounds based on carbon, but also containing other elements,[1][2][3] especially oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus (included in many biochemicals) and the halogens. Organometallic chemistry is the study of compounds containing carbon–metal bonds.

Methane, CH4; the line-angle structural formula shows four carbon-hydrogen single bonds (σ, in black), and the typical 3D shape of tetrahedral molecules, with ~109° interior bond angles (in dashed-green).

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

Biochemical compounds are evolved complex biochemical molecules which are found in a living things on earth (and possibly other planets in the universe)

What Is a Biochemical Compound? Your body is full of biochemical compounds. Without them, plants and animals wouldn't exist - they're the compounds that make up living things.

All life on Earth is carbon-based, which means that the large molecules that make up much of our body all contain carbon. In some sci-fi stories, humans find silicon-based life on other planets. That’s because silicon has a lot of similarities with carbon. But as far as we know, all life is carbon-based. So for the moment, that’s how we define biochemical compounds.

A compound is a substance made of molecules that contain two or more elements bonded together. A biochemical compound is any compound that contains carbon and is found in living things. They’re involved in every process of life: growth, digestion, respiration, you name it. In the real world, all biochemical molecules contain hydrogen and oxygen. They might also contain nitrogen, sulfur and phosphorus.

The biggest biochemical molecule ever discovered is titin. It’s found in muscles and contains 169,723 carbon atoms, 270,464 hydrogen atoms, 45,688 nitrogen atoms, 522,243 oxygen atoms and 912 sulfur atoms. We call it titin because its real name is too hard to say. It would take a person around half an hour!


https://study.com/academy/lesson/biochemical-compounds-definition-classes.html

This gradualevolution from inorganic elements into organic compounds is called abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, its possible mechanisms are poorly understood. There are several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Do check out these links and you will see that there is nothing magical about the science of bio-chemistry. We just cannot point to a specific source, as organic elements are already synthesized in cosmic clouds during the bombardment of ultra-violet rays on various inorganic elements. and here on earth there may be several sources of abiogenesis.

Not that we have just found worms 2 miles deep in the earths crust. These little creatures are ancient and probably emerged from the various tectonic activities in the earth’s crust. It is proposed that Mars may have such living organisms and we just be able to check that someday.

If this is true, most questions about the creation of living organisms elsewhere in the universe will be answered. Dr Robert Hazen, a very serious mineralogist is personally convinced that life exists elsewhere in the universe.

Do look up the links to his lecture at Carnegie Institute for sciences.

https://hazen.carnegiescience.edu/research/paleontology

 

Sorry Stardusty, hyper active spam filter.

Welcome back.

Q1. Self replicating molecules, you can look it up, tons of info available on line. For a conceptual beginning consider how crystals form and grow, say, a snowflake out of an amorphous cloud.

Q2. There are vast numbers of transitional fossils in our line and lots of other lines. You seem to be repeating something from some creationist video or some such nonsense.

Q2. The whole of the fossil record supports the model for the tree of life. Phylogeny, taxonomy, morphology, DNA studies and the fossil record agree with each other and converge to a single picture of how life is related and developed through time.

 

Alter2Ego, you don’t seem to have researched these subjects very carefully at all. Your questions seem to echo creationist videos or websites. Spend less time at Answers In Genesis and you can begin to learn how uninformed your questions are.

The claim by Charles Darwin and his modern-day disciples, including those in academia, is that all organic beings throughout history were the descendants of a single common organic ancestor. Credible scientific evidence has also proven that organic life cannot result from non-life.
This is wrong. We do not know that it was a "single" common organic ancestor, nor has abiogenesis, "the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances", been "proven" wrong. Life could have formed and been wiped out in its early stages many time. It could also have formed in multiple places in a relatively short period of time, giving us several original common ancestors. At any rate you seem to be conflating evolution with abiogenesis, a common mistake.
According to the atheists, there is no Jehovah aka Creator of life. So the question is this: If there is no Jehovah and therefore no Creator, how did evolution’s “common organic ancestor” come to life by itself?
This is wrong. To be an atheist is to not believe in any gods, not to claim that there are no gods. Some atheists claim that there are no gods, but this is hardly a belief common to all atheists.
The Genesis Creation account speaks about the creation of living things by Jehovah, each uniquely different and each created as-is, but with the ability to produce variations of themselves–up to a set point.

Credible science supports the Genesis Creation account and contradicts Darwin’s macroevolution myth. Fake science, meanwhile, relies on abiogenesis (organic life coming to life by itself) but fails to provide any credible explanation for this impossible feat.


This is wrong. No science supports creation, nor could it as that would violate a fundamental rule of scientific method, that only natural explanations be given. Invoking a higher power instantly turns it into a pseudoscience. Calling something “fake science” does not make you sound smarter than real, trained scientists who disagree with your uninformed assessment.

QUESTION 1: How did evolution’s common ancestor come to life by itself (abiogenesis) so that evolution could then proceed?
Get a degree in biology and figure it out. I am not your tutor, nor am I the defender of science. I am not qualified to do scientific research, nor am I qualified to give you the answers you are demanding. This is a hallmark of pseudoscience: take your argument directly to the people instead of taking it to academia. Why? Because you can convince idiots that they're smart enough to understand incredibly complex science and "teach" them what you want them to know. But you can't fool real scientists with BS.
QUESTION 2: Humans are supposedly primates, and they supposedly came from the same common primate ancestor as primates such as apes, chimpanzees, and gorillas. So how is it that there is not so much as one single fossil showing the transitions among humans, apes, chimpanzees, and gorillas from this supposed common primate ancestor?
This one is easy. There is not "one single" such fossil. There are many. Lucy comes to mind. The Wikipedia page lists 9.
QUESTION 3: If every single organic being that has ever existed came from a common ancestor (macroevolution), how is it that there is no evidence within the fossils record to support this claim?
The "fossil record" is not a meticulous record kept by alien monks. Fossilization is actually quite rare. The only reason there are so many fossils is that so many things have died. And we have not dug up every fossil which exists yet, nor are we ever likely to.

These are all standard arguments. So standard, in fact, that I already know the next step in this argument, should you bother to counter. You’ll find a problem with the list of 9 human transitional fossils on the Wikipedia page, then you will demand some specific transitional fossil which you know has not been found. You’ll keep going with this “negative argument”, a very lazy form of argument where, instead of bothering to deliver an argument supporting what you believe, you demand that I defend the claims of science. Science is a proven way of getting knowledge. If science is wrong you will know it and you will know it because they will tell you. There is no shortage in history of scientists saying, “We got it wrong. This is how we think it is now.” I trust that and you should too. I don’t have to defend science. It is you who has to prove to scientists that you have a better explanation. Come back to me when you’ve convinced people actually trained in the fields you and I know very little about.

Stardusty Psyche said,

Alter2Ego, you don’t seem to have researched these subjects very carefully at all. Your questions seem to echo creationist videos or websites. Spend less time at Answers In Genesis and you can begin to learn how uninformed your questions are.


I agree wholeheartedly.

Chemical Evolution

Chemical evolution is the sequence of chemical changes in originally nonliving matter that give rise to life. The phrase “chemical evolution” is also used, in astronomy and cosmology, to describe the changing makeup of the Universe’s stock of chemical elements through deep time since the Big Bang, from hydrogen and helium immediately after the Big Bang to the full array of elements observed today. This article will restrict itself to the first meaning.

The first known living things on Earth were prokaryotes, a type of cell similar to present-day bacteria. Prokaryote fossils have been found in 3.4-million-year-old rock in the southern part of Africa, and in even older rocks in Australia, including some that appear to be photosynthetic. All forms of life are theorized to have evolved from the original prokaryotes, probably 3.5-4.0 billion years ago.


https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/chemical-evolution

Evolution started immediately after the BB with the formation snd self-assembly of the atomic elements.

Macro-evolution is just Evolution. Fractal evolution is an example of geometric macro-evolution.

Note the self-similarity of the individual "fractals implying a simple mathematical copy instruction as found in cell division (mitosis)

Darwinian Evolution is specific to genetic evolution and natural selection. Darwin did not study chemical evolution in depth, only genetic evolution in living species.

Note the fractal structure of the Darwinian evolutionary tree itself.

Widdershins said,

This is wrong. We do not know that it was a “single” common organic ancestor, nor has abiogenesis, “the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances”, been “proven” wrong. Life could have formed and been wiped out in its early stages many time. It could also have formed in multiple places in a relatively short period of time, giving us several original common ancestors. At any rate you seem to be conflating evolution with abiogenesis, a common mistake.


I agree wholeheartedly.

Evolution and abiogenesis have different definitions, however, I do believe abiogenesis is a result of evolutionary processes, i.e. incresing complexity and natural selection of viable properties and compatible patterns, such as “chemical chirality”.

Chirality /kaɪˈrælɪti/ is a geometric property of some molecules and ions. A chiral molecule/ion is non-superposable on its mirror image. The presence of an asymmetric carbon center is one of several structural features that induce chirality in organic and inorganic molecules.[1][2][3][4] The term chirality is derived from the Ancient Greek word for hand, χείρ (cheir).

The mirror images of a chiral molecule or ion are called enantiomers or optical isomers. Individual enantiomers are often designated as either right-handed or left-handed. Chirality is an essential consideration when discussing the stereochemistry in organic and inorganic chemistry. The concept is of great practical importance because most biomolecules and pharmaceuticals are chiral.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry)

Stardusty Psyche wrote:

Q1. Self replicating molecules, you can look it up, tons of info available on line. For a conceptual beginning consider how crystals form and grow, say, a snowflake out of an amorphous cloud.


Stardusty Psyche:

You are making the same argument that WRITE4U made, namely, that complexity result by accidental or spontaneous events.

Your reliance on “self replicating molecules” fails due to the fact it required skilled scientists, under controlled laboratory conditions, to create their own self-replicating molecules. These scientists inadvertently proved–without intending to–that it requires the intervention of an intelligent being for something like that to happen.

"Scientists Create Self-Replicating Molecules To Explain How Life Began

Now, for the first time, researchers say they have been able to develop a ribozyme that can replicate folded strands, including itself. This is a significant step towards understanding how the first life emerged in the oceans all those billions of years ago from just a blend of different molecules."

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/scientists-create-selfreplicating-molecules-to-explain-how-life-began/

 

Since it required the intervention of intelligent beings (humans in this instance) to create self-replicating molecules in the laboratory, are you expecting this forum to believe that the naturally occurring self-replicating molecules did not likewise require a Creator?

 

I look forward to your reply.

 


“That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” ~ Psalms 83:18

Stardusty Psyche wrote:

Q2. There are vast numbers of transitional fossils in our line and lots of other lines. You seem to be repeating something from some creationist video or some such nonsense.


Stardusty Psyche:

Vast numbers of transitional fossils exist, you say. You mean you wish there were.

The reality is that there is not one single transitional fossil showing how, for example, Creature A evolved into Creature D. The fossil record is full of nothing but gaps according to every honest paleontologist. Charles Darwin claimed that later generations would find fossils showing how a whale evolved into a bear. I guess they’re still looking for those particular fossils.

BTW: I don’t watch “creationist” videos. Don’t need them. I rely on credible scientific evidence and simple logic.

Alter2Ego

 


“That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” ~ Psalms 83:18

AlterEgo2

Your reliance on “self replicating molecules” fails due to the fact it required skilled scientists, under controlled laboratory conditions, to create their own self-replicating molecules. These scientists inadvertently proved–without intending to–that it requires the intervention of an intelligent being for something like that to happen.


Fallacious thinking on your part. Nature has had billions of years and billions of planets of both chance and evolution. Under those circumstances events that are individually unlikely to occur eventually do occur. It’s like winning a hundred million dollar lottery, it is virtually impossible for any individual, but someplace someone eventually does win.

Scientists have to work very hard to achieve in a single lab in a couple years what took nature billions of years and billions of planets to do.

 

 

AlterEgo2

The reality is that there is not one single transitional fossil showing how, for example, Creature A evolved into Creature D.


False. Read. Examples abound that have shared traits of early species and later species. That is what a transitional fossil is, it is a fossil that is in some ways like older species and in some ways like newer species. Examples abound. Here are some:

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

 

AlterEgo2: Credible science supports the Genesis Creation account
"Genesis Creation", please help me understand what you mean by that - are saying Jehovah created the universe, Earth and all its creatures in a six day creation spasm, six thousand years ago?

Stardusty Psyche said:

Fallacious thinking on your part. Nature has had billions of years and billions of planets of both chance and evolution. Under those circumstances events that are individually unlikely to occur eventually do occur. It’s like winning a hundred million dollar lottery, it is virtually impossible for any individual, but someplace someone eventually does win.

Scientists have to work very hard to achieve in a single lab in a couple years what took nature billions of years and billions of planets to do.


Stardusty Psyche:

Next you will be arguing that if the various parts to your computer are left to themselves for billions of years, at some point, the computer parts will hook up in just the right places, and a working computer that was “individually unlikely” to be the result will “occur eventually.”

Is that what you expect those reading this thread to believe?

 

Alter2Ego


“That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” ~ Psalms 83:18

Alter2Ego wrote:

The reality is that there is not one single transitional fossil showing how, for example, Creature A evolved into Creature D. The fossil record is full of nothing but gaps according to every honest paleontologist. Charles Darwin claimed that later generations would find fossils showing how a whale evolved into a bear. I guess they’re still looking for those particular fossils.


Stardusty Psyche said:

False. Read. Examples abound that have shared traits of early species and later species. That is what a transitional fossil is, it is a fossil that is in some ways like older species and in some ways like newer species. Examples abound. Here are some:

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


Stardusty Psyche:

Wikipedia, and no other website, for that matter, can help on this fact: There are no transitional fossils showing how one creature evolved into something entirely different (macroevolution). Every single paleontologist has been forced to admit that the fossils record is filled with nothing but gaps. “Gaps” indicate “missing transitional link.”

“Romer’s Gap
Romer’s gap is an example of an apparent gap in the tetrapod fossil record used in the study of evolutionary biology. These gaps represent periods from which no relevant fossils have been found. Romer’s gap is named after paleontologist Alfred Romer, who first recognized it. Romer’s gap spanned from approximately 360 to 345 million years ago, corresponding to the first 15 million years of the Carboniferous Period.”

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_General_Biology_(Boundless)/18%3A_Evolution_and_the_Origin_of_Species/18.5%3A_Evidence_of_Evolution/18.5C%3A_Gaps_in_the_Fossil_Record

 

Now, run that by me again with your erroneous definition that a transitional fossil refers to “shared traits of early species and later species.”

 

Alter2Ego


“That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” ~ Psalms 83:18

Alter2Ego wrote:

Credible science supports the Genesis Creation account and contradicts Darwin’s macroevolution myth.
<p style=“text-align: left;”>-- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – --</p>
Citizenschallenge-v.3 said:

“Genesis Creation”, please help me understand what you mean by that – are saying Jehovah created the universe, Earth and all its creatures in a six day creation spasm, six thousand years ago?


Citizenschallenge-v.3:

The six creative days found in the Genesis creation account were NOT literal 24-hour days. Each of the creation days in the book of Genesis lasted an undetermined period of time.

The Almighty does not count “days” the same way humans count them. Jehovah applies 24-hour days to human affairs only–never to himself, due to the fact he is not restricted by time, whereas humans are. Scripture makes that clear.

 

Alter2Ego


“That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.” ~ Psalms 83:18

Alter2Ego

There are no transitional fossils showing how one creature evolved into something entirely different (macroevolution)


Right because there are no two creatures living today that entirely different from each other. All living thing have similarities with all other living things.

Romer’s gap spanned from approximately 360 to 345 million years ago, corresponding to the first 15 million years of the Carboniferous Period
So what? Do you want a fossil for every species for every year? How about every day? Sorry, nearly all individual organisms disintegrate over time. Very few fossilize. Worse for us, the vast majority of fossils are still buried in rock or soil and not accessible to us. We typically find fossils only due to erosion at the surface or when we dig or mine.

I provided a list of transitional fossils as requested. If you are to stubborn or ignorant to read and understand the material that is your problem.

Good going, Alter2Ego. Keep swinging. If I could, I would join in this firefight, on your side. I don’t have the stomach to read up on fancy scientific explanations of hypotheses and theories to come up with counter punches like you can.