LordReed:


What is unworthy of consideration is your ignorance declaring that it is the work of a god.

Even if we ASSUME that it is not the work of God, then is it the work of CHANCE ? Or is it the work of your favorite friend, CHEMICAL REACTIONS ?

LordReed:


Read more here.

I have gone through your reference. But nobody has been able to come up with an adequate explanation as to why body cells reproduce by MITOSIS (thereby maintaining the species’ standard chromosome number in each cell) and why sex cells (sperm cell and egg cells) are produced by MEIOSIS—wherein that chromosome number is halved so that, at the union of the male and female gametes during fertilization the standard number is restored.


You want us to believe that unguided process of nature brought about this INTERDEPENDENT process of, first, splitting the genetic information into equal halves, and, second, recombining it through fertilization.

Not only an intricate process is required to produce a sperm or egg cell in the first place through MEIOSIS, but another equally intricate mechanism is also required to rejoin the genetic information during FERTILIZATION in order to produce the zygote, which will become the embryo, which will become the fetus, which eventually will become the newborn.

The idea that all of these intricate processes “JUST EVOLVED” by chance without any guidance is unworthy of consideration

LordReed:


They don't however mere assertion will not do.

Now explain to us how UNGUIDED natural process manage to create the FIRST functional MALE and FIRST functional FEMALE organisms ever existed in nature if mere assertion will not do.

LordReed:


When people use entity they usually refer to independence of being. DNA and ribosomes are real but are not beings.

There are no earthquakes in biological systems that means what then? Scientists cannot recreate earthquakes, tsunamis or mountains in a lab so that means they are not natural processes? How does inability to recreate something mean it is not a natural process?

How does existence of natural processes like earthquake and tsunami in the universe mean such processes were not created by God in the first instance ?

LordReed:


Why is this so hard for you? DNA is not an entity, ribosomes are not entities. It is like calling clouds entities because from them emerges rain, thunder and lightning. They are not intelligent events. They are events obeying and constrained by physical laws. They can into existence by the interaction of the component parts based on the physical laws of the universe.

DNA and ribosomes are not entities ?
What is the meaning of an entity ?

According to my dictionary;

an entity is an existent something that has the properties of being real, and having a real existence.

So are you saying DNA and ribosomes are not real ?

If all these events are constrained and brought into existence by physical law of universe, why all these events only seen in biological cells ? In other words, why scientists have not yet been able to create one living proto cell in their well equipped laboratory and witness all these events in this living proto cell ?

LordReed:


Yes to all of them. The deception is on your part, you seem to think these things are little entities run around on little legs, obeying the instructions of a divine being. DNA and RNA are molecules, chemicals. Their transport around the cell and their operations are all governed by the laws constraining chemical reactions but delusional people like you get confused by use of terms like code and selection then begin to imagine that these are discrete entities capable of coherent thought enough to obey instructions. It's not my fault that your secondary school education was so lacking.

1. Existence of Information bank ( DNA)
2. Means of copying this information ( messenger RNA)
3. Means of transporting this information to the factory.
4. Existence of the factory itself ( ribosomes) and its ability to read and translate the information
5. Existence of the raw materials (different amino acids) for the factory
6. Means of transporting these raw materials to the factory (existence of transfer RNA)
7. The assembly of raw materials into a finished product (functional protein) inside the factory.
8. Means of transporting this finished product from the factory to where it is needed.

Even if we ASSUME that all the EIGHT entities or events enumerated above were made possible by chemical reactions as you claimed , this assumption has not changed the whole scenario from being coherent and intelligent events. Or does it ? Can all these entities and processes now came into existence by chance ?

LordReed:


These are chemical reactions, there are no "instructions" going on.

So the process involve in copying of information from one template (DNA) into another template (messenger RNA) is a chemical reaction ?

Similarly, the movement of this template of information (messenger RNA) out of the nucleus toward the ribosomes in the cytoplasm is also a chemical reaction ?

Again, the process of translating this template of information by the ribosomes is a chemical reaction ?

Furthermore, transporting the raw materials (different amino acids) by the vehicle (transfer RNA) to the factory (ribosomes) where the raw materials would be assembled into a finished product (functional protein) base on the information carried by messenger RNA is also chemical reaction ?

Finally, transportation of this finished product (functional protein) from the factory (the ribosomes) to where they are needed is also a chemical reaction ?

Think very well. Honestly you have been deceived. Can all these coherent, conscious and intelligent events be explained away by chemical reactions ?

LordReed:


This is like asking why hydrogen forms a short molecule with oxygen but forms complex chains with carbon. It is based on the nature of the reactants.

But who instruct DNA polymerase to busy with DNA replication and also instruct RNA polymerase to engage in transcription ? Can complementary natures of these two enzymes evolved by chance ?

LordReed:


What you don't understand is that it is not choosing anything. It's a chemical reaction.

If it is not choosing anything, why not copying the whole DNA from beginning to the end just like what we see in DNA replication ?

LordReed:


LoL! You actually don't know that the RNA is a chemical? Hint is in the name .... ACID.

Do you really understand what we are discussing ? I guess you didn't.

Binding of RNA polymerase to a promoter sequence of a DNA strand may follow a chemical law but the act of CHOOSING the correct promoter out of thousand of promoters cannot be based on chemical law.

LordReed:
How does hydrogen know how to combine with oxygen into water? OMG, hydrogen is not smart therefore intelligent designer! SMH.

We are discussing how an ordinary enzyme, RNA polymerase, that lack consciousness and intelligence manage to CHOOSE the "correct answer" out of many great number of options set before it .

And you are telling us how hydrogen react with oxygen to form water using CHEMICAL LAW of definite proportion.

Don't you think that the "act of choosing" from many options is not base on natural law but base on intelligence whereas "chemical reactions between two substances" follow a pure natural law

hakeem4:
. wait! this dude what is your problem? Atheism is the lack of belief in god. The lawyer can decide to belief aliens created human. Atheism is not science. most atheist just rely on the answer science provides cause its tested and its true.

If lawyer decided to believe in an alien as the creator of human being, then we can still refer that alien as the "god" of the lawyer. In that case, the lawyer is no longer an atheist.

Yes, atheism is not science. But science of evolution provide a refuge for the atheists in the sense that it makes them not to worry again concerning how they came to exist. So atheism and science of evolution are closely related

hakeem4:


This type of question should not be asked in the 21st century. new information are added to the DNA by Mutation, and if the mutation is beneficial to the organism it can pass it down.

As agreed by all scientists, the probability of harmful mutations being occurred is far greater than that of beneficial mutations. Therefore, a GREAT number of beneficial mutations ( like those require for the transformation of lower to higher species of life ) must be accompanied by corresponding GREATER number of harmful mutations.
In other words, before hundreds of beneficial mutation can become fixed in one place, thousands of harmful mutations would have been implanted elsewhere and before thousands of beneficial mutations can become fixed in one place, millions of harmful mutations would have been implanted elsewhere.
This is exactly the reason why lower species cannot mutate to become higher species .

The reference you quote up there is talking about theistic evolution i:e evolution that has been guided by God from the beginning. It has nothing to do with natural evolution we are discussing.

hakeem4:

i saw a topic on reddit so you could probably go there to read the information

The only reasonable thing I can find on the reddit you referenced goes thus;

"RNA knows which strand to copy because it finds the sequence of code that says "Here's a gene to read", termed a promoter, which causes an RNA polymerase to bind to the strand and transcribe the code in the 3' to 5' direction, creating mRNA, until it reaches a sequence that tells the polymerase to stop."

But this has not answered my question. This is because every strand of DNA to be copied has its own "promoter" which enable RNA polymerase to bind to the strand. This implies that there are many "promoters" for different strands of DNA.
So my question can now be rephrased as follows; how did RNA polymerase RECOGNIZE the "promoter" of the strand to be copied during the process of transcription of a particular DNA strand ?

Here is the analogy; you are being asked to go and copy a particular information on a particular page of a voluminous encyclopedia. The "promoter" is just like a page number where you are going to see that information. But if you are not told before hand that the information you're looking for is on a particular page, how are you going to recognize that actual page out of many pages of the encyclopedia ?

This parallels the question that says how did RNA polymerase manage to recognize the "actual promoter" of the strand to be copied out of many promoters meant for the different strands of DNA ?

hakeem4:


yes ! i do not believe in any form of the supernatural being, but that does not mean i should know the answer to many questions. for example if an atheist is a lawyer by profession, you do not expect him to answer this question you posed up there. Atheism is just lack of belief in god!

Before a sincere lawyer can resolve within his mind that there is no God, he must have possessed an adequate explanation on how he himself and all other living things came to exist. Otherwise, the belief of such an atheistic lawyer would be base on ignorance and self desire; not on concrete and good reason

hakeem4:

well the only part of evolution that is random is the mutation. which information are you referring?

But mutation is the back bone of evolution. Without mutations causing variations, natural selection has nothing to act upon. Natural selection only explain the "survival" of the fittest. It does nothing in explaining the "arrival" of the fittest. Yet the new species have to arrive before they can survive.
You're asking me about the information I was referring to. Don't you know that before a simple life forms like bacteria can be transformed into higher life forms like cockroaches, additional new genetic information is required ? So how did evolution manage to source for this new information ?

hakeem4:


The questions you asked have been answered in many scientific journals so it would waste my time to start explaining here in a religious section

I have gone through your references, they did not answer any of my questions. But if you believe they do, then just quote the answer to my first question that says;
how did RNA polymerase manage to RECOGNIZE and COPY the required little information out of the bank of information contained inside the DNA ?

hakeem4:
sorry abdulgaffar22, i was about responding to your question. But reading down to the end i noticed you just want to ridicule all atheist and evolution.

I am not here to ridicule any body or any theory. But to establish facts.

hakeem4:


first of all not all atheist can answer the questions you put up there cause atheism means lack of belief in god or gods simple! atheism does not tell you how to behave or what is right or wrong. Atheism is just a name used to categorize people who do not believe in supernatural beings.

Are you not an atheist ? Do you believe in any supernatural being ?

hakeem4:


Back to your question you keep claiming evolution is random. That just shows you do not understand the topic you are trying to debunk. Evolution is not random or by chance!

If new genetic information require for macrevolution is not by random process of chance ( DNA mutations), then how did such information originate ?

hakeem4:


now cells know how to go about the activities you mentioned up there by a process called mitosis and meiosis.

Your ignorance is at peak

Don't you know that the events of protein synthesis I explained up there are also part of the events involved in mitosis and meiosis ? Without the production of new set of proteins, new cells produced by mitosis and meiosis cannot exist.

coleoneee:
No wonder you're a religious fanatic

Has this submission of yours explained why my post is an incoherent trash ? Try to be sincere

MJBOLT:

another incoherent trash

How and why is it incoherent ?

Whenever there is need for the production of a particular protein inside the cell, the following summarized events take place;

1. The enzyme known as RNA polymerase make a "copy" of little relevant information from the DNA located inside the nucleus of a cell. This little transcribed copy of DNA is called the messenger RNA.

2. The messenger RNA now "travel" out of the nucleus and head toward the cytoplasm to find the ribosomes.

3. The ribosomes then "read" and "translate" the information carried by the messenger RNA.

4. The transfer RNA "transport" the necessary raw materials (different amino acids) from the cytoplasm to the factory (i:e the ribosomes) where they would be assembled and processed into a functional protein base on the translation process done by the ribosomes on the information carried by the messenger RNA.

5. The functional protein would now be "transfer" to the exact place where it is needed, either inside the cell or outside the cell.

Based on the events of protein synthesis explained above, let us ask some reasonable questions;

How did RNA polymerase manage to RECOGNIZE and COPY the required little information out of the bank of information contained inside the DNA ?
It is like you are being asked to go and copy a little information written on a particular page of a voluminous encyclopedia. See how difficult the task would be for you to do despite your intelligence and consciousness.
But now consider an ordinary enzyme like RNA polymerase that lack such intelligence and consciousness. How did it manage to carry out this difficult task ?
How did the enzyme "know" where to start copying the information and where to stop ?
Can this biological information itself (i:e DNA) and this enzyme (meant to recognize and copy different portions of it ) evolved by chance or came to exist by intelligent design?

Again, how did messenger RNA manage to travel out of the nucleus and head toward the ribosomes ?
Out of all the organelles (like mitochondria, golgi apparatus, lysosomes, smooth endoplasmic reticulum, secretory vesicles, centrosomes etc) present inside the cytoplasm, why did messenger RNA decide to "choose" ribosomes and move toward it ?
Can this wise choice evolved by chance or came to exist by intelligent design ?

Furthermore, how did ribosomes manage to "read" and "translate" this biological information ? Was this process of reading and translating evolved by chance or came to exist by intelligent design ?

Moreover , look at the transfer RNAs that transport the raw materials (different amino acids) to the factory (ribosomes) where they are assembled and processed to become a functional protein. Again, why did transfer RNA also manage to deposit those raw materials inside the ribosomes out of many other organelles present inside the cytoplasm ?
Was this also evolved by chance or came to exist by intelligent design ?

Finally, after the production of the required protein, how did protein manage to be transported to the site where they are exactly needed ? Was this process of transportation to the targeted site also evolved by chance or came to exist by intelligent design ? Does chance has any "will or power" to choose what the cell require ?

If all these events are too complex, specific, directional and purposeful to be evolved by CHANCE, then is it not "INTELLIGENCE" that is orchestrating all these events ? Is there any third option ?

But if this "intelligence" cannot be attributed to unintelligent and unconscious atoms or entities that make up the cell organelles or the physical universe, then who is the owner of this very intelligence other than the Creator of all living things ? It is this very intelligent Creator we describe as God

If programmed cell death exist and originate by a process of CHANCE as atheists want us to believe then PCD itself would have killed the developing embryo right from the beginning of its development. But God has designed the gene responsible for PCD to switch on when ever it is required and to switch off when ever it is not needed . Can this intermittent switching on and off evolved by CHANCE or came to exist by DESIGN ? Answer it your self . Of course, there is no third option.

If both the PCD gene and its controlling switch came to exist together, then that is DESIGN. But if PCD gene and its controlling switch evolved by CHANCE, then they have to evolve one after the other. Therefore, PCD would have killed the embryo before the evolution of its controlling switch.

OpenYourEyes1:


An invisible and intelligent force "from" GOD is really behind the molding and sculpting otherwise nothing would create itself.
Nice one!

Oh yes! If intelligent and invisible force is not at work then some cells would not be able to die according to a CERTAIN PATTERN in order to form the fingers and toes.

In the first stages of embryonic development, the cells make exact copies of themselves. But if this multiplication of cells were not controlled, a human being would not be formed; rather, a large piece of flesh composed of identical cells would be the result.
But such is not the case. Identical stem cells later begin to differentiate. As a result of this differentiation, bone cells muscle cells , liver cells, blood cells, skin cells, nerve cells, in short, all the body's cells, that will later form the tissues, organs and systems are made.



But while growth in the womb continues, an even more amazing event takes place.
When some cells continue to divide and differentiate, others kill themselves, thereby allowing certain organs to take shape. This is known as "programmed cell death (PCD)" in embryology .


For example, during the development of the hands and feet, some cells die off according to a certain pattern in order to form the fingers and toes.

In fact, Scientific American, October 1999 confessed as follows;

"More generally, building a complex organism like a human being is like creating an intricate sculpture. Cell division forms the CLAY, whereas programmed cell death SCULPTS the clay into the desired form. Consider human hands, which start out as paddlelike structures. Fingers develop in the paddles, but then the cells in the tissue between the fingers must die for a proper hand to form".

Based on what is written above, human body can be described as a work of sculpture .
But every act of sculpting always involved a sculptor. But a sculptor can only be a "personal being" with intelligence and consciousness. It is this very personal being we portrayed as God.

LordReed:


Check the images I have added.

Good.

But it is now left for you to explain how simple life forms like flatworm would transform itself into higher life forms by a great number of beneficial mutations which must be accompanied by a greater number of harmful mutations.

Again do you have anything to say about the impossibilty of the urinary system being evolved by gradual evolution as I explained above ?

LordReed:


This is just a big giant attempt at equivocation. The flatworms have a digestive system with digestive organs but no corresponding circulatory system or organs and no respiratory system or organs. You are equivocating because this clear example demolishes your argument.

I am done with this discussion, its galling when people refuse clear examples because it contradicts their preconceived notions.

Of course, human digestive system consists of
organs like buccal cavity, gullet , stomach, liver, pancreas and intestines. If flatworm also have a digestive system with digestive organs as you claimed, then list the names of these organs.

Even apart from the problem of numerous harmful mutations that would accompany the beneficial mutations needed for macro- evolution, there is another problem explained below;

let us consider the macro-evolution of the kind of urinary system found in vertebrates . This system consists of kidney, ureter, urinary bladder and the urethra.

Let say evolutionary process of mutations want to create the very FIRST KIDNEY ever exist in nature.

The only way for the evolution to perform this creation is by gradually transforming one particular pre- existing structure by a series of beneficial mutations occurring over many generations.

But during this process of transformation over many generations, a stage must be reached when that pre existing structure would no longer be able to perform its original function. Yet kidney would be only half-way developed and therefore cannot perform any function. Hence, at this very stage, both the pre- existing structure and the under- developed kidney must be weeded out by natural selection.

Even if we assume that kidney managed to evolve in its full form over few generations, it would still be useless if the pipe (i:e the ureter) through which the urine will exit the kidney is absent. This implies that both kidney and the ureter must evolved together in a single generation; something that BEYOND the power of "gradual evolution by process of chance over millions of years".

LordReed:


You are misunderstanding what's going on. If any member of a specie acquires harmful mutations what makes you think it will live on to procreate? And even if it does do you think the accumulation of harmful mutations will allow any offspring to prosper? This is one of the premises of natural selection, that natural conditions constrain the survival chances of living things making the fittest have better survival chances. If the organisms with harmful mutations are weeded out by natural selection then those with beneficial mutations go on to survive and multiply.

As agreed by all scientists, the probability of harmful mutations being occurred is far greater than that of beneficial mutations.

Therefore, a great number of beneficial mutations ( like those require for macro evolution) must be accompanied by corresponding greater number of harmful mutations.

In other words, before hundreds of beneficial mutation can become fixed, thousands of harmful mutations would have been put in place and before thousands of beneficial mutations can become fixed, millions of harmful mutations would have been put in place.
This is exactly the reason why transformation from one simple life forms into higher ones (macro- evolution) by a process of chance mutation is impossible.

Hence, what you claimed up there can only work for "micro-evolution" like variations seen in peppered moth during industrial revolution . It can never be applied to "macro- evolution" like evolution to greater complexity.

LordReed:


Flatworms do not have circulatory or respiratory organs but have digestive organs so your "test" does not hold water. Clearly one system can outpace another in developing complexity.

You have confused system with organ.

According to Wikipedia, biological system is a complex network of biologically relevant entities.

For example, circulatory system is a complex network of entities like heart, blood and blood vessels.

Urinary system is a complex network of entities like kidney, ureter, urinary bladder and urethra.

Digestive cavity of a flat worm is an organ; it is not a biological system.

So you flatly got it wrong

Digestive system can never outpace respiratory and circulatory systems in an evolutionary journey because they are interdependent with each other.

LordReed:


It is you who has the difficulty here when it was clearly stated that there are beneficial mutations. You are sticking with this your fictional view mutation as a thing that is bad that you can't even assimilate something that you are looking at with your own 2 eyes.

This is getting boring.

I did not deny the existence of beneficial mutations. But remember that a body of human being or any other animal is not made up of only one system; human body consists of many systems. So if beneficial mutations are opportune to be directed toward the construction of some systems, there must definitely be some harmful mutations which would be directed toward the destruction of other systems elsewhere. Of course, this is expected because the probability of harmful mutations being occurred is far greater than that of beneficial mutations. So I did not deny the existence of beneficial mutations.
Even if beneficial mutations keep on occurring in many of the systems of a body, one harmful mutation in only one of the vital systems of the SAME BODY is enough to cause death and therefore making all those beneficial mutations to be useless.

LordReed:


Because the eye doesn't develop an interdependence with the brain, the nervous system, the skeletal system, the muscular system?

You're yet to understand the meaning of interdependent system
Interdependent systems are the systems that require each other for their existence due to physiological linkage between them. I have already taken my time in the previous post to explain how respiratory system, circulatory system, digestive system etc are interdependent with each other. On cannot just exist without the other being put in place. Can you cite an instance where a simple respiratory system exist without the corresponding circulatory system and the digestive system being put in place ? Of course, there is none. Yet according to theory of gradual evolution over millions of yesrs, these three systems must evolve one after the other; they cannot evolve simultaneously in a single generation.

LordReed:


That is like saying because you need to roll a 20 on a 20sided die for specific action in game therefore the game is impossible. As long as the CHANCE exists given enough time it will occur. You seem to ignore time element in this. These changes are not occurring in one or two generations they are occurring over several generations amounting to millions of years. You are down stream of these changes and looking baffled at all the data. Your incredulity not proof of a god only proof your are unconvinced by what you are seeing.

I don't want to say you find it difficult to understand simple English. But let me quote Wikipedia again


"Due to DAMAGING effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to PREVENT or CORRECT MUTATIONS by reverting the mutated sequence back to its original state".

If there is a mechanism already put in place to prevent or correct the "spelling mistakes" generated during the copying of information written on a single sheet of paper, then can such spelling mistakes still accumulate enough by CHANCE to turn that single sheet of paper (bacteria) to a very big text book (human being) that make sense to those who read it ?


Even if we assume that (despite the mechanism put in place to correct them) such "spelling mistakes" still managed to accumulate for millions of years to turn that single sheet of paper into a textbook, can such a textbook ( full of long time accumulated spelling mistakes) make sense to those who would be reading it ?

In other words, can a VIABLE human being consisting of twelve different systems results from millions of years accumulated DNA ERRORS in the nucleus of a bacteria especially when we put the DAMAGING effects of such DNA errors into consideration ?

LordReed:


You are talking about a process that took millions of years to come to the state in which you see it now. The systems did not all develop at the same time and there is no reason to believe otherwise. And again simple to more complex, go look at the development of the eye from mere light sensitive cells to the lens system they are now, you'll see how systems develop and acquire interdependence.

We are talking about interdependence that exist between the DIFFERENT systems that make up a body and you're talking about interdependence between different parts of the SAME system. Don't you see that the two cases are not similar.
Complete absence of one of the interdependent systems ( like respiratory system) lead to instant death. But complete absence of one of the interdependent parts (like eye lens) of the same system may not lead to instant death but malfunctioning of the affected system.

hakeem4:
everything you say about evolution by natural selection is wrong.

Quote a single statement from me that is wrong about evolution.

hakeem4:


Are mutations are also changes and that’s how NS operates

Review your statement. It seems to make no sense.

hakeem4:



To be honest I don’t know why it is not personally bad for you but I know it is bad for the society

I am enjoying the money I realized from my robbery. I am less concerned about the harm received by the society. So why is robbery not logically good for me ? Why is it bad for me ? Your world view has no answer for this question.
This is exactly the reason why atheism is not a true world view. Of course it does not make any sense if a great robber managed to scot free in this world and yet receives no justice nor feel any regret after death for all the atrocities he perpetrated. Or does it ?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5fOsgrAJiU

hakeem4:
Lordreed stop arguing with these believers!!!!!!!!
These people don’t know anything

How will you be arguing with this abdulgaffar22, this person that doesn’t read any other book apart from his Quran. See what he’s saying about natural selection

What did I say about natural selection that is wrong ?
Do you have any natural process through which DNA information can undergo a change other than mutations ?
Then am I wrong by saying most mutations are harmful and rarely beneficial ?

Do you think I forget how you later ran away when I asked you to give me a logical reason why robbery is not personally good for me ?

LordReed:


Immediately below what you quote is this:

Beneficial mutations
Although mutations that cause changes in protein sequences can be harmful to an organism, on occasions the effect may be positive in a given environment. In this case, the mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection.

If mutations are only OCCASIONALLY positive in a given environment as you quoted above, then this implies that most of the mutations are harmful. Now does a process that is MOSTLY HARMFUL can be responsible for the creation of all the viable systems present in our body and in all living organisms ever existed on earth ?
Wikipedia submits as follows;

"Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on genes, organisms have mechanisms such as DNA repair to prevent or correct mutations by reverting the mutated sequence back to its original state."

If mutations was really the process through which DNA information can undergo a change to create millions of different species of living organisms, then DNA repair would never be evolved to reverse the effect of mutations.