Forum

New study... "Published in the Journal of Cell Science, Professor John Martin (UCL Division of Medicine) thinks a single genetic molecular event (inheritable epigenetic change) in an egg-laying animal may have resulted in the first formation of blood platelets, approximately 220 million years ago. In mammals and humans, platelets are responsible for blood clotting and wound healing, so play a significant role in our defense response. Unlike our other cells, they don't have nuclei—so are unique to mammals, since other classes of animal such as reptiles and birds have blood clotting cells with nuclei. Our platelets are formed from megakaryocytes that mature in the bone marrow. When these megakaryocytes are released into the blood stream and reach the very high-pressure blood vessels the lungs, they "burst" apart, each cell releasing thousands of platelets inside the bloodstream. The researchers suggest that millions of years ago a mammalian ancestor—possibly an animal related to the duck-billed platypus—underwent the very first formation of platelets, thanks to a sudden genetic change in the nucleus of its blood clotting cells that meant normal cell division did not take place causing the cells to increase in size. If so, those much larger cells might then have been forced to burst inside the first capillaries they met in the animal's blood stream, releasing their cytoplasmic fragments. These fragments proved to be more efficient at stopping bleeding, so if this genetic change was inheritable, it would have given its offspring a major advantage through natural selection. An animal with this epigenetic change could stem bleeding from fighting or wounds much better than its competitors, and so live longer. Professor Martin, Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine at UCL, says, "Because of the uniqueness of platelets, it is reasonable to suggest that a unique event led to their origin. This was a radical, internal evolution occurring in a single animal, on a single day, 220 million years ago, and was then reinforced by natural selection." Professor Martin and his colleague Professor Paolo D'Avino (University of Cambridge) then suggest that this single cellular rapid change ultimately led to the development, over 120 million of years, to the placenta, allowing the fetus to be retained inside the mother for longer-term development and thus allowing evolution to achieve live birth. The ability to clot wounds is an essential element of live birth by means of a placenta, since the placenta splits from the mother's uterus during the birth process. The female would not survive birth and therefore not be able to suckle her offspring if she were unable to stem the bleeding. In their paper, Professors Martin and D'Avino propose experiments that would support their hypothesis, including in vitro and in animal models. "Without this single critical epigenetic change, we suggest mammals would never have evolved, and therefore human beings would not be around today," says Professor Martin. "With this research, we've laid down a marker based on the available evidence—and we're suggesting these experiments that will either support or help to refute our hypothesis."

The 2018 International Conference on the Origin of Life identified five paradoxes that must be resolved "before any solution to the origin problem can emerge": (1) Asphalt Paradox. (2) Water Paradox. (3) Information-Need Paradox. (4) Single Biopolymer Paradox. (5) Probability Paradox. "Even if we solve the asphalt paradox, the water paradox, the information need paradox, and the single biopolymer paradox, we must still mitigate or set aside chemical theory that makes destruction, not biology, the natural outcome of our already magical chemical system."

(66) Stephen C. Meyer: Church Talk State of the Art [Talbot Chapel] - YouTube

Stumbled across a series of articles by atheists harping on or lamenting religion. Now as a religious adherent, I reject a lot of their disparaging remarks. But let's put that all aside and just *for argument sake* let's say atheism is true and that nature is the whole of reality and there is nothing but the material, physical. Let's just say that. On the assumption that's true, then, of course, all religion is illusory and must be the product of evolution. But here's the kicker: even on this atheist assumption that all religion is bogus, apparently there is quite a bit of research supporting the superior mental health benefits of religious belief over atheism, and that religious adherents have a higher evolutionary fitness and conferred survival advantage. (Now I have done almost next to no deep research on this and am basing this largely on what these atheist researchers say (see below for a sampling of quotes). But assuming these researchers are correct in what they say, then it raises an interesting quasi-paradox of sorts (for lack of a better descriptor) that we can put in the following way: (1) Atheists lament the 'ignorance' and 'superstitious' beliefs of faithful religious adherents---many of whom reject evolution in favor of worship and loyal devotion and belief in what atheists consider to be invisible, imaginary 'deities' that don't exist and are just figments of their imaginations. To atheists, religion is the epitome of superstitious ignorance and irrational backward, backwater belief that lacks any basis in reality, and that we would be better off without if we could just knock some sense into these ignorant people, and get them to accept the reality of scientific naturalism and evolution and so on. (2) Yet in a twist, the atheist view entails that religion must have some adaptive, survival advantage that was naturally selected for in the course of evolution (And as these atheist researchers say, confers a number of advantages over atheism in terms of mental health, life expectancy, survival advantage, improved evolutionary fitness, and more). (3) Now atheists don't seem to have a problem with products of natural evolution. For how can you criticize or 'blame' something that increases your fitness and survivability? That's just the natural development of things. But this raises a number of questions: *First, how can an atheists really criticize religious beliefs (even if bogus) when it still confers such adaptive evolutionary advantages? *Second, is it misguided or 'wrong' for atheists to want to convince adherents to abandon religion and to want to stamp out religion if it has so greatly contributed to our evolutionary success as a species. Isn't that illogical, irrational, 'anti-science' to support eradication of religion when doing so suggests that it would disadvantage us evolutionarily as a species? *Third, in terms of evolutionary advantage, wouldn't it be to an atheist's personal advantage to then adopt religion? Indeed, wouldn't such a move be the logical, rational, scientifically supported choice to make that is in the best interests of self? (Sample quotes)

Interesting, thought provoking article that consciousness is not a product of evolution, but that it's the other way around: https://mindmatters.ai/2023/01/neuroscientist-consciousness-didnt-evolve-it-creates-evolution/ Selected quotes: "What’s behind space and time and physical objects for us is a world of what I call conscious agents or consciousness." "Consciousness didn’t emerge from a prior physical process of evolution. Consciousness is fundamental and so we have to rethink the whole history of the universe actually from this point of view, from The Big Bang up through evolution. We have to rethink it in terms of how to rewrite that story, consistent with all of our current science but understanding that it’s … consciousness is fundamental, not the physical universe" *Claims: consciousness is either an illusion or the fundamental basis of reality

What if the creationist and evolutionist ideas are both wrong?

https://youtu.be/7PD0iXgu_S8

(100) Stephen C. Meyer: Church Talk State of the Art [Talbot Chapel] - YouTube The God Hypothesis does it make sense when we look around us.

First, to be clear the purpose of this post is NOT to debate whether religion and science have ever clashed. There are times when they obviously have. The purpose is to correct erroneous myths and legends that have been used to advance the "ignorant, superstitious "Dark Ages vs. the rational modernists," and the "religion vs. science" Post-Enlightenment narratives that are so ingrained in modern society today. And while there is *some* truth to it, in many ways it is a false dichotomy. Real life (and history) is almost always far more messy and complicated than simple "Bad Guys vs. Good Guys" stories would have us believe. But everyone loves an underdog story. They love to get outraged at injustice on the little guy. And let's be honest, it makes for a more exciting, interesting story. Which is why so many Hollywood renditions are "based on" or "inspired" by actual events, rather than the actual events. But some of the most well-known "facts" presented in science classes are myths and legends that just keep getting retold generation after generation. Let's start with probably the most popular: The Galileo Myth that the Catholic Church "science deniers" refused to look through Galileo's telescope (they actually did and financed a lot of his work), and that they stubbornly refused to accept the triumph of facts and science and reason over their religious superstition, and persecuted Galileo. Thus, forever turning Galileo into a martyr for science and poster boy for Post-Enlightenment values vs. the tyrannical, ignorant church. * The truth is, Galileo was more like a scientist today would be if he/she went against Darwinism (with the difference that Darwinism has weathered the test of time). The Church accepted the prevailing scientific evidence of the time: the long standing 1,400 year geocentric view of Aristotle and Ptolemy that the earth was at the center and that the planets and sun orbited the earth. The bottom line is that Galileo did not have the scientific evidence to prove Copernicus' heliocentric theory. He didn't have enough scientific evidence to even show the earth moved (the proof simply wasn't there yet, and paradigm shifts don't happen unless substantial evidence exists to overturn the prevailing, accepted view). Also, some of the "science" he used in support was actually wrong and unconvincing to other scientists. So it was not convincing to the Church either, which didn't just point to scripture, but also to what almost all the scientists of the day were saying. It would be like the church supporting scientists today for some accepted theory that centuries later turned out to be wrong. Today we would honor such affirmation, but change the narrative (and what actually happened) and you have an instant, more appealing "David (Science) vs. Goliath (Religious science deniers)" story that makes for great propaganda. The truth is that with Galileo, the Catholic Church wasn't denying science, but affirming the consensus scientific position (geocentrism) of the day To further kick off the discussion, here's some additional reading on the Galileo Myth and similar myths like it (note: a couple links are to Catholic sources. For the record, I'm not Catholic, but I liked their succinct presentation, so chose to include): Debunking the Galileo myth & other myths UCLA- The-truth-about-galileo-and-his-conflict-with-the-catholic-church The enduring Galileo myth Everything your friends know about Galileo is wrong Forbes- Galileo and the myth that won't go away

I would say yes. If we evolved from monkeys and are just part of a natural process then why have morals at all? I mean lots of animals eat there babies and eat each other so what makes us better? This has nothing to do with whether evolution is true or not, it's just to talk about what it would mean for our moral systems if it was.

Anyone can, of course, comment, but this is especially directed towards Christians of all viewpoints, whether evolutionist, theistic evolutionist, evolutionary creationist, progressive creationist, old earth creationist, young earth creationist, etc. Ironically, evolution is not the main problem that creationists have with evolution, but "Death before the Fall." If that is impossible, then millions of years of evolution (or even just life existing) is ruled out as a matter of course. *But here's the problem: it is undeniable that the fossil record attests to death, predation, parasitism, disease, and even cancer before humans were even around (regardless of whether one believes in an old or young earth). This means that like it or not, there was "Death before the Fall," and no amount of saying you don't believe that will change it. Denial is not the answer. The issue must be addressed and wrestled with, and in fact, there are many extensive treatments on the subject, but I'm curious to know how others deal with the issue. *So Christians, how do you or how would you explain "Death before the Fall"?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071#ab010 At what point can it be said, an undirected process without intent could cause all there is from the fine-tuning of the universe and now the fine-tuning of life itself?

A probability of one. I was thinking about the belief some have that given enough time abiogenesis would happen, making the equation 100% certainty given enough time. I don't recall the odds on someone accurately predicting the order of a deck of cards after the deck was thoroughly shuffled. I could work it out, but don't care enough. I know the odds are very high against that from occurring, but given enough time that would occur is the argument. There are only 52 cards, unlike all of the variables that have to be right for life, so the cards are a small little test of can something happens that needs to be given enough time. With the cards we know when they are shuffled there are 52 cards, the choices are limited to just that nothing else. The first being 1/52, the second being 1/51, and on and on. Now I have heard someone once say (not here) the deck is always going to have a sequence no matter what we say it is going to be in some order and that order is there period so the odds are 100%, but that isn't the question. Shuffling the cards will always put them in order but it doesn't mean someone can predict or guess that order, they may read it if cards are face-up, but that is ID in the query and has nothing to do with guessing the order. Moving through time with a chance to get it right with a new start each time there is a failure will not increase the odds of getting it right. You can flip a coin twice looking for heads two times in a row, but each coin flip no matter what the odds are getting it right never changes from 50, 50. It is much easier to get two heads than predicting 52 cards. Life is much more complex, more things have to be right for a chance to even make the attempt on getting all of the material in the right order let alone anything else. Another thing in with Abiogenesis is having all the right material, that isn't a certainty if we are only looking at odds because chemical reactions are always taking place, what might be required could arrive somewhere with the proper reaction but it could turn into something else a moment later or get contaminated with something not friendly to life. Time doesn't help, having lots of time doesn't help, having it all possible at a moment somewhere at some time is the only thing that matters and that is just when we can legitimately say we can see that the dice are thrown for just an opportunity at life, without all of the variables in place at the same time, in the same place there is no opportunity for it to occur at all.

And why it is definitely one.

Saying (1) the Bible presents Noah's flood as universal/global/cosmic in extent, and (2) the fossil record is primarily the result of Noah's flood, are two completely different claims. Claim #1 is true. The Bible does, in fact, depict Noah's flood as not merely global in extent but in almost cosmic proportions as a reversal of creation itself and a regression from order back to a pre-creation chaotic state where the 'waters above' and 'below' are no longer separated as they are on Day 2 of the Genesis creation account. Now whether this is meant to be taken literally or is hyperbole and purposeful exaggeration to make a theological point is a separate matter of debate. Either way, Genesis does not depict Noah's flood as a local flood, but as a global, universal catastrophe on an epic, cosmic scale. That said, however, the Bible does not equate the fossil record with Noah's flood. The Bible doesn't even mention the fossil record, so claim #2 is an assumption that YECs often make without critical assessment. This distinction is important to avoid potential misunderstanding, because this OP is not disputing claim #1, only claim #2. That is, it is not the Bible's depiction of Noah's flood that is being disputed, it is only the unfounded YEC assertion that the fossil record is mostly the result of Noah's flood that is being disputed. This topic is of further importance because YECs commonly maintain that 'flood geology' is just a different, equally valid interpretation of the *same data* used by modern geologists. But this is simply untrue. 'Flood geology' is not an equally valid interpretation of the 'same data', but a forced interpretation based on isolated, cherry-picked examples that ignore a mountain of incongruous data to the contrary. There are, in fact, biblical and scientific problems with the YEC claim that the fossil record is mostly the result of Noah's flood. The purpose of this OP, then, is to present some of these problems, while welcoming anyone who disagrees to present their case for claim #2.