I cannot answer that question. Maybe God just used a common template and worked his way up?
That's not how evolution works. You don't need living examples of every stage in the development of a feature. Existing species will display a variety of snapshots of how a feature may have evolved.
I agree that the evidence can be interpreted to to look like evolution is occurring, however, there are just too many larger questions for me to accept the conclusion. I have seen absolutely nothing that has convinced me that a living cell can spontaneously arise. I haven't even seen a brief description of how such a thing could have occurred.
I'm highly educated. I write software for one of the world's largest building materials manufacturers. It is my education that leads me to believe that a living cell arising out of nature by itself without an intelligent designer is mathematically impossible. The reason I don't work a career in my educational background is because I started working as an engineer for the Veteran's Administration hospitals and while I was there I saw how basically corrupt the system was and how bad they screw veterans and it made me sick so I quit. I was working there when there was a national scandal that caused many patients to get exposed to HIV from dirty endoscopes (butthole cameras) and it was from shitty standardized procedures. I saw first hand why it was happening. I then taught myself C, C#, Assembly, HTML, CSS, and Javascript and started working as a software developer and have been doing that for nearly a decade. Your assertion that my education system is failing me just because I don't buy into evolution is hilarious. I have always been a high IQ person. I went to a Math and Science Magnet high school, something you have to test into. You think that just because I don't believe in evolution as it is taught that I am somehow lacking in education when I bet that I actually know more about the theory of evolution than most people that believe it.
The FIRST cell didn't have to be as complex as the cells we observe after millions of years of evolution.
Religion requires faith, and the results in science aren't based on faith. So they Are mutually exclusive.
Not true:
Are you aware of contemporary machine learning/artificial intelligence techniques where computers evolve profoundly complex computer programs? Look into it.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/lifes-first-molecule-was-protein-not-rna-new-model-suggests-20171102/
Poppycock. It would have at least had to had DNA, RNA transcription, a way to synthesize proteins, and replicate. There is nothing not complex about that.
Science that gives us chemistry, electronics, physics, etc are all things that can be observed and replicated in labs. What people call science regarding the ancient past involving evolution and the origin of life is all conjecture and is unobservable, therefore it is just that, conjecture, it has nothing to do with science. It is based on faith.
None of those examples demonstrate one specie turning into another that cannot interbreed with it's original population. Africans and Europeans have adapted to their ancestral environments, are you saying that Africans and Europeans are two different species?
Show me an AI machine that built and programmed itself that can also produce physical copies of itself.
The cosmology of the Bible is not compatible with evolution theory unless you interpret it in a very unorthodox manner. Maybe other religions have a cosmology that is compatible with evolution, but Christians are going to have a hard time reconciling the Bible with evolution.
So do you believe that an intelligent creative force is responsible for the first living cell?
If all of the animals that had ever lived were to be preserved as fossils, then the answer to your question would have been "yes." But that's not the case, so that answer to your question is "no."
It is the best and simplest explanation given the evidence that we have. Religious faith doesn't satisfy that criteria.
There couldn't have been ice bridges that long, and also 5000 years would not have been enough for rocks to be carved by the glaciers the way they had been.
No. See the example with the eye.
It shouldn't be long before there is one.
How is a living cell defying odds of like 1:10^100 to come into existence by chance simpler than just saying God did it?
"a single sheet of light sensitive cells"
There are many methods these days that can be used to get computers to EVOLVE code. Here is a book published a quarter of a century ago with a subtitle that speaks for itself:
Bill, machine learning is vastly simpler than software writing and modifying it's own source code, which is not happening. All of these primitive AI applications are working within the framework of their source code, which was intelligently designed. AI is not writing it's own source code, and that is leaps and exponential bounds beyond having the code, the machine, and the ability to replicate. What I am trying to show you guys is that that a living cell is so profoundly complicated that it defies any mathematical probability that it could have possibly arisen from the random processes of nature that we can or have ever observed that the evolutionary model regarding the origin of life is not just impossible, but 100% without any shadow of a doubt impossible. Okay maybe .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of a shadow.
They are simulating evolution - survival of the fittest, mutations, etc. Evolution and natural selection happen naturally, without the need for anyone to supervise the process.
I pasted the name of the technique on the cover of the book from my earlier post into Google Scholar, and added "programming itself" to that search query. On the first page of the search results, I got
There are billions of Earth-like planets in the universe. Over the past 10 billion years, the chance that life would appear on at least one of those planets (given the odds above) is basically 100%. We are that planet.
You said you are a computer programmer. My background is also not biology. I think that one needs such a background to evaluate the likelihood that simple cells could have been created in primordial soup that had existed earlier in the planet's history. People with that background seem to not have any problems with the theory of evolution.
But you have to assume that it has been that long sing the beginning of the known universe.
Because they don't think about it. Also, I started in electronics and microcontrollers, so I have a healthy understanding of the complexities of the machine itself. Now that I work in an office that specifically writes software, I have noticed that people that came into this from a computer science background focused primarily on writing code, have very little knowledge about the complexities of the machine itself. They don't know about things like CPU machine cycles, logic gates, I/O, data buses, address buses, etc. That being said, everyone I work with except for one person in my office is a Christian. Out of the two top dogs, one of them is a young earth creationist like me.
Member
