Now you’re just attempting to shift the goal posts. If you don’t understand the difference between ‘something being descended from something else’, and ‘a microbe changing itself to become every other living thing’, there’s no hope for you. And creationists really should stop referring to ‘evolutionists’ as if that is an actual job description. Go away.
How would you define RELIGION, and why?
How did a microbe change itself into every living thing on earth
Jeffro: It didn’t. And no one says it did.
Except for all the evolutionists that claim otherwise, right?
Apparently the simpliest of bacteria still have over a half million base pairs of DNA that code for over 400 proteins.
Question for Jeffro: A lot of people notice how evolutionists start the evolution story with Life already existing. How did LUCA get started with all that information?
Your faith is impressive by the way.
A Waste of Time!
The creationist either doesn’t understand that a most recent common ancestor isn’t the same thing as the first simple form of life, or is continuing to deliberately misrepresent the process.
And it still isn’t the same thing as ‘a microbe changing itself into every living thing on earth’.
Just for fun, I asked Chat GPT to analyse Sea Breezes tedious question:
How did a microbe change itself into every living thing on earth?
And yes, Chat GPT evil, leftist, yadda yadda… I don’t care. Anyway…
The question "How did a microbe change itself into every living thing on earth?" seems to imply that a single microbe transformed into all the diverse forms of life on Earth. This idea is not supported by scientific evidence and is inconsistent with our understanding of evolution.
There are several errors and misconceptions in this question:
1. Fallacy of single origin: The question assumes that all life on Earth originated from a single microbe. However, the diversity of life is the result of billions of years of evolution through natural selection, genetic mutation, and other processes. Life on Earth is thought to have originated from a common ancestor, but it was not a single microbe that transformed into everything we see today.
2. Ignoring complexity: The question overlooks the vast complexity of life forms and the gradual process of evolution. Evolution occurs through incremental changes over long periods of time, with new species emerging through the accumulation of small genetic variations. It is not a sudden transformation of a single microbe into every living thing.
3. Misunderstanding of mutations: The question implies that the microbe changed itself into every living thing. However, individual organisms do not change themselves through willpower or intention. Mutations, which are random changes in genetic material, occur naturally and can lead to variations within a population. Over time, these variations can accumulate and lead to the emergence of new species.
4. Lack of scientific evidence: The question does not provide any scientific evidence or references to support the claim that a microbe transformed into all living things. Our understanding of the origin and diversity of life on Earth is based on extensive scientific research and evidence from various fields, such as paleontology, genetics, and comparative anatomy.
In summary, the question contains fallacies, misconceptions, and unsupported claims. It is important to rely on scientific evidence and the consensus of the scientific community when discussing topics like the origin and diversity of life on Earth.
@Sea Breeze: A lot of people notice how evolutionists start the evolution story with Life already existing.
The theory of evolution requires life to exist, since it is meant to describe the systems through which life diversifies. It is not meant to address the origins of life, which is a separate field of research (abiogenesis).
Evolutionists claim that all life on earth descended from a single type of microbe. You can't change that fact no matter how much you try. It is a fact yesterday, today, tomorrow and so on. No amount of obfuscating will change that fact.
You also can't change the fact that this supposed microbial Eve itself, (like the simpliest microbe known) could perform thousands of chemical reactions, guided by volumes of instructional information, and produced by machinery so complex that we struggle to even comprehend it. It is irreducibly complex, meaning that if one of these parts were missing, the cell couldn't function or reproduce. All the parts had to come into existence at the same time.
Here are just a few quotes from scientists that help to illustrate the problem with your worldview.
1. Bruce Alberts, biochemist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, 92 (February 8, 1998), 291:
We have always underestimated cells. . . . The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.
2. Michael Denton, developmental biologist and genetics researcher, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986), 250, 328, 342:
Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on the earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world. . . .
To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell, we would see millions of openings, like the portholes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings, we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.
3. David Berlinski, philosopher and mathematician, interviewed by Ben Stein in the 2008 documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed:
Stein: Darwin . . . had an idea of the cell as being quite simple, correct?
Berlinski: Yes, everybody did.
Stein: If he thought of the cell as being a Buick, what is the cell now in terms of its complexity by comparison? 4
Berlinski: A galaxy.
4. Richard Sternberg, evolutionary biologist, interviewed by Ben Stein in the 2008 documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed:
Stein: If Darwin thought a cell was, say, a mud hut, what do we now know that a cell is?
Sternberg: More complicated than a Saturn V [Rocket Space Ship]
5. Robert Gange, physicist and engineer, Origins and Destiny (Dallas: Word, 1986), 77:
The likelihood of life having occurred through a chemical accident is, for all intents and purposes, zero. This does not mean that faith in a miraculous accident will not continue. But it does mean that those who believe it do so because they are philosophically committed to the notion that all that exists is matter and its motion. In other words, they do so for reasons of philosophy and not science.
Jeffro, In other words, your worldview is just another Christ-dishonoring religion like the Watchtower. You simply drilled out of one prison cell into another one.
There are 144K places to hide from God in this world. But, Scientific materialism is no longer one of them.
Notice how the creationist continues to erroneously equate the terms ‘descended from’ with ‘single microbe became’, and also continues to falsely claim that a ‘most recent common ancestor’ is the same as ‘simplest form of life’. This is what happens when your main sources are Creation Ministries International and Answers In Genesis. 🙄 Stay in school, kids.
And the cherry picked quotes are lifted from ‘Intelligent Design’ websites such as Uncommon Descent. Never trust a creationist using a quote that contains an ellipsis… 😉
And no one has a job title of ‘evolutionist’.
Jeffro: All the evolutionist has to do is explain where all the information came from? Is that too much to ask?