Complexity and evolution of the cell

[jonperry]

Check out this incredible video which gives an amazing look at the protein machines inside the cell. I recommend watching full screen with HD turned on.

http://youtu.be/Cz7agFqI7iE

[SteveF]

Fascinating

[jriccitelli]

Fantastic video production.

Jon, In the video you hear the words “amazing, highly complex, intricate design, engineered, etc” then they add ‘evolved’ to the sentence, why? Is not ‘amazing’ the antithesis of what happens ‘naturally’?

Why did matter get together to construct these structures? What was their goal?

To me, matter has ‘no reason’ to do anything. There is no goal. What is the ‘reason’ simple life structures should even ‘want’ to structure themselves to some purpose? (What’s the matter with matter?)

[SteveF]

Jon, I’ll jump in here and answer a couple of questions. Please don’t let this stop you from responding. I think you know way more about science than I do!

they add ‘evolved’ to the sentence, why?

The simple answer is, because they evolve. For example, when you hear in the news about a new virus on the loose it’s because it evolved from another virus.

Is not ‘amazing’ the antithesis of what happens ‘naturally’?

Not necessarily. I’m amazed at the intelligence of a dolphin and yet it’s natural. Am I misunderstanding you?

[jriccitelli]

The word ‘evolved’ has been taken by Darwinists to explain what happens by nature. Both words though really belong to Design and God. Something that evolves, most generally in a positive way, does so because you have engineers and designers working to improve it. Evolution actually requires design, as with man-made products. So evolution is not a word that should be owned by either group (especially those who propose random chance). Survival of the fittest is also not a proof positive for random chance as the fittest are fit to begin with, and the phrase is not exclusive to ‘Darwinists’ as it also is a phrase that makes a better argument for design and engineering, as good design should have survival built into it.

Yet still what we are observing in nature (Gods design) is ‘adaptation’. Most all organisms show an ability to adapt to surroundings, adaptation is ‘engineered into’ a good design. I should say amazing and fantastic design because this feature speaks of extremely high intellect, especially on a molecular scale. Many products we have today adapt to surroundings, with sensitive electronics they cool, heat up, adjust, click on, click off, etc. this is built in.

A dolphin, a chicken, a bat, a bird, a banana, an orange, a palm tree, a flower… what is 'not' absolutely incredible?
I would like to see a scientist ‘make’ a dolphin. All science does is 'observe' the Creation, the designer was here first.

[Paidion]

they add ‘evolved’ to the sentence, why?

The simple answer is, because they evolve. For example, when you hear in the news about a new virus on the loose it’s because it evolved from another virus.

I think the word "evolve" refers to a gradual change of an organism into a different form. At one time it was said that apes evolved into human beings. This, I think, is the correct use of the word "evolve". I don't think a new virus "evolved" in this sense.

As I see it, the Creator created life in such a way that it was capable of a lot of variation. Take dogs, for instance. There are St. Bernards, collies, German shepherds, and Chihuahuas. These dogs a dissimilar from each other in many respect, dissimilar with regard to size, physical appearance, temperament, etc. Yet they are all dogs. I think the Creator originally created a single pair of dogs which were capable of much variation. Puppies were born with a variety of characteristics. Natural selection and artificial selection account for the various breeds. But where there is a lot of cross-breeding there is a tendency for puppies to resemble the original pair, or at least the earlier dogs.

Budgies in their natural state are green. But occasionally some are hatched which are blue. Where people have selected the blue ones and bred them, the chicks tended to be blue, and so the blue budgie variation was developed. It doesn''t take many generations to do this. However, if blue budgies are realeased into the wild, the tendency is to revert back to the generation of green budgies.

After radishes mature, the blossoms are usually white. But I remember as a kid noticing that in a large patch of radishes growing in the garden, there were a few with purple blossoms (maybe about 5%). I pulled out all the ones which had white blossoms, and allowed the others to go to seed. I harvested the seeds, and planted them the next spring. When those radished bloomed, over 90% of them had purple blossoms. It all came about through artificial selection. The white-blossomed radishes didn't evolve into purple-blossomed radishes. I say radishes were created with the propensity of variation in the colour of their blossoms.

And so it is with people. We have "white" people, "brown" people, "yellow" people, and "black" people (though none of these are the actual colours of their skin). What is the origin of these different "races"? Was this evolution at work? I don't think so. God created man with the propensity to be born with different amounts of skin pigment as well as a variety of other characteristics. Perhaps in marriage or mating, there were particular prefences which resulted in these variations within mankind.

Did not all of mankind after the flood originate with Noah and his children? It is believed that the darker "races" originated from Ham, the Semitics from Shem, and the Europæans from Japeth. Does this mean that Ham's skin color was "black", Shem's "brown", and Japeth's "white"? Not at all. But there must have been a reason why Ham's descendents were darker, etc. I think it was marital preference which accounts for it. One might call it "selection", a sort of human selection through preference.

[SteveF]

i think the word "evolve" refers to a gradual change of an organism into a different form. At one time it was said that apes evolved into human beings. This, I think, is the correct use of the word "evolve". I don't think a new virus "evolved" in this sense.

Hi Paidion, the term ‘evolve’ is also used to describe viruses as well. Here’s a brief explanation from Wikipedia:

Viral evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Viral evolution is a subfield of evolutionary biology and virology that is specifically concerned with the evolution of viruses. Many viruses, in particular RNA viruses, have short generation times and relatively high mutation rates (on the order of one point mutation or more per genome per round of replication for RNA viruses). This elevated mutation rate, when combined with natural selection, allows viruses to quickly adapt to changes in their host environment.

Viral evolution is an important aspect of the epidemiology of viral diseases such as influenza (influenza virus), AIDS (HIV), and hepatitis (e.g. HCV). It also causes problems in the development of successfulvaccines and antiviral drugs, as resistant mutations often appear within weeks or months after the beginning of the treatment. One of the main theoretical models to study viral evolution is the quasispecies model, as the viral quasispecies.

[Paidion]

I know people apply the word "evolve" to changes resulting from mutation, but I am not sure that is the classic connotation. For the word is normally used to denote gradual change over a long period of time.
Mutation, often brought about by radiation, can come about relatively quickly, and usually results in an inferior or malfunctioning organism, whereas the supposed evolution of an organism is supposed to result in greater complexity and ability to survive.

[jriccitelli]

The word ‘evolved’ has been taken by Darwinists to explain what happens by 'nature'. Both words though really belong to Design and God. (My quote)

(Clarify: I left out apostrophes around ‘natural’. Evolved and Natural being the words that belong to design and God)

I don’t know the old world etymology of the word 'evolve' but the current definition is using the word in a deceiving way. Evolutionists and pop culture would have us deceived into believing that mind is not involved in the definition of an 'evolution process', but a mind 'has' to be involved to produce positive progression and results. The definitions of the word 'evolve' should be examined more closely. From an online dictionary (below), the first definition they present I would agree with: work out, develop, create, make something, this is the reasonable sense of the ‘evolves’ definition. Then we have: speciate, differentiate, specialise, lead to a new, derives from an older form – I am not sure these things actually happen at all, or at least not without a brain, but the evolutionists (or dictionary people?) use terms to define the 'word' evolution with words they have made up, and others that belong to designers and definitions we can be assured actually happen using a brain: words like work out, develop, create, make something, etc.

I think this concept should have a word of it’s own that does not rely on similes and understandings that are its own antithesis. They are taking words that we recognize demand a thought process, and use them to describe a process that uses no intelligence (i.e. "these bricks assembled themselves in a way a fine mason would assemble them"). The use of the word 'develop' to define a word that supposedly is an explanation for something as complex as creation, is quite a stretch:

1. evolve - work out; "We have developed a new theory of evolution"
develop, germinate, create by mental act, create mentally - create mentally and abstractly rather than with one's hands
develop - make something new, such as a product or a mental or artistic creation; "Her company developed a new kind of building material that withstands all kinds of weather"; "They developed a new technique"

2. evolve - undergo development or evolution; "Modern man evolved a long time ago"
speciate, differentiate, specialise, specialize - evolve so as to lead to a new species or develop in a way most suited to the environment, derive - come from; "The present name derives from an older form "develop - grow, progress, unfold, or evolve through a process of evolution, natural growth, differentiation, or a conducive environment; "A flower developed on the branch"; "The country developed into a mighty superpower"; "The embryo develops into a fetus"; "This situation has developed over a long time"

3. evolve - gain through experience; "I acquired a strong aversion to television"; "Children must develop a sense of right and wrong"; "Dave developed leadership qualities in his new position"; "develop a passion for painting"
An Online dictionary

I think a better more honest word for Evolution would be a word of its own that did not depend on made up definitions, or deceptively use words that more likely involve 'thinking' to produce a positive result. Maybe a word like Magicalmutationism / Magic-ution / Appeared out of no-whereism / Justgotbetterism / Allbyitselfism / Selfism / Spontaneous Generation or Magicalgenerationism would describe the Darwinists theory better. This sounds disingenuous, but at least it's not deceptive. (It is interesting that when we use the word develop to describe non-designed things in common speech, it is almost always used to describe a bad development: i.e. a storm is developing - a riot is developing - a situation is developing)

I am tired of evolutionists jumping over the thought process needed and involved in ‘developing complexity’ and jumping over the thought process that would normally tell us 'this couldn't have possibly developed complexity by itself'. There is no known examples we can observe were something develops on it’s own without thought, so what makes anyone think that ‘biological processes’ are void of what otherwise takes intellect and planning?

[SteveF]

I know people apply the word "evolve" to changes resulting from mutation, but I am not sure that is the classic connotation. For the word is normally used to denote gradual change over a long period of time.

You may be right Paidion about the classic use of the term. I’m not in a position to confirm or challenge your proposition. It is interesting to note that on a Berkeley webpage titled “Misconceptions about Evolution” it lists the statement “Evolution only occurs slowly and gradually” as one of the misconceptions.

Heres’s a link to the webpage if you’re interested:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... ns_faq.php

Mutation, often brought about by radiation, can come about relatively quickly, and usually results in an inferior or malfunctioning organism, whereas the supposed evolution of an organism is supposed to result in greater complexity and ability to survive.

I may be misunderstanding you Paidion but isn’t that exactly what bacteria do when they evolve to resist anti-bitoics.

Here’s one example of viral evolution I found on a 2 minute video. The mutations were a positive and necessary evolution of the virus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I_y_edjM9s