Lesson 12/16: Biological Systematics Part 2

The science of molecular genetics is relatively new to biology. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, was developed before scientists had any idea how genetic information was passed down from generation to generation. Can the science of DNA help settle the century-old debate between the theory of evolution and the traditional idea of special creation?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• creation
• evolution
• faith
• science
• bible
• beyond
• firmament
• gordon
• glover
• genetics
• taxonomy
• cladistics
• classification
• biology
• biological
• life
• intelligent
• desgin
• common
• descent
• ancestry
• related
• family
• DNA
• genes
• code
• cytochrome
• enzyme
• metaboloic
• protien
• amio
• acid
• species

[hugesinker]

@TheWayandWordofLife As for the Big Bang, you've got it confused with the formation of the solar system. Have you been listening to Kent Hovind lectures or something? There are perfectly reasonable explanations for why a planet might spin differently from most of the others. Please try to find the answers before just giving up on our ability to understand reality.

[hugesinker]

@TheWayandWordofLife You've been misinformed about the Cambrian Explosion and Big Bang. The Cambrian explosion occurred over the course of half a billion years when life was very different. Some organisms were already extinct in the Pre-Cambrian period. During the Cambrian, animals only existed in the oceans and none were like those living today-- the fish were jawless and there weren't even bugs yet. Google Opabinia to see an example of these strange animals.

[TheWayandWordofLife]

BEFORE SOMEONE MISUNDERSTANDS MY COMMENT I JUST WROTE- BELOW: WHAT I MEAN, BY "FEATURES" WITHIN THE UNIVERSE, THAT CONFLICT WITH THE BIG BANG MODEL, W/O A GUIDING HAND FROM GOD, ARE THINGS LIKE; THE FACT THAT SEVERAL OF OUR PLANETS ROTATE/SPIN IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF THE REST, SEVERAL OF THEIR ORBITING MOONS DO AS WELL. THESE ARE A FEW "FEATURES" OF THESE PLANETS, AND THEIR MOONS, THAT CONTRADICT THE BIG BANG MODEL. THERE ARE NUMEROUS OTHER FEATURES WITHIN THE UNIVERSE- THAT CLEARLY G

[TheWayandWordofLife]

SOME SCI. FACTS WHICH SUPPORT ID/CREATION MODELS; UNIVERSE BEGAN FROM A SOURCE THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF TIME, SPACE, AND MATTER! OVER 40+ FEATURES WITHIN THE FORMING OF THE UNIVERSE, INCLUDING THE INITIAL "EXPLOSION"- HAD TO BE EXTREMELY PRECISE, SOME OF THEM: TO THE TRILLION,TRILLIONTH/ TRILLIONTH- OR NOTHING WOULD EXIST!!! THERE ARE NUMEROUS FEATURES ABOUT SEVERAL PLANETS, THEIR ORBITING MOONS, STARS, OUR EARTH, MOON, SUN, NOVAS, COMETS, GRAVITATIONAL FORCES, ETC.- THAT ARE CLEARLY IMPOSSIBLE, I

[TheWayandWordofLife]

THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION, FOUND IN THE EARLIEST ROCK "STRATA", IS FOUND; SEVERAL MILLIONS OF FOSSILS OF THE EARLIEST LIFEFORMS; MARINE LIFE, AS WELL AS NEARLY ALL OF THE MAJOR PHYLA GROUPS!!! THESE FOSSILS PROVE, THAT LIFE DID NOT BEGIN AS A SLOW, GRADUAL CHANGE, BUT THAT LIFE APPEARED SUDDENLY, WITH FULLY FORMED ANIMALS- BELONGING TO NEARLY EVERY MAJOR PHYLA GROUP!!! THESE FOSSILS DO NOT FIT THE EVOLUTIONAL MODEL- IN FACT, IT'S THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE, OF WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND. BUT S

[rafikgl]

I like your explanations very much . they are very clear . your videos are a must for any body interested in this issue .

I also like your comment of " this does not prove 100% evolution .... " and "there might be an unknown natural phenomenon that ..... " . i choose to believe that in the future they will discover this unknown mechanism . This belief is more logical for me than believing that mutations arranged 3.5 billion letters of the human genome.

[toobsucker]

@glovergj What then is the "proper definition"? Is your position that evolution can't add information to the genome? "

Quantifiable information, no. The total amount of measurable information is greater than what is added (nylonase) . Genome self organization must have a master blueprint its reading from. I personally believe the conserved parts of the genome will prove to have complete unadulterated instructions for building the species. & it appears RNA maybe a "store house" for selection

[glovergj]

@toobsucker What then is the "proper definition"? Is your position that evolution can't add information to the genome? I would tend to agree if you are talking about natural selection only -- many biologists are convinced that there are other not-well-understood natural mechanisms responsible for creating genomic novelty -- but they are material mechanisms. Is your position that new information can only be added via a transcendent mind?

[toobsucker]

@glovergj "Is your position then that that these incongruities are evidence that evolution is false Or is your aim to simply correct what you feel is misinformation about the ubiquity of the tree of life?"

Evolution, under the proper definition is a fact, and no creationist denies this. What is denied is the evolution of a single cell to all organisms observed . Evolution is observable VIA the selection of INFO already on file. This is an adaptation mechanism with only slight changes made

[glovergj]

@toobsucker Hmm... Interesting. I'm going to take some time and follow up on this. Is your position then that that these incongruities are evidence that evolution is false? Or is your aim to simply correct what you feel is misinformation about the ubiquity of the tree of life?