Plants evolve
Posted on 08/30/2018 7:33:06 AM PDT by fishtank
“Give us one, just one, electrical or chemical reason for any of the molecular interactions in the cell of any plant or animal.”
Every interaction in a living organism is about seeking greater energy from its environment to perform its own life cycle.
Greater collection of energy by a species yields greater ability to spread its own DNA molecule. Mutations in the DNA that increased this capacity were rewarded and spread that DNA out further. The cycle goes around and life continuously improves to its own surroundings. If the ancestors of the creatures you see all around you did not get energy, reproduce AND adapt to changing conditions while making inferior competitors extinct for millions of years, they would not exist.
Sometimes organisms can even merge because they are mutually beneficial and become like one organism over time. Unable to survive and reproduce without each other.
“Bears have pockets?”
Depends on their tailor...
Having studied Gould and other genetics, the reasoning behind punctuated equilibrium is mutation or change in the genes that regulate gene expression. These people are smart...
However, the issue of how chlorophyll or rhodopsin evolved is a really tough one. A whole complex system has to be in place for there to be any value in chlorophyll development. It really does not lend itself to a slow gradual build-up. And the idea that the nucleotides coding for chlorophyll randomly assembled creating an advantage through this mutation is nonsense. The interim time and energy spent on non-working chlorophyll variants would be very deleterious mutations, IMO.
All mutations are deleterious mutations.
Now why they have a three state photosensitivity is a curious thing, it's very rare. But for our purposes, we didn't care. Biologists, on the other hand, may ask themselves what possible advantage there is to having that.
I can't even give you a reason why magnetism works.
Your reason, “seeking greater energy from its environment”, is something a sentient being would do, not otherwise inanimate molecules.
And that still does not provide an electrical or chemical, i.e. naturalistic, reason for any of this behavior.
OK, you could call it a Wombat. But Kualas have pockets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Prehistoric_marsupial_stubs
Seeking greater energy yields more distribution of DNA which makes that DNA more materially succesful. Lifeforms evolve to more efficiently collect energy and beat competitors from getting it. “Sentient” in the way that a new taller plant that gets lucky and shades competitors can eventually kill all nearby plants and create more of its own seed.
Life is a collection of intimate molecules that follow chemical directions known as DNA to collect energy and reproduce themselves as much as possible. DNA changes constantly and has allowed life to adapt to anything so far. If DNA did not do that for billions of years, it would not exist
Chemical directions?
You mean DNA/ And how did this code appear ex nihilo?
I submit that where there is code, there must be an author. Code is the expression of an intelligence capable of abstract thought.
Normal chemical reactions always go from a state of higher energy to that of lower energy, as energy is released in the reaction. The only way to increase energy in any system is to infuse it with energy from an external source, and always with losses in the transferrence.
Life is not a natural process.
It is a supernatural process.
The natural processes take over at death, when explicable electro-chemical reactions take place.
And there is still no chemical or electrical or nuclear or mechanical reason for the messenger RNA to unwind a segment of DNA, decode it, and transmit the code for ribosomes to build a protein according to the specification.
And that’s just one of many molecular interactions within a living cell for which there are no naturalistic explanations.
“And how did this code appear ex nihilo?
I submit that where there is code, there must be an author. Code is the expression of an intelligence capable of abstract thought.”
It is the only way life as we know it can exist. We would not be here without it. Either you believe it happened via random chance and we are the only planet out of near infinity where life happened OR you believe a supernatural/extraterrestrial being brought it all into existence and all is meant to be as-is. Both views cannot currently be proven and require some level of “belief”
“The only way to increase energy in any system is to infuse it with energy from an external source, and always with losses in the transferrence. Life is not a natural process.”
ALL life takes in energy (sun or food), burns it and eventually becomes energy for another lifeform (decay). There is no lifeform that creates energy.
Every single aspect of life is natural and we know the mechanisms down to atomic level. It is very intricate and there is just simply no physical way for us to manipulate all the atoms into place of even the simplest lifeform. What “would” happen if we could someday? Who knows and it’s only a guess at this point
We still can wonder if it is indeed supernatural or merely a type of chemical reaction.
IMO, the supernatural part is outside of our consciousness and the universe as we perceive it will prove very material. What happens before/after/during a soul becomes conscious to the material universe is where the “magic” lies. We can explain it as God but it will never be truly explainable
So, you toss my imponderable query aside, as Darwinists tend to do. What is your point, since some cartilage turns into bone at different junctures in our lives.
Everything is God’s plan of Creation, obviously.
And God’s plan is obviously to use evolution.
Not a chance, but if that’s what you choose to believe, so be it! In your mind, was there divine direction in evolution, or was every positive mutation random happenstance?
Not a chance, but if that’s what you choose to believe, so be it!
...
Smarter people than you and me believe my position is the case. I’ve provided links to theistic evolutionists. Also, Alvin Plantinga, a very well respected Christian philosopher, believes that evolution supports theism rather than naturalism.
Sir, I can’t pretend that I understand why any Christian believes in evolution, but if everyone agreed with me, my life would be dull. I tend to enjoy the lectures of Stephen C. Meyer myself.
I do note that my direct questions are evaded by every evolutionist whom I ask. No hard feelings, I hope! FRiends Forever!
Your gotcha question doesn’t compare to the lengthy and respected work of someone like Alvin Plantinga, or many other theists who are also evolutionists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.