A
want to research more supporting articles and check facts........
I don't believe in abiogenesis but some parts of evolution makes sense.
However, I'm not convinced that species are not deevolving into more primitive forms and not more complex/advance forms with the evidence of mutations and lost of genetic diversity in the world.
Speciation: when you have a big group of animals and for some reason (bottleneck, isolation, etc) a smaller sect develops that is unable to mate with the original group (some times it physical mutations, change in social mating habits, etc). The new smaller group is now a "new" species. at least according to science.
I would argue according to God they are still the same group of animals but with different gene expression.
However, that doesn't prove that the new traits were "evolved" from nothing. Most of the time the gene expressed are already written in the genetic code of the animals and comparison of DNA shows that only a small percentage of the DNA has actually changed.
This could be explain by the fact God gave animals the ability to adapt to changing world conditions by ALREADY encoding their DNA with all the genes they needed BEFORE they ever needed it.
If you have scientific papers where a mutation in the genome resulted in a favorable "trait" and not a detrimental abnormality, I'd love to read them. You may find some where the mutation causes no noticable changes in the phenotype of the animal, but I haven't ran across articles that concern animals.
The Bible makes a distinction between animals that Breathe and plants and fish. Its not the same as the scientific categories. therefore papers on bacteria, fish, or plants are not valid in trying to "prove" that the Bible is false when it speaks of creation in Genesis 1-2 or Noah's arc.
I find it disturbing that self proclaimed "scientist" would so grossly misuse the theory of evolution and link it with abiogenesis as if one proves the other. Evolution does not prove abiogenesis. it makes no comment on HOW the first population of a species came about.
I don't believe in abiogenesis but some parts of evolution makes sense.
However, I'm not convinced that species are not deevolving into more primitive forms and not more complex/advance forms with the evidence of mutations and lost of genetic diversity in the world.
Speciation: when you have a big group of animals and for some reason (bottleneck, isolation, etc) a smaller sect develops that is unable to mate with the original group (some times it physical mutations, change in social mating habits, etc). The new smaller group is now a "new" species. at least according to science.
I would argue according to God they are still the same group of animals but with different gene expression.
However, that doesn't prove that the new traits were "evolved" from nothing. Most of the time the gene expressed are already written in the genetic code of the animals and comparison of DNA shows that only a small percentage of the DNA has actually changed.
This could be explain by the fact God gave animals the ability to adapt to changing world conditions by ALREADY encoding their DNA with all the genes they needed BEFORE they ever needed it.
If you have scientific papers where a mutation in the genome resulted in a favorable "trait" and not a detrimental abnormality, I'd love to read them. You may find some where the mutation causes no noticable changes in the phenotype of the animal, but I haven't ran across articles that concern animals.
The Bible makes a distinction between animals that Breathe and plants and fish. Its not the same as the scientific categories. therefore papers on bacteria, fish, or plants are not valid in trying to "prove" that the Bible is false when it speaks of creation in Genesis 1-2 or Noah's arc.
I find it disturbing that self proclaimed "scientist" would so grossly misuse the theory of evolution and link it with abiogenesis as if one proves the other. Evolution does not prove abiogenesis. it makes no comment on HOW the first population of a species came about.