Multicelluar Life, Signed God

The year 2016 ended not too long ago, and truly was another great year for science. Thorough advances have been made in all fields of science, except for the one where scientists attempt to figure out how life could have naturally originated on Earth from non-living material (abiogenesis). Some of these discoveries are truly shocking, such as the discovery of a new galaxy that is comprised nearly 100% of dark matter, and  another interesting finding was that catfish (a type of blind fish, just to note) can actually climb up walls. But of course, some discoveries always get a pseudoscientific spin put on them, such as the following one we will discuss in a second.

Multicelluar life qualifies as perhaps some of the most complex structures existing in the universe, something so complex that natural processes simply cannot account for its existence and development. Secularists on the other hand, wish to deny these claims in order to maintain their worldviews, and they have been looking for a while now in order to come up with an answer as to how multicelluar life could have possibly originated. Speaking of the people who do not believe God created multicellular life, one of these men go by the name of Joe Thorton. Joe is a professor of ecology and also has his very own PhD, so he is an intelligent man without a doubt. In early 2016, he published his finding of an 800,000,000 year old mutation (hold on to the 800,000,000 year dating part for now) which he says brought about the development of multicellular life on Earth. Here is Joe Thorton’s very own sum-up of the data that he has compiled;

“Our experiments show how biological complexity can evolve though simple, high-probability genetic paths… Before the last common ancestor of all animals, when only single-celled organisms existed on Earth, just one tiny change in DNA sequence caused a protein to switch from its primordial role as an enzyme to a new function that became essential to organize multicellular structures.”

The entire thing is pretty complex, but basically draws down to how the GK-PID protein brought about a specific mutation that eventually lead the development from unicellular life into multicellular life. This man truly does not believe that God has made multicellular life, and his ideologies seem to have had a good push in 2016. Or have they? 2016 was a great year full of very interesting scientific discoveries, and our friend here Joe Thorton probably was a bit unprepared for a finding that came about just a few months later into the future.

A few months later in April, several Chinese paleontologists made a stunning finding to say the very least. It was a discovery that found multicellular life that is 1,560,000,000 years old which was published into the journal Nature. This finding pushed back when scientists first believe multicelluar life existed on Earth, and trampled Thorton’s findings. It’s hard to believe that a mutation that occurred 800,000,000 years ago brought about multicellular life, if multicellular life had already been present here on Earth nearly a billion years preceding it.

The evidence shall continue to pile on, however. Several years ago in 2010, a finding that was also published to Nature found that there was a likely candidate for multicellular life that is even earlier than the above finding. Indeed, several scientists discovered potential animal multicellular life that dates over 2,100,000,000 years old, which means we have two major examples of multicellular life that predates Thorton’s mutation by a drastic amount of time. There is one more example to mention though, and this finding came in 2009. You may have predicted this already, but this finding was also published into Nature and found demosponges that date to 635,000,000 years old. Now, this does post-date the 800,000,000 year old mutation that Thorton speaks about, but there is something very important to note about this finding, which Gordon D. Love, a professor from the University of California, explains very nicely.

“The fact that we can detect sponge steranes at all suggests that by the Cryogenian Period [about 850 to 635 million years ago] demosponges were ecologically prominent and there were abundant demosponges living on the shallow sea floor…”

In other words, the mere traces of multicellular demosponges that go back over 635,000,000 million years old, shows that they maintained ecological prominence throughout a period of time (the Cryogenian Period, as noted above) that goes back over 850,000,000 years, effectively predating Thorton’s mutation. You’ll realize that almost all the scientific discoveries I noted here are very recent, and this shows that the progression of science continually helps to invalidate naturalism. Indeed, it seems to me that only God is the true creator of all life on Earth, both unicellular and multicellular.

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Multicelluar Life, Signed God

  1. I have to ask, did you read the Thornton’s paper? It had nothing to do with the “first step” in multicellularity, so pointing out that multicelluarity existed prior to the mutation specified does nothing to “trample” his paper.

    They even say in the paper:
    “Taken together, these findings suggest that spindle orientation mediated by the GKPID-Pins complex in response to external cues replaced a more ancient mode of spindle orientation along the stem lineage leading to animals.”

    In other words, they weren’t proposing that their finding was the change that resulted in all multicellularity, just that it was the one that was present in the ancestor of animals.

    Like

      • The claim is that multicellularity arose in animals about 800MYA, and that the mutation outlined in Thornton’s paper originated about a billion years ago (not 800 million as you claimed).

        You say you’ve shown this to be false. How exactly? Remember, the claim is that multicellularity evolved about 800MYA in ANIMALS. The “animals” part is important.
        You cited 3 papers:

        The first detailed a multicelluar fossil dating back 1.5 billion years. Does it represent an animal? There’s no evidence to suggest that, and the fact that the cells might have been photosynthetic directly contradicts that narrative.

        The second detailed a multicellular fossil dating back 2.1 billion years. You described it as “several scientists discovered potential animal multicellular life”, but what evidence is that the fossil represents animal life? None. The authors themselves discuss the possibility of the fossil representing a bacterial or even eukaryotic colony, but nowhere do they even speculate that it may have been an animal. I can’t help byt wonder, where did you get the idea that this finding represented “potential animal multicellular life”?

        The third study describes the 635 million year old demosponges. This is significantly later than the dates suggested for the origin of animal multicellularity, but you claim:
        “In other words, the mere traces of multicellular demosponges that go back over 635,000,000 million years old, shows that they maintained ecological prominence throughout a period of time (the Cryogenian Period, as noted above) that goes back over 850,000,000 years, effectively predating Thorton’s mutation.”
        I have to make a few points here. First, (again) “Thornton’s mutation” was no posited to have occured 800MYA, I’m not sure where you pulled that age from, but it’s the data for the origin of multicellularity in animals, not the date for the mutation. Thornton and his co-authors spend a fair bit of time in their paper the lag-time between the mutation and it becoming coupled with PINS to provide the function that promoted multicellularity. Second, you quote Gordon Love as saying “The fact that we can detect sponge steranes at all suggests that by the Cryogenian Period [about 850 to 635 million years ago] demosponges were ecologically prominent and there were abundant demosponges living on the shallow sea floor”, and this is where you seem to have got the idea that he’s saying the demosponges were present THROUGHOUT the Crygenian Period. However, that’s not at all what he said. The clarifying words in [brackets] were meant for the lay audience of the popsci article, so they know what kind of age range the “Crygenian Period” refers to. Your misunderstanding is akin to me saying “humans evolved in the late Cenozoic epoch [66 million years ago to present day]…” and you responding “look everyone, this guy thinks humans have been around for 66 million years!”. But hey, don’t take my word for it – if you had bothered to scroll a bit further down in the livescience article you would have read this:
        “Now that there is evidence of animals going back to 635 million years ago, it is worth asking if future research will find evidence of animal fossils going back even further. Love doubts the date will get much earlier than a glaciation event called the Sturtian, 720 million years ago, which caused big changes in ocean chemistry. So evidence might be found dating “perhaps as far back as 800 million years, but not much older than that,” Love told LiveScience, “and I think an upper limit age of 750 million years that we present from dates in Oman may stand the test of time.” ”
        So which do you think is more likely? That Love contradicts himself in the same interview by saying that demosponges were present as early as 850 million years ago and moments later saying that he doubts any animal fossils will be found prior to ~750 million years ago, or that you simply misunderstood the article?

        To sum up then, you still haven’t presented any evidence of Thornton’s paper being “trampled”, because you haven’t provided any evidence of multicellular animal life existing prior to about 800MYA. Do you want to try again?

        Like

      • Looks like Evograd has spotted many of the misreadings, misinterpretations and errors that I spotted.

        What is your response to Evograd?

        Like

  2. Why is it a problem if evolutionary theory teaches that the animal lineage and the lineage which includes the Chinese paper fossils separated prior to 1.56 billion years ago? Isn’t that what I’ve been saying all along? Again, please explain WHY multicellularity cannot evolve more than once in seperate and distinct lineages? Why is this not possible?

    Where and how does Thorton’s paper attempt to explain the very first time that multicellularity evolved? ( I mean where and how in the peer-reviewed paper?) Thorton makes it very clear that the gene and protein that he is focusing on is ONLY found in animals. Given that, he cannot possibly be trying to use this gene/protein to explain the origin of multicellularity in all life forms. Thorton obviously knows that the plant and animal lineages separated long before 800 million years ago, so clearly when he talks about a gene that he thinks first appeared about 800 million years ago, he can’t possibily be citing this gene as the explanation for the origin of the very first multicellular organism of any type.

    I read the sponge quotation again, and again, I think you are misreading this. Yes, if sponges are prominent by 635 million years ago, then they must have existed prior to 635 million years ago. However, this is 215 million years after the start of the Cryogenium Period. It does NOT take 215 million years for a taxonomic group to go from origin to dominance, particularly at a time when the diversity of animal life is low. Further, in the absence of fossils older than 635 million years, you simply can’t say when sponges first appeared. All you can say is that the time of origin pre-dates 635 million years ago. The authors of the paper know all of this, so I can guarantee that they are NOT saying that sponges first appeared at 850 million years ago.

    Ah, yes. The Cambrian explosion. I’ll get back to you on this one.

    I can give you lots of examples of lots of lineages with lots of transitional forms, but if you’re going to reject the hominid fossils as an outstanding example, then this is pointless. Your a priori dismissal of all of the other examples I might give you as “ludicrous” suggests an aggressive ignorance that I will not be able overcome.

    What is the name of the paper which presents the octopus data? I’d be happy to talk octopus, but first, I’d need to read the research paper.

    If we humans are the point of all of this, why wait billions of years to create us? Why create millions of other species first? Why create the Australopithecines (which closely resemble us) before creating humans, and only later create Homo sapiens? Was God practicing?

    (By the way, I love the phrase “abysmally superior.” It really does capture our nature, doesn’t it?)

    How is small pox a result of sin? Did God create this virus after creating Adam and Eve? Why would a loving God create small pox?

    Still on the table.

    Is death a punishment for sin?

    Could Adam have named all of the animal species?

    Why do God’s perfect creations go extinct?

    Why are species lines sometimes blurry if all species are the product of separate and distinct acts of creation?

    Can new species evolve from God-created species (within a taxonomic family)?

    Oh, and if I might add one, why do flying creatures appear on Earth after crawling terrestrial creatures when Genesis says the opposite?

    Like

    • Read the octopus paper. So, what’s the problem here?

      Keep in mind that the word “octopus” refers to an order of animals with about 300 species. That is, the word “octopus” does not refer to a single species, let alone an “alien species.”

      Also keep in mind that the octopus lineage diverged from the squid lineage well over 100 million years ago. Squid species are in a different order from the octopus but in the same class, but even though “related,” the last common ancestor of octopus species and squid species lived a very long time ago. Divergence from othe mollusk lineage would have occurred even farther back in the past. Plenty of time here to evolve genetic differences.

      Like

    • “Again, please explain WHY multicellularity cannot evolve more than once in seperate and distinct lineages? Why is this not possible? ”

      Irrelevant, Thorton purports that THE ORIGINAL SPLIT of unicellular –> multicellular animal life is 800 mil years ago. If it can be shown to predate that, then my post is correct.

      “Thorton obviously knows that the plant and animal lineages separated long before 800 million years ago, so clearly when he talks about a gene that he thinks first appeared about 800 million years ago, he can’t possibily be citing this gene as the explanation for the origin of the very first multicellular organism of any type.”

      No, Thorton does not think that, as explained before. You’re just trying to save Thorton here. Give it up.

      “It does NOT take 215 million years for a taxonomic group to go from origin to dominance, particularly at a time when the diversity of animal life is low.”

      That’s definitely debatable, especially considering how sparse remains of animal life are from 635 mil years ago. As shown by the peer-reviewed publications, the mere fact that actual remains of demosponges have survived from 635 mil years ago shows that they were prominent throughout the Cryogenian Period. Now, you go on to note you read the octopus paper — good. You have read the paper that shows that the genome of octopus is so abysmally different than the genomes of other mollusks and invertebrates as to be called a little “alien” species (jokingly) by researchers. Octopuses did not diverge from squids 100 mil years ago, and the evidence has shown that your remarks on all the animals being so “similar” and having such a straight pattern is false. They aren’t similar at all. The general structure of organisms on Earth have similarity, but every few meters you go you see this wildcard that just contradicts the entire chain.

      You basically ask why God “waited” billions of years — God is eternal, He didn’t wait. He doesn’t exist in time. Remember that part where He was the one who made time? The difference between the first second of the universe and the twelfth billion year of the universe is nothing to God. As for small pox, again, God did not create it just to crush us or something, it probably appeared through sin. You’re throwing way too many questions at a time, bud, try to stay on topic.

      Like

    • You continue to jumble, confuse and conflate lineages. Honestly, it’s difficult to keep up with the mistakes here.

      Show me in Thorton’s paper where Thornton says that the line leading to multicelled plants and the line leading to multicelled animal first split around 800 million years ago. Show me. Be specific. Give me Thorton’s words from Thorton’s paper.

      Show me that Thornton does not know that the plant-animal split occurred long before 800 million years ago. Show me where Thorton says that multicellularity did not exist in any lineage in any form before 800 million years ago. Show me that Thorton denies that there were multicellular “plants” or any other multicellular organisms in any other lineage before 800 million years ago. Support your claims.

      If plant and lineages separated long, one before 800 million years ago, then the existence of multicelled “plants” or plant-like organism long before 800 million years ago is not a problem. For the last time, Thorton was looking at a gene which only occurs in the animal lineage. It’s about the transition from single-celled “animals” to multicelled animals. It’s about events in the animal lineage which occurred long, long after the plant-animal split. I’ll give it up when you show an ability to understand what all of Thorton’s work is actually about.

      The “mere fact” that there are sponge fossils from 635 million years ago does NOT show that sponges exist 850 million years ago. Scientists do NOT make this claim, and certainly not in the paper that you cited. Your problem is one of reading comprehension.

      Dinosaurs were “prominent” 200 million years ago. They were totally non-existent 415 million years ago. Understand the point?

      When did the squid lineage diverge from the octopus lineage? If not 100 million years ago, then when? What is the numerical value which defines “abysmally different?” That is, define “abysmally different.” How do you know that these differences are abysmally different and could not have arisen in 100 million years? How do you know that the octopus lineage is a “wild card?” Be specific.

      Here’s the key phrase in the paper. “Gene families.” Understand? If not, re-read the paper. It’s only in certain gene families that we find the “abysmal” differences that so concern you. Then look up “gene duplication.”

      Sure, God’s eternal, but it’s quite odd that God first created apes, then Australopithecines, then Homo species, then Homo sapiens. Time may not mean much to God, but it does exist, and events occur in a certain sequence over time. Such an odd sequence (apes to humans), don’t you think? It might lead the poor humans astray when they see it. So why do it this way? Malevolence?

      Small pox. You keep saying it appeared through sin. What does this mean? How does this mechanism create viruses? Did God create the small pox genome or not? Did God assemble the DNA bases in the proper order to create small pox viruses when it did not exist before? Simple question, yes or no will do for answer.

      My questions are on topic. You say that all life is “signed by God.” Well then, God must have created small pox. Further, you say that God created each species separately over millions of years. All well and good, but this would seem lead to the conclusion that the Bible is not accurate. In other words, your hypotheses about the origin of species seem to leave quite a few problems in their wake.

      Like

  3. Algae? Sorry bud, algae didn’t exist 1.56 billion years ago. If you actually read the published paper I provided the link for, you’d see that the observation made on this 1.56 billion year old life is that it is a multicellular eukaryote, and of course all animals are multicellular eukaryotes, and so there clearly is no defined “different group” that you’re invoking here.

    As you can see from the quotation I directly provided from Thorton, he explicitly states that his mutation that occurred 800,000,000 years ago is indeed the representative of the transition of life from unicellularity to multicellularity. This is not a vague statement, it’s very clearly as I represented it and it is very clearly false.

    “I’m curious. Do you think that God create each genome for each species in seperate acts of creations?”

    Correct. God is so amazingly powerful that He could probably do it an infinite times over in zero time, creating a unique genome would be so easy for God that I do not think this question is even valid.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, all animals are multicellular and eukaryotic. All plants are also multicellular and eukaryotic. So are all fungi. So “multicellular and eukaryotic” can apply to multiple and distinct groups. For example, depending on the context, it might just refer to plants.

      Yes, I read the Thorton quote. I also looked up Thorton’s paper. It clearly states that the protein in question is unique to that subgroup of multicellular eukaryotes that we call “animals.” The transition that he is referring to is the transition in the animal lineage (the problem with your quotation is that it is incomplete). And why is his quoted statement false?

      I also read the Chinese paper. Look up the word “thallus.” It’s used repeatedly in this paper. Learn what in means. Thallus. Eukaryotic cells. Probably photosynthetic. Conclusion? Probably a type of algae.

      Ok, so God created each species’ genome in separate acts of creation. When did God do this? We’re all species created at once or over a long period of time? How different does one genome have to be from another to give us different species?

      Like

      • I still disagree with your claim that they are algae… Because again, algae aren’t 1.56 billion years old. Now, it seems you may be right about the whole thallus thing — it seems that you are showing these are plant cells, not animal cells, and that multicellularity evolved in plant cells some 800,000,000 years earlier than it did in animal cells. This is quite a radical claim it seems to me, and I find that the paper gives information against it.

        Apart from that however, I am also aware of 2.1 billion year old multicellular life which may indeed be animal life, not plant.
        https://www.wired.com/2010/06/early-multicellularity/

        ^From the link above, it indicates that what was found is either a colonie of unicellular life (which I find unconvincing) or animal life. Am I missing something here?

        One last finding (I’m probably going to add all of these to my post tomorrow), from this link:http://www.livescience.com/3267-oldest-fossil-evidence-animals.html

        It seems to indicate that by the Cryogenian Period (850 mil – 635 mil years ago), animal life (demosponges) were quite prominent. I will add this information soon to the post to show the inadequacy of this claim. If you have objections before I do this, I’m all ears. As for the theological part of our discussion:

        “Ok, so God created each species’ genome in separate acts of creation. When did God do this? We’re all species created at once or over a long period of time? How different does one genome have to be from another to give us different species?”

        Do you want me to give you a manual that lists when God created exactly what from all of history? LOL. I obviously have not a clue when God created each and every life and how. I know that he did it early enough to screw around with the advocates of abiogenesis, considering a few years ago our earliest record of life on Earth was some 3.4 billion years old, giving a couple hundred million years after that comet period for life to develop… And then in 2016 we found 3.72 billion year old life, so it seems to me that abiogenesis is really getting screwed around with by God. It’s more of a comedy show. What restrains you from sharing my worldview?

        Like

    • Why would you say that there are no algae at 1.5 billion years? If the organisms in the Chinese paper aren’t algae, then what are they? Thalli, eukayotic, probably photosynthetic…what are they? They ain’t animals.

      How does the paper give evidence that multicellularity could not not have arisen in different lineages at different times?

      With respect to the Wired link, I need to see the original journal paper before commenting.

      With respect to the livescience link, this discusses fossils which are 625 million year old, so that’s not a problem for Thorton’s 800 million year old gene.

      On to theology. Ok, so if I understand you correctly, you have God creating the earliest life around 3.5 billion years ago. Given you old earth views, I assume that you would be ok with the notion that God created things like trilobites around 550 million years ago and dinosaurs around 230 million years ago and Australopithecines around 5 million years ago, ect. I’m not asking if you would agree with this right down to the exact date, I’m just checking to see if you agree that new life forms were created periodically over millions or billions of years. Do I understand correctly?

      How different does one genome have to be from another before it’s considered a different species? Could difference sufficient to call something a different genome (species) ever arise by natural means? How can you tell if a species is (a) a new, God-created species versus (b) a new species which has been produced over time by decent by natural means from a God-created species?

      Like

      • “Why would you say that there are no algae at 1.5 billion years? If the organisms in the Chinese paper aren’t algae, then what are they? Thalli, eukayotic, probably photosynthetic…what are they? They ain’t animals. ”

        You do know that algae are a lot more then a couple attached multicellular life, right? Algae are much more complex overall. But I don’t think it’s even relevant about whether or not they are algae, because it will not affect our discussion at all — I’ve already said these 1.56 billion year old cells are most likely plant, not animal. So let’s keep this discussion efficient and drop the algae stuff and not waste each others time.

        “How does the paper give evidence that multicellularity could not not have arisen in different lineages at different times? ”

        If the evidence shows multicellular animal life is older than 800,000,000 years old, the claim that unicellular life first transitioned into multicellular life 800,000,000 years ago is flat out wrong, and the fact remains that multicellular life would not be explained. If your supposed transition occurred 800 mil years ago, but we have 850 mil years old multicellular life, then multicellular life has not been explained.

        “With respect to the livescience link, this discusses fossils which are 625 million year old, so that’s not a problem for Thorton’s 800 million year old gene. ”

        Fossils can show much more than their own dating. The research posted showed that this multicellular animal life was already prominent in the Cryogenian Period, which shows these sponges had existed by at least 850 – 635 million years ago. Which effectively shows animal life predates this ‘transition’.

        “Found the paper cited in the Wired link. It looks like the authors describe the fossils as “colonial organisms.” I did not see the word “animal” in this paper,”

        The commenters definitely seem to describe it as animal life. Please give me the link to this paper as I’ve had a hard time finding it myself. I don’t see an escape here. Anyways, back to theology:

        Correct, I view that God periodically created new life as time went on. We see that once the Earth transitions into phases that are suitable to support certain types of life, God creates that kind of life. You mentioned trilobites, which is interesting because trilobites themselves have absolutely non-existent ‘ancestors’ in the fossil record, they just pop in there without any evolutionary history. I think this occurred during the Cambrian Explosion, which is a hilarious crushing of naturalism in my opinion. But, you ask this question:

        “How different does one genome have to be from another before it’s considered a different species? Could difference sufficient to call something a different genome (species) ever arise by natural means? How can you tell if a species is (a) a new, God-created species versus (b) a new species which has been produced over time by decent by natural means from a God-created species?”

        We must remember that the word ‘species’ is a man-made term that does not appear in the Bible. The word ‘kind’ does, which I would assume refers to family or genus in taxonomic classification, likely not species. Something problematic about the field of biology is that scientists are in complete non-existent agreement regarding how to classify an animal as successfully becoming a different species. I think the term species is amazingly ill-defined.

        Telling the difference between a ‘species’ that is God-made or naturally made I think is simple. Can naturalism provide a viable transition in which such a ‘species’ could have appeared with solid evidence, perhaps a nice, linear chain of transitional fossils? Or does this species have properties that are so radically different from other species that naturalistic explanations are at awe? I obviously haven’t come up with a revolutionary classification method to perfectly determine how and why which species is what, but the above explanation should be a good place to start off.

        Like

    • Found the paper cited in the Wired link. It looks like the authors describe the fossils as “colonial organisms.” I did not see the word “animal” in this paper,

      Like

    • Ok, the Chinese paper fossils are not animal fossils. Good enough.

      If they are not animal fossils, then the Chinese paper does not show that animals existed more than 800 million years ago, so not a proble for Thorton. Further, the Chinese paper does not “trample” Thorton’s paper, because Thortin’s research deals specifically and solely with the evolution of multicellularity in the animal lineage, and the Chinese paper’s fossils are “plants.” Thorton is not addressing the question of when multicellularity evolved for the very first time in any organism. Multicellularity could have evolved in different and separate lineages at different times. I believe that the current thinking is that multicellularity evolved about a half a dozen times at different points in time in different and seperate lineages.

      I think you misread the sponge paper. The authors provide the dates for the Cryogenium Period as an assistance to the readers, but they do not say that sponges have existed since the start of that period, that is, the research does not say that sponges have existed since 850 million years ago. The fossils described date to 625 million years ago, so all that can be concluded is that sponges existed by 625 million years ago. It is not known when the very first sponges appeared, and the authors do not and cannot say that they existed 850 million years ago. So, no challenge to Thorton’s work here.

      Which “commenters” stated that the Wired link fossils are “animal?” I think you confused the article writer’s opinion for something that the paper’s authors said or with the paper’s conclusion. It might have been a good idea to read to the actual paper before drawing conclusions from an article posted by some online magazine. Find the paper yourself. You should have done this from the start. Just google the title of the actual peer-reviewed journal article.

      Theology.

      First, I guess that we can conclude that death has been a part of life on Earth for billions of years and occurred long before Adam and Eve frolicked in the Garden of Eden. So, death is not a punishment for sin? And by the time of A and E, there would have been millions of species. Did Adam give names to them all?

      Ok, so God spends billions of years playing with single called life while waiting for conditions to be right for multicelled plants and animals. Sounds like God is a little bit limited here.

      Finally, when there enough oxygen, God starts making animals. First, he makes some aquatic animals with backbones and fins, but no jaws. He makes lots of species with backbones and fins, but no jaws. Doesn’t make any animals that can live on land, of course, just fishies. Then after millions of additional years, he makes species which look a lot like what he made before, except now he adds jaws. Then millions of more years go by, and he makes something that looks like those a animals with backbones, fins and jaws, but now he adds some fins that look bit like flippers. And on and on….creating patterns that consistently look very much like the new species just might have descended from the old species. Such a joker, that God.

      Then after God creates all of these species, they keep going extinct. Looks like God is not very good at this. And finally, after billions of years, he makes humans. And we’re supposed to be the point of all of this?

      Yea, it can be tricky to define species. And isn’t that interesting? God creates each species as seperate creations, and yet species lines can be awfully blurry. Not exactly what I’d expect from seperate and distinct creation events.

      I can’t be sure, but are you saying that you think at a new species could be produced by natural means from a God-made species? Is this so? For example, since “kind” might refer to a taxonomic family, could natural mechanisms produce new species within a taxonomic family from God-created species.

      You want transitions fossils. Consider just the hominid fossils of the last few million years.

      Like

      • “If they are not animal fossils, then the Chinese paper does not show that animals existed more than 800 million years ago, so not a proble for Thorton.”

        It’s a definite problem if evolutionary theory teaches that animal cells may have diverged from plant cells before 1.56 billion years ago, when plant cells had already become multicellular.

        “Multicellularity could have evolved in different and separate lineages at different times.”

        This remains without evidence. Thorton’s paper also attempts to explain the original split from unicellular to multicellular, so you’re not saving Thorton here.

        “I think you misread the sponge paper. The authors provide the dates for the Cryogenium Period as an assistance to the readers, but they do not say that sponges have existed since the start of that period, that is, the research does not say that sponges have existed since 850 million years ago. ”

        You seem to be trying to reinterpret the paper. Read this quotation:

        “The fact that we can detect sponge steranes at all suggests that by the Cryogenian Period [about 850 to 635 million years ago] demosponges were ecologically prominent and there were abundant demosponges living on the shallow sea floor…”

        The point is that the fact that traces of demosponges had survived for 635,000,000 years at all shows that by the time the Cryogenian Period came along, demosponges had gained ecological prominence. In other words, the mere fact that we have multicellular demosponge traces as early as 635,000,000 years ago (which would be impossible if they originated later or at about that same time) shows that they had already existed for a long while, at least by the start of the Cryogenian Period.

        You go on to invoke that according to me, God makes animals just like the previous ones, but adds slow additions every time, as if it were really naturalism developing the animals! But this is not what I said, you’ll see according to the fossil record that these “ancestors” you’re invoking are virtually entirely non-existent, especially when you look at the Cambrian Explosion. All sorts of classifications of highly developed organisms appear with zero evolutionary history whatsoever. For example, look at this publication that appeared in Nature last year:

        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7564/full/nature14668.html

        Many popular sites and outlets talked about this finding. Last year, the octopus genome was sequenced, and something completely insane was found. The genome of the octopus sequences over 33,000 different proteins. Even the genome of homo sapiens (us) can only sequence 25,000 proteins. Evolutionary theory invokes that these animals will be similar to those closely related to it, but the genome of the octopus was so unlike other invertebrates and mollusks that scientists have jokingly called it an “alien species”. You might try to call the phenomena going on with octopuses as an “exception”, but this crazy stuff is in fact the rule. I can cite thousands of these crazy special things appearing in specific types of animals that are just completely out of the ordinary, out of naturalism, as if they were… Independently made.

        “And we’re supposed to be the point of all of this?”

        Correct. We’re the only single kind of animal to conquer the world and advance in such a way, we are obviously abysmally superior to all other lifeforms on Earth.

        “I can’t be sure, but are you saying that you think at a new species could be produced by natural means from a God-made species? Is this so? For example, since “kind” might refer to a taxonomic family, could natural mechanisms produce new species within a taxonomic family from God-created species.
        You want transitions fossils. Consider just the hominid fossils of the last few million years.”

        Out of all my research, the only case for transitional fossils that can be validly made that I have ever seen in my life are the hominid ones. I think a case can be made there, but it’s one I do not think I accept. All other sets of ‘transitional fossils’ are either non-existent or ludicrously claimed by scientists frankishly looking around to support their theory. The whale stuff is ridiculous.

        “Final thought for the day. Why did God create small pox?”

        Smallpox is probably just another result of sin.

        Like

  4. One of the ultimate and undebatable scientific proofs of God’s existence does indeed come from molecular biology.

    But that scientific proof does not (and cannot) come from the fossil record which is so incomplete and so open to interpretation.

    It is the transfer of mind boggling amounts of coherent information through intelligible language occurring routinely in living organisms that provides scientific proof positive of God’s existence.

    Like

    • Correct, natural processes cannot account for the biological information found in our world. This post was mainly about debunking Joe Thorton and a challenge to God’s creation of multicellular life, though. Seems successful to me. Thanks for the comments.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s