Two potential creation scenarios

[agnosticatheist]

Let's assume for the sake of this debate that the following premises are true:

A: The Christian God exists

B: The Christian God created the universe

Now, let's consider two possible creation scenarios.

Scenario 1: God created each species in a separate creation event.

Scenario 1 questions for debate:

1. Why would God create each species in separate creation events and yet make it appear that each species emerged from earlier lifeforms? Wouldn't that make God dishonest?

2. The Bible says that God is trustworthy; can he still be trusted if he made it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't?

3. Why would God make it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't, knowing full well that this will cause many to doubt God's existence?

Scenario 2: God created the conditions in which carbon-based lifeforms could emerge and evolve on Earth, and eventually lead to the emergence of Homo Sapiens, which God would give a soul to (and perhaps make some other minor changes to), which would result in the creation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or Modern Humans.

Scenario B Question for debate:

1. Why would God go to all that trouble when he could simply create each species in separate creation events?

Here's a broader set of questions that apply to both scenarios:

Why would God create lifeforms other than humans? Clearly humans are important because they "house" the human soul. But what about Wolves? Crocodiles? Crows? Gorillas?

What is the role of non-human lifeforms in God's "plan"?

Do they have souls too? Consciousness/awareness is a state that people claim is possible due to the soul.

Well, the more we observe and study the non-human natural world, the more it seems that consciousness/awareness exists on a spectrum, from human-level awareness (or perhaps higher...), down to complete non-consciousness/non-awareness (e.g. bacteria). There isn't some absolute line where life is divided between conscious and non-conscious, except for maybe at the "lower lifeform levels", but definitely not at the "higher lifeform levels". Dogs are conscious, they just aren't conscious to the same degree that humans are.

So, why create lifeforms besides humans and have consciousness exist on a spectrum?

Why would God do this knowing full well that it would cause people to question his existence?

It just seems to be such an interesting coincidence that God created lifeform consciousness on a spectrum.

[Danmark]

Dan -- the reason there are so many beetles (sadly, 2 fewer than when there were 4 Beatles ), is because there are so many global (micro)environments. And God engineered the originally created ones with the genetic diversity to adapt to them, by selective processes (not by acquiring "new information").

That process continues to this day. New speciation occurs, in response to environmental pressure. Evolution is real -- it just didn't turn microbes into men.

Btw -- insects were not included on the Ark.

As an aside, how do you know insects were not included on the Ark?
This isn't a biblical position, is it?

So, you believe in evolution, in speciation in response to environmental change. That is reasonable. Not in a 6000 or 10000 year time span of course, but reasonable, and in fact as true as gravity.

I do not understand your caveat about these selective processes working, but not with "new" information. What do you mean by "new information?"

There are at least 98 different naturally occurring elements on Earth, plus various isotopes. How many different ways can they be combined to form different molecules? If the number is not infinite, then it is certainly a number beyond my ability to comprehend or calculate. Are you contending that a new combination of elements or molecules is "new information?"

The human genome comprises the information contained in one set of human chromosomes which themselves contain about 3 billion base pairs (bp) of DNA in 46 chromosomes (22 autosome pairs + 2 sex chromosomes). The total length of DNA present in one adult human is calculated by the multiplication of

(length of 1 bp)(number of bp per cell)(number of cells in the body)

(0.34 × 10-9 m)(6 × 109)(1013)

2.0 × 1013 meters

That is the equivalent of nearly 70 trips from the earth to the sun and back.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/StevenChen.shtml

And there are as many different combinations of the DNA molecule as there are people who have ever lived. Even identical (monozygotic) twins do not share precisely the same DNA since mutations begin almost as soon as the first zygote divides.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 150 by Danmark]

So many questions -- so little of me.

Bust Nak -- I guess you're referring to the consequences of the Fall. God could've created a universe of automatons, incapable of sin, I suppose.

CB -- God made creatures with free will. He placed them in a temporary environment, in order to exercise that free will. Hell may be a punishment -- but it is also a choice. No one will go there except by their own free will. And they will have to crawl over the Cross to get there.

I'm sure you're a good person. As am I (more or less).

But God is Holy. We cannot achieve His holiness, without His help. He has provided it. The manner in which He did so underscores that we are in a very, very serious situation, this business of life. But don't worry -- if you don't want to spend eternity in the presence of the Author of existence, you need not. He has paid you the great compliment of making that entirely your decision.

Those who choose poorly will never know the greatness of His mirth.

As for the "record" thing:

There are two things that God cannot do.

He cannot lie. And He cannot learn.

He simply "knows" what you've done. He knows your very thoughts. He made you. And he cannot be surprised at your actions, or your ultimate choice.

What we are told is that our sins are "covered" by the blood of Christ. "Washed away."

Simply by making the choice of putting our faith and trust in Him.

Again -- a good deal, I say.

Dan --

As an aside, how do you know insects were not included on the Ark?
This isn't a biblical position, is it?

Genesis 7:15 (KJV): "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life."

It is even more clear in the original Hebrew: Noah took a pair of each kind of vertebrate land animal -- except for the "clean" ones, and "fowls of the air" of which he took seven pairs each.

As far as the "information" thing -- while I'm certainly not going to argue against chemicals acting according to properties that demonstrate design and intelligence in their creation, and thereby exhibit "information":

when we come to DNA, the code for living organisms, we are entering into a categorically different level of complexity than the bonding of chemical compounds.

And the fact is, after you magically come up with a microbe, by whatever processes you choose to believe that could occur, without deliberate design being involved:

you still only have the information to replicate microbes.

Information must be added, "byte by byte", so to speak -- DNA "letter" by DNA "letter", to get to all the intermediated forms and functions between that first "simple" microbe, and the first man.

You may believe that is possible, by mindless, unguided processes: I simply can't. I just don't have that much faith.

It will be countered -- "but it must have occurred -- after all, we're here!"

To which I counter: "I think God did it."

[Danmark]

As an aside, how do you know insects were not included on the Ark?
This isn't a biblical position, is it?

Genesis 7:15 (KJV): "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life."

It is even more clear in the original Hebrew: Noah took a pair of each kind of vertebrate land animal -- except for the "clean" ones, and "fowls of the air" of which he took seven pairs each.

That is NOT what the Hebrew says. Insects breathe, just not exactly the same way we do. Instead of lungs, insects breathe with a network of tiny tubes called tracheae.
You have another problem with your theory. Without insects, the plants and birds and other animals that rely on them could not have survived after they got off the ark. Which brings up the question of what these animals ate while on the ark, and after they left it. Trying to make these myths make sense is a losing proposition.

As far as the "information" thing -- while I'm certainly not going to argue against chemicals acting according to properties that demonstrate design and intelligence in their creation, and thereby exhibit "information":

when we come to DNA, the code for living organisms, we are entering into a categorically different level of complexity than the bonding of chemical compounds.

And the fact is, after you magically come up with a microbe, by whatever processes you choose to believe that could occur, without deliberate design being involved:

you still only have the information to replicate microbes.

Information must be added, "byte by byte", so to speak -- DNA "letter" by DNA "letter", to get to all the intermediated forms and functions between that first "simple" microbe, and the first man.

You may believe that is possible, by mindless, unguided processes: I simply can't. I just don't have that much faith.

It will be countered -- "but it must have occurred -- after all, we're here!"

To which I counter: "I think God did it."

You have offered nothing here that shows you have the slightest inkling how evolution works and nothing about this genetic "information issue. It's as if you suggested this as an argument just because you saw it on a creationist site.

You have not even explained why an "increase in information," or lack thereof, is an issue for creationists. And you've showed nothing that disputes microbes, thru a billion or so years of evolution [which you now claim you do not dispute, except for the time element] could not evolve into millions of intermediate forms, including homo sapiens.

The fact of the universal genetic code, that all cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, including the cells in tree leaves, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth is very strong, if not definitive evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.

[FarWanderer]

I do not treat anything as a higher authority than my cognition. I grant authority by the final authority of my cognition.

I'll let you take that up with Danmark :

"the man on the beach may be dreaming, mentally addled, perceptually disabled, a liar, or just plain inaccurate for a variety of reasons."

Danmark, for reasons unknown to me, answered your question about first person experience by reference to a third person. The third person reference is not relevant, because I don't need to presuppose the man is reliable in order for knowledge to be possible for me.

If the man in question were me, then it's a different story. I would have to have a measure of faith in the accuracy of my own senses and cognition: I'd have to presuppose I'm sane- or at least sane enough to realize the extent to which I am not.

That's why your own cognition is always your first and last authority.

How about if microbes formed by design in a universe that has a cause, and proceded to morph into men over time, by guided, intentional processes?

Any problems with that?

The problem, it seems to me, is that if that's the case, we're dealing with more of an omniscient, diabolical fiend, than a loving God.

In other words it's false because you don't like the idea?

One who would purposely design a world in which millions of years of disease, death, carnivory, butchery, savagery, etc.,

Animal suffering matters?

took place BEFORE He brought forth the creature (Man) whom He would "ensoul"

What? Who said anything about men being ensouled? Who said anything about animals not being ensouled?

And what if all this awful animal suffering is a result of animal free will? Would it be OK then?

(as Long-Age compromisers maintain).

Who cares about them? There are more metaphysical interpretations available than just the ones you'll find on the tightrope between scientific materialism and the bible, you know.

The Biblical account that I accept as revealed, propositional truth from the Creator Himself (more below) says that sin and death entered the world through one man's -- Adam's -- disobedience (in concert with the deception of Eve), and spread, genetically, throughout the entire human race. That is necessary so that Redemption could likewise take place through the office of one Man, Jesus Christ.

So, God intended for us to disobey him so that we would have to go through redemption?

To me, it is lot like letting someone break their arms and legs so that they will be abjectly dependent on you (general). Sick.

Do you (specific) really like being "broken" and "in need of redemption" that much?

The fault of organized, denominational Christianity for the last 200 years or so, has been its attempt to make the Biblical narrative fit the ever-changing popular "scientific" notions of the day.

Sure. The bible and today's widely accepted science are not compatible.

We now realize more and more that God says what He means, and means what He says: and a straighforward reading of the Scriptures is moving perfectly in concert with our understanding of the world, in all areas (including the unique gravity situation during the first three days of creation, which would account for distant celestial objects to be removed by distance; but not time, in our mundane use of the term (i.e., the amount of time needed for light to travel from there to here, at its current measurable rate, as measured by clocks on earth).

"Sometimes Science seems to be in conflict with the Bible. But just give Science time -- it'll catch up."

What "we" realize is that if you (general) conform all your science to the bible, well by golly, all your science will conform to the bible.

You may find this realization profound and exciting. I do not.

One can learn a great deal more about God by actually inviting Him in to your life, as the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Who are we to "invite", exactly? The God of the bible?

Exactly.

I may as well say that you can learn a lot more about Obiwan Kenobi by actually inviting him into your life with the power of the Force.

so how does the bible become the "word of God" in your mind? Reason? Presupposition? Which is it?

Reason.

Wonderful.

I accept the Bible to be the revealed "word of God" -- "propositional truth" -- for a number of reasons, which taken together constitute a circumstantial case that is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

It starts with the fact that the 66 books, written by 40 (or more) authors, over a period of 1,700 years (or so), constitute an integrated message system that is thematically, idiomatically, and symbolically consistent (as alluded to in an earler post). That's enough to get one's attention.

Well, sure it's pretty neat, but it doesn't connect it with any omnipotent creator of the universe.
Additional books were halted at the end of that 1,700 year period for political reasons. However, the idiom remains in much of our literature even today, being as people often convey messages using idioms they and their audience are familiar with.

Culture remembers.

It continues with the fact that its historical narrative is continually being verified as accurate, from an archeological perspective.

New York exists, therefore Spiderman exists.

It also contains scientific insights that were far beyond the level of understanding of the non-Hebrew pagans, at the time of its writing (e.g., the hygienic practices of Levitical Law;

You think it's far-fetched that ancient people could have recognized a correlation between bad health and being around sick people, dead bodies, mold etc.?

the realization that Earth is a "circle"

It also has "four corners", supposedly.

(properly, "sphere")

"Properly"? No one calls the earth a circle.

And apparently humans look like grasshoppers from space. That's kind of hard to grasp. Are God's eyes so good he can see us from space, but not good enough to clearly distinguish us from giant grasshoppers?

An amusing notion.

that hangs upon "nothing"

What else would it hang on? A wall? A Christmas tree? A horse's tail?

; Paul's allusion to our 4D space-time continuum in Eph. 3:18

It takes neither Relativity nor divine foreknowledge to recognize the existence of time as a 4th dimension. Relativity just gave us a better understanding of the relationship between time and 3D space.

; many more)

Saving your big guns for later, I'm sure.

That there is nothing in scripture that conflicts with our scientific or historical understanding of the world; though in many cases it supersedes it, by introducing the interactions of the spiritual "metacosm" upon our finite "cosmos", by what we call "miracle").

Once again. Fit science to the bible, and yeah, science will fit to the bible.

There is its remarkable quality of describing a consistent, coherent story of Redemption, with the narrative beginning in the third chapter of its opening book, and continuing through to the last sentence of its last one.

Opinion noted.

Well, my favorite story of redemption is from the video game Tales of the Abyss. I recommend it to anyone. And it's a consistent and coherent story, so you know it must be true!

That the entire story, front to back, tells the story of Jesus Christ;

Opinion noted. The Jews and Muslims disagree. And so do I.

with countless allusions to His coming (in the Prophets, Psalms, and elsewhere);

What are the best ones, you think?

God Himself, in the form of a man, to undertake to undo the cosmic catastrophe of Adam's sin, and bring salvation from it to men.

Why do you think there was some "cosmic catastrophe of Adam's sin"? And what makes you think God has actually done anything to undo it?

That it records history in advance; including the precise day that Jesus would announce Himself to the Jews as their racial King.

And if there were a prophecy saying that the rightful ruler of the world would make their announcement on February 12, 2015, I could go "fulfill" that prophecy right now.

That it records the history of, and promises to, a distinct ethnic group (the Jews) that God would "set apart"

The old testament alleges to, yes.

, for the purposes of imparting His Law and bringing forth Jesus by direct divine intervention (the Virgin Birth);

Does the old testament say anything about imparting YHWH's law on anyone but the Jews?
Does the old testament say anything about the Jews being the "springboard" for bringing forth the world's savior?
Does the old testament say anything about this being done by divine intervention?

that those people, and the record of that Law, are with us to this day, in an uninterrupted line, despite numerous attempts throughout history to eradicate them;

By, whom? Christians of course! Largely. And largely for religious reasons.

And you are to say that Jewish tenacity in the face of oppression is evidence of Christianity's truth, especially considering that Christians are among the chief offenders? Seems like it'd make a much better argument for Judaism to me.

and that the promise of their return to their ancestral homeland has been fulfilled in our time, setting the stage for the fulfillment of other promises which have not yet come to pass.

Exciting, isn't it? Do you think the end times are near?

Do you like disaster movies? I know I do. I like to identify with the protagonist, being one of the chosen few survivors forging a path in the new world.

And, very intriguing to me -- and most controversial; I don't "hang my hat on it", but do find it edifying -- the fact that "God's fingerprints" are all over the the Biblical texts, in their original languages. That in addition to the "macrocodes" that it is replete with (e.g., the Flood being a portrait of salvation); it contains (perhaps unlimited, as yet undetected) "microcodes", utilizing the properties of gamatria in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, as well as heptatic structures that are beyond any possibility of accidental occurrence.

Seems like word salad to me, but since you "don't hang your hat on it" I'll just leave it at that.

[Bust Nak]

Bust Nak -- I guess you're referring to the consequences of the Fall. God could've created a universe of automatons, incapable of sin, I suppose.

I was referring to your earlier rejection of the idea that God would engineer an original microbe with the genetic diversity to adapt to them, by selective processes (not by acquiring "new information") to all life on Earth because selection would envolve death being part of the plan; and your subsequence claim that God engineered an original beetle with the genetic diversity to adapt to them, by selective processes (not by acquiring "new information") to all beetles on Earth. Your objection against the first idea, applies equally to your own.

[Danmark]

Volbrigade wrote:

And, very intriguing to me -- and most controversial; I don't "hang my hat on it", but do find it edifying -- the fact that "God's fingerprints" are all over the the Biblical texts, in their original languages. That in addition to the "macrocodes" that it is replete with (e.g., the Flood being a portrait of salvation); it contains (perhaps unlimited, as yet undetected) "microcodes", utilizing the properties of gamatria in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek, as well as heptatic structures that are beyond any possibility of accidental occurrence.

The "fact"[?] "God's fingerprints are all over" it? Please give evidence of this claim. More specifically give evidence this is a "fact." Last time you claimed something was in the Hebrew text you were wrong. You claimed Genesis 7:15 should have been translated as "vertebrate land animals."
Then you speculate there MAY be 'macrocodes' and 'microcodes.' Where is your evidence for any of this? If you don't 'hang your hat on it,' why mention it at all?

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 155 by Danmark]

What's needed here is a few dozen more respondents, so I can answer every objection to Christian faith ever posited, all at once.

I hope a little bemused sarcasm is allowed, under forum rules.

Dan:

So insects breathe just like land vertebrates, except they don't have lungs, nor blood. I think a child could intuit pretty readily that insects are not of the same category as the other animals that would've been brought upon the Ark. A detailed analysis of the issue, form both a biological and linguistic perspective, is available at the site I linked earlier. It has a tremendous search engine, and thousands of catalogued articles -- you can find an answer to virtually any reasonable question you have regarding origins, development, and history -- though it's unlikely you will approve of those that conflict with your epistemological bias.

It is not my intention to rewrite the entire site here -- merely to cite counter-arguments to the prevailing m2m myth.

I would encourage you to educate yourself in their regard. As mentioned earlier, YECs of necessity must understand the m2m dogma, so that they can challenge (and falsify) it. m2m-ers are notoriously ignorant of the truths that leave their faith system in ruins.

Regarding the two specific objections you brought up: food on the Ark, and survival of insects not on the Ark:

These are well covered. Noah had plenty of time to set aside food stores. The average size of animal aboard the Ark was that of a sheep; many of the animals could have been, and probably were, induced into a hibernative state by a sovereign God, which would've also reduced the amount of waste disposal necessary, etc.

As for insects: one mechanism for survival could have been enormous vegetative rafts that would've been produced during the seismic upheaval associated with Flood -- just as they are today, by the same processes. Some quite large. Here is a Wiki article on the topic (written from a m2m bias, of course):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_dispersal

Bust Nak: I am sorry. I have read your post 3 or 4 times, and am still uncertain as to its content, or what your question is.

I'll address it generally, by saying that the way a beetle, or any other organism, adapts to its environment, is by selecting out existing traits that are non-advantageous. Sometimes this process involves an advantageous mutation that switches off the information in a specific gene. An example is a variety of beetle on Galapagos that is flightless, as a result of a mutation that proved advantageous in the high winds on the island(s). Being flightless prevents the little fellows from being blown out to sea, where there would have to develop gills and fins to survive.

The observed change (to flightlessness) involves a loss of information (for operational wings); the hypothetical one (gills and fins) would involve an increase in information for those structures. That has never occurred; and that is what is necessary in order for a microbe to acquire the the non-stop stream of beneficial mutations that would transform it, eventually, into a man (and every other organism on earth).

A pleasant(?) fiction -- if you don't like God -- but, again, it has never occurred; and indeed is beyond any hope of chance occurrence.

FW:

I appreciate your protracted attempt at reductio ad absurdum, which is duly noted.

But I will not respond to it.

The Biblical narrative is not a contrived video game, for reasons that are so blindingly obvious that it would take great effort to explain -- like trying to explain to a mentally challenged person why 2 apples, added to 2 apples, makes 4 apples, if they are unable to intuit it directly.

(Note: I am NOT saying YOU are "mentally challenged". I am saying, by my example, that if you cannot intuit the difference between the Biblical account, and the narrative of a video game or modern novel, then I am unwilling to help you in that regard. Not because you're unable to intuit the difference -- but because you ARE able).

I will select one particularly egregious misunderstanding, and address that:

Volbrigade wrote:
The Biblical account that I accept as revealed, propositional truth from the Creator Himself (more below) says that sin and death entered the world through one man's -- Adam's -- disobedience (in concert with the deception of Eve), and spread, genetically, throughout the entire human race. That is necessary so that Redemption could likewise take place through the office of one Man, Jesus Christ.

So, God intended for us to disobey him so that we would have to go through redemption?

To me, it is lot like letting someone break their arms and legs so that they will be abjectly dependent on you (general). Sick.

Do you (specific) really like being "broken" and "in need of redemption" that much?

I don't like being broken and in need of redemption at all. But the fact is, I am. And so are you. And so is every person who has ever lived. The fact that our affluent western society has succeeded in masking that brokenness -- who needs Jesus if they have a comfortable home, food in the pantry, access to transportation, a nice income, and inexhaustible entertainments? -- is our great modern and post-modern deception; and the greatest challenge to evangelism in our time. How can you accept the Good News, if you don't understand the "bad news"?.

And the m2m narrative is the mythos that underpins this denial. Advanced apes, who are the result of random processes in a mindless, indifferent universe, have no need of redemption. And no experience after the cessation of their biological processes. All you need for confirmation is to ask one, whose processes have ceased. They never answer. There's your proof!

The key to your question is "intent".

God knew we would disobey. But that was not his intent.

Just like you know your child will make mistakes. But you must allow them to be made, even at great risk, in order for their own benefit. Would it be better for there to be no children, so that there would be no mistakes? Or to establish an order where children could never make one?

This line of discourse could be furthered -- but I am tired of typing, for now...

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 155 by Danmark]

What's needed here is a few dozen more respondents, so I can answer every objection to Christian faith ever posited, all at once.

I hope a little bemused sarcasm is allowed, under forum rules.

Dan:

So insects breathe just like land vertebrates, except they don't have lungs, nor blood.

You haven't satisfactorily answered a single objection yet, so you have no reason to need more respondents. And you are about to lose this one. Keep misstating what I write ought to do it. I did not say insects breathe just like land vertebrates.

And, you did not even attempt to answer my charge that you've also made a false claim for what the Hebrew means in Genesis 7:15.

What you have done is admit you DO believe in evolution, tho' you have demonstrated your understanding of it is faulty.

What I've seen so far is your failed attempt to explain that myth is actual history, and your insistence that reality is myth.

[Danmark]

There is an overriding problem with creationists using science to validate their view of how the world and all the species, extinct and extant came to be.

The problem is presuppositions. In scientific inquiry we start with no presuppositions except what we already know by careful, and repeated observation, peer review, and confirmation by replicated experiments.

In the biblical creationist approach, the presuppositions have not been proved at all. They are based on myth and and literal interpretation of a book written by men roughly 3000 years ago. The key point is that the biblical literalist-creationist starts with an assumption that is absolute and not subject to alteration. This is the opposite of the way science works.

Science says, "Let's start looking and see what we find."
YEC Creationism says "We know the Earth was made less than 10,000 years ago and all life was was created by divine fiat, and we need to assemble facts that will show this to be true."
For the YEC creationist to claim he uses the scientific method is a false claim because he has already agreed as part of his method, he will deny scientific conclusions if they threaten his presuppositions.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 158 by Danmark]

The problem is presuppositions. In scientific inquiry we start with no presuppositions except what we already know by careful, and repeated observation, peer review, and confirmation by replicated experiments.

Well, the presupposition is "we know that the God of the Bible doesn't exist...". Or even more absurdly, "even if He did, that would be irrelevant to our investigations".

Which is fine, until the point comes in those investigations where science itself points to the fact that "you know what? All of this couldn't have happened by accident. There is just overwhelming evidence of order, deliberate design, and information. Those attributes require a 'Mind'."

There is the parting of the ways: materialist irrationality and absurdity; or theist reason and truth.

Unfortunately, such is our fallen condition -- which includes the demands of peer pressure, approval seeking, and a rebellious spirit towards God ("I don't want or need You"); all of which has produced a herd mentality echo chamber with regard to m2m; -- that only a relatively few courageous scientists are willing to take "the road less travelled." And when they do, it can cost them their careers, at the hands of "open-minded, objective, tolerant" academics.

And the only thing that has been confirmed by repeated experiments designed to prove the mechanisms whereby microbes morphed, by incalculable numbers of discrete increases in information, to become men, is the biased inkblot and tealeaf readings of those conducting the experiments.

"This experiment shows that it is possible, under as yet undetermined circumstances, that if a peptide were to be bombarded by a Higgs-Boson, while holding its mouth just right..." yada yada yada.

Until the next research team, in justifying their funding: "not so fast. It now appears that the research does not support..."

m2m is a racket, and a fraud.

And has been accurately termed "The Greatest Hoax on Earth".