Learning Genesis

[Brother Paul]

“The International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology” are certainly not of Christian origin. I owned "The implications of Evolution" from long before I was a Christian. Along with three years of Science and Nature magazines and many more. I only became a Christian in 1984...I actually had no idea so many christians had discovered this admission (full text here http://archive.org/stream/implicationsofev00kerk/implicationsofev00kerk_djvu.txt

That however does not take away from the point (one admitted to by many objective biologists) that the theory often dictates the interpretation of data instead of the other way around. So here again is this dichotomy...a set of beliefs adhered to void of actual experience or observation, as opposed to another set of beliefs experienced and observed...

One therefore is not actually based on the empirical and the other is...objectively from an undecided outside point of view neither could be true but which one is more likely true? Clearly the one experienced by many, the one observed to be reliable by many not just the one accepted in denial of the other. By now you should realize my posts on this thread have been inviting "reasoning". True critical thought is not thinking up ever new criticisms it is stating a hypothesis and based on the implications and data we can derive adjusting the hypothesis to come ever closer to the truth, not interpreting data to fit the theory we preconceive to be true.

Darwin stated that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“.

Well Stephen J. Gould, Egbert Leigh of the Smithsonian, even evolutionary Zoologist Richard Goldschmidt after looking at the actual evidence without the conjecture all tell us that the truth is that below the Cambrian layer, we find no life whatsoever. No semi-evolved single celled creatures, no corporately joining cellular creatures, not even archae…but then (“POOF!”)…full blown, fully developed life forms suddenly appear in the fossil record. Then they suddenly appear with complex inter-dependent functions and sub-systems already in place. Then as we move through the geological layers, ever new life forms just as suddenly appear, fully formed. On top of that, they are likewise fully developed. Some of the most ancient species fossilized there are still in existence today. Take for example, the deep sea creature Nautilus (which appears right after the Cambrian), after allegedly billions of years of neo-Darwinian gradualism their DNA remains virtually unchanged…

After allegedly 600,000,000 years Nautilis still shows zero evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense! But they exclude this truth from your education. Why? Why not teach all the evidence for and against this theory and allow for objective conclusions on the part of those being taught? The Horseshoe crab and the crustacean Triops Cancriformos have also been tested and guess what? You guessed it, no change! Even the argument that DNA is constantly changing and adapting, and that this contributes to a phyletic transmutation process may be a possibility but is as of yet just another unfounded theory.

The ostriches from the Jurasic period are maybe a bit bigger in some cases and smaller in others (which may only have to do with age at the time they were fossilized) but they have not changed over these millions of years. The tortoise and the crocodile (though much larger then) are living examples of consistently unchanged DNA patterns in our own time from both of these different categories.

Thus ““If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down“. Well what about Triops or Nautilus? Nothing whatsoever indicates even remotely that these formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications…so it isn’t a matter of random selection of someone that agrees with me, it is a matter of what actually occurred and what we can discern from the actual evidence we have (you know, real science)...it has been proven that this did not happen in these cases (at least if we go by the evidence we actually have)...

while Matthew, Luke, Thallus, Africanus, Phlegon, all merely testify of an event that occurred in real-time (though not capable of explanation by the current materialistic world view)…

Oh well...so what is next in Genesis

In His love

Paul

 

[calvin]

<<SNIP>>
Oh well...so what is next in Genesis

In His love

Paul

Interesting, but not surprising, a study in Genesis or any other OT book finishes up with a recognition of the importance of Jesus.
He is really central to everything.

 

[Brother Paul]

Well the worlds were created by the word of God the Word...

 

[TubbyTubby]

Assumption #2: Even though spontaneous generation has never been observed, or even implied by the observable, and the scientific method has only refuted its possibility, it is still insisted that it had to have happened at least once, a long time ago. (again this is “believed” void of any actual evidence other than by consensus)

I've read about half of this book so far, and incidentally when I said I could only find Christian references to this book I wasn't implying it was of Christian origin. I was pointing out that I could find almost no material regarding this book other than those on creationist websites which is highly subjective.

Anyway, I'm getting a bit bogged down in some biology in the book but wanted to come back to the 2nd assumption above.

I'm not sure that here, we can see an objection to evolution at all and how this refutes Darwin. We don't assume life has begun many times, we know it happened at least once. Some of us assume that it likely happened millions of times and is still occurring in some corner of the Universe. This, as the first assumption, is questioning abiogenesis anyway and has no bearing on the theory of Evolution.

In time, the origin of life will be scientifically proven and this argument will be invalid. From what I've read so far, I'll say that Darwin is safe.

 

[Abdicate]

@TubbyTubby The fossil record screams out that massive all-at-once growth occurred. As for Darwin, he's wrong and every turn science takes, he's proven more and more wrong. Micro evolution happens, what he actually observed, but macro evolution is a fantasy. This is what burns me up the most: if macro evolution happened, WHY DID IT STOP!? Those same amebas are around, where are the tens of millions of mutated states? When you build a building you can see all the steps from beginning to the end. Not so with evolution. Therefore by scientific method, it does NOT exist. The sole reason to create, yes create, evolution is to not have to listen to God about your sins. That is truth, whether it is believed or not. Truth has no agenda, it is what it is.

 

[TubbyTubby]

@TubbyTubby The fossil record screams out that massive all-at-once growth occurred. As for Darwin, he's wrong and every turn science takes, he's proven more and more wrong. Micro evolution happens, what he actually observed, but macro evolution is a fantasy. This is what burns me up the most: if macro evolution happened, WHY DID IT STOP!? Those same amebas are around, where are the tens of millions of mutated states? When you build a building you can see all the steps from beginning to the end. Not so with evolution. Therefore by scientific method, it does NOT exist. The sole reason to create, yes create, evolution is to not have to listen to God about your sins. That is truth, whether it is believed or not. Truth has no agenda, it is what it is.

I was really answering a previous post about Kerkuts' statements but we can talk about fossil records as well.

It would be incredible to expect that every stage of evolution for every species be preserved in fossil. The process is a rare occurrence, and there would not be enough sedimentary rock on the planet to hold an example of each stage. How many example mutations would be enough for you to believe? A single change from parent to child would be imperceptible for a living specimen and impossible to detect by fossils. Would a change over 10,000 years be enough? 100,000 years maybe?

What do you mean by "macro" evolution having stopped? It continues in every single species alive today and will continue until life is finally extinguished on this planet.

Science builds upon and backs up Darwins' work repeatedly, it was certainly not 'invented' as a counter argument to creation, that would be doing Darwins body of work a great injustice. I can see why it causes such ill feeling with creationists though.

 

[Abdicate]

@TubbyTubby Macro: fish to man. Where are all these creatures alive today in varying steps from fish to man? Where are the half-wit human monkeys and half-smart monkeys? Where's the half developed lizard with feathers? Why, if evolution is real, do they not still exist in the pre-current form? I'm not talking about the fossil record in this manner. Just that the fossil record showed a massive explosion of life all at once.

 

[TubbyTubby]

@TubbyTubby Macro: fish to man. Where are all these creatures alive today in varying steps from fish to man? Where are the half-wit human monkeys and half-smart monkeys? Where's the half developed lizard with feathers? Why, if evolution is real, do they not still exist in the pre-current form? I'm not talking about the fossil record in this manner. Just that the fossil record showed a massive explosion of life all at once.

Evolution doesn't mean that every single adaptation of a current living species continues to survive. That is the opposite of evolution. The variants that were not suited to their environment became extinct while the ones that had mutations that gave an advantage continued to breed.

There are many branches of our evolutionary tree that share an ancestor with us (chimps for example), but only those that were adapted well to their environment, and not every single variation.

 

[Brother Paul]

I've read about half of this book so far, and incidentally when I said I could only find Christian references to this book I wasn't implying it was of Christian origin. I was pointing out that I could find almost no material regarding this book other than those on creationist websites which is highly subjective.

Anyway, I'm getting a bit bogged down in some biology in the book but wanted to come back to the 2nd assumption above.

I'm not sure that here, we can see an objection to evolution at all and how this refutes Darwin. We don't assume life has begun many times, we know it happened at least once. Some of us assume that it likely happened millions of times and is still occurring in some corner of the Universe. This, as the first assumption, is questioning abiogenesis anyway and has no bearing on the theory of Evolution.

In time, the origin of life will be scientifically proven and this argument will be invalid. From what I've read so far, I'll say that Darwin is safe.

Well undoubtedly Kerkut was a Dawinian...just more honest regarding the theory...most of it is assumption based at its foundation. Assumption does not equal science. Again the point was, as Atheists believe their assumption to be based on verifiable or scientific evidence, and their evidence itself is based (after over 150 years of study) on assumption, then their foundational basis is a blind faith...where ours is based on experience and observation...we CAN (though I do not recommend it) put God to the test and what He says will happen does happen...so an empirically based faith. In effect there is much to suggest there is a God and NOTHING but conjecture to assume there is none...do the math!

 

[Brother Paul]

For me adaptation based "evolution" works fine in creatures like bacteria that replicate their exact Genome horizontally (like a bacteria that becomes antibiotic resistant...same bacteria however) where those creatures that blend genomes do not do this...for example my daughter Salome is resistant to the cillins, but her children are not. Why? Because this adaptation in vertical inheriting creatures does not affect the sex-cells...so bacterial resistance is not mutation but adaptation but it is still the exact same kind of bacteria...99.9% mutation in animals do not affect the sex cells and thus cannot be passed on...and acquired characteristics by outward gross actions over and over (small reptiles continuously jumping or falling out of trees causing the eventual growth of wings, etc.,) are another unfounded myth...

 

[TubbyTubby]

For me adaptation based "evolution" works fine in creatures like bacteria that replicate their exact Genome horizontally (like a bacteria that becomes antibiotic resistant...same bacteria however) where those creatures that blend genomes do not do this...for example my daughter Salome is resistant to the cillins, but her children are not. Why? Because this adaptation in vertical inheriting creatures does not affect the sex-cells...so bacterial resistance is not mutation but adaptation but it is still the exact same kind of bacteria...99.9% mutation in animals do not affect the sex cells and thus cannot be passed on...and acquired characteristics by outward gross actions over and over (small reptiles continuously jumping or falling out of trees causing the eventual growth of wings, etc.,) are another unfounded myth...

A mutation does not need to directly affect the sexual reproduction ability for it to be an advantage. There are no doubt many adaptations in humans that would have caused the end of an ancestral line hundreds of thousands of years ago when we were hunter-gatherers but we have shaped our environment so comfortably now that the same adaptation is not a disadvantage to our survival.

A reptile that exhibits a very tiny advantage in its range of leaping from one branch to another by perhaps having an extended skin fold will be more likely to survive. Those mutations will conquer and those without the mutation will, over vast generations, not be able to compete and die out. The timescales are what makes the process inaccessible to our mortal minds.

 

[Brother Paul]

A mutation does not need to directly affect the sexual reproduction ability for it to be an advantage. There are no doubt many adaptations in humans that would have caused the end of an ancestral line hundreds of thousands of years ago when we were hunter-gatherers but we have shaped our environment so comfortably now that the same adaptation is not a disadvantage to our survival.

A reptile that exhibits a very tiny advantage in its range of leaping from one branch to another by perhaps having an extended skin fold will be more likely to survive. Those mutations will conquer and those without the mutation will, over vast generations, not be able to compete and die out. The timescales are what makes the process inaccessible to our mortal minds.

The first passage only speaks of using intelligence to adapt so no evolution there, the second is a proper understanding of natural selection...but in no wise indicates these reptiles grew the extended skin in response to the desire or need (no matter how long)...

So let’s take what are called Darwin’s finches for an example. The theory goes that short beaked finches could not access food on the Island that now contains mostly the longer beaked variety. Over 1,000s of generations they eventually began to adapt by slowly growing longer beaks thus enabling them to survive. But is this the truth or just another unfounded hypothesis?

To begin with, these birds are not even finches proper, they are passerines. Though they were assumed to be and called house finches early on in England and aristocratic European circles. They are a songbird for which there are over 4,000 species worldwide. The different species occur as a result of convergent evolution not gradualism (though this was only proved in the late 20th century).

So first off it is quite possible that both species were both already there. There is no genetic evidence to show one became the other over some long period of time (not one piece). The only genetic evidence IS that there are genetic differences between them. Again, these genetic differences may have been simple possibilities possible to a more general variety just as similar dogs can have a number of varying characteristics by inbreeding and cross-breeding of preferred or specific characteristics. In other words, both extreme varieties and or all other varieties may originally have been present on all the islands but due to availability of limited food sources one variety focused mainly on islands which supported their existence and another variety on the island that was accessible by their unique design.

Thus it is not necessary to explain this through the pre-conceived, popularly accepted theory, that over a long period of time the beaks of the shorter variety became longer and longer. If the Darwinian logic is sound (that of acquired characteristics), then it must be admitted (and is by many) that it is equally plausible that the longer beaked birds were the originals and they became shorter by 1,000s of years of use. Or even more likely that both existed simultaneously and that they are not stupid and simply flew to the nearby islands that had a supportable food source. Finally, even if the Darwinian view of the finches were correct, this still says nothing of the phyletic transmutation insisted upon by the neo-Darwinians.

 

[Abdicate]

Evolution doesn't mean that every single adaptation of a current living species continues to survive. That is the opposite of evolution. The variants that were not suited to their environment became extinct while the ones that had mutations that gave an advantage continued to breed.

There are many branches of our evolutionary tree that share an ancestor with us (chimps for example), but only those that were adapted well to their environment, and not every single variation.

How convenient... seems you need to have faith too to believe that. Name ONE species that's appeared in your lifetime from another. You can't. You hide it in "time" like it's a magic wand. "I don't understand all the nuances, but hey, over billions of years, it must have happened because here we are." Well if you ask this of Hawkin he'll say it was an advanced alien race that seeded the earth. Wow! No proof either; shrouded behind the cloak of deceit. That's evolution. Nothing in the Scriptures has ever been disproven by science, but the contrary is true, yet you still don't believe. Your faith is strong.

 

[Abdicate]

And as to mutations, name ONE that has a benefit? It either doesn't affect the creature or it diminishes it. You cannot claim longer life because we live longer now than 100 years ago. Well 100 years ago, they didn't read the bible either and they suffered for it in ignorance about sterilization, foods worthy of eating, and simple cleanliness. All spelled out in the scriptures. If people were monogamous today we wouldn't have the HPV or AIDS or any other sexually transmitted disease. But just like from the beginning of time, man does what they want and they suffer for it and then have the gall to blame God for their disobedience. Yea... we're evolving alright.

 

[calvin]

I'd need a lot of convincing that an advantageous mutation will breed true. EG I might sire a human being with wings (not likely). Would that offspring's union with a 'normal' person bring about more winged people?...I think not. So by what astronomical amount would the odds be increased requiring at the same time, some woman in the general geographic area as myself to bring forth a winged compliment for my offspring to breed with?? The Odds are shifting swiftly and heavily in favour of a creator, and away from random chance.

 

[Brother Paul]

A mutation does not need to directly affect the sexual reproduction ability for it to be an advantage.

I did not say sexual reproduction "ability" I was referring to what can get passed on in the chromosomes...for example one biologist (his name eludes me at the moment) for 1000 generations lopped the tails off baby mice...they grew and lived their normal lives, mated, had offspring whose tails were also lopped off....after 1000 generations babies were still being born with fully intact, full length, functional tails...why was not this genomic based characteristic affected at least a little? Because these environmental circumstances did not affect the chromosomal probabilities (not even a little)...

Almost every mutation that affects the chromosomal probabilities are detrimental...disease.conditions, organ deformations, and so on...we have never found one that causes something new, like an improved organ (especially not inter-phyletic implications)...and we have been looking for over 100 years using the scientific method.

Listen, I like science fiction as much as the next guy but I do not repeatedly try and prove it over and over in the face of contradictory results...if you come to God I guarantee you will be changed forever! And THAT IS an established fact.

 

[TubbyTubby]

How convenient... seems you need to have faith too to believe that. Name ONE species that's appeared in your lifetime from another. You can't. You hide it in "time" like it's a magic wand. "I don't understand all the nuances, but hey, over billions of years, it must have happened because here we are." Well if you ask this of Hawkin he'll say it was an advanced alien race that seeded the earth. Wow! No proof either; shrouded behind the cloak of deceit. That's evolution. Nothing in the Scriptures has ever been disproven by science, but the contrary is true, yet you still don't believe. Your faith is strong.

I can't name one species that has evolved from another in my lifetime, you are correct. That is not an argument against evolution though.

Hawking was not the first to suggest Panspermia but it's an interesting idea that could have some merit. An intentional seeding of Earth by aliens though is not something I consider too seriously.

 

[TubbyTubby]

And as to mutations, name ONE that has a benefit? It either doesn't affect the creature or it diminishes it. You cannot claim longer life because we live longer now than 100 years ago. Well 100 years ago, they didn't read the bible either and they suffered for it in ignorance about sterilization, foods worthy of eating, and simple cleanliness. All spelled out in the scriptures. If people were monogamous today we wouldn't have the HPV or AIDS or any other sexually transmitted disease. But just like from the beginning of time, man does what they want and they suffer for it and then have the gall to blame God for their disobedience. Yea... we're evolving alright.

A mutation/adaptation will normally be of benefit to the species, that is the whole point of the theory of evolution. If it is not a useful mutation and proves to be a disadvantage then it will not normally be passed on.

Who were these people who didn't read the bible 100 years ago? I'm pretty sure my Grandmother did and she was around 100 years ago.

Some people have a CCR5 gene that gives a natural resistance to HIV, it could well be that these people will more likely be the ones whos offspring are the future of the human race. Those without the gene will eventually die out. So I suppose this mutation of CCR5 is a good example of a very beneficial part of our evolution.

I'm not particularly interested in making moral judgements of how and why those who suffer from this virus contracted it.

 

[TubbyTubby]

I'd need a lot of convincing that an advantageous mutation will breed true. EG I might sire a human being with wings (not likely). Would that offspring's union with a 'normal' person bring about more winged people?...I think not. So by what astronomical amount would the odds be increased requiring at the same time, some woman in the general geographic area as myself to bring forth a winged compliment for my offspring to breed with?? The Odds are shifting swiftly and heavily in favour of a creator, and away from random chance.

Your example is, as you say, not likely, and is not a good representation of evolution. I would never try to convince anyone with that.

 

[TubbyTubby]

I did not say sexual reproduction "ability" I was referring to what can get passed on in the chromosomes...for example one biologist (his name eludes me at the moment) for 1000 generations lopped the tails off baby mice...they grew and lived their normal lives, mated, had offspring whose tails were also lopped off....after 1000 generations babies were still being born with fully intact, full length, functional tails...why was not this genomic based characteristic affected at least a little? Because these environmental circumstances did not affect the chromosomal probabilities (not even a little)...

Almost every mutation that affects the chromosomal probabilities are detrimental...disease.conditions, organ deformations, and so on...we have never found one that causes something new, like an improved organ (especially not inter-phyletic implications)...and we have been looking for over 100 years using the scientific method.

Listen, I like science fiction as much as the next guy but I do not repeatedly try and prove it over and over in the face of contradictory results...if you come to God I guarantee you will be changed forever! And THAT IS an established fact.

The mice that have their tails removed have not had their genetic structure changed have they? Their DNA still contains the sequence that will result in a fully formed tail and that is what is passed on to the next generation.

If however, a mouses' DNA mutated very slightly so that its tail was half the length of its parent and that somehow gave it an advantage in the wild (I don't know, say better agility when evading predators) then that mutation would be passed on.

I would say though, that the mouse tail has evolved to be the very best length possible in terms of agility, balance and temperature regulation or whatever else a mouse uses its tail for.