Learning Genesis

[Brother Paul]

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.

I thnk you are blurring the difference between an adaptation and a mutation...many adaptations have been proved useful to a species (we will have a problem here is the term "species" means and has meant something differently to different people throughout time...what Evolutionary Biologists today call a "species" is not what Darwin meant when he used the term.

Also Gene "expression" is an important difference (though not at all a mutation)....when one set of humans has the CCR5 gene expressed and another set does not express that gene, yes those in whom CCR5 expresses will better survive the Aids epidemic (again this is correct natural selection), and if moms and dads from the same set mate then this will be reinforced (again adaptation/assimilation) but they will not because of this become a Hangrup or a Toldoid (a new creature)...it just assures their survival in this particular dilemma. So we are talking about expression of the CCR5 gene not the development of a previoously non-etant gene developed in response to a need or action. When HIV first was discovered these people with an expressed CCR5 already existed. In some cases they inherit the delta 32 variation which causes the receptor to act differently but this does not contribute to a new or different creature.

Now give us an example of an actual mutation...(the action of one thing mutating)...to mutate is to change or cause to change in form or nature. The CCR5 is not a change in form or nature of some other gene, the delta 32 version (and there are other variations) did not develop after HIV...

 

[TubbyTubby]

I thnk you are blurring the difference between an adaptation and a mutation...many adaptations have been proved useful to a species (we will have a problem here is the term "species" means and has meant something differently to different people throughout time...what Evolutionary Biologists today call a "species" is not what Darwin meant when he used the term.

Also Gene "expression" is an important difference (though not at all a mutation)....when one set of humans has the CCR5 gene expressed and another set does not express that gene, yes those in whom CCR5 expresses will better survive the Aids epidemic (again this is correct natural selection), and if moms and dads from the same set mate then this will be reinforced (again adaptation/assimilation) but they will not because of this become a Hangrup or a Toldoid (a new creature)...it just assures their survival in this particular dilemma. So we are talking about expression of the CCR5 gene not the development of a previoously non-etant gene developed in response to a need or action. When HIV first was discovered these people with an expressed CCR5 already existed. In some cases they inherit the delta 32 variation which causes the receptor to act differently but this does not contribute to a new or different creature.

Now give us an example of an actual mutation...(the action of one thing mutating)...to mutate is to change or cause to change in form or nature. The CCR5 is not a change in form or nature of some other gene, the delta 32 version (and there are other variations) did not develop after HIV...

CCR5-Δ32 is a deletion mutation of a gene that has a specific impact on the function of T cells.

Adaptation is a mutation or more correctly the mutation BECOMES an adaptation.

Everything that is different about you compared to our last common ancestor of a chimpanzee (whatever that may have looked like) is a result of beneficial mutations that changed our form.

 

[Brother Paul]

See now here is a funny addition...you say our last common ancestor the chimp...where most neo-Darwinian would believe it to be the ape (always using Australopithicus)...Darwin would say neither, rather that both have a common ancestor....are you saying chimp to make the genome comparison of only a few % difference (the difference is the same as the difference between addition and calculus)? Take away the 30 or 40% all living things have in common (which does not indicate this was all there was in some ancient past and has been built on...merely what is common to any living thing). The other sections further determine our specific uniqueness (cow from snake). So if we discount this 40% it makes the 3 to 5% difference suddenly become a 20 to 25% difference and then is we discount those held in common that defines us as primate (again which does not say one came from the other it just separates one form from another...again like a cow from a snake...or primates from canines) and the differences become over 50%...its all a game! Then finally the 95-98% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. What sections are chosen and what ignored. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. We do not even have the slightest notion as to why they are there (but they may be the most essential). None the less these difference and similarities do not equal one of us came from the other, just that our form and physiology is more similar than compared to any other. Our form and physiology is only a part of what a chimp is compared to a human. On this basis we have 67% in common with the pig (this explains our ancestor Nebraska man) and about 37% in common with the banana (our long lost cousin though not very appealing)...

One area of comparison was differences in nucleotide pairs....the human genome (23 chromosomes) is estimated to be about 3.2 billion base pairs long and to contain 20,000–25,000 distinct protein-coding genes. So a 3% difference is 90,000,000 base pairs and 900 distinct protein coding genes...in reality THATS HUGE...don't be fooled by their theory based interpretation of what this means (that part is total assumption)

Adaptation is NOT a mutation (but I will give you that this could depend on the meaning one attaches to these terms...like "species" there are a number of views) ...although one group could adapt to a mutation they have (usually detrimental)...again, my daughter is cillin resistant (her genome has not changed) she has adapted to this and thus takes different anti-biotics...she is also NOT a new species of Sapien because she is resistant...and yes there are variations (inclusion/exclusion) over time since sin, sickness, and death were introduced.

 

[TubbyTubby]

When I say 'last common ancestor of the chimpanzee' I mean the common ancestor of homo sapien and the chimpanzee (or ape or bonobo for that matter), not that the chimp was our ancestor.

I was merely using the chimpanzee as a reference when I could of used ape. I perhaps didn't use my words as best I could.

 

[TubbyTubby]

See now here is a funny addition...you say our last common ancestor the chimp...where most neo-Darwinian would believe it to be the ape (always using Australopithicus)...Darwin would say neither, rather that both have a common ancestor....are you saying chimp to make the genome comparison of only a few % difference (the difference is the same as the difference between addition and calculus)? Take away the 30 or 40% all living things have in common (which does not indicate this was all there was in some ancient past and has been built on...merely what is common to any living thing). The other sections further determine our specific uniqueness (cow from snake). So if we discount this 40% it makes the 3 to 5% difference suddenly become a 20 to 25% difference and then is we discount those held in common that defines us as primate (again which does not say one came from the other it just separates one form from another...again like a cow from a snake...or primates from canines) and the differences become over 50%...its all a game! Then finally the 95-98% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. What sections are chosen and what ignored. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. We do not even have the slightest notion as to why they are there (but they may be the most essential). None the less these difference and similarities do not equal one of us came from the other, just that our form and physiology is more similar than compared to any other. Our form and physiology is only a part of what a chimp is compared to a human. On this basis we have 67% in common with the pig (this explains our ancestor Nebraska man) and about 37% in common with the banana (our long lost cousin though not very appealing)...

One area of comparison was differences in nucleotide pairs....the human genome (23 chromosomes) is estimated to be about 3.2 billion base pairs long and to contain 20,000–25,000 distinct protein-coding genes. So a 3% difference is 90,000,000 base pairs and 900 distinct protein coding genes...in reality THATS HUGE...don't be fooled by their theory based interpretation of what this means (that part is total assumption)

Adaptation is NOT a mutation (but I will give you that this could depend on the meaning one attaches to these terms...like "species" there are a number of views) ...although one group could adapt to a mutation they have (usually detrimental)...again, my daughter is cillin resistant (her genome has not changed) she has adapted to this and thus takes different anti-biotics...she is also NOT a new species of Sapien because she is resistant...and yes there are variations (inclusion/exclusion) over time since sin, sickness, and death were introduced.

A new species is not arrived at by a single generation as I'm sure you know. I understand that there can be up to 50 mutations between parent/child (in humans). Some neutral, some harmful and some beneficial.

A conservative figure of 8 billion years to our LCA and a 20 year generation gives 20,000,000 variations, but that doesn't account for a quite likely reduced generation period in our ancestors through that period. It also doesn't allow for the reduced mutation rates over the last 6 million years, and especially large reduction over the last 50,000 years.

 

[Brother Paul]

Good enough...we could talk about all of this on another thread, but what's next in the Genesis study...

 

[TubbyTubby]

Good enough...we could talk about all of this on another thread, but what's next in the Genesis study...

We keep getting sidetracked on Genesis for sure, I'll try to focus better. It's all relevant discussion though.

 

[calvin]

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.

Why would it not be a good example?? It embodies the primary idea of mutation and it requires a male- female coincident effect in order to last. Isn't that what is required for genetic mutation (beneficial ) to a species?

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.

<<SNIP>>
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.

No, let us not indulge in moral judgment, however is it not true that the HIV is mostly transmitted through life style choices that are not exactly beneficial to the continuance of the species? If so, that trait would either be totally useless or it could be the means of the end....don't you think? eg. I through my life style choices have absolutely no need of such a genetic trait. My late cousin might well still be here had he had such a gene, but then again, there is no way he was going to be able to pass that on to any offspring because of his lifestyle choices. And you think a 'winged calvin' is not a good example of evolution?? I am deeply cut sir.

<<SNIP>>
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.

I actually agree with one glaring exception! I suggest that the mice tails are the result of being created the right length in the first place. Let's be realistic here. A colony (or a pair) of short tailed mice would die out long before they woke up to the fact that longer tails would be useful to their survival. A bit like the problem of Bees and flowers. The Bees would get mighty hungry waiting for flowers with nectar to evolve, on the other hand flowers would be hard pressed to procreate while waiting for Bees to evolve with a need to gather nectar.
Seems everywhere we look every necessary attribute is in place for life to carry on as normal.

 

[TubbyTubby]

Why would it not be a good example?? It embodies the primary idea of mutation and it requires a male- female coincident effect in order to last. Isn't that what is required for genetic mutation (beneficial ) to a species?

You know full well why it isn't a good example Calvin.

No, let us not indulge in moral judgment, however is it not true that the HIV is mostly transmitted through life style choices that are not exactly beneficial to the continuance of the species? If so, that trait would either be totally useless or it could be the means of the end....don't you think? eg. I through my life style choices have absolutely no need of such a genetic trait. My late cousin might well still be here had he had such a gene, but then again, there is no way he was going to be able to pass that on to any offspring because of his lifestyle choices. And you think a 'winged calvin' is not a good example of evolution?? I am deeply cut sir.

The 400,000 babies born each year with the virus would argue that point. If they live long enough to understand it, that is.

I actually agree with one glaring exception! I suggest that the mice tails are the result of being created the right length in the first place. Let's be realistic here. A colony (or a pair) of short tailed mice would die out long before they woke up to the fact that longer tails would be useful to their survival. A bit like the problem of Bees and flowers. The Bees would get mighty hungry waiting for flowers with nectar to evolve, on the other hand flowers would be hard pressed to procreate while waiting for Bees to evolve with a need to gather nectar.
Seems everywhere we look every necessary attribute is in place for life to carry on as normal.

A mouse tail would gradually evolve to suit its changing environment, your short tailed mouse would be an example of a negative mutation and would not survive. Hardly a case for creation though (well, unless that's what you aim for I suppose).

 

[calvin]

You know full well why it isn't a good example Calvin.

The 400,000 babies born each year with the virus would argue that point. If they live long enough to understand it, that is.


A mouse tail would gradually evolve to suit its changing environment, your short tailed mouse would be an example of a negative mutation and would not survive. Hardly a case for creation though (well, unless that's what you aim for I suppose).

Some progress here. You used your adult ego state.
As for the mice tales, You seem to need an environmental change to trigger the right sort of mutation...right?
Personally I have not experienced any dramatic environment change my self, but when I read of a woolly mammoth being found in a glacier with grass still in its mouth, that sort of suggests that there wasn't even time to put an overcoat on let alone grow a longer tail....if you were a mouse that is. I know that is just one instance and there is a lot of reasonably compelling evidence for lots of changes, but I'm not aware that those changes took millions of years to occur. Indeed if we listen to the climate change evangelists of today, we are left with the distinct impression that it will take about 100 years or so. Hardly enough time for mankind to adapt let alone mice and other animals or plants.
But I do agree that grabbing some blind mice and docking their tails is hardly a test of anything except cruelty.


Well not so much a case for creation as a case against evolution. Evolution just can't be shown to work. Creation doesn't need elaborate proofs.....we are here aren't we? Case closed.
Back to Genesis?

 

[TubbyTubby]

Some progress here. You used your adult ego state.
As for the mice tales, You seem to need an environmental change to trigger the right sort of mutation...right?
Personally I have not experienced any dramatic environment change my self, but when I read of a woolly mammoth being found in a glacier with grass still in its mouth, that sort of suggests that there wasn't even time to put an overcoat on let alone grow a longer tail....if you were a mouse that is. I know that is just one instance and there is a lot of reasonably compelling evidence for lots of changes, but I'm not aware that those changes took millions of years to occur. Indeed if we listen to the climate change evangelists of today, we are left with the distinct impression that it will take about 100 years or so. Hardly enough time for mankind to adapt let alone mice and other animals or plants.
But I do agree that grabbing some blind mice and docking their tails is hardly a test of anything except cruelty.


Well not so much a case for creation as a case against evolution. Evolution just can't be shown to work. Creation doesn't need elaborate proofs.....we are here aren't we? Case closed.
Back to Genesis?

I used my adult ego purposely because I know you like it.

A mouse doesn't 'grow' a longer tail, that is not a genetic mutation and I think you also know that.

The mammoth is a fine example of evolution, there are many specimens and a great deal of information about how the teeth and head shape evolved has been studied.

If there is a sudden climate change, then no doubt some species will either have to migrate or die, 100 years is no time to evolve. Humans are a little more fortunate in that we can control our environment to some degree and can survive in a wider temperature range.

 

[Brother Paul]

You know full well why it isn't a good example Calvin.

The 400,000 babies born each year with the virus would argue that point. If they live long enough to understand it, that is.


A mouse tail would gradually evolve to suit its changing environment, your short tailed mouse would be an example of a negative mutation and would not survive. Hardly a case for creation though (well, unless that's what you aim for I suppose).

See...cannot get away from it can we...that's why this should be a different thread

a) Parents with HIV passing it on to children is passing a retro-virus in the blood, not a mutation...also many infants who are so born develop an immunity and never contract Aids...so this does not argue the point at all, it makes the point...sinful choices of the parents affect the following generations (a Biblical principle demonstrated) but we know this

b) there is no evidence anywhere that suggests that a mouse would evolve a longer or shorter tail...nover been observed, never demonstrated to be true, all tests done show otherwise (you know real science),,,the points were made because you asked about MY rejection of Darwinian theory not "a case FOR creation"...

The other point of natural inter-dependence made by Calvin is a valid point...without an acorn not Oak tree...but without an Oak tree (who's encoded information produces them) no acorns... the tree could not have evolved into being without an acorn and without an already extant oak and so on...that my friend does demand an answer that Darwinian Theory (nor materialism for that matter) can explain...we can however...if the first oaks were "created" then the problem is solved...

There are thousands of these scientifically unexplained phenomenon and to assume after 150 years that "one day we will find a scientific explanation for it" is a non-argument...it is an excuse so the fictional replacement myth can be sustained in the minds of innocently inquiring minds...

One Darwinian figured this out and applied it. Josef Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister, once said that if you repeat a lie over and over and get a some people with the alleged appearance of authority to declare the lie "the truth" the masses will believe it to be true...now he applied it politically but it applies here as well...I would say it worked rather well for the Roman Catholic church in the middle ages just as well...assumptions have been pushed as truth repeatedly for 150 years to every generation of students by those the masses see as allegedly having authority...so they ever strain at the gnats while swallowing the proverbial camel whole...ever learning but never able to come to the truth...

Goebbels said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Now in this case the "state" are the ruling pedagogues of the Dawnian altar of worship

 

[TubbyTubby]

a) Parents with HIV passing it on to children is passing a retro-virus in the blood, not a mutation...also many infants who are so born develop an immunity and never contract Aids...so this does not argue the point at all, it makes the point...sinful choices of the parents affect the following generations (a Biblical principle demonstrated) but we know this

And that goes for those contracting it by blood transfusion as well I suppose.

b) there is no evidence anywhere that suggests that a mouse would evolve a longer or shorter tail...nover been observed, never demonstrated to be true, all tests done show otherwise (you know real science),,,the points were made because you asked about MY rejection of Darwinian theory not "a case FOR creation"...

There is a pretty full picture of rodent evolution, many of the mouses' living relatives are a completely different shape, including having different tails.

 

[Major]

Why would it not be a good example?? It embodies the primary idea of mutation and it requires a male- female coincident effect in order to last. Isn't that what is required for genetic mutation (beneficial ) to a species?

No, let us not indulge in moral judgment, however is it not true that the HIV is mostly transmitted through life style choices that are not exactly beneficial to the continuance of the species? If so, that trait would either be totally useless or it could be the means of the end....don't you think? eg. I through my life style choices have absolutely no need of such a genetic trait. My late cousin might well still be here had he had such a gene, but then again, there is no way he was going to be able to pass that on to any offspring because of his lifestyle choices. And you think a 'winged calvin' is not a good example of evolution?? I am deeply cut sir.

I actually agree with one glaring exception! I suggest that the mice tails are the result of being created the right length in the first place. Let's be realistic here. A colony (or a pair) of short tailed mice would die out long before they woke up to the fact that longer tails would be useful to their survival. A bit like the problem of Bees and flowers. The Bees would get mighty hungry waiting for flowers with nectar to evolve, on the other hand flowers would be hard pressed to procreate while waiting for Bees to evolve with a need to gather nectar.
Seems everywhere we look every necessary attribute is in place for life to carry on as normal.

Seems that way to me as well!

 

[Brother Paul]

Nice chart Tubby...only shows they are all part of the rodent family...nothing demonstrates mus musculus evolves a longer or shorter tail to adapt to its environment...then again maybe that was not your point....

 

[Abdicate]

@TubbyTubby God made everything from the earth, therefore it's logical to see similar DNA in creation, no different than the information in a DVD disc, it's a matter of how the information in the DNA is arranged, which is non-material btw.

 

[calvin]

Some progress here. You used your adult ego state.
<<SNIP>>
Back to Genesis?

Oh my!! I goofed.
It was your 'critical parent' ego state not your adult one,...........I need another shot of caffeine....never mind progress is progress is not it?

 

[Sal]

How far did the discussion get to in Genesis? How will we ever get even a chapter done if we havn't already?

 

[calvin]

I don't think we have passed the first week of creation yet. There have been several gentle reminders to get back on track, however it seems to me that Tubby Tubby is more comfortable discussing snips and snails and mouse tales tails than discussing Genesis. Well I guess that is OK, if he has been challenged by God's word so early in the peace piece, how is that such a bad thing?

 

[Brother Paul]

Tales of Mice and Men...for Tubby Tubby

Just 2.5% of DNA turns mice into men (Science , vol. 296, p 1661)

By Andy Coghlan

Mice and men share about 97.5 per cent of their working DNA, just one per cent less than chimps and humans. The new estimate is based on the comparison of mouse chromosome 16 with human DNA. Previous estimates had suggested mouse-human differences as high as 15 per cent.

The new work suggests that neither genome has changed much since we shared a common ancestor 100 million years ago. "The differences are going to be few rather than many," says Richard Mural of Celera Genomics, the Maryland company that compared the mouse chromosome with human DNA.

"Perhaps 100 million years separating the two genomes is not long enough for wholesale rearrangement," says Mural, or conservation may be necessary to preserve essential functions.

However, Tim Hubbard, head of genome analysis at the Sanger Institute in Cambridge, UK, is sceptical about the significance of the 2.5 per cent difference. He thinks that the genes might in fact all be identical and that differences between species might arise solely through divergence in the "regulatory regions" which switch other genes on and off.

Nonetheless, scientists are hopeful that the close match will enable researchers to unpick much more rapidly the genetic roots of human disease. By "knocking out" genes in mice using genetic engineering, they can learn the gene's function.

___________________________

Yoouuu dirty rraattt! (with a Cagney accent)...so I guess my nephew could be a monkey or a rat...some might call him a dog before he meets Jesus or even a snake in the grass...why not we all share similar designer genes...