Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
I would like to note that I did not see Moses go up the mountain, but I believe it. Just as evolutionists never actually saw the mitochondria get stuck in an ancestral cell, but believe that it did. We all have the same fossils, strata, chemistry, and science to study--we are just looking at it through different glasses.
At least I can't argue with that AFJ!
Accurately worded I would have to say that Adam and Eve are here a metaphor for "how we came from primates, going from 48 to 46 chromosomes". Science already has a "Mitochondrial Eve" so it's not a big deal or beyond any limit of science to make this connection. Since there were humans before Mitochondrial Eve it's not an accurate metaphor. Chromosomal Adam and Eve is the scientifically precise account of our speciation.
Contrary to popular misconceptions we are not the product of slow 46-46 drift process, we are the product of a 48-47-46 chromosomal speciation event where there is suddenly a first human man and woman in our human ancestry.
Excellent theory! It's describing the mechanism I thought would be there that "controls" whether telomeres are sticky or not.
I wrote all that, so I'm the "They" who is physically writing the theory of ID blog. I'm currently looking for other examples but human, fruit fly and mosquito are the examples used in the PNAS paper referenced from the theory are already providing excellent examples.
It is scientific terminology found in decades old AI, robotics and behavioral sciences. There is a tutorial in the Intelligence Generator/Detector that may already be in a science classroom near you.
Only thing "evolutionary thought" seems to have done is steam up everyone's glasses. Teachers are teaching that our speciation is no different from the 48-48 while we no doubt that we have 46 chromosomes. Instead of explaining this speciation event "evolutionary thought" ignored it, then used it as evidence we are just another ape.
I'm not sure what you are trying to evidence is unsupported with your use of NS based generalizations but if you have a problem with the current scientific views then you have to argue the matter with them by publishing your rebuttal in appropriate science journals.
I'm not sure why you mentioned that either. I'm simply placing the Adam and Eve story to where in science where that event occurred.
The only way for you to change what is currently stated in the theory of ID is for you to present scientific evidence that can challenge what is already there. Which at least worked with the link to telomere theory but that only helped support what I was trying to say on the blog. The theory of ID was predicting that would exist but that was as far as I knew, which is why I had to generalize on the telomere protective/sticky mechanism. If you have info I can reference then let me know.
You'll have to get used to using "random guess" and "good guess" terminology in science, because it's already long existed. Many learned it that way and when you have enough experience in modeling of the phenomena there is a reason why that is a fact. We can flip a coin for "random guess". Or take a "good guess" that is in part based on past experience. It's such a basic principal none can seriously argue it does not exist in reality which automatically makes it a part of science.
You are correct in saying that we are looking through the same science through different glasses. You have the ones I'm glad to be able to do without now that I found a pair with unusual clarity, even though levels of emergence makes it a kaleidoscope view where each has the same basic thing going on but all together makes something fascinating to watch change over time. Once you know what is going in one section it applies to all emergent views in the pictures then one thing after another keeps falling into place. And it just so happens the theory of ID glasses has Adam and Eve waving back at us when you look towards human speciation. Fruit flies have theirs too, which is a cute inference adding to the (under construction) speciation experiment.
The old glasses did not get me anywhere. I was just one more trying to validate another theory that so much changes with the direction science goes it's something one follows. It is not a theory to go further into science with. For that we need the theory of theories, the Theory Of Intelligent Design that the Discovery Institute proposed. Only have to explain what they called "intelligent cause" and such a thing is represented in the 360 degree kaleidoscopic emergence making it all somewhat psychedelic looking. This forum's collective intelligence in one of the sections with the AFJ reflecting through the "levels" of intelligence around it.
Proving that the Theory Of Intelligent Design could be written greatly adds to the experience of looking through that perspective. I and others are no longer repeating what everyone else is taught to repeat, we're establishing the one that goes way beyond that. So far in fact, it is said that 99% of scientists said it was impossible. Not all know about it, but not all need to know for it to with patience become the future.
The theory thrives on your doing your best to find a weakness. But at some point you just have to accept that this "Theory Of Intelligent Design" makes perfect sense. The phenomena of "intelligent cause" is thereby coherently defined by the theory where that is the premise. Which in turn makes any you speculate and "evolutionary thought" totally irrelevant to discussion. The theory never mentions NS or "evolution" anything. Neither should you. That's the foggy pair of glasses. These are the ones where the future of science is clearly visible through. What are the ones I'm looking through showing you?
Wow i have missed alot(had exams), and im not about to read the last five pages but under skimming it seems to have turned into an 'overwhelm the opposition with hundreds of little pieces of half relevant information" type discussions. Maybe i should have asked for any arguments against the process of evolution. As for any 'Intelligent Design' posters your theory defies every science possible and for someone on a science site i do not see your logic so i will take the following space to prove your theory long.
-Energy cannot be created, energy cannot be destroyed.
Don't agree with that theory? Try it.
-Magicians at fairs are in fact tricking you, they cannot predict your future or talk to the dead.
Magic is not real.('Jesus was the only magic one' i hear you say... 2000 years ago there just so happened to be a magician that was good at his game. Who knows maybe in 2000 years time Chris Angel will be worshipped)
-Black people are real.
Adam or Eve were not black.
There, 3 Simple points which defy your theory
AFJ, i was brought up as a catholic, i have only been to catholic schools for my whole life, i have made up my own mind based on simple logic. The human race is becoming too smart for magic. How can you say my ideas are based on something that i cannot see? One example --> European rabbits introduced to Australia have underwent changes in coat color changes which help them survive better in Australia bush, I can see this with my own eyes! What can you see of your theories? Alright, try this, instead of trying to prove the evolutionary process wrong which seems to be the overall action in the religious society, how about trying to prove your theory right? Lets see if you get one point other than that you saw on television blood coming out of a statue...
A wise man once said to me:
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Only the fittest chickens cross the road.
I am very sorry that futurezoologist that you believe that Jesus was a magician. I want to stick to science too, but this keeps coming up. Actually you are much more versed in the evolutionary doctrine than myself, but I understand the basics. You have alot of versed theory, but you show no research, so you are in effect just towing the company line.
You know all about the 48-47-46, but then you wonder if the telomeres are "sticky." SO what are you saying--it's all glued together? The DNA is based on sequence as well as content. This is evident because of transcription and the mRMA, tRNA process to make protein. The RNA has to have the proper sequence to build the proper protein or the protein will not fit or be usable in the body. ANd the RNA gets it sequence from the DNA--so the DNA must have the proper kb sequence. Things don't just get stuck together or mixed up like a cake and there it is. Microbiologists know that and there are some who don't buy in to evolution!
So that's why you read the theories you see "however it happened." That is nothing more than a suggestive statement, saying "Even though this is an idea in someone's mind--this did happen, we can not say how, but one day we'll tell you." All they'll do is come up with another theory or present an extinct lemur like Ida and hail it as "finally the missing link!" Which is an admission by scientists of the lack of transitional forms in the fossil records.
Since the human race is so smart, why do we have children killing people in school, why do we have serial killers. Why do we have educated people selling balloon mortgages which have now hurt the economy. Hitler was so smart and he killed 6 million Jews. These are spiritual problems--it has nothing to do with intelligence. There thousands of smart criminals--and magic can not change them.
FZ are you under the impression that creationists deny species change or NS? Most don't. A wise creator has put adaptation within his creation--and why not? It is for survival. The scripture uses the word " kinds." Well qualified Ph.Ds are now researching to see how broad a kind is. Is it the equivalent of a family or order? You see there is flexibility within a given model, just like you have flexibility in your model.
The rabbits are still rabbits, and the fossil record shows fully formed organisms, not extinct transitions which were not selected (not deformities but species who didn't make it because they were in transition). Try to cross a dog with a cat FZ. There is a genetic boundary. ANd I do not believe the evolutionary theories of speciation through separation and genetic drift. The genetic boundary was put there by God in the beginning. Therefore you are made in the image of God!
That's not what I receive as testimony from the Spirit of God. You have been presented a stained glassed Jesus and Mother Mary with a little halo. No offense against catholics, but we live in the real world and we need power to overcome it. The Jesus we find in scripture is in the trenches with sinners--thats who he came to save--and in Acts he sends His Spirit and fire from heaven upon Peter and the first congregation. The bible says they turned the world upside down.
Wow, apparently I missed a lot during my weekend out of town. Here's a few comments:
A. How do you know what Adam and Eve's race was?
B. What does their race have to do with anything?
I have never been able to see this as anything more than an "easy way out" for the anti-evolution crowd. Used to be they were very much denying the possibility of speciation - in fact many still do today. Then plenty of speciation events were shown, and they switched to denying genera and families; in some cases, whole orders or classes. One by one, these are being shown as well. What's next? Retreating to classifying a "kind" as a phylum or kingdom? The beauty of this plan, is that every time new evidence comes to light, you can simply change your definition and claim your theory still stands.
A little bit of shameless religious propaganda is in order here. You are exactly right, AFJ, that Christ and his apostles did work wonders. Acts is one of my favorite books because it tells the story of the founding of the Catholic Church, and the reason I am Catholic today is because that Church alone has the true annointing and power to overcome evil and continues to perform miracles. As Christ said Himself, "This is My Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it!"
Okay, I admit that probably wasn't necessary; just showing a little pride in my faith, that's all! :p
#2 Total Post Count
Hi Alex and all,
Been doing a bit of thinking. First of all, I wanted to say that if I've been overly dogmatic in something I've said or seemed judgmental, it was not my intention. I don't want to be labeled a troll, and I have noticed more and more buttons on top there. I think that we can respectfully disagree on things, without getting annoyed. That should be the spirit of true science I think. Bring your point out and be done with it.
That was first of all a long time ago, the catholic and protestant churches all preached fixity of species back in the 1800s. If we are going to be true scientist or science students we have to acknowledge research. you can still keep the model until the model has run out of road.
Alex honestly we don't know what "kinds" is. Species is also a word that is "controversial in biology and philosophy. Biologists disagree on the definition of the term ‘species.’ Philosophers disagree over the ontological status of species..." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/ So it's not really fair to mock at not knowing what kinds is.
There are creationist theories I've heard and can not cite at the moment which believe for instance that the genes were much broader before the fall of man and afterward there was enough information in the genome to cause variation in the "kinds." For instance epines could have been a kind(I believe) and with more information which caused variation into modern zebras, horses donkeys and the like. Evolution says it happened by mutation, some creationists propose a DNA with more info which was already there. Maybe that's why there's junk DNA. Just a thought. I need to study it more, but that is the gist.
That would explain why some scientists say there is a continuing loss of info in the genome, and it would also be in line with the thermodynamic law of entropy. That systems left to themselves tend to break down, they do not become more orderly unless there is intervention of some type.
This is one of my greatest objections to evolution, the continual upward genetic drift by mutation. This would also in my mind bring deformities as fins turn to legs and other transitions and natural selection would eliminate it. It would not be able to survive. And why would it be upward when the genome has no intelligence? There are also new sequences, not just one kb. The mutation doesn't know what it's doing, or what it's producing. And then modern mutations seem to be detrimental currently not upward.
In this I find myself in complete agreement with you.
The Catholic Church has actually always left the door open to evolutionary theory since at least the 4th century. Many Protestant churches have traditionally opposed evolution in any form, and this is why Christianity as a whole often gets labeled (incorrectly) as an anti-evolutionist religion, even when the oldest and original Christian Church has always been accepting of evolution. Some of those Protestant churches are today relaxing their opposition to allow such views as theistic evolution; some (especially non-demons and evangelicals) are just as opposed to it as ever. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems!
I understand your point but I still don't agree with it. Why couldn't God have used evolutionary systems to create life?
This only applies to a closed system; the earth (and life on it) is not a closed system because it is constantly receiving energy from the sun. If the sun were to die, life would soon follow, precisely because of the reason you have stated.
How are you defining "upward"? Anyway experiments with bacteria and viruses have shown that completely new genetic material is capable of being developed through mutation. This is what gives medical doctors such headaches trying to stop diseases!
#2 Total Post Count
Because most evangelicals don't pick and choose what they want to take as literal. How do you get your authority for the Catholic Church from Acts if I can turn around and say it's symbolic or an allegory, or it doesn't mean what it says? You take Acts ch. 2 literally but not Genesis. Do you take Exodus literally, because Moses received Genesis on Mount Sinai from God according to Exodus?
Okay, I've got to address this.
No.1 We are not bacteria.
No.2 We do not pick up plasmids which change our genetic material.
No.3 Bacteria were put into whole different domain after it was discovered that they are completely different from us genetically--like night and day.
No.4 I don't see them moving up the evolutionary scale because they obtain new genetic material. They will be hard pressed to become protists because protists are eukaryotes. Totally different genetically.
No.5 Cyanobacteria are dated (supposedly) at 2.8 billion years (evolution dated) , they are the (allegedly) oldest known fossils and are still bacteria!
No.6 This is obviously the way God gives them an immune system seeing they don't have white blood cells and antibodies.
Good night my friend!
Careful analysis of Scripture will make it clear which parts are history and which are allegory; Acts was clearly written as a history. In my experience (sorry if this offends), many non-denoms have a rather poor understanding of Scripture because they do not actually study it rather than merely read it, if that makes any sense. Or, put another way, they simply accept whatever their pastor tells them, without taking the time to think about it, compare it with the Scriptures to verify or deny it, and learn to understand it so as to make their faith their own. Actually the same can be said for Christians in any denomination, Catholics included. Anyone who actually takes the time to study the Scriptures has a rare gift of faith indeed!
By the way, historical research shows that the Book of Genesis (in its current form, at least) did not come into existence until approximately the time of King David, when its final version was assembled from various other texts of widely differing authorship. Some parts of it no doubt date back to Moses, but other chapters are from different times and different authors. Anyway that's drifting a bit from the topic of this thread, so I'll get back to the point.
No we are not bacteria, but out DNA is composed of the exact same nucleotides and operates according to the same principles. The reason so many studies are done with bacteria is because of their short generation time of only twenty minutes; it sure beats having to wait twenty years or so for some larger vertebrates! Anyway, before I go into a more detailed response, I want to make sure I understand what I'm responding too, so here's two questions for you:
What do you mean by "up the evolutionary scale"? Are you applying some sort of medieval theory of biology here, the ladder of life or chain of being? How do you define "up" and why would bacteria be expected to move in that direction?
Why would they be anything else? The entire point of natural selection is survival and reproduction. If they can do those two things just fine being bacteria, why change a good thing?
#2 Total Post Count
Have to go to bed. But quickly. Yes the entire Bible was compiled at different times. But authorship of writings was held over centuries by the Jewish scribes, and their reverence for the scripture was something that we don't understand today. That is why in Psalm 1 and God's command to Joshua in Joshua 1 it is a blessing to meditate in the law of God "day and night." The Jews passed it down from generation to generation. You may be correct that parts of Genesis were written by others, but they would have no doubt had to be respected prophets or scribes, their bar was high for authorship--couldn't just be Joe down the street. Must be a proven prophet. But traditionally, it has always been accepted that Genesis was mostly penned by Moses, or perhaps God on the mount. It is sure that he recieved the law and instructions of the priesthood and the building of the tabernacle on the mount, because Exodus is contexted that way.
I feel safe though Alex trusting in the scripture and Him who wrote it. Because "holy men of old spake as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost." This is from the one of the epistles of Peter (don't have time to cite). And "All scripture is given by inspiration of God ("God breathed" in the Greek) and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped unto every good work." Paul's epistle to Timothy (I Timothy 3:16 I believe). Jesus said, "Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my word shall never pass away."
I don't know if you read my post where I said that if you read Paul's letter to the early Roman Christians (Rom. ch. 3--8), you' ll see that he taught sin came from Adam, and that Jesus Christ through his atonement on the cross and his resurrection sets us free from the power of sin. It's very important to understand that Jesus did not come from the Adamic line--hence the virgin birth. His blood was not tainted by the sinful nature that we receive from Adam. He is called the second Adam in I Corinthians, because he had a sinless nature, like Adam did before he was beguiled by the serpent.
I'm not catholic but doesn't your church teach the original sin? Original sin and the fall of man was part of catholic teaching I thought.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest