There is 100% doubt that one organism would mutate into a completely new organism.
Why did you mention it? it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
Stuart
Evolution... Do we believe?
- Thread starter PopeFrancieLXIX
- Start date
Why did you mention it? it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
Stuart
Go for impossible, not just improbable.
I recommend you read a book and finding out what evolution by natural selection actually is. The subject is a rewarding one to study.
Stuart
Nope.
Evolution, regardless of prefix, is bunk.
Evidence easily shows that "micro" evolution contains no random mutations and no natural selection.
Yeah. I'm losing hair, therefore: EVOLUTION! :nono:
We must realize that science and Christianity deny evolution if we are honest and intelligent about our discernment of both.
PureX
Well-known member
The problem is that most religion comes from a time when the process and concept of science was completely unknown. So that religion tended to fill in those intellectual gaps with religious mythology, as a way conveying their spiritual ideas and messages.
Then science came along and dispelled those myths with facts, while completely ignoring the spiritual ideas and messages the myths were created to convey. And naturally, religionists saw this as a kind of 'assault' on them and their way of life. It's an understandable reaction, though a pointless and counterproductive one.
And in the grand scheme of human history, this only happened very recently, so the religionists of the world are still reacting to it in fear and anger. It will take some time for the religionists to calm down, let go of their fears and resentments about 'science', and find new ways of presenting their spiritual ideas and messages to the world without the use of ancient mythology.
Frankly, I wish they'd quit raging and get on with it. The world needs their spiritual ideals and messages; it does not need their knee-jerk negative emotional reactions.
Jamie Gigliotti
New member
My faith in Jesus does not cause my mind to reason that DNA strands mutating Do add or subtract information, it doesn't add chromosomes with any good outcome.
Or just blind :maxi:
Jose Fly
New member
Have you told 6days that? He seems to believe that natural selection is real.
It never happens if you can't be more specific.
Try again,
The evolution of what from what (you need to just point out one example), but you can't) is proven beyond doubt?
I will give you a counter list here,
1. the evolution of humans from a single cell organism is never proven beyond doubt
2. the evolution of mammals from a single cell organism is never proven beyond doubt
....
1 million and 1. the evolution of <whatever you can put here among the millions of species on the current earth today> from a single cell organism is never proven beyond doubt
PureX
Well-known member
If your faith in Jesus depends on the behavior of DNA then your faith in Jesus is either very weak, or very misguided.
Jamie Gigliotti
New member
My point was that reason is not suspended because of My faith. Evolution is far from fact.
PureX
Well-known member
What does doubt have to do with anything? We are human beings, we can't be absolutely certain of anything, really, because we are not omniscient nor omnipresent. Both of which would be required for us to be absolutely certain of something we think we know.
Scientific theories are called theories, and not certainties, because it is universally recognized among scientists that we humans are not omniscient. So it is assumed that any theory, no matter how apparently true, could still be found untrue under some circumstance, or via some as yet unknown and untried experiment.
Science isn't proclaiming anything to be absolutely true. And any human being who is expecting that level of certainty is expecting the impossible.
So I don't get your point, here.
PureX
Well-known member
Evolution is not far from fact. It is a theory based not only on the facts, but on facts that have been tested and retested.
Why you think the theory of evolution has something to do with Jesus is what I don't understand. Can you explain what you think the connection is?
What I wrote is more than specific enough. It contains all of your sample statements above.
If you would like yet another variation, here is one: all life on earth has arisen through evolution by natural selection from a common ancestor population of a species of single-celled organism.
In the way most people use language, that is proved beyond doubt.
Stuart
Jamie Gigliotti
New member
You argued that people are against evolution because of our religious beliefs.
Again chromosomal errors do not add or subtract chromosomes. And again if the genetic error is that grevious in humans downs syndrome results. Not some new glorious result.
Obviously there are philosophical/religious implications if it is true or not, but none the less is not true.
Well said. Indeed the newness is a factor that I might be liable to forget in considering this. And might I add, although perhaps not as eloquently as you, that there are very many people in the world building their spirituality around our modern understanding of our place within the universe. The knowledge we each personally possess, or have easy access to now is astonishing compared to two centuries ago, and when understood should have a revolutionary effect on ones own self-perception, especially when ancient knowledge and its mythological padding are considered critically.
Stuart
PureX
Well-known member
The only contention between religion and science that I am aware of seems to rest almost entirely on the fact that science has shown ancient religious mythology to be ancient religious mythology. That shouldn't really be a problem, since religious mythology was never intended to be anything other than what it is, while science has never intended to replace religion or it's mythology with something else. But there is a sector of both the religionists, and the materialists, who do not properly understand what mythology is, and what it's function is. Nor do they properly understand what science is, and what it's purpose is. So they think these two are in contention with each other as competing representations of Truth, rather than being completely different methods and means of representing different aspects of Truth (which is what they are).
These are the folks who constitute the 'raging religious zealots' on the one side and the 'raging materialist zealots' on the other. Both of which are misguided and counter-productive to human understanding.
In my opinion.
nonanomanon
New member
The Gospel does not deal in dehumanization, that being true, it will be laborious to prove a position the gospel seems to avoid. We need to categorize spirituality to 4 degrees ... ... ... ... then we can understand that science is not being faithful in its claims that humans are closer to chimpanzees (infact only specific portions of the people are closer to chimpanzees ... ... ... ... science has obtained a conclusion about the fertilization of primates, since that time it has discontinued the practice).
NUMBERS 32:38 And Nebo, and Baalmeon, (their names being changed,) and Shibmah: and gave other names unto the cities which they builded.
GENESIS 10:9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.
At the same time Melchisedek appeared before God as a High Priest, another Priest came baring the cloak of corruption. The gospel conceals the identity of the spiritual begins. We can simply say, Nebo was Naphtali, because Melchisedek came to divide the 144,000 of Reuben, so that the 144,000 of Benjamin could be judged, and the 144,000 of Joseph could eventual be the inheritor of the Gospel's Completion.
Simplifying the spirituality based tribes (the 144,000 being of the same):
144,000 of Reuben (5 Wise Virgins)
144,000 of Benjamin (5 Wise Virgins)
144,000 of Joseph (5 Foolish Virgins)
200,000,000 of Naphtali (5 Foolish Virgins, having no value, until the Genetic Line based Tribes this branches into are killed, namely Dan, and also Aaron)
The Gospel avoids dehumanization, and 200,000,000 is a Separatist Inheritance for Naphtali* not attributed to either Dan or Aaron ... ... ... ... the gospel avoids dehumanization by giving them some version of salvation in the here and now, to mitigate their desires for cruelty and death. The lesser spirituality of Naphtali is an expression of "Free Will", this follows the body as an expression of that free will to some degree. This doesn't mean everyone attributed to Naphtali are killers, but it does means, Dan and Aaron are enough of a danger to themselves to immediately necessitate some resolution in loss of life to benefit the final process of the judgment. Spirituality is a result of "Free Will", so this is not absolute, however, by proportion of the population, this is an absolute for Genetic Dan and Aaron. (Spiritually speaking, some people are associated with Naphtali, but not in a sinful way, that is probably what qualifies the shift in Aaron's inheritance, without the genetic implication of Aaron, but they can be seen the same, considering how the law dances around quite a bit).
MATTHEW 25:1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
MATTHEW 25:2 And five of them were wise, and five [were] foolish.
These divisions are of the Genealogy of Genesis 5 and Genesis 11. So we can simply add 10 Virgins + 5 Wise Virgins for 15 Total Virgins, meaning God has immediately placed the spirituality of the last 5 Foolish Virgins in a state of disregard, or of low degree. Lets view this differently:
After the 3 Days of Darkness are completed ... 144,000 of Reuben taken, 144,000 of Benjamin taken and 144,000 of Joseph are separated from Judah, but the 200,000,000 of Naphtali remain for the 5 Months of Revelation 9, under the Antichrist as he reigns over Judah. So what is God doing? He is trying the Remnant of Judah for sin, but at the same time they are a picture of salvation, since they are being redeemed to the 144,000 of Joseph (the 5 Foolish Virgins that found favor, essentially).
So we can really make out 4 divisions in 1Chronicles5:1 (Reuben, Genealogy not Reckoned in Creation or Benjamin, Joseph, and not reckoned for any birthright (forsaken Naphtali until the end of time).
(the homecoming of the south migrants to a certain place in europe, have many people scratching their heads since most of their boats just sink and they drown, and they don't seem to care ... there is no Blood Sacrifice with Aaron taking place at the moment, where it should be done, but there evidence of this being acted out in the world)
Last edited:
The Holy Wikipedia has this to say about chromosome abnormalities:
| Deletions: A portion of the chromosome is missing or deleted. Known disorders in humans include Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome, which is caused by partial deletion of the short arm of chromosome 4; and Jacobsen syndrome, also called the terminal 11q deletion disorder. Duplications: A portion of the chromosome is duplicated, resulting in extra genetic material. Known human disorders include Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A, which may be caused by duplication of the gene encoding peripheral myelin protein 22 (PMP22) on chromosome 17. Translocations: A portion of one chromosome is transferred to another chromosome. There are two main types of translocations: Reciprocal translocation: Segments from two different chromosomes have been exchanged. Robertsonian translocation: An entire chromosome has attached to another at the centromere - in humans these only occur with chromosomes 13, 14, 15, 21, and 22. Inversions: A portion of the chromosome has broken off, turned upside down, and reattached, therefore the genetic material is inverted. Insertions: A portion of one chromosome has been deleted from its normal place and inserted into another chromosome. Rings: A portion of a chromosome has broken off and formed a circle or ring. This can happen with or without loss of genetic material. Isochromosome: Formed by the mirror image copy of a chromosome segment including the centromere. |
I would add too that chromosome abnormalities are not the only way that the genome can change. Random changes happen to individual bases along the DNA chains, for example.
In the case of Down Syndrome chromosome 21 is duplicated and the health problems are caused by overproduction of the proteins coded on that chromosome.
If the extra chromosome was inherited and became commonplace in the population (not likely with DS) then selection pressure would apply as random mutations happened in that extra chromosome.
Maybe natural selection would 'find a way' to turn off the genes in one of the chromosome 21 copies, and there would be convergence back to a non-Down human phenotype. Or the genetic material could end up as something else, maybe leading to speciation.
There is a case of this in our genetic history as humans. Following the common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans, two chromosomes fused, which is why the other great apes all have 24 pairs of chromosomes and we have only 23.
The 'new glorious result' you describe is really a strawman argument. There are interesting examples, like sickle cell anaemia. If you have a copy of the sickle cell trait gene and a good, non-sickle cell copy then you have some protection against malaria. Malaria has been the cause of half of all human deaths. So it has been a pretty big selection pressure. The sickle mutation is common in areas of the world where malaria is also common. It's an example of a beneficial mutation! But if you get two copies of the sickle cell trait gene then you will get sickle cell disease, which is life-threatening.
Genomes contain genes that code for proteins, and the proteins make the body. Either the protein becomes tissues or the protein acts as a catalyst for chemical processes that build tissues and regulate them. Genomes also contain switches that turn genes off or on. Sometimes a gene is turned off because it's role in development is no longer needed.
Modern species carry genes that may have been turned off in an ancestor species. The gene for teeth that was present in archosaurs, a common ancestor for birds and alligators, was turned off at some point down the bird line, and the modern bird descendents no longer make teeth. But the genes are still present in the birds and can be accidentally switched on again.
However, evolution by natural selection is almost entirely about tiny mutations that give a tiny improvement in the ability to survive and reproduce. These tiny changes will be spread throughout the population more successfully over time than the alternatives that aren't quite as good. If the environment changes then there is a change in the needs for survival and reproduction, so selection pressure changes to a different direction, and species will change as a result.
Multiply up the time, and those tiny changes add up to massive differences, given long enough. The range of multi-celled living species on the planet today have had a half a billion years to accumulate differences by natural selection, and that started after single-celled organisms had existed for a few billion years. I don't know about you but I struggle to comprehend 100 years, let alone 1,000,000,000 years. Remember too that more than 99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct, so it's not as if the mutations that once were beneficial remained beneficial in a changing environment.
Sorry about the long post, but I was keen to give you an idea of how much more complicated things are than you suggested in your post.
Stuart
Good thing for evolutionary theory, too. If someone could prove that, evolutionary theory would be overthrown. Humans evolved from multicellular hominids. Mammals evolved from multicellular therapsid reptiles.
Would you like to learn about some of the evidence for that?
nonanomanon
New member
DANIEL 7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment [was] white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne [was like] the fiery flame, [and] his wheels [as] burning fire.
GENESIS 27:22 And Jacob went near unto Isaac his father; and he felt him, and said, The voice [is] Jacob's voice, but the hands [are] the hands of Esau.
GENESIS 27:23 And he discerned him not, because his hands were hairy, as his brother Esau's hands: so he blessed him.
GENESIS 37:22 And Reuben said unto them, Shed no blood, [but] cast him into this pit that [is] in the wilderness, and lay no hand upon him; that he might rid him out of their hands, to deliver him to his father again.
The Antichrist Christ, can have no biological father, because he is a representation of the 144,000 of Reuben. His blood will resist certain types of corruption for this reason. For this reason, he is called the infertility of the Generations of Esau. Meaning a certain level of corruption is the limitation of Esau, but it is not necessarily the limitation of Jacob. Years ago when the Antichrist decided, that it would be better construed if he were seen as a hero of church and state, to eliminate a good portion of the false witnessing that already had taken root, he decided to enlist in the military for service. After they took a sample of his blood, they did not want to cooperate, and decided to change his preferences around ... ... ... ... ultimately for other reasons he simply decided to be a troll, but a faithful one, and terminate the resistance to the potential by making their force against his testimony as much of a moot point as possible, and as distasteful as possible. (Steadfast in awarding them the title of abusers of the fatherless, widow and the poor, and abusers of themselves with their own misplaced satisfaction (sui****), which is probably the best possible position, as humanity has completely disregarded the authority of the Antichrist as his days now come to a close).