Evolution... Do we believe?

[Stuu]

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).

I see that your neurons are no longer on speaking terms.

Stuart

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

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

I get tiny gene changes that cause adaptive changes such as a Tiger who you can't necessarily identified by His stripes because Lions look entirely different and yet are really the same species because of chromosomes being the same and interbreeding possibilities.

The whole chromosomal fusing for humans is pure conjecture and not backed with any scientific proof. Theory undoubtedly, yet portrayed as proven. That is unequivocally a lie. I'm sorry to be so blunt.

I know the assumptions that go into evolution, and I'm all for science that's proven. Evolution is not proven science. Adaptation through gene mutation is.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

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.

I have talked to many who use the 'fact of evolution' as a reason for their agnosticism or atheism. It most certainly has philosophical and theological implications.

 

[alwight]

I know the assumptions that go into evolution, and I'm all for science that's proven. Evolution is not proven science. Adaptation through gene mutation is.

Proof is for mathematics and whisky, not science.

 

[nonanomanon]

I get tiny gene changes that cause adaptive changes such as a Tiger who you can't necessarily identified by His stripes because Lions look entirely different and yet are really the same species because of chromosomes being the same and interbreeding possibilities.

The whole chromosomal fusing for humans is pure conjecture and not backed with any scientific proof. Theory undoubtedly, yet portrayed as proven. That is unequivocally a lie. I'm sorry to be so blunt.

I know the assumptions that go into evolution, and I'm all for science that's proven. Evolution is not proven science. Adaptation through gene mutation is.

LUKE 9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.
II SAMUEL 11:8 And David said to Uriah, Go down to thy house, and wash thy feet. And Uriah departed out of the king's house, and there followed him a mess [of meat] from the king.

David is listed in the genealogy of Reuben's 144,000 in Luke 3. If that is true and David was attributed to Reuben, genetic Dan or Aaron could not bare his seed. David declares that Bathsheba could not bare his child, but instead we can say David took the child as his own. Because it was unlawful to put his servant (uriah as a servant of the state) to death, and to create a widow, but Uriah became a butcher, and if David appointed him, then he put him down to not create a controversy. This incident may have fueled their kind to kill, but if what we understand is true, David would of never laid a hand on that women, it would of been unclean for him to do as a King, and inhumane in the Old Testament. This explains why Moses did not take a wife from the egyptians. (just some thoughts that sometimes leak when the weapons reach members of the public instead of remaining affixed on the Antichrist).

 

[Stuu]

I get tiny gene changes that cause adaptive changes such as a Tiger who you can't necessarily identified by His stripes because Lions look entirely different and yet are really the same species because of chromosomes being the same and interbreeding possibilities.

You really don't get that, I promise you.

The whole chromosomal fusing for humans is pure conjecture and not backed with any scientific proof. Theory undoubtedly, yet portrayed as proven. That is unequivocally a lie. I'm sorry to be so blunt.

Sorry to have bothered you. I can see that a hammer and chisel wouldn't be enough to impress on your brain the extent of your ignorance.

I know the assumptions that go into evolution, and I'm all for science that's proven. Evolution is not proven science. Adaptation through gene mutation is.

There are books. Have you been to a library before?

Stuart

 

[popsthebuilder]

Christianity and science actually go together quite nicely. Evolution can be seen as a process of a being adapting to its environment to the best of its ability in order for it to advance. All life is of one creation and one Creator God. All existence does its very best to advance to exist. Even other intelligent creatures work together in a social manner for the betterment of all. Humans being inherently evil and good are the only creatures that seem to actually work against the rest of existence due to free will and the lack of acknowledgement of our responsibility also due to free will our gift from God. Evolution can be seen as everything going along its path directed by God.

 

[Stripe]

Proof is for mathematics and whisky, not science.

Math is science. lain:

 

[gcthomas]

Math is science. lain:

And dogs are cats. :idunno:

 

[Stuu]

Math is science. lain:

At Waikato University you can get an arts degree majoring in mathematics.

You can't get an arts degree majoring in any of the physical or biological sciences.

Just thought you might have known that already.

Stuart

 

[alwight]

Math is science. lain:

Mathemology? :think:

 

[Stripe]

Evolutionists do not think math is science. lain:

Something so trivial should be simple to agree with, but not when a YEC says it.

 

[Stuu]

Christianity and science actually go together quite nicely.

Evolution can be seen as a process of a being adapting to its environment to the best of its ability in order for it to advance.

Nope. Evolution happens to populations, not to individuals.

All life is of one creation and one Creator God.

There is no intent evident in the living world. As Richard Dawkins puts it, natural selection is the blind watchmaker. I don't think you see your god that way.

All existence does its very best to advance to exist. Even other intelligent creatures work together in a social manner for the betterment of all.

Orangutans are quite solitary.

Humans being inherently evil and good

That's your value judgment, not an empirical conclusion (if we are still talking about science).

... are the only creatures that seem to actually work against the rest of existence due to free will and the lack of acknowledgement of our responsibility also due to free will our gift from God.

What responsibility? Science pays no attention to religious platitudes like these.

Evolution can be seen as everything going along its path directed by God.

Only by idiots.

Stuart

 

[gcthomas]

Evolutionists do not think math is science. lain:

Something so trivial should be simple to agree with, but not when a YEC says it.

How many universities have mathematics taught by the Science faculty vs have an entirely separate faculty? :think:

No one agrees with you, not even creationists will chime in to support you.

Trivial? Yes. But that doesn't mean you get automatic assent when you say silly things.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolutionists do not think math is science.

Because science is a process of inferring the rules by observing particulars, it is very different from math, in which some basic rules are assumed, from which the particularly are determined.

There can be deductive thinking in science, and there are inductive proofs in math, but they are basically two entirely different processes. Stipe seems to have no clue about math whatever (his declaration of "math that refutes evolution" has been repeatedly challenged, and he has yet to offer any calculations whatever to support his belief) so it might be worth seeing what a real mathematician has to say about it:

Is Mathematics a Science?
Mathematics is certainly a science in the broad sense of "systematic and formulated knowledge", but most people use "science" to refer only to the natural sciences. Since mathematics provides the language in which the natural sciences aspire to describe and analyse the universe, there is a natural link between mathematics and the natural sciences. Indeed schools, universities, and government agencies usually lump them together. (1) On the other hand, most mathematicians do not consider themselves to be scientists and vice versa. So is mathematics a natural science? (2) The natural sciences investigate the physical universe but mathematics does not, so mathematics is not really a natural science. This leaves open the subtler question of whether mathematics is essentially similar in method to the natural sciences in spite of the difference in subject matter. I do not think it is.
http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html

(thoughtful discussion of the issue follows)

 

[PureX]

I have talked to many who use the 'fact of evolution' as a reason for their agnosticism or atheism. It most certainly has philosophical and theological implications.

More likely they are simply rejecting the absurd claims of religionists who do not understand what their own religious mythology is about. Or perhaps they don't understand that science doesn't propose evolution as a fact, but as a working theory. There is plenty of ignorance on both sides.

 

[Stuu]

Evolutionists do not think math is science. lain:

Something so trivial should be simple to agree with, but not when a YEC says it.

Mathematicians don't think mathS is science.

Scientists don't think maths is science.

YECs don't think reality should have any attention paid to it.

I think that's all the relevant categories here.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

How many universities have mathematics taught by the Science faculty vs have an entirely separate faculty? :think:

:yawn:

No one agrees with you, not even creationists will chime in to support you.

:yawn:

Wake us up when you've got a rational argument.

Mathematicians don't think mathS is science.

No?

This guy thinks it is.

Scientists don't think maths is science.

No?

These guys think it is.

Admittedly, there seems to be some debate over the matter, but the knee-jerk reaction of evolutionists to a trivial assertion by a YEC shows how utterly committed they are to contrarianism rather than rational discourse.

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe finds a "guy" who thinks math is a science:

This guy thinks it is.

Elaine J. Hom
@elainehom

Marketer at a nonprofit, contributor for @LiveScience, dance teacher, celiac, proud mom of two fuzzy cats. Married name is Eastwood but too lazy to change it.
https://twitter.com/elainehom

I see. Very convincing, Stipe. Marketing dance teachers are famous for their understanding of the nature of science.

 

[Jonahdog]

Stipe finds a "guy" who thinks math is a science:


Elaine J. Hom
@elainehom

Marketer at a nonprofit, contributor for @LiveScience, dance teacher, celiac, proud mom of two fuzzy cats. Married name is Eastwood but too lazy to change it.
https://twitter.com/elainehom

I see. Very convincing, Stipe. Marketing dance teachers are famous for their understanding of the nature of science.

The scary part is that she may understand science better than our friend Stripe.