On Evolution & Creation

[YoursTrue]

Good for a chuckle but does nothing to define kind. Is my kind of flesh different than yours?
What is the difference between kinds. and so on?

I would think your flesh is different from anyone else's but that doesn't make you a different species or kind. I don't think so anyway.

 

[Valjean]

The Bible isn't using "kind" in any technical, biological sense. Asking that a colloquialism be taxonomically precise seems like nitpicking to me. Creationists generally use the word to designate whatever recognizable category of organism is currently under discussion.

Still, their accumulation-blindness -- their refusal/inability to grok the fact that there are degrees of morphological change, based on the amount of accumulated, small, generational genetic variation -- is remarkable.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Bible isn't using "kind" in any technical, biological sense. Asking that a colloquialism be taxonomically precise seems like nitpicking to me. Creationists generally use the word to designate whatever recognizable category of organism is currently under discussion.

Still, their accumulation-blindness -- their refusal/inability to grok the fact that there are degrees of morphological change, based on the amount of accumulated, small, generational genetic variation -- is remarkable.

Your post reminded me of a blind man that Jesus healed. After he was healed the Pharisees threw him out...notice, if you will, the dialogue.
(From the gospel of John chapter 9)

The Pharisees Investigate the Healing

13They brought to the Pharisees the man who had been blind. 14Now the day on which Jesus had made the mud and opened his eyes was a Sabbath. 15So the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight.
The man answered, “He put mud on my eyes, and I washed, and now I can see.”

16Because of this, some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for He does not keep the Sabbath.”
But others said, “How can a sinful man perform such signs?”

And there was division among them. 17So once again they asked the man who had been blind, “What do you say about Him, since it was your eyes He opened?”
“He is a prophet,” the man replied.

18The Jews still did not believe that the man had been blind and had received his sight until they summoned his parents 19and asked, “Is this your son, the one you say was born blind? So how is it that he can now see?”
20His parents answered, “We know he is our son, and we know he was born blind. 21But how he can now see or who opened his eyes, we do not know. Ask him. He is old enough to speak for himself.”

22His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jews. For the Jews had already determined that anyone who confessed Jesus as the Christ would be put out of the synagogue. 23That was why his parents said, “He is old enough. Ask him.”
24So a second time they called for the man who had been blind and said, “Give glory to God! We know that this man is a sinner.”

25He answered, “Whether He is a sinner I do not know. There is one thing I do know: I was blind, but now I see!”
26“What did He do to you?” they asked. “How did He open your eyes?”
27He replied, “I already told you, and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become His disciples?”

28Then they heaped insults on him and said, “You are His disciple; we are disciples of Moses. 29We know that God spoke to Moses, but we do not know where this man is from.”

30“That is remarkable indeed!” the man said. “You do not know where He is from, and yet He opened my eyes. 31We know that God does not listen to sinners, but He does listen to the one who worships Him and does His will. 32Never before has anyone heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. 33If this man were not from God, He could do no such thing.”

34They replied, “You were born in utter sin, and you are instructing us?” And they threw him out.

(Also for @metis...)

 

[YoursTrue]

Good for a chuckle but does nothing to define kind. Is my kind of flesh different than yours?
What is the difference between kinds. and so on?

Good for a chuckle perhaps. Now frankly I am not sure if you believe God exists. According to a Pew Research Center poll, around 51% of scientists believe in God or a higher power. So far from what I see here some get very upset when asked why they believe in God. I figure some persons maybe not here might also believe in miracles such as the appearance of Mary to some and also believe that she remained a virgin throughout her life.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it does not!!! The ToE is entirely neutral as to whether there was Divine creation of not, so why do you keep repeating your falsehood above??? Why???

Oh, now I wonder how one scientifically inclined would relegate Mary getting pregnant with Jesus without having intercourse, but soooo many believe that...plus more -- they also may believe she remained a virgin throughout her life. Can the beliefs be intermingled? ah well...

 

[John53]

According to evolution theory man was on the earth millions of years ago.

That tells me the man you are talking about is not a modern man. Modern man has only been on earth for about 10,000 years.

There is a kind of human flesh.
There is a kind of animal flesh.
There is a kind of fish flesh.
There is a kind of fowl flesh.

How does that grab you?

Enjoy,

Clear as mud and not in the least enjoyable.

 

[Audie]

Clear as mud and not in the least enjoyable.

mud might contain something interesting. And it can be useful.

 

[YoursTrue]

Clear as mud and not in the least enjoyable.

I disagree with your opinion. But thanks anyway for expressing yourself.

 

[John53]

I disagree with your opinion. But thanks anyway for expressing yourself.

Great

 

[YoursTrue]

Great

Yes, it helps.

 

[John53]

Yes, it helps.

Doesn't help define kind

 

[YoursTrue]

Doesn't help define kind

I was responding to your expression of 'great'. I thought icant's expression was fine. You thought it was clear as mud. We obviously have two different viewpoints about what constitutes a category of beings. I mean insofar as life goes, scientists are still out as to whether viruses are alive. Some say yes, some say no. But you know what? I don't think they're dead until they die. Now I have to look up if viruses can die. OK, have a good one. This sounds interesting though: Khan Academy.

 

[John53]

I was responding to your expression of 'great'. I thought icant's expression was fine. You thought it was clear as mud. We obviously have two different viewpoints about what constitutes a category of beings. I mean insofar as life goes, scientists are still out as to whether viruses are alive. Some say yes, some say no. But you know what? I don't think they're dead until they die. Now I have to look up if viruses can die. OK, have a good one. This sounds interesting though: Khan Academy.

I don't care how many categories there is. I just want a definition of the ones being used.

 

[Pogo]

According to evolution theory man was on the earth millions of years ago.

That tells me the man you are talking about is not a modern man. Modern man has only been on earth for about 10,000 years.

There is a kind of human flesh.
There is a kind of animal flesh.
There is a kind of fish flesh.
There is a kind of fowl flesh.

How does that grab you?

Enjoy,

Good for a chuckle but does nothing to define kind. Is my kind of flesh different than yours?
What is the difference between kinds. and so on?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was responding to your expression of 'great'. I thought icant's expression was fine. You thought it was clear as mud. We obviously have two different viewpoints about what constitutes a category of beings. I mean insofar as life goes, scientists are still out as to whether viruses are alive. Some say yes, some say no. But you know what? I don't think they're dead until they die. Now I have to look up if viruses can die. OK, have a good one. This sounds interesting though: Khan Academy.

The reason that scientists have a disagreement on what is and what is not "life" is because it appears that abiogenesis is true and life is an emergent process. If creationism was true there should be a clear line between "life" and "non-life". Just as if creationism was true then creationists should be able to come up with a working definition of "kind". To date they have not been able to do that. And once again the fact that there is no hard definition for "species" supports the idea that evolution is true because it tell us that species slowly change over time and there is no "first man" first lizard" "first fish" etc.. There is just a process where eventually everyone says "That is a man", "that is a lizard", "that is a fish".

 

[wellwisher]

,We humans have witnessed the process of evolution. You can find videos of experiments with bacteria on the net.

I'm surprised you haven't found them already.

Bacteria can change quickly, but do not evolve into a new species, that is not also a bacteria. The main problem with the bacteria mode of evolution, for higher forms of life, is bacteria make too many changes in terms of a family of siblings. Multicellular creatures would self destruct, if all their cells, down to each organ mutated, throughout their entire development, as fast as bacteria do. Picture every brain cell of the fetus, being slightly different at the genetic level, before they even add branches. The heart and liver would be a mishmash .

What had to happen for the advancement from single to multicellular, was the mutation rates had to be better controlled each cell cycle. Today we have proofreader enzymes to correct these defects. The proofreaders would not benefit bacteria, unless there was a cause and effect mechanism for their need to change.

With bacteria, since each is it own entity, they can mutate quickly, side-by-side, so at least some extended family member can survive or become optimized to any situation. From there a new colony can grow. But higher animals can't just partition all their organs into a dozens of mutant sub-organs parts until one aspect works better and then take over the organ, Evolution itself had to evolve; step up, with better quality control.

With multicellular differentiation, all the different cells use the exact same DNA; like a single mother bacteria. But there is much higher quality control over future of the DNA, with each differentiated cell, using just part of the same DNA. This is done by dialing in the configurational potential. The DNA of the daughter cells starts as condensed chromosomes. Based on how this is unpacked, will define which genes will be used, and therefore which cellular differentiation.

The DNA packing protein are oily or contain long organic side groups; histones (lysine and arginine). The zigzag lines are the oily.

Protein rich in these amino acids create surface tension in water. This surface tension can be lowered by being shielded by the DNA. The DNA will wrap around and help shield the water, from the histone's water and oil effect. As we unpack the DNA, this exposes these protein, again and will increase the surface tension of water, unless we can dispose of the packing proteins; send them to recycle. If we recycle these protein, the unpacked DNA is now at even lower potential, by losing that oily core. There is a difference in water potential between packed and unpacked DNA. As we unpack the DNA and dispose of the packing protein, more of the DNA configuration favors the water side and less the oil side.

One aspect of the DNA always stays packed, except when the DNA is duplicated; centromere. The centromere region is like the icy oily pole of the DNA's configurational gradient; frozen/packed solid. The most unpacked aspects of the DNA are the warmer pole. Based on the ratio, we can tune in any differentiated cell types. Often the last packing protein exposed are not recycled, but remain nearby, to repack the DNA, and adjust the configurational potential to its differentiated sweet spot.

In terms of maintaining the cellular differentiation control, in the human body, so all the organs stay steady, is the gradient created between the blood supply and nervous system found near most of the cells. The blood is the oil side and the nerves represent the water side. The brain also has a blood-brain barrier, which separates the brain, to some extend from the oily side.

 

[blü 2]

Bacteria can change quickly, but do not evolve into a new species, that is not also a bacteria. The main problem with the bacteria mode of evolution, for higher forms of life, is bacteria make too many changes in terms of a family of siblings. Multicellular creatures would self destruct, if all their cells, down to each organ mutated, throughout their entire development, as fast as bacteria do. Picture every brain cell of the fetus, being slightly different at the genetic level, before they even add branches. The heart and liver would be a mishmash .

What had to happen for the advancement from single to multicellular, was the mutation rates had to be better controlled each cell cycle. Today we have proofreader enzymes to correct these defects. The proofreaders would not benefit bacteria, unless there was a cause and effect mechanism for their need to change.

With bacteria, since each is it own entity, they can mutate quickly, side-by-side, so at least some extended family member can survive or become optimized to any situation. From there a new colony can grow. But higher animals can't just partition all their organs into a dozens of mutant sub-organs parts until one aspect works better and then take over the organ, Evolution itself had to evolve; step up, with better quality control.

With multicellular differentiation, all the different cells use the exact same DNA; like a single mother bacteria. But there is much higher quality control over future of the DNA, with each differentiated cell, using just part of the same DNA. This is done by dialing in the configurational potential. The DNA of the daughter cells starts as condensed chromosomes. Based on how this is unpacked, will define which genes will be used, and therefore which cellular differentiation.

The DNA packing protein are oily or contain long organic side groups; histones (lysine and arginine). The zigzag lines are the oily.

Protein rich in these amino acids create surface tension in water. This surface tension can be lowered by being shielded by the DNA. The DNA will wrap around and help shield the water, from the histone's water and oil effect. As we unpack the DNA, this exposes these protein, again and will increase the surface tension of water, unless we can dispose of the packing proteins; send them to recycle. If we recycle these protein, the unpacked DNA is now at even lower potential, by losing that oily core. There is a difference in water potential between packed and unpacked DNA. As we unpack the DNA and dispose of the packing protein, more of the DNA configuration favors the water side and less the oil side.

One aspect of the DNA always stays packed, except when the DNA is duplicated; centromere. The centromere region is like the icy oily pole of the DNA's configurational gradient; frozen/packed solid. The most unpacked aspects of the DNA are the warmer pole. Based on the ratio, we can tune in any differentiated cell types. Often the last packing protein exposed are not recycled, but remain nearby, to repack the DNA, and adjust the configurational potential to its differentiated sweet spot.

In terms of maintaining the cellular differentiation control, in the human body, so all the organs stay steady, is the gradient created between the blood supply and nervous system found near most of the cells. The blood is the oil side and the nerves represent the water side. The brain also has a blood-brain barrier, which separates the brain, to some extend from the oily side.

As I said earlier, you can do a lot with more than three billion years to play with.

Although life forms only really began to get complicated late in the pre-Cambrian, apparently helped by a couple of billion years which microorganisms spent oxygenating our atmosphere.

What credible alternative ─ in the sense of not being an argument from incredulity ─ do you propose instead?

 

[Valjean]

If you want me to follow your thinking in this, I suggest you leave out the word magic. Because since I believe God is the Creator, He can cause miracles to occur without causing harm, if that is His will.

Miracles are magic. They're effect without mechanism.
You keep asserting Goddidit!, but you never propose a mechanism, just an agent. Noöne ever does. Breathing life into something, or speaking something into existence isn't a mechanism. It doesn't answer "how?" These are magic.

You can call creationism "intelligent design". You can call magic a miracle, but you're just playing with words. Show me a process explicable by known chemistry or physics; otherwise the effect you claim must be assumed to be magic.

 

[YoursTrue]

Miracles are magic. They're effect without mechanism.
You keep asserting Goddidit!, but you never propose a mechanism, just an agent. Noöne ever does. Breathing life into something, or speaking something into existence isn't a mechanism. It doesn't answer "how?" These are magic.

You can call creationism "intelligent design". You can call magic a miracle, but you're just playing with words. Show me a process explicable by known chemistry or physics; otherwise the effect you claim must be assumed to be magic.

I don't know what you mean by magic. That I recognize there are mechanics that put objects like DNA in place. I am not convinced by evidence that there is no superior intelligent unseen power. Just the opposite.

 

[MelancholicPotatoChip]

Creation and Evolution are the same thing are they not? As the artist is creating his work is it not evolving and as it is evolving is it not also being created? However both are the result of Emanation ( Thought ) and Manifestation. Manifestation being the end result of both the creative and evolutionary process. Creation and Evolution are physical in nature but Emanation is Metaphysical and Manifestation is Spiritual. Only the Spiritual can permeate, pervade and perdure all things. The Holy Spirit is cohort to The Generative Word and moves and acts under the Power of said Generative Word. The body of Christ is The Generative Word and the Blood of Christ is the Holy Spirit. God is an uncaused cause that is both Essence (Love) and Existence (Life). Love is Metaphysical and Life is Spiritual and their physical aspects are what we experience although the "True" physical is both Metaphysical and Spiritual in nature.

They are not the same.