The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[Subduction Zone]

Define "twin."
Twins may be formed with identical genomes, but with every cellular generation the identity deteriorates. Genetic changes occur throughout one's lifetime. Environmental variations -- like space travel -- can increase mutation rates.

He supplied an article that demonstrated that it was an epigenetic change. One brother said it as a joke.

 

[Valjean]

I think what he is saying is that every fossil should show a missing link. There should be a gradual evolving fossil record to match Darwin's beliefs but this does not exist anywhere. Instead we see a series of abrupt changes in species.

We see change, sometimes abrupt, such as when sudden environmental change opens new niches, or makes the existing morphology untenable; but usually gradual. The change is clearly illustrated and dated in the fossil record.

This pretty much sinks the idea of gradual change caused by survival of the fittest.

But gradual is what we usually find in the fossil record.

But fear not believers because there are numerous newer and better scientific theories and hypotheses about the nature of life and species.

Links, please.

It's not necessary to set down your text books and sign up for Sunday School. But just don't believe anything you read in books any more.

Believe what the evidence indicates, as you always have -- hopefully.

 

[cladking]

Epigenetics is a temporary change that does not affect reproduction. It is a change cause by "turning off or on" genes.

I suppose if a gene didn't turn off or on properly the individual would be less "fit" and die. Mebbe over the course of a few generations needed genes would be reproduced and unneeded ones fall off like the eyes of fish that moved into caves.

 

[cladking]

The change is clearly illustrated and dated in the fossil record.

Great!!! I've been asking for exactly such evidence for decades now and nobody has ever provided it.

Got a link?

 

[cladking]

Links, please.

There's a lot of good stuff here;

Darwin's Illusion

Darwin's Illusion Darwin believed that life can be explained by natural selection based on his expectation that organic life was exceedingly simple. He lived in a time when people believed a brood of mice could suddenly appear in a basket of dirty clothes. In other words Darwin was under the...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[blü 2]

Well God has always existed as that is the very nature of God.

That makes no sense. God appears to be the concept of a human-like creature, but as I pointed out, humans have only been around for a tiny fraction of the universe's existence, and on only one of septilllions of planets. Everything said about God points to an origin on earth.

History is more specific. There is no sign of Yahweh until [his] appearance as a tribal god in the Canaanite pantheon around 1500 BCE. We know of many gods a thousand or more years earlier in history than Yahweh ─ the gods of Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus valley, and arguably the supernatural beliefs implied by burial rituals going back 100,000 years or more.

The bible even gives us a history of the Jewish god. He too starts out as one god among many (You shall have no other gods before me, NOT there ain't no other gods) and isn't declared to be the sole God until after the Babylonian captivity He doesn't separate into Jewish and Christian versions till the first century CE, he doesn't become triune until the fourth century CE, he doesn't become Eastern and Western until the 11th century, doesn't become Catholic and Protestant until the 16th century, doesn't become all the modern Protestant sects until after that, accelerating into the 20th century.

And God created mankind in his current form

No, as I pointed out, humans were around for at least a hundred thousand years before Yahweh finally appears, so it was the other way round.

with the exception that man will now die because of sin.

What sin is that? I've read the tale of the Garden of Eden carefully and more than once, and I've never found any mention at all of sin or of a Fall of man. If you say otherwise, please quote me the part that uses the word "sin" and the part that uses the word "fall" or its equivalent.

As to the multitude of planets, that just shows the glory of God.

No, it shows the staggering inefficiency, I'd say.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

That makes no sense. God appears to be the concept of a human-like creature, but as I pointed out, humans have only been around for a tiny fraction of the universe's existence, and on only one of septilllions of planets. Everything said about God points to an origin on earth.

History is more specific. There is no sign of Yahweh until [his] appearance as a tribal god in the Canaanity pantheon around 1500 BCE. We know of many gods a thousand or more years earlier in history than Yahweh ─ the gods of Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus valley, and arguably the supernatural beliefs implied by burial rituals going back 100,000 years or more.

The bible even gives us a history of the Jewish god. He too starts out as one god among many (You shall have no other gods before me, NOT there ain't no other gods) and isn't declared to be the sole God until after the Babylonian captivity He doesn't separate into Jewish and Christian versions till the first century CE, he doesn't become triune until the fourth century CE, he doesn't become Eastern and Western until the 11th century, doesn't become Catholic and Protestant until the 16th century, doesn't become all the modern Protestant sects until after that, accelerating into the 20th century.


No, as I pointed out, humans were around for at least a hundred thousand years before Yahweh finally appears, so it was the other way round.


What sin is that? I've read the tale of the Garden of Eden carefully and more than once, and I've never found any mention at all of sin or of a Fall of man. If you say otherwise, please quote me the part that uses the word "sin" and the part that uses the word "fall" or its equivalent.


No, it shows the staggering inefficiency, I'd say.

God made man, not the other way around.
It is mentioned in Romans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose if a gene didn't turn off or on properly the individual would be less "fit" and die. Mebbe over the course of a few generations needed genes would be reproduced and unneeded ones fall off like the eyes of fish that moved into caves.

The point is that epigenetic changes tend to be short lived. They do not change the genetics of an individual, only how the genes work in an individual. The changes in cave fish eyes is due to normal variation. There is always a chance of any mutation becoming part of the genome. With cave fish there is no longer any genetic pressure that preserves close to perfect sight. In fact if it consumes a lot of energy, though I do not think that eyes are particularly greedy that way, less energy going to the eyes would be a positive trait since they are just useless baggage for cave fish. At any rate the lack of pressure allows "bad" genes for the eyes to be adopted. They are no longer a negative trait. They are a neutral one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God made man, not the other way around.
It is mentioned in Romans.

Until you demonstrate that the Bible is reliable this is a claim that can be refuted with a:

So what?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Until you demonstrate that the Bible is reliable this is a claim that can be refuted with a:

So what?

I already did with 2 infallible proofs.

 

[Sargonski]

If you read that it tells you that it is an epigenetic change:

"Dr. Richard Wintle, assistant director of the Centre for Applied Genomics at SickKids hospital in Toronto, says it’s not so much Kelly’s DNA has changed, but rather how a person’s genetics are switched on and off during a period of time."

So he is still his twin. If he had children it would be almost impossible to tell which one was the father by genetics. Epigenetics is a temporary change that does not affect reproduction. It is a change cause by "turning off or on" genes.

Ah haaa - good catch .... Interesting .. I did not read more than the headline - so not a slam dunk as thought ... no mutants .. unfortunately . that kind of makes sense as well thinking about it more 7% would be a huge change .. but still cool that inherent traits are switched on/switched off by exposure to outer space

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already did with 2 infallible proofs.

Your memory is rather short. Those have been refuted. You need to do better than that.

You probably did not understand the refutations. If you want to go over either of your failed arguments step by step I can show you when and where you failed.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Big Bang is dead.

Ask Nietsche -- God is dead. Get over it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah haaa - good catch .... Interesting .. I did not read more than the headline - so not a slam dunk as thought ... no mutants .. unfortunately . that kind of makes sense as well thinking about it more 7% would be a huge change .. but still cool that inherent traits are switched on/switched off by exposure to outer space

I am not sure if it is even outer space. It could be the lack of gravity more than anything else. Pigs will change very quickly when they escape and are in the wild. I think the main difference for them is that they would have to actively forage for food where domestic pigs get their food delivered to them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ask Nietsche -- God is dead. Get over it.

"Nietzsche is dead.": God.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"Nietzsche is dead.": God.

I can show the evidence of Nietsche's quote, in The Gay Science. Can you find me evidence of God's supposed quote?

 

[Bthoth]

Ask Nietsche -- God is dead. Get over it.

I think the original context is greek.

According to the Greek historian Plutarch (in De defectu oraculorum, "The Obsolescence of Oracles"), Pan is the only Greek god who actually dies. During the reign of Tiberius (AD 14–37), the news of Pan's death came to one Thamus, a sailor on his way to Italy by way of the Greek island of Paxi.

 

[Sargonski]

I think what he is saying is that every fossil should show a missing link. There should be a gradual evolving fossil record to match Darwin's beliefs but this does not exist anywhere. Instead we see a series of abrupt changes in species.

This pretty much sinks the idea of gradual change caused by survival of the fittest.

But fear not believers because there are numerous newer and better scientific theories and hypotheses about the nature of life and species. It's not necessary to set down your text books and sign up for Sunday School. But just don't believe anything you read in books any more.

There is nothing stating the changes can not be abrupt .... adapting to some kind of environmental change .. and there has been no sinking of the survival of the fittest theory .. and we do see rather gradual evolution in many cases .. just because there are links and gaps does not sink evolution. .. its not like you find everything over a billion years .. stuff gets wiped out.

In particular we see a large degree of evolution in humans over a relatively short period of time Neanderthal to Homo Sapien. Survival of the fittest is reality in proper context .. taken out of context you have Eugenics

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is nothing stating the changes can not be abrupt .... adapting to some kind of environmental change .. and there has been no sinking of the survival of the fittest theory .. and we do see rather gradual evolution in many cases .. just because there are links and gaps does not sink evolution. .. its not like you find everything over a billion years .. stuff gets wiped out.

In particular we see a large degree of evolution in humans over a relatively short period of time Neanderthal to Homo Sapien. Survival of the fittest is reality in proper context .. taken out of context you have Eugenics

Neanderthals were a sister or brother species to us. We did not evolve from them.

Here is a cladogram of human evolution. Homo heidelbergensis was our "link" to Homo erectus:

 

[Sargonski]

I am not sure if it is even outer space. It could be the lack of gravity more than anything else. Pigs will change very quickly when they escape and are in the wild. I think the main difference for them is that they would have to actively forage for food where domestic pigs get their food delivered to them.

Probably is lack of gravity as you say .. certainly not the cosmic rays .. which are causing the real evolution ..