Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 73 16.8%
  • No

    Votes: 163 37.6%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 198 45.6%

  • Total voters
    434

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
After months of absence from OC.net, I had to chuckle to see this thread still alive and twitching. It sure is one determined dead horse!  :laugh:

 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Riddikulus said:
After months of absence from OC.net, I had to chuckle to see this thread still alive and twitching. It sure is one determined dead horse!  :laugh:
Not heroin worthy yet, but it has recently been developing an ativan habit . . .

 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
ativan said:
minasoliman said:
Dear Ativan,

Is there a list you can elucidate similar to what you have here that shows what you find wrong with creationism?
I want to make two points here: if your question pertains to a list that shows creationism as an ideology fighting against Darwinism, I guess, we could simply agree on this point without a list. Secondly, if you are asking me to give you a list showing creationism's "non-scientificness", its problems as a scientific theory, again I never said or will say that Creationism (simply meaning God creating the life) is a science. Anybody who wants to show us its scientific validity based on logic and particular type of interpretation of data, is wrong. It should be accepted as a matter of faith. Though there's always certain type of logic to accept this faith as there's certain type of logic to accept Darwinian faith.

And in the end creationism (here meaning that new life forms can be designed intelligently) does have some experimental support. The irony is this: On one hand we have never seen a new life form spring up from non-life or one life form evolved into another - we simply do not have any experiment/observation supporting this claim. On the other hand humans have gone so far as to manipulating genes and embryos and creating organisms with new properties as well as trying to experiment with new non-carbon based life forms, the creation of which will be direct evidence of possibility that life can be intelligently designed from scratch. Still though many believe in Darwinism and do not believe in ID. Where's logic in here? If a man can create or change life, can't Almighty do the same thing, if one believes in All-Powerful and Omniscient God? And if one believes in such God then why he/she needs anything else than the Idea God created everything and supports everything from instant to instant?

P.S. I'm going to critique one particular example of the non-sense which Darwinists put out as a proof of Darwin's theory. This false argument was actually linked by you. It's on the very first page of this thread. Here's this argument in support of Darwinism. Before I point to very crude fallacies made in this argument could you list please, if you don't mind, the points that made you like Ken Miller's talk and that made you accept this argument as one of the supporting evidence for Darwinism?
I only asked the question because I was curious to hear how you would disprove creationism and IDism, since you claimed earlier that they're not even "science."  You are pretty unique.  You are an anti-evolutionist and an anti-creationist.  So this is why I wanted to see what your arguments against creationism would be.  That's all.

As to Dr. Miller's video.  What did I like about it?  I like the fact that it's very consistent.  It showed that not only do we have the fusion of two chromosomes, but also two centromeric areas, with one being deactivated, and a large telomeric area in the middle, which really is quite the proof in my opinion.  I cannot ignore that.  One of two options had to have occurred.  One, that we evolved from an ape ancestor that's common to the chimpanzee, or two, that God himself took the ape genes, assembled two chromosomes together and did some tweaking and made man.  Either way, we share a common ancestry with the chimpanzee genetically.  But I already elucidated this argument earlier.  So why do you want me to repeat what I said?

But yes, its consistency is remarkable and that's why I like pretty much of any science.  That the laws of nature has a certain consistency in them gives us reason to believe in the creative consistency of the Logos.
 

chrevbel

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ativan said:
chrevbel  If I may I have several questions.
1) Do Satan and Antichrist exist?
Yes.
[quote author=ativan]2) If they do, then do they work here, on this very earth, and now to tempt humans?[/quote]
Yes.
[quote author=ativan]3) If they do, what would that work be in General? Or how Satan would work to lure men's souls?[/quote]
A number of ways, I believe (though I'm not qualified to give an exhaustive answer, by any means).  Through causing us to doubt his existence.  Through creating doubt about his presence in our daily lives.  By fomenting doubt concerning his guidance and direction.  One particular way he does this is through believers, themselves.  Sometimes, they create false dichotomies, with creationism being a perfect example.  Seeing how effectively this set of false doctrines is turning people from the church, I am ashamed to have once been a part of it.

Ashamed.
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
orthonorm said:
Riddikulus said:
After months of absence from OC.net, I had to chuckle to see this thread still alive and twitching. It sure is one determined dead horse!  :laugh:
Not heroin worthy yet, but it has recently been developing an ativan habit . . .
LOL this thread needs a little ativanization :D

minasoliman
I only asked the question because I was curious to hear how you would disprove creationism and IDism, since you claimed earlier that they're not even "science."  You are pretty unique.  You are an anti-evolutionist and an anti-creationist.  So this is why I wanted to see what your arguments against creationism would be.  That's all.
I'm not anti-creationist. The word "creationist" and "creationism" has different meanings and it is used with different meanings often times. I have indicated couple of its meanings in the brackets. If by "creationism" it is meant that God has created everything and is supporting everything, then I am creationists. If you narrow the meaning to only young earth creationism, then I'm not young earth creationist. For me whole creation is mystery as are many other things.

As to Dr. Miller's video.  What did I like about it?  I like the fact that it's very consistent.  It showed that not only do we have the fusion of two chromosomes, but also two centromeric areas, with one being deactivated, and a large telomeric area in the middle, which really is quite the proof in my opinion.  I cannot ignore that.  One of two options had to have occurred.  One, that we evolved from an ape ancestor that's common to the chimpanzee, or two, that God himself took the ape genes, assembled two chromosomes together and did some tweaking and made man.  Either way, we share a common ancestry with the chimpanzee genetically.  But I already elucidated this argument earlier.  So why do you want me to repeat what I said?

But yes, its consistency is remarkable and that's why I like pretty much of any science.  That the laws of nature has a certain consistency in them gives us reason to believe in the creative consistency of the Logos.
1) I like science too but I do not like bedtime stories sold as a science. No what Dr. Miller says is OK as a bedtime story but I'm not satisfied with that at all. I have valid suspicions against it and maybe you can clear some of those. So here are those: A) Chromosomal fusion can't be a random event. Fusion is going to require a lot of thing to happen at the same time in order to get right ends fused, to translate tertiary structure of a fused chromosome into a readable linear structure of a fused DNA; Show me as a minimum first that it is possible at all chromosomes can be fused and the ends of fused chromosomes are not going to affect structural genes, that are responsible for important functions; B) How is one of the centromere supposed to be deactivated? Is it possible at all? And remember, this deactivation should happen in one event along the chromosomal fusion, so that 2 centromeres do not interfere with normal DNA functioning or otherwise show me that cells can maintain normal functioning with two centromeres;

These are minimum things you will have to answer. Science is not a gapping logic where you say this happened and then that happened. That's OK to tell babies. I need more to know. Hopefully you have answers.

2) Let's look at this page. Here we see that American beaver has 40 chromosomes and Eurasian beaver has 48. Certainly these two species are much close two each other than chimpanzee and human. Following Millers logic their ancestors should have had 48 chromosomes which through the process of fusion (and not through loss of the chromosome(s), since loss of chromosome is detrimental) and centrosomal deactivation transformed 40 chromosomes. There should be thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, such examples. Have we shown that type of evidence in this (these) cases?

3) Now, most important thing which is characteristic of Darwinian gap logic. I say no, common ancestor in this case did not have 48 chromosome but 46. One of the chromosomes was much bigger, like ours, and it broke into 2 parts both of which acquired a little more telomeric regions and on of these parts acquired a centromere. How is this logic any different from Miller's logic? Why is this type of process not possible but the one described by Miller is possible? I can make many of this type of argument which has huge chasms in it like Miller's does.

I want answers on all of this questions. Do you think these questions do not deserve answers? Or do you think without at least having answers to this questions it is possible at all to call that argument scientific?

P.S. I like science too, when it is science. I'm sorry if you had to repeat your argument, but I have not read this thread entirely so far - it's quite lengthy.

chrevbel
chrevbel said:
ativan said:
chrevbel  If I may I have several questions.
1) Do Satan and Antichrist exist?
Yes.
[quote author=ativan]2) If they do, then do they work here, on this very earth, and now to tempt humans?
Yes.
[quote author=ativan]3) If they do, what would that work be in General? Or how Satan would work to lure men's souls?[/quote]
A number of ways, I believe (though I'm not qualified to give an exhaustive answer, by any means).  Through causing us to doubt his existence.  Through creating doubt about his presence in our daily lives.  By fomenting doubt concerning his guidance and direction.  One particular way he does this is through believers, themselves.  Sometimes, they create false dichotomies, with creationism being a perfect example.  Seeing how effectively this set of false doctrines is turning people from the church, I am ashamed to have once been a part of it.

Ashamed.[/quote]Then this Darwinism, whoever brought this teaching good one or evil one, does it cause us to doubt in God's existence? Does it help us to draw near Him? None of these? Both of these?

And if you are cynical again, know then, I do not judge anybody, including you, and I do not put myself above anybody. I'm as sinful as many others are. When I criticize idea I do not criticize people carrying this particular idea. I apologize though if it appears anywhere otherwise or if at times I do happen to judge others.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Chromosomal fusion can't be a random event. Fusion is going to require a lot of thing to happen at the same time in order to get right ends fused, to translate tertiary structure of a fused chromosome into a readable linear structure of a fused DNA; Show me as a minimum first that it is possible at all chromosomes can be fused and the ends of fused chromosomes are not going to affect structural genes, that are responsible for important functions
You're right.  They're not random as in not any chromosome can fuse with another.  It has to be at least one acrocentric chromosome to fuse with another chromosome for this to happen.  And once again, you're absolutely right.  Usually, fused chromosomes will mean the absence of some vital genes.  Luckily, because acrocentric genes are the most to be used in fusions, the p regions of these chromosomes have genes for nucleolar structure and synthesis, and the good news is that we have plenty of acrocentric chromosomes, which means plenty of copies of the same gene.  We also have studies that show that fusions of chromosomes happen many times, such as the famous Robertsonian translocation that predispose females to give birth to Down Syndrome babies, and the famous Philadelphia chromosomes that results in a new fusion gene BCR-ABL that occurs in many cancers, most commonly in CML.  Interestingly enough, as it turns out, the chromosomes that were fused into the present chromosome 2 we have today were both acrocentric chromosomes.  This confirms in a consistent manner the behavior of chromosomes in at least hominids.

How is one of the centromere supposed to be deactivated? Is it possible at all? And remember, this deactivation should happen in one event along the chromosomal fusion, so that 2 centromeres do not interfere with normal DNA functioning or otherwise show me that cells can maintain normal functioning with two centromeres;
To be honest, I don't know how a centromere can be deactivated.  But I know there are ways to deactivate genes.  Methylation may be one way.  Another way is significant mutation of the gene.  We also know that there are ways of deactivating randomly extra X chromosomes that is still yet to be fully understood, but it depends on the presence of another X chromosome it seems.  So if anything, could the centromeric deactivation occur because another exists?  That's a possibility to look at.  Then you have the mystery of mitosis.  How do centromeres simply just let go?  I confess, I haven't delved into that area, and perhaps there's more research to be done there.  But the fact is that somehow the "extra centromere" lost its function, and that's a fact proven by the fact that it has a centromeric sequence, but it doesn't function as a real centromere.  Centromeric inactivation also occurs as I mentioned in other known chromosomal fusions, so this is not the only time centromeric inactivation was studied and known.  Here's a paper I found online that might answer the question though, and it seems to be related various ways DNA sequence modification, as I had predicted earlier:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1015713/

As for the "bedtime story," I must say, what other explanation is there for two centromeric regions and three telomeric regions that make this chromosome so unique?  I don't know, but the evidence of a telomeric center, and two centromeric regions, along with a chromosome that has an almost identical sequence as two chimp chromosomes has to really say something.  This is the same technology we use to determine whether you're related to someone or not.  But we don't call your relatives' consistency with the genetics a bedtime story unless the technology loses massive sensitivity or specificity of determination, which has never been the case thus far.

2) Let's look at this page. Here we see that American beaver has 40 chromosomes and Eurasian beaver has 48. Certainly these two species are much close two each other than chimpanzee and human. Following Millers logic their ancestors should have had 48 chromosomes which through the process of fusion (and not through loss of the chromosome(s), since loss of chromosome is detrimental) and centrosomal deactivation transformed 40 chromosomes. There should be thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, such examples. Have we shown that type of evidence in this (these) cases?
I don't know much about beavers, but that's interesting nevertheless.  So I did a search online and I found this article that confirms your question:

http://teora.hit.no/dspace/bitstream/2282/351/1/Wildlifebiology.pdf

The two extant species of the genus Castor, the Eurasian beaver C. fiber and the North American beaver C. canadensis, are similar both morphologically and behaviourally (e.g. Wilsson 1971, Patenaude 1984, Novak 1987) and were once classified as one species (Hill 1982). The two-species status was finally established after Lavrov & Orlov (1973) found that the diploid chromosome number is 48 in C.  fiber and 40 in C. canadensis, following Robertsonian fusion of eight chromosome pairs in C. canadensis.
Very consistent indeed that the species within a genus that differ chromosomally may not even differ much in sequencing, but chromosomal arrangements.  So thanks to Lavrov and Orlov, whose paper is unfortunately written in Russian, it seems to have been proven (in 1973 no less).  I wonder though if this is a typo by the author or not, as I would assume the number is four pairs of fusion, not eight (that leads to eight chromosomal fusions nevertheless).

3) Now, most important thing which is characteristic of Darwinian gap logic. I say no, common ancestor in this case did not have 48 chromosome but 46. One of the chromosomes was much bigger, like ours, and it broke into 2 parts both of which acquired a little more telomeric regions and on of these parts acquired a centromere. How is this logic any different from Miller's logic? Why is this type of process not possible but the one described by Miller is possible? I can make many of this type of argument which has huge chasms in it like Miller's does.
Well, first off I'm a bit confused.  You say you're anti-evolution, but then you also say you believe our common ancestor had 46, with one chromosome that later split into two and acquired centromeric and telomeric regions.  Or maybe you're simply asking why is the ancestor 48 and not 46?

Well, I can say that it is highly unlikely that chromosomal splits occur.  Chromosomal fusions occur more commonly, and more commonly with acrocentric chromosomes.  Also, the development of a centromere after a split is very highly unlikely, as this would require that the chromosome mutate to an unfathomably high rate so as to achieve a certain stability for replication, not to mention the acquiring of telomeres is a process that needs time.  If a chromosome splits and then acquires telomeres, that means that the ends of the chromosome degenerated, and we would have missing genes.  In the case of chromosome 2, nothing really was missing in comparison to 2p and 2q in a chimp.  Therefore, the evidence shows that there is a very high probability that the ancestors had to have had 24 pairs, not 23, and so far, we find that evidence to be consistent with the predicted findings of ancient hominid DNA when we're lucky to even find them.

I want answers on all of this questions. Do you think these questions do not deserve answers? Or do you think without at least having answers to this questions it is possible at all to call that argument scientific?
I think you asked some great questions, and that is what science does.  After they find something out, they continue to ask more questions, and develop more research to answer these questions.  The more questions asked that are answered, the more new questions that will be generated that will lead to more research, which makes science a very fascinating field to be engaged in.

God bless and I hope I sufficiently answered your questions without confusing you.
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
You're right.  They're not random as in not any chromosome can fuse with another.  It has to be at least one acrocentric chromosome to fuse with another chromosome for this to happen.  And once again, you're absolutely right.  Usually, fused chromosomes will mean the absence of some vital genes.  Luckily, because acrocentric genes are the most to be used in fusions, the p regions of these chromosomes have genes for nucleolar structure and synthesis, and the good news is that we have plenty of acrocentric chromosomes, which means plenty of copies of the same gene.  We also have studies that show that fusions of chromosomes happen many times, such as the famous Robertsonian translocation that predispose females to give birth to Down Syndrome babies, and the famous Philadelphia chromosomes that results in a new fusion gene BCR-ABL that occurs in many cancers, most commonly in CML.  Interestingly enough, as it turns out, the chromosomes that were fused into the present chromosome 2 we have today were both acrocentric chromosomes.  This confirms in a consistent manner the behavior of chromosomes in at least hominids.
Let's do not call the argument in question as supporting evidence for Darwinian theory. That is not fair. So far that argument is only hypothesis and it is far from being a supporting one. We need more explanations beforehand. I'm sure you know the difference between Robertsonian translocation and and chromosomal fusion. Fusion would require more steps and I do not know if it is observed in the nature. I will give you the point and say let's assume it is possible. This fused chromosome in the end is going to behave as a Robertsonian translocation (RT). So further discussion can be limited to RT. Here's very nice discussion and diagram as to what happens when this RTs affect gametes. What is lacking in this discussion and what we need is the case when 2 gametes with 22 haploid complex, each one containing t(14, 22), meet. In these case we would get a fertilized egg with 22 pairs of chromosomes, one pair being homologous t(14, 22)s. Thus we will have reduction in diploidy of the human karyotype. Something exactly like this should have happened to those supposed common ancestors (CA). Let's say that something like this happened to CAs and new karyotype with 23 pairs of chromosome formed. So far we have these facts: 1) t(14, 21) is compatible with life unless along this chromosome we have 1 pair of 14 or 21 which will give you trisomy. 2) We have no subpopulation of humans with 22 pairs of chromosome in spite of #1 being a fact.

So, why would you expect in CAs that such RT (or fusion) will give rise to a population of individuals with 23 pairs  of chromosomes?


Well, first off I'm a bit confused.  You say you're anti-evolution, but then you also say you believe our common ancestor had 46, with one chromosome that later split into two and acquired centromeric and telomeric regions.  Or maybe you're simply asking why is the ancestor 48 and not 46?
I'm not assuming at all that evolution is true. I brought this argument to show the original argument is fallacious. It makes fallacy of Affirming the consequent. The fact that consequent is true does not mean that antecedent (in this case the premise of two chromosomes fused) is true. So I brought counter example. Once argument is wrong, new arguments need to be advanced.

Well, I can say that it is highly unlikely that chromosomal splits occur.
Why not unlikely? Doesn't chromosome brake up before part of it is translocated to another chromosome? How do we know that such parts cannot acquire independent "existence"?

Also, the development of a centromere after a split is very highly unlikely, as this would require that the chromosome mutate to an unfathomably high rate so as to achieve a certain stability for replication
Why? Would it not need exactly as many mutation as it would take for an active centromere to become deactivated. These mutations have to be just in opposite directions (say, if in one case it took 3 insertions and 2 deletions to deactivate chromosome in the other case it would take 3 deletions and 2 insertions to activate it - in this case though I assume that that second sequence bearing close resemblance to centromere is a chance thing and not deactivated centromere)? Thus if deactivation did not take that high rate why should "activation" need it? Besides, one could certainly come up with the mechanisms of acquiring telomeric sequences using know processes or further hypothesize some unknown process. Thats' what Darwinists do - Darwinism is all hypothesis anyways.



I want to mention several more things with regards to the argument that claims human chromosome 2 is the result of fusion of ancestral acrocentric chromosomes. What that argument claims in the terms of formal logic is this: "structure of chromosome 2 is possible if and only if it is formed by fusion of 2 acrocentric chromosomes. In order to claim this at least partially you will have to show me several things: 1) there's no place in DNA (not just in humans but in the whole living world) where we have sequences that are close to centromeric sequences and is not derived from centromere. You basically say that all such sequences must be derived from centromeric deactivation. So, if I find in human genome (or in any genome) sequences that by composition are close to centromeric sequences but clearly are in the locations that would not be possible to explain but centromeric deactivation, then whole argument is wrong; 2) Same can be said about telomeric sequences located in between the actual centromere and supposedly deactivated centromere; 3) If we find a functional gene (or genes) between active and and supposedly deactivated centromeres which are not present on short arms of ape's acrocentric chromosomes (those that got fused) then we have a great problem that invalidates given hypothesis. Are all this premises met?



And finally one last but not least point:
As for the "bedtime story," I must say, what other explanation is there for two centromeric regions and three telomeric regions that make this chromosome so unique?  I don't know, but the evidence of a telomeric center, and two centromeric regions, along with a chromosome that has an almost identical sequence as two chimp chromosomes has to really say something.
First, I've just mentioned what criteria should be met so that your argument is not compromised. Second, suppose I showed you 3 devices/equipments: A, B and C. C looks as if it's combination of A and B with some modification. Would you say that C was formed by a random fusion of A and B which afterwords underwent further random modifications? Or could you say that device C was not devised by an intelligent being from scratch not just fusing 2 parts of A and B? Answers to this questions makes it clear that even if we assume C looks like fused A and B, it does not mean that C was not designed as A and B connected to each other or was not designed from scratch without A and B connected to each other directly.

Glory to God and God bless us all
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I want to put here one quote from Blessed Paisius the Athonite. I'm reading a book about his teachings in Georgian. The book is in the Q and A format ad its title can be translated as "About humans with love and pain". In chapter 4 there are topics related to the Church and its teaching nowadays. This chapter is called "The Church in our epoch". I will be quoting this Holy man [emphasis' are mine]:
What nonsense they teach today in schools! Darwin's theory and nonsense like it... They themselves who teach this stupidity do not believe in this theory. But all this is imposed on poor children to plant this sickness in them and break them off the Church. One such scholar started to tell me this baby stories: "Let's assume that the earth contains different ingredients and microorganisms, using of which God created a human-like creature"... "So, if all this did not exist God could have not been able to create man? Can you imagine that?!" - I said. Then that scholar continues: "But what if we assumed God took an ape and perfected it through evolution?" I said again: "OK, could not God create human without first creating an ape? After all it took him whole one day to create man! Or you first he had to collect some material first? Read the prophecy of Job which as you said you listen in the Church on Great Thursdays' matins." These stories about the apes are refuted even by scientists today. How many years have passed since the man landed on the moon? Apes, on the other hand, for the duration of this supposed evolution can't even skate,  not to mention that apes have not invented bicycle and have not ridden it. Have you ever seen apes skating? It's quite different thing that apes can be taught to ride bicycle." "Yes - continued anxiously the scholar, but if we assume there's a chance..." "Don't assume anything anymore. Better if you keep quiet. You'll gain more by keeping quiet" - I stopped him.

So was formulated theory of evolution by that professor of an university. One day I told him: "If you take good care of planted beans it will get better over time. Same is true for eggplants. By feeding and training apes they will become better apes nevertheless they remain still apes." And if you think a little more you will see that our Lord Jesus Christ was born from a human, Al pure  Theotokos. So then what are we saying? Christ's ancestors were apes? What a blasphemy! But the follower of this theory don't see that they commit blasphemy.
Then these divinely wise elder continues:
They throw stones and don't even care at whom these stones hit and brake heads. Moreover they brag: "I threw stones better!" Today everybody is occupied exactly with this. That one who threw furthest is glorified more but nobody thinks about those who's heads are broken.
Who comes in the mind here? Dawkins? Hitchens? Non-scepticaly and religious  sceptic Shermer and the likes? Aren't these the idols who are glorified and who had broken many many heads?


after this elder is asked: "Holy father, some think that by the aid of such theories it is planned to draw marxists closer to the Church."

And the Holy Father answers:
Initially marxist really can draw closer to the Church but later they will penetrate the Church and they will start to dictate when to go to the Church and when not to. They will attempt to controll everything and finally they will say: "Who told you God exists? Priesthood lie to everybody". This is exactly how marxists find use of supporters and followers of evolutionary theory and this is how the want to reach their goal. They don't understand this.
Can't be said any better. I can understand atheists, even Protestants and Catholics but an Orthodox believer believing Darwinism? That I can't get. I can't get how an Orthodox (who should be seeing God everywhere and in everything and praising him day and night) beliver can accept a theory where The Lord eternal Life-giver is out of the picture about the origin and development of the Life.
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
I always liked this quote by the Most Reverend Metropolitan Kallistos Ware:

“There need not be any conflict with religion and science…I don’t care very much for the theory of Intelligent Design…for myself as an Orthodox Christian I have no difficulty in accepting the evolutionary picture of the universe presented by modern science.  And I think we shouldn’t say evolution is merely a theory or speculation, the evidence is very powerful.  I don’t have a problem there for my faith as an Orthodox Christian…but we do wish to affirm that human beings have a unique status in the universe because they are made in the image and likeness of God.”
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
the problem with Met. Kallistos' statement, and that of so many others, is that no one is positing a divide between science and Orthodoxy. a dichotomy between evolution and Orthodoxy yes, but not all science and Orthodoxy. thats a common straw man that is set up to make Creationism look foolish, but its not true. moreover, i wonder if Met. Kallistos has ever taken the time to explain how he sees evolution and Orthodoxy working together. its nice to assert that they do, but i'd like to see evidence that he has thought through the implications of injecting evolution into traditional Orthodox cosmology, anthropology, soteriology, etc. for instance, he says we must still see man as having a unique place in creation - has he demonstrated how that is possible while remaining faithful to the materialistic explanations of evolution?

furthermore, if we could say that Creationists are making a divide between science and religion, then i think we could say just the same about theistic evolutionists. Creationists supposedly ignore the science, and theistic evolutionists ignore the Patristics. we both recognize that there is an obvious difference between the Patristic commentaries on Genesis and the theory of evolution (not all science, just evolution) - Orthodox Creationists choose to side with the Fathers, and theistic evolutionists choose to side with the evolutionists. neither side is actually harmonizing evolution and Patristics because its not possible.
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
jckstraw72 said:
the problem with Met. Kallistos' statement, and that of so many others, is that no one is positing a divide between science and Orthodoxy. a dichotomy between evolution and Orthodoxy yes, but not all science and Orthodoxy. thats a common straw man that is set up to make Creationism look foolish, but its not true. moreover, i wonder if Met. Kallistos has ever taken the time to explain how he sees evolution and Orthodoxy working together. its nice to assert that they do, but i'd like to see evidence that he has thought through the implications of injecting evolution into traditional Orthodox cosmology, anthropology, soteriology, etc. for instance, he says we must still see man as having a unique place in creation - has he demonstrated how that is possible while remaining faithful to the materialistic explanations of evolution?

furthermore, if we could say that Creationists are making a divide between science and religion, then i think we could say just the same about theistic evolutionists. Creationists supposedly ignore the science, and theistic evolutionists ignore the Patristics. we both recognize that there is an obvious difference between the Patristic commentaries on Genesis and the theory of evolution (not all science, just evolution) - Orthodox Creationists choose to side with the Fathers, and theistic evolutionists choose to side with the evolutionists. neither side is actually harmonizing evolution and Patristics because its not possible.
I couldn't tell you how Met. Kallistos reconciles them, but I can tell you how I do so. I've posted this in this thread before, but I think it's a great summation. This is from John Polkinghorne's Quarks, Chaos & Christianity:

I would like to suggest, respectfully, that when God came to create the world, the Creator faced a dilemma.  God is faithful, and the natural gift of the faithful God will be reliability in the operation of creation.  However, reliability by itself could harden into mere rigidity, leading to a clockwork world in which nothing really new ever happened.  God is also loving, and the natural gift of the loving God will be an independence granted to creation.  Independence on its own, however, could degenerate into mere license, leading to a world of disorderly chaos.

I believe that the God who is both loving and faithful has given to creation the twin gifts of independence and reliability.  These find their reflection in the fruitful interplay of chance and necessity in evolving cosmic history.  Such an account gives a much more positive understanding of the role of chance.  Monod and Dawkins like to apply to chance the adjective “blind,” suggestive of purposelessness and meaninglessness, but we do not need to be beguiled by their tendentious choice of words.  The shuffling operations of happenstance are a way of exploring and bringing to light the deep anthropic fruitfulness with which the physical world has been endowed.  Chance is “the search radar of God, sweeping through all possible targets of its probing.”

We must find a balance to the unacceptable views of God as divine puppeteer, pulling every string and making creatures dance to the divine tune alone and God as divine spectator who just set it all going and left the universe to get on with it.  An evolutionary world is to be understood theologically as a world allowed by the Creator to make itself to a large degree.  Yet this self-making takes place in a setting of finely tuned potentiality.  Creation is not the starting off of something that is produced ready-made; rather, it is a continuous process.

Because continuous creation allows room for creaturly freedom within this process, the consequences will be lots of things that have come about “by chance” in the course of history.  I do not believe that it was laid down from the foundation of the world that humankind should have five fingers - it just worked out that way - but I by no means believe it is pure accident that beings capable of self-conciousness and of worship have emerged in the course of cosmic history.  In other words, there is a general overall purpose being fulfilled in what is going on, but the details of what actually occurs are left to the contingencies of history (this happening rather than that).  The picture is of a world endowed with fruitfulness, guided by its Creator, but allowed an ability to realize this fruitfulness in its own particular ways.  Chance is a sign of freedom, not blind purposelessness.
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
74
Location
South Carolina
jckstraw72 said:
the problem with Met. Kallistos' statement, and that of so many others, is that no one is positing a divide between science and Orthodoxy. a dichotomy between evolution and Orthodoxy yes, but not all science and Orthodoxy. thats a common straw man that is set up to make Creationism look foolish, but its not true. moreover, i wonder if Met. Kallistos has ever taken the time to explain how he sees evolution and Orthodoxy working together. its nice to assert that they do, but i'd like to see evidence that he has thought through the implications of injecting evolution into traditional Orthodox cosmology, anthropology, soteriology, etc. for instance, he says we must still see man as having a unique place in creation - has he demonstrated how that is possible while remaining faithful to the materialistic explanations of evolution?

furthermore, if we could say that Creationists are making a divide between science and religion, then i think we could say just the same about theistic evolutionists. Creationists supposedly ignore the science, and theistic evolutionists ignore the Patristics. we both recognize that there is an obvious difference between the Patristic commentaries on Genesis and the theory of evolution (not all science, just evolution) - Orthodox Creationists choose to side with the Fathers, and theistic evolutionists choose to side with the evolutionists. neither side is actually harmonizing evolution and Patristics because its not possible.
Don't you think that the Fathers lived in a different context than we? Is it possible that had they lived today, their writings may have been more like Metropolitan Kallistos'?
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Second Chance said:
jckstraw72 said:
the problem with Met. Kallistos' statement, and that of so many others, is that no one is positing a divide between science and Orthodoxy. a dichotomy between evolution and Orthodoxy yes, but not all science and Orthodoxy. thats a common straw man that is set up to make Creationism look foolish, but its not true. moreover, i wonder if Met. Kallistos has ever taken the time to explain how he sees evolution and Orthodoxy working together. its nice to assert that they do, but i'd like to see evidence that he has thought through the implications of injecting evolution into traditional Orthodox cosmology, anthropology, soteriology, etc. for instance, he says we must still see man as having a unique place in creation - has he demonstrated how that is possible while remaining faithful to the materialistic explanations of evolution?

furthermore, if we could say that Creationists are making a divide between science and religion, then i think we could say just the same about theistic evolutionists. Creationists supposedly ignore the science, and theistic evolutionists ignore the Patristics. we both recognize that there is an obvious difference between the Patristic commentaries on Genesis and the theory of evolution (not all science, just evolution) - Orthodox Creationists choose to side with the Fathers, and theistic evolutionists choose to side with the evolutionists. neither side is actually harmonizing evolution and Patristics because its not possible.
Don't you think that the Fathers lived in a different context than we? Is it possible that had they lived today, their writings may have been more like Metropolitan Kallistos'?
couldnt we ask that about everything they taught then?

Protestants could say the Fathers only believed in those weird sacrament things because they were too influenced by the pagan mystery cults. if they were writing today they'd of course realize how silly it is to say you're eating flesh and blood.
 

welkodox

Archon
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
0
Points
0
That sounds more like genetic mutation, but perhaps you have found the foil for evolutionary biology.  Reindeer do not have red noses.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Forgive me for taking long to reply to you.  I usually reply fast to other subjects, but for posts like these, I needed to allocated a good enough time to read carefully what your write, and give you a well-thought out response.

ativan said:
Let's do not call the argument in question as supporting evidence for Darwinian theory. That is not fair. So far that argument is only hypothesis and it is far from being a supporting one.
How do you explain that the chromosomes are identical?  Give me a hypothesis that can disprove evolution and what experiment you are willing to do.

In your last post, you asked why not chromosomal fission and not chromosomal fusion.  Let us suppose that chromosomal fission was the way it happened.  Well, then it has to be consistent with the fact that our common ancestor should have 23 chromosomes.  If however, our common ancestor has 24, then the fusion is correct.

We need more explanations beforehand. I'm sure you know the difference between Robertsonian translocation and and chromosomal fusion. Fusion would require more steps and I do not know if it is observed in the nature. I will give you the point and say let's assume it is possible. This fused chromosome in the end is going to behave as a Robertsonian translocation (RT). So further discussion can be limited to RT. Here's very nice discussion and diagram as to what happens when this RTs affect gametes. What is lacking in this discussion and what we need is the case when 2 gametes with 22 haploid complex, each one containing t(14, 22), meet. In these case we would get a fertilized egg with 22 pairs of chromosomes, one pair being homologous t(14, 22)s. Thus we will have reduction in diploidy of the human karyotype. Something exactly like this should have happened to those supposed common ancestors (CA). Let's say that something like this happened to CAs and new karyotype with 23 pairs of chromosome formed. So far we have these facts: 1) t(14, 21) is compatible with life unless along this chromosome we have 1 pair of 14 or 21 which will give you trisomy. 2) We have no subpopulation of humans with 22 pairs of chromosome in spite of #1 being a fact.

So, why would you expect in CAs that such RT (or fusion) will give rise to a population of individuals with 23 pairs  of chromosomes?
That is a very good question, one of which I don't have the answer to.

First the difference between "translocation" and "fusion" is subtle, but scientists use them interchangeable sometimes.  A translocation describes the movement of a chromosome, while a fusion describes a unity with another chromosome.  In other words, in order for a fusion to occur, a translocation has to occur first.  It's just word play.  Robertsonian translocation or Robertsonian fusion makes very little difference in a practical setting.

Now, as to your central question, why we don't see humans with 22 pairs of chromosomes.  I can offer you some hypotheses as to why.  For one thing, it might be not viable yet.  For instance, 99% of Turner babies are stillborn.  Why?  We don't know, but the 1% that make it seem to make it well (with some bodily dysfunction).  Perhaps understanding the phenomenon of Turner babies can help understand why we can't (easily) find humans with 22 pairs of chromosomes.  Second, Robertsonian trisomy patients are very rare.  So you can imagine if they're rare, how rare normal phenotypical Robertsonian patients are.  Third, the questions you propose do not disprove common descent, only to help us understand the idea better.  The questions you need to ask yourself is if there's no common descent, how were our genes practically identical with 0.5 to 1.0% difference that makes us human?  Your questions can lead to a breakthrough in science, who knows?  But you're making an assumption that completely contradicts the facts.

Let's look at an example.  You are a detective at a murder scene.  You find a body where the person suffered stab wounds.  Your first hypothesis is that this person died because he was stabbed.  Now you investigate further, and you find the knife with blood stains about a couple of miles away, and you find that the blood matches the blood of that person.  Furthermore, autopsy shows no evidence of other forms of death, whether physical or chemical, except the knife wounds.  So now you ruled out other problems, so you think what?

Well the obvious conclusion would be the person was stabbed to death.  Or we can go with the creationist response and say that the murderer was very crafty and used his hands to create stab wounds similar to size and shape with the knife and took the blood and craftily placed the stain on the knife.

Now, a new question arises.  How did the murderer get in.  Let's assume that the they found the door locked.  Well, a reasonable person can explain, perhaps the murderer locked the door or entered and exited the premises through a window.  So now questions have increased and we investigate to find the answer.  However, we don't say, "Oh the door is locked, therefore, the murder could have never happened."  A murder clearly happened, we just need to investigate with what we have.

Likewise we have a chromosomes that matches almost exactly two chimp chromosomes.  The questions you ask does not disprove evolution, it only helps us understand it more.  This is no more an "assumption" than seeing a man with stab wounds and finding the weapon with the matched blood and concluding the murder.  Evolution is not an "assumption," it is based on evidence, and thus it's a substantial theory.

Why not unlikely? Doesn't chromosome brake up before part of it is translocated to another chromosome? How do we know that such parts cannot acquire independent "existence"?
This happens much more rarely than Robertsonian translocations.  So given the evidence we find in how chromosomes behave in cancers, Robertsonian patients, and many other mammalian research I find on pubmed, the evidence very strongly suggest two chromosomes united, not divided.


1) there's no place in DNA (not just in humans but in the whole living world) where we have sequences that are close to centromeric sequences and is not derived from centromere. You basically say that all such sequences must be derived from centromeric deactivation. So, if I find in human genome (or in any genome) sequences that by composition are close to centromeric sequences but clearly are in the locations that would not be possible to explain but centromeric deactivation, then whole argument is wrong; 2) Same can be said about telomeric sequences located in between the actual centromere and supposedly deactivated centromere;
Centromeric deactivation happens all the time as research has shown.  The mechanism is swift.  So there is a controlled process that occurs, not a random one.  The mechanism of the deactivation still requires research, but we know it occurs.  So the whole argument is not wrong.

Telomeres in the middle is also a very odd thing to find, but it's found.  The fact that it's found in the middle suggests that this chromosome is more likely to be fused from two chromosomes than randomly mutated.  Things happen in orderly fashion.  Therefore, we do not make outlandish assumptions, but we look for evidence and derived at the conclusion.  All (YES ALL, 100% sensitivity) chromosomes that we have observed in laboratory conditions with cancer patients and with Robertsonian patients show telomeric sequences to be in the middle, but there has been no occurrence of a telomerase that makes bases in the middle, and possibility that telomeric sequences occur in the middle randomly by mutation are extremely low.  By statistical evidence, the theory of a fusion of two chromosomes stands strong and consistently.

3) If we find a functional gene (or genes) between active and and supposedly deactivated centromeres which are not present on short arms of ape's acrocentric chromosomes (those that got fused) then we have a great problem that invalidates given hypothesis. Are all this premises met?
Your premises again are not premises that disprove evolution entirely.  They're only premises that disprove the idea that fusion occurred.  And even that, your premises have false backing.  There are indications where NEW fusion genes do occur (BCR-ABL) and indications when fusion deactivates genes (most cases).  So it can go either way.  If there's a functional gene that did occur because of the fusion, that doesn't disprove the fusion theory at all.  It just adds another interesting story to the whole case.  It's like saying, "oh and the murderer was wearing a hat."  It doesn't make a difference whether the murderer was wearing a hat or not; the murderer still murdered.

I just wanted to remind you that there was one question I asked that I am curious to hear your response.  How do you explain the similarities between our one chromosome and the two other ape chromosomes?  How do you explain the two centromeric regions and the middle telomeric region?  What would your hypothesis be?  This is an honest inquiry that I'd like to know.  All you did was ask questions, and I've tried my best to answer them.  Perhaps, I will not convince you, but I hope you might answer these questions of mine as I have tried answering your's.

God bless.
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Disclaimer: please do not think I'm attacking you personally or intentions to do so in any ways. If It seems in this ling post I aimed at you I apologize.

minasoliman said:
Forgive me for taking long to reply to you.  I usually reply fast to other subjects, but for posts like these, I needed to allocated a good enough time to read carefully what your write, and give you a well-thought out response.
ativan said:
Let's do not call the argument in question as supporting evidence for Darwinian theory. That is not fair. So far that argument is only hypothesis and it is far from being a supporting one.
How do you explain that the chromosomes are identical?  Give me a hypothesis that can disprove evolution and what experiment you are willing to do.
You mean homologous (or nearly identical) not identical right?

Let me point to a general thing you have complained against me. I never said that refuting a given argument refutes Darwinism. I know basic logic and I would not do that. When you bring an arguments that you try to show how it supports Darwinism and argument has problems, I do not says thus refuting you supportive argument Darwinism is refuted. But at the same time you also know that once your supporting argument is refuted you have to find new arguments supporting Darwinism and/or reconstruct refuted argument. Let's make this clear that any time there's a problem with supporting argument all I say is you can't use this argument any more as Darwinism's support.

As to your question explanation is simple: God have done that the way it is. And no human ever will know how life originated, what life is. This is a mistery. Question like these will never be accessible to human intelligence and rational thinking. Knowledge about these can only be revealed. But as a hypothesis "God has created chromosome 22 from the start the way it is" is as good a hypothesis (if not better) as some type of random fusion and then some unintelligible way of inheritance of it. BTW could you answer questions in previous posts, namely:
suppose I showed you 3 devices/equipments: A, B and C. C looks as if it's combination of A and B with some modification. Would you say that C was formed by a random fusion of A and B which afterwords underwent further random modifications? Or could you say that device C was not devised by an intelligent being from scratch not just fusing 2 parts of A and B? Answers to this questions makes it clear that even if we assume C looks like fused A and B, it does not mean that C was not designed as A and B connected to each other or was not designed from scratch without A and B connected to each other directly.
Answers to these question make it clear that chromosome 22 being almost identical to 2 chimp chromosomes does not mean at all they originated by random fusion.

Besides you are asking unfair thing to experimentally disprove Darwinism. It should be the other way round: one has to prove Darwinism to be possible in experiments/observations. In reality, even in experiments you can only provide certain environment and let the genetic material evolve by itself, which has not been done. There has been trials to increase mutation rates by certain mutagenic environment (such as X-rays) but nothing has ever come out of this. For sure, there has never been any observ ation of new species formation in spite of very intensive selective "experiments" by humans. And here come Darwinism's worst response to this argument: thousand of years are not enough. They effectively make this theory unprovable by this new ad hoc hypothesis. Later I'll give logical arguments that proves Darwinism's absurdity.

In your last post, you asked why not chromosomal fission and not chromosomal fusion.  Let us suppose that chromosomal fission was the way it happened.  Well, then it has to be consistent with the fact that our common ancestor should have 23 chromosomes.  If however, our common ancestor has 24, then the fusion is correct.
On the other hand, if however our common ancestor had 23 chromosomes then chromosomal fusion is wrong. So, did we find this purported common ancestor and did we determine it had 24 chromosomes? If not how is this argument an argument supporting Darwinism?

That is a very good question, one of which I don't have the answer to.

First the difference between "translocation" and "fusion" is subtle, but scientists use them interchangeable sometimes.  A translocation describes the movement of a chromosome, while a fusion describes a unity with another chromosome.  In other words, in order for a fusion to occur, a translocation has to occur first.  It's just word play.  Robertsonian translocation or Robertsonian fusion makes very little difference in a practical setting.

Now, as to your central question, why we don't see humans with 22 pairs of chromosomes.  I can offer you some hypotheses as to why.  For one thing, it might be not viable yet.  For instance, 99% of Turner babies are stillborn.  Why?  We don't know, but the 1% that make it seem to make it well (with some bodily dysfunction).  Perhaps understanding the phenomenon of Turner babies can help understand why we can't (easily) find humans with 22 pairs of chromosomes.  Second, Robertsonian trisomy patients are very rare.  So you can imagine if they're rare, how rare normal phenotypical Robertsonian patients are.  Third, the questions you propose do not disprove common descent, only to help us understand the idea better.  The questions you need to ask yourself is if there's no common descent, how were our genes practically identical with 0.5 to 1.0% difference that makes us human?  Your questions can lead to a breakthrough in science, who knows?  But you're making an assumption that completely contradicts the facts.

Let's look at an example.  You are a detective at a murder scene.  You find a body where the person suffered stab wounds.  Your first hypothesis is that this person died because he was stabbed.  Now you investigate further, and you find the knife with blood stains about a couple of miles away, and you find that the blood matches the blood of that person.  Furthermore, autopsy shows no evidence of other forms of death, whether physical or chemical, except the knife wounds.  So now you ruled out other problems, so you think what?

Well the obvious conclusion would be the person was stabbed to death.  Or we can go with the creationist response and say that the murderer was very crafty and used his hands to create stab wounds similar to size and shape with the knife and took the blood and craftily placed the stain on the knife.

Now, a new question arises.  How did the murderer get in.  Let's assume that the they found the door locked.  Well, a reasonable person can explain, perhaps the murderer locked the door or entered and exited the premises through a window.  So now questions have increased and we investigate to find the answer.  However, we don't say, "Oh the door is locked, therefore, the murder could have never happened."  A murder clearly happened, we just need to investigate with what we have.

Likewise we have a chromosomes that matches almost exactly two chimp chromosomes.  The questions you ask does not disprove evolution, it only helps us understand it more.  This is no more an "assumption" than seeing a man with stab wounds and finding the weapon with the matched blood and concluding the murder.  Evolution is not an "assumption," it is based on evidence, and thus it's a substantial theory.
Well, your analogy is fallacious. These two examples are so different from each other and these differences are so important that you do not accomplish anything with this analogy. In the murder case, we certainly know by direct observation that people can be killed by homicide or suicide. Homicide or suicide is not some hypothetical event that we have not observed. On the other hand we have never observed species origin either through evolution or through creation (though we know certainly that new species can be "designed" through intelligent genetic manipulation). If we knew by observation or experiment that new species can be produced by random mutations and selection and I said that still doesn't prove how it originated in the past (though technically true) in this case your example would qualify as a valid analogy. Here it serves no purpose.

Second, you have actually provided some rational though hypothetical explanation why the random chromosomal fusion can't be the cause of appearance of chromosome 22. If your hypothetical causes does not allow the appearance of group of humans with 22 pairs of chromosome why would same things allow formation of 23 pairs of chromosome out of 24? Or what could have been different in the past that would allow this to happen? Give me any rational explanation and hard facts that backup your claims and explanations that would explain non-observance of the reduction in chromosomal diploidy. We have millions of species with hundreds of thousand of them having some common ancestor with difference in their chromosomal numbers. Do we have any species where there's such reduction observed (and at the same time these reductions are not part of the special mechanisms but originate completely randomly)?

I'm sorry to say this (and I don't meant at all to belittle you logic) but arguments of supporters of Darwinism always are same: there's only hypothesis and no actual evidence to support hypothesis. If a counterargument refutes your hypothesis, you'll find another unsubstantiated hypothesis and this goes on and on. Any time you give me possible explanation of something not being observed or being observed but going against Dawrinism you should also provide us with hard proofs and observable results. That's what science is about. The way you make science out of Darwinian hypothesis I can make science of any nonsensical hypothesis.
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I do not want to discus telomere/centromere issue wright now. This will make a long post. I will do it later.

Instead I will give you 2 general reasoning "disproving" Darwinism logically. To refute either of this reasoning lines one has to go wild with imaginations. I would not be surprised though if this be the case. Both of this things I've mentioned before. You probably missed it. Otherwise you have responded to me. So I'll make the 2 arguments again but now in detail.

1) By random mutation and natural selection we do not expect formation of species from simplest to more complex. We should have evolution along involution. Reasoning is simple and facts that Darwinism wants to use to support evolution theory supports involution too. Lets say we have clearly defined based on some criteria what simple species "A" is and what more complex species "B" is. Let's say From A during evolution B was evolved and the A went though the series of mutation M1, M2, ...M(N). For every mutation M(j) we have its reverse mutation M(-1, j) ("M(-1, j)" is just a notation for reverse mutation). Say if from genome A we get genome B by insertion of base pair, then from genome B we can get genome A by reverse mutation of deleting same base pair in B. Thus is as possible to get species A from species B by following reverse mutations: M(-1N), ... (M-1, 2), M(-1, 1). We know for the fact that for every mutation there's its reverse one and no restrictions apply here. We also know for the fact that simple organisms are as well fitted (and actually bacterias are "better fitted" by having all the extremophiles) to their environment as complex ones are. These 2 fact make involution as possible as evolution is possible. Does fossil record support involution and evolution being possible at the same time?

2) Abiogenesis is impossible. What really amazes me is argument for this is simplest but scientists engage in "proving" this hypothesis, devoting years and almost all of their life until they finally realize it is not possible. One can make variations on this argument, but I'll offer you one. For any cell it is necessary that it's ancestor was a cell. If a cell's ancestor lacks any of the characteristics of cellular life, it can't live and produce generation. In order for any proto-cell to give generation it has to have several processes in order including but not limited to metabolism, ability to renew all the proteins, ability to translate and transcribe genetic material, ability to replicate DNA, plus all this functions are supported by directed use of energy and this letter have to be realized by prior functions and characteristic. We know for certain you block any of this function and the cell is dead. Antibiotics and chemo agents are nothing but substances that turn off this chemical function. How would you expect (even in theory) anything that lacks several of these characteristics giving rise to a complete cell while something where only one function (and sometimes even only 1 protein) blocked is dead and can't produce any more cells? That's what amazes me. There's going to be no answer here. Abiogenesis is clearly wrong hypothesis. I'll give you even much less difficult task and if you give me just reasonable theoretical explanation, I'll shut up (I guess it's time anywhays I did it :D). Every DNA has code for exact same proteins that are necessary to serve DNA related functions (transcription, replication, proofreading and so on). We have here effective chicken-egg problem. If we say this proteins that serve DNA were formed first then what was it used for and how did it get multiplied? If we say DNA was formed first then how was its function realized without proteins and how was it multiplied? Give me one explanation that not posits simlutaneous appearance of both DNA and exactly same proteins that serve this DNA and are encoded by the same DNA. You do this and I will surrender. If your clearly accept impossibility of abiogenesis (and I see no reason why you should not) then not much is left to throw Darwinism in the garbage.

God bless you and God bless you twice more if you reached this point :)
 

Dnarmist

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2010
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Fwiw I think someone mentioned this but someone rejected Natural Selection because it is based off chaos and chance. Natural selection doesn't exactly work that way. It's pretty much the exact opposite outcome of random chance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RLU4-kySow#t=156s

If you dumped a bunch of random rocks and dust into a sieve, you'd discover that things were large or small depending on which side of the sieve they were on. That's because the sieve isn't random. Mutation and variation are random, selection of the variants is systematic, so what survives it will also be systematic.

I want to bring up an example, we would agree that most people are naturally concerned with themselves and people that are close to them, but can science truly offer a reason why I should care about strangers? Science points to social conditioning and chemistry in and the evolutionary structure of the brain for why you DO care about others. Deriving an ought from an is is illogical, although game theory is a mathematical model for examining outcomes of different action that could be pointed to as a form of "scientific morality"

This has been the subject of a great many papers in peer-reviewed journals, and even entire books have been written about it. The short answer is that it is incorrect to look at any individual thing in the ecosystem as an island unto itself. I'd be assuming there's no intrinsic value in caring about strangers or people other than yourself when in fact there's quite a lot of value in doing so which is why we see so much of it in populations of animals. Bats, for instance, will go out and hunt extra food for sick members of their population. There's no benefit initially to the bat that does it, but they do it because they want other bats to do the same for them when they get sick. Yes, it seems that even bats operate on the golden rule.

I might assume that the nature of man or the nature of life is innately to be adversarial when there's not a whole lot of evidence that that's the case. In many cases we see sets of morals develop because cooperative behavior is more advantageous than adversarial behavior in a great many situations. Just think about how risky it is to get into a physical altercation with another human being, and you'll see why cooperation appears to be the natural norm. Even in cases like monkeys that will go to war with one another we see that cooperation is the thing that makes that war possible. Those wars are never every monkey for themselves. They are always cooperative on either side of the conflict. In fact, you can make the argument that the existence of war in both human and monkey societies is proof of the inherent cooperativeness of certain species. You cannot have anything that can be called a war without at least 2 populations willing to band together against one another.

I see a lot of religious people advocate for a kind of human exceptionalism that doesn't seem to hold up to much scrutiny. For as different as humans are supposed to be in having been blessed by god, there sure does seem to be a lot of evidence that we're not a whole lot different than most of the other animals on the planet save for one small thing; our neo cortex.

I recommend people in this thread  read a book called The Greatest Show on Earth if you want an exhaustive look at the evidence for evolution and theories surrounding modern biology for things such as morality. If you want a really good book on neuroscience that may indirectly answer the question about why a belief in god originated and persisted there's a book called On Intelligence that examines the structure and operation of the neo cortex in relation to consciousness and thinking in humans.

Speaking of which a desire for God, why such exists, in my opinion the very thing that the neo cortex is good at, seeing and recognizing patterns, that makes human consciousness and thought possible will inevitably produce a belief in a "god" as a by-product. That On Intelligence book is not directly about god at all, but understanding something about neurobiology will help you understand why I believe it to be an inevitability.

This question as well has also been tackled in many peer-reviewed journals in evolutionary fields, social psychology, and psychology. If you want what I think is the best argument for why a great many people actively seek to reject reality, a book called The God Delusion devotes a few chapters to it as well as a few chapters to the question of morality as well.

I should note, though, that two of the books are written by Dawkins. I'm sure people here will at this point recoil in terror that I have suggested you read a book written by Dawkins, and choose to remain uninformed on the subject in order to maintain your stance that these questions are somehow unanswered. I realize that Orthodox Christians might not be one of these people, but the willful ignorance of groups like the Discovery Institute bothers the hell out of me as a rational, curious person. I not only have read Dawkins and about neurobiology, but I've read all of  William Lane Craigs arguments about God. I don't sit around pretending those arguments don't exist in the way, say, that the Discovery Institute pretends that the flagellar motor hasn't ever been explained or answered for in papers about evolutionary biology.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
ativan said:
Disclaimer: please do not think I'm attacking you personally or intentions to do so in any ways. If It seems in this ling post I aimed at you I apologize.
Understood, but as I read your comments further, you seem to hold a creationist view, which is something that is not falsifiable in science.  It's virtually impossible to find a way to disprove that an intelligent being created us.  First, we have to define what the "intelligent being" is.  Is it aliens, is it God?  Well, if it's aliens, in that case, aliens have to exist first in order for this to be tested, and it remains a fairy tale more than anything.  Is it God?  Well, by definition, the tools of science can never test God, since God is beyond creation, beyond science.  It would be theologically blasphemous to call that a scientific theory, since that would limit God to creation, and not beyond it.

However, if you're like me, who is a creationist and an evolutionist, then I would see that God programmed in creation freedom and a sense of reaching a complexity to achieve communion with God through mankind.  Proper theological understanding of God being ruler of the cosmos and of the logoi of the cosmos that He created in it, and the use of science to study the logoi of the cosmos, and thus understand the ingenuity of God.  This is how I am able to study science and able to accept evolution, along with the fact that evolution is in fact a science that is falsifiable, that is it carries the possibility of being proven false.

Science is all about proving false an idea, not about proving correct an idea.  In other words, scientists are filled with skeptics who want to debunk an idea.  And so, it must go through rigorous observations and reproductions and debate, until the evidence becomes clear that most predictions evolution makes are in fact correct.  One of those predictions are the common ancestry idea of humans and other apes confirmed through the study of genetics.

You mean homologous (or nearly identical) not identical right?
99% identical is practically identical.  We can call it homologous, but then there's no homologous chromosome between two humans that's 100% identical either (not even between identical twins).

Let me point to a general thing you have complained against me. I never said that refuting a given argument refutes Darwinism. I know basic logic and I would not do that. When you bring an arguments that you try to show how it supports Darwinism and argument has problems, I do not says thus refuting you supportive argument Darwinism is refuted. But at the same time you also know that once your supporting argument is refuted you have to find new arguments supporting Darwinism and/or reconstruct refuted argument. Let's make this clear that any time there's a problem with supporting argument all I say is you can't use this argument any more as Darwinism's support.
But as I pointed out before, you're not refuting an argument, because the prediction was made correctly.  The questions you ask only seek to understand an extra level of the already correct argument.  Since I am happy you are a student of good logic, let's use good logic for your next part:

As to your question explanation is simple: God have done that the way it is. And no human ever will know how life originated, what life is. This is a mistery. Question like these will never be accessible to human intelligence and rational thinking. Knowledge about these can only be revealed. But as a hypothesis "God has created chromosome 22 from the start the way it is" is as good a hypothesis (if not better) as some type of random fusion and then some unintelligible way of inheritance of it.
Now, first off, the reason why I struck out some of your words here is that you are confusing abiogenesis with evolution, which is a common mistake exclusive creationists do.  We're arguing about evolution, not abiogenesis.  I'm not an expert in abiogenesis, so these lines have no bearing at all in this discussion.

As to the rest of your argument, "God has created chromosome 2 (not 22) from the start," as I explained to call that a hypothesis would be theological blasphemy, because now you have considered the possibility that God is a falsifiable hypothesis, in addition to a limitation of God to creation.  On a logical side, there's a problem with this:

Do you know that we can use the same chromosomal analysis these evolutionists use to check how far in the family tree you and I go back?  For instance, we have primary relatives (father, mother, sister, brother) and then we have secondary relatives (uncles, grandparents), and then we have tertiary (cousins, great grandparents), and so on and so forth.  Well, if my cousin, my sister, and I were to have our chromosomes analyzed, it will be very clear that the analysis shows that my sister and I have chromosomes so close, that we have to be primary relatives, whereas my cousin's and I are fit to be a tertiary relative.  Such an analysis has already been well established that they also showed how to figure out what race I am (an Egyptian friend of mine was found out to have some genes that indicate an Asian ancestry).

Now, by your logic, what you are saying is that there's a possibility God has created all my chromosomes from the start, and I share no direct inheritance with my primary relatives, my parents or my sister.  Such a logic would fail terribly for its inconsistency.  For we can use this technology to confirm our relation with our families, but when it comes to other species, we decide to pick and choose a different explanation and call that a situation where we "can never intelligently understand."

I find myself believing that I carry half of an inheritance to my offspring, rather than all of it, that my "seed" is only half the seed, where a female does in fact have "seed" in her as well (as opposed to the ancient belief that man carried the full seed).  On top of that, we also have reached levels of understanding embryonic growth and genes responsible for certain stages of embryonic growth beyond that which any ancient Church father has ever thought of achieving, where such a mystery of human growth in the womb was considered beyond human intelligence to understand.  I agree that there's a beautiful mystery of the whole world and how consistent the world is, but I also believe that God's creation can be tested and understood, since we have the propensity to be like God, certainly God allows us to increase in the knowledge of His mysterious creation.

suppose I showed you 3 devices/equipments: A, B and C. C looks as if it's combination of A and B with some modification. Would you say that C was formed by a random fusion of A and B which afterwords underwent further random modifications? Or could you say that device C was not devised by an intelligent being from scratch not just fusing 2 parts of A and B? Answers to this questions makes it clear that even if we assume C looks like fused A and B, it does not mean that C was not designed as A and B connected to each other or was not designed from scratch without A and B connected to each other directly.
Please see my explanation above about the theological, scientific, and logical consequences of a scientific belief of an intelligent being.

Besides you are asking unfair thing to experimentally disprove Darwinism. It should be the other way round: one has to prove Darwinism to be possible in experiments/observations.
As I have explained earlier.  Science is about disproving, not about proving.  Science is about falsifiable experiments, and if we can't disprove, then we statistically analyze the chances of the positive being correct and devise more experiments to see if these can be disproven.  The more an idea cannot be disproven, the more the chances of this idea actually being true.  Evolution withstood the test of thousands (probably more by a large factor) of experiments trying to disprove it and it stands not disproven thus far.

In reality, even in experiments you can only provide certain environment and let the genetic material evolve by itself, which has not been done.
Yes that has been done by more simple organisms.  Complex organisms take longer to evolve, but we can genetically measure the rate of change that occurs in more complex organisms, the same tool we use to measure the rate of change in simpler organisms.

There has been trials to increase mutation rates by certain mutagenic environment (such as X-rays) but nothing has ever come out of this.
In more simpler organisms, yes, this has been done.  In more complex organisms, mutation must occur in germ cell lines, which in fact mutations have been shown to occur (that means that besides sharing half mommy and half daddy, some of my mommy and daddy genes have been mutated, making me not exactly 100% half mommy and half daddy), and over several generations.  Mutagenic environments would work if the environment is affecting the germ cells, not your skin cells.  And certainly the mutagenic environments would require that the source of mutagenesis not harmful to the point of killing off your organisms, but pushing the limits, comparable to giving someone a little resistance in weights for possibility of building up strength, rather than giving a large weight that can crush a persons bones.

For sure, there has never been any observ ation of new species formation in spite of very intensive selective "experiments" by humans.
Precisely because we're a very young species.  For a new species to occur, we have to violate as much as possible the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium and wait.

And here come Darwinism's worst response to this argument: thousand of years are not enough. They effectively make this theory unprovable by this new ad hoc hypothesis. Later I'll give logical arguments that proves Darwinism's absurdity.
Well, thank God for measuring rates of change, because one can predict when change would occur if one can measure a rate.

On the other hand, if however our common ancestor had 23 chromosomes then chromosomal fusion is wrong. So, did we find this purported common ancestor and did we determine it had 24 chromosomes? If not how is this argument an argument supporting Darwinism?
First, if there were more common occurrences of fissions, then that idea would actually be considered.  Second, the fact that you are thinking that our ancestor had 23 pairs of chromosomes requires the idea that you believe there is a common ancestor to begin with.  So your argument is a moot point and does not remove the possibility of a common ancestor, but assumes it to ask that question.

Well, your analogy is fallacious. These two examples are so different from each other and these differences are so important that you do not accomplish anything with this analogy. In the murder case, we certainly know by direct observation that people can be killed by homicide or suicide. Homicide or suicide is not some hypothetical event that we have not observed. On the other hand we have never observed species origin either through evolution or through creation (though we know certainly that new species can be "designed" through intelligent genetic manipulation). If we knew by observation or experiment that new species can be produced by random mutations and selection and I said that still doesn't prove how it originated in the past (though technically true) in this case your example would qualify as a valid analogy. Here it serves no purpose.
I don't believe that was a fallacious argument.  We have indeed seen speciation occur as I've mentioned earlier, and as has been mentioned through this whole thread.

So since we see murder occur, and then we see a dead body on the floor with stab wounds, then we can conclude a murder occurred in this particular person.  I wasn't there to witness that particular murder, but the clues we have leave us with that impression.

Similarly, if we used genetic analysis to see if how far back I relate to a person, and we see that these analyses work since we see such relations occur in front of us, then what would happen if we use this same genetic analysis with other species.  Voila!  A valid calculation of how far back we relate seeing the amazing similarities we have.

But by your argument, since in fact you believe God created our chromosome from the start, which happened to have at least 99% similarity to the two chimp acrocentric chromosomes, that would be analogous to stab wounds on a chimpanzee (or pick any animal we haven't observed being stabbed) being craftily created by the hands of a higher species and staining the blood stains on the stabbing apparatus that has the same size and shape as the wound made.

Second, you have actually provided some rational though hypothetical explanation why the random chromosomal fusion can't be the cause of appearance of chromosome 22. If your hypothetical causes does not allow the appearance of group of humans with 22 pairs of chromosome why would same things allow formation of 23 pairs of chromosome out of 24? Or what could have been different in the past that would allow this to happen? Give me any rational explanation and hard facts that backup your claims and explanations that would explain non-observance of the reduction in chromosomal diploidy. We have millions of species with hundreds of thousand of them having some common ancestor with difference in their chromosomal numbers. Do we have any species where there's such reduction observed (and at the same time these reductions are not part of the special mechanisms but originate completely randomly?
What could possibly be different is ostracization, which is common in the animal world where they find a mate that is quite different.  Even among aboriginal peoples, if certain peoples are in danger of being killed by their group for their differences, this may lead to a bottlenecking or a migration where those with differences in that community may find one another and mate.  In addition, random mating may have occurred more commonly, which increases the chances of bringing Robertsonian apes together.  We see many times an alpha male in a given species can have a harem of female mates.

In today's society, because stillborn children and Down's syndrome children tend to have an emotional effect on parents questioning whether they should give any more children, rather than keep trying and throwing away the unfit as other animals do. In addition, being faithful to one mate, rather than throw your seed to multiple mates as does occur in other animals, decreases the chances.  It seems that the Image of God in us have slowed down our evolution to such an incredibly slow rate, that it shows how complex not only our biochemistry is, but also our behaviors, which we believe are defined by divine guidance.

I'm sorry to say this (and I don't meant at all to belittle you logic) but arguments of supporters of Darwinism always are same: there's only hypothesis and no actual evidence to support hypothesis. If a counterargument refutes your hypothesis, you'll find another unsubstantiated hypothesis and this goes on and on. Any time you give me possible explanation of something not being observed or being observed but going against Dawrinism you should also provide us with hard proofs and observable results. That's what science is about. The way you make science out of Darwinian hypothesis I can make science of any nonsensical hypothesis.
Well, I'm sorry also that this is what you believe.  It seems like both of us will not get anywhere if we both stubbornly stick to our beliefs.  For also, I stereotypically think of creationists as making the same arguments and in my understanding, it seems creationists really don't have a full understanding or grasp of the actual science to engage in the discussion properly.  I feel that many creationists pick and choose scientific advances as long as it pleases their personal theological beliefs, and not actually take and engage with the research and the technological implications of the research seriously.  Your next post for instance has the same arguments creationists make and not the new and quite engaging questions as I heard from you earlier:

1) By random mutation and natural selection we do not expect formation of species from simplest to more complex. We should have evolution along involution. Reasoning is simple and facts that Darwinism wants to use to support evolution theory supports involution too. Lets say we have clearly defined based on some criteria what simple species "A" is and what more complex species "B" is. Let's say From A during evolution B was evolved and the A went though the series of mutation M1, M2, ...M(N). For every mutation M(j) we have its reverse mutation M(-1, j) ("M(-1, j)" is just a notation for reverse mutation). Say if from genome A we get genome B by insertion of base pair, then from genome B we can get genome A by reverse mutation of deleting same base pair in B. Thus is as possible to get species A from species B by following reverse mutations: M(-1N), ... (M-1, 2), M(-1, 1). We know for the fact that for every mutation there's its reverse one and no restrictions apply here. We also know for the fact that simple organisms are as well fitted (and actually bacterias are "better fitted" by having all the extremophiles) to their environment as complex ones are. These 2 fact make involution as possible as evolution is possible. Does fossil record support involution and evolution being possible at the same time?
When a species become "better fit" in a certain environment, "devolution" would not be possible because of natural selection.  One can only progress, not regress, unless one goes back to an original environment, where one must evolve back into that environment.

As has been argued before, the factors of selection, naturally or behaviorally, will affect the fitness of an organism, and if an organism is better fit in an environment or moves to a different environment, it may evolve into something a lot more different.

2) Abiogenesis is impossible. What really amazes me is argument for this is simplest but scientists engage in "proving" this hypothesis, devoting years and almost all of their life until they finally realize it is not possible. One can make variations on this argument, but I'll offer you one. For any cell it is necessary that it's ancestor was a cell. If a cell's ancestor lacks any of the characteristics of cellular life, it can't live and produce generation. In order for any proto-cell to give generation it has to have several processes in order including but not limited to metabolism, ability to renew all the proteins, ability to translate and transcribe genetic material, ability to replicate DNA, plus all this functions are supported by directed use of energy and this letter have to be realized by prior functions and characteristic. We know for certain you block any of this function and the cell is dead. Antibiotics and chemo agents are nothing but substances that turn off this chemical function. How would you expect (even in theory) anything that lacks several of these characteristics giving rise to a complete cell while something where only one function (and sometimes even only 1 protein) blocked is dead and can't produce any more cells? That's what amazes me. There's going to be no answer here. Abiogenesis is clearly wrong hypothesis. I'll give you even much less difficult task and if you give me just reasonable theoretical explanation, I'll shut up (I guess it's time anywhays I did it ). Every DNA has code for exact same proteins that are necessary to serve DNA related functions (transcription, replication, proofreading and so on). We have here effective chicken-egg problem. If we say this proteins that serve DNA were formed first then what was it used for and how did it get multiplied? If we say DNA was formed first then how was its function realized without proteins and how was it multiplied? Give me one explanation that not posits simlutaneous appearance of both DNA and exactly same proteins that serve this DNA and are encoded by the same DNA. You do this and I will surrender. If your clearly accept impossibility of abiogenesis (and I see no reason why you should not) then not much is left to throw Darwinism in the garbage.
As I said before, abiogenesis is not evolution.  And this point has been hammered so much this thread, I even was tempted not to read this whole paragraph.  This is the same argument made by creationists.

However, there's plenty of opportunity to disprove the many hypotheses from this particular concept of abiogenesis that I'm sure many scientists are excited about engaging in.  If it has been proven that we can't create a proto-cell at all, then that would be quite a scientific breakthrough.  But alas that has nothing to do with evolution, since evolution requires that life already exists, not to create life.

Thank you for your prayers.  I also hope I have not offended, but if I did, I ask for your sincere apologies.  Continue to keep me in your prayers.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Dnarmist,

I haven't read any of Dawkin's books, but I will say I read a lauding review from the authors of The Dawkin's Delusion on the "The Greatest Show on Earth."  I'm unable to find this review, but I understand that this book does not contain the virulent atheist views that "The God Delusion" has.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
minasoliman said:
Dnarmist,

I haven't read any of Dawkin's books, but I will say I read a lauding review from the authors of The Dawkin's Delusion on the "The Greatest Show on Earth."  I'm unable to find this review, but I understand that this book does not contain the virulent atheist views that "The God Delusion" has.
Dnarmist, may I also add this website:

http://www.biologos.org/

If part of your struggle is in creationists, perhaps, this is one way to try to quell that struggle.

As for your struggle in religion in general, I tend to see your spiritual side like a muscle that needs to be strengthened and fed.  And when I struggle to maintain my spiritual exercises, I struggle in my beliefs.

St. Paul once wrote that Gentiles may not have a written law like the Jews, but the law is certainly inscribed in their hearts.  Therefore, one has to acknowledge the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law to understand the beauty in the Scriptures.  Can morality be explained neurobiologically?  To a certain extent, yes.  But because we are binatured, for what it's worth, we need to turn on our spiritual side, and take what is already known neurobiologically (or "inscribed in our hearts") and put it into transcendental practice.

http://tasbeha.org/media/index.php?st=Praises%2FMidnight_Praises%2FSt_Anthony_Monastery%2C_English_Midnight_Praises%2FPart_1%2Ftrack08.1393.mp3

God bless.
 

Dnarmist

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2010
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Science is all about proving false an idea, not about proving correct an idea. 
The two are the same though. Science is built on a very simple concept: If you want to claim you actually know something, you have to be able to name something that would be different if it were untrue. If you don't have this, then it means a world where it is true is essentially indistinguishable from a world where it is not true, so how can you possibly claim confidence in either? If there is a difference, then congratulations, you have a testable and falsifiable hypothesis!

You can't really claim confidence that something is true until you've discounted the possibility that it is false.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Dnarmist said:
minasoliman said:
Science is all about proving false an idea, not about proving correct an idea. 
The two are the same though. Science is built on a very simple concept: If you want to claim you actually know something, you have to be able to name something that would be different if it were untrue. If you don't have this, then it means a world where it is true is essentially indistinguishable from a world where it is not true, so how can you possibly claim confidence in either? If there is a difference, then congratulations, you have a testable and falsifiable hypothesis!

You can't really claim confidence that something is true until you've discounted the possibility that it is false.
Which is what I was trying to explain if you read on.  The more you can't disprove something (as long as there is the possibility of disproving it, i.e. falsifiable), the more likely it is true.

Maybe, you explain it better than I do.  But I don't disagree with you there.
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
ativan said:
One has to prove Darwinism to be possible in experiments/observations. In reality, even in experiments you can only provide certain environment and let the genetic material evolve by itself, which has not been done. There has been trials to increase mutation rates by certain mutagenic environment (such as X-rays) but nothing has ever come out of this. For sure, there has never been any observation of new species formation in spite of very intensive selective "experiments" by humans. And here come Darwinism's worst response to this argument: thousand of years are not enough. They effectively make this theory unprovable by this new ad hoc hypothesis. Later I'll give logical arguments that proves Darwinism's absurdity.
It is not clear what you are looking for in this statement. What is your personal definition of a new species? Are you asking for inadvertent adaptations and speciation under selective pressure unknown to the experimentalist? One doesn't need to use x-rays or mutagenic compounds to observe speciation, depending on your definition. More importantly, if this challenge is convincingly met, would it make any difference in your opinion about evolution? If not what would change your opinion? If nothing would change your opinion, why do you think it is worthwhile for people to lose sleep, get lower grades on exams, etc., responding to your assertions? Their responses to you are not without personal consequences. The problem on this side of the argument (that being a proponent of evolution) is that the information that is often requested requires hunting for and reading papers that have nothing to do with evolution per se (because it is a done deal for the vast vast majority of researchers and funding agencies are geared towards novelty and/or economic/health benefits and evolutionary biology is not a field any mentor would recommend without many caveats).
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman

I put questions (or quotes) in bold. It is easy for me to trace back the question and answer to it and this way determine next questions. It is not a way of underling anything.


Blasphemy, from Eastern Orthodox point of view,  is what you say not what I say. I have no idea what Oriental Orthodox saints teach on this matter. Though I'll be more than glad to hear it from you. Hopefully you can name one saint who agrees with Darwinism and quote him. Do yourself a favor and read my post on previous page. I put the words of one of the great holy men blessed elder Fr. Paisius the Athonite. To repeat his words, what you saying is this: And if you think a little more you will see that our Lord Jesus Christ was born from a human, Al pure  Theotokos. So then what are we saying? Christ's ancestors were apes? What a blasphemy! But the follower of this theory don't see that they commit blasphemy. And you telling me that purely Orthodox teaching is blasphemous but you real blasphemy is not?

It's virtually impossible to find a way to disprove that an intelligent being created us.  First, we have to define what the "intelligent being" is.  Is it aliens, is it God?  Well, if it's aliens, in that case, aliens have to exist first in order for this to be tested, and it remains a fairy tale more than anything.  Is it God?  Well, by definition, the tools of science can never test God, since God is beyond creation, beyond science.  It would be theologically blasphemous to call that a scientific theory, since that would limit God to creation, and not beyond it.
Do not put your words in my mouth please. I never called my creationistic faith scientific theory. You just asked me how something would be possible and I gave you honest answer. That was all. Second, you think you got right theology right? If God would be limited to its creation by creating universe why would it be not limited if he did not create anything? Non-creator has limiting property of not being creator as much as creator has limiting property of being creator. After all did God create anything, anything at all: a certain type of matter for example, or angels, or human soul? If he did using your logic would it not be limited to whatever it was God created? God will be limited always however much statements you are going to make about Almighty. Being unlimited is already being limited to unlimitedness and to not being able to be limited. For curious results, to follow your faulty (and definitely heretical from Orthodox point of view) logic further  God must not have created anything at all in order for The Almighty to not be limited. Do you believe that God did not create anything? And how on the earth did matter came on? Did it exist forever?

Orthodox teaching is completely different from what you just said. God is in its creation and beyond its creation. Being in the creation does not mean He is not outside the creation.

Science has its own potential. It can't test everything that exists. Why don't you apply same logic to existence of soul or God? Science can't prove by any means the existence of soul. Does this mean you don't believe in its existence? You must be since you are an Orthodox. So here there's definitely something you believe exists but there's no way to prove or disprove it. So is the life's origin and diversity of it. I see no problem with my statement at all. The only difference in our faith is you believe it is possible to explain life's origin and its diversity using only science but I believe it is impossible. You call your faith science unfairly and I call my faith faith.

In more simpler organisms, yes, this has been done.  In more complex organisms, mutation must occur in germ cell lines, which in fact mutations have been shown to occur (that means that besides sharing half mommy and half daddy, some of my mommy and daddy genes have been mutated, making me not exactly 100% half mommy and half daddy), and over several generations.  Mutagenic environments would work if the environment is affecting the germ cells, not your skin cells.  And certainly the mutagenic environments would require that the source of mutagenesis not harmful to the point of killing off your organisms, but pushing the limits, comparable to giving someone a little resistance in weights for possibility of building up strength, rather than giving a large weight that can crush a persons bones.
All this I know. But thanks anyways. Now both of us also know that any mutation that happens and affects a protein structure we still get same species. We can have mutations happen many different time in say one of the hemoglobin genes but this will still produce a human with certain hemoglobinonpathy. Mutation can affect insulin gene or its receptor gene but we still get a human with diabetes. Mutation can affect several different genes at the same time but still humans are born with several mutated genes. If mutation affect regulatory genes, then catastrophes happen or if something is born it is healthy or diseased human. Then, if every time mutation happens it produces exactly same species how is one going to get different species after 1 million or 1 billion mutation? Hopefully you've got meaningful answer to this question. BTW theories that propose systemic mutations (like the one nicknamed "hopeful monster") do much better then Darwinism and they are proposed exactly for this reason that Darwinism even logically is wrong, not to say that it has no observational and experimental support. Please answer above question without any further vague hypothesis and base it on observational data.

I don't believe that was a fallacious argument.  We have indeed seen speciation occur as I've mentioned earlier, and as has been mentioned through this whole thread.
Really? Which speciation have we seen? Don't mention Galapagos finch beaks or resistant bacterias please. It will not be serious science.

What could possibly be different is ostracization, which is common in the animal world where they find a mate that is quite different.  Even among aboriginal peoples, if certain peoples are in danger of being killed by their group for their differences, this may lead to a bottlenecking or a migration where those with differences in that community may find one another and mate.  In addition, random mating may have occurred more commonly, which increases the chances of bringing Robertsonian apes together.  We see many times an alpha male in a given species can have a harem of female mates.
Wait here now. So how many individuals with 23 chromosomes should have been ostracized?  What is the chance that only such individuals (however many there should have been to start a new population) could have been ostracized? In what environment they where ostracized so that they did not come into contact with original population and those 23 pair genomes were not diffused again in the original population? How would frequent mutations help to the situation? To explain the point of last question let's take a very common mutation factor V Leiden. In spite of it being one of the commonest mutations (and homosigotic states are very common too) we don't have any (ostracized) population of people who just have factor V Leiden. So what's the point of frequency of mutation? I can only see that it could just increase the chance of several individuals being ostracized at the same time, but I need science in this case. I need math and I need observational support for that math. I'm waiting. Oh yeah, almost forgot most important thing: You are still hypothetical and no hard facts. Please, give me some examples where several individuals were ostracized with the same mutations and these individuals started homozygous line of beings with regard of this mutation. Remember, this is what you are saying exactly. All the individuals who were ostracized had 23 chromosomes. To make the ostracization claim based on facts you further need to provide such example.

When a species become "better fit" in a certain environment, "devolution" would not be possible because of natural selection. One can only progress, not regress, unless one goes back to an original environment, where one must evolve back into that environment.
Wow! I know for the fact that e.coli is much simpler then Dinosaur. Somehow this little thing had survived but Dinosaurs went extinct. If this fact does not refute the absurdness of your statement, then what else? Scientific honesty requires to honestly respond to questions and when questions with the answers bring us face to face to absurdity we honestly should say it. We don't have to defend every nonsense.

BTW, there's one scientific fact that surely disproves your hypothesis. Namely, there are obligate intracellular parasites of multi-cellular organisms who can't live outside cellular environment since they lack important metabolic pathways and they have to utilize host's pathways. These organisms, per Dawrinism, should have appeared not until multicelluar organisms appeared. But their ancestor must have been able to live outside cells and must have had necessary pathways. So their ancestors actually lost function so they must have been simplified. There's no other way. O wait. I know how you are going to explain it. Simplification does not always mean simplification. It can sometime mean getting more complex, right?

Just curious, how do you know that in a given environment going back to simple form would have been much better for a given species then going forward? Give me some science. Tell me about the story of the Mother earth during the billion year period. Tell me about its climate and all the environmental conditions and all the species that lived in there and how they would adapt, what changes would have happened to make them fit better. Strange thing is you can't even answer simplest questions but at the same time are bold enough to make omniscient claims.

Well, I'm sorry also that this is what you believe.  It seems like both of us will not get anywhere if we both stubbornly stick to our beliefs.  For also, I stereotypically think of creationists as making the same arguments and in my understanding, it seems creationists really don't have a full understanding or grasp of the actual science to engage in the discussion properly.  I feel that many creationists pick and choose scientific advances as long as it pleases their personal theological beliefs, and not actually take and engage with the research and the technological implications of the research seriously.  Your next post for instance has the same arguments creationists make and not the new and quite engaging questions as I heard from you earlier:
So much for the good questions I was asking? :D What happened to good questions? I know what. Harder they get they are not interesting any more. Then comes all the ad hominem. But I do not feel attacked since I'm creationist (not young earth creationist though I completely respect their view) from top to bottom. I know God has created everything and nothing works in its own and randomly in this Universe.

As I said before, abiogenesis is not evolution.  And this point has been hammered so much this thread, I even was tempted not to read this whole paragraph.  This is the same argument made by creationists.

However, there's plenty of opportunity to disprove the many hypotheses from this particular concept of abiogenesis that I'm sure many scientists are excited about engaging in.  If it has been proven that we can't create a proto-cell at all, then that would be quite a scientific breakthrough. But alas that has nothing to do with evolution, since evolution requires that life already exists, not to create life.
Has it been proven that we can't create Gold that is transparent in color but otherwise has all the properties of it? Has it been proven that we can't create an element that has only 14 electrons, no protons and no neutrons but has all properties of carbon? If not does it mean that carbon with 14 electrons only can exist? Or a transparent element that has all Gold like physical-chemical properties exist? Or look at this claim you make: Well, if it's aliens, in that case, aliens have to exist first in order for this to be tested, and it remains a fairy tale more than anything. Has it been proven that Aliens can't exist? If it was I'm interested what was that proof. This questions clearly shows that your point is wrong. You say if we have not shown in experiment something is not possible then we can't rule out the possibility of it. Guess what? Then every single imaginable thing exists whether you can get it in the lab or not.

Do you really think some scientists will disprove what I said? Your point are meaningless. In case you decide to answer I will ask another question. Let's say we have created this protocell in the lab. What properties it should have to call it protocell and not call it cell? Hopefully those who are professionals in this field will answer this questions if you can't.

And if abiogenesis doesn't have to do anything with evolution then say abiogenesis is not possible but evolution is possible. Say that first cells were created by God and then evolution took on. Say it, I'm listening. Say it and have all the evolutionists say it. But the logic is so simple. 1) Abiogenesis is not possible and God only created first cell; 2) If God created one cell he could have created any type of cells and any number of cells with different genetic makeup; 3) consequently there's no need of evolution to explain life's origin and it's diversity. As simple as this.


God bless you and I do pray for every being and there's always in that prayer one spot for you while I'm sure you do the same for athers. God bless you and Glory to God.
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dnarmist said:
Fwiw I think someone mentioned this but someone rejected Natural Selection because it is based off chaos and chance. Natural selection doesn't exactly work that way. It's pretty much the exact opposite outcome of random chance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RLU4-kySow#t=156s
Then tell me, please, what is this natural selection? Is it spirit? For Darwinism it can't be spirit since  Darwinism is materialistic philosophy. Nature is just collection of particles. How does this collection of particles (which is both life and non-life) selects other collection of particles (we call life)? How does it do it?

Some more questions: can you predict what type of body forms and physiology will be selected by this selection and what type won't?

Opus118
More importantly, if this challenge is convincingly met, would it make any difference in your opinion about evolution? If not what would change your opinion? If nothing would change your opinion, why do you think it is worthwhile for people to lose sleep, get lower grades on exams, etc., responding to your assertions?
My purpose is not to cause insomnia in somebody. You have a free will to answer or not to my questions. And BTW you can ask exactly same questions to all evolutionists: why do they try to approach to a creationist and try to persuade him/her? Do they think he/she will change his mind?

Me, I challenge you so that somebody can see the total failure of Darwinism as a scientific theory. Believe me, there's somebody out there who still thinks Darwinism is correct theory just because he does not ask right questions and takes whole story on faith and who can be changed by hearing correct questions. This have happened. And yes, I will not be changed, because I have thought about all this questions and no one Darwinist have ever answered me. They get angry actually when right questions are asked.

What is your personal definition of a new species?
You put a trap to Darwinism. I do not need to define species. All I will do is change my statements and say: it is not possible to get eukaryotic cell from a prokaryote; It is not possible to get multicellular organism from a unicellular one; It is not possible to get a flying animal from nonflying one; It is not possible to get a dog from a cat (or since you like to jump on statements like this, I'll make it better: it is not possible to get a tiger from cats ancestor who was cat); It is not possible to get a bacteria with flagelum from a bacteria without one and so on;

On the other hand since Darwinism is worthless  without the definition of species, please, define species such a way so as William Shakespeare and Oscar Wild are not different species but cat and dog are.
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
ativan said:
Science is all about proving false an idea, not about proving correct an idea.
Can you make this point clearer please with regard to Darwinism. Darwinism says that new species originate from older ones through Natural selection that acts on genetic mutations. This statement is part and parcel of Darwinism. Moreover evolutionists go so far that call this a fact.

1) Since science is not about proving anything we are not proving actually the idea that new species originate from older ones through Natural selection acting on genetic mutations, isn't it right? 2) What ideas are we trying to disprove here? 3) And how disproving of those ideas we are trying to disprove make Darwinism true?
 

chrevbel

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ativan said:
1) Since science is not about proving anything we are not proving actually the idea that new species originate from older ones through Natural selection acting on genetic mutations, isn't it right? 2) What ideas are we trying to disprove here? 3) And how disproving of those ideas we are trying to disprove make Darwinism true?
1) What?
2) Among other things, Darwin's theories disproved Lamarckism, for example.  That's how science works.  Folks look at an idea and think "Hmm, that's an interesting idea but this point and this point and this point seem inconsistent.  Maybe there's a better explanation."  Darwin's hypothesis of natural selection was that better idea.
3) You aren't paying attention.  There's never an effort in science to make something true.  Darwin's theory will survive only as long as it is the best and most consistent explanation.  In the century and a half it's been around, it's already been modified, extended, and adapted.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
chrevbel said:
ativan said:
1) Since science is not about proving anything we are not proving actually the idea that new species originate from older ones through Natural selection acting on genetic mutations, isn't it right? 2) What ideas are we trying to disprove here? 3) And how disproving of those ideas we are trying to disprove make Darwinism true?
1) What?
2) Among other things, Darwin's theories disproved Lamarckism, for example.  That's how science works.  Folks look at an idea and think "Hmm, that's an interesting idea but this point and this point and this point seem inconsistent.  Maybe there's a better explanation."  Darwin's hypothesis of natural selection was that better idea.
3) You aren't paying attention.  There's never an effort in science to make something true.  Darwin's theory will survive only as long as it is the best and most consistent explanation.  In the century and a half it's been around, it's already been modified, extended, and adapted.
point #3 seems pretty naive to me. evolutionists pretty clearly have a vested interest in keeping evolution around, and sometimes they outright admit that, and i already provided a few quotes from scientists saying that. if youre just interested in truth youre not going to take a school district to court for simply mentioning Intelligent Design (Dover, PA). Darwin's theory will survive as long as people want to run away from God (and then some who believe in God will continue to go along with it).
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Dear Ativan,

I'm sorry I offended you.  Clearly, I misunderstood your intentions.  I wanted to ask you a scientific idea about why our chromosomes are 99% identical with the chimpanzee.  I may have not made it clearly that I wanted a scientific idea, not a religious idea.  But if you were to ask me the religious idea of why we are that identical, I'd also answer because God made it so.  And no, I do not see any limitations in God's essence as our Creator.  I only saw limitations if that would have been defined as "science."  But as you clarified, you don't believe creationism is science, and I respect that, agree with that, and with your views on God being Creator.

As for where I get my views on the compatibility of Orthodoxy and evolution.  Believe it or not, if you read my previous posts here in this thread, my influence was from the late Bishop Alexander Mileant, whose articles he posted on science, evolution, and Orthodox inspired me and allowed me to not lose faith in Orthodox Christianity.  I am Coptic Orthodox, yes.  But the Coptic Church had little to do (it helped somewhat, but there are many bishops I know who agree with you) with my beliefs concerning evolution and Orthodoxy.  And not just that, but my faith has grown even stronger since, and unshaken.

Concerning the questions you ask.  Before, the reason why you asked good questions is because these questions were not asked in this thread before.  But your other questions that you continued to ask is not so much that I can't answer them, but it's that they've already been answered.  I only wanted to sincerely share with you the pattern I see with creationists.  I'd resort to ad hominem if I said you are the creationist.  But I didn't.  I said that the questions you seem to be asking now sound like the same old creationist jargon that has been already discussed before.

All this I know. But thanks anyways. Now both of us also know that any mutation that happens and affects a protein structure we still get same species. We can have mutations happen many different time in say one of the hemoglobin genes but this will still produce a human with certain hemoglobinonpathy. Mutation can affect insulin gene or its receptor gene but we still get a human with diabetes. Mutation can affect several different genes at the same time but still humans are born with several mutated genes. If mutation affect regulatory genes, then catastrophes happen or if something is born it is healthy or diseased human. Then, if every time mutation happens it produces exactly same species how is one going to get different species after 1 million or 1 billion mutation? Hopefully you've got meaningful answer to this question. BTW theories that propose systemic mutations (like the one nicknamed "hopeful monster") do much better then Darwinism and they are proposed exactly for this reason that Darwinism even logically is wrong, not to say that it has no observational and experimental support. Please answer above question without any further vague hypothesis and base it on observational data.
Actually, the answer to this is simple and not hypothetical.  Today, we have physicians and altruistic peoples who care about others with diseases and try to help them to live their lives better.  In the animal kingdom, people with such diseases will die off.

People with Type 1 DM should be at a very small population.  But the increase in population of people with Type 1 DM is because of the availability of man-made insulin.

BTW, there's one scientific fact that surely disproves your hypothesis. Namely, there are obligate intracellular parasites of multi-cellular organisms who can't live outside cellular environment since they lack important metabolic pathways and they have to utilize host's pathways. These organisms, per Dawrinism, should have appeared not until multicelluar organisms appeared. But their ancestor must have been able to live outside cells and must have had necessary pathways. So their ancestors actually lost function so they must have been simplified. There's no other way. O wait. I know how you are going to explain it. Simplification does not always mean simplification. It can sometime mean getting more complex, right?
I don't know how you made that assumption that intracellular parasites had to appear after multicellularity.  Bacteriophages attack bacteria, so there might have been a very early time when the first viruses for instance appeared with the first cells.  The extent of the evolution of viruses and intracellular parasites that we do know is that they co-evolve with the host.  As the host gets more advanced, the parasites get more advanced, which always have been the problem for development of resistance.

Just curious, how do you know that in a given environment going back to simple form would have been much better for a given species then going forward? Give me some science. Tell me about the story of the Mother earth during the billion year period. Tell me about its climate and all the environmental conditions and all the species that lived in there and how they would adapt, what changes would have happened to make them fit better. Strange thing is you can't even answer simplest questions but at the same time are bold enough to make omniscient claims.
:-\ 

Yes, perhaps, I'm stupid.  I wasted all this time to try to answer the simplest questions, but clearly I can't.  And then you wonder why people like Dnarmist leave the Church.

As to your question, I don't know where to begin.  We know there are extremophiles that live in extreme conditions, and we understand the Earth to have had extreme conditions billions of years ago.  The complex organisms that live today could not have survived those conditions.  That's science in a nutshell for you.

Wait here now. So how many individuals with 23 chromosomes should have been ostracized?  What is the chance that only such individuals (however many there should have been to start a new population) could have been ostracized? In what environment they where ostracized so that they did not come into contact with original population and those 23 pair genomes were not diffused again in the original population? How would frequent mutations help to the situation? To explain the point of last question let's take a very common mutation factor V Leiden. In spite of it being one of the commonest mutations (and homosigotic states are very common too) we don't have any (ostracized) population of people who just have factor V Leiden. So what's the point of frequency of mutation? I can only see that it could just increase the chance of several individuals being ostracized at the same time, but I need science in this case. I need math and I need observational support for that math. I'm waiting. Oh yeah, almost forgot most important thing: You are still hypothetical and no hard facts. Please, give me some examples where several individuals were ostracized with the same mutations and these individuals started homozygous line of beings with regard of this mutation. Remember, this is what you are saying exactly. All the individuals who were ostracized had 23 chromosomes. To make the ostracization claim based on facts you further need to provide such example.
I'm only giving you some ideas.  For instance, if there existed apes at the time that are similar to those who are Down's Syndrome, then they might have been ostracized.  Some people with Down's are still fertile, and some can give birth to normal humans.

I can't give examples of people being ostracized.  But surely, we have examples of species that may look very similar with different chromosomal numbers (like the beavers).  The question of how this occurred is no different than asking how a murderer got in.  Hence, why I don't understand why you think these questions can disprove evolution.

Has it been proven that we can't create Gold that is transparent in color but otherwise has all the properties of it? Has it been proven that we can't create an element that has only 14 electrons, no protons and no neutrons but has all properties of carbon? If not does it mean that carbon with 14 electrons only can exist? Or a transparent element that has all Gold like physical-chemical properties exist? Or look at this claim you make: Well, if it's aliens, in that case, aliens have to exist first in order for this to be tested, and it remains a fairy tale more than anything. Has it been proven that Aliens can't exist? If it was I'm interested what was that proof. This questions clearly shows that your point is wrong. You say if we have not shown in experiment something is not possible then we can't rule out the possibility of it. Guess what? Then every single imaginable thing exists whether you can get it in the lab or not.
You completely lost me here.

Let's say we have created this protocell in the lab. What properties it should have to call it protocell and not call it cell?
I don't know.  I suppose a protocell would have properties that allow it to grow, reproduce, and eventually evolve.

And if abiogenesis doesn't have to do anything with evolution then say abiogenesis is not possible but evolution is possible. Say that first cells were created by God and then evolution took on. Say it, I'm listening. Say it and have all the evolutionists say it. But the logic is so simple. 1) Abiogenesis is not possible and God only created first cell; 2) If God created one cell he could have created any type of cells and any number of cells with different genetic makeup; 3) consequently there's no need of evolution to explain life's origin and it's diversity. As simple as this.
???

That's like asking a mechanical engineer to tell me what he believes about the only way to treat someone with cancer.  I'm not an expertise in abiogenesis.  I'm simply open to anything the origin of life.  If we can't make life ourselves, okay, great.  If it has been proven that we can chemically make life, and that the condition of the earth allowed that to happen, great.  Abiogenesis or no abiogenesis, blessed be the Name of the Lord, the Creator of all things, comprehensible and incomprehensible.

Finally, about science.  The idea that I was trying to show is that anything that is experimented has to be falsifiable.  In other words, if you want to prove something correct, there has to be the possibility that you're wrong also.  Therefore, scientists who want to prove evolution correct have to actually capitalize on the possibilities of evolution being incorrect, and so they have to make predictions of the hypothesis to see if the predictions come out wrong or not.  If they don't come our wrong, you need to repeat the experiment to see if your predictions are accurate.  An example was that one neuroscientist seemed to have shown that glutamate was actually inhibitory in the brain, whereas another scientists who repeated his experiment showed this to be false.  Therefore, you will have scientists always challenging your experiments to see if they can disprove it.  If the prediction has always been accurate, and scientists are unable to disprove the hypothesis, it becomes theory.
 

chrevbel

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
jckstraw72 said:
point #3 seems pretty naive to me. evolutionists pretty clearly have a vested interest in keeping evolution around, and sometimes they outright admit that, and i already provided a few quotes from scientists saying that. if youre just interested in truth youre not going to take a school district to court for simply mentioning Intelligent Design (Dover, PA). Darwin's theory will survive as long as people want to run away from God (and then some who believe in God will continue to go along with it).
Interesting.  Do you think this same way about gravity?  No one really has the slightest clue what causes it, you know.  Or how about astronomy?  There are explanations for natural phenomena that conflict with scriptural interpretation.  Are astronomers guilty of running away from God?
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Yes, perhaps, I'm stupid.  I wasted all this time to try to answer the simplest questions, but clearly I can't.  And then you wonder why people like Dnarmist leave the Church.
You did not offend me to start with. If I did I apologize to you sincerely. But let's look at it honestly. When somebody is called a creationist (young earth or otherwise) by Darwinists, do Darwinist not mean to offend them? The matter of truth is they do. Besides you asked me same questions and what answer did you get from me? I said I do not know. So what we have: I don't know how chromosome 2 came into existence. I don't know how life came into existence. I do not know how diversity of life came to be. I just believe this all came from God. Am I stupid too and offending myself?

And, please, don't blame views like mine as a cause of somebodies leaving Orthodox Church if that's what you want to say. Just because people have too much ago and Pure faith is not enough for them and they need to be called intellectuals, they need to feel they have or came up with all the nice answers is in no way a cause for somebody leaving the Church.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
ativan said:
minasoliman said:
Yes, perhaps, I'm stupid.  I wasted all this time to try to answer the simplest questions, but clearly I can't.  And then you wonder why people like Dnarmist leave the Church.
You did not offend me to start with. If I did I apologize to you sincerely. But let's look at it honestly. When somebody is called a creationist (young earth or otherwise) by Darwinists, do Darwinist not mean to offend them?
Don't creationists call themselves "creationists"?
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
ativan said:
minasoliman said:
Yes, perhaps, I'm stupid.  I wasted all this time to try to answer the simplest questions, but clearly I can't.  And then you wonder why people like Dnarmist leave the Church.
You did not offend me to start with. If I did I apologize to you sincerely. But let's look at it honestly. When somebody is called a creationist (young earth or otherwise) by Darwinists, do Darwinist not mean to offend them? The matter of truth is they do. Besides you asked me same questions and what answer did you get from me? I said I do not know. So what we have: I don't know how chromosome 2 came into existence. I don't know how life came into existence. I do not know how diversity of life came to be. I just believe this all came from God. Am I stupid too and offending myself?
When Darwinists call people creationists, it's no different a label than calling someone a scientist, atheist, Christian, Darwinist, etc.  It's just a label trying to summarize the views one holds without any offense.  In fact, if one is a theist, by necessity one has to be a creationist, and I consider myself a creationist, as the famous Dobzhansky said.  Some are young-earth creationist, some are old-earth creationist.  I even know some who are evolutionist for everything except man (in other words, evolution is fine if it occurs with all other animals, but not humans).

The only time when the label "creationist" is offensive is when people are trying to become scientific creationist (in fact, the label is an offense to both science and creationism, both of which are two worthy words), and the only people they are offending is themselves, for the blasphemous use of the word "creationism" and for the vast ignorance they show themselves in the scientific community.

And certainly if the label is something that someone is not, then it's definitely offensive.  The label "Monophysite" is a label I despise because I also condemn it as a heresy.  But "Miaphysite," "non-Chalcedonian," "Copt," "OO," etc. are not labels I hate.  If others are using the label "Miaphysite" spitefully, I carry it as a badge of honor.  If someone is calling me a "atheist compromiser," then I get offended, because I consider myself as much an anti-atheist as I am an anti-"scientific creationist."

And no, you are not offending yourself for not knowing.  This is a humble way to take things.  But when I say "I don't know," I don't assume that something is wrong.  For example, I know that God exists on a religious level.  I'm not agnostic about that.  Therefore, atheism in my opinion is religiously wrong.  But if I say that evolution is scientifically wrong, then that means I have an alternative scientific view to prove this.  I told you for instance I don't really know much about abiogenesis to have a fulfilling discussion, but you wanted me to "admit" that abiogenesis is wrong, but that's not how I work.  When I say I don't know, then I don't assume a position is wrong.  Otherwise, that means I know something, which is definitely not "I don't know."

And, please, don't blame views like mine as a cause of somebodies leaving Orthodox Church if that's what you want to say. Just because people have too much ago and Pure faith is not enough for them and they need to be called intellectuals, they need to feel they have or came up with all the nice answers is in no way a cause for somebody leaving the Church.
The reason people leave the Church is almost always a mutual cause.  Part of the blame is themselves, and part of the blame is the environment they were with.  When evolution is called heretical and blasphemy in a particular church, we are essentially ostracizing some who do seek belief.  And this is not considering the fact that there are others in the EO Church, especially bishops, who find no problem with evolution.
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
Mina maybe you can help me address a conversation I'm having with a fellow on her via PM. I've been doing as much research as I can into evolution and natural selection, but the aformentioned member said a few things that I wanted to make sure I wasn't wrong about.

He says that the calculation of the odds, and the dismal failure of experiments to prove how it beat the odds, in regards to Natural Selection (if I'm understanding the nature of his observation)

What I say is that the experiments themselves are hard to do, being as we just don't have a spare planet at hand to do this. However, there are a few things we can do to determine probability.

The first is to look at the mathematics behind life as an abstracted process. We can take some assumptions about the abstract form of life and plug them into simulations and see what happens. The a-life experiments have been amazing in this respect demonstrating that all life really needs is a physical substrate capable of sustaining maths (or specifically cellular automata [not to be confused with 'cells', but rather the idea of particles or positions that react with surrounding positions in simple but enumeratable ways) , which our physics most certainly do, and entropy, or 'error', provided handily by quantum physics and a few other neato physical properties of the universe.

So experiments like tierra that basically just created a computer and flipped a few errors into it, end up generating complex reproducing "life" within a space of a day or two. There have been numerous of these experiments and they all end up with all sorts of interesting phenomena arising, parasitism, sexual reproduction, and so forth, leading to the possible conclusion that many of the complicated behaviors we see in real life are, whilst maybe not inevitable, highly probable in a sufficiently complex entropy vunerable substrate. (It should be noted that some have criticized these as not representitive of the original conditions, and they are right, but this misses the point. The point is to say that the possibilities of life go beyond just 'whats the specific arangement of matter required ' to asking 'how dependant on the arangement of matter is lifes origins anyway', the answer being "not as much as we might have thought initially". Ie, the answer is written in the math not the stuff!

Secondly we can look at initial conditions and search for the origins of the complex proteins and shit needed to kick start the whole process. This turned out to be relatively easy. Stanly miller in the 50s took a glass jar, stuffed it with a soup of chemicals he assumed to be representative of pre-life earth(amonia, methane, hydrogen, etc) , blasted it with a crap tonne of electricity all mad professor styles and had a look what came out. What he found was amino acids previously though to be a major stumbling block to abiogenesis. Basically the dude demonstrated how the parts needed to bootstap life could be formed by the simple application of lightning to the sparse chemistry of early earth.

He also went on point to say he was just reading an article in Time about another astronomer who has looked at the evidence and has decided we are alone.

The reality is, scientists have been in recent time been saying the universe is quite possibly stock full of life, likely mostly single cell and simplistic.

But we don't really know yet. The odds seem in favor of a life packed universe, but our dinky little telescopes and radios haven't demonstrated that yet. But they certainly have not demonstrated otherwise either. The science proceeds as we speak.

Statistically the odds are in favor of life in the universe, just because of how huge the universe is. We've already discovered many earth-like planets nearby that have conditions that we believe could support life, we just can't get there to verify that there's life on them. If everyone on earth played the lottery, what are the odds that 2 people win?

There's also a changing definition of what life is. Ever think that life couldn't survive in open space for 10 days? Think again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jetavan said:
ativan said:
minasoliman said:
Yes, perhaps, I'm stupid.  I wasted all this time to try to answer the simplest questions, but clearly I can't.  And then you wonder why people like Dnarmist leave the Church.
You did not offend me to start with. If I did I apologize to you sincerely. But let's look at it honestly. When somebody is called a creationist (young earth or otherwise) by Darwinists, do Darwinist not mean to offend them?
Don't creationists call themselves "creationists"?
Yes, they do. But they mean different connotation and Darwinists put absolutely Different meaning. You can look on different forums and it'll be easy to see. You don't need to go too far. Read responses after my first posts. I don't say this because I felt offended from those members. Not at all. I just point to the clear fact that one word is used with different connotation by 2 different groups. To be truthful I do feel offended sometimes but not because somebody offended me but because I have too much ago. Glory to God, He helps me to get over it though.

minasoliman
Sorry if you have answered some of the questions and I'm asking them again. But this is a very long thread. Could you point me just to external or internal links that has answers, you agree with, to a given questions? This way I will not repeat questions.

All this I know. But thanks anyways. Now both of us also know that any mutation that happens and affects a protein structure we still get same species. We can have mutations happen many different time in say one of the hemoglobin genes but this will still produce a human with certain hemoglobinonpathy. Mutation can affect insulin gene or its receptor gene but we still get a human with diabetes. Mutation can affect several different genes at the same time but still humans are born with several mutated genes. If mutation affect regulatory genes, then catastrophes happen or if something is born it is healthy or diseased human. Then, if every time mutation happens it produces exactly same species how is one going to get different species after 1 million or 1 billion mutation? Hopefully you've got meaningful answer to this question. BTW theories that propose systemic mutations (like the one nicknamed "hopeful monster") do much better then Darwinism and they are proposed exactly for this reason that Darwinism even logically is wrong, not to say that it has no observational and experimental support. Please answer above question without any further vague hypothesis and base it on observational data.
Actually, the answer to this is simple and not hypothetical.  Today, we have physicians and altruistic peoples who care about others with diseases and try to help them to live their lives better.  In the animal kingdom, people with such diseases will die off.

People with Type 1 DM should be at a very small population.  But the increase in population of people with Type 1 DM is because of the availability of man-made insulin.
I will reformulate the question since your answer is irrelevant - you misunderstood question. The idea behind this question is at what point ancestors of human were completely non-humans while immediate ancestor of every human being is human. Let's go backward step by step: we can tell definitely that 10th generation backward your great great ... ancestors were as humans as you. Same is true 20 generation back. What about 111 generation back: who were they? Will do this step by step.
 
Top