Latest News: The Great Trubulation


Pages (17): « First < Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next > Last »
Who Believes in Evolution?
Author Message
Beau Wetini
Me and my boy at the beach!


Posts: 2,194
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Post: #31
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

English people always seem to cause controversy! ;):funnyface::thumbsup:

Must be the weather! :D:D:D


LIVE THE KINGDOM NOW!!


12-21-2010 06:34 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Seraphim
Member


Posts: 2,075
Group: Registered
Joined: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #32
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Hi Gogh Jesus mentioned disorder as being beneficial when he mentioned the man born blind.

Joh 9:2 His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that caused him to be born blind?"
Joh 9:3 Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned. This happened so that the works of God might be revealed in him.

I suggest that eyes not working is a disorder, yet Jesus saw purpose in it.

I believe in miracles but I also believe in the natural world. I think God created both but I also think he equipped nature to do some of its own creating. A creation that can do its own creating is very awe inspiring to me. I see no reason why God cant have done it that way. So glorifying God is something I and many Christians do who believe in evolution.

One has to be cautious with Romans 1:18... and Matthew 19:3.... because their context is not science. Romans 1 is talking about idolatry practices and Matthew 19:3 could well be talking about Adam and Eve as inspired symbolic figures. They don`t have to be literal reality for the inspired message to have significance. If one says that everything in nature was directly created by God, one then finds themselves in the position of explaining not just the things in nature we like, but also the bad, cruel and unfortunate stuff we don`t like. Its a double edged sword. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose overall, but within there are many things that I would be loath to lay at Gods door directly.

I think that to object to evolution being presented as science because it is a theory is not valid. Newtons theory of gravity is a theory. So is the theory of relativity. In fact all science is made up of theory's. The fact they have massive supporting evidence as in the case of relativity doesn't ever move it up to the status of proved and away from being a theory. It never did and doesn't now.

12-21-2010 06:51 PM
Find all posts by this user
gogh
Participator


Posts: 3,239
Group: Moderator
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #33
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Hi Seraphim

re: "...Matthew 19:3 could well be talking about Adam and Eve as inspired symbolic figures."

How is the recorded lineage of Jesus significant to you?

Luke 3:23...

"Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was (so it was thought) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi,......................................." "......................... the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

:coffeeread:

gogh


"......."This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Keep listening to him!" Luke 9:35
12-21-2010 07:45 PM
Find all posts by this user
Seraphim
Member


Posts: 2,075
Group: Registered
Joined: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #34
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Personally I think the lineage is a way of linking Jesus as the second Adam to the first symbolic one. So the genealogy is part literal and part symbolic in my mind.

12-21-2010 08:03 PM
Find all posts by this user
gogh
Participator


Posts: 3,239
Group: Moderator
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #35
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

re: "...genealogy is part literal and part symbolic in my mind."

At what person in the recorded lineage do you decide when literal (people) become symbolic (people)?

:coffeeread:


"......."This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Keep listening to him!" Luke 9:35
12-21-2010 08:08 PM
Find all posts by this user
Seraphim
Member


Posts: 2,075
Group: Registered
Joined: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #36
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

I think the life spans might provide a clue.

12-21-2010 08:16 PM
Find all posts by this user
Mavos
The pluckiest Christian on the board.


Posts: 1,060
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #37
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Seraphim Wrote:
I think the life spans might provide a clue.


There are also large gaping holes in the genealogies of Genesis.


"I remember two things: That I am a great sinner, and that Christ is a great Saviour." - John Newton
12-21-2010 08:18 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
gogh
Participator


Posts: 3,239
Group: Moderator
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #38
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

"......."This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Keep listening to him!" Luke 9:35
12-21-2010 09:05 PM
Find all posts by this user
NewTruth
Member


Posts: 1,053
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #39
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Seraphim Wrote:
It would take allot to explain my whole view but I do think mutations play a role in evolution, as well as others biological mechanisms.

It might be good for me to point out that mutations are simply variations in the DNA when copied. They are not defined as changes that are harmful or good. There are just changes. Sometimes its due to mistakes in the copying process when sperm or eggs are produced within a human or animal. Children are always more than a both parents spliced together genetically speaking. This is why all children are different from each other and past generations. The differences are infinite because the genes that produced all children are not limited or set in stone. They mutate.

So if one accepts that all animals and humans replicate themselves as principle one, and we accept that principle two is that there is always variation in the offspring, we have gradual change over time. What works is kept and what doesn't is lost. The question is not why does life change over time but why wouldn't it? A photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy changes over time, degrading as it goes in the case of photocopies, but its because of change in each successive generation. If it remained intact and didn't change after a certain degree of change, we would conclude someone was cheating.

As example of a beneficial mutation that is quite recent, which was helpful and was therefore kept in humans in certain populations, was a mutation on chromosome 2. This means that lactose production doesn't shut down after weaning. So milk can be used as a food source until adulthood. Normally in some populations, and in the past with all humans, after the children stopped breast feeding the ability to drink milk stops. Its an advantage to be able to benefit from milk during ones whole life in a society that farms. Hence the mutation has been kept, and has become more common over a few thousand years because those who can benefit tend to survive better and pass on this mutation to offspring. Especially in cold climates is this the case where sunlight which produces vitamin D and high quality food is less available. Hence this ability is much more common in colder climates. The mutation is getting stronger not weaker.

Its just one example of a very recent beneficial mutation in humans.




Hi Brian.. Okay, if the mutation is not in the original or in the parent type then it is a mutation. If the change is somewhere in the DNA, then it is not a mutation. Also if the change is not somewhere in the DNA, then it is a damaged gene or a mistake..

In the case you mentioned about chromosome 2 and weaning, I would have to say that the change was in the DNA somewhere..and the survival of the fittest applies. A for instance is: During the Spanish flu, there were some people who never got it. They had something in their DNA that helped them survive this.. So the survivors mated and made for an offspring better able to fight the flu.. and so it goes. There was a situation about moths... The trees were a light colored bark and attracted light moths.. and then a mining factory moved in and the trees became dark colored on their bark. Now the moths were all dark colored.. Did the moths mutate to fit the environment? No, rather the gene for dark and light moths were in either moths DNA all along and it was survival of the fittest, as the birds ate off the moths that didn't blend in with the color of the bark. Your example is not a situation where a species jumps from one species to another but rather, most probably, just variation of the species and survival of the fittest.

12-21-2010 09:40 PM
Find all posts by this user
Seraphim
Member


Posts: 2,075
Group: Registered
Joined: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Post: #40
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

The issue is if the gene does something of use and gets passed on. This applies to existing genes, or new variations in those genes. Many small changes make one big change. Hence some dogs can no longer breed with other dogs and look very different. I'm not talking about domestic ones either. In the end the animals will look so different they would no longer be recognised as dogs at all. This takes a very long time of course. Natural selection drives the process as you say.

12-21-2010 11:18 PM
Find all posts by this user
BethelBoy
Member


Posts: 1,169
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Post: #41
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Yep, Funny it's even in the Bible:D





isomam Wrote:

BethelBoy Wrote:
Micro yes. Full no.

From one type of Dog spring many types of Dogs.

No Alligators turning into seagulls.

NEVER is information added in any mutation only lost.

BB:happyheart::heartbeat::happyheart:


each "according to their kind," right wayne? :whistle:

what a novel idea. ;)


http://www.uplook.org
http://www.voicesforchrist.org/order.html

Jesus sent him away, saying, 39 Return to your own house, and tell what great things God has done for you. And he went his way and proclaimed throughout the whole city what great things Jesus had done for him.

12-21-2010 11:46 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
BethelBoy
Member


Posts: 1,169
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Jan 2008
Status: Offline
Post: #42
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Hi Brian, Here is some info from a creation.com article the full one can be found here.

http://creation.com/changing-chromosome-numbers


Many people regard chromosome numbers in animals as being essentially fixed. While it is true that chromosome numbers are generally fairly stable within a population of animals, they are by no means completely static.



The most common and best known chromosomal rearrangement affecting chromosome number is the Robertsonian translocation (ROB). It is named after the American geneticist W.R.B. Robertson, who first described this chromosomal rearrangement in grasshoppers in 1916. It occurs when the long arms of two acrocentric chromosomes (chromosomes with the centromere very near one end) fuse to form one metacentric chromosome (a chromosome with the centromere near the middle). The short arms of the original chromosomes are generally lost with no obvious adverse consequences.

1. ROBs can be associated with problems. In humans, approximately one in 1,000 babies is born with this form of translocation.
2 Most appear normal, though they may experience fertility problems later in life. Fertility problems can arise when gametes (egg or sperm) are formed that are missing or have extra chromosomes. Gametes from ROB carriers may be normal, with one of each chromosome or balanced, with the translocated chromosome but neither of the acrocentric homologues. However, on occasion unbalanced gametes may be formed that are either missing a chromosome or have the translocated chromosome with one of its acrocentric homologues. Unbalanced gametes can give rise to embryos which fail to develop or develop with abnormalities such as Down’s syndrome. It is estimated that 5% of Down’s syndrome cases are the result of an ROB.

While it is true that chromosome numbers are generally fairly stable within a population of animals, they are by no means completely static.

Although ROBs can be associated with problems, there are times where no adverse outcomes are observed. For example, they have been observed in Saanan goats with a normal phenotype and no reported fertility problems.3 There are crossbreeding studies with sheep carrying up to three different translocations that showed no significant effect on phenotype or fertility for any of the combinations.4 In fact, the normal chromosome number of domestic sheep (Ovis aries, 2n = 54) is inferred to be the result of three different translocations relative to domestic goats (Capra hircus, 2n = 60). The variation in chromosome number in the Bovidae family (including the tsoan5 and cattle6 monobaramins) appears to be mostly due to ROBs.

There are other types of chromosomal rearrangements that have contributed to the range of chromosome numbers in animals that are monobaraminic (known to be from the same created kind). Some of these rearrangements are quite unexpected. For example, the Indian muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak, 2n = 6 in females, 7 in males) has the x-chromosome fused with one of its autosomes. The y-chromosome is separate. The male will have one of this autosomal pair fused to an x, and the other without a fused sex chromosome and a separate y, giving it an extra chromosome compared to the female. It is interesting to note that viable hybrids have been formed between this species and Reeve’s muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi, 2n = 46).7 Some species of antelope have a fused y-chromosome.8

ROBs have been shown to be non-random and appear to have distinct mechanisms governing their formation.9 They occur frequently enough without serious consequence to suggest that they serve some useful purpose. Much is unknown; particularly what factors influence their occurrence and what important results they may have. They are believed to have played a role in speciation within the family Bovidae. As further research reveals more information, it is likely we will find still another designed mechanism within the genome that points to an all-wise Creator.



Also http://creation.com/evolution-by-fiat-and-faith

Polyploidy

Most multicellular organisms are ‘diploid’, having two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent, but sometimes organisms can have extra sets of chromosomes—this is called polyploidy.

Polyploidy is common in plants, especially in cultivated plants. Different species of coffee plant have 88, 66, 44, and 22 chromosomes. Note that they are all still called coffee. Some strawberries are octoploid, having eight sets of chromosomes rather than the original two sets, but they are still strawberries (they have very large leaves and fruit compared to normal strawberries).

A polyploid plant will usually not be able to breed with the parent species, and can consistently produce offspring with the same number of chromosome sets as itself. This can then be considered a new species. Note that there is no new genetic information involved, just repetition of existing information. By analogy, if a malfunction in a printing press caused a book to be printed with every page doubled, there would be no new information, just repetitious doubling of the existing information.

http://creation.com/copying-confusion

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_3/j19_3_4-5.pdf

Nobody is gonna make a Monkey out of me :D:D:D

BB:happyheart::heartbeat::happyheart:

Seraphim Wrote:

BethelBoy Wrote:
Micro yes. Full no.

From one type of Dog spring many types of Dogs.

No Alligators turning into seagulls.

NEVER is information added in any mutation only lost.

BB:happyheart::heartbeat::happyheart:


Its interesting the delineation between micro and macro evolution here. The view that animals on the ark produced all the species on the earth without genetic change is interesting. The view is as you expressed, that from one type of dog produced all the dogs species we have today. The presumption I guess is that because of limited space on the ark, representative kinds were kept on it so Noah didn't have to waist space gathering every type of dog around before the flood for instance.

What I find interesting is that the coyote and fox cannot interbreed, and they have a different number of chromosomes. The coyote has 78 but the Red fox has 38. This would seem to indicate some genetic change that would appear to contradict the non macro evolution view if they came from a single ancestor on the ark.


http://www.uplook.org
http://www.voicesforchrist.org/order.html

Jesus sent him away, saying, 39 Return to your own house, and tell what great things God has done for you. And he went his way and proclaimed throughout the whole city what great things Jesus had done for him.

12-22-2010 12:11 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Derek
Member


Posts: 1,075
Group: Registered
Joined: May 2008
Status: Offline
Post: #43
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Hi all,
Dealing with specifics and not generalizations.

One would have thought, if direct (by God's actual 'fingers') special creation took place intermittently throughout time, there should be, alive or extinct many specie types that are so unrelated to their contemporaries as to render a putative lineage by biologists an impossibility or totally lacking in scientific basis.

What species actual fit this criterion?
regards
Derek



We go in faith, our own great weakness feeling,
And needing more each day Thy grace to know:
Yet from our hearts a song of triumph pealing,
“We rest on Thee, and in Thy Name we go.”
02-19-2011 10:38 AM
Find all posts by this user
Interpretum
This Space For Rent


Posts: 1,839
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #44
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Seraphim Wrote:
Just as a general enquiry I was wondering was I the only person on the board who believes in full evolution? That is all life descending from a single original ancestor including humans. I'm not asking in order to debate on it in this thread but simply to see if I am the only one.

Thanks in advance to anyone who comments to let me know their stand.


Thanks for asking. I'm a "Young Earth Creationist". I take the creation chapters of Genesis as literal history, as I'm not asked by the account to read them any other way (such as allegorically, or poetically). They contain the HISTORY of the heavens and the earth, the HISTORY of Adam and Eve, and the HISTORY of the human race.

If the seven days were not literal, then the Jews were mistaken in celebrating the Sabbath every seventh day.

I believe evolution is an artfully crafted false story based on massively false assumptions by Hutton ("the present is the key to the past"), Lyall and Darwin... a theory that gained traction at first because it was a handy alternative to believing in Creation and the Flood... and later on, cumulative, selective science has biased it towards giving it validation, by gradually moving the dating boundaries out into more fantastical lengths of time... first millions, and then BILLIONS, in order to allow evolution the time it needs to become "plausible".


My Blog: The Prophetic Word

Latest post: Daniel 9 And The Seventy (70) Weeks - How Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy was fulfilled.
02-19-2011 12:42 PM
Find all posts by this user
Interpretum
This Space For Rent


Posts: 1,839
Group: Registered Plus
Joined: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Post: #45
RE: Who Believes in Evolution?

Hey Derek

Long time, no speak :thumbup:

Derek Wrote:
One would have thought, if direct (by God's actual 'fingers') special creation took place intermittently throughout time, there should be, alive or extinct many specie types that are so unrelated to their contemporaries as to render a putative lineage by biologists an impossibility or totally lacking in scientific basis.


Precisely. Which makes it more likely that God created things all in one go, fairly recently, in like... ohh, say, seven days :D

I would encourage you to read James Hutton's work, and see if you can spot the massive ASSUMPTIONS (fallacies) he makes, which is really where we should all start this debate, because it was Hutton who influenced Lyall and Darwin, who built upon Hutton's fallacies.

If the foundation of a house is faulty, the whole house is at risk of collapse.


My Blog: The Prophetic Word

Latest post: Daniel 9 And The Seventy (70) Weeks - How Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy was fulfilled.
02-19-2011 12:46 PM
Find all posts by this user
Pages (17): « First < Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next > Last »

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: