| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/23/2009 03:27:55 PM · #3301 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Just another example of a freek of nature. Likely caused by some of the garbage man has created, same as man has done by causing global warming. |
Genetic variation IS nature, and the reason we aren't all identical. You evidently missed the earlier posts on genetic issues in Gaza, but descendents of Adam and Eve, with no other option but to procreate with each other, would face even worse inbreeding problems. |
|
|
|
12/23/2009 03:46:14 PM · #3302 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Just another example of a freek of nature. Likely caused by some of the garbage man has created, same as man has done by causing global warming. |
Genetic variation IS nature, and the reason we aren't all identical. You evidently missed the earlier posts on genetic issues in Gaza, but descendents of Adam and Eve, with no other option but to procreate with each other, would face even worse inbreeding problems. |
Wouldn't evolutionary theory also suppose there was an original mating pair within the species? By definition a species cannot produce offspring with another species (say homo sapien and homo neanderthal). At some point in East Africa there would have been some genetic line crossed by two (or perhaps very few) individuals.
I'm not defending a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve, but your objection seems to not go away within a scientific framework. |
|
|
|
12/23/2009 04:26:04 PM · #3303 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wouldn't evolutionary theory also suppose there was an original mating pair within the species? |
No, it wouldn't. There would never have been a single pair of first humans or koalas. The earliest life would have been very simple self-replicating organisms, with few genes, and therefore little risk of damage. Small changes within already-varied populations gradually lead to more significant change over time. |
|
|
|
12/23/2009 04:29:31 PM · #3304 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The singularity of God is not contradicted by the Trinity, you just don't understand the theology of the Trinity apparently. |
That's rich. I would really, really, really, really, really like to see you explain to us the theology of the Trinity in a way that will make us understand. I'm begging you. Please. Teach us the meaning of the trinity. |
|
|
|
12/23/2009 04:36:11 PM · #3305 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The singularity of God is not contradicted by the Trinity, you just don't understand the theology of the Trinity apparently. |
Originally posted by Louis:
That's rich. I would really, really, really, really, really like to see you explain to us the theology of the Trinity in a way that will make us understand. I'm begging you. Please. Teach us the meaning of the trinity. |
What he asked.....
|
|
|
|
12/23/2009 08:08:45 PM · #3306 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wouldn't evolutionary theory also suppose there was an original mating pair within the species? |
No, it wouldn't. There would never have been a single pair of first humans or koalas. The earliest life would have been very simple self-replicating organisms, with few genes, and therefore little risk of damage. Small changes within already-varied populations gradually lead to more significant change over time. |
I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't talking about evolution in general (which I understand quite well), I was talking about homo sapien in specific. It seemed to me like you were disparaging the Adam and Eve story because it would be silly to think about a single breeding pair as the origin of the species. Was I wrong about this? My point was that evolution will also speculate at some point a single breeding pair (or very few breeding pairs) as the origin of a new species. One will start with the genetic diversity of a species, but at some point, as a group separates genetically from the rest, that diversity is no longer available as breeding between the two groups is no longer possible (by definition, a new species has arisen) and now you only have the diversity available that is represented by potential mating partners. To quote wiki, "Current research has established that human beings are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a population bottleneck resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe." That population bottleneck could be very few individuals. That was my point.
To cite our favorite guy Dawkins' work..."Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has postulated that human mitochondrial DNA (inherited only from one's mother) and Y chromosome DNA (from one's father) show coalescence at around 140,000 and 60,000 years ago respectively. In other words, all living humans' female line ancestry trace back to a single female (Mitochondrial Eve) at around 140,000 years ago. Via the male line, all humans can trace their ancestry back to a single male (Y-chromosomal Adam) at around 60,000 to 90,000 years ago."
|
|
|
|
12/23/2009 09:17:18 PM · #3307 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My point was that evolution will also speculate at some point a single breeding pair (or very few breeding pairs) as the origin of a new species. |
Your point is incorrect. That's not how evolution works, and it's staggering that you would have such a poor understanding of the subject after debating it for so long.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...all living humans' female line ancestry trace back to a single female (Mitochondrial Eve) at around 140,000 years ago. |
Correct, but irrelevant to the point you're trying to make (you misunderstand the significance of ME). I'll paraphrase from a very thorough description here: Mitochondrial Eve was NOT our common ancestor, or even common genetic ancestor. She is the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent. Every part of that phrase is critical to the term. ME represents that woman whose mitochondrial DNA (with mutations) exists in all the humans now living on Earth. That does not mean that she is our lone woman ancestor. We have ancestors who are not via matrilineal descent. ME lived with many other humans (men and women); she was certainly not alone. When she was alive, she was most certainly NOT the Mitochondrial Eve.
Interesting side note: mitochondrial DNA is not human DNA. It exists in an organelle outside the cell nucleus that determines our physical and mental characteristics.
Message edited by author 2009-12-23 21:58:02. |
|
|
|
12/24/2009 12:25:48 PM · #3308 |
I think I catch your point and I think our issue, of course, is semantics. It's actually interesting to ask "what is a species?" For example, if population A can interbreed with B which can interbreed with C and so forth (A>B>C>D>E), but A cannot interbreed with E, where does one draw the species line? and is it just academic?
My point was basically that it is logical to ask the question, "at what point were the fewest members of homo sapiens present on earth? and how many were there?" If the answer is a sizeable number, say 3,000, what is the answer to, "how many homo sapiens were present the generation before?" The answer doesn't seem logical to answer zero, but it also doesn't seem logical to answer a number between 1 and 2,999 because we already asked "at what point were the fewest members around?"
Do you get the conundrum?
BTW: I do know what mitochondrial DNA is. ;) The reason it is passed down from our mothers is because the egg is so much larger than the sperm. It contains far more mitochondria and thus we get the vast majority of it from our mothers.
Message edited by author 2009-12-24 12:27:47. |
|
|
|
12/24/2009 01:49:52 PM · #3309 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My point was basically that it is logical to ask the question, "at what point were the fewest members of homo sapiens present on earth? |
And your point continues to demonstrate utter cluelessness regarding evolution. Its a gradual process over millions of years. If every single animal that ever lived were fossilized, and we recovered all of them, you could never point to a single example and say this one is Homo Sapiens and all the others just before were not. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! The precise point of change would be an arbitrarily defined distinction of incredible subtlety. History transitions from millions of individuals who were modern humans to millions of individuals who were less modern humans, and so on.
Try thinking of it in terms of another species to clear your preconceived notions. Dogs, for example... can we agree that modern, domesticated dogs are descended from wolves and other wild counterparts? Recent, selective breeding has accelerated natural, genetic differences to produce chihuahuas and poodles. While they're still related enough that you could cross the two, it should be easy to understand how such small changes in isolated populations can gradually lead to completely distinct species (picture a timber wolf mating with a chihuahua in the wild). If you go back just a few hundred or thousand years, the differences would be less obvious and far more gradual. The distinction between domesticated dogs and wild ones blurs to the point that you'd have a hard time picking out the first domesticated dog. Even if they were ultimately descended from a single specimen while other lineages died out, that single specimen lived among many thousands or millions of basically indistinguishable animals.
The same applies to humans. Going back millions of years, any given two people who ultimately gave rise to your family line would have had parents of their own, and certainly were not alone in the world... and their parents would have had parents, and so on. At the same time, each generation would be less and less recognizable as humans the further back you go.
Message edited by author 2009-12-24 13:52:46. |
|
|
|
12/24/2009 03:07:22 PM · #3310 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My point was basically that it is logical to ask the question, "at what point were the fewest members of homo sapiens present on earth? |
And your point continues to demonstrate utter cluelessness regarding evolution. Its a gradual process over millions of years. If every single animal that ever lived were fossilized, and we recovered all of them, you could never point to a single example and say this one is Homo Sapiens and all the others just before were not. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! The precise point of change would be an arbitrarily defined distinction of incredible subtlety. History transitions from millions of individuals who were modern humans to millions of individuals who were less modern humans, and so on.
Try thinking of it in terms of another species to clear your preconceived notions. Dogs, for example... can we agree that modern, domesticated dogs are descended from wolves and other wild counterparts? Recent, selective breeding has accelerated natural, genetic differences to produce chihuahuas and poodles. While they're still related enough that you could cross the two, it should be easy to understand how such small changes in isolated populations can gradually lead to completely distinct species (picture a timber wolf mating with a chihuahua in the wild). If you go back just a few hundred or thousand years, the differences would be less obvious and far more gradual. The distinction between domesticated dogs and wild ones blurs to the point that you'd have a hard time picking out the first domesticated dog. Even if they were ultimately descended from a single specimen while other lineages died out, that single specimen lived among many thousands or millions of basically indistinguishable animals.
The same applies to humans. Going back millions of years, any given two people who ultimately gave rise to your family line would have had parents of their own, and certainly were not alone in the world... and their parents would have had parents, and so on. At the same time, each generation would be less and less recognizable as humans the further back you go. |
Hey, thanks for being gentle. NOT. I understand fully what you are saying, now you need to understand what I'm saying. Speciation is both a real and a academic process. Does it make sense to say an Australian aboriginal is more or less homo sapien than a German? No, it doesn't. OTOH, as you say, the change from one species to another is very gradual (although it may be less gradual than you say, a la punctuated equilibrium which is relatively quick in geological time).
What I want you to understand is this. At some point in a new species evolution, a group has to be separated from the rest of the population. That group then has its genetic makeup change over time in a different way than the original group and eventually they are so different they cannot interbreed (and we have a new species). So while I agree with you that the founder members of a new species are not "alone", for whatever reason they did not breed with the group that represented the original genetic pool. If this had happened you would have genetic regression to the mean instead of genetic progression to a new species. That is an important point I think you are missing. |
|
|
|
12/24/2009 03:30:36 PM · #3311 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I agree with you that the founder members of a new species are not "alone", for whatever reason they did not breed with the group that represented the original genetic pool. If this had happened you would have genetic regression to the mean instead of genetic progression to a new species. |
No. If South American dogs are separated from North American dogs, then over the course of millions of years any slight differences will become more pronounced. They WON'T regress to wolves or some "average" of both groups. This much should be readily apparent just by looking at modern wildlife diversity across the continents.
Now... what was this thread about? :-/
Message edited by author 2009-12-24 15:36:40. |
|
|
|
12/24/2009 04:56:28 PM · #3312 |
| Hogs, on the other hand will revert back to being wild rather quickly. A domesticated hog, playful and loving will turn mean and vicious in a matter of months if left on their own to fend for themselves. They are kind of like humans in that respect. |
|
|
|
12/24/2009 05:15:18 PM · #3313 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I personally define the Catholic church as a dissenting religious body that is heretical. It is dissenting in the idea that the church, or body of Christ, includes all Christians in heaven and on earth with Christ at the head, and even though Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination, it is much smaller than the whole of the church of Christ. Also, a sect is synonymous with denomination. |
I'm sure the Catholic community couldn't care less how personally you define them and I'll ignore the heretical crack for the moment, but you might want to check your numbers:
The 2007 Pontifical Yearbook states that there are 1.115 billion Catholics worldwide. The CIA World Factbook, which relies on worldwide census' figures, provides a similar estimate. Estimates from other reliable sources suggests that the Catholic Church accounts for over half of all Christians worldwide.
And it's growing, (source //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church)
Church membership in 2007 was 1.147 billion people, increasing from the 1950 figure of 437 million and the 1970 figure of 654 million. The Catholic population increase of 139% outpaced the world population increase of 117% between 1950 and 2000. It is the largest Christian church, and encompasses approximately half of all Christians, one sixth of the world's population, the largest organized body of any world religion. It is known for its ability to use its transnational ties and organizational strength to bring significant resources to needy situations and operates the world's largest non-governmental school system. Although the number of practicing Catholics worldwide is not reliably known, membership is growing particularly in Africa and Asia. |
|
|
|
12/24/2009 05:37:17 PM · #3314 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Hogs, on the other hand will revert back to being wild rather quickly. A domesticated hog, playful and loving will turn mean and vicious in a matter of months... |
Feral behavior is not a genetic change. You're not even in the ballpark. |
|
|
|
12/24/2009 05:44:33 PM · #3315 |
| That's right, but it shows that behavior in general can go to hell if care is not given to overcome it....pigs or humans. |
|
|
|
12/24/2009 05:45:49 PM · #3316 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I agree with you that the founder members of a new species are not "alone", for whatever reason they did not breed with the group that represented the original genetic pool. If this had happened you would have genetic regression to the mean instead of genetic progression to a new species. |
No. If South American dogs are separated from North American dogs, then over the course of millions of years any slight differences will become more pronounced. They WON'T regress to wolves or some "average" of both groups. This much should be readily apparent just by looking at modern wildlife diversity across the continents.
Now... what was this thread about? :-/ |
I completely agree with this. The reason is because the South American dogs can't breed with the North American dogs which allows the genetic codes to continue to differ. Same thing with modern homo sapiens.
But I'm talking in circles now and I'm not sure you are going to understand so I'll drop it. |
|
|
|
12/24/2009 05:51:14 PM · #3317 |
| Did you just say Northern homo sapiens can't breed with Southern homo sapiens? |
|
|
|
12/24/2009 05:52:08 PM · #3318 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Hogs, on the other hand will revert back to being wild rather quickly. A domesticated hog, playful and loving will turn mean and vicious in a matter of months... |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Feral behavior is not a genetic change. You're not even in the ballpark. |
That has never stopped him before!......8>)
Eta: He did it again!.....See above.....
Message edited by author 2009-12-24 17:52:42.
|
|
|
|
12/24/2009 06:13:34 PM · #3319 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The reason is because the South American dogs can't breed with the North American dogs which allows the genetic codes to continue to differ. Same thing with modern homo sapiens.
|
|
|
|
|
12/24/2009 06:15:51 PM · #3320 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Did you just say Northern homo sapiens can't breed with Southern homo sapiens? |
You can but you need a plug adapter. |
|
|
|
12/24/2009 06:21:57 PM · #3321 |
|
|
|
12/24/2009 06:45:17 PM · #3322 |
Y'all just don' get it......
|
|
|
|
12/25/2009 12:44:29 AM · #3323 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The singularity of God is not contradicted by the Trinity, you just don't understand the theology of the Trinity apparently. |
Originally posted by Louis:
That's rich. I would really, really, really, really, really like to see you explain to us the theology of the Trinity in a way that will make us understand. I'm begging you. Please. Teach us the meaning of the trinity. |
What he asked..... |
Read this:
//www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2006/1442_What_is_the_doctrine_of_the_Trinity/ |
|
|
|
12/25/2009 01:07:16 AM · #3324 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The singularity of God is not contradicted by the Trinity, you just don't understand the theology of the Trinity apparently. |
Originally posted by Louis:
That's rich. I would really, really, really, really, really like to see you explain to us the theology of the Trinity in a way that will make us understand. I'm begging you. Please. Teach us the meaning of the trinity. |
What he asked..... |
Read this:
//www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/2006/1442_What_is_the_doctrine_of_the_Trinity/ |
Somehow, I really don't think that Louis will be overly impressed with the article in question. Personally I tend to lend a lot more credence to verifiable facts.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/25/2009 02:18:04 AM · #3325 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
But... what if your church at some point opted to do just that, what would you do then... find another church.
Ray |
Yes, I would absolutely find another church. What if you're an anthropologist that believes in evolution and one day your boss throws in the towel and tells the world that he was all wrong and he now believes evolution is wrong. Would you quit your job and leave? Heck yes you would!
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Somehow, I really don't think that Louis will be overly impressed with the article in question. Personally I tend to lend a lot more credence to verifiable facts.
Ray |
Well, he didn't ask for poof that God exists with verifiable facts. He just asked that I explain the doctrine of the Trinity, and I think that article explains it well.
If you want to find verifiable facts to support the Christian faith, they are there. But, you're not going to go out of your way to find them and believe them if you have no curiosity or passion for Christ. And you're not going to have passion for Christ unless you believe in him first. That's why it all comes down to faith. You believe first, find evidence to solidify your faith later. It's the same with me and evolution and the big bang. That stuff doesn't interest me all that much so I don't go out of my way to find evidence to support it. It's not that I don't care about science or think it's unimportant. I just happen to believe that there is a lot more truth out there than science can prove. People ask, "what keeps us from falling off the earth?" Science says, "gravity keeps us from falling off the earth." Then we ask, "well, what is gravity then?" And science says, "it's like quantum mechanics, spacetime, string theory, M-theory, and a whole bunch of other theories, except we don't know which one is right and most of them are incompatible with other theories." So, science has no good answer for gravity and there are tons of contradictions. But people still believe that science is truth and that it can explain everything in the universe. I think that's crazy. I believe that God created the universe and holds it all together, and that's all I need to know. So, I've got my answer and my truth and I can go on living my life because I have a sense of meaning and purpose. But all those scientists will spend the rest of their lives poring over math equations and staring at computers and will probably die with little or no sense of fulfillment or purpose. I think that's just sad. I don't stress over proof, evidence, or facts like many of the people here in this thread, because I don't feel like I need to. I don't need evidence to continue living in my faith because I'm not trying to find the truth anymore. I believe I've already found it. People try to use evidence and scientific "fact" to make me falter and lose my faith. It doesn't work because I don't believe science is truth. People try to use logic on me, but I don't believe that human logic is very logical at all. I think the Bible is logical and humans aren't. If God isn't real than who made the Bible? Is the story of Jesus Christ just some fantastical creation of the human mind that a group of people came up with? That's not logical to me! I think about all the great fantasy writers like J.R.R. Tolkien. That guy made up some crazy stuff! But there is honestly no comparison between the Bible and the Lord of the Rings...
I'm a Christian and I believe what I believe. No amount of scientific evidence will change that. Just like no amount of Bible references will change many of your minds about your beliefs. With that being said, I'm not going to argue over Christianity in this thread anymore, and I'm not going to pay any attention to scientific arguments after this post. This is, after all, a political thread. If you think I've lost my marbles, then you are entitled to think that about me. You're sick of my religion and I'm sick of your science, so let's just get back to the politics.
Message edited by author 2009-12-25 02:20:22. |
|
