Adam. Man or Myth?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Yes and I believe that a tooth fairy comes along, takes children’s teeth and leaves money behind. I also believe that there are elves and pixies. Not forgetting the Loch Ness monster, bigfoot and the abominable snowman. Not to mention there are the unicorns, the Hobbits from Middle Earth, Merlin the wizard and finally Pinocchio the wooden puppet that became a real boy.

With a vivid imagination…

**Proof of the accuracy of the works of Tolkien is supplied by the fact that the Silmarillion mentions no fewer than four extinction-events. This is enough to convince even the most hardened sceptic of the very great age of the book. Part of it even goes back to the time before the end of Pangaea. That is old. **​

**And only a very ancient book such as the Red Book of Westmarch (of which “The Lord of the Rings” is part) would mention pterodactyls - which are quite obviously the beasts ridden by the Ringwraiths. So the book is also very valuable as a source of information on the uses to which men put pterodactyls, & establishes beyond doubt that they and men lived at the same time. **

**As to the Loch Ness Monster - the most rational explanation for it is, that it is a beast of the first Dark Lord Morgoth, which was trapped in a lake after the breaking of the world which destroyed Utumno, the first & more ancient dwelling of Morgoth in “the north of Middle Earth”. Where else could that be, but Scotland ? The reader of the Silmarillion will remember the many references to the cold of that region; which precisely suits the weather to the north of Cape Wrath - a name derived, obviously, from the Wrath of the Valar which ended the tyranny of Morgoth for good. **

**The existence of Elves is of course guaranteed by these books. That these books are infallibly accurate, is obvious. It would be the height of bad manners to insist any further on the self-evident perfection of these ancient & inerrant volumes, since this must be obvious to all. **

All the beings referred to, are recognisable as derived from the works made known by Tolkien - Pinocchio must surely be a young Ent ##

 

[buffalo]

Then it is not science then…science relies on empiricism.

No, humaN science relies on human observation and human reason.

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

See, the point is is that you don’t know what you are talking about. Centipedes and millipedes are not worms. They are arthropods.You mean like centipedes and millipedes as compared to worms?Please share with us the evidence you have to support that assertion.Mutations are not rare and, in fact, are usually neutral rather than dangerous. You need to study the science rather than the apologetics of evolution.

Peace

Tim

Since evolution is based on “a preponderance of evidence” and observation, I would like to point out a few of my own.

Good mutations:

Where are they? Besides anecdotal evidence based on assumptions (as no one was around to record it), where are we observing good mutations happening today?

Humans are growing larger and living longer. Are these “good mutations” or responses to environment hard coded in our DNA already? Humans are not growing larger because evolution has given us a leg up. We are growing larger because we are eating better, and in many countries, hormones are being given to animals later slaughtered for food. We are not living longer because evolution mutated our organs to make them work better. We live longer because we eat better combined with improvements in medicine. Environment plays a large part in our growth and development. Our adaptability is finite. Humans can’t adapt and grow gills so they can live with flipper no matter how much time they spend under water.

Based on observation, how many humans have been born with beneficial mutations? Down syndrome adds an extra gene of “information” to human DNA. The effect is retardation, severely shortened life spans, and stunted growth. What about dwarfs or giants? The very same problem plagues them. Only down syndrome children have more DNA. Dwarfism and giantism are both found in our own DNA as are most abnormalities/mutations. We typically call them diseases.

Based on observation within the animal kingdom, animals that are born with “mutations” are abandoned by their mothers or quickly weeded out in the game of survival of the fittest.

Again based on observation, the more complex an animal is, the less likely a mutation will be beneficial and the more likely it will greatly decrease its chances for survival. The law of diminishing returns is in play here.

Design:

If the model T was compared to the newest ford sedan, there would be few similarities. The simplistic model T was entirely mechanical. Cars today have been refined and engineered to be more reliable, efficient, powerful, comfortable, and safer. Yet one microchip “mutation” renders the car useless. The microchip was invented, refined and put to use by intelligence. They did not evolve from silicon and form logic on their own. They were intelligently designed to function in a specific way. Each chip can have thoudands of small errors or lets put it in human terms vestigal organs/junk DNA (transistors) that do not function. No one would suggest these chips are products of random chance.

How does a flat universe form out of an explosion? How do galaxies form much quicker than they should have? How come our galaxy hasn’t been rendered sterile by a giant nova? Why hasn’t our galaxy collided with another (it will someday). How did rare elements only produced by nova’s get here to earth? How did our planet come to be at the right orbital place around a relatively stable star with the right ingredients? From our own observations, we’ve proven we are so far unique. Life would not exist on this planet without Jupiter or our moon. I could go on but what I am pointing out here is everything in the heavens and earth declare thought and careful planning by someone who knows a lot more about space, time, matter, and life than we do.

Man has shown the ability to produce technology that is nothing short of amazing. But man has not been able to make one super computer with the ability to reason for itself. Man has not been able to create something out of nothing. Man has not been able to create life from non-life. We’ve only been able to play with the lego’s God made, not make our own.

Just to make it more interesting, I’ve included a link to a very interesting story about our human ancestory.

deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,640197156,00.html

 

[ribozyme]

How does a flat universe form out of an explosion?
deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,640197156,00.html

Uh… cosmic inflation solves the flatness problem.

 

[namguy69]

Uh… cosmic inflation solves the flatness problem.

I believe in creation.

 

[dessert]

The primary structures of the transcription factor FOXP2 is almost identical and it is best explained by common descent or a God who made FOXP2 in those organism similar so scientists would be confused and infer common descent when God created those organisms.

If the latter, God has done a good job decieving scientists (and myself).

ALMOST, identical see this explains that God is the one with the secret ingredient.
I remember reading ,but not lately, how they have tried over and over again to duplicate blood red blood cells and have not been successfull.

And all these tries with the cloning and the botches they get out of it or the animal only lives a short time and the mutations

Our blood itself is very complex and doesn’t even transfer to one another real well.

I think this is the most important factor in the descent of Adam his blood tainted by sin and that is why we needed Jesus as our savior and recive the cleansing blood .

return from the desert

Praise to the Lord and His cleansing blood

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

Uh… cosmic inflation solves the flatness problem.

And a benevolent Creator solves all problems inherent in the theory of secular evolution.

 

[hecd2]

Both of you are correct in trying to nail down what is information.

I would propose that by information we speak in terms of the instructional language of DNA.

OK, we agree that in order for you to back up your claim that an increase in the information in DNA is not observed, we have to be able to define what we mean by information, and we have to have a way of quantifying it so that we can unambiguously tell whether the information in Generation X+1 is more or less than in Generation X. However, so far, you haven’t begun to give us such a definition, or a means of measurement. So, on what do you base your claim?

In a mutation does the instructional language get more complex or less complex?

Until you define information and determine how to measure it, questions like these are meaningless. What is more complex or less complex DNA? - And how would we measure its ‘complexity’? (‘complexity’, however, is not a synonym of ‘information’ quantity).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[ribozyme]

ALMOST, identical see this explains that God is the one with the secret ingredient.
I remember reading ,but not lately, how they have tried over and over again to duplicate blood red blood cells and have not been successfull.

Linky to the article??

According to a highly regarded molecular biology textbook, it is impossible:

The erythrocyte is by far the most common type of cell in the blood (see Table 22-1). When mature, it is packed full of hemoglobin and contains practically none of the usual cell organelles. In an erythrocyte of an adult mammal, even the nucleus, endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, and ribosomes are absent, having been extruded from the cell in the course of its development (Figure 22-37). The erythrocyte therefore cannot grow or divide; the only possible way of making more erythrocytes is by means of stem cells. Furthermore, erythrocytes have a limited life-spanabout 120 days in humans or 55 days in mice. Worn-out erythrocytes are phagocytosed and digested by macrophages in the liver and spleen, which remove more than 1011 senescent erythrocytes in each of us each day. Young erythrocytes actively protect themselves from this fate: they have a protein on their surface that binds to an inhibitory receptor on macrophages and thereby prevents their phagocytosis.

 

[hecd2]

OK, here’s another person who thinks that scientists who spend their lives studying biology are so damn stupid that he can see obvious fundamental flaws in a theory that they cannot. Talk about hubris and ignorance.

Since evolution is based on “a preponderance of evidence” and observation, I would like to point out a few of my own.

You should submit these to a scientific journal if you think they are such telling evidence against the fundamental theory of modern biology.

Good mutations:

Where are they? Besides anecdotal evidence based on assumptions (as no one was around to record it), where are we observing good mutations happening today?

Direct contemporaneous observation is, naturally, only observable in rapidly evolving species and there, it is utterly obvious. HIV, human flu, H5N1, E coli, MRSA. But historical evidence is not anecdotal - it is powerfully inferential and to suggest otherwise is to display a deep ignorance of science.

Humans are growing larger and living longer…

Which knowledgeable person thinks they can see evolution in action over a 100 years in a population of between 1 and 6 billion and a generation time of 20 years? That’s just a daft strawman.

Based on observation, how many humans have been born with beneficial mutations?

Humans, like all other mammals (we are amniotes and deuterostomes and chordates and vertebrates and tetrapods and mammals and primates amd great apes) have, on average, three mutations in our genome.You, like me, have got three errors in the copying of your genome from your mother and father. It is the variation in the genome that arises from these mutations that makes the genotype and phenotype of a population change over time. Some mutations make us more fitted for the environment, some less. Fitter phenotypes pass on their genes more effectively thereby fixing their mutations. That’s all evolution is, and it’s powerful over time and incontrovertible.Evolution doesn’t exclusively occur through huge revolutionary positive mutations and to think it does is a basic error.

Down syndrome adds an extra gene of “information” to human DNA. The effect is retardation, severely shortened life spans, and stunted growth.

Sure - chromosomal abnormalities have, generally, severe consequences. You are making. however, an egregious error - chromosomal abnormalities are rare (one in several hundred births). Other mutations are common (three or four per live birth). Furthermore trisomy 21 doesn’t add a gene - it adds a chromosome. Don’t you think you should get kindergarten biology right before you presume to criticise professional scientists?

Based on observation within the animal kingdom, animals that are born with “mutations” are abandoned by their mothers or quickly weeded out in the game of survival of the fittest.

Since all mammals are born with, on average, three mutations, your claim is gibberish. What you mean to say is that individuals with severely deleterious mutations tend not to survive. That’s called Natural Selection, the driving force of evolution.

Again based on observation, the more complex an animal is, the less likely a mutation will be beneficial and the more likely it will greatly decrease its chances for survival. The law of diminishing returns is in play here.

Source? How do you justify this claim? Don’t forget - three mutations per individual human being.

To be continued

 

[hecd2]

Continuation

FromTheCrossroa:

How does a flat universe form out of an explosion?

I don’t think you have the slightest notion what a ‘flat universe’ means, if you think the Big Bang is an ‘explosion’. In others words, your cosmology is as ill-informed as your bioogy.

How do galaxies form much quicker than they should have?

Do they? Respectable source?

How come our galaxy hasn’t been rendered sterile by a giant nova? Why hasn’t our galaxy collided with another (it will someday).

Sterile? How many supernovae occur - observationally? Is there evidence that our galaxy SHOULD have collided with another? Have you any idea how far it is to the next major galaxy?

How did rare elements only produced by nova’s get here to earth?

You don’t really mean rare elements do you? The solar system obviously has elements produced by Population III and Population II stars and the sun is obviously a Population I star.

How did our planet come to be at the right orbital place around a relatively stable star with the right ingredients? From our own observations, we’ve proven we are so far unique. Life would not exist on this planet without Jupiter or our moon. I could go on but what I am pointing out here is everything in the heavens and earth declare thought and careful planning by someone who knows a lot more about space, time, matter, and life than we do.

This is pure anthropocentric thinking. Our home appears peculiarly suitable for life because we are here to contemplate it. How do you know that there are not thousands or millions of places in the observable universe of 10^23 (10^23! - have you any idea how many suns there are in the observable universe and how big a number 10^23 is?) stars where life can exist? Furthermore, you’d be hard-pressed to prove your assertion about life and the moon - life is more robust than you think, existing in deep sea vents and deep in sedimentary rock.

In other words, yours is another litany of error, suffused with error and misconception.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

I’ve heard there is as much variation in modern skulls to make a proposed transitional sequence of prehistoric skulls look very shakey indeed.

Then you’ve heard wrong. Source?

Stephen J Gould, while I’m not a fan of his, found it necessary to modify his own view of what the “evolution of species” meant.

No he didn’t. Have you actually ever read anything written by Gould?

To him it was necessary, as a ‘practicing paleontologist’ (so to speak), to change evolution from a logical, reasonable, gradual, continous change from one species through variations into, eventually, another species.
That was not what he found in the rocks.
Change he saw was sudden, and unexplained, with no gradual and continuous transition. To my mind, the practical ‘evolution’ he saw was not the evolution of the textbooks.

Really? He was a Harvard biolgist not some cranky creationist. He wrote several books on evolution, including his magnum opus ‘The Structure of Evolutionary Theory’. Have you read it? I thought not. He would have held your misrepresentation of his scientific position in utter contempt. He had no truck with magical explanations for the diversity of species and he was an enthusiastic opponent of creationism.

It leaves lots of questions to be answered about just what evolution means. Is it something chaotic and random, blindly rushing in every direction.

No, nor would any evolutionary biologist suggest that it is. This is a strawman of your own invention.

My own theory, for what its worth, is that there is a mechanism within a representative of a species which allows for, if you can imagine it, a set of perfect variations within that species.

We take your speculation, for what it’s worth - ie nothing at all, being supported by absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

But thats just my idea, I don’t tell anyone its true, its reasonable, possible - has all the evidence of any other evolution theory.

It has no evidence whatsoever - unlike real evolutionary theory that is replete with evidence - can you point to any evidence to support your idea?

I did read a paper someone provided as proof of evolution between species. But the paper said there was no known examples of animals evolving cross-species or whatever the term is. There were a few examples of plants and fewer again of insects but none of more complex animals.

If you don’t even know what the terms are, what devil leads you to pontificate ignorantly and erroneously? Let’s have a citation then for the ‘paper you read’ - here we have another person who knows less than zero biology that thinks he knows more than professional scientists who spend their lives studying the subject.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

OK, here’s another person who thinks that scientists who spend their lives studying biology are so damn stupid that he can see obvious fundamental flaws in a theory that they cannot. Talk about hubris and ignorance.

Imagine that. Someone with thin skin being arrogant and condescending. A part of mensa perhaps? Do you know what mensa means in Spanish? Look it up. You accuse someone else of ignorance when you demonstrate as much? This is supposed to be a discussion on a CATHOLIC forum. Are you Catholic or religious? If not, then why are you wasting your time here? It certainly isn’t to inform or educate. I pray you don’t teach as your replies prove you are ill equipped to teach anything to anyone. Certainly you are too arrogant to be open to learning something new…the mark of a true closed minded non-intellectual.

You should submit these to a scientific journal if you think they are such telling evidence against the fundamental theory of modern biology.

Ditto my astute egg-headed friend. Seriously, this is only a forum. Might I suggest mutating your brain with prozac.

Direct contemporaneous observation is, naturally, only observable in rapidly evolving species and there, it is utterly obvious. HIV, human flu, H5N1, E coli, MRSA.

Your best answer is viruses? One of my arguments against secular evolution is the lack of demonstratable proof (science) with increasingly complex lifeforms.

But historical evidence is not anecdotal -

Its anecdotal because the fossil record is at best incomplete. The assumptions made from it are just that. Be honest enough to call it a guess. I’d have more respect for your opinions.

Which knowledgeable person thinks they can see evolution in action over a 100 years in a population of between 1 and 6 billion and a generation time of 20 years? That’s just a daft strawman.

You suggested we can see rapid changes in viruses. Shouldn’t we be able to see changes or mutations in the present? Funny, not even I suggested we look at every generation of humanity for “proof”. You built that straw man sir.

We are finding new species all the time. However, are they appearing out of thin air? Were they always there and we just didn’t know? Did rapid change = rapid evolution? You tell me since its obviously your occupation to know everything.

Humans, like all other mammals (we are amniotes and deuterostomes and chordates and vertebrates and tetrapods and mammals and primates amd great apes) have, on average, three mutations in our genome.You, like me, have got three errors in the copying of your genome from your mother and father. It is the variation in the genome that arises from these mutations that makes the genotype and phenotype of a population change over time. Some mutations make us more fitted for the environment, some less. Fitter phenotypes pass on their genes more effectively thereby fixing their mutations. That’s all evolution is, and it’s powerful over time and incontrovertible.Evolution doesn’t exclusively occur through huge revolutionary positive mutations and to think it does is a basic error.
Sure - chromosomal abnormalities have, generally, severe consequences. You are making. however, an egregious error - chromosomal abnormalities are rare (one in several hundred births). Other mutations are common (three or four per live birth). Furthermore trisomy 21 doesn’t add a gene - it adds a chromosome. Don’t you think you should get kindergarten biology right before you presume to criticise professional scientists?

Blah blah blah. Partner, let me give you a nickel’s worth of free advice. Before you continually insult the intelligence of someone here, try learning how to spell the big words you use. Better yet, try learning to talk using smaller ones if you can’t master the simple concept called spell check. That should fix the spelling errors but not ones in your logic/memory. I did not say every human was born with three or more errors. Try reading the post before coming unglued. We haven’t even mapped the complete genome yet much less learned what each switch does.

To be continued if my insomnia persists…

 

[ribozyme]

Your best answer is viruses? One of my arguments against secular evolution is the lack of demonstratable proof (science) with increasingly complex lifeforms.

There is no such thing as scientific proof…every hypothesis and theory in science (including evolution) can be displaced with new evidence or a theory that explains the data better. In science, nothing is proven, everything is tentative.

You suggested we can see rapid changes in viruses. Shouldn’t we be able to see changes or mutations in the present? Funny, not even I suggested we look at every generation of humanity for “proof”. You built that straw man sir.

No, organisms with more complex phenotypes would not mutate fast (although some appreciable phenotypic changes have occured in a few years). Wanna know why? Because there is an upper bound to mutation rate because of error catastrophe. Error catastrophe occurs when an organism has a high mutation rate that it could not pass on the characteristics that allowed that organism to survive to its progeny. Its genetic information is mutated in such a way that the advantageous characteristics are not retained in the progeny. Sexual recombination is one way to get around this hurdle.

We are finding new species all the time. However, are they appearing out of thin air? Were they always there and we just didn’t know? Did rapid change = rapid evolution? You tell me since its obviously your occupation to know everything.

Well, where does he say he knows everything? He does not pretend to know everything. He took the time to learn about evolutionary biology, did you take the time to learn the rudimentary aspects of evolutionary biology?

Blah blah blah. Partner, let me give you a nickel’s worth of free advice. Before you continually insult the intelligence of someone here, try learning how to spell the big words you use. Better yet, try learning to talk using smaller ones if you can’t master the simple concept called spell check. That should fix the spelling errors but not ones in your logic/memory. I did not say every human was born with three or more errors. Try reading the post before coming unglued. We haven’t even mapped the complete genome yet much less learned what each switch does.

To be continued if my insomnia persists…

He did not submit a proofread manuscript. Gee, he was typing a little fast on an online forum.

 

[wildleafblower]

**[1]**There is no such thing as scientific proof…every hypothesis and theory in science (including evolution) can be displaced with new evidence or a theory that explains the data better. In science, nothing is proven, everything is tentative.

[Snip]

**[2]**He did not submit a proofread manuscript. Gee, he was typing a little fast on an online forum.

Hi ribozyme

You sure know how to keep me on my tippy toes! You never sit still which reminds me that I haven’t yet made my way to where I had intended to go…the other thread…ah, tomorrow I’ll have more time.

It’s extremely thoughtful of you to come to the aide of Alec. Very lovely in deed.

1) Keep in mind Forensic Science in Criminal Fact Investigations. Evidence is proof whether a person is guilty or not. Also, I did mention in another thread you participated in about how proof is applied to science. I’m sure you’ll remember.

2) Alec misspelled only one word ‘amd’ [and] in the quoted text of his which FromTheCrossroad stated, " Before you continually insult the intelligence of someone here, try learning how to spell the big words you use."

This surely ***ain’t ***no big deal as far as I’m concerned!

 

[wildleafblower]

Oh dear, I misspelled a word! :bigyikes: Aid not aide.

 

[ribozyme]

Hi ribozyme

You sure know how to keep me on my tippy toes! You never sit still which reminds me that I haven’t yet made my way to where I had intended to go…the other thread…ah, tomorrow I’ll have more time.

It’s extremely thoughtful of you to come to the aide of Alec. Very lovely in deed.

1) Keep in mind Forensic Science in Criminal Fact Investigations. Evidence is proof whether a person is guilty or not. Also, I did mention in another thread you participated in about how proof is applied to science. I’m sure you’ll remember.

2) Alec misspelled only one word ‘amd’ [and] in the quoted text of his which FromTheCrossroad stated, " Before you continually insult the intelligence of someone here, try learning how to spell the big words you use."

This surely ***ain’t ***no big deal as far as I’m concerned!

I am careful not to use “evidence” and “proof” interchangably. To me they are not the same thing. Of course, I think “scientific evidence” exists, but “scientific proof”, I think, does not exist. To me, evidence is merely corelation. If you think I am misrepresenting Hume, please tell me.

Maybe in a criminal case, “proof” is not “proof”, but it probably means “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt”. That is a satisfactory standard of evidence. Also, it is probably lower standard: “preponderence of the evidence”.

 

[tearez]

Of course Adam & Eve were made up, there is not one shred of evidence to support their existence. There are, however, masses of evidence in museums throughout the world that supports evolution.

You can visit any museum to see and touch (where permissable) solid, tangible evidence of our ancestory. There is nothing outside the imagination of the authors of the bible to back up their claims of how we began.

How can you take seriously the story of Adam & Eve from a book that tells, as truth, the story of a man that single handedly built a boat the size of the titanic and housed all manner of animals in it, from the most harmless to the most dangerous.

FAITH LACKS REASON…

 

[wildleafblower]

I am careful not to use “evidence” and “proof” interchangably. To me they are not the same thing. Of course, I think “scientific evidence” exists, but “scientific proof”, I think, does not exist. To me, evidence is merely corelation. If you think I am misrepresenting Hume, please tell me.

Maybe in a criminal case, “proof” is not “proof”, but it probably means “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt”. That is a satisfactory standard of evidence. Also, it is probably lower standard: “preponderence of the evidence”.

ribozyme, you earlier said, “In science, nothing is proven, everything is tentative.” You are wrong. Also, I know many people in law enforcement. My statement is valid, “1) Keep in mind Forensic Science in Criminal Fact Investigations. Evidence is proof whether a person is guilty or not. Also, I did mention in another thread you participated in how proof is applied to science. I’m sure you’ll remember”. Do you remember? Hint, it was taken out of a scientific magazine.

 

[ribozyme]

ribozyme, you earlier said, “In science, nothing is proven, everything is tentative.” You are wrong. Also, I know many people in law enforcement. My statement is valid, “1) Keep in mind Forensic Science in Criminal Fact Investigations. Evidence is proof whether a person is guilty or not. Also, I did mention in another thread you participated in how proof is applied to science. I’m sure you’ll remember”. Do you remember? Hint, it was taken out of a scientific magazine.

I was refering to certain singularity theorems which rely on assumptions. It is not proof in the scientific sense because it is contingent on the validity of the assumptions.

No, this is simply a semantics game regarding the words “evidence” and “proof”.