The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philipp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
On the contrary, I increase my humanness by increasing the humanness of our cousins the Chimps.

I do not level humans down towards Chimps, I level Chimps up towards humans. THere are two ways the gap can be narrowed.

rossum
Click to expand...
This is one of my favorite essays. humboldt.edu/~essays/linzey.html
because it shows what happens to misapplied philosophy. “The effect of Cartesianism was to devastate earlier Christian traditions of kindness to animals.”
In my humble opinion, the effect of Cartesianism also affected common sense science.

Blessings,
:snowing:

Snow is a gift of nature even when it arrives in the middle of our March Spring.
 
Philipp said:
BUFFALO:
*Now it gets really neat! The regulatory system can rearrange things to allow variable offspring. Micro evolution (adaptability) is built right in. What does this mean? The things that control this have to be in place before micro-evolution can take place. Bye Bye Darwin! The top evo guys get this but still have not come to terms with it. They cannot explain saltations away and now know the first cells were complex. The typical evo defender on CAF doesn’t even know this exists. Why - 'because of what their boilogy classes taught them. You know the one’s I am talking about - the one’s that every time you question the modern synthesis they reply - take a university biology course. *

PHILIPP:
So what you are saying is that within each “kind” mentioned in Genesis there is a built-in adapatability system that allows for what some folks might call speciation but what is really variability within kind. Have I got it? If this be so then speciation is nothing more than changes within kind but NO changes from one species into another like whatever preceded the great apes which then changing into hominids and hominids into homo sapiens followed by a infusion of a soul into the final higher product.

I can live with the semantics along as I don’t have to believe my ancestors lost a tail when a few or many simultaneously perhaps fell out of a tree and started walking upright.

Then if the long ages of millions and billions of years don’t exist then the crude statement mentioned below could be even more valid. Would you like to try your hand at editing it as is or perhaps expanding on it? I tend to agree with another post that indicates that it is not fully understandable.

**Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have obviously been created AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator by variation in the DNA structure of each life form. [Simul in Latin meaning “at once” in English, from Lateran IV, AD 1215]

**-------------------------------
ADMIN NOTE: split from original thread, which is located here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=428851
Click to expand...
Yes to paragraph #1.

No tail - but your “core” has the information and capability to grow one, but because Adam and Eve didn’t have one to start neither do you.

This is consistent with my idea of IDvolution.

**Since it has been demonstratIed that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).

**I had to think through this and this should be fine tuned. I call upon itinerant who has a pretty good understanding of the creative act to help.
 
Thanks to the moderator allowing this discussion to continue. This is really exciting and important.
 
more from Augustine and Evolution which ties nicely to IDvolution.

41
Hence the doctrine is clear. God, having decreed this existing order of creation created all things
simultaneously in the beginning by His simple creative word. He created in the roots of time prime
matter - under what elementary form or forms, is of no consequence - with its universal passive
potency determined to those creatures only that were to exist in the course of time; and this is the
creation of all things in their seminal reasons. This determination of passive potency was in no way
the imposition of a form, but merely the adaptation of the universal negative potentiality of prime
matter having no definite ordination to any form, to those it was actually to receive. Wherefore,
seminal reasons were, with regard to the first members of any species originating by creation,
purely passive. They were the primordial ordination of matter to respond to the creative word in
time according to each creature’s appointed time. In this response no intermediary agent intervened.
To the creative word spoken in the simple unchangeable present of eternity, the response of each
seminal reason was immediate, instantaneous, however widely separated it was from others in time;
because the moment in time for the existence of each was immediately subject to the eternal,
immutable present. Make the course of time as long as you please. Separate the beginnings of
species by what duration you like. There can be no interval between the word spoken in eternity and
its effect in time. St. Augustine leaves no room in his doctrine, as he proposes it, for Evolution.

42
His formula is as close as it is complete. The creative word, immutable, eternal, spoken once
eternally in the eternal present of God, producing its effects, therefore, immediately in time yet according
to the mutability of time, created simultaneously in the roots of times in their seminal
reasons, that is, in the determination of the passive potentiality of matter to them alone among
things abstractly possible, all creatures that were to exist, as they were to exist, each in its own time.
We must observe that this “simultaneously” does not mean simultaneously with the creative act
only, but also simultaneously among themselves. Whatever happens in time is simultaneous with the ever present moment of eternity. The simultaneous creation of creatures in the roots of times is
opposed to the successive terminations of the creative act in the course of time, whereby each
creature begins its own existence in its own time.
 
buffalo said:
The trickster argument is bogus.
Click to expand...
The trickster argument is indeed bogus regarding our Creator giving billions of years look to earth and the universe when it is indeed it perhaps is only 1000’s of years old. It is man who is the Trickster - case in point:

For instance Itinerant [not the trickster] in his post # 963 suggests the following: * Transformism and the rationes seminales are not irreconcilable principles. Horses breed horses, and that is stability; but horses may change over long periods of time, and that is transformism.
__________________*

But let’s look at another view of horse “transmutation,” Macroevolution, speciation, or whatever word is used by folks on this thread: It or they is challenged again by professional paleontologists. First an introduction from the web site section entitled: **The Myth of Horse Evolution **then the quotes:

*Then what is the basis for the scenario of the evolution of the horse? This scenario was formulated by means of the deceitful charts devised by the sequential arrangement of fossils of distinct species that lived at vastly different periods in India, South Africa, North America, and Europe, solely in accordance with the rich power of evolutionists’ imaginations. More than 20 charts of the evolution of the horse, which by the way are totally different from each other, have been proposed by various researchers. Thus, it is obvious that evolutionists have reached no common agreement on these family trees. The only common feature in these arrangements is the belief that a dog-sized creature called Eohippus (Hyracotherium), which lived in the Eocene period 55 million years ago, was the ancestor of the horse. However, the fact is that Eohippus, which became extinct millions of years ago, is nearly identical to the hyrax, a small rabbit-like animal which still lives in Africa and has nothing whatsoever to do with the horse.154. Reference: The Myth of Horse evolution darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_12.html *
Continued>>>>
*Evolutionist Boyce Rensberger noted that the scenario of the evolution of the horse has no foundation in the fossil record, and that no evolutionary process has been observed that would account for the gradual evolution of horses:
The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.152
While discussing this important dilemma in the scenario of the evolution of the horse in a particularly honest way, Rensberger brought the transitional form difficulty onto the agenda as the greatest difficulty of all.

Dr. Niles Eldredge, a curator at the American Museum in New York, , where “evolution of the horse” diagrams were on public display at that time on the ground floor of the museum, said the following about the exhibition:
There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.153*

Then who or what is the Trickster? It’s not Itinerant, Rossum, “St. A” or Larkin [did I leave out anyone?]. It’s not paleontologists Eldridge or Rensberger. Very simply stated it’s the obsolete principles of 19th century stratigraphy and how long its takes the sediments to form and solidify into rock. Modern science is showing that those millions and billions of year for life to form simply do not exist. The species found in the geologic column are not related by transformation. They are extinct due to catastrophes and are only related because they were created ex nihilo [simul]

Paleohydraulic studies of the geologic column by lab, flume and field research and testing for C-14 in the fossils along with the study of Genetic Entropy are showing the way to confirm what the church fathers and the magisterium of the Catholic Church have always taught until the confusion caused by belief in an old earth. Darwin appears to be falling off his pedistile; Mithraism and New Age scientism are on lthe way out.🙂
 
From Augustine and Evolution we see St Augustine reference the DNA code -

But this they can do only through that hidden
power in the seed derived from the seminal reasons; and this derivation is possible only because
these reasons, having determined the abstract universal potency of definite matter to particular
species to terminate the creative act in the first members of such species, determined it in such a
way, that each species was to be continued by generation.
This too fits with the cell controlling the process. The cell is the seed - the hidden power is the DNA code.
 
rossum said:
On the contrary, I increase my humanness by increasing the humanness of our cousins the Chimps.

I do not level humans down towards Chimps, I level Chimps up towards humans. THere are two ways the gap can be narrowed.

rossum
Click to expand...
Just as a rose by any other name is a rose, so a chimp by any other name is a chimp. You were created in God’s image, not a chimps image.
 
buffalo said:
Not really - the recognition is stored. This allows the system to react early next time and eradicate the pathogen at an early stage.
Click to expand...
How is this not a complexity increase? The immune system develops new DNA to recognise the new pathogen. The new DNA is stored in new cells that are kept in reserve in case that pathogen appears a second time – that is how we get immune to diseases. They are quickly recognised when they turn up the second time and the information needed to deal with them is immediately available.

New DNA storing new information is added to the human body after conception. The overall amount of information held is increasing. The amount of DNA held is increasing. The number of different DNA sequences being held is increasing. How can you say that this is not an increase in complexity?

If you still say that it is not an increase in complexity then please specify how you are measuring complexity.

rossum
 
rossum said:
How is this not a complexity increase? The immune system develops new DNA to recognise the new pathogen. The new DNA is stored in new cells that are kept in reserve in case that pathogen appears a second time – that is how we get immune to diseases. They are quickly recognised when they turn up the second time and the information needed to deal with them is immediately available.

New DNA storing new information is added to the human body after conception. The overall amount of information held is increasing. The amount of DNA held is increasing. The number of different DNA sequences being held is increasing. How can you say that this is not an increase in complexity?

If you still say that it is not an increase in complexity then please specify how you are measuring complexity.

rossum
Click to expand...
Rearranging this sentence does not add to the sentences complexity, but it could add to an increase in meaning.

Do you think there is a high limit to DNA’s complexity? Your claim is that your child has more DNA than you and his yet more?
 
rossum said:
How is this not a complexity increase? The immune system develops new DNA to recognise the new pathogen. The new DNA is stored in new cells that are kept in reserve in case that pathogen appears a second time – that is how we get immune to diseases. They are quickly recognised when they turn up the second time and the information needed to deal with them is immediately available.

New DNA storing new information is added to the human body after conception. The overall amount of information held is increasing. The amount of DNA held is increasing. The number of different DNA sequences being held is increasing. How can you say that this is not an increase in complexity?

If you still say that it is not an increase in complexity then please specify how you are measuring complexity.

rossum
Click to expand...
I’m a bit confused (which is better than usual for me!)

Rossum, are you claiming that the DNA in cells related to the immune system is different than the DNA in other cells?

Do the sperm and egg cells also share this “modification?”

Are you saying that these modifications are not the result of random processes, but are triggered by environmental factors?
 
rossum said:
Reference please.

rossum
Click to expand...
Here is one: Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%
Genomewise, humans and chimpanzees are quite similar, but studies are showing that
they are not as similar as many tend to believe

another

Comparative sequencing of human and chimpanzee MHC class I regions unveils insertions/deletions as the major path to genomic divergence

another:

Chimpanzee?

…
Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.
In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single ’letter’ is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.
We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This ”copy number variation” causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.
This figure does not take include differences in the organization of the two genomes. At present we cannot fully assess the difference in structure of the two genomes, because the human genome was used as a template (or ”scaffold”) when the chimpanzee draft genome was assembled.
Our new knowledge of the human and chimpanzee genomes contradicts the idea that humans are 98% chimpanzee, and undermines the implications that have been drawn from this figure. It suggests that there is a huge amount exciting research still to be done in human genetics.
 
ricmat said:
I’m a bit confused (which is better than usual for me!)

Rossum, are you claiming that the DNA in cells related to the immune system is different than the DNA in other cells?

Do the sperm and egg cells also share this “modification?”

Are you saying that these modifications are not the result of random processes, but are triggered by environmental factors?
Click to expand...
A bit confused? I’m back at post 41 and I’m quite a bit more than a bit confused.🙂

If some kind of immune system is present in all mammals (major histocompatibility complex, example DRB1) then what is different about human beings?

It seems that human modifications regarding immunity can be triggered by environmental facts, e.g., Montezuma’s Revenge" back in post 8. Yet the core of the human remains the same.

Depending on the answer to question above – “Rossum, are you claiming that the DNA in cells related to the immune system is different than the DNA in other cells?” --then there could be both a core and a regulatory system dependent on the species.

Regardless of the age of the earth, there is plenty that is now known regarding environmental influences. What if humans lived in their own civilizations in one section of the earth or mirgrated to different sections of the earth? Would they have different DNA then groups of brute animals?

I’m beginning to think that some molecular studies regarding comparisons of humans with brute animals are being over-interpreted.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.
 
ricmat said:
Rossum, are you claiming that the DNA in cells related to the immune system is different than the DNA in other cells?
Click to expand...
In some of the DNA in some cells, yes. The new DNA is part of the adaptive immune system. The new DNA is the “adaptive” part, it has adapted to match the local pathogens.
Do the sperm and egg cells also share this “modification?”
Click to expand...
No, It is only present in somatic cells, not in germ line cells.
Are you saying that these modifications are not the result of random processes, but are triggered by environmental factors?
Click to expand...
The process is a miniature version of random mutation and natural selection triggered by the arrival of a new pathogen. There is a somatic hypermutation process which drives the search for a good match to the pathogen.

This is a five-minute cartoon version of the adaptive immune system.

There are so many possible pathogens out there in the world that it is not possible for our initial DNA to carry a match for all of them plus any possible future pathogens. Instead our immune system evolves to find a match to any incoming pathogen.

It starts with a standard suite of DNA chunks divided into bins. Certain immune system cells use these chunks to build unique DNA: pick one chunk from bin V, one chunk from bin D and one chunk from bin J. One cell might get V4 + D7 + J1 while another cell gets V3 + D2 + J2. This way each cell gets its own combination of chunks. These chunks form the variable binding region of the antibody gene. This way each cell produces antibodies with its own unique variable binding region. See VDJ Recombination for the full horror.

When a new pathogen arrives the antibody cells start producing antibodies. Most antibodies do not match the pathogen but a few of them will have a partial match. There is a feedback process which stimulates cell division in those cells which produce the partial match antibodies. This feedback process also incorporates hypermutation - there is more DNA variation than usual when the cell divides so that many more variants than usual of the antibody are produced. The same feedback process stimulates the cells producing the best matching antibody variants so eventually the pathogen is overwhelmed by well-matched antibodies and killed by the rest of the immune system.

Once the pathogen has been eliminated the newly evolved variant DNA is saved inside memory cells (M-cells).

When that pathogen returns the M-cells are available and ready to produce the specific antibody immediately, without having to re-evolve it from scratch. This is why you are much quicker to recover from a second infection with the same disease - the M-cells give your immune system a head start.

The M-cells hold DNA sequences that were not present in the original embryo. They are related to the original DNA in the three VDJ bins, but they have mutated away from those exact sequences. The original embryonic DNA might have been: VVVVDDDDJJJJ, but the M-cell might store: VVXVDDDYJZJJ because that gave a better match to that particular pathogen.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
Yes to paragraph #1.

No tail - but your “core” has the information and capability to grow one, but because Adam and Eve didn’t have one to start neither do you.

This is consistent with my idea of IDvolution.

**Since it has been demonstratIed that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).

**I had to think through this and this should be fine tuned. I call upon itinerant who has a pretty good understanding of the creative act to help.
Click to expand...
We all knew that there was room for improvment. The above sort of says it all. However, I would add dragons [alias dinosaurs] and giant buffalo [alias ancient bison]; the former out of respect to the mention of dragons in scripture along with St. John Damacene of AD 750 and our human ancestors who made depictions of them on many different matrices; and the latter for giant “buffalo” that roamed around at the same time as man and dinosaurs.

REFERENCES:
answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/lesson5.asp (scripture)
creationism.org/crimea/engl/al1.htm (St. John Damacene)
www.dinosaurc14ages (C-14 dating of dinosaur bones)
www.dinosaurandman.org (depictions from Israel and Syria, Egypt, Cambodia, Peru, Mexico Kazan, USA)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile_mosaic_of_Palestrina (dinosaur in upper right corner?)
Bison and wolf bone collagen from the Yukon 30,810 ± 875 & 27,920 ± 650 resp.
pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic55-2-143.pdf
 
rossum said:
In some of the DNA in some cells, yes. The new DNA is part of the adaptive immune system. The new DNA is the “adaptive” part, it has adapted to match the local pathogens.

No, It is only present in somatic cells, not in germ line cells.

The process is a miniature version of random mutation and natural selection triggered by the arrival of a new pathogen. There is a somatic hypermutation process which drives the search for a good match to the pathogen.

This is a five-minute cartoon version of the adaptive immune system.

There are so many possible pathogens out there in the world that it is not possible for our initial DNA to carry a match for all of them plus any possible future pathogens. Instead our immune system evolves to find a match to any incoming pathogen.

It starts with a standard suite of DNA chunks divided into bins. Certain immune system cells use these chunks to build unique DNA: pick one chunk from bin V, one chunk from bin D and one chunk from bin J. One cell might get V4 + D7 + J1 while another cell gets V3 + D2 + J2. This way each cell gets its own combination of chunks. These chunks form the variable binding region of the antibody gene. This way each cell produces antibodies with its own unique variable binding region. See VDJ Recombination for the full horror.

When a new pathogen arrives the antibody cells start producing antibodies. Most antibodies do not match the pathogen but a few of them will have a partial match. There is a feedback process which stimulates cell division in those cells which produce the partial match antibodies. This feedback process also incorporates hypermutation - there is more DNA variation than usual when the cell divides so that many more variants than usual of the antibody are produced. The same feedback process stimulates the cells producing the best matching antibody variants so eventually the pathogen is overwhelmed by well-matched antibodies and killed by the rest of the immune system.

Once the pathogen has been eliminated the newly evolved variant DNA is saved inside memory cells (M-cells).

When that pathogen returns the M-cells are available and ready to produce the specific antibody immediately, without having to re-evolve it from scratch. This is why you are much quicker to recover from a second infection with the same disease - the M-cells give your immune system a head start.

The M-cells hold DNA sequences that were not present in the original embryo. They are related to the original DNA in the three VDJ bins, but they have mutated away from those exact sequences. The original embryonic DNA might have been: VVVVDDDDJJJJ, but the M-cell might store: VVXVDDDYJZJJ because that gave a better match to that particular pathogen.

rossum
Click to expand...
Thank you for the detailed response.

After reading this, IMO it looks like the DNA (all living creatures’ DNA?) contains the ability to make certain limited modifications to itself, but then cannot pass any “knowledge” gained (in terms of particular pathogens) to its offspring. But the offspring would have the same ability for modifications (unless a disadvantageous mutation occurred in the DNA which describes the development of the immune system).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top