Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bible and "kind"
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 76 of 148 (105667)
05-05-2004 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by sidelined
05-05-2004 4:57 PM


Re: ...
I think that the verse makes this statement at the very least questionable.
It may be questionable - fair point. But the only thing that is for sure, in the bible, is that human's have body soul and spirit. "Spirit of the beast" --> as we have seen, holds many possibilities. Even in the Nt it says that we can have a "evil spirit". Does that mean an individual human's spirit is evil? No, as that spirit was cast out by Christ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by sidelined, posted 05-05-2004 4:57 PM sidelined has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 77 of 148 (105729)
05-05-2004 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by NosyNed
05-05-2004 4:32 PM


Re: Pardon?
In response to Ned's post...
Could you give some examples of "similar enough"? You seem to be in the same mode as anyone else supporting the idea of a "kind". You want it to be a hard and fast wall between groups of organisms but you won't define it in a hard and fast way.
"Similar enough" is a subjective term. It is not "hard and fast." Try defining "transitional" in a way that is hard and fast. For animals to be from the same kind, they have to share a common ancestor. "Similar enough" means that it is plausible that they share an ancestor.
That is where things get fuzzy. You guys alledge that NS + RM would allow all life to have descended from one ancestor, I disagree. Once I answer crashfrog in the transitionals thread (I'm working on it), I'll have time to debate about it.
The corgi has a drastically different skull, the dog skull you show is also drastically different from the wolf skulls. The ribcages of a whippet, bulldog and wolf are more different than an ape and human. Are you saying that a lengthening or shortening of arm bones is not possible through evolution?
Can you back up your claims that corgi has a drastically different skull and that the ribcages are different?
About the differences between the dog skull and the wolf skulls, can you point some out? I see very little difference. About the lengthening and shortening of bones, here is a picture of several different dog breeds. In order of size, the are the legbones of a saluki, german shepperd, english bulldog, and bassethound
This clearly shows that limb size can, and has, changed in a group of organisms. That is not something I deny. However, these dog legs use the same structure, and are for the same purpose, in all four groups.
Gorillas use their arms primarily for walking. The body of a gorilla is structured differently than that of a human because of this. Both corgis and great danes have different limb sizes. But the limbs have not changed functions.
While we are on the topic of differences, perhaps you could tell us how much evolution you think occured after the flood and how fast it occured.
How much change has there been to organisms since the flood? Dogs are a good example. Here is a link that talks about different dog breeds.
Anyway, in a short period of time, wild dogs (wolves/jackels) were domesticated into the huge variety we have now. The animals that came off the ark had a huge amount of genetic material, and as they spread through the world, NS worked on the existing material.
For an animal to evolve that much would have taken a large amount of time to account for the necessity of randomly creating all of the necessary genetic material.
I am not postulating "hyper-evolution," I am postulating natural selection acting on existent genetic material. This would take far less time, and would have easily occured in the time since the flood.
In response to Crashfrog's post...
So what about that doesn't apply to the past? Why couldn't you collect enough data about the past to get an idea about what was normal in the past?
Because we have little evidence about the past, and that evidence is nowhere near as good as being able to watch a live organism, and examine the live organism's corpse, etc.
Fossilization events are, the vast majority of the time, cataclysmic events. Cataclysmic does not represent normal.
Given multiple explanations that explain the same evidence, past or present, there's no way to tell for sure which one is right. But being completely right isn't the point of science. The point of science is developing models that make accurate predictions. That's why all models in science are tentative.
The thing is that if there are two explanations for an event in the present, for them to be scientific, they need to be falsifiable. If two explanations of an event in the past are possible, they are not falsifiable. Non-falsifiable means not science.
Of course I can't prove that model wrong, because it isn't falsifiable.
My point was that it is not falsifiable.
So we eliminate it from consideration via Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor doesn't trim away things that are wrong, it trims away things that will never have an effect on your model.
The the event I was speaking of was abiogenesis, not evolution. In which case the wormhole, etc. would not effect the model, they are the model. But you are right, it was irrelevant.
Once again, creationism is on the losing end. For whatever reason, you're willing to take a classification that has never been observed, and can't be observed, over classifications based on real-world observation with real explanitory power.
I am not taking the definition of a "kind" over anything. I still accept the current taxanomic system.
Exactly. Your dispute isn't that the evidence or reasoning is flawed; your dispute is that you don't like the conclusion.
Wow there. Here is the part of what I said that you quoted:
If Genesis wasn't in the bible, I doubt I would even think about creation/evolution.
Here is the rest of what I said:
If I did, though, I would have a problem with evolution. The mechanisms are not sufficient to let a group of single celled organisms evolve into the diverse forms of life we have today.
What I was saying was that if the bible didn't say anything about creation, I would not have spent much(if any) time learning about a minor theory about something insignificant.
If, for some reason, my interest was sparked, I would have had problems with evolution. What I was saying was that it would have been unlikely that my interest would have been sparked.
To the contrary - numerous studies have confirmed the creative power of natural selection and random mutation.
I disagree that these processes are capable, but this is another debate.
It's so powerful that now we use those processes to design jet planes and electronics - independantly of human design. We've generated electronics this way that are so efficient, we don't even understand how they work.
I believe what you are talking about is genetic programming? I have actually did a geneticly programmed AI system for a simple game for a programming assignment(I got bored). This is very different from evolution. It uses random changes (analogous to mutations) and selects the algorithm which gives the best result (ditto to natural selection). The biggest difference is that creation of the algorithms is carefully guided.
It is impossible to make a program that would randomly generate a single algorithm to design an airplane. Seperate genetically programmed algorithms would be needed to design the wing, fuselage, control systems, etc. Each of those algorithms would need sub-algorithms. For the wing, it would be like structural systems, fuel system, control surfaces, etc.
They can design jet planes using genetic programming, but it is under extreme supervision and direction. These programs do not "evolve" on their own, the are built of many carefully subprogrammed algorithms, each with their own subprogrammed algorithms, etc.
In addition, the first algorithms are terrible. It is necessary to put these algorithms through litterally millions of generations before they even begin to work.
There is only a rough analogy between GP and evolution.
But, according to your definition, they might be. Your definition is one-sided, you see - it'll tell you if two organisms are in the same kind, but it won't tell you if they're not. Pretty useless.
Yes, it is pretty useless and yes, it is one sided. I have not claimed that it is useful for classification or anything.
I just looked at my watch, and I have one minute before math. I'll be back probably tommorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by NosyNed, posted 05-05-2004 4:32 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Chiroptera, posted 05-05-2004 9:04 PM jt has replied
 Message 93 by NosyNed, posted 05-06-2004 2:32 PM jt has replied
 Message 94 by NosyNed, posted 05-06-2004 2:44 PM jt has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 148 (105730)
05-05-2004 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by jt
05-05-2004 9:00 PM


Re: Pardon?
quote:
The animals that came off the ark had a huge amount of genetic material,
One pair of dogs had a huge amount of genetic material? I suppose the dogs were St. Bernards, and carried entire gene samples in the casks under their necks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by jt, posted 05-05-2004 9:00 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jt, posted 05-05-2004 11:49 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 79 of 148 (105782)
05-05-2004 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Chiroptera
05-05-2004 9:04 PM


Re: Pardon?
Math class got out early
Yes, one pair of dogs could have a huge amount of genetic material. According to New Scientist, we share 50% of our dna with bananas(New Scientist, 1 July 2000, pp4-5). The 50% dna that makes us human, as compared to banana, is massive.
A human, in theory, could have dominant human genes and recessive banana genes. If that person had a child with another person who had reccesive banana genes, they could, in theory, give birth to a mass genetically identical to a banana. That is how much information reccesive genes can store.
A pair of dogs, each with a different set of reccesive genes, could easily have the required genetic information to spawn all the different types of dogs we have now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Chiroptera, posted 05-05-2004 9:04 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 05-06-2004 12:34 AM jt has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 80 of 148 (105793)
05-06-2004 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by jt
05-05-2004 11:49 PM


A human, in theory, could have dominant human genes and recessive banana genes.
You've got a lot of funny ideas about genes.
The dominant genes you have are human genes. The recessive genes you have are human genes. Maybe you're not clear on what dominant and recessive refer to? You have two copies of each chromosome, which means you have two copies of every functional genetic sequence - every gene. The copies are different on each chromosome - each of those different copies is called an "allele."
For instance, eye color is a gene. Blue eyes is an allele. Brown eyes is an allele. Think of a gene as a space where an allele goes.
A dominant allele is expressed no matter what. A recessive allele is expressed only if there's not a dominant allele in the same place on the other chromosome.
The 50% dna that makes us human, as compared to banana, is massive.
It's a mistake to assume that, because 50% of our genes might be like banana genes, that it's the other 50% that makes us human. A gene is a gene. There's no difference between the genes in a banana and the genes in a human, except for the specific protiens that they code for. If both humans and bananas share a certain protien, that gene for it is going to be identical in both of us. It's not a "banana" gene or a "human" gene, it's just a gene.
One pair of dogs could have at most four alleles for any gene. Since we know that there's more alleles than four for some of those genes, that's more information than could fit in two dogs, unless they have extra chromosomes (polyploidy).
At the risk of appearing insensitive to those with the condition, consider this example of extra genetic material crammed into a human being:
That's just one extra chromosome - one extra copy of the genes on chromosome 21. What do you think that extra copies of all their chromosomes are going to do to your dogs?
Your hypothetical, gene-packed dogs aren't going to be superdogs. They're not even going to be able to survive. Recessive genes don't store any more information than dominant genes, because a normal dog doesn't have any more than two copies of each gene.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by jt, posted 05-05-2004 11:49 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 2:09 AM crashfrog has replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 81 of 148 (105802)
05-06-2004 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by crashfrog
05-06-2004 12:34 AM


For instance, eye color is a gene. Blue eyes is an allele. Brown eyes is an allele.
Things are not that simple. Rarely (if ever) do you see someone with pure blue eyes or pure green eyes. It is much more common to see shades of colors. For example, my mom has brown eyes, and my dad has light blue eyes. I have eyes that are a slightly darker brown than my mom's eyes. Are there hundreds of alleles for eye color, one for each shade? If there was only one gene that controlled eye color, that would be necessary.
However, genetics is not that simple. Genes do more than just turn switches. A single trait can be controlled by more than one gene, such a trait is called a polygenic trait. What this means is that five genes could control eye color. Assuming that each gene was made up of two unique alleles, that would allow for 25=32 shades of color. Square that because there are two dogs on the ark, and you get 1024 different shades of eye color. That is a massive amount of genetic material.
It's a mistake to assume that, because 50% of our genes might be like banana genes, that it's the other 50% that makes us human.
If it is not our dna that makes us human, what is it? I understand that dna in a human is coded for human protiens, while the dna of a banana is coded for banana protiens, but it is the dna which makes the protiens anyway. I understand that a human could not give birth to a banana, but if two humans had the proper reccesive genes, their offspring would have the same code as banana, even though the code would be interpreted differently and likely would not live.
This message has been edited by JT, 05-06-2004 01:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 05-06-2004 12:34 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by coffee_addict, posted 05-06-2004 3:01 AM jt has not replied
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 05-06-2004 3:38 AM jt has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 82 of 148 (105805)
05-06-2004 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by jt
05-06-2004 2:09 AM


JT writes:
Things are not that simple. Rarely (if ever) do you see someone with pure blue eyes or pure green eyes. It is much more common to see shades of colors. For example, my mom has brown eyes, and my dad has light blue eyes. I have eyes that are a slightly darker brown than my mom's eyes. Are there hundreds of alleles for eye color, one for each shade? If there was only one gene that controlled eye color, that would be necessary.
However, genetics is not that simple. Genes do more than just turn switches. A single trait can be controlled by more than one gene, such a trait is called a polygenic trait. What this means is that five genes could control eye color. Assuming that each gene was made up of two unique alleles, that would allow for 25=32 shades of color. Square that because there are two dogs on the ark, and you get 1024 different shades of eye color. That is a massive amount of genetic material.
JT, I'd ask that you don't nitpick people's statements and try to get to the point. I am pretty sure that the frog was fully aware of polygenic traits when he wrote that. However, to make it simple, he left out some big words and technical explanations and made a general statement. It would help with this debate if you do not nitpick people's simplified statements for the sake of simplisity. However, if you feel that the oversimplified statements somehow miss the big picture, then feel free to nitpick all you want.
Here is what you just sounded to me. Say I make the statement "I breathe air to live." Then, you jump in and say "it's not that... it's much more complicated than that... you breathe in air but only use the oxygen... then your mitochondria..." Now, if I were to make the statement "I breathe dirt to live..." then you can nitpick all you want. You get the idea

The Laminator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 2:09 AM jt has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 83 of 148 (105810)
05-06-2004 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by jt
05-06-2004 2:09 AM


Rarely (if ever) do you see someone with pure blue eyes or pure green eyes. It is much more common to see shades of colors.
Yes, those genes are not traditionally dominant. Moreover, eye color is not soley a function of genes - epigenetic factors also influence the color and pattern of the iris. It was a simple example, but I'm pleased that you took the time to look it up.
Nonetheless, many genes are dominant/recessive, such as the gene for sickle-cell anemia. You can be homozygous dominant, heterozygous, or homozygous recessive. Only the latter will have the condition, but the heterozygous individual has a resistance to malaria (explaining the gene's persistence only in malarial areas.)
If it is not our dna that makes us human, what is it?
It's the expression of genes that make us human. That expression is controlled by a combination of other control genes and various epigenetic factors.
but if two humans had the proper reccesive genes, their offspring would have the same code as banana
No, they wouldn't. Their offspring would still have human genes.
Saying that you share 50% of your genes with a banana doesn't mean you have banana genes. It means that your body generates some of the same protiens that bananas do. No human being has any "recessive banana genes." Simply by virtue of sharing banana genes, there's just no way that a human could give rise to one with the same genetic code as a banana.
For one thing, bananas have a different number of chromosomes. Or hadn't you noticed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 2:09 AM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by jt, posted 05-06-2004 2:27 PM crashfrog has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 148 (105830)
05-06-2004 6:00 AM


...
In Genesis 2:7 we read this "And the Lord God formed man of dust of ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul"..That is what i meant by Soul & Spirit. Am i the only one that finds a big difference between the animal kingdom and human beings? And i dont mean we evolved thats why we are smarter or whatever. I have found evidence for this that you wont agree with obviously but neverless were here to share our thoughts and opinions.
Matter without Intelligence cannot create understanding & comprehension
Matter without Morals cannot create complex ethical codes of legal systems
Matter without Conscience cannot create a sense of right & wrong
Matter without Emotion cannot create skills in art,music,drama,language,comedy,architecture & literature
Matter without Desire cannot create a desperate need for meaning & purpose
You can carry your Evolutionary theory all day long but the truth is God made man.
This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-06-2004 05:01 AM
This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-06-2004 05:03 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by JonF, posted 05-06-2004 10:06 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 87 by mike the wiz, posted 05-06-2004 10:12 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 85 of 148 (105872)
05-06-2004 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by NosyNed
05-05-2004 12:16 PM


Re: Kinds and Spirit
Or is the first question rather the "unitelliable" one?
A body, any body, enters "into it" becuase they(it) is/are INTELLIGABLE. You have one and I have a nose. That is part of My "body". While Will Provine could have been mentoring me he instead was writing up his "masterful"(Gould) biogography of Sewall Wright but rather than come to me exicted about the body of Wright's work he, Provine, was coming to the conclusion that what Wright was thinking was "unintelligable", namely how the body fits into it. It is unclear to me if Gould has still retained any continuity of said body or nose or eye or Rei etc so let me today answer only for the body of Will. What Will said was "unitelligable" WAS a body. Specifically the individual genotype mapped onto a set of gene frequencies presenting a population. While it may be so for ANY BODY (including aliens) should they exist, that "it does not even start to work" in general I SEE NO REASON FOR ANYONE (anybody) to conclude that their are not restrictive conditions in which this "mapping" IS possible and I have my OWN body of ideas on it. Instead, take the physical chemistry that G.Gladyshev details macrothermodynamically and I bet my body on it, if you/one work(s) out the math it may be possible to find a body (independently of any I might or may propose) of connectivity of data about 'bodies' (as you called it) that maps onto the Wright SURFACE. Sure this is likely to be a one to many map of from a many onto one continuum but that IS INTELLIGABLE and so is your body and mine execept that we dont have video conferencing for instance here on EVC. The avatars are enough for me. This missing CONCEPT seems to be the Cantor Ordertype but the physical chemistry will speak for itself"" and makes finding the relation of phenotype to geneotype restrictions a bit more combersone but not unintelligable.
WE must first KNOW if Gould meant that Fisher's impotence applied to spirt or soul(birth of individual vs birth of species) as you sounded it out but I would stick with the data of physical chemistry before trying to build into the Gladyshev social heirarchy. And if I am correct and Gould mistaken to discount Hausdorff dimension then there may even be a deducible body of genotypes that are a percent of some total genomic measure where the mapping may predict values to be ascertained with populations in nature (social,animal, vegtable etc etc etc).
Only once issues of eco-justice are dealt with provided THAT happens should the issue of soul vs spirit more properly appear. All in good time. Brad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by NosyNed, posted 05-05-2004 12:16 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 86 of 148 (105877)
05-06-2004 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by almeyda
05-06-2004 6:00 AM


Re: ...
almeyda: I believe a moderator has already cautioned you about this. Please do not post unsupported assertions (that you have no intention of supporting other than with Bible quotes) in a science forum. If you want to discuss the Bible, do so in one of the faith forums.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by almeyda, posted 05-06-2004 6:00 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by mike the wiz, posted 05-06-2004 10:13 AM JonF has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 87 of 148 (105880)
05-06-2004 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by almeyda
05-06-2004 6:00 AM


Re: ...
Am i the only one that finds a big difference between the animal kingdom and human beings?
No you are not the only one Almeyda, I also see the logic to the reality.
And so does God. Infact, God didn't let Abraham sacrifice Izaac. He did however - find it acceptable, that animals were sacrificed. Nor was the lamb of God an actual lamb.God grants us charge over the animals and even gives them as meat. Obviously - to God, there is a difference. There is no way that quote by Sidelined can refute the whole bible. The evo's would have to show these exact words: "And God made the animals a living soul" --> But the fact is, he only said it about humans.
I agree God made man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by almeyda, posted 05-06-2004 6:00 AM almeyda has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 88 of 148 (105881)
05-06-2004 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by JonF
05-06-2004 10:06 AM


Re: ...
Actually, the title includes "bible". S/he is doing nothing wrong. You are simply upset by the post because it makes sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by JonF, posted 05-06-2004 10:06 AM JonF has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 89 of 148 (105898)
05-06-2004 10:52 AM


Staying on Topic and Supporting Assertions
Almeyda,
The topic of this thread is Bible and "kind". Please make your posts relevant to the topic.
Also, please do not make assertions that you do not plan to support. I have seen a few of your posts where you make a claim, someone calls you on it or shows the errors in it, and you then admit that you don't know anything about what you had said.
Please do not post assertions without having the supporting evidence.
Please stay relatively on topic.
Please do not answer every question, especially in a science based thread with biblical quotes.

Mike,
You know better than this. Just because the word bible is in the title does not mean that any biblical topic is fair game for the thread.
The thread is discussing the biblical concept of "Kind." What does "matter", "intelligence", "morals", "emotion", or "desire" have to do with the topic?
Where in Gen 2:7 does it discuss the concept of "kind?"

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 148 (105901)
05-06-2004 11:00 AM


...
Understood,Its just that they asked me what i meant by soul & spirit thats all.

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Dr Jack, posted 05-06-2004 11:06 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024