Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument

What's a spirit?

That's actually a good question Tangle, I really hadn't given any thought to a definition.definition:

quote:

---

1. a distillate; especially : the liquid containing ethyl alcohol and water that is distilled from an alcoholic liquid or mashoften used in plural

---

No really,

quote:

---

noun
1. the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
2. the incorporeal part of humans: present in spirit though absent in body.
3. the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.
4. conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter: the world of spirit.
5. a supernatural, incorporeal being, especially one inhabiting a place, object, etc., or having a particular character: evil spirits.

---

I guess I would consider a spirit or a person's spirit to be an entity or being or part of a person that exists outside of time and space. However, I am not prepared to defend this position, nor do I claim there is empirical evidence that supports it. I just tried to answer the question as best I could.PaulGL proposed that evolutionary processes brought man to a point of sufficient intelligence that allowed him to be responsible enough to handle free will which in turn allowed him to be given a spirit. I asked how does he distinguish between these two states. Since he believes that this process was genetically determined, there should be genetic markers which indicate the presence or reception of a spirit.So, perhaps he may have a better definition and supporting evidence regarding "what is a spirit?"HBD

So, I've been given a spirit? Where can I find it? (Outside time and space is a bit outside my grasp).

You can't find it.Sorry but it really is that simple.

All my hopes and dreams shatterered!

That's quite obviously not the point.The point of Coragyps argument is that your assumption that the first Homo with 23 pairs of chromosomes would not be able to find a mate has not been established. You cannot establish that assumption without producing his 22 paired ancestor or peers.Your failing is that you believe your assumption is proven by the fact that modern man cannot mate with chimpanzees.

I said absolutely nothing with regards to the number of chromosomes. What I hypothesized was: 1. If free will is dependent upon a requisite level of intelligence, then the process of evolution would stipulate that that requisite level was attained through genetic progression/ acquired characteristics. 2. In order for the first such entity reaching such a threshold level of intelligence to be able to produce 100% of their offspring with the same level, they must have a mate with the identical genetic characteristic. Mating with a entity without such would produce the requisite characteristic in (at best) only 50% of their offspring. 3. Since this being was the first, and thus unique; the only way their mate could have the identical genetic makeup would be by cloning. 4. Not only so, the first entity would have to be male, and the cloned entity female. 5. If the Bible is true, then there should be a correlation to this in its record. Do not the particulars of the account of the 'creation' of Adam & Eve correspond? Coincidence?

This is the point at which your line of reasoning is being challenged. And you should not need me to point that out. But instead you went on about horses. Do you really think an argument that Genesis must not only be literally correct, but also complete is a viable argument? Nobody thinks that every thing that happened to mankind is told in the Bible.

quote:

---

2. In order for the first such entity reaching such a threshold level of intelligence to be able to produce 100% of their offspring with the same level, they must have a mate with the identical genetic characteristic. Mating with a entity without such would produce the requisite characteristic in (at best) only 50% of their offspring.

---

The fundamental problem here is that there is no requirement for 100% of the offspring to have the same level of intelligence, nor evidence that this was the case. (ABE: If one of the genes involved is recessive it is also, in principle, possible without cloning).

quote:

---

4. Not only so, the first entity would have to be male, and the cloned entity female.

---

Presumably you refer to the fact that it is possible to clone a female from a male but not vice-versa. However, this is simply a limitation of cloning and not a reason to suppose that the first being to reach your "requisite level of intelligence" was male. (It is also a limitation that could in principle be overcome by introducing a Y chromosome from elsewhere.)

quote:

---

5. If the Bible is true, then there should be a correlation to this in its record. Do not the particulars of the account of the 'creation' of Adam & Eve correspond? Coincidence?

---

No - but only because you have constructed your account to agree with Genesis 2 in those respects. You have offered no evidence that your account is actually true. Nor have you dealt with other aspects of Genesis 2.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

As an arbitrary illustration: Presume that you are the first specimen of your particular species to evolve to the threshold of speech. Would it not be highly desirable that all of your children be able to speak with you. ...Introducing a Y chromosome from another entity might result in offspring not having the requisite level of intelligence. The first surviving entity possessing a genetic mutation produced trait would initially be unique among their species. If it was a male, then cloning to transmit the characteristic using only its genetic coding in 100% of its offspring is possible. If a female, no. ...This is Genetics 101, NOT something I had to manipulate to fit the Genesis record.

I 'went off' about the horses to show the irrelevancy of that reply. Obviously, parts of the Bible are literal, and parts are allegorical. Why? When you are teaching children to learn a language, you must first show them a picture that illustrates the corresponding word. In order to illustrate spiritual realities, the Bible has to allegorically use the concrete visible things that we can comprehend. The entire Old Testament is the outward 'pictures' corresponding to the spiritual reality recorded in the New Testament.

Yes, that would have been great. But such a desirable event is not absolutely required. In fact, given that evolution does not have a desired outcome, that something would be "highly desirable" in order to accomplish a desired outcome is irrelevant.

I am going to defer to PaulK and Coragyps who have handled this question in the same way I would have.

If we follow this suggestion, then there is no reason why the first living ancestor to have 23 pairs of chromosomes needed to be Adam or even anything we would call homo sapiens.You've picked one way to interpret the allegory, namely that Eve was cloned from Adam; surely there are countless others allegorical interpretations that others could generate.And that's assuming that the story in Genesis bears any relation whatsoever to how the humans evolved that any of us would recognize.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

quote:

---

As an arbitrary illustration: Presume that you are the first specimen of your particular species to evolve to the threshold of speech. Would it not be highly desirable that all of your children be able to speak with you

---

That illustrates only the irrationality of your thinking, Whether it may be desirable or not makes no difference to the question of whether it actually happened.(And I note that it would be undesirable to have offspring suffering from genetic diseases, which a cloned mate would make significantly more likely.)

quote:

---

..Introducing a Y chromosome from another entity might result in offspring not having the requisite level of intelligence

---

Is there any reason to think that is true ? Bear in mind that the more likely it is, the more likely that the first human or human ancestor having the requisite level of intelligence was female, not male.

quote:

---

The first surviving entity possessing a genetic mutation produced trait would initially be unique among their species. If it was a male, then cloning to transmit the characteristic using only its genetic coding in 100% of its offspring is possible. If a female, no. ...This is Genetics 101, NOT something I had to manipulate to fit the Genesis record.

---

I find it amazing that you think that agreeing with me is a significant point against my arguments.The fact remains. You have no evidence that this cloning ever occurred. The Genesis story does not suggest that Adam evolved or even had parents. Cloning requires only a small amount of genetic material nothing like a rib. I could go on, but the point is clear enough.