Human Chromosome 2 and the Evolution of Humans

There is a relevant existing topic (Is Global Population Evidence For Noahic Flood?), unfortunately it got also got closed because of topic abandonment.

Someone needed to do a restart of the above cited topic.

Closing in about 15 minutes.

Adminnemooseus

Added by edit:

30 minutes have passed. Closing now. In the future, if someone wishes to return to on-topic, they can request that this topic be reopened.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

I have reopened this thread with the expectation that future discussion will be on-topic.

One thing that often gets overlooked is the fact that even in human populations, isolation was the norm and not the exception. During my lifetime I was lucky enough to get glimpses into such populations, in Appalachia, among the Amish and Mennonites in Pennsylvania, in the small islands along the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay, the Outer Banks and Coastal North Carolina, on Dafuskie Island and reservations in Arizona. Even in a city like Baltimore many folk were born, lived their lives and died within a few block area and married from within that population as had their parents and as would their children.

America was a land of small towns and travel outside was just something that didn't happen all that often. There were no interstates, air planes and trains were how the other folk got around. Cars were not all that reliable and every journey, even a day trip, was an adventure. To get from Baltimore to the Eastern Shore you either drove up to Delaware and down the coastal back roads or took a ferry across the Bay.

People married people that lived in their community. In many towns most everyone was related and second third and kissin cousin made sense.

In addition, infant mortality from all causes was higher than today.

In such settings marrying someone closely related would not be all that unusual and if you look at the charts in The 44 Chromosome Man you see that it is possible to have viable kids that pass on the trait. And it's those successes that count.

dear All:

God is the author of both Bible and natural laws. there is no way they shall have conflict
the reason we have conflicts simply because either science is not yet mature or our Bible interpretation has problems.

Big Bang has no conflict to the Creation of unversed and The scientist called evolution is simply nature following God's order and grew out all the creatures. there is no conflict with Bible. the only conflict is at Human creation. bible clearly used three times "bara" to describe "human creation". evolution cannot explain how human was created. gen. Ch 2
Explained very clear. Human was "made" out of dust. Then why "bara" was used?

"Bara" was used to describe the creation of the universe gen 1:1. I can spend some time to explain how spiritual big bang is - match with Bible. May not match the subject of this blog.
In short it is from nothing to something truly "bara". the front surface of the universe is still expanding (last year's Nobel Price - physics) and beyond the front surface there is no space exist there.... Back to human creation -

The "bara" used for human creation is basically pointing to the breath God give human and from that point the earth has a new animal, which has spirit in it. that is a new creation.
In short, God used homo sapiens' DNA made human and sent His breath to create human.
Why Jesus did it this way we don't know. We know He engineered all of these. I may guess that the DNA has gone through all kinds of tests virus, micro organism attack. The B cells T cells were built in to protect. As far as I can tell you the scientist called evolution in much more intelligent than the way we build robot or put together a car in the auto industry.
You may misinterpret these scientist. Just like earlier church put scientist into jail thinking the earth circulating sun is wrong.... Well you may be wrong in all your interpretation since you follow the teaching of others. Read Bible more times and watch words carefully you will find the conflict is at the human creation not with other animals.

Now let's focus on the spirit part of the human. What is the function of spirit? Wasn't those nasty scientists claimed that the brain is the mind and the mind is the brain there is nothing called spirit? First of all that is not all the scientists believed. Second, you may need to understand that model describe all the animals and part of human pretty accurately.
Human has three functions two bodies - the spirit and body are entities and the mind is a function. So we have spirit function, mind function, and body function but only two are entities. Animals has one body two functions. More clearly animal has mind. That is their brain function. When animal die the brain function goes with it body back down to dust. When human die the spirit goes up (Ecc 3:21)

Too much to write I may have to upload some for you guys to read. Stop here right now..

God bless you all!

Paul

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

Hi Paul,

Hmmm, I think Catholic Scientist may have had a much better bead on you than I originally thought (for those wondering what the heck I'm talking about, see Message 170).

This thread has a topic. If you'd like to discuss something else you should propose a topic over at Proposed New Topics.

--Percy

I think what I said is related the the title creation/evolution is related to the title human chromosome 2. May be I moved too fast.

Let me slow down. The 48 or 46 chromosomes issue is not critical.
We are made of proteins not DNAs. as long as we don't lose any essential genes from the ~30k gene pools no matter how the chromosomes are fused it is not important and along the natural history there are many other fusing examples.

Neanderthal or denisova may have 48 chromosomes and even we human some time can have 48 chromosomes (some produced serious problems due to over expression by genes from those extra chromosomes) this is not the key to differentiate human and other animals without spirits. It is the spirit making the difference not the brain size. Neanderthal has a big brain than human, elephant and whale have big brains than that of human.

If our discussion cannot get back to the big picture and the purpose of this EVC web site I think we probably get into a wrong place.

God Bless all of you

Hi Paul,

If you go back and read Message 1 you'll see that this thread sprang out of an earlier thread where someone claimed that while evolution could produce change within a species, it could not produce change from one species to another. The example of the fusion of human chromosome 2 was introduced and gave rise to this thread where it was hoped we could discuss how this fusion could arise in an evolving population and produce speciation.

Tying speciation into larger issues like why humans have spirits and other animals do not would be a fascinating discussion but is not the topic of this thread. If that's what you would like to talk about then you may want to propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.

--Percy

moved post to here Evidence against chromosome 2 fusion???

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : deleted post and moved to PNT

Edited by herebedragons, : updated thread link

Small note:

God is the author of both Bible and natural laws. there is no way they shall have conflict the reason we have conflicts simply because either science is not yet mature or our Bible interpretation has problems.

... OR your interpretation of the bible is faulty indeed.

Curiously, seeing as there is extensive evidence of vast numbers of Christians with different interpretations, and there is extensive evidence of the validity of science, the logical conclusion is that when your interpretation conflicts with science that it is your interpretation that is at fault.

Which is more likely to be at fault:

1. Science, based on extensive objective evidence testing
   
2. Religious belief that does not conflict with science
   
3. Non-Christian biblical interpretation that does not conflict with science
   
4. Christian biblical interpretation that does not conflict with science
   
5. Christian biblical interpretation that conflicts with both of the above

Evidence from science, such as the evidence of the fusion of chromosome 2 during the evolution of humans from apes (to refer to the topic), shows that evolution is the best explanation, not some interpretation of the bible.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added list

... OR your interpretation of the bible is faulty indeed.

The church people need remember that what they have been taught starting in those once heavily attended Sunday Schools was not thought so important to be analyzed and reformed as scientific knowledge expanded over the last century.

The stories were written with a style that made them readable and simple and generally acceptable for audiences that were different during different ages.
No one cared that Genesis was foolishly explained to say that the Sun was "Created" long after the Earth had existed, and even after the whole Plant Kingdom had appeared by an initial Spontaneous Generation of first life.

The church people who hold to these thoughtless ways of teaching their young people have merely continued to do exactly the same things that their founders of centuries past had been doing.

Clearly, no where in Genesis does the Bible say the Sun was created after the Earth.
The misunderstanding of the English word, "made," has been used in the sense of "create," which the Hebrew does not validate. And the misreading has detoured the denotation of that idea from explaining that the Sun became the authority over Solar Time, and ruled the Time as measured on Earth.

Everywhere, the archaic medieval story told to kindergarten age children has been thoughtless presented as a primer to indoctrinating them about a Higher Power than the Free Will they are growing to exercise.

What you say about the Church interpretation is no just correct, but dangerously implying that the bible can be dismissed because these readers misinterpret it.
The correct conclusion is that some people must start the process of teaching the Bible Teachers, before the sociological effects of ignoring a foundation is sexual mores breaks down the society any further.

That's a strawman and a sweeping generalization.

Anyone, whether indoctrinated or not, can pick up a bible and plainly see that the claims you make are not actually in the bible.

It has nothing to do with traditionalism.

It has to do with acheiving a comprehensive reading level and understanding context, which you clearly struggle with.