Originally posted by KellyJayNo, we can actually see that todays
I'm saying that instead of going back in the evolutionary time line
we would not find a single source for all life in the evolutinary time
line, the single cell life form. We would see what creatin says is there
several types of kinds and from those kinds we get the variety of life
we see today. We would not see grass, rats, eagles, whales, ants,
rose ...[text shortened]... that occur,
but they start and end within kinds, you start with dogs you end with
dogs.
Kelly
species have diverged from species
before and that they too have diverged.
As they say, man is made from slugs
and snails and puppy dogs tails.
Originally posted by KellyJaythe homology of homeobox and MADS box genes shows that life on earth started from a fairly narrow base. It could be that there were many 'starting points' It may be that when we sample the life forms from the bottom of the deep oceans that we find a whole setr of populations that have nothing in common with the rest of life on earth.
Show me how you know there was just one gene pool at the beginning
of life and not several. You said you see it, show it to me.
Kelly
That would be so cool
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeExplain in a little more detail please; it sounds like your saying
the homology of homeobox and MADS box genes shows that life on earth started from a fairly narrow base. It could be that there were many 'starting points' It may be that when we sample the life forms from the bottom of the deep oceans that we find a whole setr of populations that have nothing in common with the rest of life on earth.
That would be so cool
that if there are similarities within DNA that alone proves all life
started from the same single narrow base. You get the same type
of results within programming where a good programmer uses
the same language and writes code basically the same way, but
does so for different reasons. To me this seems a little more
reasonable than saying that DNA arose from a series of cosmic
accidents or however you believe life started without a God.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI approve strongly. They are indeed stand-alone subjects. Would all the fundies please stop getting so uptight. Science has not interest in destroying faith so please let the converse be true
The two are stand alone subjects!
If evolution is shown to be false, that does not mean that the
creation story in OT is true.
They are not linked so that they are an either or.
OT can be true, and only parts of evolution would have to be wrong.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIf each 'kind' appeared de novo rather than sharing common ancestry there would be no reason to expect the 'kinds' to share features at a molecular and cellular level. What we observe in reality are large numbers of similarities (eg MADS box and homeobox genes) that lead to the conclusion that life on earth does share a common ancestry.
I'm saying that instead of going back in the evolutionary time line
we would not find a single source for all life in the evolutinary time
line, the single cell life form. We would see what creatin says is there
several types of kinds and from those kinds we get the variety of life
we see today. We would not see grass, rats, eagles, whales, ants,
rose ...[text shortened]... that occur,
but they start and end within kinds, you start with dogs you end with
dogs.
Kelly
Creationists used to get upset to be told they share >95% of their genome with the great apes. We share about 60% of our genome with bannanas. These homologies are deep and profound
Originally posted by KellyJayDon't take the piss please. So why is there so much junk code as well? Why is it assembled in the same code?
Explain in a little more detail please; it sounds like your saying
that if there are similarities within DNA that alone proves all life
started from the same single narrow base. You get the same type
of results within programming where a good programmer uses
the same language and writes code basically the same way, but
does so for different reasons. To ...[text shortened]... ose from a series of cosmic
accidents or however you believe life started without a God.
Kelly
If you want the mysteries of old earth evolution to be a wonder that reflects the glory of your god I'm fine with that. I won't share it but I'm totally comfortable with it. I'd guess that is the view of many christians and its fine; the problems arise when dogmatic fundamentalists seek to deny science because it conflicts with their literal interpretation of genesis.
Bigetted christians tried to do the same to Galleleo. Once the fundies came to terms with the new developemnts in science we entered a new age of enlightenment.
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeAs above, so below.
the homology of homeobox and MADS box genes shows that life on earth started from a fairly narrow base. It could be that there were many 'starting points' It may be that when we sample the life forms from the bottom of the deep oceans that we find a whole setr of populations that have nothing in common with the rest of life on earth.
That would be so cool
Kelly is making a valid point that we don't actually KNOW for sure
the origins of life.
We are still testing theories of whether we had the right climatic
conditions on earth for the first amino acids or whether they arrived
from on asteroids. Either are perfectly possible.
I just don't see how this relates to the OT?
Kelly seems to be backing up the evolutionary chain with his
argument, starting from species, then to single cells, then to genes.
What next, light?
What we're doing here and something I find to be one of sciences
greatest misguidances is that by providing a 'reason' for something
in the form of a series of logical statements we detract from the
real mystery of why it is there in the first place.
We fool ourselves into thinking we actually know about it.
Looking at evolution in this 'light', we can start asking more profound
questions of why and not how this came about.
Why are we evolving? Why has the attribute of thought, reason and
language become so successful? I think these questions have far
more relevence to the OT than the intrinsics of How. After all I think
that even the most devout will agree to a certain amount of metaphore
in the bible.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckVery true.
As above, so below.
Kelly is making a valid point that we don't actually KNOW for sure
the origins of life.
We are still testing theories of whether we had the right climatic
conditions on earth for the first amino acids or whether they arrived
from on asteroids. Either are perfectly possible.
I just don't see how this relates to the OT?
Kelly s ...[text shortened]... I think
that even the most devout will agree to a certain amount of metaphore
in the bible.
I don't question the faithful's right to investigate why evolution but I become infuriated when a small minority start to question what evolution is and how it happen based on nothing more than a prehistoric folk tale.
Your point on uncertainty is excellent too. The investigation of these uncertainties is the very stuff of science. However, just because we don't know the full details of the process with certainty, and possibly never will, doesn't mean with any certainty that god did it. It could have been aliens, the fairies at the end of my garden or it could have been a complex random occurence.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckKelly seems to be backing up the evolutionary chain with his
As above, so below.
Kelly is making a valid point that we don't actually KNOW for sure
the origins of life.
We are still testing theories of whether we had the right climatic
conditions on earth for the first amino acids or whether they arrived
from on asteroids. Either are perfectly possible.
I just don't see how this relates to the OT?
Kelly s ...[text shortened]... I think
that even the most devout will agree to a certain amount of metaphore
in the bible.
argument, starting from species, then to single cells, then to genes.
I don't know what argument you're referring to here, but from what I understand, Kelly does not believe single cells evolved into today's multicellular organisms. He believes horses, cats and dogs for example were created independently from the beginning.
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungCorrect, when I am talking about several sources I'm speaking of
[b]Kelly seems to be backing up the evolutionary chain with his
argument, starting from species, then to single cells, then to genes.
I don't know what argument you're referring to here, but from what I understand, Kelly do ...[text shortened]... nd dogs for example were created independently from the beginning.[/b]
those original creatures that God made that were brought before
Adam to be named. If you look at the creation story within Genesis
you will see that on the third day God started with life:
Genesis 1:9-13
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
We know that DNA is used in all life as we see it today, so that would
mean if God by design started using DNA on all plant life, trees and
so on. No animals were made yet, no birds, no fish up to the third
day. The starting points have yet to occur with anything other than
plant life. Yet on the fifth day more life is created.
Genesis 1:20-23
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
Besides the variety of plant life now a totally different set of living
beings have now appeared in creation, water creatures, and those that
fly. So the starting points of DNA have increased, with totally different
types of living beings. Even though plants, birds, fish and so on may
share DNA in their make up, it does not mean they came from the
single cell starting point that evolution says possibly occurred. Now
another day rolls around where more creatures are created including
mankind, on day six.
Genesis 1: 24-26
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
So my question remains, is there a test we can bring to the table that
can clear this up? Evolution says that one starting point more than
likely occurred, because of the similarities life shares in the DNA
programming. While there may be similarities within DNA why does
that automatically mean that they share a single line of evolutionary
history all the way back to the single cell life form, or whatever it
called the starting point of life? Can we know that plant life started
and did not share the same starting point as do fish, or eagles, cows,
or people? What can we bring to the table that would clear this up?
I acknowledge changes within kinds, yet I’m uncertain if I can give an
adequate definition of how to define a kind to everyone’s satisfaction.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayWe cannot bring anything to the table to differentiate between the two possibilities because of the restrictions you've placed on what would be evidence. There are a great many things that by far most scientists, especially biologists, agree are evidence for common ancestry of all life. For example, the existence of mammals, vs reptiles, vs birds... of course it's possible that "Goddunnit" for his own reasons, but there are infinite possibilities.
Correct, when I am talking about several sources I'm speaking of
those original creatures that God made that were brought before
Adam to be named. If you look at the creation story within Genesis
you will see that on the third day God ...[text shortened]... inition of how to define a kind to everyone’s satisfaction.
Kelly