[_ Old Earth _] Hows this for logic

[Barbarian]

I'm just presenting what the bible says...

You're adjusting it to fit your desires.

What can I say?

Perhaps this:
"Dear Lord, let it be according to your will."

Then you won't find His creation objectionable any longer.

 

[brother Paul]

...I would think it means they had babies over an 800 year (or shorter) time period.....not that Adam hit 800 then began to have babies.
As the NET bible puts it: The length of time Adam lived after he became the father of Seth was 800 years; during this time he had other sons and daughters.

...I would think it means they had babies over an 800 year (or shorter) time period.....not that Adam hit 800 then began to have babies.

Yes you are right...he was 130 when he and Eve had Seth. But I am sure there were a lot of children in 130 years as well (offspring who also had many children),,,just because our attention (for the purpose of the redemption story) is brought to focus on this one, does nor mean there were not others (they just were not significant for what He wanted us to know).

 

[brother Paul]

No you can't. Show me a dog that's a filter feeder, or one that lives in the open sea. Dogs have a tiny amount of variation, mostly changes in size and proportions in bones. Things that are easily changed by careful breeding.

And by early natural interbreeding

 

[Barbarian]

No you can't. Show me a dog that's a filter feeder, or one that lives in the open sea. Dogs have a tiny amount of variation, mostly changes in size and proportions in bones. Things that are easily changed by careful breeding.

And by early natural interbreeding

I don't think the evidence supports that. While some scientists (Konrad Lorenz, for example) thought that the golden jackal and grey wolves hybridized and formed dogs, the evidence suggests that dogs are entirely, or nearly entirely grey wolf. The interesting thing is, genetic and behavioral data suggests that the human/dog symbiosis was a mutually-accepted one, in which humans also evolved to adapt to dogs.

Dogs have amylases, that allow them to eat and digest more human-style foods. Humans are more wolf-like in their loyalty to each other than most other primates are. I think the most important selection by humans was for a more docile and submissive animal. However, pack structure made wolves largely pre-adapted to become so, and their habit of caring for the offspring of any member of the pack tended to make them gentle and protective of childen, while their ability to submit and cooperate with a dominant pack leader made them able to work with and obey humans.

With human intelligence and weaponry, and the wolf ability to track and run, that symbiosis produced predators unlike anything the Earth had seen before. Almost as if we were made for each other. God works in mysterious ways, um?

 

[brother Paul]

I don't think the evidence supports that. While some scientists (Konrad Lorenz, for example) thought that the golden jackal and grey wolves hybridized and formed dogs, the evidence suggests that dogs are entirely, or nearly entirely grey wolf. The interesting thing is, genetic and behavioral data suggests that the human/dog symbiosis was a mutually-accepted one, in which humans also evolved to adapt to dogs.

Dogs have amylases, that allow them to eat and digest more human-style foods. Humans are more wolf-like in their loyalty to each other than most other primates are. I think the most important selection by humans was for a more docile and submissive animal. However, pack structure made wolves largely pre-adapted to become so, and their habit of caring for the offspring of any member of the pack tended to make them gentle and protective of childen, while their ability to submit and cooperate with a dominant pack leader made them able to work with and obey humans.

With human intelligence and weaponry, and the wolf ability to track and run, that symbiosis produced predators unlike anything the Earth had seen before. Almost as if we were made for each other. God works in mysterious ways, um?

Except for the Konrad Lorenz comment nothing here relates to the point. Transmission of differing alleles and interbreeding between types having varying like traits (along with rare but occasional mutations) caused early varieties to develop and of course later human unnatiural interbreeding enhanced the process.

 

[Barbarian]

Except for the Konrad Lorenz comment nothing here relates to the point.

If you think so, you don't get how it works. Interbreeding was completely unnecessary. One could merely select from each generation, the most suitable animals to breed for the next. No interbreeding required.

Transmission of differing alleles and interbreeding between types having varying like traits (along with rare but occasional mutations)

Mutations are quite common. You have dozens of mutations that did not exist in either parent.

 

[turnorburn]

Reality of Gods word..

They are we are all of a kind no evolution there..

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

They are we are all of different flesh..

I Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

No evolution there either..

No point denying the truth..

 

[Cygnus]

Mutations are quite common. You have dozens of mutations that did not exist in either parent.

None of which increase the information in the DNA...and then add to that increased information.

 

[Cygnus]

You're adjusting it to fit your desires.



Perhaps this:
"Dear Lord, let it be according to your will."

Then you won't find His creation objectionable any longer.

Gods (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) will of creation was explained in genesis....and evolutionism wasn't part of it...unless you twist scripture. Then again you already knew that.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Mutations are quite common. You have dozens of mutations that did not exist in either parent.

None of which increase the information in the DNA...

Every new mutation in a population adds to information. Would you like to see the numbers?

 

[Barbarian]

Gods (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) will of creation was explained in genesis....and evolutionism wasn't part of it.

Neither was gravity. Lots of things that are true, are not in Genesis.

 

[Cygnus]

Barbarian observes:
Mutations are quite common. You have dozens of mutations that did not exist in either parent.



Every new mutation in a population adds to information. Would you like to see the numbers?

Dozens of mutations that do nothing...or are harmful. ZERO that are considered as beneficial that can be added to in future generations.
Secondly...once again..you're wrong. Unless you consider the removal of information..as added information.

Mutations can't account for the code in the DNA that make organelle that are used in making other organelle...we've been over this and last time you failed to show how this is possible...what do you think id different now?

 

[Cygnus]

Neither was gravity. Lots of things that are true, are not in Genesis.

...and that's your reply? I hope you don't mind if I laugh that response off.

 

[Barbarian]

...and that's your reply?

Yep. It's so easy to dispose of "Genesis doesn't mention it, so it can't be true." Luther and Calvin tried to dispose of heliocentrism in the same manner. It didn't work any better for them. No one really thinks that dodge will work. It's usually tossed in at the end, as a filler, when there's nothing left.

I hope you don't mind if I laugh that response off.

Nothing left but unsupported ridicule, that is.

 

[Barbarian]

Dozens of mutations that do nothing...or are harmful. ZERO that are considered as beneficial that can be added to in future generations.

Most of them do nothing much besides adding information. Some are harmful. A small number are useful, and natural selection tends to increase those. Would you like to learn about some of them.

Secondly...once again..you're wrong. Unless you consider the removal of information..as added information.

Let's test your assumption. Suppose there are three alleles for a specific gene in the population, each with a frequency of 0.333 (to make it easy on you to calculate). Now suppose a new mutation appears and eventually there are four alleles, each with a frequency of 0.25 (I could use others, but it would be harder for you to calculate. Your assignment is to calculate the information for this gene before and after the new mutation.

Good luck. Prediction: no numbers will be forthcoming.

Mutations can't account for the code in the DNA that make organelle that are used in making other organelle...

Sounds as though it's an unsupported belief again. Let's see your evidence. Last time we did this, you failed to show any support for that claim. I notice you failed again. I think we all know why.

 

[brother Paul]

I understand about Mutations. Your remark was an attempt to divert further to avoid the point I had made. The whole dogs in the sea thing is hypothesis based assumption nothing more...actually it is sci fi, or as Ernst Mayr puts it making up a historical narrative.

 

[Cygnus]

Yep. It's so easy to dispose of "Genesis doesn't mention it, so it can't be true." Luther and Calvin tried to dispose of heliocentrism in the same manner. It didn't work any better for them. No one really thinks that dodge will work. It's usually tossed in at the end, as a filler, when there's nothing left.



Nothing left but unsupported ridicule, that is.

To be honest i see you grasping at straws.
Your problem occurs when you insist on adding to or changing what the bible already says.

As mentioned before....Paul wouldn't base instructions to women in the church on an allegory. That makes absolutely no sense at all.
Secondly, God says He didn't use evolutionism to create. I believe your bible tells you Eve was made second from Adams rib. How anyone can consider that as evolutionism is beyond me.....But, apply the Chubby Checker principle all you want.

 

[Cygnus]

Most of them do nothing much besides adding information. Some are harmful. A small number are useful, and natural selection tends to increase those. Would you like to learn about some of them.



Let's test your assumption. Suppose there are three alleles for a specific gene in the population, each with a frequency of 0.333 (to make it easy on you to calculate). Now suppose a new mutation appears and eventually there are four alleles, each with a frequency of 0.25 (I could use others, but it would be harder for you to calculate. Your assignment is to calculate the information for this gene before and after the new mutation.

Good luck. Prediction: no numbers will be forthcoming.



Sounds as though it's an unsupported belief again. Let's see your evidence. Last time we did this, you failed to show any support for that claim. I notice you failed again. I think we all know why.

How typical....picking numbers from the air and inserting them into a hypothetical argument...doesn't really help your cause.

Oh, I loved the way you used the word...eventually...you made that sound so factual.

 

[Barbarian]

How typical....picking numbers from the air and inserting them into a hypothetical argument...doesn't really help your cause.

So, I'm guessing that means you have no idea how information actually works in genetics. Feel free to use your own numbers. Mine just simplify the calculations. But you have no idea how to do it, do you?

Oh, I loved the way you used the word...eventually...you made that sound so factual.

It's been observed to happen many, many times. Would you like to see some examples?

Bottom line; if you don't know what "information" is, or how to determine how much a population has, what makes you think it's a problem for evolution?

 

[Barbarian]

I understand about Mutations.

I'm not sure that you do. If you think mutations are "rare", then you don't get it.

Your remark was an attempt to divert further to avoid the point I had made. The whole dogs in the sea thing is hypothesis based assumption nothing more...

Conclusion based on evidence. Genetics makes it clear that dogs are primarily or exclusively evolved from a common ancestor of dogs and grey wolves with very little if any hybridization. Whatever hybridization went on, seems to have been between wolves and dogs, after their descent from a now extinct wolf-like canid.
http://www2.fiu.edu/~milesk/Genetics.htm