[_ Old Earth _] A thought on Human origins

[GodsGrace]

I get it.

But HE'S saying that at some point, God stepped in and breathed the breath of life into a man, which would be Adam.

I'm not saying I agree with this - what I'm saying is that if you don't answer him, we won't get anywhere.

I agree with your idea that if God breathed the breath of life into Adam, what happened to all the other people around? How did THEY get the breath of life?

I spoke to a teacher at a seminary once about this and he said the only option for Genesis is incest.

Maybe Genesis is an allegory. But then people get upset with you. IOW, there was really a first man and a first woman, but Genesis is mainly to show HOW sin entered into the world. I doubt there was really a man named Adam and a woman named Eve around. Who wrote the book? People knew how to write back then? See what I mean.

Anyway, I'd like to get on with this. Do you know the five points or not. If you do just list the darn things and if you don't, it's okay, just admit it.

Maybe you could direct the discussion a little bit to what I wrote above?

Wondering

 

[Barbarian]

Are you two boys through?

O.K., it was a little snarky of me to keep asking him to tell me what he thought evolutionary theory said, when he clearly has no idea. We'll just leave it at that, and if he ever does find out, he can come back and tell us about it.

What's so odd about this, is that it's not exactly a great secret. The theory is easy to find, and Darwin's points are readily available to see on line.

 

[Barbarian]

The bible does teach a world wide flood. It's right there in Gen 7:19. Perhaps they changed it in your bible once they ran it through the filter of evolutionism.

And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.

Actually, it says "eretz" , not "earth." And it means the known world. It never meant the entire Earth. Compare to this:

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

Even though the author knew well that the Roman Empire was not the whole world. So we know that even if the Bible had said "the whole world", it would not have meant the entire Earth.

 

[Barbarian]

And I still think it's a little inconsistent to argue that only Noah and his family survived the flood, and then argue that others could have lived through it.

 

[GodsGrace]

O.K., it was a little snarky of me to keep asking him to tell me what he thought evolutionary theory said, when he clearly has no idea. We'll just leave it at that, and if he ever does find out, he can come back and tell us about it.

What's so odd about this, is that it's not exactly a great secret. The theory is easy to find, and Darwin's points are readily available to see on line.

I'll be looking up this 5 points Darwin thing and the Modern Synthesis myself. I hate to use the internet to understand things, as YOU well know! But I have no choice here and Professor Google does seem to know a lot of things. Problems is, you already have to KNOW about something in order to be able to ASK about it. Know what I mean?

I was interested in forging ahead with this idea of yours of how God could have decided to infuse His spirit into "man" at some point in time. I know this is not the traditional biblical concept, but I'm still searching.

It seems to me that we've already discussed the "missing link" and how it can't be found. But then you speak to all these evolutionary theories (and they are theories) which I don't understand and it would have been nice to have them explained in a SIMPLE way.

You do speak SCIENCESPEAK and I have difficulty following along. But, we can't go back an start all over.

I'll check out those two things and maybe come back and ask some questions, okay?

Wondering

 

[Cygnus]

I get it.

But HE'S saying that at some point, God stepped in and breathed the breath of life into a man, which would be Adam.

Cygnus: Or something like that....which would be changing the biblical account. Then again if God actually chose a man from the population why didn't He say that?

I'm not saying I agree with this - what I'm saying is that if you don't answer him, we won't get anywhere.

I have answered him. He's a performer.

I agree with your idea that if God breathed the breath of life into Adam, what happened to all the other people around? How did THEY get the breath of life?

Add to that how did their progeny become sinners?

I spoke to a teacher at a seminary once about this and he said the only option for Genesis is incest.

That would be true. But back in early Genesis when the peoples DNA was pretty much 100% intact and not riddled with our genetic problems incest wouldn't have been a genetic issue.

Maybe Genesis is an allegory. But then people get upset with you. IOW, there was really a first man and a first woman, but Genesis is mainly to show HOW sin entered into the world.

If evolutionism is true then sin could not have entered via one man.

I doubt there was really a man named Adam and a woman named Eve around.

The bible is pretty clear there was an Adam. He was the seventh from Enoch.

Who wrote the book?
Moses.

People knew how to write back then? See what I mean.

No.

Anyway, I'd like to get on with this. Do you know the five points or not. If you do just list the darn things and if you don't, it's okay, just admit it.

Five points of what? Calvinism?

Maybe you could direct the discussion a little bit to what I wrote above?

I believe I just did.

Wondering

 

[Cygnus]

And I still think it's a little inconsistent to argue that only Noah and his family survived the flood, and then argue that others could have lived through it.

I don't believe anyone here ever said that. You making stuff up again barbarian?

 

[Barbarian]

I'll be looking up this 5 points Darwin thing and the Modern Synthesis myself. I hate to use the internet to understand things, as YOU well know!

O.K. Darwin's points:

• More are born than can survive.
• All organisms differ slightly from others of their population.
• Some of these differences affect their chance of surviving long enough to reproduce.
• Natural selection tends to remove the harmful ones and to preserve the good ones.
• This process continues over generations, with natural selection determining what the starting point will be for each generation, and this can explain the diversification of organisms from a few kinds or just one.

The Modern Synthesis includes Darwin's points, but modifies them slightly.

• Genetic data indicates a single common ancestor.
• Variation is by genetic mutation or by recombination.
• Mendel's laws determine how the genotype determines phenotype. This means that harmful recessives can exist for a very long time, and it also means that combinations of alleles may affect fitness for better or worse.

To that, add the discovery (first by Mayr and later by Eldridge and Gould) that speciation is generally allopatric, with small geographically isolated populations speciating rapidly (from a geological time perspective) and with most populations in a stable environment having long periods of stasis.

As you see, none of that rules out two original parents as the ancestors of all living humans.

I was interested in forging ahead with this idea of yours of how God could have decided to infuse His spirit into "man" at some point in time. I know this is not the traditional biblical concept, but I'm still searching.

The Bible does not say one way or the other. It merely says that He does this directly, as opposed to making our bodies from nature itself. This is consistent with the Christian position that the soul is given immediately by God, and not by nature.

It seems to me that we've already discussed the "missing link" and how it can't be found. But then you speak to all these evolutionary theories (and they are theories) which I don't understand and it would have been nice to have them explained in a SIMPLE way.

There is no royal road to biology, either. But I'd be pleased to simplify as much as I can. BTW, "just a theory" always puzzles scientists, since even an 8th grader knows that a theory is an idea or set of ideas that have been verified by evidence. "Theory" in the informal usage, has been degraded to something like "informed guess." But that's not what it means.

 

[GodsGrace]

I get it.

But HE'S saying that at some point, God stepped in and breathed the breath of life into a man, which would be Adam.

Cygnus: Or something like that....which would be changing the biblical account. Then again if God actually chose a man from the population why didn't He say that?

I'm not saying I agree with this - what I'm saying is that if you don't answer him, we won't get anywhere.

I have answered him. He's a performer.

I agree with your idea that if God breathed the breath of life into Adam, what happened to all the other people around? How did THEY get the breath of life?

Add to that how did their progeny become sinners?

I spoke to a teacher at a seminary once about this and he said the only option for Genesis is incest.

That would be true. But back in early Genesis when the peoples DNA was pretty much 100% intact and not riddled with our genetic problems incest wouldn't have been a genetic issue.

Maybe Genesis is an allegory. But then people get upset with you. IOW, there was really a first man and a first woman, but Genesis is mainly to show HOW sin entered into the world.

If evolutionism is true then sin could not have entered via one man.

I doubt there was really a man named Adam and a woman named Eve around.

The bible is pretty clear there was an Adam. He was the seventh from Enoch.

Who wrote the book?
Moses.

People knew how to write back then? See what I mean.

No.

Anyway, I'd like to get on with this. Do you know the five points or not. If you do just list the darn things and if you don't, it's okay, just admit it.

Five points of what? Calvinism?

Maybe you could direct the discussion a little bit to what I wrote above?

I believe I just did.

Wondering

The five points of Calvanism! You're funny. Wasn't Barb asking about the five points of Darwin??

As to the authorship of Genesis. This is what I mean and why I have a little problem here.
The authorship is attributed to Moses. Fine. The Exodus was about 1,500 yrs before Jesus.
So do you figure Moses KNEW Adam and Eve?

The bible is an inspired book. Moses was inspired to write Genesis. It's not that God is some kind of secretary and wrote the book using Moses' hand.

I'm a traditional Christian and I don't think any strange concepts, but I do wonder at times about a story that was written when no one was around to see what happened. I DO believe it's inspired and that the Hebrews, Israelites and Jews had the capability to pass down their history and their stories.

I agree with you about the DNA being pure back then. As I said, I also agree about the sin nature not being able to be disbursed using the idea of pre-Adam man. This does present a big problem.

Incest is probably the right answer. Just tossing around some ideas...

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

O.K. Darwin's points:

• More are born than can survive.
• All organisms differ slightly from others of their population.
• Some of these differences affect their chance of surviving long enough to reproduce.
• Natural selection tends to remove the harmful ones and to preserve the good ones.
• This process continues over generations, with natural selection determining what the starting point will be for each generation, and this can explain the diversification of organisms from a few kinds or just one.

The Modern Synthesis includes Darwin's points, but modifies them slightly.

• Genetic data indicates a single common ancestor.
• Variation is by genetic mutation or by recombination.
• Mendel's laws determine how the genotype determines phenotype. This means that harmful recessives can exist for a very long time, and it also means that combinations of alleles may affect fitness for better or worse.

To that, add the discovery (first by Mayr and later by Eldridge and Gould) that speciation is generally allopatric, with small geographically isolated populations speciating rapidly (from a geological time perspective) and with most populations in a stable environment having long periods of stasis.

As you see, none of that rules out two original parents as the ancestors of all living humans.

The Bible does not say one way or the other. It merely says that He does this directly, as opposed to making our bodies from nature itself. This is consistent with the Christian position that the soul is given immediately by God, and not by nature.

There is no royal road to biology, either. But I'd be pleased to simplify as much as I can. BTW, "just a theory" always puzzles scientists, since even an 8th grader knows that a theory is an idea or set of ideas that have been verified by evidence. "Theory" in the informal usage, has been degraded to something like "informed guess." But that's not what it means.

Thanks Barb!

Printing it out...

But doesn't theory mean it HASN'T been verified by evidence??
Once it's verified it becomes a scientific fact and not a theory...

Relativity was a theory until it was proven.
Are you saying it's still called "a theory"?

Wondering

 

[Cygnus]

O.K. Darwin's points:

• More are born than can survive.
• All organisms differ slightly from others of their population.
• Some of these differences affect their chance of surviving long enough to reproduce.
• Natural selection tends to remove the harmful ones and to preserve the good ones.
• This process continues over generations, with natural selection determining what the starting point will be for each generation, and this can explain the diversification of organisms from a few kinds or just one.

The Modern Synthesis includes Darwin's points, but modifies them slightly.

• Genetic data indicates a single common ancestor.
• Variation is by genetic mutation or by recombination.
• Mendel's laws determine how the genotype determines phenotype. This means that harmful recessives can exist for a very long time, and it also means that combinations of alleles may affect fitness for better or worse.

.

Big problem for the above....it only suggest beneficial mutations can accumulate and produce morphological changes in a species progeny where one species is now considered a species that is considerd as a member of a different order or family.

Move down to the microscopic level of the cell.....it can't explain how the information in the DNA can increase to the point that it can instruct an organelle how to build another organelle.

Biblically, if evolutionism brought about mankind rather than God creating Adam and Eve in the garden then there is no means of explaining the fall, original sin and mans sin nature spreading to all people through one man. Because of this problem for the Theo-Evo Sects part of the bible must be rewritten or reinterpreted through the filter of evolutionismm.

 

[GodsGrace]

Big problem for the above....it only suggest beneficial mutations can accumulate and produce morphological changes in a species progeny where one species is now considered a species that is considerd as a member of a different order or family.

Move down to the microscopic level of the cell.....it can't explain how the information in the DNA can increase to the point that it can instruct an organelle how to build another organelle.

Biblically, if evolutionism brought about mankind rather than God creating Adam and Eve in the garden then there is no means of explaining the fall, original sin and mans sin nature spreading to all people through one man. Because of this problem for the Theo-Evo Sects part of the bible must be rewritten or reinterpreted through the filter of evolutionismm.

Could you, like, say paragraph 1, like, in English, like??

Maybe even two?
Maybe I should just give up on this??

THANKS!

W

 

[Cygnus]

Could you, like, say paragraph 1, like, in English, like??

Maybe even two?
Maybe I should just give up on this??

THANKS!

W

Paragraph one: Mutations don't have the ability to change this guy....

into this guy...

 

[GodsGrace]

That was funny Cygnus! You made me laugh.

BUT, I UNDERSTOOD it!!

Thanks. I agree.

I believe that there could be evolution within a species, but I don't believe that one species could turn into a different one.

See, that's Englishspeak for science!!

That's why I believe God decided to make MAN and created MAN just like He created everything else.
Genesis says that each animal will reproduce itself and man will reproduce himself.
Genesis 1:24-25

I do wonder at times, how the earth got populated. And I'm still not sure about this "missing link" thing. I do believe that the missing link has never been found. I don't understand very well about those "primitive" type "men" that seem to be uncovered every now and then.

Wondering

 

[Cygnus]

That was funny Cygnus! You made me laugh.

BUT, I UNDERSTOOD it!!

Thanks. I agree.

I believe that there could be evolution within a species, but I don't believe that one species could turn into a different one.

See, that's Englishspeak for science!!

That's why I believe God decided to make MAN and created MAN just like He created everything else.
Genesis says that each animal will reproduce itself and man will reproduce himself.
Genesis 1:24-25

I do wonder at times, how the earth got populated. And I'm still not sure about this "missing link" thing. I do believe that the missing link has never been found. I don't understand very well about those "primitive" type "men" that seem to be uncovered every now and then.

Wondering

Considering God didn't use evolutionism..there is no missing link. Chimps are chimps and humans are humans and never did they have a common ancestor..
Common creator yes.....commmon ancestor no.

 

[GodsGrace]

Considering God didn't use evolutionism..there is no missing link. Chimps are chimps and humans are humans and never did they have a common ancestor..
Common creator yes.....commmon ancestor no.

Yes, well, that's what I say too. This is why one has never been found. We've sure looked hard enough!

But what about the Big Bang???
Let There Be Light!!

God did it all. He's the first cause.

Wondering

 

[Barbarian]

Big problem for the above....it only suggest beneficial mutations can accumulate and produce morphological changes in a species progeny where one species is now considered a species that is considerd as a member of a different order or family.

I second the motion. Can you resubmit that in English?

Move down to the microscopic level of the cell.....it can't explain how the information in the DNA can increase to the point that it can instruct an organelle how to build another organelle.

That happens billions of times daily in your own body. Ribosomes do that constantly. Except for mitochondria, chloroplasts, and other endosymbiotic organelles that have their own, bacterial DNA, ribosomes build all the rest from the information in m-RNA. Would you like to learn about that?

Cell organelles with their own DNA arose by becoming symbionts, and taking over or beginning processes in the cell. They were free-living organisms, that became enclosed, and then adapted to the cell to the point that neither could survive without the other.

Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2011 Aug 1;3(8)
Evolution and diversity of the Golgi.
Klute MJ1, Melançon P, Dacks JB.

Abstract
The Golgi is an ancient and fundamental eukaryotic organelle. Evolutionary cell biological studies have begun establishing the repertoire, processes, and level of complexity of membrane-trafficking machinery present in early eukaryotic cells. This article serves as a review of the literature on the topic of Golgi evolution and diversity and reports a novel comparative genomic survey addressing Golgi machinery in the widest taxonomic diversity of eukaryotes sampled to date. Finally, the article is meant to serve as a primer on the rationale and design of evolutionary cell biological studies, hopefully encouraging readers to consider this approach as an addition to their cell biological toolbox. It is clear that the major machinery involved in vesicle trafficking to and from the Golgi was already in place by the time of the divergence of the major eukaryotic lineages, nearly 2 billion years ago. Much of this complexity was likely generated by an evolutionary process involving gene duplication and coevolution of specificity encoding membrane-trafficking proteins. There have also been clear cases of loss of Golgi machinery in some lineages as well as innovation of novel machinery. The Golgi is a wonderfully complex and diverse organelle and its continued exploration promises insight into the evolutionary history of the eukaryotic cell.

Biblically, if evolutionism brought about mankind rather than God creating Adam and Eve in the garden

Or, if as God says, He created man's body by natural means, and his soul by His direct intervention, that would be fine with Christians.

then there is no means of explaining the fall

Unless you accept God's word, and then human created by evolution, from which two were given immortal souls, after which they disobeyed God, is in perfect harmony with His word. As you learned, YE creationism, with its "life ex nihilo" beliefs, is at odds with His word in Genesis.

 

[Barbarian]

]Paragraph one: Mutations don't have the ability to change this guy....

into this guy...

Good thing. If that happened, evolutionary theory would be falsified. A long line of intermediate forms would be required for that to happen. Fortunately, there is a very long and detailed series of transitional forms connecting quadrupeds and whales. Would you like to learn about those?

 

[Barbarian]

Considering God didn't use evolutionism..there is no missing link. Chimps are chimps and humans are humans and never did they have a common ancestor..

It comes down to evidence. And the evidence, from several completely different kinds of information, shows they have a common ancestor. Genetics, fossil record, chromosome counts, and so on, all show that humans and chimps have a common ancestor.

Common creator yes.....commmon ancestor no.

I know you want to believe that. But neither scripture nor evidence supports your assumption.

 

[Cygnus]

I second the motion. Can you resubmit that in English?



That happens billions of times daily in your own body. Ribosomes do that constantly. Except for mitochondria, chloroplasts, and other endosymbiotic organelles that have their own, bacterial DNA, ribosomes build all the rest from the information in m-RNA. Would you like to learn about that?

Cell organelles with their own DNA arose by becoming symbionts, and taking over or beginning processes in the cell. They were free-living organisms, that became enclosed, and then adapted to the cell to the point that neither could survive without the other.

Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2011 Aug 1;3(8)
Evolution and diversity of the Golgi.
Klute MJ1, Melançon P, Dacks JB.

Abstract
The Golgi is an ancient and fundamental eukaryotic organelle. Evolutionary cell biological studies have begun establishing the repertoire, processes, and level of complexity of membrane-trafficking machinery present in early eukaryotic cells. This article serves as a review of the literature on the topic of Golgi evolution and diversity and reports a novel comparative genomic survey addressing Golgi machinery in the widest taxonomic diversity of eukaryotes sampled to date. Finally, the article is meant to serve as a primer on the rationale and design of evolutionary cell biological studies, hopefully encouraging readers to consider this approach as an addition to their cell biological toolbox. It is clear that the major machinery involved in vesicle trafficking to and from the Golgi was already in place by the time of the divergence of the major eukaryotic lineages, nearly 2 billion years ago. Much of this complexity was likely generated by an evolutionary process involving gene duplication and coevolution of specificity encoding membrane-trafficking proteins. There have also been clear cases of loss of Golgi machinery in some lineages as well as innovation of novel machinery. The Golgi is a wonderfully complex and diverse organelle and its continued exploration promises insight into the evolutionary history of the eukaryotic cell.





Or, if as God says, He created man's body by natural means, and his soul by His direct intervention, that would be fine with Christians.



Unless you accept God's word, and then human created by evolution, from which two were given immortal souls, after which they disobeyed God, is in perfect harmony with His word. As you learned, YE creationism, with its "life ex nihilo" beliefs, is at odds with His word in Genesis.

Your abstract showed...they don't know. Thanks for the reply.