Answering questions on Evolution

[Freodin]

What difference would that make? You've made up your mind that we are apes, even though every other translation that I know of clearly says we came from the earth --- specifically it's top layer.

You don't respect Genesis 1, and you're whining because you think I'm disrespectful to Ecclesiastes 7:29?

Please don't tell me what a word says in German, if you can't respect a whole chapter in English.

There is a difference between understanding what a verse/word means and using it correctly in the given context, and accepting it as "truth".

I can easily disagree that "God created man upright", but at least I know what it is that I disagree with.


This is not about "respecting" something, just using it correctly.

 

[Freodin]

Again, that's your prerogative; but then don't tell me how your "great translators" translated this or that in their language.

You're not the Rosetta Stone, and if I wanted to speak German, I'd learn it.

This has nothing to do with the superiotity of German over English... or vice versa.

It just goes to show that terms can have different meanings, and that it is often via translations in different languages that we are made aware of these different meanings.

I use German to show that effect, because it is the language I know best... my mothertongue.

(And thanks be to God, the world doesn't speak German.)Then He must not have dictated the Bible.

Yes, and we all know that every German who ever lived and ever will live is an evil Nazi. Sheesh. Keep your prejudices to yourself!

 

[TheReasoner]

The answer is in your question.

The Bible doesn't portray us as evolving from single-cell organisms, but coming into existence as incipients.

In other words, having no predecessors.

I know this is your understanding of that parable. But your position is not backed by hard evidence.

Please don't tell me what a word says in German, if you can't respect a whole chapter in English.

And why on earth is English supposed to be special? It's not exactly the original language of the bible you know.
Do you read the bible in its original languages, and do you take into account culture and history when you read it?

 

[AV1611VET]

This is not about "respecting" something, just using it correctly.

And how do you use Genesis 1 correctly?

 

[AV1611VET]

This has nothing to do with the superiotity of German over English... or vice versa.

It just goes to show that terms can have different meanings, and that it is often via translations in different languages that we are made aware of these different meanings.

I use German to show that effect, because it is the language I know best... my mothertongue.

Alrighty then --- I certainly don't fault you for that.

But when your German conflicts with God's English, then we have a problem.

 

[Freodin]

And how do you use Genesis 1 correctly?

Genesis 1? Will you stay at Genesis 1 for now? Really? Truly?

...every other translation that I know of clearly says we came from the earth --- specifically it's top layer.

This is NOT what Genesis 1 says! Genesis 1 does not make any reference to where humans came from at all!

Genesis 1:27 says "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. "

Nothing about earth, and definitly nothing about "top layer".

You are jumping through the text as you like it and rip verses and single words out of context! Talk about "respecting the text!"

So now, Genesis 1:27 says that God created man in his own image and that he created male and female. There is still a debate ongoing what "in his own image" is to mean, and I am not set on either position. But I use this verse as to say that "God is the creator of humans". Is that a "respectful" understanding?

AND I DISAGREE WITH IT. I don´t believe that God is the creator of humans.


And now that I have answered your derailing questions, perhaps you can answer mine: how does a chapter that deals with how you cannot trust humans, and women especially, end with a statement regarding human bipedality?

 

[AV1611VET]

But your position is not backed by hard evidence.

Ain't that a shame?

I know some pills that were backed by "hard evidence" in the '60s too.

And why on earth is English supposed to be special? It's not exactly the original language of the bible you know.

It's not?

I happen to have a digitally-remastered copy of the original 1611 KJV, and it looks like English to me.

Do you read the bible in its original languages...

Yes.

...and do you take into account culture and history when you read it?

I like to think I do.

 

[Freodin]

Alrighty then --- I certainly don't fault you for that.

But when your German conflicts with God's English, then we have a problem.

Sorry, this is not MY German... it´s God´s German!


BTW, do you deny that "upright" in the English language can mean "erect" as well as "honest"?

 

[AV1611VET]

This is NOT what Genesis 1 says! Genesis 1 does not make any reference to where humans came from at all!

Interesting --- you're absolutely right --- my mistake.

This is what I was referring to:

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,

 

[AV1611VET]

BTW, do you deny that "upright" in the English language can mean "erect" as well as "honest"?

No, I don't deny it; and in point of fact, I think Solomon is saying both here.

 

[Freodin]

No, I don't deny it; and in point of fact, I think Solomon is saying both here.

Because Soloman spoke the original language of the Bible: English... correct?

 

[AV1611VET]

Because Soloman spoke the original language of the Bible: English... correct?

No, Solomon spoke Hebrew, and wrote it in Hebrew.

Then, when the time came, God updated what Solomon wrote, translating it into [Koine] Greek, then Gothic, then English --- all the while purifying it.

 

[Sanguis]

No, Solomon spoke Hebrew, and wrote it in Hebrew.

Then, when the time came, God updated what Solomon wrote, translating it into [Koine] Greek, then Gothic, then English --- all the while purifying it.

Then why are there so many interpretations, different copies, etc?

Surely, if he was "purifying" it, there's be less versions of it, and not more versions of it as time goes by?

It's a bronze age storybook, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Freodin]

No, Solomon spoke Hebrew, and wrote it in Hebrew.

Then, when the time came, God updated what Solomon wrote, translating it into [Koine] Greek, then Gothic, then English --- all the while purifying it.

So Solomon meant to write something that had this dual meaning in a chapter dealing with "honesty"; did not, but used his native hebrew to write down something that meant "honesty"; which later got "updated" by God to a Greek term that refers to "honesty"; which later got "updated" by God to an English term that at last reflects the dual meaning that Soloman really wanted to say, because AV needs an argument against Evolution.

Yes, you respect the text indeed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why are there so many interpretations, different copies, etc?

Because the love of money is the root of all evil.

Surely, if he was "purifying" it, there's be less versions of it, and not more versions of it as time goes by?

We call that Diabolical Plagiarism.

And purifying something means just that --- it doesn't mean wiping out the competition.

As God put it: Let the tares grow among the wheat.

It's a bronze age storybook, nothing more, nothing less.

Well, It was written for you as well; and if you really believe that, then I suggest you start acting like you're "bronze age", or you're not going to understand anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

So Solomon meant to write something that had this dual meaning in a chapter dealing with "honesty"; did not, but used his native hebrew to write down something that meant "honesty"; which later got "updated" by God to a Greek term that refers to "honesty"; which later got "updated" by God to an English term that at last reflects the dual meaning that Soloman really wanted to say, because AV needs an argument against Evolution.

Yes, you respect the text indeed.

Mamma mia --- have a good day, Freodin ---

 

[Freodin]

Mamma mia --- have a good day, Freodin ---

You too, AV. You are a real neutron star on the Creationist´s heaven.

 

[AV1611VET]

You too, AV. You are a real neutron star on the Creationist´s heaven.

--- danke.

 

[Psudopod]

Again, that's your prerogative; but then don't tell me how your "great translators" translated this or that in their language.

You're not the Rosetta Stone, and if I wanted to speak German, I'd learn it.

German’s no good for me as a dyslexic. The more letters in a word the more likely I am to get some of them in the wrong place! But my point wasn’t really about whether German was better as a language, or anyone’s translating skills. What I mean was if the German says one thing and the English says another, then why is the English automatically right? (Although in this case it’s that the German says one thing clearly, and the English word either says the same or something different, as the language is more ambiguous.)

 

[Mike Elphick]

I found out HOW they work on wiki and stuff before I asked here, I was wondering if anyone knew when/where in the tree of life they evolved. After all, insects, SOME reptiles, birds, and SOME fish use it, that means not all reptiles use it and not all fish use it, which puzzled me as to the timing of it coming about. If that makes sense.

Ok, but you'll probably know not everyone looks things up before asking such questions and this one is actually a tricky one to answer!

It's first important to realise that XY and ZW are sex selecting systems, which means that the X and Y chromosomes of plants say, are not homologous with those of mammals. In the XY system the male selects the gender whilst in the ZW system it is the female that decides, and the differentiation is reversed (male is ZZ, female is ZW).

It is generally believed that, in species where there are two genders, sex chromosomes evolved from ancestral hermaphrodites that didn't have sex chromosomes. It's thought that genes that define female or male were then epigenetically suppressed, creating the first male or female genders and the potential for sex chromosomes to emerge. It is assumed all sexually reproducing organisms evolved from a common single celled eukaryotic ancestor so sex-chromosome pairs arose independently among different lineages from separate pairs of ordinary (non sex) chromosomes.

The sex chromosomes of one biological group therefore differ in origin and structure from those of others. So, as has been pointed out, the sex chromosomes of mammals are not specifically related to those of insects, plants or birds.

As is typical in Biology, not everything is quite so straight forward as the diagram above might convey. Analysis of monotreme (egg laying mammals like the echidna and duck-billed platypus) reveals a lack of homology between platypus X and the Xs of placental mammals and marsupials, so monotremes have a unique XY sex chromosome system. Moreover, genetic mapping studies show chicken Z homologous genes in the sex chromosome system with the main clusters on platypus X3 and X5 and echidna X3 and X4. Other Z homologous genes map to autosomes (ordinary non-sex chromosomes), indicating many rearrangements between the monotreme and avian lineages.

I can't really find much regarding evolutionary dates for appearance of XY and WZ systems, nor for divergence and evolution of the various sex chromosomes themselves. This has a lot to do with the plasticity of sex-determining systems, chromosomes and genes. However, since the platypus sex chromosomes have homology with bird, but not with placental mammals (and marsupials) it implies that human X and Y chromosomes evolved from a non-sex chromosome pair after the divergence of monotremes, just 166 million years ago. Whether this is true or not I really don't know — further genetic mapping will shed more light on it.

Some links for you:-

The Y chromosome as a battle ground for sexual selectionE

http://hominid.uchicago.edu/publications/2001 NatRevGen-Y chromosome.pdf

Weird Animal Genomes and the Evolution of Vertebrate Sex and Sex Chromosomes - Annual Review of Genetics, 42(1):565 - Abstract


CSIRO PUBLISHING - Reproduction, Fertility and Development

The multiple sex chromosomes of platypus and echidna are not completely identical and several share homology with the avian Z

Access : In the platypus a meiotic chain of ten sex chromosomes shares genes with the bird Z and mammal X chromosomes : Nature

Theory for why dioecious plants have equal length sex chromosomes -- Gorelick 92 (6): 979 -- American Journal of Botany

There's even a book, but you need to be pretty rich to purchase it!
"Evolution of Sex Determining Mechanisms" by James J. Bull