A question about evolution

[MaxP]

When God saw it was good, it was - men later corrupted it, that was the point, Moses wasn't wrong.

 

[Gracchus]

When God saw it was good, it was - men later corrupted it, that was the point, Moses wasn't wrong.

KJV Mark 10:
"1 And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Remember the thread was not about marriage and divorce. The thread was about AV1611VET's four points he insisted disprove evolution

So, the point is that AV1611VET said that Jesus wrote the old testament, and Jesus asked them "What did Moses command you?", not "What did I command you?", not even "What did God command you?"

And while Moses allowed divorce, Jesus did not. Therefore, Moses got it wrong, or Jesus got it wrong. And if Moses or Jesus got that wrong then the Bible is not inerrant, which invalidates the rest of AV1611VET's points, which are based on the inerrancy of the Bible.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[juvenissun]

And while Moses allowed divorce, Jesus did not. Therefore, Moses got it wrong. And if Moses got that wrong then the Bible is not inerrant, which invalidates the rest of AV1611VET's points, which are based on the inerrancy of the Bible.

The Bible is inerrant by showing that Moses, and anyone else, made (big) mistakes.

 

[Hespera]

When God saw it was good, it was - men later corrupted it, that was the point, Moses wasn't wrong.

That may be a fact and it may not. However, it is way off topic... did your original question get answered?

One way to think about being multi or single celled. Whether there is an advantage to being one or the other is totally situational.

You as a representative multicellular critter, might find you didnt do well in a bucket of rotten meat while bacteria love it.

There are still lots of unicellular plants and animals, and they do fine.

Evolution is driven by specific circumstances that affect specific populations. Not all birds became penguins!

 

[Gracchus]

The Bible is inerrant by showing that Moses, and anyone else, made (big) mistakes.

I learn something every day. I would have never thought it possible for anyone to bite themselves in the pyloric sphincter!

:o

 

[AV1611VET]

And while Moses allowed divorce, Jesus did not. Therefore, Moses got it wrong, or Jesus got it wrong. And if Moses or Jesus got that wrong then the Bible is not inerrant, which invalidates the rest of AV1611VET's points, which are based on the inerrancy of the Bible.

Either that --- or God has two kinds of wills --- DIRECT and PERMISSIVE.

Under His direct will --- there are no exceptions --- not even nature can intervene.

Under His permissive will --- there are exceptions --- but with consequences.

QV the following conversation, resulting in God's permissive will being exercised:

1 ¶ And the children of Israel set forward, and pitched in the plains of Moab on this side Jordan by Jericho.
2 And Balak the son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites.
3 And Moab was sore afraid of the people, because they were many: and Moab was distressed because of the children of Israel.
4 And Moab said unto the elders of Midian, Now shall this company lick up all that are round about us, as the ox licketh up the grass of the field. And Balak the son of Zippor was king of the Moabites at that time.
5 He sent messengers therefore unto Balaam the son of Beor to Pethor, which is by the river of the land of the children of his people, to call him, saying, Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt: behold, they cover the face of the earth, and they abide over against me:
6 Come now therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people; for they are too mighty for me: peradventure I shall prevail, that we may smite them, and that I may drive them out of the land: for I wot that he whom thou blessest is blessed, and he whom thou cursest is cursed.
7 And the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the rewards of divination in their hand; and they came unto Balaam, and spake unto him the words of Balak.
8 And he said unto them, Lodge here this night, and I will bring you word again, as the LORD shall speak unto me: and the princes of Moab abode with Balaam.
9 And God came unto Balaam, and said, What men are these with thee?
10 And Balaam said unto God, Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, hath sent unto me, saying,
11 Behold, there is a people come out of Egypt, which covereth the face of the earth: come now, curse me them; peradventure I shall be able to overcome them, and drive them out.
12 And God said unto Balaam, Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people: for they are blessed.
13 And Balaam rose up in the morning, and said unto the princes of Balak, Get you into your land: for the LORD refuseth to give me leave to go with you.
14 And the princes of Moab rose up, and they went unto Balak, and said, Balaam refuseth to come with us.
15 ¶ And Balak sent yet again princes, more, and more honourable than they.
16 And they came to Balaam, and said to him, Thus saith Balak the son of Zippor, Let nothing, I pray thee, hinder thee from coming unto me:
17 For I will promote thee unto very great honour, and I will do whatsoever thou sayest unto me: come therefore, I pray thee, curse me this people.
18 And Balaam answered and said unto the servants of Balak, If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the LORD my God, to do less or more.
19 Now therefore, I pray you, tarry ye also here this night, that I may know what the LORD will say unto me more.
20 And God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up, and go with them; but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do.
21 And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab.
22 ¶ And God's anger was kindled because he went:

 

[Gracchus]

Either that --- or God has two kinds of wills --- DIRECT and PERMISSIVE.

Under His direct will --- there are no exceptions --- not even nature can intervene.

Under His permissive will --- there are exceptions --- but with consequences.

QV the following conversation, resulting in God's permissive will being exercised:

So first God tells Balaam not to go with them, then God tells Balaam to go with them, then God gets angry when Balaam follows the last instruction! Are you sure God isn't a woman?

 

[AV1611VET]

The Bible is inerrant by showing that Moses, and anyone else, made (big) mistakes.

Indeed --- context plays a big part --- I made up this little exercise that I use for those who don't understand how context works:

1. The Bible says that if you eat of the Forbidden Fruit, you'll surely die --- true or false?
2. The Bible says that if you eat of the Forbidden Fruit, you'll surely not die --- true or false?

Both statements are true.

 

[AV1611VET]

That [basic doctrine] confuses you, Gracchus?

 

[Gracchus]

Indeed --- context plays a big part --- I made up this little exercise that I use for those who don't understand how context works:

1. The Bible says that if you eat of the Forbidden Fruit, you'll surely die --- true or false?
2. The Bible says that if you eat of the Forbidden Fruit, you'll surely not die --- true or false?

Both statements are true.

Actually, the Bible says neither of those things. The Bible says God said one thing and the serpent said the other. Either or neither statement may be true, or the Bible may have got it wrong, and there was no magic fruit, no talking serpent, no man made of mud, and no woman made from his rib. There is no way to tell.

Except, I don't believe in talking serpents, even if Harry Potter movies say they do talk.

 

[JBJoe]

So was the "bait" that I missed that this thread would only have 18 topical posts before AV1611 diverted the discussion from evolution into the finer minutiae of biblical apologetics?

Or has the thread ended with the requisite information on the evolution of multicellular life having been adequately dispensed?

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, the Bible says neither of those things.

Actually, It does --- I've got One right here on my desk --- and take my word for it --- It does.

The Bible says God said one thing and the serpent said the other.

That is correct --- I posted what they said --- albeit not verbatim.

Either or neither statement may be true, or the Bible may have got it wrong, and there was no magic fruit, no talking serpent, no man made of mud, and no woman made from his rib.

You're shifting the emphasis off the Bible and on to who said what --- and that's negating the point I'm making; viz., how context works.

There is no way to tell.

Open It up and read It yourself.

Except, I don't believe in talking serpents...

Neither do I.

 

[MaxP]

Perhaps we should get back to single and multi-cellular evolution.

 

[Hespera]

Perhaps we should get back to single and multi-cellular evolution.

Good idea. Do you have a specific question? Like did it occur, how did it occur? Evidence that it has happened? I'd be glad to give it a shot.

 

[Gracchus]

So was the "bait" that I missed that this thread would only have 18 topical posts before AV1611 diverted the discussion from evolution into the finer minutiae of biblical apologetics?

If AV1611VET is to take part at all it must be in the area of convoluted (and sometimes contradictory, "Facts can take a hike.") theological minutiae. He knows no science, or rather acknowledges no science that threatens his rather ... idiosyncratic ... beliefs.

Or has the thread ended with the requisite information on the evolution of multicellular life having been adequately dispensed?

OK.

Single celled organisms replicate by division. Sometimes they stick together after dividing, giving rise to strands, sheets, balls, or hollow balls of cells. These are generally considered colonial forms rather than single organisms.

When the cells of these colonies begin to differentiate and perform specialized functions, the colony becomes more like a single multicellular organism. There is no hard and fast line.

For instance, some sponges have only one type of cell, some sponges have two types of cell, and some sponges have three types of cell. All three types of cells closely resemble types of free-living, non-colonial single-celled organisms.

The colonial forms that survive are neither more or less fit than the single-celled forms that survive or the multi-celled forms that survive.

In any case, this forum is not the place to learn biology. As a classroom it is full of intellectually disadvantaged students and socially disruptive elements as well as a fair proportion of students who have neither listened to the information presented nor read the books.

There are some knowledgeable people posting here, but: Read books by biologists to learn about biology. Read modern books, and read more than one.

 

[MaxP]

Good idea. Do you have a specific question? Like did it occur, how did it occur? Evidence that it has happened? I'd be glad to give it a shot.

The whole shebang.
I've heard they have observed single to multi cellular transition before, is that true?

 

[Chalnoth]

The whole shebang.
I've heard they have observed single to multi cellular transition before, is that true?

Sort of. It was more evolution of a colonial organism from a single-celled one. It's found in this list:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

(search for "Evolution of a Unicellular Organism into a Multicellular Species", or just "Multicellular" on the above page)

Of course, there may be other examples. I just know of this one. And did you read the link I posted earlier about choanoflagellates?

 

[Hespera]

The whole shebang.
I've heard they have observed single to multi cellular transition before, is that true?

the above post does deal with this, but lets clarify your question.

do you mean observed this in the process of happening or observe that it has happened?

Do you expect someone to have been there watching when a species of algae, say, first time ever divided into two cells that then stayed together rather than completely separating?

If you mean, is there a whole long sequence of living things that show small incremental changes from single cell to colony to multicell organism, then yes, there are those in abundance.

As noted above tho this is stuff to find in your invertebrate zoology book, not a forum. I mean, if you really want detail.

 

[MaxP]

Sort of. It was more evolution of a colonial organism from a single-celled one. It's found in this list:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

(search for "Evolution of a Unicellular Organism into a Multicellular Species", or just "Multicellular" on the above page)

Of course, there may be other examples. I just know of this one. And did you read the link I posted earlier about choanoflagellates?

Yes, about the adhesive properties found in choanoflagellates, and various proteins?

But the article also states, about choanoflagellates:

It's a very successful lifestyle that has allowed them to flourish in both marine and freshwater environments.

So why evolve? I mean, it would mean more food and longer living, but were they "happy" as they were? If they could flourish why would they evolve, I was under the impression an organism evolves out of necessity? It can't cope with this, a mutation helps, it survives. Unless multicellular development was a random mutation that proved not necessary, but extremely beneficial?

 

[MaxP]

the above post does deal with this, but lets clarify your question.

do you mean observed this in the process of happening or observe that it has happened?

Do you expect someone to have been there watching when a species of algae, say, first time ever divided into two cells that then stayed together rather than completely separating?

No, I thought there was an experiment where it was proven to have happened, or at least be possible.

If you mean, is there a whole long sequence of living things that show small incremental changes from single cell to colony to multicell organism, then yes, there are those in abundance.

As noted above tho this is stuff to find in your invertebrate zoology book, not a forum. I mean, if you really want detail.

Haha yea, I'm probably gonna head off to a library, just poking around on the internet first.