Answering any questions on Evolution

[Zaius137]

Intersting! Do you recommend American Scientific Affiliation to learn about Christian views on science?

I have read the creeds and have no major objections to the organization… I maintain my position as non-denominational.

Christians have every right to disagree on matters other than the root gospel of salvation and who Jesus Christ is. To that end God bless them.

Are you a member?

 

[SkyWriting]

How can a theory "divorce itself" from a separate topic which was NEVER a part of the theory?
I'm amazed at (and wonder why) anybody would insist on confusing the theory of evolution with various modern-day hypotheses about abiogenesis. A scientific theory always focuses on explaining the answer to a particular question, that is, making sense out of the data surrounding a single issue. Surely any rational individual can understand the difference between:1) Explaining changes over time in life forms which already exist....versus 2) Explaining how life first came into existence.

So people who do this are not sane then.

....Somehow the only people insisting that abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution should be merged into a single........something (??)......stand outside the field of evolutionary biology [usually holding protest signs, figuratively speaking] and constantly confuse many other foundational concepts and basic scientific vocabulary.
And that's kind of interesting. Don't you think?

So your claim is that you are the only "thinking", sane, and rational person then.
But not these people?

The RNA World and the Origins of Life.
"To fully understand the processes occurring in present-day living cells, we need to consider how they arose in evolution."

"However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from."

"Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres - The origin and early evolution of life is an inseparable part of the discipline of Astrobiology. "

"Researchers in the field of synthetic biology are still a long way from being able to assemble living cells from scratch in the laboratory."

Origins'of'Life:'The RNA World Revisited
http://origins.asu.edu/seminars/Origins_Life_web.pdf

"This section of Biology Online investigates the origins of life and how it has evolved over the various geological periods."

 

[RickG]

I have read the creeds and have no major objections to the organization… I maintain my position as non-denominational.

Christians have every right to disagree on matters other than the root gospel of salvation and who Jesus Christ is. To that end God bless them.

Are you a member?

I am not a member but I am quite familiar with the organization. I would like to recommend the following article within their organization.

Radiometric Dating

 

[verysincere]

I would like to recommend the following article within their organization.

Radiometric Dating

Yes, that is very well-organized article with a lot of excellent information.

As one would expect of a science organization, their scientific analysis is of much higher quality than their exegetical skills. For example, I noticed this quote where they confuse TRADITIONS about the Bible with what the Biblical text actually says:

"It would not be inconsistent with the scientific evidence to conclude that God made everything relatively recently, but with the appearance of great age, just as Genesis 1 and 2 tell of God making Adam as a fully grown human (which implies the appearance of age). "


Genesis 1 and 2 do NOT state that Adam was made "a fully grown human".

1) That tradition arose from a misunderstanding (primarily from the English translation) that HADAM meant "adult male" instead of "the human one" (or even "the red one" or "the read soil human"). In English, "man" can mean either an adult human male OR simply "humanity" or "mankind". So the confusion is understandable.

2) Traditions have also assumed that God making something implied an instantaneous action. But the wording applies equally to something involving a long period of time and many gradual processes. [Entire books and journal articles have been written on the Hebrew exegesis so I'm not going to try and reproduce it here.]

"Appearance of age" is largely a conclusion from traditions ABOUT the Biblical text and not the text itself. In fact, the traditions are so entrenched that most Bible readers (especially in English) find it virtually impossible to distinguish their cherished traditions from what the text states.

.

 

[SkyWriting]

1) That tradition arose from a misunderstanding (primarily from the English translation) that HADAM meant "adult male" instead of "the human one" (or even "the red one" or "the read soil human"). In English, "man" can mean either an adult human male OR simply "humanity" or "mankind". So the confusion is understandable.
2) Traditions have also assumed that God making something implied an instantaneous action. But the wording applies equally to something involving a long period of time and many gradual processes. [Entire books and journal articles have been written on the Hebrew exegesis so I'm not going to try and reproduce it here.]

So.....What was Adam? Created at some age, or just one man pulled from an Ape tribe....or what?

Look up "Level 5" leadership some time.

 

[JanetReed]

So.....What was Adam? Created at some age, or just one man pulled from an Ape tribe....or what?

Adam is the name of a man in a story written by another man and that's all he is, a figment of someones imagination.

 

[verysincere]

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

http://www.christianforums.com/t7645240/#post60374014

So.....What was Adam? Created at some age, or just one man pulled from an Ape tribe....or what?
​

Adam is the name of a man in a story written by another man and that's all he is, a figment of someones imagination.

1) As to "What was Adam?", the Genesis text only states that HADAM (like all other animals) was made from the ingredients to be found in soil.

2) Considering that humans are apes, I'm not exactly sure what he means by "pulled from an ape tribe."

3) I have my own speculations about his proximate "source". Where the Biblical text ends, God's Book of Creation provides evidence for further investigation. And there the evidence is very clear: evolutionary processes produced the diversity of life we observe today. So considering that the Bible says NOTHING to deny the theory of evolution, we have no reason to doubt the evidence which God provided for evolutionary processes.

.

 

[Jazer]

Adam is the name of a man in a story written by another man and that's all he is, a figment of someones imagination.

R U an expert on the generations that we read about in our Bible? I have studied them extensively. I do not skip over the begats. We have more evidence that Adam was a real historical person compared to whatever opinions you have that he was not a real person. Because you do not have a shred of evidence to back up your opinion. The theory of evolution is the theory of common ancestor and common descent. Science clearly tells us that the common ancestor of the Hebrew people COULD have been Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

The Cohan's are decended from Levi, one of the sons of Jacob. Abraham was 20 generations from Adam.

"It has been known for over a decade that a majority of men who self report as members of the Jewish priesthood (Cohanim) carry a characteristic Y chromosome haplotype termed the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH). The CMH has since been used to trace putative Jewish ancestral origins of various populations. However, the limited number of binary and STR Y chromosome markers used previously did not provide the phylogenetic resolution needed to infer the number of independent paternal lineages that are encompassed within the Cohanim or their coalescence times. Accordingly, we have genotyped 75 binary markers and 12 Y-STRs in a sample of 215 Cohanim from diverse Jewish communities, 1,575 Jewish men from across the range of the Jewish Diaspora, and 2,099 non-Jewish men from the Near East, Europe, Central Asia, and India. While Cohanim from diverse backgrounds carry a total of 21 Y chromosome haplogroups, 5 haplogroups account for 79.5% of Cohanim Y chromosomes. The most frequent Cohanim lineage (46.1%) is marked by the recently reported P58 T->C mutation, which is prevalent in the Near East. Based on genotypes at 12 Y-STRs, we identify an extended CMH on the J-P58* background that predominates in both Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim and is remarkably absent in non-Jews. The estimated divergence time of this lineage based on 17 STRs is 3,190 +/- 1,090 years. Notably, the second most frequent Cohanim lineage (J-M410*, 14.4%) contains an extended modal haplotype that is also limited to Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim and is estimated to be 4.2 +/- 1.3 ky old. These results support the hypothesis of a common origin of the CMH in the Near East well before the dispersion of the Jewish people into separate communities, and indicate that the majority of contemporary Jewish priests descend from a limited number of paternal lineages."

Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple ... [Hum Genet. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

What is the big deal anyways, who cares? We still can not prove talking snakes and all of that. One thing that Evolution, DNA and Population genetics does prove is that the genealogies or generations in the Bible are true and accurate. The theory of evolution has done more to prove the Bible then to disprove the Bible.

"Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."

 

[verysincere]

One thing that Evolution, DNA and Population genetics does prove is that the genealogies or generations in the Bible are true and accurate.

How?

1) How can evolutionary processes somehow explain the "genealogies" of the Bible, especially in terms of accuracy? How can evolution tells us anything about NAMES and LIFESPANS?

2) I was going to ask more questions but I gues they all are rather insignificant with question #1 pending.


.

 

[Jazer]

1) As to "What was Adam?", the Genesis text only states that HADAM (like all other animals) was made from the ingredients to be found in soil.

What is the Hebrew word used for "ingredients"? The Bible says: "dust". Science says "elements". Sounds so very simple, but I do not think anyone is really smart enough to fully understand.

1 cor 13 12 "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

 

[Jazer]

How?

1) How can evolutionary processes somehow explain the "genealogies" of the Bible, especially in terms of accuracy? How can evolution tells us anything about NAMES and LIFESPANS?

That is WHY I now say Science tells us that it COULD have happened the way the Bible says it did. The DNA Population Genetics Evidence clearly shows that Adam and Eve COULD have been real people that lived in the Garden of Eden in 4004 BC as Bishop Ussher talks about in his book. "The annals of the world" written back in 1650 and now in the 7 th edition. I think that is enough time has passed sense the first edition for someone - somewhere to show that something - anything in the Bishops book is not true or accurate.

In Ameria we are innocent until proven guilty. You do not have one shred of evidence to show that Adam and Eve were not real historical people that lived in the middle east in the Euphrates river valley in 4004 BC. In what Myers calls a Biodiversity hot spot.

To be sure there is clearly more then one "Eden". For example there was a biodiversity hot spot in the Yellow River Region of China. Rice and Millet does not come from the Middle East. There was no rice on Noah's Ark. Because Noah only had to save Eden, just the middle east biodiversity hot spot.

 

[good brother]

As to the OP,

Firstly, welcome to CF. I hope you make many new friends here and I hope I can be one of those new friends. We may find ourselves at the opposite ends of some belief structures, but I hope that we can be friends nonetheless. God bless you greatly, my friend.


Okay, as to the OP, I have a question or two (or many, depending) for you. I saw in one of the posts that your main area of study is DNA focused. Congratulations, that must be a field that requires a lot of study! Anyways, thinking evolutionarily, here are my questions:

1. How many changes in DNA (roughly of course) would it take to change a tabby cat (grey tiger striped) to a Himalayan cat?

2. How many changes could we expect to see in each generation going from one to the other?

3. How long might this take if we assume we do not have a breeding population of Tabby cats, Himalayan cats, Habby cats, or Timalayan cats? In other words, if these two types of cats are not intermingling in the breeding pool, how many years would it take to see those differences in DNA arise and make a himalayan out of a tabby?


Thank you for your consideration of my questions, and again, it's nice to meet you.


In Christ, GB

 

[good brother]

Genesis 1 and 2 do NOT state that Adam was made "a fully grown human".

1) That tradition arose from a misunderstanding (primarily from the English translation) that HADAM meant "adult male" instead of "the human one" (or even "the red one" or "the read soil human"). In English, "man" can mean either an adult human male OR simply "humanity" or "mankind". So the confusion is understandable.

.

You are partially correct. The Bible does not explicitly state that Adam was "a fully grown human", but it considers that fact should be known to the reader based upon the context of the text. Let us take a look at the information we can glean from the Scriptures as to whether or not Adam was a fully formed mature man, or whether it was meant to be understood as mankind.

Gen 2:20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
​

The virst verse we look at states that there was no suitable helper for Adam. Could there have been a breeding population of males only before the creation of Eve? Anyone who has had the "birds and the bees" discussion knows the answer is a resounding "no".

21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh.
​

In this passage we see that the singular possessive is used to describe where the LORD got the material to make the woman. This is further evidence that Adam was a singular individual.

22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
​

When God was finished with His creation of woman, the Bible says that "He brought her to the man". I suppose one could imagine that God was now bringing a group of women to the group of men, but a much easier understanding of the passage would lead one to believe that God made a single woman from a single man for the single man.

23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
​

To answer the question, which came first, the man or the woman, here we have our answer. This all comes on the heels of Adam naming all the animals in the Garden, and now he names this new creation that is woman. This is something only a mature, thinking individual could do. What more do the Scriptures say concerning this Adam?

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

​

Here, the Scriptures give us the very first marriage. Would a child marry? No. Would a population marry? Only in Utah. The passage does say that the TWO shall become ONE, so we have an understanding that there are only TWO people involved in that marriage and that they must therefeore be old enough to marry.

If we back up a few verses we can find out that Adam was mature enough to understand a direct commandment from God concerning a matter of life and death.

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

​

The above passage demonstrates that Adam was mature enough to understand consequences for his actions.

In the NT we have Jesus' lineage being traced back to Adam and Paul states that it was by one man's sin (Adam's sin) that death entered into the world.

So, while you may be correct that Genesis does not explicitly state the matter, it is easily understood by the context.

In Christ, GB

 

[SkyWriting]

1) As to "What was Adam?", the Genesis text only states that HADAM (like all other animals) was made from the ingredients to be found in soil.

No quotes from scripture? I thought not.

2) Considering that humans are apes, I'm not exactly sure what he means by "pulled from an ape tribe."

Why, pulled from tribe of apes of course. Unless Jesus came to save ALL the apes. I think not. I've handled them in the zoo. They are pleasant enough. Quite a few steps up from my dog in social skills, but not what Jesus died for.

I have my own speculations about his proximate "source". Where the Biblical text ends......<snip>
.

There was no question asking about what one muses after they fall asleep reading. I was wondering who or what Adam was if not a Created man at a particular moment in time. Try and stick to the scriptures for a moment.

 

[SkyWriting]

Adam is the name of a man in a story written by another man and that's all he is, a figment of someones imagination.

Fine. And what is the purpose of including the fictional story about Adam in the scriptures? What does Adam represent?

 

[verysincere]

No quotes from scripture? I thought not.

My apologies. I assumed a general knowledge of the scriptures which I should NOT have assumed. Genesis 2:7 describes the creation of Adam.

Genesis 2:7 states that Adam was formed "from the dust of the ground". (Can't get much clearer than that. Of course, there many other scriptures which state that all animals are composed of the dust of the ground. And to this day, various traditional funeral orations quote the Bible in this regard and speak of "dust to dust.")

.

 

[verysincere]

There was no question asking about what one muses after they fall asleep reading.

Insult noted.

You asked where Adam came from. I answered your question.

And when you indicated you didn't know where the Bible described Adam coming from the dust of the ground, I provided Genesis 2:7.

If you reject what the Bible says and reject what God's creation says, I don't think any answer is going to satisfy you.

.

 

[verysincere]

Would a child marry? No.

Straw-man arguments. Nobody claimed that Adam was a child when he married.

Nobody claimed Adam was a young child when he named the animals.

Nobody claimed that there was not a passage of time.

.

 

[NailsII]

I was hoping you might have picked up on a distinction I implied between evolution and common descent.

• Evolution does not claim to explain the origin of life.
• Evolution relies on common descent of previous or existing species.
• Ultimately common descent would need a UCA (universal common ancestor or ancestors).
• A UCA according to a materialistic view would have to arise from natural chemistry or natural circumstance.

So evolution has divorced itself from the explanation of the origin of life giving up a comprehensive understanding of where different species originated. Thus evolution is a weak and ineffectual hypothesis.

I am aware of Dembski's work; a scathing attack on evolutionary biology by a mathmatician.
How Darwin must turn in his grave.

Just for your information, common descent doesn't speculate on the origins of life either.
Common descent was part of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.
It was not a new idea, at least a hundred years old in Darwin's day.

If you actually read Darwin's work, his joint paper with Wallace, origin and even descent of man, you would find that he made very little attempt to discuss the origin of life itself - when he does it is as speculation (if I remember correctly he omitted a section on the origin of life from the 1st edition of origin, but it appeared in later editions).

It was never divorced from the theory, there wasn't enough evidence for Darwin to even speculate on it.

There is a grandeur in this view of life

You may consider Dembski a wise, knowledgeable, and credible source. Most of us do not.

Agreed.

 

[NailsII]

That is WHY I now say Science tells us that it COULD have happened the way the Bible says it did. The DNA Population Genetics Evidence clearly shows that Adam and Eve COULD have been real people that lived in the Garden of Eden in 4004 BC as Bishop Ussher talks about in his book. "The annals of the world" written back in 1650 and now in the 7 th edition. I think that is enough time has passed sense the first edition for someone - somewhere to show that something - anything in the Bishops book is not true or accurate.

In Ameria we are innocent until proven guilty. You do not have one shred of evidence to show that Adam and Eve were not real historical people that lived in the middle east in the Euphrates river valley in 4004 BC. In what Myers calls a Biodiversity hot spot.

To be sure there is clearly more then one "Eden". For example there was a biodiversity hot spot in the Yellow River Region of China. Rice and Millet does not come from the Middle East. There was no rice on Noah's Ark. Because Noah only had to save Eden, just the middle east biodiversity hot spot.

Forgive me if you have answered this already, I have asked but I havn't seen you answer.
Exactly where is it stated that the middl eeast is a diversity hotspot?

On the map you provided, there isn't a number in the middle east.
It isn't listed as a hotspot in any literature I've read.

Perhaps you could provide a reference.