Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Want to learn about it?
You're free to kid yourself. But as you just learned, you were told a fairy tale.No, thanks.
I experienced it firsthand in my own family.
Dad converts ... daughter swears he didn't.
I think a lot of misguided people have tried to use science to disparage Christian faith. But I notice that Christian Churches are generally open to things like evolution. So Huxley and Wells might be on target with a few sects that reject science, but for most of us, it's just funny.I remember reading about it. It is interesting, and I wouldn’t mind your take on it. Some months ago, I pointed out on another thread that it was Julian Huxley, H. G. Wells and a few others who weaponized evolution against the church. I got hammered for that and was accused of being a troll. I wouldn’t mind your take on that too.
I remember reading about it.
You're free to kid yourself. But as you just learned, you were told a fairy tale.
Comparative genomics supports macroevolution in all sorts of ways. For one, species on particular branches of life share not only functional elements (which could be explained by a common designer, just as a shared spine could be), but nonfunctional ones as well. For example, all apes and monkeys share an inability to make their own vitamin C because they lack a functioning version of a particular gene. The gene is still there in all of their genomes, in recognizably the same place, but it's badly broken, and often broken in the same ways. Some other species (e.g. guinea pigs) have also lost functional versions of the same gene, but they're broken in different ways. This makes sense assuming common descent is correct: the primate share the broken gene because they've all inherited it from a common ancestor in which it first broke.The other question I have is how is the genome used to support macroevolution? It seems to me that it is no different from saying that all vertebrate animals come from a common ancestor, because they share the characteristics of four limbs and a spine. Only the genome is microscopic. What am I missing?
I think a lot of misguided people have tried to use science to disparage Christian faith.
Thank you very much. It will take a while for me to digest the article.Comparative genomics supports macroevolution in all sorts of ways. For one, species on particular branches of life share not only functional elements (which could be explained by a common designer, just as a shared spine could be), but nonfunctional ones as well. For example, all apes and monkeys share an inability to make their own vitamin C because they lack a functioning version of a particular gene. The gene is still there in all of their genomes, in recognizably the same place, but it's badly broken, and often broken in the same ways. Some other species (e.g. guinea pigs) have also lost functional versions of the same gene, but they're broken in different ways. This makes sense assuming common descent is correct: the primate share the broken gene because they've all inherited it from a common ancestor in which it first broke.
There are hundreds of thousands of other examples -- other broken genes, nonfunctioning, malformed copies of working genes, retroviruses that have inserted themselves into genomes, other transposable elements that have done the same -- all consistently reproducing an almost identical tree-like structure of shared features.
And then there are other indications of common descent that rely not on similarities but on differences. I've explained one of these at length here: Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - Article - BioLogos
Hitler actually tried that. He had the Gestapo rush in and grab some hosts at consecration. Then they analyzed it. Still bread and wine. Because he never figured out what transubstantiation actually means.You mean like testing a wafer before and after it has been blessed and reporting that its DNA is still the same?
I think a lot of misguided people have tried to use science to disparage Christian faith.
You mean like testing a wafer before and after it has been blessed and reporting that its DNA is still the same?
Hitler actually tried that. He had the Gestapo rush in and grab some hosts at consecration. Then they analyzed it. Still bread and wine. Because he never figured out what transubstantiation actually means.
Scientists would have told him that science cannot consider the miraculous. YECs and Hitler never figured that out.Looks like scientists didn't learn from Hitler, doesn't it?
Nope. For reasons that seem to be difficult for some to understand. As you probably know, most Christians accept Jesus' words and the miracle of transubstantiation.Or are they going to test these wafers each generation to keep Catholics disparaged?
I read through your article. It is very well written and easy to understand. It explains what others were trying to say. The last line in your conclusion sums up my thoughts on the matter: “Of course, none of this says anything at all about God’s role in human origins, nor does it rule out miraculous intervention. But it does provide strong evidence that we share ancestry with other species.”Comparative genomics supports macroevolution in all sorts of ways. For one, species on particular branches of life share not only functional elements (which could be explained by a common designer, just as a shared spine could be), but nonfunctional ones as well. For example, all apes and monkeys share an inability to make their own vitamin C because they lack a functioning version of a particular gene. The gene is still there in all of their genomes, in recognizably the same place, but it's badly broken, and often broken in the same ways. Some other species (e.g. guinea pigs) have also lost functional versions of the same gene, but they're broken in different ways. This makes sense assuming common descent is correct: the primate share the broken gene because they've all inherited it from a common ancestor in which it first broke.
There are hundreds of thousands of other examples -- other broken genes, nonfunctioning, malformed copies of working genes, retroviruses that have inserted themselves into genomes, other transposable elements that have done the same -- all consistently reproducing an almost identical tree-like structure of shared features.
And then there are other indications of common descent that rely not on similarities but on differences. I've explained one of these at length here: Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - Article - BioLogos
Scientists would have told him that science cannot consider the miraculous.
YECs and Hitler never figured that out.
Nope. For reasons that seem to be difficult for some to understand. As you probably know, most Christians accept Jesus' words and the miracle of transubstantiation.
I think all the evidence is there for evolution.
He didn't ask.So why didn't they?
Not too many working on transubstantiation, though. Supposedly, one of the Nuremberg defendants was a Biblical scholar, but he was doing other tasks for Adolf.Hitler had some top-notch scientists working for him.
Because he was kinda annoyed that they showed how eugenics was scientifically unsupportable. Hitler preferred the racial theories of ICR co-founder William Tinkle.Because scientists kept it from him?
Lab technicians, anyway. SS employees. Like Hitler, they were materialists. so transubstantiation was a complete mystery to them.Let me get this straight.
Scientists tested the wafers back in the 1940s and determined NO CHANGE.
Other than the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. That was concerning.Catholics didn't care, as NO CHANGE is not part of their beliefs about the Eucharist.
God's ongoing presence in our midst.What am I missing here?
Here it is:There's some "missing links" that haven't answered their summons yet.
"Police" are out looking for them now.
I won't argue with you on that point based on the Sumerian religious views. I still favor Enlil because he wanted to destroy the humans because they were too loudThing is Enil wanted all the humans dead. Which would mean you were never born but Enki told Ziusudra (the inspiration for Noah) how to build a boat to save his family (just like Noah).
Doesn't sound very Satany......
What we see happening in observed cases of macroevolution is that the genome usually doesn't change that much. Reproductive isolation can come about with relatively few mutations. However, common descent gets a huge boost from genetics, because the "tree of life" first noticed by Linnaeus very nicely fits phylogenies based on DNA.The other question I have is how is the genome used to support macroevolution?
Well, homologies are very good evidence for macroevolution as YEC Dr. Kurt Wise says. But genetic data is also powerful evidence for evolution.It seems to me that it is no different from saying that all vertebrate animals come from a common ancestor, because they share the characteristics of four limbs and a spine. Only the genome is microscopic. What am I missing?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?