Genes

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I lost 40kg so I could wear a pair of jeans again.

I started in this thread by saying that the complicated and intricate genetic information inserted into each cell was not put there by chance. It is a total instruction manual and programming instructions for how each cell should develop into the different parts of the human, animal or plant organism. It is written in a type of digital code that if decoded, the whole world's digital storage systems would not be enough to contain it.

The genetic program is too logical for it to happen just by chance. Saying it happened by chance would be like taking the largest aircraft full of reams of paper and containers of ink up to 30,000 feet, and tipping it all out the back door of the plane, and having it land on the earth as the Encylopedia Brittanica! Even worse, you could put all that paper and ink into a large rocket send it into space and have it return to earth in 5 billion years containing the whole ten volumes of the Oxford English Dictionary!

The point I am making all this while is that God designed the genetic code, and wrote the program into every cell, and He did it instantaneously. This is inseparately linked to the first two chapters of Genesis.

Yeah, you've said that, but you have no given a single shred of evidence to back up your claims.
And then you've swung heavily into talking apologetics and preaching.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We know that Moses wrote Genesis.

No, we don't; "The modern scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is a mythical figure"Wikipedia.

Then we would have to cast doubt on all the rest of the Jewish historical books, which form the basis of Jewish history from the time of the Exodus, Joshua, through the Judges, 1&2 Kings, and 1&2 Chronicles, saying that they are not accurate history but works of fiction. But then that would cause problems, because there is abundant evidence that the people and places described in the history actually existed.

Are you unfamiliar with historical fiction?

 

[tampasteve]

MOD HAT ON

This thread is closed for review.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[tampasteve]

MOD HAT ON

After a hefty cleaning this thread is open again. Keep it civil and try not to break the rules.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[pitabread]

I started in this thread by saying that the complicated and intricate genetic information inserted into each cell was not put there by chance.

And nobody thinks it was "by chance". Rather, it's via the process of evolution over billions of years; not the same thing as chance.

Your entire argument is predicated on a strawman.

 

[Ophiolite]

And nobody thinks it was "by chance". Rather, it's via the process of evolution over billions of years; not the same thing as chance.

Your entire argument is predicated on a strawman.

TI was about to click an "Agree", but technically he is correct. The genetic structure was put there by chance*, but is retained by natural selection.

*Aside: a personal view - I would not be surprised if some aspects of genetic change might have a Lamarkian flavour. (Nor would I be surprised if they didn't.)

 

[pitabread]

TI was about to click an "Agree", but technically he is correct. The genetic structure was put there by chance*, but is retained by natural selection.

*Aside: a personal view - I would not be surprised if some aspects of genetic change might have a Lamarkian flavour. (Nor would I be surprised if they didn't.)

This depends on how we interpret the context of his posts and what he means by "chance".

From what I understand is that he's referring to genetic code in modern, extrant species being the result of chance. In this context, I wouldn't refer to evolution as strictly by chance. While there is certainly elements of unpredictability, there are also elements of evolution (as you say, natural selection) that depending on the circumstances can be highly probabilistic.

Perhaps Oscarr could clarify their position, but the constant referrals to hyperbolic analogies or wild improbabilities creates the impression that they think the genetic code just appeared out of nowhere in extant species from random organic molecules or something. As opposed to being the result of a recursive process over 4 billion years.

 

[Ophiolite]

This depends on how we interpret the context of his posts and what he means by "chance".

From what I understand is that he's referring to genetic code in modern, extrant species being the result of chance. In this context, I wouldn't refer to evolution as strictly by chance. While there is certainly elements of unpredictability, there are also elements of evolution (as you say, natural selection) that depending on the circumstances can be highly probabilistic.

Perhaps Oscarr could clarify their position, but the constant referrals to hyperbolic analogies or wild improbabilities creates the impression that they think the genetic code just appeared out of nowhere in extant species from random organic molecules or something. As opposed to being the result of a recursive process over 4 billion years.

I would have better said, "if we take his words in isolation, then they are technically correct", but a proper understanding of them requires that we consider the context, as you suggest. I have little doubt that he is either misunderstanding, misinterpreting, or misrepresenting the evolution of the genetic code.

 

[pitabread]

I understand that with your world-view you would find a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 would be hard to accept.

It would require adopting the position that the universe is inherently deceptive. Which creates a whole host of philosophical problems.

We know that Moses wrote Genesis.

No, we don't know this. In fact, modern Bibilical scholarship suggests that Genesis had numerous authors and was compiled from independent works.

If he believed that God created the universe over millions of years through evolution, he would have used the word "evolved" in his description of the creation. Also, he would have made it quite clear that the 'days' described would be longer than the 24 hours between the 'morning' and 'evening' in his description. But Moses has led us to believe that God actually created the universe in six 24 hour days. So, either he misinterpreted what was revealed to him, or that he made it up (in other words, lied about it).

Why do you automatically equate non-literalism with a lie? That doesn't make any sense to me.

But that would open up a can of worms, because what Moses wrote was the foundation of the Jewish faith, and if he lied at the beginning of Genesis, then the whole narrative of Genesis, including Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would also be fiction.

Again, no reason to automatically assume Genesis is a lie just because it may be non-literal.

Then we would have to cast doubt on all the rest of the Jewish historical books, which form the basis of Jewish history from the time of the Exodus, Joshua, through the Judges, 1&2 Kings, and 1&2 Chronicles, saying that they are not accurate history but works of fiction. But then that would cause problems, because there is abundant evidence that the people and places described in the history actually existed.

Just because people and places exist in a narrative does not automatically mean that narrative is factual. It's quite common in human story-telling to use references to real people or places.

Then we have the problem explaining Bible prophecy - how that the bulk of the prophecies of Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel actually came to pass according to the actual subsequent secular history and archaeological evidence.

Not necessarily. For example, the Book of Daniel is widely considered to have been written after the fact. It's pretty easy to write a narrative of accurate prophecy when the events have already taken place.

Honestly, you can keep referencing prophecy until the cows come home, but Bible prophecies are not impressive in the slightest.

A prominent mathematician calculated the odds of all those prophecies actually coming to pass by chance, and his results were 1:5,000,000.

No they didn't.

So, we have to conclude that all of the Bible is literally true, or none of it is. Our only alternative to it would be that it is a set of religious fairy tales designed to help us know how to live self-improved moral lives and until we die and go into oblivion.

I don't understand this all-or-nothing view of the Bible. What if the truth is somewhere in between?

This black and white view that literalists have of things is surreal to me.

 

[SLP]

My question is,can new genes emerge from scratch?

Yes, they can:
Genes from scratch – the evolutionary fate of de novo genes

And if so, how does that impact Christianity?

Not at all.

The subject and article are above my head.

Apparently, also above the author's. It is mostly propaganda and spin.

Can New Genes Emerge from Scratch?

Evolution News | @DiscoveryCSC
January 20, 2020, 5:12 AM

Evolutionary theory must account for millions of new, functional genes by chance.

Millions? By 'chance'? The subtitle alone tells me that this is going to be a garbage hack piece.

MOST genes are the product of altering old genes, not brand new genes.
I don't see a reason to go on any further.