Is the Human Brain a Null Hypothesis for Darwinian Evolution?

[mark kennedy]

Paul pointed something out to me in another thread, it might be of interest here. Apparently, ERVs do things. They are involved in the interferon (IFN) response, a major branch of innate immunity:

Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are abundant in mammalian genomes and contain sequences modulating transcription. How ERV propagation impacts the evolution of gene regulation remains poorly understood. Here we show that ERVs have shaped the evolution of a transcriptional network underlying the interferon (IFN) response, a major branch of innate immunity. We found that lineage-specific ERVs have dispersed numerous IFN-inducible enhancers independently in diverse mammalian genomes. CRISPR-Cas9 deletion of a subset of these ERV elements in the human genome impaired expression of adjacent IFN-induced genes and revealed their involvement in the regulation of essential immune functions, including activation of the AIM2 inflammasome. While these regulatory sequences likely arose in ancient viruses, they now constitute a dynamic reservoir of IFN-inducible enhancers fueling genetic innovation in mammalian immune defenses. (Science 2016)
​

Thought I would throw that out there in case it stirred up some interest. First the SRGAP2 gene and now ERV functionality. Keep them coming guys, this is getting more interesting as we go. It's so nice on here now that the trollers have thinned out.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Loudmouth]

I can't help it if you are misinformed but the way it works, when you want to refute someone you have to make an actual argument. We are swimming in evidence of the deleterious effects of mutations on protein coding genes, It's not my fault if you don't bother to learn something about them.

Finding deleterious mutations does not mean that all mutations are deleterious.

You guys always say science or evolution when you haven't bothered to acquire source material or anything remotely substantive:

If adaptive mutations are rare, as seems to be the case, then rates of DNA sequence evolution are driven mainly by mutation and random drift, as Kimura (1983a) has argued. In this case, the proportion of neutral mutations at a site or locus is the ratio of its rate of evolution to that of a region that can be considered neutral, such as a pseudogene. Most newly arisen mutations in functional genes are deleterious, but the fraction may approach zero for spacer DNAs such as introns and intergenic regions. (Rates of Spontaneous Mutation. Genetics 1998)
​

How is that a problem?

What these demands for proof do is repeat, regardless of the proof offered.

You haven't offered any proof that all mutations are deleterious.

 

[Loudmouth]

Paul pointed something out to me in another thread, it might be of interest here. Apparently, ERVs do things. They are involved in the interferon (IFN) response, a major branch of innate immunity:

Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are abundant in mammalian genomes and contain sequences modulating transcription. How ERV propagation impacts the evolution of gene regulation remains poorly understood. Here we show that ERVs have shaped the evolution of a transcriptional network underlying the interferon (IFN) response, a major branch of innate immunity. We found that lineage-specific ERVs have dispersed numerous IFN-inducible enhancers independently in diverse mammalian genomes. CRISPR-Cas9 deletion of a subset of these ERV elements in the human genome impaired expression of adjacent IFN-induced genes and revealed their involvement in the regulation of essential immune functions, including activation of the AIM2 inflammasome. While these regulatory sequences likely arose in ancient viruses, they now constitute a dynamic reservoir of IFN-inducible enhancers fueling genetic innovation in mammalian immune defenses. (Science 2016)
​

Thought I would throw that out there in case it stirred up some interest. First the SRGAP2 gene and now ERV functionality. Keep them coming guys, this is getting more interesting as we go. It's so nice on here now that the trollers have thinned out.

Have a nice day
Mark

Where did we ever argue that ERVs are evidence for evolution and common ancestry because they have no function?

The retroviral genome has function before it ever inserts, so why is it such a surprise to find function after they insert? Take the LTRs as an example. The function of the LTRs is to drive transcription of the viral genes. They are very strong promoters. So why wouldn't they continue to act as promoters when they are ERVs? If the genes upregulatd by ERV LTRs is beneficial to the host, those LTRs will be selected for.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I can't help it if you are misinformed but the way it works, when you want to refute someone you have to make an actual argument. We are swimming in evidence of the deleterious effects of mutations on protein coding genes, It's not my fault if you don't bother to learn something about them.



You guys always say science or evolution when you haven't bothered to acquire source material or anything remotely substantive:

If adaptive mutations are rare, as seems to be the case, then rates of DNA sequence evolution are driven mainly by mutation and random drift, as Kimura (1983a) has argued. In this case, the proportion of neutral mutations at a site or locus is the ratio of its rate of evolution to that of a region that can be considered neutral, such as a pseudogene. Most newly arisen mutations in functional genes are deleterious, but the fraction may approach zero for spacer DNAs such as introns and intergenic regions. (Rates of Spontaneous Mutation. Genetics 1998)
​

There are a couple of things you can take from this, normally I wouldn't even tell an evolutionist something like this but you opened up the ERV issue for me so I'll make an exception this time. What I have been seeing since I started reading this stuff is neutral or nearly neutral mutations, this would fit a gradualism to a tee.



What these demands for proof do is repeat, regardless of the proof offered. It's a shameless debate tactic intended to run creationists in circles and all of you do it. When I encounter this kind of fallacious rhetoric it's enough to inform me that you have nothing else. It's not a mantra, it's not a clutch phrase and it's not some 'prove it' circular argument. It's what happens when mutations have an effect the vast majority of the time. You are grossly misinformed with nothing to confront me with except a pedantic taunt.

Have a nice day
Mark

The scientific statement about mutations has always been that most of them are harmful and only a very few can be beneficial. You appear to cite the presence of harmful mutations as evidence that all mutations are harmful. Your observation, however, is consistent with the normal scientific point of view and yet you claim to have disproved it. I merely point out this is nonsense to argue that way.

I have even read about a mutation disabling a gene and a second mutation restoring a gene to its original form!

Isn't that in itself proof that a mutation can be beneficial?

Asking you to support your contrary view that beneficial mutations cannot occur is not a mere debate tactic. Since alternate ways of arranging DNA can be beneficial, and a mutation might accidentally stumble on such a way it seems silly to say mutations can't do that. How can you be so sure about that? What would stop them?

And you speak of genes being highly conserved. I'm so glad to hear you talk like that. It means you accept great ages and changes of genomes other than those that are highly conserved. Welcome to the evolution camp.

 

[mark kennedy]

The scientific statement about mutations has always been that most of them are harmful and only a very few can be beneficial. You appear to cite the presence of harmful mutations as evidence that all mutations are harmful.

Adaptive mutations are extremely rare, stop twisting what I say. If I wanted to make the argument that all mutations are harmful I would and some creationists do. What I am arguing here is that first of all there is no way mutations are an explanation for the HAR1f gene or the SRGAP2, it's just not conceivable. What is more there has to be some discernment between a genetic mutation, which is just a copy error and a failure of DNA repair and an adaptive trait emerging from a change in the DNA sequence.

Your observation, however, is consistent with the normal scientific point of view and yet you claim to have disproved it. I merely point out this is nonsense to argue that way.

I haven't claimed to disprove anything, your beating up a defenseless strawman for no good reason. The normal scientific observation is very consistent across broad taxonomic categories:

Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. Some are neutral...If adaptive mutations are rare, as seems to be the case, then rates of DNA sequence evolution are driven mainly by mutation and random drift...Most newly arisen mutations in functional genes are deleterious. Rates of Spontaneous Mutations
​

Why don't you try leaning something about the science you are trying to pontificate about and leave the poor defenseless strawman argument alone. Fallacies are bad for you, they have a deleterious effect on logic.

I have even read about a mutation disabling a gene and a second mutation restoring a gene to its original form!

Those are rare, most mutations do nothing at all. When they affect functional genes the most likely effect is deleterious. When you see genes profoundly different as comparative studies often do the likelihood of mutations as an explanation drifts aimlessly into irrationality.

Isn't that in itself proof that a mutation can be beneficial?

Never argued otherwise, try to understand, beneficial effects are rare and adaptive on an evolutionary scale are very few and far between. Positive selection with regards to human evolution from apes is assumed without merit and with reckless abandon. The burden of proof does not exist for the Darwinian.

Asking you to support your contrary view that beneficial mutations cannot occur is not a mere debate tactic. Since alternate ways of arranging DNA can be beneficial, and a mutation might accidentally stumble on such a way it seems silly to say mutations can't do that. How can you be so sure about that? What would stop them?

Why don't you try honestly addressing the actual argument? I mean, I haven't really made one yet, been too busy fielding these relentless fallacious talking points, but at least addressing the source material occasionally would be an improvement.

And you speak of genes being highly conserved. I'm so glad to hear you talk like that. It means you accept great ages and changes of genomes other than those that are highly conserved. Welcome to the evolution camp.

You have no idea why I do this do you? Evolution isn't the problem, it's defined as the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. What I am arguing against is the a priori (without prior) assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. Four thousand years ago all birds, reptiles and mammals including man emerge from the Ark and since then have spread across the entire globe becoming the grand diversity we see today in all it's vast array. That's an accelerated evolution that would have scarred Charles Darwin to death.

There would have been a much larger gene pool and far less fixed traits. Most importantly, mutations would not have had a chance to accumulate. Actual adaptive evolution isn't the problem here, generally creationists are not arguing against Mendelian genetics, they appeal to it. The naturalistic assumptions of Darwinian natural history is transcendent, influencing all manner of thought from the metaphysics of Herbert Spencer to the political philosophy of social darwinism including the legal philosophy of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. From the opening line of On the Origin of Species:

WHEN on board H.M.S. Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species — that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

He is talking about Asa Grey, they naturalist philosopher he collaborated with while writing On the Origin of Species. The problem here isn't scientific, the facts, theories and laws of science are not in question. The driving force of the core presuppositions is the culprit and not honestly admitting to them show you lack the courage of your convictions, thus resorting to fallacious logic.

I've never been opposed to evolution as it is properly defined scientifically. It's the equivocation of evolution with darwinian naturalistic assumptions that is not only fallacious but disingenuous.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . .What is more there has to be some discernment between a genetic mutation, which is just a copy error and a failure of DNA repair and an adaptive trait emerging from a change in the DNA sequence. . . . .

A change in DNA can't be both at the same time?

Why don't you try honestly addressing the actual argument? I mean, I haven't really made one yet, . . .

Well, that's a refreshing admission.

You have no idea why I do this do you? Evolution isn't the problem, it's defined as the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. What I am arguing against is the a priori (without prior) assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. Four thousand years ago all birds, reptiles and mammals including man emerge from the Ark and since then have spread across the entire globe becoming the grand diversity we see today in all it's vast array. That's an accelerated evolution that would have scarred Charles Darwin to death.

Ah, that's a very interesting stance. How many different species do you suppose there were on the ark, and how many species did they become? I'm assuming its the same or maybe a bit more than the current number of species.

And tell me what you do about what we think are long extinct species such as dinosaurs.

God can do anything, of course, including constantly intervene in living things to drive evolution any direction He should choose.

Unless there was a theological reason to have evolution proceed naturally.

 

[mark kennedy]

A change in DNA can't be both at the same time?

It depends but it's called a mutation for a reason, it's because it's overwhelmingly disruptive to the normal function of the sequence.

Well, that's a refreshing admission.

I haven't gotten to the actual argument, fielding fallacious argument and doing background reading is all I've had time for. I had forgotten how much I enjoy these debates. It's the things you see out of the corner of your eye that are the most interesting, to me at least.

Ah, that's a very interesting stance. How many different species do you suppose there were on the ark, and how many species did they become? I'm assuming its the same or maybe a bit more than the current number of species.

Estimates vary, the last one I looked at was AIG and they said the Ark could have contained a total of 16,000. Taxonomy is kind of hard to nail down but estimates for living species including mammals, reptiles and birds you are looking at anywhere from 2 million to 60 million species depending on how you make that distinction. Speciation is still an ongoing phenomenon.

And tell me what you do about what we think are long extinct species such as dinosaurs.

I don't think they are extinct exactly, I think the lineages are still represented in living creatures that haven't the time or genomic variability for their unique features, particularly their size.

God can do anything, of course, including constantly intervene in living things to drive evolution any direction He should choose.

Of course he could but the clear testimony of Scripture is that God didn't just tweek natural events he created them outright. The wording of the text could not be more emphatic or absolute with regards to the miraculous nature of the original creation.

Unless there was a theological reason to have evolution proceed naturally.

I'm kind of losing your train of thought here. There are generally understood to be two kinds of ways God interacts with his creation. One is directly as with the miracles of Scripture including the creation of the universe, life in general and man in particular. There is another kind, they used to call it divine providence, a phrase used in the Declaration of Independence btw. The idea is that God provides certain things so he need not intervene directly not that natural things cannot be guided by his will just that they need not be. Evolution, specifically adaptive evolution is one of those things God didn't need to direct by personal intervention. It was already provided at creation. There is an arctic cod that has become my favorite example. It has this brand new gene that provides a protein they call the antifreeze gene. It simply doesn't exist in cod fish that live in warmer waters and has co-evolved no less then 4 times. Those genes didn't get built 4 times from scratch at random, this kind of adaptive evolution cannot be attributed to mutations. There has to be an already existing molecular process that is activated with the environmental changes. Figure out how to identify it and I'm guessing the Nobel Prize people will be inviting you to Stockholm.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Loudmouth]

Adaptive mutations are extremely rare,

How rare is extremely rare, and how does that impact evolution?

Pleas cite references.

What I am arguing here is that first of all there is no way mutations are an explanation for the HAR1f gene or the SRGAP2, it's just not conceivable.

Why not?

What is more there has to be some discernment between a genetic mutation, which is just a copy error and a failure of DNA repair and an adaptive trait emerging from a change in the DNA sequence.

If an adaptive trait can emerge from a change in DNA sequence, why couldn't the observed processes of mutagenesis produce those changes?

Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. Some are neutral...If adaptive mutations are rare, as seems to be the case, then rates of DNA sequence evolution are driven mainly by mutation and random drift...Most newly arisen mutations in functional genes are deleterious. Rates of Spontaneous Mutations

How is this a problem?

Why don't you try leaning something about the science you are trying to pontificate about and leave the poor defenseless strawman argument alone. Fallacies are bad for you, they have a deleterious effect on logic.

And more trolling from mark kennedy.

Those are rare, most mutations do nothing at all. When they affect functional genes the most likely effect is deleterious. When you see genes profoundly different as comparative studies often do the likelihood of mutations as an explanation drifts aimlessly into irrationality.

How are rare beneficial mutations a problem?

You have no idea why I do this do you? Evolution isn't the problem, it's defined as the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. What I am arguing against is the a priori (without prior) assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

That is not assumed.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It depends but it's called a mutation for a reason, it's because it's overwhelmingly disruptive to the normal function of the sequence.

Oh, you know better than that. Lots of times genes are simply duplicated, and they both carry on where one was doing the work and the organism does fine. Lots of mutations are harmless because the protein they code for isn't changed in its active parts, its only changed in the part that holds the active parts in position. It would be like putting a small hole in beam and the beam still holds the roof up.

I haven't gotten to the actual argument, fielding fallacious argument and doing background reading is all I've had time for. I had forgotten how much I enjoy these debates. It's the things you see out of the corner of your eye that are the most interesting, to me at least.

Hope you're having fun!

Estimates vary, the last one I looked at was AIG and they said the Ark could have contained a total of 16,000. Taxonomy is kind of hard to nail down but estimates for living species including mammals, reptiles and birds you are looking at anywhere from 2 million to 60 million species depending on how you make that distinction. Speciation is still an ongoing phenomenon.

Well I think the number you've got there that the ark could hold would be a tad large, and I think the number of species leans way closer to 60 million or more, but you do realize, I hope, that 2 million divided by 16,000 is 125. In other words, every pair on the ark had to evolve into 125 species within just a thousand years or so.

And you think this is credible.

I don't understand why a God who refuses to use evolution but insists on using direct creation suddenly finds a need for 2 million or more species when why not just use 16000?

I don't think they are extinct exactly, I think the lineages are still represented in living creatures that haven't the time or genomic variability for their unique features, particularly their size.

So where did T Rex or Stegosaurus go, do you suppose?

I suggested God might have a theological reason for evolving life instead of creating the species, so you said

I'm kind of losing your train of thought here.
Mark

Here's a conjecture. Suppose Satan should be in hell by now, but is unable to be cast there because he has some kind of covenant rights to be allowed on earth. Suppose the only way out of his rights to the earth would be if the earth itself rejected his presence. Suppose a naturally evolved species that developed intelligence and a spiritual life could speak for the earth and rightly reject him. This might be a reason for natural evolution to operate on earth.

And if Satan were to notice this happening and seduce the fall of the first spiritual homo sapien . . .

What would be the next phase of the struggle to get Satan into his proper place?

I only post such thoughts as an example of a possible theological reason for natural evolution to be required instead of optional. Others might have alternative ideas.

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh, you know better than that. Lots of times genes are simply duplicated, and they both carry on where one was doing the work and the organism does fine. Lots of mutations are harmless because the protein they code for isn't changed in its active parts, its only changed in the part that holds the active parts in position. It would be like putting a small hole in beam and the beam still holds the roof up.

Easy to assume, in nature, the odds are against it:

We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10^8 generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10^9. (Behe 2004)
​

This doesn't magically happen because there's going to be a selective advantage. There is nothing simple about a duplicated gene and with the SRGAP2 it was a partial gene duplication followed by multiple exons, fully functional and then the original function in the parent gene has to be suppressed. It's absurd to just assume this is what happened simply because it's the only explanation you can think of.

Well I think the number you've got there that the ark could hold would be a tad large, and I think the number of species leans way closer to 60 million or more, but you do realize, I hope, that 2 million divided by 16,000 is 125. In other words, every pair on the ark had to evolve into 125 species within just a thousand years or so.

Again with exaggerations, there are 16,000 or so to start, as they disembark. As they spread across the face of the earth the descendant will adapt into 2 million to 60 million species, depending on how you define species. The kind of adaptive radiation has to take place in a few generations, most adaptations like adjusting to frigid arctic temperatures can't take a thousand years.

I don't understand why a God who refuses to use evolution but insists on using direct creation suddenly finds a need for 2 million or more species when why not just use 16000?

As usual, you have it twisted. The molecular mechanisms for adaptive radiation were created as part of the parental forms. When moving out over the face of the earth they evolve, actually adapt, into the millions of species we see now in all their vast array.

So where did T Rex or Stegosaurus go, do you suppose?

There isn't enough food, time or a large enough gene pool for them to develop now. They were killed before or during the flood.

Here's a conjecture. Suppose Satan should be in hell by now, but is unable to be cast there because he has some kind of covenant rights to be allowed on earth. Suppose the only way out of his rights to the earth would be if the earth itself rejected his presence. Suppose a naturally evolved species that developed intelligence and a spiritual life could speak for the earth and rightly reject him. This might be a reason for natural evolution to operate on earth.

And if Satan were to notice this happening and seduce the fall of the first spiritual homo sapien . . .

What would be the next phase of the struggle to get Satan into his proper place?

I only post such thoughts as an example of a possible theological reason for natural evolution to be required instead of optional. Others might have alternative ideas.

How about a solid theological reason that creation happened just as it was written in Genesis 1:

Day 1: God 'lets' the light in, thus creating the first day (Gen. 1:4).
Day 2: God creates the upper atmosphere, called the 'firmament' (Gen. 1:7).
Day 3: God separates the land from the seas and creates plant life (Gen. 1:10).
Day 4: God then, 'sets', the heavenly lights in the visible sky (Gen. 1:17).
Day 5: God creates the birds of the air and marine life (Gen. 1:21).
Day 6: Finally, God creates the beasts of the field and Man (Gen. 1:25).​

Notice the progression, the first three days prepare the earth for life, the next three create life for the earth. Here's an exposition:

The phrase, 'heaven and the earth', is a Hebrew expression meaning the universe. All we really get from this passage is that the cosmos and earth were created, 'in the beginning'. The perspective of creation week is from the surface of the earth, starting with the Spirit of God hovering over the deep (Gen. 1:2). In the chapter there are three words used for God's work in creation. The first is 'created' ('bara' H1254) a very precise term used only of God. It is used once to describe the creation of the universe (Gen 1:1), then again to describe the creation of life (Gen 1:21). Finally, in the closing verses, it is used three times for the creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27). The word translated, 'made' (asah 6213), has a much broader range of meaning and is used to speak of the creation of the 'firmament' (Gen 1:7), the sun, moon and stars (Gen 1:16), procreation where offspring are made 'after his/their kind' (Gen 1:25) and as a general reference to creation in it's vast array (Gen 1:31).

Then there is a third term when God 'set' (nathan H2414), the lights of the sun, moon and stars so that their light is reqularly visible from the surface of the earth. In this way the narrative shifts from the very precise word for 'created' to the more general 'made', and then the much broader use of 'set'. (by yours truly)
​

The reason for the exposition is because of an important theological principle called the canon of Scripture. There is another profound theological reason taking the historical narrative literally, the language of the text couldn't be more explicit:

Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound thological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...all other verbs for “creating” allow a much broader range of meaning. a careful study of the passages where bara occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses, primarily in Genesis, the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistant material. Things created, made and set by God: the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1; Isa. 40:26; 42:5; 45:18; 65:17); man (Gen. 1:27; 5:2; 6:7; Deut. 4:32; Ps. 89:47; Isa. 43:7; 45:12); Israel (Isa. 43:1; Mal. 2:10); a new thing (Jer. 31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa. 4:5); north and south (Ps. 89:12); salvation and righteousness (Isa. 45:8); speech (Isa. 57:19); darkness (Isa. 45:7); wind (Amos 4:13); and a new heart (Ps. 51:10).' (Vine 51)
​

There are theological reasons why creation is essential doctrine, not the least of which is that the principle transcends all of the Old and New Testament. Compare Genesis 1 to Revelation 22 sometime, one of the promises of the Gospel is that God is going to do it again at the end of the age.

You might not believe that creation happened as described in Genesis 1 but you really should understand what the text says in order to get a feel for the theological undercurrents here.

​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Me, ealier:

Well I think the number you've got there that the ark could hold would be a tad large, and I think the number of species leans way closer to 60 million or more, but you do realize, I hope, that 2 million divided by 16,000 is 125. In other words, every pair on the ark had to evolve into 125 species within just a thousand years or so.

Your reply includes . .

Again with exaggerations, there are 16,000 or so to start, as they disembark. As they spread across the face of the earth the descendant will adapt into 2 million to 60 million species, depending on how you define species.

I'm sorry, I just did plain math, I did not exaggerate.

As usual, you have it twisted. The molecular mechanisms for adaptive radiation were created as part of the parental forms. When moving out over the face of the earth they evolve, actually adapt, into the millions of species we see now in all their vast array.

Apparently you believe in some kind of pre-loaded DNA sequences that allow species to explode into multiple species over just a few generations. The extent you are willing to imagine the universe to be altered in your mind in order to preserve your theology is astonishing.

You might not believe that creation happened as described in Genesis 1 but you really should understand what the text says in order to get a feel for the theological undercurrents here.

​

Grace and peace,
Mark

I believe Genesis is perfectly true when properly interpreted and studies of science that reveal how creation actually took place are helpful in forming our proper interpretation of Genesis.

 

[mark kennedy]

Me, ealier:

Your reply includes . .


I'm sorry, I just did plain math, I did not exaggerate.

A statement that includes no math

Apparently you believe in some kind of pre-loaded DNA sequences that allow species to explode into multiple species over just a few generations. The extent you are willing to imagine the universe to be altered in your mind in order to preserve your theology is astonishing.

My theology is something you will never have a clue about, that's something I know for a fact. As far as the concept of genomes being unfettered by mutations, that's something common sense would tell you is a much larger gene pool, if you actually understood basic genetics.

I believe Genesis is perfectly true when properly interpreted and studies of science that reveal how creation actually took place are helpful in forming our proper interpretation of Genesis.

What you seem to have missed is that Genesis is confirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms. Christian thinking regarding creation isn't based on some interpretation of Genesis 1, that would be enough, but that's not the foundation. It's based on things like the Incarnation, Resurrection, Second Coming and oh yea, a miracle called the new birth. Things guys like you either know nothing about or care nothing about.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:1-5)
​

Now how does the light of life require exclusively naturalistic causes because this passage is telling us that life proceeds from the Son of God. Calling your naturalistic causes Christian is a waste of time, I'm not buying it and the New Testament encourages faith in God who made the heavens, the earth and life. Something no theistic evolutionist I have ever seen has the ability to do.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

A statement that includes no math

OK here's the math. This time I'll ask you to answer it. What is 2 million divided by 16000? 2 million is the minimum species you postulated as alive today. 16000 is your number for how many species were on the ark.

My theology is something you will never have a clue about, that's something I know for a fact. As far as the concept of genomes being unfettered by mutations, that's something common sense would tell you is a much larger gene pool, if you actually understood basic genetics.

My understanding of a larger gene pool is a widespread number of specimens with a lot a variation between them that can still interbreed. Your understanding is disconnected from reality.

What you seem to have missed is that Genesis is confirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms. Christian thinking regarding creation isn't based on some interpretation of Genesis 1, that would be enough, but that's not the foundation. It's based on things like the Incarnation, Resurrection, Second Coming and oh yea, a miracle called the new birth. Things guys like you either know nothing about or care nothing about.

The incarnation, the resurrection, the second coming and the new birth all have nothing to do with the natural history of life. I think you are losing it here. Your insights about what I care about are as far off from reality as your science.

​

Now how does the light of life require exclusively naturalistic causes because this passage is telling us that life proceeds from the Son of God. Calling your naturalistic causes Christian is a waste of time, I'm not buying it and the New Testament encourages faith in God who made the heavens, the earth and life. Something no theistic evolutionist I have ever seen has the ability to do.

Have a nice day
Mark

What God does all the time in the same consistent way we call the laws of science. What God does on occasion for a special purpose in a special way we call a miracle. It's all God.

 

[mark kennedy]

What God does all the time in the same consistent way we call the laws of science. What God does on occasion for a special purpose in a special way we call a miracle. It's all God.

When Genesis says 'created' it means out of nothing, without precursors, divine fiat. That's a miracle of the highest order:

Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound thological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing.​

When God is making something from something else, like the atmosphere or the land and sea, that's 'make'.

Made ‘asah’(H6213) "A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application" (Gen 1:7, Gen 1:16, Gen 1:25, Gen 1:31, Isa. 41:20, 43:7, 45:7, 12, Amos 4:13). (Strong’s). "The verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for “create” only about 60 times…only when asah is parallel to bara…can we be sure that it implies creation." (Vine 52).
​

Create is used five times in Genesis 1, once for the original creation, once for the creation of life in general and three times in a triple parallelism for the creation of Adam and Eve. That means special emphasis on the creation of man. Now 'make' can be used synonymously with with 'creation', when they are used together. Then again, 'make' can be used more generally, like when it's used to speak of procreation.

The thing is, the Scriptures make a distinction, all of creation was miraculous. What you are talking about is providence and that follows creation, to try to replace creation with divine providence demeans the meaning of both.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

When Genesis says 'created' it means out of nothing, without precursors, divine fiat. That's a miracle of the highest order:

Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound thological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing.​

When God is making something from something else, like the atmosphere or the land and sea, that's 'make'.

Now that's an interesting supposition .

​

Create is used five times in Genesis 1, once for the original creation, once for the creation of life in general and three times in a triple parallelism for the creation of Adam and Eve.

Right here:

Gen 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
NASU

That means special emphasis on the creation of man. Now 'make' can be used synonymously with with 'creation', when they are used together. Then again, 'make' can be used more generally, like when it's used to speak of procreation.

The thing is, the Scriptures make a distinction, all of creation was miraculous. What you are talking about is providence and that follows creation, to try to replace creation with divine providence demeans the meaning of both.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Oh wait, Scripture says Adam was FORMED, not made out of nothing.

Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Oh well, it seems Adam wasn't a creation from nothing after all. He is a creature of this earth.

There goes your argument.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Estimates vary, the last one I looked at was AIG and they said the Ark could have contained a total of 16,000. Taxonomy is kind of hard to nail down but estimates for living species including mammals, reptiles and birds you are looking at anywhere from 2 million to 60 million species depending on how you make that distinction. Speciation is still an ongoing phenomenon.

Well I think the number you've got there that the ark could hold would be a tad large, and I think the number of species leans way closer to 60 million or more, but you do realize, I hope, that 2 million divided by 16,000 is 125. In other words, every pair on the ark had to evolve into 125 species within just a thousand years or so.

And you think this is credible.

I don't understand why a God who refuses to use evolution but insists on using direct creation suddenly finds a need for 2 million or more species when why not just use 16000?

Again with exaggerations, there are 16,000 or so to start, as they disembark. As they spread across the face of the earth the descendant will adapt into 2 million to 60 million species, depending on how you define species. The kind of adaptive radiation has to take place in a few generations, most adaptations like adjusting to frigid arctic temperatures can't take a thousand years.

I'm sorry, I just did plain math, I did not exaggerate.

A statement that includes no math

OK here's the math. This time I'll ask you to answer it. What is 2 million divided by 16000? 2 million is the minimum species you postulated as alive today. 16000 is your number for how many species were on the ark.

so, the minimum of 125 unique species from each of the 16000 pairs wouldn't be exacerbated by the idea that 98% of all life that was ever here is now extinct - meaning 2% of everything off the Ark would actually have produced what we see now, and/or the variety of life would amount to around 100 million species, of which 2 million species has survived? So, in actual back-of-a-napkin calculation, 16000 pairs would have to produce around 6250 unique species to get the 2 million species we have today.... no?

 

[VirOptimus]

When Genesis says 'created' it means out of nothing, without precursors, divine fiat. That's a miracle of the highest order:

Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound thological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing.​

When God is making something from something else, like the atmosphere or the land and sea, that's 'make'.

Made ‘asah’(H6213) "A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application" (Gen 1:7, Gen 1:16, Gen 1:25, Gen 1:31, Isa. 41:20, 43:7, 45:7, 12, Amos 4:13). (Strong’s). "The verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for “create” only about 60 times…only when asah is parallel to bara…can we be sure that it implies creation." (Vine 52).
​

Create is used five times in Genesis 1, once for the original creation, once for the creation of life in general and three times in a triple parallelism for the creation of Adam and Eve. That means special emphasis on the creation of man. Now 'make' can be used synonymously with with 'creation', when they are used together. Then again, 'make' can be used more generally, like when it's used to speak of procreation.

The thing is, the Scriptures make a distinction, all of creation was miraculous. What you are talking about is providence and that follows creation, to try to replace creation with divine providence demeans the meaning of both.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Mark, if you dont understand why magic isnt allowed in science then there really isnt any idea to ever debate science with you. As soon as you allow metaphysics in science it stops being science.

Why? Because if we allow magic the all bets are off, its no longer a rational scientific discussion and nothing is certain, facts mean nothing and we cannot progress anywhere.

Also, everytime anyone has tried to battle science with religion religion has lost, and thats very predictable as science is a description of physical reality. Trying to battle physical reality is never a good idea.

Also, men are apes.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

so, the minimum of 125 unique species from each of the 16000 pairs wouldn't be exacerbated by the idea that 98% of all life that was ever here is now extinct - meaning 2% of everything off the Ark would actually have produced what we see now, and/or the variety of life would amount to around 100 million species, of which 2 million species has survived? So, in actual back-of-a-napkin calculation, 16000 pairs would have to produce around 6250 unique species to get the 2 million species we have today.... no?

Meanwhile, what were the carnivores eating, that they could multiply a minimum of 125 more species than they started with? How did the other species survive these healthy, multiplying carnivores?

In nature, species survive because only some of them get taken by carnivores, the rest live on and breed.

You can't count on that species survival mechanism when there are only two of your species.

Mark does not present a credible scenario.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Meanwhile, what were the carnivores eating, that they could multiply a minimum of 125 more species than they started with? How did the other species survive these healthy, multiplying carnivores?

In nature, species survive because only some of them get taken by carnivores, the rest live on and breed.

You can't count on that species survival mechanism when there are only two of your species.

Mark does not present a credible scenario.

And since the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old and life came about ~3.5 billion years ago, evolution at even a fraction of Mark's purported pace easily accounts for the diversity of life on this planet from that first form...

 

[mark kennedy]

Meanwhile, what were the carnivores eating, that they could multiply a minimum of 125 more species than they started with? How did the other species survive these healthy, multiplying carnivores?

In nature, species survive because only some of them get taken by carnivores, the rest live on and breed.

You can't count on that species survival mechanism when there are only two of your species.

Mark does not present a credible scenario.

Who are you talking to? I'm telling you the obvious logical consequences of the timeline in Scripture. You don't really know what the effect of predation would have been on migrating populations but it fits what we know about migration patterns. The point isn't predators but gene pools, bottlenecks and the permanent fixation of alleles brought on by a unique adaptive radiation. You don't really think I participate in these discussions because I find these blithe, pedantic and melodramatic rants do you? Your putting on a performance in front of an empty theater. You should have been here back a few years ago, someone might have actually been watching.

Have a nice day
Mark