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.
Paul mentioned creation, so we know his opinion.I didn't say he did.
I haven't made anything up as I never said Paul gave his opinion on the matter.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
-CryptoLutheran
No. Each new mutation that contributed to making us human started in one individual, but that individual was always part of a larger population.
No. Each new mutation that contributed to making us human started in one individual, but that individual was always part of a larger population.
It's called "reality", dad. You should check it out some time, rather than indulging in your flights of fancy about "different state past".No proof possible then. All pi in the sky. No reason to believe that, it is just some godless flight of fancy based on how some things now mutate, right?
Originally Posted by Papias
Good question, since it is not easy for most people to imagine. The key is to think over many generations, remembering that mutations are spread due to reproduction and natural selection, and also remembering that one's number of descendants increases geometrically, which means that before too long, the entire population is descended from any given previous individual. This is explained step by step below.
Only one need "make it" (and it's not one step for the mutations anyway). That one will have kids, after all. If their many little mutational changes are beneficial, they will, on average, be selected for and soon be present in everyone in the whole population.
So, all human population began with ONE, not a big number.
Originally Posted by juvenissun
So, all human population began with ONE, not a big number.
No. Each new mutation that contributed to making us human started in one individual, but that individual was always part of a larger population.
OK, another view:
Juvi wrote:
Yes, one ensouled human who was a member of a large breeding population of the same biological species. The key here is that "human" in the model above means "ape who has a soul", and does NOT mean "Homo sapiens".
No. He's talking about God directly giving souls to two individuals, not about souls evolving. (It's not a model I find persuasive, but it's consistent with evolutionary evidence.)Evolution of soul?
I guess you are not clear enough.
For example, the large population is 1000 chimps.
The ONE INDIVIDUAL is the ONE chimp which mutated toward human.
So, to human, it was not a large population. It was just ONE, the very first one.
Evolution of soul?
Reality of how life processes now work is not reality about how they did in Noah's day. No flight of phoney science fancy can change that. Admit your religious methodology is bogus.It's called "reality", dad. You should check it out some time, rather than indulging in your flights of fancy about "different state past".
I guess you are not clear enough.
For example, the large population is 1000 chimps.
The ONE INDIVIDUAL is the ONE chimp which mutated toward human.
So, to human, it was not a large population. It was just ONE, the very first one.
Reality of how life processes now work is not reality about how they did in Noah's day. No flight of phoney science fancy can change that. Admit your religious methodology is bogus.
Please, tell us how reality of life processes was working different in Noah's day. Be specific.
Hmm. My religious methodology is pretty much standard Protestant Christianity. Are you sure you want me to admit that it's bogus? (Also, stop telling me how to do my job.)Reality of how life processes now work is not reality about how they did in Noah's day. No flight of phoney science fancy can change that. Admit your religious methodology is bogus.
Right. Other mutations occur in other individuals -- sometimes individuals in the same generation of the population.Lets say its 1000 Homo erectus (why you continue claiming chimps are our ancestors is beyond me).
One individual has a mutation eventually leading to humans. The new allele spreads among the population because it is beneficial. Other mutations produce other alleles that also spread. This is how natural selection works. Eventually the population is more human-like.
The religious methodology referred to obviously was so called science. As for your closet beliefs other than that, not interested. I can tell more by words one speaks.Hmm. My religious methodology is pretty much standard Protestant Christianity. Are you sure you want me to admit that it's bogus? (Also, stop telling me how to do my job.)
But from being not human to being human is not the result of a single mutation. It took hundreds of mutations, and being human involves having language and culture as well as having the right genes. There would have been intermediate stages where one could question whether or not this grouping is, yet, a tribe of humans.
Of course. But majority of them died off and ONLY ONE made it to modern human. Any way you look at it, it is still just ONE, not many.
Further, I would assume ALL mutations are slightly different from each other. Right? So, there would be only ONE correct mutation which progressed into human. No matter how big was the population at the beginning.
Right. Other mutations occur in other individuals -- sometimes individuals in the same generation of the population.
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?