Did you read my explanation of the patterns in human chromosome 2? They prove as nearly as possible in science that humans are descended from apes. There is no other explanation.
Upvote
0
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.
I know, but that doesn't make one a relative to a butter bean, because their DNA happens to be close. It is not the closness that matters but the minute difference in the DNA that makes humans, human & chimps nothing more than chimps.
If the bible is the literal word of god, what do you make of these passages:
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
Exodus 21
1 "These are the laws you are to set before them:
2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges. [a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.
15 "Anyone who attacks father or his mother must be put to death.
16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.
17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.
18 "If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed.
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be p1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."unished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
26 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.
Numbers 31Vengeance on the Midianites
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."
3 So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them. 4 Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel." 5 So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. 6 Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.
7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
19 "All of you who have killed anyone or touched anyone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days. On the third and seventh days you must purify yourselves and your captives. 20 Purify every garment as well as everything made of leather, goat hair or wood."
21 Then Eleazar the priest said to the soldiers who had gone into battle, "This is the requirement of the law that the LORD gave Moses: 22 Gold, silver, bronze, iron, tin, lead 23 and anything else that can withstand fire must be put through the fire, and then it will be clean. But it must also be purified with the water of cleansing. And whatever cannot withstand fire must be put through that water. 24 On the seventh day wash your clothes and you will be clean. Then you may come into the camp."
25 The LORD said to Moses, 26 "You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured. 27 Divide the spoils between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community. 28 From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the LORD one out of every five hundred, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep or goats. 29 Take this tribute from their half share and give it to Eleazar the priest as the LORD's part. 30 From the Israelites' half, select one out of every fifty, whether persons, cattle, donkeys, sheep, goats or other animals. Give them to the Levites, who are responsible for the care of the LORD's tabernacle." 31 So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses. 32 The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.
So, slavery and forced amrriage of captured women is acceptable.
As is the murder of women and children becaused god said so.
Literal truth guys - something must be wrong here.
I know, but that doesn't make one a relative to a butter bean, because their DNA happens to be close. It is not the closness that matters but the minute difference in the DNA that makes humans, human & chimps nothing more than chimps.
Here you misunderstand the difference between simile and metaphor. Likening something to something else is simile; saying something is something else (which it obviuosly isn't) is metaphor.But what you said about the metaphorical is not actually true.... Let me provide an example... In Ezekiel Chapter 28, the prophecy about the king of Tyre is likened to the fall of Lucifer. Both are true or coming true, but in fact, here we have a metaphor of the king of Tyre as Lucifer or Lucifer as the king of Tyre..... So metaphors may simply be multiple meanings of the same passage and be true.
Your are right about "detailed" creationist explanations being on the scarce to nil side.1)presumably this is very different from most creationist scenarios, in which the human and chimpanzee genomes were indidually created with whatever characteristics and genes the creator desired, while human variants are either the result of a short period of mutation or were created in Adam and Eve. (I say presumably because there are not many detailed creationist models of genetics.)
Both the A.C.E. above and a period of millions of years would show results of accumulated mutation, the only question that remains is how to determine how much time actually has passed.The scientific question then is this: Do genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees look like they are the result of lots of accumulated mutations?
One prediction you would be able to make is that genetic mutations along certain strands of dna in chimps should appear in the same exact places of humans. That seems like a very observable experiment. I haven't yet heard any evidence supporting this seemingly obvious point.What predictions about the differences can one make, based on the hypothesis that they are all the result of mutation?
Alright, this brings up a whole bevy of questions Ill just have to supress right now as being irrelevant to your paper but I nevertheless would be interested in starting another seperate line of inquiry at some other time.For starters, we should be able to predict how different the genomes should be. The seven million years of evolution in each lineage represents about 350,000 generations in each (assuming 20 years per generation).]
This is a clever method, very interesting.By studying new cases of genetic diseases, individuals whose parents' do not have the disease, however, it is possible to identify and count new mutations, at least in a small number of genes.--Thats interesting
I assume this is the Kondrashov work? Are you aware that he has indicated this number to be closer to 300 new mutations in personal conversations?(beside the point I suppose)sing this technique, it has been estimated[1] that the single-base substitution rate for humans is approximately 1.7 x 10^-8 substitutions/nucleotide/generation, that is, 17 changes per billion nucleotides. That translates into ~100 new mutations for every human birth. (17 x 3, for the 3 billion nucleotides in the genome, x 2 for the two genome copies we each carry).
OK. I admit that this shows a correlation, but only that these two species have had similar genetic pressures against them over the course of time, an as yet unproven amount of time.The evolutionary prediction, then, is that there should be roughly 36 million single-base differences between humans and chimpanzees. The actual number could be determined when both the chimpanzee and human genomes had been completely sequenced. When the two genomes were compared[2], thirty-five million substitutions were found, in remarkably good agreement with the evolutionary expectation. Fortuitously good agreement, in fact: the uncertainty on most of the numbers used in the estimate is large enough that it took luck to come that close.
I dont see what this as strong evidence, I definitely see it as supporting evidence though...feel free to correct what you think may be some misunderstanding of mine, Im well aware that a lot of educated people spent and are spending their lives coming up with this data and its foundations, I am certainly not trying to discredit any of that work or any of those people, and I trust the data itself, Im just haveing trouble with the interpretation of that data.The prediction from common descent is that human-chimpanzee differences should show the same pattern. They do. In a human-chimpanzee comparison[3], transition differences were 2.4 times
as common as transversions, and substitutions at CpG sites were 17 times as common as at non-CpG sites; the agreement with the mutation rate estimates is quite good, considering the large uncertainties on the latter. In other words, we see the same pattern in new mutations occurring in humans today as in the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees. This is to be expected if the same process, random mutation, is driving both phenomena; it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in other models.
The prediction from common descent is that human-chimpanzee differences should show the same pattern. They do. In a human-chimpanzee comparison[3], transition differences were 2.4 times
as common as transversions, and substitutions at CpG sites were 17 times as common as at non-CpG sites; the agreement with the mutation rate estimates is quite good, considering the large uncertainties on the latter. In other words, we see the same pattern in new mutations occurring in humans today as in the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees. This is to be expected if the same process, random mutation, is driving both phenomena; it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in other models.
Probably the word "good" should be replaced by "creative" because as far as I know, no gene has been found to unambiguously have created information.Probably the existence of good genes that resulted from mutation gave him the idea.
There have certainly been mutations which were regarded as "good", so I probably should have used a better word there, but "good" in the sense that broken things can be sometimes. Like a broken car alarm can be "good" because it produces a "desirable" result(for some of us)--but yet they still represent a breakdown.Direct production of a novel gene more or less out of whole cloth is much rarer, though it may occur -- that seems to be how the one nylonase gene evolved in a bacterium that developed the ability to digest nylon.
The ability to escape harm from a particular source is a new functionality, and a very important one. In humans, obvious new traits that are the result of mutation followed by selection include malaria resistance, lactose tolerance in adults, and lightly pigmented skin at high latitudes.
I can accept the number 200. I have heard other data from a variety of sources, but I don't have a need or desire to be definite about something so vague. I'd rather be safe than sorry, but I am still learning all I can so until I have better references I'll just tentatively accept 200.That mutations are common is indeed well known, although your number of 1000 per human birth is probably a good deal too high; 200 would be a better estimate, at least if you are interested in mutations that could contribute to the "deterioration of the genome"
Population geneticists know that mutations are strongly skewed towards neutral, I have a lot of points about this but since i am a new linux user(real new), Im still trying to figure out how to get graphics up on my website, because Id like to start out my own points with some pictures, specifically Kimura's gamma distribution curve for mutation distribution.The great majority, perhaps 95%, of these can be treated as being selectively neutral, neither helping nor hurting the organism; mostly, in fact, they do nothing at all. These are the mutations I am interested in. Since they do not have any effect on survival, these mutations accumulate steadily
Maybe it's time for the big guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg&mode=related&search=
I appreciate it's a long video, but Ken Miller is a world expert in cell biology and a theist. His evidence destroyed professor behe's theory of ID in the famous dover trial... despite the judge being a theist as well!!
What?
What?
Here you misunderstand the difference between simile and metaphor. Likening something to something else is simile; saying something is something else (which it obviuosly isn't) is metaphor.
For example:
"Jesus is like a door" - simile.
"Jesus is a door" - metaphor.
In your example above, if something is likened to the fall of Lucifer, that would be simile. For example (a hypothetical one) "He will fall as Lucifer fell!" is a simile.
So statements that Jesus is a door or a vine are metaphor, not simile. They are not taken literally by anyone - there are no absolute biblical literalists. There are just people who disagree about which bits of the bible are metaphorical, symbolic, or literal.
But as said before it really doesn't matter. You can't take it away from the scriptures whether it is a metaphor a simile or literal. You can't add to it or take from it. So for some so-called-Christians to agree to do that is proof that they are not Christians because a Christian follows Christ who would never do that.
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
You really don't get that? It's pretty simple. Creationism doesn't rule it out genetic similarities, but it doesn't say they should be there, either. In which case, its predictive ability on this is essentially zero.
But if something is not to be taken literally, then as a metaphor it is open to interpretation. Which means everyone reading the Bible with even a hint of non-literality (including you) is adding their own perceptions to it.
All that there is to Life is not science. It is only one small part.
The Blind Men and the Elephant
Indian folktale retold in poetic form by Godfrey Saxe
It was six men of Indostan,
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the elephant,
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The first approached the elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! But the elephant
Is very like a wall!"
The second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried: "Ho! What have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis very clear,
This wonder of an elephant
Is very like a spear!"
The third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the elephant
Is very like a snake!"
The fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is might plain," quoth he;
"Tis clear enough the elephant
Is very like a tree."
The fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most:
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an elephant
Is very like a fan."
The sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the elephant
Is very like a rope."
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong.
Though each was partly right,
All were in the wrong.
None of that is even at issue, since accepting that something is a metaphor doesn't add to or take away from it. You accept that the bible contains metaphor; you thus do not take it all literally (like every other so-called 'literalist'). The only issue, then, is what parts are metaphor and what parts are literal. Most christians hold that the opening chapters of Genesis are metaphorical; you disagree. That does not make them wrong and you right; it means you disagree.But as said before it really doesn't matter. You can't take it away from the scriptures whether it is a metaphor a simile or literal. You can't add to it or take from it. So for some so-called-Christians to agree to do that is proof that they are not Christians because a Christian follows Christ who would never do that.
Creationism: God created the earth 6000 years ago.
You can not make any predicts from that. You can put just about anything under that one statement though.
None of that is even at issue, since accepting that something is a metaphor doesn't add to or take away from it. You accept that the bible contains metaphor; you thus do not take it all literally (like every other so-called 'literalist'). The only issue, then, is what parts are metaphor and what parts are literal. Most christians hold that the opening chapters of Genesis are metaphorical; you disagree. That does not make them wrong and you right; it means you disagree.
I don't know if this is what "creationism" teaches or not. But I do know that it is what God teaches. God has given us the way it happened. I am sure there was much more to it than just these words but it is what God wanted us to know about it. I also know that beyond these words are much deeper meanings. It is the search of their meanings that brings life. Ask and you shall find. Knock and it shall be opened unto you. Seek and you shall find.
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?