Why do you feel a NEED for theistic evolution?

[Paul James]

No, sin is real.

Correct.

 

[Job 33:6]

Whatever happens, the cat would remain a cat and not another type of animal. The original cat would have the complete genetic information for all the different breeds that came after it, and as cats interbred, genetic information in the cat gene pool would be deleted, so if the original breed of cat became extinct, then there would be no way of restoring that particular breed because the genetic information to enable cat offspring to be of the same breed would be deleted for ever.

There is a theory that because the gene pool of humans is slowly diminishing, it would be probable that in several thousand years, human beings could become extinct. This is because gene information with each successive generation is being deleted, and so it is only a matter of time before there will not be enough genetic information for humans to survive. In view of this, if humans existed millions of years ago, the gene pool would be so depleted, that we would have become extinct already.

You said "The only way that two W gene cats can produce a B offspring is if a B gene is added to either cat; and according to accepted gene theory, this is impossible, because genetic information cannot be added." And "and as cats interbred, genetic information in the cat gene pool would be deleted, so if the original breed of cat became extinct" and "This is because gene information with each successive generation is being deleted"



All I pointed out was that genetic information can be added through gene duplication. I am not sure if you're acknowledging this or not. Gene duplications have been observed in nature many times.

 

[Jamdoc]

You can call it evolution if you choose, but it is still a change within the same animal group and not a gradual change from one type of animal to another. Because we live in a fallen, sin cursed world, everything is degrading and the world is wearing out, because it is not being perfectly maintained by God as it was before the Fall. Genetic mutation did not exist before the Fall because everything was created perfect. Genetic mutation began at the Fall when sin and death entered into the world.

In fact, the whole universe is running down, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This did not happen before the Fall when the whole universe was cursed and decay began. This universe, including our world is decaying, and in several million years if the universe is still existing, it would have burned out and it will be nothing but cold sterile rocks hanging in space.

So, mankind is not improving genetically, it is constantly mutating as each generation is born. Genetic information is being lost until the day comes, if the Lord doesn't return before then, mankind will become extinct.

Evolution implies that everything is developing into something better, but this is not true, because genetic information cannot be added, but it is progressively being deleted. This is why the dinosaurs went extinct. They died out because they ran out of genetic information to enable them to survive. This is why many animals have also become extinct, and not because of human interference. They became extinct for the same reason that dinosaurs became extinct - their genetics had mutated to the degree that their offspring could not survive.

But then, to know these things, one has to believe that there was a real Adam and Eve, a real forbidden fruit, disobedience and sin entering into the world bringing a curse of decay and death with it. It also makes sense of why Jesus died on the cross.

Not necessarily animal type so to say.. but different species within a family is likely. You're never going to have a cat that can breed with a dog, but you will have Lions that can breed with Tigers, and Coyotes that can breed with Wolves. that says they have enough in common in their DNA for it to work.
The key is that "after their kind" doesn't mean what we assume it to mean, which is species.
If a tiger and lion mate and produce a liger, that is still reproducing "after their kind".. their kind being possibly the genus panthera, but more likely, family felidae, which all contain 38 pairs of chromsomes. This is compared to family canidae which have 39 pairs of chromosomes, which makes them totally incompatible with each other. Strict creationism where things all breed after their own kind with the assumption that kind = species does not work, does it?

As a side note, on the possibility of humans evolving from apes, it doesn't seem likely because the nearest genetic relatives (the great apes) have 24 pairs of chromosomes, while we have 23 pairs. Rather than the relatively small tweaks genetically between different genus and species of Cats (which all have 38 pairs), we're not even the same "kind" as the great apes. Apes (including lesser apes like gibbons) are all 24 pairs of chromosomes, that's usually a reason in biology to designate something as a different family, having a different number of chromosomes, yet biologists still refer to us as family Hominidae.

 

[Job 33:6]

Not necessarily animal type so to say.. but different species within a family is likely. You're never going to have a cat that can breed with a dog, but you will have Lions that can breed with Tigers, and Coyotes that can breed with Wolves. that says they have enough in common in their DNA for it to work.
The key is that "after their kind" doesn't mean what we assume it to mean, which is species.
If a tiger and lion mate and produce a liger, that is still reproducing "after their kind".. their kind being possibly the genus panthera, but more likely, family felidae, which all contain 38 pairs of chromsomes. This is compared to family canidae which have 39 pairs of chromosomes, which makes them totally incompatible with each other. Strict creationism where things all breed after their own kind with the assumption that kind = species does not work, does it?

As a side note, on the possibility of humans evolving from apes, it doesn't seem likely because the nearest genetic relatives (the great apes) have 24 pairs of chromosomes, while we have 23 pairs. Rather than the relatively small tweaks genetically between different genus and species of Cats (which all have 38 pairs), we're not even the same "kind" as the great apes. Apes (including lesser apes like gibbons) are all 24 pairs of chromosomes, that's usually a reason in biology to designate something as a different family, having a different number of chromosomes, yet biologists still refer to us as family Hominidae.

Do you disagree with the suggestion that mankind has a fused chromosome? Even though we have 4 telomeres and two centromeres in a single chromosome?

 

[Jamdoc]

Do you disagree with the suggestion that mankind has a fused chromosome? Even though we have 4 telomeres and two centromeres in a single chromosome?

Fused, but that still puts us in what should be a different family.
Which makes me wonder about H. neandertalis. If we interbred with them are they even a different species?

 

[Paul James]

You said "The only way that two W gene cats can produce a B offspring is if a B gene is added to either cat; and according to accepted gene theory, this is impossible, because genetic information cannot be added." And "and as cats interbred, genetic information in the cat gene pool would be deleted, so if the original breed of cat became extinct" and "This is because gene information with each successive generation is being deleted"



All I pointed out was that genetic information can be added through gene duplication. I am not sure if you're acknowledging this or not. Gene duplications have been observed in nature many times.

But gene duplication will just produce another cat and not a different type of animal altogether. Dog gene information cannot be added to a cat to make a dog/cat offspring. Dogs don't mate with cats anyhow, so it can't happen by the natural process, and if it is attempted by genetic engineering all you would get is the animal version of Frankenstein's monster.

This is why the artist impression of apes evolving gradually by stages into humans shows an impossibility, because it involves a lower form of life evolving into a higher form, and this is genetically impossible. Also passing on of genes involves the act of mating and producing offspring, so to produce anything like an ape-man, there would have to be a mating between ape and human, and if there are no humans, where would the fully formed human come from? So do you see the difficulty?

Now a mule is produced by a horse mating with the donkey. But this is not evolution, it is mutation, and the mule cannot produce offspring, and both the horse and donkey are from the same horse family. This is why a domestic horse can mate with a zebra and produce half horse half zebra offspring, because both have "horse" genes, and I don't know if the horse/zebra can produce offspring or is sterile like the mule.

In actual fact, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is running down, and giving enough time, the sun and all the stars will burn out and the universe will just be a dark mass of sterile rocks. It is the same with this world and everything in it. It is degrading through mutation. In each succeeding generation of human and animal life, as the genetic information is lost, there will eventually not be enough genetic information to maintain life and all animal and human life will become extinct.

Evolution suggests improvement from lower to higher, but in reality the world and everything in it is slowly decaying. Carbon dating shows this with the measurement of how long a chunk of uranium can turn to lead. This is decay, and the time will come when all uranium will have lost its radioactive properties and turned to lead. That is decay, not evolution.

Also, (I might as well continue to labour the point), if evolution of man and animals is true, when did we stop evolving? Because, the discovery of ancient 5000 year old Sumerian handwriting shows that there were very intelligent human beings then, with social structures exactly the same as ours, and there have been no changes, even small minor ones, since then. We should think that man has evolved even a small measurable amount in the last 5000 years. But it has not happened, so when did we all stop evolving? Also, we have evidence through observation that stars are dying because astronomers have viewed them through telescopes. But no star formations have been viewed directly to show that the universe is evolving through new stars forming. All that exists is a computer simulation to show how it might be happening.

 

[Jamdoc]

But gene duplication will just produce another cat and not a different type of animal altogether. Dog gene information cannot be added to a cat to make a dog/cat offspring. Dogs don't mate with cats anyhow, so it can't happen by the natural process, and if it is attempted by genetic engineering all you would get is the animal version of Frankenstein's monster.

This is why the artist impression of apes evolving gradually by stages into humans shows an impossibility, because it involves a lower form of life evolving into a higher form, and this is genetically impossible. Also passing on of genes involves the act of mating and producing offspring, so to produce anything like an ape-man, there would have to be a mating between ape and human, and if there are no humans, where would the fully formed human come from? So do you see the difficulty?

Now a mule is produced by a horse mating with the donkey. But this is not evolution, it is mutation, and the mule cannot produce offspring, and both the horse and donkey are from the same horse family. This is why a domestic horse can mate with a zebra and produce half horse half zebra offspring, because both have "horse" genes, and I don't know if the horse/zebra can produce offspring or is sterile like the mule.

In actual fact, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is running down, and giving enough time, the sun and all the stars will burn out and the universe will just be a dark mass of sterile rocks. It is the same with this world and everything in it. It is degrading through mutation. In each succeeding generation of human and animal life, as the genetic information is lost, there will eventually not be enough genetic information to maintain life and all animal and human life will become extinct.

Evolution suggests improvement from lower to higher, but in reality the world and everything in it is slowly decaying. Carbon dating shows this with the measurement of how long a chunk of uranium can turn to lead. This is decay, and the time will come when all uranium will have lost its radioactive properties and turned to lead. That is decay, not evolution.

Also, (I might as well continue to labour the point), if evolution of man and animals is true, when did we stop evolving? Because, the discovery of ancient 5000 year old Sumerian handwriting shows that there were very intelligent human beings then, with social structures exactly the same as ours, and there have been no changes, even small minor ones, since then. We should think that man has evolved even a small measurable amount in the last 5000 years. But it has not happened, so when did we all stop evolving? Also, we have evidence through observation that stars are dying because astronomers have viewed them through telescopes. But no star formations have been viewed directly to show that the universe is evolving through new stars forming. All that exists is a computer simulation to show how it might be happening.

question then, if Zebras, Horses, and Donkeys can all interbreed and have hybrid, doesn't that support evolution from 1 horse family species into multiple horse family species?
I see nothing unbiblical about that if we consider a "kind" to be a family.

 

[Job 33:6]

Fused, but that still puts us in what should be a different family.
Which makes me wonder about H. neandertalis. If we interbred with them are they even a different species?

What I mean is that, you suggested the idea that we potentially had not evolved from a common ancestor with other apes because other apes have a different number of chromosomes.

I was just asking what you think about our fused chromosome.

To further explain, imagine we have an ancestor 7 million years ago. The ancestor has 24 chromosome pairs. One pair fuses after we split from other great apes. We then have 23 and the others have 24. But one of our chromosomes has
4 telomeres and two centromeres rather than 2 telomeres and one centromeres as normal chromosomes otherwise do.

But yes, good questions otherwise.

 

[Job 33:6]

But gene duplication will just produce another cat and not a different type of animal altogether. Dog gene information cannot be added to a cat to make a dog/cat offspring. Dogs don't mate with cats anyhow, so it can't happen by the natural process, and if it is attempted by genetic engineering all you would get is the animal version of Frankenstein's monster.

This is why the artist impression of apes evolving gradually by stages into humans shows an impossibility, because it involves a lower form of life evolving into a higher form, and this is genetically impossible. Also passing on of genes involves the act of mating and producing offspring, so to produce anything like an ape-man, there would have to be a mating between ape and human, and if there are no humans, where would the fully formed human come from? So do you see the difficulty?

Now a mule is produced by a horse mating with the donkey. But this is not evolution, it is mutation, and the mule cannot produce offspring, and both the horse and donkey are from the same horse family. This is why a domestic horse can mate with a zebra and produce half horse half zebra offspring, because both have "horse" genes, and I don't know if the horse/zebra can produce offspring or is sterile like the mule.

In actual fact, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is running down, and giving enough time, the sun and all the stars will burn out and the universe will just be a dark mass of sterile rocks. It is the same with this world and everything in it. It is degrading through mutation. In each succeeding generation of human and animal life, as the genetic information is lost, there will eventually not be enough genetic information to maintain life and all animal and human life will become extinct.

Evolution suggests improvement from lower to higher, but in reality the world and everything in it is slowly decaying. Carbon dating shows this with the measurement of how long a chunk of uranium can turn to lead. This is decay, and the time will come when all uranium will have lost its radioactive properties and turned to lead. That is decay, not evolution.

Also, (I might as well continue to labour the point), if evolution of man and animals is true, when did we stop evolving? Because, the discovery of ancient 5000 year old Sumerian handwriting shows that there were very intelligent human beings then, with social structures exactly the same as ours, and there have been no changes, even small minor ones, since then. We should think that man has evolved even a small measurable amount in the last 5000 years. But it has not happened, so when did we all stop evolving? Also, we have evidence through observation that stars are dying because astronomers have viewed them through telescopes. But no star formations have been viewed directly to show that the universe is evolving through new stars forming. All that exists is a computer simulation to show how it might be happening.

I'm not sure what thermodynamics has to do with my response. What is your source of all this?

Do you admit that genetic information can be added through gene duplication just as genetic information can be lost through deletion?

 

[Jamdoc]

What I mean is that, you suggested the idea that we potentially had not evolved from a common ancestor with other apes because other apes have a different number of chromosomes.

I was just asking what you think about our fused chromosome.

To further explain, imagine we have an ancestor 7 million years ago. The ancestor has 24 chromosome pairs. One pair fuses after we split from other great apes. We then have 23 and the others have 24. But one of our chromosomes has
4 telomeres and two centromeres rather than 2 telomeres and one centromeres as normal chromosomes otherwise do.

But yes, good questions otherwise.

Possibly, only a question you could ask God, was man made just from dirt, or did you make our physical bodies from an existing template and manipulate the genes?

 

[Paul James]

question then, if Zebras, Horses, and Donkeys can all interbreed and have hybrid, doesn't that support evolution from 1 horse family species into multiple horse family species?
I see nothing unbiblical about that if we consider a "kind" to be a family.

They are all different breeds of the same horse family, just the same as different breeds of dog, from wolves down to the domestic poodle. If we are going to use "species", then horse, mule, donkey, zebra, are all the same one horse species, in the same way that wolves, foxes, wild African dogs, German Shepherds, poodles, pugs, corgies, pit bull terriers, etc., all the same dog species, but have genetic differences through interbreeding.

 

[Paul James]

I'm not sure what thermodynamics has to do with my response. What is your source of all this?

Do you admit that genetic information can be added through gene duplication just as genetic information can be lost through deletion?

From my reading of genetic theory, there is no evidence that gene duplication enables the evolution of one separate species into another separate species. It usually occurs in the same species, such as happens in the ice fish where gene duplication enables the addition of an anti-freeze gene to enable it to survive in its environment. It does not change the ice-fish into something that is not a fish. Similarly, gene duplication may enable a snake to become venomous, but the snake remains a snake.

Different types of gene duplication can cause disease such as cancer, and disabilities like downs syndrome. Therefore in these cases gene duplication causes a destructive mutation.

Also, in most cases, gene duplication is temporary, and rarely passes from one generation to another. This makes it a factor in evolution theoretical and open to question. This is because the type of gene duplication that is required to, say, cause a four legged land animal to evolve into the blue whale, as depicted in some evolutionary artist impressions, has to be permanent and be passed on from one generation to another through different stages where the gene duplication is repeated each time to eventually produce the totally different species of mammal. The temporary and mutative nature of gene duplication would make this impossible.

The reason why I mentioned the second law of thermodynamics is to show that the universe is decaying and not evolving into something better. So therefore if the universe is subject to decay, then so is our world and everything in it. This is why, given time, man, instead of evolving into more superior life forms, will suffer genetic decay until he becomes extinct.

 

[Paul James]

Possibly, only a question you could ask God, was man made just from dirt, or did you make our physical bodies from an existing template and manipulate the genes?

God has already told us how He made man, so we don't need to ask Him. If we did, He would just point us back to Genesis and say, "There it is, believe it or not."

 

[Jamdoc]

They are all different breeds of the same horse family, just the same as different breeds of dog, from wolves down to the domestic poodle. If we are going to use "species", then horse, mule, donkey, zebra, are all the same one horse species, in the same way that wolves, foxes, wild African dogs, German Shepherds, poodles, pugs, corgies, pit bull terriers, etc., all the same dog species, but have genetic differences through interbreeding.

but breeding between species results in sterile offspring, it can happen but they're sterile. vs breeding between dog breeds (subspecies) that results in breeding offspring. Dog breeds are like human ethnicities/races instead of species. The horses are separate species, but are a common "kind"/family.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Paul James
"From my reading of genetic theory"

Reading from where? Thermodynamics is a topic of physics, not genetics. Where did you hear this?

It's seems like you are unwilling to admit that duplication increases genetic information.

 

[Jamdoc]

Yeah I never liked applying thermodynamics to biology. Biology works very differently from physics, physics is involved but there are things that happen within life forms that should not happen outside of that contained system, enzymes do a lot.

 

[Paul James]

@Paul James
"From my reading of genetic theory"

Reading from where? Thermodynamics is a topic of physics, not genetics. Where did you hear this?

It's seems like you are unwilling to admit that duplication increases genetic information.

Gene duplication to me is the same as the dentist's hymn: "Change and decay in all around I see."

 

[Job 33:6]

Gene duplication to me is the same as the dentist's hymn: "Change and decay in all around I see."

You're being insincere in you're responses.

Can you accept that gene duplication increases genetic information or not?

 

[Paul James]

You're being insincere in you're responses.

Can you accept that gene duplication increases genetic information or not?

I have answered your question, but you won't accept my answer. The issue is that I am a Bible-believing Christian and therefore believe that evolution in any form other than downward mutation, is impossible. Better be careful in your comments accusing me of insincerity - which is the same as calling me a liar. We can disagree according to our own beliefs (which evolution and creationism are), but you have no right to call me or anyone else who disagrees with you a liar.

 

[Job 33:6]

I have answered your question, but you won't accept my answer. The issue is that I am a Bible-believing Christian and therefore believe that evolution in any form other than downward mutation, is impossible. Better be careful in your comments accusing me of insincerity - which is the same as calling me a liar. We can disagree according to our own beliefs (which evolution and creationism are), but you have no right to call me or anyone else who disagrees with you a liar.

I'll take that as a "no", you aren't willing to admit that gene duplication adds genetic information. That is all you had to say.