A honest question to all creationists (page 4)

bohm

ln: big bang also has plenty of problems, but if i had to put money on the question, i would choose it over steaty state theory.

so the same two questions: if you had to bet 10 buck. where would you put them?

HappyGuy

is this like scientology?

I have no idea, I don't know anytihng about scientology.

As I said it is a HYPOTHESIS. A wild one I admit.

HappyGuy

bohm,

So that big yellow round thing in the sky IS the sun? Hmmmm.

Yes, species means different things to different people. I'm not sure how to rectify that.

Here is an example. Maybe we can start from that. Instead of using the term species I will use the term group, a group is simply individuals that share traits to such a degree that outsiders looking at them would call them by the same label. Look, geese. Look, rabbits. Look, hookers. Fair enough?

Okay, so we come to the fertile / non fertile issue. Group A can procreate with Group B and produce fertile offspring. Group B can procreate with Group C and produce fertile offspring. But, group A and group C cannot procreate and produce fertile offspring. I would say that Groups A and C are definitely different "groups". But, are groups A and B and groups B and C different "groups"?

So, maybe species can be delineated by the ability to procreate and produce fertile offspring?

HappyGuy

TD,

The way you understand what DNA is, does DNA hold the encoding of what we are or of what we could become?

For example, if I make a blueprint for constructing an office building the blueprint holds the encoding of what the office building IS.

On the other hand, if I make an AI agent that can learn by experience, then the software code for the AI program is an encoding of what the AI agent can become.

TD

Hi HappyGuy

Good question.

I think from the standpoint of a single organism, the answer would be closer to your blueprint analogy.

What complicates things is that life is not single organisms, but groups of similar organisms that reproduce.

To adapt the blueprint analogy, it would be like one set of blueprints meets a similar set of blueprints. They combine elements of each design to produce a new set of blueprints. --Very similar to the parents, but different nontheless.

If we add to this a selective pressure that favors certain designs over others, and an element of randomness because the copying process is not perfect, we would have a recipe for change over time. Two isolated reproductive groups with two different selective pressues that started out the same could conceivably diverge to the point where they were substantially different

In this regard, one example that I find interesting the divergence in members of the dog family.

The domestic dog has 78 chromosomes

Wolf: 78

Coyote: 78

Jackal: 78

Maned Wolf: 76

Bat Eared Fox: 72

Gray Fox: 66

Fennec Fox: 64

Kit Fox: 50

Racoon Dog: 42

Tibetan Fox: 36

Red Fox: 34

The domestic dog can interbreed with the wolf and coyote just fine, but it can't interbreed with the various species of fox even though it is clearly related to them. They have diverged to the point where they are no longer fertile together. The genetic evidence actually suggests that the divergence can go way beyond this and that the dog, bear and racoon are all related.

Viewed from this standpoint, I think we are closer to your AI analogy and I think a corollary to your question to me would be:

Would a wise Creator make only static forms of life or would he design life that could adapt and change over time?

HappyGuy

TD,

Would a wise Creator make only static forms of life or would he design life that could adapt and change over time?

Adaptation and change over time, I am okay with. If you are calling that evolution, I guess that's okay, I don't view evolution as being that, but I have not "studied" evolution the way a biologist would.

So, you are saying that the dog family has a common ancestor with the fox or the dog is the ancestor of the fox or the fox is the ancestor of the dog? Either way they now are not compatable reproductively so they are not the same species but they are related to each other. Okay (I guess).

That kind of variation I can undertand and I don't think anyone rational would disagree with it as being something that happened naturally.

When I read the word evolution, though, I am thinking more about "and life started as a single cell and then there were fish then the fish grew legs and then the monkeys became humans". That is what I cannot accept.

And then you have the problem how did the chemicals that became that first cell obtain the spark of life? Then I have the problem of imagining that everything that lives is here totally by chance and if the earth had a very different atmosphere or gravitational pull or any other number of myriad factors that life would be completely different. It is this totally indeterminate randomness that bothers me. Then there is the issue of sentience. how can sentience be the result of a random process? I can't accept that.

HappyGuy

TD,

Another DNA question. Another poster posed a question something like "can humans develop wings". I would answer that by saying only if human DNA has a code in it already for wings. If the code is not there then humans cannot develop wings.

ARe you saying that the DNA could change sufficiently that human DNA could then contain the code for wings?

jaguarbass

I work midnights in a jail for the past 5 years. I read most of the night.

I have read and am reading Dawkins and I have read lots of creation, christian literature, Budhist literature,

hindu literature and quantum physics.

I've been trying to find the answers to the big question.

I dont think man can find the answer or is allowed to have the answer.

Make your mind up what you want to believe and you will see some evidence for it.

But no matter what you want to believe there will be the other side of the coin.

I would love to preach the bible but having read it cover to cover 7 times there are many

problems in the bible.

EVoluition is a word like cancer, it means many things and few can agree on what it means.

And evolution that science can observe doesnt disprove creation.

20 years ago they used to call it, evolution adaptation.

From what I read carbon dating is unreliable, but I suspect from what I read that the earth is old.

If you read some of the indian text, they were flying airplanes before jesus.

And from reading Indian text the earth has been destroyed by a nuclear explosion in the past.

Sodum and Gomorah may have been a nuclear explosion.

To top that off the man who invented the atomic bomb Openhimer was a sanscrit scholar, leading

some to think that he figured out how to make the atomic bomb by deciphering the Indian text.

Things are stranger than you can think.

Which makes me think we probably reincarnate and come back over and over until we figure out

how to escape being born.

Or we come back over and over because we like it. Its like a trip to Disney land.

I would suggest you reading the Slave Species of God by Michael Tillinger and see where it takes you.

You wont be the same after reading it.

bohm

HG: Thanks for continuing your input. About the species thing. As i understand your position, you are saying that you believe it is plausible that wolf and dogs have the same common ancestor because they are quite 'similar', but eg. a human and a ape do not because they are to 'different' (correct me if i am wrong).

Now, my point is that i have never seen anyone point out exactly what gap between man and apes evolution cannot pass - ie. what property(ies) that definately seperate an ape from a human. Is it that we walk upright? is it our brain capacity? etc.

To ask in a different way. When you see the the ancient skeletons that supposedly lies 'between' human and apes, what is your thoughts about them? Are all monkeys, all 'retarded' humans, or is there some property(ies) that allows you to draw a line and say THESE are all apes, THESE are all humans THEREFORE they proove nothing except variation within the human/ape 'group'.

(lists of transitional forms)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3

quietlyleaving

hi bohm - this has become quite a complex discussion - quite above my scientific understanding. But in answer to your post

quietlyleaving: i see your point, but many think the bible is compatible with evolution/no ark, and i feel those people allow themselves to be led more by evidence (or as an id advocate may say: popular oppinion). At any rate, it is not impossible to imagine a bible which supports both viewpoints, to some it allready exist. basically you just need to throw out genesis and make some statements more vague :-)

I find looking for common recurring themes quite helpful. So the theme of human survival in the bible is similar to the theme of survival in a concept such as natural selection. Thus a disaster like a flood, is significant from the standpoint of how an individual would make sense of his/her survival.

For obvious reasons we can see why such a recurring theme would be deeply ingrained into the psyche of every living thing. Furthermore each stage of a persons life would then add another thematic layer. I find that the bible is very good at preserving themes while a study of the facts as in science fertilizes these themes and pushes them to be reworked according to how one must make sense of them. Science of course reminds itself not to stray from the facts while the bible tends to keep civilizing behaviours, conventions and ethics in sight while at the same time enabling one to transcend feeling like an unfortunate survivor.

So it is very interesting to see how Peter revitilizes the flood story by drawing somewhat different conclusions to Genesis at 1 Peter 3:21.

A honest question to all creationists

Share this