Simple introduction to the theory of evolution

by Diogenesister 61 Replies latest forum links

  • TD


    I'm glad you appreciate the gentle give and take of polite conversation. Personally, I really have no reason to be nasty, as the JW's have not in any way decimated my life, (I'm what they refer to as an unbelieving mate.) and like I've said on other threads, I was a very gung-ho creationist decades ago and let go of that belief only with the utmost reluctance.

    You've stated that Eve was not a clone of Adam and in the spirit of polite conversation, I give you that. A clone (As the term is used by laymen) is by definition an exact copy and therefore would be the same gender as the parent organism.

    There is however a huge qualification, inasmuch as the Eve you have described is a clone in all other respects save that of gender. Forty-five of her forty-six chromosomes are identical to Adam's (Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding)

    It would be an utter disaster for a man and woman this closely related to produce offspring, which fact is typically sidestepped in creationist circles via the notion of, "Perfection." (i.e. Genetic redundancy was not necessary since Adam and Eve had no genetic flaws whatsoever.)

    To be fair, this is science fiction, not theology, but I'll give you this too. Let's assume that Adam (And by extension, Eve) had no harmful recessives whatsoever.

    The problem I described still stands. With the exception of the Y chromosome, (Which only has about seventy genes as opposed to more than a thousand in the X) how is it possible for any given portion of Eve's genetic material to be different than Adam's? (Again, as you've described it.)

    You stated that, "..there are all sorts of genetic re-configurations possible using any number of segments of DNA that go into action once the process is started with conception."

    I understand how this works when the male and female are carrying their own unique sets of alleles. The randomization of meiosis will produce a zygote different than either of the two parents.

    How does this work when the parents are genetically identical in every other respect but gender??

    Similarly, I agree with you that from, "the moment of conception, the new life is genetically male or female."

    I haven't suggested otherwise. Whether you want to or not, you still have chichis, just like I do and Cofty does and every other male. We possess non-functioning mammary glands, which normally require two X chromosomes to develop. We also have a very minuscule uterus that never developed either.

    Unless we want to assert that Adam was different in these respects than men are today, which would be more science fiction, the female of the species was clearly designed prior to the creation of Adam and not afterwards as the rib story implies.

  • cofty
    2. All information comes from a mind

    'Information' is a metaphor for what DNA does.

    All life comes from previous life

    Once earth contained no life. Now it does. No magic was required. It is only a matter of time before life is discovered beyond earth.

    which conclusion best harmonizes with known facts?

    Well evolution has been proven by millions of empirical facts and creationism rests on an ancient book.

    Most doctors don’t accept evolutionary biology

    Was that poll done in Iran?

  • Perry


    You do realize that many genes and traits are dormant, turned off, or otherwise not expressed; but still present in the Genome of individuals?

    What was there to prevent God from flipping a few switches when fashioning Eve from Adam's rib, or even rearranging expressive genes from the complete genome that was already available from Adam? All I'm saying is that cloning does not follow the premise of an Eve-from-Adam scenario where Adam's genome was packed with all the diversity God wanted.

    Nipples: During the first several weeks, male and female embryos follow the same blueprint, which includes the development of nipples. However, at about six weeks of gestation, a gene on the Y chromosome induces changes that lead to the development of the testes, the organ that makes and stores sperm and produces testosterone, according to the book "Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter?" (National Academies Press, 2001).

    After the testes are formed, the male fetus begins producing testosterone at about nine weeks of gestation, changing the genetic activity of cells in the genitals and brain. But by then, those nipples aren't going anywhere.

    Additionally, a single chest design may make the genetic code simpler, more efficient, and less prone to error. Nipples are also an aid to sexual pleasure. Men and women have the same number of nerve endings in this location. God’s design of the human body is wise beyond imagination (Psalm 139:14).

    The fact that males may carry some undeveloped "female" traits and females may have some undeveloped "male" traits like undeveloped sperm ducts behind their ovaries is not surprising to me since the cell groupings for the sex organs for both sexes start out the same.

    Are you suggesting that this is evidence of evolution? If so, how? I don't see the connection.

  • cofty
    Adam's genome was packed with all the diversity God wanted - Perry

    Including the fusion of chromosome 2 formed from 2 primate chromosomes?

    Including millions of parasitic ALU elements?

    Including broken genes like those for synthesising vitamin C?

    Including ERVs?

    Including the genes for making egg yolk?

    Including broken olfactory genes?

  • doubtfull1799


    Um, doesn't the Genesis account claim that God created the sun and moon in the upper atmosphere between two layers of water, the water on the earth and another layer in the upper atmosphere?

    Gen 1:6,7 - Gen 1:14

  • slimboyfat
    Was that poll done in Iran?

    Why choose Iran? Just a generic, backward, Muslim country? Bad choice. Iranian education of evolution is equal to European countries:

    In Iran, evolution is an important part of the K-12 biology curriculum. The standard Iranian text book in biology at the high-school level has been analyzed by Elise Burton who writes: “The evolution chapter, divided into three sections, provides a comprehensive introduction to the development of evolutionary theory, with the first section devoted primarily to Darwin and his influences and culminating in the formulation of the new synthesis; the second section to evidence of evolution, including paleontology, molecular and structural homology, and embryology, with discussion of evolutionary rates and punctuated equilibrium; and the third section to examples of natural selection, such as peppered moths and the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant on Darwin’s finches (3)”. The high-school curriculum in evolution in Iran appears to be at par with the education in most countries in Europe, the Americas, and East Asia.

  • slimboyfat

    Evolution is not only compatible with belief in God, in fact Alvin Plantinga makes a strong argument that evolution is evidence for God. The argument is complicated but quite compelling when you really think about it.

  • waton
    "--strong argument that evolution is evidence for God--." slbf

    Enjoyed that laid back argumentation. Thank you.

    In my opinion, even guided evolution would require an intervention of the creator, Newton style, but

    It is a greater difficulty, a greater credit to start up a universe in spacetime, mattertime, and have everything already in the package, the laws, direction, energy to allow for the abiogenesis, and then evolutionary process to fire up and lead to us, who are able, working to understanding it all.

    The existence of evolution does not negate the existence of a creator. au contraire.

  • slimboyfat

    I find Alvin Plantinga to be very reasonable, much more reasonable and logical than new atheists like Dawkins and Dennett. In that video Plantinga basically argued that evolution and belief in God are compatible, but he makes a stronger argument that evolution contradicts atheistic naturalism and supports belief in God.

  • cofty

    More than 99% of the species that have ever lived went extinct even before humans appeared.

    On five occasions most of life was wiped out by random catastrophes.

    Evolution is the most wasteful process imaginable, perfectly 'designed' to maximise suffering.

    Evolution is not compatible with the idea of a loving creator.

Share this