Heresy within Christianity

[Yehren]

I understand, but that's what is in school text books to show how man evolved from apes,

I review science textbooks from time to time. The only time I've seen that presented was as an example of a discredited idea. What textbook used in the last 40 years has that as an example of human evolution? What have you got?

 

[Paul Christensen]

I review science textbooks from time to time. The only time I've seen that presented was as an example of a discredited idea. What textbook used in the last 40 years has that as an example of human evolution? What have you got?

You've got the drop on me there! I haven't seen one since the 1980s.

 

[Paul Christensen]

I review science textbooks from time to time. The only time I've seen that presented was as an example of a discredited idea. What textbook used in the last 40 years has that as an example of human evolution? What have you got?

Just to change the subject in a separate post, I am interested in your answer to this one:

If there is no literal Adam and Eve, garden, and talking snake, why did Jesus Christ come and die on the cross?

 

[Yehren]

If your picture reflect the true evolution of man, then how is genetic code added to enable the evolution to a higher form of primate, and eventually human, when actual genetics drops parts of genetic code off?

Genetics also adds genes. This happens by gene duplication, followed by mutation, as well as by mutation of non-coding DNA. Would you like to learn how it works?

This is shown in closed communities with limited genetic variation eventually producing deformed offspring because too much of the code is gone?

No. Someone misled you about that. Marriage of close relatives greatly increases the likelihood of harmful recessives. Some animal populations do inbreed as a normal thing, and natural selection has largely removed harmful recessives (genes in which two copies must be present to harm the organism) from the population genome. It has nothing to do with losing much of the code.

Also, why are all these stages of human evolution not found in the fossil records,

They are. There are many, many fossil hominins in evidence. H. erectus, for example, changed greatly over its time, the late examples look very much like archaic H. sapiens. What stage of evolution of humans do you think is missing?

 

[Yehren]

You've got the drop on me there! I haven't seen one since the 1980s.

I'll take that one. What was the name and publisher?

 

[Paul Christensen]

Genetics also adds genes. This happens by gene duplication, followed by mutation, as well as by mutation of non-coding DNA. Would you like to learn how it works?



No. Someone misled you about that. Marriage of close relatives greatly increases the likelihood of harmful recessives. Some animal populations do inbreed as a normal thing, and natural selection has largely removed harmful recessives (genes in which two copies must be present to harm the organism) from the population genome. It has nothing to do with losing much of the code.



They are. There are many, many fossil hominins in evidence. H. erectus, for example, changed greatly over its time, the late examples look very much like archaic H. sapiens. What stage of evolution of humans do you think is missing?

I am probably at a disadvantage, because you appear to be better qualified than I am in the areas of our discussion, so I am learning much more from you than you from me. So, yes. I am interested in further information, and you can be assured that my questions and opinions from my literal Biblical foundation will continue to be respectful.

 

[Yehren]

But a Southern Wright whale can develop over time into a Sperm Whale because it is the same kind with the same set of genes.

No. The Odontocetes are an entirely different parvorder of whales from the Mysticeti. You might as well expect a dog to become a cat.

 

[Paul Christensen]

I'll take that one. What was the name and publisher?

Wow! I'm 72 years old. I can't remember back that far!
When I was a teacher I taught Economics, English, and Typewriting (this is why I can type posts at a million words a minute!). And I never got around to having debates about creation and evolution in those days.

 

[Yehren]

So, yes. I am interested in further information, and you can be assured that my questions and opinions from my literal Biblical foundation will continue to be respectful.

Sure. And I see that in your replies. I'm excessively blunt, and I value bluntness in others. So you're fine.

New genes often occur by gene duplication:

J Genet. 2013 Apr;92(1):155-61.
Gene duplication as a major force in evolution.
Magadum S1, Banerjee U, Murugan P, Gangapur D, Ravikesavan R.
Author information
Abstract
Gene duplication is an important mechanism for acquiring new genes and creating genetic novelty in organisms. Many new gene functions have evolved through gene duplication and it has contributed tremendously to the evolution of developmental programmes in various organisms. Gene duplication can result from unequal crossing over, retroposition or chromosomal (or genome) duplication. Understanding the mechanisms that generate duplicate gene copies and the subsequent dynamics among gene duplicates is vital because these investigations shed light on localized and genomewide aspects of evolutionary forces shaping intra-specific and inter-specific genome contents, evolutionary relationships, and interactions. Based on whole-genome analysis of Arabidopsis thaliana, there is compelling evidence that angiosperms underwent two whole-genome duplication events early during their evolutionary history. Recent studies have shown that these events were crucial for creation of many important developmental and regulatory genes found in extant angiosperm genomes. Recent studies also provide strong indications that even yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), with its compact genome, is in fact an ancient tetraploid. Gene duplication can provide new genetic material for mutation, drift and selection to act upon, the result of which is specialized or new gene functions. Without gene duplication the plasticity of a genome or species in adapting to changing environments would be severely limited. Whether a duplicate is retained depends upon its function, its mode of duplication, (i.e. whether it was duplicated during a whole-genome duplication event), the species in which it occurs, and its expression rate. The exaptation of preexisting secondary functions is an important feature in gene evolution, just as it is in morphological evolution.

Exaptation: How Evolution Uses What's Available
Exaptation: How Evolution Uses What’s Available | Live Science

 

[Paul Christensen]

No. The Odontocetes are an entirely different parvorder of whales from the Mysticeti. You might as well expect a dog to become a cat.

Wow! You got the drop on me there too!

I know how to turn a dead dog into a cat. Put it in the freezer until it is frozen solid, then put a chainsaw through it, and it goes, "Meeeeooooowww"!

 

[Yehren]

But mutation of non-coding DNA can work, too:

A team led by scientists from the University of Chicago (UChicago) has published a study (“Rapid evolution of protein diversity by de novo origination in Oryza“) in Nature Ecology and Evolution that challenges one of the classic assumptions about how new proteins evolve. The research shows that random, noncoding sections of DNA can quickly evolve to produce new proteins. These de novo, or from scratch, genes provide a new, unexplored way that proteins evolve and contribute to biodiversity, according to the scientists.

“Using a big genome comparison, we show that noncoding sequences can evolve into completely novel proteins. That’s a huge discovery,” said Manyuan Long, PhD, the Edna K. Papazian distinguished service professor of ecology and evolution at UChicago and senior author of the new study.
Random Non-Coding DNA Can Quickly Evolve to Produce New Proteins

 

[Paul Christensen]

Sure. And I see that in your replies. I'm excessively blunt, and I value bluntness in others. So you're fine.

New genes often occur by gene duplication:

J Genet. 2013 Apr;92(1):155-61.
Gene duplication as a major force in evolution.
Magadum S1, Banerjee U, Murugan P, Gangapur D, Ravikesavan R.
Author information
Abstract
Gene duplication is an important mechanism for acquiring new genes and creating genetic novelty in organisms. Many new gene functions have evolved through gene duplication and it has contributed tremendously to the evolution of developmental programmes in various organisms. Gene duplication can result from unequal crossing over, retroposition or chromosomal (or genome) duplication. Understanding the mechanisms that generate duplicate gene copies and the subsequent dynamics among gene duplicates is vital because these investigations shed light on localized and genomewide aspects of evolutionary forces shaping intra-specific and inter-specific genome contents, evolutionary relationships, and interactions. Based on whole-genome analysis of Arabidopsis thaliana, there is compelling evidence that angiosperms underwent two whole-genome duplication events early during their evolutionary history. Recent studies have shown that these events were crucial for creation of many important developmental and regulatory genes found in extant angiosperm genomes. Recent studies also provide strong indications that even yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), with its compact genome, is in fact an ancient tetraploid. Gene duplication can provide new genetic material for mutation, drift and selection to act upon, the result of which is specialized or new gene functions. Without gene duplication the plasticity of a genome or species in adapting to changing environments would be severely limited. Whether a duplicate is retained depends upon its function, its mode of duplication, (i.e. whether it was duplicated during a whole-genome duplication event), the species in which it occurs, and its expression rate. The exaptation of preexisting secondary functions is an important feature in gene evolution, just as it is in morphological evolution.

Exaptation: How Evolution Uses What's Available
Exaptation: How Evolution Uses What’s Available | Live Science

Yes. New Zealanders and Australians tend to be blunt as well.

Wow! I'm blinded by science. You know what you are talking about and I can't argue with what you have said, although some of your long words were the same as my doctor's when he gave me a diagnosis, and I told him that he was speaking in tongues and I would try those words in church next Sunday!

I am realising why I was banned for the ChristianForums site for three months. The staff there are mainly from the USA or the UK, and they may not understand the New Zealand direct way of expressing thoughts and opinions.

I heard a good example of this when an Australian had an exchange student staying with him and his wife, and they had a small baby. He asked the girl to nurse the baby while he went and did something else. She was horrified, so he told he he would nurse the baby himself. She was even more horrified. What he learned that the American meaning for 'nurse' is to breastfeed the baby! While the Australian meaning was to hold the child. When he was in the USA he told that story and a person said, "What do you say instead of nurse when your wife breastfeeds the baby?" He replied, "We say 'breastfeed' because that is what it is. We Australians say things as they are".

UK people are very polite in their language. They would say, "Wouldn't you like to consider having cornflakes for breakfast? While a German, meaning the same thing, would say, "Have cornflakes for breakfast!" It is because there are no polite words in German. It is not that they are being deliberately abrupt.

Compare:
"Actung! You vill close ze door because you verent born in ze tent!"
and
"I'm sorry, but would you mind closing the door, just to give the impression that one is not born in a tent."

That shows the difference between cultures.

I just thought I'd include that bit of information for interest and add a bit of lightness to our conversaton.

 

[Yehren]

I've been married over 50 years to a Connecticut Yankee. They say what they think. It's why I fell in love with her. My first class in college, she was in the front row, when the grad student teaching the class tried to embarrass her. It was a mistake he never repeated. And I thought "hey, I like that!"

If you would like me to define anything I've mentioned, or a a translation of the abstract, I'd be pleased to do so.

The most tactful English-speaking people (as a group; there are exceptions) have to be the Canadians. And because they live next door to us (I suppose) they tend to be tolerant of people who aren't tactful.

 

[Brakelite]

I am probably at a disadvantage, because you appear to be better qualified than I am in the areas of our discussion, so I am learning much more from you than you from me. So, yes. I am interested in further information, and you can be assured that my questions and opinions from my literal Biblical foundation will continue to be respectful.

All I can say is that I agree with your literal trust in God's word...a literal 6 day creation in literal 24 hour periods. This was confirmed at Sinai when Jesus gave to Moses the stone tablets. Can you imagine Moses'reaction to the fourth commandment if creation as he had recounted it in Genesis was anything other than literal,? If Moses considered what he wrote in Genesis was metaphorical that makes the fourth commandment a complete sham. Which is why we celebrate the Sabbath as a monument to the Creator... As well as a sign of redemption.

Now that said, I refuse to be blindsided by a heap of fancy words that deny Genesis. Otherwise we might accept any fancy theory to discount any progress on of scripture... Sorry, but science so called ought never to trump Gods word.

 

[Paul Christensen]

I've been married over 50 years to a Connecticut Yankee. They say what they think. It's why I fell in love with her. My first class in college, she was in the front row, when the grad student teaching the class tried to embarrass her. It was a mistake he never repeated. And I thought "hey, I like that!"

If you would like me to define anything I've mentioned, or a a translation of the abstract, I'd be pleased to do so.

The most tactful English-speaking people (as a group; there are exceptions) have to be the Canadians. And because they live next door to us (I suppose) they tend to be tolerant of people who aren't tactful.

Calling a spade a spade is a good thing. I know of a guy called Doug who had a spade, and when they took it off him, he became Douglas!

 

[Brakelite]

Calling a spade a spade is a good thing. I know of a guy called Doug who had a spade, and when they took it off him, he became Douglas!

I do think though a lot of people misunderstand us kiwis because they cannot understand our understated sense of humor.

 

[Paul Christensen]

All I can say is that I agree with your literal trust in God's word...a literal 6 day creation in literal 24 hour periods. This was confirmed at Sinai when Jesus gave to Moses the stone tablets. Can you imagine Moses'reaction to the fourth commandment if creation as he had recounted it in Genesis was anything other than literal,? If Moses considered what he wrote in Genesis was metaphorical that makes the fourth commandment a complete sham. Which is why we celebrate the Sabbath as a monument to the Creator... As well as a sign of redemption.

Now that said, I refuse to be blindsided by a heap of fancy words that deny Genesis. Otherwise we might accept any fancy theory to discount any progress on of scripture... Sorry, but science so called ought never to trump Gods word.

This shows that we are on the same foundation - the Bible!

 

[Paul Christensen]

I do think though a lot of people misunderstand us kiwis because they cannot understand our understated sense of humor.

True. We are brainwashed! Our gumboots get full of water!

 

[Paul Christensen]

I do think though a lot of people misunderstand us kiwis because they cannot understand our understated sense of humor.

If you and I went over the Japan and tried our jokes on them, they would not laugh because of their different culture they would not be able to understand them!

Culture is one reason why I laugh at Northern English stand up comedians (when they keep away from filth and four letter words) when I don't find American humour all that funny.

Except Stephen Wright and the movie "Airplane"!

 

[Yehren]

I do think though a lot of people misunderstand us kiwis because they cannot understand our understated sense of humor.

In WWII, in Italy, the 2nd New Zealand was moving past my dad's unit. Just to be a jerk, one of his friends shouted a rude suggestion about the King. As a truck passed, one of the Kiwis shouted "...and the Queen!"