|
Name: jesusman •
Title: Creation Vs Evolution Part II •
Date posted: 03/06/07 17:10
|
Q: First of all for everything you have and are is a gift from your parents and before them their parents... etc from your friends etc...
Evolution says something new can arrise from something not given or not obtained.
Where is the truth in that...
I know most people grow up and say we'll I'm growing so why not growing evolution.
Simply because like I said everything we are is given.
Take Good Care
Love RIchard
|
|
|
|
Name: jesusman •
Date: 03/06/07 18:08 |
A: So let's put this all together... first we have the ability to speak an abundant language (which is subtle although our joy in our words prove that the ability is substance)
we cannot be more then what is given or obtained which tells us GIFTS OF ABILITIES are given
and finally to bring truth to space dust as our source we have the ABILITY to scupt or mold our words with our tongues like the scupture of David... long live the king
Love Richard
|
|
Name: NormDoering •
Date: 03/06/07 18:33 |
A: Yep, that's the evolutionary algorithm:
http://www.cs.sandia.gov/opt-/survey/ea.html
http://www.geatbx.com/d-ocu/algindex.html
http://www.doc.ic.ac.-uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol4/tcw2/rep-ort.html
http://normdoering.blogspot.-com/-
|
|
Name: jesusman •
Date: 03/06/07 19:24 |
A: I went to your one website that works from the three given...
This is an easy proof... something different cannot spring from what has been given or obtained!
We grow up as the manifestation of the ability to grow!
What you find I believe is more then what you see!
Follow the easy proof... you cannot bring forth something different then what you have obtained or been given!
We have the ability to manifest joy... we have the ability to sculpt language out of the joy we manifest.
Follow the proof carefully!
Love Richard
|
|
Name: slyfoxx •
Date: 03/06/07 19:34 |
|
A: Hey Richard. I have a question.....if you stand by your theory of nothing can arise from something not given can you explain to me why it is that strains of viruses that have been around for millions of years are suddenly mutating and jumping to different strains??? Can you explain how once we had 2 strains of something and now we have a billion. It is evolving....changing. sometimes we might not have all the answers to every question.....and i believe its a good thing we don't!!!
|
|
Name: jesusman •
Date: 03/06/07 19:36 |
A: Let me rephrase this... you cannot create something in which you do not have the ability to create.
Jesus said we are like fountains and that the issues of our lives are in our hearts and by the overflow our mouths speak!
God has the ability to create Spirit by his Love!
Love Richard
|
|
Name: slyfoxx •
Date: 03/06/07 19:53 |
A: Ya know its funny....you are constantly talking and quoting but yet still saying nothing. you have not answered anything. People might be more apt to listen if you actually stopped talking in circles and made a valid point. However in saying this....most people who can't answer a question generally do answer in scripture or some drivel to make it look like a point has been made.
As far as rephrasing.....even the rephrase made no sense. Sinlge celled organisms are constantly changing...evolving....and mutating into something new. If something this small can do this all on its own THAT proves evolution.
|
|
Name: jesusman •
Date: 03/06/07 19:59 |
|
A: What don't you understand?
|
|
Name: jesusman •
Date: 03/06/07 20:04 |
A: the reason there is change is because when life interacts with other life then abilities are learned not to mention when God speaks to our hearts!
Love Richard
|
|
Name: jesusman •
Date: 03/06/07 20:29 |
A: as for if you isolate one lifeform and it does gain an ability
100% that there was some interaction
God Loves All
Take Good Care,
Richard
|
|
Name: slyfoxx •
Date: 03/06/07 20:43 |
|
A: Abilities are learned.....so we evolve.
|
|
Name: jesusman •
Date: 03/06/07 21:13 |
A: we learn new abilities from other people's abilities not to mention the Lord working in your life to help you find us abundant life
if you desire to call that evolution so be it
Love Richard
|
|
Name: jesusman •
Date: 03/06/07 21:14 |
A: plus learning is an ability
God Bless You
Love Richard
|
|
Name: slyfoxx •
Date: 03/06/07 21:28 |
A: I think thats an insult to the human race to say that every goal or ability or accomplishment is because of God. I gave my DD life but her abilities and the such weren't all learned from me or her father. Don't take away her accomplishments or anyone elses for that matter. Some people have to work very hard to meet goals and others not so much......humans are capable of wonderful things on their own. They don't need a God nudging them along. Its irritating that when something wonderful happens it was God willing and when something awful happens it was evil......
why can't it be "just life"
|
|
Name: pat440 •
Date: 03/06/07 21:35 |
A: Hey slyfoxx
Let's talk about life.
|
|
Name: slyfoxx •
Date: 03/06/07 21:36 |
|
A: Ok....Pat
|
|
Name: jesusman •
Date: 03/06/07 21:36 |
A: I"m not here to tell you you cannot accomplish although I'm telling you we accomplish things by what we have and that what good we have is a gift of God. For it is up to you what you decide what to do with your abilities and we can have an abundant life learning from one another.
I suggest that you leave the door open for God to work in your life for he even said we will do greater things then his Son Jesus Christ.
I agree it is life as you experience it although if you dig for the truth or seek it or one prayer to know it... you will not be dissapointed.
I owe everything to God... that is everything God I choose to say you started it all and I"m giving you all the credit by my CHOICE.
take care
Love Richard
|
|
Name: slyfoxx •
Date: 03/06/07 21:40 |
|
A: I'm happy for you Richard. Everyone needs something to believe in. However I'm Pagan, not a Christian. I believe in a God and a Goddess. My life is very full and complete. i have a wonderful fmaily that I'm thanksful for everyday. I have a wonderful and loving husband and i believe in everything we share and then some.
|
|
Name: pat440 •
Date: 03/06/07 21:41 |
|
A: So slyfoxx, let's say evolution is true where does that leave us!
|
|
Name: slyfoxx •
Date: 03/06/07 21:46 |
|
A: What do you mean where does it leave us??
|
|
Name: pat440 •
Date: 03/06/07 21:49 |
A: slyfoxx,
What I mean is so we are here on this earth for maybe 50, 60, 70, 80 years and that's it.
|
|
Name: slyfoxx •
Date: 03/06/07 21:51 |
|
A: No....I don't believe that. I beleive in reincarnation but thats another topic.
|
|
Name: pat440 •
Date: 03/06/07 21:53 |
A: slyfoxx,
Well, let's talk about reincarnation, do you believe evolution supports reincarnation?
|
|
Name: slyfoxx •
Date: 03/06/07 21:56 |
|
A: I don't believe it doesn't support it...
|
|
Name: pat440 •
Date: 03/06/07 21:58 |
|
A: OK, correct me if I'm wrong and I may be, seriously, do you believe in both evolution and reincarnation?
|
|
Name: slyfoxx •
Date: 03/06/07 22:00 |
|
A: Yes I do. No correction needed
|
|
Name: pat440 •
Date: 03/06/07 22:03 |
|
A: Can you explain to me how evolution has no effect on reincarnation?
|
|
Name: slyfoxx •
Date: 03/06/07 22:04 |
|
A: I never said there wasn't an effect....what is it you're getting at??? One doesn't have to exist or not exist for the other to be true.
|
|
Name: pat440 •
Date: 03/06/07 22:08 |
|
A: What I'm trying to find out is, you admit you reject the beliefs of Christianity, and I'm assuming because you believe evolution refutes the beliefs of Christianity, but you accept reincarnation which is an idea taught by another religion, correct?
|
|
Name: pat440 •
Date: 03/06/07 22:09 |
A: hey slyfoxx,
Can we continue this conversation later. My daughter just came home from school.
|
|
Name: slyfoxx •
Date: 03/06/07 22:13 |
|
A: What religion would that be Pat?? I never said evolution refuted the Christian beliefs. I just don't believe Adam and Eve started all of mankind....and if they did....incest took place. As far as Christian beliefs....I don't reject them nor do I judge someone for having those beliefs. they just aren't mine.
|
|
Name: slyfoxx •
Date: 03/06/07 22:14 |
|
A: No problem Pat....maybe then I'll understand your line of questioning!!!
|
|
Name: jesusman •
Date: 03/06/07 22:23 |
A: haven't you guys read what I"ve typed?
Love Richard
|
|
Name: roy •
Date: 04/02/07 23:42 |
A: Here is marriage of both creation and evolution.
There is a prestigious and welknown professor in Turkiye, who claims almost same theory with you.
Prof Dr. Hüseyin Hatemi (Ph.D) Law,
[email protected]
He has written a booklet “Duanin Anlami” ( Meaning of Prayer) where he describes the creation of human being as a result of evolution and God‘s intervention to it by sending Prophet Adam and Eve, in September 5594 BC. According to their theory, Evolution has been coming till the era while some human-like animals were on the planet. God sent Adam and Eve to the world, their children got married to the already living species, has made up different races and made todays societies. It may also solve positively believers problem that in this case there was no “incest “ between the children, took place at the early stages of human kind.
1000 years after Prophet Adam, Prophet Noah has survived the big flood which was for punishment of those with idolatries. Around 1600 BC. Prophet Abraham was sent, his sons Isiac, Eshmail and several prophets from their generations followed him. Abraham has built the Sacred Kaba at Mecca today. 1300-1230 BC. Was the era of Prophet Moses. More than 1000 years later Prophet Jesus Christ has arrived. At year of 569 AD. Prophet Mohammed was born.
Over 3 millions of muslims gather each year at the pilgrimage ceremony near Mecca at Mount Arafat on Zilhicce 9 (Arabic Calendar~lunar ) (Date changes according to our Calendar every year) . Arafat is at 15 miles South east of Mecca. They believe it is the point where Prophet Adam and Eve were sent to earth after discharged from heaven. (see: photos)
http://www.bible.ca/islam/is-lam-arafat-panorama.jpg
Her-e- is a scientist claims the earth has met with human being by intervention of God in recent past (in last 10.000 years suits to theological scriptures) in comparison with the age of earth 400 billions of years.
Director of National Human Genome reseach institute ( genome.gov) NHGRI Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
(Please take away hyphens if appears at below link)
http://www.time.com/time/magazi-ne/article/0,9171,1211593,00.html
Did- Collins think it possible that all species are products of evolution--except for humanity, which God created separately? "Based on everything we know," the young man asked, "would that tie together evolution and [a literal reading of the Bible] and make room for God to intervene?"
Collins showed no surprise that a star scholar poised to contribute to the future of medicine should entertain the idea that evolution might not apply to humans.
Collins, that rarest of raritiesa superstar evangelical biologist and author of the new book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press; 304 pages), was perfectly qualified to answer. He did. That notion "gets you into a series of real problems," he replied. He sketched one out: the human genome contains nonfunctional elements in the precise spot where they can be found on the chromosomes of lower animals. If God was creating humans afresh, Collins asked, "why would he insert a pseudo-gene that has lost its ability to do anything in the same place that it appears in a chimp?" Barring evolution, "you're forced to the conclusion that God was trying to mislead us and test our faith--and I have trouble with that kind of conjecture."
There are the vocal proponents of creationism and intelligent design . Then there are academic atheists who claim increasingly aggressively that science is in the process of proving religion a delusion. Collins, however, has both the standing and the desire to promote a third way. "We haven't heard very much about the way these views can be rendered into a very satisfying harmony. And I do hope that both camps are a potential audience for what I have to say."
"Science is the only reliable way to understand the natural world [but] is powerless to answer questions such as 'what is the meaning of human existence'--but he tracks it to a different conclusion. "We need to bring all the power of both scientific and spiritual perspectives to bear on understanding what is both seen and unseen," he writes, maintaining that those perspectives "not only can coexist within one person, but can do so in a fashion that enriches and enlightens the human experience."
Collins investigated faith on his own methodical terms. Finally, one morning in 1978, while hiking in the Pacific Cascades, he came upon a massive, frozen, three-stream waterfall. To him it recalled the Trinity. He writes, "I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ."
Reconciling his belief with his service to genetics proved easier for him than for many of his colleagues. Upon discovering the fibrosis flaw, he remembers feeling that "God had rained down his blessing." he says, "I've found myself the sole person saying faith was relevant" to science.
Although he does not believe God is rationally provable, he thinks that natural phenomena--such as the development of conditions favoring life on earth in the face of incredible odds--point toward the divine.
he provides a pocket description of his preferred synthesis of evolution with Christianity, which he calls BioLogos but which has a previous history under the name theistic evolution. Collins' version sees God as having preplanned the process of mutation and selection at time's beginning, knowing it would produce humanity.Collins, on the other hand, thinks the whole point was for God to create a being with whom he could develop an ongoing relationship through prayer, Scripture and what the scientist cheerfully acknowledges as a scientifically inexplicable "divine invasion of the natural world" in the saving person of Jesus Christ.
"I don't think God intended Genesis to teach science," he says, arguing that "the evidence in favor of evolution is utterly compelling."
|
|
Name: jsm •
Date: 04/03/07 3:41 |
A: Roy,
"The human genome contains nonfunctional elements in the precise spot where they can be found on the chromosomes of lower animals. If God was creating humans afresh, Collins asked, "why would he insert a pseudo-gene that has lost its ability to do anything in the same place that it appears in a chimp?""
Its called the second law of thermodynamics. When God created us we were perfect beings (genetically perfect), and since then we have been loosing genetic information (entropy). The loss of information doesn't have anything to do with macro-evolution, it has everything to do with micro-evolution / genetic variation. A Wolf can be breed into a chiwawa, but a chiwawa can never be breed into a wolf, because that would be gaining in information. A chiwawa is the result of genetic information lose. Adam was perfect, we are a lower breed of Adam, so it results in us having genetic lose through genetic variation and natural selection. He must have purchased his Ph.D off of Ebay. In fact we have never observed a gain in genetic information through beneficial mutations, the idea is propostrous, where is this information going to come from? Mutations alone must have original information to work with, which we have never observed a mutation that resulted in a gain in information and natural selection can only work with what is present.
|
|
Name: Mark-Tao •
Date: 04/04/07 21:17 |
A: When the bible was first writen, the words had no vowels. There were also no punctuation marks.
The bible itself is a good argument for evolution. The book we read today is divided into chapters and verses, and it uses vowels and punctuation marks. All those things were added over the years, as the book "evolved".
|
|
Name: roy •
Date: 04/05/07 12:41 |
A: Jsm ,
What you were talking about must be another rule of nature rather than this proven Genome research. If you claim that you know more than a professor and his team who is Director of National Human Genome reseach institute ( www.genome.gov) NHGRI Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
I am doubtful about your diploma rather than theirs.
I suggest study your homework better before going against truth, otherwise it won’t be destined any better than a patch of snow in sunshine.
|
|
Name: nothing_but_the_truth •
Date: 04/06/07 5:10 |
A: 'jesusman' wrote:
"you cannot bring forth something different then what you have obtained or been given"
How about combining pieces of different things into 'new' things? Take atoms (and sub-atomic particles) for instance: they are 'given' to us and they make up pretty much everything we see and experience on the physical level, but they can be rearranged to your heart's content (if only you have the tools and knowledge) and you might even succeed in creating something not known to exist before.
And creation doesn't necessarily exclude evolution, since the creation might have started what then evolved into the present.
But creation or no creation or evolution or whatever -- none of it still provides any kind of rational explanation to the problem of how space, time -- and existence -- came into existence! God created it? Ok, but from whence did he come from and how? He has always existed, ok... how the "#&/¤ is that possible? None of the answers make any sense. None whatsoever.
So the good christian says it is beyond our comprehension. I'm fine with not having an 'explanation' to everything, but it still makes no sense!
Perhaps we should just forget such questions and focus more on things we can comprehend and questions that can be answered.
|
|
Name: jsm •
Date: 04/07/07 2:28 |
A: Just a research paper I thought would be interesting to read pertaining to this discussion. Its on The Probability of Randomly Assembling a Primitive Cell on Earth. Take out any - if this site puts them into the url.
http://www.iscid.org/pape-rs/Mullan_PrimitiveCell_112302.pd-f-
|
|
Name: Anchorite •
Date: 04/07/07 19:00 |
A: On the subject of the overflow...
All information is generated where we choose to focus. The choice of focus is free. Our attention is like rain, our knowledge like mushrooms.
MOUNTAIN
Mountain at my door
Rocky step and secret spring
Bring to me a valley
Spell me everything
Moany peak
And babble glee
Have run their course with me
Your craggy breath
Has oft returned
My faithful words as though unheard
Has not your road
And twisty fold
Took my eager feet?
Share with me
Your labyrinth -
Whisper code complete
"Leave my depths,
My slabs and rocks,
Seek instead
Unbroken day
Yet remember me"
~Anchorite
|
|
Name: roy •
Date: 04/08/07 14:32 |
A: jsm,
The website link you mentioned is for professionals about the subject.
You may contact the following emails to ask yourself.
Mr Collins And Mr Hatemi who had the theories:
"Collins, Francis (NIH/NHGRI) [E]" [[email protected]]
[email protected]
|
|
Name: roy •
Date: 04/08/07 14:38 |
A: Anchorite,
Your intelligent words are most welcome.Pastoral poetry was extremely nice.
|
|
Name: roy •
Date: 04/08/07 14:45 |
A: I suggest websites at links :
Please take away hyphens-
http://islamic.gsfc.nasa.gov/d-ocs/Quran.pdf
http://www.whyislam.org/877-/-
|
|
Name: Anchorite •
Date: 04/10/07 2:06 |
A: Dear Roy,
Thank you for the links. I generally concur with the idea of "modesty of exploitation", that is to say, we can choose to go easy on the resources. I believe a destructive use of the environment is mostly due to greed, or competition.
Greed is fear of not having enough. Competition is fear of being vanquished. If fear could be removed, we could all gear down and take it easy AND be comfortable in our relations and in G-d.
I saw the section concerning mountains. I liked the part where they are supposed to be anchors. That is the intent of the poem. Which is to indicate we need solid understanding and must not neglect the source of our knowledge but at the same time be ever mindful of the eternal force behind it all.
Once again, I appreciate your input, it's great to feel heard.
Anchorite
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 04/10/07 18:10 |
|
A: Spirit binds the elements or there would be nothing but breathless chaotic discord.Evolution depends on the survival of the fittest and a combination of genetic traits.
|
|
Name: jsm •
Date: 04/11/07 2:48 |
A: Panluna,
Survival of the fittest and natural selection can be observed, the addition of new genetic information has never been.
|
|
Name: Anchorite •
Date: 04/11/07 3:49 |
A: To me, "survival of the fittest" is a statement that has a problem. What is fittest? Whatever survives. Who survives? Whoever is fit. Uh, what have we learned? Uh.
WHY do some survive and some not? It seems to me change can be driven by losers just as well as by winners. What if the weak are the ones who MUST change in order just to keep up, and the strong, by virtue of success, prefer to maintain the status quo? THAT could be termed "mutation of the unfit"!
I have a poem (again, LOL).
THE OCEAN
Ocean's course of liquid ways
Set the pace in olden days
Fleet of form the chaos stave
Ripple on the random wave
Sons and daughters of the water
Murmur words of muffled ardour
Gliding hulks and speedy clans
Swelling under Time's command
Losers finish on the shore
Calls to arm the muddy poor!
Now link your limbs and dance anon
Newborn children of the Sun
~Anchorite
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 04/11/07 19:00 |
A: Survival of the fittest means strenghth and intellegence and the ability to adapt or control one's environment.Sometimes Nature co-operates and sometimes Nature rocks and rules.Here in the great NW we are subject to all the elements can dish out as is everyone on the rest of the planet.
Genectic traits are repeated over and over again and once in a while something unseen for a while re-emerges.those are called recessive traits--like Albinoism in humans.I only took high school science but I'm sure the basic laws of existance haven't changed that much, maybe just explained differently now.
|
|
Name: roy •
Date: 04/13/07 13:49 |
|
A: I am sceptic about survival of the fittest, or natural selection aplies to human. We interfere with the fittest theorem by establishing law sytem, punishing the powerful if uses exess power unjustly. A rich mans weakling offspring may well marry a strong and beautiful woman. A nation which was defeated by a nuclear bomb may not be necessarily less fitted to live by the strong mankind. A comunity who are weak but may well be protected against powerful openents in just way.
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 04/13/07 17:07 |
A: Compassion a very strong human emotion is the reason why the weak that normally would not survive in the wild manages to survive in our societies.Humans are much more complicated than other species.It's our Intellect that elevates us to a higher level above our physical "animal-being" so that we can sometimes overcome circumstances and it enables us to manipulate our environment.We depend on our tools (clothing,utensils,matches,vehicles,buildings and weapons)for survival.The earliest human found--the one the scientists call 'Lucy" was the fossilized remains of the first humaniod who stood upright and depended on natural skills rather than tools for survivalHumans are classified as a mammal related to other primates and we have our own branch on the natural tree.It's a classification system used in science.You would find it in Natural History books. and museums.But when NATURE throws a temper tantrum----watch out.!!! Earthquakes,tidal waves,global warming,earth's orbit around our sun all the events we can't control.If we're lucky we survive them Irregardless of what tools we have.
If you are interested in an explanation for why humans continually do the same thing over and over again ,one of the books edited from the current bible but can be found in a book titled THE OTHER BIBLE is called the Book Of Enoch.There is a brief mention about Enoch And The Nephilim in the Old Testament but the whole story can be read in the above mentioned book.
Without our intellect we would be nothing more than"Lucy" or more than likely extinct after all we're part of the food chain,too
|
|
Name: CanuckChick •
Date: 04/13/07 17:40 |
A: Panluna:
Re Lucy............
From Bill Bryson's book "A Short History of Nearly Everything":
The most famous hominid remains in the world are those of a 3.18 million year old australopithecine found at Hadar in Ethiopia in 1974 by a team lead by Donald Johanson. Formally known as A.L. (for "Afar Locality") the skeleton became more familiarly known as Lucy, after the Beatles song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds." Johanson has never doubted her importance. "She is our earliest ancestor, the missing link between ape and human," he has said.
Lucy was tiny - just three and a half feet tall. She could walk, though how well is a matter of some dispute. She was evidently a good climber, too. Much else is unknown. Her skull was almost entirely missing, so little could be said with confidence about her brain size, though skull fragments suggested it was small. Most books describe Lucy's skeleton as being 40 percent complete, though some put it closer to half, and one produced by the American Museum of Natural History describes Lucy as two-thirds complete. The BBC television series "Ape Man" actually called it "a complete skeleton," even while showing that it was anything but.
A human body has 206 bones, but many of these are repeated. If you have the left femur from a specimen, you don't need the right to know its dimensions. Strip out al the redundant bones, and the total you are left with is 120 - what iscalled a half skeleton. Even by this fairly accommodating standard, and even counting the slightest fragment as a full bone, Lucy constituted only 28 percent of a half skeleton (and only about 20 percent of a full one).
In "The Wisdom of the Bones", Alan Walker recounts how he once asked Johanson how he had come up with a figure of 40 percent. Johanson breezily replied that he had discounted the 106 bones of the hands and feet - more than half the body's total, and a fairly important half, too, one would have thought, since Lucy's principal defining attribute was the use of those hands and feet to deal with a changing world. At all events, rather less is known about Lucy than is generally supposed. It isn't even actually known that she was a female. Her sex is merely presumed from her diminutive size.
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 04/13/07 18:01 |
A: @Canuckchick,
Thank you that information helped.I watched a program on the Discovery Channel (or was it PBS?) about the developement of our species.I wasn't sure if the name was Lucy but I took an educated guess at it.
|
|
Name: roy •
Date: 04/14/07 1:24 |
|
A: Panluna, Let call it not intellect, I call it soul, clear conscience. We human strive for bringing just to everything around us to be happy. Animals which live by the rules of natural selection has differ us from this point.
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 04/14/07 2:31 |
|
A: Roy,The soul is the spiritual side of ourselves.I believe in body,mind and spirit.The soul connects us with the Divine ,an aspect of the Cosmos we relate to.The intellect refers to our logical minds.Don't you think we are very complicated?Animals rely on instinct. We use intuition and education.And we still are pawns of the laws of nature.there is no getting around it.
|
|
Name: Shlomo •
Date: 04/14/07 6:38 |
|
A: What was before creation we are not to question per G_d. The people existing before were created with only two souls. Adam was given a third soul which increased intelligence. No one evolved from animals that is pure theoretical nonsense and insults G_d, which is probably the main motivating factor set forth by the evolutionist wackos.
|
|
Name: roy •
Date: 04/14/07 15:36 |
A: The soul (spirit) is very mysterious entity from the beginning, as the nature of itself.
WE HAVE LITTLE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT IT. THE IMPROVEMENTS ABOUT MENTAL ILLNESS IS ONLY A FRACTION, WHAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED IN ANATOMICAL PART OF MEDICINE.
17:85- They ask thee concerning the spirit (of inspiration). Say: the spirit (cometh) by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you, (O men)
SOUL IS ONE ATTRIBUTE OF GOD.THIS PRIVALED OF HUMAN MAKES IT RULING OVER UNIVERSAL POWERS AS WELL AS EARTH.
32:9 Then He fashioned him and breathed into him of His spirit; and appointed for you hearing and sight and hearts. Small thanks give ye!
ON RESURRECTION DAY THE DEAD WILL REUNITE WITH SOUL.
81:7And when souls are reunited
EVOLUTIONISTS: We muslims has no difficulty with this theorem except Mankind. Adam was sent directly from God on earth.
I have some reservations about completely ruling out the fact or evolution.
It is scientifically proven in animal, habitat that evolution is a fact.
AS TODAY SCIENCE PROVES FIRST CELL WAS EVOLVED FROM SEA OR LAKE . THE GROWING NUMBER OF SPECIES HAS PASSED TO EARTH LATER ON.
24:45- And Allah has created every animal from WATER: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills; for verily Allah has power over all things.
MAN ALSO HAS WATER BACKGROUND IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
25:54- It is He Who has created man from water: then has He established relationships of lineage and marriage: for thy Lord has power (over all things).
77:20 Did We not create you from a base fluidd
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 04/14/07 15:42 |
A: And from the Void came life.....then back to the Void when it ends.Early humans had no way to explain the miracle called Life or what happened in Death.Every culture has a creation myth that explains Origin.There is Creation and Evolution in the lifeforms of this world.Can science explain Spirit?---ions,neutrons,protons anything electrical that animates life.Earth contains all the elements on the Periodic charts,Water is H2O,Air has it's own elemental combination and can contain anything contaminating it.Fire is a conducting force that changes anything it touches and can be tamed or can destroy and was held in awe by early humans.Doctors will tell you the body shuts down in Death---but where does the Soul go?
How to explain the human element in relation to the Void?That's were each persons religious belief comes into play.I feel that since everything in this universe is interconnected then all its parts equal the sum of the whole.And anything is a possibility including UFO involvement with the origins and the developement of our species.The works of Zacharia Sitchin expounds this theory.
But out of due respect you can believe what you want.I'm still searching for answers.
|
|
Name: roy •
Date: 04/14/07 16:22 |
A: Do we have to produce a story whenever we dont understand something?This is what Zacharia Sitchin doing. imagination has no boundaries. Telling lies about the creation has no punishment except if book doesnt sell.
17:85 the spirit (cometh) by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you.
There will be no or minimal scientific development about spirit till doomsday.
UFO involvement may be transformed into angels sent to earth, evil army allowed to challenge them. Holy Spirit sent to create Jesus. Genes that existed in universe we dont see but described in holy books, many other
things that can give authors of books some inspiration.
Some matter that you can not explain in scientific terms is called UFO Unidentified Fliying Object.
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 04/14/07 18:35 |
A: Stories were invented to explain something that was unexplainable in scientic,rational terms.Human IQ is developed with education and wisdom developes from experiances as well as background influences.Early humans were like little children and the logical mind was underdeveloped.Spirit can be explained scientifically as an energy force(CHI) that flows continually and can be contained in a finite vessel like our bodies then released in death to continue somewhere else.(The only time I can't seem to find this energy is when I have alot to.HAHA) .As far as UFOs are concerned if I mention them again I will refer to them as ASTRAL-ALIENS or ASTRAL-BEINGS.And how do we know that they are or are not the Gods,Goddesses and Angels that the myths and legends are about?It seems apparent to me that their presence and guidance is still present in this world.How do you explain REAL miracles and WHO really performs them?
I have a degree in Para-psychology and I am ordained in the university of life.There are no dues or buildings or meetings the only requirement is a desire for world peace so our species can evolve and achieve a higher developement and a better world for the future and now to live in.
I can ask my Angel for guidance.
|
|
Name: Todd •
Date: 04/14/07 20:15 |
A: Given the time Genesis was written in can you imagine this dialogue…….
“well it’s really interesting what I did on the 1st day. I created the Double Helix. This gave DNA sequencing it’s punch.”
“you know I really thought the dinosaurs were going to turn out better than they did but once I worked out the bugs I realized that mammals were where it’s at.”
“I’m really pleased with the way natural selection has progressed. When I started with single cells in the primordial stew I was surprised how well things adapted and evolved.”
“you know before I created Adam and Eve I was working on an offshoot to the Neanderthal but got bored with it.”
Uh God what is DNA? We’re gonna have stew God, great I’m hungry.
Can you imagine trying to explain evolution, atoms, and DNA to a wandering mostly illiterate mass of people.
When I was on my search for the “What does it all mean” I got to a point where I said maybe science is the way God made the universe. That was His process. Maybe evolution was his process for the development of things on Earth. We just weren’t ready for the explanation back in the Genesis time period.
I like to think Adam and Eve were given awareness of a Higher Being and that’s where the starting point was for modern spiritual humans. We had evolved physically but Spiritually is where God needed to guide us to. There’s an awful lot of people who are spiritual in the world and most religions/societies deal with it in some shape or form throughout time.
To try and explain away the skulls of sub-species as birth defects and to try to explain the date of the Earth, to fit into the context of the Bible, seems to miss the point entirely.
Science and God are not at odds with each other…Scientists and Theologians are.
Todd
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 04/14/07 20:42 |
|
A: Thank you Todd the first part was a riot.I still haven't stopped laughing.Can you imagine what could happen if that is the way the Universal Mind thinks.Should we continue to pay tribute or should we keep asking Why Life exists and How does Life form?Is there are a meeting point between Theologists and Scientists?What dialogue could we use and what points can we make to bring about a happy medium of the two mindsets.Isn't there at least one point that proves that Spirit(energy) and Spirit(soul) are from the same source?And would showing intellegence please the Divine?Then the humanrace could be proud of its accomplishments and universal connections.
|
|
Name: Todd •
Date: 04/14/07 22:15 |
A: Panluna,
I’m glad I could bring some laughter into your day.
It seems to me there are some similarities in the “Universal Mind” . Most cultures have a creation story and a flood story. A majority of people worship/believe in something. We seem to have a need to communicate and express ideas with each other. Music and Art seem to be a common denominator. We still pack together in cities, towns and tribes all over the world.
I firmly believe we should keep asking questions. Look at how far our understanding and humankind has come. We’re not perfect but we couldn’t even discuss these topics a couple hundred years ago.
To me Theologians and Scientists are so caught in proving who’s wrong and who’s right no one sees or appreciates the similarities we all share. I don’t think there is a dialogue between most of Academia and Religious Scholars. Maybe that’s the checks and balances.
Christians can’t agree on which religion works for them so they splintered in sub-sects. Muslims, Christians, and Jews have so many common denominators but can’t even find peace in the holy land. Yet they are all Monotheistic.
Maybe the human race needs the tension and strife in order to exists. No good without evil kind of thing.
Maybe we're still evolving.
Todd
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 04/14/07 22:59 |
A: Well put,Todd,
We were created to evolve.I wonder where we are headed and how much longer it will take.I could have been burned at the stake centuries ago for radical ideas that usurp the status quo.Science will just have to sit in its corner and contribute its advancement for the quality of living and the Theologians can sit in their corner and give advice for spiritual living.Each camp contributes to our advantages.Let's not look a gift horse in the mouth.
|
|
Name: jsm •
Date: 04/15/07 3:47 |
A: David Darling, Ph.D in astronomy
'What is a big deal, the biggest deal of all, is how you get something out of nothing. Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either. Despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. "In the beginning." they will say, "there was nothing, no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fuctuation from which..." Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats.'
Basically anything pertaining to life's origin is a theory. Whether its the theory of creation, or the theory of evolution. Both come down to faith. If one was proven, the other would cease to exist, but we still have both so it means that neither has proven their case. The reason I say both come down to faith is because we have no observable evidence, on one side we have the bible, and on the other side we have a bunch of theory's. Both taught as fact, while there is no evidence to back it up. There is no 100% way to prove god exists, or that the bible is completely right, but you can prove most of the authenticity of the bible by doing scientific research. Noah's ark, the global flood, age of the earth, etc... and on the other side, evolution. We have never observed it either, nothing has ever been proven with evolution either. The theory that beneficial mutations add new information to DNA thus propelling the specimen to evolve into something more complex has never been observed, we have never once observed mutations adding information to DNA, but that doesn't stop the scientists from keeping up the job of looking, but its faith that drives them, faith that one day they will find their evidence. The fossil record is taught as being the strong point of evolution, but its not, its actually the weakest point, because theres not one 100% documented transitional form to date, not one out of millions of fossils. Why do you think they keep looking? And as for the supposed human transitional forms, any honest evolutionist would tell you that theres not one thats true. National geographic will show you when they find one, but they wont tell you when a month later its been proven to be just a normal chimpanzee or gorilla. But they keep looking because they have faith that one day they will find their transitional form.
Both sides have had frauds, sometimes people believe in something so much that the science doesn't matter. How many people have claimed to find Noah's ark. Or the gentleman that found the fishing reel in the rock. Or the claims that giants bones have been found. Sometimes people want proof for something that takes faith.
Or on the evolution side, the many supposed transitional forms that have been present that are frauds, Piltdown man, Nebraska man, the Neanderthals, Haeckels embryo's that are still taught as fact when way back in the 50's it was proven a fraud that he faked his drawings, the misrepresentation of natural selection, most of evolution is really a theory, even down to star formation. Remember being taught in school about the stages that a star forms, that has never been observed once! its taught as fact, but has never been proven, we have never observed it.
And an article I posted in another forum will end my conversation for the night, its a good place to end it on star formation.
Hannes Alfaren (Nobel Prize Winner) Nasa, Gustaf Arrhenius (Evolution of the solar system)
"There is general belief that stars are forming by gravitational collapse, in spite of vigorous efforts no one has yet found and observational indicator of contraction. Thus the generally accepted theory of stellar formation may be one of a hundred "unsupported" dogmas which constitute a large part of present day astrophysics".
Charles Lada & Frank Shu (Both Ph.D in Astronomy) "The Formation of Sunlike Stars, Science
"Despite numerous efforts, we have yet to directly observe the process of stellar formation... The origin of stars represents one of the fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics".
Evolutionists say there are 100 billion galaxies in the universe.
(10^11)
Evolutionists say there are 200 billion stars per galaxy
(2x10^11)
Evolutionists say the universe is 20 billion years old, most say its around 13 billion years old, but we'll make it larger to help them.
(2x10^10
(100billion x 200billion) / 20 billion = 1 Trillion stars per year created, 2.7 billion stars per day, 31,700 stars per second, but we have yet to OBSERVE ONE!
|
|
Name: jsm •
Date: 04/15/07 4:23 |
A: An article I found interesting on the troubles found within cosmology.
#1 String at the breaking point:
As noted previously, (02/18/2007), string theory seems to be on trial for impersonating a science. What’s notable in a book review in The New Criterion, though, is that for a long time, it has been the only game in town – the only theory of fundamental physics under serious consideration to unify the large and small aspects of the universe. Martin Gardner called it a “messy” theory that is beginning to mimic the clumsy epicycles of Ptolemaic cosmology. The book he reviewed tells all: The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next by Lee Smolin. In this book, Smolin, a former believer in string theory, chides the “groupthink” atmosphere among the adherents as a “cultlike atmosphere in which those who disagree with the ideology are considered ignoramuses or fools.” Yet critics point to the fact that it makes no predictions and is little more than an elegant conjecture propped up with adjustments as needed.
#2 Ugly desperation:
Nature this week2 reported on a conference in London by cosmologists unsatisfied with current theory. It quotes Douglas Scott, one of the attendees: “There is a sense of desperation. The standard model is horribly ugly, but the data support it.” The ugliness stems largely from current big bang theory’s dependence on two imponderable substances, dark matter and dark energy. Even though WMAP measured the cosmic background radiation to high degrees of precision, invoking dark energy as an explanation is “a profound problem from the viewpoint of fundamental physics.” Can a horribly ugly model really be true, even if the data seem to support it? Attendees were encouraged to share their misgivings about the standard model. No consensus or alternative was forthcoming.
#3 My unlucky stars:
“When astronomers wish upon a star, they wish they knew more about how stars explode,” began Tom Siegfried in Science this week.3 “In particular, experts on the stellar explosions known as supernovae wonder whether textbook accounts tell the true story--especially for a popular probe of the universe’s history, the supernovae designated as type Ia.” He then shares some dirty secrets that should cause gasps among those who have loved modern cosmology but didn’t know how the sausage was made:
In fact, new observational surveys suggest that cosmic evidence based on type Ia supernovae rests on a less-than-secure theoretical foundation. “We put the theory in the textbooks because it sounds right. But we don’t really know it’s right, and I think people are beginning to worry,” says Robert Kirshner, a supernova researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “We keep saying the same thing, but the evidence for it doesn’t get better, and that’s a bad sign.”
The import of this can hardly be overstated. For the last decade, fundamental concepts about the age, expansion and acceleration of the universe have rested on the assumption the Type Ia supernovae are reliable standard candles.
Siegfried even invokes the imagery of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” to describe how cosmologists parade their theory without evidential support. Apparently not all Type Ia supernovae have the same brightness as formerly presumed, and may fall into two classes– as if the Type I vs II and Type I vs Ia distinctions were not upsets enough in the history of astronomy.
Even accepted models of how supernovae ignite are being questioned. One of the architects of the “accelerating universe” theory, Alex Filippenko (UC Berkeley), who based his conclusion on supernova measurements, calls the contradictory evidence “a very, very serious issue.” Siegfried ended with talk of “worrisome gaps in current textbooks accounts” that must be plugged, and how “answers to many critical questions remain elusive.”
#4 Faulty ladder:
Lower down in the cosmic distance-scale ladder, Cepheid variables are causing new worries. Robert Cowen wrote in the Christian Science Monitor if the universe might be 15% larger than earlier thought, based on recalibration of the variable stars first used as distance indicators by Henrietta Swan Leavitt. Cowen writes that astronomers need to heed Ronald Reagan’s advice, “Trust but verify.” Unfortunately, trusted values are not holding up. As one astronomer worried, “astronomers absolutely need to trust this number because we use it for countless calculations.” It underlies the crucial value of the Hubble constant as well as helps calibrate the Type Ia supernovae.
#5 Can darkness shed light?
The universe is getting darker, said the New York Times. Richard Panek didn’t mean to imply that there is more dark matter or dark energy than previously thought. He meant to question science’s ability to fathom the universe when it has to resort to imponderable substances. He feels science is going backwards by positing that most of the universe is unknown, and possibly even unknowable. His article rips current thinking that cosmology knows what it is talking about. What is dark energy? “The difficulty in answering that question has led some cosmologists to ask an even deeper question: Does dark energy even exist? Or is it perhaps an inference too far? Cosmologists have another saying they like to cite: ‘You get to invoke the tooth fairy only once,’ meaning dark matter, ‘but now we have to invoke the tooth fairy twice,’ meaning dark energy.” This is not sounding very scientific. It makes one wonder what new experiments like ESSENCE, searching for dark energy, will find: the essence of the universe in outer space, or the essence of human imagination in inner space.
#6 Glad to be here:
Again in the New York Times (April 12), an article questioned how the universe was able to survive the big bang. Kenneth Chang reported on a Fermilab test: “An experiment that some hoped would reveal a new class of subatomic particles, and perhaps even point to clues about why the universe exists at all, has instead produced a first round of results that are mysteriously inconclusive.” The impact on big bang theory: “The Standard Model has proved remarkably effective and accurate, but it cannot answer some fundamental questions, like why the universe did not completely annihilate itself an instant after the Big Bang.”
The problem is that the MiniBooNE, or mini-Booster Neutrino Experiment, did not provide evidence that neutrinos could keep the universe from collapsing: “The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago created equal amounts of matter and antimatter,” Chang asserts. “Since matter and antimatter annihilate each other when they come in contact, that would have left nothing to coalesce into stars and galaxies. There must be some imbalance in the laws of physics that led to a slight preponderance of matter over antimatter,” he continues. Presumably, “that extra bit of matter formed everything in the visible universe.”
Another new detector will also attempt to address the antimatter problem, reported Science Daily. The conundrum of why the universe contains so little antimatter is a long-known dark secret rarely discussed in the literature.
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 04/15/07 15:32 |
A: Well this Cosmologist just put on the old thinking cap and activated the Third Eye and has predicted a day of rest.I just might slip into my NOTHING phase... and do I create? or VEGITATE?Did I evolve or stagnate?What is the answer.......zzzzzz
the moon is in Aries if anyone wants to know.
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 04/15/07 21:40 |
A: Well Richard,the gift of life is the greatest gift and is not meant to be squandered.Its meant to be appreciated for the time each of has on this Earth.We have the capabilities to learn all languges but the most important one is learned in the home.If it wasn't for the Tower of Babel incident or separation by distance of the early tribes we would probably all speak the same language and believe in the same thing.Isolation aided the evolutionary process that created differences in cultures.
Creation can be proven in conception and birth .Evolution is the process of developement and can add improvements.Both theories can be applied to any aspect of life.
Here is an example;
According to the book of Enoch the fallen angels followed Lucifer to this world.They took unto them the daughters that were fair and created a new species,our current version of humans---we are considered the tenth order of angels even though our bodies are denser and are finite and our higher intellect and soul connects us to those cosmic spirit-beings. .Longevity in the Old Testament was based on the Earth's faster orbit around the Sun at that time and the early genectic matter inherited from the Nephelim who were wiped out in the ancient times-- or ..did they leave?. There are two sides to the God-and-Devil coin and Angels are included in every culture in some form or another even as Gods and Goddesses. They taught our ancesters many things which established the foundations for civilisation like survival using tools,laws to live by , animal husbandry ,building an abode for shelter instead of wandering aimlessly,the arts of war ,weaving ,music ,writing and Astrology.Ever wonder who taught our ancesters about the stars and the planets?Astrology is an age-old method that profiles our personalities and explains the moods of the day based on planetary positions which are set constantly in motion and are charted.And from Astrology evolved Astronomy and Psychology--two exact sciences with standards of measurement and responses that are relatively modern in use.I can look at the sky and know the chemical composition and orbit and position of each star and planet and still say "How beautiful Thou art" in appreciation of and for the creation of the Cosmos and it's constellation stories..Spirit binds and animates all in creation and at a higher level like a life force in constant motion.The angels' influences are still felt in this world and from time to time we get reminded of their presence.And it isn't all fate for us. We can make choices between doing good or bad.That's what free will is about.
To sum this up:without creation there would be nothing for evolution to improve.Gotta start somewhere.Look up at the stars tonight in wonder and appreciate the good Earth.Then thank the Angels who guide us.
|
|
Name: jsm •
Date: 04/16/07 1:00 |
A: Panluna,
After reading all that theoretical psychological babble that dulled my senses rather then enlighted them, do you have an input into the creation vs. evolution topic?
The only sentence I got that was note worthy was "without creation there would be nothing for evolution to improve." So I am assuming your a theistic creationist or evolutionist. Either way, the idea that evolution improves an organism is strictly theoretical. As of this point in time, there is no data to support the idea of beneficial mutations adding new improved information (or any information for that matter) to DNA. In a recent article published on PNAS, they discussed how beneficial mutations actually cause catastrophe within DNA.
Here is the article.
Mutation Rate Catastrophe: You Can’t Even Break Even
In a tortoise-and-hare kind of story, a team of geneticists figured out what happens when positive natural selection tries to outrun mutations: “mutation rate catastrophe.” Publishing in PNAS,1 they described how beneficial mutations might become established in a population rapidly (that’s the hare). Eventually (this is the tortoise), harmful mutations accumulate to the tipping point, and the population goes extinct.
The abstract begins with one of only two praises of natural selection (both qualified with reality checks):
The intricate adjustment of organisms to their environment demonstrates the effectiveness of natural selection. But Darwin himself recognized that certain biological features could limit this effectiveness, features that generally reduce the efficiency of natural selection or yield suboptimal adaptation. Genetic linkage is known to be one such feature, and here we show theoretically that it can introduce a more sinister flaw: when there is complete linkage between loci affecting fitness and loci affecting mutation rate, positive natural selection and recurrent mutation can drive mutation rates in an adapting population to intolerable levels.
The only other praise of natural selection was more of an insult. Calling it robust does not help it jump the high hurdles their model revealed. In a section called “How Genetic Linkage Can Subvert Natural Selection,” they spoke of it as a myopic fallen hero:
Our theoretical findings indicate that mutator hitchhiking can set in motion a self-reinforcing loss of replication fidelity, but the question of how a process as robust as natural selection could allow this to happen remains. The key fact is that natural selection, although eminently robust, is a short-sighted process that favors traits with immediate fitness benefits. The fitness cost of mutator hitchhiking is generally not anticipated because of the slow accumulation of deleterious load. When a mutator hitchhikes with a new beneficial mutation, a simple model shows that the increased deleterious load due to the mutator is in fact suppressed during the spread of the beneficial mutation. Indeed, the full fitness cost of the mutator is only realized well after the beneficial mutation has stopped spreading.... A mutator may therefore enjoy the immediate benefit of producing a new beneficial mutation without anticipating the eventual increase in deleterious load. Because of this delay in the accumulation of deleterious load, natural selection can drive mutation rate up to the point of no return....
Indeed, their graphs all show that the temporary, wobbly rises of evolutionary progress under the best of conditions all come crashing down suddenly in the end.
This particular study involved asexual, one-celled organisms. It was not purely theoretical, though. They stated that it is known that bad mutations “hitchhike” on the same genes with rare beneficial mutations. Fatal mutations, of course, kill the organism right off, but some bad mutations delay their harm, adding to the mutational load over time. Eventually, they catch up and, like the tortoise, win the race after the hare is pooped out.
Why don’t the beneficial mutations ever win? After all, they can spread rapidly in a population. The reason is that fitness is short-sighted. Natural selection cannot see down the road or have a goal. It can only act on the immediate consequences of a change. Harmful mutations, by contrast, are not necessarily weeded out immediately. Consider, for instance, a slightly damaged proofreading enzyme. It may not kill the organism right off the bat. Give it time, though, and the damage will add up – right after the beneficial mutation has reached equilibrium in the population. Their model shows that the mutation rate actually accelerates over time. Surprisingly, it is the very process of adaptation for fitness that accelerates the mutation rate – not just in bacteria, but in higher organisms, too:
There is almost certainly no physiological barrier to such an effect in most organisms: the genomic mutation rate in organisms from viruses to eukaryotes is a quantitative trait affected by many mutations whose effects can readily cumulate to intolerable levels of error. In what follows, we show that there need not be a selective barrier to this process either: because the full fitness effect of increased deleterious mutation takes some time to accumulate after a higher mutation rate has evolved, it is theoretically possible for a population to evolve a critically high mutation rate and subsequently go extinct.
The team tweaked the parameters of their mathematical model in various ways to try to get natural selection to make some headway. They used infinite populations and small populations. They used large and small genome sizes. All efforts yielded the same result: negative mutations eventually swamped any gains from positive natural selection. In cases of sustained “arms races,” like bacterial invaders vs. the immune system in mammals, the antagonists may struggle back and forth till both fall off the cliff.2 Surprisingly, the beneficial mutation itself may trigger the catastrophe. Under equilibrium conditions, mutations tend to accumulate slowly, especially if some error correction mechanism is present. A new beneficial mutation changes the rules. Now, the population is adapting to a new situation, and the model shows that mutation rate rises to the occasion.
In short, the population has no way to break even. In a section called “Evolutionary Implications,” they wrote, “Our results suggest the possibility of a novel complement to existing explanations for why truly asexual populations are evolutionarily short-lived.” Pick your poison: “Either an asexual population does not adapt and goes extinct as a result of the slow accumulation of deleterious mutations, as suggested by existing theory, or else it adapts and goes extinct as a result of the mutation-rate catastrophe.”
How, then, could these authors, being evolutionists, keep faith in neo-Darwinian theory, which relies on mutation and natural selection? Since their study concerned only asexual organisms, they assumed that early one-celled organisms quickly learned about this problem and adapted ways to get around it. Maybe they invented proofreading. Maybe they tried recombination. Eventually, the idea goes, sexual reproduction arrived and helped mask the effects of “mutation rate catastrophe.” But they freely admit this is all just speculation:
It is tempting to speculate that the mutation rate catastrophe phenomenon that we have observed here played a role in the early establishment of recombination in the most primitive life forms (41). It seems probable that adaptation was continual in primordial populations and that only rudimentary mechanisms of genomic proofreading and repair had evolved, such that mutation rates were closer to intolerable values than they are in most present forms. Under these circumstances, the mutation-rate catastrophe could have posed an imminent threat to any purely asexual population.
Nevertheless, they did not offer any detailed models of how the catastrophe could be avoided. Other studies have denied that sexual reproduction offers any resistance to mutational load (10/12/2000, 05/16/2004). The origin of sex has been called the “queen of evolutionary problems” (04/14/2003). With 20 competing theories about what it’s good for, it would seem a hard sell that claim sex came to the rescue to prevent error catastrophe.
These problems are not new. Other evolutionists have written about “mutational meltdown” (12/14/2006). Hermann Joseph Muller in 1932 described “Muller’s Ratchet,” a principle that shows mutations in asexual populations accumulate in an irreversible manner. “Our findings depart from previous work, however,” they said, “by showing that such high mutation rates can be the catastrophic result of unfettered natural selection.”
Neo-Darwinian theory may suffer from this model, but there is one bright side for biomedical research. Maybe pharmacists can take advantage of this finding and help pathogens to mutate themselves to death: “Our results suggest the interesting and related possibility that the adaptive immune response itself could drive a purely clonal pathogen to mutation rate catastrophe and extinction within the host.” Locked in an arms race, the pathogen and the immune system can drive the germs over the cliff like a big buffalo jump. “This mechanism could, in theory, help to explain the spontaneous clearance of some viral infections and suggests that recombination, which prevents runaway increases in mutation rate, may be essential to the persistence of other viral infections that are not cleared.” Now you know why your cold or flu eventually clears up on its own.
One final question: does recombination really prevent mutational catastrophe? They did not discuss this “suggestion” in any detail. They only assumed that it would. Other studies reported here indicate that recombination, while it may stabilize the genome and aid genetic repair (07/18/2001, 07/31/2002), cannot add new genetic information (08/20/2003) and, at best, only delays the inevitable (10/19/2004, 12/14/2006) Some recombinations, in fact, can be toxic (10/27/2005, bullet 3). It would seem that adding another random influence in the mix would not overcome the “genetic entropy” of cumulative mutations. 1Philip J. Gerrish, Alexandre Colato, Alan S. Perelson, and Paul D. Sniegowski, “Evolution: Complete genetic linkage can subvert natural selection,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 10.1073/pnas.0607280104, published online before print April 3, 2007.
2See the “Red Queen Effect” – i.e., running and getting nowhere, 09/07/2006. The authors modeled the Red Queen Effect in the context of pathogen-immune arms races. Their graph shows an upward adaptational fight ending in sudden collapse.
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 04/16/07 14:39 |
A: JSM,
The point of my story was to illustrate how the creationist theory and the evolution theory actually work together to some degree.It may or may not completely work all the time like with basic genectic factors but it is the final results that count.I'm not a genectisist.I don't spend my day in a laboratory .And I have basic understanding of how DNA etc worksScience deals with the tangible and the human psyche produces the imaginable.Evolution improved our species and will continue to do so as long as this planet can sustain life.But it had to start some where.What are your ideas about how life begain and took form?I know the factors for extinction but why so many different varieties of species?What is your "In the beginning story"?
|
|
Name: CanuckChick •
Date: 04/16/07 15:09 |
|
A: JSM: I believe the point you were making is that mutations are not beneficial??(Mutations being a cornerstone of the evolution theory).
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 04/16/07 17:43 |
A: Hi CanuckChick,
Mutations have to be based on a pre-existing form to mutate from in order to be benificial or destructive to a species.How is life formed and why is there any life and life-forms to begin with?What is the meaning of LIFE?What is LIFE'S purposes?So that we can constantly ponder that eternal question?Yes there are a great many answers ,some no longer in use or believed anymore.But they record the progress of the human element in Life's equations.My big questions about the evolution of humans are: Are we the only species on this planet to mutate so many times during the course of evolution to reach our current phase?Are we still evolving or are we the final product?And where do we go from here?
A little footnote about why animals cannibalise its own species is because its food--why waste it.Animals are instictive.They don't have intellects or moral values.And early humans cannabalise their own species.It is a fact present in some of the primative cultures still flourishing in remote ares of the world.I wonder if all of their DNAetc is the same as the other races.Before some scientist tries to get a sample---REMEMBER--They are head-hunters!!!!
|
|
Name: jsm •
Date: 04/16/07 18:03 |
A: Panluna,
The creation model and evolution model do not work together as much as some theistic creationists would love to believe. Their sacrificing their faith for the ever changing science. After god created the earth, animals, man, etc.. he looked and said it was "very good". If god used evolution he'd be looking back on millions of years of death and decay and calling that "very good" what else would that mean if god called death and decay "very good" that would mean heaven isn't that good as he stated. Also there was no death before sin, so theistic creationists try to change the bible to fit the ever changing field of science, their sacrificing their faith and changing gods word. Trying to dig for a meaning that isn't there. They constantly take verses out of context to try to support their theory, but thats all it is, taken out of context. The bible in no way allows for millions of years. Unless god is a liar, which he's not.
"What are your ideas about how life begain and took form?"
God created fully formed creatures after their kind.
"I know the factors for extinction but why so many different varieties of species?"
The idea of genetic variation is often misrepresented as evolution. Noahs ark could contain two wolves and we could have every dog kind that we do today from that, the reason being that wolfs are the most DNA sophisticated of the Dog kind, so every other species of dog is just a wolf, with DNA lose. Its the whole idea that you can breed a wolf into a chawawa, but you can never breed a chawawa into a wolf. If an animal looses enough genetic material, it can become a new species no longer being capable of breeding with its original form. That is natural selection.
If you have any other questions or you'd like me to go in depth further I can, you stated your not a scientist so I tried to keep it as simple as I can, but if you'd like I can explain more in depth.
|
|
Name: jsm •
Date: 04/16/07 18:08 |
A: Panluna,
By the way, look up the Cambrian Explosion. Where in one geological layer there isn't one life form, but then the very next layer up has millions and millions of fossil life forms all the sudden emerging will full body plans. Darwin even wrote about this enigma, but 150 years later, they still can't explain it. Sounds like the creation model to me.
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 04/16/07 19:06 |
A: JSM,
I'm not sacificing my beliefs at all.I'm assimilating new ideas to illuminate the meanings of older concepts.I will always believe in Angels.That doesn't mean I'm not practical.And I am psychic.I do see and hear things others can't.I wouldn't give up my ability for the world.
The idea of the world being created in seven days doesn'thave to be taken literally.When civilization was young numbers were introduced along with the early alphabets.it was a way to introduce measurement of time and passages of days and seasons in an organized manner.Ritual celebrations ,known as Holidays today ,commemorated in gratitude the bounty of this world.Social structures are organized to provide a sound and secure basis for survival.
I had the same question about dog breeds.On the evolutionary tree of the canine species there was dog-and some now extinct species -link which was also related to another species branch that evolved into that group.Several of the sled dog breeds are related closely to the wolf.Could you imagine going for a walk in a primative forest and running into that Mega-fauna wolf--the Dire Wolf?I'm glad evolution scaled them to size.And my best friend is sleeping under my desk now.
As far as the Flood is concerned earth changes brought that about.The Two-by-two symbolism in the Noah's story represented the need for the two genders necessary for procreation.And it was Angels who gave Noah the warning and instructions for building the Ark.
I watched Planet Earth yesterday--how do they know that Lake Bakail in Russia is the oldest lake in the world?And another evolutionary question for you:Why,when and how did the human species shed its fur coat and start to grow hair?Fur grows to a certain length stops growing and contains an undercoat.Hair continualy grows and has no undercoat.
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 04/16/07 19:51 |
|
A: Depending on where the fossil beds were it could mean that there was a major earth change like Pan-Gea when the continents split and oceans washing over the land could have shifted those fossil beds and deposited them from another area.If the soils samples are radically different in each layer then it indicates a major earth movement of some nature. and magnitude.At that time earth could have gone through a period of global warming due to a change in orbit bringing it closer to the Sun that caused the polar ice caps to melt and/or bring the end to the previuos ice-age.resulting in global flooding.Earth has other ways to get rid of life-forms.All it would take is for all of the volcanoes on this planet to erupt at the same time and suffocate everything...or the world blows up from internal pressures.Volcanoes are a release valve for that pressure along with producing new earth.Studies on the other planets of our solar system show varying stages of planet-evolution.And the ancients believed that the Earth was a living being and worshipped Gaia......HAPPY EARTHDAY!!!!!
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 05/26/07 17:03 |
A: One more thing to add and this is theory only.I think Pan-Gea was caused when the earth expanded caused by the internal pressures in it's core then it caused the giant land mass called Pan-Gea to split into our continents.Of course over the centuries other land rose or dissapeared --like the continent of Atlantis and Lemuria(Indian Ocean).My theory about Atlantis is that it existed in what is the Meditteranean Sea and extended as land bridge that included the current islands in the Atlantic Ocean(ever wonder where the Atlantic Ocean got it's name?) and inland where the islands of the Meditteranean now exist..A major crack in the earth's surfice seperated the contintenal plates in a series of earthquake storms and caused the continental plate to split further and sink..Then the waters poured in and filled a basin that is now the Meditteranean Sea.There was a culture better developed than the Neanderthals and Cro-magnons and it may have influence the early Egyptians(whose priest Solon told the tale of Atlantis..and if wasn't for him we would never know about it) and it could include the Minoans etc.who were affected by it.
There are some earth activities similar to my Atlantis theory going on in the oceans at this time.The earth could be moving torwards a major developement like another large crack and upheaval in the ocean floor.Maybe the mileage on the Equater will increase. when the Earth belches again. I have had a recurring Apocyliptic dream-vision for awhile and the upheavel I mention could drasticly change everything from the east coast of Africa all the way to the west coast of the U.S.Fortunately the Earth moves slowly.
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 05/26/07 18:26 |
|
A: Scary--ain't I?
|
|
Name: Not Dattaswami •
Date: 05/30/07 0:20 |
|
A: ..
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 06/14/07 16:10 |
|
A: Astral-aliens could have something to do with our past and our future.Could we be gods and goddesses?
|
|
Name: Shlomo •
Date: 06/15/07 5:17 |
A: Panluna,
I have been waiting for beach front property for a long time now.........lol!
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 06/15/07 13:05 |
A: Shlomo,
Wouldn't that be nice!
|
