OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 09:00:36 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.8%)
No - 129 (38.4%)
both metaphorically and literally - 154 (45.8%)
Total Voters: 336

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 318000 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,554


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #2250 on: November 19, 2010, 02:14:04 AM »

The old dead horse, she ain't what she used to be.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #2251 on: November 19, 2010, 03:11:45 AM »

...ain't what she used to be,
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #2252 on: November 19, 2010, 04:53:59 AM »

I have a question regarding evolution. Why would any creature evolve with ears to hear sound? Why would a creature ever evolve eyes to see and how would it even get eyes?

Eyes seem much too complicated to be evolved from.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #2253 on: November 19, 2010, 05:23:44 AM »

Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #2254 on: November 19, 2010, 05:33:38 AM »

Eyes seem much too complicated to be evolved from.
ei*Pi = -1 seems much too complicated to be true.

But it is. 

Science is like that.
Logged
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #2255 on: November 19, 2010, 05:44:57 AM »

I have a question regarding evolution. Why would any creature evolve with ears to hear sound?

Increased awareness of the environment leading to increased biological fitness, I imagine.

Why would a creature ever evolve eyes to see

Because animals that can see a predator charging at them at full speed, intent on eating them, tend to live longer to reproduce than those who cannot.

and how would it even get eyes? Eyes seem much too complicated to be evolved from.

Like so: http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v8/n12/full/nrn2283.html


Quote from: Lamb, Collin & Pugh, 2007
Some of the most fundamental events in the evolution of the vertebrate eye occurred in the relatively short time of a few tens of millions of years, around the time of the Cambrian explosion more than 500 Mya and possibly coincident with two duplications of the entire genome.

First, it seems likely that a basal chordate possessed simple paired photoreceptive organs that were broadly similar to the unpaired organs of extant Amphioxus and C. intestinalis (it seems very likely that during evolution C. intestinalis has lost one member of what was once a pair). by approximately 530 Mya these paired organs had expanded laterally, and each had developed into a two-layered ‘retina’, with ciliary photoreceptors contacting projection neurons (which might have arisen from rhabdomeric photoreceptor cells). The resultant organ would have been quite similar to the ‘eye’ of extant hagfish, with a circadian and/or shadow-detecting function and a lack of optical components for imaging. The advantage it conferred to the animal was the ability to gather much more light (possibly at great depth), through a large increase in the number of photoreceptors, through lateral positioning outside the skull and through de-pigmentation of the overlying skin.

Subsequently, in evolutionary steps that closely paralleled the developmental steps that occur in extant metamorphosing lampreys, this rudimentary eye acquired a lens, an increase in retinal processing power (through the insertion of retinal bipolar cells), projection of the ganglion cell axons to thalamic regions, and extraocular muscles. This eye, which was equivalent to the eye of adult extant lampreys, possessed almost all of the crucial features that characterize the modern vertebrate eye, and was present at least 500 Mya. Along with this transformation of the hagfish-like lateral organs from a non-imaging function to an imaging function, another region of the diencephalon expanded to take over circadian function and evolved into the pineal organ.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #2256 on: November 19, 2010, 07:59:38 AM »

Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.

Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?

You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #2257 on: November 19, 2010, 09:27:09 AM »

Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.

Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?

You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.

If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #2258 on: November 19, 2010, 09:40:43 AM »

Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.

Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?

You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.

I would agree if the saying went like, "ONLY science makes this world worth defending." Science is but one dimension of the human life. It has its limitations. For example, science principally, by definition, excludes anything supernatural. Also, science is not teleological, it does not ask questions like "who are we? from where did we come? where are we going?" etc. There are other dimensions of human life where such questions are approppriate - philosophy, theology... I never denied their right to exist, and I respect those people who dedicated their whole life to these non-scientific dimensions. But science, similarly, has its own place and character, and there is no reason to disrespect or dismiss it.
Logged

Love never fails.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #2259 on: November 19, 2010, 09:44:23 AM »

Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.

Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?

You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.

If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.

Perhaps; and for those of us who do believe in God, the main thing we live for is to keep trying to become like Him - kind, loving, virtuous, holy. But does it mean that we absolutely must abandon science if we believe in God, or (worse) spread wrong information about what science is, what science theories are about? I don't think so...
Logged

Love never fails.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2260 on: November 19, 2010, 09:49:54 AM »

Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.

Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?

You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.

If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.

Perhaps; and for those of us who do believe in God, the main thing we live for is to keep trying to become like Him - kind, loving, virtuous, holy. But does it mean that we absolutely must abandon science if we believe in God, or (worse) spread wrong information about what science is, what science theories are about? I don't think so...

no one is asking you to abandon science. that is a straw man, and has been addressed multiple times already in this thread.
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,289


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2261 on: November 19, 2010, 09:59:18 AM »

I have a question regarding evolution. Why would any creature evolve with ears to hear sound? Why would a creature ever evolve eyes to see and how would it even get eyes?

Eyes seem much too complicated to be evolved from.
Au contraire.


« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 10:00:36 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #2262 on: November 19, 2010, 10:13:20 AM »

<let font=sarcasm>
Oh sure.  But all you've done is create four new gaps that cannot be explained!
<let font=normal>
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2263 on: November 19, 2010, 10:14:13 AM »

I have a question regarding evolution. Why would any creature evolve with ears to hear sound? Why would a creature ever evolve eyes to see and how would it even get eyes?

Eyes seem much too complicated to be evolved from.

What about vestigial organs?
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2264 on: November 19, 2010, 10:19:32 AM »

ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise


No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.


the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?

The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.

youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story

And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.

it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.

What about God walking in the garden?

ok, you got me - anthropomorphisms of God are obviously not literal, and the Fathers point this out. they say that passages such as this should be understood in a manner that is befitting of God.

So you and the Fathers both agree that if our common sense forbids us from taking something literally, then it must be interpreted...

I agree that the Fathers are the key for interpretation, i in no way think it should be left up to the "common sense" of a sinner like me.

and either way, common sense tells me that Paradise is not to be interpreted according to scientific observations of the 19th-21st centuries, but rather by those who have visited Paradise and attained Paradise in their souls. common sense also tells me that if there is a greater authority than the Church then I have no business being Orthodox.

So is Paradise a physical garden or something attained by the soul?
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #2265 on: November 19, 2010, 10:45:20 AM »

Evolution does not mean God didn't have a purpose which came about.  To ask how an eye could arise is answered, albeit quite well by science already, by saying, "Because God wanted it to."  It's not either evolution or God, as comfortable as that familiar dichotomy is for many people.

God created a world to which He granted the freedom to make itself.  This is necessary if it's actually going to be real and not just a simulation that God plays out as Grand Puppetmaster.  He wanted real creatures who could freely choose to love Him.

"I would like to suggest, respectfully, that when God came to create the world, the Creator faced a dilemma.  God is faithful, and the natural gift of the faithful God will be reliability in the operation of creation.  However, reliability by itself could harden into mere rigidity, leading to a clockwork world in which nothing really new ever happened.  God is also loving, and the natural gift of the loving God will be an independence granted to creation.  Independence on its own, however, could degenerate into mere license, leading to a world of disorderly chaos.

I believe that the God who is both loving and faithful has given to creation the twin gifts of independence and reliability.  These find their reflection in the fruitful interplay of chance and necessity in evolving cosmic history.  Such an account gives a much more positive understanding of the role of chance.  Monod and Dawkins like to apply to chance the adjective “blind,” suggestive of purposelessness and meaninglessness, but we do not need to be beguiled by their tendentious choice of words.  The shuffling operations of happenstance are a way of exploring and bringing to light the deep anthropic fruitfulness with which the physical world has been endowed.  Chance is “the search radar of God, sweeping through all possible targets of its probing.”

We must find a balance to the unacceptable views of God as divine puppeteer, pulling every string and making creatures dance to the divine tune alone and God as divine spectator who just set it all going and left the universe to get on with it.  An evolutionary world is to be understood theologically as a world allowed by the Creator to make itself to a large degree.  Yet this self-making takes place in a setting of finely tuned potentiality.  Creation is not the starting off of something that is produced ready-made; rather, it is a continuous process.

Because continuous creation allows room for creaturly freedom within this process, the consequences will be lots of things that have come about “by chance” in the course of history.  I do not believe that it was laid down from the foundation of the world that humankind should have five fingers - it just worked out that way - but I by no means believe it is pure accident that beings capable of self-conciousness and of worship have emerged in the course of cosmic history.  In other words, there is a general overal purpose being fulfilled in what is going on, but the details of what actually occurs are left to the contingencies of history (this happening rather than that).  The picture is of a world endowed with fruitfulness, guided by its Creator, but allowed an ability to realize this fruitfulness in its own particular ways.  Chance is a sign of freedom, not blind purposelessness."

- John Polkinghorne
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2266 on: November 19, 2010, 12:58:50 PM »

it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.

So God did not create sexual organs? Or He did not intend for us to use them? Why is castration forbidden by the first canon of Nicaea?
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #2267 on: November 19, 2010, 02:29:33 PM »

Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.

Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?

You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.

If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.

Perhaps; and for those of us who do believe in God, the main thing we live for is to keep trying to become like Him - kind, loving, virtuous, holy. But does it mean that we absolutely must abandon science if we believe in God, or (worse) spread wrong information about what science is, what science theories are about? I don't think so...

no one is asking you to abandon science. that is a straw man, and has been addressed multiple times already in this thread.

Well, saying that humans could not have evolved from apes because Fathers did not teach evolution is, actually, abandoning science.
Logged

Love never fails.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2268 on: November 19, 2010, 02:44:47 PM »

Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.

Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?

You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.

If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.

Perhaps; and for those of us who do believe in God, the main thing we live for is to keep trying to become like Him - kind, loving, virtuous, holy. But does it mean that we absolutely must abandon science if we believe in God, or (worse) spread wrong information about what science is, what science theories are about? I don't think so...

no one is asking you to abandon science. that is a straw man, and has been addressed multiple times already in this thread.

Well, saying that humans could not have evolved from apes because Fathers did not teach evolution is, actually, abandoning science.

no. its the rejection of evolution. evolution is not the entirety of science. if i get sick, i take medicine. my eyes stink so i wear glasses. if i need to get somewhere i get in my car -- these are all products of science. i dont know anyone who actually rejects science.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #2269 on: November 19, 2010, 02:45:46 PM »

it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.

So God did not create sexual organs? Or He did not intend for us to use them? Why is castration forbidden by the first canon of Nicaea?

God created us male and female because he knew that we would fall and would need a way to procreate. there are several threads on that issue you can take a look at.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #2270 on: November 19, 2010, 03:07:00 PM »

Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.

Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?

You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.

If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.

Perhaps; and for those of us who do believe in God, the main thing we live for is to keep trying to become like Him - kind, loving, virtuous, holy. But does it mean that we absolutely must abandon science if we believe in God, or (worse) spread wrong information about what science is, what science theories are about? I don't think so...

no one is asking you to abandon science. that is a straw man, and has been addressed multiple times already in this thread.

Well, saying that humans could not have evolved from apes because Fathers did not teach evolution is, actually, abandoning science.

no. its the rejection of evolution. evolution is not the entirety of science. if i get sick, i take medicine. my eyes stink so i wear glasses. if i need to get somewhere i get in my car -- these are all products of science. i dont know anyone who actually rejects science.

Evolution is a scientific theory, so it is a part of science. What you mention is not science, that's products derived from applications of certain developments of science into practical life. But science includes many things that cannot be applied to everyday life, too. Take, for example, a debate between two immunologists (immunology is a science I know "from inside," because my graduate training and my postdoctoral projects were in the field of immunology). One of them tries to prove that in pre-B lymphocytes the V kappa locus rearranges first, followed by the V lambda locus, and the other objects, saying that the rearrangements of V segments in both loci begin simultaneously. No matter who of these two wins, you and I will not benefit - at least immediately. Science is, to a very large extent, like this debate.Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
Cyprian1975
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 18



« Reply #2271 on: November 19, 2010, 03:56:49 PM »

Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.

Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?

You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.

If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.

Perhaps; and for those of us who do believe in God, the main thing we live for is to keep trying to become like Him - kind, loving, virtuous, holy. But does it mean that we absolutely must abandon science if we believe in God, or (worse) spread wrong information about what science is, what science theories are about? I don't think so...

no one is asking you to abandon science. that is a straw man, and has been addressed multiple times already in this thread.

Well, saying that humans could not have evolved from apes because Fathers did not teach evolution is, actually, abandoning science.

Funny, I was unaware that rejecting a theory ( guess or conjecture;a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural) is the same as rejecting the entire field of study.  Am I "abandoning science" because I refuse to believe rotting meat spontaneously generates flies?  No!  Evolution, as it is being debated has yet to be proven satisfactorily, meaning it is still theory, not dogmatic fact.  Saying "man descended from apes hasn't actually been proven, all the nice fables about Lucy and linebacker-proportioned "cave men" aside.

Besides, we can argue this till the apes learn to type, with no real result except flared tempers, ill-will and statements designed to ensure at least one party, sender, recipient or both, will need repentance.  In one view, an old-universe, chain of constantly changing lifeforms by chance became men.  In another view, a universe Designed, with Intelligence, Pattern and Purpose.  The only thing such polemical discussion do is reveal to all and sundry which side the speaker is on.

Please forgive if I have offended.
Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2272 on: November 19, 2010, 04:09:40 PM »

it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.

So God did not create sexual organs? Or He did not intend for us to use them? Why is castration forbidden by the first canon of Nicaea?

God created us male and female because he knew that we would fall and would need a way to procreate. there are several threads on that issue you can take a look at.

Which raises the question, why is self-castration a sin?

Can you explain to me why "virginal" repruduction is superior to physical reproduction, especially considering the sanctity of marriage?
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,088


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #2273 on: November 19, 2010, 04:34:54 PM »

Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.

Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?

You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.

If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.

Perhaps; and for those of us who do believe in God, the main thing we live for is to keep trying to become like Him - kind, loving, virtuous, holy. But does it mean that we absolutely must abandon science if we believe in God, or (worse) spread wrong information about what science is, what science theories are about? I don't think so...

no one is asking you to abandon science. that is a straw man, and has been addressed multiple times already in this thread.

Well, saying that humans could not have evolved from apes because Fathers did not teach evolution is, actually, abandoning science.

Funny, I was unaware that rejecting a theory ( guess or conjecture;a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural) is the same as rejecting the entire field of study.  Am I "abandoning science" because I refuse to believe rotting meat spontaneously generates flies?  No!  Evolution, as it is being debated has yet to be proven satisfactorily, meaning it is still theory, not dogmatic fact.  Saying "man descended from apes hasn't actually been proven, all the nice fables about Lucy and linebacker-proportioned "cave men" aside.

Besides, we can argue this till the apes learn to type, with no real result except flared tempers, ill-will and statements designed to ensure at least one party, sender, recipient or both, will need repentance.  In one view, an old-universe, chain of constantly changing lifeforms by chance became men.  In another view, a universe Designed, with Intelligence, Pattern and Purpose.  The only thing such polemical discussion do is reveal to all and sundry which side the speaker is on.

Please forgive if I have offended.

You have stated it well.

Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #2274 on: November 19, 2010, 04:35:14 PM »

I have a question regarding evolution. Why would any creature evolve with ears to hear sound? Why would a creature ever evolve eyes to see and how would it even get eyes?

Eyes seem much too complicated to be evolved from.

What about vestigial organs?

merely a test of our faith.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #2275 on: November 19, 2010, 04:38:04 PM »

Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.

Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?

You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.

If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.

Perhaps; and for those of us who do believe in God, the main thing we live for is to keep trying to become like Him - kind, loving, virtuous, holy. But does it mean that we absolutely must abandon science if we believe in God, or (worse) spread wrong information about what science is, what science theories are about? I don't think so...

no one is asking you to abandon science. that is a straw man, and has been addressed multiple times already in this thread.

Well, saying that humans could not have evolved from apes because Fathers did not teach evolution is, actually, abandoning science.

Funny, I was unaware that rejecting a theory ( guess or conjecture;a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural) is the same as rejecting the entire field of study.  Am I "abandoning science" because I refuse to believe rotting meat spontaneously generates flies?  No!  Evolution, as it is being debated has yet to be proven satisfactorily, meaning it is still theory, not dogmatic fact.  Saying "man descended from apes hasn't actually been proven, all the nice fables about Lucy and linebacker-proportioned "cave men" aside.

Besides, we can argue this till the apes learn to type, with no real result except flared tempers, ill-will and statements designed to ensure at least one party, sender, recipient or both, will need repentance.  In one view, an old-universe, chain of constantly changing lifeforms by chance became men.  In another view, a universe Designed, with Intelligence, Pattern and Purpose.  The only thing such polemical discussion do is reveal to all and sundry which side the speaker is on.

Please forgive if I have offended.

There is nothing in science that is dogmatic. It is always subject to change. Yes it's a theory, much like the Theory of Gravity, and the Heliocentric Theory. Do you question those as well?
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,254

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #2276 on: November 19, 2010, 04:55:21 PM »

Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #2277 on: November 19, 2010, 04:59:17 PM »

Evolution, as it is being debated has yet to be proven satisfactorily, meaning it is still theory, not dogmatic fact.

Biological evolution, defined as a change of the genetic makeup of biological populations over time, is a fact. It can be observed and even measured.

Saying "man descended from apes hasn't actually been proven, all the nice fables about Lucy and linebacker-proportioned "cave men" aside.

Actually, scientific hypotheses do not have to be "proven." They remain working hypotheses as long as they are supported by evidence and not disproved.

Besides, we can argue this till the apes learn to type, with no real result except flared tempers, ill-will and statements designed to ensure at least one party, sender, recipient or both, will need repentance.  In one view, an old-universe, chain of constantly changing lifeforms by chance became men.  In another view, a universe Designed, with Intelligence, Pattern and Purpose.  The only thing such polemical discussion do is reveal to all and sundry which side the speaker is on.

Both statements are philosophical rather than scientific. Moreover, the first statement is not correct from the point of view of science because biological evolution is NOT a number of chaotic, random, stochastic, chance events. Genetic mutations, indeed, are essentially random, but mutations alone do not equate to evolution.

Please forgive if I have offended.

Not at all.
Logged

Love never fails.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #2278 on: November 19, 2010, 05:08:09 PM »

Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.

This, as well as other genetic oddities such as endogenous retrovirus (ERV) remnants that show a history of virus infection which are in the exact same location in the humans as well as other higher primates. Common descent between humans other higher primates can be shown conclusively by DNA evidence alone.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 05:08:50 PM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,830



WWW
« Reply #2279 on: November 19, 2010, 05:08:35 PM »

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.

Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #2280 on: November 19, 2010, 05:11:55 PM »

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.


I encourage you to check out these two links. Examples of beneficial mutations have been found (and induced) and are abundant. Also, speciation (transition from one species to another) has been observed in nature and in laboratory settings./

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 05:12:45 PM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #2281 on: November 19, 2010, 05:15:08 PM »

Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.

This, as well as other genetic oddities such as endogenous retrovirus (ERV) remnants that show a history of virus infection which are in the exact same location in the humans as well as other higher primates. Common descent between humans other higher primates can be shown conclusively by DNA evidence alone.

I prefer simpler ways of disproving Biblical hyperliteralism, such as the fact that we can see stars more than 7500 lightyears away, or that Chinese history is older than the earth, but I guess this works too. Btw, who adds the "cheval mort" tags? I think it's hilarious.
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #2282 on: November 19, 2010, 05:35:51 PM »

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species...
But this isn't a problem, since we have observed the birth of new species.  There was a time when Mastodons did not exist, as we know from the fossil record.  But we observe them appear, as a new species.  And there is a later time when they no longer appear, having gone extinct.  This type of observation now numbers in the thousands.  Your stated lack is far from it.
Quote
Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive.
Not sure how you can say this.  Maybe you weren't paying attention in high school biology class.  The mutation which led to elongated giraffe necks, for example, is generally considered to be positive.
Quote
For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot,...
Well, we certainly agree that far.
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,289


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2283 on: November 19, 2010, 05:44:45 PM »

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive.
The mutations that produced feathers from scales, well, that was pretty positive.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #2284 on: November 19, 2010, 05:53:37 PM »

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive.
The mutations that produced feathers from scales, well, that was pretty positive.

since we're on the subject

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/13/uknews.taxonomy

Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #2285 on: November 19, 2010, 05:57:18 PM »

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

But what IS a species? To observe emergence of a new species, one has first to establish some very exhaustive criteria that separate species A from species B. But this is very difficult to do. In the world of asexually reproducing microorganisms, for example, it is next to impossible. I stopped telling my students, for example, about what species are included into the genus Salmonella, because, depending on what your subjective take on the concept of species is, this number varies from 2 to more than 200. Strictly speaking, methycillin- or vancomycin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus can be characterized as new species that emerged within the last 10 years or so. Serovar E. coli O157:H7 is still described in all microbiology textbooks as belonging to the species Escherichia coli, but in fact it has some proteins that make it much closer to a species in the genus Shigella. Some 20 or 30 years ago, E. coli O157:H7 might have not existed... In large organisms, too, the concept of species is not all that crystal clear. There are, for example, populations of birds (let's call them population X and population Y), which look absolutely identical, and yet do not cross-breed. Formally, one CAN call them species X and species Y. And it well may be that within a population of, say, swallows or sparrows right now, as I type these words, a population W and a population Z are about to form, which do not interbreed and yet look identical. So who can guarantee that a species "sparrow W" and a species "sparrow Z" aren't forming right now?

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive.

There is no such thing as absolutely negative or absolutely positive mutation. The harm or the benefit that a mutant gets from acquiring a certain mutation depends on the environment in which this mutant lives. For example, a human who has the "s" mutation (sickle cell anemia) has all rights in the world to call it negative if he or she lives in the USA or Western Europe. This mutant receives no gain from it, only pain (hypoxia, physical weakness, cardiovascular complications, etc.). But the protozoan parasite called Plasmodium malariae does not replicate in red blood cells of people with sickle-cell anemia. So, a mutant who has s-hemoglonbin and lives in the jungle of the Amazon basin, has no right, strictly speaking, to complain on the "negativity" of this mutation, because he or she has a lesser chance to succumb to malaria and, therefore, is more likely to live longer and to beget more children.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 05:58:39 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #2286 on: November 19, 2010, 06:02:46 PM »

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.


While I like where you're going with this, it's not so much that mutation is negative, as that can be construed incorrectly. ^^

It's that mutation doesn't add any new information. It changes information (i.e. how it's read, in what order, if read at all), which results in minor to massive physical changes, but new information has never been added.

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #2287 on: November 19, 2010, 06:13:11 PM »

The process of the theory of evolution isn't formalized, either. Much of the theory is based on constructs that fit the evidence/situation, but not truly dependent of physical representation.

But what IS a species? To observe emergence of a new species, one has first to establish some very exhaustive criteria that separate species A from species B. But this is very difficult to do. In the world of asexually reproducing microorganisms, for example, it is next to impossible. I stopped telling my students, for example, about what species are included into the genus Salmonella, because, depending on what your subjective take on the concept of species is, this number varies from 2 to more than 200. Strictly speaking, methycillin- or vancomycin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus can be characterized as new species that emerged within the last 10 years or so. Serovar E. coli O157:H7 is still described in all microbiology textbooks as belonging to the species Escherichia coli, but in fact it has some proteins that make it much closer to a species in the genus Shigella. Some 20 or 30 years ago, E. coli O157:H7 might have not existed... In large organisms, too, the concept of species is not all that crystal clear. There are, for example, populations of birds (let's call them population X and population Y), which look absolutely identical, and yet do not cross-breed. Formally, one CAN call them species X and species Y. And it well may be that within a population of, say, swallows or sparrows right now, as I type these words, a population W and a population Z are about to form, which do not interbreed and yet look identical. So who can guarantee that a species "sparrow W" and a species "sparrow Z" aren't forming right now?

Many people try to settle the theory through the concept of gradual evolution, however, recent studies are showing this to not be supported by the observable evidence, either.
Quote
"Matthew discovered and clearly stated the idea of natural selection, applied it to the origin of species, and placed it in the context of a geologic record marked by catastrophic mass extinctions followed by relatively rapid adaptations," says Rampino, whose research on catastrophic events includes studies on volcano eruptions and asteroid impacts. "In light of the recent acceptance of the importance of catastrophic mass extinctions in the history of life, it may be time to reconsider the evolutionary views of Patrick Matthew as much more in line with present ideas regarding biological evolution than the Darwin view."
Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geological history, scientist concludes
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,289


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #2288 on: November 19, 2010, 06:20:05 PM »

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.


While I like where you're going with this, it's not so much that mutation is negative, as that can be construed incorrectly. ^^

It's that mutation doesn't add any new information. It changes information (i.e. how it's read, in what order, if read at all), which results in minor to massive physical changes, but new information has never been added.

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."
Mutations aren't the only things that help drive evolution. There is also recombination of genes, and gene duplication: "A dog went to the park" recombines with "A cat ate the food", producing "A dog ate the food" and "A cat went to the park". Hey, that's new information. "A dog went to the park" could also be duplicated, resulting in a copy that says the same thing ("A dog went to the park") and a copy that can now freely mutate ("A dog went to the pack").
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #2289 on: November 19, 2010, 06:21:04 PM »


VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."

Or you could have a point mutation and end up substituting "zoo" for "park", or an insertion mutation during crossover that could add the words "and high-five'd Moses" to your sentence.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 06:22:50 PM by laconicstudent » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #2290 on: November 19, 2010, 06:25:03 PM »


VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."

Or you could have a point mutation and end up substituting "zoo" for "park", or an insertion mutation during crossover that could add the words "and high-five'd Moses" to your sentence.

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.


While I like where you're going with this, it's not so much that mutation is negative, as that can be construed incorrectly. ^^

It's that mutation doesn't add any new information. It changes information (i.e. how it's read, in what order, if read at all), which results in minor to massive physical changes, but new information has never been added.

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."
Mutations aren't the only things that help drive evolution. There is also recombination of genes, and gene duplication: "A dog went to the park" recombines with "A cat ate the food", producing "A dog ate the food" and "A cat went to the park". Hey, that's new information. "A dog went to the park" could also be duplicated, resulting in a copy that says the same thing ("A dog went to the park") and a copy that can now freely mutate ("A dog went to the pack").



While the example wasn't supposed to be comprehensive, I mentioned sharing of information (in bold).

Also, a change in the information isn't new, it's a change. By new, I'm talking about the ground up build of a new command.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30429.0.html
« Last Edit: November 19, 2010, 06:28:45 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
laconicstudent
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 319


« Reply #2291 on: November 19, 2010, 06:29:10 PM »


VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."

Or you could have a point mutation and end up substituting "zoo" for "park", or an insertion mutation during crossover that could add the words "and high-five'd Moses" to your sentence.

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.


While I like where you're going with this, it's not so much that mutation is negative, as that can be construed incorrectly. ^^

It's that mutation doesn't add any new information. It changes information (i.e. how it's read, in what order, if read at all), which results in minor to massive physical changes, but new information has never been added.

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."
Mutations aren't the only things that help drive evolution. There is also recombination of genes, and gene duplication: "A dog went to the park" recombines with "A cat ate the food", producing "A dog ate the food" and "A cat went to the park". Hey, that's new information. "A dog went to the park" could also be duplicated, resulting in a copy that says the same thing ("A dog went to the park") and a copy that can now freely mutate ("A dog went to the pack").



While the example wasn't supposed to be comprehensive, I mentioned sharing of information (in bold).

Also, a change in the information isn't new, it's a change. By new, I'm talking about the ground up build of a new command.


Like E. coli evolving a novel metabolic pathway in a laboratory?
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,521


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #2292 on: November 19, 2010, 06:30:22 PM »

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.


While I like where you're going with this, it's not so much that mutation is negative, as that can be construed incorrectly. ^^

It's that mutation doesn't add any new information. It changes information (i.e. how it's read, in what order, if read at all), which results in minor to massive physical changes, but new information has never been added.

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."
Mutations aren't the only things that help drive evolution. There is also recombination of genes, and gene duplication: "A dog went to the park" recombines with "A cat ate the food", producing "A dog ate the food" and "A cat went to the park". Hey, that's new information. "A dog went to the park" could also be duplicated, resulting in a copy that says the same thing ("A dog went to the park") and a copy that can now freely mutate ("A dog went to the pack").

One theory is that evolutionary jumps are borne of necessity. For example, an ice age coming upon primitive humans could have forced them to select for alternative genetic features in order to survive. I think what is very clear is the evolution of Humaniods from one species to the next more advanced version.

When I was young, there was no such thing as  animals communicating to us with language. But, under stress, Apes can now use sign language and communicate their thoughts and desires. Perhaps they will teach their offspring.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #2293 on: November 19, 2010, 06:35:11 PM »


VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."

Or you could have a point mutation and end up substituting "zoo" for "park", or an insertion mutation during crossover that could add the words "and high-five'd Moses" to your sentence.

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.


While I like where you're going with this, it's not so much that mutation is negative, as that can be construed incorrectly. ^^

It's that mutation doesn't add any new information. It changes information (i.e. how it's read, in what order, if read at all), which results in minor to massive physical changes, but new information has never been added.

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."
Mutations aren't the only things that help drive evolution. There is also recombination of genes, and gene duplication: "A dog went to the park" recombines with "A cat ate the food", producing "A dog ate the food" and "A cat went to the park". Hey, that's new information. "A dog went to the park" could also be duplicated, resulting in a copy that says the same thing ("A dog went to the park") and a copy that can now freely mutate ("A dog went to the pack").



While the example wasn't supposed to be comprehensive, I mentioned sharing of information (in bold).

Also, a change in the information isn't new, it's a change. By new, I'm talking about the ground up build of a new command.


Like E. coli evolving a novel metabolic pathway in a laboratory?


Exactly.


From the abstract:
Quote
Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population.

The process for how the change occurred wasn't mapped. What they did was show the ability for a species to adapt to a new environment. Which is the evidence that supports my previous article:
Quote
"Matthew discovered and clearly stated the idea of natural selection, applied it to the origin of species, and placed it in the context of a geologic record marked by catastrophic mass extinctions followed by relatively rapid adaptations," says Rampino, whose research on catastrophic events includes studies on volcano eruptions and asteroid impacts. "In light of the recent acceptance of the importance of catastrophic mass extinctions in the history of life, it may be time to reconsider the evolutionary views of Patrick Matthew as much more in line with present ideas regarding biological evolution than the Darwin view."

NOTE: I never said changes don't happen within a species.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #2294 on: November 19, 2010, 06:39:27 PM »

Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.


While I like where you're going with this, it's not so much that mutation is negative, as that can be construed incorrectly. ^^

It's that mutation doesn't add any new information. It changes information (i.e. how it's read, in what order, if read at all), which results in minor to massive physical changes, but new information has never been added.

VISUAL: It's "A dog went to the park." <Mutate> "To the park, a dog went." or "To park went the a" (termination) or "A dog".  It's never "A dog went to the zoo." (exception: if "zoo" was in an adjacent genome, it could be traded) or "A dog went to the park and high-five'd Moses."
Mutations aren't the only things that help drive evolution. There is also recombination of genes, and gene duplication: "A dog went to the park" recombines with "A cat ate the food", producing "A dog ate the food" and "A cat went to the park". Hey, that's new information. "A dog went to the park" could also be duplicated, resulting in a copy that says the same thing ("A dog went to the park") and a copy that can now freely mutate ("A dog went to the pack").

One theory is that evolutionary jumps are borne of necessity.

I mentioned this.

Many people try to settle the theory through the concept of gradual evolution, however, recent studies are showing this to not be supported by the observable evidence, either.
Quote
"Matthew discovered and clearly stated the idea of natural selection, applied it to the origin of species, and placed it in the context of a geologic record marked by catastrophic mass extinctions followed by relatively rapid adaptations," says Rampino, whose research on catastrophic events includes studies on volcano eruptions and asteroid impacts. "In light of the recent acceptance of the importance of catastrophic mass extinctions in the history of life, it may be time to reconsider the evolutionary views of Patrick Matthew as much more in line with present ideas regarding biological evolution than the Darwin view."
Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geological history, scientist concludes

For example, an ice age coming upon primitive humans could have forced them to select for alternative genetic features in order to survive. I think what is very clear is the evolution of Humaniods from one species to the next more advanced version.

Without denying your example, you're using theory to support theory.

When I was young, there was no such thing as  animals communicating to us with language. But, under stress, Apes can now use sign language and communicate their thoughts and desires. Perhaps they will teach their offspring.

That's not evolution. The experiment just hadn't been tried. The Gorilla already had that capability.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Tags: science Theory of Evolution evolution creationism cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.229 seconds with 74 queries.