OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 19, 2014, 07:59:00 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 (15.7%)
No - 129 (38.2%)
both metaphorically and literally - 156 (46.2%)
Total Voters: 338

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 326673 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #3015 on: March 26, 2011, 05:36:44 PM »

Evilution?
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #3016 on: March 26, 2011, 05:40:38 PM »

It is definitely the work of Santa.

Does a reindeer evolve into gaining a red nose?
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #3017 on: March 26, 2011, 07:02:52 PM »

That sounds more like genetic mutation, but perhaps you have found the foil for evolutionary biology.  Reindeer do not have red noses.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,421


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #3018 on: March 31, 2011, 08:56:56 PM »

Forgive me for taking long to reply to you.  I usually reply fast to other subjects, but for posts like these, I needed to allocated a good enough time to read carefully what your write, and give you a well-thought out response.

Let's do not call the argument in question as supporting evidence for Darwinian theory. That is not fair. So far that argument is only hypothesis and it is far from being a supporting one.

How do you explain that the chromosomes are identical?  Give me a hypothesis that can disprove evolution and what experiment you are willing to do.

In your last post, you asked why not chromosomal fission and not chromosomal fusion.  Let us suppose that chromosomal fission was the way it happened.  Well, then it has to be consistent with the fact that our common ancestor should have 23 chromosomes.  If however, our common ancestor has 24, then the fusion is correct.

Quote
We need more explanations beforehand. I'm sure you know the difference between Robertsonian translocation and and chromosomal fusion. Fusion would require more steps and I do not know if it is observed in the nature. I will give you the point and say let's assume it is possible. This fused chromosome in the end is going to behave as a Robertsonian translocation (RT). So further discussion can be limited to RT. Here's very nice discussion and diagram as to what happens when this RTs affect gametes. What is lacking in this discussion and what we need is the case when 2 gametes with 22 haploid complex, each one containing t(14, 22), meet. In these case we would get a fertilized egg with 22 pairs of chromosomes, one pair being homologous t(14, 22)s. Thus we will have reduction in diploidy of the human karyotype. Something exactly like this should have happened to those supposed common ancestors (CA). Let's say that something like this happened to CAs and new karyotype with 23 pairs of chromosome formed. So far we have these facts: 1) t(14, 21) is compatible with life unless along this chromosome we have 1 pair of 14 or 21 which will give you trisomy. 2) We have no subpopulation of humans with 22 pairs of chromosome in spite of #1 being a fact.

So, why would you expect in CAs that such RT (or fusion) will give rise to a population of individuals with 23 pairs  of chromosomes?

That is a very good question, one of which I don't have the answer to.

First the difference between "translocation" and "fusion" is subtle, but scientists use them interchangeable sometimes.  A translocation describes the movement of a chromosome, while a fusion describes a unity with another chromosome.  In other words, in order for a fusion to occur, a translocation has to occur first.  It's just word play.  Robertsonian translocation or Robertsonian fusion makes very little difference in a practical setting.

Now, as to your central question, why we don't see humans with 22 pairs of chromosomes.  I can offer you some hypotheses as to why.  For one thing, it might be not viable yet.  For instance, 99% of Turner babies are stillborn.  Why?  We don't know, but the 1% that make it seem to make it well (with some bodily dysfunction).  Perhaps understanding the phenomenon of Turner babies can help understand why we can't (easily) find humans with 22 pairs of chromosomes.  Second, Robertsonian trisomy patients are very rare.  So you can imagine if they're rare, how rare normal phenotypical Robertsonian patients are.  Third, the questions you propose do not disprove common descent, only to help us understand the idea better.  The questions you need to ask yourself is if there's no common descent, how were our genes practically identical with 0.5 to 1.0% difference that makes us human?  Your questions can lead to a breakthrough in science, who knows?  But you're making an assumption that completely contradicts the facts.

Let's look at an example.  You are a detective at a murder scene.  You find a body where the person suffered stab wounds.  Your first hypothesis is that this person died because he was stabbed.  Now you investigate further, and you find the knife with blood stains about a couple of miles away, and you find that the blood matches the blood of that person.  Furthermore, autopsy shows no evidence of other forms of death, whether physical or chemical, except the knife wounds.  So now you ruled out other problems, so you think what?

Well the obvious conclusion would be the person was stabbed to death.  Or we can go with the creationist response and say that the murderer was very crafty and used his hands to create stab wounds similar to size and shape with the knife and took the blood and craftily placed the stain on the knife.

Now, a new question arises.  How did the murderer get in.  Let's assume that the they found the door locked.  Well, a reasonable person can explain, perhaps the murderer locked the door or entered and exited the premises through a window.  So now questions have increased and we investigate to find the answer.  However, we don't say, "Oh the door is locked, therefore, the murder could have never happened."  A murder clearly happened, we just need to investigate with what we have.

Likewise we have a chromosomes that matches almost exactly two chimp chromosomes.  The questions you ask does not disprove evolution, it only helps us understand it more.  This is no more an "assumption" than seeing a man with stab wounds and finding the weapon with the matched blood and concluding the murder.  Evolution is not an "assumption," it is based on evidence, and thus it's a substantial theory.

Quote
Why not unlikely? Doesn't chromosome brake up before part of it is translocated to another chromosome? How do we know that such parts cannot acquire independent "existence"?

This happens much more rarely than Robertsonian translocations.  So given the evidence we find in how chromosomes behave in cancers, Robertsonian patients, and many other mammalian research I find on pubmed, the evidence very strongly suggest two chromosomes united, not divided.


Quote
1) there's no place in DNA (not just in humans but in the whole living world) where we have sequences that are close to centromeric sequences and is not derived from centromere. You basically say that all such sequences must be derived from centromeric deactivation. So, if I find in human genome (or in any genome) sequences that by composition are close to centromeric sequences but clearly are in the locations that would not be possible to explain but centromeric deactivation, then whole argument is wrong; 2) Same can be said about telomeric sequences located in between the actual centromere and supposedly deactivated centromere;

Centromeric deactivation happens all the time as research has shown.  The mechanism is swift.  So there is a controlled process that occurs, not a random one.  The mechanism of the deactivation still requires research, but we know it occurs.  So the whole argument is not wrong.

Telomeres in the middle is also a very odd thing to find, but it's found.  The fact that it's found in the middle suggests that this chromosome is more likely to be fused from two chromosomes than randomly mutated.  Things happen in orderly fashion.  Therefore, we do not make outlandish assumptions, but we look for evidence and derived at the conclusion.  All (YES ALL, 100% sensitivity) chromosomes that we have observed in laboratory conditions with cancer patients and with Robertsonian patients show telomeric sequences to be in the middle, but there has been no occurrence of a telomerase that makes bases in the middle, and possibility that telomeric sequences occur in the middle randomly by mutation are extremely low.  By statistical evidence, the theory of a fusion of two chromosomes stands strong and consistently.

Quote
3) If we find a functional gene (or genes) between active and and supposedly deactivated centromeres which are not present on short arms of ape's acrocentric chromosomes (those that got fused) then we have a great problem that invalidates given hypothesis. Are all this premises met?

Your premises again are not premises that disprove evolution entirely.  They're only premises that disprove the idea that fusion occurred.  And even that, your premises have false backing.  There are indications where NEW fusion genes do occur (BCR-ABL) and indications when fusion deactivates genes (most cases).  So it can go either way.  If there's a functional gene that did occur because of the fusion, that doesn't disprove the fusion theory at all.  It just adds another interesting story to the whole case.  It's like saying, "oh and the murderer was wearing a hat."  It doesn't make a difference whether the murderer was wearing a hat or not; the murderer still murdered.

I just wanted to remind you that there was one question I asked that I am curious to hear your response.  How do you explain the similarities between our one chromosome and the two other ape chromosomes?  How do you explain the two centromeric regions and the middle telomeric region?  What would your hypothesis be?  This is an honest inquiry that I'd like to know.  All you did was ask questions, and I've tried my best to answer them.  Perhaps, I will not convince you, but I hope you might answer these questions of mine as I have tried answering your's.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3019 on: April 02, 2011, 12:31:01 AM »

Disclaimer: please do not think I'm attacking you personally or intentions to do so in any ways. If It seems in this ling post I aimed at you I apologize.

Forgive me for taking long to reply to you.  I usually reply fast to other subjects, but for posts like these, I needed to allocated a good enough time to read carefully what your write, and give you a well-thought out response.
Let's do not call the argument in question as supporting evidence for Darwinian theory. That is not fair. So far that argument is only hypothesis and it is far from being a supporting one.
How do you explain that the chromosomes are identical?  Give me a hypothesis that can disprove evolution and what experiment you are willing to do.
You mean homologous (or nearly identical) not identical right?

Let me point to a general thing you have complained against me. I never said that refuting a given argument refutes Darwinism. I know basic logic and I would not do that. When you bring an arguments that you try to show how it supports Darwinism and argument has problems, I do not says thus refuting you supportive argument Darwinism is refuted. But at the same time you also know that once your supporting argument is refuted you have to find new arguments supporting Darwinism and/or reconstruct refuted argument. Let's make this clear that any time there's a problem with supporting argument all I say is you can't use this argument any more as Darwinism's support.

As to your question explanation is simple: God have done that the way it is. And no human ever will know how life originated, what life is. This is a mistery. Question like these will never be accessible to human intelligence and rational thinking. Knowledge about these can only be revealed. But as a hypothesis "God has created chromosome 22 from the start the way it is" is as good a hypothesis (if not better) as some type of random fusion and then some unintelligible way of inheritance of it. BTW could you answer questions in previous posts, namely:
Quote
suppose I showed you 3 devices/equipments: A, B and C. C looks as if it's combination of A and B with some modification. Would you say that C was formed by a random fusion of A and B which afterwords underwent further random modifications? Or could you say that device C was not devised by an intelligent being from scratch not just fusing 2 parts of A and B? Answers to this questions makes it clear that even if we assume C looks like fused A and B, it does not mean that C was not designed as A and B connected to each other or was not designed from scratch without A and B connected to each other directly.
Answers to these question make it clear that chromosome 22 being almost identical to 2 chimp chromosomes does not mean at all they originated by random fusion.

Besides you are asking unfair thing to experimentally disprove Darwinism. It should be the other way round: one has to prove Darwinism to be possible in experiments/observations. In reality, even in experiments you can only provide certain environment and let the genetic material evolve by itself, which has not been done. There has been trials to increase mutation rates by certain mutagenic environment (such as X-rays) but nothing has ever come out of this. For sure, there has never been any observ ation of new species formation in spite of very intensive selective "experiments" by humans. And here come Darwinism's worst response to this argument: thousand of years are not enough. They effectively make this theory unprovable by this new ad hoc hypothesis. Later I'll give logical arguments that proves Darwinism's absurdity.

Quote
In your last post, you asked why not chromosomal fission and not chromosomal fusion.  Let us suppose that chromosomal fission was the way it happened.  Well, then it has to be consistent with the fact that our common ancestor should have 23 chromosomes.  If however, our common ancestor has 24, then the fusion is correct.
On the other hand, if however our common ancestor had 23 chromosomes then chromosomal fusion is wrong. So, did we find this purported common ancestor and did we determine it had 24 chromosomes? If not how is this argument an argument supporting Darwinism?

Quote
That is a very good question, one of which I don't have the answer to.

First the difference between "translocation" and "fusion" is subtle, but scientists use them interchangeable sometimes.  A translocation describes the movement of a chromosome, while a fusion describes a unity with another chromosome.  In other words, in order for a fusion to occur, a translocation has to occur first.  It's just word play.  Robertsonian translocation or Robertsonian fusion makes very little difference in a practical setting.

Now, as to your central question, why we don't see humans with 22 pairs of chromosomes.  I can offer you some hypotheses as to why.  For one thing, it might be not viable yet.  For instance, 99% of Turner babies are stillborn.  Why?  We don't know, but the 1% that make it seem to make it well (with some bodily dysfunction).  Perhaps understanding the phenomenon of Turner babies can help understand why we can't (easily) find humans with 22 pairs of chromosomes.  Second, Robertsonian trisomy patients are very rare.  So you can imagine if they're rare, how rare normal phenotypical Robertsonian patients are.  Third, the questions you propose do not disprove common descent, only to help us understand the idea better.  The questions you need to ask yourself is if there's no common descent, how were our genes practically identical with 0.5 to 1.0% difference that makes us human?  Your questions can lead to a breakthrough in science, who knows?  But you're making an assumption that completely contradicts the facts.

Let's look at an example.  You are a detective at a murder scene.  You find a body where the person suffered stab wounds.  Your first hypothesis is that this person died because he was stabbed.  Now you investigate further, and you find the knife with blood stains about a couple of miles away, and you find that the blood matches the blood of that person.  Furthermore, autopsy shows no evidence of other forms of death, whether physical or chemical, except the knife wounds.  So now you ruled out other problems, so you think what?

Well the obvious conclusion would be the person was stabbed to death.  Or we can go with the creationist response and say that the murderer was very crafty and used his hands to create stab wounds similar to size and shape with the knife and took the blood and craftily placed the stain on the knife.

Now, a new question arises.  How did the murderer get in.  Let's assume that the they found the door locked.  Well, a reasonable person can explain, perhaps the murderer locked the door or entered and exited the premises through a window.  So now questions have increased and we investigate to find the answer.  However, we don't say, "Oh the door is locked, therefore, the murder could have never happened."  A murder clearly happened, we just need to investigate with what we have.

Likewise we have a chromosomes that matches almost exactly two chimp chromosomes.  The questions you ask does not disprove evolution, it only helps us understand it more.  This is no more an "assumption" than seeing a man with stab wounds and finding the weapon with the matched blood and concluding the murder.  Evolution is not an "assumption," it is based on evidence, and thus it's a substantial theory.
Well, your analogy is fallacious. These two examples are so different from each other and these differences are so important that you do not accomplish anything with this analogy. In the murder case, we certainly know by direct observation that people can be killed by homicide or suicide. Homicide or suicide is not some hypothetical event that we have not observed. On the other hand we have never observed species origin either through evolution or through creation (though we know certainly that new species can be "designed" through intelligent genetic manipulation). If we knew by observation or experiment that new species can be produced by random mutations and selection and I said that still doesn't prove how it originated in the past (though technically true) in this case your example would qualify as a valid analogy. Here it serves no purpose.

Second, you have actually provided some rational though hypothetical explanation why the random chromosomal fusion can't be the cause of appearance of chromosome 22. If your hypothetical causes does not allow the appearance of group of humans with 22 pairs of chromosome why would same things allow formation of 23 pairs of chromosome out of 24? Or what could have been different in the past that would allow this to happen? Give me any rational explanation and hard facts that backup your claims and explanations that would explain non-observance of the reduction in chromosomal diploidy. We have millions of species with hundreds of thousand of them having some common ancestor with difference in their chromosomal numbers. Do we have any species where there's such reduction observed (and at the same time these reductions are not part of the special mechanisms but originate completely randomly)?

I'm sorry to say this (and I don't meant at all to belittle you logic) but arguments of supporters of Darwinism always are same: there's only hypothesis and no actual evidence to support hypothesis. If a counterargument refutes your hypothesis, you'll find another unsubstantiated hypothesis and this goes on and on. Any time you give me possible explanation of something not being observed or being observed but going against Dawrinism you should also provide us with hard proofs and observable results. That's what science is about. The way you make science out of Darwinian hypothesis I can make science of any nonsensical hypothesis.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3020 on: April 02, 2011, 12:34:14 AM »

I do not want to discus telomere/centromere issue wright now. This will make a long post. I will do it later.

Instead I will give you 2 general reasoning "disproving" Darwinism logically. To refute either of this reasoning lines one has to go wild with imaginations. I would not be surprised though if this be the case. Both of this things I've mentioned before. You probably missed it. Otherwise you have responded to me. So I'll make the 2 arguments again but now in detail.

1) By random mutation and natural selection we do not expect formation of species from simplest to more complex. We should have evolution along involution. Reasoning is simple and facts that Darwinism wants to use to support evolution theory supports involution too. Lets say we have clearly defined based on some criteria what simple species "A" is and what more complex species "B" is. Let's say From A during evolution B was evolved and the A went though the series of mutation M1, M2, ...M(N). For every mutation M(j) we have its reverse mutation M(-1, j) ("M(-1, j)" is just a notation for reverse mutation). Say if from genome A we get genome B by insertion of base pair, then from genome B we can get genome A by reverse mutation of deleting same base pair in B. Thus is as possible to get species A from species B by following reverse mutations: M(-1N), ... (M-1, 2), M(-1, 1). We know for the fact that for every mutation there's its reverse one and no restrictions apply here. We also know for the fact that simple organisms are as well fitted (and actually bacterias are "better fitted" by having all the extremophiles) to their environment as complex ones are. These 2 fact make involution as possible as evolution is possible. Does fossil record support involution and evolution being possible at the same time?

2) Abiogenesis is impossible. What really amazes me is argument for this is simplest but scientists engage in "proving" this hypothesis, devoting years and almost all of their life until they finally realize it is not possible. One can make variations on this argument, but I'll offer you one. For any cell it is necessary that it's ancestor was a cell. If a cell's ancestor lacks any of the characteristics of cellular life, it can't live and produce generation. In order for any proto-cell to give generation it has to have several processes in order including but not limited to metabolism, ability to renew all the proteins, ability to translate and transcribe genetic material, ability to replicate DNA, plus all this functions are supported by directed use of energy and this letter have to be realized by prior functions and characteristic. We know for certain you block any of this function and the cell is dead. Antibiotics and chemo agents are nothing but substances that turn off this chemical function. How would you expect (even in theory) anything that lacks several of these characteristics giving rise to a complete cell while something where only one function (and sometimes even only 1 protein) blocked is dead and can't produce any more cells? That's what amazes me. There's going to be no answer here. Abiogenesis is clearly wrong hypothesis. I'll give you even much less difficult task and if you give me just reasonable theoretical explanation, I'll shut up (I guess it's time anywhays I did it Cheesy). Every DNA has code for exact same proteins that are necessary to serve DNA related functions (transcription, replication, proofreading and so on). We have here effective chicken-egg problem. If we say this proteins that serve DNA were formed first then what was it used for and how did it get multiplied? If we say DNA was formed first then how was its function realized without proteins and how was it multiplied? Give me one explanation that not posits simlutaneous appearance of both DNA and exactly same proteins that serve this DNA and are encoded by the same DNA. You do this and I will surrender. If your clearly accept impossibility of abiogenesis (and I see no reason why you should not) then not much is left to throw Darwinism in the garbage.

God bless you and God bless you twice more if you reached this point Smiley
Logged
Dnarmist
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


Seems Uncertain


« Reply #3021 on: April 02, 2011, 04:38:26 PM »

Fwiw I think someone mentioned this but someone rejected Natural Selection because it is based off chaos and chance. Natural selection doesn't exactly work that way. It's pretty much the exact opposite outcome of random chance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RLU4-kySow#t=156s

If you dumped a bunch of random rocks and dust into a sieve, you'd discover that things were large or small depending on which side of the sieve they were on. That's because the sieve isn't random. Mutation and variation are random, selection of the variants is systematic, so what survives it will also be systematic.

I want to bring up an example, we would agree that most people are naturally concerned with themselves and people that are close to them, but can science truly offer a reason why I should care about strangers? Science points to social conditioning and chemistry in and the evolutionary structure of the brain for why you DO care about others. Deriving an ought from an is is illogical, although game theory is a mathematical model for examining outcomes of different action that could be pointed to as a form of "scientific morality"
 
This has been the subject of a great many papers in peer-reviewed journals, and even entire books have been written about it. The short answer is that it is incorrect to look at any individual thing in the ecosystem as an island unto itself. I'd be assuming there's no intrinsic value in caring about strangers or people other than yourself when in fact there's quite a lot of value in doing so which is why we see so much of it in populations of animals. Bats, for instance, will go out and hunt extra food for sick members of their population. There's no benefit initially to the bat that does it, but they do it because they want other bats to do the same for them when they get sick. Yes, it seems that even bats operate on the golden rule.

I might assume that the nature of man or the nature of life is innately to be adversarial when there's not a whole lot of evidence that that's the case. In many cases we see sets of morals develop because cooperative behavior is more advantageous than adversarial behavior in a great many situations. Just think about how risky it is to get into a physical altercation with another human being, and you'll see why cooperation appears to be the natural norm. Even in cases like monkeys that will go to war with one another we see that cooperation is the thing that makes that war possible. Those wars are never every monkey for themselves. They are always cooperative on either side of the conflict. In fact, you can make the argument that the existence of war in both human and monkey societies is proof of the inherent cooperativeness of certain species. You cannot have anything that can be called a war without at least 2 populations willing to band together against one another.

I see a lot of religious people advocate for a kind of human exceptionalism that doesn't seem to hold up to much scrutiny. For as different as humans are supposed to be in having been blessed by god, there sure does seem to be a lot of evidence that we're not a whole lot different than most of the other animals on the planet save for one small thing; our neo cortex.

I recommend people in this thread  read a book called The Greatest Show on Earth if you want an exhaustive look at the evidence for evolution and theories surrounding modern biology for things such as morality. If you want a really good book on neuroscience that may indirectly answer the question about why a belief in god originated and persisted there's a book called On Intelligence that examines the structure and operation of the neo cortex in relation to consciousness and thinking in humans.

Speaking of which a desire for God, why such exists, in my opinion the very thing that the neo cortex is good at, seeing and recognizing patterns, that makes human consciousness and thought possible will inevitably produce a belief in a "god" as a by-product. That On Intelligence book is not directly about god at all, but understanding something about neurobiology will help you understand why I believe it to be an inevitability.

This question as well has also been tackled in many peer-reviewed journals in evolutionary fields, social psychology, and psychology. If you want what I think is the best argument for why a great many people actively seek to reject reality, a book called The God Delusion devotes a few chapters to it as well as a few chapters to the question of morality as well.

I should note, though, that two of the books are written by Dawkins. I'm sure people here will at this point recoil in terror that I have suggested you read a book written by Dawkins, and choose to remain uninformed on the subject in order to maintain your stance that these questions are somehow unanswered. I realize that Orthodox Christians might not be one of these people, but the willful ignorance of groups like the Discovery Institute bothers the hell out of me as a rational, curious person. I not only have read Dawkins and about neurobiology, but I've read all of  William Lane Craigs arguments about God. I don't sit around pretending those arguments don't exist in the way, say, that the Discovery Institute pretends that the flagellar motor hasn't ever been explained or answered for in papers about evolutionary biology.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,421


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #3022 on: April 02, 2011, 05:13:56 PM »

Disclaimer: please do not think I'm attacking you personally or intentions to do so in any ways. If It seems in this ling post I aimed at you I apologize.

Understood, but as I read your comments further, you seem to hold a creationist view, which is something that is not falsifiable in science.  It's virtually impossible to find a way to disprove that an intelligent being created us.  First, we have to define what the "intelligent being" is.  Is it aliens, is it God?  Well, if it's aliens, in that case, aliens have to exist first in order for this to be tested, and it remains a fairy tale more than anything.  Is it God?  Well, by definition, the tools of science can never test God, since God is beyond creation, beyond science.  It would be theologically blasphemous to call that a scientific theory, since that would limit God to creation, and not beyond it.

However, if you're like me, who is a creationist and an evolutionist, then I would see that God programmed in creation freedom and a sense of reaching a complexity to achieve communion with God through mankind.  Proper theological understanding of God being ruler of the cosmos and of the logoi of the cosmos that He created in it, and the use of science to study the logoi of the cosmos, and thus understand the ingenuity of God.  This is how I am able to study science and able to accept evolution, along with the fact that evolution is in fact a science that is falsifiable, that is it carries the possibility of being proven false.

Science is all about proving false an idea, not about proving correct an idea.  In other words, scientists are filled with skeptics who want to debunk an idea.  And so, it must go through rigorous observations and reproductions and debate, until the evidence becomes clear that most predictions evolution makes are in fact correct.  One of those predictions are the common ancestry idea of humans and other apes confirmed through the study of genetics.

Quote
You mean homologous (or nearly identical) not identical right?

99% identical is practically identical.  We can call it homologous, but then there's no homologous chromosome between two humans that's 100% identical either (not even between identical twins).

Quote
Let me point to a general thing you have complained against me. I never said that refuting a given argument refutes Darwinism. I know basic logic and I would not do that. When you bring an arguments that you try to show how it supports Darwinism and argument has problems, I do not says thus refuting you supportive argument Darwinism is refuted. But at the same time you also know that once your supporting argument is refuted you have to find new arguments supporting Darwinism and/or reconstruct refuted argument. Let's make this clear that any time there's a problem with supporting argument all I say is you can't use this argument any more as Darwinism's support.

But as I pointed out before, you're not refuting an argument, because the prediction was made correctly.  The questions you ask only seek to understand an extra level of the already correct argument.  Since I am happy you are a student of good logic, let's use good logic for your next part:

Quote
As to your question explanation is simple: God have done that the way it is. And no human ever will know how life originated, what life is. This is a mistery. Question like these will never be accessible to human intelligence and rational thinking. Knowledge about these can only be revealed. But as a hypothesis "God has created chromosome 22 from the start the way it is" is as good a hypothesis (if not better) as some type of random fusion and then some unintelligible way of inheritance of it.

Now, first off, the reason why I struck out some of your words here is that you are confusing abiogenesis with evolution, which is a common mistake exclusive creationists do.  We're arguing about evolution, not abiogenesis.  I'm not an expert in abiogenesis, so these lines have no bearing at all in this discussion.

As to the rest of your argument, "God has created chromosome 2 (not 22) from the start," as I explained to call that a hypothesis would be theological blasphemy, because now you have considered the possibility that God is a falsifiable hypothesis, in addition to a limitation of God to creation.  On a logical side, there's a problem with this:

Do you know that we can use the same chromosomal analysis these evolutionists use to check how far in the family tree you and I go back?  For instance, we have primary relatives (father, mother, sister, brother) and then we have secondary relatives (uncles, grandparents), and then we have tertiary (cousins, great grandparents), and so on and so forth.  Well, if my cousin, my sister, and I were to have our chromosomes analyzed, it will be very clear that the analysis shows that my sister and I have chromosomes so close, that we have to be primary relatives, whereas my cousin's and I are fit to be a tertiary relative.  Such an analysis has already been well established that they also showed how to figure out what race I am (an Egyptian friend of mine was found out to have some genes that indicate an Asian ancestry).

Now, by your logic, what you are saying is that there's a possibility God has created all my chromosomes from the start, and I share no direct inheritance with my primary relatives, my parents or my sister.  Such a logic would fail terribly for its inconsistency.  For we can use this technology to confirm our relation with our families, but when it comes to other species, we decide to pick and choose a different explanation and call that a situation where we "can never intelligently understand."

I find myself believing that I carry half of an inheritance to my offspring, rather than all of it, that my "seed" is only half the seed, where a female does in fact have "seed" in her as well (as opposed to the ancient belief that man carried the full seed).  On top of that, we also have reached levels of understanding embryonic growth and genes responsible for certain stages of embryonic growth beyond that which any ancient Church father has ever thought of achieving, where such a mystery of human growth in the womb was considered beyond human intelligence to understand.  I agree that there's a beautiful mystery of the whole world and how consistent the world is, but I also believe that God's creation can be tested and understood, since we have the propensity to be like God, certainly God allows us to increase in the knowledge of His mysterious creation.

Quote
suppose I showed you 3 devices/equipments: A, B and C. C looks as if it's combination of A and B with some modification. Would you say that C was formed by a random fusion of A and B which afterwords underwent further random modifications? Or could you say that device C was not devised by an intelligent being from scratch not just fusing 2 parts of A and B? Answers to this questions makes it clear that even if we assume C looks like fused A and B, it does not mean that C was not designed as A and B connected to each other or was not designed from scratch without A and B connected to each other directly.

Please see my explanation above about the theological, scientific, and logical consequences of a scientific belief of an intelligent being.

Quote
Besides you are asking unfair thing to experimentally disprove Darwinism. It should be the other way round: one has to prove Darwinism to be possible in experiments/observations.

As I have explained earlier.  Science is about disproving, not about proving.  Science is about falsifiable experiments, and if we can't disprove, then we statistically analyze the chances of the positive being correct and devise more experiments to see if these can be disproven.  The more an idea cannot be disproven, the more the chances of this idea actually being true.  Evolution withstood the test of thousands (probably more by a large factor) of experiments trying to disprove it and it stands not disproven thus far.

Quote
In reality, even in experiments you can only provide certain environment and let the genetic material evolve by itself, which has not been done.

Yes that has been done by more simple organisms.  Complex organisms take longer to evolve, but we can genetically measure the rate of change that occurs in more complex organisms, the same tool we use to measure the rate of change in simpler organisms.

Quote
There has been trials to increase mutation rates by certain mutagenic environment (such as X-rays) but nothing has ever come out of this.

In more simpler organisms, yes, this has been done.  In more complex organisms, mutation must occur in germ cell lines, which in fact mutations have been shown to occur (that means that besides sharing half mommy and half daddy, some of my mommy and daddy genes have been mutated, making me not exactly 100% half mommy and half daddy), and over several generations.  Mutagenic environments would work if the environment is affecting the germ cells, not your skin cells.  And certainly the mutagenic environments would require that the source of mutagenesis not harmful to the point of killing off your organisms, but pushing the limits, comparable to giving someone a little resistance in weights for possibility of building up strength, rather than giving a large weight that can crush a persons bones.

Quote
For sure, there has never been any observ ation of new species formation in spite of very intensive selective "experiments" by humans.

Precisely because we're a very young species.  For a new species to occur, we have to violate as much as possible the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium and wait.

Quote
And here come Darwinism's worst response to this argument: thousand of years are not enough. They effectively make this theory unprovable by this new ad hoc hypothesis. Later I'll give logical arguments that proves Darwinism's absurdity.

Well, thank God for measuring rates of change, because one can predict when change would occur if one can measure a rate.

Quote
On the other hand, if however our common ancestor had 23 chromosomes then chromosomal fusion is wrong. So, did we find this purported common ancestor and did we determine it had 24 chromosomes? If not how is this argument an argument supporting Darwinism?

First, if there were more common occurrences of fissions, then that idea would actually be considered.  Second, the fact that you are thinking that our ancestor had 23 pairs of chromosomes requires the idea that you believe there is a common ancestor to begin with.  So your argument is a moot point and does not remove the possibility of a common ancestor, but assumes it to ask that question.

Quote
Well, your analogy is fallacious. These two examples are so different from each other and these differences are so important that you do not accomplish anything with this analogy. In the murder case, we certainly know by direct observation that people can be killed by homicide or suicide. Homicide or suicide is not some hypothetical event that we have not observed. On the other hand we have never observed species origin either through evolution or through creation (though we know certainly that new species can be "designed" through intelligent genetic manipulation). If we knew by observation or experiment that new species can be produced by random mutations and selection and I said that still doesn't prove how it originated in the past (though technically true) in this case your example would qualify as a valid analogy. Here it serves no purpose.

I don't believe that was a fallacious argument.  We have indeed seen speciation occur as I've mentioned earlier, and as has been mentioned through this whole thread.

So since we see murder occur, and then we see a dead body on the floor with stab wounds, then we can conclude a murder occurred in this particular person.  I wasn't there to witness that particular murder, but the clues we have leave us with that impression.

Similarly, if we used genetic analysis to see if how far back I relate to a person, and we see that these analyses work since we see such relations occur in front of us, then what would happen if we use this same genetic analysis with other species.  Voila!  A valid calculation of how far back we relate seeing the amazing similarities we have.

But by your argument, since in fact you believe God created our chromosome from the start, which happened to have at least 99% similarity to the two chimp acrocentric chromosomes, that would be analogous to stab wounds on a chimpanzee (or pick any animal we haven't observed being stabbed) being craftily created by the hands of a higher species and staining the blood stains on the stabbing apparatus that has the same size and shape as the wound made.

Quote
Second, you have actually provided some rational though hypothetical explanation why the random chromosomal fusion can't be the cause of appearance of chromosome 22. If your hypothetical causes does not allow the appearance of group of humans with 22 pairs of chromosome why would same things allow formation of 23 pairs of chromosome out of 24? Or what could have been different in the past that would allow this to happen? Give me any rational explanation and hard facts that backup your claims and explanations that would explain non-observance of the reduction in chromosomal diploidy. We have millions of species with hundreds of thousand of them having some common ancestor with difference in their chromosomal numbers. Do we have any species where there's such reduction observed (and at the same time these reductions are not part of the special mechanisms but originate completely randomly?

What could possibly be different is ostracization, which is common in the animal world where they find a mate that is quite different.  Even among aboriginal peoples, if certain peoples are in danger of being killed by their group for their differences, this may lead to a bottlenecking or a migration where those with differences in that community may find one another and mate.  In addition, random mating may have occurred more commonly, which increases the chances of bringing Robertsonian apes together.  We see many times an alpha male in a given species can have a harem of female mates.

In today's society, because stillborn children and Down's syndrome children tend to have an emotional effect on parents questioning whether they should give any more children, rather than keep trying and throwing away the unfit as other animals do. In addition, being faithful to one mate, rather than throw your seed to multiple mates as does occur in other animals, decreases the chances.  It seems that the Image of God in us have slowed down our evolution to such an incredibly slow rate, that it shows how complex not only our biochemistry is, but also our behaviors, which we believe are defined by divine guidance.

Quote
I'm sorry to say this (and I don't meant at all to belittle you logic) but arguments of supporters of Darwinism always are same: there's only hypothesis and no actual evidence to support hypothesis. If a counterargument refutes your hypothesis, you'll find another unsubstantiated hypothesis and this goes on and on. Any time you give me possible explanation of something not being observed or being observed but going against Dawrinism you should also provide us with hard proofs and observable results. That's what science is about. The way you make science out of Darwinian hypothesis I can make science of any nonsensical hypothesis.

Well, I'm sorry also that this is what you believe.  It seems like both of us will not get anywhere if we both stubbornly stick to our beliefs.  For also, I stereotypically think of creationists as making the same arguments and in my understanding, it seems creationists really don't have a full understanding or grasp of the actual science to engage in the discussion properly.  I feel that many creationists pick and choose scientific advances as long as it pleases their personal theological beliefs, and not actually take and engage with the research and the technological implications of the research seriously.  Your next post for instance has the same arguments creationists make and not the new and quite engaging questions as I heard from you earlier:

Quote
1) By random mutation and natural selection we do not expect formation of species from simplest to more complex. We should have evolution along involution. Reasoning is simple and facts that Darwinism wants to use to support evolution theory supports involution too. Lets say we have clearly defined based on some criteria what simple species "A" is and what more complex species "B" is. Let's say From A during evolution B was evolved and the A went though the series of mutation M1, M2, ...M(N). For every mutation M(j) we have its reverse mutation M(-1, j) ("M(-1, j)" is just a notation for reverse mutation). Say if from genome A we get genome B by insertion of base pair, then from genome B we can get genome A by reverse mutation of deleting same base pair in B. Thus is as possible to get species A from species B by following reverse mutations: M(-1N), ... (M-1, 2), M(-1, 1). We know for the fact that for every mutation there's its reverse one and no restrictions apply here. We also know for the fact that simple organisms are as well fitted (and actually bacterias are "better fitted" by having all the extremophiles) to their environment as complex ones are. These 2 fact make involution as possible as evolution is possible. Does fossil record support involution and evolution being possible at the same time?

When a species become "better fit" in a certain environment, "devolution" would not be possible because of natural selection.  One can only progress, not regress, unless one goes back to an original environment, where one must evolve back into that environment.

As has been argued before, the factors of selection, naturally or behaviorally, will affect the fitness of an organism, and if an organism is better fit in an environment or moves to a different environment, it may evolve into something a lot more different.

Quote
2) Abiogenesis is impossible. What really amazes me is argument for this is simplest but scientists engage in "proving" this hypothesis, devoting years and almost all of their life until they finally realize it is not possible. One can make variations on this argument, but I'll offer you one. For any cell it is necessary that it's ancestor was a cell. If a cell's ancestor lacks any of the characteristics of cellular life, it can't live and produce generation. In order for any proto-cell to give generation it has to have several processes in order including but not limited to metabolism, ability to renew all the proteins, ability to translate and transcribe genetic material, ability to replicate DNA, plus all this functions are supported by directed use of energy and this letter have to be realized by prior functions and characteristic. We know for certain you block any of this function and the cell is dead. Antibiotics and chemo agents are nothing but substances that turn off this chemical function. How would you expect (even in theory) anything that lacks several of these characteristics giving rise to a complete cell while something where only one function (and sometimes even only 1 protein) blocked is dead and can't produce any more cells? That's what amazes me. There's going to be no answer here. Abiogenesis is clearly wrong hypothesis. I'll give you even much less difficult task and if you give me just reasonable theoretical explanation, I'll shut up (I guess it's time anywhays I did it ). Every DNA has code for exact same proteins that are necessary to serve DNA related functions (transcription, replication, proofreading and so on). We have here effective chicken-egg problem. If we say this proteins that serve DNA were formed first then what was it used for and how did it get multiplied? If we say DNA was formed first then how was its function realized without proteins and how was it multiplied? Give me one explanation that not posits simlutaneous appearance of both DNA and exactly same proteins that serve this DNA and are encoded by the same DNA. You do this and I will surrender. If your clearly accept impossibility of abiogenesis (and I see no reason why you should not) then not much is left to throw Darwinism in the garbage.

As I said before, abiogenesis is not evolution.  And this point has been hammered so much this thread, I even was tempted not to read this whole paragraph.  This is the same argument made by creationists.

However, there's plenty of opportunity to disprove the many hypotheses from this particular concept of abiogenesis that I'm sure many scientists are excited about engaging in.  If it has been proven that we can't create a proto-cell at all, then that would be quite a scientific breakthrough.  But alas that has nothing to do with evolution, since evolution requires that life already exists, not to create life.

Thank you for your prayers.  I also hope I have not offended, but if I did, I ask for your sincere apologies.  Continue to keep me in your prayers.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 05:15:20 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,421


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #3023 on: April 02, 2011, 05:39:49 PM »

Dnarmist,

I haven't read any of Dawkin's books, but I will say I read a lauding review from the authors of The Dawkin's Delusion on the "The Greatest Show on Earth."  I'm unable to find this review, but I understand that this book does not contain the virulent atheist views that "The God Delusion" has.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,421


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #3024 on: April 02, 2011, 07:09:20 PM »

Dnarmist,

I haven't read any of Dawkin's books, but I will say I read a lauding review from the authors of The Dawkin's Delusion on the "The Greatest Show on Earth."  I'm unable to find this review, but I understand that this book does not contain the virulent atheist views that "The God Delusion" has.

Dnarmist, may I also add this website:

http://www.biologos.org/

If part of your struggle is in creationists, perhaps, this is one way to try to quell that struggle.

As for your struggle in religion in general, I tend to see your spiritual side like a muscle that needs to be strengthened and fed.  And when I struggle to maintain my spiritual exercises, I struggle in my beliefs.

St. Paul once wrote that Gentiles may not have a written law like the Jews, but the law is certainly inscribed in their hearts.  Therefore, one has to acknowledge the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law to understand the beauty in the Scriptures.  Can morality be explained neurobiologically?  To a certain extent, yes.  But because we are binatured, for what it's worth, we need to turn on our spiritual side, and take what is already known neurobiologically (or "inscribed in our hearts") and put it into transcendental practice.

http://tasbeha.org/media/index.php?st=Praises%2FMidnight_Praises%2FSt_Anthony_Monastery%2C_English_Midnight_Praises%2FPart_1%2Ftrack08.1393.mp3

God bless.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 07:11:30 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Dnarmist
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


Seems Uncertain


« Reply #3025 on: April 02, 2011, 08:10:34 PM »

Science is all about proving false an idea, not about proving correct an idea. 
The two are the same though. Science is built on a very simple concept: If you want to claim you actually know something, you have to be able to name something that would be different if it were untrue. If you don't have this, then it means a world where it is true is essentially indistinguishable from a world where it is not true, so how can you possibly claim confidence in either? If there is a difference, then congratulations, you have a testable and falsifiable hypothesis!

You can't really claim confidence that something is true until you've discounted the possibility that it is false.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,421


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #3026 on: April 02, 2011, 08:34:07 PM »

Science is all about proving false an idea, not about proving correct an idea. 
The two are the same though. Science is built on a very simple concept: If you want to claim you actually know something, you have to be able to name something that would be different if it were untrue. If you don't have this, then it means a world where it is true is essentially indistinguishable from a world where it is not true, so how can you possibly claim confidence in either? If there is a difference, then congratulations, you have a testable and falsifiable hypothesis!

You can't really claim confidence that something is true until you've discounted the possibility that it is false.

Which is what I was trying to explain if you read on.  The more you can't disprove something (as long as there is the possibility of disproving it, i.e. falsifiable), the more likely it is true.

Maybe, you explain it better than I do.  But I don't disagree with you there.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2011, 08:41:18 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #3027 on: April 02, 2011, 11:46:30 PM »

One has to prove Darwinism to be possible in experiments/observations. In reality, even in experiments you can only provide certain environment and let the genetic material evolve by itself, which has not been done. There has been trials to increase mutation rates by certain mutagenic environment (such as X-rays) but nothing has ever come out of this. For sure, there has never been any observation of new species formation in spite of very intensive selective "experiments" by humans. And here come Darwinism's worst response to this argument: thousand of years are not enough. They effectively make this theory unprovable by this new ad hoc hypothesis. Later I'll give logical arguments that proves Darwinism's absurdity.

It is not clear what you are looking for in this statement. What is your personal definition of a new species? Are you asking for inadvertent adaptations and speciation under selective pressure unknown to the experimentalist? One doesn't need to use x-rays or mutagenic compounds to observe speciation, depending on your definition. More importantly, if this challenge is convincingly met, would it make any difference in your opinion about evolution? If not what would change your opinion? If nothing would change your opinion, why do you think it is worthwhile for people to lose sleep, get lower grades on exams, etc., responding to your assertions? Their responses to you are not without personal consequences. The problem on this side of the argument (that being a proponent of evolution) is that the information that is often requested requires hunting for and reading papers that have nothing to do with evolution per se (because it is a done deal for the vast vast majority of researchers and funding agencies are geared towards novelty and/or economic/health benefits and evolutionary biology is not a field any mentor would recommend without many caveats).
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3028 on: April 03, 2011, 01:50:51 AM »

minasoliman

I put questions (or quotes) in bold. It is easy for me to trace back the question and answer to it and this way determine next questions. It is not a way of underling anything.


Blasphemy, from Eastern Orthodox point of view,  is what you say not what I say. I have no idea what Oriental Orthodox saints teach on this matter. Though I'll be more than glad to hear it from you. Hopefully you can name one saint who agrees with Darwinism and quote him. Do yourself a favor and read my post on previous page. I put the words of one of the great holy men blessed elder Fr. Paisius the Athonite. To repeat his words, what you saying is this: And if you think a little more you will see that our Lord Jesus Christ was born from a human, Al pure  Theotokos. So then what are we saying? Christ's ancestors were apes? What a blasphemy! But the follower of this theory don't see that they commit blasphemy. And you telling me that purely Orthodox teaching is blasphemous but you real blasphemy is not?

Quote
It's virtually impossible to find a way to disprove that an intelligent being created us.  First, we have to define what the "intelligent being" is.  Is it aliens, is it God?  Well, if it's aliens, in that case, aliens have to exist first in order for this to be tested, and it remains a fairy tale more than anything.  Is it God?  Well, by definition, the tools of science can never test God, since God is beyond creation, beyond science.  It would be theologically blasphemous to call that a scientific theory, since that would limit God to creation, and not beyond it.
Do not put your words in my mouth please. I never called my creationistic faith scientific theory. You just asked me how something would be possible and I gave you honest answer. That was all. Second, you think you got right theology right? If God would be limited to its creation by creating universe why would it be not limited if he did not create anything? Non-creator has limiting property of not being creator as much as creator has limiting property of being creator. After all did God create anything, anything at all: a certain type of matter for example, or angels, or human soul? If he did using your logic would it not be limited to whatever it was God created? God will be limited always however much statements you are going to make about Almighty. Being unlimited is already being limited to unlimitedness and to not being able to be limited. For curious results, to follow your faulty (and definitely heretical from Orthodox point of view) logic further  God must not have created anything at all in order for The Almighty to not be limited. Do you believe that God did not create anything? And how on the earth did matter came on? Did it exist forever?

Orthodox teaching is completely different from what you just said. God is in its creation and beyond its creation. Being in the creation does not mean He is not outside the creation.

Science has its own potential. It can't test everything that exists. Why don't you apply same logic to existence of soul or God? Science can't prove by any means the existence of soul. Does this mean you don't believe in its existence? You must be since you are an Orthodox. So here there's definitely something you believe exists but there's no way to prove or disprove it. So is the life's origin and diversity of it. I see no problem with my statement at all. The only difference in our faith is you believe it is possible to explain life's origin and its diversity using only science but I believe it is impossible. You call your faith science unfairly and I call my faith faith.

Quote
In more simpler organisms, yes, this has been done.  In more complex organisms, mutation must occur in germ cell lines, which in fact mutations have been shown to occur (that means that besides sharing half mommy and half daddy, some of my mommy and daddy genes have been mutated, making me not exactly 100% half mommy and half daddy), and over several generations.  Mutagenic environments would work if the environment is affecting the germ cells, not your skin cells.  And certainly the mutagenic environments would require that the source of mutagenesis not harmful to the point of killing off your organisms, but pushing the limits, comparable to giving someone a little resistance in weights for possibility of building up strength, rather than giving a large weight that can crush a persons bones.
All this I know. But thanks anyways. Now both of us also know that any mutation that happens and affects a protein structure we still get same species. We can have mutations happen many different time in say one of the hemoglobin genes but this will still produce a human with certain hemoglobinonpathy. Mutation can affect insulin gene or its receptor gene but we still get a human with diabetes. Mutation can affect several different genes at the same time but still humans are born with several mutated genes. If mutation affect regulatory genes, then catastrophes happen or if something is born it is healthy or diseased human. Then, if every time mutation happens it produces exactly same species how is one going to get different species after 1 million or 1 billion mutation? Hopefully you've got meaningful answer to this question. BTW theories that propose systemic mutations (like the one nicknamed "hopeful monster") do much better then Darwinism and they are proposed exactly for this reason that Darwinism even logically is wrong, not to say that it has no observational and experimental support. Please answer above question without any further vague hypothesis and base it on observational data.

Quote
I don't believe that was a fallacious argument.  We have indeed seen speciation occur as I've mentioned earlier, and as has been mentioned through this whole thread.
Really? Which speciation have we seen? Don't mention Galapagos finch beaks or resistant bacterias please. It will not be serious science.

Quote
What could possibly be different is ostracization, which is common in the animal world where they find a mate that is quite different.  Even among aboriginal peoples, if certain peoples are in danger of being killed by their group for their differences, this may lead to a bottlenecking or a migration where those with differences in that community may find one another and mate.  In addition, random mating may have occurred more commonly, which increases the chances of bringing Robertsonian apes together.  We see many times an alpha male in a given species can have a harem of female mates.
Wait here now. So how many individuals with 23 chromosomes should have been ostracized?  What is the chance that only such individuals (however many there should have been to start a new population) could have been ostracized? In what environment they where ostracized so that they did not come into contact with original population and those 23 pair genomes were not diffused again in the original population? How would frequent mutations help to the situation? To explain the point of last question let's take a very common mutation factor V Leiden. In spite of it being one of the commonest mutations (and homosigotic states are very common too) we don't have any (ostracized) population of people who just have factor V Leiden. So what's the point of frequency of mutation? I can only see that it could just increase the chance of several individuals being ostracized at the same time, but I need science in this case. I need math and I need observational support for that math. I'm waiting. Oh yeah, almost forgot most important thing: You are still hypothetical and no hard facts. Please, give me some examples where several individuals were ostracized with the same mutations and these individuals started homozygous line of beings with regard of this mutation. Remember, this is what you are saying exactly. All the individuals who were ostracized had 23 chromosomes. To make the ostracization claim based on facts you further need to provide such example.

Quote
When a species become "better fit" in a certain environment, "devolution" would not be possible because of natural selection. One can only progress, not regress, unless one goes back to an original environment, where one must evolve back into that environment.
Wow! I know for the fact that e.coli is much simpler then Dinosaur. Somehow this little thing had survived but Dinosaurs went extinct. If this fact does not refute the absurdness of your statement, then what else? Scientific honesty requires to honestly respond to questions and when questions with the answers bring us face to face to absurdity we honestly should say it. We don't have to defend every nonsense.

BTW, there's one scientific fact that surely disproves your hypothesis. Namely, there are obligate intracellular parasites of multi-cellular organisms who can't live outside cellular environment since they lack important metabolic pathways and they have to utilize host's pathways. These organisms, per Dawrinism, should have appeared not until multicelluar organisms appeared. But their ancestor must have been able to live outside cells and must have had necessary pathways. So their ancestors actually lost function so they must have been simplified. There's no other way. O wait. I know how you are going to explain it. Simplification does not always mean simplification. It can sometime mean getting more complex, right?

Just curious, how do you know that in a given environment going back to simple form would have been much better for a given species then going forward? Give me some science. Tell me about the story of the Mother earth during the billion year period. Tell me about its climate and all the environmental conditions and all the species that lived in there and how they would adapt, what changes would have happened to make them fit better. Strange thing is you can't even answer simplest questions but at the same time are bold enough to make omniscient claims.

Quote
Well, I'm sorry also that this is what you believe.  It seems like both of us will not get anywhere if we both stubbornly stick to our beliefs.  For also, I stereotypically think of creationists as making the same arguments and in my understanding, it seems creationists really don't have a full understanding or grasp of the actual science to engage in the discussion properly.  I feel that many creationists pick and choose scientific advances as long as it pleases their personal theological beliefs, and not actually take and engage with the research and the technological implications of the research seriously.  Your next post for instance has the same arguments creationists make and not the new and quite engaging questions as I heard from you earlier:
So much for the good questions I was asking? Cheesy What happened to good questions? I know what. Harder they get they are not interesting any more. Then comes all the ad hominem. But I do not feel attacked since I'm creationist (not young earth creationist though I completely respect their view) from top to bottom. I know God has created everything and nothing works in its own and randomly in this Universe.

Quote
As I said before, abiogenesis is not evolution.  And this point has been hammered so much this thread, I even was tempted not to read this whole paragraph.  This is the same argument made by creationists.

However, there's plenty of opportunity to disprove the many hypotheses from this particular concept of abiogenesis that I'm sure many scientists are excited about engaging in.  If it has been proven that we can't create a proto-cell at all, then that would be quite a scientific breakthrough. But alas that has nothing to do with evolution, since evolution requires that life already exists, not to create life.
Has it been proven that we can't create Gold that is transparent in color but otherwise has all the properties of it? Has it been proven that we can't create an element that has only 14 electrons, no protons and no neutrons but has all properties of carbon? If not does it mean that carbon with 14 electrons only can exist? Or a transparent element that has all Gold like physical-chemical properties exist? Or look at this claim you make: Well, if it's aliens, in that case, aliens have to exist first in order for this to be tested, and it remains a fairy tale more than anything. Has it been proven that Aliens can't exist? If it was I'm interested what was that proof. This questions clearly shows that your point is wrong. You say if we have not shown in experiment something is not possible then we can't rule out the possibility of it. Guess what? Then every single imaginable thing exists whether you can get it in the lab or not.

Do you really think some scientists will disprove what I said? Your point are meaningless. In case you decide to answer I will ask another question. Let's say we have created this protocell in the lab. What properties it should have to call it protocell and not call it cell? Hopefully those who are professionals in this field will answer this questions if you can't.

And if abiogenesis doesn't have to do anything with evolution then say abiogenesis is not possible but evolution is possible. Say that first cells were created by God and then evolution took on. Say it, I'm listening. Say it and have all the evolutionists say it. But the logic is so simple. 1) Abiogenesis is not possible and God only created first cell; 2) If God created one cell he could have created any type of cells and any number of cells with different genetic makeup; 3) consequently there's no need of evolution to explain life's origin and it's diversity. As simple as this.


God bless you and I do pray for every being and there's always in that prayer one spot for you while I'm sure you do the same for athers. God bless you and Glory to God.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3029 on: April 03, 2011, 02:25:07 AM »

Fwiw I think someone mentioned this but someone rejected Natural Selection because it is based off chaos and chance. Natural selection doesn't exactly work that way. It's pretty much the exact opposite outcome of random chance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RLU4-kySow#t=156s
Then tell me, please, what is this natural selection? Is it spirit? For Darwinism it can't be spirit since  Darwinism is materialistic philosophy. Nature is just collection of particles. How does this collection of particles (which is both life and non-life) selects other collection of particles (we call life)? How does it do it?

Some more questions: can you predict what type of body forms and physiology will be selected by this selection and what type won't?

Opus118
Quote
More importantly, if this challenge is convincingly met, would it make any difference in your opinion about evolution? If not what would change your opinion? If nothing would change your opinion, why do you think it is worthwhile for people to lose sleep, get lower grades on exams, etc., responding to your assertions?
My purpose is not to cause insomnia in somebody. You have a free will to answer or not to my questions. And BTW you can ask exactly same questions to all evolutionists: why do they try to approach to a creationist and try to persuade him/her? Do they think he/she will change his mind?

Me, I challenge you so that somebody can see the total failure of Darwinism as a scientific theory. Believe me, there's somebody out there who still thinks Darwinism is correct theory just because he does not ask right questions and takes whole story on faith and who can be changed by hearing correct questions. This have happened. And yes, I will not be changed, because I have thought about all this questions and no one Darwinist have ever answered me. They get angry actually when right questions are asked.

Quote
What is your personal definition of a new species?
You put a trap to Darwinism. I do not need to define species. All I will do is change my statements and say: it is not possible to get eukaryotic cell from a prokaryote; It is not possible to get multicellular organism from a unicellular one; It is not possible to get a flying animal from nonflying one; It is not possible to get a dog from a cat (or since you like to jump on statements like this, I'll make it better: it is not possible to get a tiger from cats ancestor who was cat); It is not possible to get a bacteria with flagelum from a bacteria without one and so on;

On the other hand since Darwinism is worthless  without the definition of species, please, define species such a way so as William Shakespeare and Oscar Wild are not different species but cat and dog are.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3030 on: April 03, 2011, 04:52:17 AM »

Science is all about proving false an idea, not about proving correct an idea.
Can you make this point clearer please with regard to Darwinism. Darwinism says that new species originate from older ones through Natural selection that acts on genetic mutations. This statement is part and parcel of Darwinism. Moreover evolutionists go so far that call this a fact.

1) Since science is not about proving anything we are not proving actually the idea that new species originate from older ones through Natural selection acting on genetic mutations, isn't it right? 2) What ideas are we trying to disprove here? 3) And how disproving of those ideas we are trying to disprove make Darwinism true?
Logged
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #3031 on: April 04, 2011, 01:07:37 AM »

1) Since science is not about proving anything we are not proving actually the idea that new species originate from older ones through Natural selection acting on genetic mutations, isn't it right? 2) What ideas are we trying to disprove here? 3) And how disproving of those ideas we are trying to disprove make Darwinism true?
1) What?
2) Among other things, Darwin's theories disproved Lamarckism, for example.  That's how science works.  Folks look at an idea and think "Hmm, that's an interesting idea but this point and this point and this point seem inconsistent.  Maybe there's a better explanation."  Darwin's hypothesis of natural selection was that better idea.
3) You aren't paying attention.  There's never an effort in science to make something true.  Darwin's theory will survive only as long as it is the best and most consistent explanation.  In the century and a half it's been around, it's already been modified, extended, and adapted.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3032 on: April 04, 2011, 07:50:28 AM »

1) Since science is not about proving anything we are not proving actually the idea that new species originate from older ones through Natural selection acting on genetic mutations, isn't it right? 2) What ideas are we trying to disprove here? 3) And how disproving of those ideas we are trying to disprove make Darwinism true?
1) What?
2) Among other things, Darwin's theories disproved Lamarckism, for example.  That's how science works.  Folks look at an idea and think "Hmm, that's an interesting idea but this point and this point and this point seem inconsistent.  Maybe there's a better explanation."  Darwin's hypothesis of natural selection was that better idea.
3) You aren't paying attention.  There's never an effort in science to make something true.  Darwin's theory will survive only as long as it is the best and most consistent explanation.  In the century and a half it's been around, it's already been modified, extended, and adapted.

point #3 seems pretty naive to me. evolutionists pretty clearly have a vested interest in keeping evolution around, and sometimes they outright admit that, and i already provided a few quotes from scientists saying that. if youre just interested in truth youre not going to take a school district to court for simply mentioning Intelligent Design (Dover, PA). Darwin's theory will survive as long as people want to run away from God (and then some who believe in God will continue to go along with it).
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,421


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #3033 on: April 04, 2011, 12:09:12 PM »

Dear Ativan,

I'm sorry I offended you.  Clearly, I misunderstood your intentions.  I wanted to ask you a scientific idea about why our chromosomes are 99% identical with the chimpanzee.  I may have not made it clearly that I wanted a scientific idea, not a religious idea.  But if you were to ask me the religious idea of why we are that identical, I'd also answer because God made it so.  And no, I do not see any limitations in God's essence as our Creator.  I only saw limitations if that would have been defined as "science."  But as you clarified, you don't believe creationism is science, and I respect that, agree with that, and with your views on God being Creator.

As for where I get my views on the compatibility of Orthodoxy and evolution.  Believe it or not, if you read my previous posts here in this thread, my influence was from the late Bishop Alexander Mileant, whose articles he posted on science, evolution, and Orthodox inspired me and allowed me to not lose faith in Orthodox Christianity.  I am Coptic Orthodox, yes.  But the Coptic Church had little to do (it helped somewhat, but there are many bishops I know who agree with you) with my beliefs concerning evolution and Orthodoxy.  And not just that, but my faith has grown even stronger since, and unshaken.

Concerning the questions you ask.  Before, the reason why you asked good questions is because these questions were not asked in this thread before.  But your other questions that you continued to ask is not so much that I can't answer them, but it's that they've already been answered.  I only wanted to sincerely share with you the pattern I see with creationists.  I'd resort to ad hominem if I said you are the creationist.  But I didn't.  I said that the questions you seem to be asking now sound like the same old creationist jargon that has been already discussed before.

Quote
All this I know. But thanks anyways. Now both of us also know that any mutation that happens and affects a protein structure we still get same species. We can have mutations happen many different time in say one of the hemoglobin genes but this will still produce a human with certain hemoglobinonpathy. Mutation can affect insulin gene or its receptor gene but we still get a human with diabetes. Mutation can affect several different genes at the same time but still humans are born with several mutated genes. If mutation affect regulatory genes, then catastrophes happen or if something is born it is healthy or diseased human. Then, if every time mutation happens it produces exactly same species how is one going to get different species after 1 million or 1 billion mutation? Hopefully you've got meaningful answer to this question. BTW theories that propose systemic mutations (like the one nicknamed "hopeful monster") do much better then Darwinism and they are proposed exactly for this reason that Darwinism even logically is wrong, not to say that it has no observational and experimental support. Please answer above question without any further vague hypothesis and base it on observational data.

Actually, the answer to this is simple and not hypothetical.  Today, we have physicians and altruistic peoples who care about others with diseases and try to help them to live their lives better.  In the animal kingdom, people with such diseases will die off.

People with Type 1 DM should be at a very small population.  But the increase in population of people with Type 1 DM is because of the availability of man-made insulin.

Quote
BTW, there's one scientific fact that surely disproves your hypothesis. Namely, there are obligate intracellular parasites of multi-cellular organisms who can't live outside cellular environment since they lack important metabolic pathways and they have to utilize host's pathways. These organisms, per Dawrinism, should have appeared not until multicelluar organisms appeared. But their ancestor must have been able to live outside cells and must have had necessary pathways. So their ancestors actually lost function so they must have been simplified. There's no other way. O wait. I know how you are going to explain it. Simplification does not always mean simplification. It can sometime mean getting more complex, right?

I don't know how you made that assumption that intracellular parasites had to appear after multicellularity.  Bacteriophages attack bacteria, so there might have been a very early time when the first viruses for instance appeared with the first cells.  The extent of the evolution of viruses and intracellular parasites that we do know is that they co-evolve with the host.  As the host gets more advanced, the parasites get more advanced, which always have been the problem for development of resistance.

Quote
Just curious, how do you know that in a given environment going back to simple form would have been much better for a given species then going forward? Give me some science. Tell me about the story of the Mother earth during the billion year period. Tell me about its climate and all the environmental conditions and all the species that lived in there and how they would adapt, what changes would have happened to make them fit better. Strange thing is you can't even answer simplest questions but at the same time are bold enough to make omniscient claims.

 Undecided 

Yes, perhaps, I'm stupid.  I wasted all this time to try to answer the simplest questions, but clearly I can't.  And then you wonder why people like Dnarmist leave the Church.

As to your question, I don't know where to begin.  We know there are extremophiles that live in extreme conditions, and we understand the Earth to have had extreme conditions billions of years ago.  The complex organisms that live today could not have survived those conditions.  That's science in a nutshell for you.

Quote
Wait here now. So how many individuals with 23 chromosomes should have been ostracized?  What is the chance that only such individuals (however many there should have been to start a new population) could have been ostracized? In what environment they where ostracized so that they did not come into contact with original population and those 23 pair genomes were not diffused again in the original population? How would frequent mutations help to the situation? To explain the point of last question let's take a very common mutation factor V Leiden. In spite of it being one of the commonest mutations (and homosigotic states are very common too) we don't have any (ostracized) population of people who just have factor V Leiden. So what's the point of frequency of mutation? I can only see that it could just increase the chance of several individuals being ostracized at the same time, but I need science in this case. I need math and I need observational support for that math. I'm waiting. Oh yeah, almost forgot most important thing: You are still hypothetical and no hard facts. Please, give me some examples where several individuals were ostracized with the same mutations and these individuals started homozygous line of beings with regard of this mutation. Remember, this is what you are saying exactly. All the individuals who were ostracized had 23 chromosomes. To make the ostracization claim based on facts you further need to provide such example.

I'm only giving you some ideas.  For instance, if there existed apes at the time that are similar to those who are Down's Syndrome, then they might have been ostracized.  Some people with Down's are still fertile, and some can give birth to normal humans.

I can't give examples of people being ostracized.  But surely, we have examples of species that may look very similar with different chromosomal numbers (like the beavers).  The question of how this occurred is no different than asking how a murderer got in.  Hence, why I don't understand why you think these questions can disprove evolution.

Quote
Has it been proven that we can't create Gold that is transparent in color but otherwise has all the properties of it? Has it been proven that we can't create an element that has only 14 electrons, no protons and no neutrons but has all properties of carbon? If not does it mean that carbon with 14 electrons only can exist? Or a transparent element that has all Gold like physical-chemical properties exist? Or look at this claim you make: Well, if it's aliens, in that case, aliens have to exist first in order for this to be tested, and it remains a fairy tale more than anything. Has it been proven that Aliens can't exist? If it was I'm interested what was that proof. This questions clearly shows that your point is wrong. You say if we have not shown in experiment something is not possible then we can't rule out the possibility of it. Guess what? Then every single imaginable thing exists whether you can get it in the lab or not.

You completely lost me here.

Quote
Let's say we have created this protocell in the lab. What properties it should have to call it protocell and not call it cell?

I don't know.  I suppose a protocell would have properties that allow it to grow, reproduce, and eventually evolve.

Quote
And if abiogenesis doesn't have to do anything with evolution then say abiogenesis is not possible but evolution is possible. Say that first cells were created by God and then evolution took on. Say it, I'm listening. Say it and have all the evolutionists say it. But the logic is so simple. 1) Abiogenesis is not possible and God only created first cell; 2) If God created one cell he could have created any type of cells and any number of cells with different genetic makeup; 3) consequently there's no need of evolution to explain life's origin and it's diversity. As simple as this.

 Huh

That's like asking a mechanical engineer to tell me what he believes about the only way to treat someone with cancer.  I'm not an expertise in abiogenesis.  I'm simply open to anything the origin of life.  If we can't make life ourselves, okay, great.  If it has been proven that we can chemically make life, and that the condition of the earth allowed that to happen, great.  Abiogenesis or no abiogenesis, blessed be the Name of the Lord, the Creator of all things, comprehensible and incomprehensible.

Finally, about science.  The idea that I was trying to show is that anything that is experimented has to be falsifiable.  In other words, if you want to prove something correct, there has to be the possibility that you're wrong also.  Therefore, scientists who want to prove evolution correct have to actually capitalize on the possibilities of evolution being incorrect, and so they have to make predictions of the hypothesis to see if the predictions come out wrong or not.  If they don't come our wrong, you need to repeat the experiment to see if your predictions are accurate.  An example was that one neuroscientist seemed to have shown that glutamate was actually inhibitory in the brain, whereas another scientists who repeated his experiment showed this to be false.  Therefore, you will have scientists always challenging your experiments to see if they can disprove it.  If the prediction has always been accurate, and scientists are unable to disprove the hypothesis, it becomes theory.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
chrevbel
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 708



« Reply #3034 on: April 04, 2011, 03:21:08 PM »

point #3 seems pretty naive to me. evolutionists pretty clearly have a vested interest in keeping evolution around, and sometimes they outright admit that, and i already provided a few quotes from scientists saying that. if youre just interested in truth youre not going to take a school district to court for simply mentioning Intelligent Design (Dover, PA). Darwin's theory will survive as long as people want to run away from God (and then some who believe in God will continue to go along with it).
Interesting.  Do you think this same way about gravity?  No one really has the slightest clue what causes it, you know.  Or how about astronomy?   There are explanations for natural phenomena that conflict with scriptural interpretation.   Are astronomers guilty of running away from God?
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3035 on: April 04, 2011, 06:13:46 PM »

Yes, perhaps, I'm stupid.  I wasted all this time to try to answer the simplest questions, but clearly I can't.  And then you wonder why people like Dnarmist leave the Church.
You did not offend me to start with. If I did I apologize to you sincerely. But let's look at it honestly. When somebody is called a creationist (young earth or otherwise) by Darwinists, do Darwinist not mean to offend them? The matter of truth is they do. Besides you asked me same questions and what answer did you get from me? I said I do not know. So what we have: I don't know how chromosome 2 came into existence. I don't know how life came into existence. I do not know how diversity of life came to be. I just believe this all came from God. Am I stupid too and offending myself?

And, please, don't blame views like mine as a cause of somebodies leaving Orthodox Church if that's what you want to say. Just because people have too much ago and Pure faith is not enough for them and they need to be called intellectuals, they need to feel they have or came up with all the nice answers is in no way a cause for somebody leaving the Church.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2011, 06:14:16 PM by ativan » Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3036 on: April 04, 2011, 07:08:16 PM »

Yes, perhaps, I'm stupid.  I wasted all this time to try to answer the simplest questions, but clearly I can't.  And then you wonder why people like Dnarmist leave the Church.
You did not offend me to start with. If I did I apologize to you sincerely. But let's look at it honestly. When somebody is called a creationist (young earth or otherwise) by Darwinists, do Darwinist not mean to offend them?
Don't creationists call themselves "creationists"?
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.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,421


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #3037 on: April 04, 2011, 08:00:04 PM »

Yes, perhaps, I'm stupid.  I wasted all this time to try to answer the simplest questions, but clearly I can't.  And then you wonder why people like Dnarmist leave the Church.
You did not offend me to start with. If I did I apologize to you sincerely. But let's look at it honestly. When somebody is called a creationist (young earth or otherwise) by Darwinists, do Darwinist not mean to offend them? The matter of truth is they do. Besides you asked me same questions and what answer did you get from me? I said I do not know. So what we have: I don't know how chromosome 2 came into existence. I don't know how life came into existence. I do not know how diversity of life came to be. I just believe this all came from God. Am I stupid too and offending myself?

When Darwinists call people creationists, it's no different a label than calling someone a scientist, atheist, Christian, Darwinist, etc.  It's just a label trying to summarize the views one holds without any offense.  In fact, if one is a theist, by necessity one has to be a creationist, and I consider myself a creationist, as the famous Dobzhansky said.  Some are young-earth creationist, some are old-earth creationist.  I even know some who are evolutionist for everything except man (in other words, evolution is fine if it occurs with all other animals, but not humans).

The only time when the label "creationist" is offensive is when people are trying to become scientific creationist (in fact, the label is an offense to both science and creationism, both of which are two worthy words), and the only people they are offending is themselves, for the blasphemous use of the word "creationism" and for the vast ignorance they show themselves in the scientific community.

And certainly if the label is something that someone is not, then it's definitely offensive.  The label "Monophysite" is a label I despise because I also condemn it as a heresy.  But "Miaphysite," "non-Chalcedonian," "Copt," "OO," etc. are not labels I hate.  If others are using the label "Miaphysite" spitefully, I carry it as a badge of honor.  If someone is calling me a "atheist compromiser," then I get offended, because I consider myself as much an anti-atheist as I am an anti-"scientific creationist."

And no, you are not offending yourself for not knowing.  This is a humble way to take things.  But when I say "I don't know," I don't assume that something is wrong.  For example, I know that God exists on a religious level.  I'm not agnostic about that.  Therefore, atheism in my opinion is religiously wrong.  But if I say that evolution is scientifically wrong, then that means I have an alternative scientific view to prove this.  I told you for instance I don't really know much about abiogenesis to have a fulfilling discussion, but you wanted me to "admit" that abiogenesis is wrong, but that's not how I work.  When I say I don't know, then I don't assume a position is wrong.  Otherwise, that means I know something, which is definitely not "I don't know."

Quote
And, please, don't blame views like mine as a cause of somebodies leaving Orthodox Church if that's what you want to say. Just because people have too much ago and Pure faith is not enough for them and they need to be called intellectuals, they need to feel they have or came up with all the nice answers is in no way a cause for somebody leaving the Church.

The reason people leave the Church is almost always a mutual cause.  Part of the blame is themselves, and part of the blame is the environment they were with.  When evolution is called heretical and blasphemy in a particular church, we are essentially ostracizing some who do seek belief.  And this is not considering the fact that there are others in the EO Church, especially bishops, who find no problem with evolution.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2011, 08:03:59 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #3038 on: April 05, 2011, 12:37:47 AM »

Mina maybe you can help me address a conversation I'm having with a fellow on her via PM. I've been doing as much research as I can into evolution and natural selection, but the aformentioned member said a few things that I wanted to make sure I wasn't wrong about.

He says that the calculation of the odds, and the dismal failure of experiments to prove how it beat the odds, in regards to Natural Selection (if I'm understanding the nature of his observation)

What I say is that the experiments themselves are hard to do, being as we just don't have a spare planet at hand to do this. However, there are a few things we can do to determine probability.

The first is to look at the mathematics behind life as an abstracted process. We can take some assumptions about the abstract form of life and plug them into simulations and see what happens. The a-life experiments have been amazing in this respect demonstrating that all life really needs is a physical substrate capable of sustaining maths (or specifically cellular automata [not to be confused with 'cells', but rather the idea of particles or positions that react with surrounding positions in simple but enumeratable ways) , which our physics most certainly do, and entropy, or 'error', provided handily by quantum physics and a few other neato physical properties of the universe.

So experiments like tierra that basically just created a computer and flipped a few errors into it, end up generating complex reproducing "life" within a space of a day or two. There have been numerous of these experiments and they all end up with all sorts of interesting phenomena arising, parasitism, sexual reproduction, and so forth, leading to the possible conclusion that many of the complicated behaviors we see in real life are, whilst maybe not inevitable, highly probable in a sufficiently complex entropy vunerable substrate. (It should be noted that some have criticized these as not representitive of the original conditions, and they are right, but this misses the point. The point is to say that the possibilities of life go beyond just 'whats the specific arangement of matter required ' to asking 'how dependant on the arangement of matter is lifes origins anyway', the answer being "not as much as we might have thought initially". Ie, the answer is written in the math not the stuff!

Secondly we can look at initial conditions and search for the origins of the complex proteins and shit needed to kick start the whole process. This turned out to be relatively easy. Stanly miller in the 50s took a glass jar, stuffed it with a soup of chemicals he assumed to be representative of pre-life earth(amonia, methane, hydrogen, etc) , blasted it with a crap tonne of electricity all mad professor styles and had a look what came out. What he found was amino acids previously though to be a major stumbling block to abiogenesis. Basically the dude demonstrated how the parts needed to bootstap life could be formed by the simple application of lightning to the sparse chemistry of early earth.

He also went on point to say he was just reading an article in Time about another astronomer who has looked at the evidence and has decided we are alone.

The reality is, scientists have been in recent time been saying the universe is quite possibly stock full of life, likely mostly single cell and simplistic.

But we don't really know yet. The odds seem in favor of a life packed universe, but our dinky little telescopes and radios haven't demonstrated that yet. But they certainly have not demonstrated otherwise either. The science proceeds as we speak.

Statistically the odds are in favor of life in the universe, just because of how huge the universe is. We've already discovered many earth-like planets nearby that have conditions that we believe could support life, we just can't get there to verify that there's life on them. If everyone on earth played the lottery, what are the odds that 2 people win?

There's also a changing definition of what life is. Ever think that life couldn't survive in open space for 10 days? Think again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade
Logged

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

– St. Ambrose of Milan
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3039 on: April 05, 2011, 02:24:25 AM »

Yes, perhaps, I'm stupid.  I wasted all this time to try to answer the simplest questions, but clearly I can't.  And then you wonder why people like Dnarmist leave the Church.
You did not offend me to start with. If I did I apologize to you sincerely. But let's look at it honestly. When somebody is called a creationist (young earth or otherwise) by Darwinists, do Darwinist not mean to offend them?
Don't creationists call themselves "creationists"?
Yes, they do. But they mean different connotation and Darwinists put absolutely Different meaning. You can look on different forums and it'll be easy to see. You don't need to go too far. Read responses after my first posts. I don't say this because I felt offended from those members. Not at all. I just point to the clear fact that one word is used with different connotation by 2 different groups. To be truthful I do feel offended sometimes but not because somebody offended me but because I have too much ago. Glory to God, He helps me to get over it though.

minasoliman
Sorry if you have answered some of the questions and I'm asking them again. But this is a very long thread. Could you point me just to external or internal links that has answers, you agree with, to a given questions? This way I will not repeat questions.

Quote
Quote
All this I know. But thanks anyways. Now both of us also know that any mutation that happens and affects a protein structure we still get same species. We can have mutations happen many different time in say one of the hemoglobin genes but this will still produce a human with certain hemoglobinonpathy. Mutation can affect insulin gene or its receptor gene but we still get a human with diabetes. Mutation can affect several different genes at the same time but still humans are born with several mutated genes. If mutation affect regulatory genes, then catastrophes happen or if something is born it is healthy or diseased human. Then, if every time mutation happens it produces exactly same species how is one going to get different species after 1 million or 1 billion mutation? Hopefully you've got meaningful answer to this question. BTW theories that propose systemic mutations (like the one nicknamed "hopeful monster") do much better then Darwinism and they are proposed exactly for this reason that Darwinism even logically is wrong, not to say that it has no observational and experimental support. Please answer above question without any further vague hypothesis and base it on observational data.
Actually, the answer to this is simple and not hypothetical.  Today, we have physicians and altruistic peoples who care about others with diseases and try to help them to live their lives better.  In the animal kingdom, people with such diseases will die off.

People with Type 1 DM should be at a very small population.  But the increase in population of people with Type 1 DM is because of the availability of man-made insulin.
I will reformulate the question since your answer is irrelevant - you misunderstood question. The idea behind this question is at what point ancestors of human were completely non-humans while immediate ancestor of every human being is human. Let's go backward step by step: we can tell definitely that 10th generation backward your great great ... ancestors were as humans as you. Same is true 20 generation back. What about 111 generation back: who were they? Will do this step by step.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3040 on: April 05, 2011, 02:39:44 AM »

Quote
Quote
BTW, there's one scientific fact that surely disproves your hypothesis. Namely, there are obligate intracellular parasites of multi-cellular organisms who can't live outside cellular environment since they lack important metabolic pathways and they have to utilize host's pathways. These organisms, per Dawrinism, should have appeared not until multicelluar organisms appeared. But their ancestor must have been able to live outside cells and must have had necessary pathways. So their ancestors actually lost function so they must have been simplified. There's no other way. O wait. I know how you are going to explain it. Simplification does not always mean simplification. It can sometime mean getting more complex, right?
I don't know how you made that assumption that intracellular parasites had to appear after multicellularity.  Bacteriophages attack bacteria, so there might have been a very early time when the first viruses for instance appeared with the first cells.  The extent of the evolution of viruses and intracellular parasites that we do know is that they co-evolve with the host.  As the host gets more advanced, the parasites get more advanced, which always have been the problem for development of resistance.
I don't know any intracellular parazite that lives in a bacterial cell or single celled organism. That's why I assume this. Your answer is another hypothesis. Let's summarize here what I'm trying to determine. I said Darwinism predicts as much involution as evolution. You gave me completely unsubstantiated response that in order to involute past environment should arise. Leaving aside how omniscient statement it is, I gave you an example which desproves your statement. Now you trying to give me rebuttal which actually has huge gape in it. Are you trying to say that a virus (bacteriophage) evolved as a cellular organism that continued to live inside cells?

In case there's been found a prokaryote living in a single celled organism and I do not know it, that still does not change previous logic unless you tell me viruses evolved into these parasites. So, your only option is to agree with the question above and then we are going to go into another hypothesis how viruses turned into something.

Quote
Quote
Just curious, how do you know that in a given environment going back to simple form would have been much better for a given species then going forward? Give me some science. Tell me about the story of the Mother earth during the billion year period. Tell me about its climate and all the environmental conditions and all the species that lived in there and how they would adapt, what changes would have happened to make them fit better. Strange thing is you can't even answer simplest questions but at the same time are bold enough to make omniscient claims.
As to your question, I don't know where to begin.  We know there are extremophiles that live in extreme conditions, and we understand the Earth to have had extreme conditions billions of years ago.  The complex organisms that live today could not have survived those conditions.  That's science in a nutshell for you.
Another irrelevant answer. What I said was against you statement "When a species become "better fit" in a certain environment, "devolution" would not be possible because of natural selection. One can only progress, not regress, unless one goes back to an original environment, where one must evolve back into that environment." First this whole statement bags the question for a simplification why is it necessary to go back to an original environment while we know already that simple organisms has existed in all environments. Second, do you know detailed history of the Earth? Do you know detailed history of genetic codes of each existing species at any given time? How do you know that during the millions of years of existence of millions of genome none of them would fit in that environment if the genome was simplified? I seriously need to know this.

Quote
Quote
Wait here now. So how many individuals with 23 chromosomes should have been ostracized?  What is the chance that only such individuals (however many there should have been to start a new population) could have been ostracized? In what environment they where ostracized so that they did not come into contact with original population and those 23 pair genomes were not diffused again in the original population? How would frequent mutations help to the situation? To explain the point of last question let's take a very common mutation factor V Leiden. In spite of it being one of the commonest mutations (and homosigotic states are very common too) we don't have any (ostracized) population of people who just have factor V Leiden. So what's the point of frequency of mutation? I can only see that it could just increase the chance of several individuals being ostracized at the same time, but I need science in this case. I need math and I need observational support for that math. I'm waiting. Oh yeah, almost forgot most important thing: You are still hypothetical and no hard facts. Please, give me some examples where several individuals were ostracized with the same mutations and these individuals started homozygous line of beings with regard of this mutation. Remember, this is what you are saying exactly. All the individuals who were ostracized had 23 chromosomes. To make the ostracization claim based on facts you further need to provide such example.
I'm only giving you some ideas.  For instance, if there existed apes at the time that are similar to those who are Down's Syndrome, then they might have been ostracized.  Some people with Down's are still fertile, and some can give birth to normal humans.

I can't give examples of people being ostracized.  But surely, we have examples of species that may look very similar with different chromosomal numbers (like the beavers).  The question of how this occurred is no different than asking how a murderer got in.  Hence, why I don't understand why you think these questions can disprove evolution.
Well, I need better answer not just hypothesis. First of all your example is actually against you. If a person with Down's produces normal human then this ostracized Down's population go back to wild type. That does not help you since you need ostracized genome which remains stable and give you whole new generation of this genome. Second, I'm curious where have you heard about fertile Down man or woman? Most importantly you are avoiding important question and trying to continue with you fallacious analogy. I gave you clear cut question. I will make the situation clearer and ask question again. We have some hypothesized 24 chromosome pair ancestors. You hypothesized that 2 of the chromosome in there could be fused. I gave you that point. Now in order to get a new population with 23 chromosomes we need to ostracize only individuals (both male and female) with 23 chromosomes (which have this fused chromosome) and isolate them completely from 24 chromosome population. Otherwise there's no way we can get new population (diffusion of this new genome back into wild type will prevent formation of new population). Now I'm asking you is it possible at all for this to happen? And if it is possible then give me some detailed answer? Are we not talking about science after all?

We need to know lots of things and at least have some current observational data. Say we have observed today that apes with 24 chromosome do produce offspring with 23 chromosomes after this fusion. But prevalence of this chromosome is practically 0, so that there's no given time when 2 individuals exists with 23 chromosome. Then certainly you hypothesis is even more baseless. In this case you have to hypothesize more things (like this particular mutations happened much much more frequently and so on). This is why I'm asking the numbers. I would like to know what's the frequency of viable 23 chromosome individuals in apes. I would like to know how many individuals are necessary to be ostracized to give us significant chance of survival of this ostracizeds. I would like to now what would be a chance of such happening. I would like to know how this isolation can be complete for a prolonged period of time so that this two subpopilation does not mix until they are sexually isolated. What's wrong with this questions and why do you not want to answer them?

Introducing beavers make things worse since same applies to them and this new population formation is going to be very rare based on calculation and observation, two rare thing happening would be more rare. Not to mention that we will have to expect hundreds of thousand of such "isolational" events.

So show me that at least in case of ape-to-human path is possible.

Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3041 on: April 05, 2011, 02:48:57 AM »

Quote
Quote
Let's say we have created this protocell in the lab. What properties it should have to call it protocell and not call it cell?
I don't know.  I suppose a protocell would have properties that allow it to grow, reproduce, and eventually evolve.
Didn't you tell me that "If it has been proven that we can't create a proto-cell at all, then that would be quite a scientific breakthrough". But it seems you don't even know what this protocel will be wright? Anybody knows it on this forum? Or on the Earth? Look Dear, the problem here is very simple: we either leave certain ingredients in a certain environment and wait until something happens - well this is the situation when we do not know what's going to happen and what will be formed; but this does not look scientific at all and you can't say anything at all until something happens. And when something happens it is possible that this happening will actually be disproving Darwinism. So in this case we can't talk anything. Or there's the other option: you have a hypothesis about what this protocel might be and what characteristics it could have. Then start experimenting and see if you can get anything like that. Otherwise it does look like an engineer deciding to construct a plane without knowing what this plane is going to do. He doesn't even know whether this plane should fly, should have wings, should carry passengers and so on.

But since you gave me some hypothetical answer tell me please how you are going to give this protocell properties so it can grow and reproduce? If you have no idea just point me to somebody who has this idea.

Quote
Quote
And if abiogenesis doesn't have to do anything with evolution then say abiogenesis is not possible but evolution is possible. Say that first cells were created by God and then evolution took on. Say it, I'm listening. Say it and have all the evolutionists say it. But the logic is so simple. 1) Abiogenesis is not possible and God only created first cell; 2) If God created one cell he could have created any type of cells and any number of cells with different genetic makeup; 3) consequently there's no need of evolution to explain life's origin and it's diversity. As simple as this.
That's like asking a mechanical engineer to tell me what he believes about the only way to treat someone with cancer.
Again, false analogy. In fact the argument I gave you is called Occam's razor and I can translate this the following way: If I found the way of the origin of one particular species (first cell) then I found the way of origin of all species and I don't need to introduce extra hypothesis. Thus all life is explained.

Quote
I'm simply open to anything the origin of life.  If we can't make life ourselves, okay, great.  If it has been proven that we can chemically make life, and that the condition of the earth allowed that to happen, great.
Are you? Are you open to something that Bible says, everything including life was created by Almighty God, blessed be His Name? If you are really open to it why do you need any other theory? Why don't you just put faith in it and continue if you are open to it? You certainly know that science (who's inherently materialistic) is not going to prove this. Then can you really say you are open to such faith? And if say it was proved that life can be produced by itself without God's Will and His Action, for you what will be left on the list of the things that God created? Can you name those things? And since Bible says God created the life including man and now science found the other way round aren't you going to doubt the Book? How are you going to reconcile scientific truth at that point with Bible and your faith? This are sincere questions to an Orthodox person and they are not asked to criticize you at all.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #3042 on: April 05, 2011, 11:46:46 AM »

Opus118
Quote
Quote
What is your personal definition of a new species?
You put a trap to Darwinism. I do not need to define species. All I will do is change my statements and say: it is not possible to get eukaryotic cell from a prokaryote; It is not possible to get multicellular organism from a unicellular one; It is not possible to get a flying animal from nonflying one; It is not possible to get a dog from a cat (or since you like to jump on statements like this, I'll make it better: it is not possible to get a tiger from cats ancestor who was cat); It is not possible to get a bacteria with flagelum from a bacteria without one and so on;

I asked for your definition of a species in order to have a productive conversation because it can vary even among scientists. Some scientists consider Helacyton gartleri, derived from Helen Lacks 60 years ago, as a new species, others say it is still Homo sapien.

Cyanobacteria are often multicellular, forming long chains with signal transduction pathways that cause some cells in the chain to differentiate into another cell type in order to fix nitrogen. Myxobacteria are also multicellular, they will swarm and move together along an agar plate. In limited nutrients they will, like their eukaryotic counterpart Dictyostelium, differentiate to form a stalk and fruiting body and produce spores. They are more or less a mushroom in bacterial form.

Bacteria lacking flagella acquire it all the time. Some E. coli have flagella, some don't, they lost the functional genes. But they get it back by mating with another E. coli, where they become partially diploid for a while, or by being infected with a transducing lysogenic bacteriophage.

Quote
BTW, there's one scientific fact that surely disproves your hypothesis. Namely, there are obligate intracellular parasites of multi-cellular organisms who can't live outside cellular environment since they lack important metabolic pathways and they have to utilize host's pathways. These organisms, per Dawrinism, should have appeared not until multicelluar organisms appeared. But their ancestor must have been able to live outside cells and must have had necessary pathways. So their ancestors actually lost function so they must have been simplified. There's no other way. O wait. I know how you are going to explain it. Simplification does not always mean simplification. It can sometime mean getting more complex, right?

I am guessing this is what you want but I am not sure:

The intracellular cyanobacteria of Paulinella chromatophora: endosymbionts or organelles?
Abstract
Endosymbiotic relationships are common across the tree of life and have had profound impacts on cellular evolution and diversity. Recent molecular investigations of the amoeba Paulinella chromatophora have raised a timely and important question: should obligatory intracellular cyanobacteria in Paulinella be considered new organelles, or do plastids and mitochondria hold a unique stature in the history of endosymbiotic events? We argue that drawing a sharp distinction between these two organelles and all other endosymbionts is not supported by accumulating data, neither is it a productive framework for investigating organelle evolution.

http://preview.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17537638

Chromatophore genome sequence of Paulinella sheds light on acquisition of photosynthesis by eukaryotes.
RESULTS: Our data reveal a fundamental reduction of the chromatophore genome. The single, circular chromosome of 1.02 Mb encodes 867 protein-coding genes and is, therewith, the smallest cyanobacterial genome reported to date. Compared to Synechococcus WH5701, a free-living relative of the chromatophore, only 26% of the genes were retained. Eleven putative pseudogenes were identified, indicating that reductive genome evolution is ongoing. Although the chromatophore genome contains a complete set of photosynthesis genes, it lacks not only genes thought to be dispensable for an intracellular lifestyle but also genes of essential pathways for amino acid and cofactor synthesis.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data characterize the chromatophore as a photosynthetic entity that is absolutely dependent on its host for growth and survival. Thus, the chromatophores of P. chromatophora are the only known cyanobacterial descendants besides plastids with a significantly reduced genome that confer photosynthesis to their eukaryotic host. Their comparison with plastids and bacterial endosymbionts of invertebrates sheds light on early steps of the integration of a photosynthetic prokaryote into a eukaryotic cell.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18356055

Amoeba (a unicellular eukaryote) usually engulf and digest cyanobacteria, but sometimes they keep them to become photosynthetic organisms.

Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3043 on: April 06, 2011, 12:28:12 AM »

Opus118
Quote
Quote
What is your personal definition of a new species?
You put a trap to Darwinism. I do not need to define species. All I will do is change my statements and say: it is not possible to get eukaryotic cell from a prokaryote; It is not possible to get multicellular organism from a unicellular one; It is not possible to get a flying animal from nonflying one; It is not possible to get a dog from a cat (or since you like to jump on statements like this, I'll make it better: it is not possible to get a tiger from cats ancestor who was cat); It is not possible to get a bacteria with flagelum from a bacteria without one and so on;

I asked for your definition of a species in order to have a productive conversation because it can vary even among scientists. Some scientists consider Helacyton gartleri, derived from Helen Lacks 60 years ago, as a new species, others say it is still Homo sapien.
HeLa cells are 1) derived from human cells in lab and not by evolution. Thus it contributes nothing to evolution through random mutation. 2) If such a cell is a new human species then every single specialized (as well as stem) cell in human body is a new human species and I must be composed of about 300 hundred different species each one containing billions of individuals.

That is exactly what I said in previous pot: evolutionary scientists don't even have a clearly defined notion of species. How can you talk about species evolution if you don't know what species is? That is not my problem. It adds to your problem. I already gave you how I would change my reasoning by simple introducing clear terms, without ever referring to vagueness of "species", to which you gave me wrong answer. Here it goes:
Quote
Cyanobacteria are often multicellular, forming long chains with signal transduction pathways that cause some cells in the chain to differentiate into another cell type in order to fix nitrogen. Myxobacteria are also multicellular, they will swarm and move together along an agar plate. In limited nutrients they will, like their eukaryotic counterpart Dictyostelium, differentiate to form a stalk and fruiting body and produce spores. They are more or less a mushroom in bacterial form.

Bacteria lacking flagella acquire it all the time. Some E. coli have flagella, some don't, they lost the functional genes. But they get it back by mating with another E. coli, where they become partially diploid for a while, or by being infected with a transducing lysogenic bacteriophage.
Problem with your reasoning is twofold at least: 1) If you giving me such examples as an examples of evolution, then huge changes (like acquiring genes for flagella) occur in a matter of minutes or hours, or however long it takes for different e.coli to exchange genetic material. If such changes happen so fast we should be seeing all species turning into different species in a matter of days or months (of course this reasoning only is extrapolation of your reasoning by bringing in these examples). So I will ask you: why don't we see humans change for say 5000 years? Your answer is, it's not enough time for a human to transform into a new species? I ask again: did you not just gave me examples of unicellular things turning into multicelllar in a blink? Well, you should not have brought this examples at all. 2) Of course you gave me examples where things happen as a result of very very cleverly designed structure of cell communication and exchange of genetic material. If you've paid attention I was actually saying you can't get such cellular communication and exchange of genetic material in cells that did not have all these to start with. Now you have to explain not only how one bacteria without flagella evolved into bacteria with flagella but also how bacteria acquired the property of genetic material exchange within the species and across the species which in turn requires lots of genes working in amazing cooperation. Can you do that?

Quote
I am guessing this is what you want but I am not sure
N, not that. Simply put the problem is this: obligate intracellular parasites, I say, must have evolved through simplification of already existing facultative cell who could exist outside acell. And of course the whole my assumption is based on anther assumption that Darwinism is true.  Mina is saying this assumption is not right and he's doing this to avoid artificially introduced notion of "evolving, going up the ladder".  If my assumption is not right then obligate intracellular cell evolved (got more and more complex) inside a cell. I'd like to hear how.
Logged
ativan
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Georgian Orthodox Church
Posts: 274


Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta


« Reply #3044 on: April 06, 2011, 01:10:30 AM »

if I say that evolution is scientifically wrong, then that means I have an alternative scientific view to prove this.
This is your opinion though. It's OK to hold an opinion but opinion is not truth itself. Many examples can be brought from science that invalidates such approach. Aristotle thought the heavier object the faster they fell. One did not need a new theory to refute this statement. It could have been done and was done by 1) rational reasoning and 2) experiment, as did Galileo.

There are problems even in physics such that physicists have no even no idea how to approach them/ I wonder why don't they come up with a working hypothesis? Because they can't due to the inherent properties of a given problem. Why can't we deal same way with the problem of life and its diversity?


Quote
I told you for instance I don't really know much about abiogenesis to have a fulfilling discussion, but you wanted me to "admit" that abiogenesis is wrong, but that's not how I work.  When I say I don't know, then I don't assume a position is wrong.  Otherwise, that means I know something, which is definitely not "I don't know."
I have different impression actually. I clearly gave you the logical problem with abiogenesis that goes against the very properties of life. I gave you very general argument why abiogenesis is wrong. You could not even point to the problem within my logic. Why? because there's no problem there. In my opinion you avoiding to discuss abiogenesis issue since there's nothing to discuss there.

Quote
The reason people leave the Church is almost always a mutual cause.  Part of the blame is themselves, and part of the blame is the environment they were with.  When evolution is called heretical and blasphemy in a particular church, we are essentially ostracizing some who do seek belief.  And this is not considering the fact that there are others in the EO Church, especially bishops, who find no problem with evolution.
First of all, ask those bishops who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions. As far as leaving church only ego-full people do that. Environment does not have to do anything with this. We have even not a single shred of humility. Today almost everybody wants to be theologian without praying, fasting, realizing their sinfulness and shedding rivers of tears. My dear friend, Orthodox men/women can't be demanding. They must be warriors of The Lord Jesus Christ to borrow the words of one of the greatest Saints. One great Saint (Saint Alexandre Shushania) after revelation of Gods' will to him to become a monk, did not think of himself worthy of becoming monk. So for 2 years to test his readiness for Christ he was washing feet of sick people and was drinking that water, for two years he was doing this. Now some don't want to stay in the Church because the Church tells them Darwinism (and many other things) is blasphemy. OK, leave it. The Church did not come into existence to hear our complaints and reorganize itself. It came to help us, sick people, sick with the worst disease.

I wonder when time comes and Antichrist shows us the Cross and a piece of bread to relinquish the Cross, what we would chose if we don't even want to leave the blasphemy away?


God Bless and Glory To Lord Jesus Christ
Logged
Dimitrios-Georgios
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 134


Saints Dimitrios and Georgios


« Reply #3045 on: April 06, 2011, 11:46:36 AM »

[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.

This sort of conflict reminds me of Jehovah's Witnesses and how they don't want to get blood transfusions. I find this very ridiculous, not because they're heretics, not because this command is nowhere to be found in the Bible and Tradition. But because this belief has nothing to do with logic and science. Much like those people who didn't want to take photos of them, for fear of losing their soul. Ridiculous.

Evolution is the most credible theory for the life sciences, according to all evidence found by now. If you have evidence that disproves evolution, but also proves something different, which can be formulated into a theory, go on and submit a paper to a Scientific Journal. I'll be glad to see how this goes.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 11:48:21 AM by Dimitrios-Georgios » Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3046 on: April 06, 2011, 12:24:41 PM »

[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.
I disagree with ativan on the topic of evolution, but he touches upon an important point regarding how we use language. If we say that the Most Holy Theotokos and Lord Jesus Christ had an "apelike ancestor" so many years ago, what we imply is that the body, mind, and soul of the Most Holy Theotokos and Lord Jesus Christ evolved from apelike body, apelike mind, and apelike soul of the apelike ancestor, and that everything we know about  MHM and LJC was and is a result of purely natural causes operating within their apelike ancestors.

From an Orthodox anthropology, one would instead, it seems, have to say that the body of the MHM and LJC, according to genetic evidence, evolved from an apelike ancestor.

Regarding the mind (that is, thoughts and feelings), one would have to be a bit more hesitant, since (from a scientific perspective) we still don't know what "mind" is or where it comes from. (And by "mind" I mean, e.g., the images one can create in one's "head"; what these images actually are composed of, is a mystery; and whether they "evolved" is an open question. By "mind", I don't mean the biochemical processes that occur in the physical brain, and that are quantifiable in one way or another.)

And regarding the human soul -- which I would define as the act of mere awareness, not bound by either mind or body -- science knows even less. To say that awareness evolved from physical matter is good naturalism, but not so good Orthodox anthropology, which seems to indicate that the power of awareness is part of the "breath of God" given directly by God to each human.

To simply say the MHM and LJC evolved from an apelike ancestor, and not say anything further, is to meld into one, the different aspects of the human person.
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.
Dimitrios-Georgios
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 134


Saints Dimitrios and Georgios


« Reply #3047 on: April 06, 2011, 12:46:03 PM »

[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.
I disagree with ativan on the topic of evolution, but he touches upon an important point regarding how we use language. If we say that the Most Holy Theotokos and Lord Jesus Christ had an "apelike ancestor" so many years ago, what we imply is that the body, mind, and soul of the Most Holy Theotokos and Lord Jesus Christ evolved from apelike body, apelike mind, and apelike soul of the apelike ancestor, and that everything we know about  MHM and LJC was and is a result of purely natural causes operating within their apelike ancestors.

From an Orthodox anthropology, one would instead, it seems, have to say that the body of the MHM and LJC, according to genetic evidence, evolved from an apelike ancestor.

Regarding the mind (that is, thoughts and feelings), one would have to be a bit more hesitant, since (from a scientific perspective) we still don't know what "mind" is or where it comes from. (And by "mind" I mean, e.g., the images one can create in one's "head"; what these images actually are composed of, is a mystery; and whether they "evolved" is an open question. By "mind", I don't mean the biochemical processes that occur in the physical brain, and that are quantifiable in one way or another.)

And regarding the human soul -- which I would define as the act of mere awareness, not bound by either mind or body -- science knows even less. To say that awareness evolved from physical matter is good naturalism, but not so good Orthodox anthropology, which seems to indicate that the power of awareness is part of the "breath of God" given directly by God to each human.

To simply say the MHM and LJC evolved from an apelike ancestor, and not say anything further, is to meld into one, the different aspects of the human person.
Soul? Who said that animals have souls? Soul is something that God gave to humans alone. I don't see the need to clarify that. The same goes for mind.

When I say that this species evolved from that one, I'll only care about DNA. Not body, mind or soul, plain DNA. At least, that's how a biologist should think.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 12:48:38 PM by Dimitrios-Georgios » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,834



« Reply #3048 on: April 06, 2011, 01:11:57 PM »

Soul? Who said that animals have souls?

St. Maximos the Confessor, for one. He also said plants have souls  Smiley Oh snap!
Logged

Yes, yes, youth is wasted on the young. And so is accumulated experience wasted on the old, the positives of modernism wasted on moderns, the beauty of Christianity wasted on Christians, the utility of scholarship wasted on scholars, and on and on.
Dimitrios-Georgios
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 134


Saints Dimitrios and Georgios


« Reply #3049 on: April 06, 2011, 01:43:54 PM »

Soul? Who said that animals have souls?

St. Maximos the Confessor, for one. He also said plants have souls  Smiley Oh snap!
In any case, this is a matter of theology and deserves its own thread. Like I said, when I mention the word "evolved" or "ancestor", I only care about DNA sequence evolution and nothing else. Even if plants and animals have souls, this is not my point here.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3050 on: April 06, 2011, 01:46:51 PM »

[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.



this is precisely what Elder Paisios said is blasphemous.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,421


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #3051 on: April 06, 2011, 01:59:12 PM »

I want to comment ativan's other questions in full when I have the time tomorrow or after.  But concerning the "animal ancestry" of humanity, I do like to share the late Bishop Alexander Mileant of ROCOR, who I would be doing great injustice if I didn't quote this part in full:

At the end of the "sixth day" all the preliminary steps of creation were complete and the time came to crown nature with her "king," who would become the Creator’s representative for the lower creatures. And before the all-important act of man’s creation the Lord, as if conferring with His Council of the Holy Trinity, says, "Let us make (asa, see below) man in our image, after our likeness [note the use of the plural]: and let them [people] have dominion over the fish of the sea, [and over the beasts,] and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth… So God created (bara) man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Gen. 1:26-27).

Here again the Prophet Moses uses two words that in their English translation sound alike, but actually have different meanings: create (Heb. bara) and make (Heb. asa). The first word means to create from nothing, and the second means to form something from pre-existing materials.

The Bible discusses man’s creation twice: in the first chapter of the book of Genesis: "God created (bara) man in his own image" (1:27), and in the second chapter of the same book: "And the Lord God formed (asa) man of the dust of the ground" (2:7).

Creation [bara] is the birth of something new that did not exist before. It is the result of an instantaneous act. The Prophet Moses uses this word for the creation of the world — "In the beginning God created [bara] the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1) and for the creation of man — "So God created [bara] man" (Gen. 1:27). In the latter case creation concerns man’s spiritual essence. Similarly, the book of Exodus (31:17) discusses the gradual formation of the world from pre-existing elements and therefore uses the word corresponding to the English made: "In six days the Lord made [asa] the heavens and the earth…" The use of different words in the Hebrew original is significant. Unfortunately, in the Greek translation this difference between creating and making or forming is lost. Greek translators translated these different concepts into the single word epiisen [εποιησεν]. Therefore it is not surprising that the majority of the Church Fathers who interpreted the book of Genesis, using the Greek translation of the Seventy, were not able to catch the essential nuances of the Hebrew original.

It is no accident that, when speaking about man, the Prophet Moses uses both words: First, in Gen. 1:26 — the word translated made (Heb. asa), and later, in 1:27, the word translated created (Heb. bara). In doing so, the prophet differentiates the process of forming the body, which preceded the breathing of the soul into the body, which was a new creation. This creative act of the soul is indicated in the second chapter also, Gen. 2:7, where it is said that after forming the body the Lord "breathed into his (Adam’s) nostrils the breath life; and man became a living soul," that is, combined the body with the spiritual basis that did not exist in nature — his Godlike and immortal soul!

Careful reading of this account reveals one more detail. The first chapter talks about the creation of man and woman — two people potentially implying a variety of beings; and in the second chapter, where it talks about the breathing of the soul, only Adam is mentioned, from whom the Lord then formed Eve. Is it not complementary that there are two aspects here of how man was made? First, the making of his physical human-like form, and then the endowment of a soul to one of them, who became the historical Adam?

The concept of man’s gradual making was not alien to the Holy Fathers. Bishop Theophan the Recluse writes about Adam’s body: "What was this body? A clay gray-hen, or a living body? It was a living body — it was an animal in the form of a man, with a living soul, and then God breathed His spirit into it…" First a creature with man’s form was created, whom God later gave a rational soul. This thought of Bishop Theophan’s is not incidental; he returns to it several times in his anthropological constructions, affirming that man contains antecedent levels of life. For example, he writes: "God’s creations are disposed such that every higher class mixes the strengths of lower classes in itself, besides having its own strengths particular to and characterizing its own class." This is a completely normal and widely found dialectic. Bishop Theophan draws the conclusion that there is an animal’s soul within man. He cites St. Anthony the Great. "According to St. Anthony," writes Bishop Theophan, "our soul is of the same rank as an animal’s soul. What makes us different is the mind, which I call the spirit."

On the basis of similar statements, some draw the conclusion that human nature has three parts — a body, soul and spirit (the mind or intellect). But the Orthodox Church teaches that human nature has two parts. Obviously, the soul that the Creator breathed into the first man took in or assimilated all of the lower living functions of pre-man. The source of life in plants, insects, fish, and animals does not have an independent existence: it disappears at the moment of their death. But the human soul, on the contrary, directing all of the body’s vital processes, continues to exist after man’s death.

As he speaks of man further, the Prophet Moses once again resorts to imagery. The element of symbolism in his accounts is felt most where the need to expose a religious idea with extreme clarity is strongest. Such as, for example, in the story of woman’s creation from Adam’s rib. St. John Chrysostom teaches: "‘And it is said he took her from his rib.’ One should not take these words literally, but understand that these coarse words are accommodated to human weakness. For if the Scripture did not use these words, how would we know indescribable secrets? We shall not dwell on words alone, but will accept everything reverently, as it concerns God. The expression ‘took’ and others like it are used for the sake of our weakness."

We understand the moral conclusion of the account indicated by the Apostle Paul, namely that the wife takes second place in the family, after the husband : "The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man…; for the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man." But why does Moses describe the way that woman was made in this way? No doubt he meant to protect the Judaic consciousness from the fabrications of mythology, particularly the mythology of ancient Mesopotamia, the land of the Jews’ ancestors. These stories are morally tempting, saying that there is a certain blending in the world of gods, the world of people and the world of animals: goddesses and gods are combined with people and animals. Images of lions and bulls with human heads, so widespread in Chaldean and Mesopotamian sculpture and Egyptian drawings, allude to this. The Bible’s account of the way woman was created affirms the truth of the unity of the human race.

And as for the "soul," I think one has to differentiate between the soul living beings have (basically the essence of life) and the rational soul, or as some Church fathers call it, the "spirit," or the "Image of God."
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 02:01:05 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Dimitrios-Georgios
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 134


Saints Dimitrios and Georgios


« Reply #3052 on: April 06, 2011, 02:02:10 PM »

[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.



this is precisely what Elder Paisios said is blasphemous.
I know and I believe Elder Paisios was wrong on this. My priest was one of the "synodeia"/followers of Elder Paisios and has told me that science is one thing and faith is another. As long as we don't disregard God's Law for science, we are okay, he says. In any way, the Orthodoxy I am taught does not claim infallibility for anyone. There are saints who have been mistaken for one thing or another in the Tradition of the Church.


And as for the "soul," I think one has to differentiate between the soul living beings have (basically the essence of life) and the rational soul, or as some Church fathers call it, the "spirit," or the "Image of God."
I couldn't agree more.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 02:04:23 PM by Dimitrios-Georgios » Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3053 on: April 06, 2011, 02:19:52 PM »

[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.



this is precisely what Elder Paisios said is blasphemous.
I know and I believe Elder Paisios was wrong on this. My priest was one of the "synodeia"/followers of Elder Paisios and has told me that science is one thing and faith is another. As long as we don't disregard God's Law for science, we are okay, he says. In any way, the Orthodoxy I am taught does not claim infallibility for anyone. There are saints who have been mistaken for one thing or another in the Tradition of the Church.


well but whether or not something is blasphemous is obviously a religious call, and who better to make it than Elder Paisios? although he's not alone of course on this sentiment.
Logged
Dimitrios-Georgios
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 134


Saints Dimitrios and Georgios


« Reply #3054 on: April 06, 2011, 02:28:26 PM »

[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.



this is precisely what Elder Paisios said is blasphemous.
I know and I believe Elder Paisios was wrong on this. My priest was one of the "synodeia"/followers of Elder Paisios and has told me that science is one thing and faith is another. As long as we don't disregard God's Law for science, we are okay, he says. In any way, the Orthodoxy I am taught does not claim infallibility for anyone. There are saints who have been mistaken for one thing or another in the Tradition of the Church.


well but whether or not something is blasphemous is obviously a religious call, and who better to make it than Elder Paisios? although he's not alone of course on this sentiment.
So, is he a Pope or to generalise this, is any saint in Orthodoxy a Pope? Orthodoxy today is divided between science compatibilists and incompatibilists, with many of them in both camps.
Logged
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3055 on: April 06, 2011, 02:34:15 PM »

[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.



this is precisely what Elder Paisios said is blasphemous.
I know and I believe Elder Paisios was wrong on this. My priest was one of the "synodeia"/followers of Elder Paisios and has told me that science is one thing and faith is another. As long as we don't disregard God's Law for science, we are okay, he says. In any way, the Orthodoxy I am taught does not claim infallibility for anyone. There are saints who have been mistaken for one thing or another in the Tradition of the Church.


well but whether or not something is blasphemous is obviously a religious call, and who better to make it than Elder Paisios? although he's not alone of course on this sentiment.
So, is he a Pope or to generalise this, is any saint in Orthodoxy a Pope? Orthodoxy today is divided between science compatibilists and incompatibilists, with many of them in both camps.

i dont know why it has to be taken to that level. of course I'm not saying he's a Pope, but he is ridiculously holy and i can't even remotely touch him. i have no reason or right to say he's wrong without at least appealing to someone equally holy. thats how i see it at least.
Logged
Dimitrios-Georgios
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 134


Saints Dimitrios and Georgios


« Reply #3056 on: April 06, 2011, 02:56:27 PM »

[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.



this is precisely what Elder Paisios said is blasphemous.
I know and I believe Elder Paisios was wrong on this. My priest was one of the "synodeia"/followers of Elder Paisios and has told me that science is one thing and faith is another. As long as we don't disregard God's Law for science, we are okay, he says. In any way, the Orthodoxy I am taught does not claim infallibility for anyone. There are saints who have been mistaken for one thing or another in the Tradition of the Church.


well but whether or not something is blasphemous is obviously a religious call, and who better to make it than Elder Paisios? although he's not alone of course on this sentiment.
So, is he a Pope or to generalise this, is any saint in Orthodoxy a Pope? Orthodoxy today is divided between science compatibilists and incompatibilists, with many of them in both camps.

i dont know why it has to be taken to that level. of course I'm not saying he's a Pope, but he is ridiculously holy and i can't even remotely touch him. i have no reason or right to say he's wrong without at least appealing to someone equally holy. thats how i see it at least.
I never said he's not holy, on the contrary. He is one of the brightest candles of Christianity in the last century. I've actually prayed for his intercession sometimes. That doesn't mean that he can't be wrong on just one subject, which is more technical than spiritual in any case. Today everyone knows about evolution, but back when Elder Paisius expressed that view, religious people faced evolution as something that excluded God. Greek people hardly knew anything scientific about evolution back then, so they used to blindly follow what others said, without much judgement.

Nowadays, more than a few Christian scientists have spoken on a compatibilist view of life, with evolution and God together, God being the Creator through evolution. As long as the spiritual treasure is kept intact, to which evolution has no say, there is nothing blasphemous about it.

As for someone equally holy, I apologize because I haven't done research on it, especially on saints. I've found modern theologians who are compatibilists but haven't done the extra step to search for saints and I'm at fault here. I promise that once University gives me some free time, I'll do it.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,421


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #3057 on: April 06, 2011, 03:13:21 PM »

[...]who was the very remote ancestor of The Most Holy Theotokos and The Lord Jesus Christ? Was this ancestor sometime ago an apelike creature? It will be nice if you provided your own answers to these questions.
Sorry to jump in this discussion, but I get this question all the time. Yes, there was an apelike ancestor of the Most Holy Theotokos and the Lord Jesus Christ around 200,000 years ago. Also, there was a unicellular ancestor of them some billion years ago.



this is precisely what Elder Paisios said is blasphemous.
I know and I believe Elder Paisios was wrong on this. My priest was one of the "synodeia"/followers of Elder Paisios and has told me that science is one thing and faith is another. As long as we don't disregard God's Law for science, we are okay, he says. In any way, the Orthodoxy I am taught does not claim infallibility for anyone. There are saints who have been mistaken for one thing or another in the Tradition of the Church.


well but whether or not something is blasphemous is obviously a religious call, and who better to make it than Elder Paisios? although he's not alone of course on this sentiment.
So, is he a Pope or to generalise this, is any saint in Orthodoxy a Pope? Orthodoxy today is divided between science compatibilists and incompatibilists, with many of them in both camps.

i dont know why it has to be taken to that level. of course I'm not saying he's a Pope, but he is ridiculously holy and i can't even remotely touch him. i have no reason or right to say he's wrong without at least appealing to someone equally holy. thats how i see it at least.
I never said he's not holy, on the contrary. He is one of the brightest candles of Christianity in the last century. I've actually prayed for his intercession sometimes. That doesn't mean that he can't be wrong on just one subject, which is more technical than spiritual in any case. Today everyone knows about evolution, but back when Elder Paisius expressed that view, religious people faced evolution as something that excluded God. Greek people hardly knew anything scientific about evolution back then, so they used to blindly follow what others said, without much judgement.

Nowadays, more than a few Christian scientists have spoken on a compatibilist view of life, with evolution and God together, God being the Creator through evolution. As long as the spiritual treasure is kept intact, to which evolution has no say, there is nothing blasphemous about it.

As for someone equally holy, I apologize because I haven't done research on it, especially on saints. I've found modern theologians who are compatibilists but haven't done the extra step to search for saints and I'm at fault here. I promise that once University gives me some free time, I'll do it.

Indeed!  I made the argument earlier that virtually the first 300 hundred years of the Church, all the Church fathers believed that angels can have intercourse with humans.  Later on, the Church seemed to have changed over the course understanding either a different interpretation or an allegory of the Nephilim.  The question that comes to mind, and very crucially, does it really change the central faith of the Church.  The answer was no.  So despite the unanimous Church going along with the idea of the Nephilim as being sons of fallen angels, the later Church fathers keeping up with the scientific understanding of their times found it to be prudent to disagree.

We can see the same going on today.  The 5th century of the Church seemed to have shown an interesting transition.  I always wonder whether Church fathers really debated such an issue of their time or not, whether it really bothered them.  Likewise, so long as we still maintain man being the Image of God, it doesn't change the central dogmatic view of humanity at all.  The Image of God as we know is what unites us with divine life.  Since the understanding of the divine is already known to be quite an exclusively human concept, then for what it's worth, I think we find ourselves more in agreement than in disagreement, especially on the importance the image of God in man.

I think we should truly ask ourselves, and I hope this might help some of us here (since now I broke my vow on just sticking with scientific discussion of this).  Why don't we ask ourselves what unites us?  Let's find out what exactly do we agree on, and then use that as a way to analyze our disagreements.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 03:15:18 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #3058 on: April 06, 2011, 03:31:52 PM »


I never said he's not holy, on the contrary. He is one of the brightest candles of Christianity in the last century. I've actually prayed for his intercession sometimes. That doesn't mean that he can't be wrong on just one subject, which is more technical than spiritual in any case. Today everyone knows about evolution, but back when Elder Paisius expressed that view, religious people faced evolution as something that excluded God. Greek people hardly knew anything scientific about evolution back then, so they used to blindly follow what others said, without much judgement.

Nowadays, more than a few Christian scientists have spoken on a compatibilist view of life, with evolution and God together, God being the Creator through evolution. As long as the spiritual treasure is kept intact, to which evolution has no say, there is nothing blasphemous about it.

As for someone equally holy, I apologize because I haven't done research on it, especially on saints. I've found modern theologians who are compatibilists but haven't done the extra step to search for saints and I'm at fault here. I promise that once University gives me some free time, I'll do it.

well again, whether or not something is blasphemous would be a spiritual, not technical, matter. plus, you say he's holy but then treat it as if he is restricted by his scientific education, or lack thereof. but what about his holiness? the Saints often know and understand things that they were never educated about because they are divinely illumined. i find it hard to believe that Elder Paisios is just blindly following the crowd. and its obvious that he is NOT referring to evolution as excluding God, but rather is responding to what happens when you try to combine evolution with our God - to say that Christ is descended from animals, he says is blasphemy! he's not saying its atheism, but rather that its a religious blasphemy.

and yes there are scientists who have spoken/written about a compatabilist view, but if they are going to approach the subject simply from a position of education, then they would need to be highly educated in both science and theology to accurately consider if the two are compatible. on the other hand, divine illumination and revelation is clearly recognized as the higher wisdom by the Church, and thus for one illumined like Elder Paisios its not necessary to have the latest scientific education. He's not approaching it academically but theoria-ically (yes, i made that word up). St. Theophan the Recluse says that our Tradition can be used to test scientific ideas, and if they are not in line with the Tradition then they are wrong and we should ignore them. if we honestly believe that our beliefs and the inspiration of Saints and elders are from God then they know no barrier of scientific education. the Saints contemplate the logoi of things, and Clement of Alexandria says that the true gnostic (not those crazy heresy ones) is pre-eminent in scientific knowledge - they see what science is unable to see.

P.S. and really, thinking about it more, our theology can never be reduced to an academic pursuit, so even the scientist who is also educated in theology would not be truly qualified to decide if the two are compatible or not. the Saints and holy elders are our true theologians, who could make this call other than them?
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 03:42:50 PM by jckstraw72 » Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,576


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3059 on: April 06, 2011, 04:50:45 PM »

Soul? Who said that animals have souls?

St. Maximos the Confessor, for one. He also said plants have souls  Smiley Oh snap!
In any case, this is a matter of theology and deserves its own thread. Like I said, when I mention the word "evolved" or "ancestor", I only care about DNA sequence evolution and nothing else. Even if plants and animals have souls, this is not my point here.
You yourself might have a fairly restricted notion of what actually "evolves" in evolution, but ativan's question points to the broader notion of what actually "evolves" when evolution is spoken of by many in the 21st century. This broader notion of evolution argues that not only does the DNA sequence change, but what Christian theology has classified as "mind" and "soul", which -- being simply products of complex physiological structures -- also change or evolve, as well. Therefore "mind" and "soul" are not "supernatural" but a part of the natural evolutionary process. To claim (without further clarification) that the the Most Holy Theotokos and Lord Jesus Christ "evolved" is to suggest (when speaking in a scientific context) that all of their DNA, thoughts, feelings, and awareness all evolved from antecedent phenomena of the apelike ancestors, without any supernatural intervention whatsoever.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 04:53:20 PM 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.
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 0.305 seconds with 75 queries.