|
|
Ever heard of the Aesop's Tales? Claimed to of emerged around 600 B.C.E I think they have more wisdom than any of the Bible's verses.
I know this saying in particular is used by Christians.
The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
A Wolf found great difficulty in getting at the sheep
owing to the vigilance of the shepherd and his dogs. But
one day it found the skin of a sheep that had been flayed
and thrown aside, so it put it on over its own pelt and
strolled down among the sheep. The Lamb that belonged
to the sheep, whose skin the Wolf was wearing, began to
follow the Wolf in the Sheep’s clothing; so, leading the
Lamb a little apart, he soon made a meal off her, and for
some time he succeeded in deceiving the sheep, and
enjoying hearty meals.
Appearances are deceptive.
Edit: Oh and I would like to point out that I asked my friend who is studying Evolutionary Biology at Uni about the whole information thing. He said mutations can lead to either a loss or gain in information, so it's not like since the beginning of life every living thing has had a particular set number of genes or something. So remember can either lead to a loss or gain.. depending on which benefits the proceding generations will be the determining factor on which mutation will be more successful.
Ive got a stranglehold on this decision,
All those opposed can rot in hell
|
|
|
WOW profound message there but I am sure that can be applied to almost anything and I am not sure what exactly you are getting at.
Even ardent evolutionists admit that almost all mutations are harmful (i.e. not beneficial) and obviously these harmful mutations would be eliminated in the wild. I have never seen a mutation that has increased “genetic information” in an animal, does your friend have evidence of such an occurrence or was he just told that mutations can give an increase in information?
NB I still maintain that even the very few beneficial mutations we see are NOT a result of new, more complex genetic information but rather the result of an animal (or living thing) losing the ability to do something i.e. degenerating.
 Nats Isabelle Jessica
last.fm
Run run the past is gone, it cannot be undone
Run run the future is here, our fate is drawing near
|
|
|
Quote
DESARENEZITIC :
WOW profound message there but I am sure that can be applied to almost anything and I am not sure what exactly you are getting at.
I think now you understand then how we feel when you post bible passages to justify your points.
|
|
|
Quote
New species can occur within a created kind and this I have no problem with; I have got a problem with everything on earth having a common ancestor. If we say we evolved over millions of years from very simple creatures then this requires new “genetic information” not just a reshuffling of existing genes (as in natural selection). For example a bacteria typically contains 2,000 proteins whilst a human has 100,000 (although this could be as low as 25,000 according to recent study) and to get from 2,000 to just 25,000 would require a lot of new “genetic information” which mutations do not provide (as we have already discussed).
Unlike you I don't claim to know everything, I think the fact that I don't is pretty obvious to everyone. I'm perfectly happy to ask questions about evolution, or just admit my ignorance. If I don't understand something or it doesn't make sense, it is probably my fault. From what I know about evolution it appears that you have completely misunderstood it along with genetics and natural selection. Laura, jomo, assorted others, am I right? Maybe you could try (again I know) to explain where he is mistaken?
Very simplistically:
Mutations can add letters. This was agreed upon.
If you keep adding letters to a simple genetic code, you will get a longer one. Mutations produce new genetic information in the sense that there are different emergent properties.
ADCG.GCDCDG.CCCD if you keep adding and removing random letters over time you can potentially arrive at any other genetic code can't you? Even with this very limited (flawed) knowledge it would seem that evolution was obvious and even natural. What the hell am I missing?
|
|
|
Quote
jonnymartyr :
Quote
DESARENEZITIC :
WOW profound message there but I am sure that can be applied to almost anything and I am not sure what exactly you are getting at.
I think now you understand then how we feel when you post bible passages to justify your points.
I know I just thought I would repay the favour, you know you’ve searched for something in the hope that this will finally be the one to unlock those hard hearts and win another one for the Lord and then you get shot down in flames, ah well onto the next one.
Kashmir
I guess if you kept drawing letters out at random you may come up with a word that makes sense very occasionally but what are the chances of coming up with the entire Lord of the Rings novel in order? What are the chances of coming up with one chapter even?
As I understand it (and obviously my knowledge is always less than yours) then if you have a code/sequence of letters that accounts for the positioning of arms and legs then if these two became swapped you would have arms where your legs should be and vice versa. Now is this new genetic information or the same information messed up in a different order?
Nats Isabelle Jessica
last.fm
Run run the past is gone, it cannot be undone
Run run the future is here, our fate is drawing near
|
|
|
I don't think I know enough to have a proper discussion about this! I think you are right about arms and legs though.
Mutations aren't like drawing out letters at random. The letters are only kept if they help in some way (or at least aren't detrimental). A better analogy would be if a beneficial mutation was one which formed a word with fits in with a dictionary (ie: a mutation which provided an adaptation which fits in with the environmental pressures). So over time a stream of words with meaning will emerge as the streams without meaning are discarded by natural selection. Eventually we arrive at some kind of story or book.
Starting from one specific book is a bit like looking at the present products of evolution and asking what were the odds of the present configuration of species arising! Or a bit like rolling a dice 10 times and marvelling that you managed to throw a certain configuration (1.3.4.2.5.6.4.4.3.2), if you had been trying to roll that configuration then it would be amazing! There isn't a predestined path which evolution will take or a predicted configuration of rolls!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote
MUSEfreak101 :
I am a Christian
Why's that?
|
|
|
OK but (again as I understand it) if for example you have a book, say, Romeo and Juliet, and you keep getting copying mistakes you are not going to end up with more Romeo and Juliet, maybe some duplicated passages or words but no NEW information. In short you wouldn’t get Lord of the Rings by mutations occurring in Romeo and Juliet!
I thought that is what you did though; start with the evidence and work backwards – the present is the key to the past. I may be wrong but to me it seems like you start out with See Spot Run and by mutations (no information added – just copying mistakes) you eventually end up with Lord of the Rings after millions and millions of years.
Oh and Kyle what kind of Church do you go to?
Nats Isabelle Jessica
last.fm
Run run the past is gone, it cannot be undone
Run run the future is here, our fate is drawing near
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I have heard about this and the fact that it doesn’t portray Creationists as very clever but I guess that is the stereotype in the U.S.
Nats Isabelle Jessica
last.fm
Run run the past is gone, it cannot be undone
Run run the future is here, our fate is drawing near
|
|
|
Nat...
I was simply stating that the WAY you speak to people here, turns them away from Christian beliefs. It doesn't matter if your right, you are HURTING the Kingdom of God, not helping it.
And also, you mentioned Christians being heretics if we modeled ourselves after Christ because we can't save people or die for the sins of man. That's true, we can't save man, but I said we should model our attitude after Christ. I think there is no better example.
|
|
|
Thank you for Laura and Kashmir for clearing up my little blunder earlier on the whole flood scenario, I wasn't sure if I was right or not to be honest.
To Nat:
You said earlier that Jesus acted forcefully and aggresively in some extreme cases of blasphemy etc. but that doesn not give you the right to do so. If Jesus is who he claimed to be, God, then that does put him above all else. But, you I'm afraid are not God, and in by aggressively attacking others on your spiritual views is rather contradictory of your belief. Rob above has covered this too as I've just noticed.
Was it not Jesus, your divine Lord that also said: "Love thy neighbour as you love yourself"? or something along those lines?
I'm afraid your belief has led to your ignorance of basic human communication skills, and consequently your arrogance towards others.
It's rather comic really. I pity you.
...the fact that it been chosen makes me thing it`ll be pants and were getting NSC 2. - Me, about Survival.
Its not elitism, some people are just better than others. - Joe.
Twitter
|
|
|
I'm a Christian
I also believe in evolution
|
|
|
Quote
FatJake :
I'm a Christian
I also believe in evolution
Can I ask how you reconcile the Bible with evolution, what stand do you take on the days of creation?
Nats Isabelle Jessica
last.fm
Run run the past is gone, it cannot be undone
Run run the future is here, our fate is drawing near
|
|
|
Evolution is genetics...
Let's say 4 frogs are born...3 normal...one with a genetic mutation that secretes a poison (it happens). The other three get eaten...other animals spit out the frog. Later that frog mates with another that and has tadpoles that have the trait...either dominant or reccessive. Because the mutation was beneficial...it is continued. Now if the frog's mutation is say one leg well...bye bye froggy. This is proven. Evolution exists.
However the real question is...did humans evolve from apes. The Bible says man was created by God. Both could be true...We may never know for sure.
|
|
|
Are you saying that a mutated frog with one less leg would a) represent a beneficial mutation and b) be able to survive to produce more offspring with one leg? As far as I see it molecules to man evolution needs to account for increased complexity and more “genetic information” which mutations simply don’t account for as even the atheistic evolutionists have conceded that mutations don’t represent an increase in information.
I think that evolution and long ages are completely incompatible with the Bible, they just don’t fit together, simple as really.
Nats Isabelle Jessica
last.fm
Run run the past is gone, it cannot be undone
Run run the future is here, our fate is drawing near
|
|
|
Quote
DESARENEZITIC :
Are you saying that a mutated frog with one less leg would a) represent a beneficial mutation and b) be able to survive to produce more offspring with one leg? As far as I see it molecules to man evolution needs to account for increased complexity and more “genetic information” which mutations simply don’t account for as even the atheistic evolutionists have conceded that mutations don’t represent an increase in information.
I'm getting frustrated when I read this. You can't talk about "increases" or "decreases" in information... I have tried to put the science into layman's terms but those words are not really compatible with the science of natural selection.
Google has thrown up this site which may answer some of your questions much better than I could.
No, having one leg would not represent a beneficial mutation for that environment, so our frogs do not have just one leg. If other planets in the universe harbour life, and have frogs, those frogs could well have one leg, because the one-legged mutation is better-suited to that planet than the four-legged mutation.
On Earth, the four-legged organism is more successful at getting food etc, so it survived to reproduce. More frogs were born with four legs than with one, and as these four-legged frogs were better at getting food, they outcompeted the one-legged frogs. The one-legged frogs died out, the four-legged frogs survived.
This is survival of the fittest - a vital facet of natural selection that I took for granted that you understood.
A malign mutation will not confer an advantage, so will not be passed on. This means that what we see in the world around us is the accumulation of lots of beneficial mutations.
|
|
|
DEZ
as even the atheistic evolutionists have conceded that mutations don’t represent an increase in information.
Seriously! What the fuck dude?
Quote
Are you saying that a mutated frog with one less leg would a) represent a beneficial mutation and b) be able to survive to produce more offspring with one leg?
He said the exact opposite of this.
|
|
|
I thought we were on about a frog with one less leg but anyway I guess you are saying that an ancestor of the frog would have had no legs and then eventually mutated to have four, is that right?
Anyway even after that site saying they don’t regard evolution as necessarily simple to complex we have to agree that to get from a single cell to a human would involve some kind of increase, do you agree?
I am well aware that natural selection involves survival of the fittest – the fittest animals stay alive to pass on their traits to their offspring, very simple idea. However the vast majority of mutations are not beneficial and they cannot account for evolution from molecules to man, it just doesn’t make sense.
EDIT: Check out this post to see what Laura said on increases in information caused by mutations.
Nats Isabelle Jessica
last.fm
Run run the past is gone, it cannot be undone
Run run the future is here, our fate is drawing near
|
|
|
My brother who has studied evolution and chemistry at Oxbridge, tells me that the vast majority of mutations are neutral. Next come the harmful ones, and then the benficial ones. The neutral ones have no effect on the fitness of an individual. So you are wrong and beneficial mutations do happen:
* Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon.
* Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones.
* Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS or to heart disease
* A mutation in humans makes bones strong.
* Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity: Transposon
* In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme.
Some examples I found in 5 seconds...
Perhaps you should read Laura's post yourself as you keep saying that new information is impossible, and evolution requires new information, so evolution is impossible (something along those lines). As far as I can tell (please correct me Laura), you are absolutely misunderstanding what Laura was saying.
She was saying that mutations produce a change, just a change in the letter. It isn't new information, it's more of the same information, just another letter. What is new is the emergent property that this new code unknowingly causes.
|
|
|
I said "bye bye froggy" to the one legged frog...which means it is limited in mobility and will be eaten.
|
|
|
Quote
Kashmir :
Perhaps you should read Laura's post yourself as you keep saying that new information is impossible, and evolution requires new information, so evolution is impossible (something along those lines). As far as I can tell (please correct me Laura), you are absolutely misunderstanding what Laura was saying.
|
|
|
Quote
MuseHobo :
Nat...
I was simply stating that the WAY you speak to people here, turns them away from Christian beliefs. It doesn't matter if your right, you are HURTING the Kingdom of God, not helping it.
And also, you mentioned Christians being heretics if we modeled ourselves after Christ because we can't save people or die for the sins of man. That's true, we can't save man, but I said we should model our attitude after Christ. I think there is no better example.
we should never ever ever put Christ as just a model for living. Christ is our Lord and our Saviour - not a posterboy for being good. so if telling the truth to people turns them away from the Kingdom of God im afraid that is what the Bible says will happen - he will harden the hearts of some. and the Bible says as Paul quoted earlier the Word of God will cause offense to people, people will regard it as complete and utter foolishness - so judging from the Bible, i have no problem if God's word spoken clearly causes offense.
if you are implying that i should tone down my beliefs for the sake of others you are indeed a heretic and no doubt probably part of the Emerging Church. a Church that seeks to tone down the beliefs of Christianity to make it attractive to non-believers, and subsequently denies many of the fundamental statements of scripture to appease the atheist. one of their famous beliefs is turning Jesus into a "model" rather than your "Lord and Saviour". Jehovah's witness' believe something similar along the lines to that.
and name - im afraid that you have substantially misunderstood the meaning of Love in the proclaiming of the Gospel. once again, mistaking a conviction of the truth for arrogance. the Gospel is so true, and compelled by the Love of the Gospel i am comissioned to proclaim to others the Love of God, not the love of myself. i am worthless when it comes to such things - but part of the Love i am comissioned to have is telling others of the Gospel, regardless of the offense it may take. if you fully understood the magnitude and the significance of the Gospel you would STOP AT NOTHING in spreading it. i think you fail to understand that the people we talk to are dead, spiritually dead. it is not a light-hearted matter. if we must go to extreme lengths to open them up to the Love of God and He who made them then so be it. because thats what we are comissioned to do in all the Gospels and the Epistles - love is proclaiming to the dead that life can be theirs! and that is what im here for, and you might not be - but i challenge, that scipture instructs us to "plead on God's behalf, be reconciled to Him".
i am greatful that you tried to rebuke in love about love - however, i feel a need to rebuke you and say that the Gospel is love, and though it may cause offense and "destroy the wisdom of the wise" - the Gospel is love, and you have failed to understand, that proclaiming it, is far more what Jesus did than anything else. he didn't go around trying to live a perfect life as an example (he lived it regardless and thats beside the point) - he went around proclaiming the Love of God, the Love of himself. was he not God? it CAUSED SO MUCH OFFENSE THAT THEY PUT HIM TO DEATH! likewise, we must go around proclaiming the Love of God, which is the only meaningful act of love towards mankind that we can do - and if you disagree, then leave me free, bound by scripture to tell others the Gospel. and let you yourselves jeopordize the message by leaving out the offense of the Cross for non-believers sake.
and i would also add that you cannot reconcile human evolution with the Bible if you were trying to. musehobo you said "we will never know for sure" - do you not regard the Bible as the infallible word of God then? the sure trustworthy WORDS OF GOD? that means that we do know - we know that God created man and woman in the beginning. he created them MAN and WOMAN, not male and female MONKEYS! if we put the Bible above the knowledge of the world which 1 corinthians says we must - then we must trust that God created mankind in the beginning. animal evolution is not ruled out, however they were made according to their "kinds". i personally don't understand why monkeys are still around today if we evolved from them and other pre-evolution species have all been bred out as a result of "evolution". so if you value the word of God, evolution cannot be reconciled with it. i am 100% sure Paul will support me on this one.
|
|
|
Quote
i personally don't understand why monkeys are still around today if we evolved from them and other pre-evolution species have all been bred out as a result of "evolution". so if you value the word of God, evolution cannot be reconciled with it. i am 100% sure Paul will support me on this one.
Gosh, chimps and humans are cousins, gosh! I know for a fact that this has been explained to you umpteen times and I don't think I can be bothered to explain it again. Someone else please enlighten him?
Nat, do you have nothing to say about my post concerning floods? Or indeed any of the other stuff directed at you and intended to start a debate? I don't particularly want you to just state what you believe, but try to give me arguments as to why you are right and I am wrong on certain points you and I have made.
If only that straw man had a brain eh Tene. Unfortunately it's just a braindead old straw man with no redeeming merits.
|
