Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2
- Status
- Moderator
- #19,451
Livy records their numbers. The number in 28 BC he recorded was 4,063,000 (adult Roman male citizens).
- Aug 9, 2001
- 6,729
- 8,715
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Box Hill, Northcote Junior Football Club
What I always found strange about the story, was why did everyone have to go back to their place of birth in order for a census to be conducted?
Is there any historic evidence that this is how censuses were done? Seems like a huge amount of unnecessary disruption
- Moderator
- #19,453
They didn't. That was just a literary invention to have Jesus fulfil 'prophecy'.
Christians wrote their Gospels with clear purposes in mind - one of which was that their Messiah (at that time one of many messiahs) would be seen as the true Messiah because he fulfilled OT prophecy. (Matthew 16:13-20, Mark 8:27–30 and Luke 9:18–20 )
Biblical 'prophecy' in general is often so vague, it can be interpreted in a number of ways. The interpreter can therefore find a meaning in the words that is true to them.
To give credibility to their new found religion, New Testament writers often distorted Old Testament scriptures or quoted them entirely out of context to shape them into "prophecies" that seemed to fit contemporary people and events they were writing about. For example the 'virgin' birth and the "prophecy" that Jesus was going to be a Nazarene. Another good example of this type is the "prophecy" by Micah, that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem.
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
The Gospel of Matthew (2:5-6) claims that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this raises a couple of problems.
"Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but quite possibly refers to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the grandson of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (2 Chronicles:50-52, 4:4).
The Gospel of Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this to make the verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.
Lo and behold the "prophecy" is fulfilled.
Christopher Hitchens once remarked about prophecy in the New Testament.
"If you pick up any of the four Gospels and read them at random, it will not be long before you learn that such and such an action or saying, attributed to Jesus, was done so that an ancient prophecy should come true. If it should seem odd that an action should be deliberately performed in order that a foretelling be vindicated, that is because it is odd. And it is necessarily odd because, just like the Old Testament, the "New" one is also a work of crude carpentry, hammered together long after its purported events, and full of improvised attempts to make things come out right."
They were done largely according to local customs.
Last edited:
Its hard to figure out reasons in the sands of time. I've come across theories of some kind of displacement due to maybe war public disturbance epidemic.
There appears enough contemporary reports survived to suggest threads of actual happening throughout the new testament story.
A fair bit of the bible is what historians call 'secondary sources' though
edit: What Roylion said
Opine
Norm Smith Medallist
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,352
- 12,278
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Criticism is healthy. Normalising dehumanising bias isn’t. I wasn’t intending to suggest that you were promoting such conduct; I did use your response to springboard a point, or 2. My apologies for that.
- May 1, 2016
- 28,956
- 56,374
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #19,456
Well, that's honest. Can't ask for more than that.
The biggest one is evolution, pretty obviously. But then you've got pushback against the use of stem cell research on religious grounds as well.
I'm not looking to tell christians that they cannot hold theological positions on these things, but I'd appreciate it if they didn't allow those theological positions to interfere.
Just to be clear, this is something I'm pretty passionate about, so I'm just going to warn you about it before we move along.
Abstinence is not an adequate method of birth control or sexual education. It does not teach teenagers to be ready for their own biological changes, and it does not prepare them on issues of consent.
As I've said multiple times in here, I was raised Catholic, and went to a Catholic secondary college. We did no sex education. At all.
I really don't like the christian insistence that lust is a sin. It is the source of an awful lot of joy for an awful lot of people.
I would absolutely agree, but parents don't. They just don't have the conversation.
And someone has to do it. We outsource an awful lot of parenting to teachers already; why not add this as well?
I don't mind this as a compromise.
The only other thing I'd add would be that they need to get undiluted facts regarding condoms and how to put them on so they do not break. Condoms have tremendous efficacy at preventing sexually transmitted disease, and - as I'm sure you're aware - Chlamydia was at epidemic levels pre-covid.
When the bible contradicts itself. You've probably read it more recently than I have.
Opine
Norm Smith Medallist
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,352
- 12,278
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I think you’re right. I often say the same to my family. Although, I think there’s much from those doctrines worth keeping and building on. I suspect those things will manifest into other doctrines.
When you make a point about intolerance and and people shouting in the streets, never having seen atheists do that.
When someone points out that those same atheists, not only do those same things they go on to murder them
in the 100s of millions.
We all lock our doors at night not because Christians are roaming the streets trying to hurt people.
Did Hitchens mention what type of religion it was, it’s worship the leader, another little atheistic game.
Christianity is punished with lengthy prison terms or death.
You want to call out the atrocities, well how about all the babies slaughtered in-utero, 61% of black
american lives end in the womb.
- Aug 9, 2001
- 6,729
- 8,715
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Box Hill, Northcote Junior Football Club
1) Again - I said when atheism is "insulted". I never said atheists never protest. I said atheists don't get their knickers in a twist in the same way a lot of religious folk do around being offended. Draw a picture of Mohammed - fill the streets with people calling for fatwahs. Make a satirical film about a fictitious non-messiah. Protest that it's blasphemy. Some obscure death metal band plays at a local bar - protest outside (this actually happened near my house).
2) Again - I explained why atheism doesn't equal communism. You chose to ignore it. It would be no different to me saying since Germany is a Christian country and since Nazism flourished there, all Christians must be Nazis.
3) Studies have consistently shown atheists make up a much smaller percentage of the prison population in the US than religious folks. Over 80% of Mexicans identify as Catholic and it has one of the worst murder rates in the world.
4) Obviously Hitchens was referring to a God Head of State. It doesn't matter - the point is a communist country can be highly religious. Sure Christians cop it in North Korea. And I'm sure there are other areas around the world where they are persecuted. And that's wrong. Bit if we had a Christian state, then other religions (and us atheists) would potentially be persecuted. And again, that's why a secular state is such a better model.
5) What babies? Are you talking about aborting a fetus which is by definition not a baby? By the way, the rate of miscarriage sits around 20%.
Miscarriage
Miscarriage happens when a pregnancy stops growing and the pregnancy tissue passes out of the body. Some women feel crampy, period-like pain and in most cases there will be vaginal bleeding. Miscarriage is very common in the first few weeks of pregnancy.
If God is omnipotent and can prevent that from happening or if it indeed is God's will, doesn't that make God the ultra-abortionist?
You keep on conflating all so called religions as if they are one, but exclude yourself + fellow devotees, very1) Again - I said when atheism is "insulted". I never said atheists never protest. I said atheists don't get their knickers in a twist in the same way a lot of religious folk do around being offended. Draw a picture of Mohammed - fill the streets with people calling for fatwahs. Make a satirical film about a fictitious non-messiah. Protest that it's blasphemy. Some obscure death metal band plays at a local bar - protest outside (this actually happened near my house).
2) Again - I explained why atheism doesn't equal communism. You chose to ignore it. It would be no different to me saying since Germany is a Christian country and since Nazism flourished there, all Christians must be Nazis.
3) Studies have consistently shown atheists make up a much smaller percentage of the prison population in the US than religious folks. Over 80% of Mexicans identify as Catholic and it has one of the worst murder rates in the world.
4) Obviously Hitchens was referring to a God Head of State. It doesn't matter - the point is a communist country can be highly religious. Sure Christians cop it in North Korea. And I'm sure there are other areas around the world where they are persecuted. And that's wrong. Bit if we had a Christian state, then other religions (and us atheists) would potentially be persecuted. And again, that's why a secular state is such a better model.
5) What babies? Are you talking about aborting a fetus which is by definition not a baby? By the way, the rate of miscarriage sits around 20%.
Miscarriage
Miscarriage happens when a pregnancy stops growing and the pregnancy tissue passes out of the body. Some women feel crampy, period-like pain and in most cases there will be vaginal bleeding. Miscarriage is very common in the first few weeks of pregnancy.www.thewomens.org.au
If God is omnipotent and can prevent that from happening or if it indeed is God's will, doesn't that make God the ultra-abortionist?
ad hoc I might add.
Communism is an atheist state you can’t exclude what you don’t based solely on convenience.
All worldviews have a set of beliefs by which they operate.
Yours is no different. Communism is an atheistic state. There is a world movement to the left
right now, BLM, Extinction Rebellion, the US Democrat Party, The Greens + even some Republicans.
Many of them call themselves New Marxists, what do they all have in common, have a guess.
There really is nothing new under the sun.
- Moderator
- #19,461
Not all atheists are communists.
Atheism is simply a rejection of the claim there is a 'god'.
No not all atheists are communists, but all communist states + national socialist states are
atheistic.
They cannot have anybody or anything above the state, it’s inherent in the nature.
Atheism is not simply a rejection of the claim there is a god, look at any older dictionary. (against god)
The new definition regarding a lack of belief about god, is simply a way out from the so called
new atheists having to support their view.
As you know well atheism has not been able to establish a single argument against god, so
they have just redefined it so they don’t.
- Moderator
- #19,463
Yes....and?
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist.
A rejection of the belief that a 'god' (or 'gods') exists.
Apart from the fact there is no evidence in support of 'god'.
- Jul 5, 2012
- 24,745
- 40,163
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Kidding, right?
Not to mention the bizarreness of Christianity’s emphasis on prophecy anyway.
I’ve never understood why Christians would think grownups of at least average intelligence would be remotely impressed by such obvious horseschitte.
Absence of belief again in different words, is a redefinition of a word from what it has always meant
to escape having to support the view of no or against god.
As I said earlier have a look at any dictionary over about 20 years old.
Roy there are proofs of Gods existence you just fail to see them.
The moral law for one. If there is no God morality for one can be nothing other than
an illusion.
Im sure you know this, but just choose to ignore it or whatever.
And don’t quote Harris, Hitchens or Dennett to support some view, as they know it’s there
so they just appropriate it.
By the way I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate how any form of common descent can work,
from a previous post.
Because that too is a proof of Gods existence, cause there are only 2 options, either it
happened on its own by chance, or God did it.
- Moderator
- #19,466
There is no evidence for 'god' so atheists choose not believe in the existance of 'god'. Of course it cannot be proved definitively, but neither can the existence of god, which remains an unsubstianted claim.
The definition hasn't changed.
This isn't evidence for 'god'.
Morality is subjective and varies from society to society. Morality is a human construct alongside, and often tied in with, religion. Altruism, empathy, and gratitude (which has been observed in animals), which underpin 'morality' is now seen by many scientists be a evolutionary process developed in order to benefit the species.
You don't even know what 'common descent' is, by the looks of it. Everything you write about evolution is wrong in some respect.
Do some biology. Evolution is a scientific fact, proven over and over again. Every piece of scientific evidence ever discovered across a range of scientific fields supports the scientific fact of evolution. Read some books. Do a internet search.
Once again. Scientific evidence supports common descent very strongly
For example:
- Anatomical homologies - This refers to the parts of different species that look the same, even when the part performs different functions. For instance, when the skeletal composition of multiple mammals is examined, it is clear that each share many common features.
- DNA and RNA code - All life significantly shares the genetic code based on the molecule DNA and its related molecule RNA.
- Endogenous retroviral insertions - A retrovirus is a virus in the family Retroviridae. Different families of viruses carry their genetic information differently: DNA, double-stranded RNA, and single-stranded RNA are all possible. Retroviruses contain their information in RNA and use a protein called reverse transcriptase to transcribe their RNA into DNA upon entering the host cell, and then insert the DNA copy into the host genome.
How this supports the idea of common descent could be best described by this analogy. Take two people and lock each person in a separate room with a dictionary. Give them instructions to randomly pick 100 entries from the dictionary and write them down. When they are done, compare the lists of words. The chances that any of those 100 words will match are obviously pretty low. The same applies to retroviruses when they choose a base in the genome to insert into. Therefore, when you see hundreds of thousands of retroviral insertions that are found at the same place in two different genomes you know that they had to be inherited from a common ancestor because there is no plausible way that many independent retroviral insertions would happen at the same base. Here's an example from our branch of the family tree of common descent. Put simply, each arrow represents a retroviral insertion.
- Pseudogenes - Pseudogenes are genes present in an organism's genome that have lost the ability to code for proteins due to mutation. Specific pseudogenes are often compared across species to elucidate complex evolutionary relationships. All pseudogenes are descended from a parent functioning gene. Once a functioning copy of a gene is detected, its sequence is compared to the pseudogene to trace descent. The more similar the sequence the closer the common ancestor.
- Embryology - Taxonomically diverse vertebrate embryos all converge to a very similar morphology. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos (including humans and including you and I when we were embryos), all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
- Chromosome fusion This occurs across a wide variety of species in different ways. Fusion of chromosomes decreases the chromosome numbers in a descendant species. (Alternatively, a split in a chromosome increases the chromosome number.) The pattern of these fusion events generates characteristic phylogenetic trees offering proof of common descent. One famous example is a fusion event that indicates the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. While all other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 looks almost identical to two of the chimpanzee's chromosomes stacked on one on top of the other, indicating chromosome fusion. Chromosomes form light and dark bands on a karyotype that can be compared to see how similar they are. The light and dark banding patterns of the two chimp chromosomes match that of the single human one.
- Convergence - This is the tree of life, a branching structure showing the theorized relationships between all of life, tracing back to the last universal common ancestor. The relationships of various extant and extinct species can be constructed using any evidence discussed above. After scientists employed genetics in tree construction the tree that was finally constructed from genetic information was astoundingly similar to that constructed from anatomical homologies. Different genetic tools such as DNA structure, chromosome structure, and endogenous retrovirus insertions can all be used independently to construct individual trees. While there may be slight changes or deviations between trees, whatever methods used still converges on strikingly similar relationships. This convergence is powerful evidence for the validity of common descent. Each method uses independent observations to produce results that only common descent predicts.
- Uniqueness - The complex, predictive patterns of similarities and differences in the world of life have have a unique known explanation — no one has even hypothesized an alternative account for the patterns exhibited — either there is common descent or there is something which is somehow simulating common descent.
And of course evolution is simply when mutations occur. A mutation is a change in a DNA sequence. Mutations can result from DNA copying mistakes made during cell division, exposure to ionizing radiation, exposure to chemicals called mutagens, or infection by viruses. Cell division is the process by which a parent cell divides into two or more daughter cells. Cell division usually occurs as part of a larger cell cycle. In cell biology, mitosis is a part of the cell cycle, in which, replicated chromosomes are separated into two new nuclei
There's two types of mutations.
Germ line mutations occur in the eggs and sperm and can be passed on to offspring. Germ line mutation drives evolution as mutations multiply and eventually the DNA sequences diverge essentially forming new species.
Somatic mutations occur in body cells and are not passed on.
Mutation is really a simple process of a mistake made in a DNA sequence as it's being copied during cell division. DNA copying is not perfect, and because of that evolution occurs. Mutation can also be induced by things like radiation or carcinogens in a way that can increase the risk of cancers or birth defects. But it's pretty simple; mutations arebasically an induced misspelling of the DNA sequence.
There is absolutely no supporting evidence that "Godidit". That is an assumption made purely by faith by those with a lack of understanding, knowledge and it appears a lack of some basic education.
The 'god of the gaps' argument is slowly but surely receding into the distance.
Last edited:
- Aug 9, 2001
- 6,729
- 8,715
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Box Hill, Northcote Junior Football Club
That's pretty easily dismissed I'm afraid. There are plenty of examples of "moral" behaviour in non-Christian societies. Furthermore, there are countless examples of Christians acting in what by any rational definition is immoral.
Five of the most violent moments of the Reformation
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have called for repentence for the divisions caused by the schism between the Protestant and Catholic faiths.
theconversation.com
Let alone the appalling behaviour of pederasts and paedophiles who essentially got away with their crimes for years under the umbrella of religion. No religion has any claim to morality. Concepts like human rights only came to light after the scientific enlightenment.
Stop the press all the leading lights of Atheism haven’t been able to ground the moral law, but little knownThat's pretty easily dismissed I'm afraid. There are plenty of examples of "moral" behaviour in non-Christian societies. Furthermore, there are countless examples of Christians acting in what by any rational definition is immoral.
Five of the most violent moments of the Reformation
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have called for repentence for the divisions caused by the schism between the Protestant and Catholic faiths.
Let alone the appalling behaviour of pederasts and paedophiles who essentially got away with their crimes for years under the umbrella of religion. No religion has any claim to morality. Concepts like human rights only came to light after the scientific enlightenment.
Rusty has.
I don’t know if it’s deliberate or not but until you can ground the moral law somewhere, it doesn’t exist.
Then it is only an illusion.
Nobody has said ever that people can do moral acts or immoral acts for that matter.
If there is no God morality does not actually exist.
Its just an illusion, even Dawkins understood it in his book “River out of Eden”, you know the
line about dancing to the music of our dna.
You still haven’t contended with my post, all you are doing is copying + pasting the generalThere is no evidence for 'god' so atheists choose not believe in the existance of 'god'. Of course it cannot be proved definitively, but neither can the existence of god, which remains an unsubstianted claim.
The definition hasn't changed.
This isn't evidence for 'god'.
Morality is subjective and varies from society to society. Morality is a human construct alongside, and often tied in with, religion. Altruism, empathy, and gratitude (which has been observed in animals), which underpin 'morality' is now seen by many scientists be a evolutionary process developed in order to benefit the species.
You don't even know what 'common descent' is, by the looks of it. Everything you write about evolution is wrong in some respect.
Do some biology. Evolution is a scientific fact, proven over and over again. Every piece of scientific evidence ever discovered across a range of scientific fields supports the scientific fact of evolution. Read some books. Do a internet search.
Once again. Scientific evidence supports common descent very strongly
For example:
- Anatomical homologies - This refers to the parts of different species that look the same, even when the part performs different functions. For instance, when the skeletal composition of multiple mammals is examined, it is clear that each share many common features.
- DNA and RNA code - All life significantly shares the genetic code based on the molecule DNA and its related molecule RNA.
- Endogenous retroviral insertions - A retrovirus is a virus in the family Retroviridae. Different families of viruses carry their genetic information differently: DNA, double-stranded RNA, and single-stranded RNA are all possible. Retroviruses contain their information in RNA and use a protein called reverse transcriptase to transcribe their RNA into DNA upon entering the host cell, and then insert the DNA copy into the host genome.
How this supports the idea of common descent could be best described by this analogy. Take two people and lock each person in a separate room with a dictionary. Give them instructions to randomly pick 100 entries from the dictionary and write them down. When they are done, compare the lists of words. The chances that any of those 100 words will match are obviously pretty low. The same applies to retroviruses when they choose a base in the genome to insert into. Therefore, when you see hundreds of thousands of retroviral insertions that are found at the same place in two different genomes you know that they had to be inherited from a common ancestor because there is no plausible way that many independent retroviral insertions would happen at the same base. Here's an example from our branch of the family tree of common descent. Put simply, each arrow represents a retroviral insertion.
- Pseudogenes - Pseudogenes are genes present in an organism's genome that have lost the ability to code for proteins due to mutation. Specific pseudogenes are often compared across species to elucidate complex evolutionary relationships. All pseudogenes are descended from a parent functioning gene. Once a functioning copy of a gene is detected, its sequence is compared to the pseudogene to trace descent. The more similar the sequence the closer the common ancestor.
- Embryology - Taxonomically diverse vertebrate embryos all converge to a very similar morphology. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos (including humans and including you and I when we were embryos), all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
- Chromosome fusion This occurs across a wide variety of species in different ways. Fusion of chromosomes decreases the chromosome numbers in a descendant species. (Alternatively, a split in a chromosome increases the chromosome number.) The pattern of these fusion events generates characteristic phylogenetic trees offering proof of common descent. One famous example is a fusion event that indicates the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. While all other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 looks almost identical to two of the chimpanzee's chromosomes stacked on one on top of the other, indicating chromosome fusion. Chromosomes form light and dark bands on a karyotype that can be compared to see how similar they are. The light and dark banding patterns of the two chimp chromosomes match that of the single human one.
- Convergence - This is the tree of life, a branching structure showing the theorized relationships between all of life, tracing back to the last universal common ancestor. The relationships of various extant and extinct species can be constructed using any evidence discussed above. After scientists employed genetics in tree construction the tree that was finally constructed from genetic information was astoundingly similar to that constructed from anatomical homologies. Different genetic tools such as DNA structure, chromosome structure, and endogenous retrovirus insertions can all be used independently to construct individual trees. While there may be slight changes or deviations between trees, whatever methods used still converges on strikingly similar relationships. This convergence is powerful evidence for the validity of common descent. Each method uses independent observations to produce results that only common descent predicts.
- Uniqueness - The complex, predictive patterns of similarities and differences in the world of life have have a unique known explanation — no one has even hypothesized an alternative account for the patterns exhibited — either there is common descent or there is something which is somehow simulating common descent.
And of course evolution is simply when mutations occur. A mutation is a change in a DNA sequence. Mutations can result from DNA copying mistakes made during cell division, exposure to ionizing radiation, exposure to chemicals called mutagens, or infection by viruses. Cell division is the process by which a parent cell divides into two or more daughter cells. Cell division usually occurs as part of a larger cell cycle. In cell biology, mitosis is a part of the cell cycle, in which, replicated chromosomes are separated into two new nuclei
There's two types of mutations.
Germ line mutations occur in the eggs and sperm and can be passed on to offspring. Germ line mutation drives evolution as mutations multiply and eventually the DNA sequences diverge essentially forming new species.
Somatic mutations occur in body cells and are not passed on.
Mutation is really a simple process of a mistake made in a DNA sequence as it's being copied during cell division. DNA copying is not perfect, and because of that evolution occurs. Mutation can also be induced by things like radiation or carcinogens in a way that can increase the risk of cancers or birth defects. But it's pretty simple; mutations arebasically an induced misspelling of the DNA sequence.
There is absolutely no supporting evidence that "Godidit". That is an assumption made purely by faith by those with a lack of understanding, knowledge and it appears a lack of some basic education.
The 'god of the gaps' argument is slowly but surely receding into the distance.
principles behind common descent if it worked.
Re-read my original post on this subject + contend with it. It’s very simple, logical, it logically
demonstrates that CD cannot work.
- Moderator
- #19,470
"If it worked"? It's been proven to be true. I've just explained how.
It's rubbish. I've explained why.
It doesn't do anything of the sort. But we can go through it again if you like.
You haven’t, you can’t, when you don’t even understand it.
- Moderator
- #19,472
And what part do I supposedly not understand?
I've explained the process of 'common descent' and the evidence in support of it, to you on a number of occasions. Not once have you refuted it.
You keep pasting the same arguments to support common descent.
Here is my response again
… Im going to assume you understand the Neo-Darwinian model.
“If life started out as a simple single sex animal, with all the genetic infrastructure to reproduce itself,
then how did that evolve from that model to one that is interdependent on reproduction.
You need to think about this.
You have a single sex which then somehow goes on to be interdependent for reproduction.
eg pairing the chromosomes.
This is not within the realms of possibility, not only that but it would need everything that goes on with
conception, gestation and birth (birth canal etc.) at the same instant.
If this miraculous creation had both sexes, then they would have to have identical mutations
across all species in perpetuity to perpetuate.
In the entire history of animal husbandry no new creation has ever happened.”
You won’t be able to copy + paste on this as it won’t be in any of the text books.
I‘m not sure I can write this any more simply than I have.
1 Single sex animal reproduces after own kind. (fine)
2 Single sex animal with own dna structure gives birth to male + female with separate dna
structures that then provide have to combine to reproduce. Not only do they have to combine
their independent structures, but they have to have all of the infrastructure that goes along with
it. eg sperm, eggs, uterus, birth canal as well as a process to fertilise said eggs + that’s only the tip
of the iceberg.
3 If the above did happen then all subsequent generations would have had to have identical mutations
(to both male + female so as to be able to reproduce) to make the multitude of jumps required across
the generations + variations required to create the diversity.
4 We have been running experiments through experimenting with animal husbandry for 1,000s of years
+ guess what sheep still give birth to sheep etc.
as an addendum on this 1,000s of scientists have used many 100s of million dollars on attempts to create life
+ to manipulate it, with no success.
Gene shearing has had some success, but if you count that, then in that scenario you have man in place of god.
I was at Darwin’s house/museum on my recent trip to UK. I walked around his ‘thinking path’ which is a 5 minute circuit with not much distraction ( I don’t think the regular jet traffic from nearby biggie hill woul have been the disturbance in his day)
It was well worth that visit
It was well worth that visit
- Moderator
- #19,475
Here is my response again.
Billions of years ago, Bacteria began exchanging genes via
- conjugation (a form of sexual reproduction that involves gametes, a haploid cell that fuses with another haploid cell, of similar morphology (generally similar in shape and size), found in most unicellular organisms,
- transformation (the genetic alteration of a cell resulting from the direct uptake and incorporation of exogenous genetic material from its surroundings through the cell membrane), and
- transduction (the process by which foreign DNA is introduced into a cell by a virus)
So to adapt to changing conditions (such as climate change) conjugation became the preferred method and this led to the evolution of sexual reproduction
Prior to the advent of sexual reproduction, the adaptation process whereby genes would change from one generation to the next (genetic mutation) happened very slowly and randomly and often would mean the genes could not adapt to changing conditions and died out.
This happened about 2 billion years ago. That's 2,000 million years ago.
.
See above.
See above.
All that statement shows is that you don't understand evolution or alternatively you're being consciously and deliberately dishonest to pursue a particular agenda.
In evolution a plant does NOT magically turn into an animal within one or two generations, something that you clearly believe should happen. Neither does a cat turn into a dog in one generation.
If that's the type of thing you want as evidence, you won't find any because that's NOT what evolution is about.
It doesn''t happen at all, given that (and please re-read this bit carefully) evolution is essentially about common ancestry (or more correctly 'common descent') between different species of both animals and plants.
Nonetheless evolution has been directly observed many times, and we have overwhelming observable, empirical evidence to support both the fact and model (theory) of evolution. The model is still being tinkered with in light of new discoveries and advances in technologies such as better DNA sequencing. Adjusting the model in the light of new evidence does NOT however falsify the scientific fact of evolution.
Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes of evolution on different scales so to admit one is to admit the other.
Creationists have to admit microevolution is "real", it cannot in fact be denied due to the overwhelming evidence in support, but they argue that “macroevolution” is where the “theory” of evolution breaks down. The idea presumes that there is some threshold beyond which “evolutionary” change cannot occur. The fallacy is that there is some distinctinon between evolution within a genus and between gens. Mathematically you can prove that the gradual changes must inevitably accumulate. This is a direct result of the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy, far from opposing evolution, is a thermodynamic driving force that propels natural selection, the mechanism of evolution.
All known organisms consist of one or more cells, the most basic units of life. Each cell maintains a precise and constant internal physiochemical environment throughout its life that is distinct from its surroundings. This is achieved by expending energy acquired from externally derived nutrients (free energy) to fuel diverse regulatory processes that are collectively termed “metabolism”. Therefore, organisms, and the individual cells that compose them, are open systems that continually exchange nutrients and wastes with their environment. Natural selection favors the genetic mutation that leads to the faster rate of entropy.
Assuming or admitting “micro” evolution inescapably admits “macro” evolution.
What has also been directly observed is speciation. Speciation is one species evolving into another species. Not only has it been directly observed, but we also have hundred of thousands of specific pieces of evidence (at least) across a number of scientific fields that support and confirm the fact of evolution.
Some examples of observed speciation (in other words evolution) are:
- Hawthorn fly
- Three-spined sticklebacks
- Cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago
- Tennessee cave salamanders
- Greenish Warbler
- Ensatina salamanders
- Larus gulls
- Petroica multicolor
- Drosophila
- Mayr bird fauna
- Squirrels in the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon
- Apple maggot
- Faeroe Island house mouse
- Primula kewensis
- Croatian lizards
Here's an example
Biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant had been studying finches since 1973 on an island called Daphne Major in the Galapagos. When they first began their studies, only two species of Finch lived on Daphne Major: the medium ground finch and the cactus finch. But, in 1981, they noticed that an odd new finch had arrived at the island. It was a hybrid, a mix between a cactus finch and a medium ground finch. It had an extra large beak, an unusual hybrid genome, and a new kind of song. But somehow it was still able to find a mate. The female also had some hybrid chromosomes of her own. So their offspring were very different from the other birds on the island. The biologists observed that after four finch generations, (about four-five years) a drought killed off many of the birds on Daphne Major. In fact, almost the entire hybrid line was exterminated. Only a brother and sister pair remained. The two family members mated with each other, producing offspring that were even more unique than their parent line. From that point on, it was observed the odd population of finches mated only with each other. They were never seen to breed with the cactus finches or the medium ground finches on the island. The hybrid finches had become a brand new species. Macroevolution at the smallest scale in action.
Here's another example
A study published a couple of years ago in the Royal Society journal "Proceedings B" has found coackroaches have evolved separately up to nine different times across Australia.
A team of evolutionary biologists at the University of Sydney sequenced the DNA of 25 different species of soil-burrowing cockroaches from around Australia, and compared the results with DNA from a more slim-line type of cockroach that eats and burrows into wood. They found soil-burrowing cockroaches have possibly evolved up to nine different times from the wood-feeders. The researchers found the evolution of soil-burrowing cockroaches occurred as recently as 5 million years ago in New South Wales and as far back as 15 million years ago in Queensland. What the study also confirmed is that evolution can be predictable because different species often (but not always) evolve the same characteristics when exposed to the same environmental pressures. But they do this seperately. It also supported the idea that different environmental pressures lead to different rates and types of evolution. Just because the cockroach has not evolved at a great rate of knots, compared with other species that have faced different types of environental pressures does not mean that modern cockroaches hae not evolved at all. They clearly have.
The above is another example of how advances in DNA sequencing are confirming / answering questions about the evolutuonary processes of a great many species of animals, insects, birds and reptiles. Including humans.
Scientific literature does contain dozens of other examples of speciation events in plants, insects and worms.
In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection - for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits - and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders.
For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.
Scientists have also directly observed that mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. To use the fruit fly example above, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their very existence and development demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures and changes to anatomy, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.
More speciation occurs and the two new species move further apart in gene structure, physiology and so on.
That is evoluton in action and it is very clear that evolution cexists.
Molecular biology has also discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond the point of the mutations described above, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in new ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features hence creating new species with different anatomies. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.
The above, as well as many other observed examples as well as overwhelming genetic evidence, aptly demonstrate that evolution occurs.
DNA testing suggests that macroevolution (what we might also called 'common descent') also very likely occurs.
Of course, examples of common descent have not been directly observed because no one was there to observe it over such a long period of time (the same problem that exists when there is no direct eyewitness in a murder trial). However the above empirical evidence (which is only a tiny fraction of the evidence that has been gathered) clearly shows that speciation with different genetic mutations influencing anatomy can occur and has been observed to occur.
So based on our understanding and observations of genetics, it is very reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur and that there are no rational reasons or contrary evidence to support the idea that they can't occur.
It is therefore also logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events (which do occur - we have observed them in action) would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc., as per the usual biological classifications.
Again the evidence for evolution is there and it is vast.
Molecular biologists, geneticists and chemists will keep adding to the vast catalogue of empirical evidence supporting both the fact and theory of evolution.
NOT ONE PIECE of the millions of pieces of evidence gathered up to this point have falsified evolution. Not one.
It only takes one piece of contrary evidence to falsify evolution. If you're so sure that evolution doesn't occur, present just ONE piece of evidence that falsifies evolution.
Of course it won't be. It's made up rubbish.
See above for explanation of how sexual reproduction first occurred.
Here's an example of how it was done.
The volvocine green algae is a family of present-day species that nicely illustrates the evolutionary transition from a single-celled organism without very distinct sexes, to a multi-cellular one with genuine males and females. To study this evolutionary process, biologists can compare a present-day single-cell species, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, with its much larger, multi-cellular relative, Volvox carteri. Volvox has males and females, while Chlamydomonas doesn't; by comparing the two, we can learn about how sexes evolve.
Chlamydomonas sex is typical for a single-cell sexual organism: primitive. These algae come in two different "mating types," called "plus" and "minus." Instead of issuing specialized male and female reproductive cells, this organism transforms its entire one-celled self into a gamete and seeks out a partner of the opposite mating type. Like two poles of a magnet, "plus" and "minus" organisms aren't that different from each other. The differences that do exist serve mainly to allow one mating type to recognize and fuse with the other.
Volvox sex, on the other hand, is surprisingly familiar. These algae, made up of about 2,000 cells, exist as distinct males and females. The males produce sperm that fertilize the eggs of the females, producing a zygote that develops into an embryo. Sound familiar? This whole reproductive process evolved from scratch in algae within the last 200 million years, during a time when reptiles, amphibians, mammals - descended from a long line of sexually reproducing ancestors - were roaming the Earth. The two sexes of Volvox are an evolutionary rerun.
Scientists observed that distinct sexes have evolved repeatedly in life's history, and the result is nearly always the same: females who produce relatively few large, immobile eggs, and males who produce many small, mobile sperm. To understand the genetic basis of Volvox males and females, the researchers tried swapping genes between the sexes.
They were interested in one gene in particular, called MID. Male Volvox have this gene, while the females don't. This gene exists in single-celled algae as well, where it acts as a master mating type switch that prevents "minus" from turning into "plus." The scientists reasoned that MID might do something similar in Volvox. They transferred a copy of this male-specific gene into females, which became pseudo-males and started making sperm. And when they deleted MID from the males, the algae became pseudo-females and started making eggs. Their results show that this master switch gene "control two very different manifestations of sexual reproduction." This gene was reprogrammed from a simple regulator of primitive mating types into one that controls the major differences between females and males.
The oldest and most fundamental way that males and females differ is in their reproductive cells. Once you have sex-specific reproductive cells, new sex-specific evolutionary strategies come into play. These drive the development of even more physical and behavioral differences between males and females. New genes fall under the control of the master switch to become sex-specific genes. In Volvox, about a dozen genes are found only in males or females. In humans, there are about 80 protein-coding genes on the Y chromosome that are specific to men. The human master switch is called SRY, and like MID in Volvox, its primary job is to switch on the genetic program to produce sperm.
No they don't. See above.
See above. There are many fertile hybrid species. New species in nature appear all the time. Forests with high levels of biodiversity become a cauldron of new species in continuous transformation. The best known mechanism for the formation of new species of animals or plants is the accumulation of genetic mutations in the offspring of the same species. New species may also result from the clustering of populations of different species that were once separated.
All this statement confirms (yet again) is that you don't understand evolution. Probably sheep give birth to sheep because they are mated with sheep. That's what animal husbandry is.
Oh? Are you referring to the study of abiogenesis?
Abiogenesis, the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter is a growing field. The occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, however its possible mechanisms are debated.
In the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of proteins, and other organic compounds out of inorganic materials was possible under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth.
In 2001 Jennifer Blank at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reported: "Through subsequent chemical analysis, the team discovered that the initial amino acids in the mixture had linked together to form peptides, from which proteins can be formed."
A 2015 paper from a a team of chemists working at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, at Cambridge in the UK, published in the journal Nature Chemistry, showed that the chemical precursors for the synthesis of amino acids, lipids and nucleotides, which would be required in a primitive cell, could have all arisen simultaneously through reactions driven by ultraviolet light.
In 2015, NASA scientists studying the origin of life managed to reproduce uracil, cytosine, and thymine (all building blocks of life) from an ice sample containing pyrimidine under conditions found in space.
A 2016 study showed that the building blocks of life can be replicated in deep-sea vents. These experiments have for the first time demonstrated that RNA molecules can form in alkaline hydrothermal chimneys.
And while none of the above is conclusive, empirical evidence for the possibility of abiogenesis existing does exist.
I'm prepared to wait for more evidence of abiogenesis rather than adopting the belief system of "Scientists can't exactly explain the origin of life yet, therefore it must have been God and more specifically, the version of God I believe in."
And as I've said the scientific community overwhelmingly recognizes that 3.6 billion years ago there existed the last universal common ancestor, (LUCA), of ALL living things presently on Earth. It was likely a single-cell organism. It had a few hundred genes. (355 genes according to a 2016 study). It already had complete blueprints for DNA replication, protein synthesis, and RNA transcription. It had all the basic components - such as lipids - that modern organisms have.
Before 3.6 billion years, however, there is no hard evidence (yet) about how LUCA arose from a boiling cauldron of chemicals that formed on Earth after the creation of the planet about 4.6 billion years ago. That's abiogenesis.
Some may well believe 'divine intervention' by a 'creator god' put LUCA there (even though there is absolutely no evidence to support this).
It's also very possible that LUCA arose from non-life without divine intervention. Certainly there is scientific evidence that the second option was very possible. That evidence suggests that it is very possible that those chemicals reacted in some way to form amino acids, which remain the building blocks of proteins in our own cells today. Finding out how exactly, remains the object of on-going scientific study across the world.
My point is that there is an accumulating amount of solid scientific evidence that is backing up 'abiogenesis' in preference to the hypothesis of a supernatural origin for life (which of course is unverifiable and therefore not a scientific hypothesis.) To believe in a supernatural origin for life is based on nothing but 'faith'.
Abiogenesis is definitely proved possible, so the only questions that remain are:
- What is the probability that abiogenesis will happen in a certain suitable environment in a certain period of time?
- What is the exact mechanism by which abiogenesis occurs?
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
