The Christian Thread - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

Epignosis

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524

Posted: September 18 2009 at 09:54

Dean wrote:

and so was my Dad

/edit - I'll leave your thread alone now Rob - I'm not here to convert anyone to evolution, just suggesting possible answers a couple of your direct questions

I came from monkeys. I just screech and throw poo. LOL

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts- they are always full of levelheaded and insightful observations. Thumbs Up

Thanks to you and Linus for taking the time to answer me (even if I still don't get it). LOL

https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Epignosis

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524

Posted: September 18 2009 at 09:52

At any rate, everything you've described seems perfectly compatible with microevolution (something I have no problem of)- it's how two very different, yet symmetrical, complex, and viable reproductive systems came to be (and of course, why only two- why not 12?)

It would seem there would have to be myriad genetic mutations for all this to occur, and occur such that one was not detrimental to the other, happen twice (for two different sexes), and happen such that the two require each other to reproduce and

On top of two distinct sexes, women are equipped to nurture their children (and this milk doesn't come into production until after she has become pregnant).

Perhaps I am obtuse. That's fine. LOL

Forgive me if it is a bit more believable that God designed it this way rather than accept the idea that x number of accidents occurred over millions of years to generate such astonishing biodiversity.

https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: September 18 2009 at 09:48

and so was my Dad

/edit - I'll leave your thread alone now Rob - I'm not here to convert anyone to evolution, just suggesting possible answers a couple of your direct questions

Edited by Dean - September 18 2009 at 09:52

What?

Epignosis

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524

Posted: September 18 2009 at 09:39

The distillation of all that is as follows:

Dean is smart. Geek

https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: September 18 2009 at 09:26

Epignosis wrote:

I'm well aware of that (I knew when I posted that someone would tell me evolution doesn't have a goal). I worded it that way because I don't know of a better way to do so.

My question is still there.

How in the world did two sexes emerge from one? Genetic variation does not answer that.

Plus, as far as I can tell, "part" of a reproductive system won't work and would actually be detrimental. Sexual reproduction could not have evolved over time into what it is today. At what point did beings become sexual, and how could only partially evolved "packages" create viable offspring (when asexual reproduction was doing it just fine)?

Well - there is no such thing as a partially evolved package - every step along the way has to be a viable species, so the first organisms that reproduced sexually most certainly also produced asexually.

What that species had was "an edge" - they were sharing DNA rather than simply dividing it among themselves. If you imagine that out of a billion lifeforms of that species there were some groups that had inhereted one piece of "damaged" DNA from a single asexual parent and another group that inherreted a different "damaged" sequence from a different asexual parent then those two pieces of DNA could never end up in the same individual if reproduction was purely asexual. However, if that species also could swap DNA (ie proto-sexual reproduction) those two DNA chains could meet-up and result in a "mutation" that gave a survival edge.

What?

Dean

Special Collaborator

Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575

Posted: September 18 2009 at 09:11

Epignosis wrote:

Certainly evolution is compatible with the idea of God, but it's not exactly compatible with the Bible (something I'm sorry to say a lot of Christians disregard in the course of constructing their view of ethics), unless you immediately dismiss the first few pages as allegory.

I find that the sequence of events in Genesis is a pretty good parallel to the sequence of events that occured in the non-biblical version. It's not "evolution" - that's just the biological side, but also the creation of the earth, the universe, everything. As a non-Christian I tip my hat at the ancient scolars who recognised the logic that rock came before plants, which in turn came before "lower" living creatures which came before "higher" beings - sea creatures before land animals may have been a fluke guess or intuition, but it is still a remarkable insight.

Epignosis wrote:

At any rate, I do not believe in evolution (macroevolution at any rate- I have no problem with the idea of gradual changes occurring within a given species). And yes, I can almost hear the eyes rolling as I say that. Oh well. I have been given many more reasons to believe what the Bible says than what evolutionists say.

But there is one thing no evolutionist has ever explained to me. Oh sure, I know historically Christians have used the complexity of the human eye to show it must be designed, and that the "chance" of evolution could never have created something so intricate. I even had a professor spend a whole class talking about that one subject (not that his explanation satisfied me, but whatever- he was one of those crappy professors I talked about in the atheist thread anyway). That's not where I'm going today.

There is a wealth of evidence of the eye in various stages of "evolution" existing in the world to day, from light-seeking plants and micro-organisms, through multifaceted compound eyes, lens-less eyes, to the lensed eye (of course the assumption that the lensed eye is the "final product", that evolution is "goal seeking", is incorrect - all those proto-eyes work perfectly well). What we don't see in both in existing species and in the fossil record are the millions of variations and mutations that didn't work, those that gave no advantage - the evolutionary dead-ends - however those that do not present a disadvantage are there - colour blindness for example - a genetic "defect" that is passed from mother to son.

If the eye was not a product of "evolution" then why does man have a less than perfect eye (when compared to say the Octopus) - we are one evolutionary step behind with a distinct blind-spot where the optic nerve connects to the retina.

Epignosis wrote:

Here is a huge reason why I don't believe in evolution: Evolution posits that life as we know it evolved over millions of years from amoebic, single-celled, asexual organisms. Beneficial changes occur over time and, as those creatures with the changes reproduce and pass on those good variations, the change is no longer minor, but major.

Wherefore, then, two sexes?

I cannot think of a single reason why the evolutionary process would yield two very distinct genders that must coexist in order to reproduce (and that the reproductive system of man and woman are so perfectly compatible). Asexual reproduction would, evolutionarily speaking, be ideal- it's safer, no long term gestation periods, that "mothers" don't have to care for their young for a period of time (as mammals must), etc.

I simply do not see how two distinct yet symbiotic sexes could be produced through evolution.

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

Well 'symbiotic' is not the right term - symbiosis is between two unrelated species, male and female are not different species. (regardless of what we may think

)

At a biological level I can't see how evolution could work as well as it does without two distinct sexes. Asexual reproduction is beneficial in producing large population growths but cannot adapt to change since there is very low genetic diversity, whereas sexual reproduction results in inherent genetic diversity that can adapt to change. Asexual reproduction does not "work" for higher (ie more complex) organisms - in those vary rare cases where it does happen, sexual reproduction also occurs and the asexually produced offspring are either clones (ie genetically identical to their mothers) or are inviable.

What?

LinusW

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 27 2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 10665

Posted: September 18 2009 at 08:23

Epignosis wrote:

Cannabalism? Instead of digesting, the DNA gets mixed in? Sorry if I laugh at that one. LOL

I guess we really are what we eat. Wink

When we're talking about micro-organisms, it really isn't laugh-worthy Smile

Epignosis

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524

Posted: September 18 2009 at 08:18

Cannabalism? Instead of digesting, the DNA gets mixed in? Sorry if I laugh at that one. LOL

I guess we really are what we eat. Wink

https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

LinusW

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 27 2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 10665

Posted: September 18 2009 at 08:16

From Wiki, a number of possible explanations:

Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient and reliable manner. The necessity to repair genetic damage is one of the leading theories explaining the origin of sexual reproduction. Diploid individuals can repair a mutated section of its DNA via homologous recombination, since there are two copies of the gene in the cell and one copy is presumed to be undamaged. A mutation in an haploid individual, on the other hand, is more likely to become resident, as the DNA repair machinery has no way of knowing what the original undamaged sequence was.^[18] The most primitive form of sex may have been one organism with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself.^[23]

Another theory is that sexual reproduction originated from selfish parasitic genetic elements that exchange genetic material (that is: copies of their own genome) for their transmission and propagation. In some organisms, sexual reproduction has been shown to enhance the spread of parasitic genetic elements (e.g.: yeast, filamentous fungi).^[24] Bacterial conjugation, a form of genetic exchange that some sources describe as sex, is not a form of reproduction, but rather an example of horizontal gene transfer. However, it does support the selfish genetic element theory, as it is propagated through such a "selfish gene", the F-plasmid.^[23] Similarly, it has been propsed that sexual reproduction evolved from ancient haloarchaea through a combination of jumping genes, and swapping plasmids.^[25]

A third theory is that sex evolved as a form of cannibalism. One primitive organism ate another one, but rather than completely digesting it, some of the 'eaten' organism's DNA was incorporated into the 'eater' organism.^[23]

Sex may also be derived from prokaryotic processes. A comprehensive 'origin of sex as vaccination' theory proposes that eukaryan sex-as-syngamy (fusion sex) arose from prokaryan unilateral sex-as-infection when infected hosts began swapping nuclearised genomes containing coevolved, vertically transmitted symbionts that provided protection against horizontal superinfection by more virulent symbionts. Sex-as-meiosis (fission sex) then evolved as a host strategy to uncouple (and thereby emasculate) the acquired symbiont genomes.^[26]

Epignosis

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524

Posted: September 18 2009 at 08:11

I'm well aware of that (I knew when I posted that someone would tell me evolution doesn't have a goal). I worded it that way because I don't know of a better way to do so.

My question is still there.

How in the world did two sexes emerge from one? Genetic variation does not answer that.

Plus, as far as I can tell, "part" of a reproductive system won't work and would actually be detrimental. Sexual reproduction could not have evolved over time into what it is today. At what point did beings become sexual, and how could only partially evolved "packages" create viable offspring (when asexual reproduction was doing it just fine)?

https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

LinusW

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 27 2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 10665

Posted: September 18 2009 at 08:04

There is no such thing as ideal in the theory of evolution, which creates a lot of confusion. And Robert, the "reason" for having sexual reproduction is genetic variation. In a changing environment, varying traits are favourable, in order to have at least one portion of the collective offspring surviving in new conditions.

And none of the reasons you mention are evolutionary better - they're called trade-offs, which are an important part of every organism's life history. Again, you've sort of missed the point of how evolution works.

Evolution has no goal or aim. Evolution is not about perfection.

Epignosis

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524

Posted: September 18 2009 at 07:48

Certainly evolution is compatible with the idea of God, but it's not exactly compatible with the Bible (something I'm sorry to say a lot of Christians disregard in the course of constructing their view of ethics), unless you immediately dismiss the first few pages as allegory.

At any rate, I do not believe in evolution (macroevolution at any rate- I have no problem with the idea of gradual changes occurring within a given species). And yes, I can almost hear the eyes rolling as I say that. Oh well. I have been given many more reasons to believe what the Bible says than what evolutionists say.

But there is one thing no evolutionist has ever explained to me. Oh sure, I know historically Christians have used the complexity of the human eye to show it must be designed, and that the "chance" of evolution could never have created something so intricate. I even had a professor spend a whole class talking about that one subject (not that his explanation satisfied me, but whatever- he was one of those crappy professors I talked about in the atheist thread anyway). That's not where I'm going today.

Here is a huge reason why I don't believe in evolution: Evolution posits that life as we know it evolved over millions of years from amoebic, single-celled, asexual organisms. Beneficial changes occur over time and, as those creatures with the changes reproduce and pass on those good variations, the change is no longer minor, but major.

Wherefore, then, two sexes?

I cannot think of a single reason why the evolutionary process would yield two very distinct genders that must coexist in order to reproduce (and that the reproductive system of man and woman are so perfectly compatible). Asexual reproduction would, evolutionarily speaking, be ideal- it's safer, no long term gestation periods, that "mothers" don't have to care for their young for a period of time (as mammals must), etc.

I simply do not see how two distinct yet symbiotic sexes could be produced through evolution.

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

Edited by Epignosis - September 18 2009 at 07:49

https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays

TGM: Orb

Prog Reviewer

Joined: October 21 2007
Location: n/a
Status: Offline
Points: 8052

Posted: September 16 2009 at 14:48

A Person wrote:

Originally posted by hitting_singularity2

hitting_singularity2 wrote:

not coming from a Christian background, I wonder what the consensus among different groups of Christians is on the topic of the harmony of science and religion.

I really liked the book/movie Angels and Demons because that was the main point at the end of the story, and it seems to suggest that this is the way of the future (?)

I have been wondering the same thing. I don't see how believing in creationism excludes evolution.

Simple view: as far as I can see it, there's no opposition whatsoever. Pretty much all of the Christians I know (pretty much all Anglicans) would agree.

Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784

Posted: September 16 2009 at 14:37

I'm Catholic personally and we most definitely believe in evolution. No real dichotomy between Catholicism and science.

"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "

A Person

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760

Posted: September 16 2009 at 14:22

I have been wondering the same thing. I don't see how believing in creationism excludes evolution.

Diaby

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 15 2007
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 774

Posted: September 16 2009 at 13:36

Originally posted by who-knows-it's-prog

who-knows-it's-prog wrote:

Where in the bible does it say abortions are against the great never seen gods wishes?????

I feel a small amount of irony in your comment. If you're interested in the thing why Christians consider absortions being bad, I can only answer you one thing. If I was no Christian but moral, I would find these actions cruel and inhuman as well, and if the God I trust is against them, I'll be doubly convinced. One of the most important things is to bear the responsibility of your actions.

yeah

Epignosis

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524

Posted: September 16 2009 at 11:38

who-knows-it's-prog wrote:

Where in the bible does it say abortions are against the great never seen gods wishes?????

Exodus 20:13 is a start.