Proteins argue against evolution


#221

I already said some of it comes from the Babylonian captivity. That’s why we have two versions of the same creation story told back to back, and two different versions of Noah’s flood.

I’m not so concerned about borrowed names. What I see more of in the Babylonian stories is the clear emergence of a priestly cast and true religion with order and rules.

Looking it at from a structure stand point, I’d say the oldest parts are most likely Genesis and 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. You’ll notice numerous violations of Levitical law in Samuel, which barely appears elsewhere. Indicating that the Levitical law we find in Exodus and Leviticus was most likely codified into a formal system after Samuel was written. It looks to me like 1 & 2 Kings were also written in the original Israeli kingdom. The vast majority of Genesis appears to be older as well. There are just a few sections “harmonized” into order with Levitical prescripts.

What most people miss in analyzing Biblical text is the approach the Levities took to updating the books. They never removed anything. So they were forced to add in things side-by-side with the original. Hence why we have Noah collecting 2 of every animal, and then the exact same telling but now it’s 2 of unclean and 7 clean.
Same thing with the creation story. The original version in Chapter 1 just very briefly describes the creation and says that God made man in His image and placed them in dominion over the land and animals.

The Leivitcal version added a lot of specific religious and geographic anchoring to most events. It’s also written in a wildly different style. Chapter 1 is very simple and written in extremely basic language. The 2nd chapter is written by a very scholarly person. Chapter 1 is what you’d get if you asked Trump about Creation, and Chapter 2 is what you’d get if you asked Obama.

Look at the difference
Ch 1
“So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."
Ch 2
"A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) "

Most of Genesis is closer to Chapter 1 than Chapter 2. Abraham, Noah, Jacob, most of these figures are ancient tellings. They may occasionally have a few “harmonizing” verses added in, but the core tellings are ancient. Probably pre-dating writing. The Garden of Eden(including the Fall) and Cain and Abel were probably Levitical editions in Babylon. But other parts bear no such markings.


#222

We;re not really disagreeing. I never said it was intended to be a scientific retelling. I’ve always said Creationists put themselves on very stupid footing trying to use a theological telling as science.

That doesn’t mean the story was intended to be a parable though. A parable is something that didn’t happen for the point of conveying a message. I don’t think the creation story is a parable.

I don’t think the creation story in Genesis makes a useful guide for science, any more than it would help you rewire a truck. It says nothing about the source content, but does say a lot about the critical thinking skills of a person trying to apply it. The Bible is not a guide for how to fly a commercial airliner. Nor is it a science book.

Everything in the Bible is to be treated as though it is real and actually happened. Even though some of it probably didn’t from a technical perspective. The purpose of the Bible is not as a history book or a science book. Jesus spends about 3/4 of his time with Pharisees telling them to stop being so literal.

People arguing about the granular details in the Bible are completely missing the point. The purpose of the Bible is to gain a spiritual understanding of God and find a purpose and direction in life. It is not about quibbling over the likelihood that the Hebrews literally walked around in circles in a desert for 40 years. When you say “But if you consider the square mileage of the area and assume they can travel at least 5 miles per day, it seems impossible that…” - you’re totally missing the point.


#223

Observed” means you’ve erroneously said it before.

Yes, there is such a thing as horizontal gene-transfer. And you apparently think that solves the intractable problem when in reality it only makes it a little more complex.

Getting a gene from some other species doesn’t eliminate the need for an original source of the information. It merely distributes the problem. Are these gracious, benevolent, philanthropist bacteria that run around giving everyone a software update?

What benefit would natural selection see in a bacteria carrying DNA that benefits the host? If there are examples that benefits both, the original source would still need to go through some sequence of random mutations filtered by natural selection. Which as we’ve seen, couldn’t happen in trillions of trillions of years.

Why does it hurt so much to realize the old order is corrupt? In recent decades, science has revealed that evolution from microbe to man is a myth. Evolution is fiercely defended by atheists for religious reasons, but eventually enough people will look behind the curtain.

Well it’s definitely not a science book, though it is a history book.

But there’s no reason to reference the Bible at all when refuting the evolution myth or especially the abiogenesis myth. Science has revealed plenty enough to make them obviously false for honest observers. Momentum and hatred of the implications are all that keep evolution going.


#224

The whole point is, while AS is perfectly OK with assuming that he “evolved” from pond scum of some sort, few others, beyond a few atheists, are. The human genome is so ordered and incredibly complicated, REAL scientists simply cannot believe all that was somehow “random” and the result of random “mutation.”


#225

Yes they are, the Grolar Bear they’re citing is a 2nd generation one. Ergo, they’re fertile.

For a three combo species, the hybrid would need to be fertile for the 3-combo to exist.


#226

You have the implicit intention backwards.

Bacteria like Agrobacterium alter the host to better suit the bacteria’s needs. It occupies a niche where it tries to change other creatures for its own uses.

Sometimes though, the change does confer an adaption for the host. This was true for Sweet potatoes.

The genes Agrobacterium conferred allowed the plant to produce two hormones that fattened their roots and made it edible, meaning animals (and us) were more likely to dig it up and take it somewhere; allowing the plant to spread.

And see this is the mindset you need to walk away from Ken.

What evolution does isn’t random, it’s reactive. It samples the environment, the nutrition, the stress, and it changes gene expression to try and answer these things.

It’s just like your other biological system, like the autonomic nervous system, that reacts to threats, and tries to match what you’re feeling/doing to the situation. Or the immune system. Or the adrenal cortex.

They’re all reactive systems, not random.

There are random elements, and those can change things, but they aren’t what the system runs on.


#227

Yes, but I’m saying those first 11 chapters were later-on additions, as a dedicated introduction to the chapters & books that come after. To include the other parts of Genesis.

It might for evolution in a metaphorical sense:

  1. Women gained full consciousness, full awareness, first.

  2. The story of the fall is actually us gaining full awareness. Provoked by a calamity that made us more neurotic.

  3. Color vision developed as an adaptation to detect chiefly two things; colored fruit, and snakes.

The stories are culled from older stories told and re-told again and again, and what might be bubbling to the surface, is a personification of archetypes. Of something like a racial memory.


#228

Obama? Hardly. He never wrote anything of value; just confusion (including himself at times). Reader’s Digest and an encyclopedia entry would be a better comparison.


#229

I don’t know if anyone has asked you if you’re man or woman, but I haven’t seen you say anything before this that would give it away.

I had wondered if “Alaska_Slim” was a play on the “Virginia Slim” commercials. (“You’ve got your own cigarette now, baby. You’ve come a long long way.”) Or if it was a play on someone like Slim Pickens. Or possibly the Slim that took out Jim Croce’s Jim. (“And you don’t mess around with Slim.”)

But now you’re suggesting the Bible might say evolution gave women full consciousness and awareness before men. That kind of gives it away.


#230

Male.

As it stands, your argument is pretty much where I stated it to be.

If you acknowledge Horizontal transfer, and t-DNA, there doesn’t seem to be much reason for Macro-evolution to not be occurring.

Bacterium and viruses can both create new proteins, or fashion new ones out of existing proteins.

Niches and protein creation are both happening, so what’s left Ken?


#231

You’re describing something far different than Darwin or today’s evolutionists describe. Even Dawkins insists that there has to be an advantage at every step. The nervous system is a system. It responds the way it was designed to respond. There’s no random component.

But the so called “modern synthesis” of evolution itemizes four forces of evolution and the only one of those that could possibly add new information is “mutation pressure,” and as we all know, mutations are in fact random.

If a bacteria transfers some DNA information horizontally, it still had to come from somewhere. If it came about by evolution, then it had to have come from random mutations and natural selection at some point. Mindsets don’t play a roll.


#232

I’m describing today’s science Ken.

Your book is about 30 years out of date.

That’s literally from the 1940s. Epigenetics hadn’t even been discovered yet.

From your source:

Since the 1990s it has been recognized that the Modern Synthesis omits some biological disciplines that are also relevant to evolution. In particular, much attention has focused on patterns of ontogeny and development.

The origin of genes/proteins is a different discussion from if macro evolution is occurring once Proteins are already at work.

It’s perfectly fine for God to set up the dominos, and for things to take off from there.

From your perspective Chemistry works this way, Physics works this way. I’m not seeing why Evolution couldn’t also work this way. What is stopping macro-evolution from occurring?

It’s not time, it’s not bio-availability, and Genomes aren’t closed from one another. To the contrary, they’re permeable, and sharing information constantly.

What’s lacking Ken?


#233

BS. When did they make such a determination?


#234

Well you’re full of surprises.

Horizontal transfer doesn’t create new information. It only transfers it. And sweet potatoes are still sweet potatoes even after the bacteria got done with them.

I can’t tell if you seriously believe what you’re saying of if you’re just having fun. I’ve met people who will argue all day defending a point they must know is dead wrong just for the fun of it. For instance, I’m convinced all the flat earth people really know very well they’re being silly, but they keep on arguing.

The origin of the information in the gene that codes a protein is not a different discussion. It’s everthing.

What do you mean by saying chemistry and physics work this way? Chemistry and physics work at the molecular level. They don’t require hundreds of amino acids to be ordered just right so they fold right to form the right shape to do the job.

Atoms in solution bang together randomly and react because those are high probability collisions. But getting all the right amino acids synthesized and then lined up in order and bonded together is a big big, approximatey-zero-probability deal. There’s nothing like it in chemistry or physics.

If macro evolution happened, it would be before the gene was transferred. It would be in the origin of the information. You can’t just brush aside the number one huge stumbling block and ask what’s the big deal. Either you don’t understand the issue or you’re just having fun (or maybe you’re terrified of the truth).


#235

It’s new to the organism receiving it. And it’ll iterate the change from there.

This could be something minor from a species now having a pigmentation of hair it didn’t before, to something more groundbreaking like mammals receiving a placenta and abandoning egg-laying.

How is that not Macro-Evolution Ken?

That’s incorrect, it’s ancestor didn’t look anything like a sweet potato:

A Sweet potato is a root, that got fat thanks to those genes Agrobacterium added in. It’s not a tuber.

There are plenty of “just right” reactions in chemistry. That’s why we’ve discovered 16 different forms of matter in the last 20 years; they required esoteric conditions to exist.

A nuclear reaction requires just the right balance of chemical reactions & physics, yet we know nature has created them long before we did.

The information is new to the creature receiving it, and is demonstrating a change it couldn’t possibly demonstrate on its own.

It took an ecosystem for it to get there. Genomes sharing their work.


#236

No Dave, you didn’t look into this:

We’ve known for decades that, in captivity, grizzly bears and polar bears will hybridize and in fact produce fertile offspring,” says Dr. Brendan Kelly

You can DNA sequence a bear to see who its parents are just like you can a human.

It’s 23andMe, for bears.


#237

Why do you suppose that is, AS? It’s because they are BOTH BEARS. Try to do the same thing with a bear and a seal and see what happens…or cat and a salmon…or a dog and a cat for that matter.


#238

And yet you were trying to deny it was happening. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:


#239

No. I denied that what you posted had any resemblance to the truth…which it doesn’t.


#240

The truth is that Grolar bears reproduce. They’re fertile. You tried to deny that, and thus, were wrong.

You made a mistake Dave, just own up to it.