Microevolution/Progressitive Creation

[dayage]

Anonymiss,

Deal with the Biblical language used in Genesis 1 and 2 and then speak to me about how God used evolution. Bara means to bring into being something brand new (animals Gen. 1:21; mankind Gen. 1:27). Asa means to build it (animals Gen. 1:25; mankind gen. 1:26). Yatsar means to shape or form it (Adam Gen. 2:7, 8; animals Gen. 2:19). Bana means to rebuild (Eve Gen. 2:22).

The Bible says that Adam was actually formed from the ground. Then God had to breath life into his body (Genesis 2:7).

I would like to know which bipeds you believe are in our line of descent.

BGood,
All 299 of these "insertions" look to be non-orthologous even though some are found in similar positions.

Ist - To my knowledge no one has shown that these actually came from retrovirus infections.
2nd - To even be considered evidence for evolution the ERVs must be in the same location, not similar. I would like to know how many we share with chimps that are in the same location and written the same way. Please show references or link to them.
3rd - The "dating" assumes a common source and so any differences are seen as hands on a clock. Then an unproven assumption as to a mutation rate is added in to give the time.

The fact that ERVs and other "junk" are constantly being found to have vital functions in our genome drives me away from making evolutionary leaps.

The clock assumption
Here is a link to a paper showing that for three decades molecular clocks have shown animals diverging between 800 Mya and 1.2 Bya.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/3/387

In my opinion this is easily proven false:
1) The fossil record has no animals older than about 570 Mya
2) Earth froze multiple times between 600 and 800 Mya
3) The oceans were too salty for animal life
4) The ocean's oxygen levels were too low
5) The oceans had low phosphate levels (It is central in cellular metabolism in many ways)
6) The oceans had low molybdenum levels (If moly. is scarce, bateria cannot convert nitrogen from a gas to a fixed form. Eukaryotes need fixed nitrogen and cannot do it themselves)

[Anonymiss]

Anonymiss,

Deal with the Biblical language used in Genesis 1 and 2 and then speak to me about how God used evolution. Bara means to bring into being something brand new (animals Gen. 1:21; mankind Gen. 1:27). Asa means to build it (animals Gen. 1:25; mankind gen. 1:26). Yatsar means to shape or form it (Adam Gen. 2:7, 8; animals Gen. 2:19). Bana means to rebuild (Eve Gen. 2:22).

I don't really know, but consider this: according to the chapter of Leviticus - for some reason it flatout states that rabbits/hares and hyraxes (aka rock badgers and coneys) chew their cud, which we all know they don't... rather they reingest their droppings so it could be further broken down enough so their bodies can better extract more out of it. It is an equivalent to chewing cud though.

So with that said it's hard for me to take "asa" literally, given all the proof suggesting we were molded into our present form from ape/hominid ancestors.

The Bible can be so perplexing at times...

[dayage]

Anonymiss,

You hit the nail on the head:

...rather they reingest their droppings so it could be further broken down enough so their bodies can better extract more out of it. It is an equivalent to chewing cud though.

Hebrew scholars have pointed out that the phrase "chewing the cud" literally translates "raising up what has been swallowed." The term chew is not in the text. Instead the word translated chew in Leviticus 11 is alah - to bring up. In other words to ingest the same food again. Cud was just the closest English word for what was being referred to. Remember that in the context actual cud chewing animals were being referred to with the same word.

The writer is being literal as in Lev. 11:20-23, 42 where it speaks of insects with 4 legs. The reference is to the front 4 not the rear two used for jumping. The front legs are the ones used for walking and crawling up twigs.

The literal translation is the one the author intended to convey.

[Anonymiss]

Do you think the author(s) was human(s) who heard the words of God or God himself?

[dayage]

Leviticus 11:1 says that God was speaking directly to Moses and Aaron. Moses wrote the words. God was giving laws about every day living, so He was explaining things in a way that all (learned and unlearned) would understand.

[zoegirl]

Dayage,

I guess what has been percolating in my mind is how you distinguish between using the same blueprints and using the same design and using the same parts.

If GOd uses the same bleuprints, ie, genes, skeletal structures to produce such homologous designs and striking similarities between genes, then the designs would look similar and therefore the structures would look similar.

In essence, would He not be recreating, "bana", even if He were using similar design elements? So even it the word is not used, doesn't your idea of using the same blueprints fit the definition?

It seems then that the dlemma between the words still exists. How do we define rebuild or recreate? If I see somebody using a same design for a car but with minor tweaks, even though that car is new, it is applying previous designs.

[Kurieuo]

Programmers use design patterns all the time when creating something new. So I don't see why God doing something similar would preclude him from creating in the bara fashion. Let's not forget life as we know it is carbon-based, so God at some point made re-use of certain structures already in place.

[Anonymiss]

About the retrovirus integrations present only in African apes - could it be possible they somehow disappeared from our lineage?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

About the retrovirus integrations present only in African apes - could it be possible they somehow disappeared from our lineage?

No it is unlikely.

If these sites were truly orthologous and, thus, ancestral in the human/ape ancestor, it would require that at least six of these sites were deleted in the human lineage. Moreover, the same exact six sites would also have had to have been deleted in the orangutan lineage if the generally accepted phylogeny is correct. Such a series of independent deletion events at the same precise locations in the genome is unlikely (Figure S3).

[dayage]

Zoegirl and Kurieuo,

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other. What you both just wrote seems to be what I mean.

What I do not hold to is that we evolved from previous hominids, nor do I think the texts leaves open the idea that God took a biopsy from one of the hominids and bana, made a human. This last one is how He made Eve. When God made Eve, the text says, He was making a match for Adam (Genesis 2:18). The words here are (ke, like and neged, before). It means "like himself" (Adam was the before). NKJV says, "helper comparable to him." NASB says, "helper suitable for him."

I'll quote biochemist Dr. Fazale Rana from pg. 225 of his book WHO WAS ADAM:

He employed similar design features and the same building blocks (genes) as He used to fashion the great apes and other animals. It also appears that God redesigned certain building blocks or revised their function via genetic changes. He introduced new building blocks (gene duplications followed by genetic changes), cast aside other building blocks (gene deletions), and used the building blocks in radically different ways (gene expression and gene regulation) to produce humanity's unique features.

I hope this helps to clarify.

[Gman]

I'll quote biochemist Dr. Fazale Rana from pg. 225 of his book WHO WAS ADAM:

Now that's a book that every progressive creationist should have..

[Anonymiss]

Zoegirl and Kurieuo,

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other. What you both just wrote seems to be what I mean.

What I do not hold to is that we evolved from previous hominids, nor do I think the texts leaves open the idea that God took a biopsy from one of the hominids and bana, made a human. This last one is how He made Eve. When God made Eve, the text says, He was making a match for Adam (Genesis 2:18). The words here are (ke, like and neged, before). It means "like himself" (Adam was the before). NKJV says, "helper comparable to him." NASB says, "helper suitable for him."

I'll quote biochemist Dr. Fazale Rana from pg. 225 of his book WHO WAS ADAM:

He employed similar design features and the same building blocks (genes) as He used to fashion the great apes and other animals. It also appears that God redesigned certain building blocks or revised their function via genetic changes. He introduced new building blocks (gene duplications followed by genetic changes), cast aside other building blocks (gene deletions), and used the building blocks in radically different ways (gene expression and gene regulation) to produce humanity's unique features.

I hope this helps to clarify.

This theory now makes sense to me, and can see how it fits.

btw what does the original Hebrew literally translate these lines to?:
Ecclesiastes
3:18 - I said to F42 myself concerning the sons of men, "God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts.

3:19 - For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity.

3:20 - All go to the same place. All came from the dust R85 and all return to the dust.

It kinda suggests mankind is a part of the animal kingdom.

[Kurieuo]

Zoegirl and Kurieuo,

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other. What you both just wrote seems to be what I mean.

What I do not hold to is that we evolved from previous hominids, nor do I think the texts leaves open the idea that God took a biopsy from one of the hominids and bana, made a human. This last one is how He made Eve. When God made Eve, the text says, He was making a match for Adam (Genesis 2:18). The words here are (ke, like and neged, before). It means "like himself" (Adam was the before). NKJV says, "helper comparable to him." NASB says, "helper suitable for him."

I'll quote biochemist Dr. Fazale Rana from pg. 225 of his book WHO WAS ADAM:

He employed similar design features and the same building blocks (genes) as He used to fashion the great apes and other animals. It also appears that God redesigned certain building blocks or revised their function via genetic changes. He introduced new building blocks (gene duplications followed by genetic changes), cast aside other building blocks (gene deletions), and used the building blocks in radically different ways (gene expression and gene regulation) to produce humanity's unique features.

I hope this helps to clarify.

This theory now makes sense to me, and can see how it fits.

btw what does the original Hebrew literally translate these lines to?:
Ecclesiastes
3:18 - I said to F42 myself concerning the sons of men, "God has surely tested them in order for them to see that they are but beasts.

3:19 - For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity.

3:20 - All go to the same place. All came from the dust R85 and all return to the dust.

It kinda suggests mankind is a part of the animal kingdom.

Does that mean you have set on a Day-Age PC position rather than TE?

[Anonymiss]

Yes, I still like the image in my sig though. Though if humanity really decends from just two people - wouldn't that have put our species into a severe bottleneck position and lead to our extinction?

[zoegirl]

I seem to recall that we are a bottleneck result, but I could be remembering incorrectly....I shall have to check