tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post2849494795637855166..comments2024-03-19T00:24:23.577-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: John Parrington and modern evolutionary theoryLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24394835632170437742015-07-30T11:47:44.961-04:002015-07-30T11:47:44.961-04:00Three of the ways eukaryotes can get genes that we...Three of the ways eukaryotes can get genes that were not present in their prokaryote ancestors:<br /><br />1. After polyploidy or duplication of a single gene, the extra copy of a gene mutates, coding for a protein that functions in a different way.<br /><br />2. Mutations leave a little DNA sequence functioning as a promoter that leads to transcription of a DNA sequence that wasn't transcribed before but produces a more or less functional protein. (Rare, but has apparently happened.)<br /><br />3. Virus infects a cell and becomes part of the cell's DNA. Mutations trap it there. However, one or more of its genes remain functional.<br /><br />Yes, examples are known (though examples of #2 may remain controversial). And no doubt other methods are known, but not by me. <br /><br />Though related to Sceptical Mind's question, this obviously isn't written for Sceptical Mind, who won't read it. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29502413297265101592015-07-30T09:09:14.471-04:002015-07-30T09:09:14.471-04:00Actually, the chronology of the Bible makes a cert...Actually, the chronology of the Bible makes a certain amount of sense (as a story in reference to itself, that is. Not in relation to current scientific knowledge) if the authors did not know that daylight was produced by the sun. They could have thought "light" was just something that permeated the atmosphere, like air. People were pretty ignorant back then. No knock on them intended, of course. Science was at a rather primitive stage then, that's not their fault.<br /><br />Anyway, that might explain why they would have written something as blatantly absurd (to most of rational contemporary minds today, as opposed to "Sceptical Minds") as the sun and moon being created three days after "light" was.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6394661636223616322015-07-30T09:01:35.324-04:002015-07-30T09:01:35.324-04:00Septic Mind:
Did you finally get your own bible c...Septic Mind:<br /><br /><i>Did you finally get your own bible chronology straight?</i><br /><br />The biblical cosmogony has no consistent chronology. It all happened in the Middle Eastern Dreamtime.<br /><br /><br />Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19785278768748628932015-07-30T08:13:37.908-04:002015-07-30T08:13:37.908-04:00Btw: I didn't read your post except for the fi...<i>Btw: I didn't read your post except for the first two words.<br /><br />I'm was confident you had no answer, so why should waste time and read the rest of your pointless post? </i><br /><br />Well, that's good way of keeping oneself ignorant. I imagine you did the same with all the scientific publications and articles that answer your question.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60194451506458006572015-07-29T22:32:08.715-04:002015-07-29T22:32:08.715-04:00"Evolution did it. We don't know how and ...<i>"Evolution did it. We don't know how and don't ask us about the mechanisms. The evidence is still to be found"</i><br /><br />But we know how, even if you don't. The mechanisms are quite clear. The evidence has been found. There is still much to be learned, but this is the way the human quest for knowledge works, when magic thinking fails (as it always has throughout human history). <br /><br />Now replace the word "evolution' in your statement with the word "God", and you will be making some sense.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2183894951077396572015-07-29T22:19:35.288-04:002015-07-29T22:19:35.288-04:00"Evolution did it. We don't know how and ..."Evolution did it. We don't know how and don't ask us about the mechanisms. The evidence is still to be found"Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75265488663691426982015-07-29T22:12:15.871-04:002015-07-29T22:12:15.871-04:00Let's see. Where did the genes come from.
Btw...Let's see. Where did the genes come from.<br /><br />Btw: I didn't read your post except for the first two words. <br /><br />I'm was confident you had no answer, so why should waste time and read the rest of your pointless post? Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82204570068195403212015-07-29T22:06:12.692-04:002015-07-29T22:06:12.692-04:00Septic Mind,
"Oh yeah. Let's see. Where ...Septic Mind,<br /><br /><i>"Oh yeah. Let's see. Where did the genes come from that are found in eukaryotes that are not found in prokaryotes or anywhere else for that matter?"</i><br /><br />How could anybody possibly know that those genes are not found in any prokaryotes or anywhere else for that matter? Do you have any idea how much we haven't explored? How much we could not have possibly explored?<br /><br />Also, of course, there's also such thing as de novo gene formation. Lots of articles about that.<br /><br /><i>"Please tell me you've always had the answer for it but you were hiding it until today."</i><br /><br />Nobody has <b>The Answer</b> you idiot. Each of the genes you're referring to will have a different history. Obviously.<br /><br /><i>"If you do, you can resolve one of the greatest mysteries of science after the first cause,"</i><br /><br />"Cause" is but an obsolete way of understanding phenomena. "First cause" is a poor excuse to argue for gods.<br /><br /><i>"origins of life"</i><br /><br />Meh.<br /><br /><i>"not only how it happened but were did the missing genes come from. I bet you will get a Noble Prize if you reveal your secret today and I will be the first one to nominate you."</i><br /><br />You're such an idiot. The history of some genes has been figured out. For others there is not enough information. You're just uninformed and misinformed (not a surprise), besides you're too much of a fool not to be able to understand, all by yourself, that we are far from having explored the vast prokaryotic, eukaryotic, and viral worlds. Man you're such an idiot it's hard to believe that you can write.<br /><br /><i>"Go ahead! Make me cry!"</i><br /><br />Sure guys. If we don't know everything, it surely means that gods-did-it! When will we all learn?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48855869843789933802015-07-29T21:39:53.560-04:002015-07-29T21:39:53.560-04:00Oh yeah. Let's see. Where did the genes come f...Oh yeah. Let's see. Where did the genes come from that are found in eukaryotes that are not found in prokaryotes or anywhere else for that matter? Please tell me you've always had the answer for it but you were hiding it until today. If you do, you can resolve one of the greatest mysteries of science after the first cause, origins of life and this; not only how it happened but were did the missing genes come from. I bet you will get a Noble Prize if you reveal your secret today and I will be the first one to nominate you. Go ahead! Make me cry! Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68757641238416030162015-07-29T21:28:42.827-04:002015-07-29T21:28:42.827-04:00keen minds are able to see beyond the actual evide...<i> keen minds are able to see beyond the actual evidence</i><br /><br />You can't make this stuff up.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19794742609792119572015-07-29T21:27:37.405-04:002015-07-29T21:27:37.405-04:00Piotr
Did you finally get your own bible chronol...Piotr <br /><br />Did you finally get your own bible chronology straight? Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27420748048872204302015-07-29T21:24:31.445-04:002015-07-29T21:24:31.445-04:00John Harshaman
I accept your view because it is t...John Harshaman<br /><br />I accept your view because it is true that some of these things are a matter of interpretation but keen minds are able to see beyond the actual evidence. You do it every day. I'm not going to insult you because you don't see it as convincing. <br /><br />I'm just surprised that you didn't take the lead in doing the same when some of us here demanded evidence for evolution of prokaryotes to eukaryotes with the same skepticism. I fear that you are either withholding some revolutionary information on the subject, or ? You finish the sentence yourself. Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76339391079846821122015-07-29T14:38:16.663-04:002015-07-29T14:38:16.663-04:00Clearly, words don't mean what they mean. They...Clearly, words don't mean what they mean. They mean what Skeptical Mind (and his JW predecessors) want them to mean. It's the Humpty Dumpty view of biblical exegesis.<br /><br />Nowhere does Genesis 1:1 mention light, or the sun, or the moon, or stars. They are all mentioned later, at the times they are said to be created, or made, or called into being, depending. "Made two great lights" doesn't mean "let two previously existing lights become visible"; it means "made two great lights". And so on.<br /><br />In other words, Genesis 1 is seriously wrong about the ordering of events in the history of the universe and of the earth. You can fudge and reinterpret the language all you want, but it's a dishonest exercise.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50387903036794496182015-07-29T13:51:32.781-04:002015-07-29T13:51:32.781-04:00Also, on Day 4, this is what God was allegedly up ...Also, on Day 4, this is what God was allegedly up to:<br /><br /><i>And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.</i><br /><br />What was this "greater light to rule the day", if the sun had already been created on Day 1. And why is God creating the stars again, when he already did that on Day 1 as well? Let's see that "skeptical mind" at work, now.....Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81275415873057337292015-07-29T13:23:19.459-04:002015-07-29T13:23:19.459-04:00Gen 1:1 refers to the creation (bara) of the physi...<i>Gen 1:1 refers to the creation (bara) of the physical universe--the heavens with all the stars like the Sun--the source of light-- and then the earth.</i><br /><br />No. Everything mentioned in that verse was created "in the beginning". There is no mention of one thing being created, and then another. Why do you insist on distorting the text of your Holy Book? Isn't that blasphemous or something?<br />Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39330548370213711722015-07-29T13:18:49.323-04:002015-07-29T13:18:49.323-04:00Gen 1:1 refers to the creation (bara) of the physi...Gen 1:1 refers to the creation (bara) of the physical universe--the heavens with all the stars like the Sun--the source of light-- and then the earth.<br /><br />Gen 1:2 clearly states that the light didn't penetrate through to the earth even though the heaves had been created that were the source of light. <br /><br />" Now the earth was formless and empty, <b>darkness was over the surface of the deep</b>, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."<br /> Gen 1:3 clearly describes the process of the earth transformation for light to be visible. "Let there be light". If the creator were "creating light (the source of light)", the word "bara" would have to be used in Gen 1:3 but it is not. Gen 1:14-16 does't use the word "bara" either with relation to light, so it could not describe the creation process of light. Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43180707448390834492015-07-29T12:50:12.526-04:002015-07-29T12:50:12.526-04:00Genesis 1:1 does not mention light. Genesis 1:3 is...Genesis 1:1 does not mention light. Genesis 1:3 is the creation of light, even if it doesn't use the word "bara"; "And god said 'let there be light'; and there was light". What does that mean to you?<br /><br />Nothing you say makes sense, and seems only to be an attempt to avoid talking about the subject.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76554411934968954642015-07-29T11:21:17.472-04:002015-07-29T11:21:17.472-04:00John Harshman
Skeptical Mind: You are misreading ...John Harshman<br /><br /><i>Skeptical Mind: You are misreading the story. Light wasn't created until Genesis 1:3, after the verses you quoted from that odd translation (JW?).<br /> And the moon, sun, and stars were created after the earth, not until Genesis 1:14-16.</i> <br /><br />Nope. Bible text in Genesis 1:1 uses the word "bara" which is used to describe the process of creation, which is not used in Genesis 1:3 and Genesis 1:14-16. <br /><br /><i>I know you will rationalize that to say that it was just from the viewpoint of an earthbound observer, and really just clouds parting, but of course that makes no sense at all given the text.</i> <br /><br />This is a really good observation John. I've never thought about the text being written from the point of view of the writer rather than Creator. Now, since Gen 1:3 and 1:14-16 is not talking about creating light, it does make sense. <br /><br /><i>I will also note that the story has plants being created before the sun, moon, and stars.Your story doesn't match reality at all.</i> <br /><br />Well, it does make sense now considering my argument above, but you will not accept it. You will move on to the next point of a deliberately sceptical mind. Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35721606666182552392015-07-28T22:47:04.383-04:002015-07-28T22:47:04.383-04:00"IF a catastrophic flood had interrupted Egyp..."IF a catastrophic flood had interrupted Egyptian civilization it surely would have been recorded in their annals."<br /><br />Yep.<br /><br />"The fact that it wasn't supports my claim of fact that Egyptian civilization came into existence after the Flood."<br /><br />Nope. <br /><br />The alleged 'worldwide biblical flood' never occurred. <br /><br />By the way, Ray, sceptical mind, and other theobots, you do realize, don't you, that by choosing to believe in, worship, and promote a so-called 'God' that would commit such a heinous, genocidal, ecocidal act as 'the flood' (and all of the other horrors that are attributable to your so-called 'God'), you are revealing how despicable you are. <br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29615976168917981462015-07-28T19:41:42.333-04:002015-07-28T19:41:42.333-04:00It's the "International Standard Version&...It's the "International Standard Version" -- an odd translation indeed. Let's see how it works. Genesis 1:1 goes like this:<br /><br /><i>In the beginning, God created the universe.</i><br /><br />And they add a footnote:<br /><br /><i>Lit.[erally] </i>the heavens and the earth<i>; i.e. space and matter</i><br /><br />So the Hebrew words meaning 'heavens' and 'earth' <i>really</i> mean 'space' and 'matter', and this is supposed to justify the ISV translation (<i>universe</i>). Things are not what they seem to be.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70576218424661042322015-07-28T19:25:20.543-04:002015-07-28T19:25:20.543-04:00Skeptical Mind: You are misreading the story. Ligh...Skeptical Mind: You are misreading the story. Light wasn't created until Genesis 1:3, after the verses you quoted from that odd translation (JW?). And the moon, sun, and stars were created after the earth, not until Genesis 1:14-16. I know you will rationalize that to say that it was just from the viewpoint of an earthbound observer, and really just clouds parting, but of course that makes no sense at all given the text. I will also note that the story has plants being created before the sun, moon, and stars.<br /><br />Your story doesn't match reality at all.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55949004652982579662015-07-28T19:03:16.470-04:002015-07-28T19:03:16.470-04:00Don't make me lol. You have no evidence. I sho...Don't make me lol. You have no evidence. I should say you got nothing. Just because you don't like the comparison, it doesn't make your lack of evidence true. It may put you at ease, but it is a false sense of relief. Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30736177130042020302015-07-28T18:53:54.178-04:002015-07-28T18:53:54.178-04:00"God created the heavens and the earth"....<i>"God created the heavens and the earth". Just like scientists recently discovered, the many stars, just like our the Sun had formed before the earth.</i><br /><br />The sentence from the Bible, however, clearly says that they came into existence at the same time. If I say "I'll have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich", I don't mean I'll first eat the peanut butter and then, 10 billion years later, the jelly.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25613258379608684212015-07-28T18:18:43.077-04:002015-07-28T18:18:43.077-04:003140 BCE? Let us see your Biblical chronology. The...3140 BCE? Let us see your Biblical chronology. The way I see it, you are only about 600 years off, which is nothing in comparison with the calculations of the "evidence" some call evolutionary.Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63024526586557540672015-07-28T18:08:08.580-04:002015-07-28T18:08:08.580-04:00My date (3140 BC) is based on Biblical chronology ...<i>My date (3140 BC) is based on Biblical chronology and corresponding ANE chronology.</i><br /><br />'Nuff said.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.com