Evolution My ToE

[MNoBody]

the word used for day in Hebrew is not a literal day of 24 hrs...this error has occurred in english speaking populations as they do not consult lexicons to see what the word means in its original language...people just assume it anthropocentrically means 24 earth hrs....
the word Olam means perpetual....an undefined period of time that could be a mere moment ,
....or billions of earth yrs long...it refers to a cycle of time, and this has been decided by limited people that it means something it was never written to convey

 

[metis]

the word used for day in Hebrew is not a literal day of 24 hrs

Unless it is used in a symbolic way, "yom" always means "day". The indication that it is used this way in Genesis is that the 1:1 Creation narrative ends with God observing Shabbat, which is the "day" of rest he created.

IMO, the Creation accounts make more sense if viewed as allegory, probably composed to refute Babylonian polytheism that permeated the region.

 

[MNoBody]

using the word Elohim which is a multiplicity, seems an odd way to refute polytheism, particularly when the entirety of it is a re-fried version of the previous astro-mythology from the empires that had entropically withered before....
cosmological phenomenology has always been the basis of these religious traditions no matter what empire of the past we look at
since you can't build an empire without a calendar based on the observed celestial phenomenology
the particular flavor of each reflects the changes in observable precession, which alters the cosmic story of the zodiac and the milky way from the perspective of the people viewing it at that time..... things observed in space change position over time and this is reflected in the changing stories used to eschatologize these stories.

 

[nPeace]

You ought to ask this question of a biologist, not an astronomer. However, I will try to answer the question, by presenting some of the evidence for the descent of all life from a single common ancestor, with the warning that I am not an authority and that you must check what I say against proper biology books, articles and websites.

First, as long ago as 1758, Linnaeus classified living things according to their anatomical structure, and found that they fell into a nested hierarchy: several species united to form a genus; several genera united to form a family; families united to form an order, etc. The same nested hierarchy is found when living things are classified genetically. This nested hierarchical structure of classification is a natural consequence of descent from a common ancestor, but it does not arise from other processes, such as artificial manufacture or from the original existence of many distinct ancestors.

Second, in The Ancestor's Tale (pages 346-352), Richard Dawkins describes Hox genes, which (so far as I understand it) control the development of an animal from a fertilised egg. These genes occur in all the phyla of animals (vertebrates, arthropods, molluscs, annelids, brachiopods, flatworms, etc.) except for sponges and ctenophores; they are similar in all these phyla, and are even arranged in the same order along a chromosome in the different phyla. It is difficult to see how these different phyla could have acquired similar sets of genes (arranged, as I say, in the same order) except by inheritance from a common ancestor.

Third, so far as I know, the genetic code for terrestrial life forms is universal; all known living things use the same four nucleobases (adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine) in their DNA. Again, it is difficult to see how this situation could have arisen unless the universal common ancestor used these particular bases in its DNA.

Of course, during Darwin's lifetime and before the discovery of DNA and genes, the evidence for common ancestry depended entirely on the nested hierarchy of the Linnean classification of living things. However, so far as I understand it, the genetic evidence has completely confirmed Darwin's inference that the endless forms of living things have been, and are being, evolved from a few original forms or from only one.

"...as long ago as 1758, Linnaeus classified living things according to their anatomical structure, and found that they fell into a nested hierarchy"

I'll like to ask a question.. Is this nested hierarchy human conjecture, or is this appearance of a nested hierarchy necessarily a fact of reality?

To elaborate... The Bible was written centuries ago... well actually, not the Bible, but documents, which were collected and combined to form the Bible.

For clarity, let's say I said to someone, the Bible has a structure that falls into a "nested hierarchy", and it is written as fact. For example, though the collection of document were written over long periods of time, and composed by numerous writers, from different periods, of course, the Bible, is 1) harmonious throughout, 2) corroborating, 3) filled with prophetic utterances which were fulfilled, and are being fulfilled, 4) ahead of scientific discoveries, etc.

I have heard people say, "It only appears that way to those who want to believe that."
So what I am really asking is, Does this hierarchy not exist, because persons want to believe it does?
Scientists have beliefs on classifying phyla into specific structures, etc, which are constantly being altered.

To give just one example out of many... Their beliefs on the ancestor of whales has changed though there exists a conflict between genetics, and homology.
That's only one of many, but the tree of life is always changing, isn't it... and why is that, if it's not human conjecture?

Just to quote a little snippet from Richard Dawkins, whom like others, including yourself, wants things to be, as they believe, and hopes...
A DEVIL'S CHAPLAIN - Richard Dawkins
Already, DNA taxonomy has turned up some sharp surprises. My traditional zoologist's mind protests almost unendurably at being asked to believe that hippos are more closely related to whales than they are to pigs. This is still controversial. It will be settled, one way or the other, along with countless other such disputes, by 2050. It will be settled because the Hippo Genome Project, the Pig Genome Project, and the Whale (if our Japanese friends haven't eaten them all by then) Genome Project will have been completed. Actually, it will not be necessary to sequence entire genomes to dissolve taxonomic uncertainty forever.
A spin-off benefit, which will perhaps have its greatest impact in the United States, is that full knowledge of the tree of life will make it even harder to doubt the fact of evolution. Fossils will become by comparison irrelevant to the argument, as hundreds of separate genes, in as many surviving species as we can bear to sequence, are found to corroborate each other's accounts of the one true tree of life.
End of quote.

,,,and what does the genome actually tell us... Is it not rather a case of scientist saying what they believe?

 

[metis]

Science is always making adjustments as time goes on as new evidence comes in, so we don't claim inerrancy nor omniscience. OTOH, many in religion blindly accept both of them.

 

[YoursTrue]

the word used for day in Hebrew is not a literal day of 24 hrs...this error has occurred in english speaking populations as they do not consult lexicons to see what the word means in its original language...people just assume it anthropocentrically means 24 earth hrs....
the word Olam means perpetual....an undefined period of time that could be a mere moment ,
....or billions of earth yrs long...it refers to a cycle of time, and this has been decided by limited people that it means something it was never written to convey

Thanks for that. I keep in mind that although the six first days had a close, the 7th day is not said to be over. About the sixth day (American Standard Bible) says, "And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." (Genesis 1:31) So the Bible here speaks of evening and morning for each of the six days. The seventh day, however, is not said to have an evening and a morning. Olam is another interesting subject.

 

[YoursTrue]

using the word Elohim which is a multiplicity, seems an odd way to refute polytheism, particularly when the entirety of it is a re-fried version of the previous astro-mythology from the empires that had entropically withered before....
cosmological phenomenology has always been the basis of these religious traditions no matter what empire of the past we look at
since you can't build an empire without a calendar based on the observed celestial phenomenology
the particular flavor of each reflects the changes in observable precession, which alters the cosmic story of the zodiac and the milky way from the perspective of the people viewing it at that time..... things observed in space change position over time and this is reflected in the changing stories used to eschatologize these stories.

Here's how I understand it: El is supposed to be the name of the top god of the Canaanites. I could be wrong, so if you know more, please let me know. The Israelites, or tribes descending from Jacob, were familiar with the other gods, having lived in nations not dedicated or serving elohim.
But Abraham had a promise given to him which was passed to his offspring. So Elohim is the plural in the sense of superlative, or referring to the "God of gods..." (lower and upper case mine)

 

[YoursTrue]

Science is always making adjustments as time goes on as new evidence comes in, so we don't claim inerrancy nor omniscience. OTOH, many in religion blindly accept both of them.

Not everyone believes that the Bible is God's word, and that His spirit reaches people. There are many false believers in this world. The apostle Paul, formerly known as Saul, is a prime example of this.
1 Corinthians 3:6 "I did the setting out, Apollos the watering, but God made the growth."

 

[YoursTrue]

Science is always making adjustments as time goes on as new evidence comes in, so we don't claim inerrancy nor omniscience. OTOH, many in religion blindly accept both of them.

Let us say that is true. But do you understand or recognize what nPeace in a post above is saying?

 

[MNoBody]

Here's how I understand it: El is supposed to be the name of the top god of the Canaanites. I could be wrong, so if you know more, please let me know. The Israelites, or tribes descending from Jacob, were familiar with the other gods, having lived in nations not dedicated or serving elohim.
But Abraham had a promise given to him which was passed to his offspring. So Elohim is the plural in the sense of superlative, or referring to the "God of gods..." (lower and upper case mine)

there are so many interpretations on terms
i suppose i should just refrain from quipping in.

 

[YoursTrue]

there are so many interpretations on terms
i suppose i should just refrain from quipping in.

That's how I see it. Elohim is plural meaning excellence and god of gods, taken from el. The Most High God. Implies there are other gods. Then again, it depends on one's definition of god. etc. So you're right about interpretations. But that's how I see 'elohim.' Thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

"...as long ago as 1758, Linnaeus classified living things according to their anatomical structure, and found that they fell into a nested hierarchy"

I'll like to ask a question.. Is this nested hierarchy human conjecture, or is this appearance of a nested hierarchy necessarily a fact of reality?

To elaborate... The Bible was written centuries ago... well actually, not the Bible, but documents, which were collected and combined to form the Bible.

For clarity, let's say I said to someone, the Bible has a structure that falls into a "nested hierarchy", and it is written as fact. For example, though the collection of document were written over long periods of time, and composed by numerous writers, from different periods, of course, the Bible, is 1) harmonious throughout, 2) corroborating, 3) filled with prophetic utterances which were fulfilled, and are being fulfilled, 4) ahead of scientific discoveries, etc.

I have heard people say, "It only appears that way to those who want to believe that."
So what I am really asking is, Does this hierarchy not exist, because persons want to believe it does?
Scientists have beliefs on classifying phyla into specific structures, etc, which are constantly being altered.

To give just one example out of many... Their beliefs on the ancestor of whales has changed though there exists a conflict between genetics, and homology.
That's only one of many, but the tree of life is always changing, isn't it... and why is that, if it's not human conjecture?

Just to quote a little snippet from Richard Dawkins, whom like others, including yourself, wants things to be, as they believe, and hopes...
A DEVIL'S CHAPLAIN - Richard Dawkins
Already, DNA taxonomy has turned up some sharp surprises. My traditional zoologist's mind protests almost unendurably at being asked to believe that hippos are more closely related to whales than they are to pigs. This is still controversial. It will be settled, one way or the other, along with countless other such disputes, by 2050. It will be settled because the Hippo Genome Project, the Pig Genome Project, and the Whale (if our Japanese friends haven't eaten them all by then) Genome Project will have been completed. Actually, it will not be necessary to sequence entire genomes to dissolve taxonomic uncertainty forever.
A spin-off benefit, which will perhaps have its greatest impact in the United States, is that full knowledge of the tree of life will make it even harder to doubt the fact of evolution. Fossils will become by comparison irrelevant to the argument, as hundreds of separate genes, in as many surviving species as we can bear to sequence, are found to corroborate each other's accounts of the one true tree of life.
End of quote.

,,,and what does the genome actually tell us... Is it not rather a case of scientist saying what they believe?

That's what I'd like to know -- hopefully Astrophile or other knowledgeable ones can say what the genome actually tells observers. Good question.

 

[metis]

Let us say that is true. But do you understand or recognize what nPeace in a post above is saying?

Of course, but what some need to understand is that in science there's significant differences between hypotheses, theories, and axioms, so when one uses the word "believe", that needs to be put in the proper context but it wasn't.

Plus science is held to a higher standard than religious belief since the former is based on objectively-derived evidence but the latter is not since it's based on beliefs generated from faith. Now, I say this as being a person of faith, but my faith is not based on objectively-derived evidence.

 

[nPeace]

Of course, but what some need to understand is that in science there's significant differences between hypotheses, theories, and axioms, so when one uses the word "believe", that needs to be put in the proper context but it wasn't.

Plus science is held to a higher standard than religious belief since the former is based on objectively-derived evidence but the latter is not since it's based on beliefs generated from faith. Now, I say this as being a person of faith, but my faith is not based on objectively-derived evidence.

I would be glad to hear the difference between the context I used, and the "proper context".
Would you mind sharing that with me?

I am not sure how many pages one will find in these results, but I have no doubt they exceed 2000 pages.

Perhaps this one, not so much... Still, lots.

I'm not sure what it is you are trying to suggest metis.
If it is you are trying to say, it is wrong to say scientists believe, then the writers of these articles, are wrong, according to you.

Still, I really would like to know the difference.
If it is you are specifically referring to the genome, and evolution, then many, many scientists are wrong, but that's nothing new, since all scientists never agree, but somehow some people seem to think, those who don't agree with the mainstream, something is wrong with them.
Yet, reputable scientists are honest enough to admit, that there isn't enough evidence to maje dogmatic conclusion, and they admit opinions differ - even in the scientific community.

Maybe you might want to show @YoursTrue that what you are saying is correct.


As regard faith and evidence, and religion and evidence, I understand that this is your opinion, and not factual, but have you ever considered that many members of your "faith" do not agree with you on that, and do you ever think on why that is?
I didn't want to guess or assume, but I really would like to hear, if you don't mind sharing. I am sure @YoursTrue would be interested in learning that also. Am I right @YoursTrue, or do you already know?

 

[YoursTrue]

I would be glad to hear the difference between the context I used, and the proper "context".
Would you mind sharing that with me?

I am not sure how many pages one will find in these results, but I have no doubt they exceed 2000 pages.

Perhaps this one, not so much... Still, lots.

I'm not sure what it is you are trying to suggest metis.
If it is you are trying to say, it is wrong to say scientists believe, then the writers of these articles, are wrong, according to you.

Still, I really would like to know the difference.
If it is you are specifically referring to the genome, and evolution, then many, many scientists are wrong, but that's nothing new, since all scientists never agree, but somehow some people seem to think, those who don't agree with the mainstream, something is wrong with them.
Yet, reputable scientists are honest enough to admit, that there isn't enough evidence to maje dogmatic conclusion, and they admit opinions differ - even in the scientific community.

Maybe you might want to show @YoursTrue that what you are saying is correct.


As regard faith and evidence, and religion and evidence, I understand that this is your opinion, and not factual, but have you ever considered that many members of your "faith" do not agree with you on that, and do you ever think on why that is?
I didn't want to guess or assume, but I really would like to hear, if you don't mind sharing. I am sure @YoursTrue would be interested in learning that also. Am I right @YoursTrue, or do you already know?

Here is what I have found: as you say, the scientific community often disagrees with itself. One thing I like about Stephen Jay Gould is that although he was a firm believer in evolution, he also would call out an error. And he did so with Haeckel's portrayal of the human embryo teaching that it supposedly went through every form of evolution in the womb. Yet when I brought that up here, I got multitudes of excuses and arguments for Haeckel as if it didn't much matter, even though it was taught as truth (and still is in many ways) in schools. At least Dr. Gould saw the error clearly and stated it. Textbooks back then, and now as I understand it, still use those illustrations as -- TRUTH. Yet they are not and because of sloppy publishing, they are left in textbooks. I learned the idea of when I was in school. As I have often said, I believed evolution because that is what was taught. My religious upbringing did not challenge evolution or teach anything different, even though the religious leaders claimed to believe in the Bible. I hope that answers your question, if not please let me know. Thanks.

From wikipedia under Ernst Haeckel:


"Illustrations of dog and human embryos, looking almost identical at 4 weeks then differing at 6 weeks, shown above a 6-week turtle embryo and 8-day hen embryo, presented by Haeckel in 1868 as convincing proof of evolution. The pictures of the earliest embryonic stages are now considered inaccurate."

It was taught not as conjecture, but truth. I learned it as truth. So did Dr. Gould, who realized later it was not 'the truth,' and said so.

 

[nPeace]

Here is what I have found: as you say, the scientific community often disagrees with itself. One thing I like about Stephen Jay Gould is that although he was a firm believer in evolution, he also would call out an error. And he did so with Haeckel's portrayal of the human embryo teaching that it supposedly went through every form of evolution in the womb. Yet when I brought that up here, I got multitudes of excuses and arguments for Haeckel as if it didn't much matter, even though it was taught as truth (and still is in many ways) in schools. At least Dr. Gould saw the error clearly and stated it. Textbooks back then, and now as I understand it, still use those illustrations as -- TRUTH. Yet they are not and because of sloppy publishing, they are left in textbooks. I learned the idea of when I was in school. As I have often said, I believed evolution because that is what was taught. My religious upbringing did not challenge evolution or teach anything different, even though the religious leaders claimed to believe in the Bible. I hope that answers your question, if not please let me know. Thanks.

From wikipedia under Ernst Haeckel:


"Illustrations of dog and human embryos, looking almost identical at 4 weeks then differing at 6 weeks, shown above a 6-week turtle embryo and 8-day hen embryo, presented by Haeckel in 1868 as convincing proof of evolution. The pictures of the earliest embryonic stages are now considered inaccurate."

It was taught not as conjecture, but truth. I learned it as truth. So did Dr. Gould, who realized later it was not 'the truth,' and said so.

Interesting that you mentioned Gould. He is just one of many, who accept the theory of evolution, who honestly pointed out a few things others did not like to hear. Or did not care to give consideration to.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course, but what some need to understand is that in science there's significant differences between hypotheses, theories, and axioms, so when one uses the word "believe", that needs to be put in the proper context but it wasn't.

Plus science is held to a higher standard than religious belief since the former is based on objectively-derived evidence but the latter is not since it's based on beliefs generated from faith. Now, I say this as being a person of faith, but my faith is not based on objectively-derived evidence.

If someone says he believes something is true, it may not be true just because he believes it is true. Most likely you would agree with that. As I think about it, there are many prophecies in the Bible, including those of the appearance of the Messiah. Here's basically where I'm going to leave it. I hope that makes sense to you. Because it can lead to a detailed conversation.
As for science being on a higher standard, certainly experts make decisions based on their current knowledge, as for instance, a doctor prescribing medication, even if it may not work for that patient.
It makes sense to me that God decides what is true regarding religious beliefs. While there are many different religions and viewpoints in this world, I do believe that God will settle the issue. (Yes, believe...) To put it somewhat in perspective, it was reported here in the United States that a minister in Florida decided to hold public meetings in defiance of the government and he was arrested for that. He stated he was waiting to be "raptured." As far as onlookers are concerned, we shall see. I don't share his belief, so I'm not expecting him to fly up to heaven, or disappear.

 

[YoursTrue]

Interesting that you mentioned Gould. He is just one of many, who accept the theory of evolution, who honestly pointed out a few things others did not like to hear. Or did not care to give consideration to.

Yes, he was a brave soul. And there are other instances now. Perhaps he will see in the future, even though he did not believe in a resurrection. I do. And I look forward to meeting him.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just FYI: "vestigial" does not imply "useless" by any means, nore did it in the past to my knowledge.

Redefining vestigial to mean useless was done by creationists so that they can use it as a straw man argument. No one in science claims that vestigial means useless or that vestigial structures have no function.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You ought to ask this question of a biologist, not an astronomer. However, I will try to answer the question, by presenting some of the evidence for the descent of all life from a single common ancestor, with the warning that I am not an authority and that you must check what I say against proper biology books, articles and websites.

First, as long ago as 1758, Linnaeus classified living things according to their anatomical structure, and found that they fell into a nested hierarchy: several species united to form a genus; several genera united to form a family; families united to form an order, etc. The same nested hierarchy is found when living things are classified genetically. This nested hierarchical structure of classification is a natural consequence of descent from a common ancestor, but it does not arise from other processes, such as artificial manufacture or from the original existence of many distinct ancestors.

Second, in The Ancestor's Tale (pages 346-352), Richard Dawkins describes Hox genes, which (so far as I understand it) control the development of an animal from a fertilised egg. These genes occur in all the phyla of animals (vertebrates, arthropods, molluscs, annelids, brachiopods, flatworms, etc.) except for sponges and ctenophores; they are similar in all these phyla, and are even arranged in the same order along a chromosome in the different phyla. It is difficult to see how these different phyla could have acquired similar sets of genes (arranged, as I say, in the same order) except by inheritance from a common ancestor.

Third, so far as I know, the genetic code for terrestrial life forms is universal; all known living things use the same four nucleobases (adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine) in their DNA. Again, it is difficult to see how this situation could have arisen unless the universal common ancestor used these particular bases in its DNA.

Of course, during Darwin's lifetime and before the discovery of DNA and genes, the evidence for common ancestry depended entirely on the nested hierarchy of the Linnean classification of living things. However, so far as I understand it, the genetic evidence has completely confirmed Darwin's inference that the endless forms of living things have been, and are being, evolved from a few original forms or from only one.

That is a good start. The classification system based on morphological, ecological, and other biological details results in a system that fits a nested hierarchy and supports as common ancestry. As do highly conserved genetic elements that exist in different phyla and the universality of nucleic acids. Additionally, there are conserved biochemical pathways, the fossil record, evidence of geology, biogeography, endogenous retroviruses, mitochondrial DNA, that are just what I can pull off the top of my head here. If you look at different classes of organisms, you can see things like the conserved nature of proteins like insulin. Humans can easily use porcine insulin to treat diabetes and that has been done.