Meiosis: The Science of Messiah.

[beenherebeforeagain]

. . . I would say the problem is assuming the Pentium chip reflects design while the human brain doesn't.

Naturally it's fair to say the human brain wasn't designed in a man-made factory by a conscious human being. And yet if you categorize design as logical order of such a degree as to imply someone or something acted on it based on something other than random chance, the human brain possesses design.

If natural selection, based on evolving living organism, and functioning within the laws of physics, leads to something like a human eye, or brain (and the biologists tell us that the eye has occurred in more than one evolutionary path) then clearly the environment that selects for biological evolution is some sort of factory able to create functional order of biblical proportions. Exhibit one, the human eye. Exhibit two, the human brain.



John

No, 'design' is not just logical order of some arbitrary degree; nor is it just 'random chance' that governs evolution. It is the selection pressures on variations in traits in populations of organisms.

No, biological evolution is not "some sort of factory." That is an improper analogy. Exhibit: the diversity of life and the interconnected nature of ecosystems on Earth.

 

[John D. Brey]

No, 'design' is not just logical order of some arbitrary degree; nor is it just 'random chance' that governs evolution. It is the selection pressures on variations in traits in populations of organisms.

. . . What is design then in your worldview?

And why would "selection pressures" lead cells to evolve in such a manner that eyes and brains result? Either the striving for design (functional, useful, order) is in the organisms, or in the environment, or both. But it definitely exists.



John

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

. . . What is design then in your worldview?

And why would "selection pressures" lead cells to evolve in such a manner that eyes and brains result? Either the striving for design (functional, useful, order) is in the organisms, or in the environment, or both. But it definitely exists.



John

Let's go with Merriam-Webster online:
"Definition of design

transitive verb

1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrive design a system for tracking inventory
2a : to conceive and plan out in the mind he designed the perfect crime
b : to have as a purpose : intend she designed to excel in her studies
c : to devise for a specific function or end"

Thus, design requires an end-in-mind, an ability to plan, an idea of purpose.

There is no inherent "striving" for design--you are imputing purpose where none has been demonstrated, and where none is necessary to explain what is observed. The only imperative for life is reproduction. It is blind, without purpose, with no end in mind, no plan of how to get there. It's just living and surviving to reproduce, or dying. What manages to survive to reproduce leaves descendants that also have to survive. Variation in genetics provides different responses to the various survival pressures.

 

[John D. Brey]

Let's go with Merriam-Webster online:
"Definition of design

transitive verb

1 : to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan : devise, contrive design a system for tracking inventory
2a : to conceive and plan out in the mind he designed the perfect crime
b : to have as a purpose : intend she designed to excel in her studies
c : to devise for a specific function or end"

Thus, design requires an end-in-mind, an ability to plan, an idea of purpose.

There is no inherent "striving" for design--you are imputing purpose where none has been demonstrated, and where none is necessary to explain what is observed. The only imperative for life is reproduction. It is blind, without purpose, with no end in mind, no plan of how to get there. It's just living and surviving to reproduce, or dying. What manages to survive to reproduce leaves descendants that also have to survive. Variation in genetics provides different responses to the various survival pressures.

. . . Not too long ago scientists placed cells in a petri dish and added various poisons to destroy the cells. They stated that the mutations in the cells being attacked by the poison were beyond all mathematical possibility of denial being guided by an attempt to overcome the poison in the next iteration of the cell.

Life has a purpose, survival. And better design leads to survival. We designed the first A-bomb to insure our nations survival. We designed the Pentium chip to get a leg up. That's what life does. And it has always done it.

. . . This thread is about the greatest design artifact so far as survival is concern that will ever be: meiosis and polar body as the way biological life showed its intention to leave biology and enter into a new realm, the memesphere, where not just immortality, but everlasting life exists. The scientists are dumbfounded about the purpose, and clear statement, of meiosis and polar body, since they're unaware that immaterial mind has merely been piggybacking biology til it could reach escape velocity.

That day has arrived. Praise the Lord. Our salvation is on the horizon, comin round the bend, in Dylan's parlance.

The biological body has, until recently, been the prison cell of immaterial mind. Now, we're on the cusp of the greatest evolutionary breakthrough of all time. Immaterial mind is about to design its own body and it isn't going to use earth, or biological cells, that are subject to death on a whim, but materials not subject to destruction or decay.

Would you believe, in your wildest imagination, that Jesus stated this very truth nearly two-thousand years ago? Yes, he no doubt stated it in the language of his day. But he stated it as clearly as it could be stated in the language of his day. His disciples were astounded and disturbed by his statement since they couldn't possibly know what you can, and should know, about the relationship between Jesus' statement, and the modern sciences that are confirming his statements in a way completely unthinkable to his own disciples.


John

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

This thread is about the greatest design artifact so far as survival is concern that will ever be: meiosis and polar body as the way biological life showed its intention to leave biology and enter into a new realm

survival is not a purpose. Insisting that life has a purpose does not make it so. There is no intent, no purpose, no plan, no final goal in mind to life, only survival and reproduction...which leads to survival of the population, the individual is irrelevant.

There was no plan, intention, goal in mind, no intent in the development through evolution of meiosis or sexual (vs. asexual) reproduction. Nor was there a fall from grace.

You are projecting your beliefs onto what we know about the universe, trying to impose an intent, purpose, plan, goal where one is not visible and is not necessary.

Would I believe that Jesus said something relevant to biology that no one at the time thought, and has only been discovered by science recently? I MIGHT believe that if there was actual, testable, falsifiable evidence for such a statement.

What you have provided so far does not rise to the level of being actual, testable, falsifiable evidence.

 

[John D. Brey]

survival is not a purpose. .

. . . It's the greatest purpose in life. I think you're allowing a particular ideology to act as a prism that allows you to say things that are patently, logically, and obviously, false, to anyone not defending that particular orthodox ideology.


John

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

. . . It's the greatest purpose in life. I think you're allowing a particular ideology to act as a prism that allows you to say things that are patently, logically, and obviously, false, to anyone not defending that particular orthodox ideology.

And here I though achieving eternal life through Jesus was the greatest purpose in life? Huh. Color me surprised.

You know, I can say exactly the same thing about you: YOU are allowing a particular ideology to act as a prism that allows you to say things that are patently, logically, and obviously, false, to anyone not defending the particular orthodox ideology.

As I have said many times in this thread, you can affect my beliefs, by presenting some real, testable, falsifiable evidence to me that the Bible says intelligible things about biology that were only discovered recently by science.

Until then, I have no reason to entertain your arguments as anything other than the desperate ramblings of someone who NEEDS TO FIND some relevance for the scripture and faith he holds that he insists that there is some proof of that relevance. You cannot provide any evidence and so resort to name-calling and flawed understanding and reasoning to insist on relevance.

Thank you for an interesting discussion.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Fascinating. The Garden seems to be a repeating pattern in which we have to continually rebel, become alienated, find ourselves in another counterfeit paradise, and repeat the cycle at higher levels of consciousness (and free will) until we make it to the final Garden that contains the Tree of Life.

When Jesus says, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom,” he is not being affirming or complimentary as many would interpret. Rather, he is being insulting to the level of faith he sees present in his audience in their reluctance to participate in eating from the Tree of Knowledge and moving closer to both death and “everlasting life” as John is speaking to.

 

[John D. Brey]

survival is not a purpose.

. . . Seeking a solution to the Corona virus so we can survive isn't a meaningful purpose? Bacteria attempting to cause changes in its structure that allow it to overcome poison in its environment (so it can survive) isn't a purposeful process?

That sounds like fatalism: trying to survive, designing ways to survive, is pointless, purposeless. All attempts to survive are futile?



John

 

[Treasure Hunter]

John:
In the same way that consciousness, or mind, has integrated death to further life through meiosis and sexual selection as you have described, it is my understanding that a similar process occurred with the development of the nervous system. In exchange for the benefits that the nervous system provides, the cost is the accumulation of illnesses and disease states.

 

[John D. Brey]

John:
In the same way that consciousness, or mind, has integrated death to further life through meiosis and sexual selection as you have described, it is my understanding that a similar process occurred with the development of the nervous system. In exchange for the benefits that the nervous system provides, the cost is the accumulation of illnesses and disease states.

. . . You gotta take some bad with the good. But that's not really what I'm saying about the bargain between life and death. I'm claiming that immortal organisms made a mindful deal with death in ruse to eventually eliminate it altogether.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

As I have said many times in this thread, you can affect my beliefs, by presenting some real, testable, falsifiable evidence to me that the Bible says intelligible things about biology that were only discovered recently by science.

The Bible claims the original living organism, ha-adam, was asexual. Science says the same thing about the original living organisms. At the time the Bible wrote that the original organism, ha-adam, was asexual, there was no empirical evidence to support such a concept.

The Bible claims that the original organism developed gender, the singular organism became dual gendered, Adam and Eve. Science says that at some point the original organisms became gendered.

But here's the big one.

The Bible claims that Adam and Eve were warned that if they had sex, death would enter their bodies so that eventually, senescence, they would die. The Hebrew actually say, literally, "dying you shall die," i.e., causing death to enter the cell-structure of the living organism will result in senescence, death.

Science says that death through senescence appears to enter the scene about the same time that organisms started experimenting with sex.

These are three fundamentally scientific concepts that the Bible nails thousands of years before modern science: original asexuality, gender as an evolution on asexuality, and sex as the genesis of death (original sin). And these aren't mythological nuances hidden in a wide-ranging mythology implying multiple origin stories. These concepts are the very genesis of the Bible's claims about the origin and development of life.


John

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The Bible claims the original living organism, ha-adam, was asexual. Science says the same thing about the original living organisms. At the time the Bible wrote that the original organism, ha-adam, was asexual, there was no empirical evidence to support such a concept.

The Bible claims that the original organism developed gender, the singular organism became dual gendered, Adam and Eve. Science says that at some point the original organisms became gendered.

But here's the big one.

The Bible claims that Adam and Eve were warned that if they had sex, death would enter their bodies so that eventually, senescence, they would die. The Hebrew actually say, literally, "dying you shall die," i.e., causing death to enter the cell-structure of the living organism will result in senescence, death.

Science says that death through senescence appears to enter the scene about the same time that organisms started experimenting with sex.

These are three fundamentally scientific concepts that the Bible nails thousands of years before modern science: original asexuality, gender as an evolution on asexuality, and sex as the genesis of death (original sin). And these aren't mythological nuances hidden in a wide-ranging myth implying multiple origin stories. These concepts are the very genesis of the Bible's claims about the origin and development of life.


John

One more time: As I have said repeatedly, you have not shown ANY clear, unambiguous, falsifiable facts as evidence in support of your assertions. What you have given is YOUR interpretation, which within your view, is necessary and sufficient FOR YOU. But it is NOT CONVINCING to me, and as witnessed by this thread, many others.

Your claim that the Bible says anything relevant about what we now know about biology is ex post facto--NO ONE up to you read the text of Genesis and thought that it was a description of unicellular biology "before the fall," and multicellular sexual reproduction after the fall. What we are seeing here is YOUR reading your own interpretation into the texts, as you attempt to make you scripture relevant to modern times and its understanding of the world through science. Your argument remains an argument from ignorance and an argument from incredulity.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

. . . You gotta take some bad with the good. But that's not really what I'm saying about the bargain between life and death. I'm claiming that immortal organisms made a mindful deal with death in ruse to eventually eliminate it altogether.



John

Care to expand? I would say that the deal was already agreed upon before the creation of the world, but you seem to be saying otherwise...

 

[John D. Brey]

One more time: As I have said repeatedly, you have not shown ANY clear, unambiguous, falsifiable facts as evidence in support of your assertions. What you have given is YOUR interpretation, which within your view, is necessary and sufficient FOR YOU. But it is NOT CONVINCING to me, and as witnessed by this thread, many others.

Your claim that the Bible says anything relevant about what we now know about biology is ex post facto--NO ONE up to you read the text of Genesis and thought that it was a description of unicellular biology "before the fall," and multicellular sexual reproduction after the fall. What we are seeing here is YOUR reading your own interpretation into the texts, as you attempt to make you scripture relevant to modern times and its understanding of the world through science. Your argument remains an argument from ignorance and an argument from incredulity.

. . . Your statement above is a real problem since it's nothing more than an appeal to orthodoxy when I've stated many times that what I'm presenting is an evolutionary leap from the dusty and stale orthodoxy you appeal to.

You emphasize that I am the only one who believes this way, when that's inconsequential so far as the logic of the arguments I'm making. Which is to say that I have met your criteria for authenticity by showing that in fact the Bible does nail early biology.

But since that's incompatible with your orthodox viewpoint, your orthodox ideology, you move the bar after I've met your criteria, and now claim: Well, yes, apparently the Bible did nail early biology, but that doesn't matter since no one believes it, cares, or thought to think about it that way.

We see that your scientific curiosity stops at the door of current orthodoxy. And since current scientific orthodoxy doesn't care about a Biblical explanation for meiosis and polar body (though it has no comprehensive theory for it), nothing I say in this vein will be of interest to you. Orthodoxy appears to be the boundary to your understanding of the world.

There's a new world coming . . . and it's comin round the bend.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Care to expand? I would say that the deal was already agreed upon before the creation of the world, but you seem to be saying otherwise...

. . . As stated in the thread seeder, meiosis is a complex biological process that required a logical and expensive set of tooling in order for it to take place. It's one of the most important mysteries in biology since organisms clearly paid the price to incorporate meiosis into their survival strategies when the greatest biologists in the world have no clue what organisms thought they were getting when they paid out for the pearl of great value and got meiosis and polar body.

The Bible explains what the organisms were paying for. But no one here is paying a mind. No one cares for my pearls, and think I've lost my marbles, so I'll take both and go home.



John

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

. . . Your statement above is a real problem since it's nothing more than an appeal to orthodoxy when I've stated many times that what I'm presenting is an evolutionary leap from the dusty and stale orthodoxy you appeal to.

You emphasize that I am the only one who believes this way, when that's inconsequential so far as the logic of the arguments I'm making. Which is to say that I have met your criteria for authenticity by showing that in fact the Bible does nail early biology.

But since that's incompatible with your orthodox viewpoint, your orthodox ideology, you move the bar after I've met your criteria, and now claim: Well, yes, apparently the Bible did nail early biology, but that doesn't matter since no one believes it, cares, or thought to think about it that way.

We see that your scientific curiosity stops at the door of current orthodoxy. And since current scientific orthodoxy doesn't care about a Biblical explanation for meiosis and polar body, nothing I say in this vein will be of interest to you. Orthodoxy appears to be the boundary to your understanding of the world.

There's a new world coming . . . and it's comin round the bend.



John

The only 'orthodox' thing I'm asking for is some real, testable, falsifiable facts in support of your argument. You have made it abundantly clear that you cannot or will not provide such facts.

The problem here is that you presuppose the validity of the Bible and your cosmos created by God. Your ontology begins with the beginning of Genesis at its very base, and EVERYTHING ELSE that is known MUST BE INTERPRETED through that foundational orthodox assumption.

In addition, you have repeatedly shown that you do not understand basic ideas of biology and biochemistry, genetics, and evolution. You have built into your ontology the assumption that everything has, and indeed, MUST HAVE a purpose, some end result in mind...achieving eternal life.

So, again, thank you for your discussion, but it is clear we are at an impasse, so it's time to move on.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

. . . As stated in the thread seeder, meiosis is a complex biological process that required a logical and expensive set of tooling in order for it to take place. It's one of the most important mysteries in biology since organisms clearly paid the price to incorporate meiosis into their survival strategies when the greatest biologists in the world have no clue what organisms thought they were getting when they paid out for the pearl of great value and got meiosis and polar body.

The Bible explains what the organisms were paying for. But no one here is paying a mind. No one cares for my pearls, and think I've lost my marbles, so I'll take both and go home.



John

What you are saying is landing with me. I was just adding to it with what I understand. The garments of skin mentioned in Genesis 3:21 are the bargain life made with death in exchange for the nervous system. In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus compares the Kingdom of Heaven to a child stripping down and trampling their clothes in reference to this.

 

[John D. Brey]

What you are saying is landing with me. I was just adding to it with what I understand. The garments of skin mentioned in Genesis 3:21 are the bargain life made with death in exchange for the nervous system. In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus compares the Kingdom of Heaven to a child stripping down and trampling their clothes in reference to this.

. . . Do you have a reference for that statement in the Gospel of Thomas? It's very interesting.




John

 

[Treasure Hunter]

. . . Do you have a reference for that statement in the Gospel of Thomas? It's very interesting.




John

It’s saying 37