Meiosis: The Science of Messiah.

[John D. Brey]

Why make us imperfect in the first place so we have need of having our impurities being removed?

. . . Have you ever experienced a real *** born with a silver, or gold, spoon in his mouth? Oh that he could have started in a more humble place and had to prove himself worthy before receiving the silver spoon.

In that case, many of the first would be last, and some of the last would be first.



John

 

[exchemist]

. . . I see. You appear to be under the miss-impression that you are yourself omniscient and omnipotent. . . What need have you of a messiah or a god.



John

Nope, just means he understands science, while you don't, apparently.

 

[John D. Brey]

Can you quote us a section where the Bible uses this "ancient manner whereby signs and symbols condense complex scientific knowledge into sacred myths, signs, and symbols."

. . . Every word, sentence, and paragraph functions on that level, in that way, throughout the Bible.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Absurd.
The bible is not science and makes no testable predictions about nature.

. . . That's a theory this thread will put to the test.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

This article seems to offer two hypothesis for the developpement of meiosis as well as a few evolutionnary advantages to it that would have made it a selectable trait by nature.

Origin and function of meiosis - Wikipedia.

Here's a scientific paper that discuss it a little bit more in detail. It details the advantage of protein recombination, the basis of meiosis, to repair damages on RNA and DNA strands. In other words, sexual reproduction might have begun as a healing mechanism that was adapted to reproduction function by evolutionnary forces.

On the Origin of Meiosis in Eukaryotic Evolution: Coevolution of Meiosis and Mitosis from Feeble Beginnings

This one is a bit less specific, but free.

Evolutionary mysteries in meiosis

The conclusion from the last link says (in part):

One of the main take-home messages of this review is that many, if not most features of meiosis are still awaiting an evolutionary explanation. Nonetheless, the recent advances in all detailed aspects of meiosis now offer the chance to investigate these questions in a far more comprehensive manner. This will require continued dialogue between cell, molecular and evolutionary biologists (as advocated e.g. in [195]), and perhaps also the realization that similarities between features may in fact have different evolutionary explanations (e.g. different kinds of hotspots).One of the most salient themes in most meiosis mysteries is the impact of genetic conflicts and SGEs. As for the evolution of genome size and structure, their impact is probably central [196], but in many cases they remain hypothetical and difficult to demonstrate and study directly.​

The bottom line in any good discussion of meiosis is that science has no viable theory for why it exists. There are ideas and discussions, of course, but they haven't yet provided even a basic, general, theory of the purpose of meiosis even though it's staring them right in the face.



John

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

. . . Every word, sentence, and paragraph functions on that level, in that way, throughout the Bible.



John

So, you cannot give us a specific example of what you say it does...okay then...

What I asked you is to take ONE such word, sentence or paragraph and show EXACTLY how that one passage reveals some aspect of reality that has only been identified through science in the past 150 or so years.

 

[John D. Brey]

I have a suspicion that you want us to believe there is an explanation without showing us. You'll have to troll harder.

. . . I like to throw out carrots, rhubarb, and rotting potatoes first. If they get eaten, I leave with the pearls still in my breast pocket.



John

 

[exchemist]

. . . That's a theory this thread will put to the test.



John

Go on then. Show us how it does that.

 

[John D. Brey]

What I asked you is to take ONE such word, sentence or paragraph and show EXACTLY how that one passage reveals some aspect of reality that has only been identified through science in the past 150 or so years.

. . . The early chapters of Genesis, imply, when interpreted by Jewish and Christian exegetes and sages, that the first human was immortal, and genderless. We know that's the case with the first living cells. It then gives the mythological story of the creation of gender, and then the original sin of sex, whereby death entered into the very bodies that were immortal prior to the arrival of sex.

A Phd. Professor of biological science, William Clark, says:

Obligatory death as a result of senescence – natural aging – may not have come into existence for more than a billion years after life first appeared. This form of programmed death seems to have arisen at about the same time that cells began experimenting with sex in connection with reproduction. It may have been the ultimate loss of innocence.​

So you see, the Bible produced a mythological story thousands of years ago about the first living soul being asexual, non-gendered, ha-adam, who then gets gendered, has sex, and is thrown out of the garden of immortal life.

Science today teaches precisely what the ancients already knew by reading their sacred texts. More importantly, the Bible goes way beyond what modern science knows today. It explains meiosis in scientific terms hidden inside the fore-skene of myth.



John

 

[Nakosis]

. . . Have you ever experienced a real *** born with a silver, or gold, spoon in his mouth? Oh that he could have started in a more humble place and had to prove himself worthy before receiving the silver spoon.

In that case, many of the first would be last, and some of the last would be first.



John

Couldn't God have created us with the proper temperament?

 

[John D. Brey]

Couldn't God have created us with the proper temperament?

. . . Like we will soon do when science gives us our I-robot that we get to program it to say: "You are god . . . I'm not worthy master!"



John

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

. . . The early chapters of Genesis, imply, when interpreted by Jewish and Christian exegetes and sages, that the first human was immortal, and genderless. We know that's the case with the first living cells. It then gives the mythological story of the creation of gender, and then the original sin of sex, whereby death entered into the very bodies that were immortal prior to the arrival of sex.

A Phd. Professor of biological science, William Clark, says:

Obligatory death as a result of senescence – natural aging – may not have come into existence for more than a billion years after life first appeared. This form of programmed death seems to have arisen at about the same time that cells began experimenting with sex in connection with reproduction. It may have been the ultimate loss of innocence.​

So you see, the Bible produced a mythological story thousands of years ago about the first living soul being asexual, non-gendered, ha-adam, who then gets gendered, has sex, and is thrown out of the garden of immortal life.

Science today teaches precisely what the ancients already knew by reading their sacred texts. More importantly, the Bible goes way beyond what modern science knows today. It explains meiosis in scientific terms hidden inside the fore-skene of myth.



John

So, you're saying that you can't go word for word, verse by verse...

what you are presenting is interpreting myths and symbols to mean things that you (and others) are wanting it to mean; there is NOTHING scientific about it.

NO ONE read the first verses of Genesis and thought it referred to single-celled organisms billions of years ago, and a billion years ago the sin of sex came to living things...

No one, that is, until scientists had studied the cosmos...and religious apologists found themselves and their sacred texts getting left behind by real knowledge...

 

[John D. Brey]

Go on then. Show us how it does that.

. . . I've already referred to scientific truisms. Do you disagree that the first living cells were immortal? Do you disagree that according to the first iterations of Darwinism the environment was the sole selection pressure determining life and death?

Are you aware that science states that "programmed-death" ---through senescence--- came on the scene about the same time that organism began to experiment with sex?

Do you have a theory of why organism would adapt for sex when it destroyed cellular immortality? Why did organisms that traded sex for death, as the Bible implies the first humans did, survive while most immortal organisms faded into the woodworking of the environment?

These are science questions. And they've already kinda been answered. Do you doubt the science or the scientists?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

NO ONE read the first verses of Genesis and thought it referred to single-celled organisms billions of years ago, and a billion years ago the sin of sex came to living things...

No one, that is, until scientists had studied the cosmos...and religious apologists found themselves and their sacred texts getting left behind by real knowledge...

. . . You appear to know as little about science as you do the Bible. That creates a real dilemma for anything I should like to say about science, the Bible, or the relationship between the two.

I suggest you read Karl Popper's, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Or any of a dozen of his other works on the history and development of the scientific method.

The first scientists were biblical mystics. Isaac Newton, the father of modern science, said he discovered the theory of gravity studying Solomon's temple. Newton wrote more pages of biblical theology, over a million words in his own handwriting, then he wrote science. At the end of his magnum opus, the Principia, he said that nothing in it, rose to the scientific brilliance of God's great science book, the Bible.

Copernicus said he came to the theory of heliocentrism from the ancient myths of the sun god who, as god, must be central to all other bodies.

Popper literally said that myth is the original form of science, and that you must start with myth, as the theory generation mechanism, that leads to experimentation.

The scientist and friend of Albert Einstein, John Wheeler, asked what quantum physics teaches us that wasn't already hypothesized by the Christian mystic Bishop Berkeley.

The Oxford philosopher Bryan Magee said that Kant's entire philosophy, which Einstein said was the very foundation of his own (Einstein's) science, appears to have been little more than an attempt by Kant to say what the world would have to be like for what his Christianity told him it was:

Now it is as if he then said to himself: "How can these things be so? What can be the nature of time and space and material objects if they obtain only in the world of human beings? Could it be, given that they characterize only the world of experience and nothing else, that they are characteristics, or preconditions, of experience, and nothing else?" In other words, Kant's philosophy is a fully worked out analysis of what needs to be the case for what he believed [his Christian teaching] already to be true.

Bryan Magee, Confessions of a Philosopher, p.249,250.​

John

 

[epronovost]

The bottom line in any good discussion of meiosis is that science has no viable theory for why it exists. There are ideas and discussions, of course, but they haven't yet provided even a basic, general, theory of the purpose of meiosis.

Of course they haven't presented a theory for the evolution of meiosis. We simply don't know enough about it and its processes to make such an infirmation. Though we do have a general understanding of it and from what we currently know of it, meiosis doesn't falsify any of our current theoretical models. In fact, the big challenge of the evolution of meiosis is lack of evidence to narrow down on a set of hypothesis over others. The paper you quoted does present three avenues of investigation that cold help do so.

 

[Heyo]

. . . I like to throw out carrots, rhubarb, and rotting potatoes first. If they get eaten, I leave with the pearls still in my breast pocket.



John

Thought so.
Bye.

 

[epronovost]

The first scientists were biblical mystics.

Didn't I demonstrated you wrong on this issue in another thread by presenting the argument that modern science draw it's origin from pre-christian roots and with a significant imput from muslim scholars? In that same thread you also misquoted Karl Popper and made fallacious equivalence in terms to support your position.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You appear to know as little about science as you do about the Bible. That creates a real dilemma for anything I should like to say about science or the Bible or the relationship between the two.

That's odd...I had just reached the same conclusion about you and your knowledge

You are the one making claims that this is scientific, and yet you have clearly shown that it relies not on verifiable, repeatable prediction and testing, but on individuals interpreting vague symbolic texts to mean specific observations about biology that are not visible to anyone who does not accept YOUR interpretation of the texts.

You don't seem to really understand what biologists mean by cell immortality, don't seem to understand that evolution operates at the level of populations and NOT at the level of an individual, and don't seem to understand that biologists recognize that sexual reproduction is beneficial at the population level because it greatly increases the variability of traits among the population, thus allowing evolution to occur much more rapidly.

 

[epronovost]

Are you aware that science states that "programmed-death" ---through senescence--- came on the scene about the same time that organism began to experiment with sex?

How do you explain that some animals who do reproduce sexually do meet the definition of biological immortality you are referring too most notably several species of jellyfish, lobsters? This makes me think that there is no absolute cause-effect link between genetically programmed death and sexual reproduction. The existence of animals who reproduce sexually without genetically programmed death (the definition of biological immortality) falsify your views completely.

 

[John D. Brey]

Didn't I demonstrated you wrong on this issue in another thread by presenting the argument that modern science draw it's origin from pre-christian roots and with a significant imput from muslim scholars? In that same thread you also misquoted Karl Popper and made fallacious equivalence in terms to support your position.

. . . The three Peoples of the Book, Jews, Muslims, and Christians, accept the power of the Torah, the Pentateuch, to inform modern science by unwrapping truths hidden in the myths of the Torah.

I don't believe I quoted Popper. So you might need to distinguish between a paraphrase and a quote. A paraphrase is generally an interpretation of a quote. As such, it's kinda impossible to miss-paraphrase, since the one paraphrasing is using his own particular interpretation of a quote.



John